Jump to content

Talk:Pac-Man (franchise)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pac-Man World 4: Spooky Returns

[edit]

I do not recall hearing of a "Pac-Man World 4: Spooky Returns" video game coming out in 2008. You would think is would be mentioned on IGN.com or in Game Informer Magazine. What source dose this come from? --Spock2266 05:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saw it on a Fandom wiki, but no further info exists except for stuff like plot. Flipsosmasos (talk) 13:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Pacmannewform.jpg

[edit]

Image:Pacmannewform.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't there a Pac-Man wristwatch? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.85.226.34 (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deluxe

[edit]

I recall a version called "Pac Man Deluxe." The maze had a different shape from the original, and there were two escape tunnels on each side instead of one. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article messed up

[edit]

Recently this article has been changed and the lists of games have been seperated into strange catorgorys. What makes one game a 'traditional game' and what makes another game a 'spin off' is a matter of opinion, if Namco themselves catogorised the games like this then fair enough but since the haven't this should be put back to how it was. Also, why do the Pac-Man World games now get a special mention and none of the others do? These problems have been annoying me for a while now, it should be put back the way it was with simply the 'arcade games', 'console games' and 'mobile games' catogorys. What are other peoples views on this? 90.198.11.88 (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Things lost in the update

[edit]

I think the article is much better now it is in a table with notes, platforms and release dates etc. but there are many games that have been completely removed from the list during the reconstruction: Baby Pac-Man, Pac-Man Arrangement, Pac'N Party, Pac-Man All-Stars, Pac-Man Pizza Parlor, all of the mobile titles and I think a few more. Could these games be readded to the article please, thank you.

90.198.11.214 (talk) 19:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have sources for the mobile games? That would really help in getting them back in. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Is the Namco website a good enough source? ([1]) Nomader (Talk) 18:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That works fine for a list like this. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Just for the record, I dug up a GameSpot source which could really go well into sourcing the series article ([2]). Either way, the games are sourced at the following:

  • Baby Pac-Man [3]
  • Pac-Man Arrangement: according to the wikipedia article, it's remake that was part of a collection... I don't think it should have a seperate release info here though. Could the Namco Classic Collection Vol. 2 be included instead?
  • Pac 'N Party [4]. Apparently it's, "3rd edition of Shooting Medal Series".
  • Pac-Man All-Stars [5]. Looks like it's actually notable for its own article. If I get the chance I might go ahead and create it.
  • Pac-Man Pizza Parlor [6]. Mentioned above.

Those are the ones the IP listed other than the mobile ones... I'll try and add them soon, but real life is starting to eat away at my time, unfortunately. Nomader (Talk) 23:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the sources. I should have time this week to focus on the list.
No worries about time, I spent about a year on and off working on the Space Invaders list. We get it done when we get it done. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

=10

[edit]

What is =10 in the mobile section? Seems vandalism to me if somebody can't provide a source for it. --Mika1h (talk) 23:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of Pac-Man video games. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Pac-Man Arrangement

[edit]

This game doesn't have significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?) as a standalone release (note how it has been unsourced for a decade). It has had some coverage in compilation releases, but even then should be covered proportionately. The existing Pac-Man game list article has enough room to list major features of the game. czar 17:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, being part of a memorable franchise doesn't automatically establish notability for a particular game. Mortal Kombat is world famous yet there's not an article for every release in the series. sixtynine • speak up • 03:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "Mortal Kombat is world famous yet there's not an article for every release in the series": The articles Mortal Kombat (1992 video game), Mortal Kombat II, Mortal Kombat 3, Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3, Mortal Kombat Trilogy, Mortal Kombat 4, Mortal Kombat Gold, Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance, Mortal Kombat: Deception, Mortal Kombat: Armageddon, Mortal Kombat vs. DC Universe, Mortal Kombat (2011 video game), Mortal Kombat X, etc., would beg to differ. —Lowellian (reply) 09:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but I'm also certain that every single one of those entries easily has the sourcing to meet the WP:GNG individually though, making them incomparable to this particular article. Sergecross73 msg me 20:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article should not be merged. Video games that are part of one of the most famous series in video game history, not only initially released worldwide in multiple regions, but also additionally ported multiple times to multiple consoles within multiple anthological collections are triply notable real-world products. While some of the detail within the article might be argued to be excessive, the product itself is a clearly notable subject deserving of an article. Merging should not be used as a substitute for cleanup, so the argument that the article is written poorly is only an argument that the article should be improved, not an argument to merge.

That said, though I do not believe a merge is the best course of action, I could accept it. What I am opposed to is the action taken before: a blanket redirect with no effort at the retention of content that is part of a merger.

—Lowellian (reply) 09:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What portion of this content is sourced (and thus appropriate) to merge? (Also really surprised to hear this from an admin... what portion of this content is sourced to even stay as a separate article?) czar 10:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just for the record, since that comment is on another page and thus might be missed by people seeing the discussion here, there was a previous merge proposal on Talk:Pac-Man Arrangement, wherein the only posts were by another user, User:Jeff Silvers, opposing merger, who stated, "Personally, I don't feel a merge is appropriate; it might be if Pac-Man Arrangement were exclusive to Namco Classic Collection Vol. 2, but it isn't; it has appeared in Pac-Man Collection, Namco Museum Advance, and Namco Museum (128-bit version)." —Lowellian (reply) 15:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to suggest a better target then, but as long as there is no sourcing for this specific version, it should be merged elsewhere, and if there is nothing sourced to merge, it should simply be redirected. czar 18:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Lowellian. A standalone article makes sense to me as long as it is improved. If a merge must take place however so be it. datagod (talk) 🍁 20:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This game is notable enough in my opinion to have its own dedicated article. Namcokid47 (talk) 18:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How can you both say that? Without any sourcing, or even an actual rationale (WP:ITSNOTABLE isn't valid), there's not even a debate here. WP:V and WP:GNG are non-negotiable. You can't opt out of sourcing on Wikipedia. Unless someone provides some, the only possible conclusion is to get rid of the article ("Merge" if any actual content can be verified, redirection/deletion is nothing can be verified.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • With what sources is anyone above proposing to write a separate article on Pac-Man Arrangement? The article is unsourced and the title doesn't have a single review. czar 19:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just redirect to this list. There is currently no reliably sourced content in this article, so there's nothing to merge. Looking through Google News, I don't see much notability on this topic; though I'm sure one could write an article on this game, it looks to me like nobody really has yet. ~Mable (chat) 08:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Pac-Man video games. 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:

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) 20:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source

[edit]

Change of name

[edit]

Could I suggest changing the name of the article to Pac-Man (Series)?

Man, I too like the other name better Flipsosmasos (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is Pac-Man and the Ghostly Adventures (games) a sub-series?

[edit]

I recently contributed on the Pac-Man and the Ghostly Adventures 2 saying that the Pac-Man and the Ghostly Adventures games are a sub-series, but then I got a message saying my edit was undone because with that I made a redlink (you prolably know what a redlink is). So my question is: are the Pac-Man and the Ghostly Adventures games a sub-series on their own? Flipsosmasos (talk) 07:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is Pac-Mania really the first 16-bit Pac-Man title?

[edit]

One of the notes for Pac-Mania states this is the first 16-bit game and while it does look like its a 16-bit game, the game itself is running on the 8-bit arcade hardware, Namco System 1. Is there something I'm missing here or is this an discrepancy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domestic Weirdo (talk • contribs) 21:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not too familiar with how Namco's arcade systems are built, I can definitely say that it being an 8-bit board is flat-out wrong (no idea why the article for it says otherwise). Pac-Mania is absolutely a 16-bit game, so that bit of info should be left alone. I really need to get this thing into shape, it's a colossal mess and has been largely unfinished for many years now. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 22:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 April 2022

[edit]
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. This is a content dispute that is outside the scope of the RM process. A page for the franchise as a whole can be created at leisure. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pac-Man video games → Pac-Man (franchise) – I just think it looks better like this. What do you all think? Thomasfan1000 (talk) 15:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed move request. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I feel like they should be included as they are apart of the franchise. Thomasfan1000 (talk) 21:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I feel like the original 1980 game should just be called Pac-Man as that's what people think about when they think about Pac-Man, not the franchise. So that's why I'm saying Pac-Man (franchise). Thomasfan1000 (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well that can be decided later, either way it can still have a separate franchise article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pac-Man_(franchise)&oldid=1259789559"