Boston campaign (1st supplementary nomination)edit
This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Boston campaign for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:
I'm nominating Hurricane Rick to be added to the FT on behalf of WikiProject Tropical cyclones Tropical Cyclones. Hurricane Rick (2009) needs adding as it intensified into a category five hurricane. Credit goes to Cyclonebiskit for bringing Hurricane Rick to FA.Jason Rees (talk) 17:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating Kud Wafter to satisfy criteria 1.d. Criteria 3.c has already been satisfied for both Rewrite and Kud Wafter as they have yet to be released.--十八 02:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Normally this would be a straightforward addition, but the two PRed articles have no references for the gameplay or plot sections. Since neither are released, the text sounds like wp:crystal. Also, I bet there is a reference out there where they state the presumptive release year. Nergaal (talk) 05:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Basically all this info can be sourced from either the games' official websites, or from Dengeki G's Magazine which publishes material pertaining to visual novels. The gameplay for visual novels, at the basic level, is all the same, where the main part of the game is the story, and the decision points the player makes to move the story in a specific direction. In Kud Wafter's case, the official website states its an adult game (in the flash video that plays when you first go to the website), and the rest of the gameplay in both Kud Wafter and Rewrite are basically the same, except the former has one heroine and the latter has 5. I'll add in as many cites as I can.--十八 06:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me put it this way: if the game were to be suddenly canceled for whatever reason (say like Starcraft Ghost was), then the articles, by how they look right now would most definitely be removed or redirected some where (because unlike Starcraft Ghost, there just isn't sufficient information, apparently even in Japanese to merit the existence of the article). What happens to the topic in that case? Nergaal (talk) 08:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding their releases, Kud Wafter has been announced to be released this summer, and Rewrite will probably get a tentative release date or period in April, though that's speculative. The thing is, why bring up the issue that they may be canceled if there's no reason to see that they will be? I personally think that there's a very low chance either of these games would be canceled based on the company's track record. If, in the very unlikely case either or both were canceled, it wouldn't be that hard to remove either or both from the topic, would it? Or, alternatively as in Starcraft Ghost's case, even if either or both were canceled, the articles could still be added to the GT once they attained at least GA status, am I right, as is the case with Wikipedia:Featured topics/StarCraft titles? In the end, I don't feel that this topic deserves to be delisted in two months merely because two of the games are unreleased with tentative or no release dates, and then only to have the topic relisted when the release dates for both could be ultimately confirmed, since there is no criteria that prevents the addition of unreleased items in FT/GTs. I mean, just look at the Starcraft GT with StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty included, yet there's no official release date.--十八 08:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Nergaal is more arguing that based on the sourcing of the two peer reviewed articles, they possibly shouldn't exist yet. Not until more information is available. If you know where the sources are, I think you just need to use them - rst20xx (talk) 14:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree based on the development info alone for both which have sources, and the fact that Kud Wafter is planned to be out in 6 months or so.--十八 00:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close with consensus to promote - I'm inclined to promote this as debates about whether the articles merit existence are more for their talk pages. If an article is subsequently merged, then that will not effect the topic, it will just lose an article - rst20xx (talk) 14:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
