Talk:Space Cavern

I created this article, after going through my old Atari 2600 games. The description of the game I put in italics, is word for word from the manual. No copyright issues, do to fair usage laws, and the fact no one cares. Dream Focus 04:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It says from the manual, that's all the reference anyone needs. The top part now has a reference to a book, which isn't where that information came from, it just common sense. I wrote it. Two player game, mention the series, company name, and you move back and forth shooting enemies above you or to the side. Simple. Feeling that such a simple thing needs a reference to verify it is rather ridiculous. Dream Focus 15:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

{{Talk:Space Cavern/GA1}}

As the dev section is usually the section for follow-ups to the game content, I thought the bankruptcy info fit best there. If the argument is that the bankruptcy was due to reception, I could possibly see it going in that section, but that connection wasn't made. My 2¢ czar ♔ 00:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

::It's not really a followup to the game. It's more of aftermath to put the game into context. I feel it is appropriate in the reception section. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

::: But it has nothing to do with Reception...? czar ♔ 01:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

::::The word "reception" can mean "receipt as well as "response, reaction " [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reception]. Reception means what happens after it was released, while development is before. So I think it works best in the reception section, which is currently titled "Release and reception". Dream Focus 06:42, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

:::::I suggested elsewhere that the one sentence of "Release" be merged into the end of Development, which is a tiny section anyway. In all the VG-related articles I've touched, I've never seen Reception used for more than how it was received by critics and how the product sold. Legacy and Release/Development usually cover how the company fared and how they reacted to the Reception (did they make DLC, did they leave the company, etc.) I understand that it looks nicer to have the bankruptcy be the last word, but I think that's a different stance than the one given. I put the bankruptcy part back at the end of Reception. Though I still don't think it makes sense, it doesn't look like further discussion of it will be fruitful czar ♔ 12:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• D'oh! I just shifted the bankruptcy information before checking the talk page. Feel free to move it back, I suppose, if that was the consensus. But I do agree with Czar that it fits better under "development". Frankly it really doesn't fit too well into this article at all. It is an important fact in relation to Games by Apollo, but it has next to nothing to do with Space Cavern. But in my view it's much more appropriate under development than reception. -Thibbs (talk) 22:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I just started a discussion on this exact same topic here: Talk:Lost Luggage (video game)#Bankruptcy paragraph. Please weigh in if you are interested. -Thibbs (talk) 14:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Per "{{Diff2|671147594|what does a Certificate of Merit mean? runner-up? winner? honorable mention?}}", I have to confess I don't really know the details of the specific Arkie Awards awarded. I do know that at the 3rd Arkies the "Certificate of Merit" didn't exist and instead they awarded "honorable mention" awards, so I suspect it means something like that. But I have no idea why they changed the name of the lesser award. Details like that might fit better under the article on the Arkies themselves, though. -Thibbs (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

: {{ping|Thibbs|p=}}, are there other winners in the category in the source? – czar 01:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

::Yes. The "Best Action Video Game" was awarded to another game, and the "Certificate of Merit" in that category was awarded to Space Cavern. In the source listed, the category winner is given a 1- or 2-paragraph blurb describing the category winner but the "Certificate of Merit" is just listed at the end.

::Thus an example category might look like this: "Best Action Video Game: Thibbs Adventure - This amazing adventure captures the imaginations of a generation of action gamers. Blah blah blah. Blah Blah. Blah blah. That's why it's truly a great action game. Certificate of Merit: Waiting for Thibbs".

::Previously (3rd Arkies and earlier) the lesser award was called "honorable mention". Perhaps if it's not considered too problematic in light of WP:EASTEREGG, we could just link "Certificate of Merit" to honorable mention. -Thibbs (talk) 10:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

::: I would think it should be fine to scrap the mention of the Certificate and just call it an honorable mention, like it is – czar 14:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The manual is pretty consistent in capitalizing "Electrosauri" and lowercasing "marsupod", but it does look a little odd. The reviews I read (in Video magazine) used lowercase in all cases, but I'm not sure which would be the higher authority on proper naming style. I'd tend to trust the primary sources in this case, but I also wonder if they hadn't erred in their inconsistent use of case. Interestingly both species seem to have a descriptor in the manual as well: "Savage Electrosauri" and "Shaggy marsupod". I'd say we're fine with leaving them both capitalized {{Diff2|671165008|as they currently are}} in the article. -Thibbs (talk) 10:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

: Sounds good. For what it's worth, MOS says to follow the source material's lead. – czar 14:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)