Template talk:Tekken series
Latest comment: 18 years ago by Michael Mad in topic Tekken 6
Sub-Bosses
I feel the current format and the selection of characters in the "Sub-Boss" section is a bit awkward. Many of those characters haven't been merely sub-bosses since as far back as Tekken 1. In addition, more recent sub-bosses, such as Orge and Devil Jin, are in the Boss section. Personally, I don't think the Sub-Boss section holds any purpose and the characters listed should be integrated back into the regular cast. King Zeal 16:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- The main reason I changed it was because it was all in any old order. As I said, Ganryu was in misc and Wang wa in main characters. It didn't make sense. As it is now, I have seperated them into 3 groups. Main characters (Paul, Kazuya, Marduk and the like), sub-boss (below main characters - Wang, Armor King etc) and boss characters (the cheesey bosses such as Ogre, Jinpachi and Devil). I agree that sub-boss is a bit of a weird catergory, but the sheer amount of Tekken characters means the list needs to be split up. Finally - the misc. section for one of characters and relitively unknown characters (this section would be updated after Tekken 6, for example if Roger Jr wasn't a time released character in T6, he would then be dropped into the misc section)--Mr.bonus 17:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- The problem I have with this reasoning is that your basis for the change seems a little subjective. Your idea of what a "cheesy" or "relatively unknown" character needs to be clarified, because Eddy and Jun are quite well known and rather popular. By contrast, Lili and Dragunov are new, but hardly all that well known. I personally don't think splitting the cast into so many categories is necessary, as a simple distinction between charactera playable in the latest version of the game (Tekken 5: DR, at present), characters currently dropped from the roster (such as Jun, Combot and Miharu) and Bosses/Sub-Bosses should suffice. Other than that, being technical about who the "main" characters are will result in having the Mishimas (Kazuya, Jin and Heihachi) in one category and nearly everyone else in another.
- Just my two cents. King Zeal 18:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- I have put the groups together according to Dark Resurrection (the latest version). The main characters are the ones that have always been selectable from the beginning and don't share moves. The sub-bosses are the 'fake' characters that started off without their own movesets and had to be unlocked or time released. And the popular characters such as Jun, who may have been a main character (Jun was in Tekken 2, have been dropped and should be 'relegated' into misc. I think it all makes sense really. And as I've said, there are too manty characters to have in one big group (eg, all 33 characters from Dark Resurrection in one group). --Mr.bonus 22:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- In my opinion, whether or not characters share moves is irrelevant. Lee Chaolan, Kuma and Anna Williams may have started the series as mere clones of other characters, but have evolved to have their own unique movesets. It just seems outdated to have them in a "sub-boss" category when A)They haven't been sub-bosses for years and B) They've developed as unique characters. I don't understand why having a big group is a problem. It's not hard to navigate, and it was even put into alphabetical order. Really, how confusing would it be for someone to find "Jun" by looking right after "Jin"? Like I said, I just don't think the Sub-Boss category is necessary. King Zeal 12:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- What about if we renovated the box to include a section for "Current" characters (as of T5, or even T5:DR should we be so generous as to include Armor King)? The rest, that's to say, characters no longer featured such as Michelle, Ogre, and the like, could get a "Past Characters" section (of course, the name could most likely use some changing) whereas folks like Jane and Dr. Abel are part of miscellany. How's that sound? Gerk 07:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- That's almost exactly how it WAS. I personally think that makes sense. Keeping into account someone who may have only played the latest game in the series, wouldn't it be simpler for them to look up their favorite character (ex: Armor King) by looking at the general roster rather than an obscure "Sub-Boss" category? They wouldn't know why he's in that category in the first place, since they wouldn't have played any of the six Tekken games preceding Dark Resurrection. Once again, I just don't think it's all that necessary. King Zeal 12:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Shall we get to work? ^_~ Gerk 19:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I think all of you are being silly buggers. This doesn't amount to anything and the petty argument doesn't hold any relevance.I've changed the template myself to something more simplistic.without all the stupid semantics.-ZeroTalk 12:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- While I appreciate your opinion on the matter, Zero, I could have done without the slights. King Zeal 12:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Fair enough. The character group wasn't the biggest problem. It was that some games were excluded and the order was all wrong. But now, the order is insane as they aren't alphabetical (eg/ Asuka is first, but Anna is half way down). As for Zero, I'm sick of your immature attitude. Me and King Zeal were having a discussion between our selves and you have to jump in and act like a superior being and tell us to shut up. I was wondering how long it would be before the self proclaimed leader of the Tekken pages forced his way in. Silly buggers...Cheeky tw@t --Mr.bonus 16:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- I think you may have a point. I can precieve how my intervention can be interpreted as unintentionally offensive and I have retracted it accordingly with my apologies.
- As for my proclamation of leadership over these articles Mr. bonus, I do not recall ever saying this and this serious accusation is very difficult to believe. Are you claiming my aspiration to simply do what I think best for the encyclopedia did not exist...? -ZeroTalk 00:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps we could just divide the group into an active roster and inactive roster based on the last game that has been released?Thequickbrownfoxjumpsoveralazydog 15:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- Don't really see the necessity. The current list is fine. King Zeal 17:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Tekken 6
Why isn't it part of the template? - The 4th Snake 19:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- I tried to add it but then the change was reverted after I did it. SuperSonicTH 15:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I did the same. That's why I asked.- The 4th Snake 19:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Appearantly, the culprit is a Wikipedia user known as A Man In Black. I'll put Tekken 6 back on the template.Michael Mad 13:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't have a release date, it hasn't been shown in playable form, and Tekken 6 may not even be the final name. The article is nothing but summarizing three trailers. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
What's your point? It's a Tekken game so it should be in the template. If the game gets renamed, it can be changed. For now, Tekken 6 should be kept in. - The 4th Snake 19:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Namco has recently made a site for Tekken 6, so it will probably be the final name of the game: http://www.tekken-official.jp/tk6ac/ - Aphasia83 19:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Plus, they made a logo for it. The logo looks nothing like any others so it isn't a simple edit. Why go to the bother of making a logo if you're going to change the name? - The 4th Snake 20:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the speculation about the logo and site aside, I don't see why it shouldn't be on the list. Completed or not, trailers or not, it's currently the official game for the next installment of the series. King Zeal 20:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, it's going back on the template.Michael Mad 08:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not the place for Namco to advertise, and right now, this non-article is not necessary for the understanding of the other articles. It's nothing more than vapor at this point. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's a little more than vapor. Arcade version of Tekken 6 is announced to be released in 2007. Namco is a notable company, and Tekken is a notable franchise. Screenshots of the game have already been released, press releases in Japan have already been released as well. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 05:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- This isn't a high bar to separate vapor from substance. It just needs a final name, a release date, and to have been shown in playable form. The name is so we have something to link that isn't "Untitled project". The release date is so that we know the game has actually been solicited to distributors and stores. The playable form is so that the article is composed of something other than promotional material.
- Right now, Tekken 6 is nothing other than press releases and summaries of promotional trailers. That's not an article; that's a paraphrased advertisement. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's a little more than vapor. Arcade version of Tekken 6 is announced to be released in 2007. Namco is a notable company, and Tekken is a notable franchise. Screenshots of the game have already been released, press releases in Japan have already been released as well. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 05:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- 6 belongs in the template, period. The game should be in the template now, not later. Blind reverting it isn't helping matters. The article's quality shouldn't determine if it makes a template or not. If that was the case: templates would be changed non-stop because of people thinking articles are bad and not suitable for a template. That's not how templates work. RobJ1981 05:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- 6 doesn't belong in the template, period. Aren't bland assertions fun?
- It's a standard that keeps projects that have not yet demonstrated any notability and have no hope of being the subject of encyclopedic articles out of navigation tools intended to direct readers to core topics. A game that exists in trailer form only is not a core topic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, a playable version was shown at some game show already. And Namco announced the arcade version for 2007 and the PS3 version for 2008. And the Tekken 6 official website has been put up at Tekken official. The two new characters have already been announced. A week or two ago, I wouldn't have supported it, but the press releases by Namco just came out, and the website just launced. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 06:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Where was it shown, was it under NDA, and why isn't this in the article? If there are articles about the game (contrast with articles about what Namco is saying about the game), then resolves the bulk of my qualms.
- As for the rest, a year isn't a release date (nothing but a year is pretty much just "We're planning to release this game at some point"), but no amount of Namco saying "Please pay attention to us" makes this an article instead of an advertisement. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and there is a Wikipedia article on Tekken 6 that does not fit deletion criteria and that has been linked to from related Wikipedia articles, so Tekken 6 is already a subject of encyclopedia articles. An upcoming game in the Tekken series is clearly a core topic to the series. All sorts of projected events have articles as well, and the fact that they could potentially be altered doesn't destroy their notability. As long as it is NPOV and follows all policies, you cannot call it an advertisement. All released game articles can be interpreted as advertisements as well; in fact, they contain much more information publicizing the games' features, acclaim, etc. The name and release date are not the most important aspects of an upcoming game. As long as there are reliable sources reporting the projected release of the game, we know that it exists. To build hype, the company could withhold the official name until the release date. Really, they could never give the game an official name, and it would still be notable. Even release dates can be changed last minute. The most important thing here is navigation, and not including it makes navigating/reading/editing harder for everyone. Pomte 08:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- No, a game in the Tekken series is a core topic. An upcoming game will be a core topic. This is the distinction I am drawing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- An upcoming game with non-trivial details and currently under heavy discussion is already a core topic. Pomte 08:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Heavy discussion in what reliable source? The linked IGN article paraphrases statements by Namco or Namco staffers, largely intact. "Namco (or a producer/developer/director/etc.) said such-and-such." There's a line between a preview (where someone is relating experiences with an incomplete game) and rephrasing an announcement, even if game sites do a bad job of making that distinction. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- It may not be discussed in reliable sources yet, but that's to be expected. The article doesn't require reliable sources in order to be added to a template it directly relates to. The heavy discussion in non-reliable sources demands that this game be added to the template. This is a practical issue, with no policy on it that I'm aware of. There's nothing inherently wrong with publishing a rephrased announcement. Pomte 09:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- So, how are you claiming that it's notable when there isn't any possibility for commentary in reliable sources? "The subject of commentary in reliable sources" is the definition of notability.
- It may not be discussed in reliable sources yet, but that's to be expected. The article doesn't require reliable sources in order to be added to a template it directly relates to. The heavy discussion in non-reliable sources demands that this game be added to the template. This is a practical issue, with no policy on it that I'm aware of. There's nothing inherently wrong with publishing a rephrased announcement. Pomte 09:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Heavy discussion in what reliable source? The linked IGN article paraphrases statements by Namco or Namco staffers, largely intact. "Namco (or a producer/developer/director/etc.) said such-and-such." There's a line between a preview (where someone is relating experiences with an incomplete game) and rephrasing an announcement, even if game sites do a bad job of making that distinction. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- An upcoming game with non-trivial details and currently under heavy discussion is already a core topic. Pomte 08:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- No, a game in the Tekken series is a core topic. An upcoming game will be a core topic. This is the distinction I am drawing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, a playable version was shown at some game show already. And Namco announced the arcade version for 2007 and the PS3 version for 2008. And the Tekken 6 official website has been put up at Tekken official. The two new characters have already been announced. A week or two ago, I wouldn't have supported it, but the press releases by Namco just came out, and the website just launced. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 06:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm aware that subpar articles are cobbled together from promotional material early in the life of a game, before it is shown in playable form. It's just that a project that exists in speculative and promotional form (not yet a released game) isn't a core topic for the series of games that actually exist. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- If you don't think the subject is notable, then you should propose deletion. The consideration of the future continuation of a series of games makes it a core topic. If you link the concept "core topic" to N and RS, which are requirements for all articles, then you should attack the article itself, not the template. Pomte 09:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's sufficiently notable to squeak past AFD. It's insufficiently notable to be a core topic, part of a strongly-interlinked series of related subjects. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- If you don't think the subject is notable, then you should propose deletion. The consideration of the future continuation of a series of games makes it a core topic. If you link the concept "core topic" to N and RS, which are requirements for all articles, then you should attack the article itself, not the template. Pomte 09:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm aware that subpar articles are cobbled together from promotional material early in the life of a game, before it is shown in playable form. It's just that a project that exists in speculative and promotional form (not yet a released game) isn't a core topic for the series of games that actually exist. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- I just reread what you wrote and choked.
- To build hype, the company could withhold the official name until the release date.
- That's the problem. As long as we're talking about something about which the developer can withhold information, there's only one, primary source, and the article cannot become encyclopedic or a core topic. You bring up released games; we can write articles about, say, Tekken 5 without once parroting a Namco press release or analyzing promotional material. People have played that game and written about it. We can reference articles people who have played the game have written about the game, instead of referencing articles that are nothing more than what Namco wants people to know about their game. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- I would agree with you if all the content was taken from Namco directly. However, I don't see how information, reported through sources like IGN, Gamespot, or any other gaming news site would be considered advertising. Especially considering that a live interview is the primary source for the information. King Zeal 14:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- What in the article is sourced to an IGN/Gamespot/whatever article that isn't itself repeating Namco's statements? I read the linked reviews; they're entirely "Such-and-such developer said..." "Namco said..." and so forth. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- So? It's a news-related link. It's parallel to an article about the Iraq War that contains quotes or official statements by Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfeld/etc. talking about the supposed "purpose" of the war. The article isn't promoting the game any more than that article would be promoting their statements. It's simply recounting what was said. King Zeal 08:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Dissimilar case. There are many different sources of commentary on any war larger than a fistfight. In this case, there's one source, a primary source with an interest in concealing information for their own benefit and making optimistic predictions in the guise of factual statements. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see the dissimilarity. For example, Bush makes a statement about why the war was started. MSNBC then speculates about other possible motives--none of which can be proved or disproved. Likewise, IGN.com starts speculating about the verifiability of Namco's claims, also speculation, as it can be neither proved nor disproven. In either case, the people in control of the event are the only ones who can make any claims. However, the media and the public CAN comment on or speculate about what has already been said or released. In this case, that includes "official statements" and video trailers. King Zeal 09:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- This analogy isn't applicable. Clearly, there's a war going on currently. There are many different sources of commentary on that war. Contrast this with Tekken 6; this is a game that has been announced for the future. The only current event is predictions about that game. Game navboxes are for articles about games, not articles about predictions about a game. Does this make sense? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- How do we know about the war? One reason is because of footage that has been shown to the general public. What if all we had was verbal testimony talking the war, no matter how many people claimed that it happened? If there were absolutely NO physical evidence for the war, would that be acceptable by Wikipedia policies? Like, if ABC News reported right now that 50 eyewitnesses saw Christ walking down Main Street, would Wikipedia allow that? The reason I ask this is because there's actually physical evidence that proves the existence of the war. Likewise, there is a visible game trailer that proves the existence of this game. I understand what you're saying, but I disagree with your conclusion. Even if the game is canceled, the name is changed, or it turns out Namco was pulling one hell of a hoax, that doesn't change what can be seen. King Zeal 19:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- This analogy isn't applicable. Clearly, there's a war going on currently. There are many different sources of commentary on that war. Contrast this with Tekken 6; this is a game that has been announced for the future. The only current event is predictions about that game. Game navboxes are for articles about games, not articles about predictions about a game. Does this make sense? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see the dissimilarity. For example, Bush makes a statement about why the war was started. MSNBC then speculates about other possible motives--none of which can be proved or disproved. Likewise, IGN.com starts speculating about the verifiability of Namco's claims, also speculation, as it can be neither proved nor disproven. In either case, the people in control of the event are the only ones who can make any claims. However, the media and the public CAN comment on or speculate about what has already been said or released. In this case, that includes "official statements" and video trailers. King Zeal 09:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Dissimilar case. There are many different sources of commentary on any war larger than a fistfight. In this case, there's one source, a primary source with an interest in concealing information for their own benefit and making optimistic predictions in the guise of factual statements. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- So? It's a news-related link. It's parallel to an article about the Iraq War that contains quotes or official statements by Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfeld/etc. talking about the supposed "purpose" of the war. The article isn't promoting the game any more than that article would be promoting their statements. It's simply recounting what was said. King Zeal 08:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- What in the article is sourced to an IGN/Gamespot/whatever article that isn't itself repeating Namco's statements? I read the linked reviews; they're entirely "Such-and-such developer said..." "Namco said..." and so forth. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- What Namco wants people to know is what everyone knows right now, and withholding access to that information is censorship. If it says "some guy said X" that is not going to brainwash people into thinking X is true. The Tekken 5 article was written after its release, so understandably no promotional material is mentioned. But for Tekken 6, these promo facts can legitimately remain to detail its history. This discussion is going off on a tangent. The list of games in the template is most likely interpreted as all existent games in the series. Upcoming games definitely exist, and the lack of them in the list misleads people into thinking there is no such thing as Tekken 6, or there is no article for Tekken 6. The template is "Tekken video games", not "Tekken videos games that have been named, release date given, and reviewed". Pomte 09:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, welcome to Wikipedia, where we censor peoples' advertisements right off the project. You're right. It is censorship. We should rightly censor articles on promotional material from templates about games. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- If you are against the promotional content itself, then delete it directly from the article. The template is a separate issue. Pomte 09:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, welcome to Wikipedia, where we censor peoples' advertisements right off the project. You're right. It is censorship. We should rightly censor articles on promotional material from templates about games. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- I would agree with you if all the content was taken from Namco directly. However, I don't see how information, reported through sources like IGN, Gamespot, or any other gaming news site would be considered advertising. Especially considering that a live interview is the primary source for the information. King Zeal 14:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think a vote should happen, seeing as A Man in Black seems to be the only one that wants it off the template. One person shouldn't control the template, period. Wikipedia: the encyclopedia for everyone to edit, remember? RobJ1981 17:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Were you planning to address my arguments? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Controlling templates needs to end. Tekken 6 belongs in the template, period. As do other confirmed games for other templates. So what if it hasn't appeared in playable form or whatever you feel is "correct" for listing in a template or not. It appearing now, rather than later: isn't a big deal. It does absolutely no harm to list it now. RobJ1981 05:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Why does it belong in the template period? Were you planning to address my arguments in opposition? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Controlling templates needs to end. Tekken 6 belongs in the template, period. As do other confirmed games for other templates. So what if it hasn't appeared in playable form or whatever you feel is "correct" for listing in a template or not. It appearing now, rather than later: isn't a big deal. It does absolutely no harm to list it now. RobJ1981 05:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Were you planning to address my arguments? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- The trailers are a verifiable source that a game of Tekken 6 exists in some form. Yes, it is released by Namco themselves, but Namco is not likely to drop Tekkn 6 this far into development, nor is Namco going to go under anytime soon, so the likelihood of the game being released is pretty much 100%. You argue that it's advertising, but it is no less advertising if they release an actual release date, and it's no more advertising than games that have been released. In fact, you can argue that it is more like advertising for released games. As for the name, they call it Tekken 6, and there's no reason why it would change. Tekken, Tekken 2, Tekken 3, Tekken 4, and Tekken 5 exist, so the vanilla name Namco calls the game, Tekken 6, is also very probable. The game is already notable because it falls into the category of software developed by a notable company, Namco, and is obviously one of their core products. You're an admin, so you should look at your edit history on the template and you should very well know that you violated WP:3RR. There is obviously currently consensus on having it on the template. Personally, either you nominate the page for AfD, or I will put this up on RfC. Both will get objective input on the subject. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 06:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- And that form is a series of short film clips.
- The most important point of the three is, again, that the game has been shown in playable form. This isn't an AFD argument, where prognostication and association can squeak things by; the question is, does someone have to read this article to understand the context into which the other articles fit? Seeing as this is a future game, which fits into a context that doesn't even exist yet, no, they don't.
- This will be an important part of the Tekken series. It isn't yet. Arguing that it will be important misses my point that it is not now important. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- How come Final Fantasy XIII is ok to be on the Template:Final Fantasy series then? There doesn't seem to be anything released but what Square revealed either. I'm sure there are tons of other things included on templates that haven't been released. Why is this one singled out by you? I know that just because it exists en masse doesn't make it acceptable. Even looking at Wikipedia:Navigational_templates/Entertainment_and_fiction#Games, there's a bunch. And I can't find anywhere where it says unreleased games shouldn't be place in navigational templates, nor unreleased games being advertising. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 07:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- In addition, I just looked at the Template talk:CVG Navigation. There's clearly no consensus in leaving off unreleased games. In fact, it's two people (you and El Cid) that think unreleased games shouldn't be put in templates. It sure sounds like there is a bigger consensus towards leaving it on the navigational templates, like there is a much bigger consensus here to leave Tekken 6 on the template. I'm readding it as I see no reason and no policy against the inclusion of unreleased games on navigational templates. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 07:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- How come Final Fantasy XIII is ok to be on the Template:Final Fantasy series then? There doesn't seem to be anything released but what Square revealed either. I'm sure there are tons of other things included on templates that haven't been released. Why is this one singled out by you? I know that just because it exists en masse doesn't make it acceptable. Even looking at Wikipedia:Navigational_templates/Entertainment_and_fiction#Games, there's a bunch. And I can't find anywhere where it says unreleased games shouldn't be place in navigational templates, nor unreleased games being advertising. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 07:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- The trailers are a verifiable source that a game of Tekken 6 exists in some form. Yes, it is released by Namco themselves, but Namco is not likely to drop Tekkn 6 this far into development, nor is Namco going to go under anytime soon, so the likelihood of the game being released is pretty much 100%. You argue that it's advertising, but it is no less advertising if they release an actual release date, and it's no more advertising than games that have been released. In fact, you can argue that it is more like advertising for released games. As for the name, they call it Tekken 6, and there's no reason why it would change. Tekken, Tekken 2, Tekken 3, Tekken 4, and Tekken 5 exist, so the vanilla name Namco calls the game, Tekken 6, is also very probable. The game is already notable because it falls into the category of software developed by a notable company, Namco, and is obviously one of their core products. You're an admin, so you should look at your edit history on the template and you should very well know that you violated WP:3RR. There is obviously currently consensus on having it on the template. Personally, either you nominate the page for AfD, or I will put this up on RfC. Both will get objective input on the subject. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 06:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, for the other templates with upcoming games.
As for the discussion that led to the current standard, it's in the WT:CVG archives. The discussion at Template talk:CVG Navigation is much more recent and mirrors this one, in that it hasn't much moved past the "It should be included, period!" stage. Excluding upcoming games that had never been shown in playable form was a pre-existing, project-wide consensus. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Tekken 6 should be on the template. As long as it has its own page, which has become quite developed over time, I see no reason why it should not be on the template. Also, according to IGN, Tekken 6 may well be in a playable form sooner than first thought. Michael Mad 09:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)