Video games Start‑class Low‑importance

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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Apps Start‑class Mid‑importance

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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Contribute to the project: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Good article nominations : Improve Application software, Facebook and Instagram to good article status Stubs : Category:Mobile game stubs, Category:Stub-Class apps articles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not will tell you that the wikipedia is not the place for overly detailed information. The overly detailed information was removed for a reason! Do not attempt to add it back. Mumbogumbo (talk) 02:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else see a very strong resemblance to Bejewelled?

• Of course! Bejewelled has spun off a lot of similar styled games. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 02:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, Bejewelled is actually a spin-off of Panel de Pon.Mumbogumbo (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A cameo is a brief appearance of a prominent, well known actor. I would think this appearance instead would be called "product placement" for advertising purposes, instead of "cameo". Apteva (talk) 18:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention I fixed this semi-recently. It is true that cameos are people. Mumbogumbo (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the Popularity section, they are mentioned. However, googling either name with "Candy Crush Saga" doesn't give any article for the corresponding citation. Anyone can confirm these facts (or prove that they are incorrect)? Chaotic iak (talk) 09:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added a fact tag to the paragraph, but feel fr ee to remove it entirely as it cannot seem to be proven. 64.134.196.89 (talk) 01:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just for future reference, within a few days of a new release, there will always be multiple people that have beaten all the levels. This can be verified by the "Yay, I completed level ### in Candy Crush Saga!" messages on those users' Facebook pages, that are created by the Candy Crush game itself. Mumbogumbo (talk) 00:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This page, as it currently stands, is too detailed for Wikipedia. This kind of detail better fits a wiki specialized for the game. Any thoughts?

Also, the reason that I don't use the overly detailed tag is because I have used it before but it gets removed the next day. :/ — chaotic_iak (talk) 09:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of completion, it should be noted the "overly detailed" remark referred to a previous version of the wiki page. This wiki page has been fixed, and is no longer the overly detailed mess that it used to be. Mumbogumbo (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit surprised there is no information about "Candy Crush Saga"'s economic model. How do these people finance all the promotion (TV spots, etc.) ? Where do the money come from to maintain this "free" video game ? Wikipedia is a media for information, not a users guide ! Drlivingstone (talk) 11:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This page seems to be written by obsessed players, not people thinking about business issues, but you may find this link informative: http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/RaminShokrizade/20130626/194933/The_Top_F2P_Monetization_Tricks.php

This is an informational page. Notice this page is not allowed to have any tips or strategies posted on it. The reason why this page has more game information than the average puzzle game, is because this game has a lot more things in it than the average puzzle game. 24.128.113.225 (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, this page is definitely far too detailed for Wikipedia. It tells you what every single special is, what every single special combo is, what every single F2P cash shop item is, what level each of these things unlocks at - for your information, 24.148.*, to be encyclopedic, the page ought to mention that these features exist, and nothing more. The extremely excessive detail present here is a textbook example of what the WP project terms 'fan cruft' - I invite you to go find out what that is before posting any more. It's been my experience that most members of this project are much, much less polite than I have been to you here. You are welcome. Take care 66.225.176.36 (talk) 02:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of what 'fan cruft' means. I do agree that some of the information here is a bit excessive (e.g. does anyone really need to know there are 102 ingredient levels?) However, the information about what each special is, and what they do, is not fan cruft in my opinion. There are millions of people playing this game, and I think a lot of people are interested in information regarding game features, because king.com literally does not have any documentation for many of these game features. Most games have a game manual, or explain new features as they happen. This game does not have either. This game literally throws new features at you, with no actual clue or indication of how they work. In any event, if you do wish to make major changes to this wiki page, I would appreciate it if there could be an official discussion about it. I would also appreciate it if this discussion could happen without any more condescending or obnoxious remarks. Mumbogumbo (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ISNOT a strategy guide, even if one is needed. The fact that this game needs documentation is not WP's problem, nor will King's failure to provide it influence the actions of this project. Wikipedia is not the place for content of this detail level. It is unencyclopedic and inappropriate. Again, I have no problem with the fact that this information is available somewhere. That somewhere is not WP. There are wikis hosted by the for-profit Wikia Inc. that will gladly host and place ads all over this content, for example. May I suggest moving it there? As for making major changes... You must be fairly new here. This IS the official discussion. 66.225.176.36 (talk) 13:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will make revisions to the Candy Crush wiki page, in an attempt to have it retain as much usefulness as possible. Mumbogumbo (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have made major revisions to the Candy Crush wiki page. I hope these changes are enough to satisfy the wikipedia requirements. Mumbogumbo (talk) 17:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) OK, this is just about perfect. It's still highly detailed, but no longer contains those unnecessary technical details that were bogging the article down. Before it was a great example of how bad a WP article could get - now it's quite good. Nice work. I hope anyone who intends to revert these changes blindly, comes to the talk page to discuss it first. This is a unilateral improvement. 66.225.176.36 (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I realized that the vast majority of Candy Crush players are at the lower levels, they are the most likely people that need information, and they are the most likely people that won't read a wikpedia page if it's bogged down with technical information. Also, I read "what wikipedia is not," and found out this page wasn't following the mission of wikipedia. Mumbogumbo (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Tenaborek (talk) 04:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charms are NOT PURCHASABLE in the current version of Candy Crush Saga! Please do not tell people on the wiki that you can purchase charms! Mumbogumbo (talk) 18:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, you can't purchase charms right now. I just had to remove yet another comment about charms being purchasable. Mumbogumbo (talk) 02:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have any evidence of whether or not people can still use charms they already purchased? Mumbogumbo (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care if you think charms and/or boosters are cheating, and/or if your friends also think it's cheating. That information is subjective and biased, and should not be on the wiki. There are plenty of people that are completely fine with using boosters and/or charms. Mumbogumbo (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Unless we get an article from a reliable source talking about people complaining that charms or boosters constitute cheating, it's just not useful to write that "many people" think so. —tktktk 18:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the First APPS going into our Rippln Back office to Push through the Ripple is ((( CANDY CRUSH ))) we just locked that DEAL! Think about it Candy Crush wants to get to 1 Billion Downloads! They partner with Rippln Dont you think 1 Million people that get rewarded to share Candy Crush will push it harder and Faster than 1 Million people pushing it for fun and not being rewarded! Our Model Rocks we will have Many Many More Popular Apps Partnering with us and being downloaded and it all runs through your RIPPLE! http://ibourl.com/1tyq — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.204.44.243 (talk) 20:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since the 'Gameplay' section needs more references, do you want if I add Candy Crush Saga Wiki pages references there? I am an administrator there. Jianhui67 Talk 23:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Candy Crush is the mini game which is on King (website) ( http://king.com/ ), while Candy Crush Saga is the Facebook/mobile game. Candy Crush allows you to crush candies within 4 minutes to get as high score as possible, while Candy Crush Saga has levels and lives and needs to complete different tasks to pass a level.

However Candy Crush (the mini game) doesn't really deserve a page in Wikipedia.

user670839245 (talk · contribs · block log) 21:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now a days there are some of the games people likes to play on PC and Candy Crush Saga for PC is one of the most searched terms right now what people are looking for its information so can we add a details tutorials on how to Download Candy Crush Saga for PC, Guys do you think its worth to be on Wiki Page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jastech (talk • contribs) 23:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm afraid not. Please see WP:NOTHOWTO. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the King (website)#Controversy be covered in more detail on this page? It's got reliable sources (1: "Devs: We'll bury Candy Crush King under HEAPS of candy apps – Indie game-makers protest against CANDY trademark" by Brid-Aine Parnell, The Register, 31 January 2014. 2: "Game Developers Are Trolling the Makers of Candy Crush With Other 'Candy' Games" by Lily Hay Newman, Slate, 30 January 2014. 3: "Stealing 'Candy' From Babies: King Embrace The Aristocracy" by John Walker, Rock, Paper, Shotgun, 21 January 2014), a dedicated website, http://thecandyjam.com/, and a Twitter hashtag, https://twitter.com/search?q=%23candyjam&src=hash . -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crossing the t's but it's pretty obvious this is completely unsuitable for the opening sentence. WP:RS, WP:NOTSOAPBOX and all that... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]