Talk:EarthBound fandom

Mother 3 section

The Mother 3 section, as it is now, is copied verbatim from its main article. I personally find that undesirable. A lot of the "core details" such as "1000s of hours were put into the project and they translated the 1000s of pages of text" can be omitted and left to the main article. The phrasing here also just doesn't feel right, it puts a lot of weight on how dedicated the fans are, like they "built their own tools" and they had to do this because "their interests went unanswered by Nintendo." I feel like this text is trying to side with the fan community, which is non-neutral. There's also the "murky legality," which has no context to describe what makes it "murky." I did work to paraphrase the original content instead of repeating it verbatim, but that was reverted. I don't think my revision greatly compromised the original text. I disagree with the text as it is written now. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 05:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because it made inaccurate attributions. As for the claim that the text is copied verbatim, (1) I have already said that I prefer the text to match the article spun out summary style, namely because it's easier to pick up where you left off (not having to read the lede), and (2) the entire first paragraph wasn't copied to begin with. The magnitude of hours and text are hooks into reading the article and what I've already concluded to be important per their inclusion in the lede. Insisting on trimming out ten words or whatever it is in an article that is not terribly long anyway isn't a very convincing argument. As I've already said elsewhere, I don't think the aforementioned quoted phrases are non-neutral. It would be less neutral to make an edit that removes implication of Nintendo altogether. I'd be interested in seeing a single source that puts it, in your opinion, more neutrally. The murky legality is expanded within the actual article. czar ♔ 05:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination

{{Did you know nominations/EarthBound, fandom, fan translation, Marcus Lindblom}} czar ♔ 16:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:EarthBound fandom/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 14:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll leave some initial comments tomorrow or tonight. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 14:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

Lead

• "Their members organized petitions and campaigns to bring English-localized games from the Mother series to North America." - who? Starman.net or EarthBound Central?
• "...the series creator has stated that he is finished with the series, fan-created sequel, Mother 4, is also in development." - missing a noun? "a fan-created sequel, Mother 4"
• Is Mother 4 currently in development? I know fan-created games usually get delayed or stopped through lack of development?
• Other than those though the lead complies per WP:LEAD and meets the GA criteria as it summarises the article well.

Fan base

• "EarthBound was hard to find before the rerelease" - does this mean that the actual SNES cartridge was rare/hard to find? Also rerelease -> re-release (changed this myself though)

Starman.net

• " Other petitions include the 2000 10,000-person petition" - this is the year 2000, right?

Close - promoted

Not even going to put this on hold as the concerns are not significant. You can address them if you'd like, despite the lead already meeting the GA criteria those questions could be addressed if one day you would like to nominate this for FA! Anyway the article meets the GA criteria as it is. It is broad, well written, comprehensive and focused. There are very few prose problems (if none at all), I read through the rest of the article and I could find no copyediting issues at all. Another EarthBound GA, well done! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 12:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Title

Wanted to explain the title here because I think it'll come up again. Though sources predominantly refer to the series as the Mother series (and not the EarthBound series), the fans are almost always described by the sources as EarthBound fans. While this may seem contradictory, remember that EarthBound was the only game of the series to receive an English language release and that the fan community is associated with the English language. (E.g., Mother is a bigger franchise in Japan with farther reach, but Japanese are not mentioned in relation to Mother fandom.) This article is mostly about Starmen.net, self-described EarthBound fans who also work on Mother stuff (the advocacy for a sequel, the fan translation), which would be a sequel to EarthBound in the line of their mythologized EarthBound Zero and EarthBound 2—this is mainly to say that their work is focused around EarthBound and only secondarily the series overall. Instead of opening stubs for individual fan efforts, the best solution was to have a higher-level fan article. A perusal of the sources used in the article will show the fandom/fan community most associated with EarthBound and not Mother or the Mother series, hence the choice of title. czar ⨹ 00:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Mother 4 Article

I think the Mother 4 Section Should have its own article. There is articles for Sonic: Before the Sequel and ITS sequel, and Mother 4 has gotten enough fan intrest and it's own SUBREDDIT, so why not a article?

The only problem is that there is already a redirect there. CS116 [| talk page] 14:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

There's really no need to break it out yet. When it releases, and if it has coverage in reliable, secondary sources, it will naturally split out summary style. Right now it summarizes everything important that's been said about it. czar 14:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on EarthBound fandom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.1up.com/features/posthumous-cult-favorites-games-endure?pager.offset=1
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=1&cId=3154276
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121015094249/http://kotaku.com/204123/a-mother-earthbound-film-years-in-the-making-part-two to http://kotaku.com/204123/a-mother-earthbound-film-years-in-the-making-part-two
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110915093027/http://www.ugo.com/games/mother-3-in-english-an-interview-with-reid-young-co-founder-of-starmennet to http://www.ugo.com/games/mother-3-in-english-an-interview-with-reid-young-co-founder-of-starmennet

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Well, if the creator doesn't want to work on it as a separate article, may as well withdraw my !vote and label it a merge. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

---

Oddity should be merged here. The game is effectively dead, having not been heard from since June 2021 and the developers have either vanished or ceased discussing the project altogether. In the off chance the game is miraculously released, then it can warrant its own article but as it stands, it isn't the case right now. Personally I think the article ought to be deleted but I'd like to see what others think. For now, I propose the lesser option of merging. ProjectHorizons (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. While it's probably in development hell at best, even when cancelled, it was clearly notable, and not just at announcement. Multiple reliable sources covered its existence and development history over the years. There are numerous reliable sources that are not included in the article. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support There are numerous mentions of the game, but the SIGCOV is not there. They are entirely "oh, this game looks pretty cool" end quote. I struggle to see how it passes WP:GNG. Number of sources should not be confused with notability, see also WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Huh? Digital Trends goes into significant detail on the name change, talking about how and why it changed. Hobby Consolas talks about the cancellation, including reports that the idea for Oddity was taken from another designer back in the day, and Calista Janicki conducted an interview with the developer as part of an examination of the relationship between Nintendo and its fanbase. It's clearly notable based on the abundance of coverage, and it's not simply a list of people saying "looks cool." - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Another source that isn't merely offering mention of the game, but significant coverage: [18] - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

    SVG is an unreliable source, as seen in WP:VG/S. Digital Trends is reliable, but does not feature significant coverage. It is solely an announcement of a name change, which happens often with games. There are no opinions on the game itself either. The HobbyConsolas article is yet another run-of-the-mill announcement. I am still not convinced to oppose merging, especially since the game can still be covered under a section in this article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:31, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

    • • The reason why the articles provided significant coverage is not relevant to whether the coverage is itself significant. Yes, DT covered it because they announced a name change, but the content itself constitutes sigcov thereof. HobbyConsolas made the article because of a Discord message, but the article's coverage of the game was significant. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support as creator of both articles. Oddity clearly meets the general notability guideline with its current sourcing alone, but the question is how best to cover it. If this is the most we have to write about it, we can more than adequately cover the topic within the existing parent article. czar 17:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.