Talk:Nick Arcade

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Miteff source[edit]

The website (I reasonably believe) was created by Miteff, the producer of Nick Arcade. The relation between the producer and the show produced appears to me to be strong enough that this source would qualify under WP:SELFPUB. RJaguar3 | u | t 14:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I see no information whatsoever about pilots. WikiLubber (talk) 23:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hereś the site link again [1]. The relevant quote is the start of the second paragraph: "Three pilots and a total of 84 episodes were shot at Nickelodeon Studios in Orlando, Florida." RJaguar3 | u | t 07:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I added it back in, since it's clearly a good source. Since WikiLubber seems to be blocked, he won't be responding here for a while. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't blocked at all. WikiLubber (talk) 23:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

And another thing: I got my sources mixed up. I was looking at the wrong source before I undid the submission. WikiLubber (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Prototype game used in show[edit]

I believe the copy of Sonic the Hedgehog 2 used in one episode was really a prototype version of the game specifically made for the show. --Zhane Masaki (talk) 04:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe Sega gave Simon Wai the right to develop Sonic the Hedgehog 2. Likely Ally (talk) 02:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
The Simon Wai prototype was a separate beta version. Sonic Retro, one of the leading Sonic fan community websites, has uncovered ROMs of both versions, and it is proven through their research and efforts that the "Nick Arcade Prototype" actually does exist as a separate beta version.--Zhane Masaki (talk) 07:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. No call for a two-way DAB here. Andrewa (talk) 23:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Nick Arcade (game show)Nick Arcade – I understand this qualifier, but in the absence of any other article called Nick Arcade, it's unnecessary. A hatnote (This article is about the game show. For Nickelodeon's online gaming service, see Arcade.) would suffice, at least until the other Nick Arcade gets its own article, which doesn't look likely to happen anytime soon. --BDD (talk) 21:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment' is the online service or the game show the primary topic? if it's not the game show, then "Nick Arcade" should redirect to, and a hatnote should appear there instead. -- (talk) 06:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - I don't fully agree that a hattnote would suffice *if* the Nick Arcade website were sufficiently prominent and notable. There are plenty of cases when something that doesn't exacltly match the disambiguation term is nonetheless a first class citizen on that dab page. In this case, however, it looks like the TV show is considerably more notable than the website so happy to support the  — Amakuru (talk) 12:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I'll reply to both of you in saying there's probably no way to accurately gauge the importance of an article section in terms of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I wouldn't be surprised if gets more hits than this article, but that tells us nothing about how many people end up there specifically looking for information on the new Nick Arcade. That said, the current dab page got 378 visits last month, compared to 3903 for the game show. If the former number were larger than the latter, this move wouldn't make sense. As such, we're disambiguating for an article that doesn't exist. --BDD (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Maybe I should just strike my own comment there, but only had 2825 visits last month, so there's no way its Nick Arcade section is the more sought-after topic. --BDD (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.