Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

WikiProject Video games

Main page

talk

Archives

Archive index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176

Project watchlist

• view
• talk
• edit
• changes

Purging members

The membership list has been around long enough that there are no more people moving their names to Active on any type of regular basis. Should we now send out some type of message to those still Unknown, asking if they would like to continue to be in the WikiProject? I think a month would be long enough to respond, so by the new year, we can remove all those who still have not responded. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I know we have a lot going on in the project right now, but I don't think we should let this get archived without some feedback. Any takers? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC))

There's no harm in sending out a "last warning" before being cut from the list.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like that's as close to consensus as we're going to get.

MrKIA11- can you send out the message or put in a request for Xenobot? Whichever you think is best. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC))

Sorry, I just noticed your response. I'm not really one for words. So if someone else can come up with a good notice, that might be better. I could send out the message, but I think it would be a lot easier for Xenobot. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been busy with other things. How about this:

---

Dear {{BASEPAGENAME}},

You are receiving this message because either [[Category:WikiProject Video games members]] or {{User WPVG}} is somewhere in your userspace, and you are currently listed in the "Unknown" section on the project's member list.

The member list is meant to provide a clearer picture of active membership. It is recommended that you update your status if you plan to regularly:

• Edit video game-related pages in the Article namespace
• Participate in video game-related discussions in the Project namespace (WT:VG, WP:AfD, WP:GAN, etc.)

Members listed in the "Unknown" section will be removed from the membership list and category at the end of January 2010. You may re-add yourself to the active list at any time. Thank you for your help, and we look forward to working with you.

Sincerely, the Video Games WikiProject ~~~~~

---

Feel free to copy edit it as you or others may see fit. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 02:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC))

What about "Dear {{BASEPAGENAME}}" to make it more personalised? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 02:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I like it. Using {{BASEPAGENAME}} is a good idea. And I think it should be signed from the project. Otherwise looks good. Should ask Xeno to send it out? (assuming he hasn't read this already...) MrKIA11 (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Go for it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC))

Ok. I asked him to send out his bot. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

(←) There should be something about removing them from the category as well. --Izno (talk) 23:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Should we just make it "...removed from the membership list and category at the end..."? MrKIA11 (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

List of characters standards

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Character lists

I think this issue is reaching the breaking point; there are about 30 Lists of characters needing cleanup and large disputes on whether or not to delete them. Not to mention that there is basically no distinction between a "list of characters" and a "characters article" (such as Characters of Final Fantasy VIII), because both types feature more than one character in a specific title, but one type can only become Featured lists while the other can become Featured articles. We should decide on a standardized name for all articles about characters, when such articles merit creation, and if the huge amount of List articles needing cleanup (probably because they have long been forgotten) should be merged or deleted due to non-notability. If there isn't consensus, the preservationists will argue with the deletionists for every single article - they tread the line between cruft and notability for being solely about plot content. I suggest setting some kind of system up where you have to demonstrate the characters are notable before creating an article of this type.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree we ought to puzzle out the List of Pokémon (1–20) problem (i.e. it is nigh-impossible to write good content in any format, wtf do we do?) but a bureaucracy is not the way to go. Nifboy (talk) 06:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well some standard would be dandy, because as of now the lists have become a dumping ground of dead character articles to appease people that feel "everything and everyone should be covered" from a series, despite plausibility of real-world reception or anything even possibly tying the series characters together. We do have some great character articles such as List of characters in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow, but for every one we have serveal that list every minor character because someone insists they must be listed and quality be damned, such as List of Paper Mario series characters. Some guideline of some sort to at least exercise would go miles here for sure.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree a standard should be put in place. There is way too many character list dumping grounds for any minor/brief character in games. People attempt to clean this up, merge them or just delete them: but the inclusionists refuse to listen to reason. Then the article gets kept (Paper Mario as one example), and it just sits in bad condition until the next AFD where the process of fighting back and forth resumes. RobJ1981 (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think all articles on groups of characters should be classified as articles and not lists. WP:LISTPURP states that lists are for informational, navigational, or developmental purposes. Based on the descriptions of these things on WP:LIST, characters articles don't fit the bill. I understand there is some flexibility in what you can classify as a list, but I don't think these "List of characters in"/"Characters of" articles can be considered lists. There's too much prose and not enough... list-ness too them.

And with regards to notability, I completely agree that a crackdown is needed. I watch a few characters articles, and they are indeed more or less dumping grounds for the occasional nonsensical babbling. Every once and a while a gem like this finds its way in: With Main Character's soul become the barrier between Nyx and humanity, his body will most likely to fall in eternal slumber. I'm pretty sure this doesn't mean anything at all.

"Characters of" articles need some threshold of notability that at least includes development information and reception. For a game like Persona 3, such development information does not exist. The best you get is a few anecdotes in the Persona 3 art book, about a paragraph of information on seven or eight characters when combined. That article may or may not need to exist, I don't know. I'm sure there's reception to be found, but not a lot of development. In contrast, Characters of Final Fantasy VIII has five paragraphs of development info, other assorted character development info in sections for each character, and two paragraphs of reception. --gakon^{5 (talk / contribs)} 21:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

All right, now we're getting somewhere. I didn't think that character articles fell into the "List" classification either - not only does it give free reign to a lack of sources and citations (List type character articles are the most in need of cleanup/merge/deletion), but it's also confusing. If an article about characters is notable enough to be included, it must follow the article guidelines on notability rather than the list guidelines. I think that all "List of" articles should be either name changed or deleted depending on the possibility of achieving a full article (Characters of FFVIII-style), and afterwards handled on a case-by-case basis to avoid the "plot creep" that happens so often and leads to these kinds of pages. One thing is for certain; there needs to be a crackdown before every. single. video game in Wikipedia has its own crappy character page.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Any more suggestions? I don't want this to go unanswered as it's very important.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Paper Mario slipped through with no consensus again. There are a number of people who want these sort of twisting-in-the-wind articles to persist, although many of them aren't actually invested in improving them. I don't see why these articles don't go away based on the most basic premise of notability alone: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. None of the characters of any Paper Mario game have received such suitable coverage.

Perhaps we can draw up a list of every "Characters of"/"List of characters in" article and "assess" them to see if they're notable. The problem is that some may be potentially notable (development/reception info exists but is not in the article), while others will never pass notability. Also, something should be written for lists of characters and added to WP:VG/GL. In my mind, a character list is probably notable if development and reception information exists. It's just like single character articles in that regard. --gakon^{5 (talk / contribs)} 02:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

A no consensus does not preclude a merge and redirect, however. There was little reason given against a merge, to which even one of the keepers acceded would be a better choice than deletion. --Izno (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This is really bothersome. I don't see how it actually survived besides the reviewer focusing on the number of people wanting it kept and not the strength of their arguments. I guess we either try to merge content, or wait five months to reopen the discussion since it'll be ignored for the entire time. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going to suggest a comprehensive assessment but you beat me to it. I'll get it going at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Character lists, starting with Category:Lists of video game characters. Nifboy (talk) 02:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of having an incredibly large page, perhaps instead of a table we can give each article a subsection and allow editors to discuss each one. That at least makes it easier for multiple people to chime in on a contentious article. --gakon^{5 (talk / contribs)} 03:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Let that be for the talk page, imo. People can bring up contentious lists there. --Izno (talk) 03:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I used a table primarily because I'm hoping assessment won't be contentious, and I explicitly don't want to run the usual five-page AfD discussion on all 300 articles. Nifboy (talk) 03:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Assessment, in the sense of the assessment scale, sure. I'm more interested in assessing notability, though, not the quality of the article. This is because the former is a rationale for the deletion, not the latter. Of course, that section of arguments to avoid also notes that "an article which may currently be poorly written, poorly formatted, lack sufficient sources, or not be a comprehensive overview of the subject, can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws...the remedy for such an article is cleanup, not deletion." --gakon^{5 (talk / contribs)} 01:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

What I wonder is how we are to determine which of these articles, most of which lack any secondary sources, are notable for inclusion. Are we allowed to say "this article does not assert notability, delete; come back when you have sources"? You'd think an AfD discussion would prompt people to seek out third-party information (in this scenario, development/reception info, once again). That's how it works everywhere else on this website, and yet Paper Mario slipped through without anyone asserting notability. --gakon^{5 (talk / contribs)} 01:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the reason I wanted to do just assessment right now is to get a birds-eye view of the problem, before we start getting ourselves tangled up in the never-ending argument that is WP:FICT. Once that's done, what I was planning was treating it like a backlog, where the objective was to get every one of them up to at least C-class; Only once that's attempted would I start looking to cut out the worst of the worst. Nifboy (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm wondering if I should set the table up for B-class criteria and assess them that way? Or should we just do "needs cleanup Y/N" and leave space for comments? Nifboy (talk) 04:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Decided to use normal assessment cats for now. Nifboy (talk) 05:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Done assessing for tonight. Will continue sometime tomorrow. Nifboy (talk) 05:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If they are not lists then why is the category "List of video game characters"? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 14:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Because they're not really lists in the sense that WP:LIST provides, even if there isn't a better English word to use for character lists, which are basically articles about multiple related things. Like the word "notable", our internal usage of the word is mangled and is currently accepting applications for a better alternative. Nifboy (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

While WP:V covers these articles, WP:N doesn't. Even the WP:FICT proposal does not seek to cover character lists. That said, certain things can be used to help ween these lists one of which is to use FLC's suggested guideline of 10 in most cases (this is a general rule, not an absolute). If a game only has 9 characters of note, maybe it needs to be merged if most don't have much info and (almost) no sources.陣内_Jinnai 01:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

There's really no problem with deleting the articles and moving the information to a gaming wiki or Wikia page. I don't see how information preservation comes into the picture when the info can be moved somewhere else where contributors are free to add as much specific info as they want. But otherwise, they should be judged not as list articles, but as regular ones.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

They still fall under the criteria of list articles. We can't just decide that here because we have overlapping wikiprojects who many of these articles will conflict with and who do not use them as such.陣内_Jinnai 02:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Pound for pound, the character lists under this project are solely related to this project, so we should be able to set a standard for them without (too much) incident. Something at the very least could and should be done given we have 90+ articles that really are just extreme plot analysis.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

If you're talking about MoS organization and clariffying a bottom threshold for what constitutes a "trivial" character that's probably fine. However, getting pages with a bunch of plot-important characters merged back into the main article will almost certainly be met with stiff resistance on talk pages and AfDs because character lists, for better or worse, are "dumping grounds" for characters that fail the WP:GNG, but need some amount of explanation as they are still nessasary to understanding the work as a whole and whose article would be too large if they were all merged back in.陣内_Jinnai 03:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't planning on doing any BOLD work on these lists, but a batch of articles on GTA gangs was just so flat-out bad and unsalvageable that I couldn't hold off on redirecting them. Old versions for posterity: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Nifboy (talk) 22:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Pokemon

One thing that's always bothered me was the Pokémon lists. They may or may not fall under it; while one list may have enough notable characters on said list, another may have none. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we can agree that Pokemon is notable enough that we shouldn't start deleting non-notable Pokemon. And really, either we remove non-notable Pokemon (not a very good idea) or we just list them by name and link them to the corresponding Bulbapedia article (but Wiki doesn't allow that, so...)--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the Pokemon lists are fine how they are. If we removed some, then people would argue that certain ones are notable, and there would be no real way to do it. For sanity, we should leave it alone. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

As plot-heavy as those lists are I like how they cross-reference a lot of the various Pokemon media. We're in agreement those lists aren't where cleanup effort is due anyway. Nifboy (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting anything be done. I am, however, suggesting that someone else would from these new guidelines. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

We can cross that bridge when we get to it, but right now, the Pokemon lists are actually comparatively well organized compared to most of the other lists out there. The large majority of them are Start-class and their prospects aren't looking too good. We should figure out what do do with all this stuff. Maybe a comprehensive transwiki program?--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

That might be an idea. The only other idea I've had was organizing by type, which could provide a means to organize them together by reception [ie, a fire Pokémon would be covered by the reception of said type]. Just an idea. ~.~ - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that organization by type would work, since some Pokemon have multiple types. But what I meant was, we should focus on the miscellaneous lists before trying to do anything Pokemon related. After all, the Pokemon lists were created for a reason.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the general size of those indivisual lists, I think we could merge 2-4 (ie anywhere from 40, 60 or 80) in a list and still not be close to violating WP:SIZERULE. In fact, currently the opposite is true as most of those are below the 40k mark. Furthermore, baring Wikipedia technical limitations, lists are completely exempt from WP:SIZE.陣内_Jinnai 02:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The biggest problem the Pokemon lists face is that, well...after a certain point almost none of them have reception. Those that had the most impact were clearly and hands down the original 151152. Once you go beyond those the reception quickly dies off and you have a harder time able to say "these are notable enough to even mention" beyond the obvious fact they should be covered to understand the thing as a whole.

In other words it eventually just gets to one big mess nobody's sure of how to properly deal with, we just all know it should be.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Cleaning up list of character articles

So, now that we're more than halfway done assessing the articles, what are everyones' opinions on what should be done with them? It looks like there are far too many start-class articles to simply clean up and many of them don't have any references. There are a relatively small number that are C ranked and only a few B ranks as well as a couple of FA's.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

A good number just need the effort put in, as with the Half-Life, Brothers in Arms, Splinter Cell character articles, etc, they've simply lacked someone with experience coming in and building up the article properly. There are ones that should be disposed of entirely, others that should be merged together rather than having them for individual games in a series, but there's no such thing as "too many to clean up": no deadline remember? -- Sabre (talk) 10:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is basically twofold: When a list is split out from a game/series article it never takes any WP:WAFFLES (otherwise known as out-of-universe information) with it. Likewise, when a character earns enough waffles to level up to "separate article" status, it takes all its waffles with it, usually leaving the list back at zero. So, especially in cases like Nathan Drake (character) (GA) -> List of characters in the Uncharted series (Start), it should be a relatively easy task to extend the character's summary to include some reception and development information, and if the main article has any relevant info, that should also carry over. That would get more than a few of them up to just-barely-passing-class. As for where I would start cutting, I'd start with lists where the main article and references give little or no emphasis on characters at all. Nifboy (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't deal in deletion often, and I poked around WP:DEL, but since I'm not sure, I'll ask here. If a character list is presumed to not be notable (such as List of characters in AdventureQuest, which has zero OOU information), is it our job to seek out sources and test notability, or can we prod the article to try and motivate other people to do it? It seems like, with such a large group of people who want these articles around (or at least, large enough that a fiction article can pass AfD without any claims to notability), it should be their job to maintain the quality of these articles. Cleanup should come after its established that OOU info exists for a given article. --gakon^{5 (talk / contribs)} 18:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess I keep forgetting a lot of these articles will end up as a merge and redirect, but really, with most of these articles, there isn't much to merge. It's all overly-detailed fiction stuff that doesn't necessarily have a place in a game article. So it's more or less deleting the article. --gakon^{5 (talk / contribs)} 18:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It's technically not your job to do so, but would certainly be appreciated by those involved. A common comment in AfDs for character lists is that the nominators don't "help save" it. If you did even a basic search for sources before taking something to AfD and outlined your search in the nomination, I sure that would make the whole process much easier. Basically, you'd preemptively address the most common objective before the opposition says it. The more thorough the search, the stronger the rationale. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC))

Most admins at AfD won't touch merge discussions with a ten-foot pole anymore, so I wouldn't bother with that route. Use your own discretion on how much due diligence/research is necessary, and how much of it should be merged before redirecting. Nifboy (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

If it's possible and you can "get away with it" (I use that phrase tentatively), merge and redirect preemptively rather than through AfD. There are too many people hanging around that want lists simply because they want lists. And, if that would have been the outcome at AfD, as Nifboy points out, [most] admins won't touch it beyond closing the AfD as a no consensus (which is not the ideal target). --Izno (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

If a list hasn't been greatly edited in a good while, I think you should redirect it, then if someone objects, then AfD. No reason to AfD a dead article. AfD is just for settling disputes somewhat and if you think something is bad, but you aren't sure. If somebody cares about an article, then give them a deadline. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 20:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Some quick stats:

• 2 FAs
• 1 A
• 3 GAs
• 3 Bs (including one FL)
• 25 Cs
• 185 Start
• 3 Stub
• 5 Redirected during assessment
• 6 Lists

= 233 total, about 80% of which are badly in need of a cleaning. If you also count C-class, Sturgeon's Law applies. Nifboy (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You can always PROD a dead article instead. I don't think there is a need to redirect these pages as most people don't actively search for "list of XX characters", not to mention that someone could always reverse the merge and re-create a crufty page.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Most of the ones I was thinking of prodding have already been prodded by TTN and deprodded by DGG. Nifboy (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

So, is a mass deletion in order? I really don't know if it's possible to individually reference each one.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been busy but I was going to start drafting a "short list" of lists where the surrounding articles don't give any indication that characters are at all worth discussing. I'd take them individually after that: Mass deletion of anything never goes well. Nifboy (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Short list is up: 30-some articles that, essentially, I think WP:SIZE doesn't justify a split out. Nifboy (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

While we're here, I have a side question that's related-ish. Should character summaries be written assuming the reader is already familiar with the plot of the game? --gakon^{5 (talk / contribs)} 02:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I would assume no, considering character summaries usually come before the plot info. That's just me, though.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I would assume yes, because I assume someone clicked to the character article from the main article. Also, because character articles are subsets of game articles, they're meant to be more detailed, in this case with plot. It's supplementary information that helps the reader understand the main plot, outlined in the main game article. I dunno, though. Maybe WP:SUMMARY contains the answer. --gakon^{5 (talk / contribs)} 04:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I would assume no, because maybe the reader is looking for context (e.g. GameFAQs character contest: who the heck is that dude in the tv?) or maybe they've only played partway through one game in a series. On the other hand, I'd stress that retelling the plot of the game is not what character articles/lists are for. Nifboy (talk) 06:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Character summaries in lists should be written from a plot-agnostic point-of-view - we should be providing the general character traits, any necessary backstory to understand those traits if they are not already explained through a plot, and when necessary mentioned an event in a game plot that drastically alters the character (eg the character suddenly gains superpowers midway through game X of a series that says with the characters indefinitely). We should avoid stating "this character appears in games X, Y, and Z" or "in game X, the character appears as ...", instead going for the very general appearance and only outlined exclusion game appearances or extraordinary differences from other games. --MASEM (t) 06:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright, that makes sense. In my case I'm working on Characters of Persona 3 and found that, when writing the "biography" of the main character, at some point I started retelling the plot of the game. For this character only though, because the major events leading up to the end of the game more or less revolve around him. With this game in particular, there are several events (deaths of characters) not covered in the Persona 3 article, because ultimately they only impact characters and not the outcome of the story. --gakon^{5 (talk / contribs)} 18:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I say just write as much biography as you think is necessary, and it can be trimmed later. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Several of the 30 short-lists have already been dealt with. Some of them have more complex issues like having a lot of crossover character like List of .hack characters (which i readily admit needs work and i'm doing so) and thus may fall under WP:AVOIDSPLIT as well as running into problems with duplicating plot information if they are merged all back together. Not saying that such pages can go without sourcing, but some care may be needed for merging series pages with multiple crossover characters that play important roles in many of the games and other media.陣内_Jinnai 20:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I've read most of the discussion, but I didn't see anything about: Characters in The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time mentioned. I think a merge or just sending it to AFD might be the best route. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

No references... it's probably best to merge.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Plot copyedit request

Can I request someone good with plot sections take a look over the plot section of Tales of Monkey Island? Its around 800-900 words now, having been brought down from some 1,300 words. Although its a plot section covering five releases, thanks to episodic gaming, I'd quite like to lose at least another 100 or so words in the cause of conciseness. However, I'm rather naff at properly crafting word-efficient plot sections, so I'd really appreciate a third party giving it a check over. -- Sabre (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look tomorrow. If I forget, ping or troutslap me. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Question regarding WarioWare: Snapped!

My question is, is it appropriate for cover/logo to be switched with a screenshot of the game because the user feels that the "Cover does little to demonstrate the article". This to me sounds similar to the arcade discussion on screenshot vs flyer and so on. Any oppinions. Salavat (talk) 15:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

In the case of screenshot versus flyer, the flyer actually demonstrates quite a bit, while the image used in WarioWare Snapped! demonstrates so little. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a logo is supposed to "demonstrate" any gameplay aspect, just what the logo looks like.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Zxcvbnm; the cover/logo is there for identity purpose. Just because the cover does little to demonstrate the article it doesn't mean it should be replaced with a gameplay image. The same goes for Pong Toss, which was also done by the same user. The Prince (talk) 02:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Logo should definitely be used here. That screenshot is out of place and honestly pretty confusing in that context. --Torsodog^Talk 15:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Jewel Box (video game)

OK, I know that when I created Jewel Box (video game), it was of dubious notability. I figured, what the hell, start it and we'll see what happens. It's been PRODded, so no real surprise there, but I figured I might as well do some due diligence and try to save my little creation. ;) First of all, I went back and re-read the original review on which I based the article, to get some clues. I'll post it here since the review is very short:

"I’m the Mac aficionado of the household, so my next recommendation is another Mac game, though I’m certain there’s an IBM version as well. It’s called Jewel Box (by Varcon Systems) and it comes as part of a three-game package of arcade challenges. It’s so good that I have yet to tire of it, and still haven’t looked at the other two games that came with the package. Gameplay is vaguely similar to that of Tetris from Spectrum Holobyte, in that colored gems fall from the top of the screen and you must manipulate them to form patterns that erase themselves. When the playing area fills up with gems, the round is over. But Jewel Box is not just a clone—it has intriguing rules all its own, including special gems that cause amazing things to happen, and beautiful sound and graphics. Dee’s rating: * * * ½"

There is one immediate clue which stands out that I hadn't really spent a lot of time on before: it was part of a "package of arcade challenges". Ah, that might explain why Google doesn't come up with anything, especially if the reviewer got the name wrong. Possibly, they also got the number of games in the package wrong. The closest thing I could come up with on Google was the Mac Arcade Pak, which has the publication info matching well, but to use that we must assume that either the reviewer got the name and number of games in the package wrong, or that the package he was looking at was a slightly different variant release or something. In this case, BrickLayer as described there, sounds awfully similar to the description we have of "Jewel Box" from Dragon mag.

So, what does this do for notability? Ah, I will tell you! It looks like Hasbro sued the hell out of the developer Varcon for producing so many knockoffs, so that's something isn't it? So the question becomes, for anyone who might want to help me out, can we find out if "Jewel Box" was really a misnamed or renamed "BrickLayer", and if so then what do we do about the article in question, if there is anything that can be done? Any takers? :) BOZ (talk) 04:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Man, I imagine it'd be a bitch to even come up with a good search term for that name. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Through Google books "preview mode" that only shows 4 or 5 lines of text in a very non-readable way, I managed to scrape a bit of text about this game.

"The best of the bunch, Jewelbox, is now a commercial game published by Varcon Systems. It deserves special praise, not only for its nice graphics and music, but also for its packaging. Instead of the shelf-hogging cardboard boxes most games come packed in, Jewelbox (like Varcon's other games) comes in a re-useable suede bag."

The book: "Everything you wanted to know about the Mac" By Larry Hanson - Edition 2 (December 1993) - 1232 pages - ISBN-10: 1568300581 - ISBN-13: 978-1568300580

PS: They spell the game name as "Jewelbox" all in one word. NeoGenPT (talk) 07:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Found a small reference to it on another book also on Google books.

"In addition, there are games such as Jewelbox (Varcon Systems) that pay homage to Tetris while extending the concept in new directions."

The book: "Managing infotech in school library media centers" By Laurel Clyde - 1999 - 290 pages (text is in page 158) - ISBN-10: 1563087243 - ISBN-13: 978-1563087240 NeoGenPT (talk) 07:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

And to finalize a couple of websites that have small references to it

http://www.idbcg.com/Games/J/Jewel_Box.php (Jewel Box in two words again... what is the correct spelling after all?)

http://crydee.sai.msu.ru/ftproot/pub/rec/games/unsorted/faqs/Mac.arcade.game.faq (Shows the minimum requirements of the game on the second list)

Can anyone can get hold and check out Mac magazines of the time to see if it shows up on a review or something about it? NeoGenPT (talk) 07:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice digging NeoGen. Unfortunately though, I don't think the two web sites meet WP:RS. :-\

Macworld may have been the only major Mac magazine from back then, which would make searching enough more difficult. I'm not a Mac guy though, so I'm not really sure. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC))

Yea, I figured those websites would be shady, but I posted them anyway for you guys here to see. That review that BOZ found for the game mentions it's in a pack of three, it must have been a compilation of games from Varcon, but I couldn't find anywhere mentioning it. NeoGenPT (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! I didn't think this one was going to be even remotely salvagable... who would have thunk that it was just an alternate name or misspelling that was the problem. Do the books help with the notability factor? I don't think the websites will be useful, other than to confirm that other people had heard of the game as well. Well, I added a bit to the article to strengthen it a bit. BOZ (talk) 03:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewelbox (video game) - there were no sources in that article though, so nothing worth merging in. BOZ (talk) 20:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Citing on screen text

What is the best way to cite text on a screen, such as credits, for a game. The template {{Cite video game}} seems to be more for dialogue so I was wondering if there is a more appropriate template to use. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 15:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

For credits at least, cite the game manual rather than the game, or check credit sections on websites such as Allgame for a web-based reference. -- Sabre (talk) 15:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

MobyGames is reliable for game credits also. They don't do arcade games though. GameSpot is another option, but I've found them to be hit and miss when it comes to finding the desired credit. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC))

Always a problem with older games, I have no access to a manual, and there is no listing for it on either allgame or Moby Games. The only screen I have seen is a title screen with the writer's name on it. This is for Grand Prix Manager (1984 video game) AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 18:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I have the same problem with Formula One (1985 video game), the guy who made the port to amstrad CPC left his name as credits in-game but I can't find any references of it anywhere. For the time being I left a reference saying "appears in game" but that won't be valid I'm sure.

I don't think it will be, it's just a shame that there isn't always quite enough information freely available on retro games, sometimes only just enough to establish notability. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to throw a shot in the dark here but... does anyone think we could invoke WP:IAR? in cases like this were there is no other source to get the info except the primary source that we are not allowed to? NeoGenPT (talk) 13:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Aye, I'd say that would be acceptable. Its for instances such as this that IAR exists. Its encyclopedic information that adds to the article, but if there's no other source, then that should be fine. -- Sabre (talk) 13:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the rationale above for using {{cite video game}} for citing credits. Though I don't think ignore all rules is necessary because per WP:PRIMARY, primary resources are within the rules. "Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." (Guyinblack25 ^talk 01:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC))

That's great then! :) I figure this is one of those things we should have enlisted in a FAQ on the video games project page, as it will probably be asked over and over again as new users (like myself) come around. I confess I have only grasped the basic concepts and rules of wikipedia yet, there are so many different rules and policies for so many situations that it gets hard to understand at times. NeoGenPT (talk) 02:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Even the long-time editors here can't keep up with all the policies. I wasn't even sure of my answer until I double checked the policy page. And I check WP:RS first before it pointed me to WP:NOR :-p

To be honest, I don't think this particular issue has come up before. So like you said, it's good to sort something like it out here for other and future members. Mentioning it on WP:VG/RS wouldn't be a bad idea. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 02:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC))

Sourcing

Over at Vagrant Story, Shaunomacx insists on citing OneLastContinue.com for the statement on the game being released for the PSN PAL. I found Kotaku mentioning this and used it as source since Kotaku's mentioned as a somewhat reliable source per WP:VG/RS. But Shaunomacx reverted it, saying that OneLastContinue mentioned it hours before Kotaku, and is the original source for the statement. I noted that the author for the article in OneLastContinue.com is Shaun McIlroy, who I think is the very same user. I don't want this to become a 3RR, so what to do? — Blue。 15:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

We, frankly, don't care if some other blog posted the same information hours or years beforehand: We'd rather have the most reliable sources available. Another alternative would be to link to a copy of the press release as hosted by e.g. gamershell. Nifboy (talk) 16:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks like most of this user's editing in the last month involves working One Last Continue into articles, either via sourcing or actually inserting the site's name into the article. --Torsodog^Talk 16:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The normal drill I use is to revert twice with explanations in the edit summary. The second time I revert, I try to mention starting a discussion on the talk page and start a thread for them to respond to. If they don't respond, I post a note on their talk page about the discussion and ask them to participate. If they still continue to revert, I ask for admin assistance.

A bit troubling and out of the way, but it assumes good faith and gives them plenty of chances to discuss it. Either they try to discuss it with you or the admin will probably block them for disruptive editing. I've found that both outcomes generally bring the matter to an end. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC))

Undue Weight argument in Talk:Virtual Console

Figured I'd mention this here in case anyone was interested in weighing in on the discussion. There is an argument going on in Talk:Virtual Console (right now mainly between User:RetroRalph and myself) about whether we're giving undue weight to Virtual Console by listing release dates for emulated games on that service. Ralph asserts that VC is just an emulator, in the same class as "other emulators" (though he's failed to give me any concrete examples - just referring generically to PC-based emulators), and that these other emulators are in fact more notable than Virtual Console. He's gone on to accuse "us" (editors in general, probably myself included) as having an "alliance" with Nintendo such that we give Nintendo free advertising for the service.

I've been arguing back that Virtual Console is both a set of emulators AND a distribution service, and as such we credit official release dates on the service (treating it like a platform) the same way we do for things like Xbox Live Arcade, Namco Museum, etc. I've pointed out that the fact that you can dump just about any ROM from any system and play it on a freeware emulator is not a notable fact of any particular game, but the fact that a game has been specifically released for something like Virtual Console IS a notable event in that game's history. This doesn't seem to be satisfactory for the guy I'm arguing with.

I have an open question out to him right now, asking for examples of other emulators we're not paying enough attention to and on what basis he asserts their notability. If anyone wants to contribute to the discussion after that, I'd welcome it, and meanwhile, I'd welcome discussion here as well. Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, an SPA too... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

In the interest of good faith, I'm not willing to say quite yet that he's ONLY ever going to just argue this one point. I think he has some valid points in his arguments, but that he's misinterpreting the nature of that service or misdirecting his efforts. S'why I'm trying to explain it to him. But he is proving to be pretty stubborn, and I'm only going to give him a little more time before I'll call him out on it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I've had a quick look and yes, RetroRalph does make a few valid points. It stems back to the debate before on whether to state in the infobox that a game has been released on Wii, Xbox 360 etc, Virtual Console, XBLA etc, or to just mention it is available for download with details about the release in the article (see archived discussion). It may pan out to be a completely different arguement but there are a few points in there that may be useful in this situation. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 22:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Issue over console role-playing games

Talk:Console role-playing game#merge and rename with Crmatell about usage of the term. Much of his evidence he is trying to use to support is based on synthesis of GameFAQs data pages which he is claiming because those pages are reliable sources that combing info from them to come up with a statement is not original research. He uses much of similar type listing evidence to support the content forking of this article and Computer role-playing games from the main article. IMO there is not enough evidence to support this as anything more than a POV forking. What evidence from RSes that isn't synthesis that is given focuses more on the east/west divide not the console/pc divide.

As to the issue of the usage, I am not disputing that console-rpgs are used as by the media, but rather that their usage is not consistent. Furthermore, every citations he uses are just examples basically "This game is listed as a console rpg. Therefore based on this we can define what a console rpg is."陣内_Jinnai 21:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

IMHO there should only be something like a general "RPG" article (probably already exists but I'm too lazy to search), and inside that subsections describing differences between console RPG/PC RPG/Action RPG/MMORPG/whatever-else-RPG.

"Role Playing Game" is a genre of game, and as such it is independent of the medium in which it is played, it may be on consoles, PCs, or even board games or pen and paper possibly. But again reminding, this is just my $0.02 on the subject. I am not an expert on the subject whatsoever. NeoGenPT (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with NeoGenPT on classification of RPGs in general: All of the subgenres of RPGs (MMOs, Action, turn-based, board-based, etc.) are just that: Subgenres - they're based on the generic RPG concept and have different means of execution, but many common elements. So it makes sense to have a general RPG article that talks about the common points of the genre as a whole, then breaks down the common subgenres and discusses what (in general) makes them stand out from one another. If you do that, you remove a lot of the terminology contention and give equal weight to everything. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

There is probably enough to create 3 sub-genre articles: tabletop; live-action & video game, but this is best done after some serious cleanup.陣内_Jinnai 08:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds OK to me after reconsideration. SharkD  Talk  17:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Importance of creation info?

While I think that creation info is important, am I wrong in saying that an article with a lot of substance and a strong reception section could get away with light creation info? Honestly, if strong critical reception exists for a subject, I don't think strong creation info NEEDS to be there. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

If such information is nonexistent the article should still have a shot at FA, which IMO is all that matters. Looking through our current FAs I'd say Empires: Dawn of the Modern World is currently the lightest on dev info at two relatively lean paragraphs. Nifboy (talk) 06:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Lack of creation information maybe, but you'd have to probably show that there is a very unlikely possibility from print sources.陣内_Jinnai 08:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I just think that a lot of people really "target" articles for a lack of creation info in regard to character articles especially, even though development info has nothing to do with notability. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The Undue weight section of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view touches on this a little, an article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. NPOV is meant to apply to competing viewpoints on controversial subjects, but this part sounds like it applies to comprehensiveness. That's the only mention I know about of comprehensiveness in a Wikipedia policy. It mainly came about from the Featured article criteria, and a looser version was created for the Good article criteria.

So no, an article doesn't technically need a lot creation and development info, but it would need a decent sized section for a quality rating. The exception would be as Jinnai said above: you'd have to prove that such content just doesn't exist either online or offline. Typically though, FA reviewers are very reluctant to do that.

In regard to splitting off character articles, Wikipedia:Summary style would apply, which relies on the general notability criterion as the deciding point. We started pushing the creation requirement to trim down the number of "bad" character articles, because almost all of them were breeding grounds for trivia and lengthy plot summaries. Now that we have good character articles to use as a gauge, we probably don't have to be as strict. Terry Bogard for example lacks good creation info, but I'd say it has enough to stand on its own. So some of these could probably stand on their own, but I don't see them getting GA or FA without more development content.

Our resident character article expert may have a different viewpoint though. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC))

Actually, Kung Fu's Kefka Palazzo article was one of the things that made me bring this up. Well, that and a list of The World Ends with You characters which I haven't been able to find much creation info except for Neku Sakuraba's creation info and general info on who drew/wrote for the characters, but I'm finding a lot of reception for them. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

MTV Multiplayer blog

I am guessing that this source isn't reliable?

• The Greatest Video Game Horse Revealed, As Chosen By Our Stunningly High-Profile Panel » MTV Multiplayer

Just making sure. It would be nice to add something to Epona and Rapidash. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

MTV Multiplayer Blog is generally reliable. I would through caution, however, for using the specific above post as a means of supporting notability without additional sources for those articles, but if they already are considered notable, then adding that seems ok, but be aware there's a very tongue-in-cheek approach for it. --MASEM (t) 16:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

As the two characters I mentioned have no reception at the moment, I highly doubt that this would be enough to split out an article. It will just help make the list articles look better. Thanks though. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that even adds much to Rapidash to be honest, It definitely gives some pep to Epona though.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Sephiroth (Final Fantasy)

Despite wanting to clean up the article, Fleet Command has been exessively trimming the Sephiroth article leaving only three sentences to his role in FF VII. Even more, his origins and methods get to Lifestream are not mentioned in the article leaving it confusing. He says that such info is fancruft and it does not pass notability even though the notability guidelines refers to what deserves an article. Also, even if notability also applies to these events, third party sources have talked about that. Could you take a look? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah he's overshooting the mark by about a mile there. While you can condense Sephiroth's role a lot to try and avoid major stuff, ShinRa, SOLDIER and Jenova are too integral to the character to be omitted entirely. His statements about some fan hubbub on which is which is irrelevant: we have the Ultimania's confirming Jenova's whole background and relation and so forth. I will say what he left is a good place to build upon though, just flesh out the details that need to be and go from there, I'll do what I can to help when I get home, probably a little on Christmas too since I have it off.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I tried to expand the article, but he has been reverting my edits.Tintor2 (talk) 14:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I got an idea. You should report him to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and see if they can help you. GamerPro64 (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Help/Guidance needed on new browser game article

Note: Reposted from Portal talk:Video games to get more responses. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC))

Hi! The other day, the Facebook game Fish Wrangler was voted the best Facebook Game and best Facebook Application at the Open Web Awards by Mashable. As (I think) that makes it notable, I decided to start up an article.

Only problem is that I am useless at writing articles!

I have put a request on the Fish Wrangler forum boards for help, and I have also asked the game's developer to upload a few images to Wikipedia for us to use in the article. Knowing how passionate the players of the game are about Fish Wrangler (well, I am one of the Wrangler addicts!), it could far too easily become an advert for the game, or an instruction Wiki (we already have one of those).

So, would it be possible for someone to help write the article, or (at the very least) pop over and guive some guidance on good things to include in the article? Having an impartial third party to look over the article from time to time to keep us on the straight and narrow would be very helpful. Thanks! Stephen! ^Coming... 08:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Task forces without open tasks

I noticed that there are a number of task forces that don't have a list of open tasks listed in a todo template. I've added such a template to the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Retro games task force, but it needs to be filled out. What is the use of a task force if there are no tasks listed? If I'm a new user these task forces should point me towards tasks that need to be done. Otherwise they're completely useless. 92.105.250.202 (talk) 14:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

There is an implied open task at every task force: Get all articles up to Featured Article status. Does that help give you a direction? Nifboy (talk) 15:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, the Retro games project was literally just started. It's still being defined in fact. Hold your horses. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Retro video game references

A bunch of 1980's magazines have been scanned here that you can cite: [5] --_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Good find, although they are big files. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

We can cite the magazine material themselves, but can not reference Digital Press or provide direct links to said magazines. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Like game covers?

I know I've said this before but I thought it important to reiterate: you know how Template: Non-free game cover is made so that you put this (|) then the console's name to have the image put in a sub-section specific to the type of game system? Maybe the same thing could be done to this template. If the screenshots were put into console-specific sub-sections, it would make navigating them much easier. Just add the text between the 'nowiki's: <includeonly>{{{category|[[Category:Screenshots of {{{1|Video}}} games|{{PAGENAME}}]] {{#if:{{{2|}}}|[[Category:Screenshots of {{{2}}} games|{{PAGENAME}}]]|}} {{#if:{{{3|}}}|[[Category:Screenshots of {{{3}}} games|{{PAGENAME}}]]|}} }}}</includeonly> To make it easier, maybe Category: Screenshots of video games should be moved to Category: Video game screenshots. By the way, I'd change the template myself but it's completely locked. N. Harmonik (talk) 22:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discussion for video games by designer categories

I have nominated for deletion a series of recently-created video games categories, which group games by the designer. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 28#Video_games_by_designer, where your contributions would be welcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)