Talk:Tomba!

Evil pigs
Do you think the Evil Pigs section is really needed? I think it would be much more practical to just have a link to a walkthrough somewhere.Bullwinkleman

Cleanup
I made a major cleanup. Shud I put some more  wikilinks? You can! :P --JasonXV 04:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

problem in game
HOW TO SAVE GAME????

Save game
To save your game you must read a sign at the beginning of a location and press X.

Fair use rationale for Image:Tomba.jpg
Image:Tomba.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yan the Blonde?
Is it just me or does anyone else notice that Yan's hair in the game is actually blonde but in the pictures his hair is brown? Is it just that his hair is blonde in the european 1 or what?

Gameplay
I like how the Gameplay section stops making sense halfway through. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.143.141 (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

PSN as a platform
As already explained before, we don't add emulated services, such as PSN games and the Virtual Console, to the infobox, per the infobox documentation. The page is now protected for a week, hopefully in an effort to familiarize yourself with the standards Wikipedia has for video game articles. ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 15:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I've independently determined that Tomba!, Tomba! 2: The Evil Swine Return and Whoopee Camp do not have extensive enough development information or third-party coverage available for individual articles to be viable, and I propose that the three pages be merged into a single article devoted to the duology. Having constructed a potential combined form of the three articles for the past few days, I can safely say that the resulting page would be of sufficient size and quality for B-Class, at the very least. Cat&#39;s Tuxedo (talk) 04:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC) We've got three detailed, dedicated sources. Since when is that not enough for an article to have its own article, especially when you factor in the fact that there's plent of hard copy sources in existence, and shorter sources available online to help flesh out the article in the meantime. I don't know what's more disappointing - the lazy "eh let's just merge it" mentality or this half-assed 2 person, 5 day discussion that lead to it. Unbelievable. Sergecross73  msg me  03:19, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What would the page name be? And I don't think it's worth bothering with Whoopee Camp at all (besides a redirect), as it has nothing that the two game articles don't mention again. Other than that, I don't oppose the proposal. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 07:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I've thought about "Tomba! (series)", but I don't think two games counts that much as a series, so for the time being until something better comes along, I'm sticking to just "Tomba!". Cat&#39;s Tuxedo (talk) 07:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Would it be favored more towards the original game, or about 50% in favor of each? The first option seen more often on Wikipedia, while the second is rare, I can only name Shin Megami Tensei: Digital Devil Saga as an example of that. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's going to be the latter. Going by how the tentative page turned out, it doesn't seem like one is favored over the other. Cat&#39;s Tuxedo (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose here. Both Tomba 1 and 2 had plenty of separate, dedicated coverage. Merging is a lazy, sloppy choice. Sergecross73   msg me  23:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Were the original sources all up to par though? Looking at the original Tomba game pre-merger, it only used six references, and out of them, two were reviews, one was a GameRankings page, and the other was an IGN profile page. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have to question that logic as well; the Development and Reception information for both games is demonstrably summed up in three neat and thorough paragraphs each, and the combined article had just been rated B-Class, so "lazy" and "sloppy" are hardly the right words, not to mention insulting since I spent days putting the combined article together. Cat&#39;s Tuxedo (talk) 02:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There are 8 sources present in the review table alone. They were complete separate titles that received completely separate coverage. We don't just merge and redirect every article that has sourcing locked away in hard copy sources. Sergecross73   msg me  03:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * While I don't care either way, I do think the merger should have been held off for a bit until more discussion can be had. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 03:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) http://m.ign.com/articles/2000/01/19/tomba-2-2
 * 2) https://www.gamespot.com/reviews/tomba-2-review/1900-2546091/
 * 3) http://www.gamerevolution.com/review/39376-tomba-2-review
 * As far as PlayStation titles are concerned, only three reviews is pitiful for a Reception section. Considering the higher-quality articles out there, the combined page is lucky to even have eight sources for that part, since at least a handful have more, I'm sure. Also, when the combined development information on both titles can be summed up in three paragraphs, that's pretty clear proof that neither game could ever manage as much as B-Class on their own. And scouting the edit histories, I certainly couldn't find any noteworthy persons involved recently who'd possibly clamor for keeping two hopelessly meager pages separate. Cat&#39;s Tuxedo (talk) 03:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * While I don't think merging them in the Digital Devil Saga manner was ideal, especially as it was only me who commented before it was attempted, I don't see how more including reviews really help either article stand back on their own beyond the expanding their reception sections. Where's the sources that discuss the history of both the games and studio, as well as gameplay? As I don't deal with hard copy sources, I'm assuming this is where they can all be found? This should probably be discussed more at WT:VG. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 04:01, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Those are all some fine concerns for a GA nomination/review discussion. And there, they'd be valid. It's not a GA. But that doesn't matter here - being a GA isn't a requirement for a subject to have its own article. Don't get me wrong, I love to write up a bulky development section for an article. But that's absolutely not a requirement for an articles existence. And that's what we're here discussing. The standard for something having a stand-along article is enough sourcing to meet the WP:GNG, having independent notability, and being able to scrounge up some prose. We're easily doing all three of those here. Yes, it's fun to use the WP:1.0 system to motivate to improve articles, but it's not a valid reason to deconstruct a perfectly valid article. Sergecross73   msg me  04:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG only states that with enough coverage, a subject is presumed to be suitable for its own article, not required. Pedantry aside, having one concise, thorough article just a hair's length away from potential GA-status is far more preferable to having two mediocre articles that get by on the bare minimal justification for existence and have no chance of getting better on their own. Cat&#39;s Tuxedo (talk) 04:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, Id totally understand your stance if this article was, let's say, a two sentence, one source stub. Merge away. But there's much more than that here. Your GA navel gazing aside, the reader is not better serviced by the elimination of this entire article. Sergecross73   msg me  12:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The contents of the merged article are conveyed just fine within the context of the combined version, and readers are better off not having to needlessly navigate one extra page to get information on a minor cult duology. Cat&#39;s Tuxedo (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. There is enough present for two stand-alone articles. Stop merging until have a better consensus. Even Dissident, who was okay with merge, conceded your decision to merge already was too hasty. You need more input to proceed. Sergecross73   msg me  17:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ive requested more input from WP:VG. Sergecross73   msg me  17:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Merge Survey
Should Tomba 2 be merged into Tomba? Sergecross73  msg me  17:19, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Merger
 * 1) Per my comments above, Tomba 2 has three long, detailed, WP:VG/S approved sources, IGN, GameSpot, and Game Revolution) many shorter ones, and well over 8 when you factor in hard copy sources.
 * 2) The two games are wholly independent if each other, as is their coverage.
 * 3) Tomba 2 is not some sort of tiny stub where there's nothing to say. It's already a 16Kb article and would be easy to expand. (I plan on doing so, but I'm currently stuck on mobile, so it'll be a day or two.) Sergecross73   msg me  17:19, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose merger Gamerankings list a lot of reviews for the game. (10 in total). That should be much much more than enough to meet WP:GNG. I have no idea why you would merge two articles that are notable... Especially as they are two separate games (in the same series). The arguement for merging makes no sense if notable.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Three available online reviews is sub-par in terms of PlayStation titles, and neither game has substantial third-party coverage on development to maintain high-quality articles on their own (the first installment in particular). Also, as the only two works of a short-lived company, their combined contents are best suited as a single concise article on the duology as a whole. The fact that the combined article managed a B-Class rating and could very well contend for Good Article status is enough justification to uphold the merger. Quality takes precedent over quantity. And it bears repeating that WP:GNG only states that significant coverage presumes notability rather than guarantees it. Cat&#39;s Tuxedo (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * To clarify, each game has 3 indepth online sources readily available, 8-10 available each when you factor in off-line sources, and countless shorter sources available for smaller details. Having that level of sourcing for each game is more than enough for two separate articles. Sergecross73   msg me  20:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Offline sources are to be taken as WP:GOODFAITH, and not viewed as indiscriminately against online sources. It didn't matter if there was 10 offline sources, and no online sources, it is still enough to pass WP:GNG.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's likely not his doubt that they exist, but a doubt of having access to them. In some merge discussions, there's an argument of "There's sources but no one has access to them so lets merge until if/when someone gets access to them because there's not enough to create an article in the meantime." Which can be a valid argument, if there are literally no online sources available to source anything, and all five sources in existence are locked away in obscure 1980s print mags. But it's certainly not an appropriate approach when there are multiple, detailed, online sources readily available - which is what I was driving at in my comments. Additionally, no one bothered to ask WP:VG about print sources or to check the various websites that host old magazines these days. Cat Tuxedo just did the equivalent of asking"Should we merge?" into an empty hallway, was answered with a shrug, and went to work merging. Which is why I had so many criticisms of the laziness and sloppiness of how this was handled before I happened to notice what was done. Sergecross73   msg me  13:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That would only be true if no one could source an article... But an article IS already sourced... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs)
 * Precisely - it's a complete misapplication of the concept. Sergecross73   msg me  14:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Lack of sources/info is not a reason to merge. A reason to merge would be if the Tomba series is consistently discussed as a whole, which it is not. TarkusAB talk 20:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Both clearly meet the GNG. <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  21:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Plenty of RS coverage for both games. Phediuk (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Both independently notable and supported by reliable sources. I think merging content so that the "combined article managed a B-Class rating" is a misguided argument, since it was never the core principle behind merging. AdrianGamer (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per others. There is more than enough sources to meet the notability guidelines.  Nomader  ( talk ) 04:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Newly translated developer interview
http://shmuplations.com/tomba/  TarkusAB talk 17:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 17 April 2019
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover)  SITH   (talk)   16:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Tomba! → Tomba (game) – Per MOS:TM, stylization shouldn't be part of the title, and Tomba is a disambiguation page. nyuszika7h (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Inclined to oppose; not all punctuation is stylization. Cf. Oklahoma!, Them! (1954 film), Airplane!, etc. Dekimasu よ! 15:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Deki's rationale. Cat&#39;s Tuxedo (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:NATURALDIS ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 16:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Seems generally in use by RS and is preferable to (game). Nohomersryan (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose move per NATURALDIS, but I’d support that redirect being created at least, because I can see people expecting this. Sergecross73   msg me  18:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Hmm, consensus seems very opposed. But regardless I will note that the move must be Tomba (video game), not Tomba (game) per WP:NCVGDAB.  Lazz _R  19:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Delete eBay pricing in Sequel
I'll admit, I'm not a wiki'er, but something that dynamic as ebay price listing is kind of ridiculous in a "encyclopedia". Unless the price was monumental or news worthy of course, but 250 one day could be 60 another or 2000 even after. It just seems very topical.

AND upon further inspection of the sources, it's 250 AUD and from 2012. Looks like the submitter was User:Cat's Tuxedo. Any thoughts?
 * I removed it per your reasoning. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 19:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)