Template:Did you know nominations/M.U.L.E. Returns


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by 97198 (talk) 04:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

M.U.L.E. Returns

 * ... that M.U.L.E. Returns, a licensed remake of the 1983 strategy game M.U.L.E., was shown at the 2013 World of Commodore in Toronto?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Edmond Debeaumarché

Created by Psychonaut (talk). Self nominated at 13:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC).

Regarding whether or not to have this material in the main M.U.L.E. article, I had noticed that the game was briefly covered there and worked on expanding the section, but after finding several full-length reviews of the remake I figured it was notable enough to split off into a new article. The M.U.L.E. Returns developers recently announced that they've acquired desktop rights, so I expect that the article can be further expanded once this is released. Besides this, there is at least one other M.U.L.E. remake, Planet M.U.L.E., which has attracted enough coverage to merit a dedicated article, and which I'll probably get around to writing soon. IMHO cramming full coverage of both remakes into the M.U.L.E. article would make it too long and unfocused. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg New (26th), long enough, neutral, no copyvio found via spot check, QPQ done. There's one sentence missing a ref, and several things in the infobox aren't cited either in the infobox or in the prose. As for the debut, the link for WoC 2013 doesn't say it was the debut. Perhaps rephrase that part in the prose and pick another hook? Also not sure how much more is written on this topic, but if there isn't much, this might fit better as a section on the original release's article. Food for thought. Please ping me if I don't respond. czar ⨹   03:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Thanks so much for the review and for cleaning up the article.  The missing reference has been added.  I tweaked the wording in the hook and article to make it clearer that the WoC introduction was not necessarily the very first public appearance of the game.  Regarding the infobox, basic credits for published works aren't normally referenced, as these are trivially verifiable, without any original research, simply by examining the cover/credits of the work itself.  (See our policies Original research and WP:ABOUTSELF.)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Hook checks out about 7:55 in the video (wish I didn't have to scrub for the timecode), and the second part of the hook was already discussed. Both self-published sources. The WoC 2013 source didn't mention it being a debut so I rephrased that part. As for the infobox, basic credits usually aren't cited if they're uncontroversial, but they're usually cited somewhere within the text (infobox references guideline). Stuff like the designer should be referenced though, if not in the prose. I'm not holding up for that, though. It was just a note. Similarly, the merge was just a suggestion, perhaps something to think about post-DYK. Still think the legacy and sequels are worth a small section and hatnote in the main article if they aren't worth the merge. Hook good to go czar ⨹   21:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)