Talk:Naruto: Ninja Council 2

Dose anybody know when this game was released? --SwordKirby537 19:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I got it. --SwordKirby537 22:20, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Inclusion of scrolls, chapters, and jutsus
To the IP who refuses to use the talk page like I suggested instead of edit warring, cut the crap. We don't need all this unnecessary information. Wikipedia is not a game guide for attacks, missions, unlockables, bosses, etc. In my opinion, video game articles should include: playable characters (along with a list of voice actors if possible), synopsis, features, gameplay (which would include things like game modes and such), and reception. Of course, some articles may include more or less than what I just showed you, but that depends on the game you're writing about. Now, let's hear your argument. // Decaimiento Poético  14:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Firstly I would like to apologise for not making the talk in the first place. I've been bombarded with school projects and quizes in the last week, so I didn't have enough time to argue. You are absolutely right - Wikipedia is not a game guide. But you have to understand that it is more than just an Encyclopedia. Let me explain. Firstly, do you agree with me that you wouldn't see a video game in a regular Encyclopedia? Probably not, especially a more unheard of one such as Naruto: Ninja Council 2. Wikipedia gives people a chance to let them read upon things they wouldn't regularly see in an average Encyclopedia. Also, like a regular Encyclopedia, people would prefer to read a document with more information than one with very little. If someone has intentions to buy this game, they would want to know about it and see what kind features it contains. So, if that person just comes to Wikipedia and sees very little information, that person wouldn't be too pleased. Wikipedia gives the public a chance to put as much information as possible and lets them find any information they need without having to spend hours researching on the net. If someone wants to know what the scrolls in this game are, then he could simply check Wikipedia. If he wants the chapter descriptions- Wikipedia. You may not realise this, but Wikipedia has made researching easier for everybody and our goal is to make it as simple as possible. Deleting info only makes it harder for people to understand the game. Just because I put a little gameguide material in the game doesn't mean I'm trying to turn Wikipedia into a game guide, just trying to put enough info as possibe. Well, that's my argument. Gotta get back to studying now. I hope you don't continue to delete my info cause I'll just put it right back.
 * P.S. Sorry if I made any gramatical mistakes, I'm in a hurry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.83.177.152 (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Ah, the old "Wikipedia is more than just your average encyclopedia" talk. Yes, I certainly agree that a regular encyclopedia would not contain information about a video game such as this, and people would most likely want as much info as possible from one site instead of jumping from site to site. But we should add important, notable, informative information. Take a look at Dragon Ball Z: Budokai Tenkaichi 2, for example. It contains information about gameplay, a list of playable characters (along with the voice cast), and reception. No where does it have a list of attacks, levels (missions, not arenas), or unlockables. More examples would be Halo 2, Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, and Gran Turismo 4. I could go on forever, but I think I've made my point. // Decaimiento Poético  16:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh well then. Lets see how long you can keep this up. My version is alot more informative than yours. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.83.177.152 (talk • contribs).
 * Try "fucked up." It looks terrible. If you're gonna readd it for no reason, at least make it look presentable. // Decaimiento Poético  20:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

God, this is so immature. If you think this is pointless info, good for you. Personally, I think it is entertaining to read. If some viewers think it is pointless as well, they won't read it. I had some friends over the other day and they thought the info should stay. I just spent half an hour asking people (on msn) if they think it's pointless, and they didn't. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.83.177.152 (talk • contribs).
 * I don't care about what your friends think or what people on MSN think. Ask people on Wikipedia. If you can get some users to voice their opinions on here, maybe you'll curve mine. Also, sign your posts by typing ~ . // Decaimiento Poético  22:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You can at least leave the "pointless" info for now while I get people. How are people supposed to tell if the info is pointless or not if they can't even read it? Give me around 2 weeks. Yes I know thats an exageration but i got lots of school work and if you were a good editor you would give me the time. ~.

Well if you don't have the time to turn it into something coherent, then it does not need to go into the article for the moment, when you have the time, a) come back, b) write something that makes sense to those who expect to find a general reader's encyclopedia and c) suggest it on the talkpage for other editors to comment and agree. I'm not sure what the reference to "While I get people" is suppose to be. It does not really matter how many people you get, wikipedia has policies on both content and style and what you are trying to add does not meet either of those criteria. by the way - the nowiki tags are to show you what a signature code looks like - leave them out the next time you try to create a signature. --Fredrick day 23:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)