Jump to content

Talk:Spore (2008 video game)/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 20

Arb Break: What to do with Spore (video game)

This is related, assuming that the page is kept here, what should we do with Spore (video game) ? Right now it is a disamb page, however, I will argue that that page should be a redirection to here per exactly aLttP's arguments, with hatnotes to point to the other two games.

Basically, the above argument is about the static version of this page - when someone prints it out, the title should be completely unambiguous as to what it is, and to be exact, it needs to be (2008 video game).

However, when searching, the dynamic aspect of this page, aLttP's point is exactly correct: searches for "Spore (video game)" are likely meant to end up here at the 2008 video game. This is similar to, for example, The Manchurian Candidate which points to the book, hatnotes to the movies. Thus, I propose that Spore (video game) becomes a redirect to here, and a hatnote added (if not already) to all 3 Spore games to point around to each other. --MASEM 15:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I like that solution much better actually. Nanobri (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Well I have been stern on the opinion that the Spore (video game) page should be just redirect or it should be deleted. The disambiguation page was really just not needed as the other games are listed on the main Spore (disambiguation) page anyway. So I wouldn't be against it to be changed to just a redirect to this page. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I support what MASEM said. Guys, this isn't that huge of a deal, let's just get this tricky situation over with so we can all calm down. Chuy1530 (talk) 17:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Yep, I don't care for the redundant disambiguation pages either. Spore (video game) should redirect here; that has all of the discussed positives of having it just be this article's title (being more popular by far, users expect to come here), and none of the negatives (ambiguity). -- -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not sure. If we'll redirect Spore (video game) to Spore (2008 video game), what's the point of having this article title in the first place? Isn't it common practice to move an article to the simplest article title possible? If Spore (video game) is a redirect to this page (which would indicate that this is the game when people think of a video game named "Spore"), that would be the simplest article title possible, not this one. So.. I honestly don't get it. I mean, in the end it doesn't matter much either way, but it'd be splendid if someone could explain that to a daft person like me. :) --Conti|✉ 21:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Well I will try to explain. I for example wanted the move because to me the prior page name gave posibility to a mistake. Even if it was a remote chance. Also the current name now quite frankly states what Spore game it is so mixups would not happen so easilly. Also why would Spore (video game) be simpler than for example Spore (computer game), Spore (Maxis), Spore (game) and so on. Also the current page is consistent with the other two Spore games pages. To me it just makes more sence to have them with consistent names so they are easier to identify. Still that point you made is not wrong in anyway but is this really wrong as it still distinguishes the pages more clearly from eachother and isn't that also in the rules that the page should be identified from their names also not just what reads in the page. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
There is no guideline that suggests we have to make sure that people cannot be mistaken in any way. To an uninformed party, Mario doesn't state what the article is on the title, but is that a problem? No, because no other subject using the name Mario is significant enough to warrant a disambig. Same with this. There does not HAVE to be a pattern. Every article is done on a case-by-case basis. The other two games get their names because they can't have (video game). Spore (2008 video game) CAN have (video game), because it's extremely notable. There is the question as to if a disambig is necessary, and I'm not convinced it is at all. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If you're worried about Google searches, eventually Spore (2008) will appear. Furthermore, when people enter "Spore", it goes to Spore which has a link to this page. It makes no sense to change the status quote at all. JAF1970 (talk) 03:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, do you really want to undergo through all the labor of re-redirecting links, etc? Do you know why the change was made in the first place? It was clean and efficient when it became apparent there was more than one video game named Spore.
Let me give you an example: The Maltese Falcon (disambiguation)
Everyone knows about the 1941 film, but it doesn't get preferential treatment over the previous film by the same name. JAF1970 (talk) 03:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Those are not even remotely similar. Spore's video game disambig = three games, only one of them that's very well-known. The Maltese Falcon disambig is five articles, with two movies, both of which are known, and a well-known book that many people are aware of, which both movies get their names from. And yes, I have no problem cleaning up the broken redirects etc. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Not remotely similar?! I beg to differ - no one knows the 1931 version. Ask anyone about The Maltese Falcon, see how many talk about the '31 version. I've got you on this one, and you know it.
What you want is change because of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. There's no reason you've given to warrant putting the effort into changing the articles from the current clean format it's in. Spore (video game) referring to the 2008 game, whether you like it or not, inaccurate. I defy you to prove it's not inaccurate. There's a reason it was changed in the first place. JAF1970 (talk) 05:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
For all your complaining, you have yet to prove that the current format is:
1. confusing
2. inaccurate
3. wrong
Your suggestion, making Spore (2008 video game) into Spore (video game) is all three. JAF1970 (talk) 05:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
PS. Anyone else think the example I gave is "not remotely similar"? JAF1970 (talk) 05:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  1. So you know this how? Did you do this poll yourself?
  2. Well, maybe if you gave a reason why there shouldn't be a disambig in the case of an article about a movie based on a popular book with another movie made before it and two other items using the name, you'd have bested me. But you didn't even acknowledge the book's existence at any point. That's not exactly "a good attempt at an argument".
  3. The only way it can be inaccurate is if you prove that there is no situation that could ever possibly exist where Spore would get (video game). Your argument amounts to "it cannot be popular enough to exceed the fact that one person on Earth might look up Spore expecting one of two old obscure games". There is not one guideline that says "if two video games share the same name, both have to be disambiged". The need to disambig doesn't exist, it'd be like if there was a character on a TV show called simply Mario - the only reason you provided is "other things exist". - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
It has already been voted that it stays at Spore(2008 video game) so why argue about it? The two other games exist so we CANNOT discard their existence. Skele (talk) 09:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Your post right there proved why I argue for it - "it exists" is not a reason to disambig. There's no guideline that says if an article exists that shares the same name that there has to be disambiguation. Is there some strange reason that not one person supporting keeping it here can give one good reason to have moved it in the first place? No guideline supports it, and the only relevant guideline says that usually. This is not usual in any way - this is a situation where the earlier two games aren't even a pixel on a blip on the radar in comparison. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Link, what did you think of the hatnote on the Spore (video game) article idea? That would eliminate the need for a disambig and whether it's Spore (video game) or Spore (2008 video game) they'll both be to the same spot so it won't make a difference. --Nanobri (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You know, while I think there is consensus here (locally) for the (2008 video game) solution, I believe a better course of action is to open an RFC to get wider community input, as I can see this case happening again in terms of naming. Since the naming rules are not exact on this case (at WP:NC or the VG project), it makes good sense to expand this further. --MASEM 20:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

  1. It's better than what we've got now.
  2. And another reason it should be at (video game) to establish how disambiguation should be done. Disambiguation should only exist when there are multiple notable subjects. While the older two games are notable enough to have articles, they aren't nearly as notable as the current Spore, which is incredibly notable, one of the most notable games of this gen. Moving to (video game) establishes that we should give preference in cases where there is only one notable video game with a certain name to that game. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying we should delete each Mario article that isn't about the video game character because their not notable enough. Discard them from wikipedia existence. Skele (talk) 08:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, since my statement is obviously not that, no. I don't see how a statement that at no point recommends deletion of any articles is "deletion of those two articles". If you can't be bothered to READ my statements, don't bother discussing this matter. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
This is moot. It's already been voted - TWICE mind you - that the Spore article remain this way. I can guarantee if you make this move, you'll end up moving it back within a year. And you STILL have NOT stated any reason to move it except "Spore (2008) is going to be huge! It deserves the spotlight!" Wikipedia doesn't work that way. You can't wish other games away, and Spore (video game) is a disambig for a reason, and you can't wish that reason away, either.
You still haven't supplied a good reason for your proposal save "WP:IDON'TLIKEIT", and when you're voted against, you decide that voting is inconventient and try to bypass it. You got voted off the island, and continuing to campaign to overturn the vote is a waste of time. Seriously. Wikipedia isn't about the person who complains the longest or the loudest.JAF1970 (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Once. Since, you know, the first discussion, whose effort in letting others know of it was literally nonexistent, it cannot be cited as a "logical discussion". And when did I ever cite "WP:IDON'TLIKEIT"? And finally, I believe what I said was "it IS popular in the here and now - it has the spotlight." - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I've opened a discussion at WT:NC (here) to get more input into the issue. While there's local consensus to the 2008 solution, ALttP has good points that I think need wider consideration. --MASEM 17:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I just saw that comment at WT:NC. I think that the current situation is OK. The 2008 Spore videogame is notable, but not so much notable that it's necessary for it to be the one at Spore_(video_game). Also, readers can still find the correct videogame with no confusion. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

A Link to the Past, I have read every single word you have written. And I agree with JAF. Are you sure the other two games weren't popular games in the past? Have you read the discussion on the first vote? And again the date verifies which of the three games it is. It doesn't need fame in wikipedia it needs reason. Skele (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

  1. It's really, really notable. It's had news stories about how the number of species created in Spore are greater than the number of species on Earth, etc. Spore is extremely notable - it's not like a kind of game that is notable and then kind of dies down. It's more in line with World of Warcraft or The Sims - if they had multiple games from other companies that shared the same name, they would be given preference.
  2. I just did a bit of Google News on both titles, and there's nothing to suggest notability. A search for "Spore PC" brings up many results. Spore has won awards already, and the demo has sold a ton. An extremely notable designer with the best-selling PC franchise ever made, the most profitable third party developer, it's not even released and it is already huge. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
That's WP:CRYSTAL trying to guess the future. The game could perfectly bomb on the release. Bigger sacred cows have fallen. Wait until the game is released and has broken some selling records, and then bring the matter again, as you will have way better arguments. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
It already has a demo. It's already received incredible reception, including several media outlets calling it the best game of E3 multiple times (that is, year to year). My statement is not crystal ball at all - it's in the here and now, the game is excellent now and it's sold incredibly. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
This reminds of E.T._the_Extra-Terrestrial_(Atari_2600), a videogame for the most successful console of the moment, based on the most successful movie at the time, released for Christmas (when sales were higher), patrocinated by frigging Steven Spielberg, it had way more publicity and expectation than Spore...... and, when it was released, it crashed and burned so badly that it caused the North_American_video_game_crash_of_1983. I suggest you to read Top 10 video game disasters. I'll believe that the game is more important than others when the sales figures for several months are released and when all videogame magazines are talking of the permanent mark it has left on the videogame genre. Until then, it's just one more expensive videogame with very good promotion and lots of promises. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
The game is already vastly more notable. People have played it, people have played the demo, it's already far more notable than either game combined. Quality and notability are too different things - in fact, E.T. is one of the most notable video games out there. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
What, more notable than GTA or Wolfenstein 3D or Quake or Dune II or Double Dragon or Civilization or Simcity or Half Life or Counter-Strike or Flight Simulator or Street Fighter? More notable than Pong or Tetris or Pacman ? More notable than Sonic or Mario or Final Fantasy or Zelda or Pokemon? More notable than The Sims (series)? More notable than combinations of them? Yeah, go on dreaming. Not going to happen.
Please get a sense of proportion, it's one more videogame. Wikipedia is not going to die for not giving this article the best name ever when it hasn't even been released. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Um, hi, just making sure you're aware that being the best game ever and the most notable game ever are two completely disconnected things. GTAIII is not even close to being as notable, E.T. single-handedly killed Atari and is considered responsible for the video game crash. It's considered one of the worst games ever created. GTAIII got great reviews, sold really well, and helped promote the PS2 somewhat. Wow, that's so influential! Do you know anything about what notability is? You are confusing quality and influence with notability.
So, hey, you're right - sure, who cares that millions of people have already played the monster creation portion of the game, and no one had played anything of E.T. before it was released? Or that people have already played the game extensively and have given it resounding praise? Who cares that the demo has sold incredibly, is, in fact, far more notable than those other two games combined and multiplied by ten and it's not even released yet? Oh, wait, we care. Comparing a game that had no way of assessing its quality before its release to a game that had extensive coverage, play, a DEMO, etc. before its release is just faulty logic. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
And you have no idea of history of videogames, it seems :P I linked to the whole Grand Theft Auto, not to GTA III. You are forgetting GTA:SA and GTA IV, and how many copycats it has spawned, and its sandbox style, and the Hot Coffee controversy.
And you compare only with a pair of games, ignoring the other on the list, including games that spawned a whole genre of its own or single-handedly popularized its genre or defined its genre for years to come. Or spawned its own cultural icons and franchises like Mario or Pokemon. Seriously, it's you that has no idea of what makes a videogame notable. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I think you're confused - see, my statement was that E.T. was a very notable game. You responded with "nuh-uh, it's not notable because these games exist!" Since, I dunno, apparently one game being notable makes another game non-notable. Because GTASA had a ton of controversy, E.T. being the frontrunner of a video game crash, having its own article about the New Mexico dumping of nearly 5 million of its copies, being considered the one game that destroyed Atari and its reputation and allowed the industry to become what it is today is irrelevant and it's actually not very notable. Yeah, you're trying to devalue one game's notability with the notability of OTHER games - I guess you know exactly what notability is. Even though you're trying to say that E.T. is not notable because it's bad, which means absolutely nothing in the way of notability, which anyone who actually knows what it is wouldn't be arguing. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I miscomunicated. I wanted to mean that a) even if Spore crashed in the hearshest way possible, Spore's crash would still be less notable than ET's crash b) I listed many games and you only centered on a pair of them, despite many of them being really important on the videogame world.
I'll add some more games. Games being more covered on mainstream press than Spore: Tomb Raider and World of Warcraft, or even Evercrack Everquest. More prevalent on popular culture or being popular culture references, such as Donkey Kong or Space Invaders or even Carmageddon. Or started a whole genre like Maniac Mansion or helped to define it like Command & Conquer or Age of Empires.
Things like influence on popular culture or starting a new genre need time to be appreciable and we still need reliable sources showing this not to be a fad that will disappear soon without leaving a mark. Give me a call when Spore starts a whole new genre, when it's used as a name for a political campaign like Carmageddon [1] (page 84) or when it gets displayed on a museum like Space Invaders at the London Science Museum [2], or when, Space Invaders again, gets cited as giving credibility to a national videogame industry and to two franchises notable of its own [3], or gets cited on papers called "Frame and Metaphor in Political Games" like Space Invaders or GTA:SA [4], or get cited as being used to mock Foucalt's work [5] (I'm still loling at the Foucalt reference), or gets cited on master's thesis (several games) [6], and then we can start talking about being one of the most notable videogames evar. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Both games were big enough to warrent a MobyGames entry and a GameSpot entry. Again, the Maltese Falcon film analogy works here. The Maltese Falcon (1931 film) and The Maltese Falcon (1941 film). One is nearly obscure while the other is legendary. Note the naming. JAF1970 (talk) 04:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  1. Big enough to warrant being included on sites that strive to include every game they possibly can? Wow, what an honor!
  2. Yeah, because THAT is my argument why there are multiple notable uses of Maltese Falcon. Not the fact that THERE'S A BOOK CALLED THE MALTESE FALCON THAT BOTH MOVIES ARE BASED ON. Christ. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
We are on wikipedia and Wikipedia should contain every piece of knowledge including every game. And you didn't answer my questions. Skele (talk) 11:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
And by the way. I'm not sure but I think each of these games is based on the biological reproductive mechanism. Skele (talk) 11:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Putting Spore (2008 video game) at (video game) does not, at any point, devalue the worth of any one game. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Leaving Spore at "Spore (2008 video game)" does not devaluate it, either. The argument goes both ways.
Now get some real arguments for moving the article, or stop arguing endlessly about it. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
So, just curious, can you provide one single reason in the world that a title, which redirects to this title ANYWAY, cannot house it? No matter WHAT happens, it is impossible for it to matter if it goes there. The mistake argument is invalid, because there's already a mistake in redirecting (video game) to here. If the mistake exists in either situation, then what reason do you have to oppose it? Are you implying that having a title that redirects here anyway about the PC game harms anyone? - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Spore (2008 video game) is more precise than Spore (video game). Naming the title Spore (2008 video game) as opposed to Spore (video game) does no harm, especialy if the latter is redirected to the former (which, btw, it isn't right now, it's redirected to the spore disambig). A title that does no harm and provides a slight advantage (added precision) should be favored. --Nanobri (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Nanobri on this. I can definately see where ALttP is coming from as I didn't really care for the (2008 video game) tag personally, but as a whole I think having it makes complete sense. The other games do exist and have enough notability to be recognized by Wikipedia to warrant an article therefore rendering the video game title of Spore as multiple titles. To clarify for users the disambiguation page of Spore (video game) was required. Seeing how the consensus reached was for the change and there being no real benefit to changing it back (that I could clearly see) should justify it's title and the disambiguation of the (video game) tag. ClosedEyesSeeing (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I find this article in a similar situation as Star Fox (video game). It has a lesser known Star Fox title for the 2600 that wasn't made by Nintendo. Just like this article, the Nintendo is the 'spotlight' version recognized by most gamers, but I feel that the disambiguation helps distinguish the separate games (regardless of notablity). Just my two cents. ClosedEyesSeeing (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  1. There's no NEED to be more precise. 100% of the time, anyone who goes to Spore (video game) will end up here. No exceptions. It will ALWAYS go to Spore (2008 video game) or (video game), the mistake that would occur from having it at (video game) is existing now with the current situation agreed to, so may I ask what harm will exist that doesn't already exist?
  2. There's no guideline that says "if there's any naming conflicts at all, there should be a disambig". The notability asserted by these two released games combined isn't even a pixel on the blip on a radar compared to this UNRELEASED VIDEO GAME'S notability. The fact of the matter is that the precision is not necessary, and "being notable enough to have an article" is not asserting SUFFICIENT notability. Spore is considered one of the biggest releases in 2008, and has already sold more than many other games with its demo. If it doesn't matter what it's at, then it should be at (video game). The necessity to disambig is almost nonexistent, so making the article name longer is unnecessary.
  3. Again, disambig doesn't work like that. If two articles share the same title, we don't say "well, they're both notable enough to have articles, so I guess that's enough!" No, we look to see how notable each title is. There isn't one level of notability. Spore on the PC has won awards, has been featured on video game news outlets, mainstream news outlets, has made millions, and has gotten great reception without being released. The other titles have literally NO claim to fame whatsoever - enough notability to be on Wikipedia, but not enough to even be reasonably similar in notability. There are many uses of the name Mario, but because Mario is so much more notable than any of those uses, it gets the main article while others get a disambig. There are other means of "keeping people informed" of what the other titles are. All the article has to do is feature a hatnote that links people to the video games named Spore. And with Star Fox, the disambig isn't even appropriate. It's a multi-million dollar video game franchise with five video games, one of which is one of the first 3D console games ever created. The other's only real claim to fame is that it was called Star Fox first. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  1. Fair enough, but it's easy to argue the other point with the same line. If there is no difference in help/harm why bother to change it? As for it ALWAYS going to Spore (2008 video game) is a false statement. There are plenty of video game enthusiasts out there that like to know history of video games (to include myself) that would be interested in knowing that these other Spore titled games existed. It's a piggy back off of the hype and build up to the 2008 Spore, yes, but I became more interested in them due to the change to the Spore (video game). Now, this isn't to say that I wouldn't of found it without link tags at the top of the article, but I just find it more aesthetically pleasing without them.
  2. Again, it is kind of hard to compare them this way. Spore for the Commodore64 was well received for it's time. Take a peak at Zzap's 1987 issue: http://www.zzap64.co.uk/cgi-bin/displaypage.pl?issue=033&page=178&thumbstart=0&magazine=zzap&check=1 The wide availability of reviews and expos for games these days trumps anything that was used back then. You could easily say that almost ANY flop from 1999 on wards had MORE reviews and MORE notability than most games from 1987.
  3. As I previously stated, yes, a hatnote would be quite acceptable to inform users, but if the same idea is still being conveyed right now as the article stands why change it? ClosedEyesSeeing (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  1. Because it's a long disambig? If there's no reason for it to be this long, it shouldn't be this long. It's that simple.
  2. How will they be unable to do so? Most people who are interested in the history of video games would know of the PC game Spore, so there would be no surprise in seeing it at that title. And if there's a hatnote, they won't be unable to find these games. How does a problem exist?
  3. There have been a lot of games that got a lot of reviews but aren't terribly notable. THEY would not get disambig privileges because it only got a lot of reviews to its name. However, in this case, like I said, until you can produce a guideline that says that existing is enough to warrant extra disambig.
  4. Because it makes the title unnecessarily long. If (video game) is not being used, there is no harm in shortening the article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
The title isn't a big deal, period. Unless I'm missing something, A Link to the Past is the only one constantly pushing for the change. Consensus is against him, so this should just be dropped. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
If there's no reason it should be there, it should be moved. If no one's harmed, then no one should care if it's moved or not. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
There is a reason that it's there. It was polled twice, and both times the result was for it to be there. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
And the first poll has no legitimacy, because it was just a few people agreeing with each other and deciding to take not one single step that is required for a legitimate move. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
"a few people agreeing with each other and deciding X", it's called consensus, and you don't have it. You just don't agree with them, but consensus is not unanimity. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
As has been said before, one reason is to make the title more precise. A Link to the Past argues that precision isn't needed since the game is so popular. There is also the issue of consistency with the naming of the other game article titles. A Link to the Past argues that such consistency or "symmetry" need not apply since the game is so popular. Both of these points are true, and thus the rationale for the 2008 name change is weak. A Link to the Past argues that it makes the title unnecessary long. I disagree. I don't think it's too long. If it was Spore (Maxis Will Wright 2008 video game) or something then maybe, but it's 5 characters longer including the space. That's not a big deal to me. This arguement and others presented in favor of Spore (video game) seem equally weak as those in favor of Spore (2008 video game). We both seem to agree that neither form does harm, so it comes down to which way do people "like better." Though the first poll's legitimacy may be disputed, this one certainly seems to be legitimate and has large support in the direction of (2008 video game). So there's not a "good reason." It's kind of neutral either way, and the people that have discussed here like this way better. There's nothing wrong with that. Can we be just done with it? ––Nanobri (talk) 06:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spore_(2008_video_game)/Archive_14&oldid=1137199089"