This article is written in
New Zealand English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, analyse, centre, fiord) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
New Zealand and
New Zealand-related topics 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.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apps, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
apps 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.AppsWikipedia:WikiProject AppsTemplate:WikiProject Appsapps articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to
rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion. See also:
WikiProject Trains to do list and the
Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Alright, well, that being said, I still support a move, per
WP:NCVGDAB. Video game articles mistakenly disambiguated with (game) are routinely moved to (video game) with or without a RM. ☺ ·
Salvidrim! ·
✉04:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support is appears that NCVDABS is the standard here and I don't see why this should be an exception. it should be noted that an attempt to move the video game 2048 failed to have it moved from (video game) for that very reason.--
70.27.228.231 (
talk)
00:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Reviewer:Tintor2 (
talk·contribs)
02:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I, Tintor2 will review this article. It looks to be in good shape, so I'll probably pass it after seeing issues solved. Here we go:reply
Can the lead be expanded to be split in at least two paragraphs per
WP:Lead? The article is pretty so I think it would be easy.
I've expanded this.
Gameplay section: What does "In the Normal play mode"? Is it a diffculty?
It's the name of a game mode. I've added quote marks to emphasise that. The text explains how "Normal" differs from the "Endless" game mode. Tell me if it still isn't clear.
Reception: The vg reviews template could be expanded with the ones you used in the prose like "| rev1 = | rev1Score = "
The other reviews didn't give scores.
The excellence in audio could also be added with "| award1Pub = | award1 = "
I don't like to use the award entry in the VG reviews template because the text looks too small and cramped. So I prefer to just summarise in prose if there aren't that many awards. That's just my personal preference.
Lastly, just an advice. If the development section is too large, I would recommend it to have a subsection.
Usually I would split the development section into subsections, but for this article it seemed better to write it in a chronological order due to the way the game was released. So there isn't really clearly defined subsections for it.
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment Here's a
link to pageviews. The dab page
Mini Metro was a redirect until earlier today, so there's little surprise that it doesn't show anything. Going by those views, the
Austin Mini is clearly the primary topic. The question is whether Mini Metro should redirect to Austin Metro or not, and that can only be determined by those who know how commonly the car is known by this term. Hence, my contribution is a mere comment; I let others vote! who know more about the topic. Schwede6609:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment the game is the clear primary topic on google web search, but the car is the clear primary topic for book searches - which is not suprising given the difference in age/eras for the topics. I'm leaning towards primary disambiguation, but not firmly (at the moment).
Thryduulf (
talk)
18:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose I agree that "Mini Metro" should either be a disambiguation page, or should be pointing to the Austin Mini. This page on the game is fine where it is. --
MASEM (
t)
18:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Why should it point to the Austin Mini? It is a prior name; the game is now the primary topic.
Mini Metro - the game.
MiniMetro - the people mover systems.
Austin Metro - that. This is all fine; have hatnotes; they are all different. –
Nixinova ⟨
T|
C⟩
19:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Strong Oppose, no one ever referred to Mini Metro as "Austin Mini", Mini Metro is the Mini Metro and should redirect to the car. Is the game even notable?
In ictu oculi (
talk)
02:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Requested move 29 March 2024
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Mini Metro (video game) →
Mini Metro – I think that the additional disambiguation is not required because there is no other article with the exact match. We have
MiniMetro, about the people mover. Also, the
mini Metro dab is not even mentioned in the
light rail page so not sure why its listed in the dab article. There is a discussion about the same thing, but its been 6 years and its been more than reasonable enough time to request another one. A case of
WP:DIFFCAPS and
WP:SMALLDETAILS may apply here. A dab page may not be necessary so could be a case of G14ing it.
JuniperChill (
talk)
00:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose While a realively well known video game in the video game world, it doesn't the name recognition that would elevate it above the other topics at the disambiguation page. --
Masem (
t)
20:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I clearly stated that the dab page doesn't contain any other matches of 'Mini Metro' so it should be named without any disambiguation. If they are not looking for the video game, then that is what the hatnote is for. This reminds me of the situation at
Sun Haven where again, other than the dab page, there is no proper article with that name, and all of it has a disambiguator but the video game with that name has since been deleted. Also,
Empire of Sin video game can be named that way since the dab page doesn't list any others with the exact name. This is why I proposed this rename move thing.
JuniperChill (
talk)
21:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose. The Austin Metro was once almost universally referred to as the Mini Metro (I'm old enough to remember it being!). I would go so far as to say that should be a primary redirect. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
13:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.