This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
The contents of the Chuck the Plant page were merged into Maniac Mansion on August 8, 2011. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
Since this has been the second time the removal of the Mark Dery image has been reverted, I figure we should start some discussion as to whether or not it should be kept, given undue weight versus what other issues are present. Keep in mind that I originally inserted the image back in February basically so that we could have another image in there and that it is a free image. I mean, if consensus is to remove it, that's fine; I won't lose much sleep over it. –MuZemike16:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I share the sentiment, but would like a better reason to remove than the ones previously provided. The undue weight reason had some merit. However, I don't think it's much of an issue given the breadth of positive information in the article.
I think that the image is overdoing it. I'm all for free images, but I feel this one breaches the limits of usability and exemplification. The comment Dery made about the game seems appropriate for this section, but far too trivial to include a picture of him in the article (not to mention among all the other reviewers, whose comments were more profound and extensive). The image does not help explain the prose, and the carbon copy caption only makes it seem less necessary. All other images have whole paragraphs backing up their helpfulness, this one's just random. It's like having a photograph of LucasArts' cleaning lady in the development section. Prime Blue (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the A-Class assessment has pretty much stalled, and assuming that we haven't missed anything as far as coverage is concerned (and some copyediting obviously), should we just go ahead and make a run for WP:FAC? –MuZemike18:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of loose ends before I send it to FAC, both in the "Development" section:
Dave and Wendy were based on Gilbert and a fellow employee name Wendy, respectively. → How was "Dave" based on Ron Gilbert, unless it referred to someone else?
Three to four characters which has a {{which}} tag there.
The statement about Dave based on Gilbert came directly from Gilbert during one of his postmortem speeches.
Jinnai added the which tag to that statement. It's a tough question to answer because the source material didn't state which characters were dropped. Gilbert described the character development as very generic at first, and said the characters slowly emerged as development progressed. Perhaps they planned to have more, but never had anything concrete. At this point I'm so far removed from the article I don't think I care whether the statement stays or goes. You can remove it if you think it's for the best. (Guyinblack25talk03:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]
If you want to bring it up for an FAC, that's fine. I don't think I can give it a seal for A-class because the lack of attention to fan-made games is imo violating WP:UNDUE as there is more than enough press coverage to make them notable (not that they need a separate article). There's also more modern reviews, and I know the Eurogamer review was added, but that still gives undue weight for a game that's had staying power to initial reviews when it should if anything be balanced or weighted for more contemporary ones. There's also the way the TV series is handled which goes against common conventions and no good reason was given why it should be that way.
The rest though while I'd disagree, are more minor stuff.
Well, you may be right of sorts. I just located a lot more sources below, which should expand the article even more than it currently is. I know the critical thing as far as FAC is concerned is comprehensiveness, which is what we need to have. –MuZemike00:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My main concern is content bloat. There are already a 9 sources cited in the reception section that are dated between 1993-2010. Admittedly they are NES heavy, but the Amiga and original C64 versions are among them. Having read through almost every source used in the article and more that are not, I don't think any new content would be gained by focusing on other contemporary reviews. Also, the game's staying power is further (and better in my opinion) outlined in the impact/legacy section. The information is already there, it's just organized in a way that focuses less on contemporary opinions. (Guyinblack25talk14:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Very rarely is there ever such a thing as "too much reception", but the oppoiste is true in an FAC, especially if it could violate WP:UNDUE.
If anything, more sources help show that the series has enough notability to go above and beyond what the GNG requires. Furthermore, contemporary reviews have completely different types of perspective and that is placing UNDUE weight on an initial release of a game that has been reviewed and updated throughout the years. It'd be one thing if MM was forgotten over the years, but it hasn't been.陣内Jinnai21:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Too much reception would violate WP:UNDUE just as too little would. Regardless, I think we have a sufficient amount. I also think we've already gone well beyond the what GNG requires, and there is no policy that requires us to do anything more.
In regard to a contemporary perspective, the impact and legacy section goes into that as well as the contemporary reviews in the reception section. I'm sorry, but I think more reviews here will tilt the article in a negative direction. (Guyinblack25talk13:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Another consideration (note, I'm not trying to ignore your suggestion, Guyinblack25) is that we could reorganize the reviews by console instead of entirely chronological. When I worked on the Wonder Boy in Monster Land article, I found that each console version had their own common set of pros and cons (i.e. the ZX Spectrum version was generally received well, while the Amiga version was received rather poorly). I would guess that the same would apply here. Structurally, this may also be more manageable, as we can dedicate one paragraph per console (or more if we find that certain paragraphs may become too large, as I had to use two paragraphs to cover the Amiga version of Wonder Boy in Monster Land). However, I think the last two paragraphs (Nintendo Power reviews and the contemporary reviews) should stay separate and probably right where they are, to provide some continuity in the section (i.e. going from 1990s reviews to 2000s reviews). –MuZemike20:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You read my mind about reorganizing the section. I was reading through the reception section yesterday for prep. I planned to focus on grouping similar comment topics about the original together and then group the ports all together, but I believe we're thinking along the same lines. I'm not sure when I'll get to it this week, so please feel free to give it go. (Guyinblack25talk14:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]
I just started to do that with the non-Nintendo Power NES reviews (see [1]). Here's a translation of the German Video Games source if anyone is interested (not 100%, but it's close enough), which I posted to pastebin: [2]. –MuZemike22:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Amiga paragraph is now separated and filled out with the relevant reviews in the below section. Here are the translations of the Amiga Joker and Datormagazin articles here and here, respectively. –MuZemike23:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(NES) Forster, Winnie; Lenhardt, Heinrich (June 1991). "Gehirne, Gags & Gäsenhaut". Video Games (in German). 2 (6): 38–39. Retrieved July 18, 2011. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help) (this one will need to be translated into English in order to be usable)
(Amiga) "Maniac Mansion". Power Play (in German). 1990 (3). March 1990. Retrieved July 18, 2011. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
(PC) "Maniac Mansion". Génération 4 (in French) (16): 70, 72. November 1989. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) (scans [3] and [4], probably shouldn't be linked in the article as I don't think the site got permission to post them, but they're there)
(Amiga) "Maniac Mansion". Amiga Joker (in German). 1990 (2). February 1990. Retrieved July 18, 2011. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
(Commodore 64) "Maniac Mansion". Happy-Computer (in German). April 1986. Retrieved July 18, 2011. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
(Atari ST) Gerrard, Mike (December 1989). "Maniac Mansion". Zero (2): 81. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) (rating only, Amiga Magazine Rack)
(Amiga) Palmér, Ingela (March 1990). "Alla har ett fånigt flin". Datormagazin (in Swedish). 1990 (6): 29. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) (review)
(Amiga) Thörnqvist, Daniel (June 1993). "Maniac Mansion". Datormagazin (in Swedish). 1993 (11): 50. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) (rating only, Amiga Magazine Rack)
(Commodore 64) Nilsson, Lennart (November 1987). "Maniac Mansion". Datormagazin (in Swedish). 1987 (9): 31. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) (rating only, Amiga Magazine Rack)
More contemporary reviews not covered in the article:
(Atari ST) Hellmann, Stefan; Poppen, Heiko (February 4, 2010). "Maniac Mansion Atari ST" (in German). neXGam. Retrieved July 18, 2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help) (German video game reviewing website, this is their editorial staff here [5], if people wish to question the reliability of the site; I think it passes as an RS)
(All consoles) Williams, Berian Morgan (October 13, 2006). "Review: Maniac Mansion". Adventure Gamers. Retrieved July 18, 2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help) (unsure of reliability, though, but I thought it's been used before)
(All consoles) Cadenas, Javier (November 26, 2005). "Confusiva nostalgia" (in Spanish). Aventura y Cía. Retrieved July 18, 2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help) (again, on the fence with regards to reliability, looks like it's similarly structured to the German site I mentioned above)
Thanks for the extra sources. I'll try to look at them as soon as I can.
Though I stayed away from the foreign language reviews because I was under the impression that the language of the game's country of origin is the primary focus. (Guyinblack25talk15:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Just one journal that can be used here, from the Google Scholar link I found above:
There is also that reference to the book Gender inclusive game design: Expanding the market, which would be great as far as additional critical analysis of gender roles are concerned, but I cannot access the material online. I think most of the other ones are either not authoritative enough or are in fact more usable as references in the SCUMM article than this one. –MuZemike16:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fan remakes' websites are RSes for the fan reamkes themselves and likely should be used at somepoint to fill in details if secondary sources cannot suffice.陣内Jinnai21:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also note that, since Template:Video game reviews only takes at most 7 ratings from non-conventional sources, there won't be much use to include those sources in which we only know ratings (i.e. no reviews), as IMO readers aren't interested in reading a whole bunch of prose consisting of "Such-and-such gave a rating of x% (unless you want to create a homemade table like I did with the ratings table in the Wonder Boy in Monster Land article. –MuZemike22:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think merging into LucasArts adventure games would be a better place for the future. I always wanted to add a nice common elements (design/sound/technology/writing etc) sort of section to that, where something like this would be at home. But since such a section doesn't exist (and probably wont come anytime soon from my hand at least), here's as good a place as any. I certainly don't think it can stand as its own article. -- Sabre (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do we even have anything remotely reliable to verify anything there? I see a 404, a fansite, and one from Gilbert's own website; though the latter is good as a primary source, is there anything else that is substantive enough and is secondary to warrant its own article? Otherwise, I would think a straight redirect would suffice. –MuZemike23:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only sources I came across are the two currently used in the article and Gilbert's website. The two third-party sources only briefly mention Chuck the Plant. (Guyinblack25talk14:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]
So it looks like we have a rough consensus to merge or redirect, pending nobody who opposes it. Is there anything there that we can salvage and add into the Maniac Mansion article? –MuZemike23:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph of the "Meaning" section, which is supported by a comment by Gilbert where he confirms an older version of the Wikipedia content.[7]
OK, merge completed; I added that paragraph to the end of its mention in the "Impact and legacy" section and broke off the German remake into a separate paragraph. –MuZemike01:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As of September 2015, the link Chuck the Plant redirects to this article's section Impact and Legacy however there is not a single reference to Chuck the Plant in that section nor in the whole article. If any references to Chuck the Plant have been removed since 2011 as non-documentable or trivial, then perhaps the redirect should be deleted altogether. LamerGamer (talk) 10:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think I have added pretty much everything RS-wise that I could to the article on my end. User:Clarityfiend was happy enough to do a 2nd run-through on copyediting (especially the Reception section, which was rearranged and expanded). I've done an image check today, and everything seems in order. Pending any other minor issues, are we just about ready to make a run for FAC here? –MuZemike22:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to give the article a good read before hand, and I'd like to condense/summarize the reception section. The article is in really good shape, but I'll let you know if I find anything of concern. (Guyinblack25talk16:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Well, nobody has stepped forward yet. Do you think we should try and make a run now and see what happens, and if something is missing, we know we already have in a request for one? –MuZemike03:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You should remove the copyedit request per their page instructions, "If the article is to be a Good Article nomination or a Featured Article candidate, please try to have the copy editing done before the process starts, not after the nomination." (bolding is not my emphasis).∞陣内Jinnai19:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not terribly fond of the image that we're currently using on Doug Crockford. I found a couple other alternate CC-BY-SA images of Crockford on Flickr:
In those two pictures, to say the least, he is dressed more conservatively and does not seem as much of an eyesore to readers than the current image. Moreover, they're both a little more recent than the current one. Any thoughts on which one to use (or keep the current one)? --MuZemike22:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gilbert on making Maniac Mansion - presentation[edit]
Just found this presentation (courtesy of Mixnmojo's reporting) at the Game Forum Germany in January. As 45 minute presentation by Gilbert, its quite indepth and covers a fair few aspects that might come in useful in expanding the development and impact sections. To get to it, select "2011" in the player, then find Gilbert's entry. -- Sabre (talk) 17:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. What. A. Goldmine. Can we use this as a reference somehow? It really expands on and clarifies some points we have in the article. -- Nczempin (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little bit uncomfortable using such an ephemeral reference; linkrot hits videos—particularly Flash videos—harder and faster than any other kind of online material. I wish there was a way to back this up. Anyway, good job on the expansion, GiB. It looks great. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The summary looks very similar to the speech Gilbert gave at the Game Forum. Maybe when the GDC posts the video, it'll have a more direct link and be similar enough to switch the two out. We'll see. (Guyinblack25talk18:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Aye, link it directly in the reference in place of the other one, that'll be far more pernament than the other link. It'll change the reference icon automatically so people will know its a download of a video file. -- Sabre (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's a fangame. It can be mentioned in the article if it's given coverage in reliable sources independent of it.--IDVtalk11:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]