Template talk:Medal of Honor series

Infobox Games
Please stop removing Medal of Honor: Airborne and Medal of Honor: Vanguard from the template. There has been no hands on gameplay footage of Halo 3, yet it is still deisplayed on the Halo series template and the Bungie Studios template. There is no denying the games existance, as they all have an official website. I see no need to remove them from the template. Adding upcoming game articles is standard practise all accross wikipedia. I understand, that if the articles are useless and should be deleted, ie. Call of Duty 4, then adding them to a template is incorrect. However, if the games have been officially noted to exist, then they should be on the template. Please discuss the issue here, before reverting in future. Thanks. Stickeylabel 05:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not about footage, it's about impressions.


 * As for Halo 3, actually, it has been shown in playable form. Many times. There are numerous hands-on previews of Halo 3; the article even once had a section devoted to a weekly preview/playtest session Bungie was running with the game press.


 * Have there been any hands-on previews of Airborne or Vanguard? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, before you mention another template, bear in mind WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. All of the templates need to be cleaned up, but it's impossible to simultaneously clean them all up instantly. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I appologise about Halo 3, however that is amoung many others. I also understand WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, however I do not see any point in removing a game off a template that is less than a month from release. Is there a policy or guideline on wikipedia that explicitly states that "only games with hands-on previews can be added to a template, however games without hands-on previews are still encyclopedic"? How is it that Medal of Honor: Airborne and Medal of Honor: Vanguard are encyclopedic enough to remain on wikipedia without being deleted, yet are not permitted to remain on the template. Please bear in mind, that I am not trying to make a debate over nothing, as I genuinely do not see how this is a policy nor guideline. I hope to hear your response soon. Thanks. Stickeylabel 06:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I agree that Medal of Honor: Vanguard does not meet the criteria to be added to the template as it does not adequately cite its references or sources. However, I am in the process of cleaning up the article.Stickeylabel 06:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Video games/Navboxes. If it's a month away, though (Which game is a month away? Airborne?) I may have made a mistake on that count. I'm sure a game a month away has been shown in playable form.


 * Are we in agreement that Vanguard doesn't belong? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, wait. I think I'm backwards here.


 * It's not really about article quality, but availability of information. Airborne (which has no release date) is too far away for the article to be composed of anything but what EA has said the game will be like. Vanguard, on the other hand, is close enough for there to be hands-on commentary. (I'm assuming that hands-on previews for Vanguard exist, admittedly; I can't find any with a cursory search.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link to the guideline, I see your point. The current Vangaurd article is too much of a stub that has too much uncited information. However once the article is cleaned up, I think it should be added to the template. In regards to Airborne, although it does not have an exact release date, I believe it is noteworthy as it is the first game in the series to be produced for the next generation consoles in mind. The Airborne article does seem to miss out alot of key information, however I am sure that more information is available on the internet that has not yet been added. Summing up, I agree that both articles lack information that most games (that are included in templates) have, however with more cited information that I soon aim to add, I believe they both should then be added to the template. I hope to hear your response soon. Thanks. Stickeylabel 07:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way I have found a hands-on preview for Airborne here: .Stickeylabel 07:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have now restructured the Airborne article and have cited alot of the information. I have also added more content to the article. Stickeylabel 13:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)