Talk:Sonic Labyrinth

The game has no jumping involved! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sega31098 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Do people think this is GA ready? I can't find any development info. Maybe this is the best we can get from what's out there. TarkusAB^talk 14:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

@TarkusAB: Came here from GAN but I don't think it can be a GA without development information. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Video games#Essential content, A "Development" or "History" section is considered essential for any VG article. I don't feel experienced enough a GA reviewer to fail this nom for that but I suggest you consider withdrawing the nom and focusing on other articles or at least starting a discussion at WT:VG whether articles without development information can be GAs in general. Regards SoWhy 12:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

OK I guess I agree. I think that when no development info available, some background information should cover it, but I didn't bother to do that here. Maybe like "Sonic is a series developed by Sega. This is one of his first isometric games, previous games were 2D etc. etc." I will renominate if I can find a couple sentences to add. TarkusAB^talk 14:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

• The Russian version of the article has a bit of information that could be used for development (some of it is sourced to unreliable sources but can probably be sourced elsewhere). If all else fails, I've seen some GAs (particularly some about old Rare games like Lunar Jetman) use a "Background" section instead of development. JOEBRO64 21:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

You know what's funny @EthanRossie2000:, you're right.

Your continuous silly edit warring prompted me to look into it, and they did not develop as many games as I thought. I believed they were more influential because by chance I had researched a couple of the games they developed, and concluded there must have been many others out there. I did a quick search and their list of works is surprisingly short. Oh! Silly me! I removed the red link unless someone can find an appropriate redirect.

Instead of warring with empty summaries, claiming its not notable without any evidence, or claiming its ugly, you could have brought this information to me on the talk page months ago, and I would have agreed with you. Jesus H. Christ. TarkusAB^talk 14:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

@TarkusAB: there's no need to be so uptight about it, you could've rather looked into the matter yourself instead of just adding a red link and allowing it to stay there for months on end. Seems like I upset you though, sorry about that. EthanRossie2000 ^discuss 14:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

@EthanRossie2000: I apologize, all I ask is that when you have conflicts in the future, take the discussion to the talk page instead of edit warring which wastes everyone's time. The burden to start the discussion and share proof was on you, not me, as you were the one that wanted change. TarkusAB^talk 14:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply