This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
Instead of automatically redirecting to the Bloons TD page I think there should be a page about the Bloons brand, such as the actual game Bloons and not the spinoff Bloons Tower Defense.
Jasonxu98 (
talk)
22:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)reply
We need to make this page about all of them Bloons, bloons td and spinoffs and change the name to Bloons and redirect Bloons TD to here I'll work on that in my sandbox and switch them if you want me to
Black60dragon (
talk)
23:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)reply
I was going to suggest this, but it looks like someone beat me to it. I agree that Bloons should get an article, especially if Bloons TD gets an article.
Alphius22:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)reply
I think Bloons should get its own article, but Bloons TD should not redirect there because it is already a longish article.
Sfoske70 (
talk)
14:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)reply
So we make a bloons page on its own and how about I go ahead and make a subpage and give you guys the link and everyone could work on it so it gets down fast and right.
I just contacted Ninjakiwi about this - asking for permission to use their logos and screenshots. Maybe we'll get a favorable response!
Walkop (
talk)
01:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)reply
Added a little bit on the actual gameplay and money earning processes - including the Banana Farm. It should be correct.
Walkop (
talk)
01:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)reply
Gameplay info
The article seems a bit low on actual information about the game and the specific variations on each edition. Anyone willing to help out? I've done a bit, added a table for version availability etc. but even that is low on factual, direct information; and isn't really relevant to gameplay.
Walkop (
talk)
02:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)reply
Just letting you know, Wikipedia is
not a gameguide. Listing all the types of bloons, towers, levels, etc. is not helpful. Also the table you inserted was unnecessary. The information included in the table should be in the sections for each game, and/or the lead. Just remember, Wikipedia covers things on a real world perspective. Some development information from interviews or something would be more helpful then minor gameplay features. Thanks, Blake(
Talk·
Edits)16:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)reply
Of course; I understand. I was actually thinking similarly, but this article is a bit low on information and I hadn't really gotten around to it yet. Thank you for giving your perspective and for your correction. I'll try to help in more factual objective ways. Thanks! Walkop(
talk)22:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)reply
I asked SuperHamster for his
advice/opinion on the article in its current state. It was really useful to me, so I'm sharing it here:
"Overall coverage of each game looks good, but I also think it's a bit long. Excessive gameplay detail isn't desirable for an encyclopedia, such as lists of all the types of towers, bloon colors, etc. (particularly for
Bloons TD 4). Focusing on the key features and biggest changes between each game (graphics, game modes, new features, etc.) are the most important.
I think the next best place to look at is the reception section, since it only mentions a couple of games right now. It's complicated since it's going to cover the entire series. I'd look at
the Grand Theft Auto' reception section as a good example; we can provide an overall impression of the entire series, then get into game-specific ratings (with a table?).
Also, question: I believe the article should be moved to Bloons TD, since the series seems to have been renamed? Unless I'm missing something.
For reliable sources related to video gaming,
Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources provides more information than you could ever want about video game sourcing. This list provides a comprehensive list of commonly accepted sources, along with custom Google searches set up so your search only returns results from the listed websites. Hope this helps! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)"
To-do list:
move article focus away from elaborate gameplay detail to key features that differ between games
Some gameplay images are definitely needed and won't be hard to include, but I'm considering removing the logo pictures as I don't think they serve any purpose. Thoughts?
Samwalton9 (
talk)
20:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)reply
I can agree on removing logo pictures because if we kept them, we'd need a logo picture for Bloons TD 5. Then it would be unbalanced, and we'd need logos for 1 and 2, and then there'd be images all over the place. We should change the infobox image, as well, because it seems a little outdated.
I'll see what I can do for 4 & 5 screenshots. It might be hard to acquire screenshots for the original version, given that Ninja Kiwi's probably taken the game down.
Yeah a logo of some kind would be good for the infobox. Actually just move the infobox image down to the 1st game's section would be best I think. All of the games are still available on the net so we can grab any screenshots that are needed :)
Samwalton9 (
talk)
23:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)reply
It doesn't need cropping, but it does need reducing in size. For something like a screenshot to be legitimate fair use it needs to be much smaller than that (1,920 × 1,278 is not small by any means!). Resize it to something like 500x300ish and it should be fine to use. It basically needs to be the case that someone couldn't just copy the art straight out of the screenshot and use it elsewhere.
Samwalton9 (
talk)
00:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)reply
No I think that would be overdoing it, especially since the first two versions looked pretty much the same. Maybe just one for TD3 to show the first graphical update might be good, then we've got 1-3-5 to show the change.
Samwalton9 (
talk)
01:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)reply
I'd also like to get an infobox logo, but not sure which logo to use. The first game's
logo isn't the prettiest of things, but I think it might be the best to use since it just says Bloons Tower Defense. Thoughts?
Samwalton9 (
talk)
12:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)reply
We should ideally treat it as the game treats it. Looking at the
Android description page for Bloons TD 5, they do capitalize it in the description. But looking into the game on my phone, and I'm seeing the term "bloon" both capitalized and not in different cases...
If we can figure out whether the developers consider it a proper noun or not, then we can go off that. I'm leaning towards it being a proper noun, but we should probably try to get more evidence. Until then....heh. ~SuperHamsterTalkContribs02:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)reply
In an email from Ninja Kiwi, when I asked whether bloons is a common or proper noun, I was told that "We purposefully try use a lower-case "b" for "bloons" in-game, so a common noun :). For titles of games we capitalise though (as you do with titles)."
Bananasoldier (
talk)
15:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)reply
One sentence
"Bloons follow the map's set path on the track until they either reach the exit(s) or are popped." -Gameplay, paragraph 2
Also, paragraph 2 of gameplay: Maybe we should reword the statement about the bloons being layered inside one another in a
Russian Doll style. I've found no sources that actually call it "Russian Doll," and it was merely my observation, therefore original research.
Bananasoldier (
talk)
02:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)reply
I don't think the slight duplication is a worry, it words it slightly differently anyway. And it's a shame that it kind of might be OR because it's a really good example. I'd be tempted to leave that and see what the GA reviewer thinks.
Samwalton9 (
talk)
16:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Well-written -the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and it contains no original research.
Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Illustrated, if possible, by images: images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the
Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
Disambig links: No issues
Reference check: One issue
Daemon's Take on Bloons Tower Defense 3 - Web Games Feature at IGN (info) [ign.com] - Redirects. Essentially 404ed.
Comments:This article could potentially meet several points of the quick fail criteria, but I will hold it for a week just in case. The main issue is the lack of development which is completely non-existent as this point and the other article does contain the basic beginnings of the a proper development section. This article also has issues meeting the broad and focused aspects of the GA assessment. This article is a smaller portion of the Bloons line of games, but the section on TD2 is shorter than a stub should be. Its content is a single sentence. The prose is also a problem, with many of the sentences being choppy. This article is like a start or C class as it stands right now and I think it will be very hard to fix this in the time. Though I did make you wait quite awhile for the review, so I can give it two weeks to be fair.
ChrisGualtieri (
talk)
18:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)reply
I'm at an impasse with this one. I can't find any information on the development as sources generally only covered the games themselves.
Samwalton9 (
talk)
18:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)reply
The article is just really lacking without details, this article tells nothing of its availability its marketing its specials or features on websites such as Kongregate. Each game is given no real details or coverage, each one is less than a stub by itself. I don't think there is enough content to make GA as a result. The reader doesn't get much more then "it exists, you pop balloons and it released on this date" for each of the games.
ChrisGualtieri (
talk)
14:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)reply
I'm sorry, I actually went out and played one of the games to see what is missing from this. And its a lot. The gameplay aspects alone could be given their own section and this is not really trivial stuff. I simply believe that even the basic game functions are being omitted and so is the distribution and other aspects. I do not think I can pass this without a substantial amount of coverage being added. It is just too bare bones.
ChrisGualtieri (
talk)
05:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)reply
You mean the gameplay aspects for each game? Regardless I think we've run out of coverage for now and have agree that it's fine if you fail the GAN. Doesn't look like we're going to find any sources for expansion any time soon.
Samwalton9 (
talk)
15:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Are you sure there aren't reviews, manuals, or in-game dialogue that can be used to cite gameplay aspects? I find those all very helpful.
Tezero (
talk)
21:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)reply
I think we've used reviews as much as possible. Manuals and in-game things I hadn't considered for gameplay but that doesn't solve the lack of development section problem unfortunately. Thanks for the advice though.
Samwalton9 (
talk)
12:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Something else that needs to be mentioned is that there's no Development section. You at least want to have a BS Development section if you can't find interviews or primary sources, as is the case in Digimon Racing, for example.
Tezero (
talk)
06:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Yeah as hinted by banana, we couldn't find sources which talked about monkey city. Though we know that the game exists, we can't really write anything without those sources and thus had to leave it as a mention in the series intro. The same was true for a lot of the other Bloons TD series games unfortunately.
Samwalton9 (
talk)
00:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Awesome! Sorry it's taken me so long to getting back to this article, been distracted. I think I'll take a look at adding those now. fyi press releases shouldn't be used as sources but the others should be fine.
Samwalton9 (
talk)
11:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Those references look good for a Ninja Kiwi article, but I could only use one for this article since only 2 of them mentioned Bloons TD and it was the same info!
Samwalton9 (
talk)
11:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)reply
I have just modified one external link on
Bloons Tower Defense. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
This article is incredibly bias towards Apple and the IOS platform. These games were released for multiple platforms and the content of this article should reflect this.
DrkBlueXG (
talk)
19:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Unfortunately that just reflects the higher volume of coverage given to the iOS platform for these games. We did a pretty thorough job of including all the references that we could on the games, and this article is now a pretty good representation of what platforms the game was covered on more.
Sam Walton (
talk)
21:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)reply
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 18 external links on
Bloons Tower Defense. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
Hello, what do some of you think about adding the BTDB2 XP discrepancy between FTP and VIP users and the general review score after the launch in the Reception tab? (also some other stuff.) Seems pretty worthwhile as it eclipses any past controversies (which weren't a lot) in the Bloons series. --
EmeraldW4rld (
talk)
00:46, 5 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Apologies for the late response, but it would be a good addition for the Reception tab if it is linked to a reliable source (see
WP:RELIABLE for some further information about Wikipedia's reliable sources policies).
Qwertyxp2000 (
talk |
contribs)
10:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Somebody should make a seperate section for fangames such as Bloons TD X, Apes Vs Helium, Bloons but you're the bloons
Also add images/Screenshots
188.25.17.145 (
talk)
20:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)reply