Talk:Chick Chick BOOM

Very well written, MrDrake. Penubag 07:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)penubag

Article combination.
'''The result was merge into Chick Chick Boom. -- Crimsonseiko 13:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)'''

'''This discussion has been moved to Talk:Chick Chick Boom. Please continue discussion there.''' -Crimsonseiko 20:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Unaware that two articles existed for the game, I did some major clean-up to the other article at Chick Chick Boom. Then I discovered this page. We need to combine the articles. Here are my suggestions.


 * First of all, this article needs clean-up; it isn't written in an encyclopedic style. It needs to be written more formally, not flowered up like a cute instruction manual or promotional ad. For example, no second-person "you." You're not talking to the reader. Reference "the player" instead.


 * There's also a lot of trivia but no sources to back them up, and that lowers the reliable of the article. (On that note, trivia needs to be incorporated into the article itself. Trivia sections are frowned upon.)


 * Also, can anyone confirm that the title is grammatically "Chick Chick BOOM" and not "Chick Chick Boom?" In every instance I've seen the title written, it is in all CAPS, so logically, it would be written "Chick Chick Boom." This is crucial in deciding which article is going to be deleted.

I'm going to clean this article up and combine it with my original information on the other article so that it may meet the quality standards, but in order to do so, I need help from you guys, mostly to cite the sources for a lot of their information (such as the programmers' names for the default chick names). Otherwise, that information is subject to deletion since it has no backing, and I'll remove it when I clean things up.


 * As a matter of fact... having given the article a closer examination, it doesn't seem like any of it is salvageable unless you can cite your sources for a large chunk of the information. A majority of the article is unnecessarily lengthy gameplay information that is covered much more concisely in the other article, and certain information like the specific level names, their features, and their rewards is not encyclopedic and doesn't warrant the kind of attention a table grants it. The only saving grace for this article are the bits of information such as production staff and other easter eggs, but since none of it is cited, it is too disputable to stay on the page. Again, unless anything can be cited, I suggest this article be purged and the other article be made primary. -Crimsonseiko 20:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm moving this discussion to Talk:Chick Chick Boom. -Crimsonseiko 20:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)