Talk:NBA 2K16
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Why the soundtrack belongs edit
The soundtrack is as notable as any other and certainly warrants an inclusion. A bunch more sources could be included if need be. This page literally says that non-notable soundtracks don't belong and says that everything there only applies to said non-notable soundtrack. This is not a non-notable soundtrack. Therefore, the part about not listing the songs doesn't apply. This discussion linked on that page mentions this article. There's another reason (no sources, notable artists, some notable songs, songs aren't even original songs, less 'significant' game, soundtrack still included). The discussion too says exceptions can be made for notable soundtracks with notable songs and artists. That discussion mentions whether or not you could make an article on it. NBA 2K6's (I think that's the one. Maybe NBA 2K7.) soundtrack has its own page and that soundtrack is as notable as any of the others in the series. NBA 2K6 didn't even have an article for a long time. The fact that these artists worked on/are featured on/in the game is notable. That article contains the soundtrack based on the fact that the songs/artists have their own page. Not to mention that listing the songs is helpful for the reader. I don't know why I need to defend something like this. It's like defending a mention of the soundtrack at all. Removing this is not a productive activity. It belongs for several reasons is my point. What else do I need to say? It is notable. This applies to every single game in the series. —DangerousJXD (talk) 23:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- These are non-notable, see WP:NALBUMS for notability on music recordings. The only one with any indication of passing Wikipedia's criteria for notability in music was NBA 2K7, which as you already said has a separate article and thus the tracklist does not need including on the video game article. So I'd recommend you remove them all again. A summary in prose which covers that licensed music was used in the games is fine, the track listings are not. --The1337gamer (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Again, please stop referring me to some irrelevant guideline. You aren't actually providing a good reason why they should be removed. How does it improve the article by removing it? It just belongs. Common sense and all that. I've said all I have to say about why it does. I don't know why I have to defend this. It's stupid. Nobody can stop you removing it. Doing so is not a positive contribution though. Diminishing the quality of an article in any way should be avoided. It's all for the reader isn't it? Encounters like this around here suck the life out of me so I'd rather not go on arguing with 'WP:XX' referral posts and whatnot. I see you've made this sort of edit elsewhere. Of what I looked at, most of your edits removing content were correct in that the articles didn't need that information. But several edits just seemed liked reckless random blanking. I'm not going to go into that. Also, even though this isn't relevant to this situation, I see the situation at Rugby 08. Even though I agree that none of that information belongs (stadiums?), you can't remove that much information without an explanation from You and not expect a chance of somebody objecting. I am aware this post is a mess. It's because I'm wasting my time and I tend to have ugly posts when doing so. —DangerousJXD (talk) 22:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- So what you're saying is that you don't like the guideline, therefore it is irrelevant? Wikipedia articles are not meant to be all encompassing and contain every bit of information. The general reader doesn't need to know what songs are going to be playing in a basketball video game. In these cases, the soundtrack is not a subject of commentary independent from the games therefore a list of every song should be not be included, summarising in prose is a better option. This is a video game article and the inclusion of licensed music is not important enough to warrant including the titles and artists of every song in the game. As for Rugby 08, everything I removed there is inappropriate, and if you disagree with that then I suggest you read this discussion I opened over 3 years ago: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_101#Lists_of_stadia.2C_leagues.2C_teams.2C_competitions_in_Fifa_articles.. It was unanimously agreed upon that lists of stadiums, leagues, teams, competitions, etc should all be removed from Fifa articles and that notion extends to others sport games articles. None of that rubbish should be included so don't waste your time trying to justify it. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- ...I was not justifying the inclusion of arenas (etc.) in that article. You have misunderstood me there. I just said you are doing the appropriate thing there. You know? I wasn't disagreeing with you. Arenas and all that don't belong. It's just when you do that, an editor who loves information like that is going to object. Anyway, I do not disagree with guidelines. That's not what I said and again you've misunderstood my words. I said these few you have pointed me to are irrelevant to this. WP:NALBUMS is talking about the creation of articles about songs and albums. This is not an article about a song or album. As for WP:VGSCOPE, it applies to "non-notable" soundtracks. This is not the case as the soundtracks (covers too) in these games are 'a big deal' if you will. Apart from saying the reader doesn't care and it doesn't belong just because, you haven't really stated why it's not notable. You've just said what the guideline says but the guideline doesn't apply. That guideline also says (or maybe it was another) that exceptions can be made and that common sense may be used. As I said, at least 10 references could be added to this particular article if necessary but I think that's overkill. Per [insert the relevant WP:XX here], many references backing up and proving a point or view is not needed when one can suffice. I guarantee you a significant amount of readers have come to the article just to see the songs (probably also covers). The average reader of this article would care about songs and covers. I think you referred me to another WP:XX but I can't remember. —DangerousJXD (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- One part of notability means significant coverage that addresses a topic directly and in detail. An example of a notable video game soundtrack is Halo 3 Original Soundtrack. There is significant coverage surrounding the composition, marketing and release and reception of the soundtrack. This soundtrack is subject to commentary INDEPENDENT of the game. These NBA soundtracks are not notable and not subject to commentary INDEPENDENT of the game, which WP:VGSCOPE says is necessary. NBA 2K16 is notable, NBA 2K16's soundtrack is not notable. All of the sources just say stuff like here are songs featured in the game and that is all. There is no depth in the coverage, and hence they are not notable, so per WP:VGSCOPE no track listings. --The1337gamer (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- I completely understand what you're saying but I fail to see how removing this information improves the article. You haven't addressed that. As has been made clear by myself, if you do remove this information, apart from some random IP adding it back here and there, nobody would revert you on the spot. If you really really want to remove the soundtrack and if you really really really think that removing it improves the article, go ahead. Nobody can stop you and I will not attempt to do so. I do not agree with or recommend it however as I fail to see how removing all traces of the soundtrack, as was the case at several of the other articles, is a positive change. As I said, I have said everything I have to say and further posts would be repeating information. (This post for example achieves nothing as what it says has been said.) —DangerousJXD (talk) 10:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- The inclusion of this information doesn't improve article. Just like the inclusion of lists of teams, players, stadia, and other garbage on video game articles. That is the rationale for removing it. Wikipedia is NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. An article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details. The guidelines exist for a reason and we should try to stick to it. You haven't provided a meaningful reason for why NBA articles are exempt other than "I don't like the guideline". I'm fine with the information being summarised in prose, but the track listing should go. --The1337gamer (talk) 10:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- ... "The inclusion of this information doesn't improve article." Because? This has nothing to do with lists of other junk so don't mix them together and call that your reason. You and me both know that soundtracks aren't in the same 'group' as those sorts if things. Essentially everybody would call player ratings trivial but essentially nobody would call a soundtrack trivial. I have said everything yet you say I've said nothing. I do not not like guidelines. Don't put words in my mouth. My opinion on guidelines is the opposite of not caring for them. About those two guideline links: I'm not sure why you'd link me there when this is about one thing. A soundtrack. Not a soundtrack and list of players, teams, coaches, game modes, player ratings, arena noises, player jump shots, and and players who wear mouth guards. That would be what your saying. But there aren't lists of those things. I would link somebody to WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTEVERYTHING if they were defending the inclusion of many trivial details. Do you now know what I mean when I say "irrelevant"? It's NOT because I hate guidelines. It's because they have little to do with this. So I ask again: How does removing the soundtracks improve the article? (Maybe your opening sentence in your latest post is your answer. If that is your answer to that, it is a poor answer as it doesn't directly address the legitimate question. The answer itself isn't good reasoning.) I could go on for hours why the soundtrack belongs but I'm not going to do that. I have already spent a considerable amount of time in this conversation and I have given you the 'main' reasons. —DangerousJXD (talk) 22:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- A list of songs featured in a basketball game is trivial detail, it's even less relevant than a list of basketball teams in a basketball game. WP:VGSCOPE says Unless the soundtrack or music is the subject of independent commentary (apart from the game): put it in Development rather than its own section, do not include tracklists. Show me the sources where the soundtracks are subject to commentary independent of the game. --The1337gamer (talk) 09:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- ... "The inclusion of this information doesn't improve article." Because? This has nothing to do with lists of other junk so don't mix them together and call that your reason. You and me both know that soundtracks aren't in the same 'group' as those sorts if things. Essentially everybody would call player ratings trivial but essentially nobody would call a soundtrack trivial. I have said everything yet you say I've said nothing. I do not not like guidelines. Don't put words in my mouth. My opinion on guidelines is the opposite of not caring for them. About those two guideline links: I'm not sure why you'd link me there when this is about one thing. A soundtrack. Not a soundtrack and list of players, teams, coaches, game modes, player ratings, arena noises, player jump shots, and and players who wear mouth guards. That would be what your saying. But there aren't lists of those things. I would link somebody to WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTEVERYTHING if they were defending the inclusion of many trivial details. Do you now know what I mean when I say "irrelevant"? It's NOT because I hate guidelines. It's because they have little to do with this. So I ask again: How does removing the soundtracks improve the article? (Maybe your opening sentence in your latest post is your answer. If that is your answer to that, it is a poor answer as it doesn't directly address the legitimate question. The answer itself isn't good reasoning.) I could go on for hours why the soundtrack belongs but I'm not going to do that. I have already spent a considerable amount of time in this conversation and I have given you the 'main' reasons. —DangerousJXD (talk) 22:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- The inclusion of this information doesn't improve article. Just like the inclusion of lists of teams, players, stadia, and other garbage on video game articles. That is the rationale for removing it. Wikipedia is NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. An article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details. The guidelines exist for a reason and we should try to stick to it. You haven't provided a meaningful reason for why NBA articles are exempt other than "I don't like the guideline". I'm fine with the information being summarised in prose, but the track listing should go. --The1337gamer (talk) 10:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- I completely understand what you're saying but I fail to see how removing this information improves the article. You haven't addressed that. As has been made clear by myself, if you do remove this information, apart from some random IP adding it back here and there, nobody would revert you on the spot. If you really really want to remove the soundtrack and if you really really really think that removing it improves the article, go ahead. Nobody can stop you and I will not attempt to do so. I do not agree with or recommend it however as I fail to see how removing all traces of the soundtrack, as was the case at several of the other articles, is a positive change. As I said, I have said everything I have to say and further posts would be repeating information. (This post for example achieves nothing as what it says has been said.) —DangerousJXD (talk) 10:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- One part of notability means significant coverage that addresses a topic directly and in detail. An example of a notable video game soundtrack is Halo 3 Original Soundtrack. There is significant coverage surrounding the composition, marketing and release and reception of the soundtrack. This soundtrack is subject to commentary INDEPENDENT of the game. These NBA soundtracks are not notable and not subject to commentary INDEPENDENT of the game, which WP:VGSCOPE says is necessary. NBA 2K16 is notable, NBA 2K16's soundtrack is not notable. All of the sources just say stuff like here are songs featured in the game and that is all. There is no depth in the coverage, and hence they are not notable, so per WP:VGSCOPE no track listings. --The1337gamer (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- ...I was not justifying the inclusion of arenas (etc.) in that article. You have misunderstood me there. I just said you are doing the appropriate thing there. You know? I wasn't disagreeing with you. Arenas and all that don't belong. It's just when you do that, an editor who loves information like that is going to object. Anyway, I do not disagree with guidelines. That's not what I said and again you've misunderstood my words. I said these few you have pointed me to are irrelevant to this. WP:NALBUMS is talking about the creation of articles about songs and albums. This is not an article about a song or album. As for WP:VGSCOPE, it applies to "non-notable" soundtracks. This is not the case as the soundtracks (covers too) in these games are 'a big deal' if you will. Apart from saying the reader doesn't care and it doesn't belong just because, you haven't really stated why it's not notable. You've just said what the guideline says but the guideline doesn't apply. That guideline also says (or maybe it was another) that exceptions can be made and that common sense may be used. As I said, at least 10 references could be added to this particular article if necessary but I think that's overkill. Per [insert the relevant WP:XX here], many references backing up and proving a point or view is not needed when one can suffice. I guarantee you a significant amount of readers have come to the article just to see the songs (probably also covers). The average reader of this article would care about songs and covers. I think you referred me to another WP:XX but I can't remember. —DangerousJXD (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- So what you're saying is that you don't like the guideline, therefore it is irrelevant? Wikipedia articles are not meant to be all encompassing and contain every bit of information. The general reader doesn't need to know what songs are going to be playing in a basketball video game. In these cases, the soundtrack is not a subject of commentary independent from the games therefore a list of every song should be not be included, summarising in prose is a better option. This is a video game article and the inclusion of licensed music is not important enough to warrant including the titles and artists of every song in the game. As for Rugby 08, everything I removed there is inappropriate, and if you disagree with that then I suggest you read this discussion I opened over 3 years ago: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_101#Lists_of_stadia.2C_leagues.2C_teams.2C_competitions_in_Fifa_articles.. It was unanimously agreed upon that lists of stadiums, leagues, teams, competitions, etc should all be removed from Fifa articles and that notion extends to others sport games articles. None of that rubbish should be included so don't waste your time trying to justify it. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- Again, please stop referring me to some irrelevant guideline. You aren't actually providing a good reason why they should be removed. How does it improve the article by removing it? It just belongs. Common sense and all that. I've said all I have to say about why it does. I don't know why I have to defend this. It's stupid. Nobody can stop you removing it. Doing so is not a positive contribution though. Diminishing the quality of an article in any way should be avoided. It's all for the reader isn't it? Encounters like this around here suck the life out of me so I'd rather not go on arguing with 'WP:XX' referral posts and whatnot. I see you've made this sort of edit elsewhere. Of what I looked at, most of your edits removing content were correct in that the articles didn't need that information. But several edits just seemed liked reckless random blanking. I'm not going to go into that. Also, even though this isn't relevant to this situation, I see the situation at Rugby 08. Even though I agree that none of that information belongs (stadiums?), you can't remove that much information without an explanation from You and not expect a chance of somebody objecting. I am aware this post is a mess. It's because I'm wasting my time and I tend to have ugly posts when doing so. —DangerousJXD (talk) 22:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Why don't you just remove it? Just remove it. Go on. Go ahead. I am asking you to remove the soundtrack section from all these articles. Please end this stupid discussion. Please. I am tired of wasting time. Please end it. I hinted to you that maybe you should remove it but now I am asking you outright. Can you please remove the soundtracks from these articles? I have responded to all of your comments multiple times but you have not done the same. But I don't care. Many of your comments are simply wrong. Nobody cares. I'm sick of saying the same thing over and over, having my words twisted, being told irrelevant nonsense, and being referred to WP:this and WP:that. I would not like to waste anymore time on this crap. I literally don't care anymore. Please remove the soundtracks. —DangerousJXD (talk) 09:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- You reverted my edits, so you clearly disagree with me. Other editors might also disagree with me, so I'm not going to remove it if I'm going to get reverted over and over again. --The1337gamer (talk) 09:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Nobody will revert you. Please end this conversation. I find this silly. Nothing against you but I feel like I'm talking to a wall and that's the nature if these conversations. That's why I hate them. The fact I am achieving nothing posting here over and over again tires me. Please remove the soundtracks. I am essentially giving up to end this conversation. Not because I'm throwing a tantrum and acknowledging that you win, you're right, I'm wrong, and I now agree. I am 'giving up' on this junk because I wish to end this conversation. If I have to stop caring to stop wasting time I'll do it. So essentially, have the article the way you want. I don't care. Can you remove the soundtracks? —DangerousJXD (talk) 09:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- I removed the tracklist. Let me know if you find reliable sources that discuss the significance of individual tracks. czar 14:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Czar, I no longer care for this junk. Thank you very much. Can you please remove it from every other article in the series too? (NBA 2K6, NBA 2K7, NBA 2K8, NBA 2K9, NBA 2K10, NBA 2K11, NBA 2K12, NBA 2K13, NBA 2K14, NBA 2K15.) —DangerousJXD (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you. —DangerousJXD (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
External links modified (February 2018) edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on NBA 2K16. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150925103327/http://www.eurohoops.net/2015/09/featured/125618 to http://www.eurohoops.net/2015/09/featured/125618
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: 18 January 2022).
- 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) 17:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)