Jump to content

Talk:Plumbers Don't Wear Ties

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

License Holder

[edit]

Does anyone know who the current license holder is and if it's possible to get in touch with him/her? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.229.238.49 (talk) 23:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PC version?

[edit]

Does anyone know anything about the PC version? I know it existed because PC Gamer UK gave it 3%, but I've never seen a copy nor know anyone who has. 139.222.112.88 (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of AVGN coverage

[edit]

I don't think that it's vandalism to mention the Angry Video Game Nerd coverage of this game. It's likely the most press it has ever received and will undoubtedly significantly contribute to the popular legacy of this game. The video is also an excellent primary source of information on the game as it shows a significant portion of the gameplay. -Drdisque (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See this discussion for more info. --Jtalledo (talk) 01:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't vandalism initially. It became vandalism when the person/people that kept doing it from multiple anonymous IP's were told it was deemed spam by the video game project, and still continued to attempt to forcefully edit it in. This includes a possible violation of WP:TAGTEAM. The AVGN was deemed as a non-reliable source for reviews, his episodes are for entertainment purposes only. The spamming of his reviews and mentions of him across articles is what prompted the decision and community consensus. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 02:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most other games that he reviewed have included some note, and millions of viewers is definitely noteworthy even if it was a derivative work for entertainment only. After all a video game is for entertainment only; that doesnt make every video game non-notable for Wikipedia. So what if some user "spammed" it by being repetitive with their edits? You were doing the same by repeatedly shutting them down. "The AVGN was deemed as non-reliable source for reviews"...you mean you decided it was unreliable. Show me where there is some reliable community consensus; I see him mentioned as "In Popular Culture" etc. on many games he reviewed. When you start asserting your personal opinions over how Wikipedia should be on the whole, you have lost your way. Work towards consensus and allow the AVGN reviews, or at least give a more reasonable opinion of why you keep removing it. Where does consensus end and WP:TAGTEAM begin, aside from being the consensus that you disagree with?

The link to the community consensus was given above. And I've not seen him mentioned in any In Popular Cultures anywhere else, if they are, they're promptly remove. Likewise, the discussion page is not for grandstanding. See WP:Soapbox. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's not very fair. So we can't make any references to AVGN because of one guy 'spamming' links to him? Besides, he's had plenty of views. It's not as if he's obscure. 78.151.165.24 (talk) 00:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He's notable purely for entertainment purposes only, not as an actual reference for reliable reviews. Once again, consensus was that he does not meet requirements to be used as a review reference or mention for video game articles. Simply mentioning that he reviewed a game, given the consensus, becomes a matter of non-notable trivia. It's all spelled out in the archive link given above. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's where I'd disagree; I'd say his reviews of games are often pretty accurate, because to be honest, they were terrible. And at any rate, AVGN is the reason why so many people now know about this game. Perhaps the consensus for that other article was that it wasn't notable but for this article, I'd say it is. 78.146.116.43 (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus was already stated, a link to the archived discussion at the video game project (the group that manages all the video game pages) was given, as well as the results of not allowing his reviews in video game articles and removing them per the consensus. It was not a consensus for an article, it was a consensus for all the video game articles at Wikipedia. Not much more can be said other than that's how Wikipedia works. If the game itself is that bad, then there should be plenty of other available references that meet WP:RELIABLE that can be used. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, bro, It's simple, aight! If the AVGN says that the game is crap, it's crap. he made that 20-minutes-video, in which he explaines in detail, just WHY this game is one of the biggest piles of horse-crap to have ever been piled up. now you are in NO position whatsoever to disagree on that. if you don't name the AVGN as a source, then wikipedia no longer has any credibility and I won't donate next year, because of admins like you that just keep the common man's opinion down and only serves his own vanity. get it? thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.227.161.128 (talk) 04:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not my personal opinion, it is the consensus of the WikiProject Video games. The group that governs all video game articles. Said consensus was already stated, a link to the archived discussion was given. Once again, if a game itself is that bad, there should be plenty of available references that meet WP:RELIABLE that can be used instead. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 05:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a decision was made once upon a time, doesn't mean it is set in stone forever. On wikipedia, decisions can change. The problem is that AVGN's web show is being discussed as a "source" (clearly it isn't), rather than a subtopic of the game. There's nothing to stop an editor from including reliable sources covering the AVGN's review of this game. If there's been significant coverage of the AVGN's review, then it is notable.
For any old, obscure, and/or poorly-sold game, much of the notability (and hence justification for this article to exist) stems from reviewers that dredge these things out of the bargain bins to poke fun at them. The AVGN shouldn't be discussed or even considered as a source in itself, but that's no justification to remove any mention. 97.79.10.188 (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that's not how it works. Consensus changes on the subject when the original decision is revisited and a full process for conensus change is generated. I.E. the same way consensus was generated the last time at the video game project. It does not change because random IPs and editors continue to want to do that, this was a project decision. It would have to be proposed at the project page again and fully discussed again to change consensus, and I don't see the project's decision changing. And until that time, the current consensus would stand, which is AVGN mentions and references are spammy (and trivial, which is also not allowed), not allowed in these articles, and he's only a solid reference regarding himself (i.e. pages specificially about the AVGN). --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How in the hell is a statement from Gamefaq's owner notable, but an AVGN review isn't? What a double standard 97.86.116.107 (talk) 23:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AVGN is a fictional character. The views in the shows don't necessarily represent the game truthfully or even Rolfe's real opinion about them. He just puts whatever he thinks might be funny in the videos. It is a comedy show. 85.157.76.57 (talk) 00:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Age Rating

[edit]

The current text looks like it's referencing the AVGN video in which he misunderstood the meaning of the rating or didn't read the text accompanying the rating on the label. A 3DO rating of '17' means you need to be older than 17 to buy it without parental/guardian guidance. Therefore a 3DO '17' is equivalent to an ESRB 'AO' or a PEGI '18' and there's no contradiction in it including scenes where you have to be 18 or older to view. I don't think the article is the best place to explain the meaning of the 3DO system, but I made a change and hopefully people can read between the lines.194.176.201.12 (talk) 12:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'd need to find and provide a reliable source for said interpretation, otherwise it's WP:OR and the more standard rating interpretation stands. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3DO game manual scans can be found at www.replacementdocs.com. 'Drug Wars' is another 3DO '17' game and a manual scan from here http://www.replacementdocs.com/download.php?view.3661 shows the 'Guidance for 17 & under' text on the rating label, meaning parental guidance not needed for 18 or above. Current text is still misleading as it states Plumbers Don't Wear Ties was given a '17+' label when there is no +, only a 17.90.220.23.100 (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fake cover art?

[edit]

It looks a bit over-the-top to be real...and according to the OFLC database (classification.gov.au) the game was never rated by them but has an OFLC age rating on the front. BigOnAnime (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Plumbers Don't Wear Ties. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Plumbers Don't Wear Ties. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for the real cover art

[edit]

While it's nice to have a cover art to represent the article, We need the actual 3DO cover art to represent it better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KGRAMR (talk • contribs) 01:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Plumbers_Don%27t_Wear_Ties&oldid=1204787175"