Talk:The Ocean Hunter

Would a FAQ on GameSpot be a reliable source? Because that's where I got that list of bosses and minibosses. By the way, "categorize" is spelled with an "e". Oh, and I got a name. Leprechaun Gamer 22:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Gamespot's never lied to me before. I'd put it on there, then see if Wikipedia does anything. Oh, and if you do put it on, be sure to delete the box that says that the article doesn't state its sources. Also, put a few citation needed symbols in some key areas. Thanks for the help Bobrocks95 01:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

That's well and good, but I don't exactly know how to do all of that stuff. Like I said before, this is my first edit.Leprechaun Gamer 20:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I can tell anyone where I got my info from, if they will make it into a reference, since I don't know how to do it... Bobrocks95 22:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I found a citation in another article- ^[1] how would I change this to another website, namely, KLOV, which is were I got the most info.

Finally found out how to cite sources. Still, any additional locations would really help.

Darn Wikipedia, saying I did so much stuff wrong... But we can all fix that. I hope we can get rid of at least 2 boxes by the end of next week. The wikify thing might be the one we don't get rid of anytime soon......Bobrocks95 22:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Finally got the catogory thing working! I'll delete the box now. There, that's one more box destroyed!Bobrocks95 22:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Now I've destroyed another box! I found out how to put a reference in an article! One more to go!Bobrocks95 23:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

So, how do you get rid of that last box? In other words, what does "Wikify" mean? Congrats on destroying the first two boxes, by the way.Leprechaun Gamer 23:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I managed to add plenty of internal references. I looked at the last box left, and it said it needed relevant internal references, so I added internal references.Leprechaun Gamer 23:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, what happened? I mean, whoever did it got rid of the last box somehow, but the article was drastically shortened. Who did this? I'd like to thank them.Leprechaun Gamer 12:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't like to thank them! Those people, including me, worked very hard on the whole section on boss mythology! Whoever it is may have gotten rid of the last box, but the article has suffered drastically from it. Is there no way to keep all that hard work on boss mythology and the hardware sections and still get rid of the box? I would like to say I'm sorry to all the people that worked on those sections, and to ask whoever did this a few questions. 139.55.37.155 01:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Sorry,wasn't signed in, it's bobrocks95 that said that.

I'm sorry if you you did work hard on those sections, but they're unencyclopedic. A list of bosses in general is too "game-guideish", not to mention a bunch of minute details on them. Nemu 01:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Calm down, Bobrocks95. I should've realized you couldn't actually hear me, but I was being sarcastic about that. Sorry about the misunderstanding.Leprechaun Gamer 12:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ya, I guess I got a little carried away. I see what you mean Nemu. I guess we'll all have to find other ways to expand the article and still keep it "encyclopedicish", as Nemu puts it.

Well said, Bobrocks95, well said. I guess we either need to take suggestions for other sections or brainstorm. By the way, I noticed that someone deleted your little section on the rarity of the game, which I believe would be "encyclopidicish". You think you could add that back?Leprechaun Gamer 22:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that someone has added an extremely large section at the bottom which doesn't completely show up unless you go to the edit page. Who did this, and should we completely delete it or look through it and keep the parts that look appropriate?Leprechaun Gamer 23:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll add the Rarity thing again. By the way, I didn't see the section you talked about at the bottom. I looked at the edit page, but didn't see anything. Bobrocks95 23:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I looked again, and you're right. Someone must have deleted it while neither of us were looking.Leprechaun Gamer 00:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

(I'm moving a discussion from my user talk page to here as I think it would be useful to read where others who edit this article stand and this way, I think we can avoid an edit war)

We don't keep information like that. Lists of bosses and the like count as something found in a game guide. We use general overviews on this site. See Wikipedia:Featured articles under the computer and video games sections for what information in game articles should look like. TTN 18:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I totally disagree. I find that kind of information immensely helpful and interesting. --24.154.173.243 18:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter. I find my day interesting; should we write about it? Wikipedia isn't a game guide. You want wikia.com for that kind of stuff. TTN 18:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but we go by consensus. You should discuss removal of information on the talk page of the article. I looked and it seems like there may be some discussion about it. I'm all for improving articles, but having the information doesn't really hurt it any. Can it be improved on, probably, but it seems like multiple other users like that stuff there. --24.154.173.243 18:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Numbers don't define consensus. If they did, all people would have to do is gang up on issues with high numbers. We use discussion based around policies and guidelines to do that. You have WP:NOT#IINFO against you, so you have no real argument. TTN 18:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You still are not persuading me of anything here. So, I'll move our discussion to the article's talk page (please reply further there if you have anything new to add) and will refrain from restoring or editing the article until I see what others have to say as well. Best, --24.154.173.243 18:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as you don't have a watchlist, it is better to talk here. I don't need to persuade you of anything. The information is game guide material. Wikipedia is not a game guide. That is not something that can be discussed. TTN 20:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I added the thing to "favorites," so I can check that way. I'd rather see what others have to say. Regards, --24.154.173.243 22:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, even if five other people decide that they want it, it still won't stay in the end. You're arguing against a steady and defined policy, so you won't have much luck. TTN 22:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd still like to see what others say, as various other game articles I've come across have bost lists and I think in this case, because they are based on characters from many different legends and myths, it's noteworthy. --24.154.173.243 22:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Other game articles are crufty, so they can not be used to set the norm. Follow the link in my initial post to find the correct articles to base others off of (Final Fantasy X for example). They are not noteworthy because they are trivial bosses. Final Fantasy X also has plenty of possible references, but it doesn't bother with them. A general overview is all that is needed, and it is given. TTN 22:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The more information the better. I don't think on something like this we can or should worry about "too much" information. If nothing else, perhaps a fair compromise would be to have an external link to a website that lists the bosses. Plus, in this game, the whole point is hunting specific myth-based bosses in each sea. Anyway, I see someone suggested linking to gamefaqs or something like that on the article's talk page where we really should continue our conversation as it should involve the other editors of that article, too. --24.154.173.243 00:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Those characters are verifiable by reliable sources, and they aren't trivial. Bosses are not detailed on this site unless they can be backed by something. If you want to goto Wikia, find a suitable wiki, place the information there, and put a link in a external links section, go ahead, but this content is not suitable for this site. TTN 00:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see how having the characters detracts from Wikipedia in any way, if editors and readers find it useful and interesting. One of the main reasons I come to Wikipedia is for some of the more obscure articles and lists of stuff you might not find elsewhere. Anyway, if you want a source: http://www.gamefaqs.com/coinop/arcade/file/575673/20715 --24.154.173.243 00:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I really think that this conversation is relevant to be had on the article's page.

Again, interesting != necessary. It is game guide information in the way it is described. This isn't a game guide. Are you really disputing this? TTN 17:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because I don't see any good reason not to have this stuff yet. If you feel it is too game guide-like that revise it in a manner that makes it less or put some kind of tag up that asks other editors to do so. I see no reason to just cut material that others have worked on and I also really don't see this violating that NOT link you provided above. Again, I'd be perfectly cool with a link to that gamefaqs article on the bosses, but I think it is really helpful to have a boss link like this when we can actually have all of those internal links to Wikipedia articles about the various mythological creatures. Someone who plays that game might come to this article and learn a great deal about mythological monsters by clicking all those internal links. Thus, the article provides a fantastic learning tool for even casual readers by having the boss list. Removing it would therefore destroy that great opportunity to educate and be convenient as well. By the way, I'm glad that you have decided to discuss here. :) --24.154.173.243 17:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

When I first added the section describing the inspiration behind each boss, it was speedily deleted. I thought we then came to an agreement that such a list was not useful on Wikipedia, so we left it as it was. I looked back today, and saw that the section was added again ( albeit with a few revisions), along with a few other pieces, such as the plotline. My question is, what happened to expand this article to this length, who did it, and why when we agreed that we didn't need a list like this on the article? Also, I looked at the plot section, and I think it needs to be cut down, because it looks terrible.Leprechaun Gamer 17:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I re-added that stuff as I actually came to this article specifically looking for it and noticed it having been deleted out of dispute after checking the page's edit history. I agree that the plot section could and should be improved. Anyway, you may want to contribute to a general discussion related to this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Mass_deletion_of_television_articles_by_TTN --24.154.173.243 20:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That is about episodes, not removing material in general. Please stop trying to mix the two. Now one of the main editors of this article has stated that it's pointless. Can it please go now? TTN 21:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a larger issue of you removing and deleting material that might need to be addressed. --24.154.173.243 21:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Open an RfC then. That still has nothing to do with removing other material. Can you address the matter at hand? TTN 21:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this material is encyclopedic, can be sourced, is factual, interesting, etc. --24.154.173.243 21:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You have been speaking this whole time about getting others' opinions, but you're just going to ignore LG? TTN 21:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you not see that I replied to LG above? --24.154.173.243 21:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You just told him it was you and that you found the information in the history. You didn't actually address his concerns. If I ask for a third opinion, will you leave this alone? TTN 21:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to see a third, totally neutral (i.e. you don't just ask one of your friends or someone you already know agrees with you) opinion on the material and whether or not we should keep it. Please note, that I also have said, I would be willing to compromise on something like instead of having the boss list having an external link to an article that lists the bosses, as I believe another editor also suggested above. --24.154.173.243 21:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm touched...You called me a main editor of the article *sniff*... I even have a nickname now too...By the way, what's an RfC?Leprechaun Gamer 15:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, Whoa. Whoa. Lois, this is not my Batman cup. But seriously. Looks like I've been gone for longer than I thought. What's with this whole section? It makes no sense. Guess I've been gone too long. What's with all this talk of the boss list? This was settled earlier on the talk page. The only thing I noticed, other than this sensless talking, was that some external links were added, and the plot was revised. Oh, and also, what's this about The Ocean Hunter being in "almost every arcade in Singapore"? If that's true, then I'm definetly going to Singapore. Bobrocks95 20:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I came here from the Wikipedia:Third opinion, after seeing this request. Basically I agree with the above editors that the information on the bosses has to go. A couple of examples of end-game bosses are OK, but only if they can be compared to similar bosses/creatures in other notable games or articles. What about creating a List of bosses in The Ocean Hunter article? Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 22:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

A list of bosses would be pretty much unverifiable, and "game guideish". They're just not notable. General examples work just fine. TTN 22:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I also came here from Wikipedia:Third opinion and I concur that a list focusing on a detail of the game isn't of general interest and should not be present in the article. As a neutral 3rd party, I never heard of this game, and if I want to learn about it, seeing the list of bosses doesn't help me one bit. Wikipedia isn't a game guide; that's why articles have sections titled "External links" - so readers can get more detail that isn't appropriate for a Wikipedia article. If there's a site describing the bosses, go ahead and link to it in an External Links section. -Amatulic 00:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Based on what I'm seeing above, I say 1) create a separate article titled List of bosses in The Ocean Hunter and 2) add the following link to the External links section of the article: http://www.gamefaqs.com/coinop/arcade/file/575673/20715 --164.107.222.23 03:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

We do neither. The topic of the article isn't notable, and GameFAQs guides don't fall under good external links. TTN 03:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Why are you, one of the two main arguers above, adding to the "third" opinion? Two other registered users above suggested a new article or an external link. Shouldn't you respect the third opinion? --164.107.222.23 03:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Both of those examples don't help anything. The article would easily be deleted and GameFAQs isn't a good external link. The rest is fine though (cutting the game guide material). TTN 03:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Weren't you the one who asked for a third opinion?! Just mind-boggling . . . --164.107.222.23 03:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Chiming in again... The article looks a lot better without that list of bosses. I still think it doesn't hurt to have an external link describing the list of bosses (if such a link exists). As far as I am concerned, my third opinion has been respected — my main point was to make the article more readable; I apologize if I put undue emphasis on including an external link. -Amatulic 23:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as the one who WROTE the FAQ we're linking to, I see no worthy reason that the list of bosses in this article should have been removed. There is no such thing as uninteresting or unnotable information on Wikipedia; if it was unimportant, it wouldn't have been added in the first place. Thanos6 (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey! Who deleted the picture we had? And is there a good reason it was deleted?Leprechaun Gamer 11:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

...? Hello? Anybody there? It almost seems like I'm the only one who even looks at this talk page anymore.Leprechaun Gamer 20:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm still here, though not as much as I used to be. I guess it was deleted due to something with the copyright, though I thought I had secured it. I'll wait a little while for someone to say why, but otherwise I guess I'll try and put it up again. Bobrocks95 16:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Finally!!! A response!!!Leprechaun Gamer 04:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Just an interesting thing I realized, aren't the grips actually hollowed Virtual On sticks? 72.218.43.157 (talk) 01:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately the quality of the Ocean Hunter game near me has diminished greatly- the grips are worn(if they're even still there), autofire doesn't work, there's no recoil on the gun whatsoever, and only one of the trigger buttons work. These all combine to make the game less fun and nearly impossible to beat without dumping a ton of cash into it. Bobrocks95 (talk) 02:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

does anyone know if this game can be played online anywhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.201.111.243 (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)