Also, in Wikipedia we go by the first ever release and not by any other specific region's release date/year. There is no point in adjudging that it first started in 1989 or 1987 when the article about the first game disambiguates it under the "1983 video game" title and two other Bomberman games ( 3-D Bomberman and Robowarrior) were previously released. Even Konami, the current owner of the IP, take into account the series' inception in 1983. Even though the 1983 game isn't as similar as the games we all know, it's still considered the debut of the franchise. I oppose the statement about the NES game being the first one as well as 1987 as the year of the series' inception. Rorshacma 23:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Reply should stay, everyone else should either be removed, or separated to a different page. So, yeah, characters like White, Black, Pretty, Bagular, etc. As I recall, that's how it was originally set up when the "characters" section first appeared, before people started listing every minor boss that ever appeared in a game. Jared Hunt August 6, 2006, 13:17 (UTC) I agree, only the important, reoccuring characters should appear here. 212.159.26.9 20:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC) Reply I believe that would be classified as Listcruft. Your opinion? - Jared Hunt August 2, 2006, 13:42 (UTC) I suggest making a page for all the Bomberman characters, and having the most recurring characters (white and black Bomberman, Pretty Bomber, Max, Buggler and maybe a couple of others) listed here with a link to the character list. Unless it's separated, that's way too much. Spamguy 15:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC) Reply Should have read more carefully. I'd do something, but I'm not that aggressive a Wikipedia editor to pull off a fix of this magnitude nor do I have the time. ![]() Jared Hunt July 30, 2006, 11:12 (UTC) See my comment in 'Powerups & Characters'. Is it necessary to put information for all those characters in this article? Looks like listcruft to me.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |