Talk:Banjo-Kazooie/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

April Fools Joke

Must say that was really well done and clever of Coolboyman. Read his post here. [1] DietLimeCola 08:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if it should still be noted on this article as an elaborate hoax (I mean Rare even decided to play along with it, that doesn't usually happen with hoaxes). SNS 18:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Stopswop.PNG

Image:Stopswop.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Banjo-Kazooie - Gruntilda's laughter.ogg

Image:Banjo-Kazooie - Gruntilda's laughter.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Mario 64?

One of the "related" links is Super Mario 64, as well as Super Mario 64 DS. How is that related to Banjo-Kazooie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.95.250.43 (talk) 22:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Reception

I'm not sure how the Game Informer quote fits the intention of that section. It appears to be more of a quote in their review for Nuts and Bolts, rather than a retrospective for the entire series, in which I would assume would what the reception section for a series article would be (IE the overall acclaim, which has been good). Stabby Joe (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No mention of Diddy Kong Racing

There's no mention here about Banjo's first appearance ever in Diddy Kong Racing. Could someone please add this in. --Victory93 (talk) 22:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It was added once, then removed. just64helpin (talk) 23:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Stop 'N' Swop

[2] - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

You know there's something to be said about not taking advantage of the fact that the 64 had a Memory card! not only did the Nintendo 64 had a memory card, but it could be used to store saved data. Why didn't Rare take advantage of the memory cards usage?

Here are three steps rare would have to take:

1

After Banjo Kazooie, banjo Tooie would reveal the codes needed in Kazooie to obtain the hidden items.

2

After all the hidden Stop 'N' Swop items were found, the memory card would transfer the data from the Banjo Kazooie cartridge into the Memory Card.

3

Banjo Tooie would Download the data from the Memory Card and unlock the Stop 'N' Swop items.

Why didn't Rare do This. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.99.209 (talk) 05:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

GR Mobile

Wouldnt grunty's revenge mobile count as a game? --Dallin Tanjo22 06:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC) Yes. Yes it would.206.248.167.220 (talk) 11:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Future: Banjo-Kazooie 3DS

Banjo-Kazooie won't ever happen on 3DS. Someone is editing Rare's pages, don't trust them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walecs (talk • contribs) 21:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Nut and Bolts: Main series or spin off?

It's listed as of Feb. 7 2013 that "Nuts and Bolts" is part of the series and not a spin off. How should it be categorized? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.226.169.187 (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Gruntilda's Revenge a Spinoff?

If anything, I'd call Nut's & Bolts more of a spinoff than Gruntilda's Revenge. And I wouldn't call Nut's & Bolts a spinoff.

Review scores

(diff)

Do not include GameRankings unless it adds value atop or in the absence of Metacritic (e.g., games that predate Metacritic).
— WP:VGAGG

This was the core consensus from the discussion. The GR reviews are identical to the Metacritic reviews in your reverted version of the table and there is no cause for keeping them. czar 17:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

You made the change yourself, that wasn't exactly the wording everyone voted for. The consensus prior to that is completely different and i'm inclined to even say "Misleading". Lucia Black (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Re: "misleading", that was the exact sentiment if not wording, actually. I don't see why the discussion is now in double jeopardy because it didn't fit your specific rationale. But more importantly, what is your rationale for keeping GR in this article? czar 19:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not about whether it fit my specific rationale. I'm just sticking with what i know had a consensus versus what wording you chose based on the consensus. The consensus that i know was done was based that GR wasn't relevant in newer titles, not that its irrelevant because its too similar to metacritic. Lucia Black (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the reading of consensus is best done in another forum, but... czar 20:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

What is your rationale for keeping GR in this article? What value does it add? czar 20:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm remembering the passive aggressive such as ignoring key questions or point altogether . So I'll stay firm on this just to be clear. The consensus and your word choice when you changed the aggregator usage document are not the same. But with that said, they are not all virtually the same score. Some are marginally different by a few percentage. Which is significant for an aggregator review score. Not all of them are by the decimal. That and these scores existed before mc. Lucia Black (talk) 00:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

If you are contesting WP:VGAGG as a statement of consensus, this is obviously not the right forum. I suppose it's time for a third party. czar 00:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you are listening. The changes you made don't reflect consensus. Lucia Black (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Prose that was converted to table

While I'm here... I disagree with converting the series article from a prose format to a table format, per Manual of Style - MOS:TABLE#Prose. -- ferret (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

That is not what i'm intending to do at all. Yes it covers the game section into a table. I was inspired by the featured article, Mana (series)But it will be expanded. My main goal is to add a "Development", expand the "reception" and "legacy" section. And even planning on re-organizing into a "Common elements" section. But just to re-iterate, i do not intend to turn the article into a "table format". Just for now, its mainly dominated by the table format. I will add more prose. Lucia Black (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :I'm not a fan either, especially when there is essentially so much prose being crammed into the table format. Sergecross73 msg me 01:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I would give Mana's featured article promotion a read, as the table was mentioned several times in a neutral or negative way... back in 2008. It's an older FA, and things are a fair bit stricter these days. Instead, I think Final Fantasy and ~~The Legend of Zelda~~ are better FAs to use as a model (As mentioned in Mana's FA promotion as well). Neither uses a table. Edit: Struck Zelda, it was delisted. Final Fantasy is still a great FA series article though. -- ferret (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate either. Tables are for quantitative info, not qualitative. Putting development history in there especially doesn't work. Ozdarka (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 Final Fantasy is good but also is extremely massive and has external lists to do the listing for it. Same for Legend of Zelda, that's probably the main reason why they were able to avoid it. Articles like Mana (series) and Saga (series) don't have the benefit. But with that said, i do intend to work on the table. For one, i'm going to remove the plot and move it to a plot section. The overall plot of the Banjo Kazooie series is easy to summarize. Lucia Black (talk) 01:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

additionally the goal is not to out all dev history into the table. More info will be added separate from the table including dev history. Lucia Black (talk) 01:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with reverting the table. Prose in paragraphs is more accessible. czar 02:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with prose. I only have issue with how its organized now. One section per game is unnecessary and makes table of contents overbearing to look at. Especially when it tries to divide information by each game rather than the series as a whole. Lucia Black (talk) 04:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it looks much better now. Sergecross73 msg me 13:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm still wanting the compromise of no individual section for games. Not even Fabula Nova Crystallis does this. I would really appreciate a little leeway here. Especially since there are very few articles I can work on and we're only talking about this by chance. Lucia Black (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

What leeway do you want? If you want to remove the subsection headers, I think that would be ok, seeing as there's only a paragraph per game as is. As for Fabula Nova Crystallis, that list format is bad too. Manual of Style should win out here. Another option would be to use Template:TOC limit to keep the game sub-sections out of the TOC, if your main worry is an unwieldy TOC. -- ferret (talk) 14:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't oppose the FNC layout, though I don't think its an improvement either... Sergecross73 msg me 14:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Or another thought: Remove the "Main Games" header level, so everything moves up one header level. But if you want to see a really long TOC, just look at Call of Duty. :) -- ferret (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm basically trying to create a GA article. I'm not sure what FNC is doing wrong. But clearly call of duty is doing something wrong. Its not even GA. I'm trying to get this at GA. Maybe even Featured. But the leeway is essentially trusting me a little more. Some of the things I feel should are second nature are being questioned. Unless you all are intending to take it upon yourselves to turn this into GA, I don't think the current format works at all. Lucia Black (talk) 14:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

GA requires MOS compliance, so MOS:TABLE#Prose is going to apply in my view, regardless of any "leeway" being given. A long TOC is not really a ding at GA, though. All your other plans for the article are great in my view. It might be best to finish your plans for a development, gameplay and plot sections first, which may eliminate the need for the current sections entirely. But without those sections currently being finished in the article the current sections for games need to stay as prose. -- ferret (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to get into that. But no one even wanted to give me a chance on working on this it's beyong frustrating that all this time I could've made those sections instead of discussing whether the table hold value. I'm serious, is anyone here actually invested in the article to turn it GA? Lucia Black (talk) 14:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what reply you want. No one has ever suggested this is the only format the article should have, or that you shouldn't make those other sections. Only that the current sections should not be converted into a table, per MOS. If later work makes those sections unnecessary, so be it. As for turning the article to GA, the article is a long way from B currently, and the "Main series" sections is the least of the issues. -- ferret (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I know that it's not even close to By. But forget it. Honestly. I just want to improve Wikipedia. Lucia Black (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

In addition to the text ("prose"), I vote in favor of using a (sortable) table to present series-relevant information instead of a simple reductionist timelines (e.g., Banjo-Kazooie_(series)#Games). It is tedious to search through the text and individual articles and misses the possibility of direct comparison. Of course, only important criteria of the titles should be included in the columns. Hippo99 (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to join: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Video_game_series:_Template:Video_game_timeline_vs_Template:Wikitable_sortable_vs_Template:Video_game_titles Best regards, Hippo99 (talk) 09:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Banjo-Kazooie (series). 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rare-extreme.com/?section=tourofrare&page=stop_n_swop.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Banjo-Kazooie (series). 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: 18 January 2022).

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) 15:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 2 August 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move pages. (non-admin closure) — YoungForever^(talk) 21:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

– Per series naming guidelines. The first game is not far and away the most notable, as Banjo-Tooie also sold in the millions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Support per WP:NCVG#Media franchise and to eliminate another insufficient "(series)" disambiguator. -- Netoholic @ 02:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Support per nom and to get this snag out of the way of an upcoming push to Good Topic proposed at WP:VG -- ferret (talk) 23:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Support per above (Oinkers42) (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.