Talk:Amanda the Adventurer

Series vs individual game page

@NatwonTSG2: I wanted to discuss making this a page about a single game as opposed to one for the series as a whole. The reason I made this a series page rather than an individual game page is because it makes it easier to cover the series as a whole this way. Right now, neither the demo nor the second game in the series are independently notable. It's also possible that any future game in the series would also not pass notability guidelines.

Having a series page instead of a page for the first game would accomplish two things: the first is that it would discourage people from trying to create individual pages for the games or a separate page for the series. That would just result in a lot of pages that all generally say the same thing.

The second is that a series page allows us to have more overall information about the series that would not be doable with a single game page. For example, we cannot go into more depth about the plot and game mechanics in the second (or future) games because that would put undue weight on the game sequels. It doesn't look like it would be that bad now, but imagine them releasing 2-3 more sequels. The sequels section would either have to be limited to release dates and very basic info about any changes (assuming they do not pass GNG) or it would quickly grow to be unwieldy.

We can't guarantee that the future games will have enough notability to have their own articles. I'll also say that the coverage for the first game was also pretty light. There were some reviews, but the bulk of what I found were announcements and general PR releases. This doesn't lose anything as far as coverage of the first game goes by making it a series page and Wikipedia would gain more by having a series page that would be better able to cover future games if/when they release. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

We are here to write an Encyclopedia not a dramatic novel.

This game has for lack of a better word a cult following. Though we do have some answers we also get more questions. However Wikipedia is not here to embellish the views of the fan base. So to stay factual this is what needs to be remembered.

(1) Riley is a unisex name. They never specify what Riley's gender is at all. Because the one playing the game IS Riley.

(2) Since Wooly is a piece of the whole Hamlin machine, don't be fooled by his facade of innocence. Only his 3D Avatar is the one being abused and murdered. For all we know his actual physical form and whoever his identity is healthy and well, and likes to display the violence he's subjected too. So don't write down his true nature as some kind of dramatic twist and keep it factual. There are enough naive people on YouTube saying: Wooly my baby where are you? This is Wikipedia the REAL one, and here are just the simple facts.

(3) By keeping to a factual policy this article may still be allowed to exist. It has only been released into Wikipedia more recently after the release of the second chapter. The Importance on this article has been currently deemed "Low", and we don't want over dramatic editors making this article a nominee for deletion. Maxcardun (talk) 14:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Good points to remember - I really do want to encourage people to avoid writing in an WP:INUNIVERSE style.

However as far as importance levels go, keep in mind that having a low importance doesn't mean that something is non-notable.

It's used to show how major and important something is in the overall context of a given WikiProject. The higher something is on the importance scale, the more important it is for editors to improve and maintain the article. It was never meant to judge notability.

A good example of an article topic that is extremely notable but lower in importance is David Tennant, who is known for his portrayal of the 10th/14th incarnations of the Doctor. However when it comes to the Doctor Who WikiProject, he's only of mid importance. With the Scotland WikiProject he's of low importance. He's obviously notable and extremely recognizable. He's not exactly at the same level of recognizability as say, Sean Connery, but Tennant is definitely one of the more recognizable actors to come out of Scotland.

So essentially, importance level doesn't mean anything as far as notability goes. Now I do have to say that it's entirely possible for something to be considered high importance on a WikiProject but fail notability guidelines. It's probably very rare when it does happen, but it's not impossible. The smaller and more niche a WikiProject gets, the higher the chances of something like that happening. If this happened, it would most likely be merged into the main article. The most likely scenario I could see is a character not passing GNG. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The Logo

Anyone know how to get permission for and add a Logo to this article? Maxcardun (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll add one - there's a certain option you select when uploading copyrighted logos. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:04, 27 November 2024 (UTC)