Talk:Icy Tower

This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep.

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

Vette (Star Wars) (2 participants)
International Hobo (1 participant)
Wally Scharold (3 participants)
Cake Mania (series) (1 participant)
Omocat (5 participants)
Fortnite Chapter 5 Season 2: Myths and Mortals (9 participants)
Rick Jay Glen (5 participants; relisted)
Do You Like Horny Bunnies? (17 participants; relisted)
Atlus USA (15 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Merged from Free Lunch Design[edit]

I merged from the Free Lunch Design article, which narrowly survived a deletion listing. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 23:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did some serious clarification, and some formatting. The floyd 15:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

como puedo hacer para jugar a Icy Tower[edit]

Just download and install it. It should not be too hard, it includes an installer. -- ReyBrujo 23:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2005[edit]

it was released way earlier than 2005. I remember playing it 3-4 years ago!--Sonjaaa 22:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. The current date must have been believed to be a release date of the v1.3 (though it would still be incorrect). I will change it to the release date of the first version. :) Vinyanov 12:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

I removed the notability tag, since this issue has already been discussed [1] in relation to this article with the decision being made to keep. --Zagrebo 15:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but where in the article is notability asserted? (Even the keep reasons in the AfD seem to be "it's notable because it's notable"). Marasmusine 20:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment nowhere because the article is in dire need of citations (as the tag says) as well as major major tidying-up and rewriting since it's currently too full of big long lists and the like. There is plenty of stuff "out there" about it, though, thanks to its popularity. Give it time! By all means editors need prodded on this one but tagging it for deletion is not the same thing. --Zagrebo 21:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oki doki, I didn't tag it for deletion though :> It was a notability concern tag. I know... they're both grey boxes though... Marasmusine 22:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I actually did a spot of research to try and get some cites earlier and found some good stuff including a news story about it being converted to mobile phones (I think by a commercial company). I'll try and get them into the article soon. --Zagrebo 22:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection[edit]

This article should really use protection. I find it vadalised, or being tested on, after each visit. And unfortunately some reverts do not even recover all content that was removed by the vandals. Well, at least we could infer, from the quantity of reverted edits, that the game is certainly notable for many people. That was per above sections. :) So, pity that so late, but I think I will file the protection proposal. Don’t you think? viny.tell // 22:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linking in the Icy Tower's infobox[edit]

Moved from User talk:Yerpo

It is not edit-warring as long as I provide arguments in my edit summaries.

Yes, I disagree.

The spirit of the "no external links in the body of the article" rule is, mostly, not to disorient the reader by mixing internal and external types of links. But this problem is only relevant to the article body, not to infoboxes. The structure of infoboxes is ordered enough, and they themselves separate enough, so that combining of different types of links in it will not affect the the effectivity of his reading the article anyhow. (It might even impress him ;) ).

There is no downsides to linking to official sites in infoboxes, apart perhaps from implicitly encouraging other Wikipedians to do it in other, less appropriate places in the article. But this is not our concern. 79.191.56.30 (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is, if the argument is disputed. The spirit of the guideline also applies to infoboxes, because external links make them look even more than Christmas trees, especially if they're placed at the very top.

Infoboxes "look like Christmas trees" anyway.

Besides, your choice of what to link was completely arbitrary. Why stop at the title and the developer?

Because they also are in the External links section.

Why not link to the designer's and the artists' websites as well while you're at it, since they "don't disrupt the reading flow"? And to the download repository for the release date. And... For these and other reasons, external links should be limited to sections meant for them (both in the article itself and the infobox).

Let me get it clear. You're saying that links should be limited to the External links section because the choice of what to link to can be arbitrary?

Check the external links in the yesterday's featured article, that's what the consensus is about these things.

To be completely honest, I feel that this article should be deleted due to lack of notability (it's a wonder how the authors managed to quote 44 references without establishing notability). That's why this thinly disguised "Visit our website!" advert irked me even more.

It wasn't an advertisement, it was not forcing the viewers to scroll to the very bottom of the page for important information, without even knowing if they'll find it there. 83.6.110.99 (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But it still wouldn't belong in any article. — Yerpo ^Eh? 11:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your way of replying is confusing (and you didn't sign your comments), so I grouped my reply. The infoboxes do look like Christmas trees sometimes, so it's best not to worsen the situation even more, don't you think? The arbitrariness is just one of the reasons why the links should be limited to sections devoted to them (some infoboxes have a special parameter for the external link), and the choice of which to include is clear - the subject's official web page and relevant pages that provide information not belonging into Wikipedia due to being excessive in detail. They should also be kept at minimum, meaning the official page and not much else. The standard way of linking to external pages is at the end of the article, which isn't so difficult to find (especially with the table of contents featured prominently near the top of the page), and any Wikipedia visitor should be familiar with the layout by now. Your accessibility argument does make some sense, though, which is why I just argued in favour of including the corresponding parameter in the infobox - you can voice your opinion too at Template talk:Infobox video game#Request for new field in infobox template. — Yerpo ^Eh? 20:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harold[edit]

Welcome, I want to use the character Harold in my game 197.49.247.177 (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]