![]() | Maniac Mansion is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 6, 2018. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Chuck the Plant page were merged into Maniac Mansion on August 8, 2011. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
|
|
Since this has been the second time the removal of the Mark Dery image has been reverted, I figure we should start some discussion as to whether or not it should be kept, given undue weight versus what other issues are present. Keep in mind that I originally inserted the image back in February basically so that we could have another image in there and that it is a free image. I mean, if consensus is to remove it, that's fine; I won't lose much sleep over it. – MuZemike 16:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Given that the A-Class assessment has pretty much stalled, and assuming that we haven't missed anything as far as coverage is concerned (and some copyediting obviously), should we just go ahead and make a run for WP:FAC? – MuZemike 18:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
A couple of loose ends before I send it to FAC, both in the "Development" section:
I think after those two things are fixed, it should be ready to go. – MuZemike 01:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Another consideration (note, I'm not trying to ignore your suggestion, Guyinblack25) is that we could reorganize the reviews by console instead of entirely chronological. When I worked on the Wonder Boy in Monster Land article, I found that each console version had their own common set of pros and cons (i.e. the ZX Spectrum version was generally received well, while the Amiga version was received rather poorly). I would guess that the same would apply here. Structurally, this may also be more manageable, as we can dedicate one paragraph per console (or more if we find that certain paragraphs may become too large, as I had to use two paragraphs to cover the Amiga version of Wonder Boy in Monster Land). However, I think the last two paragraphs (Nintendo Power reviews and the contemporary reviews) should stay separate and probably right where they are, to provide some continuity in the section (i.e. going from 1990s reviews to 2000s reviews). – MuZemike 20:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I did some more searching (re, Jinnai's concerns) the last couple of days, and here's what I came up with that we can possibly expand on:
Other reviews that were missed:
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help) (this one will need to be translated into English in order to be usable){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) (rating only,
Amiga Magazine Rack){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) (rating only,
Amiga Magazine Rack){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help) (rating only,
Amiga Magazine Rack){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) (rating only,
Amiga Magazine Rack){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) (
review){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) (rating only,
Amiga Magazine Rack){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) (rating only,
Amiga Magazine Rack)More contemporary reviews not covered in the article:
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help) (German video game reviewing website, this is their editorial staff here
[5], if people wish to question the reliability of the site; I think it passes as an RS){{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help) (unsure of reliability, though, but I thought it's been used before){{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help) (again, on the fence with regards to reliability, looks like it's similarly structured to the German site I mentioned above)For the TV series:
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)For remakes on the game (tried to limit to reliable sources here):
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help){{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)There is also some interesting stuff I got from doing a Google Scholar search here, which I have yet to sort out. – MuZemike 23:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Just one journal that can be used here, from the Google Scholar link I found above:
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)There is also that reference to the book Gender inclusive game design: Expanding the market, which would be great as far as additional critical analysis of gender roles are concerned, but I cannot access the material online. I think most of the other ones are either not authoritative enough or are in fact more usable as references in the SCUMM article than this one. – MuZemike 16:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I'll also note that, since Template:Video game reviews only takes at most 7 ratings from non-conventional sources, there won't be much use to include those sources in which we only know ratings (i.e. no reviews), as IMO readers aren't interested in reading a whole bunch of prose consisting of "Such-and-such gave a rating of x% (unless you want to create a homemade table like I did with the ratings table in the Wonder Boy in Monster Land article. – MuZemike 22:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Another one:
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)– MuZemike 08:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to get some input- should Chuck the Plant be redirected here. The element originated here and I found very little in reliable sources about the topic. Thoughts? ( Guyinblack25 talk 16:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC))
So it looks like we have a rough consensus to merge or redirect, pending nobody who opposes it. Is there anything there that we can salvage and add into the Maniac Mansion article? – MuZemike 23:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
As of September 2015, the link Chuck the Plant redirects to this article's section Impact and Legacy however there is not a single reference to Chuck the Plant in that section nor in the whole article. If any references to Chuck the Plant have been removed since 2011 as non-documentable or trivial, then perhaps the redirect should be deleted altogether. LamerGamer ( talk) 10:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
OK, I think I have added pretty much everything RS-wise that I could to the article on my end. User:Clarityfiend was happy enough to do a 2nd run-through on copyediting (especially the Reception section, which was rearranged and expanded). I've done an image check today, and everything seems in order. Pending any other minor issues, are we just about ready to make a run for FAC here? – MuZemike 22:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Per a conversation on my talk page, I have requested one more copyedit from WP:GOCE before sending it to FAC. – MuZemike 19:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
The game is featured (as well as on the cover) of the current issue of Retro Gamer (see [8]). Hopefully I can get stuff on there from that issue sometime this week. – MuZemike 02:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not terribly fond of the image that we're currently using on Doug Crockford. I found a couple other alternate CC-BY-SA images of Crockford on Flickr:
In those two pictures, to say the least, he is dressed more conservatively and does not seem as much of an eyesore to readers than the current image. Moreover, they're both a little more recent than the current one. Any thoughts on which one to use (or keep the current one)? -- MuZemike 22:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Gilbert, Ron (January 2011). The Making of Maniac Mansion (Streaming media). Hanover: Game Forum Germany.
Just found this presentation (courtesy of Mixnmojo's reporting) at the Game Forum Germany in January. As 45 minute presentation by Gilbert, its quite indepth and covers a fair few aspects that might come in useful in expanding the development and impact sections. To get to it, select "2011" in the player, then find Gilbert's entry. -- Sabre ( talk) 17:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Maniac Mansion remake with arts style of DOTT. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z86pGuwnNcE -- Coin945 ( talk) 08:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I found what appears to be Crockford's entire behind-the-scenes on Maniac Mansion, but published in Wired magazine instead of on his personal site. Definitely a better source, if anyone is ever inclined to check through it to make sure it matches 100% with the parts used in this article: https://web.archive.org/web/20001214144900/http://www.wired.com:80/wired/archive/1.04/nintendo.html. JimmyBlackwing ( talk) 06:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
There's no part of the article on the censorship of the box art. There's at least Ron Gilbert talking about it on a yt video, and this https://twitter.com/grumpygamer/status/909984277588148224 83.202.217.183 ( talk) 07:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() | Maniac Mansion is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 6, 2018. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Chuck the Plant page were merged into Maniac Mansion on August 8, 2011. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
|
|
Since this has been the second time the removal of the Mark Dery image has been reverted, I figure we should start some discussion as to whether or not it should be kept, given undue weight versus what other issues are present. Keep in mind that I originally inserted the image back in February basically so that we could have another image in there and that it is a free image. I mean, if consensus is to remove it, that's fine; I won't lose much sleep over it. – MuZemike 16:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Given that the A-Class assessment has pretty much stalled, and assuming that we haven't missed anything as far as coverage is concerned (and some copyediting obviously), should we just go ahead and make a run for WP:FAC? – MuZemike 18:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
A couple of loose ends before I send it to FAC, both in the "Development" section:
I think after those two things are fixed, it should be ready to go. – MuZemike 01:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Another consideration (note, I'm not trying to ignore your suggestion, Guyinblack25) is that we could reorganize the reviews by console instead of entirely chronological. When I worked on the Wonder Boy in Monster Land article, I found that each console version had their own common set of pros and cons (i.e. the ZX Spectrum version was generally received well, while the Amiga version was received rather poorly). I would guess that the same would apply here. Structurally, this may also be more manageable, as we can dedicate one paragraph per console (or more if we find that certain paragraphs may become too large, as I had to use two paragraphs to cover the Amiga version of Wonder Boy in Monster Land). However, I think the last two paragraphs (Nintendo Power reviews and the contemporary reviews) should stay separate and probably right where they are, to provide some continuity in the section (i.e. going from 1990s reviews to 2000s reviews). – MuZemike 20:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I did some more searching (re, Jinnai's concerns) the last couple of days, and here's what I came up with that we can possibly expand on:
Other reviews that were missed:
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help) (this one will need to be translated into English in order to be usable){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) (rating only,
Amiga Magazine Rack){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) (rating only,
Amiga Magazine Rack){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help) (rating only,
Amiga Magazine Rack){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) (rating only,
Amiga Magazine Rack){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) (
review){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) (rating only,
Amiga Magazine Rack){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) (rating only,
Amiga Magazine Rack)More contemporary reviews not covered in the article:
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help) (German video game reviewing website, this is their editorial staff here
[5], if people wish to question the reliability of the site; I think it passes as an RS){{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help) (unsure of reliability, though, but I thought it's been used before){{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help) (again, on the fence with regards to reliability, looks like it's similarly structured to the German site I mentioned above)For the TV series:
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)For remakes on the game (tried to limit to reliable sources here):
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help){{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)There is also some interesting stuff I got from doing a Google Scholar search here, which I have yet to sort out. – MuZemike 23:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Just one journal that can be used here, from the Google Scholar link I found above:
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)There is also that reference to the book Gender inclusive game design: Expanding the market, which would be great as far as additional critical analysis of gender roles are concerned, but I cannot access the material online. I think most of the other ones are either not authoritative enough or are in fact more usable as references in the SCUMM article than this one. – MuZemike 16:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I'll also note that, since Template:Video game reviews only takes at most 7 ratings from non-conventional sources, there won't be much use to include those sources in which we only know ratings (i.e. no reviews), as IMO readers aren't interested in reading a whole bunch of prose consisting of "Such-and-such gave a rating of x% (unless you want to create a homemade table like I did with the ratings table in the Wonder Boy in Monster Land article. – MuZemike 22:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Another one:
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)– MuZemike 08:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to get some input- should Chuck the Plant be redirected here. The element originated here and I found very little in reliable sources about the topic. Thoughts? ( Guyinblack25 talk 16:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC))
So it looks like we have a rough consensus to merge or redirect, pending nobody who opposes it. Is there anything there that we can salvage and add into the Maniac Mansion article? – MuZemike 23:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
As of September 2015, the link Chuck the Plant redirects to this article's section Impact and Legacy however there is not a single reference to Chuck the Plant in that section nor in the whole article. If any references to Chuck the Plant have been removed since 2011 as non-documentable or trivial, then perhaps the redirect should be deleted altogether. LamerGamer ( talk) 10:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
OK, I think I have added pretty much everything RS-wise that I could to the article on my end. User:Clarityfiend was happy enough to do a 2nd run-through on copyediting (especially the Reception section, which was rearranged and expanded). I've done an image check today, and everything seems in order. Pending any other minor issues, are we just about ready to make a run for FAC here? – MuZemike 22:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Per a conversation on my talk page, I have requested one more copyedit from WP:GOCE before sending it to FAC. – MuZemike 19:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
The game is featured (as well as on the cover) of the current issue of Retro Gamer (see [8]). Hopefully I can get stuff on there from that issue sometime this week. – MuZemike 02:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not terribly fond of the image that we're currently using on Doug Crockford. I found a couple other alternate CC-BY-SA images of Crockford on Flickr:
In those two pictures, to say the least, he is dressed more conservatively and does not seem as much of an eyesore to readers than the current image. Moreover, they're both a little more recent than the current one. Any thoughts on which one to use (or keep the current one)? -- MuZemike 22:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Gilbert, Ron (January 2011). The Making of Maniac Mansion (Streaming media). Hanover: Game Forum Germany.
Just found this presentation (courtesy of Mixnmojo's reporting) at the Game Forum Germany in January. As 45 minute presentation by Gilbert, its quite indepth and covers a fair few aspects that might come in useful in expanding the development and impact sections. To get to it, select "2011" in the player, then find Gilbert's entry. -- Sabre ( talk) 17:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Maniac Mansion remake with arts style of DOTT. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z86pGuwnNcE -- Coin945 ( talk) 08:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I found what appears to be Crockford's entire behind-the-scenes on Maniac Mansion, but published in Wired magazine instead of on his personal site. Definitely a better source, if anyone is ever inclined to check through it to make sure it matches 100% with the parts used in this article: https://web.archive.org/web/20001214144900/http://www.wired.com:80/wired/archive/1.04/nintendo.html. JimmyBlackwing ( talk) 06:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
There's no part of the article on the censorship of the box art. There's at least Ron Gilbert talking about it on a yt video, and this https://twitter.com/grumpygamer/status/909984277588148224 83.202.217.183 ( talk) 07:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)