Talk:Spore (2008 video game)

Template:Cleanup taskforce notice

Enough with the Dune references

Can we please stop inserting speculation about the origin of spice as the currency for civilisation/space phase? Yes, it could be a Frank Herbert reference, but it could also be a reference to the fact that spices were a commonly traded commodity between real civilisations. Either way, it doesn't belong in the article. 2p0rk (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I have reason to believe it is a Dune reference, considering that there are many other pop culture references in the game already. Nonetheless, I note someone has added it again. Can we get a discussion on whether to keep this or not? Maybe, remove it for the time being until we get official confirmation from an interview or something?Avnas Ishtaroth (talk) 01:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it's very likely that it really is a reference to Dune. After all, Wright mentions 2001 and Star Trek as influences on the Space Phase. However, it's pure speculation and this article is waaaaaaaay too long already.

It probably does belong in the Development of Spore article though. 2p0rk (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's glitterstim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.106.104.40 (talk) 01:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

More DRM vagueness

"This is a change from the planned system which would have required authentication every ten days, a method which met with opposition from the public, and will allow gamers to play Spore without a disc." Does it mean that the new system will allow play without a disk? The old system? Does it have nothing to do with either and should be moved to another section? My internet is filtered so I can't follow the reference myself, so I'd like to see the section re-written. --162.39.93.10 (talk) 14:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit should suffice. JAF1970 (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

A random IP added the now-discredited rumor that you can only install Spore 3 times to the article, I have reverted it due to no references. KiTA (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you please link to the place that discredits the 3 install limit? I can not find that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.98.129.16 (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well here is a message from one of the makers of Spore that states that you can install the game on different computers and no mentioning of install limit. Also if there is a limit its only on how many computers you can have the game active not how many times you can install it on one computer. http://mysporepage.com/article/article_15/ --80.221.239.213 (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

What about this link: http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/52618 . It says there is 3 installs only. is it creditable for you guys? 156.98.129.16 (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)DudeX

I read that article; it says install on 3 systems, not 3 installs. Which makes a lot more sense. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 02:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Tribal Phase video

YouTube. It more or less confirms the farming of animals, as another creature is in a pen. Other stuff, too. JAF1970 (talk) 07:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Man, that pen is way too small. Someone alert SCETOSC (Spore Creatures for the Ethical Treatment of Other Spore Creatures)! Tritium h3 (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Aw, c'mon. That's how you make veal. :p (This is bordering on Forum talk, so let's end this discussion here. heh) JAF1970 (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Digital Rights Management

The Digital Rights Management has changed on Spore. There will no longer be as intensive DRM; players will authenticate their CD-key on installation instead of every 10 days as previously stated. Source: DRM Changes for Spore and Mass Effect PC TheTrueHeadfoot (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Er, um, that was posted weeks ago. JAF1970 (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Also it says that it authenticates the game everytime they download new connection so in Spore it means almost every time you play it as it downloads contect from the server almost every playing time. So in reality it will authenticate the game more often it would have on the other authenticate method. Still to me its right to do so as it will discourage piracy. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 05:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

they can dress it up any way they like and argue about eulas till they're blue in the face i still wont buy it if its full of drm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.46.178 (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

"Also, players will not have to start at the tide pool phase, but can simply jump in to any phase."

Anyone have a reference for this? I know it's been said, but I do not know which video and/or interview it's mentioned in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KiTA (talk • contribs) 14:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It was mentioned in one of the videos made out some convention event if I remember correctly. Still it seems more that you first have to play the phase once trough before you can choose to start from that phase as they had also mentioned that the individual parts of the creatures have to be found in the game. So you won't start with the whole set of arms and other organs but you have to either take them by force from other creatures or with social interaction. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 23:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that both those bear mentioning in the article, if they're not already there and we can cite references. The "you have to earn your parts" adds a new spin to the creature section, definitely. There are also interesting connotations -- what if you randomly end up on a planet missing some of the weirder arms and legs? Will "DNA Hunting" be part of the Space game? KiTA (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Will Wright stated "Also, players will not have to start at the tide pool phase, but can simply jump in to any phase." in the GDC 2005 video and several E3 videos. JAF1970 (talk) 03:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well that he did say but I remember someone else or him saying that "You have to first clear the previos stage before you can go the next" or close to that in one of the vidoes. I would think both of those statements are right but after you have once cleared the stage you can freely choose what stage you want to start in. So you have to clear tribal phase so you can choose the civilization phase and so for but you could still choose creature phase if you don't want to go forward yet. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No, most recently the messaging has been that they will have some pre-created creatures to jump right into the other stages out of the box. I don't have access to the videos right now to confirm, however, I think it was the Interview with N'Gai Croal or whatever his name is that he said it? Or the one with the producer right after that? IIRC it was the one where they first mentiond work on Spore Wii. KiTA (talk) 14:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sys req

Posted the system requirements. JAF1970 (talk) 02:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Game box

The game box I posted is the OFFICIAL box. I'm looking for it from the EA press releases, but it's now been adopted by resellers (ie. GameStop. The other box that was up was from THREE years ago. JAF1970 (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Here it is on the official Spore site: Official box JAF1970 (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Still can't find a 256px version, tho. (sigh) JAF1970 (talk) 19:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's not distort the image for a blurry 256px shot, MrStalker. JAF1970 (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Leak

There's a leak of the C.C now. Oh boy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.49.114 (talk) 09:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Should we mention it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.106.122 (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all its not a leak. Free edition of the Creatures Editor was published with one british computer magazine. Its not a leak when they intentionally allowed the magazine to give the game to those who order the magazine or buy it before it comes available online. Leak would mean someone gave the game out without permission and in this case they had permission. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 14:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Buechner told me it was pirated. Regardless, it happens to every game. It's not noteworthy. JAF1970 (talk) 23:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It's actually on this months PC Zone UK, which flopped onto my doormat yesterday. I suspect a postman or news agent opened a copy at night and uploaded it. edit: Anyway its about as much as a leak as a radio station playing a song on the radio before the single is released TheGreatZorko (talk) 10:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Spore CC leak

The leak is not relevent to the Spore (video game) page. It's been moved to Development of Spore, which deals with that sort of history. JAF1970 (talk) 07:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Disagreeing, unless it receives broad coverage, it is not notable. Leaks occurs every day (images, specifications, price, etc). But unless well referenced by multiple sources, we don't care about that. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 07:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Every game gets pirated, I know. But if it IS notable, it's not for the Spore page - it's for the Development of Spore page. JAF1970 (talk) 07:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

New box art coming

New box art is coming, I've been told. JAF1970 (talk) 23:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well on the get Spore page of sppore.com (http://www.spore.com/getSpore) they do show a different one. 71.181.174.148 (talk) 12:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

How creatures are stored

The creatures are stored as PNG files, specifically as 32 bit (RGBA) 128x128 png file. The creature content is apparently stored using the least significant bits of all four color channels. This means that the creature data itself is no larger than: 128*128*4/8 or 8 kB (4 bits per pixel, (one for each channel), but 8 bits per byte).

Determining that all 4 channels' LSBs are used is my own Original research, this probably should not yet be integrated into the article. However, the fact that the alpha channel's least significant bit is used can be found in many different locations (including slashdot comments and the following blog post: [1]. The fact that the creatures are stored as PNG's can be found in many different places, but a good citation would be [2]. 24.185.237.31 (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not salient to the article, however. JAF1970 (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, storing non-image game information in the form of an image that also graphically represents the content of the file is a very uncommon feature, and is probably worth of a mention if better citation information can be obtained than what the original commenter could find. However, until such a citation could be found, adding this information to the article or one of its sub-articles would not be appropriate. Tacvek (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

On the sporepedia section of the spore website it stated that a creature from sporepedia can be downloaded by saving the icon of the picture and then dragging the image into the game editor. The picture is in PNG format and does represent the image of the creature as said by the original commenter. I think this should be added to the article as it is now verifiable directly by the developers. - Anonymous 10:27, 17 June 2008 (BST)

Creature Creator Release Date!

I have read in many sources that the creature creator release date has been moved back to the 18th of June and, indeed, when I look at the EA store for the US I see that they have updated the page to display the new release date. But, when I look at the UK EA store I see that they are still displaying the release date as the 17th so it seems that the change in release date doesn't apply to all territories. Is this worth mentioning or should I wait till the 17th to see if this is correct and add it to the page then?--CalWalker (talk) 09:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit: on further inspection the release date varies from the 17th to 19th in various countries and so the 18th should be shown to be the release date in the US and Canada as it is clearly not a worldwide release date. Also I have removed the mention of the price of the game as I feel it is not relevant to the article and as the game goes on worldwide release it will be sold in different currencies.--CalWalker (talk) 09:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I belive taht has to do with the time diffrence. Could be wrong though. Pseudoserpent (talk) 09:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it has anything to do with time difference. I have just discovered that the Republic of Ireland don't get the creature creator till the 23rd!--CalWalker (talk) 09:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The release date for the CC has been pushed from the 18th to the 22nd now. If you have pre-ordered the game then you will have recieved an email notifying you about this. An insider from EA has told us that their servers have been brought down. This is because too many people registered with the leaked demo (it WAS technically leaked because people without the magazine HAVE copies of the CC due to the magazines releasing it too early.) and the servers weren't ready for the very high (10,000 + connections) traffic. They also have to sort out a youtube video limit because youtube have complained that most of their bandwidth is being sucked by thousands of people uploading spore creatures. -- Anonymous 11:43, 16 June 2008 (BST)

Do you have a source for this? I find no such information on the Spore website. There are a lot of rumors floating around, please don't add any information without citing a reliable source. Tritium h3 (talk) 13:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I have edited this section to clarify the release date as whoever undid the change of date entered the incorrect information for the context of the sentence. Could people please read through the section they wish to edit thoroughly and read the discussion on the subject before making changes.--CalWalker (talk) 14:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I also recieved an email stating that the date was changed to the 22nd, but this was only applicable for the UK release, not the US & Canada. I believe the information provided by anonymous is incorrect. Nonetheless I recieved another email stating that the release date has been changed back to the 17th as originally intended -- Another Anonymous 16:32, 16 June 2008 (BST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.155.229 (talk)

Also heres your proof on Spore European site says it comes out tomorrow and the news that says it was posted today so I think this will end this depate once and for all. http://eu.spore.com/whatisspore/article.cfm?id=23803 --80.221.239.213 (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The US release date is the 18th. JAF1970 (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

So what the release date to Europe is 17th its even posted on the Official Finnish Spore site and the Official Great Britain site as new news article that came out today. That US site was updated later than this so I know it will be tomorrow but if you still want to deny it then do. We will see tomorrow some time at morning GTM time when it will be released as that is the real release date. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

UK date, the 17th By the way, this is dangerously turning into a forum. JAF1970 (talk) 07:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The 17th as the release date for Europe is incorrect, some countries don't get it until the 19th and, as I said, Ireland doesn't get it until the 23rd. Is Ireland somehow not in Europe any more? The date varies, as I have clearly stated!--CalWalker (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

UK hasn't got it, although Spore site (and indeed the EA Store) say it's released on the 17th. Wolfun (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2008

Creature Creator in Australia

Are Australians even getting the SCC in-stores?

Not a forum. JAF1970 (talk) 07:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been all over google and not one big name store has so much as mentioned it in their future. - Razorthe6249th (talk) 09:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but as far as I can see the creature creator is only being released in stores in the US and Canada, elsewhere it is available via the EA store as a paid direct download. This is certainly the case in the UK, but I would have to find references to this.--CalWalker (talk) 09:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, that sucks. Thanks for the info, though. - Razorthe6249th (talk) 10:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't know about the UK or Australia but [3]. And no, I don't think this is a grey market/parallel import since [4] Nil Einne (talk) 13:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The Other 'Spore' Game (Commodore 64)

This page should be disambiguated. There are (at least) two video games called Spore. There's also one for the [Commodore 64].

[5]

I'll make a Spore page for the C-64 version later. JAF1970 (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing the appropriate titles would then be Spore (1987 video game) and Spore (2008 video game)? Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 07:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No, there's no reason to change this article's name. The C-64 Spore is sort of obscure. JAF1970 (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Spore (1987 video game) article created. JAF1970 (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Creature creator RELEASE DATE?

If it's only being released tomorrow, why is youtube full of giant dancing penises and monsters with giant breasts? Where did these people get the creature creator then?

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.151.96 (talk)

You would have got your answer if you would have read this discussion page but no you had to ask it even if it was already answered. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Then add it to the article.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.150.41 (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

-G Don't forget the goatse monster :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.106.104.40 (talk) 03:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Demo: 17th, Full: 18th

Seems like the Demo is the 17th, with the Full version following on the 18th. JAF1970 (talk) 04:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless you have a reliable source, it shouldn't be in the article. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The reliable source is Electronic Arts and Maxis. Spore.com says the free trial is on the 17th, and the EA Store lists the complete as the 18th. Go check for yourself. JAF1970 (talk) 07:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. No source don't add. Simple has that. --SkyWalker (talk) 04:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It can't be the 18th, it still says the 17th at EA store. Unfortunatelly, they've failed to notice that it's been the 17th for quite a few hours now. --81.156.244.63 (talk) 06:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the website it says the 18th now but surely they would've sent emails notifying like with the last change? - Anon 07:26, 17 June 2008 (BST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.225.195 (talk) Edit: An unverified source from xspore tells me the release is will be synched with PST which means 30 minutes until we get our copies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.225.195 (talk) 06:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, 30 mins is good. :) But where does it say the 18th? [6] --81.156.244.63 (talk) 06:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Reference 41 on the main page. Edit: Not reference 41.

That's the American site --81.156.244.63 (talk) 07:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Reference: Trial, Full version. JAF1970 (talk) 07:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

UK Spore website has updated allowing you to BUY and DOWNLOAD both editions of spore.

Whoops, I must've been on the US one by accident. Score! Thanks guys :D! EDIT: Oh wait, nevermind, EA still wants a preorder, lame. --81.156.244.63 (talk) 07:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a forum. JAF1970 (talk) 07:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The UK site has the demo for download right now. The US does not. JAF1970 (talk) 07:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

US demo is now available. JAF1970 (talk) 10:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The above comment wasn't a forum post. RobJ1981 (talk) 14:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. It's for article accuracy. JAF1970 (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't in reference to your post, I was in reference to the post by the IP editor...which you yelled "Not a forum" afterwards. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Please thread your posts so we can avoid confusing exchanges like this one. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 02:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Windows 2000

It says Vista and XP are required, but the free trial of creatures at least works on my windows 2000. Almost all software that runs on XP runs on 2000, even when they don't say it will. Not sure if it should be put in though, any ideas? -OOPSIE- (talk) 12:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course it might work on older operating systems. Only reason why they don't list them is because they don't vouch that it will work on those operating systems. For example they aren't making the game for Windows 2000 and aren't even testing how it works on it. Still even if the game works on those operating systems there might be bugs just because its not the tested operating system and the game company isn't going to fix bugs that might be on the game when you play it on different operating system. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

We only list that which the game is recommended for by the manufacturer. JAF1970 (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

But, in the info box it says system REQUIREMENTS. But you don't require XP or Vista -OOPSIE- (talk) 02:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

They're the system requirements provided by EA. Most software can be made to run on a system tht doesn't exactly meet the requirements; in fact you could probably get it to run on linux with a fair amount of effort. But to list every situation where one could conceivably run the software would be cumbersome at best, unachievable at worst. While it may work for you on Win2K, it may not work for the next guy with a different configuration. So, for consistency, we list the requirements obtained from the manufacturer. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 02:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

When I made a game article, someone stuck a big warning box on it saying "Primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of the article are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article." -OOPSIE- (talk) 08:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't put any weight behind EA's 'requirements'. Every time I've had a problem with sys reqs, its been an EA thing. Stuff like printing "Supports ATI Radeon 8900 or higher" on the box, the game doesn't work, you email them (including a scan of the box) and they send you specs saying "ATI Radeon 8900, 9100, 9200, 9300 or higher". So while they say it requires something, it's probably wrong.

Yet another Spore

An MS-DOS game from 1991. Time to create yet another article :p JAF1970 (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Spore (1991 video game) created. JAF1970 (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Spore (video game) or Spore (2008 video game)

OK, I'm of two minds on this - I could go either way. Anyone want to vote on whether to use Spore (video game) or Spore (2008 video game). I'm leaning towards the latter, but could go either way. JAF1970 (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking (2008 video game) for consistency, and redirect (video game) to it; then change the hatnote to "Spore (video game) redirects here; for the 1987 video game..." Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 23:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Spore (video game) as a disamb? Sounds good. JAF1970 (talk) 02:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Spore (2008 video game) seems better to me (for the same reason stated by Danisman). Pseudoserpent (talk) 06:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that Dansiman ment that Spore (video game) would be redirected to Spore (2008 video game) and then put the note that for the 1987 Commandore 64 game go (the link to the 1987 game). There is no need to make Spore (video game) page to disambiguation page. You can list both games on Spore disambiguation page. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 07:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It will probably be more accurate to call it Spore (2012 video game). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.190.202 (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. Full summary of my proposal:

1. Have Spore (video game) redirect to Spore (2008 video game) (this article's new title).
2. Place hatnote at the top of this article, informing visitors of the other two games with the same name. This code would do it:

   {{Redirect6|Spore (video game)|the Commodore 64 game|Spore (1987 video game)|the MS-DOS game|Spore (1991 video game)}}

   which produces: Template:Redirect6

3. All three games can then be listed on Spore (disambiguation).

Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 21:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm for the status quo, considering that Spore (1987 video game) and Spore (1991 video game) look like marginally notable games to me, while Spore is one of the most hyped games in recent gaming history. I'm pretty sure that 99,9% of all people will associate "Spore" and "video game" with this game, and not the other two. --Conti|✉ 19:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but Spore (video game) would be better as a disambig page. Besides, when people enter "Spore" into Wiki, they get spore, not the game anyway. JAF1970 (talk) 20:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Why? We usually don't create disambiguation pages when one term is quite clearly the most popular. And when it comes to video games, this game beats the other two hands down. --Conti|✉ 20:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a Spore disambig anyway. And as I just say, when people enter "Spore", they don't get Spore (video game) anyway. JAF1970 (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

My point is this: What would people expect when they click on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spore_(video_game), or Spore (video game)? If the answer is "Some would expect to see this game called Spore, some would expect to see that game called Spore", we should have a disambiguation page. If the answer is "Nearly everyone would expect to see this game called Spore", then this game called Spore should be at Spore (video game). That's how we disambiguate pages (or not) usually. --Conti|✉ 21:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

What harm would it do to say Spore (2008 video game)? No one enters Spore (video game) anyway. And are people going to be confused if they google and get Spore (2008 video game)? JAF1970 (talk) 23:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I type Spore (video game). :-p Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 04:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

What harm would it do to keep the things as they are? I just don't see much of a reason to change things, but in the end it's no biggie either way. --Conti|✉ 12:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

See Gumshoe for a great example of a redirect to the most popular term, with a hatnote to more obsure terms. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 04:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I like Dansiman's proposal. I think it addresses the issue of the other games without creating problems for the main more notable game.Nanobri (talk) 04:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

And the other games that are called spore should't be blocked out. So I'd also go for Dansiman's proposal. Skele (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

So far, that's 4 for, 1 against. JAF1970 (talk) 18:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and did the move, since consensus appears to have been reached here. I updated the hatnote and am now updating incoming redirects and so forth. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 00:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I turned Spore (video game) into a disambiguation page. JAF1970 (talk) 00:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That's fine too. I've updated all the redirects to (video game) to now redirect to (2008 video game), and the fair use rationales for all images currently on the article. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 00:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone might want to fix these links, and these redirects (Well, most of them, anyways). --Conti|✉ 01:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with those redirects? Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 21:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Most should redirect to Spore (video game), since that's a disambiguation page now. I fixed those now, anyhow. The links still need to be done, tho. --Conti|✉ 22:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Why should Spore (video game) be a disambig instead of a redirect, when there seems to be a consensus that when someone is talking about a video game called Spore, it's almost always going to be the 2008 version? Making Spore (video game) a disambig totally ignores the logic of Dansiman's proposal above. Propaniac (talk) 14:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I didn't see a reason to move this article to Spore (2008 video game) in the first place. Making Spore (video game) a disambiguation page just makes sense then, tho, otherwise the move would've been pretty pointless, wouldn't it? --Conti|✉ 14:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrong about creature editor

The paid version of the creature creator contains 100% of the parts, not 50-75% —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.15.93 (talk) 23:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Creature Creator Easter Egg

Not sure if this should go into the article or not, but if from the main menu of the creature editor, you click on "View galaxy" (it's between and slightly above the edit and create buttons), you are taken to a more zoomed out view of the galaxy that you can manipulate the same way as the creature editor dais. If you spin the galaxy very quickly, Will Wright's head emerges from it. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 23:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No. It's not relevent. JAF1970 (talk) 03:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, though I foresee the possibility of people randomly adding it in, thinking they are the first to tell Wikipedia about it because they don't see it. If that happens I think it'd probably be better to put a well written bit about it to prevent stuff like "OOO aand Willz head cOmEs if you do TH1S!!!1!" Nanobri (talk) 04:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(shrug) It's strategy guide stuff. JAF1970 (talk) 06:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Gameplay

Let's try to add some more details about game play and game dynamics. for example, one Windows Games magazine article mentioned what happens if a species fails; the player reverts to the previous level, or an intermediate point. how is "failure" defined? what are some of the impacts? Feel free to leave some replies here. also, let's try to write some more about this. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

In cell and creature phase when your creature dies. You will start with the earlier generation of the creture so you lose the new edits made to the creature. In the other phases I think you will fail if you tribe is destroyed or your civilization is destroyed. That creature thing was mentioned by Will on some video anyway so it wasn't anything new. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 09:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

New box is up

As Patrick promised, the new box art is up. I'll try to get a 256px version. JAF1970 (talk) 03:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Creature Editor Picture

Seeing as the official editor has been released I think the picture should change to a screenshot of the official release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.155.75 (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No. Besides, the Creature Creator box is at the editor (just click "show") JAF1970 (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

DS Version

If we're not going to have the DS version in the main platforms (Despite the fact that it is advertised by EA alongside the 'full' versions on PC and Mac), perhaps there should be a small section in the main article dealing with the DS version? PlasticFork (talk) 21:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

So? What does that have to do anything? Spore is a franchise, and the DS version is Spore Creatures. JAF1970 (talk) 00:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Still its not the same game as this. That game will be adventure based game where your creature is abducted to alien planet and then the story beguns. I would not say that game that doesn't have the same content than the PC and MAC versions can be said to be version of that game. Still the DS version is mentioned on the article, given short description and its also linked to its separate article as its separate game. Also sites can advertise spinoff games on the same site as the main game but it doesn't make the spinoff game version of the original game. Also to add that the DS version is not named "Spore" its named "Spore Creatures" and its content is not same as on the original game. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

1000000

Worth mentioning that CC had 1 mill creatures uploaded in 1 week after release, or too trivia-ish? --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 22:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It's already mentioned here at the end of the section. But I guess it could be added to this article as well. (RCX (talk) 01:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC))

The entire Creature Creator was moved to Development of Spore. JAF1970 (talk) 03:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Very impressive. Btw why must everything go to Development of Spore?. It seems to be getting smaller. --SkyWalker (talk) 06:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Mostly, the DoSpore article exists so people can banish edits they don't like to it. It should be merged with the main Spore article. KiTA (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think once the game comes out and everything stabalizes we ought to extremely trim down the development article and merge them. Until then this looks to be the best solution though. Chuy1530 (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

No. Development of Spore exists because Spore is for the game, and Dev of Spore is for the long 4 year history of the game. Like it or not, 1,000,000 creatures created by the Spore Creature Creator has nothing - or extremely tangentially -- to do with the gameplay. Spore is for the game. Dev of Spore is for the development of how Spore came to be. (Have you actually read the Dev of Spore article? It's not a repository of trivia.) JAF1970 (talk) 19:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Spore CC

I moved Spore Creature Creator to Development of Spore because it's more part of the marketing and development of Spore than the game itself. When the game is released, the Spore CC will be about as relevent as the Starmaker was to The Movies and the Facemaker was to The Sims 2. Besides, there was too much duplication of information, and stuff like sporn and the 1M creatures is more Spore's history than the game itself. JAF1970 (talk) 03:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

basic game structure

I think I'm still missing some basic facts. This is an MMORPG. yet there are references to setting one's "difficulty level" and other details which work only in single-player games. I'm aware that this game will function as a single-player game in some phases, and as an MMORPG in other. I think we need to be clearer on this.

I know this is a basic function of the game which others here may already know about, and which I simply am personally not aware of. how does this work? do players simply play on their own, then upload their creations into the shared universe/server? or does all gameplay take place on the server. (I think I read a bit about this somewhere, but not sure.) thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh wait, it's in "community" section. ok, I'm working to absorb this. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I moved some sections around to reflect this. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The basic idea is that everyone plays their own game and things that you make get uploaded to everyone elses game. When they get uploaded, though, you lose all control over them. You could play the game without anyone else playing and never know the difference, since you never come in to direct contact with them. To try and make an analogy with another game you may be familiar with, let's say you're playing Sim City 4. You create a couple cities on the game. Those cities are sent to a server where they are downloaded to other people's regions instead of computer generated cities. It's a bit confusing at first but once you grasp the concept it's pretty simple. Chuy1530 (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This isn't an MMORPG, it's a massively SINGLE online game (not even RPG). Each player plays their own game as an individual, but content that they make gets used in other people's games. --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 18:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, you get reports on how your stuff is doing in other people's games (ie. how many people decided to blow up your species' planet from the face of the Earth. hehe) Not a forum, tho. JAF1970 (talk) 02:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Can we get a final answer on aquatic creatures?

Ok, I though all of the spore creatures were terrestrial, but I saw what I believe to be a recent demo where the player was playing the creature phase underwater (His creature had fins and could swim pretty fast), then gave his creature 3 legs and walked out onto the land. The demo then went on to discuss the remaining phases of the game. The video was about 30 minutes long and I believe it was secretly leaked from a an apple store. Other highlights including the creatures jumping up and down with excitement whenever an item was purchased in the tribal stage and the player losing a war in the civilization stage but still skipping ahead to space. 208.106.104.40 (talk) 01:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no underwater phase, period. JAF1970 (talk) 06:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Except for the tidal pool phase, right? Or did that get changed? It still appears in the game summary. Chuy1530 (talk) 12:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Cell phase >< Underwater phase. JAF1970 (talk) 22:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Somewhere I read that you can build civilisations in bubbles underwater, I think it was in this article. Can we get a citation on this?Avnas Ishtaroth (talk) 03:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You can have bubbled cities in an unhospitable environment (ie. vacuum of space). IT's not the same thing as living underwater. JAF1970 (talk) 04:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The creature phase does give you the opportunity to have a creature that swims underwater but you can't go to tribal phase from there. And when you put leg/legs on the creature it goes to land. That was on the E3 2006 video and I think they wouldn't just leave it from the game because it's a pretty huge thing. Skele (talk) 08:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well you should read the news as its many times stated that they dropped sea phase and made tidepool to go straight to land. If you would look some newer videos you would have seen and heard them saying that after tidepool your creature will come to land. Also you don't need legs to move on land so adding legs is not needed before you have already gone to land. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 09:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I believe you. That was the answer I needed. Skele (talk) 11:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this an advert?

ive quoted this from the article :

"The full version of the game is due to be released on September 5, 2008 in Europe,[3] and September 7, 2008 in North America and other territories.[4] Spore will also be available for direct download from Electronic Arts on September 7.[7] A special edition game, Spore: Galactic Edition, is priced at $79.99 USD, and will include a "Making of Spore" DVD video, "How to Build a Better Being" DVD video by National Geographic Channel, "The Art of Spore" hardback mini-book, a fold-out Spore poster and a 100-page Galactic Handbook.[8]"

couldnt this be considered an Advert, even if it is factual? Im new to discussing on wiki, but I always thought that encyclopedias should be factual in past tense. Surely future tense is an advert, no?Leafblade (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It's slightly adverty, yup, however not everything can be discussed in the past tense as this game isn't even out for another couple of months! --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 13:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

see also section

JAF1970, why did you delete the See also section? Just a bit puzzled. could you please explain? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 01:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know why JAF1970 made these edits? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 01:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Disregard. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Gamespot wikia page?

Why does the Gamespot wikia page deserve its own blurb in the community section? Unless someone can clarify what separates the Gamespot page from all of the other fan sites, I'd like to remove its mention from the article Poobslag (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Article deleted

WTF? JAF1970 (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I AGREE. What the heck just happened? What should we do now. let's start putting in complaints and Administrator's Noticeboard, etc. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

{{hangon}}

This isn't a case of speedy deletion. And I'm trying to incorporate new information from the GameSpy and GameSpot hands-on previews... JAF1970 (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

JAF, you're right. I agree. I have opened a deletion review in the following place:

• Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Spore_(2008_video_game). Thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Admins you better give a better reason why it was deleted first without no reason. A serious offense by the admin. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok. by the way, here are the log entries: click here. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup i checked that when i knew the article was deleted. Jacoplane better explain. He misused admins tools.--SkyWalker (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't rush at this. I noticed that Jacoplane created (sic) "Spore (2008 video game" (see the lack of closing paren). He may have been trying to delete that. I did restore the page, assuming the deletion was a mistake. --MASEM 16:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, it looks like a simple mistake. Let's not jump to conclusions on Jaco. Chuy1530 (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I still have doubts. If it was a mistake it is fine. Still it is better Jaco to explain it here. --SkyWalker (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I simply don't see any motivation he would have to delete the article. It isn't like this is an article who's existance is contested, and to my knowledge Jaco hasn't even had any arguments about it. Because of the other article (with the missing parenthesis) I strongly believe this is just a simple mistake. But yes, it would be nice to have Jaco come by and reassure us of that Chuy1530 (talk) 17:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Here you go Chuy. To Steve and SkyWalker: assume good faith in the future. Admins are people too.-Wafulz (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wafulz. i agree with you. My comments here may have sounded indignant at first, but I tried to tone them down. anyway, thanks for your input. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

My only issue is that it came at the wrong possible time - there's a dozen Pre-E3 hands-on previews that have hot new info. JAF1970 (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Wafulz, I except admin to be good faith. This is not the first time iam seeing an admin deleting an page by "mistake". --SkyWalker (talk) 04:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you know what that means. Go and settle down, please. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I missed this discussion until now. As I pointed out, this was just a dumb mistake, but apparently some people feel that I have some kind of ulterior motive for wanting to see the article deleted. Please note that as an admin I'm open to recall, so if anyone feels I'm not fit for the job feel free to nominate me for recall. JACOPLANE • 2008-07-9 16:15

I think the issue is over at this point. thanks for your open post anyway. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Article consolidation

Whew, a ton of new info with all the hands-on time at Pre-E3. Can someone give the article the once-over to make sure there's no duplication of data? Just merge similar items. JAF1970 (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Spore box found

Found a large enough Spore box for the proper 256px. :p JAF1970 (talk) 02:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Is that the final boxshort?. --SkyWalker (talk) 04:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, according to Patrick. Well, erm, the final FINAL box will have the actual rating and not RP. But that's it. JAF1970 (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Leaked Info

This was originally unreleased information from the Creature Creator's files. http://spore.vg/dump/locale/ I have read through a lot of it, and seen some very important information in it. (How to domesticate creatures in the Tribal Phase, what purpose they serve, outfitting in tribal, food gathering methods, currency, and even confirmation of a planet editor. (or what seems like it))

Is this acceptable as a source for this page? (Some of it consists of unreadable data files, but most of it can be made out, if only with difficulty.) Brandonrc2 (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It does seem kosher. It's lifted from data files that shipped with the Creature Creator, so the source is Maxis themselves. 2p0rk (talk) 14:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Just 2 months away for game release. Iam sure we can wait till then to add all info. --SkyWalker (talk) 14:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Other versions

Please do not post the Wii, Xbox 360 or PS3 versions as platforms for Spore. For one, unless you can prove it'll even be the same game (ie. the DS version is Spore Creatures), especially since they said the Wii version would NOT be a port and would be something else (probably something that would deal with the lack of Wii storage capability for it.)JAF1970 (talk) 02:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Spore (mobile) now Spore Origins

If anyone sees any references to Spore (mobile), change it to Spore Origins. JAF1970 (talk) 00:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Spore_(mobile) --Per Abrahamsen (talk) 09:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Evisceration

Why is the article being eviscerated of links and information? The edits over the past 48 hours are not useful and reduce the quality of the article. JAF1970 (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Move back to Spore (video game)

I'm sorry, but this is silly. The other two games may be real, commercially-released games, but both lack anything to say that a good deal of people have even heard of them, at all, while Spore is a huge game that is being covered everywhere, by everyone, and has gotten great reception. The people who would come to Spore (video game) looking for either one of those articles combined is not even comparable to those who come looking for this one. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but rules are rules. I don't see why you're discommoded anyway, since Spore isn't Spore (2008 video game) anyway. JAF1970 (talk) 20:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no rule that says that "if there's multiple things that use the same name, it has to be disambiged". Are you implying that Mario should be a disambig?

And what are you talking about? Spore has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. The discussion is between the three video games, two of them with low media coverage, and the other considered one of the biggest game of its generation. What reason do you have to say that the two other games are of comparable notability to this game? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It has everything to do with it. Think about it. Again, I don't see how people are discommoded. JAF1970 (talk) 01:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Would it kill you to respond to me, instead of creating a completely different tangent on a completely irrelevant subject? I'm talking about the disambig between three games. You may think that something that is blatantly obviously not a part of this, but I'm of the opinion that things that have nothing to do with this discussion in any way imaginable having nothing to do with this discussion in any way imaginable. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason it is there is for symmetry. You have yet to provide a valid reason for moving it back save WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. JAF1970 (talk) 05:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

...Huh. I didn't realize that "Spore for the PC is by and large infinitely more popular than both of those entries means you don't like something in a deletion discussion." Or maybe you're just applying an essay at random? That could be it. So, I guess I could do that too - so please stop violating WP:DOLT! - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Calling me a dolt doesn't help your case. Fact is, you're pretty outnumbered on this issue. Let it go. JAF1970 (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

In general, when one topic is much more prominent than the others, it get the main name. It trumps arguments of symmetry. One could argue that this should extend to already disambiguated names, like "Spore (video game)". However the main reason for giving the main name to the prominent entry is to lead users directly to that entry. And since very few people are likely to look up "Spore (video game)" directly, that reaosn doesn't apply here. Thus, arguments for a preference of either name are very weak, and keeping status quo should win. It was a mistake to move to (2008 video game) and it would be a further mistake to move back again.--Per Abrahamsen (talk) 06:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing harmed in the act of moving back. It could be argued that it's fallen comfortably into stability, but not to the point where being moved would hurt that in any significant way. And some Wikipedians would search for Spore (video game) based on previous knowledge of the article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but this was voted on a while ago. Again, Spore (video game) is now diambiguation, and Spore (2008 video game) is more accurate. JAF1970 (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

And we still cannot discard the other two games that still exist. It also wouldn't hurt anyone to keep the Spore (2008 video game. And also while keeping it, it would encourage people to write about the other two games. Skele (talk) 16:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, if you used Spore (video game), you had to tediously add the two "for" links, and two "see also" links, and it would be a mess. JAF1970 (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I'd love to see you tell, for instance, MobyGames to remove Spore (1991) because you think it's not relevent. Just because YOU never played it doesn't mean it's not noteworthy. JAF1970 (talk) 16:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Too bad you didn't randomly cite the guideline that says "consensus can change". You're basically trying to shoot down the discussion by saying that "we already voted on this" (Wikipedia is not a vote), as if the first consensus can never be overridden, ever. And it's another thing entirely when the discussion in question took place amongst very few editors and attempted to get no outside input whatsoever.

Or *gasp* we could use one disambig, which many articles use? Not only are there much less articles that use the name Spore than many of the bigger disambigs, the video games are already clearly covered on that disambig!

And just curious, you got "delete the other two games" from "give Spore (2008 video game) the Spore (video game) title?" Are you even reading this discussion or just randomly putting words together? - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

But (gasp!) you want consensus to change on something that's not harming the article, and (gasp!) you're not providing any real reason that it should be something else except you don't like it. People typing in Spore will see the redirect to Spore (2008 video game). What, you think people will think it's not Will Wright's game? Furthermore, You want to clutter up Spore (video game) with a for|the 1987 video game and a for|the 1991 video game. You still have yet to give any sort of reason save, "I don't like it!!!!!!" You have yet to state why you think the article is harmed or even confusing. JAF1970 (talk) 16:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Another solution would be to move this back to Spore (Video Game) with a "This article is about the 2008 video game. For other uses, see Spore (Video Game) (Disambiguation)". Just a thought --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 18:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Salient question: What would be the point? Change for the sake of change? JAF1970 (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

SO, let me get this straight: You don't want

Spore (1987 video game)

Spore (1991 video game)

Spore (2008 video game)

You want:

Spore (video game) (see also: Spore (1987 video game), Spore (1991 video game))

Spore (video game) (disambiguation)

Spore (1987 video game)

Spore (1991 video game)

or

Spore (video game) (for|1987 video game) and (for|1991 video game)

Spore (1987 video game)

Spore (1991 video game)

Shall I introduce you to less is more? JAF1970 (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

One more thing: How is Spore (2008 video game)

1. wrong?

2. misleading?

JAF1970 (talk) 18:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

There is not really anything wrong how the pages are named or where they are. Still moving them would be just waste of time as it would not really change anything. Page just would be under a different name and we would have another disambiguation page named even more oddly. In my opinion there would not really even be any reason to have disambiguation page for just the different games named Spore it could be handled in the main Spore disambiguation page. In reality I would stick with how its now as all the pages have same naming principle and makes it look better. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 19:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. JAF1970 (talk) 19:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Skele (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Less is more? I'm curious - how does moving this article create an additional article? We do NOT need to split a 13-article disambig page into two pages. Why do people think that there would be another disambig page?
2. I don't see how this would be a waste of time. All that has to be done is an admin has to delete the Spore (video game) disambig, then a user can move it there, and fix redirects and double redirects. I'm arguing that there need not be two disambigs for Spore anything, and if we get rid of the second disambig, it creates an empty redirect which will go to Spore (2008 video game) anyway. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't really even get why the redirect would be a bad thing. In my opinion its in the right place as the naming is constant with all the other games. One good thing in redirecting the main article to this article is that if there would be an another Spore game in the future that might be more important than this Spore game then it would be just easy to change the redirect to go to the other page. Redirects are more useful than moving whole bios just because it would be the most known computer game under the title or the newest. Also just to note that now you immidiatly know that this page is about the new Spore game. In that other place you would not know that by just checking the link as there is other games named Spore. I agree that the second disambiguation page under "Spore (video game)" is not really needed but why would the bio be moved there when you can just redirect it or just remove the whole page as why we need it anyway? Also I was not talking about another Spore disambiguation page I was talking about the new disambiguation pages that one person here suggested after the move that to me was not needed. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Also I would want you to answer JAF1970's question why "Spore (2008 video game)" anyway wrong or missleading as a fact its less missleading than just "Spore (video game)" as you can't even know what video game it is from the pages name. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Why would it have to be redirected? Something being at Spore (video game) is better than nothing being at Spore (video game). If it's going to go here, why not just put it there any way? If we did that, the article would redirect to Spore (2008 video game), and they'd have to go to a disambig page. If it's at Spore (video game), you go to the disambig page. No hassle involved at all (no more than it would if (video game) redirected to (2008 video game)).
2. The likelihood that there will be another Spore game is low, because Spore will likely continue to be updated for many years, so there will always be controversy if there's another Spore video game. Not only that, but Spore has a PC game, DS game, Wii game, mobile phone game, and will perhaps have Xbox 360 and PS3 versions. It has a demo, and it's available for download for free. The amount of press coverage involved is crazy, it's been listed as one of the best games of E3 every year it appears, it's from the biggest third party publisher in the world, one of the most well-known PC designers in the world (who made quite possibly the best-selling PC game series in the entire world). There's just SO much notability attached to this game, compared to what little exists for the other two games. The game is ever growing, and will likely have updates throughout the years for many years, just like The Sims and World of Warcraft.
3. It doesn't have to be wrong or misleading to be moved. If you compared the # of people who would come to Spore (video game) looking for the PC game to the other two games combined, the odds of the latter being even a blip on the radar is slim to none. You have to take into account the mere fact there are multiple games called Spore does not mean that one of them should automatically mean that one should not be given preference. Mario is about the character, and not a disambig, because the usage of Mario is for the most part, about the character, series, or a game in the series. In this case, the #1. usage of Spore is the PC game, and the other two don't even compare. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fine how it is now. Nanobri (talk) 03:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

So, This is not over yet. I have no problem with the current name. Spore )2008 video game) is fine. There is no need to change it. So please stop arguing and leave it. --SkyWalker (talk) 06:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait, you just said "I disagree with you, so stop arguing"? As if that is a good reason to do so? I've already presented many reasons why it should be at (video game). Can't you provide even ONE reason why it shouldn't be? - A Link to the Past (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to point that your argument doesn't work. "Spore (video game)" is not the main page "Spore" is the main page and this game will never beat it and take the main page place. First usage of Spore is the biological phenomen called "Spore" not this game so the argument is not valid. Also you using "Mario" as reason to move this is also wrong as Mario is a character and there is no other more important things named "Mario" than the character in one of the most known computer game around the world. In Spore's case this is not so as you can't really put important biological phenomen to be less important than some computer game with the same name. Also as I stated before now you can know from the page name of what game is the bio about and so it makes this place for the bio better than just "Spore (video game)". You can't really deny that. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Why do you keep bringing up the main Spore article as if I'm ever speaking of it? When looking at Spore (video game), there's no reason to have a disambig there. After that, there's no reason to have it be merely a redirect. Spore is by and large more well-known in gaming as the PC game, not those two minor games. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I already said that "Spore (video game)" could be deleted and there is not really any need to have a redirect there either. Still moving the page there would not do anything that would help the article at all. Quite the contrary in current place it more easilly distinguished from the two other games. I don't see why it would benefit the article to be moved back. Still also if you write Spore on the search inquiry field it will list this page as fifth option and several others before it would come even near to "Spore (video game)" so in fact I would say that people find this page mostly by using other means than through that page and that would make your point quite null. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It's alphabetical, of course 2008 comes after 19XX. Regardless, the discussion that took place was very limited. It had only a few participants, was not advertised on the article page, etc. Simply put, the article should be moved back, and the subject should be re-discussed. Why won't you address the point that in comparing both of those games' notability combined to the current game, it's practically nonexistent? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes and why you persist on the point of moving it back. Its not really anybodys fault that you didn't read the discussion page and the topic was there for a long time. In reality it doesn't matter what is most known as the page is now clearly identified as the 2008 game info that the old page address didn't give and could lead to mistake. To me moving it back would be just pointless as it would not benefit the page at all. Your own reason to its moving back is that as this is the most known game named Spore it should have that page and that people usually seek it under that title. In reality where do you get that data that most people are looking the page under that title? Also why you cant discuss it here as you think that moving it back should be done first and so negatating the discussion as it moved to the "proper" place. Also if I didn't count wrong most people here has said that it should be kept on this designation but you still insist that it should be moved. Also the notability does not dissminish any of the games. How it is now just makes the point null as the games are easilly specified and regonized as that certain game by just the tittle. Why fix something that isn't broken. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 22:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I can ask you that same question - moving to (2008 video game) not only was fixing something that wasn't broken (if there being multiple articles using the same title was the top reason to make the main page a disambig, many more articles would be like this), but made it worse. It's an unnecessary disambig. The level of notability that exists for the PC game is so incredibly high that the notability of the earlier two games are practically insignificant. And it's my fault that no one whatsoever went through the proper discussion proceedings? It's not my duty to randomly find my way to the discussion. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Look, it's clear the consensus is to leave it be. Just accept it and move on. JAF1970 (talk) 04:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's ignore that a discussion, by the fact that all participants ignored the basic guidelines of setting up a discussion, so anyone who didn't go to the talk page, or anyone who has no need to go to it, has no say on the matter. How many attempts have you made to bring this discussion to any other venue? None. But going back to my point, do you have anything that would be harmed by the article being moved? You may bow out of discussions where you're blatantly right, but I do not. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

My two cents: Naming convention (precision) is pretty clear in this case. If a word or phrase is ambiguous, and an article concerns only one of the meanings of that word or phrase, it should usually be titled with something more precise than just that word or phrase. There are three games named Spore, and despite this title being what is 99% searched for, to simple call it "(video game)" is imprecise because there are two other Spores that are video games. "(2008 video game)" precisely clarifies that. --MASEM 04:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It says usually, not "always". In all likelihood, usually fits this situation - where this is searched for 99% of the time. It doesn't say that this situation is always true. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well you have given your opinion and several others have given opinion against you so in fact you are losing. Concessus seems to be it to stay here but you ignore it because you want it to be moved. Also your arguments are starting to get to be only arguing about something not because this page is in the wrong place. Also even if its not always true in this situation I can say that people wont firstly search this game as Spore (video game) most likely they just write Spore and come to this page through that page. So you saying that Spore (video game) is the page people are searching this under is just your opinion nothing else. Also I already stated to you what would be changed if it would be moved back. It could be mistaken to those other games even if you would not do it there might be people who might. You can say that it has minor chance of happening but it still can happen. The page is more clearly identified but it doesn't seem to be enogh a reason to you. Just to state this even if it has been clear on my post your own reason of moving the page back haven't been anything that would convince me or others here of moving it. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 07:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm losing for reasons other than "good arguments". You haven't established that we need to disambig between these three games. Hell, looking at your position, Spore has no level of notability that it could ever have that would be good enough.

And looking at the points in the little vote you got down there: How are my points not relevant? They are the #1. factors in determining if a disambig is necessary. And the fact that there was no good reason to move in the first place is an excellent reason to not have moved it. If the people who started the discussion took any steps to make people more aware, I would have noticed it and opposed the move. I had no opportunity to participate, so the consensus to move was faulty. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

My arguments are as good as yours but you don't even consider them. What in the world is so special about that little page that it has to be there. I already voted and I don't see your vote down there so in reality you are now ignoring the vote. Also where did you pull that I ever said that your opinion is not important but your opinion doesn't make my opinion null because you say you are right. If you didn't notice the topic that was going on its only your own fault. Nobody is not demanding to vote again in president election because he/she was busy when he should have been voting. Still that opinion of the move being for nothing is just your opinion I already stated that the game is now easilly separated from the other two by just reading the page adress and its agreed by several others. That was not the case in the former place. This adress leaves very small chance of mistake but you don't seem to realize that as you want it to be moved back to place where it can be mistaken to be some other game. In reality I'm getting tired of this you just keep arguing for sake of arguing. If you think it should be there then vote if you don't then its your loss. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Your arguments are nonexistent, you say "no need to move", and "what if the three people who know those two other games are confused?". The disambig is excessive and unnecessary.
2. Er, I'm not sure how someone else's screw up, one of the most basic things that has to be done in a move discussion - putting an alert template on the article - is my fault. The effort to get anything even resembling outside input is literally nonexistent. The Presidency is a strongly advertised service. If no one but a handful of people knew that the election was taking place because the people in charge didn't bother to tell anyone, it WOULD be enough to overturn the election. There was no matter of me being busy, if I had nothing to do, I would still not have been able to participate in the discussion because there was no possibility for me to become aware of its existence.
3. There doesn't NEED to be disambiguation between the three articles, no more than Mario has to be a disambig because of the number of things and people that use the name. Yes, it is possible that one of the few people who are aware of either game's existence may mistakenly go to the PC game for one of the other games, but that is not going to be a substantial enough number of people to warrant disambig, what don't you get about that?
4. Wikipedia is not a vote. I'm not voting for the simple fact that everything does not have to be voted on. I'm most concerned with how you think the discussion to move was legitimate, and why it's my fault that I had no way of knowing that the discussion ever existed. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I quite frankly don't care anymore you don't even get what I'm saying and miss the point entirely so I'm not really going to waste my time on talking to you as you don't want to hear anything else than that people would agree your point and so you ignore everybody elses. Also you to not participate on the vote just means that you don't care that other people don't share your views. Also just to add to finale point that I was never behind the page to be made to disambiguation page I was only behind the moving of the page for the reason that it would give a posibility to an error. If you really would have read any of my post you would have got that. The disambiguation page was created by one persons actions not because we decided that. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused - A Link to the Past doesn't want a vote, but wants consensus to change it back? JAF1970 (talk) 05:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel this is enough. Now let the final consensus begin:-
1). Users who Oppose A Link to the Past move request.
2). Users who Support to A Link to the Past move request. Let this be final. --SkyWalker (talk) 08:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I oppose.Skele (talk) 10:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

oppose. Link To The Past's suggested article names would be ambiguous, and his suggested reasons (popularity, likelihood of a new game) for preferring an ambiguous page title don't seem relevant Poobslag (talk) 13:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

oppose as if I didn't already made my reasons clear and Poobslag already stated the reasons why I oppose. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 13:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

oppose just as there were no good reasons for the move in the first place, there are no good reason for moving back, so status quo should win.--Per Abrahamsen (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

oppose the current naming situation is messy, but A Link to the Past doesn't propose anything which is an improvement on the status quo. --2p0rk (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

oppose, and there were good reasons for the move in the first place - there are other games titled Spore. How were they to be titled? How were they to be acknowledged? What was the disambiguation page going to be? I went back and forth on this initially, and finally decided that Dansliman and others were right. JAF1970 (talk) 05:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Support Redirect (See below) I think making Spore(video game) redirect here is the best solution. There's likely not going to be future "Spore" games to confuse matters so having two or 3 hatnotes is acceptable and a disambig page is overkill. Also, a google search for "spore" currently directs to "Spore (video game)" when it should probably go to "Spore (2008 video game)" so making "Spore (video game)" a redirect would fix that.Nanobri (talk) 23:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Does the proposal make sense? Absolutely, since probably 90% of readers looking for a videogame entitled "Spore" mean the 2008 version. However, the extant naming scheme is the most logically consistent (not to mention it was accepted by vote). C.f. Treaty of Paris--just because most people probably are thinking of the one that ended World War II does not necessarily mean that the others deserve second-hand status. (Flawed analogy, but it works.) Ourai ^тʃ_с 02:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Arb Break: What to do with Spore (video game)

This is related, assuming that the page is kept here, what should we do with Spore (video game) ? Right now it is a disamb page, however, I will argue that that page should be a redirection to here per exactly aLttP's arguments, with hatnotes to point to the other two games.

Basically, the above argument is about the static version of this page - when someone prints it out, the title should be completely unambiguous as to what it is, and to be exact, it needs to be (2008 video game).

However, when searching, the dynamic aspect of this page, aLttP's point is exactly correct: searches for "Spore (video game)" are likely meant to end up here at the 2008 video game. This is similar to, for example, The Manchurian Candidate which points to the book, hatnotes to the movies. Thus, I propose that Spore (video game) becomes a redirect to here, and a hatnote added (if not already) to all 3 Spore games to point around to each other. --MASEM 15:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I like that solution much better actually. Nanobri (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I have been stern on the opinion that the Spore (video game) page should be just redirect or it should be deleted. The disambiguation page was really just not needed as the other games are listed on the main Spore (disambiguation) page anyway. So I wouldn't be against it to be changed to just a redirect to this page. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I support what MASEM said. Guys, this isn't that huge of a deal, let's just get this tricky situation over with so we can all calm down. Chuy1530 (talk) 17:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I don't care for the redundant disambiguation pages either. Spore (video game) should redirect here; that has all of the discussed positives of having it just be this article's title (being more popular by far, users expect to come here), and none of the negatives (ambiguity). -- -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure. If we'll redirect Spore (video game) to Spore (2008 video game), what's the point of having this article title in the first place? Isn't it common practice to move an article to the simplest article title possible? If Spore (video game) is a redirect to this page (which would indicate that this is the game when people think of a video game named "Spore"), that would be the simplest article title possible, not this one. So.. I honestly don't get it. I mean, in the end it doesn't matter much either way, but it'd be splendid if someone could explain that to a daft person like me. :) --Conti|✉ 21:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I will try to explain. I for example wanted the move because to me the prior page name gave posibility to a mistake. Even if it was a remote chance. Also the current name now quite frankly states what Spore game it is so mixups would not happen so easilly. Also why would Spore (video game) be simpler than for example Spore (computer game), Spore (Maxis), Spore (game) and so on. Also the current page is consistent with the other two Spore games pages. To me it just makes more sence to have them with consistent names so they are easier to identify. Still that point you made is not wrong in anyway but is this really wrong as it still distinguishes the pages more clearly from eachother and isn't that also in the rules that the page should be identified from their names also not just what reads in the page. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no guideline that suggests we have to make sure that people cannot be mistaken in any way. To an uninformed party, Mario doesn't state what the article is on the title, but is that a problem? No, because no other subject using the name Mario is significant enough to warrant a disambig. Same with this. There does not HAVE to be a pattern. Every article is done on a case-by-case basis. The other two games get their names because they can't have (video game). Spore (2008 video game) CAN have (video game), because it's extremely notable. There is the question as to if a disambig is necessary, and I'm not convinced it is at all. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If you're worried about Google searches, eventually Spore (2008) will appear. Furthermore, when people enter "Spore", it goes to Spore which has a link to this page. It makes no sense to change the status quote at all. JAF1970 (talk) 03:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, do you really want to undergo through all the labor of re-redirecting links, etc? Do you know why the change was made in the first place? It was clean and efficient when it became apparent there was more than one video game named Spore.

Let me give you an example: The Maltese Falcon (disambiguation)

Everyone knows about the 1941 film, but it doesn't get preferential treatment over the previous film by the same name. JAF1970 (talk) 03:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Those are not even remotely similar. Spore's video game disambig = three games, only one of them that's very well-known. The Maltese Falcon disambig is five articles, with two movies, both of which are known, and a well-known book that many people are aware of, which both movies get their names from. And yes, I have no problem cleaning up the broken redirects etc. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Not remotely similar?! I beg to differ - no one knows the 1931 version. Ask anyone about The Maltese Falcon, see how many talk about the '31 version. I've got you on this one, and you know it.

What you want is change because of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. There's no reason you've given to warrant putting the effort into changing the articles from the current clean format it's in. Spore (video game) referring to the 2008 game, whether you like it or not, inaccurate. I defy you to prove it's not inaccurate. There's a reason it was changed in the first place. JAF1970 (talk) 05:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

For all your complaining, you have yet to prove that the current format is:

1. confusing

2. inaccurate

3. wrong

Your suggestion, making Spore (2008 video game) into Spore (video game) is all three. JAF1970 (talk) 05:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

PS. Anyone else think the example I gave is "not remotely similar"? JAF1970 (talk) 05:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

1. So you know this how? Did you do this poll yourself?
2. Well, maybe if you gave a reason why there shouldn't be a disambig in the case of an article about a movie based on a popular book with another movie made before it and two other items using the name, you'd have bested me. But you didn't even acknowledge the book's existence at any point. That's not exactly "a good attempt at an argument".
3. The only way it can be inaccurate is if you prove that there is no situation that could ever possibly exist where Spore would get (video game). Your argument amounts to "it cannot be popular enough to exceed the fact that one person on Earth might look up Spore expecting one of two old obscure games". There is not one guideline that says "if two video games share the same name, both have to be disambiged". The need to disambig doesn't exist, it'd be like if there was a character on a TV show called simply Mario - the only reason you provided is "other things exist". - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It has already been voted that it stays at Spore(2008 video game) so why argue about it? The two other games exist so we CANNOT discard their existence. Skele (talk) 09:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Your post right there proved why I argue for it - "it exists" is not a reason to disambig. There's no guideline that says if an article exists that shares the same name that there has to be disambiguation. Is there some strange reason that not one person supporting keeping it here can give one good reason to have moved it in the first place? No guideline supports it, and the only relevant guideline says that usually. This is not usual in any way - this is a situation where the earlier two games aren't even a pixel on a blip on the radar in comparison. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Link, what did you think of the hatnote on the Spore (video game) article idea? That would eliminate the need for a disambig and whether it's Spore (video game) or Spore (2008 video game) they'll both be to the same spot so it won't make a difference. --Nanobri (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You know, while I think there is consensus here (locally) for the (2008 video game) solution, I believe a better course of action is to open an RFC to get wider community input, as I can see this case happening again in terms of naming. Since the naming rules are not exact on this case (at WP:NC or the VG project), it makes good sense to expand this further. --MASEM 20:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

1. It's better than what we've got now.
2. And another reason it should be at (video game) to establish how disambiguation should be done. Disambiguation should only exist when there are multiple notable subjects. While the older two games are notable enough to have articles, they aren't nearly as notable as the current Spore, which is incredibly notable, one of the most notable games of this gen. Moving to (video game) establishes that we should give preference in cases where there is only one notable video game with a certain name to that game. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying we should delete each Mario article that isn't about the video game character because their not notable enough. Discard them from wikipedia existence. Skele (talk) 08:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, since my statement is obviously not that, no. I don't see how a statement that at no point recommends deletion of any articles is "deletion of those two articles". If you can't be bothered to READ my statements, don't bother discussing this matter. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This is moot. It's already been voted - TWICE mind you - that the Spore article remain this way. I can guarantee if you make this move, you'll end up moving it back within a year. And you STILL have NOT stated any reason to move it except "Spore (2008) is going to be huge! It deserves the spotlight!" Wikipedia doesn't work that way. You can't wish other games away, and Spore (video game) is a disambig for a reason, and you can't wish that reason away, either.

You still haven't supplied a good reason for your proposal save "WP:IDON'TLIKEIT", and when you're voted against, you decide that voting is inconventient and try to bypass it. You got voted off the island, and continuing to campaign to overturn the vote is a waste of time. Seriously. Wikipedia isn't about the person who complains the longest or the loudest.JAF1970 (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Once. Since, you know, the first discussion, whose effort in letting others know of it was literally nonexistent, it cannot be cited as a "logical discussion". And when did I ever cite "WP:IDON'TLIKEIT"? And finally, I believe what I said was "it IS popular in the here and now - it has the spotlight." - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I've opened a discussion at WT:NC (here) to get more input into the issue. While there's local consensus to the 2008 solution, ALttP has good points that I think need wider consideration. --MASEM 17:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I just saw that comment at WT:NC. I think that the current situation is OK. The 2008 Spore videogame is notable, but not so much notable that it's necessary for it to be the one at Spore_(video_game). Also, readers can still find the correct videogame with no confusion. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

A Link to the Past, I have read every single word you have written. And I agree with JAF. Are you sure the other two games weren't popular games in the past? Have you read the discussion on the first vote? And again the date verifies which of the three games it is. It doesn't need fame in wikipedia it needs reason. Skele (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

1. It's really, really notable. It's had news stories about how the number of species created in Spore are greater than the number of species on Earth, etc. Spore is extremely notable - it's not like a kind of game that is notable and then kind of dies down. It's more in line with World of Warcraft or The Sims - if they had multiple games from other companies that shared the same name, they would be given preference.
2. I just did a bit of Google News on both titles, and there's nothing to suggest notability. A search for "Spore PC" brings up many results. Spore has won awards already, and the demo has sold a ton. An extremely notable designer with the best-selling PC franchise ever made, the most profitable third party developer, it's not even released and it is already huge. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That's WP:CRYSTAL trying to guess the future. The game could perfectly bomb on the release. Bigger sacred cows have fallen. Wait until the game is released and has broken some selling records, and then bring the matter again, as you will have way better arguments. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It already has a demo. It's already received incredible reception, including several media outlets calling it the best game of E3 multiple times (that is, year to year). My statement is not crystal ball at all - it's in the here and now, the game is excellent now and it's sold incredibly. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This reminds of E.T._the_Extra-Terrestrial_(Atari_2600), a videogame for the most successful console of the moment, based on the most successful movie at the time, released for Christmas (when sales were higher), patrocinated by frigging Steven Spielberg, it had way more publicity and expectation than Spore...... and, when it was released, it crashed and burned so badly that it caused the North_American_video_game_crash_of_1983. I suggest you to read Top 10 video game disasters. I'll believe that the game is more important than others when the sales figures for several months are released and when all videogame magazines are talking of the permanent mark it has left on the videogame genre. Until then, it's just one more expensive videogame with very good promotion and lots of promises. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The game is already vastly more notable. People have played it, people have played the demo, it's already far more notable than either game combined. Quality and notability are too different things - in fact, E.T. is one of the most notable video games out there. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

What, more notable than GTA or Wolfenstein 3D or Quake or Dune II or Double Dragon or Civilization or Simcity or Half Life or Counter-Strike or Flight Simulator or Street Fighter? More notable than Pong or Tetris or Pacman ? More notable than Sonic or Mario or Final Fantasy or Zelda or Pokemon? More notable than The Sims (series)? More notable than combinations of them? Yeah, go on dreaming. Not going to happen.

Please get a sense of proportion, it's one more videogame. Wikipedia is not going to die for not giving this article the best name ever when it hasn't even been released. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, hi, just making sure you're aware that being the best game ever and the most notable game ever are two completely disconnected things. GTAIII is not even close to being as notable, E.T. single-handedly killed Atari and is considered responsible for the video game crash. It's considered one of the worst games ever created. GTAIII got great reviews, sold really well, and helped promote the PS2 somewhat. Wow, that's so influential! Do you know anything about what notability is? You are confusing quality and influence with notability.

So, hey, you're right - sure, who cares that millions of people have already played the monster creation portion of the game, and no one had played anything of E.T. before it was released? Or that people have already played the game extensively and have given it resounding praise? Who cares that the demo has sold incredibly, is, in fact, far more notable than those other two games combined and multiplied by ten and it's not even released yet? Oh, wait, we care. Comparing a game that had no way of assessing its quality before its release to a game that had extensive coverage, play, a DEMO, etc. before its release is just faulty logic. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

And you have no idea of history of videogames, it seems :P I linked to the whole GTA series, not to GTA III. You are forgetting GTA:SA and GTA IV, and how many copycats it has spawned, and its sandbox style, and the Hot Coffee controversy.

And you compare only with a pair of games, ignoring the other on the list, including games that spawned a whole genre of its own or single-handedly popularized its genre or defined its genre for years to come. Or spawned its own cultural icons and franchises like Mario or Pokemon. Seriously, it's you that has no idea of what makes a videogame notable. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you're confused - see, my statement was that E.T. was a very notable game. You responded with "nuh-uh, it's not notable because these games exist!" Since, I dunno, apparently one game being notable makes another game non-notable. Because GTASA had a ton of controversy, E.T. being the frontrunner of a video game crash, having its own article about the New Mexico dumping of nearly 5 million of its copies, being considered the one game that destroyed Atari and its reputation and allowed the industry to become what it is today is irrelevant and it's actually not very notable. Yeah, you're trying to devalue one game's notability with the notability of OTHER games - I guess you know exactly what notability is. Even though you're trying to say that E.T. is not notable because it's bad, which means absolutely nothing in the way of notability, which anyone who actually knows what it is wouldn't be arguing. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I miscomunicated. I wanted to mean that a) even if Spore crashed in the hearshest way possible, Spore's crash would still be less notable than ET's crash b) I listed many games and you only centered on a pair of them, despite many of them being really important on the videogame world.

I'll add some more games. Games being more covered on mainstream press than Spore: Tomb Raider and World of Warcraft, or even Evercrack Everquest. More prevalent on popular culture or being popular culture references, such as Donkey Kong or Space Invaders or even Carmageddon. Or started a whole genre like Maniac Mansion or helped to define it like Command & Conquer or Age of Empires.

Things like influence on popular culture or starting a new genre need time to be appreciable and we still need reliable sources showing this not to be a fad that will disappear soon without leaving a mark. Give me a call when Spore starts a whole new genre, when it's used as a name for a political campaign like Carmageddon [7] (page 84) or when it gets displayed on a museum like Space Invaders at the London Science Museum [8], or when, Space Invaders again, gets cited as giving credibility to a national videogame industry and to two franchises notable of its own [9], or gets cited on papers called "Frame and Metaphor in Political Games" like Space Invaders or GTA:SA [10], or get cited as being used to mock Foucalt's work [11] (I'm still loling at the Foucalt reference), or gets cited on master's thesis (several games) [12], and then we can start talking about being one of the most notable videogames evar. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Both games were big enough to warrent a MobyGames entry and a GameSpot entry. Again, the Maltese Falcon film analogy works here. The Maltese Falcon (1931 film) and The Maltese Falcon (1941 film). One is nearly obscure while the other is legendary. Note the naming. JAF1970 (talk) 04:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Big enough to warrant being included on sites that strive to include every game they possibly can? Wow, what an honor!
2. Yeah, because THAT is my argument why there are multiple notable uses of Maltese Falcon. Not the fact that THERE'S A BOOK CALLED THE MALTESE FALCON THAT BOTH MOVIES ARE BASED ON. Christ. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

We are on wikipedia and Wikipedia should contain every piece of knowledge including every game. And you didn't answer my questions. Skele (talk) 11:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

And by the way. I'm not sure but I think each of these games is based on the biological reproductive mechanism. Skele (talk) 11:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Putting Spore (2008 video game) at (video game) does not, at any point, devalue the worth of any one game. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Leaving Spore at "Spore (2008 video game)" does not devaluate it, either. The argument goes both ways.

Now get some real arguments for moving the article, or stop arguing endlessly about it. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

So, just curious, can you provide one single reason in the world that a title, which redirects to this title ANYWAY, cannot house it? No matter WHAT happens, it is impossible for it to matter if it goes there. The mistake argument is invalid, because there's already a mistake in redirecting (video game) to here. If the mistake exists in either situation, then what reason do you have to oppose it? Are you implying that having a title that redirects here anyway about the PC game harms anyone? - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Spore (2008 video game) is more precise than Spore (video game). Naming the title Spore (2008 video game) as opposed to Spore (video game) does no harm, especialy if the latter is redirected to the former (which, btw, it isn't right now, it's redirected to the spore disambig). A title that does no harm and provides a slight advantage (added precision) should be favored. --Nanobri (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Nanobri on this. I can definately see where ALttP is coming from as I didn't really care for the (2008 video game) tag personally, but as a whole I think having it makes complete sense. The other games do exist and have enough notability to be recognized by Wikipedia to warrant an article therefore rendering the video game title of Spore as multiple titles. To clarify for users the disambiguation page of Spore (video game) was required. Seeing how the consensus reached was for the change and there being no real benefit to changing it back (that I could clearly see) should justify it's title and the disambiguation of the (video game) tag. ClosedEyesSeeing (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I find this article in a similar situation as Star Fox (video game). It has a lesser known Star Fox title for the 2600 that wasn't made by Nintendo. Just like this article, the Nintendo is the 'spotlight' version recognized by most gamers, but I feel that the disambiguation helps distinguish the separate games (regardless of notablity). Just my two cents. ClosedEyesSeeing (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

1. There's no NEED to be more precise. 100% of the time, anyone who goes to Spore (video game) will end up here. No exceptions. It will ALWAYS go to Spore (2008 video game) or (video game), the mistake that would occur from having it at (video game) is existing now with the current situation agreed to, so may I ask what harm will exist that doesn't already exist?
2. There's no guideline that says "if there's any naming conflicts at all, there should be a disambig". The notability asserted by these two released games combined isn't even a pixel on the blip on a radar compared to this UNRELEASED VIDEO GAME'S notability. The fact of the matter is that the precision is not necessary, and "being notable enough to have an article" is not asserting SUFFICIENT notability. Spore is considered one of the biggest releases in 2008, and has already sold more than many other games with its demo. If it doesn't matter what it's at, then it should be at (video game). The necessity to disambig is almost nonexistent, so making the article name longer is unnecessary.
3. Again, disambig doesn't work like that. If two articles share the same title, we don't say "well, they're both notable enough to have articles, so I guess that's enough!" No, we look to see how notable each title is. There isn't one level of notability. Spore on the PC has won awards, has been featured on video game news outlets, mainstream news outlets, has made millions, and has gotten great reception without being released. The other titles have literally NO claim to fame whatsoever - enough notability to be on Wikipedia, but not enough to even be reasonably similar in notability. There are many uses of the name Mario, but because Mario is so much more notable than any of those uses, it gets the main article while others get a disambig. There are other means of "keeping people informed" of what the other titles are. All the article has to do is feature a hatnote that links people to the video games named Spore. And with Star Fox, the disambig isn't even appropriate. It's a multi-million dollar video game franchise with five video games, one of which is one of the first 3D console games ever created. The other's only real claim to fame is that it was called Star Fox first. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Fair enough, but it's easy to argue the other point with the same line. If there is no difference in help/harm why bother to change it? As for it ALWAYS going to Spore (2008 video game) is a false statement. There are plenty of video game enthusiasts out there that like to know history of video games (to include myself) that would be interested in knowing that these other Spore titled games existed. It's a piggy back off of the hype and build up to the 2008 Spore, yes, but I became more interested in them due to the change to the Spore (video game). Now, this isn't to say that I wouldn't of found it without link tags at the top of the article, but I just find it more aesthetically pleasing without them.
2. Again, it is kind of hard to compare them this way. Spore for the Commodore64 was well received for it's time. Take a peak at Zzap's 1987 issue: http://www.zzap64.co.uk/cgi-bin/displaypage.pl?issue=033&page=178&thumbstart=0&magazine=zzap&check=1 The wide availability of reviews and expos for games these days trumps anything that was used back then. You could easily say that almost ANY flop from 1999 on wards had MORE reviews and MORE notability than most games from 1987.
3. As I previously stated, yes, a hatnote would be quite acceptable to inform users, but if the same idea is still being conveyed right now as the article stands why change it? ClosedEyesSeeing (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Because it's a long disambig? If there's no reason for it to be this long, it shouldn't be this long. It's that simple.
2. How will they be unable to do so? Most people who are interested in the history of video games would know of the PC game Spore, so there would be no surprise in seeing it at that title. And if there's a hatnote, they won't be unable to find these games. How does a problem exist?
3. There have been a lot of games that got a lot of reviews but aren't terribly notable. THEY would not get disambig privileges because it only got a lot of reviews to its name. However, in this case, like I said, until you can produce a guideline that says that existing is enough to warrant extra disambig.
4. Because it makes the title unnecessarily long. If (video game) is not being used, there is no harm in shortening the article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The title isn't a big deal, period. Unless I'm missing something, A Link to the Past is the only one constantly pushing for the change. Consensus is against him, so this should just be dropped. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If there's no reason it should be there, it should be moved. If no one's harmed, then no one should care if it's moved or not. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a reason that it's there. It was polled twice, and both times the result was for it to be there. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

And the first poll has no legitimacy, because it was just a few people agreeing with each other and deciding to take not one single step that is required for a legitimate move. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

"a few people agreeing with each other and deciding X", it's called consensus, and you don't have it. You just don't agree with them, but consensus is not unanimity. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

As has been said before, one reason is to make the title more precise. A Link to the Past argues that precision isn't needed since the game is so popular. There is also the issue of consistency with the naming of the other game article titles. A Link to the Past argues that such consistency or "symmetry" need not apply since the game is so popular. Both of these points are true, and thus the rationale for the 2008 name change is weak. A Link to the Past argues that it makes the title unnecessary long. I disagree. I don't think it's too long. If it was Spore (Maxis Will Wright 2008 video game) or something then maybe, but it's 5 characters longer including the space. That's not a big deal to me. This arguement and others presented in favor of Spore (video game) seem equally weak as those in favor of Spore (2008 video game). We both seem to agree that neither form does harm, so it comes down to which way do people "like better." Though the first poll's legitimacy may be disputed, this one certainly seems to be legitimate and has large support in the direction of (2008 video game). So there's not a "good reason." It's kind of neutral either way, and the people that have discussed here like this way better. There's nothing wrong with that. Can we be just done with it? ––Nanobri (talk) 06:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Spice and Sporebucks

Spice is the 'resource', which you mine, control and seize, but Sporebucks are like the actual currency. Heirware (talk) 00:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Source? JAF1970 (talk) 00:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay - leaked code is not official. Until there's definitive proof... JAF1970 (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Release Date

http://youtube.com/watch?v=YYnevrlHdy0 .. Will Wright states at the end of this interview, that Spore will be released September 7th worldwide. You don't get a much more reliable source. I wouldn't know how to refer to this in the sources, so will someone please correct the dates, and make an appropriate reference?

Thank you (I am extremely dissapointed myself, as I live in Europe)

--Or-whatever (talk) 20:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Still thats one man saying that when every other source is stating that it will be released in September 4th in Europe, September 5th in United Kingdom and September 7th in North America and other regions. If what he states would be so then I would think that EAstore for example would have changed the dates but they haven't so far. Also why would they change release date to September 4th just few weeks ago if they are going to change it to September 7th. If they change the dates on the sites to September 7th then it will be changed as there is now several sources to confirm the date change. Now its just him against every other source also he might have just forgotten that the game has separate release date in Europe as he was talking to the american audience. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 12:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Then why are these sources not referred to? The release date source is still the same old article that states it's the 5th in EU and 7th in NA. If there are more updated sources, shouldn't these be added? --Or-whatever (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)