Talk:Prima Games

Discuss. I'm not sure what I think yet. --RoyboyX Talk 20:18, 20 March 2013 (EDT)

Prima Games are more important than "any other game guide maker", as they make the official guides for the Super Smash Bros. games. Keep. Toast ltimatum 22:33, 20 March 2013 (EDT)

Prima Games game guides are the most notable guides for the Smash Bros. games so I'm agreeing with Toast. Keep. Dots The 90's 22:35, 20 March 2013 (EDT)

Keep Ignoring their "official" status, these guides are really infamous among the Smash community. Omega Tyrant 23:17, 20 March 2013 (EDT)

Keep For reasons stated above. --RoyboyX Talk 08:23, 21 March 2013 (EDT)

Delete

Given that Prima is now not allowed to be referenced (be it trivia, move names, etc) and that it's been outcasted by SW:OFFICIAL, I'd say we could stand to loose this page. However, discuss. Serpent King 00:37, 10 April 2016 (EDT)

Are there any other notable Smash strategy guides/player's guides in print? We could merge this into a page on that subject more generally if so. Miles (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2016 (EDT)

To answer your question, yes. Nintendo has approved the creation and distribution of a Smash 64 guide by Brady Games and a Melee guide by Nintendo Power. Additionally, "special editions" of Smash guides have been released as well. With all this content, an official guide book article should be created. To add even more content, a "mistakes and errors" section could be added. Pokebub (talk) 02:42, 10 April 2016 (EDT)

Why is Prima not allowed to be referenced? MuteSpittah (talk) 12:37, 10 April 2016 (EDT)

Most likely because of it's inaccurate information and lesser-known terms for some features/techniques. Pokebub (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2016 (EDT)

^Exactly the reason. Its information can be so inaccurate it's unreliable, hence why we don't use it for references and trivia. Disaster Flare (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2016 (EDT)

That makes sense. That just means we shouldn't reference its inaccurate information. If there's ever something from Prima that is accurate and we want to reference it, it can still be referenced. Right? MuteSpittah (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2016 (EDT)

(reset indent) That I wouldn't know. Just so I'm clear, I'm neutral about this whole deal, so I'm not the best person to be asking about Prima's fate on the wiki. Disaster Flare (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2016 (EDT)

Yeah. Well just because a source is inaccurate on certain things doesn't mean it's inaccurate on other things, hence why I don't understand why it's "not allowed to be referenced." MuteSpittah (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2016 (EDT)

I honestly don't understand myself. I didn't make the rule so I can't really say much on the matter. Disaster Flare (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2016 (EDT)

Bump. Any input? MuteSpittah (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2016 (EDT)

Keep per Mute, plus it's still pretty well known. Penro 19:49, 10 April 2016 (EDT)

Keep. Still famous, still infamous. We could compile a list of mistakes/errors/misconceptions brought about by them. Then again, I wouldn't want to paint Prima in a dickish manner and portray this page as unnecessarily harping on them so maybe we'd have to write some more about their contributions to balance it out lol MuteSpittah (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2016 (EDT)

Rewrite and move to a guides page. I don't think Prima on its own is notable enough, but I think the idea of a strategy guide is important enough for a page. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 21:34, 10 April 2016 (EDT)

Well our own policy on creating articles says that articles about miscellaneous subjects can be created as long as they are about the Smash series. To me, outside of the negative reputation it has Prima doesn't have that much of a major presence in the series even if the guides they make are official. I think though that a page about strategy guides would be OK like Nyargle said. - EndGenuity (talk) 10:44, 11 April 2016 (EDT)

Keep. Omega Tyrant's point made three years ago still stands. John PK SMAAAASH!! 12:29, 11 April 2016 (EDT)

Rewrite and move to a guides page per Nyargleblargle. Additionally, the other guides that weren't published by Prima should have some mention on this wiki, and having just an article for Prima would not allow for it.

Move to "Strategy guides" page

Discuss here. The two other official strategy guide publishers are BradyGames and Nintendo Power. Should the move occur, I'm thinking we can format the page similar to this article on the MarioWiki, but with more information about each company and the guides themselves in the beginning. If anyone knows of a different way to do this, then feel free to show it, but I personally think this might be the best way to do it. Pokebub (talk) 02:53, 16 March 2018 (EDT)

Strong support. If there is more than one then go ahead. St. Reggie, the Iron Leprachaun Warrior 10:40, 16 March 2018 (EDT)

My position (from two years ago goddamn, I forgot I actually made that post) has not changed and I would support a page about strategy guides. Even if most of the information in them is crap, they are still notable both for being official(ish?) and somewhat infamous. - EndGenuity (talk) 14:03, 16 March 2018 (EDT)

Oh god it's the third time this article is suspected for deletion and it's been five years since I voted to keep it. I mean if there is more than two notable strategy guides for Smash out there then of course merge with the rest as this article doesn't seem to have much anyways. Otherwise I'm changing my position to delete. MHStarCraft 09:35, 26 March 2018 (EDT)

Oppose Prima Guides are definitely notable enough to have an article of their own. If BradyGames and Nintendo Power have their own strategy guides they should be created as well, instead of this one being deleted/merged entirely. Awesome Cardinal 2000 10:30, 26 March 2018 (EDT)

Creating articles for the other two would just create unnecessary clutter. I think it'd be best to have all three on one page rather than than all three being separate. It would increase the size of the article immensely. Prima is definitely well-known within the community for obvious reasons, but I'd imagine the other two publishers have their share of errors as well. The new page could have a section detailing every notable mistake or false claim from each respective guide. Pokebub (talk) 00:38, 29 March 2018 (EDT)

Just because they're factually questionable doesn't mean they're not well-known enough to have their own individual articles. And if it's "well-known within the community," as you say it is, that should settle the question by itself. Awesome Cardinal 2000 11:49, 29 March 2018 (EDT)

Oppose. Brady Games only covered the 64 strategy guide, they are clearly a predecessor to Prima Games, rather than something that should be given equal treatment. Separate page, or just a piece of information on here stating that they predated Prima Games' efforts. Nintendo Power is worthy of its own article, due to its continued coverage of Super Smash Bros., and indeed the strategy guide. Prima Games is by far the largest publisher of Smash strategy guides (and strategy guides in general) and is worthy of its own page. Toast ltimatum 01:32, 29 March 2018 (EDT)

Huh, I knew they made a 64 guide, but I didn't know that was the only one they published. Regardless, I still believe that a general "strategy guides" page would be better than just this. Creating one big page with info on all strategy guides sounds better than having all it's content spread across multiple pages with one publisher barely getting a small mention. Pokebub (talk) 01:59, 29 March 2018 (EDT)

Them only covering 64 was an assumption I inferred from the above discussion, it looks as though I was incorrect. Certainly Brady Games doesn't publish in the UK, so that one has eluded me. That lessens my case, although I still prefer the idea of separate articles for all, that way we don't have to generalise what is being said. Toast ltimatum 16:26, 30 March 2018 (EDT)