Appendix talk:Chip's Challenge

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

Background: Chip's Challenge is a (good and fun!) puzzle game released in 1989 on various systems. This appendix page lists the various items in the game, such as "fire boots" that protect from fire, etc. Given that this is really outside our remit to begin with, I would like to propose deletion lest its existence make anybody think that this kind of thing is appropriate here (appendix or otherwise) — it came to mind because of Metaknowledge raising Daniel's fictional-anime-character appendices as comparable to the BASIC programming language one (and thus, erroneously IMO, de facto justifiable). Let's bear in mind that there have been literally thousands of video games both before and after Chip's Challenge, many of them more notable, and virtually all of them have their own characters, objects, and jargon. Should we have a page for the seminal and highly-regarded Doom (we have an entry for Doom, after all! though heaven knows why), with entries like "blue key", "red key", "yellow key", and "plasma gun"? How about for Lemmings, with its amusing characters like the "basher", "bomber", and "athlete"? Basically no, we shouldn't even encourage someone to start on this massive and irrelevant project by permitting a few initial oddities. Equinox ◑ 22:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Note that I have (mostly) changed my opinion on the subject. However... I really don't care if we have these, and they might even be useful, as a place to redirect the useless efforts of video game lexicographers (like what we use WT:LOP for, in redirecting those with protologistic interests). --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Would anyone disagree that WT:LOP is Wiktionary's equivalent of Windows' Recycle Bin? Nobody reads or uses it. It is just easier to push people there than to anger them with outright deletion. Equinox ◑ 00:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

LMAO! Totally true. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 00:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting one. Is any fictional universe acceptable for appendices, including all books, movies, video games and so on? My instinct says no, but I don't think we have any rules on this whatsoever. Could we possibly solve this with legislation instead of individual votes? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Appendix:Chip's Challenge does seem excessive (though harmless). If we want a rule of thumb, how about: When gamers often use gameworld terms in general forums without specifying what game they're referring to (ex. Eevee, Tauren, goomba), then that game may be a good candidate for an appendix. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 05:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

What's a "basher" in Lemmings? I wish there was a dictionary to look for that word!

However, I'm not sure Wiktionary is the place for it. Mind you, I do think it is interesting material; but, in this community, it's too controversial, to say the least.

WT:FICTION, at this point, seems permissive enough to allow a wide range of fictional words:

1. when they are cited out of context, (in books or Google Groups or whatever) they go in the main namespace ("[After finding a glowing blade,] Brian being Brian, his first thought was of a lightsaber.")
2. when the context is explained, they go in appendices ("Finally, a movie reference I understood! Finally, something I could get excited about! “Like C-3PO!” I shouted. “He was a protocol droid!”")

I have reasons to assume the rule #1 is to formally allow uncontroversial words for fictional things in the mainspace: zombie, vampire, mermaid...

The rule #2 looks like an experiment, a tentative guideline to be improved somehow. It was voted in a time where most (or all?) appendices like Appendix:Chip's Challenge did not exist yet. Some interesting comments:

• "I feel this is the start of something exciting."
• "Please don't make me regret this."
• "After thinking a lot about this, I've decided it's not an ideal solution, but it will allow us to accumulate a bank of words (and citations?) from which we can further refine community opinion."

--Daniel 00:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Since you asked (rhetorically? I don't know), a basher is a Lemming (= controllable green-haired game character capable of, etc.) that can swipe its way horizontally through the landscape, making a tunnel. The correct "dictionary" to look this up in is the Lemmings manual (Psygnosis, 1991; [1] page 17), because the term isn't used in this way outside of Lemmings. Equinox ◑ 00:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• An admin will come to their senses soon and it will be deleted. --ElisaVan (talk) 14:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)