Talk:Michael Owen's WLS 2000

Redirect to Michael Owen's WLS 2000
"Mia Hamm Soccer 64" is just a rebranding of the original game for the North American release (we know of at least four different names for this game), and as such only has a few sprites swapped and texts changed, but is the same game in its core. This single version of the game is not independently notable from MO's WLS 2000 (though I also doubt the game is notable in general). This version should be merged to the parent article, and it can be in great detail there, but not as seperate article. Also, the name "Michael Owen's WLS 2000" should be kept, as it is the title the game is referred to in the developer's (Silicon Dreams Studio) home, the United Kingdom. Lordtobi ( &#9993; ) 07:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There was a bit of content in the Mia Hamm Soccer 64 article specifically about that release that wasn't maintained in Michael Owen's WLS 2000. Any reason why? Hmlarson (talk) 18:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I hadn't yet begun moving the content over, as I was still working on the games table for Silicon Dreams Studio. Shortly after I finished that, I had to take off for a few hours, and was already reverted when I came back. Would you like to cooperate on a rewrite of the MO's WLS 2000 article, including content from this page? Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 18:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The Michael Owen's WLS 2000 article needs improved referencing and expansion to support what you've written here. I'd be open to potentially collaborating - but as it stands there is more referenced content in the Mia Hamm 64 article than Michael Owen's WLS 2000 and seems fine for a stand-alone article that links to Michael Owen's WLS 2000 until you have time to do the work. Hmlarson (talk) 19:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have expanded the MOWLS2000 article with preliminary info and a couple more sources (10 in total now), as well as four further sources on it's talk page as refideas. For two claims regarding rebranded releases, I couldn't find any sources and tagged them accordingly. Should we go for the redirect now? Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 20:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Seeing no further objection, and the issues having been addressed, I'm going bold on this. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 20:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Edits
Let's discuss. Also, the talk page from the Mia Hamm Soccer 64 article was not moved properly. Can you fix that? Hmlarson (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * With regard to your recent "technical revert", you stated in your edit summary "If you wish to discuss, WP:STATUSQUO before your initial edits." which specific part(s) of the essay are you alluding to? Hmlarson (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Per WP:STATUSQUO, edits should be reverted to the point where they had not been made to be then reverted yet (I partially back-worked some changes you made, e.g. the Equalizer source addition and such). The current format seems to look good, so I will instead continue the discussion down in the Equalizer section for relevant info. Unless you have any curcial other things that need to be discussed outside The Equaliter, of course. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 19:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Neko Entertainment
Neko Entertainment states they were the developer of the Mia Hamm Soccer 64 game. ref See also French wiki page. What was their role? Hmlarson (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I doubt that they had a major development role in the game, maybe they had a minor one? Neither their page not any RS outline how they were involved. The only I did find is this Destructoid article saying "[...] as Neko's Mia Hamm Soccer 64", though I believe that claim is also taken from the developer's own webpage statement, and should not be included. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 18:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Equalizer reference
In this diff, states Equalizer Soccer is not listed as a reliable source at the WP:VG/RS. Why would it be listed at the Video Games project? It's a reliable source about women's soccer. ref See also the Women's football/soccer task force list of resources here. Hmlarson (talk) 18:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noting the inclusion at your WikiProject, I will go through the article to see if it accurately covers the game in a video game-focused manor, we cannot always expect professional VG cover from a non-VG source, my WikiProject is careful about that (at least on high-traffic pages). Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 19:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * After deeper analysis, apart from some unprofessional bits in terms of writing style, I found no harsh reason not to include it, will include the commentator part with this source, though I think specific gameplay elements should still be taken from the IGN sources seen on this page (and the transferred to the main article, of course) . Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 19:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Only sports game with all-female cast
Is that true ? ref Hmlarson (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, then isn't FIFA 16 being the first non-male-only game also false? Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 19:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * What? Hmlarson (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You added a sentence that FIFA 16 was "the second game to include women football (soccer) players", but if the game you cite here was published in 2009, it was not the second-ever. Since we cannot tell how many such minor games were published in-between, it just shouldn't be included and has since been removed. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 19:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Your point is not very clear again, but thanks for removing the revised sentence to your original addition.
 * Further, I find your constant removal of my referenced additions to the article and your limited discussion here very unproductive. Please stop per the WP:OWN policy. Hmlarson (talk) 19:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The point should actually be clear now: You (not me, unlike you stated just now) added a sentence saying that no game between FIFA 16 and Mia Hamm Soccer 64 had female athletes, but the game you linked here was released in 2009, six years earlier than FIFA 16; proving the inserted statement false (which had originally been rephrased by me but now removed). Furthermore, you should check wether a detail is relevant to a page or not, and if the sources are reliable, being a long-term WP VG member, I can tell what is not reliable (generic overview pages found on MobyGames, GameFAQs, Matecritic, GameRankings, IGN, GameSpot, and so on [though actual articles on IGN and GameSpot as well as rating scores on Metacritic and GameRankings still are valid]). Plus, the fact that a specific league (in this case the WUSA) was founded in relation to another league which is featured in this game does not make the WUSA realted or important to this article, only to the U.S. Women's League article (which apparently doesn't exist), and as such doesn't belong here, regardless if it is sourcable/sourced or not. WP:OWN would specifically mean that I claim ownership of the article and keep everything unchanged by force; keeping something clean to meat article standards is not claiming ownership. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 20:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Lordtobi, thank you for clarifying. I could dig through the edit history to get to the start of this + rebut - but that would be unproductive. Hmlarson (talk) 20:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it would be best to just go ahead from here, and leave the past behind us. { WikiProjects colliding can be a difficult task (and a conflict on interest either way), but I believe that we can make this work! Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 20:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Actions (and edit histories) speak louder than words. Hmlarson (talk) 20:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Uh-huh. With "past" I tried to allude to our differing opinions colliding instead of combining (they should do the latter), and work cooperatively on the article. I already stated my intents on keeping this article clean for (video game) article standards, there has been no harm done by either party, even if your message makes it appear so. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 20:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect Release Date.
The European date for this game is wrong. I've updated it a few times, providing a source to the magazine the information is from (N64 Magazine Issue 33, Page 52, a review of the game from September 1999) stating that the release date for the game is 24th September 1999, yet people keep reverting it back to the incorrect, unverified date of 10 November 2000. The 10 November 2000 date even contradicts the text of the article, which states the game was reskinned after being released in the United Kingdom, so why is this being treated as more correct than an actual source? DJcube1701 (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the confusion; I didn't see the page number and the link was quite questionable. I restored the information with a better link. Regards, IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 13:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)