Talk:chase (video game)

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Kelly Metzger (4 participants)
David McGarry (2 participants)
Stumble Guys (8 participants)
Do You Like Horny Bunnies? (8 participants)
Carlos Pesina (2 participants)
Atlus USA (4 participants)
Danny Mastrogiorgio (2 participants)
Police Trainer (2 participants; relisted)
Beam Invader (5 participants; relisted)
Sephiroth (20 participants; relisted)
The Boss (Metal Gear) (6 participants; relisted)
Silfade (3 participants; relisted)
Balloon Brothers (4 participants; relisted)
Enigma Engine (4 participants; relisted)
ClanLib (8 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Untitled[edit]

I would really like to know who invented the first Robots game. If anyone can add this information or suggest a place where I could find it, that would be wonderful. It occurs to me that some versions of the Robots game could have credits with them, but none that are immediately accessible to me do.

-Erik

I'm guessing that Robotron: 2084 and all of its many clones were originally inspired by Robots. Drutt 21:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I based my version on a Pascal implementation from 1981, shown here. JMatthews (talk) 10:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also remember a version from an old Apple my father used to own... —porges_(talk) 09:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Playable version online[edit]

I wrote a JavaScript version of robots a while back, and am not sure if it's worth linking to in the article. To reduce the chance people accuse me of spamming, I'll just add it here to the talk page and let somebody else decide if it belongs in the "External links" section or not. http://ctho.ath.cx/games/robots/ It should work fine in IE and Gecko browsers; others aren't tested. --CTho 03:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say - the game is awesome. I play it all the time, and I think it belongs in external links. I'll add it in. It works great in Firefox, btw. --FeldBum (talk) 12:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I changed the entry only to match the other cross-platform versions. JMatthews (talk) 10:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Robots text screenshot.png[edit]

Image:Robots text screenshot.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 August 2015[edit]

The following is a closed 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: moved to Robots (computer game). Best supported title with logical arguments, no compelling reason has been given to follow this specific naming convention. Jenks24 (talk) 14:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robots (BSD game) → Robots (1985 computer game) – Having the year then "computer game" is better than having the operating system. We don't go around putting "(Windows computer game)" at the end of other articles so why is it done here? This could also be renamed and moved to Robots (computer game). Ana r chyte 10:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting question. Had robots not been included in BSD Unix, I suspect it would not have achieved any significant notoriety. Thus, its inclusion in BSD is certainly quite noteworthy, in my opinion. Still, I think robots (computer game) would make better sense because the game has existed, and continues to exist, on many different computing platforms. (Note the lowercase 'r' by the way -- the implementation that became widely known did not capitalize the 'r'.) fjarlq (talk) 12:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fjarlq: I realised it was a lowercase 'r' but I was unable to put that into the request as article titles are automatically capitalised at the beginning unless a {{lowercase}} tag is added, which is added here (and would be added there if it's moved). Ana r chyte 08:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose current suggestion per WP:NCVGDAB which states to never use Computer game even if the topic is even if the article is exclusively about a PC related topic. Per that standard the title should be (1985 video game).--67.68.162.189 (talk) 01:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support moving to Robots (computer game) unless someone can provide a rationale for the restriction at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (video games). I concede that that's an official naming convention, but I'm mystified as to why it says what it does. Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (video games) doesn't seem to mention it. Andrewa (talk) 13:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Proposed change to the relevant guideline[edit]

In the light of the above RM, I've started a discussion on the talk page of the guideline we decided to ignore. [1] Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (video games)#Use of (computer game) as a disambiguator. Andrewa (talk) 08:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 May 2018[edit]

The following is a closed 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: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 00:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robots (computer game) → robots (1984 video game) – Per WP:CONSISTENCY and WP:NCVG, we use "video game", not "computer game", even for PC-only games soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Robots (1984 video game) - Due to existence of Robots (2005 video game), the title needs to avoid WP:INCDAB. After move and fixing links, redirect Robots (computer game) to the disambig page Robot (disambiguation). -- Netoholic @ 19:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. If moved, it should be Robots (1984 video game). soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per WP:NCVG ("video game"), WP:DAB ("1984") and WP:AT/WP:TM (capital "R"). — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support moving to (1984 video game). This seems like an uncontroversial move.--Alexandra IDV^talk 12:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the previous move discussion, almost three years ago, I'd rather do this by the book. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Seems reasonable. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.