Talk:The Smurfs Save The Day

Notability

This game is the third video game in the The Smurfs franchise. It is notable as it relates to the Smurfs series as a whole in much the same way that Smurf: Rescue in Gargamel's Castle, The Smurfs (Infogrames), The Smurfs Travel the World, and The Smurfs (PS1) are notable members of the franchise. -Thibbs (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I echo the same argument that I have made at Talk:Brain Strainers. None of the sources indicate notability. The GameSpot is a (empty) trivial mention, while the AtariAge source is not only a trivial mention but also not considered a reliable source (being a fansite) in terms of the establishment of notability. Notability is not inherited, and I would also argue that none of the other Smurfs games you mentioned have established any independent notability, either. MuZemike (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: The PS1 Smurfs game has established independent notability as seen here and here. I would possibly consider a merge of all Smurfs video game articles into one, like The Smurfs (video game) for instance. MuZemike (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll see what I can find as far as sources go. As far as a merger is concerned, while do I agree that one article on the Smurf games as a whole might be more useful, I'm not sure I agree that it should be called The Smurfs (video game). Rather, I would entitle it something like The Smurfs (series). Any thoughts? -Thibbs (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, how about The Smurfs (video games), that is, plural? That would make more sense than my first one. MuZemike (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think that would work as well. I'm not extremely familiar with the series as a whole so I don't know if referring to it as a "series" is inappropriate. I have seen most articles that discuss a family of games as having the "(series)" ending, though. As a member of WPVG, do you know if there are any conventions regarding this sort of naming? -Thibbs (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to tell you that I have seen that form used before, but I cannot tell you where. I'll let you know where if I can find it. MuZemike (talk) 07:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm requesting comment at WT:VG as shown by the template above. MuZemike (talk) 07:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is "Sesame Street (video games)". - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It really looked like I was involved in that merge somehow, but I cannot remember how. MuZemike (talk) 08:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1] It was your merge in the first place. :P - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what are we saying here? Is this "(video games)" ending a WPVG policy or is this a MuZemike policy? If it's just a MuZemike policy then I still think it's workable so long as it's pragmatic in light of the connections between the games (i.e. are they actually more of a series or more of a random smattering?). Perhaps simultantous RfCs should go out to WPVG (to find gamers who are into these games) and WPTV (to find fans of the show who have played the games). Any thoughts? -Thibbs (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

On MuZemike's suggestion I'll go ahead and BOLDly suggest the merger. -Thibbs (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

“

Honestly, the best thing to do would be a List of Smurfs video games. I ran into the same problem with a whole pile of stub articles on Mahjong games, which we agreed to merge into Mahjong video game. The smurfs games are different... in theory, someone could actually add enough information on each game to make a non stub article that isn't completely redundant. Yeah, a merge is appropriate for now. But in the long run, you'll want to make it clear that there are multiple games, just in case anyone should ever improve any one of them to split them all out. Randomran (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

”

Imported comment from User:Randomran. -Thibbs (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If at all possible, these articles should be expanded. I'm not sure why it would be difficult. But if it really proves to be impossible at this time, then yeah, a merge to a list would make sense. Randomran (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support a merge of all listed Smurfs video game articles into a list for the reasons I have reiterated above. MuZemike (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support as well, with the remark that if someone wants to create a good article about an individual article (with plenty of independent sources), this merge discussion should not be used to restrict such a split later on. But I doubt that any of these games really need a separate article. Fram (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it shouldn't restrict any splitting. If enough is there for a split, the list can easily be unmerged. It would be helpful if someone who is wishing to do so in the future to start a split discussion on it, but WP:BRD is normally what happens. MuZemike 23:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]