Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nintendo DS Rumble Pak Support games


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Nintendo DS games (that is the sub-articles of it).

Let me explain this a bit further: Consensus is to merge the information somewhere, disagreement was just about the where to. There are already three lists (see List of Nintendo DS games) used for DS games.

One option was to merge the information into those lists, making a new coloum for "Rumble Pak" enabled. The other was to use Category:Nintendo DS games with Rumble Pak Support (or similar) to categorize them. There was no clear consensus here which of those merge options to prefer, but the options are not mutually exclusive, so the information can be merged into the lists and the games can (and maybe should) be sorted into such a category.

So I think closing this as merge to the list-articles does not run counter the !votes by those who !voted to merge it into a category but supplements it (as a categorisation is still an option even when the content is merged to the lists). Regards  So Why  11:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

List of Nintendo DS Rumble Pak Support games

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

It's just a random list, and it so happens to be the only list of rumble-supported video games. Why should we make a list for this one feature? What about "List of Nintendo DS games that use the second slot" or "List of Wii games that uses the Classic Controller"? A Link to the Past (talk) 22:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Merge the authors of this article are welcome to add this information to an existing article. For instance an asterisk after a list of games indicating those game titles support a rumble pak. But this topic is not encyclopedic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * So, you think it's a random list? It's a list of specific titles.  These titles are not finite.  We've seen several games released this year that support the Rumble Pak and more are coming (including Tomb Raider: Underworld next week).  I was alerted that the list was wiped by a few forum postings elsewhere, and I restored it and even began retouching it with corrections and a larger description.  It is needed.  DS owners trying to factor if purchasing a Rumble Pak is a feasible option will find this entry quite useful.  It also informs DS owners of features in various games that they are likely unaware of.  Just because you don't agree with these points nor the existance of the entry does not constitute deletion in the slightest.  Peacemaker75 (talk) 23:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You could just make a Yes/No checkbox on the exsisting List of Nintendo DS games, right?-- Koji †  23:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * CommentDid you read my comment? I suggested a way I thought this information could be included in the existing list articles. The problem is that this is an encyclopedia, not a gaming review magazine. Compare this to cars. Should there be an article listing two-wheel drive cars? This might be useful for people looking for two-wheel drive cars. And one on 4-wheel drive cars, for people interested in that. And one listing SUVs. And one listing cars between 15,000-and 20,000 dollars. And one listing convertibles. And one listing cars that come in navy blue. I'm not trying to blast you, so I apologize if it comes off that way, but I encourage you to think about how to include the information you want included in a way that's encyclopedic. Why not consolidate it with the existing articles. That would be cool because then people looking through the lists of Nintendo games would have this information. You may not be able to get an article on this particular list, but maybe you can include the same information in an existing article. I also suggest finding newspaper and magazine articles discussing this topic and including some of that information as well. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or possibly merge to the lists of Nintendo DS games. The concept of such a list I believe is notable. I can see why it would've been taken out of the lists if it was originally in the list, but I will not go into that here. I don't think adding what would be equivalent to a waffer-thin mint to the lists would make them explode. MuZemike  ( talk ) 01:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with the idea that this is so much more notable than any other rumble support list or accessory support list. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and as such, should not have this list. It's of limited interest and limited use, and only serves to create more and more lists. And as for merging, that's another floodgate I do not want open - people adding more and more to the list. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel it is a good thing to have collected 'knowledge' on subjects - however large or small - easily accessible and accurate. Is that not one of the goals of the Wikipedia project? You've authored a couple lists of games yourself. "It's just Metroid. Merge it into the list of popular platforming games." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.137.143.234 (talk) 04:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)  — 74.137.143.234 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * No. Wikipedia is specifically NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Finding a list of games I created is not an apt comparison. There's tons of precedence to have lists of games by series, but far less for list of games by accessory support. If List of Nintendo DS Rumble Pak Support games is appropriate, then I suggest lists be made for games that support the DSi's camera, the Nunchuk, the Classic Controller, the GameCube Microphone controller, the Wii Wheel, the Wii Zapper, the Wii Balance Board, etc. It creates a bad precedence, and unless there can be an argument why the Rumble Pak Support games article is a better idea than those, I don't see why it should remain an article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, all of those lists you just proposed would have even less content than this list does. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Seriously? Less games use the Nunchuk than the DS Rumble Pak, a fairly unsuccessful device that Nintendo rarely supports anymore? I'm still lost as to why this one accessory is more important than every other accessory. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is this one accessory any less important then every other accessory? Devils advocate arguments aside, I imagine that there are a fair amount more games that use the DS Rumble Pak than the, Zapper, Balance Boar, Microphone, camera and wheel. I would argue that the Nunchuk isn't at accessory, as it's part of the damn controller (Wiimote) and that the Classic Controller obviously would have the most detailed list, as it encompasses a large handful of new games plus the entire Virtual Console line. If you feel that strongly about it, go make the lists. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 01:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not, it's equally unimportant - this is why we don't have other lists based on which games use which accessories. And the Nunchuk is not part of the controller, it's an optional add-on. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the existence or nonexistence of a different list has no baring on THIS discussion. Secondly, if the Nunchuk was optional, it wouldn't come with the Wiimote nor would be required in well over half the Wiis retail games. You can't claim something as optional when it has that level of utility. Thirdly, this entire talk of lists is irrelevant given that the information can easily be added to an already existing list. -- 67.181.120.29 (talk) 05:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC) — 67.181.120.29 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Yes, it does. We don't have lists of items in games for the same reason - if this were a list of Mario power-ups, it would get AfDed, and the lack of other sustainable item articles would be a strong rationale to delete. And the Nunchuk does not come with the Wii Remote, it came with the Wii. I can think of many games that don't use require it - Brawl, Mario Kart Wii, Wii Fit, Wii Sports, Wii Play, Pokémon Battle Revolution, Super Paper Mario, Guitar Hero III, Guitar Hero: World Tour, Rock Band, Rock Band 2, Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: My Life as a King, Dr. Mario Online RX, etc. Many games do not require the Wii Remote - it is not a built-in aspect of the controller, and has been referred to as an attachment. And stuff like this is exactly what shouldn't be on lists - it's a mechanic of the game, which is no more important than many other mechanics. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comparing in-universe data to tangible objects seems like kind of a stretch to me. I'd also like to point out that while your example of games not needing the Nunchuk is nice, 'most' =/= 'majority'. Additionally, the basic mechanic of a game does strike me as something a information seeking person might like to know. This is getting us no where. Can you site me a policy that strictly no-nos a merge (or a keep for that matter)? -- Jelly Soup (talk) 09:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In-universe data can be far more notable than the DS Rumble Pak, and in the case of Mario items, probably is. And I pretty much proved how often the Nunchuk is not required, meaning there's no basis to say that it's a "part of the controller". And it's NOT a basic mechanic of one single game - it's a totally optional accessory included in only two games, and available only online now. You far overstate the importance of rumble for the DS, and including it over far more important information such as whether it is multiplayer on the list of DS games is absurd. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I would think that if Mario items were more notable than the DS Rumble Pak, the article would exist. The fact that it doesn't ends this line of thought. Yes, you proved how often the Nunchuk is not required. I proved how often it is. We are straying away from the topic. I'm not trying to claim that DS Rumble is some kind of incredibly important function of gaming. I'm claiming that it's at least important enough to add an extra column onto the table on the games list.
 * And it would seem I was right. The list already exists here. Changing vote accordingly. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You're missing my point entirely - your point would be good only if this list were notable. The point is that list of Mario items is not notable AND more notable than the rumble pak list. And it is not important enough to be the one single gameplay feature to be mentioned on the list. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I get your point completely. I just disagree with you. That's how opinions work. You have your delete vote, so this discussion is now moot. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete List in question already exists here and there isn't enough information to constitute an independent list. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge per above. 'Nuff said. -Koryu Obihiro (talk) 20:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is it 'Nuff said? I think that people who want this information merged or kept should have to, at the very least, explain why this information is more important than other, similar lists. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Surely this information should be on the games pages.Nintendofootball (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into category: As Jelly Soup said, the information is already here, I recommend the article be deleted and create a category for those articles on the list. – Jerry  teps  23:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Make into category. There's little or nothing that this list adds which a self-maintaining category could not. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.