Talk:Klobb

you have selected the Klobb

you have selected the Klobb, which is something that, without exception, you should never do in a video game.

the Klobb is best utilized when thrown. you throw it. it lies there on the ground. as night falls, the Klobb begins to sprout. you ought never allow a Klobb to sprout.

the Klobb has sprouted into flagpole, and as it blossoms, a white surrender flag emerges. it continues to grow at rates unprecedented, until it is plainly visible from space.

extraterrestrials have long observed Earth. upon witnessing this unmistakable concession of defeat, they capitalize on the opportunity by incinerating the entire planet.

the human race is now extinct. no one in this interstellar soup will preserve our history. no one cares. and if no one remembers us, we effectively never were. i never happened, and you never happened. death is easy. the truest Hell is to never have existed at all.

you have failed to abide by the principles of the Bill Belichick system. you have lost. SnowFire (talk) 06:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

SnowFire, Darn. Le Panini ^Talk 20:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Time to establish some consensus.

Should the article on Klobb be redirected? (This was tagged as an RFC later by another user.) --Izno (talk) 16:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

This article's existence is being contested. Either it should be redirected, or it should be kept. If all of the interested parties could engage in a lovely and respectful manner here instead of fighting, let's do that!

I'll start off by saying that I am a soft support for a redirect, but I am not actually voting. Although I support Wikipedia as a tool of archive and memory for video games themselves, that doesn't extend to small fragments of games that are usually the domain of listicles. I think it fails in significant coverage about the content. But, at the same time, there other articles which do a far worse job of establishing the subject's notability. ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit: Here is the list of sources on the article, for anyone curious:

Articles which mention the gun by name in the title:

Edge Staff (2014-04-04). "The story of GoldenEye 007's most notorious gun, The Klobb – and its design secret". Edge.

[BLOGPOST] Vincent, Brittany (2014-04-03). "What's the Klobb got to do, got to do with GoldenEye 007's design secrets?". Destructoid.

[UNRELIABLE per WP:VG/RS] Brian (2017-04-02). "Former Nintendo exec Ken Lobb on GoldenEye 007's rail shooter origins, Klobb gun, more". Nintendo Everything.

Johnson, Jason (2014-04-29). "Here's why the Klobb in Goldeneye was the worst gun ever". Kill Screen.

"Too Human Features a 'KLOBB' Gun". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028.

The article is three paragraphs long. In its entirety: Fans of Goldeneye 007 will be either pleased or kind of scared to know that the "KLOBB" gun has made its way into Too Human. The gun from the seminal Nintendo 64 first-person shooter was named in honor of Nintendo's Ken Lobb, who is now Creative Director of Microsoft Game Studios, working closely with Silicon Knights on Too Human as he did with Rare on their Bond game. In a game with hundreds of different pieces of weapons and armor, perhaps we should have expected this.

Articles which do not mention the gun by name in the title:

[BRIEF MENTION] Parkin, Simon (2013-01-31). "Shooters: How Video Games Fund Arms Manufacturers". Eurogamer.

One sentence: So we have the DD44 Dostovei named after [GoldenEye designer] David Doak, the Klobb after Ken Lobb and the PP7 because... It just sounds good."

"Fire and Forget: Gaming's Four Least-Lethal Firearms". Penthouse. No. 10. 2016. p. 26.

Nintendo Nostalgic: 'GoldenEye 007' Is N64's Best First-Person Shooter". Mandatory. 2019-05-09.

Full mention of the subject: But you’ve still made plenty of friends along the way: the incredible rocket launcher, the trusty AK47 and even the laughably pathetic Klobb, a submachine gun so useless it seemed to spew bullets away from targets instead of at them.

Classic Weapon". GamesRadar+ presents: The Ultimate Guide to Classic Gaming. Vol. 1. 2016. p. 125.

Redirect : Doesn't follow WP:GNG. As ImaginesTigers said, it could easily just be apart of the bigger article without having to get fully deleted. Neon (Talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Redirect for failing WP:N. There isn't anything here that constitutes significant coverage that allows this to be its own article, or even a subsection in the GoldenEye 007 article. I think it's okay as a redirect, but certainly not as its own page. WP:TROUT the person that passed the GAN review, too. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 21:36, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Redirect. Certainly fails significant coverage. I see nothing but blogs and wikis and similar fansites with the exception of one article in Edge from 2014 that goes into a little detail on its creation, but does not attach any larger significance to the gun outside of the game itself. Other articles from more reliable sources basically limit their coverage to game guide-type material on its capabilities or lack thereof. The development information can fit in the Goldeneye article itself as needed, the rest is cruft. Indrian (talk) 21:40, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep The rationales so far are extremely WP:VAGUEWAVE, it doesn't seem like anyone voting redirect here has checked the references in detail. Whether it's a "small fragment of a game" should really have no basis in discussing relative notability, per WP:IDONTKNOWIT (or maybe WP:USELESS). "Nothing but blogs and fansites" is an inaccurate description of the sources, which are largely reliable and notable game journalism websites._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• Notability is defined by significant coverage in reliable sources. Of the reliable sources you have used in the article (see I did read it), the Destructoid blog just says it was named for one of the developers and is underpowered, the USGamer article is not even about the Klobb, it just mentions that Rare had to change the name in a larger article about how gun companies profit off gun appearances in games, the Penthouse article is a listicle that just says its underpowered, the Wired article is just a blurb stating a gun of the same name appears in Too Human, the Nintendo Everything article (is this site even reliable, I am not familiar with it) is about Ken Lobb's contributions to Goldeneye and just briefly mentions the gun is named after him. Only the Edge article is actually a meaty look at the history of the gun, and even then it boils down to "they had to change the name and its underpowered." Everything else I saw in Google searches other than the articles you cited were fansites, blogs and wikis as I stated above. Not sure why you are trying to "vaguewave" away the legitimate concerns of other editors. You are entitled to your opinion, but your attempts to denigrate the considered opinions of other editors are not helpful. Indrian (talk) 22:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• I think you lack an understanding of notability criteria. "Not even being about" the topic is not grounds to wholesale throw out a source, that's ridiculous. Hopefully someone comes in with a better understanding of notability to explain further, because this analysis is deeply flawed.

Passive-aggressively accusing me of insulting other users is not helpful either. I'm not sure where exactly I did that. I'm just surprised at the onslaught of ill considered assertions._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I said you insulted the opinions, not the people. And I was not passive aggressive about it; I made no secret as to my thoughts about that line of argument. You are welcome to provide your view of what "significant coverage" entails just as I am. Everyone else does the same and consensus wins out. That can be done without attacking the opinions of others with spurious WP links. Indrian (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• Redirect Largely in line with Indrian, after reading each and every source myself. I'll reiterate them all though: The primary source from Edge is the most in depth source, and the only one with significant coverage. Destructoid is somewhat in-depth, unfortunately, Destructoid is a situational source due to being a USERG blog site. What makes Brittany Vincent reliable as a source? Once you move past those two, though, there's nothing else: Eurogamer is a trivial mention in a broader topic, ultimately offering nothing more than "Named at Ken Lobb". NintendoEverything is unreliable, as are most of the NintendoNoun/Verb blog sites. It's also mostly quoting an interview. Kill Screen is a single paragraph, ultimately cross posting the Edge article. Penthouse is a trivial mention, one of four weapons from various games mentioned with a single sentence as being the worst weapon of said game. Mandatory is a trivial mention, which didn't even devote an entire sentence to the weapon. The offline Edge article about Goldeye mentions the Klobb exactly once, and doesn't discuss it directly at all. Finally, we have Wired, which doesn't discuss the Klobb in any detail but simply points out that another game Ken Lobb worked on also has a gun named Klobb. -- ferret (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Nintendo Everything is not stated as unreliable in WP:VG/S, it's just not mentioned. The thing above that says it's conclusively unreliable is false. The Brittany Vincent post was made by a prolific associate editor (or former one), not a random community contributor and is therefore reliable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

NintendoEverything is not listed at WP:VG/S, that is true, but it's long been treated as unreliable, and that's where I personally put it. Even counting Vincent though, you have two in-depth significant coverage sources. Two. That said, I'm not interested in doing the "argue every point with the article creator" thing, so we'll have to see where other opinions lie and the ultimate consensus that develops. -- ferret (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Full disclosure, NintendoEverything is now listed at WP:VG/RS as unreliable. No less than 4 prior discussions at WT:VG/RS had mentioned it as unreliable. This was already practiced by editors curating and maintaining Switch articles. -- ferret (talk) 16:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• Redirect Although I reviewed this for GA, and it was fine, I had my eyebrow raised the whole time on whether or not this passes notability. Czar and I had a discussion here. Le Panini ^[🥪]
• Redirect Fails WP:GNG. ♦ jaguar 22:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
• Redirect and merge the relevant content to the GoldenEye article. This doesn't even come close to passing WP:N. JOEBRO64 00:15, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Redirect - I hate to do this to a GA, but this is way below the WP:N line. Individual game elements are pretty much never notable on their own, and this gun is not an exception. Any article that needs to rely on so many one-sentence mentions to pad out its reference section is suspect, and this article is essentially resting on a single source (the Edge article). That's just not enough to pass WP:N. --PresN 01:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep - Two notable sources, Edge and Kill Screen, with several mentions in smaller sources. At least take it to AFD first. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
  • No, the whole point of this is to not do an AfD. A redirect is a perfectly suitable alternative for deletion and it allows the page to be a useful search term for finding related articles. Kill Screen is just a small paragraph so it doesn't constitute significant coverage. The rest of the sources are just trivial mentions or unreliable blogsite. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 14:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
  • A couple people need to re-read GNG. Except for the Edge source, the rest of the sources are text-book examples of a trivial mention. And Kill Screen is no good anyway because they are summarizing then linking the Edge piece, i.e. it's essentially the same coverage. -- ferret (talk) 15:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
    • You know that AFDs do not need to end up as either a keep or delete and most AFDs that I have participated in ended up as a redirect or merge. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
      • AFD is Articles for Deletion. You don't go to AFD unless your goal is to delete the page. While an AFD may ultimately redirect a page, you cannot nominate as "Should be redirected". You have to make a case for deletion, which is not what anyone wants. -- ferret (talk) 15:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
      • Oinkers, did you read the sources? ♦ jaguar 15:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Redirect: For fictional game items/elements, we need to think if it remains notable when it is not discussed together with the game. It is neither iconic nor significant on its own. It means nothing if GoldenEye is taken out of the picture. In this case, why can't this be discussed in the main GoldenEye article? I am not seeing any justification as for why this needs a separate article. I think the Edge source is significant, but a sentence in the parent article for this (which is a minor game element) is probably sufficient already. OceanHok (talk) 19:37, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Redirect - Lacks notability independent from the game(s) it’s from. Reads like a wikia article. Even the reception section is ridiculously drawn out and vapid, as if it’s specifically designed to make editors think “whoa this many sentences about it, it must be notable”. Read through it, and you see there’s very little of substance to be said about it. Sergecross73 msg me 01:23, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Scraps the boundary of WP:GNG as seen from the refs and ultimately having this article up does more positive than negative. Though not opposed to an official AfD to get more official close/consensus with a broader range of users rather than just WP:VG. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)