Talk:Maniac Mansion

Mark Dery image inclusion
Since this has been the second time the removal of the Mark Dery image has been reverted, I figure we should start some discussion as to whether or not it should be kept, given undue weight versus what other issues are present. Keep in mind that I originally inserted the image back in February basically so that we could have another image in there and that it is a free image. I mean, if consensus is to remove it, that's fine; I won't lose much sleep over it. –MuZemike 16:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I share the sentiment, but would like a better reason to remove than the ones previously provided. The undue weight reason had some merit. However, I don't think it's much of an issue given the breadth of positive information in the article.
 * Any other comments from those that disagree with the images inclusion? (Guyinblack25 talk 17:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC))
 * I think that the image is overdoing it. I'm all for free images, but I feel this one breaches the limits of usability and exemplification. The comment Dery made about the game seems appropriate for this section, but far too trivial to include a picture of him in the article (not to mention among all the other reviewers, whose comments were more profound and extensive). The image does not help explain the prose, and the carbon copy caption only makes it seem less necessary. All other images have whole paragraphs backing up their helpfulness, this one's just random. It's like having a photograph of LucasArts' cleaning lady in the development section. Prime Blue (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's a free image, CC-BY-SA licensed. –MuZemike 20:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok. That's a much clearer rationale for undue weight. Based on that and the previous removals, I removed the image.. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC))

FAC consideration?
Given that the A-Class assessment has pretty much stalled, and assuming that we haven't missed anything as far as coverage is concerned (and some copyediting obviously), should we just go ahead and make a run for WP:FAC? –MuZemike 18:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll defer to others on that one. I don't have much time to help out at an FAC. I'll do what I can though. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC))

A couple of loose ends before I send it to FAC, both in the "Development" section:
 * Dave and Wendy were based on Gilbert and a fellow employee name Wendy, respectively. → How was "Dave" based on Ron Gilbert, unless it referred to someone else?
 * Three to four characters which has a which tag there.

I think after those two things are fixed, it should be ready to go. –MuZemike 01:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The statement about Dave based on Gilbert came directly from Gilbert during one of his postmortem speeches.
 * Jinnai added the which tag to that statement. It's a tough question to answer because the source material didn't state which characters were dropped. Gilbert described the character development as very generic at first, and said the characters slowly emerged as development progressed. Perhaps they planned to have more, but never had anything concrete. At this point I'm so far removed from the article I don't think I care whether the statement stays or goes. You can remove it if you think it's for the best. (Guyinblack25 talk 03:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC))
 * I changed it to "several", which should work better, as it's less exact, given the context. –MuZemike 05:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to bring it up for an FAC, that's fine. I don't think I can give it a seal for A-class because the lack of attention to fan-made games is imo violating WP:UNDUE as there is more than enough press coverage to make them notable (not that they need a separate article). There's also more modern reviews, and I know the Eurogamer review was added, but that still gives undue weight for a game that's had staying power to initial reviews when it should if anything be balanced or weighted for more contemporary ones. There's also the way the TV series is handled which goes against common conventions and no good reason was given why it should be that way.
 * The rest though while I'd disagree, are more minor stuff.
 * If you decide to go for an FAC, this page defiantly needs to be run over by a copyeditor. Good luck. 陣 内 Jinnai 16:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you may be right of sorts. I just located a lot more sources below, which should expand the article even more than it currently is. I know the critical thing as far as FAC is concerned is comprehensiveness, which is what we need to have. –MuZemike 00:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My main concern is content bloat. There are already a 9 sources cited in the reception section that are dated between 1993-2010. Admittedly they are NES heavy, but the Amiga and original C64 versions are among them. Having read through almost every source used in the article and more that are not, I don't think any new content would be gained by focusing on other contemporary reviews. Also, the game's staying power is further (and better in my opinion) outlined in the impact/legacy section. The information is already there, it's just organized in a way that focuses less on contemporary opinions. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC))
 * Very rarely is there ever such a thing as "too much reception", but the oppoiste is true in an FAC, especially if it could violate WP:UNDUE.
 * If anything, more sources help show that the series has enough notability to go above and beyond what the GNG requires. Furthermore, contemporary reviews have completely different types of perspective and that is placing UNDUE weight on an initial release of a game that has been reviewed and updated throughout the years. It'd be one thing if MM was forgotten over the years, but it hasn't been. 陣 内 Jinnai 21:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Too much reception would violate WP:UNDUE just as too little would. Regardless, I think we have a sufficient amount. I also think we've already gone well beyond the what GNG requires, and there is no policy that requires us to do anything more.
 * In regard to a contemporary perspective, the impact and legacy section goes into that as well as the contemporary reviews in the reception section. I'm sorry, but I think more reviews here will tilt the article in a negative direction. (Guyinblack25 talk 13:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC))

Another consideration (note, I'm not trying to ignore your suggestion, Guyinblack25) is that we could reorganize the reviews by console instead of entirely chronological. When I worked on the Wonder Boy in Monster Land article, I found that each console version had their own common set of pros and cons (i.e. the ZX Spectrum version was generally received well, while the Amiga version was received rather poorly). I would guess that the same would apply here. Structurally, this may also be more manageable, as we can dedicate one paragraph per console (or more if we find that certain paragraphs may become too large, as I had to use two paragraphs to cover the Amiga version of Wonder Boy in Monster Land). However, I think the last two paragraphs (Nintendo Power reviews and the contemporary reviews) should stay separate and probably right where they are, to provide some continuity in the section (i.e. going from 1990s reviews to 2000s reviews). –MuZemike 20:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You read my mind about reorganizing the section. I was reading through the reception section yesterday for prep. I planned to focus on grouping similar comment topics about the original together and then group the ports all together, but I believe we're thinking along the same lines. I'm not sure when I'll get to it this week, so please feel free to give it go. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC))
 * I just started to do that with the non-Nintendo Power NES reviews (see ). Here's a translation of the German Video Games source if anyone is interested (not 100%, but it's close enough), which I posted to pastebin: . –MuZemike 22:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Amiga paragraph is now separated and filled out with the relevant reviews in the below section. Here are the translations of the Amiga Joker and Datormagazin articles here and here, respectively. –MuZemike 23:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

A boatload more sources found
I did some more searching (re, Jinnai's concerns) the last couple of days, and here's what I came up with that we can possibly expand on:

Other reviews that were missed:
 * Various magazine scans listed here
 * (NES)
 * (NES) (this one will need to be translated into English in order to be usable)
 * (Amiga)
 * (PC) (scans  and, probably shouldn't be linked in the article as I don't think the site got permission to post them, but they're there)
 * (Amiga)
 * (Commodore 64)
 * (Amiga) (rating only, Amiga Magazine Rack)
 * (Amiga) (rating only, Amiga Magazine Rack)
 * (Amiga) (rating only, Amiga Magazine Rack)
 * (Atari ST) (rating only, Amiga Magazine Rack)
 * (Amiga) (review)
 * (Amiga) (rating only, Amiga Magazine Rack)
 * (Commodore 64) (rating only, Amiga Magazine Rack)

More contemporary reviews not covered in the article:
 * (Atari ST) (German video game reviewing website, this is their editorial staff here, if people wish to question the reliability of the site; I think it passes as an RS)
 * (All consoles) (unsure of reliability, though, but I thought it's been used before)
 * (All consoles) (again, on the fence with regards to reliability, looks like it's similarly structured to the German site I mentioned above)

For the TV series:

For remakes on the game (tried to limit to reliable sources here):
 * Official website of the German remake Night of the Meteor:

There is also some interesting stuff I got from doing a Google Scholar search here, which I have yet to sort out. –MuZemike 23:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the extra sources. I'll try to look at them as soon as I can.
 * Though I stayed away from the foreign language reviews because I was under the impression that the language of the game's country of origin is the primary focus. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC))

Just one journal that can be used here, from the Google Scholar link I found above:



There is also that reference to the book Gender inclusive game design: Expanding the market, which would be great as far as additional critical analysis of gender roles are concerned, but I cannot access the material online. I think most of the other ones are either not authoritative enough or are in fact more usable as references in the SCUMM article than this one. –MuZemike 16:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The fan remakes' websites are RSes for the fan reamkes themselves and likely should be used at somepoint to fill in details if secondary sources cannot suffice. 陣 内 Jinnai 21:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll also note that, since Template:Video game reviews only takes at most 7 ratings from non-conventional sources, there won't be much use to include those sources in which we only know ratings (i.e. no reviews), as IMO readers aren't interested in reading a whole bunch of prose consisting of "Such-and-such gave a rating of x% (unless you want to create a homemade table like I did with the ratings table in the Wonder Boy in Monster Land article. –MuZemike 22:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Another one:



–MuZemike 08:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The information is more-or-less already in the article. It summarizes the GDC talk he gave at the beginning of the year. (Guyinblack25 talk 00:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC))

Redirect Chuck the Plant here
Just wanted to get some input- should Chuck the Plant be redirected here. The element originated here and I found very little in reliable sources about the topic. Thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 16:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC))


 * I think merging into LucasArts adventure games would be a better place for the future. I always wanted to add a nice common elements (design/sound/technology/writing etc) sort of section to that, where something like this would be at home. But since such a section doesn't exist (and probably wont come anytime soon from my hand at least), here's as good a place as any. I certainly don't think it can stand as its own article. -- Sabre (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Do we even have anything remotely reliable to verify anything there? I see a 404, a fansite, and one from Gilbert's own website; though the latter is good as a primary source, is there anything else that is substantive enough and is secondary to warrant its own article? Otherwise, I would think a straight redirect would suffice. –MuZemike 23:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The only sources I came across are the two currently used in the article and Gilbert's website. The two third-party sources only briefly mention Chuck the Plant. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC))

So it looks like we have a rough consensus to merge or redirect, pending nobody who opposes it. Is there anything there that we can salvage and add into the Maniac Mansion article? –MuZemike 23:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph of the "Meaning" section, which is supported by a comment by Gilbert where he confirms an older version of the Wikipedia content.
 * Everything else I could find in reliable sources is already in this article. (Guyinblack25 talk 03:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC))
 * OK, merge completed; I added that paragraph to the end of its mention in the "Impact and legacy" section and broke off the German remake into a separate paragraph. –MuZemike 01:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

As of September 2015, the link Chuck the Plant redirects to this article's section Impact and Legacy however there is not a single reference to Chuck the Plant in that section nor in the whole article. If any references to Chuck the Plant have been removed since 2011 as non-documentable or trivial, then perhaps the redirect should be deleted altogether. LamerGamer (talk) 10:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I redirected it to LucasArts adventure games, which does mention it briefly.--IDVtalk 11:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

FAC consideration part 2
OK, I think I have added pretty much everything RS-wise that I could to the article on my end. User:Clarityfiend was happy enough to do a 2nd run-through on copyediting (especially the Reception section, which was rearranged and expanded). I've done an image check today, and everything seems in order. Pending any other minor issues, are we just about ready to make a run for FAC here? –MuZemike 22:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to give the article a good read before hand, and I'd like to condense/summarize the reception section. The article is in really good shape, but I'll let you know if I find anything of concern. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC))
 * Let's hold on that for just a big longer coverage-wise, per below. –MuZemike 02:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Per a conversation on my talk page, I have requested one more copyedit from WP:GOCE before sending it to FAC. –MuZemike 19:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, nobody has stepped forward yet. Do you think we should try and make a run now and see what happens, and if something is missing, we know we already have in a request for one? –MuZemike 03:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess we could. Do you think it's a good idea to put it up so close to the holidays? (Guyinblack25 talk 14:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC))
 * I asked at WT:FAC, and they seem not to care much if we nominate now. –MuZemike 16:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright. Let's go for it then. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC))
 * You should remove the copyedit request per their page instructions, "If the article is to be a Good Article nomination or a Featured Article candidate, please try to have the copy editing done before the process starts, not after the nomination." (bolding is not my emphasis). ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  19:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Retro Gamer
The game is featured (as well as on the cover) of the current issue of Retro Gamer (see ). Hopefully I can get stuff on there from that issue sometime this week. –MuZemike 02:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That will have to wait for another full week, I'm afraid. –MuZemike 07:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries. I'm still looking at the Reception section. I believe it can be further condensed. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC))

Alternate images of Crockford
I'm not terribly fond of the image that we're currently using on Doug Crockford. I found a couple other alternate CC-BY-SA images of Crockford on Flickr:


 * http://www.flickr.com/photos/lamenta3/4424221258/
 * http://www.flickr.com/photos/theironlion/5170082941/

In those two pictures, to say the least, he is dressed more conservatively and does not seem as much of an eyesore to readers than the current image. Moreover, they're both a little more recent than the current one. Any thoughts on which one to use (or keep the current one)? --MuZemike 22:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Gilbert on making Maniac Mansion - presentation
Just found this presentation (courtesy of Mixnmojo's reporting) at the Game Forum Germany in January. As 45 minute presentation by Gilbert, its quite indepth and covers a fair few aspects that might come in useful in expanding the development and impact sections. To get to it, select "2011" in the player, then find Gilbert's entry. -- Sabre (talk) 17:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sweet. I read about it on his blog, but didn't think it'd get posted online. I'll try to watch it this week. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC))
 * Wow. What. A. Goldmine. Can we use this as a reference somehow? It really expands on and clarifies some points we have in the article. -- Nczempin (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I asked them if they can provide a more direct link. I'll let you know when I get an answer. -- Nczempin (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I found a person who will deal with it, but everybody is really busy with either CeBit or GDC. -- Nczempin (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool. I'll try to add content today or tomorrow with the current link and we can update the url later. Thanks. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC))
 * I'm a little bit uncomfortable using such an ephemeral reference; linkrot hits videos—particularly Flash videos—harder and faster than any other kind of online material. I wish there was a way to back this up. Anyway, good job on the expansion, GiB. It looks great. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, I just found this. That GDC talk finally happened, apparently. Should be useful. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The summary looks very similar to the speech Gilbert gave at the Game Forum. Maybe when the GDC posts the video, it'll have a more direct link and be similar enough to switch the two out. We'll see. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC))
 * http://www.nordmedia.de/mediaserver/GFG/videos/2011/Gilbert_DSL2.mp4 Note that I haven't downloaded this myself, I was merely given the link by the nordmedia people. Let's hope that some sources with text pick up on either this or the GDC version. -- Nczempin (talk) 12:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoa that's a big file. Should we link directly to it? (Guyinblack25 talk 14:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC))
 * Aye, link it directly in the reference in place of the other one, that'll be far more pernament than the other link. It'll change the reference icon automatically so people will know its a download of a video file. -- Sabre (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Updated. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC))
 * Is this the video you guys were talking about? Because the "far more permanent" link is dead ;) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNpjGvJwyL8 --Mudd1 (talk) 08:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Night of the Meteor
Maniac Mansion remake with arts style of DOTT. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z86pGuwnNcE --Coin945 (talk) 08:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's a fangame. It can be mentioned in the article if it's given coverage in reliable sources independent of it.--IDVtalk 11:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Source
I found what appears to be Crockford's entire behind-the-scenes on Maniac Mansion, but published in Wired magazine instead of on his personal site. Definitely a better source, if anyone is ever inclined to check through it to make sure it matches 100% with the parts used in this article: https://web.archive.org/web/20001214144900/http://www.wired.com:80/wired/archive/1.04/nintendo.html. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Box censorship
There's no part of the article on the censorship of the box art. There's at least Ron Gilbert talking about it on a yt video, and this https://twitter.com/grumpygamer/status/909984277588148224 83.202.217.183 (talk) 07:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)