Talk:Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003 video game)

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Purple Francis (6 participants)
Gilman Louie (2 participants)
Yoshimitsu (2 participants)
Dr. Wily (6 participants)
First Internet Backgammon Server (3 participants)
Emote (2 participants)
Stardew Valley Guidebook (2 participants)
Train simulator (disambiguation) (8 participants)
Preston Arsement (4 participants)
Jackpot World (3 participants; relisted)
Melee (game terminology) (6 participants; relisted)
Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters (7 participants; relisted)
Godzilla: Monster of Monsters (7 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Untitled

This page reads like an advertisement in my opinion. Not only is the phrase "Are you ready for a shell of a ride?" a very old, bad joke relating to TMNT, it also sounds like something someone might read off the back of the game box. In fact that entire introduction section could use a re-write, and fixing the rest of the article wouldn't hurt, either. ekedolphin 10:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right
This article needed to be done, So I tried. The whole article needs a re-write, But I am not a writer, so someone else should write it. And the "Introduction" part was from the TMNT manual. Turtle Man 22:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop re-adding these vast sections of uncited, unsuitable prose.

This article is full of prose that does not meet Wikipedia's style guide. Stuffing a critical reception template box with sources does not a good article make. Casually gesturing to critical complaints that are completely unsourced and written totally informally is also not good. Ozeuce (talk) 23:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have had two editors reverted your massive deletions saying they went too far. Since you started a discussion here, per WP:BRD, a consensus should be reached here instead of continually making the same edit over and over. Since I know other editors have more experience in video game articles, I have asked for help from Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games. Aspects (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of sourced comment is being removed, and if nothing else, if we're following WP:BRD, it should stay in the article until there is WP:CONSENSUS for removal.
While unsourced content is not acceptable per WP:V, if the content is plausible, the editor should consider finding sources and/or reworking the content rather than outright deletion. For example, I'd technically be well within my right to remove the unsourced statement of "Super Mario 64 was a 3D platformer released in 1996." But if I knew (or had an inkling even) that this was a true statement, it'd be much more constructive/helpful to find a source rather than just delete. Sergecross73 msg me 00:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The critical reception box is full of someone's ramblings about critical commentary they may have seen somewhere else, or just clean made up. There's probably 5+ uncited opinions in that box alone. The plot summary is vague and poorly formatted, some plot points are overly detailed and some of them are just ommitted or glossed over. Ozeuce (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The useful response is to write a better one, not excise all the (as far as I can tell) accurately cited scores in the review box, leaving future editors three sheets to the wind on re-locating those reviews. At a glance, it looks like only one of the scores is different across platforms so the multi-platform review box format isn't that helpful to look at. Maybe switching to a single-column view and marking which versions were reviewed with Notes would be more visually understandable? Axem Titanium (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point exactly in having reviews for both PlayStation and Xbox versions of the game listed for every outlet, when the game is the exact same product on both? Someone has clearly just gone ham on this article and left behind a total mess. There's also just too many outlets listed, why are we including console-exclusive magazine reviews in a table with four columns? Those scores are accurately sourced, so removing them is not good, but they're totally superfelous and make the table harder to digest. Ozeuce (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look, it's pretty simple. It's good to remove unsourced content. But it's going too far when you delve farther and remove sourced content that can be reworked/rewritten. There's a balance to strike, and you're not doing it right. I've seen people who refuse to change eventually get blocked for disruptive editing, so I recommend re-adjusting your approach rather than trying to double down on this. Sergecross73 msg me 23:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So instead of deleting unsourced critical comments in the reception box, should I be looking through the myriad of review sources provided to try and source these quotes? Or can they be deleted? Ozeuce (talk) 20:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're generally okay to remove unsourced content, but if you're constantly making ham-fisted edits that leave an article in shambles, or are constantly removing content that is likely true and source-able, you're going to get pushback. Sergecross73 msg me 15:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]