Talk:Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1988 video game)

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1988 video game) was one of the Video games good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 28, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
March 2, 2009	Good article reassessment	Delisted
April 21, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed
November 9, 2019	Good article reassessment	Delisted
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 20, 2007. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom for the Nintendo Entertainment System was released in both licensed and unlicensed versions?
Current status: Delisted good article

Video games Low‑importance

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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Reference Link needs fixed

Not sure how to do this, but my correction was over ruled and the old page reinstated. (I don't even know why I edit anything on here since someone always thinks they are correct, and if I am not, please explain why I am not.)

The 'edit' in question is regards to this is suppose to be the first Indy movie made into a video game, when 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' came out at least two years prior on the Atari 2600. Am I not correct? Then the statement that Temple of Doom was the first is WRONG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.96.75.40 (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you need to source this change, I can't just take your word for it in defiance of the sourced material. Second of all, you deleting this completely destroys my reference structure, so of course I'm going to revert it. Give me a source that says this. Then I will PROPERLY change the reference so that it doesn't wreck the entire article. Until you can source this, I am going to continue to revert it. Per Wikipedia policy "unsourced material may be reverted at any time." Cheers, CP 03:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the sources: Go here... right on Wikipedia itself: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Raiders_of_the_Lost_Ark_(video_game), here is one as well: http://www.mobygames.com/game/atari-2600/raiders-of-the-lost-ark. Here is another one: http://www.atariage.com/catalog_page.html?CatalogID=62&currentPage=5, released in 1982, a FULL two years before Temple of Doom. I am old enough to know when I originally bought it... in 1982.

Now if you may, remove that text if you want to make Wikipedia an actual factual reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.96.75.40 (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've clarified the material anyhow. The passage is referring to arcade games and the game you refer to was released for the console only, if I'm not mistaken. Hopefully this clears it up? Cheers, CP 00:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, sorry about the trouble and the reaction.

No problem. In addition, I was being careful to avoid attacking you (though I was mad), but I apologize if there were any hard feelings. Per WP:TPG though, it's not a good idea to edit others comments on talk pages, but since your intention was good and it betters the project, I say it's a good time to ignore all rules. Cheers, CP 01:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What needs doing?

Wow. I'd say this is pretty near to GA as it is. The sources, images, neutrality and stability are all pretty much there. It was a really interesting read, though there are still a couple of points before I think you can send it off to GAC:

I'm no expert on criterion 1 at any level, but there are still a few things in this department I noticed:
- Usually, the template goes at the bottom, rather than sandwiched between "references" and "see also". Move the references up to right before "see also", and then you'd be fine in my books.

Done Cheers, CP 22:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- The age of this game means that the likelihood of there being a useful website is slim, but do see if you can find an external link or two.

Done Cheers, CP 23:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a MobyGames link and a HotU link. Una Laguna^Talk 18:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet, thanks! Cheers, CP 23:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- The names of review sites are usually italicised. "Top Ten Reviews" doesn't point to anything, and I doubt it ever will or have reason to, so you can probably remove the link pointing to the non-existent article.

Done Cheers, CP 22:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Per WP:CONTEXT do bats, rats, snakes and spiders (and the similar list beforehand) all need links?

Done I didn't think so either, not sure why I left them there. Cheers, CP 22:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reception section seems a little light, but given the age of the game it'd be understandable if there aren't any more reviews.

Doing... Nothing worthwhile as of yet. I'm going to go ahead and nominate this for GA, but I'll keep an eye out. Cheers, CP 01:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "edit this page" button suggests reference 3 doesn't fit the reliable source criteria, though depending on how the editing works would affect this (e.g. if the maintainer of the website had to look at the changes before implicating them then it would probably be seen as reliable).

Done I checked, and it requires you to submit your changes so that the person who maintains the page can review them before they are posted. Cheers, CP 22:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC) That's all I can think of for now. Una Laguna^Talk 20:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the review! Cheers, CP 22:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Platforms

Why is the lead and the infobox telling it was only released for NES when the MobyGames entry lists all these platforms: Amiga, Amstrad CPC, Apple II, Atari ST, Commodore 64, DOS, MSX, ZX Spectrum? --Mika1h 11:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lead doesn't say that it was "only" released for the NES, the first sentence merely implies that the version being focus on is the NES one. In fact, the very next sentence is about how it was originally released as an arcade game. The other parts are mentioned in the first section of the actual article. You are right, though, I should list the different platforms in the infobox, and will do so now. Thanks! Cheers, CP 14:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But shouldn't the article also discuss these different versions? How they are different from one another and so on. One Good Article criteria is "broad in its coverage", isn't it? --Mika1h 19:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it does discuss the differences between this version and the Arcade version, but yes, not the others. This is an article, however, on the NES version. Perhaps the name of the page should be changed to "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (Nintendo game)?" Cheers, CP 20:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be one solution. Then the arcade game article could talk about other versions and you don't have to worry about them. --Mika1h 20:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to do it at the moment (since I'd need to change the Indiana Jones Games template, the GA nom and everything else that points here), but I do support the move. The NES version has a claim to notability (given the two different versions that were released, that controversy and the almost complete panning of the game), but I do support the move. The other versions are NN and it makes more sense to talk about them in the context of the original game (the arcade version) than this one. Cheers, CP 20:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it. --Mika1h 09:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! Cheers, CP 15:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Passed as Good Article!

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Nothing bad to say about this article. There was one poorly written sentence that may have been a result of two sentences melded together, but I simply removed the material that didn't make sense. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 22:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! What's the original research though? Cheers, CP 01:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (NES)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Result: delisted MuZemike 08:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of delisting myself, I am putting this up for reassessment to see if it can be salvaged as a GA and since there has been a couple of recent edits to the article. Here are the reasons I think this should be delisted:

Many of the sources used to verify the information is not reliable, such as arcade-history.com (no editorial oversight, anyone can literally edit it, kind of like Wikipedia), thehouseofgames.net (same reason as arcade-history.com), Nintendo Land (fansite), GameFAQs (no editorial oversight, any user can post a review), toptenreviews.com (nothing I can find there), theRaider.net (likely not, but more importantly, nonexistant - I get a 404), and Gamespot (while this is considered reliable in general, reader/user reviews, like with GameFAQs are not considered reliable; it needs official reviews by actual qualified editors)
The last third of the Plot and Gameplay section describes over-detailed gameplay instructions (see Wikipedia is not a game guide).
Prose needs improvement. There are lots of weasel words and peacock terms floating around in the article.

MuZemike 20:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably nothing that can be done given the new standards. Might as well make it pour and nominate Major League Baseball (video game) as well. Cheers, CP 21:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (NES)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: S Masters (talk) 15:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments:

There should not be anything in the lead not mentioned in the rest of the article. (GA criteria) - For example, I can't find any other mention of Road Runner or Klax (which are also unreferenced). Please see WP:LEAD.
My only other concern is whether GameFAQs is a reliable source, especially when there are a number of items references using it. It appears to be a website that anyone can open an account and contribute. Can you help me verify that it is WP:RS?

The above are my only issues with this article. I will put in On Hold for up to seven days so that we can work to resolve these issues, and make this a better article.

Regarding #1, I have removed the uncited examples from both the lead and the body, so hopefully that has cleared up the problem... I don't see any more information that's in the lead but not the body, but please let me know if you catch anything. Regarding #2, according to Wikipedia:VG/RS#Situational sources, GameFAQs can be used to cite release data, which is the only thing that I have used the site for.

Thanks for the review, please let me know if there's anything else. Canadian Paul 21:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: Thank you for your work and clarification. I am now satisfied that the article meets all the requirements for a Good Article, and I am happy to list it as such. Nice work! -- S Masters (talk) 05:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Canadian Paul 06:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Creating a centralized discussion for the use of extra images (as seen in the history). The only argument made in favour of the images inclusion has been that they were in the article when the article passed GA, in spite of the fact that none of the images' rationales actually address the content of the image or its actual use. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My only suggestion was that the images comparing the two versions would be relevant for critical commentary on the section so that said differences can be clearly identified by the user. Perhaps the bonus stage is superfluous, I can compromise on that, if it is in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Canadian Paul 04:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the fact that title screens are largely considered "cover images" unless they are used in an exceptional way (such as if, in a theoretical example, a title screen had significant discussion or if it received controversy due to a typo that totally looked like a swear word). In this case, the title screen is not mentioned in the article whatsoever. I'm still very confused as to the difference between the two images. I am only seeing a difference in copyright information. Is that it? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sardonic tone above was a product of my account being hijacked for several minutes; however, NARH's comments are valid and thus deleting my own would make their's nonsensical. I will produce a proper response tomorrow to NARH's (valid) concerns tomrrow. Canadian Paul 04:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so, having reviewed the article, any significant discussion on the bonus wave was removed when I shortened the section to comply with the standards, so that one can probably go without argument. As for the title screen, there is an entire paragraph devoted to the differences between the two versions of the final product (third paragraph of "version history")... but of course the point is that they were identical save for the official licensing. Thus, the commentary with the images is not to highlight the differences, but the similarities. Seems like this one, however, we might just have two different opinions... perhaps an uninvolved, neutral party would be helpful? Canadian Paul 01:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To note, we cannot point out the similarities unless a reliable source does first. And even then, the intro screen does very little to illustrate the game by itself. A more useful comparison would be of actual gameplay. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 March 2016

The following is a closed 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: page moved. The1337gamer (talk) 14:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (NES video game) → Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1988 video game) – WP:NCVGDAB says to disambiguate by release year before platform. The other release (Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1985 video game) is 1985 so this would be better for parallelism too. Please {{ping}} me if you'd like a response. czar 15:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC) --Relisted. — Amakuru (talk) 09:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:NCVG says original games should be disambiguated by year, while remakes/ports by platform. This game is described twice in its very lede as such: ("The game is based on the arcade game", "The resulting product (...) kept the same underlying premise and style"). The "Version history" makes it clear that it's not a strict port but more of an enhanced remake. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support to be consistent with our disambiguation of these two articles. As there are only two games of this title, it's clearer if they're both distinguished by year (or both by system).--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1988 video game). 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://archive.is/20080219184838/http://www.nesplayer.com/features/lawsuits/tengen.htm to http://www.nesplayer.com/features/lawsuits/tengen.htm

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 07:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]