Talk:Total Miner

Is this the Total Miner wiki being made by LosLoCoBandito?

Notability

Does this page meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines? I find language like "tons of caves" and "on your Xbox" and "be careful not to get caught" to be decidedly non-NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.134.45.21 (talk) 15:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Reception

I am changing "Criticism" section to be "Reception" which can be a blanket area for positive and negative reception. Unfortunately however, the assertion about Total Miner being the "highest rated" XBLIG game is simply not true and I am removing it. Regardless of whether it was at the time of writing, I feel that because 2 days later it is not even close to being the top rated, it does not meet any sort of notability criteria.

Also, the non-NPOV part of the article, the game description, should be rewritten to sound less like game marketing and to describe the game in relation to other titles of its kin (XBLIG, block-building, voxel based). I feel it could be done in 1 or 2 paragraphs. 38.97.88.20 (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, having to remove unsourced claims about positive reception. The section remains "Reception" to promote neutrality, but please cite sources that speak to critical reception. Download figures are close, but not quite critical reception. Time-sensitive information (Most downloaded as of MM/DD/YY) is also not really good for posterity. 38.97.88.20 (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, if cited, both those measures can be indicative of game's reception. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I can stand corrected on that. I was talking about "Critical Reception" but the section is actually "Reception" The lack of citation will still exclude those claims about reception.38.97.88.20 (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Ideas

Create a secondary page which contains the elements in which to make or craft blocks would be nice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.128.200.141 (talk) 05:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I disagree. Wikipedia is not a general collection of information, it is an encyclopedia. From the short description you just gave I'm not convinced this could be a quality encyclopedic article. How would that be worth to be an article anyway? Total Miner itself is still being called into question, a subpage would be even worse off. If you are looking for a place to put super-specific things about the game (such as what is contained on minecraftwiki.net for those who play Minecraft) at this point I do not believe Wikipedia would be the place for it. Rather, a page on the offical Total Miner website or some related third-party site would be more appropriate. Wikipedia summarizes an subject, and provides broad coverage without going into unnecessary detail. Crafting recipes are in my mind an unnecessary detail for Wikipedia article, but I'm sure another Total Miner site will make something like that. Jessemv (talk) 05:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

Reverted obvious vandalism, edits amounting to "ripping off" Minecraft and other POV statements, as well as vandalism calling this an "autism simulator." Watching page to document future vandalism. Deltwalrus (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Updates section

The updates section contains no real information on the updates and simply looks like it has been written by an excitable child from the games forums. Someone needs to re-write this as it's currently heavily opinionated and does not belong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.176.128 (talk) 23:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Fixed. Jessemv (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

You forgot about the update 1.8 features along with the game cover picture of 1.8 --Indienews (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)