Talk:Undead Labs

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 articles

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

Atomas (1 participant)
PLAY: The Games Festival (2 participants)
FloodSim (1 participant)
Kunimitsu and Kunimitsu II (1 participant)
Blast Monkeys (2 participants)
Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters (6 participants)
Free Internet Chess Server (9 participants)
Gilman Louie (3 participants; relisted)
Yoshimitsu (5 participants; relisted)
Emote (3 participants; relisted)
Preston Arsement (6 participants; relisted)
Jackpot World (3 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Prod vs Redirect

I noticed the prod from User:Chuunen Baka is based on WP:CRYSTAL. Admittedly the company has not yet produced a product, but it has received some media coverage for its launch. So it may be somewhat notable without triggering WP:CRYSTAL. However, the coverage seems to have occurred primarily because of interest in the founder, Jeff Strain. So I wonder if a redirect to Jeff Strain may be more appropriate than deletion. --RL0919 (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. --Chuunen Baka (talk) 09:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --RL0919 (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Artists that worked on Guild Wars?

They couldn't have been very important artists then because if you check out the staff roll of artists between Guild Wars 1 and Guild Wars 2 they remain unchanged (in fact, the roster of artists has simply grown rather than changed).

So I don't buy that statement at all and I'd love to see the article writer's citation for it, otherwise I think we should just remove it because I honestly don't think it's grounded in reality or fact, but rather the wishful thinking of the article writer.77.107.172.208 (talk) 01:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]