Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 71

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 65

←

Archive 69

→

Which box art to use?

Hello everyone. The guideline page says to avoid console-specific box art for multiplatform games, but I don't think this is always necessary. It's a good idea for games like Grand Theft Auto IV that were released simultaneously for 360/PS3, so as not to carry a bias towards Microsoft or Sony. However, there are situations like the one over at the Metroid Prime article where someone cropped the GameCube logo off the box art just because it's being ported to Wii, which I think is completely unnecessary. Thoughts? -sesuPRIME 19:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

We still need to get WP:Logos questions answered about any copyright violations this might bring by cropping it.陣内 _Jinnai 19:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

We aren't misrepresenting the work by cropping of generic wrappertext that isn't part of the box art. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The best answer is that for a multi-platform release at the time of first release, a generic cover should be used. A long delayed or distance port (such as Metroid Prime, or something like Gears of War), the box art should not be changed because of this. --MASEM (t) 20:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the original box art should be used if the game is re-released.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

David Fuchs - that was finally cleared up. Yes it is okay and it would appear it is preferable not just for those ones but in general from the statement here.陣内 _Jinnai 01:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I reverted Prime's box. -sesuPRIME 14:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the box art image for Gears of War article I noticed that it has been cropped since September 2008. Since Masem mentioned eariler in this topic that he did not think that a cropped image should be used in that case should it be changed back?.--70.24.180.78 (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes; I've reverted it. -sesuPRIME 18:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree in Gears of War's case. The Gears of War box art is highly misleading to readers who don't know the subject when it has "Only on Xbox 360" plastered all over it when it was not anymore. That's why it was cropped; similar things have been done for the Halo articles, for instance. There are other considerations to bear in mind other than simply having a port happen a while after the original release. -- Sabre (talk) 19:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

In the case of Gears, it was, until the PC version announced, always to be a 360 exclusive. The fact that that changed after its release is actually part of the reception - gamers felt cheated, etc. etc. I can understand if it's the case that both a 360 and PC are announced but the PC arrives some significant time later, but this is a unique situation. --MASEM (t) 19:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

That Metroid Prime cover was horribly cropped. It took out part of the core image. --Mika1h (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Sabre, are you suggesting we edit the box art for Super Mario 64, The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, Star Fox 64, Super Smash Bros., and many others that have the "Only for Nintendo 64" stamp since they're also for available for Wii? -sesuPRIME 19:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

<-Hardly, since some of those titles were only ported over a decade after original release; for that reason alone there is a very strong historical tie to the original platform. My point is that this is very situational, and should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis rather than altering existing files in blanket moves. In Gears of War's case, a PC version has been speculation for much of the game's development history; and production on the PC version - which in contrast to your N64 examples was only released a year after the Xbox one - began some substantial time before the Xbox version was even released. This sort of stuff warrants platform-neutral artwork, where as the Metroid Prime article does not. -- Sabre (talk) 19:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

There are aesthetic reasons for retaining the box art as well, as there's no easy way to crop N64 boxes to edit out the exclusive marker. We aren't out to mangle the cover art just to influence some consistency over everything. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe out of topic but I was looking at Resident Evil 4 and it has all three of the boxarts. Does anyone know how to just get the Gamecube version? GamerPro64 (talk) 19:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That is really weird. It's like Wikipedia is displaying one of the past file versions. I tried refreshing and purging but nothing. You click on it and it displays fine. You change the thumb size to anything other than 256 and it displays fine; just not a 256px. I tweaked it to 255 and it's fine now. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC))

Could we not crop Gamecube covers since they do not have rectangular banners. --Mika1h (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Also I am not sure that cropping is necessary in the case of RE4. The reason for this is that while the three box arts are similar each one is different enough to be identified as being for a particular system. This means that the cropped image can still be identified as the Gamecube version and appears to defeat the purpose of the cropping in the first place. The immages can be seen here [[1]].--76.65.142.119 (talk) 01:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources requested for Korean online gaming topics.

The following articles require sources to establish notability, or they may be nominated for deletion: KwonHo, Netmarble, MAIET Entertainment, GunZ: The Duel. I came close to nominating MAIET and Gunz myself, and it appears KwonHo has been deleted before, so those might be more pressing? Thanks! - BalthCat (talk) 03:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Apparently there's a (not very high-scoring) review for GunZ in the December 2005 PC Gamer UK. I actually installed it once, a while ago. I don't think you can exactly call it completely non-notable, but there aren't many sources. I can't say that the development teams are notable, since all the info comes from their website...--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I could pretty much not find English sources, which is part of why I crossposted this request to WikiProject Korea. - BalthCat (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Old Nintendo Power scoring system

Hello everyone. What's the protocol for adding a score using Nintendo Power's old rating system to Template:VG reviews? They had five editors each rate a game on a scale from one to five stars (with half-point increments). And is this already answered on some guideline page that I overlooked? Thanks. -sesuPRIME 17:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I would just avoid doing it. If the NP review is needed for the reception, just discuss the separate scores in the prose. But is NP even a reliable source for reception? It is owned by Nintendo. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Why not simply average the scores? And NP is perfectly reliable per Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. Artichoker^[talk] 02:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Averaging the scores seems best to me, but is that what's done elsewhere on Wikipedia for NP's old rating system? By inquiring here, I was hoping to be pointed to an accepted method stated somewhere in the bowels of WP:VG policy guidelines that I somehow overlooked. And by the way, the November 2007 issue of NP was the last one published by Nintendo of America; it's now published by Future US. -sesuPRIME 02:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

To add here too, they have been just as critical of some Nintendo games as they have games by other publishers (which they have covered in high volume too). There's no indication of a conflict of interest on their part regarding reviews.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe Nintendo Power listed on the sources page is specifically those when ownership switched hands. Any review prior is questionable, especially those for games produced by Nintendo itself, and cannot be used for notability.陣内 _Jinnai 10:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

My gut tells me older NP reviews would be fine for their opinion. As Jinnai pointed, it should neither help establish notability nor be the basis for an entire article. Basically just use it as little as possible.

In regard to the review scores, I've always avoided them like EGM and Game Informer's review that use more than one reviewer and provide a score from each. The only exception to that is Famitsu, which has traditionally added the scores together. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC))

I saw that NP was on the sources list, but there is no rationale provided for it on the talk page, which is why I bring the question up. Anyone can just edit the list and put something there. So consider this the relevant discussion. I don't think that Future US changes the situation much; my understanding is that they were contracted to produce the magazine, which means that full ownership and control still resides with Nintendo. Even if NP has been unbiased so far, it's just better not to rely on them for subjective comments about their own games when there are other sources available. The independence of third parties is one of the basic principles of WP:RS. I'm not sure we need an exception here. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Averaging them seems OK to me. SharkD (talk) 21:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I see the reasoning behind averaging, but I worry it could be seen as original research; like we're misrepresenting the reviewers' scores. The review table is optional, so I'd say it's best to avoid such a practice if we don't have to list scores. That's what I think anyway. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 05:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

Pokemon, MissingNo

There is a discussion going on at Talk:MissingNo.#File:Missingno-ny.png regarding whether an image there meets fair-use criteria or could be replaced by text. Input from anyone would be appreciated. Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of a bunch of Nintendo hardware subtemplates

A bunch of Nintendo hardware subtemplates have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. User:Dancter has informed me that they were used to reduce clutter but it appears that they are no longer used in that capacity. I guess I'm just letting you guys know in case you want to keep the main template the way it is or if you want to reintroduce the subtemplates. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Texts copied from the Super Mario Wiki

In three articles, I noticed that texts have been copied from the external Super Mario Wiki without a proper or not any mention of the source, which infringes the GNU FDL used for the Mario Wiki:

Yakuman DS: The whole text is copied.
Good-Feel: Much of the article was originally written by me here.
King K. Rool: Texts in the section "Other appearances" were recently copied by the user KK.Rool from this article. Other parts of the article might also be copied, such as the Mario Super Sluggers section.

--Grandy02 (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Uh, you wrote it in a wiki, isn't it available for free use everywhere? Also, the article on King K. Rool is crufty in the extreme, I don't think it's losing anything if you delete content... You could talk to the user themselves as this may be a "good faith" kind of thing.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You infringe on GFDL by not providing correct attribution. Just acknowledge the source in a notes or references section. - hahnch e n 18:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Template_messages/Sources_of_articles#Wikis for examples. - hahnch e n 18:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Since June 15, we cannot import GFDL content at all. It has to be CC-BY-SA 3.0 (GFDL/CC-BY-SA 3.0 dual licensed would be even better). See Wikipedia:Terms of use#Importing text. Anomie ⚔ 00:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Super Mario Wiki is GNU FDL only, as far as I know. The text in Yakuman DS and Good-Feel was copied before June 15, 2009. It only goes for imports since June 15, right? On King K. Rool, I don't have motivation to go through this whole bunch of text and compare it to the Mario Wiki article. I'd rather see it merged with List of Donkey Kong characters, which would probably be the best in the article's current state. --Grandy02 (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Licensing update#Content restrictions, the "copy from a non-Wikimedia wiki" deadline is November 1, 2008. Or the other wiki could be convinced to relicense their content too (which must be done before August 1). Anomie ⚔ 14:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

When to use a colon in game titles

Hello everyone. TJ Spyke and I are having a disagreement over whether or not the article Metroid Prime Trilogy should be moved to Metroid Prime: Trilogy (note the colon). The following is our discussion thus far copy-and-pasted directly from our talk pages (the only things I've altered are the indents for ease of readability):

Hello again TJ Spyke. What's a "SYNTH"? Anyway, the side of the box art clearly says "METROID^TM PRIME : TRILOGY" (hi-res image here). -sesuPRIME 21:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It has a symbol, but it's not clear what the symbol is. Not to mention that the front has no colon and the official website of the game clearly uses no colon. You are basically guessing that the game uses a colon, whereas there is solid evidence that the title has no colon. Even if the side of the box has a colon, that is not proof. The side of the box for Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock has no colon, the official title does use one. The sides of the boxes aren't enough (neither are logo's in general). TJ Spyke 21:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you look at the image I provided? There's clearly a colon between "PRIME" and "TRILOGY".

Logos almost never show colons even when the title obviously has one (take the titles of Prime 2, Prime 3, and The Legend of Zelda series, for example). As for Nintendo's site not acknowledging the colon, the new box art was just revealed today, so maybe they just haven't updated their site yet? MPT is still in development and information on it could change. It's certainly within reason Nintendo could drop the colon by the game's release, but the most up-to-date information we have shows a colon in the title. -sesuPRIME 22:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

As you just said, logos are not always reliable. So it boils down to this: all reliable sources use no colon, you are speculating that the title uses a colon based on what you think you see on the side of the box. It's possible the game could end up having a colon in the title, but as of right now it doesn't. TJ Spyke 22:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

All additional input is welcome. -sesuPRIME 23:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Box art is a bad place to be getting the information for how a title should be called (see, for example Ace Attorney Investigations: Miles Edgeworth which be read with either phrase being first.) Always use normal text-bsaed marketing material for the naming scheme. --MASEM (t) 23:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Throwing my hat into the ring, I prefer Metroid Prime Trilogy without a colon. Who's with me? GamerPro64 (talk) 23:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Omitting the colon makes better grammatical sense. SharkD (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Look to what both the press releases call it as well as independent reliable reviews.陣内 _Jinnai 00:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The official website omits it: metroid.com/primetrilogy/. Enough said. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, for the (hopefully) last time, we're not talking logos here. The logo has no colon, which we've established is not the deciding factor. I'm looking at the SIDE of the box, which has no logo, just plain, boring, everyday, run-of-the-mill text that reads "METROID^TM PRIME : TRILOGY" (again, here's the link). And 3rd-party sources are often wrong when it comes to details like this (for example, I see "Pokémon" spelled without the accent more often than with it in 3rd-party publications, which is simply incorrect). The most reliable source for this kind of thing is the owner/publisher, Nintendo. We should use the most up-to-date information as possible, should we not? And the most recent information from Nintendo is the box, which, as I noted above, has a colon when written out. Nintendo obviously hasn't updated MPT's page on their site as evidenced by it still using the placeholder box art. And GamerPro64, what we "prefer" is irrelevant to Wikipedia. -sesuPRIME 02:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

And for (hopefully) the last time, look at that website. After it loads, you will see in the top of your browser it says "Metroid Prime Trilogy". If you click through, then click "Yes", it leads to you this site which also reiterates Metroid Prime Trilogy. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 10:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

All elements of the box art should be considered decorative, and unless backed by normal text marketing, should be considered unreliable. --MASEM (t) 02:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

My view on the matter: the Nintendo website omits it. The box art could be a typo seeing as the most common use is without the colon. Also, if the colon is included, it would suggest that a single game was subtitled "Trilogy", rather than being a box set of games. "Metroid Prime Trilogy" without a colon makes more sense.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with TJ Spyke: we don't know if the symbol used on the side of the box art is a colon. It looks like two dots but we don't know if it's really a colon. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 12:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we all just wait to see the manual which will have copyright information? On a side note, I still don't think this game deserves its own page. --Torsodog^Talk 20:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like it will be an eternal stub, with the only relevant info being "reception" and a bit of "gameplay".--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Fan site referencing

Maybe I just imagined it, but I recall that the guidelines page included a clause for the use of fan sites as references in extraordinary cases. I assumed it was there when I prepared my FAC for The Real Adventures of Jonny Quest, since that's a TV article and I needed to defend some of my practices (WP:TV is very unsophisticated and doesn't contain guidelines like WP:VG). Here was my rationale, taken from the FAC:

"Okay, it did maintain that fan sites could be admitted if they offered unique, notable information which seemed legitimate to peer reviewers, but it seems that's been excised, so I'll have to ask why at the project. It was useful because in WP:VG, a plethora of video games are made and promoted in Japan only. When it comes to translations of commercial materials, interviews, development history, or other information about the games, the community has to rely on fan translation. This was used to improve Chrono Trigger dramatically; its development section went from being nearly nonexistent to a core part of the article. Another issue is that video games, defunct television shows, etc. are usually pop culture affairs that don't receive the treatment of serious academic subjects or news events, and so references and information are hard to come by. The Chrono Compendium would host the translations and allow a citation in these cases. While some people have questioned this use, WP:VG would almost always support this stance."

Do you think we could get an extraordinary case provision added back? A lot of Chrono Cross developer interviews are about to be translated, and I'd like to nominate the game for TFA later this year or next (10th anniversary release). TFA nomination can be tricky (especially since video games raise a lot of eyebrows), so I'd prefer to roll it out with some project infrastructure backing up the translation references. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 07:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

When using a Japanese interview as a reference, cite the Japanese interview, not the fan translation. You can still make it link directly to the fan translation, but the actual source/author/publisher/etc. should be the original Japanese, not the fan site. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 12:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless the fan site is done by noted expert(s) in the field.陣内 _Jinnai 22:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Aha, right, right. I remember changing the references in Chrono Trigger to do that now with a link. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 02:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk page not archived

I noticed the last time User:MiszaBot II archived the talk page was June 18th, and there are several threads that are already 7 days old. The other thing I've noticed is that Archive 69's history shows it being full, but MiszaBot still archiving to it. I'm trying to look into it now, but someone more adept with Bots may be able to solve it quicker. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC))

I think the problem was that it did not update the counter, as it usually does, but your edit should fix that. We'll see. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

That's what I'm hoping. The only thing that makes me think otherwise is that MiszaBot II hasn't edited in the "Wikipedia talk" namespace since June 18th. In fact, it's last edit to Project talk pages was to our talk page. Not sure what to make of it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC))

We could just ask Misza13 about it? --.:Alex :. 17:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:FOOTY have raised the question so I've tagged WP:VG's problem and GiB's observation on the end of it. - X201 (talk) 13:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The bot is working again, therefore I think it's safe to say that this issue has been resolved. --.:Alex :. 19:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Requesting help from the best and brightest:

User:New Age Retro Hippie/Lucas (Mother 3) - I did an experiment to see if I could split this from the character list. After searching all of Google for reception, I could not find more than two extra references. Any help would be greatly appreciated. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 12:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The only thing I could find on a first look was a biography article at IGN located here. It doesn't seem to list an author. I'll keep looking for reception articles though and I'll see what I can come up with. You might need a print source for this though or look at import reviews for Mother 3. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 15:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Gay Gamer qualifies as a reliable source. It's an opinion blog. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 10:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Partner peer review for Operation Badr (1973) now open

The peer review for Operation Badr (1973), an article within the scope of the Military history WikiProject, is now open. The Military history WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 12:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Ghostbusters: The Video Game

There's a bit of a dispute between Y2kcrazyjoker4 and myself. See this diff for more info. I think this section should be a concise explanation of the game mechanics, without in-universe details that are already explored in Ghostbusters (franchise)#Technology. My recent edit keeps all the gameplay details, while keeping the section to the point. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Will respond at Talk:Ghostbusters: The Video Game and encourage others to do the same. MuZemike 23:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Square Enix, Eidos & Taito - subsidiaries and infoboxes

This is sort of a general question, but should an infobox like the one at Square Enix list games made by their subsidiary Eidos Interactive under products? Seeing as how Eidos is kept as a separate entity, with its own CEO, and as SE didn't actually produce any of these products. I could understand listing Space Invaders, as Taito has been greatly incorperated with SE (same CEO), but I think Tomb Raider should be kept to the Eidos page. Am I wrong? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 01:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I think just listing Eidos is appropriate. That's how the industry would list it and unless a number reliable sources claim otherwise, games, like other merchandise are listed by their branch company. In the prose, if its relevant, it should be noted who the parent company is.陣内 _Jinnai 02:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that then redundant, as Eidos and Taito are both listed as subsidiaries in the same infobox? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Use whatever the company uses or most RSes use. If they say "Taito, a subsidary of Eidos," I'd say use Taito in the infobox and mention its a subsidiary in the prose.陣内 _Jinnai 05:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is what he was asking. In the infobox (top right corner), it lists Square Enix's main franchises, and includes Tomb Raider and Hitman. These series are by Eidos, whom SE just bought, while leaving all of their management in place (CEO remained the same, no one in Japan runs the company, etc.) SE also owns Taito, but many of the top management is the same between SE and Taito (CEO is the same). His question, as I read it, is- the box currently lists the ones Square/SE produced (FinalFantasy, Kingdom Hearts), the ones Enix published (Dragon Quest), and the ones Eidos produced, but not the ones Taito produced. Which ones should be listed, given the relationships between the companies/subsidiaries? As an aside, we do have an SE wikiproject, you know. --Pres N 05:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is my question. I'm curious about standard practice for subsidiaries and infoboxes in general, and I've retitled the section appropriately. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Previously released games should be altered. However, if Tomb Raider is re-released, we list the parent company.陣内 _Jinnai 06:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Partner peer review for First Battle of Charleston Harbor now open

The peer review for First Battle of Charleston Harbor, an article within the scope of the Military history WikiProject, is now open. The Military history WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Importance scale - terminology

I just looked at it and there doesn't appear to be any way to classify terms like Porting and Video game remake. The closest would be "Game Genres and Concepts" but that section deals entirely with ~~in-game~~ concepts related to the interal working of the game, like 4X, or the genre, not ~~external ones~~ how it was made or similar terms. Therefore defining what is the best level is not so easy.陣内 _Jinnai 21:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd put those two as "Low" importance... but you're right, we should come up with some definition that will cover future scenarios like this. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

(Referencing Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Assessment#Importance scale) There seems to be a missing classification for "industry practices". The issues of DRM, used game sales, etc. would all fall under this type of umbrella. Technically speaking, industry trends could be wedged into "history" -- it's just very recent history on very specific topics -- but that might not be optimal. You could also argue the other way around -- "history" is just a convenient way to wrap up discussion of trends of the past. So, one thing we might do is generalize the history classification, to something that represents trends both historic and current. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

If we just expanded the terms section to include industry terms it would be fine. I can't see any being TOP except "video game" and "computer game", but I don't really know if "used game sales" is as important as "DRM" and ifso, if those are so menial they should all be labeled as low. Perhaps, with the exception of those 2 above all "industry practice" labels should be labeled as "mid"? The only other idea to label them would be either frequency of use or scale similar to how we divide up genres into subgenres and then concepts.陣内 _Jinnai 15:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Any other ideas? Should I go and edit them to be added as medium or do we want to give some other kind of scale?陣内 _Jinnai 18:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The difficulty in classification may signify that the terms actually belong in Wiktionary, not here. SharkD (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well some of them like Sprite (computer graphics) or game controller do not belong in wictionary.

Basic idea

Very borad terms used by almost everyone should be labeled as Top. Those items would be very few offhand I can think of: video game, computer game, game controller and video game console. Anything more specific is usually referring to type of hardware (already covered) or a particular genre (already covered). Beyond that High I would leave that to be determined by consent ususally from the Mid level ones (until we get a better picture. For mid I would put stuff like sprite (computer graphics), Porting and Video game remake. These are broadly used terms. Low ones would be stuff like Digital rights management which is a very specific type of Copyright protection.陣内 _Jinnai 03:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious about how an article I have been working on, Time-keeping systems in games, would be rated. I copied the "High" rating from Turn-based game, which I merged into it. SharkD (talk) 09:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Going by the current criteria, that would be mid as a gaming "concept". bridies (talk) 09:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

While we're on the topic, we might want to think about whether blanket rating these concept articles as mid is necessary. There's a load of them on the "essential articles" page, despite the fact the criteria says these are "mid", not "high". Also, one of those articles "headshot" (now redirects to the photography term) was recently deleted. If the article/topic couldn't survive an AFD, I dunno why anyone thought it was a good idea to put it in alongside Space Invaders, Mario, first person shooter and what have you. bridies (talk) 09:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

That's why I proposed the slightly more varied prioritization. I do not know who put up headshot for AfD or why, but maybe we should have a discussion on those and a bot or someone active to track stuff there for cases of AfD and post a notice here.陣内 _Jinnai 05:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Another article to keep tabs on (Jacko-related)

Some users have been inserting more apparently untrue stuff about Michael Jackson composing the music for Sonic the Hedgehog 3. Can some people watch this, please? MuZemike 06:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I added it to my watchlist and I've already reverted twice. I can't revert another time for fear of violating WP:3RR. Looks like different people are posting the same thing over and over again. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 06:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I found where that's coming from. Specifically the line in Parish's blog "or his alleged musical contributions to Sonic 3." Parish is one of 1UP's longtime contributors and doesn't pull things out of his ass, so it might be worthwhile to check around and see what the exact details are here and try to work some sort of middle ground? (my laptop's in the shop so I'm not going to be online long enough to give a thorough search).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

A bit more from a quick Google News grab, also from 1UP but a feature in this case.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the claim that MJ wrote some or all of the music in STH3 has been around for YEARS. It's hardly anything new, but it's unsurprising that a new string of editors would add it now. IMO since it's clearly wrong info, removing it shouldn't violate 3RR, since it's not an content issue per se. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I added a reference from GameSetWatch on the subject (they're a part of Gamasutra) on the subject briefly mentioning the interview, should be enough to prevent anything else that can't be backed up.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thx. I know I remember a while back someone made an entire article regarding this that was quickly deleted at the time as a BLP-related hoax (well, Jacko is no longer living now). MuZemike 15:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from on the 3RR thing, but I figured someone could misconstrue it pretty easily if they knew a thing or two about Wikipedia. Either way, I think the problem is solved now. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 17:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I just started a thread on the topic a few days ago. The editor who responded said only Moonwalker was notable. The article Kung Fu Man linked to, as well as this one would seem to indicate otherwise. SharkD (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Jackson inspired a part of Sonic the Hedgehog's (the character, not the game in this case) design too, primarily the shoes which were inspired by his "Bad" appearance. They were changed from black to red due to being easier to see in that color and hoping children would associate the color with Santa. You can find that tidbit on GameTap's retrospective of the Sonic series (youtube link)--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

This may only add fuel to the rumors, but Jackson did tour Sega's North American offices around the time the Mega-CD was released; he was especially interested in the audio capabilities of the system. (Retro Gamer did a feature on the Mega-CD.) With Sega Technical Institute handling the Sonic sequels, it's not out of the question a collaboration began. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

Whilst we're in the world of doctoring Jacko-rumours, did you hear that Prince Philip wrote Billie Jean? Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 19:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

^{[citation needed]} SharkD (talk) 21:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Megami Tensei game/media list

I've got the very beginnings of a list going at User:Gakon5/Sandbox. If anyone's interested, I'd appreciate some help in filling out games, release dates, and especially the Notes sections. In theory this would eventually be moved to List of Megami Tensei media, or, failing that, List of Megami Tensei titles. Finding exact release dates for the really old games on major websites (GameSpot, IGN, etc.) hasn't turned up much, which may mean resorting to less reliable sources.

The series article for Megami Tensei is pretty small, but has a fat unformatted list of every game by release year. I don't know what the official policy is, but I'm guessing this series could have its own games/media list? --gakon5 (talk) 05:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That really could use a formatting into a list of media, and a split into its own page at List of Megami Tensei media. The series article ought to have a prose description, the game lists go on the list page.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe I have every game listed now. Some are missing specific release dates, or have un-referenced release dates. Also, most all of these games don't have anything in the Notes sections yet. --gakon5 (talk) 05:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Nicely done, the series definitely needs a full list and that style of list has been put to good use for video game series, looks tight and contains all the at-a-glance details. Someone another 13:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The list is certainly shaping up nicely. If you're looking for other lists to model this one after, check out WP:VG/FA.

As far as specific comments, I'd condense things to shorten the table of contents and the amount of subdivisions. Like the re-releases of the Persona series can be mentioned in the notes section of the original games. And the spin-off titles of the Devil Children series can be moved to the "Other games" section. Other than that, keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for the comments. I haven't been around these parts for over a year. I'll work on condensing the game subsections, although I don't even know where to start on the anime and manga. There are also a solid dozen or so SMT soundtracks, none of which have their own articles. Maybe they don't need to, but then again, most of the Metal Gear albums do. They're probably better-known anyway. There is an interview with Persona's composer on Gamasutra[2], which would be a useful source in covering the Persona 4 soundtrack (either in the Persona 4 article or in its own article).

I could still use some help filling in information on specific games; I don't know nearly enough about this series to fill in game details without researching it myself. --gakon5 (talk) 17:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Man, this series has some weird games. There are a lot of small, lesser-known SMT games not part of any of the larger series. Example: Giten Megami Tensei: Tōkyō Mokushiroku, released in Japan on the PC in 1999. I'd create an article for it and put it in the list, but I couldn't write more than a sentence about it, with these two links as references: [3][4] I don't even know if the Hardcore Gaming 101 article would be considered reliable. But, a lot of the SMT articles here link to it somewhere.

The giant list on Megami Tensei has a lot of stuff not even covered on Wikipeida. A lot of cell phone games. What of that merits an article or inclusion on this list? All of it? --gakon5 (talk) 20:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

All the games should go on the list, but if it's going to be a Featured List, every game needs a reference. Just because it's on the list doesn't mean it's notable enough to be an article. You could use a single reference to confirm the game's existence and that would be fine, just leave the article field blank. --_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind. GameFAQs should have me covered for a lot of this stuff. There are a handful of SMT stubs, and a few series condensed into one article (Majin Tensei, Devil Children). I don't even know about the weird cell phone games. Probably some Japanese web page with a release date on it. There's also this bizarre, online game based on Persona 3 entitled Persona 3: The Night Before. The only thing I've dug up on it is a thread on a MegaTen fansite[5] --gakon5 (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't really think the flash game qualifies as notable, since it's probably gone now. If it's not listed anywhere, forget it. As for the games condensed in one article, just refer the article section to the individual headings.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Devil May Cry (series)

The article is being reassessed at Talk:Devil May Cry (series)/GA1. If anyone has the time, please help and resolve the issues that have been brought up, thanks! Gary King (talk) 19:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Multi-sortable tables

In Talk:List of Nintendo 64 games#Bulletted sub-lists I suggest that the table data could be organized more efficiently, while still retaining the JavaScript sorting capabilities of the existing tables. However, this would require modifications to the "Wikibits.js". I would be willing to work on this, but I was wondering if there were any interest in it. SharkD (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles to keep an eye on

WWF SmackDown! 2: Know Your Role, as well as it's sequels have an editor that thinks the roster lists should remain. According to a consensus here, the lists were to be made into prose form. Pro Wrestling games are similar to sports games: a huge list of people, but it's certainly just trivial to list them all. The discussion for this was here I believe, but I'm not sure which archive it's in. If anyone can easily find it, it would be appreciated. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Would this be the discussion to which you're referring? -- Nomader ^(Talk) 06:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes that's the one. Thanks. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Where's the consensus in that discussion? Robfan (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The consensus seems to me for the removal of the lists, but important notes about the roster can be worked into prose. Someone else can look it over to make sure my analysis is correct. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 19:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Considering I see 3 different opinions and just as many people asking for collapsible lists as I do requests for prose, I don't see how you can make a consensus determination. And why is it okay to remove the list and not replace it with a prose section? Robfan (talk) 00:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted Robfan is still edit warring, which isn't helping things out. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

By edit warring, you mean exactly what you keep doing every time someone reverts back to a list? A touch hypocritical, no? Robfan (talk) 00:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I was reverting to the consensus version. You claimed there wasn't a consensus, and then when you found out about it: you refused to believe it. There's a big difference there. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There is NO consensus in that discussion. There was no agreement, and there was a slew of differing opinions with the most prevalent opposition being collapsible lists. I counted just as many proposing the roster section be a collapsible list as those wanting it to be presented as prose. Additionally, did this project invite any of the people who have been making this roster a list to this discussion? Robfan (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Should a "Articles to keep an eye on" section be added to the project page/banner? SharkD (talk) 06:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

F1 2010 (video game) protection and contradiction in sources

I'd thought I would let you know that F1 2010 (video game) has been protected for three days from editing. The problem is that source three and source four state different seasons the game will be based on. I have been persistently reverting anonymous users changing "2009" to "2010", thinking that ref four was just a forum post. On a second look, however, it looks more official than I thought; although the bottom note which says "The views expressed in this message are in no way the official views of Codemasters and are of a personal nature" seems to dispell that. Ref three is hardly official though, is it? So, my question is, which one do we believe? Darth Newdar (talk) 11:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

From taking a quick look, it seems that the version in the article will revolve around the 2010 season while the Wii and PSP version will be in 2009. Since the first reference doesn't mention any platforms, I'd go with the more specific official forum post. As for the disclaimer, I don't think that has anything to do with game information, just the dude's opinions being taken as those of Codemasters.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with you. I shall post this on the talk page of the article, and change it once the protection period is over. Darth Newdar (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Final Fantasy V

Requesting a quick GAN of Final Fantasy V. I know this is a bit unorthodox, but all the points that caused it to be de-listed (see here) have been tackled with citations added and the plot trimmed to the minimal while remaining informative. Since I've already got two GANs up I figure a third might have an admin on my case, and with the slow pace of reviews lately and the fact this hasn't changed too radically from when it was a GA, a request for a quick review seems the best bet.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't know why an admin would have a bone to pick due to good article writing (xD), but anyways, I got the review. See Talk:Final Fantasy V/GA2. MuZemike 18:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought I could get it done today, but the site being down and RL stuff prevented me from doing so before I go on my 4th of July wikibreak. If someone else wants to finish it, I won't mind. Thanks, MuZemike 02:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Bumps video game.jpg

This image has absolutely no information and is used on a page for one of the developer's game, not even the developer. Isn't there some way to CSD it? I can't seem to find a reason that actually applies. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Tagged. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

So there is no way to avoid the 7 day waiting period? MrKIA11 (talk) 19:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Not that I know of. Anyway, it's not going to hurt anybody and who knows, the uploader might fix it. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You can remove it from the article, but otherwise, who cares?--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd probably CSD it for "Missing licensing information" and "Useless Media File", since it doesn't serve a useful purpose on the page where it's being used, and it has no information whatsoever about its use. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that it can be deleted as F10, as it has the foreseeable use of being used in the article about the company. F4 would also work, but it also has a 7 day delay. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit needed for FLC

Would someone mind giving an article a quick copyedit? One of the commenters at my FLC for List of Donkey Kong games (Nomination) has asked that I get a copyeditor to go through the article. A lot of incomplete sentences have periods, and a lot of complete sentences have periods... apparently periods are the only problem. I'm not really sure where to go with this request, so I figured I'd bring it here. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 02:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Video game icons

I would appreciate it if anyone could link to a good source of freely licensed video game icons. I am aware of the Nuvola Apps and Crystal Clear icons that appear all over Wikipedia, but they are kind of limited. Thanks. SharkD (talk) 22:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Would Commons:Category:Game icons and Commons:Category:Video game hardware icons have what you're looking for? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of those. The selection is still too limited. I was hoping there might be others somewhere on the Net. SharkD (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll see about uploading some in the next few days to stick in those cats; there are some PD and copyleft images on other sites that I can upload to Commons. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! Hopefully they're of the same quality as the Nuvola ones. SharkD (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably not... there aren't many that I can find easily, but I'm working on it. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me know when you've made further progress. SharkD (talk) 09:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Another VG Front Page FA heads up

Portal (video game) will be on the mainpage July 5th. Anti-Vandalism helpers appreciated. (Again, a random choice here by Raul, I hope that doesn't screw up anyone's plans to request a VG front pager...) --MASEM (t) 13:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Now that's thinking with - wait, no... I hope the page is Still Alive after - hmm, that's no good either... Thanks for being a real companion - ah screw it, thanks for the heads up. ;) ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 14:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

How many times can a human being remove the word cake from an article and maintain their sanity? - X201 (talk) 14:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

As a required Aperture Science test protocol, we can no longer lie to you. When the article is featured on the Main Page, vandalism will not be ... missed. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 14:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I am sorta glad this one falls on a holiday weekend in the middle of summer. Imaging the crud this could get if it were mainpage'd in late September... --MASEM (t) 14:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I HAVE noticed, at least, that the bitching about "zomg videogames are stupid why not something important" hasn't really happened the past couple of times. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

This is like the third or fourth time I have heard "random choice by Raul". Maybe he does like video games... MuZemike 16:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

This FA was a triumph...I'm making a note here, huge success.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I am predicting much "THE CAEK IZ A LIE LULZ" type spam... --Izno (talk) 23:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Just one last bump, just grab more eyes on this. --MASEM (t) 04:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

On my watchlist. I didn't do the last couple for some reason, but it's always nice to support the FAs. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 08:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Recently I've not seen problems with VG FA's but this is too big a honeypot for the 4chan mentality to let pass by. --MASEM (t) 14:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Partner peer review for Byzantine civil war of 1341–1347 now open

The peer review for Byzantine civil war of 1341–1347, an article within the scope of the Military history WikiProject, is now open. The Military history WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 13:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Is Byzantium somewhere in Japan? j/k SharkD (talk) 22:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it's a Starcraft map. Nifboy (talk) 19:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Task force request

For the life of me I cannot find the WP Video game request page for task forces or even the general Wikipedia one. And I've been there before too, no logical search brings anything up other than article request pages. Can anyone help? ^{æronphonehome} 10:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You'd be wanting the WikiProject Council, specifically their proposals page (which has been re-done since I last visited and now works a lot better). Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 10:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

That said, task forces are usually brought up here, so the project as a whole can decide on the need. --Izno (talk) 05:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Done and done (see below). ^{æronphonehome} 05:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Konami music video game task force

Attention everyone who edits music video game articles. I have proposed the Konami music video game task force at WikiProject Council. If you are interested in helping please sign and write any comments you have on the discussion page. Thank you. ^{æronphonehome} 05:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

This user is part of the Konami music video game task force.

Magazines

I have a pile of PSM, EGM, and Nintendo Power issues I'd like to get rid of, so I wanted to check if anyone here wanted them before I toss them. Please leave a note on my talk page if you do. You can have them for shipping costs. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You might want to outline what's in them, just so people interested in using them to build an article will be more amenable to snapping them up. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have time to go through over 100 magazines just to list what's in all of them, especially when I'm trying to get rid of them. :) ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You could visit Retromag's website as well and offer the issues to them directly. I know they're on the lookout for issues they're missing and are willing to pay S&H cost to have them.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I visited their site, but wasn't terribly impressed by it. Looks like it was hacked together in a couple hours. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Outlining what's in them would be very tedious indeed. Could you give the approximate time range, e.g. "Nintendo Power: Feb. '98 to Jun. '00"? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm making a list on my talk page. It's currently incomplete, but will be updated as I find them and have time to list them. On a related note, you may be interested in seeing this page. Some of the magazines listed there have catalogs of article and other coverage. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to move WP:VG/D to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video game

This was previously discussed here, with generally favorable response, but nothing came of it. I would like to see the proposal revived, and actually acted upon this time. I already mentioned this here, before having the previous discussion mentioned.

The previous discussion mentioned the bot archiving of closed debates as one reason for the move. I have a second. WP:DELSORT now has a semi-automated addition for Twinkle to greatly assist in the sorting. With it, a sort is a 2-3 click process, beyond anything needed to decide where to sort a given debate. This makes mass sorting of deletions a lot easier, and is part of why I am willing to do such mass sortings. But the tool only works for sort pages under the WP:DELSORT project. There are a couple of sort pages that are not under the project. This is one of them. Since the tool does not work for them, I at least simply do not sort them, or I sort them under Games instead of Video Games. Moving this under WP:DELSORT would allow it to be added to the sorting tool quite easily, and thus allow the pages to be easily sorted. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

One thing brought up in the other discussion was the issue of other pages - WP:VG/D covers AfD, CfD, TfD, and MfD. It seems to me that those sorts of discussions can indeed be included, so I don't think that particular claim has any merit and it would be nice to be more efficient (although I think we're doing well) in sorting. I will say, however, that in terms of appearance and ease of use, I think the current archiving system on WP:VG/D is far better and preferable, as is the overall look of the page. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 19:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Barring any sudden dissent, I'm going to move forward on a plan to implement this. I'll keep an eye on this discussion here, in case anyone dissents to the general idea here, but as for developing a plan to move the idea forward, I'll do that over at the talk page of the delsort in question. - TexasAndroid (talk) 23:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Quick question- how will the archives be handled? I'd hate to see the archives split. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 01:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC))

Not sure what you mean by "split". The archives for everything under WP:DS are all handled in the same way by a bot. - TexasAndroid (talk) 03:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Our current archives for video game deletions are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Deletion/2009 through Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Deletion/2005. Would the WP:DS ones be archived under different subpages? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC))

Yamaha sound chips

Do these articles actually fall under our scope? Some were tagged with {{WikiProject Video games}} and some were not.

Yamaha YM2203 - not tagged
Yamaha YM2608 - not tagged
Yamaha YM2610 - tagged
Yamaha YM2612 - tagged
Yamaha YM3438 - not tagged

Although they are used in video game systems, it seems like they are not related enough to warrant being in the project's scope. On another note, are they even notable enough to have articles...? MrKIA11 (talk) 23:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you could merge them into a single article. Otherwise, I think they do fall under that scope (low importance) since some of them were used in arcade machines.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yea, low importance and probably should be merged. They are essentially the same as Video cards. Since this project covers computer gaming, its scope includes hardware related, and more importantly advanced because of gaming, to that as well. Stuff like keyboard would not be as it wasn't really advanced by the medium and its more that computer gaming was adapted to fit it.陣内 _Jinnai 02:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I was the one who tagged both of them; I think they both fall under the WPVG scope, though barely per Jinnai above. MuZemike 04:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to list Mario (series) and/or Mario as top-importance

I propose that the article for the Mario series of video games and/or the character Mario be listed as top-importance to this project. They are probably the most famous video game series and video game character, respectively, ever. The series is the best-selling of all time, and many of its games make the list of best-selling video games. The character is internationally recognized as a mascot for Nintendo and the video game industry in general; one survey indicated that more American children recognized him than Mickey Mouse. I am aware that if either one of these passes, it will be the only series or character article to be listed as top-importance to the project, but I think they both deserve to be; that is why I am proposing this. Tezkag72 (talk) 18:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the Mario Series is already a Top-importance article, but anyways, Mario should be a Top-importance article too. GamerPro64 (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The importance criteria mention Mario as a "cultural icon" in the High importance criteria, but since Mario is basically the most famous video game character ever, I guess moving him to top importance wouldn't hurt.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm unsure if games and a character inspired by core concepts of gaming should be on the same scale as those very same concepts. I think they should be High.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Kung Fu Man. Only core concepts (like action game or video game) should really be top importance. I think Mario is just fine at High. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 19:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

There are many biographical articles of real people in the video game industry, some of whom really didn't do that much. They aren't "core concepts", except for Shigeru Miyamoto and maybe a couple others. Tezkag72 (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

GamerPro64 - Mario (series) was improperlly listed as Top importance because there had never been a discussion since the importance criteria were established on that said they should be made an expection. I have moved it high for the moment. If nominal consensus supports it (and imo silence should not be taken here as acceptance due to the contriversial nature), then its fine.

Personally the series as a whole has not bee all that impactfaul. Super Mario Bros. you might have a better argument at, but the later Mario series haven't really had the same impact. Some almost none. As for the character, international fame is not what should be measured, but what impact its had on the industry as a whole.陣内 _Jinnai 21:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well Jinnai, I noticed that you downgraded the series to high-importance and since you make a good point, I agree with the change. GamerPro64 (talk) 22:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Dragon magazine's "The Role of Computers" column

Hey there. :) I was thinking of going through this long-running column issue-by-issue (and its successor columns, might as well) and posting a quick blurb in the review section for every game which doesn't already mention a review from Dragon. My edit summary would say something to the effect of "contact me if you want more info from this review", and of course anyone else who has access to Dragon would be able to then make use of their copy as well.

I was thinking of including a one or two-sentence note at most, because we are probably talking about a few hundred reviews! I'm thinking of something very general, to the effect of "GAME was reviewed in Dragon #XXX (MM YYYY), where the reviwers rated it X stars." I'd have a citation to the article, and more details can be filled out from there. Thoughts before I get going? BOZ (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been doing something very similar with CGW, though grad school has put it on hold for a while. I prefer to pick out relevant comments from the review (because early CGW didn't use scores), but it's a somewhat time-consuming process. It would be especially helpful because our pre-internet coverage of games is distinctly lacking in sourcing. Nifboy (talk) 01:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's pre-internet all right. :) Basically mid-80s to mid-90s. I'll probably start it up over the next few days and see where that takes me. Yeah, the time consuming part is why I want to keep it very basic, but on request I'll pull more out of the review. BOZ (talk) 05:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

StarCraft II

I have this article on my watchlist, and at the moment I am tracking edits to it by one User:Willibix. I think this guy is editing in good faith, but he is starting to edit along the fringes of establish consensus of the page; this includes the removal or reliable sources in the article. Since I have summer school I wonder if I could get a few good users to keep tabs on the article so I do not have to worry about watching this for the rest of the summer semester :) 19:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You could always message him, you know.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Source Searching

I've been working on an article, Moto Racer Advance, for some time now but I've run into a snag -- I have almost no development information. The only online sources I can find are two IGN previews ([6] [7]) -- I need print sources. I've made a request at the reference library for sources, but judging by the lack of responses there lately, I thought I'd bring up the request at the main project talk page. Any assistance is appreciated (the game was shown at E3 2002, so even if it's just a blurb, it'd be better than what I have now). Cheers. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 21:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 23:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

If I don't get back to you in a week or so, ping me on my talk, I easily forget things. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That shouldn't be a problem at all. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 03:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Free use screenshots to disseminate

I've recently contacted the developers behind Zeno Clash and they have released 10 high resolution screenshots of their game which you can see at Wikimedia Commons. I've currently replaced the shots on the Zeno Clash page with the free versions, and have also placed an image at Source (game engine) to show a third party implementation.

I've not had much time to edit of late due to very sporadic access to the internet, so some of my projects are on hold, and I do not have time to disseminate these screenshots to the relevant pages. While the English Wikipedia can host fair use imagery, many of the foreign language versions can not, so de:Source Engine and sv:Zeno Clash is bereft of images.

If anyone has any spare time, I'd be grateful if they would integrate the images at the various foreign language Wikipedias, as well as insert versions of Template:Commonscat where appropriate. - hahnch e n 00:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Any chance of pestering Valve in the same way? :-) --MASEM (t) 00:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm currently pestering Tripwire Interactive for Killing Floor (2009 video game) (and thus more Unreal Engine) shots. The indie developers are more likely to release free images because their properties are worth less (not worthless), and they have less to lose. To pester Valve, I would start with User:mikeblas, he's a Valve employee and a Wikipedia admin, but he hasn't uploaded anything on his own volition, so don't be too optimistic. To improve the odds, ask for non-game images such as their tech demos showing off Source's features, such as its lighting or particle effects. - hahnch e n 01:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there any chance that they (ACE Team) could release the Zeno Clash logo for Wikipedia use?--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I doubt a company would release their logo under a commons-compatible license. You should just write a FUR. –xeno^talk 04:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Even in low-resolution? =)--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it. I don't think we ever have any issue with FURs for logos. –xeno^talk 04:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone for disseminating the screens? - hahnch e n 16:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

On the subject, if only every video game company were like Ubisoft! =) –xeno^talk 04:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Speaking of Ubisoft, if they own a company, do the game screens for that company's old games fall under their free license? I'm working on Computer Bismarck, which was developed by Strategic Simulations, Inc., which eventually got bought out and ended up with Ubisoft, which later retired the brand. I was going to upload a screen shot and was working on the FUR when I found out Ubisoft bought SSI. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC))
  - Hmm... My best guess would be yes, the license extends, but don't quote me on it. –xeno^talk 19:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    - I decided to err on the side of caution for now. I uploaded the image here with a FUR until we figure this out. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC))
  - My understanding is that if Ubi or a subsidiary developed it, it falls under the OTRS license. But I don't think it extends to Ubi-published games. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    - Hi! The original discussion with Ubisoft that lead to the free licence was about Lock On: Modern Air Combat, which wasn't a Ubisoft-developed game. So I'm pretty sure the licence applies to all Ubisoft-developed and Ubisoft-published games. Source: [8] and [9]. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 05:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
      - I disagree. I think the Ubisoft free use license is on shaky grounds. They may have had the rights to release screenshots of Lock On: Modern Air Combat, and they may be fine with user-screenshots of their games being free use, but Ubisoft will not have the rights to release screenshots of all games distributed by them. Some developers, such as pre-acquisition id games, have full control of their properties, regardless of who released them. - hahnch e n 16:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
        If it's on "shaky ground" then feel free to try to repeal it at Commons. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 09:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Cool. I guess I'll upload it to Commons then.
Follow up question, what about the games developed by SSI during its time changing hands between 1994 and 2001? Do those still fall under Ubisoft's free license so long as they were developed by SSI? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC))

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Video games to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 20:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

So if I user reaches a page by a redirect, the target page won't get a page view increase? I didn't know that... Is this documented somewhere? Else, the numbers will be inflated, no? –xeno^talk 20:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It will increase the view count for the purposes of this list (assuming the redirect existed at the start of the month when the page lists were made), it may not on the stats.grok.se site. Mr.Z-man 21:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but won't that give the target page a double hit? (i.e. won't the squid servers report a hit for both the redirect AND the target page, thus your bot will count the one view twice?) I'm concerned that, PS3, for example, might be greatly inflated because most users reach it by typing "PS3" thus giving "PlayStation 3" a double hit? –xeno^talk 21:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

For anon users, squid stores the full HTML, so for PS3, it stores the same content as PlayStation 3 except with the "redirected from ..." For logged in users, the redirect is handled all by MediaWiki, so it never goes back to the squids. Mr.Z-man 21:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

thanks for explaining and providing this very useful report! –xeno^talk 22:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that when I browse using IE7 it chokes on that page. There's too much stuff in it. Firefox works OK. SharkD (talk) 08:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Mass Effect article

In the Mass Effect Trilogy page, I have made a slight edit concerning Mass Effect 3, and it now says that it is slated for a release TBA in 2011, but no details concerning production and development have yet been announced. I made sure to cite my source, the IGN XBOX 360 page for the game (yes, they have a page for it already).DAMN tpwwnetforums (talk) 08:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me they are getting a little ahead of themselves with the Mass Effect announcing business. They already spoiled ME2's ending, even before it's released!--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Name standardization?

There are lists called "List of characters in the _____ series", and articles called "_____ series characters", and yet others called "Characters of _____". I'm still not sure as to what the standard name for a list of characters is, and if or when it should be changed from list to article format.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

"List of charactesr in ___" is for lists, and "Characters of ____" is for articles. The difference between a standalone list and an article has been discussed several times and I think the current consensus is that there is no guideline (it is entirely up to the main contributor). Megata Sanshiro (talk) 10:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Well its one of those two or in some cases the "series" is dropped. However, the distinction between character list and articles is really moot: they are all required to go through WP:FAN. WP:FLC won't bother with them anymore requiring character lists to have reception and creation info which then effectively punts them into article status. It doesn't allow for them not to have it.陣内 _Jinnai 16:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems that WP:FLC approved at least one list to featured status: List of characters in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow. Are you saying that this is an article (in which case it should be renamed to Characters in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow), or that any more featured list articles concerning characters are disallowed?--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

bump. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 17:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

new series templates being proposed

WT:SE#New series template design proposal has done some new designs with templates. While I disagree about their overall usefulness (i think they could be more useful), I am bringing them here fore wider consideration.陣内 _Jinnai 05:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I... don't like them. The current setup seems better to me; it makes a very definite "this navbox is for the most relevant links pertinent to this article" with the general series navbox beneath, ex. Final Fantasy (video game). --Izno (talk) 21:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

What I worry about is if someone updates the main Final Fantasy navbox, but it doesn't update in the others. Would the editor be required to go through every game in the series and update each navbox separately? Or would the information appear as an option in the syntax? (I'm not very technical -- maybe "code" is a better word than syntax here) -- Nomader ^(Talk) 21:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Any change to the Final Fantasy navbox would be shown in all of the articles, just like it is now. The links that only appear in some articles are added in by those articles themselves. There would be a one-time run-through of all of the articles to set it up, but no more would be necessary. --Pres N 23:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, re: Izno, one thing I like about this implementation is that right now many of the Final Fantasy games do not have their own box- FF8 does, as it has quite a few child articles, but FF5 doesn't, as it only has two (Music and Characters). This implementation allows for that non-existant navbox to be created as one line of the already existant series box, but only for those articles for which it is relevant. --Pres N 23:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Any change to the [...] navbox would be shown in all of the articles, just like it is now. The links that only appear in some articles are added in by those articles themselves. - This is why I wanted to bring this idea up. I would allow us to remove any need for secondary boxes for series + the standalone title (second boxes may still be relevant for other things). Some titles can benefit from this more than others obviously. 陣内 _Jinnai 23:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I'd rather see the characters and music and what not merged into the main template, if it really is the case that some of the games don't have a template of their own. --Izno (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a pretty cool and useful idea to me. --Torsodog^Talk 00:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It may not work for most of the project, but for the Final Fantasy games I can see the point with all the separate articles. Sorry about the question, I just wanted some clarification. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 02:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:Izno, I would really rather not have all the child articles of each FF game be listed after the game, in the style of Template:The Legend of Zelda for two reasons. First, there sometimes are a lot of child articles (characters, world, music, individual characters, etc.). Second, the number of child articles varies across the titles. With Zelda, it works to have the characters article in-line right after the game because it's only one inobtrusive article. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I was not envisioning a Zelda-esque navbox. Instead, something closer to User:Izno/navbox. I picked Discography as the most common element, but I believe there are other common elements. Even if there are not, those could then be added in the method of Zelda. The only Navbox would probably not be a good idea to change in this way was the FF7 navbox. --Izno (talk) 03:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That's another good option. At any rate, this message was just a heads-up for anyone else who might feel that this design is beneficial to their series template. We'll be discussing specifics of implementation at WT:SE if you feel strongly about the issue. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Offhand my main use was for Megami Tensei which is already a mess and adding character articles + soundtrack articles would just make it worse.陣内 _Jinnai 02:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Console priorities

I propose that the article for the Sega Dreamcast listed as a top-importance article for the Wikiproject. The last Sega console is also the first console to support online gaming. That, in my opinion, is enough to make it a Top-importance article, just like the PlayStation 2, the NES and the Wii. GamerPro64 (talk) 15:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that you could classify it as "historic" since it didn't make as much of an impact in sales, popularity, games, etc. The Dreamcast was a failed console, whether you like it or not. Introducing online gaming for consoles isn't big enough of an achievement to classify it as historic rather than just important.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't *that* failed...but by no means is it Top either. It's definitely High though.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, I really think the three reigning current-gen consoles really ought be "top" importance. Raised the issue here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Assessment#Current gen consoles are top importance –xeno^talk 16:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense, it would be like changing the articles of industry figures to top importance just based on the fact that they haven't been fired yet. Top importance should have some kind of impact, not just be popular.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well then, let's make the PS2 a High-importance article, too. I don't see why this Sony console is so important like that. GamerPro64 (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The PS2 is the best selling console of all time. If that isn't top-importance, then what console is? --Torsodog^Talk 17:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The NES, the Wii, the PS1, the Atari 2600.... may I go on? GamerPro64 (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

To accent GamePro64's point, the PS2 is currently Top-priority. I do agree it should be High.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, it is the best selling console OF ALL TIME. How does it not qualify as historical? --Torsodog^Talk 17:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

For god's sake, sales don't matter!! >:( GamerPro64 (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Importance should not be based on temporary achievements. What happens if the PS3/360/Wii outsell it? Then that standing is gone. You have to consider too population increases and the gradual increase of gamers across the world. Simply because more people bought it doesn't mean a whole lot when there are more people purchasing such items. It's a loose and not really historic at all foothold. Sorry.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't be sorry. I honestly don't really care either way here. But when a console is in the homes of more people than any other console in history, it obviously has had an enormous impact on gaming history. --Torsodog^Talk 17:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

So, do we all agree that the PS2 should be a high-important article? GamerPro64 (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

No... obviously we do not. And please try to make constructive comments and arguments here. --Torsodog^Talk 17:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I think a constructive one's already been made since the whole argument for Top-importance is "it sold a lot", which doesn't mean much if later consoles sell more. We can wait for more opinions I guess.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Who ever said that sales is the "whole argument"? Just because that is the only one I offered up here in the 3 mins we've been talking does not mean it is the one and only argument. I am no expert in the PS2, and you two are being incredibly hasty here. Let others voice their opinion before making changes and getting impatient. This is really not that pressing of an issue. Geez. --Torsodog^Talk 17:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You know while we're at it why is the original PlayStation top priority?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Because it marks the entry of Sony, one of the largest video game companies in the world, into the video game home console market. Again, if that isn't historical, I really, REALLY don't know what is. --Torsodog^Talk 17:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

For once, I agree with Torsodog. The PS1 helped popularize CD-based games. GamerPro64 (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible, but I disagree with his point that it being "top importance" should be based on the fact it was Sony's entrance into the console market (after all the Xbox is high, but was Microsoft's first bid into said market).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, as gamerpro stated, it made disc-based games a mainstay in the home console market. That is probably a better reason than the one I first offered (though that is also important). --Torsodog^Talk 17:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

That second part is debatible, but you (somewhat) have a point. GamerPro64 (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is not debatable. The PS1 did mark Sony's entry into the market, and it has had an immeasurable impact on the industry since. Those are facts. But thanks for (kinda) agreeing with me. --Torsodog^Talk 17:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Who wants to look at this? GamerPro64 (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I still don't understand why the current-gen consoles should not be our top priority. I would bet they are among our highest viewed articles. Thus we should give them our utmost attention. And if we are insisting on some indication of innovation or "impact" to the industry... The 360 proved the market for digitally delivered content on consoles (XBLA/video marketplace), the PS3 proved that a console can gain market share by simultaneously functioning as a home-entertainment device (Bluray). –xeno^talk 18:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you see my or Kung Fu Man's respones? GamerPro64 (talk) 18:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I tend to agree with xeno on this point about the consoles since they are viewed so much. I would think it would be in the best interests of Wikipedia to have the most popular articles be as good as possible. The current consoles may not be Top importance [to video gaming history and inclusion in print via WP:1.0], but could be seen as Top priority [to the project, gamers, and readers currently]. Did we ever definitively distinguish between those two parameters? I'm sure the consoles have innovation too, but I'm less inclined to push for those reasons (although Sony's planned 10-year life of the console and use as a media center may prove historically relevant if the trend continues). —Ost (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

@GamerPro: Which ones? And if they rebuked the former, what of the latter? –xeno^talk 18:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I think he meant the comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Assessment#Current gen consoles are top importance —Ost (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Replied briefly there, but my comments at 18:23 above speak to it as well. –xeno^talk 18:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Your explanations doesn't show how ground-breaking the 360 and PS3 are compared to the Wii. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Creating the market for digital downloads on a console and selling many, many, consoles to non-gamers doesn't break new ground? As compared to a little remote you can wave around? –xeno^talk 19:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh ha ha. Just because I'm a Nintendo fan and I dislike Sony doesn't mean I'm showing fanboyism. I own a 360. Anyways, I need a secong opinion new to this disscusion. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It's this sort of pointless bickering that makes me wonder why this Wikiproject insists on importance ratings. Most other media-based projects have dropped the field. Wikipedia 1.0 isn't too concerned with video gaming in the first place, so the importance of articles only serves to irritate fanboys that feel offended when their consoles and games don't get the respect they feel they deserve. Ultimately, importance is useless to us.--Remurmur (talk) 19:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

To speak the thruth, I don;t care about your opinion. If you don't care, keep it to yourself. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, the current system in place largely cuts down on bickering by limiting Top importance articles to those essential to the understanding of video games. I was unaware that WP:1.0 doesn't care about our articles and I take some offense to that position if it is the case. The importance system is used to determine which are most relevant for inclusion in 1.0 and I think that is what ours is setup to do. Many of the articles are not niche topics and deserve representation to make a complete encyclopedia. But your comment does highlight an important point in this discussion about changing assessments: importance is defined and used outside of this project and it's important to kept our interpretation in line with 1.0's meaning. This is why I think Priority can be useful. It can be used to highlight articles that need current watching or work due to current gaming trends or an being featured on the main page. However, I am well aware that this would be a major change requiring adding another parameter to articles and that we already have WP:WikiProject Video games/Essential articles. —Ost (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

My opinions here on all points raised:

Sega Dreamcast should remain (be at?) high - while it introduced online gaming, I really don't think it can be argued as being the core console that did that (that, if anything likely goes to the original Xbox)
PS1 definitely should be "Top" due to the transition from carts to discs.
PS2 should probably stay "high" until at least we've confirmed its position as the highest selling console after this current generation transitions over; the console itself has little else that's really core to video games beyond its popularity.
Xbox 1 should not be "top" but at least "high"; while MS's first entry, it was a laughable product due to size....
Which of course all changed with the 360 which definitely should be "Top", if anything due to being the first significant console to merge online and offline gaming and digital distribution.
Wii should be "Top" due to motion controls, since it looks like Sony and MS will be following. (Gamecube should be "High")
PS3 should be "High", as it hasn't done anything radically different to distinguish itself. --MASEM (t) 19:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I like it! Does anyone else agree? GamerPro64 (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I still haven't been convinced that we shouldn't put all three as "top" importance, not top importance to the VG industry, but top importance to our wikiproject because they deserve the utmost attention. Also Masem, what of the PS3 breaking ground as a home-entertainment system masquerading as a console? –xeno^talk 19:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I do recall that claim having been made by a previous (yet failed) console before. I agree with Masem's suggestion.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

But the PS3 didn't fail at it. Its current market share owes largely to its success as a inexpensive Bluray player with a free video game console included. –xeno^talk 19:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Regardless none of those features are really of "topmost" importance to the project nor that groundbreaking to video gaming in general, are they?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Consoles before the PS3 have had the ability to play DVDs (PS2, Xbox, 360 w/ HD-DVD), so that's not really unique. Now, as far as I know this isn't true, but if it can be shown that the blu-ray player in the PS3 effectively won the HD-DVD/Blu-ray format war, then that's a consideration for that. But remember, we're about video games and the convengence of home video and video games isn't as significant as video games only. That's why I'd say it's High but not Top. --MASEM (t) 20:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec re to Kung Fu) Well, typically consoles have been for gamers. The PS3 (and to a lesser extent, the 360, though we kindof failed a bit) marketed themselves as home entertainment systems, not just consoles. I'd say the PS3 was pretty successful at it. My argument about the big-3 being top importance due to their viewership, still stands, and I still haven't been presented a good argument to refute it. –xeno^talk 20:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

My brain hurts. If anyone cares (Xeno), I will take a break from this argument. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

So you don't have a counter-argument? –xeno^talk 20:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

No, really. My head hurts. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Take two and call me in the morning. –xeno^talk 20:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The PS2 should be top priority regardless of whether it's overtaken this generation in terms of sales. That a console was the top seller at any point in history, let alone the years that PS2 has had is important. The argument that sales shouldn't be taken into account when discussing importance, is bullshit. - hahnch e n 12:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Console priorities - arb break

Thanks to Mr.Z-man, we now know that PS3 was our 4th-most viewed article in June, achieving nearly half a million views. If that is not a good case for putting it as "top" importance, I don't know what is. We need to abandon (or move away from...) this whole notion of "was it important to the video game industry?" - that's subjective and smacks of original research/opinion. N.B. This is distinct from the Assassin's Creed example provided above as a rebut; I realize that The Sims 3 wouldn't be top importance just because it's the flavour of the month, but PS3 was released nearly 3 years ago and still gains top 5 spot. Meanwhile "Wii" is down at 27. So, which one is really more important for our project to improve for our readers (not make some determination about what was more important to the advancement of the VG industry, which should not be our main concern as a project) ? –xeno^talk 20:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict] But wouldn't ranking them solely on popularity be even more original research? What happens when the popularity wanes? It's an even more fickle thing than their impact on the industry. Sure, PS3 may be popular now, but when the PS4 is released, will it be important?--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(two edit conflicts) We'll never really have a perfect assessment system, but I don't think we can assess articles based on page views. I'm sure back in the early 2000s, the GameCube was one of the top viewed articles, yet why isn't it Top ranked? We can't assess articles on popularity because it eschews towards more recent consoles. Although importance to the gaming industry as a whole may be subjective and opinionated, it's more accurate than page views. This is why we should discuss promotions to "Top" status, to avoid opinions by having a consensus discussion. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 20:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Err, that completely misses the point of what the importance scale is to serve. The idea is, if we only took the "Top" articles from the VG project, we'd end up with something that is a reasonably comprehensive summary of video games in general without missing much; eg these are the articles that would be first included on any published Wikipedia project; the importance is not because people viewed the page a lot. Which is why the arguments are for what features did certain consoles establish as game-changing features in the video game industry. The ones I suggest (PS1 for disc vs cart, 360 for online features, and Wii for motion control) are all there, but it's hard to put the PS3 there for its home video/media center applications because that is not a critical aspect of video games. It may be for a Home Theater Wikiproject, but not here. This is not trying to show console favorism, but ones that significantly altered the industry, and I've yet to see that with the PS3. --MASEM (t) 20:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(EC) While I agree that the current main consoles are quite popular, and thus their articles are popular too, popularity has rarely been a significant factor in determining project importance. Some good points have been brought up to the extent that the three consoles are groundbreaking in their own right. However, I think it is still too soon to really gauge that impact, and to label them top before we've had a chance to truly view the consoles' full life cycles is presumptuous.

In regard to viewership, that is somewhat irrelevant to what we're doing here. That's great a lot of people are viewing those articles right now, but that won't always be the case. Should the articles be bumped down to high when the next generation come out? If that's the case, then the only factor that seems to truly decide it's importance is viewership, which makes the other guidelines we use for ever other article null. Maybe I'm over-simplifying things too much, but I think the less exceptions we have to deal with the better. That way, we can maintain consistency in our assessments.

I also agree that our importance guidelines are not perfect. But it is not entirely subjective on our part. Everything that's been brought up in this discussion can be backed up by sources. Because we rely on sourcing for our articles, we're really reflecting the subjective views of the industry, from the developers to the press. Of course, we're still interpreting those subjectively, but that's being human plain and simple. And while readers may be interested in the topic, that doesn't make it important, just interesting.

You do bring up an interesting point though. High traffic articles do require more attention, and we should take that into account for our editing practices rather than our assessment practices. At the very least, an "unwritten rule" should exist. At best though, a suggestion to monitor current video game topics should be in our guidelines somewhere. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC))

I think then, I am working with a fundamental misunderstanding of what "importance" is meant to be used for. I think it was better when it was called "priority". Perhaps we should have three scales. @Zxcvbm: Yes, that's kindof exactly my point. Once the next generation starts these won't be our top priorities anymore, the new consoles will. Anyhow, we have Mr.Z-man's report so I guess we can use that to focus our efforts on our most popular articles. –xeno^talk 21:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec)That's what I was saying above. I think there is a valid argument for differences between "priority" and "importance" and perhaps using both. But Mr. Z-man's popular pages page (or a hybrid page with Essential Articles) may achieve this goal without adding a parameter to talk pages. —Ost (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was half joking about adding another parameter =) –xeno^talk 21:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

yea, my edit conflict was with you also mentioning Mr. Z-man's list as a solution. I didn't really think another parameter was the best idea, but I think arriving to a clarification between the terms is good. —Ost (talk) 21:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* This is what happens when I disappear for a day...

Atari 2600 should be top because it popularized video games intially
Famincom, or NES, should be top because it revitalized the video gaming industry after the video game crash of 1981 and it's impact is still felt even today as, with the exception of Xbox which is largely a North American phenomia, consolge gaming centers around Japan.
Gameboy should be top because it being the first handheld game system to popularize the genre.
Playstation 1 should be top, but not because of CD-games. There is evidence to support that CD-gaming was already the wave of the future and it was more a descion by several gaming companies, Squaresoft and Enix intially the two biggest giants, to pick that console. CDs were already becoming popular and were laready used for data storage; it was a logicial extension to see them used in video games. The reason it should be top priority is the way memory was stored and the impact this had.
It may be arguable that the PS3 should be top if some scholarly research exists showing that the it's sales of the units helped win the blu-ray vs. hd-dvd war.

I do not want to see importance going back to priority where what's new and shiny takes top priority because it's new and shiny. It should remain for what kind of historical impact as this what is important encylopedic-wise, not what someone thinks is the next cool thing.陣内 _Jinnai 01:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Jinnai, I think for the most part that's the consensus that was reached above. For now though, I don't think the PS3 or any other recent system should be top. We can only really judge how it affected the gaming industry from hindsight if we want it to truly be a neutral point of view. Either way, I agree with you about the NES, the Atari 2600, and the PlayStation, although I disagree with you for your reasoning about the PlayStation. The reason it was significant was because it proved that CDs were a profitable enterprise. Compare its sales to the Phillips' CD-i or the 3DO and you can understand why. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 02:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to leave this one alone, but with one passing comment. We say the "importance scale" is to give WP 1.0 a list of articles we think are absolutely essential to understand video gaming. What I'm being told is that if we get around to printing an encyclopedia, we should include everything that led up to the release of, but not all three presently reigning consoles? That just strikes me as absurd and a disservice to whatever poor soul ends up picking up this printed encyclopedia and can't find an article on the 3rd best selling console in the world at the time we printed this monster. –xeno^talk 02:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Imagine it like this; when you read about films in a Wikipeida-printed encyclopedia, you'll see classics like Citizen Kane, Casablanca, and Chinatown, but you won't see things like Transformers 2 or Happy Gilmore. As far as the art of cinema goes, the first three were classic films that furthered their medium, but the latter two, though profitably successful, didn't really do anything for the art of film. It falls within the scope of Wikipedia, but it's far more important to cover classics that people know have influenced the art; the same goes for game consoles. We know for a fact that the Atari 2600 and the Nintendo Entertainment System really advanced the gaming industry as a whole, but we can't be certain that the PlayStation 3 has -- we need have to hindsight. And for the most part, I don't think it ever will be labeled top– it hasn't furthered the art of gaming in any notable way (no offense to Playstation fans, I love it too). Do you see what I'm saying? -- Nomader ^(Talk) 02:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to get away from this, but no, I don't see what you're saying. Your analogy doesn't follow; we aren't talking about media, we are talking about hardware. It would be like printing an encyclopedia during the VCR wars without an article on beta or VHS. I would be embarrassed if Wikipedia printed (remember there's no wikilinks on paper) an encyclopedia without an article on the PS3 during this generation. Once we're into the 8th generation, if we decide PS3 had no impact, it can move down to "High" while the 8th gen consoles receive top billing. –xeno^talk 02:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I'll leave at that– there's no need for either of us (myself especially included) to get touchy over such a minor point. I would think that both High and Top rated articles would be heavily pushed for inclusion... I need to stop myself from responding haha. Sorry to frustrate you, Xeno. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 02:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomader - that CDs were a profitable medium was an inevitability given the PC market was going that direction already; the impact memory cards have had was not. However, I suppose we can agree to disagree here as the bottom line is the same.

Also, for inclusion, as long as those articles are well written they will almost certainly be included. It basically only batters for adding points for auto-inclusion and maybe later on for collaboration if we fix up our top-rated articles enough.陣内 _Jinnai 03:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's easier to say that in hindsight– the long load times they offered when compared to cartridges were a bit of a downer... then again, you are talking to somebody who tries to justify his purchase of a Nintendo 64 far too often to people. I suppose you're right about the memory cards as well, then. I admit, I was mistaken. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 03:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Not really. The long load time was an issue - i will grant that. However space was the real issue and it was documented that catridges back then could not give nearly the amount of space required. Price also played a role (see why something like the 3DO didn't make it). Load times really were the only thing going for cartridges at the time, that and familiarity, which in a rapidly growing industry isn't always good.陣内 _Jinnai 06:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I agree with that. As I recall, the cartridge system in the N64 was the reason that Square Enix started developing the Final Fantasy series for the PlayStation. Price was actually better for CDs by the time of the PlayStation as I recall as well. I believe we've gotten horribly off-subject though, so I'll stop this conversation now, but you've convinced me Jinnai that memory cards are why PlayStation deserves Top status, not its CD-based media. Cheers (although I still will always have a soft spot for cartridges). -- Nomader ^(Talk) 07:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

O.K, I'm back. What have we agreed on while I was gone? GamerPro64 (talk) 12:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not certain if a concrete consensus has been reached. I think the general sentiment is that articles that further someone's understanding of "what is a video game?" and the history of video games are "top" articles. Of course, that's my view point too. So I'm biased in saying that.

One thing that's come to my mind is that with several of our current "top" and "high" importance articles B-class or lower, I think more discussions like this will occur. Without fully fleshed out and sourced reception, impact, and legacy sections for the articles we consider most important, half of what we say are just educated guesses. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

Good point. I wanna hear Xeno comment about this. GamerPro64 (talk) 15:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

As commented at my talk page, I'm trying to get away from that conversation and simply agree to disagree. I've made my position clear why I feel that all three consoles need to be represented in a print version of Wikipedia if it ever gets made during this gen, and if WP 1.0 really scorns video games articles, then we should ensure to put the most necessary articles for a print encyclopedia as "top" importance. –xeno^talk 15:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Xeno brought up a good point about what I would describe as the difference between encyclopedic importance, providing a reader an understanding of the topic, and project importance, giving attention to current and groundbreaking topics as well as historically important ones. Our assessment scale focuses more on encyclopedic importance, but project importance is something that individual editors kind of arbitrarily deal with from time to time. Krator described it best in our Signpost Project Report. I'm not sure what would remedy this though. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

I got an idea. Why don't we take a vote on what console-based articles should be Top-important. GamerPro64 (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I think a better idea would be to re-write the "top" importance guideline to include "most popular current-generation consoles". That way, PS3 can be included without us bantering back and forth about whether it has made an impact on the "history of video games" and if, when the 8th generation rolls around, the answer we come up with turns out to be "no", then we can demote it to "high". –xeno^talk 15:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if voting would really achieve a proper consensus. Each console has some many different reasons for their ratings. Besides, I think the most important consoles would be covered in the "top articles". (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

It was just an idea. But anyways, perfect examples for Top article would be the 2600, the NES, the PS1 and , just a thought, the Sega Genesis. Or for the British, the Mega Drive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GamerPro64 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I would not support such a motion and even if it passed, Wikipedia is not a democracy.陣内 _Jinnai 18:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Arb. break #2: Tidying up

Okay, because the above discussion has gotten a tiny bit confusing, I think this break is in order to sort everything out and get it worked out. Currently here are the top-priority articles:

These are the ones being disputed to be Top or High:

Arguments for the PlayStation 2

Currently the highest selling console of all time.

Arguments for the PlayStation 3

Helped win the BluRay vs. DVD war.
Sold as also a home entertainment system
Current gen console, aruged that should be high as a result of popularity

Arguments for the Xbox 360

Xbox Live allowed for downloading of older games to the console for play, predating Virtual Console?
Current gen console, aruged that should be high as a result of popularity

Arguments for the Wii

Introduced motion controls as a mainstream element of gameplay.
Current gen console, aruged that should be high as a result of popularity

Now if anyone has anything else to add up there, do so. Just avoid opinion (no stuff like "clearly historic" or that hubbub). If we can follow the following format in the discussion, we can at least get somewhere:

My thoughts on each are that first off, the PS2 and PS3 did not do much but build upon the legacy of the original. Sales really aren't a big thing unless it sells more than the next generation, and the BluRay vs DVD format issue feels outside the scope of the video game project, as does the home entertainment system argument. The 360 didn't really tread new ground that much: the idea had been pushed before in the form of the Satellaview and other items. It helped make it mainstream, but the concept was still not entirely new and helped along by improved technology. The Wii is a similar case: break it down and the Wiimote is in many ways an improved Power Glove. So I feel none of those four should be top priority.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Also for Wii, it's motion-dection technology hasn't been used, nor is it planned for use, on other consoles/handhelds. As for the PS3, I don't think it "helped" it think it was one of 2 principle reasons High definition optical disc format war#Deciding factors. That said though, the impact of the format is still unknown and many companies are looking at discs just around the corner or preferably to solid state memory.陣内 _Jinnai 19:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd argue that the Magnavox Odyssey should maybe be dropped to high. Though it is the first home console, it's sale figures were rather small and it didn't have much of a lasting impact or legacy outside of inspiring Pong, which proved video games could be profitable.
As far as the Wii is concerned, its biggest impact is that it helped break some demographic barriers video games have long been associated with, namely age and gender. However, unless this is a lasting effect, I don't think it should be "top". It's for that reason that I believe articles related to the current generation (consoles, history, games, etc.) should not be rated "top". (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

If, as has been stated above, WP 1.0 truly scorns video games articles, then there's a possibility that WP 1.0 would only take our Top-importance articles. Are you (Jinnai and Kung Fu) ok with a print version of Wikipedia being released without articles on the current-gen consoles? That's madness. From Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria#Importance of topic, "Top: Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopedia". Articles on all three currently reigning consoles are a must-have for a print encyclopedia. –xeno^talk 19:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

They're not scorned, and I'm not sure how that came up. You can quite easily see how many articles were selected for WP:0.7 at WP:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/SelectionBot, which should prove that video games articles are not scorned. Importance to each project is only a part of the metric for inclusion in 1.0. --Izno (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't address the remainder of the statement. I have not been presented with an argument that refutes that articles on Wii, PS3, and Xbox 360 are a "must-have for a print encyclopedia" (printed during this console generation). This, to me, seems self-evident, if we want to provide a useful printed product. –xeno^talk 20:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I had no intention of [dis]proving the entirety of your statement. --Izno (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, another comment re WP 1.0. Look at the selection of articles they chose for WP 0.5: 3D Monster Maze — Chrono Trigger — Computer and video games — Donkey Kong (video game) — Doom — Final Fantasy VI — Final Fantasy VII — Final Fantasy VIII— Final Fantasy X — Final Fantasy X-2— Half-Life 2 — The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker — Link (The Legend of Zelda) — Nintendo — Nintendo Entertainment System — Perfect Dark — StarCraft — Super Mario 64 — (16 articles). I know 0.5 was supposed to be a proof of concept, but ...honestly. –xeno^talk 20:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe looking at the 0.7 video game index would help give an idea how things shape up. Just because something is high doesn't mean that it's excluded.

Also, I'd imagine that Video game console would give a general reader the basics of the three systems. They don't need a full article to learn about what the consoles are and their impact. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

Thanks. I was looking for that. They're in there, so I guess my panic is unwarranted. However, I still hold that articles (not just mentions in a parent article) on all three consoles are a must-have for a print encyclopedia and therefore "top" importance is entirely appropriate during this console generation. And I think I'll make another attempt to leave this one alone =) –xeno^talk 20:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I think the difference between the two versions is that the VG project was not heavily involved with the 0.5 version. I think 1.0 team mainly included whatever video game FAs were available. By 0.7, the project had grown, we had better quality controls in place, and more FAs and GAs to select from. Plus the 0.7 workshop we setup helped further weed out poor quality and low importance articles. Hopefully by the next version we'll have even more important articles up to GA and FA. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

Is infrared sensing a consideration for the Wii? It's not a new technology, but I don't know of other consoles that use pointing at the screen as an input method. —Ost (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Didn't the Light gun do this? –xeno^talk 20:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The Zapper blanked out the screen and notified the system if the user was pointing at a box on the screen (where the targets were); I'm not as sure about other light guns. I understand your point, but the wiimote is a bit more sophisticated and is used as a primary input device. I don't think a light gun could be effectively used to control a pointer on the screen and other consoles have not adapted light guns as the main method to control input. It's just a thought I had when Guy mentioned the demographic barriers. I personally think the IR improves the experience, but I'm not sure if it's a major innovation for consoles. —Ost (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. –xeno^talk 20:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute. What about the Super Nintendo? GamerPro64 (talk) 23:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The SNES, while popular, mostly just advanced the medium, which is something that new consoles hopefully all do.陣内 _Jinnai 00:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Where would that and the Mega Drive be placed at? GamerPro64 (talk) 00:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to put in any console involved in console wars. It was the main topic of video games in the year 2000 up. Even Dreamcast. Why is Magnavox Odyssey a lock? Wouldn't that be an example of the software outshining the console if there ever was one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BRiMaTiOn (talk • contribs) 08:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Warhammer 40,000

Qusetion. Does Warhammer 40,000fall into this project's scope? I noticed it in the Video Game section of Wikipedia: Good Articles but it doesn't have a vg template. GamerPro64 (talk) 13:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It's in the wrong section by the look of it, considering there's a boardgame listing. Someone another 15:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The article is focused on board games, video games are so minor part of it that it doesn't warrant the template. --Mika1h (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. A series article should be in the VG project only if it's primarily a series of video games. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 17:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Changes to popular pages lists

There are a few important changes to the popular pages system. A quick summary:

The "importance" ranking (for projects that use it) will be included in the lists along with assessment.
The default list size has been lowered to 500 entries (from 1000)
I've set up a project on the Toolserver for the popular pages - tools:~alexz/pop/.
- This includes a page to view the results for projects, including the in-progress results from the current month. Currently this can only show the results from a single project in one month. Features to see multiple projects or multiple months may be added later.
- This includes a new interface for making requests to add a new project to the list.
- There is also a form to request a change to the configuration for a project. Currently the configurable options are the size of the on-wiki list and the project subpage used for the list.
The on-wiki list should be generated and posted in a more timely and consistent manner than before.
The data is now retained indefinitely.
The script used to generate the pages has changed. The output should be the same. Please report any apparent inconsistencies (see below).
Bugs and feature requests should be reported using the Toolserver's bug tracker for "alexz's tools" - [10]

-- Mr.Z-man 00:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Partner peer review for Military history of Australia during the Vietnam War now open

The peer review for Military history of Australia during the Vietnam War, an article within the scope of the Military history WikiProject, is now open. The Military history WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 03:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

DS Vision

DS Vision is a huge project in Japan to bring E-books, comic books, music, and videos to the Nintendo DS. It was launched in Mid-2008 and there is hope it will be brought to North America. Also it will bring the media part of the handheld on closer terms with the PSP. It's a big topic to not even have a stub on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BRiMaTiOn (talk • contribs) 10:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Also I have a problem. The deal with these Nintendo DS storage devices is this. Nintendo does not have a way to play music or video on the DS Lite. This problem was remedied by these devices. Only they allowed illegal things like roms and illegal copies to come into play. All the devices under Nintendo DS storage devices like acekard, cyclo, r4, r3, all of these are devices that allow people to play illegal games. A simple search shows that people have problems with them ALL the time. They are written so badly that they become complicated and bug filled. All of them don't even have a browser to show the movies or music. That's where Moonshell comes in. Moonshell is the browser that allows the movies and music to be played. Most of these devices if left alone would only play roms, mostly illegal. Moonshell itself is a very base program that if sold in retail stores would not be worth 10 dollars. It's interface looks like it's still in code. They all need this program.

The only decent third party version of a storage device is Games n' Music. It does not allow illegal copies of roms and is user-friendly for music and videos. It is sold in retail stores and plays by the rules.

Also DS Vision is Nintendo's official version and is currently only available in Japan. It is going to take advantage of all the options homebrew applications can do.

Games n' Music looks to be the device to use if you were to burn your own videos or music however.

These devices should be able to solve the gap between PSP and DS.

Wikipedia has been taken over by this underground community of Rom hackers. They write glowing reviews of all the underground stuff, and go out of there way to bury products like Games n' Music. DS Vision, the official Nintendo product is nowhere to be found.

Nintendo Storage Devices are a HUGE HUGE deal now a days. The list of possible devices proves it. There is a huge debate and controversy around them. Nintendo says the pirating has cost them millions of dollars because of these devices. Wikipedia needs to understand this because there is a huge skew in this area of Wiki that buries the commercial products and places these underground devices on a pedestal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BRiMaTiOn (talk • contribs) 10:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If the device passes Wikipedia's notability guideline (IE it's given reliable second-party coverage in the press) then it can either covered somewhere relevant or have an article. Wikipedia's content is generated by volunteers, if nobody's interested in writing about DS Vision then it won't be here, no conspiracy needed. Someone another 15:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

There don't seem to be many sources, so it probably got overlooked since it's Japan-only. If it was released in America, I'm sure there would be a large article by now. There do seem to be enough articles to start a section in the Nintendo DS storage devices article. It doesn't seem nearly as popular as other flash carts, not just because of the "legality" but because of the small selection of things for sale. [11] Also, the devices are not "underground", it just depends on what you do with them. Game piracy itself is the "underground" part.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The sources don't have to be in English. Japanese sources are OK. SharkD (talk) 09:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Right. I was considering the implications that Nintendo has thrown there "official" hat into this popular area. You are absolutely correct though. Only I would think that since these products are mostly available through the internet, and the fact that when most mainstream media outlets make mention of them they give subtle hints to the activities surrounding them almost as if they are a secret, I would think that would make the products underground by association.

I just wanted to offer a side to you fine people. If Zxcvbnm is saying they are not underground because the devices are not illegal (yet), I one hundred percent agree with him. The rest of his statements are equally credible. Thank you for listening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BRiMaTiOn (talk • contribs) 08:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

There is the possibility of placing a "Controversy" section in the article about Nintendo DS storage devices. The article itself needs to be cleaned up as well.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

From what I heared it is usually considered better to itergrate information in the article than to create a controversy section since they often become magnets attracting anything people can think of.--76.66.191.154 (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

That's true, especially since I've heard that Nintendo mainly went after the R4 DS. It could be integrated into that section.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Pool of Radiance

I've put a bunch of work into this one recently. Anyone interested in helping me get Pool of Radiance up to GA? :) BOZ (talk) 03:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you aware of the Amiga Magazine Rack? Lots of smexy sources. Someone another 10:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! BOZ (talk) 12:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That has been really helpful so far! I still have a bit more to go with it, but I think I've improved the article a whole lot. BOZ (talk) 01:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I've put a ton of work into this one and it's time for a rest. Check it out! :) BOZ (talk) 03:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:Megami Tensei series

This template could use some cleanup. I've already mentioned a few comments on the discussion page and removed the redlinks which had been around for some time. There has to be some better way of organizing a series that has tons of spinoffs, several of which are more popular than the original.陣内 _Jinnai 22:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You could just make it into a bunch of different templates for each series.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Or you could merge certain aspects together. Make it "Anime and Manga", Spin-Offs, and etc. I'm not sure exactly how that would fit though because I'm not familiar enough with the series. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 04:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Anime and manga, yea okay. However, spinoffs would be everything but Digital Devil Story. It is a franchise based around spinoffs and spinoffs of spinoffs of spinoffs.陣内 _Jinnai 02:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Updated with some consolidation. Could still use some help what to do next.陣内 _Jinnai 22:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Still a problem. The real problem here is that unlike most games where spinoffs are from the main series, most of the spinoffs of Megami Tensei are from its spinoff series Shin Megami Tensei. Think of it as if after making Final Fantasy 7 almost, but not quite, all Final Fantasy games were spinoffs of 7.陣内 _Jinnai 20:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Partner peer review for Armed Forces of the Empire of Brazil now open

The peer review for Armed Forces of the Empire of Brazil, an article within the scope of the Military history WikiProject, is now open. The Military history WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 01:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

disputing the neutrality of video game history (and all generation articles)

After reading our collaboration of the week I became aware of this appalling issue. As we mentioned earlier, video game is a broadly defined term and its use also includes computer gaming. However the main article gives token representation to this type, largely confined to first-generation or pre-first. The generations are also solely based on consoles and yet are termed for video games in general. I have placed a tag {{bias}} tag on the main history page. For the moment I am not doing that for the generations to see if renaming might be better.

This is a neutrality issue because History of computer gaming redirects to that article.陣内 _Jinnai 22:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, video game is a specific term that's evolved in popular culture to be more broad and include things like "computer games" in hindsite. That process has also been mirrored here, where computer games were a separate category on Wikipedia and later merged in to the video games category. In both cases, its lead to many problems and confusion, to the point of the creation of the First video game article here. There's certainly nothing wrong with more later computer gaming history included in the video game history article, but I'd make sure and differentiate between the subcategories. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem would be that computer games have a bit more fluid evolution with no real clear breaks like what happens with consoles. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh I agree we should differentiate between console and computers. However as far as "generations" go, that is biased directly toward consoles. No question. As for computers go, the two best indicators for generations are CPU and graphic chips, moreso the latter. I'd use Video card#history as a rough basis for pre-3D graphics accellorator cards, with one exception; it's missing TGA graphics which was a milestone achivement, mostly for gaming and what made personal computer games marketable to larger audiances. After that, switching to 3D-accellotor cards is probably best as they were and still are the driving force in computer gaming.陣内 _Jinnai 00:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Two points- first, this isn't a "neutrality" issue, it's a comprehensiveness issue. We're not "taking sides" or "not showing all major points of view", we're just (possibly) not including all relevant information. Second... Hmm. This is quite difficult, because there is no way to chop up computer gaming into "generations"- that would be OR, no RS's use that type of language to describe discrete chunks of time in computer game history, except perhaps pre-windows days. As Melodia says above, CompGamesHistory is a continuous flowing improvement, rather than discrete advances. I would leave the articles where they're at- we need to divide them up somehow, and this is pretty much the only way we've got. I would add to each article, though, what major advances were made in computer games/hardware during the time period- each generation article gives an approximate time period it covers, so its just "where were computers at the start, where were they at the end, what big things happened in the middle. It would be a ton of work, of course, especially in the main "History of video games" article, but that's why the article's in such bad shape right now, no? Par for the course. --Pres N 02:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It is a neutrality issue in that is proports by its content that video games = only consoles. That's biased. That it is lacking content of computer games doesn't matter; if that information is added, then it would not be so bad. I think for computer gaming it may be based more on genre instead, FE: The History of Computer Role-Playing Games Part 1: The Early Years (1980-1983). There clearly are timelines in computer gaming and to say its one continuous evolution is also just as much WP:OR.陣内 _Jinnai 04:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Umm, the article in no way claims video games are only consoles. In fact, the article has some computer game history in it both in terms of the evolution of mainframe games and the evolution of 16-bit computers. The article is woefully incomplete, but no agenda is being pushed in it. As for headings, it would not be original research in any way to split the article into headings and subheadings. All such divisions are arbitrary and OR if you want to look at it that way, because the author of the article has to decide what is best to maintain proper section length and flow. However, since individual sections exist primarily to maintain proper length and flow as previously stated, they do not really advance an opinion of the author and do not constitute research or conclusions. To say otherwise would just be bizarre. Indrian (talk) 05:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

When they are split into such a way that the term "generation" is used in conjuction with "console system" that does advance a veiwpoint beyond just breaking things up.陣内 _Jinnai 18:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that; my comment was more about those that say that breaking computer game history into distinct periods would be OR. There is nothing wrong with doing that, though using a term such as "generation" in regards to computer game history should be avoided. Indrian (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

That's why I said breaking it down by color depth/3D graphics card generations (which the latter is used) would be an arbitrary break. The other way to do this is simply in terms of years, ie Pre-1970, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. That would be the most neutral, but also may not account for the exponential rate of advancement.陣内 _Jinnai 04:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I usually think of personal computer generations as being the same as Intel CPU generations. I.e. 8086, 80286, 80486, Pentium I, II, II, IV, etc. SharkD (talk) 08:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem is here is that we, as WPians, can't invent terms, nor can we just pull in a term used in a few places and say it's real (talk to those that worked on the 4X article to find out how difficult it was to justify it was an accepted term). Every gaming journal, at least today, recognizes the generation aspects for console, but there is realistically no counterpart for computer-based games. Even trying to divide by years is difficult. Yes, a few books like the one pointed out above may make the case, but we need to reflect the industry-wide trend, and realistically, there isn't a consistent one. Is it a bias? Yes, but not one created by WP. That said, we can best deal with it by a fairly arbitrary means - in this case maybe Pre-70s, 70s, 80s, 90-95, 95-00, 00-05, and 05-beyond (as Moore's Law has the tech moving faster). --MASEM (t) 04:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that to a large extent computer games do tend to be more-or-less consistant (though it's arguable that there is at least some consistant breakage between windows-based games and pre-windows based gaming. I believe there probably are a few more breakage points as well.
However, that still means that unless we do add info in there and break it up it is a violation of NPOV. That there is lacking specific content in the past is no excuse to cover up the issue. The various history articles split off may be fine because they do use the term "console", but without a history of computer video games, it could be seen as a WP:POV fork.陣内 _Jinnai 04:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If we break it up by a fixed arbitrary point - in this case 10 or 5 year segments, that's not a POV violation, at least that it assumes that if we were to cover all of PC gaming in a single article, we'd have to break it apart in sections for readability. Year breakouts without any biasing ("oh, we just need to make sure 1991 is kept with 1990 because of event X!" would not fly) is completely fair.

What probably realistically is the next step here is to start outlining this incredibly large article that would be the history of PC gaming and see how things fill in, presuming it is easily to judge this on a sketch of an article. --MASEM (t) 05:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That would be the best way. I think anything before 1970 can be condensed into one section, then 1970s and 1980s in their own section. However, I'm not sure if after that we should be splitting them into 5 year-segments.陣内 _Jinnai 06:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a complicated issue. To me "video game" conjures up the early video games of the late 1960s and early 1970s, such as Paddle Tennis and Space Invaders - I haven't researched this, but I suspect the early ones were hard-wired. Computer games also existed at the same time, e.g. chess, text adventures and Star Trek, but could be played using printers for output. At some point video games became computer games, i.e. the game programming could be added after the hardware was effectively complete, probably as an EPROM initially. And at some point computer became video games, i.e. the main output device became a screen with graphics capabilities that rapidly became comparable to those of arcade game machines. Finally the two groups merged completely following the appearance of home computers and consoles. So whatever article(s) handle this history will need to point out how and approx when "video game" and "computer game" became synomymous. --Philcha (talk) 06:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That logic doesn't really work. Paper replaced parchment but even though paper is a successor, it's not parchment. It is related, but it's also something entirely unique.陣内 _Jinnai 06:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jinnai that Philcha's viewpoint doesn't work either, but from a different standpoint - logic and technology. That "hard wired" or discrete logic based games does not equal a computer doesn't make sense to me. These early arcade games were discrete digital logic based single state computers, better known as " state machine" computers, and were refered to as computers from their inception. State machine based processors were a common technique in the industry well after the industry moved on to microprocessor based main boards and general purpose computer designs. Likewise that a "computer game" is defined by the presence of stored program control also doesn't make sense - "Video games" have always been computer based - unless the confusion is in regards to the presence of a microprocessor. A CPU does not have to be microprocessor based - long before microprocessor was invented, a computer's central processing logic was made entirely of discrete logic. Neither is a computer defined solely by it being a general purpose computer. The differentiation for the term "video game" actually has to do with the display i.e. the presence and manipulation of a video signal and raster display, which is also why the early video games were referred to as "tv games". It had nothing to do with the the backend and presence of stored program control. I.E., "video games" technology wise is a subset of "computer games", whose term and category refers to the display and visual interaction method with said player. "video game" and "computer game" as terms (instead of technology) became synonymous, as mentioned earlier - when the term "video game" ceased to be purely a technical term and in pop culture evolved to be a catch all phrase. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 07:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Arcade game says "In the past coin-operated arcade video games generally used custom per-game hardware ..." If this is correct, these were not computers because they were not re-programmable. Arcade game also says, "In 1971, students at Stanford University set up the Galaxy Game, a coin-operated version of the Spacewar! computer game." The description of Spacewar! makes it clear that this was a genuine video game. OTOH I suggest many early computer games were not video games as they could be played using a printer as the output device - for example Star Trek (text game) and text-based adventures. --Philcha (talk) 11:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

What? Custom hardware does not mean that they weren't reprogrammable, it means that each arcade cabinet had different hardware from its neighbors, while today they're typically multi-purpose devices that could be other things than arcade games if they wanted. It's more like if you took a 2d arcade game, there's no way to make it play a vector-graphics game, as the graphics hardware physically can't do it. --Pres N 14:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Adding another "what?" to PresN's. A computer is not defined as such only by being "reprogrammable", the definition per computer is "A computer is a machine that manipulates data according to a set of instructions." There is not a distinction between those instructions being permanent or changeable in order for it to be defined a "computer". In fact early computers were not reprogrammable, they were single purpose. That's the reason for the additional term "general purpose computer", i.e. as opposed to a single purpose computer. These were finite state digital computers that manipulated data representing controls, symbols it generated on the screen, collision, scoring, etc. Likewise, that line in Arcade Game is addressing single game (though still reprogrammable microprocessor based) arcade games - the industry used to design a new custom computer platform every time for a single or series of games. These (and the discrete technology designs discussed earlier) were akin to Embedded system designs, which are defined as "a special-purpose computer system designed to perform one or a few dedicated functions". In the late 90's some arcade manufacturers started switching to a more standard personal computer based architecture (including hard drives, off the shelf GPU's, etc.) - interestingly, some consoles have as well. It is not what you're trying to present it as. Additionally, the description of Spacewar! only makes clear that it was a genuine computer game - it would need to have been using its computer to specifically manipulate and control the video signal to a raster display to be a "video game" at the time - which is why again, the courts threw out that, and tennis for two as "prior works". As far as many early computer games using a printer as an option and therefore not being "video games" (i.e. because they weren't using a graphical display), that's again a partial truth but for the previous reason - if they didn't use and directly manipulate video technology overall, it was not considered as such. A vector monitor has no video signal, its simply an etch-a-sketch. This is once again an example of a term taking on pop-culture definitions over time, and then people attempting to apply the more generalized pop-culture term back in to a technical definition in hindsite - not realizing that the term arose from very specific technilogical definitions in the first place. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Question is, can video games be single-purpose computers? Not can computers be single-purpose.陣内 _Jinnai 03:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Huh? We already established that several times in this conversation. Donkey Kong, for example, ran on a custom z80 computer that includes an MB8884 sound co-processor and other custom circuitry, designed to run the single game in the arcade cabinet - Donkey Kong. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Contradictions in the video game image guidelines

Hi! At one point, WP:VGIMAGES states that:

"If the game's international release has multiple different covers that vary significantly, up to two can be displayed in the infobox; alternatively, consider only using one cover, selecting the cover of the regional release that has gained the most attention through sales, similar to selecting the most common name for an article via naming convention."

But one paragraph later it states:

"Where different cover designs are available for different regions, the one from the region in which the game has been developed should be used. If the game is not developed in an English-language region use the cover from the region in which the game receives its first English language release, unless another English language version has been uploaded first in which case don't change it."

Don't these two parts contradict each other? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Kinda. The first part is outdated somewhat, specifically on which to use if you use only 1. Engiish or original release takes precedence in many other wiki volumes as its sometimes hard to judge popularity. As for 2 covers, its not often that it occurs, but it is allowable if their are radical artowrk changes.陣内 _Jinnai 16:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say the first portion should be reworded to minimize the situation where two covers could be used. Not sure what that rewording would be though. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC))

I would get rid of the first sentence entirely, as I can't think of where this would be the case. SharkD (talk) 09:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

bump. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 10:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd get rid of the whole first paragraph. The second one covers virtually all cover selection eventualities as it is. - X201 (talk) 10:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, which one do you mean? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 17:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying Megata, your reply slipped under the radar. - X201 (talk) 09:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem :) Megata Sanshiro (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think he's talking about the one that specifically mentions an "international release". That's the one I think the problem lies with. SharkD seemed to agree as well. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC))

Done! Megata Sanshiro (talk) 09:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

To me, the first paragraph is talking about games with multiple covers (presumably in the same region) while the second is talking about regional covers, across different regions. That's how I interpreted it... --.:Alex :. 09:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The first paragraph did mention "regional release" so it wasn't about games with multiple covers IMO. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 12:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Telltale Games episodic articles part deux: Tales of Monkey Island

Since I imagine that this article is not on many watchlists, can I request some extra input from the project on the discussion there regarding spinning out individual episodes? People may recall a similar discussion last month regarding TTG's Sam & Max episodes; this is essentially the same thing regurgitated under another franchise by the same developer, the two key differences are that thusfar only one episode has been released and that each episode is meant as part of a full, ongoing narrative, as opposed to being individual stories linked together. Please make comments over on the talk page. -- Sabre (talk) 18:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I give you full permission to just copy what I've said the last couple of merge discussions and just replace {A} with {B}. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Bumping topic, since we're still a few comments short of clearness on this particular issue. -- Sabre (talk) 10:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Unless there is significant development info for each episode they're probably best merged, unlike expansion packs they are just one game in several bits. Someone another 11:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Pre-release reception?

While it is extremely uncommon to see in Wikipedia articles, such reception should really be included. It adds much to articles without adding unnecessary fluff. Take Scribblenauts for example. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It's probably uncommon because much of it would be irrelevant after the game is released, such as previews, etc. However, cases like NeoGAF where reception influences development would be fine. I do have to say, the ESRB rating is some funny stuff...my God, the last line....--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not much for that line. While much of it will be irrelevant, I find a lot of articles completely abandon reception from before its release, from previews and E3 and such (New Super Mario Bros. I know was very well-received, yet it skips straight to post release). - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Not all games get significant pre-release attention akin to what Scribblenauts got. Yes, E3 will generate some but even some of the top games, say, Mass Effect 2, got awards but no significantly new attention. Most of the time, pre-release attention becomes development information or additional awards for the game. There's really no good rule of thumb beyond number of sources. --MASEM (t) 01:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, perhaps, but look at some articles like The Legend of Zelda: Spirit Tracks; it's only a couple paragraphs. Pre-release reception could add much more, and I'm sure that ST has had enough unique reaction worth including in the article from reliable secondary sources to add to it. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but what reliably source pre-release reception is there? I did think Spirit Tracks got some acknowledgement at E3 so that could be added. --MASEM (t) 01:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't pre-release reception be added into the development section? Because it's not about the final product, it's talking about builds of the game prior to the final release, so I would think that'd fall under the "Development" heading -- correct me if I'm wrong though. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 03:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this approach. When writing Star Wars: Rogue Squadron, I added pre-release coverage and E3 information to the "Development" section and I think it works out very well. However, this may only work for games that have minimal to below average pre-release coverage. --Torsodog^Talk 03:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I've always used previews for the development section of games with little or no other development information. But what I've always wondered, is if a game got an award at E3 from say, IGN, would it fall under "Reception" (because it's an award which shows how the site viewed the build of the game) or "Development" (because it's for a game that hadn't been released yet in its full form)? -- Nomader ^(Talk) 05:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion, it's reception nonetheless; though, at the same time, cementing it in Reception could hurt some articles' development sections. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I've always put things like that in "Reception" sections, I just try to give some dates and time frames for proper context. I also think it helps give a wider view of the history. See Super Mario 64 DS#Critical response, Pong#Impact and legacy (discuss the prototype's reception), Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days#Reception, and Kingdom Hearts Birth by Sleep#Reception for examples. When writing those, I tried to focus on info that seemed relevant. Like in SM64DS, 358/2 Days, and Birth by Sleep, reviewers talked about the demonstrations that were mentioned in the "Development" section. Also in SM64DS, reviewers talked about it being a launch title and its anticipation. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC))

The problem with stuffing previews in the "development" section is that, the majority of the time, it's an example of a desperate editor trying to create the illusion of substantial development info when it doesn't exist, in a bid to ease the GAN or FAC process. Unless the pre-release version is substantially different from the final release, it becomes superfluous in relation to the "reception" info anyway. Regardless, I'd still consider E3 coverage or previews as "reception" in most cases. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 12:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Need someone with a highbeam account

I'm trying to access this article on Judith Gibbins to flesh out the voice actor paragraph of the Lara Croft article (which is turning into a *major* cleanup). Does anyone have an account that can access the text for me? It's the only interview with Ms. Gibbins I've been able to find regarding the role.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Send me an email, I grabbed it off LexisNexis. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Email sent, it's my main hotmail one so it shouldn't have any complications.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

New user warning

I've been thinking about a warning/notice message to introduce people to WP:GAMECRUFT. When people add content to an article that is against WP:GAMECRUFT, I don't have the time to write an individual message to each one of them. So does anyone support this idea? And does anyone know how to actually make it? Thanks.--Megaman en m (talk) 09:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I love the idea. I suppose you could use the standard warning templates as a guide for making this one. -sesuPRIME 09:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to actually make it, but I'll try to write the content:

uw-gamecruft

Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contribitions, but please remember that Wikipedia isn't a place for walkthroughs, cheats, or instructions on how to play a game. For more information please read WP:GAMECRUFT. Thank you.

I know that it's crude, so feel free to improve/rewrite it.--Megaman en m (talk) 09:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Something needs to be said about character and cast lists. BOVINEBOY2008 13:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contribitions, but please remember that Wikipedia isn't a place for walkthroughs, cheats, or instructions on how to play a game. For more information please read [[WP:VGSCOPE|the video game guideline]]. Thank you.

?. Changed to use WP:VGSCOPE and gave it actual wording. Further improvements welcome (and needed). --Izno (talk) 14:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just about to comment that "cruft" is a naughty word. Nifboy (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If that's the case what should the template be called, "uw-gameguide"? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC))

uw-gameguide works. Probably slightly easier to type than uw-vgscope, ignoring length. --Izno (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

uw-gamecruft would be okay, since the template should be subst'd. uw-vgscope is a fairer name but gamecruft would be a suitable redirect. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 16:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about simply using the word "instructions" there. Certainly we provide abridged information about gameplay in about every VG article out there (which is the standard). Using that word like that I think sends the wrong message. How about "detailed instructions" or something along those lines? MuZemike 16:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That sounds more appropriate for the intended situation. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC))

So how do you make a template?--Megaman en m (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:Uw-vgscope? Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 22:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to go about implementing this, but the template should have the option to include the edited page's name, so

{{uw-gameguide|Metroid Prime}}

would produce something like this:

Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to Metroid Prime, but please remember...

Anyone here possess some awesome template-coding skills? -sesuPRIME 10:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Template created with the option to include an article. See the examples below.

{{subst:uw-vgscope}}

Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contribitions, but please remember that Wikipedia isn't a place for walkthroughs, cheats, or detailed instructions on how to play a game. For more information please read the video game guideline. Thank you.

{{subst:uw-vgscope|Metroid Prime}}

Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contribitions to Metroid Prime, but please remember that Wikipedia isn't a place for walkthroughs, cheats, or detailed instructions on how to play a game. For more information please read the video game guideline. Thank you.

The template needs the appropriate categories added. Not sure what those would be though. Any other changes needed? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC))

I've fiddled with the template a bit, and bulked up the documentation. Category added too. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 16:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Let's see what some others think before we start using it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC))

I like it! Maybe we could also include not to add speculation/rumors?--Megaman en m (talk) 16:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Possibly worth creating a different template? It sounds like halfway between uw-hoax and uw-crystal. Be careful with the wording though. "Rumours" certainly has a Bite-y atmosphere. "Speculation" would be better.

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions! However some of your edits, including your recent edit to article, appear to contain speculation about video games. Please do not add unsourced information and ensure your edits do not contain inappropriate video game content. Thank you.

I'm personally not sure it's worth the while. CRYSTAL, OR and V all sort of cover it... Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 22:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I think that it's the same as WP:CRYSTAL but with a link to WP:VGSCOPE. I'd say it's not worth it to create a new template for it.--Megaman en m (talk) 22:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

A problematic editor

Is there anything that can be done about Mcjakeqcool? They are creating a ridiculous number of articles, none of which are longer than a couple sentences, categorized properly, wikified, or notable. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Recently created articles

I noticed that in my travels. I had to do a bit of basic wikification/cleanup after him, notwithstanding the fact that many of his creations don't seem to be independently notable. MuZemike 22:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone set him straight? GamerPro64 (talk) 00:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

There have been a few attempts, looking at his talk page. Having seen the glut of NN game articles which have appeared on new articles, despite the advice given, I knew it was only a matter of time before this was highlighted somewhere. There seems to be competence issues here, and while trying to encourage fellow editors is always good, I'm not sure the message is going to get through. Someone another 01:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

A couple of these articles might be notable at best. The "Videocart" games though should be all be merged into the obvious parent article, Fairchild Channel F. A lot of these others need to be of dubious notability as well, although some of them like Atari Video Cube appear to be notable. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 01:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Should someone block him from editing? GamerPro64 (talk) 03:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks more like block on creating new articles, if anything, would be appropriate atm.陣内 _Jinnai 06:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't even get me started on what I've gone through with that guy. Just take a look at some of the video game generational (1st, second, etc.) discussion pages, or even Atari Jaguar's discussion page. Frustrating doesn't begin to cover it. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 06:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I've gone through all of the console generation talk pages, many of the new articles he's created, and I've checked out his own talk page. He doesn't use talk pages for their intended purpose; his anti-PS2 (1, 2) and pro-Atari comments have little to do with any content in any articles, and he seems to bash heads quite a bit with other users (though it's not too bad from what I can tell). He has a habit of trying to push numbers in the favor of his consoles (i.e. talking about PS2 sales dwindling and trying to use a shaky source for it, etc.). I think he has his heart in the right (albeit misguided) place, but the range of new articles he's churned out lately is kind of frightening. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 07:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Final warning, then block if disruption continues? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. GamerPro64 (talk) 13:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd say a stern warning rather than a final one, outlining exactly what's causing disruption. If that fails to improve the situation then it would have to escalate. Someone another 13:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I wished we wouldn't have to go this way IMHO, but I know I can vouch the above concerns, which also include using talk pages as forums and inserting copyvios (a couple in which I have removed) on top of what I mentioned above. I would hope something like mentorship or adopt-a-user may help, but maybe I'm being overly optimistic. MuZemike 14:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Has someone mentioned the adopt a user program to him? I'm busy at the moment, but I'll find time for an adoptee. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC))

From what I can tell– no, and I could see where it would help. But it would have to be offered to him as an option, not forced down his throat. Either way though, I think the warning needs to be more specific than a template one. It needs to talk to him about his problem edits, notability for new pages, not using talk pages for forums, and etc. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 16:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

To consolidate things, who ever leaves him the warning can mention the Adopt a User program and tell him there's a VG editor willing to adopt him. I've got his talk page on my watchlist and will respond to anything to do with adoption. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC))

Guyinblack, why don't you adopt him? I would do it but you have more experiance. GamerPro64 (talk) 18:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Who? Someone another 18:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Since I didn't explicitly state it :-p , I'll adopt Mcjakeqcool if they want to go that route.

GamerPro- you're welcome to offer as well. I don't believe there's any rule that forbids an adoptee to have more than one adopter. At the very least, we can both mention we're available for questions. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC))

Although I'm okay with anyone adopting him, I still think that there should be a warning in case he decides to forgo adoption. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 21:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I hate to butt in, but has anyone told the user about this discussion? It appears no-one has and I feel bad that it's going on behind his back. That said, considering some of his edits, if people intentionally aren't getting him involved so a discussion can take place, I appreciate that. But I thought I'd heads-up on it in case you'd just forgotten.

As for the discussion on the user as a whole: From what I've seen, it would be handy to stop this user from being able to create new articles. Not as punishment, but just until it's been properly explained (and the user has acknowledged) that not everything is worth covering, especially if it lacks reliable sources or meaningful content. The user should be encouraged to start articles in user-space, before asking other editors to confirm they're suitable for the 'pedia. If not, the reasons should be explained and the user can edit their proposed article. It'd be a long process, but worth it if we end up with a good editor. The difficulty is to not appear like we're being holier than thou but (at least with this user) make it clear that there are certain key policies they need to be aware of. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 22:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree, better to inform him of the rules and guidelines to editing on Wikipedia than punish him for simply not knowing. Can someone familiar with the issue will leave him a well-meaning and concise message about policies, editing suggestions, and the option of adoption? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC))

By the by, of the list above, you can cast most of the "N/A of N/A for N/A" articles as WP:CSD#A1 or WP:CSD#G1. I've had one deleted this way so far and put a few more up. If the template basically says "stub" then it's not worth keeping and CSD'll take it. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 16:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It is apparent from the response on their talk page and denial of being adopted, that a more drastic approach is needed. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I took this to ANI. I figure the subject might get some good suggestions there and the issue could well be resolved. A block looks like a more and more possible solution. Anyhow, if people want to contribute to the discussion there, that would be fantastic. Cheers editors! Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 16:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I tried warning everyone, look at the previous attempts at discussions I and others have had with him on article discussion pages. His reasoning defies basic logic, sometimes so much so that there's been questions if its all an act. He acts the same way over at the AtariAge forums and is currently on moderator preview for posts or creating topics. I don't see a much different outcome here. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

This has been brought to the attention at ANI. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Mcjakeqcool. MuZemike 17:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I have just made the same comment at ANI, and I will also do so here. If the other recommendations are not doing any good, and no action will be taken at ANI, then a request for comment for user conduct may be necessary in this case. MuZemike 07:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The Dragon magazine's "The Electric Eye" column

I had mentioned previously that I was going to add tidbits from Dragon's "The Role of Computers" column to the article of every game that had been reviewed. However, I did some digging and found an earlier column, from the early 1980s called "The Electric Eye" and decided to start there instead. Issue #38 contains a review of Star Trek (text game), so I added a note there. It also reviews Civil War (text game), which did not have its own article, so I threw up a stub. I'll do more as time allows, and let you know about it here. :) BOZ (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Awsome! Reviews of older stuff like that are always great. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Added some notes to the Scott Adams "Adventure" series from a writeup in Dragon #42: Adventureland (video game), Pirate Adventure, and Strange Odyssey - those last two didn't have any citations until I added something. BOZ (talk) 00:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Dragon #43 has a review for the set "Space Games-3" from the company Creative Computing Software, which contains four games: Ultra Trek, Romulan, Star Wars, and Star Lanes. As I can't find mention of any of that (even the company) anywhere on Wikipedia, I don't know what to do with this review. :) If anyone thinks this set might be notable in any way, I'll be happy to toss up a stub. BOZ (talk) 00:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Dragon #44 had reviews for three games: Dungeon of Death, Android Nim, and Time Traveller. Articles on the first and third of those mentioned did not exist, so I created new stubs. The review also briefly discussed a game called Ghost Town, which would have been the next in the Adventureland series discussed in issue #42; I figured since the other parts of the series had articles, I may as well make a stub for that one too (probably not today). BOZ (talk) 03:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops, looks like I used this column up already! It ran in most issues from Dragon #33-63 and apparently ended abruptly; most of the columns in that series profiled aspects of computers other than games, so the only reviews I noted were the ones I mention above and have already dealt with. The Role of Computers didn't start until #110, so I have to wonder if there was anything in that critical 1982-1986 phase! :) I know there was something, even if it wasn't a regular column, because issue #65 has reviews on the original Wizardry, Akalabeth, and Crush, Crumble and Chomp!, so they must have been up to something in that time! I'll ask around. :) BOZ (talk) 01:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I was able to add a quick blurb to each of those three articles. :) There's one other review in #71, and then I'm not aware of any more for a few years after that point. BOZ (talk) 01:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I created a stub for Dunzhin based on the review in Dragon #71. That's the last review I'm aware of before the publication of the Role of Computers column begain in #110. I may take a break for a little while before getting to that column, but I will be back on it before long. :) BOZ (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

New review template proposal

I wanted to know if we could get a review template for reviewing multiple games within the same article. This is mostly useful for video games based off of shows like anime, books, etc. Often these might have multiple games but very little to review, usually only a couple sites. Furthermore they may not even have any formal reviews. Adding the reviews to the prose is actually more distracting and harder to distinguish which score belongs to which game than a simple template. The article that brought this up is School Rumble which has 3 games, 2 with very long titles and only the famitsu reviews for it as far as reliable sources print. Putting that in the prose makes it harder distinquish (note I have yet to post a version like that, it was just sandboxed version).陣内 _Jinnai 21:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there much need for such a template? And I mean that as an honest question as I don't work with the articles you do. I guess what I'm asking is how many article do think could benefit from this?

If it's only a couple, then you could just use similar code taken from Template:VG series reviews. If there are a large chunk of such articles, then we can create a table similar to the series one that lets you assign the publication in place of GR and MC. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

I could see it useful in cases like The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening where the DX version got different scores than the original perhaps?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

A lot anime have multiple games based of it, especially newer ones. Also major movies and books do as well. Anything not released in English it is generally the most reception the most reception that is verifiable are the famitsu ratings. And if done right it could be used for remakes/ports like Chrono Trigger.陣内 _Jinnai 17:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Something related to take a look at: Template:Video game multiple console reviews. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

Yea, I saw that. It won't work for what I was thinking: musltiple games, including remakes, ports and sequals, which are basically with a few scores.陣内 _Jinnai 20:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone? There does seem to be more uses just than what I would use this for, so i think it would be worthy of creation. Unfortunatly, I'm not so good with coding or I'd do it myself and see what people thought.陣内 _Jinnai 01:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, been busy with other things. I'll see about creating something hopefully this week. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC))

I tried working on this today, but it's been a while since I worked on templates with parsers. Unless you feel like waiting for me to re-familiarize myself, perhaps someone else should give it go.

Anyway, here's what I had in mind for it. I figure it should mimic {{VG series reviews}}, but use the same color scheme as {{VG reviews}}. The games should fill the left column, while the scores fill the rest. The top row should be the table titles ("Games", "PUBLICATION1", "PUBLICATION2", etc.). I figured having editors manually insert the publication would be simpler than trying to list every single one we normally use.

The thing that's tripping me up is how to write it so that a new column appears once a second or third publication is entered for the corresponding parameter. I think I know, but I'd need a chunk of free time to sit down and work it out. Maybe I'm making it too complicated, but I assume not every series of games will have reviews from exactly the same one or two publications. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC))

I'm not in a particular hurry. Also it is best to consider not every game will have a score from every reviewer. This is especially true for games not released in certain regions.陣内 _Jinnai 05:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

How about this?

Reception

Here's a rough draft for it. Right now it can only accept 3 games and 2 publications. It shouldn't be too hard to expand it to accept a third publication, but any more than that and I think the width will get too wide. More games are pretty easy to add so let me know how many you had in mind. The publications do not go through any formatting for links and italics, so that needs to be done correctly on the editor's end. Blank scores can use an emdash. Any thoughts, suggestions, or feedback? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC))

Given its limits that's good. For the particular article, 3 games are fine, though I think other articles might have more. There would be only 2 other thing would be the ability to list the system and if so an ability to automatically resort them by user's preference (given the current setup I can't see a reason many users would have for not wanting to sort by title first), although in theory it's always best not to assume.陣内 _Jinnai 01:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest using vertical column headers, as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Traffic statistics. However, the cross-browser solution involves uploading lots of SVG images, and is a serious PITA. Only Explorer currently features native support for vertical orientation in the form of CSS attributes, ATM. SharkD (talk) 09:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

So are you suggesting the same format currently or swapping the names and the revies so the reviews are listed on the side?陣内 _Jinnai 23:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I assume Shark's talking about the review publications. The only problem I see with that right now is that the reviews are not generated by the template. They have to be manually entered, so the cross-browser solution won't work here. I could try coding it to accept publications the same way the current {{VG reviews}} does, but it seems so unlikely that such a large number of parameters would be needed. I'm still open to suggestions though, and if others think such an approach would be worth it, I can give it go.

Two more question, how many games does everyone think would be needed for general usage and how many publications? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 01:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC))

Yes, I was talking about the review publications. But, if the publications and games were switched I suppose the idea would be a little more viable since the number of games is smaller and is somewhat fixed beforehand. It would still be a PITA, though. SharkD (talk) 02:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

My only concern with vertical game titles are games like the second one in the table. Lengthy titles are fairly common for Japanese games. I'll try to work on it more this week. Not sure how to implement systems and sorting though. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC))

If the CSS solution is used then it should be possible for the text to wrap just like it does in horizontal cells. SharkD (talk) 03:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's a tutorial on the CSS attributes. SharkD (talk) 03:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

how many games does everyone think would be needed for general usage and how many publications? In most cases 5-6 should be enough. 10 if you wanted to be conservative, 10. Beyond that you are talking about exceptionally ported games like Doom (video game) in which not all the version may have been scored or large media franchises like Naruto in which the video games either have their own article or can be grouped by genres.陣内 _Jinnai 05:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Second attempt

Reception

I updated the template to accept up to 8 games and 3 publications. Here's an example using the full template. I figured 8 would be more than would ever be needed. I also set the table to expand a bit depending on how many columns are used.

I'm kind of at a loss at what else to do. And even if I do think of what to add, I'm not certain I can implement it. If there aren't any more suggestions to the general format, I'm going to move it to Template space later this week. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC))

Actually in names, it may be useful to have original name and english translation. Other than that I can't think of anything that someone might flag this as not haing that it should have (beyond having more publishers).

Hmm...on second thought it may be better for those if there was a romaji and english translation. Considering the number of Japanese games, I think it could be justified.陣内 _Jinnai 01:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I think such details could be better clarified in the prose, and the info could bloat the template. Anything can be specified in the game# parameters, so an official English title or Romaji translation can be listed there. If you're looking to include multiple translations, {{nihongo}} can be used in the parameter as well. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

Well other templates do have several options for each. However I do think more than that what would be needed is a sorting by console type and/or date of release. The latter probably moreso as sorting by date for port/remakes gives a more historical representation of how the series has been reviewed. In any case, the table should be sortable by any collum similar to other video game review templates.陣内 _Jinnai 00:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

If the template were substituted instead of transcluded I suppose that any number of games/publications could be used. Probably not a good idea though. There are probably other ways of increasing the number of items without expanding the size of template code exponentially. SharkD (talk) 03:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Any idea what the template should be called? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC))

Template created at Template:VG series and remake reviews. Feel free to tweak and alter as needed. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC))

Vertical columns with CSS

Reception

Here's the same template except with vertical columns. A couple of issues: 1) You'll only see the vertical text in Internet Explorer. 2) The vertical text does not use anti-aliasing, so it looks pixelated. SharkD (talk) 03:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Well it would also be better if the verticle text were bottom aligned...although it would be better still if we could get it to display vertically in FF like some of the other templates seem to be able to do.陣内 _Jinnai 00:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed the alignment. As for FF-compatible templates, I'm not aware of any and would like to take a look at any you know of. SharkD (talk) 03:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Traffic statistics seems to be able to. Not sure how it went about it.陣内 _Jinnai 18:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Those tables use the combination of pre-generated SVG images and image maps I described earlier. It's very labor-intensive. SharkD (talk) 01:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, yea it's not worth it if we are going to have something where every table will have different reviews.陣内 _Jinnai 20:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is "none". It's really just repeating information already in the Reception section. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Emulators

I believe this has been brought up several times, but nothing has ever been done. Emulator articles do not establish notability, and I cannot imagine any of them actually doing so unless there has been some sort of actual reaction from a company. Pretty much all of the emulator articles are currently just advertisements and the lists are useless. The major ones should be mentioned in Video game console emulator, while the rest should just be dumped. Does anyone disagree? TTN (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Some emulators do have indicating notability, it's just their articles are rubbish. I know Stuart Campbell used to write a regular Emu Zone feature for PC Zone, and I've seen features in Total PC Gaming. I'm sure Retro Gamer must have done some features too. It may be worth merging emulators into a List of XXX Emulators article, but projects such as MAME and bleem! can definitely stand alone. - hahnch e n 20:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If you look at List of video game console emulators you can see that I suggested something similar on the talk page, and started a chart that could replace the emulator articles that are non-notable. There are a LOT of emulator stubs that need to be merged or dumped. The fact that they're all listed as redlinks isn't helping. See also: Category:Video game platform emulators.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

List of Wii games that use the Nintendo GameCube controller#WiiWare

I just made this section on this article. It needs to be expanded, as it is incredibly incomplete. Can anyone come help, thanks. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Dragon Quest V box art attack

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Dragon Quest V: Hand of the Heavenly Bride#Box art on whether the US box art should be used in the article. The arguments for keeping the current box art is backed up by WP:VGIMAGES, which states "unless another English language version has been uploaded first in which case don't change it." The arguments for changing the current box art don't seem backed up by an official guideline or policy as far as I know, but the IP is really bent on edit-warring and even went to nominate the current box art for speedy deletion and files for deletion, rather than continue to discuss and talk normally. Thoughts? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 10:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, one thing I think could be in favor of the US box art in THIS case is the fact that the "V" is there. Very often people say "the box art is needed to help identify the game" and as this is is the only page about DQV, I think having it actually SAY DQV on the boxart makes a lot of sense. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I added my opinion (which concurs with yours, in favor of using the US box art).--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The guideline needs to be changed. It's saying to go right when you go left. It does this by saying to use the first region adapted unless another is uploaded first thereby saying the first part doesn't matter, it's just whoever is quickest to the draw. It doesn't have flexibility, in this case FE, checking to see how what boxes the other series use, nor does it account for "most recognizable" version when is different for different regions.陣内 _Jinnai 22:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It does have flexibility. Its called WP:COMMON. The first part of the rule actually exists to stop people being quick on the draw. It provides a rational reason for changing the first uploaded version. The second part is merely to stop willy-nilly abuse of the first part. As for changing the rule, there's no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water over one image. Everyone involved should come to an agreement that's right for that article. And if that consensus works for that article, but bends the rules a bit (WP:IAR), then that will be OK by 99% of the people in the CVG project. - X201 (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually this is the perfect reason to update the rule. It is contradictory and self-defeating giving power to those who are quick to the draw. WP:COMMON isn't a policy or guideline and it will be ingored often as such. We should have our guidelines reflect common practice that doesn't garble things up and say 2 contradictory things that empowers e-lawyering.陣内 _Jinnai 23:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Giving power to those who are quick to the draw is exactly the point. It stems from Wikipedia:COMMONNAME#Controversial_names which essentially says, "unless there is a very good reason, don't go dicking about changing stuff". Most of the instructions at WP:VGIMAGES are unneeded, all that's needed is a recognisable English language cover. I do not buy into the region developed or date of release arguments. - hahnch e n 19:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, when you post a box art on the page, it really should be the most recognized for the first location it had an English version. Some games, it really is not that big of a deal, but in this case, the Dragon Quest V logo for North America has a V on it, like the original box art from Japan. In Europe, do to a naming change, the cover art for Dragon Quest V does not have the V. The one thing this rule creates right now is people rushing to fight for first rights to post. I think what should also be looked at is how the rest of the series looks to make all pages consistent for a series. Look at the Dragon Quest Series as a whole, every other game that has a North American release uses the North American game box art, except for Dragon Quest V. 72.237.4.150 (talk) 12:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I was one of the people involved in uploading the new box art. I felt that consistency with all of the other pages, as well as a better quality picture would really make the page look better. I saw the rule, but did not just replace the JPG, but instead made a new png box art named DQ5BoxArt.png. The original was Dq5.jpg, which is not as clear of a name, and actually was a replace over the Japanese version. I looked the the rule, and see the First English one as the important part, not this first one uploaded. Just makes it a race to see who can upload a picture first. The only time I see that the European one should be uploaded is if it was the first English release, or the only English release. Thoughts? Sara 00 zero (talk) 12:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Would the different game titles be a valid FUR for having one box art in the infobox and another in the article prose, pointing out the name change etc? - X201 (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

hahnchen - First off, that link doesn't apply here. No one is disputing the name. Second, the problem is right now the guideline basically is inflexible. It does not allow for "good reason". It says whatever version was placed first, if it's an English version, must remain, no ifs, ands or buts. It doesn't allow for "without a good reason," or "if it violates and policy/guideline", etc. It just says that and gives no room for flexibility.
Personally I think basing it on date is bad, but series imo should be based all the same (unless there is a good reason for an exception) and what box is shown should be the most recognizable, which often, but not always, is the first English version.
X201: No. That would likely fail our fair use policy which trumps the guideline. My suggestion is to base series all the same and not empowever those who are quick at finding images with hard and fast rules.陣内 _Jinnai 21:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Why would you propose a different principle in dealing with the name than to the identifying artwork? I'm repeating, but the whole point is "don't change stuff unless you have a damn good reason". In this case, concerning the V, there might be - but any guideline we have should discourage pointless back and forths where people argue the shit over sales figures, chart recognition and whether the fact that it was released three weeks earlier in region A make any sort of difference. (hint:It doesn't) If it's a legitimate English language cover, then generally - that's fine, most of the other non-binding guidelines are unnecessary. - hahnch e n 22:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:VGIMAGES contradicts itself, one part favours the European image because it was uploaded first, another part favours the American image because, as the box art used in the largest English-language market, it is probably the most recognizable English-language box art. I've brought this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Cover art. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't notice that Jinnai had already pointed out the contradiction. Anyway, I think the box art issue should be resolved on the guideline talk page to prevent the contradiction from causing problems in the future. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Cover for The King of Fighters XII

The Xbox 360 and PS3 versions from KOF XII were already released in North America but there is a problem with them. Both games covers are different and I know what is the one that should be used in the infobox. Check the images here. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 22:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with the arcade flyer? --Mika1h (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

So is it okay to use the flyer?Tintor2 (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, it's an arcade game after all. Someone another 23:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

List of Paper Mario series characters

This article was originally deleted as the information was held on it somewhere else. To cut a long story short, the redirect was deleted, and now the article has been restored as a result of an RfD because the information is no longer elsewhere. (See the talk page for a history of AfD and RfDs for it.)

Anyway, since the page hasn't been around for some time, it could use a little clean-up as some of the images it used no longer exist. Just though I would bring this to the projects attention as I believe there was a discussion on it before way back in 2007. --Taelus (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It still looks pretty unencyclopedic, containing a bunch of minor characters. I think that, since the *prominent* Paper Mario series characters are described elsewhere, such as in the Mario article, then the semi-prominent ones can be moved to the actual game's page, and the article can be deleted.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Concur'd. Too much information on minor characters, the rest can feature in full parent articles. WP:INDISCRIMINATE and all that. Also it's totally unsourced and not maintainable. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 22:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Nintendo games of this type always carry a glut of oneshot characters, the likes of which are so insignificant they don't belong anywhere. Combining them from three games into one article doesn't suddenly improve that situation. Even the pixls from Super Paper Mario are there, all but one of which are just 'powers' personified. Someone another 00:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

As long as the information is merged somewhere else so that it still exists, or the whole article is simply deleted, then this is fine in my eyes. We just need to avoid what happened last time, a redirect pointing to non-existant information. --Taelus (talk) 08:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

OK.. well the first two games are GAs, so they're covered, and looking at Super Paper Mario all the relevant characters seem to be there too, in the plot section. The four main characters all (rightly) have their own articles. So, anything not already in the game and character articles (there's even the enemy list which a lot of the followers are linked to in the game articles) is extremely likely to be undue weight, in terms of excessive minor plot details or sub-minor characters. Would redirecting it to the first game be acceptable? Someone another 20:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The whole issue in the first place that lead to this article being restored is that there is absolutely nowhere to redirect it without it being a misleading redirect. It was nominated for deletion, but apparently it is not allowed to be deleted due to copyright reasons as it has a ton of edits on it. If the only reason it exists is legal, what stops it being moved to a wikiproject subpage? --Taelus (talk) 09:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It was restored because the deletion discussion said to redirect it somewhere, but I think nothing prevents you from nominating it for deletion again to officially delete it for good. It all depends on the result of the latest deletion discussion. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 10:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting this wrapped around my neck somehow.. if it can't be deleted for copyright reasons, does that mean it contains material that was merged? If that's so, but that information has been removed from the article it was merged to, then I'm not seeing how it's any different than if it wasn't merged in the first place. All that said, it is better to redirect than delete outright, and there is a sensible redirect location: Mario role-playing games, the parent article, where the discussion on the talk page seems to be about this information, or alternatively List of the Mario series characters, which contains all the major characters featured in these games. Or am I missing something? Someone another 21:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I really don't get what makes the content of the article so special. It's the same one-shot characters you can find anywhere. Just because more information exists doesn't mean it has to be shoveled into Wikipedia.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The issue here is the fact that it cannot be deleted due to GDFL technicalities. However, it cannot be made into a redirect, as there is no place to redirect it to without it becoming a misleading redirect. In fairness, this only got restored as an article because it was decided that moving the page to preserve history would be messy at RfD... --Taelus (talk) 08:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

What is the GDFL issue if the article is deleted with no merge? If the information isn't used elsewhere, how is there a legal issue? Is there a way to search edit summaries to see if anyone noted pasting information about this article? If this has to remain as a redirect, I think List of the Mario series characters is the optimal location; it does not narrow the article down to the specific, but it is relatively accurate as some of the characters are in the Paper Mario series. —Ost (talk) 16:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I must be honest and say that I do not know what the GDFL issues are. All that I know is that they stopped this being deleted at RfD as was originally proposed, and now we are here. I don't really mind whether the article is kept or deleted, I just don't like the idea of having a misleading redirect that exists only because of technicalities. Personally I think that by WP:IAR this should be moved to project space to comply with legal requirements, avoiding the issue of a blank mainspace page or poor redirect. I will probably go change my stance at the AfD to reflect this. --Taelus (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Split proposal of the character list

Pending that the current AFD is being snowed on to keep, I would like to propose that the character lists be split into the three game articles, after which the page would be redirected to Paper Mario (series), which would be recreated as a series article for the three pages. Thoughts? MuZemike 21:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this seems a sensible solution. Have the current page redirect to a series article, from which users can easily navigate to the relevant page they were looking for. --Taelus (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

That seems like the best solution, seeing as the AFD is stuck at no consensus.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

MMO Questions

Just some quick questions regarding MMOs. I'm currently working on Ragnarok Online, which is developed and run by Gravity (company) in Korea, and has a dozen regional versions that are licensed and run by local companies. Similar to MapleStory and Cabal Online. The problem is, how should I present this information? MapleStory does it with a table (that uses flag icons. Inappropriate use?) while Cabal Online lists it in the infobox. Is "publisher" even an accurate term in this case? Also, would press releases from the local company's site be appropriate references for release dates? Thanks in advance. Oh, and if you can contribute to the article, that would be great! BlazerKnight (talk) 03:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

To tackle these roughly in order: I think Cabal Online has the right idea, tucking it into the infobox (since release dates are already there), but I'm not sold on the label of "publisher". No, don't use flag icons. Yes, press releases are appropriate references bar some unusual circumstances. Nifboy (talk) 05:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I went to remove the flag icons in MapleStory, and discovered that it's actually a transclusion of Template:MapleStory Versions. I will update RO's infobox, but should I also add something similar to MapleStory's table? It does provide more comprehensive information, such as language and countries encompassed by a regional release, but is debatably bloated (even more so for Template:MapleStory Versions content). Also seeking suggestions on what term to use instead of "publisher". Any recommendations? BlazerKnight (talk) 01:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I would call them "operators", similar to companies like The9, who run localized game services. With the infobox as-is, it might be more appropriate to label them as distributors rather than publishers. Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Japanese titles in intro

Hello everyone. Our guideline concerning non-English games states the Japanese title should only be used in the intro if

the game is "of Japanese origin", and
the "official English name differs significantly from its Japanese name".

Unless I'm completely missing something, that means a lot of articles are contradicting the guideline. The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Super Mario 64, Final Fantasy X, and Ōkami are just a few FA examples where the English titles don't differ at all from the Japanese titles, much less significantly, yet they all have the Japanese titles in the first sentence. Is this an archaic guideline in need of a rewrite? -sesuPRIME 12:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

To be honest I put more weight on the first than the second, because it has helped in researching an item to know what its name is in its native text, even if that name ends up being pretty much the same as the english localization.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

That's what makes more sense to me. After all, including the Japanese name isn't hurting anything. But how relevant is the release order? The original reason I brought this up is that Metroid II, Super Metroid, and Metroid Fusion exclude the Japanese title presumably because they were released in NA before Japan (even though they were developed in Japan). -sesuPRIME 13:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

They are still "of Japanese origin". Even Final Fantasy Mystic Quest would count as "Japanese origin", even though it wasn't originally planned for Japanese release, and only released there after a year. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I've never seen the point to some, like SM64, Wii Sports, and Kingdom Hearts. It just seemed like that was the way to do it. However, I have used the Japanese text in articles to do google searches for Japanese sources. So I do find that useful, but I wouldn't lose sleep if they were gone. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC))

In "Kingdom Hearts (キングダムハーツ, Kingudamu Hātsu?)" (for instance), I can see the point of including "キングダムハーツ", but I don't see why we also include "Kingudamu Hātsu". It's not like we English people are supposed to be pronouncing the title with a Japanese accent. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

One thing that always nagged away at me is, who verifies that the Japanese spelling is correct? - X201 (talk) 13:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

A number of members have some basic knowledge of Japanese. If anybody is not sure about the spelling in an article they can post here and I'm sure someone will check it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC))

You can also normally check with newer games by putting the Japanese name into Google, finding the official website for the game, and comparing the results (it especially works well for Nintendo titles because most of the Nintendo games are hosted at the Japanese Nintendo website). It's not a hundred percent accurate though, so it's best if other editors can look it over. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 17:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

So as long as a game was developed in Japan, regardless of release order, we should include the Japanese title?

And Megata Sanshiro, I don't think the average visitor of the English Wikipedia knows what キングダムハーツ means, so that's why the rōmaji is important. -sesuPRIME 02:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

We should use common sense. If the Japanese title is so long that it breaks the readability of the text, it should be axed. An opening line of an article that says "The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening (ゼルダの伝説夢をみる島 Zeruda no Densetsu: Yume o Miru Shima?, lit. "The Legend of Zelda: The Dreaming Island" is not that helpful, and I've seen way longer.

In that last case, it's a legitimate reason for the Japanese title as the subtitle differs significantly from the English.陣内 _Jinnai 05:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

That example is wrong by the way. The Dreaming Island is not a translation of Link's Awakening; the template shouldn't be used that way IMO. It should be "The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening, known in Japan as Zelda no Densetsu: Yume o Miru Shima", with the kana and translation in parentheses or in a footnotes.

Sesu Prime, if we say "Kingdom Hearts (キングダムハーツ)" then キングダムハーツ means Kingdom Hearts, it's very straightforward. If キングダムハーツ meant something else then we would say "Kingdom Hearts, known in Japan as Something Else (キングダムハーツ)". The romaji is useless in both cases. IMO romaji is only useful when it tells us the pronounciation of a Japanese phrase (as in Yume o Miru Shima). It's of little use for English phrases, since it's by definition an approximation of the real pronounciation, and since it's never used in sources, unlike the kana or kanji. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 10:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

A long Japanese title with its complete pronunciation and translation is somewhat deterring at times, as seen in the Final Fantasy IV: The After Years article (why include the Japanese pronunciation just for approximations of English words?). I think we should definitely keep the Japanese titles for Japanese-developed games, but drop the pronunciation in most cases and use footnotes where it makes sense, as seen in the Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages article. Prime Blue (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

If we move it to a footnote, that's fine, but a pronuciation and a literal translation (when it significantly differs) should be offered as most English speakers do not read/speak Japanese.陣内 _Jinnai 22:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This looks like something that would work well as a footnote. I've been using them in other articles when a lot of detailed content will break the flow of a sentence or paragraph. See Organization XIII#Notes, Q*bert#Notes, and Robotron: 2084#Notes.

And dropping the Romanization of English words sounds like a good idea as well. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC))

Yes, I agree that the Romanization has to go...it's pretty useless. The proposal by Megata seems fine to me.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Need outside opinions for Blastoise

User:Zappernapper has been insistent on having an article on Blastoise, despite clear shouts from all around this article fails notability (it's propped on the single point that it is stated to be "well known" and just that). So there was a merge proposal, which closed with 4 editors stating to merge it, Zappernapper being the only vote to keep, and one voting neutral. So the article got merged.

...and that wasn't the end of it. Despite seeking advice and being told the article failed notability by an editor outside of the discussion, he kept reverting, arguing that "a consensus can't be voted on" and that "by citing majority you don't understand what consensus means". Feh. And now another editor, User:Colonel_Warden, entered the fray stating that the character lists do not represent the characters by their most common names and Blastoise asserts some form of innate notability.

Could I get some of you folks to take a look at the matter and give your input?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you have a lot on your plate. The article lots O.K, but since its Pokémon, maybe it should be merged. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

good decision to change the original subject for this discussion from "Backup might be needed", that did sound bad. neways, again i ask you to refrain from linking to my discussion with gavin, which was going on cocurrently with the merge proposal, i knew he would disagree with me, so it's silly to be using that as fuel for your fire, you're just so bad at making your point that i was trying to get a better perspective. to be transparent, my actual words were, "votes don't determine consensus, discussion does....", and "votes are not consensus....". you are also misrepresenting Colonol Warden's argument and it makes me think you just didn't understand it. oh and let's point out the AFD discussion which clearly closed with no consensus and garnered far more participants.

to be clear this article is propped up on the sourced claim that Blastoise is one of the most well-known Pokemon, due to it's appearance on the cover of one of the first pokemon games (also sourced). I am not making bald OR assertions. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 20:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

GamerPro, even though the article looks fine to you, you suppport a merge because it's a pokemon? --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 20:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Zapper, what I mean is, you shouldn't make an article for every Pokémon. The article just in't doesn't have enough to be an article. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

i am not trying to say every pokemon should have an article... but now i'm confused b/c at first you said the article looked ok, but now you're saying it doesn't? --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 21:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

What he means is, the article has good structure, but there isn't enough for a full article on the subject. And he's right, it's very lacking.

Zapper, the statement "well known" has pretty much been applied to all 151 of the original Pokemon at one time or another, and countless others. If that was good enough to base articles on with a thorough real-world perspective on the subject we'd have all 151 back out, but we don't.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

so it's lacking now... wikipedia isn't done.

... the statement "well known" has pretty much been applied to all 151 of the original Pokemon...

you've made this claim before and have yet to actually prove it, it's ineffective to base your argument on false assumptions. The truth is that a relatively small number of pokemon can be be sourced as being called "of of the most well known" (and stop downplaying the "most" part). --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 21:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Kung Fu Man's account of the matter seems not to be neutral and so is contrary to WP:CANVASS. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- hmm... while i don't think this is the right venue for Kung Fu Man to seek guidance in understanding our policy on consensus, i think calling it canvassing might be a bit much. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 21:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Have you even read WP:CANVAS Mr. Warden? Bringing a dispute to a central discussion board is not canvassing. Artichoker^[talk] 21:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- This is exactly the place to bring it. That's what the VG Project is FOR. It's the opposite of canvassing. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason Blastoise fails is the article doesn't show any significant real-world impact or critical reception nor any significant creative commentary. Multiple appearances isn't enough.陣内 _Jinnai 22:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I've brought up creative comentary from non-trivial sources in the AFD, you had never responded, specifically it was commentary on Blastoise's video game role. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 15:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Just for being one of the most known pokemon, it does not add anything of notability. If not, that would mean that each of the first 150 pokemon should have an article.Tintor2 (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Kung Fu Man tried making this same arguement, but I can not find any reliable 3rd party sources that say Kabuto, for example, is also one of the most well known - there is a threshold here. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 15:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The above posters are correct, unless you can find some real world information (For example, like in the Mewtwo#Cultural impact section), the article should remain merged. That's all there is to it.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I feel the same way; lack of notability. I also feel that Kung Fu Man understands consensus very well and that the personal attacks against him are unwarranted. Vantine84 (talk) 10:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Kung Fu Man has used phrases like "majority of consensus" and others in the past which demonstrate his misunderstanding of the term, and in the recent merge "discussion" explicitly requested editors not respond to others comments, essentially making a vote. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 15:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

After looking over the web sources in the article, one doesn't even mention Blastoise, two only mention it in passing[12][13]. The other sources look like purely informational about appearances in other media. Very little out-of-universe content is presented, specifically in development and reception. Sorry, but in its present state, I agree with the others that the article should redirect to List of Pokémon. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC))

I also agree with the above statements. Merging seems like the best idea. The leftorium 17:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Not to pile on, but I also agree with the above statements. I tried to do a google search for Blastoise, Pokemon Blue, Pokemon Red, Pokemon Blue Review, Pokemon Red Review, Starter Pokemon, and I looked through the first five pages for each search. None of them came up with enough cultural impact for me to feel that it should be removed from the normal Pokemon list. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 20:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and re-redirected the article, I think (hope) this came to a conclusion after all the posts. Thanks for your time folks.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yah, this is getting too much. Either find something more to add to the article, or stop fighting the merge. There is basicly the same amount of information. --_Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

yes especially considering most editors here are basing their opinions on online sources which this article is not basing it's notability on. ghits are not the end all of assessing notability, this is not my opinion but standard wikipedia guidance. if anyone here read through the AFD discussion they would have seen which sources are supporting the threshold for inclusion, "non-trivial coverage in third-party sources". --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 15:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that it doesn't have any real world cultural impact section like other Pokémon do. It's great that you have book sources, but none of them talk about what effect Blastoise has had on the real world. If this would be enough to have an article, there would an article on every Pokémon right now, but consensus has established that Pokémon articles need real cultural impact to have their own articles (notice the cultural impact section in other Pokémon articles: Pikachu, Mew, Mewtwo, Jigglypuff). I just don't think it deserves its own article because it doesn't meet the standards laid out by the other existing articles. If you can dig up enough for a cultural impact section, I'd be happy to support the creation of an article, but for now I have to side firmly with Kung Fu Man. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 15:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we work on the lists? I'd really love to see the 1-20 list made into a GL. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This is my thought exactly. Instead of working on what the articles used to be, focus on what they are NOW. They are really short entries that could be alot bigger and better. I havent been working on them lately cause I have had alot on my plate, but I really want to see those be complete as well. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

What Pokémon species articles need so they can be kept is notable critical reception and commentary. It seems that because of the whole issue about them all having their own articles, which they haven't in two years, Pokémon species require a whole new level of notability. It's really unfortunate, especially because many not-as-notable characters from Final Fantasy and Digimon have their own articles, and no one really cares. By the way, New Age Retro Hippie, there's no such thing as a GL, though I don't really see why not... Tezkag72 (talk) 21:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Because it exist elsewhere is no excuse. If you feel those character articles need to be reigned in, feel free to propose such. Likely they do. However, there are only a limited number of people.陣内 _Jinnai 04:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarification about Ubisoft screenshots

There was a recent small discussion about whether Ubisoft-published games fell under their free-license, and the discussion seemed to lean towards the fact that they did. I was looking through Ubisoft games to see if there were any that lacked screenshots, and No More Heroes came up. However, the game was only published in North America by Ubisoft; would the screenshots still be free-license, or would they have to be uploaded with a FUR? -- Nomader ^(Talk) 18:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that Ubisoft have the rights to release free use images of all games they distribute. EA distribute Valve titles, but Valve retain all the rights to their properties. Do Ubisoft really have permission to release No More Heroes screenshots for free? It'd be worthwhile to try and contact Grasshopper Manufacture. - hahnch e n 18:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:Attribution-Ubisoft was created because Ubisoft gave us the permission to upload screenshots from Lock On: Modern Air Combat. That is, the whole Ubisoft permission stuff originally stems from that one game. And that game was neither developed by Ubisoft nor published by Ubisoft in its country of origin (Russia). Ubisoft only published the European version of it. Since Ubisoft gave us the permission, we can safely assume that they had the rights to give us that permission and that they were not infringing on the original developer and publisher's rights. Therefore, I think all screenshots from a particular game can be used as long as they come from the version published by Ubisoft. See also commons:User talk:Bayo#Star Ocean. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the assumption that all Ubisoft distribution deals mirror that of Lock On: Modern Air Combat is fairly flimsy. - hahnch e n 21:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone (I'm assuming they would have to speak German to discuss with the original email sender) tried checking on the validity of the license and its practical bounds? I'm uncomfortable with it being blanketed on everything without an explicit mandate. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

A few things I've noticed: the English translation of the e-mails, and an English language discussion with the email sender on his talk page. From what I can see, it was the Head of PR for Ubisoft in Germany. Although that does alleviate my concerns that it was a random employee releasing the screenshots without permission from the company, it still doesn't explain the practical bounds of the license. Maybe someone should contact Avatar (the original sender of the e-mail) to see about the practical bounds of the license? -- Nomader ^(Talk) 17:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Left a not on commons. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

If not, you can try contacting their legal department. They'd be able to say for certain. I know the issue came up wityh reference to some Disney related games.陣内 _Jinnai 05:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It's been a little less than a week now, and Avatar hasn't yet responded to David's note on Commons. It might be worth sending our own letter to the Ubisoft legal department per Jinnai's advice, or contacting Avatar at his German Wiki Userpage. I think there should be clear consensus for the letter to the Ubisoft legal department before the letter gets sent though. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 04:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Video game external link templates

There are a bunch of templates here with spotty/inconsistent usage and I wanted to get some community consensus about what we should do with them. I guess a thing to keep in mind is that external links on Wikipedia (and carried forward, websites that we bless with external link templates) should provide a significant amount of information that the ideal conception of the article does NOT contain (such as screenshot galleries, alternate boxart, extended release info, related news-type articles, etc.), per WP:EL. Here are some of the ones I have some small issue with (others may have problems too).

Template:GameFAQs - dunno if this is necessary, most people know GFAQs and don't need Wikipedia to point them there
Template:Moby developer - could be combined with Template:MobyGames in the same way as Template:AMG
Template:Nintendo.com news - only used once, Nintendo.com seems to have a history of removing old stories from their archives, suggest making the archive-link template the main Nintendo.com template
Template:Playstation.com - only a handful of uses, doesn't provide too much more than MobyGames does
~~Template:RPGC shrine - no uses, redlink'd to deleted article~~
- As you can see, the template is now deleted. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Template:StrategyWiki - same as GFAQs, is Wikipedia in the business of providing these links?
Template:Ttg - only one use, same as Playstation.com
Template:WoS pub - same as Moby developer
Template:Wos title - how is this different from Template:WoS game?
Template:Xbox achievements - only one use, same as GFAQs
Template:Xbox.com - only two uses, same as Playstation.com

Thoughts, anyone? Axem Titanium (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I think delete everything but Template:Moby developer. That one should be merged. GamerPro64 (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I think {{GameFAQs}} should be kept. Although most gamers know GameFAQs, most average people don't and usually the profile provides a lot more detailed information that Wiki doesn't supply. BOVINEBOY2008 18:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

But isn't Gamefaqs un-reliable? GamerPro64 (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I have been thinking about that. They are a user-contributed site, but GameSpot uses it for release dates, etc. I think if we consider GameFAQs unreliable, we need to question the reliability of GameSpot. But either way, external links don't have the same qualifications as reliable sources. IMDb is used on every single film article as an external links and is not allowed as a reference. BOVINEBOY2008 19:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd thought this in the past about the reliability of the GameFAQS-Gamespot crossover, but they are still a lot more reliable than almost any other source when it comes to games. Govvy (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

GameFAQs uses GameSpot's database of release dates.[14]. That's why GameFAQs is allowed to be used for release dates. All other content, specifically user generated, is deemed unreliable.

I'm not completely against the GameFAQs and Strategy Wiki links because a number of readers to come here expecting game guide info. Those links generally provide them with that. However, I wouldn't really miss them if they were gone. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC))

Second that. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I would favor deleting everything. I don't find Moby that useful, many times our articles provide more information than Moby ones, especially in very old and very new games. StrategyWiki is fine from what I remember, since we cut information from here and export it there. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know we had a world of spectrum template. As a regular viewer of the site I'd have to say it is a valuable resource to link to. It contains numerous magazine scans (not just reviews but features and adverts), inlay scans (always useful), screenshots, misc data about the game, and offers games as downloads (only if they obtain permission to distribute the games). They also link to wikipedia when we have an article on a spectrum game, bonus. Someone another 03:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, you mean the duplicate. I'd just get rid of that, WoS game is the one being used. Would also get rid of any hardly in use. Someone another 03:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we get a consensus on StrategyWiki and GFAQS? Everything else seems cut and dry. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Some input

Can I get some input on the following merge discussions:

TTN (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Mega Man X (character), Zero (Mega Man), and Sigma (Mega Man X) → List of characters in the Mega Man X series (discussion)
Robot Master#009-016 (Mega Man 2) → Mega Man 2 (discussion) - Also a discussion over the fate of the Robot Masters article.

TTN (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

"Empire"s

Damn uninventive video game designers! Anyone who chooses a single, common word as the title of their game is bound to cause confusion at some stage when another equally uninventive author calls their game the same, and in the case of Empire this has happened quite a number of times by now (and, who knows, may happen again).

As Empire (disambiguation) shows, Wikipedia has its fair share of these games, which leaves us with the problem of giving each a good and unique, unambiguous article name. As they're all so similarly named, it seems a good idea to consider them together rather than think on each one separately.

Here's a list of the games under their current article titles, some of which may not need renaming, while others (most notably to me Classic Empire (computer game) and Empire Classic (computer game)) really do.

Games

Note that many of the articles on games called Empire are in fact about more than a single game, though in the era that a lot of these games were written (most are quite old) the distinction between separate games in a distinct series, and modified versions of the same one / re-writings and portings to different systems (which sometimes altered games significantly in the process) and so on was often blurry. The definition of a single game isn't as clear either when the rules they're based on or their compatibility to work with other versions may be the same, unlike many modern games which are clearly packaged and released as separate with new titles in an equally clear series and so on. Anyhow, here are the games (not including those with Empire as only one of the main words in the title, like Empire of the Ants et al.):

Empire Classic (computer game)

One of the two that most need to be renamed, and are hardest to disambiguate precisely. For a start (video game) should be used instead of (computer game), and not brackets not used at all if the rest of the title is clear. Secondly, a note should be taken that while the game was based on a board game called Empire (see the strategy game section below), the computer version was originally called Civilisation.

All subsequent versions include Empire in the title, though rarely as the only word; these include: Xerox Development Environment (XDE) Empire, BSD Empire, PSL Empire, PC Empire, Amiga Empire, Wolfpack Empire, Empire Classic, HP Classic Empire & HP Empire Classic.

Since it looks like it has been called Classic Empire as well as Empire Classic, this current form of disambiguation (which seems to go against the guidelines in any case) is a flawed one.

As it has been ported to so many different computer systems, wasn't designed by a single person, at a single time or commonly called by one single term this is hard to disambiguate from the others. One way would be to rename this Empire to Empire (classic video game), and drop the Classic tag from Classic Empire (computer game)'s disambiguation, though it's hardly a perfect solution.

Should be renamed to Empire (HP2000 video game). The "Classic" part shouldn't be there. SharkD (talk) 20:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Classic Empire (computer game)

This second of two Empire games needing to be renamed badly also has (computer game) instead of (video game) or being omitted altogether. Originally designed by Walter Bright, early versions were given the subtitle "Wargame of the Century", the game developed into a clear commercial series (though some non-commercial versions were illegally produced) with "Empire Deluxe", and subsequently the series itself was sometime referred to as "Empire Deluxe" (including in the announced upcoming new game by Graffiti Entertainment), while at other times (as in the Enhanced Edition manual foreword and introduction) as the "Empire Series".

To make things worse though, this game has actually been sold (by White Wolf, the company that made Empire Deluxe) under the name Empire Classic, so it seems that neither of these two Empire games has been called exclusively (or even distinctively in the mainstream) either Classic Empire or Empire Classic.

Again this has been on many different computer systems, and made at a roughly similar time to the other one, over a number of years, but Walter Bright, "Wargame of the Century", the "Deluxe" tag (though as these two only apply to some of these games, just Empire: Wargame of the Century or Empire Deluxe won't cut it) or the "Empire Series" could all be used in a better disambiguation for it (Walter Bright's website being at www.classicempire.com does also leave "Classic" as another option though, despite him not referring to it as that at any point in the site itself).

I don't think "Classic Empire" is a good name, because it is unofficial and was given to it by fans "posthumously". Maybe Empire (PDP-10 video game) would be better. SharkD (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Empire (PLATO)

The article lists a number of different versions, named Empire I, Empire II, Empire III and Empire IV respectively, though the distinction between version numbering and naming them as distinct games in a series is blurry. There are also a number of games listed as clones, ports or inspired by this Empire, though none of these listed are also called Empire.

As all those called Empire seem to be on the PLATO system, using PLATO in the disambiguator in line with other PLATO games and topics seems appropriate. It could be renamed to reflect that it may be a series of games rather than a single one though.

It could be called (PLATO game series) or just (computer game series) since there aren't any other games simply named "Empire".--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest Empire (PLATO video game series). SharkD (talk) 20:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Empire!

The exclamation mark at the end of the title seems to provide a good disambiguation within guidelines, and also as a single game apparently not in a series, this one probably doesn't need to be renamed.

Empire: Alpha Complex

A newer game, thankfully with a subtitle to disambiguate it. The talk page has a suggestion to merge this with Shadow Complex though, but as I can't answer the question there I won't put my opinion in - if anyone better qualified knows the situation of this game then this could be a good time to merge.

I merged it, it's the same game. Shadow Complex is based off of Empire, the novel.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's one down! --xensyria^T 14:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Empire: Total War

Another new game, again having a subtitle (this time the series name) - it looks like designers may be learning a little bit about ambiguous names after all! Doesn't need to be renamed, but again adds to the confusion that we're presenting here.

Empires (video game)

The s in Empires does mean this isn't strictly an Empire game, but with Empires redirecting to Empire (disambiguation) this similarly named game (which doesn't help with the confusion) doesn't have a simpler unambiguous article name to call its own. As a mod of Half Life it looks to be correctly disambiguated from the others by that s at the end and the "(video game)" tag. Possibly a hatnote should be put in the article with a note about Empires: Dawn of the Modern World.

I doubt that the "S" could disambiguate it, since Empires is too much of a common term. People will expect an article about empires in real life.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, why are mods disambiguated as (video game)? Shouldn't they be disambiguated as (mod)?--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I don't know for sure - I'd imagine it's for non gamers who wouldn't really understand what a "mod" was - at a guess. --xensyria^T 14:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

How about the subtitle (video game modification)? The problem being that a mod is not a stand-alone video game, therefore it shouldn't be marked as such.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Empires (video game modification) would be fine. SharkD (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Empires: Dawn of the Modern World

This one has an s and a subtitle! Again listed to help the overview of the situation here, probably doesn't need a name change.

Empire (strategy game)

A board game, and while not strictly in the remit of this project (sorry!) it is unclearly disambiguated - most if not all of the games called Empire are strategy games (which again doesn't help the confusion!) - a bad choice of article name. Interestingly this is a source for Empire Classic (computer game). As a board game, it looks like it could be renamed Empire (board game) without trouble, or even possibly merged into the Empire Classic (computer game) article (though how that would add to the confusion in that game's naming I dread to think).

You could always leave the name the same and merge Empire Classic into the page; since they're both strategy games, it should work, I think. Otherwise your suggestion seems OK.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that merge is probably better, especially as it seems I was wrong - there are loads and loads of board games named Empire after all. Doesn't make it much easier though! --xensyria^T 15:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you should merge it with the video game article. Maybe Empire (1960s board game) would be better. SharkD (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Empire (miniatures game)

Another non video / computer game. Clearly disambiguated this time and so doesn't need to be moved.

Notes

Of course, the current Empire is the primary topic for the term "Empire", and note that Empire series has already been taken by a book series (only as a redirect though...). While you could argue that this isn't obviously the most famous series called Empire, there have been so many others (TV and car were a few mentioned on the page) that none of our games' series could clearly take the name (or Empire (series)) either.

The disambiguation of course doesn't end with the choice of better article names for these, to quote Akb4 on Empire's disambiguation talk page:

I very much doubt someone looking for the game they played ten years ago called empire will have any idea if they played empire classic or classic empire, but they might recognize psl empire or "that game that was renamed to conquest". the confusion over the plato renaming has propagated to gaming history texts all over the net.

I've also seen a number of sources getting muddled between Empires, even linking to the wrong one from Wikipedia articles!

I found myself having to read quite extensively to find out exactly what Wikipedia policy on such matters is: from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (and its Trademarks subpage), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (and its subpages Common Names and Precision) with its Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines/Naming counterpart, to Wikipedia:Disambiguation, Wikipedia:Naming conflict and Wikipedia:Requested moves not to mention those articles that they relate to, and the individual game articles listed above - I hope I haven't missed any, but please forgive me if this still seems to be baffling me: I have tried so please be constructive!

I've also mentioned this on the relevant talk pages to let anyone interested in the individual games know about the proposed renaming. It's also worth noting that Classic Empire has been discussed for renaming here once before, though the discussion that it was part of seemed to move away from Empire at the time, to the extent that it was only mentioned once in the ensuing argument (conditionally supporting the renaming, similarly to the only answer at the same time on the Classic Empire Talk Page), then appeared forgotten and finally wasn't renamed.

Sadly most of these games have a less than perfect article (and some of them were very influential games!) - something which I hope to help with once we've sorted this naming crisis out - but in the meantime I'd welcome ideas that anyone has on any / all of these games. Once it's seen which ones look like they should be moved and a consensus is reached about what name they should be moved to then I think it would be best to put the appropriate ones up for Wikipedia:Requested moves. --xensyria^T 15:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

As I've listed above, I think that Empire Classic (computer game) should be renamed, probably to Empire (classic video game), Classic Empire (computer game) should also be renamed, possibly to Empire (Wargame of the Century) or (better) Empire (video game series) / Empire series (video games) as it has the clearest progression of a series despite having some variants outside this, but I await other people's thoughts to see if a better name could be decided on for these as neither seem totally satisfactory. The rest (apart from Empire (strategy game), which could do with a move to Empire (board game) until another board game is called that too) don't really need renaming, but the articles Empire (game), Empire (video game) and Empire (computer game) should either be deleted, used as disambiguation pages in their own right or used to redirect to the correct section in Empire (disambiguation), not just left as they are or treated separately. --xensyria^T 15:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is compounded by the fact that the year they were made is ambiguous. Maybe they could be disambiguated by system instead.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, years aren't possible here, I guess system might be possible, but both were originally made on mini computers (in the days before PCs). Walter Bright's Empire (Classic Empire) was ported to a host of the 8 bit consoles (Amiga, Apple II, Atari & C64), and both for PCs on DOS (I believe Empire Classic was...), Linux and Windows. --xensyria^T 14:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Use the original system it was developed for. SharkD (talk) 05:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Computer game icons

Just wondering, is it appropriate to use these icons on there related game pages, or would it be seen as excessive use of non-free images, or maybe just pointless? Any thoughts. Salavat (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Excessive and pointless. Most of those images should be fragged. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, i might go through and remove then from the articles and nominate the category for deletion if it is no longer needed. Salavat (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Technically it might be useful on commons, but it's not here, so I'd support deletion. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok becuase of my lack of knowledge with images of the public domain, what do i do with an orphaned public domain image, namely File:3 in Three.png. Salavat (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Should be deleted if it stays orphaned. Also, looking at them, i'd say move all them to commons delete them if there is potential copyright or trademark violations.陣内 _Jinnai 04:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok i made it a candidate to be copied to the Wikimedia Commons. Thanks. Salavat (talk) 04:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Another question, should a commons image be tagged with Computer game icons category? Salavat (talk) 04:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay im thinking that maybe my question got missed (question above). Can anybody shed some light on it. Salavat (talk) 07:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

NES vs Famicom

A discussion has been taking place at Talk:Final Fantasy#NES vs. Famicom. The discussion has yet to yield any real consensus, and since it has rather broad implications, a broader forum makes sense.

At the heart of the matter is a difference of opinion between myself and another editor. User:WraithTDK believes that using the term "Nintendo Entertainment System" when describing the release of Final Fantasy II and Final Fantasy III is inaccurate and misleading. I believe that using the NES and Famicom without sufficient explanation will lead to confusion for general readers unfamiliar with video games.

Any thoughts or suggestions would be appreciated. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC))

Knowing the Final Fantasy series myself, I think it would be more accurate to say "Famicom" if to disambiguate from the North American/European counterparts, as they are both Japan-only releases. At least that is my practice when mentioning release information. After all, games have released only for the Famicom and not intended to be released for the NES (knowing very well that adapters exist to allow Famicom games to be played on an NES and I think vice-versa). MuZemike 18:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

While I certainly concede that the NES and Famicom have their differences, I've always felt the similarities overshadow them. My main concern, however, is making the prose accessible to non-gamers.

The first paragraph of Final Fantasy#Main series starts with "Three Final Fantasy installments were released on the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES)" as the main idea. Since only one of the games had a Western release, what should that first sentence be? It's the same thing for second paragraph about the SNES.
Also, Final Fantasy#Graphics and technology uses the "NES" and "SNES" abbreviations introduced in the games section. If two system names are used in the earlier section, how should the consoles be designated when discussing the technical aspects that applied to both the Japanese and Western versions of the games?

This is what I mean by leading to confusion. Switching back and forth between two terms that are relatively synonymous would require further explanation that is not really needed in this particular article. I've always felt the generalization made the whole article easier to understand the topic at hand. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC))

I don't understand why you would ask that, after reading (and repeatedly undoing) my re-write of that paragraph. The whole paragraph could be more accurate. It's really quite simple. Since the first game was released in Japan three years before it was released here, it's not like it was just a cross-platform release, so more accurate version of that paragraph would be:

The first three games were released in Japan on Nintendo's Famicom in 1987, 1988 and 1990, respectively. The first game was ported the Nintendo Entertainment System three years after its initial release in 1990. The second game would not see a North American release until the 2003 remake compilation of the first two games, entitled "Final Fantasy Origins" for the Playstation. A remake of the third game was released for the Nintendo DS in 2007. Easy. Simple. Accurate.(WraithTDK) —Preceding undated comment added 02:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC).

The prose itself is misleading as written. Reading that you are saying they all were released on the NES/SNES which implies a NA release (less so a European release). The (super) famicom is used by other reliable sources when commenting on Japanese titles. Furthermore it could even be argued that all should be listed as (super) famicom and were (certain ones) were brought over to the (S)NES.陣内 _Jinnai 21:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm convinced either way yet, but the NES article tends to make me side with GiB. It seems to discuss the NES and Famicon as the same system and calling it "the best selling game console of all time" (singular noun), which includes both models. Jinnai's argument to inherently use Famicon instead of NES may dispel confusion at the expense of using the lesser known name (in English). —Ost (talk) 22:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Addressing the NES/Western vs Famicom/Japanese release, I agree the argument has merit. However, I started shying away from it a long time ago when I tried looking at it from a non-gamer perspective. If one never heard of the Famicom, the different names don't have the same context as they would to a gamer. Also, the paragraphs state the regions they were originally released in. So the specific names designating the region are redundant.

Just throwing this out there. I know I'm in favor of keeping the prose as it was before this discussion, but if someone comes up with a better way, I'll gladly go with it. The only thing that comes mind is having a notes section to explain the difference, but I still believe a generalization better serves our purposes. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC))

Looking at another Japanese release of similar calibur, Dragon Quest VI: Realms of Reverie lists it as Super Famicom, not Super Nintendo Entertainment System.陣内 _Jinnai 22:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that comparison is that Dragon Quest VI was not released outside of Japan (until they did a DS remake), while Final Fantasy was. Anomie ⚔ 00:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

But we're not discussing Final Fantasy. We're discussing Final Fantasy II and III, which, like Dragon Quest VI, was NOT released outside of Japan untill they did a remake. That's teh whole issue. So it is a very valid comparison. WraithTDK —Preceding undated comment added 02:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC).

Also, DQVI was promoted to GA in 2007, while Final Fantasy went through a FAR a few months ago. Besides, I think comparing other articles will lead us to a dead end because I'm sure there are a lot different examples across the board. Seems to me it's mainly been dependent on editor writing style.

I guess one issue I have with using different names as different systems/regions is consistency. What if a game was released in both Japan and the West? Would you say the game was released for the Famicom and the NES or just the NES? And if you say just the NES, wouldn't that imply that the game was released only the West and not the East? But if you say both it seems redundant to me.

That's part of the reason I stopped using the different terms. One system one term just makes more sense to me. And NES is the common term in English speaking regions. That's what how I see it anyway. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC))

Given that Famicom redirects to Nintendo Entertainment System, I think using one term to refer to both is sufficient. Nifboy (talk) 04:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Anomie ⚔ - so too were FF2 an FF3 similarly delayed therefore the comparison is warranted. Furthermore, DQ1-4 were brought out in the US. Your point is ludicrus.
:Guyinblack25 - if all of the games were released, I'd say the NES. If some were and some weren't I'd say some were released on the Famicom and some were released on the NES. I would also say a game released on in Japan for the PS2 would state that it was released for the PS2 in Japan or Japanese version of the PS2.
Nifboy - maybe, but that article does also list the name Famicom. I personally would say we should go by what reliable sources say first. If nothing else, we should with what is least likely to confuse the general audiance.陣内 _Jinnai 21:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Except for the part where we are directly talking about FF1 here in addition to FF2 and FF3, but we are not talking about DQ1-4 in your example. But I'm not about to waste any more time trying to convince you, if you want to remain deluded then feel free. Anomie ⚔ 23:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

And I'm saying that the parallel is very similar. I'm saying that if we compare a group of games together where some were released outside their country and some aren't on different versions of systems it should be clearly stated as such.陣内 _Jinnai 02:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I feel that this has other implications as well. Do we call the Mega Drive the Sega ~~Saturn~~ Genesis in places where it was first released in North America? Or do we label Star Fox 64 as Lylat Wars when talking about the game in a European context? The short answer is: no. We should use one name across all releases so as to not confuse those who aren't familiar with the gaming industry. These systems are essentially the same, with only minor differences, so although name changes in different regions should be prominent parts of console and game articles, it should be an issue when we're linking from other sources. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 01:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't wanna be a know-it-all, but we don't call the Mega Drive the Sega Saturn. We call it the Genesis. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Er... yeah, my bad... either way, I think I got my point across, but I changed it because that's kind of a bad oversight. Thanks for pointing it out. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 02:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

What do we call them in articles that deal only with the Japanese release? If we call them by their English name, then I will concede my argument. If we do not, I will inist that we still must distinguish titles released in Japan (and other nations( from those that aren't released in English if the systems are not the same. Just because 1 title in a group was does not trump the rest.陣内 _Jinnai 03:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, do you mean what do we call the "game titles" in articles that deal only with the Japanese release or what do we call the "systems" in articles that deal only with the Japanese release? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC))

So where are we with this? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC))

Well, it seems that consensus is leaning towards using just one name (NES) over Famicom, but I think the judge is still somewhat out. I know that's what I support, but I'd like to address Jinnai's concerns before we start to implement it. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 07:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Gentleman, I direct you to the article on the Sega 32x. Note the Market History. Sentance one: With the release of the Super Famicom in Japan and the Super NES in North America, Sega felt the need to leapfrog Nintendo in the technological department. This article seems to think that the Superfamicon and Famicon are different enough to mention them both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WraithTDK (talk • contribs) 04:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yet, other games and systems that have been mentioned in the above discussion use only "Nintendo Entertainment System". Because one article does something doesn't mean that it's consensus. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 04:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The main problem I see with the different usages is consistency. From what I've gathered, the following seems to be used in articles.

GAME TITLE was released for the Famicom. – meaning it was exclusive to an Asian territory
GAME TITLE was released for the Nintendo Entertainment System. – meaning it was released in a Western territory or a Western and Asian territory.

The second usage is too ambiguous in my opinion. And I think the different names don't add much, especially if we're writing for non-gamers. Perhaps something more simplified would benefit the readers more and make things more standardized for us. For example.

GAME TITLE was released for the Nintendo Entertainment System in Japan. – No explanation needed.

Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC))

I think that the Famicom should be left in. It's a completely differently designed machine. I think that you can add "Nintendo Entertainment System and Famicom" to make it less confusing.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The only design differences are the external casing and region lock out system. The guts of the machine are the same though. The name difference was primarily for regional marketing. Does that really make them different systems in the same sense as the NES and Master System or the NES and SNES? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC))

How to cite pre-order items

I'm trying to figure out how to cite pre-order items so that I can state they came with the release of the game, however, I can't find any press release or similar info saying it. For this example is a CD from List of Popotan soundtracks which does have an ID, but the only sites that list anything about when it was released aren't reliable.陣内 _Jinnai 01:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Video game template needs updating to comply with core

As this is getting no disucssion I'm posting here. Template:Cite video game is missing some key fields. At a glance, trans_title, isbn, url, [(and subsiquently archiveurl, archivedate and accessdate) for web-based video games] & location (publisher). Possibly also producer. In addition to level there should probably also be an area field for rpgs and the like. Finally language and isolang seem redundant.陣内 _Jinnai 21:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Trans_title I can see. ISBN is for books--I wasn't aware that video games had them. I could conceivably see url/archiveurl, but it would only apply to the extremely small minority of games available solely on the internet (i.e. a flash-based game or browser app) AND are notable. It might be enough to use cite web, even. Location, sure, I imagine that if the major citation formats (APA, MLA, etc) began citing video games, they would establish location as one of the standard things to include. Level is a rarely used parameter, as far as I know, and probably should be deprecated--no book citation analogue either. Any other thoughts? Axem Titanium (talk) 00:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I readily use level to cite where in a game some text I'm quoting is from. archive/url has some use for the purpose of official transcriptions of text to give readers an idea of what's being said perhaps.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Echo Kung Fu Man; level is one of the few indicators in the template of specifity and should be used whenever possible (it also doubles as an area template, i.e. "Level/area:", which means there's no need for a second parameter.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

What happens if the quote is from a cutscene rather than in a level itself?--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm finding myself in similar situations. A lot of modern games don't have "levels" in the traditional sense. --gakon5 (talk) 01:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Quote the location of the cutscene, or in some cases the event itself (i.e. "(Character)'s ending", "Rival dialogue between (Char1) and (Char2), etc). Basically just describing to the player where to find what you're citing from the game.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Zxcvbnm - If the cutscenes are FMV's they fall under {{cite video}}, else like for stuff like general gamplay items or games with lots of continuous dialogue without easy splits (such as many visual novels), we have no easy way of citing the specific location. Other games like Rune Factory 2, Phantasy Star 3 and Dragon Quest 5 have same locations but different tiemframe and there is no easy way to specify. Some games very wildy in divergant paths as well. If we are tying to give something that can be used for narrowing down a "location within the game", we need some more terms as "level" is too specific, even if you include area

ISBN is for books -If they don't use isbn we should also come up with other alternatives like Japanese Article Number as well.陣内 _Jinnai 02:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone here good at template coding? I think we have a list:

trans_title - requires title
url
- archiveurl -requires url
  - archivedate - requires archiveurl
- accessdate - requires url
location - requires developer
id
-remove isolang or language (as they are redundant).

I still believe we need something more than just "level" though. Things like character, route (for storylines with distinct branches), newgame+, etc. are relevant info when descibing where something occurs in game. FE:In Chrono Trigger level wouldn't describe you needing to defeat the boss and restart the game in a newgame+ mode and go to Leena's square to access a new spot. By that time your beyond the scope of "level".陣内 _Jinnai 00:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone know someone who can work on the template to fix this as this isn't something we can ignore.陣内 _Jinnai 21:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Be a little more specific about what needs to be done (I don't understand your list), and I'll work on it. SharkD (talk) 04:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Basically those fields need to be added above to the template. The removal of the isolang probably isn't required, but should be removed due to redundancy and probability that any FAC/FLC would require the language to filled out for non-enlgish titles anyway. As for the other field, I still think something other than level should be used, at the very least something like character such as is used for people in Template:Cite video.陣内 _Jinnai 06:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Another field would probably be edition or print. This isn't the same as version. This is needed for citing pre-order and initial release items at times to specific print-runs.陣内 _Jinnai 04:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

PC Gamer or CGW reviews?

My request on the Reference library talk page has gone unanswered, so I thought I'd ask here, to see if anyone has what I need. The following is copied from my request:

"Does anyone have the March 1999 issue of Computer Gaming World (issue 176), or the April 1999 issue of PC Gamer US? These two issues contain reviews of Thief: The Dark Project, which is undergoing a very successful collaboration. With CGW and PC Gamer US being the most prestigious and well-known PC game review sources of the late '90s, however, it's unlikely that the article could pass FAC without them. So, if anyone has access to these reviews, it'd be great. Thanks."

I'd be enormously grateful if anyone with access to these would help me out with scans or excerpts. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

My archive.org kung fu beats your archive.org kung fu. CGW - hahnch e n 10:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You have a lot to learn. PCG - hahnch e n 10:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I bow before your might, master. Honestly, though, that's amazing. I did try to find the PCG review through archive.org, but found nothing. But I didn't even know that CGW once had their '90s reviews online. Thanks a lot. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Concerning WP:RS of a source

The source(one and only) included here seems very unreliable. The linked site did not even suggest the characters are the original design of the game, the Japanese words there actually only said the picture was rumoured to be original of something(it said the rumour is from the BBS but since it is quite some time ago, the thread could not be found) and the colouring is done by the web master, not the original artist. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 07:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

– Ham Pastrami (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. But then wouldn't that be an unsourced statement?(Okay, I know the whole article isn't very sourced as well) I will place a cn tag there. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 07:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

That works, though if you actively believe the statement to be false, you can just remove it. Ham Pastrami (talk) 06:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, from the knowledge I have in Japanese video game developers, I do not really doubt the statement to be not possible, but would like to have a source for it.(for what kills the cat.) —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 09:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Boredom strikes!

User:New Age Retro Hippie/Power-ups in the Mario series If anyone wants to help improve that - specifically, writing descriptions for the items themselves, that'd be great! - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Ehhhhhhhhh, this is really pushing it, in terms of both notability and WP:GAMEGUIDE. The fact that an article about the "top 10 mario power-ups" makes up more than half of the referencing is troublesome. I would consider smart intelligent grouping into a section or subsection of the existing Mario series article here describing power up types and general effects; only two of them seem to have any real distinction beyond being a game power up (Bee and Super Leaf) , and these are more specific to certain games so can be discussed in their section. --MASEM (t) 20:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Masem. Would need a significant overhaul to survive an AfD. Great as the starting point for an article on wikia, e.g. http://mario.wikia.com/wiki/Mario_Wiki though. In fact it's already there via category, see http://mario.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Power-ups --Oscarthecat (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it might could be a success source wise, as it already has 20 references. It wouldn't be much of an article though. Like they said, its pretty much gameguide. If you can find sources for most of your info it might would work though. I have a New Super Mario Bros guide. I could help some maybe. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 23:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, as I noted, 10 of the 20 are the same reference - a top ten mario power-ups list at GameDaily. Most of the others are also top/bottom lists which barely provide reception information. It would need a lot more rigorous sources to stand out over time; on the other hand, within the context of a larger article, that's less a problem. --MASEM (t) 12:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did doall the editing in one day, so it's bound to be limited. But I picked this article subject for the sole reason that it'd be really, really hard to actually pull off. :p Isn't that a fun thing to do? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Easily one of the most nukable topics I've seen recently. If you can get that to the point where it could comfortably survive an AfD, you deserve some sort of cupcake. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 07:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Lord British

Does anybody know if Lord British can be improved upon at all? I'm not really familiar with Ultima, but it seems like it's a fairly iconic series, so it may have some sort of potential. TTN (talk) 21:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Question. Does he really need an article of his own? Sure, lots of people know him, but again does he really need hiis own article? GamerPro64 (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It depends on any possible development and reception information available. I know nothing of the character, which is why I'm asking here to see if anyone does have some sort of idea. TTN (talk) 22:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know much of the character myself, other than gut feeling is it would possibly be better combined with Richard Garriott.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it should be merged into List of Ultima characters as an Ultima character. Avatar (Ultima) might also need to be merged.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I've attracted an inclusionist to this set of articles, so if I could get some more comments stating that no current Ultima character needs an article, that would be appreciated. TTN (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Lord British's accidental death is a well-known event in MMORPG-dom and attracted a lot of media coverage at the time. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 12:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be more something for the game it's related to than to set up a full article on?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I've directed a merge discussion to this section. All three articles have already been merged to the best of my ability, and they do not establish notability. They don't need to stick around. TTN (talk) 15:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep for reasons mentioned already on the talk page. Lord British's death, and other information on that page, has been covered in the media already. Leave it be. Dream Focus 16:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't establish independent notability in any way. I would even say that the online death is fairly trivial. You need creation and reception information in order to actually have an article. All you currently have is a very large mess that I was able to easily cut down to three paragraphs. TTN (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe more people will be against any loss of article, than would be in favor of it. I notice all the merge discussions redirect here, to one spot. Keep Avatar, Lord British, and Companions of the Avatar. No merge, no mass deletion of information in the article, no redirect. But actually keep. Dream Focus 17:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

...that's not a valid argument at all.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The accidental death is still not any reason to have a separate article. If you can find sources on the creation of the characters, media coverage and reception, and cultural impact, then it can have an article. So please listen instead of just ignoring everyone.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge for all three. They are all not good enough to be stand-alone articles. GamerPro64 (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I added links to news media for the Lord British article. The Avatar is the main character in a notable work of fiction, which includes not just the games, but also comic books and cartoons released in Japan. And the Companions of the Avatar would be too long if merged with another article, thus the reason it is separate from it. You gain nothing but destroying information. There is no legitimate reason to do so. Dream Focus 09:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You DO gain something from destroying information, otherwise Wikipedia would be a collection of spam, useless trivia lists and fancruft. If the information is not notable, it should necessarily be removed. I really don't see what the problem with having a section rather than an article is. Is it a matter of honor or something? You only have a handful of sources without anything for character development, appearances, etc..--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't like it, so want an excuse to destroy it. And the merger would remove the assassination bit, which my added links to news articles passes notability guidelines. Dream Focus 15:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

If people didn't "like it", the articles wouldn't have any coverage at all. Instead, we think that the topics do not actually have enough coverage to warrant separate articles, so they deserve more compact coverage instead. Actually, the version that I merged covers the death aspect perfectly fine. We don't need to list every single way that the character can be killed. Only III, which has an actual response from Garriott, VII, which has a connection to the real world (if the broken source can be fixed), and Online and Tabula Rasa, which have real coverage, need to be used as examples. The rest can just be covered within "The character can be killed by exploiting various in-game bugs in most titles" or something similar. TTN (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep due to improvements and as any time "cruft" is mentioned in a discussion, we have to keep the article. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to tell you this response was silly and a tad childish, A Nobody. However, I figured I should add that this reasoning can safely be ignored (as a message to the rest of you who view this page that you shouldn't consider replying). --Izno (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree that "cruft" is a silly and childish word, which is why we do not take it seriously. In any event where have you looked for sources for these articles and what have you found? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Having the merge discussions here gets noticed by regulars that come here, but not others. It should be done on the talk pages of the articles, as is standard and fair. Dream Focus 20:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I doubt there are nearly as many people who go to the original article. Not to mention that it's linked here from the article page, meaning that everyone can see it.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree the link from the article should provide the visibility needed without the talk page discussion (although it may be helpful for future iterations of the article to have this discussion on its talk page). The comment about how many see the discussion prompted me to use http://stats.grok.se/ to note that the pageviews were similar before realizing you specified regulars—which the stats can't discern. But I also checked Ultima (video game series) and thought it interesting that it gets less hits than Lord British. —Ost (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
The main reasons for this discussion being here is because, up until my first edit, Lord British had only nine edits this year, and I had already started this discussion to simply ask if anyone knew of the character. It's not really something normally done. TTN (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

RE:"I had already started this discussion to simply ask if anyone knew of the character."

Really?

Second posting here: "so if I could get some more comments stating that no current Ultima character needs an article, that would be appreciated"

Again, I am really happy to see that you have begun to suggest merging instead of deleting articles. Ikip (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The only thing getting far less views than any of the Ultima pages is this page! [15] Maybe we should delete it instead. Since it has been so many years since the last Ultima game came out, there are going to be far fewer people looking up information. Any fans of those series have already looked up the information by now, and won't be paying attention. The companions of the avatar article gets far more views than the list of Ultima characters you want to merge it into. People prefer reading content. You gain absolutely nothing by destroying that, since anyone who doesn't enjoy reading that, won't notice it anyway, and the wikipedia has no shortage of server space. Dream Focus 21:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Dream, I understand your frustration, but your suggestion will not gain any converts here, I suggest striking it. Ikip (talk) 21:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Au contraire; You need to check the talk page [16]. The hits for this page are probably about the same as Ultima, although with a greater spread. Also, it was suggested that this page would have more regulars, as opposed to anon readers who may not check discussions. —Ost (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggesting to delete this page won't make you any more right, unless you're looking for a block. Your argument that only hardcore Ultima fans would benefit from the information isn't correct - since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we have to have content rules to fit everyone. Sure, a separate Ultima site could cater exclusively to those fans, but Wikipedia cannot. That's the whole reason for WP:FANCRUFT in the first place, it's mentioned right in the first paragraph...--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Fancruft is an Essay, anyone at all able to publish those about anything they want. It isn't a guideline or policy. It is meaningless. And there are no content rules to fit everyone. Looking at the most popular articles, I see a lot of them are about sex. Obviously those articles are appropriate for everyone. Main characters in one of the most popular game series ever made, are notable enough to have their own article. Dream Focus 15:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Dream Focus. Not only is it in an essay with no actual bearing on anything, it was created by an IP blocked thrice for vandalism and some of its most ardent defenders in the MfD have subsequently been indefinitely blocked or desysopped. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, fine, let's go over this section by section using the notability criteria. "Origins" section? Contains one reference, the other paragraph is unreferenced original research. "Origins of the character"? Unreferenced, in-universe plot summary. "In the Ultima series"? Also original research, with no actual citations from the game dialogue. "Assassination of Lord British"? Contains game guide content and only references for a few of the paragraphs, and only a couple of those are actually reliable references. Does it contain any cultural impact or reception section? No. As it is now, it's clearly not a proper standalone article. And to say it again: IT'S NOT ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF THE CHARACTER, just the quality of the article. Then again, if Lord British is as important as you say, you could find a lot of references?--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If there is a problem with an article, it can be fixed. You do not destroy simply because you don't like the quality level. I have added a reference to the Official Book of Ultima, a book which I own, which confirms all of this information. The assassinations are listed for each game, in every single gaming magazine around at that time. The problem with finding references is that Google gives far too many results, and that most of these old magazines aren't archived anywhere. And do you believe every article on the Wikipedia needs a reception and cultural impact section? Dream Focus 01:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Every character article, yes. bridies (talk) 01:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If character articles didn't need reception and cultural impact, we'd be overrun by articles about characters people WP:MADEUP one day, or minor characters with bit parts and no significance. That ruins Wikipedia's credibility and clogs it up - despite WP:PAPER there need to be standards. But if all those references are out there, it shouldn't be a problem to merge this article until those references are eventually found, right?--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's credibility? LOL! That argument is always so ridiculous. We aren't here to try to impress any snotty elitists. Besides, articles like this never get any negative press, but the actions of deletionists do, that the only thing harming Wikipedia's credibility. Do you have a problem with the Princess Zelda article? Lord British has been in just as many video games. What about Princess Peach or the hordes of others? Why should Link (The Legend of Zelda) get an article, but not the Avatar, who has had far more dialogue and history written for him than the Link character, and who has also been featured in animation and manga. Do you tolerate articles that have enough active fans to defend them, but delete everything you can get away with? Or do you believe these other articles have a reason to exists, that the Ultima articles do not? Millions of people bought the Ultima games, they extremely popular in their day. Please don't give the standard otherstuffexit argument, to dodge my questions. Dream Focus 11:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- And yet that's the very same argument you're using: "This exists, why can't my article?" Link, Peach, and Zelda all have reception that's citable in a very clear form across various subjects. If they don't, they'll be considered for merging (see Yoshi). You can't base the notability for wikipedia of Lord British or the Avatar simply because "those articles exist" or "they've appeared just as much". That's a pointless circular argument that goes nowhere fast. Either prove notability with third-party reliable sources in the body of the article or someone will AfD them.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  - [Princess Zelda] has no references other than the games and manuals. There are no notable third party references there. And the only reception there is that a magazine voted her and Link's relationship one of the most notable in video games. Does that one mention make it notable? If it goes to AFD, I believe reason will prevail, as it usually does for this sort of thing, and there will be a keep. Dream Focus 15:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
    - Dream- I agree the Princess Zelda article is not in that good of a shape. (In fact, I'd agree with merging the content to another article based on its current state.) But that's no reason for the Lord British article to exist in an equally poor condition. The Zelda article will be taken care eventually, either redirected or expanded. Right now though, is Lord British's time.
      No one here would object to the article existing if the proper content was added. If you believe the sources exist to support an article, then please show them to us. If you need time to do so, please feel free to take a week to research it. But the point of the article is to provide encyclopedic content to the general reader. If it does not adequately do that as a separate article, it should be merged with to a relavent one.
      And after it's all said and done, you are also welcome to bring up this same issue with Princess Zelda or any other character article you feel doesn't make the cut. We're trying to improve article quality here. If that means forcefully nudging articles, then that's what we have to do. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC))
      - You don't improve articles by eliminating them. If you try to send it to the AFD, instead of destroying it with a merge/redirect which less people would notice, enough people would most likely agree its fine. Its like when someone tries to delete a best selling novel that gets no reviews, they argue nonstop about the rules, but common sense prevails for most participates, and it is kept. And you will never even attempt to eliminate Princess Zelda or Link, because enough fans visit those pages each day to notice and thus protest. I believe enough people visit the Ultima sites as well to defend against any insane and pointless deletion attempt as well. The guidelines are suggestions, not absolute law, you ignoring them and using common sense. Over 90% of articles on Wikipedia might be considered poor quality or fancruft to some, but that is no excuse to seek to destroy them by any means. Dream Focus 17:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
        You know, for someone who goes around whining about elitsts, you sure have a pretty inflated opinion of yourself since you believe your opinion of what constitutes common sense is somehow superior to guidelines reached by the consensus of multiple wikipedia users. Sounds elitist to me. Nothing wrong with that, heck, I certainly have an inflated opinion of my own views too, just don't go around claiming you are the poor defender of common sense over elitism when you are just practicing elitism of a different stripe.

You want to fix the Zelda and Lord British articles up with proper sourcing that is fine, since wikipedia has a very (in my own opninion overly) generous policy on notability: verifiability in reliable sources that do not consitute original research. While there are many notability guidelines that are optional as you say, the verifiability policy is not. The Zelda article does not meet that policy since it is not based on reliable sources, which are defined as third-party, ie not instruction manuals. That is fine for basic facts, but an article needs to be "based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as stated in the verifiability policy. The Lord British article similarly fails this test. If insufficient published sources exist to form an article, then there should be no article. If you can find the sources, then the article should stay. All your common sense nonsense and dismissal of core wikipedia policy does not change that. You and I certainly disagree on finer points of what articles should be kept beyond basic policy when the optional guidelines you mention are brought into play, but as of yet you have failed to prove these subjects even live up to the most inclusive definition of wikipedia notability as articulated in official policy. I imagine you will just call me an elitist and ignore my arguments since that seems to be your favorite way to respond, but at least try to refrain from this and explain how these articles meet the verifiability policy found at WP:V. Indrian (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discussion for Avatar (Ultima) opened here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Ultima

Because it wasn't weird enough, now we have a subproject specifically related to Ultima?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Erm, I don't think talking to yourself constitutes a task force.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Um, if it didn't go through our talk page, it would probably be safe to ask them to disassociate themselves from the project in the manner they've chosen. I have no preference if they wish to set up a separate WikiProject.… --Izno (talk) 03:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can make a Wikiproject. I checked the rules on that page. and the link is [Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Ultima]]. Only two members thus far. There is a list of all Ultima articles that currently exist, a list of all those replaced with a redirect, and a list of all ongoing discussions for delete or merge. Dream Focus 16:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Your project isn't a WikiProject. If you would like to have WP:WikiProject Ultima, feel free. But creating a task force of Video games (a subpage) without prior agreement (not necessarily consensus) is somewhat tendentious. --Izno (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Dream- Expanding on what Izno stated, I think the issue the above editors are discussing is that what has been created is not a separate WikiProject, but a page similar to a task force under the WP:VG namespace. I also believe the lukewarm reception to the new page is in part to that we've seen a large number of related WikiProjects and VG task forces get created and soon after fall active. It was because of the large number that we started doing a project clean up to consolidate splintered resources and help new members avoid a sea of defunct pages.

That being said, if this is the path you want to go you are welcome to operate as either an VG task force or a separate WikiProject. The plus to being a task force is that most administrative duties (assessment, peer review, etc.) would be handled by the VG project. The plus to being a full project is some more leeway in how the administrative duties are carried out. But since we all have to comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, there shouldn't be much difference to how such administration should be executed. It makes more sense in my mind to be a task force as a full project is a big work load for two people and I've sure you two would much rather focus on article editing. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC))

The AfD failed to get us anywhere, so now we're back to square one. Arguments from the AfD are still in favor of merging if you ignore the die-hard inclusionists, who just vote on everything related to fiction in order to keep everything. The sources added to Avatar are nothing special and fairly debatable, and even then, they would easily fit within the list entry anyway. TTN (talk) 22:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with merging Avatar, the few miscellaneous sourced sentences would fit within a list entry. bridies (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The AFD failed to get you want you wanted. It closed as Keep. The nominator was the only one who said delete, 5 said redirect, 1 said merge, and 7 said keep. It closed as Keep. Most people will not participate in this long confusing mess of a discussion. Best to have a discussion on the proper talk page, as you are suppose to. The only reason bringing it here is for those who commonly camp out here, and work together for enforcing their will, can all vote together. There will not be a consensus to merge, no matter how long you argue. Dream Focus 01:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Continue discussion at Talk:List_of_Ultima_characters#Merge_discussion Dream Focus 01:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Are preambles considered part of the title proper?

In this case, a preamble would be the name of an associated person, as in Sid Meier's Civilization, Clive Barker's Undying, or American McGee's Alice. While these preambles work for titles that would otherwise need a dab tag, I'm wondering if they should be used in non-ambiguous article names (like Undying). And, regardless of the article name, how should the preambles be treated in the lead paragraph? Is the name of the work really considered to be Clive Barker's Undying or does it merely mean "Undying, by Clive Barker"? A case where the preamble almost never appears is "John Romero's Daikatana." Ham Pastrami (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It really depends how the game is marketed by the publisher, but really, the clue is if the game actually uses the possessive in the title (I can confirm that with Alice) then that preamble is part of the game's name, though certainly redirects and dabs should be there for the non-preamble version. (see, for example, how it appears in Alice). It would not be, however, something like "Tim Schafer's Psychonauts" as that's clearly not put on the title.--MASEM (t) 03:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

How do you make the determination that the game "actually uses" the possessive in the title? I'm not sure what is meant by that. Ham Pastrami (talk) 06:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well again, if the game cover is says "Some Perons's GameName" (as opposed to "GameName, by Some Person"), it's pretty clear that it's meant to be consider as part of the title. I'd still check officially literature and game sites to see how it's most often titled. --MASEM (t) 14:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

There was a discussion about renaming the various Civilization games quite recently and if I recall correctly the consensus was not to include the preamble, the reasoning being that the common name is "Civilization". bridies (talk) 03:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we said the first game (or was it the series) might be, but that uniformity with the rest of the series was also important and trumped it as it's hard to tell when a preambles is a part of a title.陣内 _Jinnai 10:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The Civilization articles need to be re-named because the correct names of the games include "Sid Meier's" in them. Most people just say "Madden 10" and leave out the "NFL" part, but we still use the correct names of the games. For example: "Sid Meier's Civilization IV" is the correct title, "Civilization IV" is wrong. TJ Spyke 20:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

MissingNo. and A-class assessment

I hate to bother everyone, but can I get a passerby to look at MissingNo. and give it a thumbs up or down on whether it should be given A-class? So far we have one conditional support, and it's kinda been like that for a good while.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I would but I am securing myeself per the image debate and not knowing whether that should hold it up as A-class articles are suppose to be near perfection.陣内 _Jinnai 23:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Um...okay I kinda thought this was obvious but the actually MissingNo. "sprite" isn't trademarked by Nintendo, which seems to be everyone's holdup about those images. I'll edit the FAR accordingly on both.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Why is it not copyright Nintendo? It IS taken from a screenshot of a game copyrighted by Nintendo. They own all the data in the cartridge, whether the form these data take is intended or unintended. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 01:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it's kinda like saying a video game owns a copyright on a jumble of letters in a game that have no meaning or intention to appear in the case of a bad string ref or similar. To explain it a little better, the "d" shape really only shows up because the game is grabbing data from the bank associated with pointer #000 and creating that. They never copyrighted or trademarked it's appearance, just the name.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it was the 2nd image people were disputing which containes multiple images, not the one on top.陣内 _Jinnai 19:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, the image of the trainer has to be copyrighted, and the fossils/ghost image are used in the game as well. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

They copyrighted everything in the game, glitch or not. And otherwise, we're at a deadlock since if the sprite is as non-distinctive as you (Kung Fu Man) claim, then there's no reason to put the image in the article in the first place. It's either distinctive enough and thus subject to copyrights, or not distinctive enough and thus useless as an illustration in the article. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if the top one with the weird glitch graphics is copyrightable or not if you just take the glitch itself (it isn't clear as no one's ever disputed the copyrighted nature of glitched graphics for something that was never intended for public use before and probably never will). However the image clearly meets WP:FAIR USE as it is kind of hard to visually get exactly what the image looks like on the screen without a visual representation since you can't say it looks like a pokemon and saying its some garmbled images in the rough form of an L leaves a lot of wiggle room to the imagination. If someone still doesn't believe this I could write a list based soley on the description as to what someone might reasonably assume without an image just to prove this.
The bottom one do look similar to other pokemon and the number for the size of the article makes those more difficult to say they clearly don't violate fair use policy.陣内 _Jinnai 19:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Adding categories to redirects

What is the opinion on adding a category to a redirect page, eg adding Category:2001 video games and Category: Windows games to Deer Hunter 5: Tracking Trophies. Would it be acceptable to do this or should it be steered away from? Salavat (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with placing a redirect in a category, particular a non-admin one such as the categories you IDs. USers may use that to search out games that fall into them, so it's a completely valid too. --MASEM (t) 16:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to say that it's probably not the best idea. First off, it leads to clutter with some categories (consider Category: Female video game characters with every related redirect having it listed. Secondly there's the issue of which redirect gets the category: we have many instances where one article or subject can have quite a few redirects that are all completely valid search terms for the item.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that if it's a game that is being redirected to a series, it should get a category (and only the "proper" name, i.e., the one that might get turned into an article one day). Characters, not so much. –xeno^talk 16:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeh i was only thinking along the lines of games that redirect to a series article. Thanks for the responses. Salavat (talk) 02:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't a category sort key fix this? - X201 (talk) 08:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

A what key?? Salavat (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, ignore me, I go the wrong end of the stick in what you're trying to achieve. - X201 (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Online services as "platform"s?

I've recently noticed that there seems to be inconsistency in the way downloadable games are represented. The inconsistency exists across games but is even greater across hardware (Xbox games vs PS3 games). I mainly monitor PlayStation 3 games where this has recently started happening but I understand that it has been done with Xbox 360 games for some time: For downloadable games, it seems to be common practice to put "XBLA" and/or "PSN" for the Platform field in game infoboxes. I just wanted to know what other people's feelings were on this. I feel like the "platform" is the system that the game is played on, not where the game was obtained and therefore the console name should be given as the platform. Using "PlayStation Network" causes problems because it's difficult to define what a "PlayStation Network" game is. If you assume that it's any game downloadable from the PS Store then this would include games like Burnout Paradise and Warhawk which are also available on disc but more importantly will soon include every PSP game. I think it makes far more sense to use the actual console name (or "PC") for the platform and use the Media field in the infobox to state that it's a downloadable game. For example, by using wording like "PlayStation Store download", "XBLA download" or "Steam download". Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 11:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Xbox Live Arcade and PlayStation Store are not platforms in themselves, merely distribution and media methods. They should not be included in the "paltform(s)" section of an infobox. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 12:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree. They are electronic shops. Thats all. - X201 (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree. I see XBLA as a kind of "platform within a platform" and XBLA games are often quite distinct from full disc-based games. I've dropped at note at WT:XB pointing here. –xeno^talk 15:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I have done the same at the PlayStation Project], although it's pretty quiet over there. Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 18:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the XBLA games look fine the way they are. –xeno^talk 12:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This may be just me being pedantic but as an aside, XBLA is not the equivelent to the PSN. The PlayStation Store is to XBLA as the PSN is to XBL. So really, even if the online services are down as being a "Platform", it should be written "XBLA, PlayStation Store" not "XBLA, PSN"... Or you lot could just tell me to shut up! :) Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 18:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

SHUT UP!! :) GamerPro64 (talk) 18:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll see your pedantry and raise you another. PSN = XBL. PS Store = XBLM. ??? = XBLA. Sony doesn't have a special name for these titles. –xeno^talk 18:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not just create an "Online service" field in the template? Online services may have some similarities with platforms and with distributors, but it is clear that they are neither platforms nor distributors. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 19:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not quite right either. XBLA games are a subset of Xbox 360 games... They're not only different in their delivery method. –xeno^talk 19:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think XBLA and PSN (PS Store, whatever!) should be in the media section, as technically you're still playing them on a 360/PS3, they're not technically platforms themselves. Makes more sense for games like Fable II and Mass Effect, that're available through games-on-demand. Actually...if they're available through games-on-demand, isn't that another release date to add to the infobox, and then wouldn't it be under XBL (not Arcade), implying it's platform? Or should those games use GOD (that is, an acronym for games on demand)? Hrmmm. CanOWorms.open(); Thanks! Fin ©™ 20:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to mention that but didn't want to open the can ;p. I still think that "Media" is inappropriate the "XBLA" notation. Platform isn't the best fit either, but I think it's better than Media. –xeno^talk 20:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe that an Xbox Arcade (or PlayStation Network) game should be listed as Xbox 360 (XBLA). I like it that way because I think listing as Xbox Live Arcade can cause confusion and that it should be listed under platforms because it can be played on that platform no matter if it is a disc or downloaded. BW21.--Black Watch 21 21:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, if it says just "XBLA" it could be interpreted as playable on the original Xbox. --Mika1h (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think the combination of just "Xbox 360/PS3" in the Platform field, and simply "Digital" or "Download" as the medium would work best. "Digital" (which I think is a bit more phonetically aesthetic than Download) is more similar to "DVD" than "XBLA" is. Informative (XBLA, PSN and WiiWare are the exclusive distributors of content for each console anyway) without setting anything as a medium or platform. Thoughts? Thanks! Fin ©™ 23:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

That was the consensus, that download services should be treated equally. "Download" should be used to describe all download services to avoid having different release dates for numerous platforms. But some download services are more equal than others. - 89.206.151.211 (talk) 08:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

XBLA games can come on a disc, though. I still think XBLA should be noted in the infobox. XBLA games are often shorter, less graphic intensive, carry less achievement points, etc. There needs to be some way to denote this (especially in light of the new games on demand which will add additional ambiguity if we only use "Download"). –xeno^talk 23:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Xbox Live Arcade Vol. 1 is actual Xbox 360 game, not from marketplace. But anyway, just listing Xbox 360/PS3 isn't getting the point a cross that the game is from XBLA/PSN and I believe listing XBLA somewhere in the infobox is needed. BW21.--Black Watch 21 01:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes; that's my point - that XBLA games can come on a disc so just saying "Download" in the media box isn't enough. Still prefer Xbox 360 (XBLA) as the most easy to recognize differentiation. –xeno^talk 04:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it definitely needs to be somewhere in the infobox, but the difficulty is finding a way that will work consistently for all games. Games like Pain or Burnout which are released for download and on disc would break the CONSOLE(ONLINE SERVICE) method. Also, when PS1 or Xbox classics are released for download, what would be stated for them? I don't really like the idea of a game like Spyro 2's platforms being shown as PlayStation, PlayStation 3, PSP because it might imply that there's a PSP/PS3 version of the game when in fact it's just running in a PS1 emulator. The platform should be PlayStation. Maybe something like Distribution should be added as an either/or to Media. If a game is a straight-forward disc game, use Media to list DVD, Blu-ray Disc and if it's more complicated, use [Distribution method(s): DVD, Blu-ray Disc, PlayStation Store download] (or something similar). This would work for Classics as well because it would be clear that the game is being distributed through these channels, but it's not necessary an upgraded remake. Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 07:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Does Sony have a special name for what Microsoft calls XBLA titles? For Burnout Paradise, it should be PlayStation 3, and Media: Bluray, Download (XBLM/PSN). What I am looking for here is a way to not confuse distribution method with game type. XBLA games are not full retail games (Burnout Paradise is). –xeno^talk 18:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Reminder: Can I just remind everyone that this discussion goes wider than just PSN and XBLA, we need to find a solution that will work for all of the download services listed in the Games & Software section of Template:Digital distribution platforms. That's at least 30 different services and with the bitesize games appearing on multiple platforms, the infobox will get cluttered in no time at all if every single distribution service is listed. - 89.206.151.211 (talk) 08:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Not all download services are notable. PSN, XBLA, WiiWare and Steam are generally the only notable ones. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 12:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

(reply applies to both Chimpanzee and Megata) The problem here is that "XBLA" is not a "Distribution method" (the method is XBLM, but it could also be disc as I demonstrated above). XBLA is a type of game: it is a game played on the Xbox 360, but it is not quite a "full" Xbox 360 game. Distribution method and "game type" is being conflated here. –xeno^talk 12:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. Xbox Live Arcade Unplugged is a actual Xbox 360 title, not an XBLA title. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It is a disc that contains several XBLA games. Thus proving that "Download" is not the only vector to deliver an XBLA game and that "Download" as a media type does not properly convey that a game is an XBLA game. XBLA games can come preloaded on the hard disk, can be downloaded, or can be included on a DVD-DL disc. –xeno^talk 17:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It contains games that were previously released as XBLA games, but shouldn't the fact that it's an actual Xbox 360 game be more important? Sega Genesis Collection is available for the PS2 and PSP and so is considered a PS2 or PSP title, despite the fact that it's a compilation of Mega Drive games. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 18:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not an "actual Xbox 360 game"... When you put the disc in, it simply populates a few XBLA titles into the appropriate dashboard section... –xeno^talk 18:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the general consensus above: nearly all games that are from XBLA, PS Store, or Wii-Ware are games on that platform (thus, the field should be 360, PS3, or Wii, respectively), and that the fact they can be download is their distribution type. The only place that something could change here is, say, if there's a PS Home game that strictly is only playing in Home and gains notability to have an article, then the platform becomes "PS Home" (since that's a requirement to play it). TTBOMK, we're not that point yet, so it's a moot point to consider. --MASEM (t) 16:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

XBLA is not analagous to the PS Store, you are thinking of XBLM. XBLA is a type of game, how is it to be denoted in the infobox? I don't think re-inventing the wheel is necessary here. Xbox 360 (XBLA) is accurate an unobtrusive, and has been working fine for years. This edit takes steps towards clearing up this confusion, which is really derailing this discussion. This inconsistency persists throughout the articles. The games are not available on/for the Xbox Live Arcade, they are Xbox Live Arcade games available on the Xbox Live Marketplace... This really stems from the fact that the online market for the original Xbox was called the Xbox Live Arcade, but they've since rebranded that as Xbox Live Marketplace with a subsection for XBLA titles. –xeno^talk 17:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I think using Xbox 360 (XBLA) is the best way of showing the game is from Xbox Live Arcade. Trying to do it another way can cause confusion and as Xeno said, it has worked fine for some time. BW21.--Black Watch 21 18:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Xbox Live Arcade is a platform

...at least according to these folks. So I move to close this discussion in favour of the status quo for XBLA titles.

I'd suggest the PlayStation Project figure out how disambiguate between the several classes of games available for download on the PSN, but with the suggestion that those on this list (PlayStation 3 games only available to download from the PlayStation Store, at a lower price point than full retail games.) be done the same way for consistency (See inconsistency at Worms (2007 video game), for example). –xeno^talk 18:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Those people aren't even reliable sources. It's a distribution method. If we're going to seperate that, we best start seperating all those Microsoft Windows distribution downloads company's have.陣内 _Jinnai 19:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

No, Xbox Live Marketplace is the distribution method. Please read the preceding section. And are you really saying that in ~~14,000+~~ 1,170 hits, you didn't see a single reliable source? (Like this one...) –xeno^talk 19:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 14k+ was without quotes - thanks for pointing this out Conti.

And the moon is made of cheese if we follow xeno's rationale. --Oscarthecat (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the source? –xeno^talk 20:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I only get 1170 hits for that google search. And I get 2 million for "xbox live arcade". 1170 out of two million isn't really saying much. Not to mention that Google searches aren't exactly the most reliable way to settle a discussion, anyhow. --Conti|✉ 20:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and I read the similar article about EA's new "platform" too. So many platforms? --Oscarthecat (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

As said, if it's considered a "platform" then we should consider download ~~only~~ games like Maplestory as separate platforms from Windows or even stuff like Cute Knight separate platform because this isn't just a console issue and should not be framed as such.陣内 _Jinnai 20:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's marketing speak, not a third party. I haven't seen a better way suggested to denote XBLA in the infobox that doesn't confuse game type for distribution vector. Status quo seems fine to me. –xeno ^talk 21:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Status quo is worse than not mentioning it at all because it's applied haphazardly.陣内 _Jinnai 21:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

If PS3 games were to adopt the same model it would be uniform. How does one differentiate a full PS3 game from the ones on the list I linked above? How is this to be communicated in the infobox? –xeno^talk 22:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

What equipment do you need to play and XBLA game? X201 (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Typically you will need at least an internet connection, otherwise you will have to obtain the game by unusual means (limited collections of those on disc, bringing your unit to someone who does have internet, etc.). –xeno^talk 22:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Xbox Live Arcade (and PSN "DL only") is not merely a distribution method

The lines become blurry when crossing over to PC. XBLA may not be a "platform" but neither is it a distribution method. It's a different type of game, I don't want to say "watered down" but there's clearly a difference and it has nothing to do with how the thing gets onto your machine. Especially now that full retail games can be downloaded. –xeno^talk 23:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

My point is it is arbitrary to say "let's do so for consoles, but not PCs (or even handhelds like DSi). The same kind of arguements can be applied for many online games and the reverse is also true that some online games from such are not "watered down" or major in content difference.陣内 _Jinnai 23:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

How shall we denote XBLA in the infobox? –xeno^talk 00:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd say, in spite of concerns of information creep, we may need a new field.陣内 _Jinnai 01:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

That might be one way to go about it. What would it be called? And would it be used by PC articles? As you said, there isn't the same marked distinction in PC games. I also worry that this solution would make it even more problematic for game articles like Bejeweled 2.

Bejeweled 2
Platform(s)	PC (Windows, Mac OS X), Browser (Flash), PDA (Palm OS, Windows Mobile, iPhone OS), Xbox 360 (XBLA), iPod, PlayStation 3 (PSN)

With this infobox, it is very obvious that a "full retail" 360/PS3 game (i.e. ~$60 with the expected depth of gameplay) does not exist for Bejeweled. Suddenly we add a separate parameter, that might not make sense for all the other platforms. Note also other platforms are using bracketed qualifiers as well. I still don't see a problem with how we are doing it now. PSN should probably redirect to an explanation of the game type offered on PSN listed as "downloadable only" in the List of PSN games (or just directly to the list, if no explanation is being written). –xeno^talk 01:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem is that is quite arbitrary. Fate/Unlimited Codes is a fully developed game released for the PS2 and PSP in Japan, but will only be released for the PSN in North America. It's not some "lesser" game. Other games like expansions for Europa Universalis III are only available through online distribution and they aren't "second rate expansions." Your denotion that the use of the distribution equals quality is original reasarch and point-of-view.陣内 _Jinnai 01:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not at all saying they are lesser quality games. In fact, I play XBLA games far more often than Xbox 360 retail games (these days). There is, however, a demarcation, and not one that I have just come up with thru original research, [17] between full retail Xbox 360 games and XBLA games. That the PS3 has additional ambiguities seems like a reason to refine how "multi-Playstation-platform games" are demarcated in the infobox, not to remove useful information from Xbox 360's entry in the platform section of its XBLA library. –xeno^talk 01:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

That infobox xeno put together above looks fine, even if it's not 100% accurate, I'd be up for that becoming a new guideline for infoboxes (I especially like the PC (Windows, OS X) bit). Thanks! Fin ©™ 10:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

How would it be formatted for titles that are both download and physical media eg. GTA PSP. Would it have one entry saying PSP (PSN) or two entries PSP, PSP (PSN) ? are we saying that the Xbox (XBLA) should read as Xbox (including XBLA) (diito for PSN) or does Xbox(XBLA) only represent XBLA? - X201 (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

No, because in this case "PSN" is merely the distribution method, not the class of game. XBLA is only to represent XBLA games (again, XBLA is not a distribution method, that is XBLM).

The only PS3 titles that would need to be bracketed for consistently would be the less-than-full-retail-price download-only PS3 titles on the list I linked above. I don't know if we need to say something like... "(PSN-DL only)" or something. Unfortunately Sony does not have a special name for these games, which is where the ambiguity is coming from).

PSP games would not change, though their Media field should include mention that it is downloadable. –xeno^talk 14:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not needed. I am wholly unconvinced that download channels are considered a platform. Sure, they're a sales platform, a brand platform - but that's not what the field is for. The field designates what hardware or operating system is needed to run the game, not which shop you bought it from - you can put that in the text. Whether or not there is a demarcation between XBLA and retail is irrelevant, what they are not, are different platforms. - hahnch e n 21:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

At last, a voice of reason. Completely agree : XBLA, Steam etc are just download channels. --21:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oscarthecat (talk • contribs)

Once again, XBLA is most definitely not merely a download channel (XBLM is the download channel). After absorbing this key piece of information, where in the infobox shall the fact that it is an XBLA game [18] be noted? This thread is about standardizing the delivery of useful information, not removing it altogether. –xeno^talk 01:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You keep saying that, but noone's said exactly HOW they are different. You still use an X-Box 360 to play them don't you? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

They aren't available on a disc (except in rare cases). They're at an entirely different price point (1 to 26 in some cases [when you factor in the tax!). You can only earn 200 achievement points at launch versus 1000. The depth of gameplay is not expected to be the same as a full retail game (though some of them do shine). You need special hardware to obtain them. Informing the reader of all of this in an efficient manner seems like a good idea to me. And the way we do it now is perfect, elegant, unobtrusive, and to the point. –xeno^talk 02:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant - that doesn't make it a platform. That it's download, and that Microsoft have imposed their own artificial limitations upon the game doesn't make it platform. It runs on the same OS and hardware (platform) as all 360 games do. Platforms have nothing to do with how software is obtained, but where they can be run. That is the point. - hahnch e n 10:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. The platform for an XLBA game is still the 360. It's not a special virtual machine, or anything else like that. There's simply restrictions on size, interactivity with the player, and so forth. There's no problem calling out a game's platform as "Xbox 360 (XBLA)" or "PS3 (PSN)" or "Wii (Wii-Ware)" to denote that aspect of the software, but the platform will always remain the console unit itself. --MASEM (t) 13:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what we do now, and I think it works fine. Cheers, –xeno^talk 17:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

PSN games (the likes of Flow, Worms etc) have got size limitations, they're just not as rigidly enforced as Miscrosoft's limits. They're more of a guideline.- X201 (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Video game sales certification

I've been digging through press releases and reports lately looking for sales information for Anarchy Online. Most of the time I'll only see a vauge statement like "it went gold". I know the RIAA uses a "gold", "platinum", etc. system to describe sales of thier member's albums (Riaa#Sales_certification), but is there a comparable system in the video game industry? I have a sneaking suspision that it's just a marketing tactic with no real numbers behind it. Sebquantic (talk) 18:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Going "gold" in video games has nothing to do with sales, actually. It means that the game is finished and is being sent off for production. (i.e., [19]) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Aha thank you, it all makes sense now.Sebquantic (talk) 19:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

For a little more info, see Software release life cycle#RTM. Flatscan (talk) 04:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The equivalent in the game industry is Sony's "Greatest Hits" or Microsoft's "Platinum Hits" programs. A game has to sell a certain number of copies in order to be re-released with the best-seller label. I'm not aware of certified sales programs for Nintendo or the PC, maybe someone else can say. Ham Pastrami (talk) 23:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe Nintendo uses "Player's Choice," though I'm not sure how the terminology specifically relates to sales. —Ost (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Scratch my back... FAC review

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Turok: Dinosaur Hunter/archive1 is suffering from a lack of reviews. If anyone could go and provide their comments, I would be eternally grateful... plus, if you needed a FAC or GAN or Peer review down the line, you can lord this over me :) Thanks, --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Reading the article now. I'll try to post some comments either today or tomorrow. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC))