Talk:Tearaway (video game)

Deletion

Why is this up for deletion? This is a legit page for a recently announced game by media Molecule. The game was just announced, there isn't going to be a lot of info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsstewart (talk • contribs)

According to WP:PROD you can remove that template anytime. The reason I proposed it for deletion is that is doesn't demonstrate that the game is notable, which is a requirement for all articles (also see WP:42). If there is not a lot of info yet then that means that it probably isn't notable yet. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 17:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved Mike Cline (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Tearaway (video game) → Tearaway – Requesting move over redirect. Currently the page title, "Tearaway (video game)", includes unnecessary disambiguation. Tearaway currently redirects to Tearaway Magazine because "Tearaway Magazine" is the official name of the publication. The video game should be on Tearaway instead because that is the official name of the product. Could use the {{about}} on the page after the move to assist readers. Chimpanzee ^{Us | Ta | Co} 10:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Unneeded disambiguation. - X201 (talk) 13:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - vague, ambiguous. The magazine is commonly known as just Tearaway. Tearaway has other meanings: here, and is a possible [WP:LCM "misspelling"] of the term "tear away".--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 14:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose highly ambiguous per 1Que. Further high WP:RECENTISM factor, since this game was announced a few days ago. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 04:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Unprofessional Citing

I am a beginner at Wikipedia; I cited the dates, yet it was not done professionally. Can anyone resolve this or teach me how to do it better? --The Sackinator (talk) 03:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sackinator. You might want to try a gadget called ProveIt. You can enable it from your Preferences page. This will add a small window to the bottom of your screen when editing a page where you can enter all the information required for a detailed citation. Chimpanzee ^{Us | Ta | Co} 12:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for helping me. I, as you've probably already seen, instead made one citation for the whole of the information given regarding the release dates. The Sackinator (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Ref ideas

Polygon has some great sources for this article, for those interested  czar ♔ 05:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The creators

Instead of just Rex Crowle being mentioned as the creator, someone added other names in addition. The only problem I know of (unless those other names are not actual creators of the game) is that, for some reason, it's now invisible; it's not even in the article although the wikitext contains it. I tried to see if I could fix it, but I failed. Just letting everyone know. —The Sackinator (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. The reason it didn't work is that the editor tried to use a field called "Creators" which doesn't exist in the video game infobox template. It isn't really practical or encyclopedic to list every person who worked on a game so only the fields specified here can be used. Chimpanzee ^{Us | Ta | Co} 08:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! —The Sackinator (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Tearway Unfolded getting it's own article

I'll be making a separate article for Tearaway Unfolded this week since Unfolded is a remake/re-imagining, and those get their own articles, meaning this will be re-written to make it a Vita exclusive, while a section can remain for Unfolded. If anyone disagrees speak up now.Spilia4 (talk) 00:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I've restored the article to the status quo of both Vita and PS4 versions in the same article. The WP:VG/GL guidelines on remakes having separate articles is clear in demanding that they have significant distinct coverage on both the development and reception phases to warrant a separate article. The PS4 version doesn't have that coverage. I suggest building the PS4 version in this article and then check to see if the development and release sections have been added then. - X201 (talk) 10:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

No worries, I'll wait until Unfolded releases to split the article. There's virtually no info on the remake as of now, so once some is available I'll work on the article. Spilia4 (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)