Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of One Piece video games


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 20:53, 22 November 2008.

List of One Piece video games
-- Goodraise (talk) 10:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * First FLC ended with 0 Supports and 0 Opposes.
 * Second FLC ended with 3 Supports and 0 Opposes.


 * Support, per comments from last nomination. Why did it fail?Tintor2 (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I couldn't tell from the edit summaries. -- Goodraise (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - the reason this FLC failed before was because of the concern based on the tables, as it was suggested that it be discussed at WT:VG to make a new table that can be sorted and more properly organized, I supported the previous 2 FLC's, but this problem needs to be resolved.-- S R X  02:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - table issue is resolved from what I see below.-- S R X  01:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Support My issues were resolved from the previous FLC, and as long as the table issue is resolved, this list is ready for promotion. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments: The list looks like a good start and is close to FL status. Here are a few things that stood out to me.
 * Lead
 * The first sentence seems a bit miss leading to me; mainly because I associated "One Piece" to a manga/anime series. I would tweak it to say "The One Piece video games series is published by..."
 * Done. -- Goodraise (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Another minor tweak. Feels redundant and just sounds weird to me: " The g G ames of the One Piece series have been released..."
 * Done. -- Goodraise (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * List
 * I think I understand the comment about empty space now. However, I think this is a result of the content rather than the format. A sortable table won't use the space much better.
 * Are there any other interesting tidbits about the specific games? Did one introduce something new and different to the series? Does one have any interesting fact about its development?
 * I don't know. I didn't even play the games. Most of the games don't even have an article of their own. So there's no easy way of drawing information from. -- Goodraise (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I think the publisher and developer comments can be combined into one statement. This will give the sentences more length and reduce some of the empty space to the right.
 * Done. -- Goodraise (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If need be you can remove the   template to cut down on empty space too. Some editors don't like them, but I don't think they're a problem.
 * Removed most of them. I only added them in the first place to mirror the appearance of List of Castlevania titles. -- Goodraise (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is Battle Stadium not just a "Related game"? I remember it featuring characters and elements in a basic manner like the Jump Star games.
 * Hope these comments help. The list is looking good and I'll be happy to support once these issues are addressed. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC))
 * I don't know what you mean by "basic manner", but the "O." in "Battle Stadium D.O.N" stands for "One Piece", the "D." for "Dragon Ball", and the "N" for "Naruto". The playable characters and stages, like the title, are close to equally shared among the franchises. While Jump Ultimate Stars and Jump Super Stars feature characters from a wide variety of sources, like Super Smash Bros., Battle Stadium only draws from these three, more like X-Men vs. Street Fighter. However, that's just my subjective way of sorting the games and I wouldn't mind changing it, if this explaination is not convincing. -- Goodraise (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply, I didn't notice your question. I guess I've just always looked at the games (D.O.N. and Jump Stars) as the same type. Mainly because they are games focused on Shonen Jump characters with no real plot elements from any one series. The main difference I see is that DON focuses on just three series instead of 20+. I think a combining them into a single section titled "Other titles" would simplify things. I would also add details in the notes sections about what specifically relates them. Maybe number of characters, mention there are stages based on the anime, etc. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC))
 * Done. (Don't worry about replying late. I did not expect a reply until I was done with the other issues. At that point I would have left you a message. Unfortunately, my hands are a bit fuller right now, than they were during the first two FLCs. This list has been up here for so long now...) -- Goodraise (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Further comments:
 * Citations
 * I noticed there are a good number of references for some non-controversial content. I'd say two refs are perfectly fine and that some of the first party sources don't add anything extra to the list.
 * With the exception of reference [2] I used references I already had for everything they covered. That was in the early stages of that article. At that point I did not care about the visual appeal. Since then, as removing them is a lot easier than putting them back in, I left them where they are. Do you think I should remove excessive references? -- Goodraise (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I tweaked the placement of citations to cut down on some of the excess, specifically the publisher/developer info. I did about half of the article as an example.
 * Done. (With 2 exceptions related to 2nd next issue.) -- Goodraise (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I would argue that if a game was released on a single platform, then a citation isn't that necessary; the citation of the release date normally has that info anyway. But that's just me and it is not a deal breaker by any means.
 * Left it as is for the moment. As long as it's only one reviewer suggesting this, I'd rather not have to put it back later. -- Goodraise (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Content
 * For One Piece: Pirates' Carnival, I think the discrepancy between the two publishers (Bandai and Namco Bandai) is because the game was released in North American after March 31, 2006 when Namco and Bandai merged. I think this should be clarified in the notes and the lead. Something like, "Most of the games were originally published by Bandai. Following the merger of Namco and Bandai in March 2006, the series has been published under the Namco Bandai name."
 * Now, this is a bit tricky. I've carefully (maybe too carefully) tried not to do original research. Most of the games were released by Bandai Games, which was later renamed to Namco Bandai Games. The sources however don't refer to it under either name. They say Bandai (which still exists as a subsidiary of Namco Bandai Holdings) or Namco Bandai (which could mean either Namco Bandai Games or Namco Bandai Holdings). So instead of deciding which company a source is actually refering to, I only copied whatever name they used. - More generally speaking: In the opening sentence of the lead, I said the games were "published by subsidiaries of Namco Bandai Holdings". That way I don't have to use words such as "most", because all the companies: Bandai, Bandai Games, Namco Bandai Games, and even Banpresto fall into that category. I am not sure if the average reader of the list wants to be informed in such detail about the Namco Bandai Group's inner structure. But if it is desired, then I can elaborate, no problem. -- Goodraise (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Other than these small issues, I'd say the list has shaped up nicely. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC))
 * I think the extra refs amount to overkill and can be distracting. One Piece: Grand Battle! 3 for example. My eyes are drawn to the refs instead of the content.
 * Now that you mention it, I think explaining the merger is unnecessary and may confuse more than it informs.
 * Other than the refs issue, the list looks good. (Guyinblack25 talk 05:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC))
 * Fixed. I removed 30 citations from only 3 title entries. I suppose it was a bit much. -- Goodraise (talk) 06:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Support: The list has definitely improved and my main concerns have been addressed. Though I think the article still has some minor room for improvement here and there. But I still believe it meets criteria in its current form. Good job. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC))
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.