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

Project watchlist

• view
• talk
• edit
• changes

Dragon magazine's "The Role of Computers" column - this time I mean business! :)

OK, in a previous thread, I dealt with Dragon's early-80s "The Electric Eye" column, which ran in most issues from Dragon #33-63 and profiled aspects of computers including some video games. I managed to add tidbits to several VG articles (and created stubs for some of them), including early text-based games Civil War and Star Trek, Scott Adams's "Adventure" series (Adventureland, Pirate Adventure, Strange Odyssey, and Ghost Town), as well as other early games Dungeon of Death, Android Nim, and Time Traveller. The column ended abruptly, and I found only two more reviews in the early 1980s, one of which covered Wizardry: Proving Grounds of the Mad Overlord, Akalabeth: World of Doom, and Crush, Crumble and Chomp!, and another which covered Dunzhin.

Oh, but no, I'm not hardly done yet!  :) Dragon's "The Role of Computers" was the second of three computer related columns that I'm aware of, so I'm hitting that next. It started in 1986 in issue #110 and was quite a bit more in-depth than "The Electric Eye" on computer games and ran for much longer. As I had stated previously I was going to add a mention of the column to the article of every game that had been reviewed. The column ran in most issues up through 1993 in issue #196 with "The Lessers" as reviewers. The new column "Eye of the Monitor" began in the following issue; reviewer Sandy Petersen wrote the column from #197-209, and after that the column was either by "Jay & Dee", Lester Smith (once), or any or all of the trio of Ken Rolston, Paul Murphy, and David "Zeb" Cook, and ran in that schizophrenic fashion sporadically from #211-223. I'll take care of "Eye of the Monitor" if I make it through "The Role of Computers" in the first place; not sure what Dragon did after that third column went kaput, but my guess is that they realized other magazines were doing a better job handling computer games, and decided just to just stick to pen and paper.

"The Role of Computers" usually tackled more than one game per issue; since it ran for some 70-80 issues, I'd say that safely puts us into the realm of over a hundred games from 1986-1993! As I've stated earlier, I don't intend to do more than put a blurb into each article with a comment that interested parties can seek me out for more info. Hopefully there is a higher percentage here of games which already have articles, because needing to toss up a stub more than occasionally will definitely slow me down! Issue #110 starts the column off with a review of the MacIntosh version of Wizardry, which I will get to shortly! BOZ (talk) 00:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

1986-1989

I decided to hit up the other reviews from 1986 as well, adding blurbs to Rogue (112), Wizard's Crown (114), and The Bard's Tale (116). I might do 1987 and maybe even more, tonight; we'll see. :) BOZ (talk) 01:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Issue #118 had three reviews. The first one was for OrbQuest, The Search For Seven Wards, from QWare, Inc. for the MacIntosh. I could find absolutely nothing on the internet for this, so I wonder what to do; I will not create a stub at this time since I can't find any additional info. Also reviewed in this column were Roadwar 2000 and World Builder. BOZ (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Got more: The Bard's Tale II (120), the first Might and Magic (122), Realms of Darkness (122, created this one), and Black Magic (124). One thing of note is that just about every "The Role of Computers" column also contains a number of one-to-two paragraph mini-reviews. I have not been touching on these because that would really slow me down, but perhaps at some point I'll go back and catalogue those as well. I'm going to start looking at #126 momentarily; it's worth noting that up through #124, the column was semi-monthly, but #126 states that the column begins going monthly (probably due to its popularity at the time). BOZ (talk) 01:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Issue #126 actually does not contain a review, although it promises an upcoming one for Phantasie III; the column is mostly devoted to talking about the state of the computer gaming industry at the time. #127 similarly contains no review, but discusses in detail the awarding of the AD&D license to Strategic Simulations, Inc.; I'll have to make sure to get back to that one before long! :) #128 features Shadowgate and a few mini-reviews. I think I'll take a break there as that concludes 1987; since 1988 apparently begins the first full year of monthly columns, that should take some work and time. :) BOZ (talk) 02:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I realized that with issue #128 they started giving the games ratings (1-5 stars), so I will be adding that as well from now on. :) I will also add this to any articles with one of those ratings tables, since that will help. Got Tower of Myraglen (129, started this one), Wizardry IV (130, preview), Phantasie III (130), Legacy of the Ancients (131), and Beyond Zork (132) tonight. More to come, sooner or later! :) BOZ (talk) 02:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

First time for this, but I figured it was just a matter of time! Quarterstaff from #133 already has the review noted in article - one less for me to do. ;) Added blurbs to Dream Zone (134, started this one), Alternate Reality: The City and Alternate Reality: The Dungeon (135), Dungeon Master (136), and my personal favorite: Ultima V: Warriors of Destiny (137). Will be back before long to finish off 1988. BOZ (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Got Star Command (138, started this one). #139 had no column; 140 had several smaller (less than one page) reviews. You know, I have been skipping all the smaller reviews less than one page so far, so I think I'll do the same here. I'll try to come back and get all of these, depending on just how long it takes me to get through all the featured reviews. Will start 1989 before long - hopefully tonight! BOZ (talk) 23:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Issue #141-142 featured smaller reviews on a number of games; I've skipped them for now, but I'm definitely starting to feel like I'm going to have to make an effort to make a "second trip around" on this column and pick back up on stuff like that. :) #143 I've already taken care of, as part of my plan to take Pool of Radiance down the path to GA. :) When I got to #144, I realized that the smaller reviews might be getting to be a trend, so I'll try to do at least the first game reviewed: I did Arkanoid (144), Wizardry V: Heart of the Maelstrom (145), and Might and Magic II: Gates to Another World (146). Will conclude 1989 before long! BOZ (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Got these: J. R. R. Tolkien's War in Middle-earth (147), Hillsfar (147), Prophecy: The Fall of Trinadon (148), Curse of the Azure Bonds (149), the original Populous (150), Silpheed (151), and Dragon Wars (152). That concludes 1989, and I'll begin 1990 before long. :) Enjoying this so far at all? BOZ (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

1990-1993

Got Their Finest Hour: The Battle of Britain (#153), Mines of Titan (#154), Citadel: Adventure of the Crystal Keep (#155, started this one), Champions of Krynn (#156), skipped #157 for now, and finished with Bomber (#158, started this one as well). Will get more soon, but not necessarily tonight! BOZ (talk) 00:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Got Loom (#159). BOZ (talk) 03:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion clarity

Content disputes, merger proposals, problematic editors, articles for deletion and edit wars are often linked to from this talk page. Editors want another pair of eyes to look over the discussion, or someone to fight the flames. This is completely legitimate, but some call it callous to discuss such matters almost behind people's backs, as they would not know of the ongoing discussion here were they not to specifically look for it. To an extent, I expect many of us agree that sometimes it appears more like a call to arms, and isn't very inviting.

We need more clarity (buzzword) to what we're discussing, and it's essential that we make people aware of our threads, so they don't feel we're working like an underground gang of editors. For this reason, I propose that we have a standardised format to link back to our discussions here, which we can implement manually or through a template. This would allow absolute clarity in such matters.

At my sandbox, I've rolled down a little example of how such links could look. They are added directly after the heading of the thread in question, and are signed and dated (preferably by the editor who first posts here, but anyone will suffice). The text can vary, but it should always contain a link to the thread on this page. The link should always be in the same place (the start or the end? Discuss formatting below) and should contain a standard caption ("WikiProject Video games"?). The message itself can be changed for clarity.

Ultimately, this allows people who join the conversation to quickly see what we've said about it here, and recognise the history behind the discussion. I feel this sort of standardised message is important to ensure people recognise what we're up to. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 22:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that linking discussions is becoming a problem. We already have a similar template (Template:VG-Discussion), however, I'm not sure how much it is actually being used. Perhaps an edit notice on our talk page to remind editors to use it or something similar and to properly link discussions would help. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC))

That would float my boat very nicely indeed. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 22:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

How about this for the edit notice?

"This WikiProject talk page is for discussing improvements to video game-related articles and guidelines. If you came here seeking guidance and additional point of views for general topics, content disputes, incivility, etc., please be sure to link to the relevant page(s) and discussion(s) as well as provide a link here on the relevant page(s) the discussion originated."

Feel free to copy edit and expand the text.

I believe because it is in the project namespace, an admin will have to create the notice. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC))

Yeh, sure. Anything will do, but it would be nice to have a link to the template you suggested above. People are much more likely to do something if they can copy and paste a template than if they had to write out a link. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 15:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with edit notices, but can they include wikilinks? Linking to the discussion template would be a big help for that. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC))

Any admins in the house that can create the notice? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:56, 24 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)

Texts copied from the Super Mario Wiki (2nd)

Sorry for not answering in this section, but I'd like to bring the issue up again since it wasn't solved: A major part of the article Good-Feel was copied from the Super Mario Wiki article of the same name. In the Mario Wiki, the article was written by me. It was copied by a user to Wikipedia without giving proper attribution. The Mario Wiki uses the GNU-FDL as its license, and there are problems to copy such materials since Wikipedia replaced the GNU-FDL with a CC license. I have no prolem with making the text available under the CC license as well if that is allowed, but only with proper attribution, which is currently not the case. How can that be done when the article was already created months ago? And then there's also the article Yakuman DS, copied from Mario Wiki without any attribution (but not written by me). --Grandy02 (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

They're just stubs, I really don't see why you would want the material attributed to you when it is liable to be re-written anyway. I mean, if someone copied a whole article, I would probably add something on the talk page, but for articles this small, I wouldn't bother.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is short, and I wouldn't have bothered if the author based it on the Mario Wiki article or copied only a sentence, but the problem is that everything was copied word by word starting with "The company was founded." No, I'm not narcissistic, but I just want things to meet with Wikipedia's guidelines. If someone copied around 100 words unchanged without attribution from IGN or another big name, I bet that wouldn't be tolerated. If it is alright, I'd write in the Good-Feel article under References something like "This article incorporates information from the Super Mario Wiki" (as well as in the Yakuman DS article), and case is closed. Okay? --Grandy02 (talk) 09:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You might want to take this someplace higher up, such as one of the Village Pumps. SharkD (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You could just put the attribution on the talk page instead.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Since it isn't that much text, I don't think this needs to be discussed at the Village Pump. I think I will put a hint in the references list or maybe on the talk page tomorrow. Thanks for your answers. --Grandy02 (talk) 17:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Phantasy Star Zero.jpg

TJ Spyke is consistently reverting this image from the European cover art which was uploaded first by Calamity-Ace to a box art which has the "RP" rating on it. The VG guidelines even say "unless another English language version has been uploaded first in which case don't change it." He keeps reverting anyway though, citing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Can someone please help out; I don't want to engage in an edit-war. The Prince (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The "don't change it" rule was so we wouldn't get shit like this. Spyke's excellent reasoning for the change is - "Smaller image (and their are plenty of cases where the North American boxart was added first and some idiot replaced it with the PAL cover)" Apparently, being that idiot - is fine. Also note that the version he uploads is higher resolution, yet of lower quality. - hahnchen 21:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

What does the rest of the series use? If they are all NA (or Japanese for those lacking releases), then that may be okay, but a better quality photo should be found and he should defiantly be warned. Alternatively can we find one that doesn't have any symbol on it or crop it?陣内_Jinnai 21:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no standard. This, and pretty much all other art disputes - especially in this case, the art is fundamentally the same, only deserves a "Shut up arguing" response. - hahnchen 22:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Excessive edits/reverts. Content now protected, suggest the relevant parties engage in some discussion here. --Oscarthecat (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the art is pretty much the same, unlike the Dragon Quest cover we discussed a while ago. That said, I can try and upload a cropped version if that'll resolve this dispute.陣内_Jinnai 22:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

They are the same picture. Could it be that someone cares that much for the ratings icon in the bottom left. Salavat (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the guideline should be clarified as to which one, NA or PAL, should be preferable? Otherwise people will continue assuming that a certain region is preferable, even though the guidelines state not to change it.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The guideline should just make it as clear as possible that current images should not be replaced. Criteria for new uploads should just be marked as suggestions. - hahnchen 19:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The policy needs to be changed. The image should be the finalized artwork of the cover-work from the first English-speaking country release. If the game isn't released in an English-speaking country, it should be the artwork of the original country. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 03:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The first English language country of release in a vast majority of cases is NA. Using that as a basis would effectively end up with a rule saying "Use NA artwork for non-English language titles". Are you really saying that? - X201 (talk) 08:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's the issue. Because it doesn't matter. No one cares whether a game was released in Europe 2 weeks prior to the US release. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, in 10 years from now, no one will give a shit. In the fair use rationales, box art is used purely to identify the subject. There is no reasoning which suggests that one cover is any more "official" than the other. If you upload a valid English language box art, it stays. - hahnchen 19:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Bovineboy. Why does it matter which version was uploaded first? Our policy should require more consistency. -sesuPRIME 04:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It matters when the artwork itself differs such as in Dragon Quest V. In this case, it really doesn't matter. The only other time it may matter is if all the other images from the series are from a specific region. As I said before, right now our guidelines empower those who are quick to the draw as it doesn't give exemptions once an English version is uploaded. It doesn't "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." See, the last part is simply saying completely ignore what was just said since whatever is uploaded first always trumps, according to our guideline, the previous statement. It doesn't say "don't change it without a good reason." it says "don't change it." Period.陣内_Jinnai 05:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't just "empower those who are quick to the draw" it also empowers the users who have uploaded art for the thousands of games that aren't big name A-list titles, all the PSN and Xbox Arcade titles that have articles but no art. It prevents their efforts being wiped out with a brief "Sold more in NA/EU/Congo" comment - X201 (talk) 08:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No, your wrong. If I upload an English boxart you diagree with according to the guideline your SOL becuase whoever uploads it first automatically wins because it says "unless another English language version has been uploaded first in which case don't change it." In such a case I would have been the person uploading that image and could point to that line arguing it trumps all other arguments because it says clearly "don't change it."陣内_Jinnai 21:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Mmh, you're interpreting the guideline too strictly. Quote: "This page documents an English Wikipedia guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." We've seen a recent "common sense" exception with Dragon Quest V. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, The Legend of Zelda: The Minish Cap uses the European box art because that's where it was first released in English, but the other Zeldas use the NA box for the same reason. Are you suggesting Minish Cap's box be changed to the NA version despite the fact that it was released in Europe before NA? -sesuPRIME 06:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I would support an NA standard, at least until Europe becomes the dominant English speaking market, lol.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It won't be too long until China or India have more English speakers than NA and EU combined. So brush up on your Sanskrit and your Simplified Chinese because those box covers are going to get pretty interesting, pretty soon. - X201 (talk) 11:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the European upload of The Legend of Zelda: The Minish Cap box art, overwriting the American one, was a mistake. Valid English language covers should not be replaced. And before people seriously start arguing about languages, it's irrelevant. This is the English language Wikipedia, not the Wikipedia for native English speakers only. - hahnchen 19:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That was the point of me bringing up language. English is rapidly becoming a global language, before long "an English language release" or "English language cover" will mean any country on the planet. Making "cover of first English language release" an irrelevance. I was just future gazing. - X201 (talk) 08:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Going back to the Phantasy Star image - User:Calamity-Ace uploads the first English language cover. User:TJ Spyke overwrites the image with a higher resolution yet lower quality replacement with a North American "pending" label instead of the final European one - without explanation. He is reverted, citing the "don't change stuff" rule, and then reverts himself, stating:

Smaller image (and their are plenty of cases where the North American boxart was added first and some idiot replaced it with the PAL cover)

This back and forth continues between TJ and other users, with Spyke claiming "No reason to change" regardless that it was he himself which made the change originally! It is now protected. I find it extremely difficult, given that the artwork is identical, to assume good faith on Spyke's behalf given his edit summary. This wasn't about finding which box art was most suitable, as they're the same - it's about planting flags.

As an aside, I have uploaded hundreds of box arts, from different regions. What are my criteria? Whichever I think looks best - see File:Dino Crisis.jpg for a graphic example. Cover arts are there to identify the subject, and any English language cover is generally suitable. What I don't do? I don't replace covers that have been already been uploaded, because it's an unproductive waste of time, seemingly motivated by nationalism more than anything else, and I have a respect for the decisions made by other editors. - hahnchen 19:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

For info, I have invited TJ Spyke via his talk page to participate in this discussion. --Oscarthecat (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This whole discussion seems a bit silly. If nice (high res, high quality) English-language boxart is already present in an article, there's no reason to change it. If there's a better image available, regardless of region, then it should be updated. Sometimes this might be to the detriment of the aesthetics (MGS4's EU boxart is a million times nicer than the US one), but that's just the way it goes. Imposing one version as automatically superior to the other just seems silly. The PS0 boxart should never have been changed in the first place, the EU art should remain. Thanks! Fin©™ 14:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Just reading stuff again there, I basically agree with everything hahnchen says above. Thanks! Fin©™ 14:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with Hahnchen. bridies (talk) 22:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Basically the NA boxart is better quality and small size (both of which help the FUR more). You can't say we always use the first English boxarts, because that is false. There have been games where the first English boxart added was the North American one, then somebody came in and replaced that with the PAL boxart and that is the one used now. TJ Spyke 18:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

"Two wrongs don't make a right". I'm lost as to why you think you're entitled to force the box art to change. You even say "no reason to change", when the reason to change is clearly stated, and you are entitled no right to continue to revert. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm at a loss as to why you think it's better quality (it's more grainy), and it's barely smaller (one pixel in x, four pixels in y). Hardly reason to change (if the previous image was a horribly pixelated 1600x1200 image, I could see your point). Also, as retro points on there, saying "It's been done in the opposite direction" doesn't mean it's ok (those changes should've been reverted too). Thanks! Fin©™ 20:18, 20 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., [1]) --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)

Localised names in article intro

Hiya. Just wondering what the policy is on native names in the intro of games articles. Articles of games developed in Japan, eg MGS4, often contain the Japanese name after the English one, and those developed in the west, eg COD4, just contain the English name. User:Megata Sanshiro has been adding the Chinese name to games developed in China (but often the game's developed software houses of western developers/publishers, eg Ubisoft Shanghai). What's the story with games developed in a non-English speaking country (and subsequently not released in that country, or the primary release was elsewhere)? I'd assume to just keep the English name, unless the game was first released in the native language and then subsequently translated into English (as would be the case with most or all Japanese dev'd games). Thanks! Fin©™ 14:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it or not the English was merely a restatement of the Japanese title or a subtitle; for the former it clearly doesn't need to be in as redundant. For the latter I would say it would depend upon how it was marketed and/or reviewed.陣内_Jinnai 19:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I didn't know games developed by Ubisoft Shanghai were not released in China. I don't think Falcon9x5's adverb "often" is warranted; I've been adding Chinese names for China-exclusive games too. Same goes for Russian games IMO. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 10:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to use "often" literally, it was more like "there exists edits where". I'm unaware if games developed by Ubi Shanghai are actually released in China or not but that's most certainly not their primary market. China-exclusive games should certainly have the Chinese names alright! Thanks! Fin©™ 15:38, 20 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)

VG Infobox parameter suggestion

Why doesn't the Template:Infobox VG have a next/previous parameter for the previous edition of a game in a series or the next edition of a game of the same series? I think it would be useful.--Truco ₅₀₃ 03:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You mean the next/previous released or the next/previous in terms of the games' story? -sesuPRIME 04:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It comes up so often that SharkD made a compilation page of the discussions. Template talk:Infobox VG/GameSeries It contains the discussion for why they were removed and the opposition to their re-addition- X201 (talk) 08:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I was unaware of that. But after reading the most recent one, I can't seem to agree with what was said about the interpretation. The series should just follow the chronology in which they were released in, as in Previous release and Next release; the prequels and other -quels can just be mentioned in prose. --Truco ₅₀₃ 15:04, 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)

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.--BlackWatch21 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.--BlackWatch21 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.--BlackWatch21 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, [2] 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. - hahnchen 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 [3] 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. - hahnchen 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)

sountrack notable?

Every song is mentioned in FlatOut 2. I've never seen a FA mention every song, so should this be deleted?--Megaman en m (talk) 12:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

FAs that have track listings include Halo Wars, Wipeout 3, and every Myst game. And those are just the one's I've written. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 12:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it just needs editing into prose rather than the list it currently is. Perhaps something along the lines of "the soundtrack features Band X, Band Y and Band Z" where the mentioned bands are notable. Perhaps doesn't need a section all of it's own, but more a development section where it is included. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 12:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I like the look of the tracklisting on Wipeout 3, if this can be achieved for FlatOut 2 then it might be preferable. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 13:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wipeout games were all noted for their use of music though, so I think it's a bit unfair to use them as an example. Lists of songs shouldn't be included in articles - soundtracks can be included if there was significant third party coverage (I think this might've been discussed recently?), but generally it's better to keep them out. Case by case of course, but the list in Flatout 2 should definitely go. Thanks! Fin©™ 15:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Falcon. While we have a good amount of free reign to add what content we deem acceptable to a game that has established notability, not every part of a game is notable and thus isn't required. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC))

AFAIK, collapsible tracklistings are fine for the soundtrack section if the songs are original. I'm not sure about licensed songs.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Doomguy

Does anyone think Doomguy can be developed into an actual article at all? I won't turn this one into a merge discussion. TTN (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards merge, because I'm not finding a whole lot for any of the names for the guy. Plus the article is a mess.

BFG 9000 still has the possibility of being fleshed out if someone works on it while we're on the subject, just a matter of getting folks to work on it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like both can be merged. BFG has remained a stub for god knows how long.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

BFG9000 is sustainable with its current little pool of sources. The sources for expansion are out there, it only needs work from someone willing to put the time in - thats the only reason its still stub-like. Doomguy on the other hand, I'm not as sure. I had a lookie around and really didn't turn up much. It seems that they don't tend to write about nameless, personality-less and silent player characters like this. -- Sabre (talk) 18:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Side comment (and agreeing with Sabre on both fronts), the lack of name and subsequent attention makes an interesting parallel to Gordon Freeman, who has gotten quite a bit of recognition over the years despite being both personality-less and silent.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Largest wikiproject?

• Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Largest_wikiproject.3F Ikip (talk) 14:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It really doesn't seem that way, that list probably includes inactive members.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Because it is often generated by {{User WPVG}}, anybody can added their name to that category list. Who knows how many people added it simply because they like video games. In the few years I've been with the project, I'd guess we have around 30–50 active members contributing to discussions and using project resources at any given time. Also, if the newsletter stats are any sign of membership, inactive numbers are very high. See traffic stats for the Quality content subpage, News subpage, Feature subpage, and Interview subpage compared to our readership list of 188 at the time. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC))

I don't see why we don't remove inactive members like the Military project. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 09:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

How does MilHist do it, and how would you propose we do it? --Izno (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, what I do over at WP:NIN (which I will be doing again shortly) to keep the task force's membership up-to-date is to automatically place all users listed on an "inactive" list. What I then do is send talk page messages to every member telling them to "update their membership" by moving their name from the "inactive" list to the "active" list. I give a 1 month timeframe to account for those users who may be on wikibreak and stuff like that. After 1 month, everyone in the "inactive" list is removed and are no longer considered to be part of the project.

We could theoretically do something like that with the entire WikiProject, but we would definitely need some sort of bot assistance since we're dealing with over 1000 members. MuZemike 19:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

"Member" is pretty loose anyway. I'm not on the list, apparently because I don't have the userbox on my page. bridies (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• We could listify our members list and then comb it by activity level. –xeno^talk 20:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Where is the list? I've never added myself to it. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The list is just plainly Category:WikiProject Video games members, which you can add by placing the {{User WPVG}} template on your user page or, alternatively, by placing the category on your user page. But if you don't want to create a user page, then you could probably just tag it onto your user talk page. I also note that there are quite a few duplicates in that category. As far as listification is concerned, then I think that would be a good idea for a start at least. MuZemike 21:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

MuZemike- Is a bot needed to check the member activity? Ideally an automated process would be best, but is that something an editor with AWB or one of the other Wikipedia tools could do? Just trying to figure out the best (and quickest) way to get this going as an accurate list of active members would be helpful with collaborations. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC))

I've contacted someone who has a bot that can do this. This list will at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Members and break it down as follows:

• Users with at least 30 edits in the last 2 months
• Users with fewer than 30 edits in the last 2 months
• Users with no edits in the last 2 months

Sound good? –xeno^talk 14:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

That sounds great. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC))

Unfortunately, Rick doesn't have the cycles to run this for us, but he did provide the source materials. It requires a bash shell and pywikipedia, and probably some coding know how. If anyone can do this, see User talk:Rick Block#Listify category based on activity levels. Else we'll have to poke around for someone else, maybe make a WP:BOTREQ. –xeno^talk 15:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I assume we don't have any coders with that level of expertise, so could you please put in a request? I have a feeling that once we do a run through of inactive members, the list will be narrowed down to something we could feasibly manage ourselves. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC))

MZMcBride ran a quick check for us, per [4], we have 424 users who display the category on their main userpage and have edited in July or August. Will see about getting a more exhaustive report as some might not have the category on their main userpage. –xeno^talk 15:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's a third of the 1287 members in Category:WikiProject Video games members. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC))

AfD goin' slow - Super Mario: Blue Twilight DX

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Mario: Blue Twilight DX (2nd nomination) Input, please? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of The Legend of Zelda media/archive1

Needs more eyes. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:CharR to list entry discussion

In a current TfD for Template:R from character, the CharR template has come under discussion as to the appropriateness of its name and whether the two should be merged, along with possibly renaming the similar Template:FictR to list entry and Template:ER to list entry templates. As these templates were created per consensus from a discussion among the Television, Anime/manga, and Video game projects while dealing with many character to list merges, I am notifying the three projects so they can add any input desired at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 August 24#Template:R from character -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Atlus Task Force - Proposal

I've noticed that the majority of articles related to Atlus are rated Start-class or lower, and several are just stubs. I haven't seen any other discussion about this, so because of the amount of work needed to improve all these articles, I would like to propose forming a task force named the Atlus Task Force. The scope of this task force would include any articles about Atlus, the products it has made (games only published by Atlus wouldn't be included), as well as characters created for an Atlus-made product. So, if you have any suggestions or would be interested in helping out, feel free to comment. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 05:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The project size is large enough for a task force; I would suggest that you be able to find 3 or 4 editors to work on this with, though. --Izno (talk) 05:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Would it be okay to let others know about this through the talk pages for Persona 3 and Persona 4, since those articles receive more attention? Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 06:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about the talk pages, but contact the editors who use those talk pages directly is a good idea. --Izno (talk) 06:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I've contacted a couple of editors who have contributed a lot to those articles, and while I wait for their responses I'll look for any other editors who are interested. In the meantime, here's a WIP of the task force page, and I'm also working on a userbox at User:Heavyweight Gamer/User ATF (though I need an SVG of the logo - GIMP doesn't support SVG). Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 09:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Count me in. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Video games/Atlus should do fine. --Izno (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Heavyweight- Just a heads up, Inkscape is a free program that can create and manipulate SVGs. Also, there are a few graphically savvy editors (*cough* Fuchs *cough*) here that might be able to create the SVG for you if you ask them nicely. :-D (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC))

I'll help out somewhat.陣内_Jinnai 16:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Count me in, but my experience with Atlus is limited to a handful of SMT games. I'd love to help collaborate where I can, though. --gakon5 (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I can join.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The Addams Family games

Could I propose a merger of all the games featuring The Addams Family into one article? There are currently five articles (Fester's Quest, The Addams Family (arcade game), The Addams Family: Pugsley's Scavenger Hunt, Addams Family Values (video game), Addams Family (Game Gear)), that all have stub status. My proposal may allow one start-class article that covers all five seperate articles. What do other people think? AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 10:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd support a merge in the articles' current state. There should be critical coverage somewhere to write proper articles some day however. bridies (talk) 10:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I have made a start on this as a suer page at User:AirRaidPatrol 84/Addams Family games. The new article is essentially the old information rehashed into one article and I appreciate more work is needed on it, but at least it's a start. Looking for opinions really. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 11:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Proper title for this article

So I want to merge Dancing Stage SuperNova 2 and Dance Dance Revolution SuperNova 2 (North America) because it is essentially the same game with a single song added to the Europe version. Dance Dance Revolution SuperNova 2 is already taken by the arcade release which has enough differences to warrant another article so what should I put inside the ( ) if the game is across different regions? I can't use the year since the North American release was in 2007 (Same as the arcade) and the European release was in 2008.  ^{æronphonehome}  10:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I also can't use PlayStation 2 as the merge template suggests because the Japanese release, which is discussed on the arcade page being closely related, was also on the PlayStation 2.  ^{æronphonehome}  11:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Another VG Main Pages heads up

Crush (video game) is set to be on the main page on Sept 8. It's a rather short article and I don't expect lots of vandals to interfere with it, but just as a heads up, a few extra watchlist eyes wouldn't be bad.

(I swear, this is just random, but this is like my 6th main page article! I'm not making Raul pick mine over anyone elses!) --MASEM (t) 15:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I reckon it has something to do with some of these ;-) - X201 (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I was about say, something's not right here. I guess I need to start writing with Masem. :-p

Seriously though, that's quite a feat. Must be good karma or something, so keep it up whatever you're doing. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC))

I think I've got... 3 or 4? Not all video games though. Raul is inscrutable... I bet he's got some big plan just to screw with our minds! --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I've had two, both which were surprise picks by Raul as well. One thing I've noticed though, is that the random video game articles he's picked this past year have garnered less controversy from editors and random readers. In fact, a few got nothing but praise and were barely vandalized. If I was a superstitious person, I'd think we should never ask for a specific article to be featured again. :-p (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC))

Sometimes putting a controversial item up is good, but not all the time.陣内_Jinnai 16:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right. I think it was great to see ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion on the main page. However, I hardly find Kingdom Hearts (series) controversial, but it apparently rubbed some readers the wrong way. Go figure. :-\ (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC))

Vandalism from IP range on Nintendo-related articles

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent vandalism from a range of IP addresses, where the target from the mentioned IPs have been multiple Nintendo-related articles. If anyone has any other information regarding these IPs or any possible sockmaster, please contribute to that discussion. Regards, MuZemike 21:39, 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))

Premade VG citation templates

I've created some premade citation templates of the most commonly used sources, including GameSpot, IGN, and 1UP.com. This can be found over at User:MuZemike/Templates. If anyone wants to use them for reference and to copypaste in articles for convenience, please go ahead. Many of the entries have already been filled out, just fill in the blanks where needed (the entries with nothing after the equal sign). Cheers, MuZemike 05:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

First off, very kind of you.

Second, I have a question about the use of the |work= and |publisher= parameters. This is something that came up at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of The Legend of Zelda media/archive1, but it's something that's bugged me a for while as well. Does a website count as a work, and are the work and publisher parameters intended to be used in the same as the journal and publisher parameters in {{cite journal}}?

Mainly asking so we can get some consistency with our citations and include the proper method in guidelines. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC))

I've noticed that Reflinks uses the website or the name of the website at the publisher when adding information. Perhaps asking User:Dispenser why the tool does that would shed some light. I don't think I use the work parameter too often, although I believe I have used it more to point to a specific section of a site (like Retromodo on Gizmodo). I also tend to change the publisher to the entity at the bottom of pages if it specifies one near a copyright. But basically, I'm with you; I take my best guess from the template documentation and prior uses. Clarification would be great. —Ost (talk) 18:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The work field should NOT be used for the website's name. The work field is italicized, so I have no idea what it should be used for, but certainly not for the website's name. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I did that because that's what the template's documentation is leaning towards, and I have seen from criticism from articles brought up at FAC and FLC that this is not used. MuZemike 18:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It's been a while since I looked at the documentation. I remember it referring more to a select group of published items. I interpreted the older version as using "work" to mention that you cited something like one book out of a series of them (like encyclopedias or media franchises).

Here are some examples I've used the work parameter for:

• Example 1- GameTrailers presents ScrewAttack, with GT as the publisher and SA as the work.
• Example 2- GameSpot's The History of Final Fantasy lengthy feature, with GS as the publisher and the feature as the work.

Not saying those are the proper usage, those are just how I've used the work parameter. I've mostly avoided it because it never seemed to be adequately clarified. But if it keeps coming up at featured content reviews we should get it clarified. Would Wikipedia:Citing sources be the place to check? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC))

Or, alternatively, we could start an RFC as to how it should be used, as this is not limited to just video game articles, obviously. We could start one either here or there. MuZemike 20:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Admittedly, this is a view slanted by my own output, but generally among VG FAs I have found that websites use the publisher field. While I suppose work could be considered better, depending on your view, the italics are against any style guide I'm aware of. If using the cite web template for a news article from a publication, I use work (same for {{cite news}}. Examples being pretty much every FA I've worked on: Halo Wars, Super Columbine Massacre RPG!, Myst V: End of Ages, yada yada, as well as every other article that uses websites. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I use {{cite news}} when citing a news article from a publication that happens to be on the web. I tend to use work= more often with the news template than with web, in which case I use it to identify the publication (e.g., The New York Times). If it's true we are using publisher instead of work with {{cite web}}, are we only doing it because work is automatically italicized? —Ost (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Before an RfC, should we ask at WP:CITE? —Ost (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Given the scope of the template's usage, a general forum would probably be better than here. WP:Citing sources sounds like as good a general talk page as any, unless we want to go to the village pump. Anyone care to do the honors? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC))

New Game Plus prod

An editor has proposed that this article be deleted. I have no doubt in my mind that it is a notable concept but I've had quite a bit of trouble finding sources. I see a lot of articles mentioning such-and-such game has a NG+ feature, but I haven't run across anything discussing its core importance and whatnot. At worst, the article I found (about Mass Effect 2) does have a paragraph briefly discussing what NG+ is and mentions Chrono Trigger, but help finding sources would be appreciated. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I contested the PROD giving my reasoning on the article talk page. However, I agree with you that sourcing is difficult to find as there is no set definition of what a New Game + is. I am sure that there are pleanty of sources that could be included to signify notability, but I am reluctant to include them right now as it would change the page into being more of a list of its usage. Perhaps we could continue this discussion on the article talk page, and come to a concensus about what to do with it. Perhaps it will indeed become more of a list of usage, or perhaps it will simply end up at AfD. --Taelus (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

{{Europe-videogame-company-stub}}?

Hi! MuZemike recently created {{Europe-videogame-company-stub}}. I don't think this template should exist though. Shouldn't European company stubs be categorized by country like all other video game company articles? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 10:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you Corpx (talk) 10:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

While I see the logic to your view, I think MuZemike as the right idea with the stub. Creating stub templates for every country out there seems like over-categorization to me.

However, I don't think a few stub templates for countries with a large amount of companies whose articles are stub wouldn't hurt. Like |articles about UK video game companies. But I don't think a stub template is needed for the articles about Bulgarian video game companies, Norwegian video game companies, or Danish video game companies. I think those should use the broader European stub template. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC))

I don't even think those categories are necessary. A category for a single article? There should be a parent cat. –xeno^talk 15:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Please excuse me, as I do not fully know procedure, however what harm does a template and category such as this do? If a group of users, or even only one user, is using it as a method to gather topics in their area of expertise in order to allow them to more easily benefit the project, what reason is there for it not to exist? --Taelus (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• It's probably best to propose new stub types at WP:WSS/P. They can help determine, based on pre-existing stub types, what the best method of division would be. –xeno^talk

Well, my reasoning was that we already have one for Japan, the US, and the UK that were already created. I'm about a little over halfway through the list and already found about 75 stubs that fall under this category. So I would expect about 100 such stubs or so when I'm done, which is about the same as the other company stubs by country or continent. I am aware that we don't need them for every country, and that's clearly not my intent to do so, especially regarding the basic "50 or over" rule of thumb used for stub-types. MuZemike 15:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Still a good idea to run it by WSS, so they can put it into their list of stub types. –xeno^talk 15:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

All completed. 124 stubs in total, which IMO is reasonble and consistent with the others. I'll ping WP:WSS/P about the creation. MuZemike 16:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Also note that I have absolutely no connection with Imuze studios :) MuZemike 18:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

New banner

I wish to apologise to my fellow Wikipedians for being so dreadfully lazy in English Wikipedia as of late. I promise to be more active in the coming year.

That said, I hope this new banner I made for the CVG project makes things up. A little.

Or maybe not. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me. The only issue that comes to mind is that we no longer go by WP:CVG. Most every use of that in project space and templates has been redirected to ones that use just VG.

And no need to apologize for having other priorities. We're all in the same boat, coming and going, doing what we can and whatnot. Any help you can provide is appreciated. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC))

Dang! Foiled by old habits! Could have been so much worse blunder, though - I almost crammed "WP:WPCVG" in there. =) I'll upload a new version some time tomorrow when my head works a bit better. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL! I see what you did there.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Ha! Great image. Those Evony ads are a nightmare. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Glad that people like the ad! I've now uploaded a new version that says WP:VG instead of WP:CVG. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Requesting peer review on Advance Wars 2: Black Hole Rising

Hi, I've recently made changes to Advance Wars 2: Black Hole Rising, and I'm seeking an assessment to see what I need to do to get this article into the GA category. I'm planning on adding more sources when I find them, but regarding the content, I'd appreciate it if someone could point me in the right direction. I've tried to be as encyclopedic as possible, but if I've failed in any way, please feel free to point it out, thanks. ♥ichi 22:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

"New features" is too long, "Reception" too short. "Gameplay" should probably have "New features" folded into it in prose and summarized much better than it is now. "Story" is about right, though I'd personally rename it "Plot". It needs a lot of work. --Izno (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and there's no "Development" or "Release" section (the 2nd not always needed if there's very little; it can be folded into the Development section). And it needs citations. --Izno (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I recommend looking at Dual Strike and Days of Ruin for examples since they are both GA article. GamerPro64 (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

After reading through the AWDS article, I've made a bunch of changes to the article. Can someone look at it again and tell me how I can further improve it? Thanks! ♥ichi 00:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

What, ideally, you'd do, is split all the information that can be found in every single one of the Advance Wars games to Advance Wars (series)#Gameplay. All of it. That will allow you to trim the main gameplay to about one paragraph in Black Hole Rising, and possibly one or two more paragraphs on the stuff that's different or is introduced in Black Hole Rising (and a {{main}} to Advance Wars (series)#Gameplay). Development and Reception still could use expanding. Nice work overall, though! --Izno (talk) 04:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You have a ton of 1 and 2-sentence paragraphs- it just leaps off the page to my eyes as poor flow. Paragraphs need to be roughly 5-8 sentences- and don't just delete all of the line breaks, try to make the sentences flow together as a coherent paragraph if they don't sound right back-to-back. --PresN 05:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, excellent work improving the article! In order to reach higher qualities, the flow of the article needs to be improved, as it has alot of short fragmented sentances currently. The article would also work better if common series elements were merged into the Wars (series) article, which would also improve that and other articles on the topic. Perhaps the Advance Wars (series) article would be a better location for such, but it is currently a redirect. --Taelus (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, after revising (almost) the entire text, I've made numerous changes, and removed many one and two-sentence paragraphs (also improved flow in certain cases). Please have another look at the article, and tell me possible improvements and also tell me if I'm going in the right direction. Thanks to everyone who's commented or made suggestions!

Also, in response to Izno's comments: what specifically could I add to refine the Development and Reception sections? I'll probably start working on developing the Nintendo Wars series page tomorrow, but I do want to bring Advance Wars 2 to a decent level before doing that. Thanks again! ♥ichi 01:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Old AfD

This VG AfD is now two weeks old, no discussion has taken place. Anyone care to comment? Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/AWplanet Marasmusine (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Navbox ordering

I recently noticed that the Professor Layton series game articles were using individual navigational templates despite the existence of a templatespace one at Template:Professor Layton and so replaced the individual templates with the central one. This has since been reverted. I do not think there is a question as to whether a centralised template should be used rather than individual ones for reasons of uniformity and ease of editing but I think the issue of the content and presentation of the template may need to resolved (I imagine this what caused the separate templates to spring up in the first place).

• Current templatespace template:

Current individual articlee) (non-templatespac template:

I think that apart from its non templatespace nature the non-templatespace template has two problems:

1. It is inaccurately titles since the games are not listed in "(chronological order)" they are listed in the order of fictional chronology, chronological order would be the order the games were released in the real world (as used by the templatespace template).
2. To me it would seem that both guidelines and convention would point towards using the real world chronology rather than the fictional one. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) states that "Articles about fiction, like all Wikipedia articles, should adhere to the real world as their primary frame of reference." would seem to indicate using the real world chronology. Many other game series have prequels but the templates still list the games by their release date, for example: Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater in Template:Metal Gear, Silent Hill: Origins in Template:Silent Hill, Grand Theft Auto: Vice City in Template:Grand Theft Auto, Resident Evil Zero in Template:Resident Evil series. After a few quick searches the only possible exception I found was the Metroid Prime sub-series which is listed separately from the other games in Template:Metroid series.

Basically I was wondering if there was an established guideline on whether to use real world or fictional chronology in navigational templates. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that, if there is ever a choice between real-world and fictional-world anything, real-world always wins. It doesn't make sense to list Curious Village as anything but the first game of the series, prequels or no prequels. Nifboy (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Order based on release date is the most real-world perspective in this case, which I think should apply. It's not our place to deal with fictional continuity, because even the creative authors can get that wrong. Release dates are concrete and "real". (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC))

Slightly offtopic, but shouldn't Layton 3 and 4 (and the movie) use Japanese names since they don't have official English ones yet? --Mika1h (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what the policy is. Personally I think if they're referred to by an English name by reliable sources that becomes the default common name that English language speakers are likely to refer to the game by, even if it's not the official name. Slightly ironically of the three you mention the only source ([5]) for an English name I can find is for the third game which is the only article currently under a Japanese title. Guest9999 (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

An article to potentially be split for disambiguation purposes

Good day, I bring this article to your attention: Tap (gaming).

As was highlighted on the talk page, it is unsuitable to have an article describing three unrelated uses of the term, and thus it may be a good idea to split the page into a disambiguation page. However, I wanted to bring it here for discussion first as the notability of each individual term is questionable.

The multiple uses for this term include:

• Tapping in collectible card games, detailed on the page.
• Tapping in MMORPGs, detailed on the page.
• The act of tapping a touchscreen, detailed on the page. (I suspect this will fail WP:N even without being split.)
• Tapping in Cheating in online games#Lagging, currently not included on the page.

Perhaps we could construct individual pages in project space/user space before performing the split, if we do so at all. I welcome your input, thank you. --Taelus (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a collection of definitions to me. The first is, at best, redundant with List of Magic: The Gathering keywords#Tap/Untap; a similar glossary for MMORPG terms was deleted for lack of sources. Beyond that I'm not sure what there is to say beyond linking to Wiktionary and being done with it. Nifboy (talk) 18:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It could simply be converted into a disambiguation linking to the pages which cover each in brief currently then, with an additional link to Wiktionary if there is something relevant there then? --Taelus (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Or just a redirect to TAP, which is already a dab page. Nifboy (talk) 20:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Also a possibility, as this would avoid the uncommon a double disambiguation page occuring. Having thought about this and reading your comments, I will go ahead and be bold and redirect the page to the disambiguation page, as it is only covering topics already covered elsewhere and containing dicdefs in its current form. --Taelus (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Super Mario Bros. US release date

This is in response to a discussion about Super Mario Bros.'s release date in the United States. Currently, several gaming websites list the date as October 1985, however, a few source refute this (stating 1986) while others dance around it ambiguously. To be up front and get to the heart of this discussion, I think there's a logical argument for 1986, but WP:V dictates that the article content should mirror the most verifiable information regardless of what we think to be true. In light of that, I'd like to see if a consensus can be built to ignore the rules for this specific matter.

Sources that support an October 1985 or 1985 release date in the United States.

• GameSpot's SMB directory page
• IGN's directory page
• IGN's Top 10 Tuesday: Best Launch Titles, which states Super Mario Bros. was an NES launch title. This relates to the NES's first US release, which was in New York in October 1985 to test its viability in the market.
• Nintendo's website SMB entry, which does not specify a region simply a year (1985). This doesn't help to much because the game was released in Japan in 1985. However, the SMB3 entry lists 1990 as the original release, which was the year the game was released in the US, 2 years after its Japanese release. Without regions specified, this is not completely concrete in my mind, but I concede the argument exists that it is concrete.
• Chaplin and Ruby's Smartbomb: The Quest for Art, Entertainment, and Big Bucks in the Videogame Revolution stated "Mario and the NES finally debuted in the United States in 1985..."

Sources that support an 1986 release date in the US

• Kent's Ultimate History of Videogames.
  • "When Nintendo went to New York, Super Mario Brothers, which would become the linchpin during the national launch of the NES, had not been introduced." - pg. 297
  • "By the end of 1985, Nintendo began packaging Super Mario Bros. with the Famicom. This marketing move was so successful in Japan that Yamauchi and Arakawa decided to do it in the United States. It took a few months to create an American version of the game, and the cartridge was available by the time Nintendo of America went national - the end of 1986." - pg 300.

Evidence that suggests an 1986 release date or at least not a 1985 date.

• Marty provided some info that demonstrates the lack of SMB's presence in advertising at the time.[6][7][8] While this isn't concrete, I agree that it is odd given the success SMB had in Japan. If it was available, it stands to reason it would have been advertised.
• Smartbomb and Sheff's Game Over go into a good amount of detail regarding Nintendo's efforts to bring the NES to the US. SMB is mentioned before (describing it's success in Japan) and after (describing it's success in the US), but nothing about it is mentioned during the whole process. The less commercially successful R.O.B. is covered in greater detail, which I found odd because SMB was very successful in Japan at the time.
• Mario777Zelda and Marty have contacted Nintendo of America about the information on the Nintendo's website and it turns out they just pull info from a database they have no little explanation why it's that date. More details are on the talk page.

And just for good measure to show that sources can sometimes get things wrong.

• Vogel's Entertainment Industry Economics: a Guide for Financial Analysis lists Super Mario Bros. release date as 1987. Go figure.

In summary, the theory is that the game was released in the US in 1986, and any source that lists 1985 is operating on the assumption that the game was released along side the NES in it's first test release in New York during October 1985. On the surface, sources point to a 1985 date, but I believe closer inspection points to a 1986 date because no sources explains why 1985 is used. Only Kent's book gives a rationale behind the listed date. I must admit though, this is a bit of synthesis.

Marty is contacting some people to get more info about the actual release. Hopefully that will bring to light more concrete information. Not sure how long that will take though. In the mean time, would this qualify as a situation were WP:V should be ignored? Any thoughts or suggestions? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC))

• I know I am a little late to this conversation, but I have just found an interesting article in the Philapdelphia Inquierer dated August 19, 1986. No link I am afraid, but some relevant quotes below:

"Nintendo says it sold 6.4 million games starring Mario and his brother, Luigi, between Sept. 1, when the game was introduced, and the end of February, the last month for which figures were available. The game plugs into a television set and costs $95.

The company hopes that Super Mario and Luigi will become stars worldwide, just as Japan's robot toys stampeded around the globe two years ago.

Nintendo exported 200,000 Super Mario games to the state of New York earlier this year to test at its American subsidiary, Nintendo Entertainment Systems. The results of consumer tests have not been released, but the company is confident that Super Mario will be snapped up from American toy store shelves by Christmas."

This was apparently a Reuter story, and both the Toronto Star and Ottawa Citizen (and most likely others as well) also ran this story. Seems to be pretty definative proof as to a 1986 release date, especially with everything else gathered on the article talk page. Indrian (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure the article is dated 1986 and not 1987? It says the game was released on 1st Sep, but that would mean 1st Sep 1985 - before it was released in Japan. Or am I missing something here? Xenon54 / talk / 21:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Appreciate the digging Indrian, but there are a few factual issues that don't make sense to me.

• First, SMB was released in Japan in September 1985, which leads me to believe the sales numbers are for the Japanese release.
• Second, Nintendo only released 100,000 NESs in their October 1985 test run in New York. They sold half and the remaining units went to Los Angeles for a second test run in February 1986. It doesn't make sense to release twice as many cartridges as there are systems.

This further demonstrates the conflicting information that keeps coming up. Most sources point to a 1985 date, but the conflicting data and blanks in the story point to a 1986 date to me. I generally follow sources in all my article writing, but I think this is one of the rare cases where deductive reasoning and common sense should trump policy. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC))

• I think you are misunderstanding the point I was making with this article, and the issues you bring up above are not actually issues at all. What the article appears to prove is that a)Super Mario Brothers was released in Japan in September 1985. The sales mentioned in the article are referring to Japanese sales, not North American sales. b)A test run for Super Mario Brothers was held in New York sometime in 1986 involving 200,000 copies. The article language is unclear here (they get the name of the North American subsidiary wrong, for one), but what is clear is that this is referring to a 1986 test and not the late 1985 test release of the NES, which you correctly state was 100,000 units, ie these are two different events. c)This test aside, the game had not been released yet by August 1986, but it was coming. Therefore, the article establishes that no copies of SMB had reached American shores before 1986. Indrian (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Found the full article in the New Straits Times, 10 August 1986. I think it's the same as Indrian's article, because I also found it in the Inquirer. Interestingly, it also doesn't mention a September 1st release date, only saying "6 months to February." The most important point is that it doesn't mention America at all, and calls Mario the "superhero of Japanese children". So you can conclude that it hadn't been released there yet. Link. Xenon54 / talk / 21:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe SMB was released with the NES in it's nation-wide release around summer 1986. This August 1986 article may be a response to that. Just guessing on my part though. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC))

One more thing: This Google News search pulls two (pay-to-view) ads from the Los Angeles Times (dated 9 Nov 1986) and Chicago Tribune (dated 16 Nov 1986). Both appear to mention SMB. There is also an article from the Tribune (dated 27 Jun 1986) that says "the biggest splash, both here and abroad, is [SMB]...". And there is a (pay-to-view) story from the Minneapolis Star Tribune (dated 22 Dec 1986) that mentions SMB. There is no mention of SMB in any English-language media before the 10 Aug 1986 New Straits Times article. (I should mention that NST is an English-language paper based in Malaysia, so the first mention in American media is the Inquirer article.) I guess it's reasonable, based on these finds, to say the game was released nationwide sometime in summer 1986 and definitely before Christmas that year. Xenon54 / talk / 21:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that, no matter what the original US release date was, the media probably wouldn't have covered it immediately; it was just a novelty, not yet a phenomenon. Also, if Super Mario Bros. was released in the US in 1985, as far as I can tell, it would have been to only a very limited market, very easy for the media to miss. If we do decide to use 1986 as a date, will we be able to place it on a specific day or month?Mario777Zelda (talk) 23:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

A date or month is not possible at this time, as all we know is sometime between January and August 1986. Remeber, though that the article quoted above contains actual information received from Nintendo itself, including sales data for SMB in Japan and extensive quotes from Miyamoto not included here. The article is clear that NOA first did a test release of SMB in 1986, not 1985. A contemporary press account is much better info than what IGN or even NOA's own website claims today. Indrian (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I prefer my press accounts to be well-written, unlike this one appears to be (though I haven't actually seen the full article yet); it doesn't even mention an L.A. test market. Anyway, this search appears to show a pay-to-view ad in the L.A. Times mentioning SMB on March 13, 1986. Mario777Zelda (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I had mentioned that advertisement previously though I need to pay for it to see what it actually states (I.E. coming, or available). It could very well be an additional part of the test marketing of SMB (as it's in another location where they had tested the NES before going national that Fall). As far as not mentioning the LA test market, that's irrelevant and you're missreading it. It's not referring to the test marketing of NES's (which took place in Christmas of '85 in NY and Feb in LA). It's specifically addressing the testing of SMB - which is what the article is about. And it specifically states earlier in the year (1986) via their New York office (they had opened office space and taken warehouse space in August of '85 in anticipation of the NES testing in NY that Christmas). And please try not to lay some kind of invalid discrediting of a Reuter's news article based on how you would write (even though you haven't read the whole article). That sort of commentary just strays from the facts, and brings in to question if you have some sort of expertise to critique news writing style - which further strays from the task at hand. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 00:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

(←) My favorite go-to source for old Nintendo release dates is Super Smash Bros. Brawl's Chronicle listings. The North American version of the game indicates that 18 NES games were released in October 1985, including SMB. -sesuPRIME 01:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Great. Let's try and stick to reliable sources that can be verified. Lumaga (talk) 02:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on character merging for Sonic.

Please see [9]. Hobit (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

List of antagonists in Xenosaga

List of antagonists in Xenosaga is one of the oldest 100 articles tagged as unreferenced. It is listed as in scope of this project. Does anyone care to add references or does this article fail WP:N so it should be deleted? Jeepday (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Three antagonists have articles of their own (Albedo (Xenosaga), Testament (Xenosaga), Wilhelm (Xenosaga)), the last of which might minimally pass WP:WAF, though not WP:N in its current state, so I don't think AfDing the character list would succeed. It's desperately in need of something, though. Nifboy (talk) 00:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

(update) I threw in the references to the Perfect Guide etc. from Wilhelm's article. It feels like cheating so I'll leave it to someone else to remove the unreferenced tag. Nifboy (talk) 00:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

All four articles should probably be merged to List of characters in the Xenosaga series. It won't be too long if the plot "summaries" are trimmed down. As a sidenote, I tried to make Shion Uzuki a notable article some time ago (User:Megata Sanshiro/Shion Uzuki) but apparently there was not enough sources to assert notability. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 01:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)