Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

WPCVG Talk Archives

Archives: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17

List of archive topics by section

Luigi page moved.

A user has recently moved the Luigi page to Luigi (Mario) without any discussion whatsoever. What's more, none of the links were changed. Even on the disambiguation page that was created in the process. I brought the subject up at WikiProject Nintendo, but I feel that it should be mentioned here too. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 02:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't care particularly about the move, although I wouldn't have made it myself. If people are OK with this, then you need to do a {{db-move}} at Luigi and then move the disambiguation page in its place. - Hahnchen 03:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this completes the trifecta of major Mario naming disputes (Mario, Bowser, and now, finally, Luigi, although Peach also had a somewhat less controversial article name change). Nifboy 05:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but the Mario paged was never moved. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 02:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Some random AFDs and prods

I came across this AFD for a mod I know nothing about and someone spouted the useless keep vote of "But there's loads of nn-mods on Wikipedia. Look at these!" Well now, these nn-mods have all been prodded or AFDed. I've removed prods on some that I know to be more notable than the article suggests, but the nominations have been on the whole incredibly lazy. I've removed prods on Science and Industry, Hostile Intent and voted on Dystopia (computer game), Firearms (computer game) and the stupidly notable Rocket Arena. - Hahnchen 04:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm very annoyed that someone tagged Dystopia as AfD mere hours after I marked up as a CVG article. Was this guy just waiting for anything to come along that he could afd? I hadn't even had a chance to insert all the awards and links that irrefutably prove it's notability. It won Game of the Year at the Independant Game Festival for crying out loud! The Kinslayer 11:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I think one or two people are being extremely over-zealous in marking stuff for deletion. The reasoning seems to be 'The article isn't finished, and I'VE never heard of it, so it should be deleted.' The Kinslayer 11:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The second pointer in nominating an AfD clearly states: Consider adding a tag such as {cleanup} or {disputed} instead; this may be preferable if the article has some useful content. In the case of at least two of the above AfDs, this hadn't been done, not even giving people a chance to fix the 'offending' problems. The Kinslayer 12:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Wicketthewok seems to be the main culprit for the lazy AfDs. He certainly seems to have stirred up a couple of hornets nests with AfDs recently! He is very over-zealous with deleting new articles within a couple of hours creation, citing non-notability and lack of sources as the reasons, even though he usually deletes the articles before the person had a chance to add the links! Just letting you all know to be careful when your creating new articles, as this guy will probably delete it! He's also fond of quoting wiki policies chapter and verse, but seems to conveniently forget ones that provide arguements against deletion, such as the one I quoted further up the page.The Kinslayer 10:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Lazy though those AfDs may have been, there is no need to attack Wickethewok. Seriously, how about you take the time to explain why his actions were incorrect, and what should be done to correct them? If you have already done so, there should be no need to continue the thread here. Remember, NPA. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 09:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, Wickethewok was completely in the right to nominate any article that does not have meet Wikipedia:Verifiability or similar policy / concern. WP:V says "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." -- Ned Scott 09:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The issues been resolved, and I wasn't attacking him (as I stated on his talk page.) I was just expressing concern over his nominations. But since it's been resolved, lets all just move on now. The Kinslayer 10:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Per request, nav boxes

see Wikipedia:Navigational boxes _→AzaToth 12:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, please explain what you're talking about. It's a proposed guidline for nav boxes. "Per request, nav boxes" doesn't tell me what you're looking for here. --PresN 13:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Cover art to use for simultaneously released cross-platform games (take two)

The following is an edited duplication of Template talk:Infobox CVG#Cover arts to use, which is created following a suggestion to bring the discussion to this page:

For some cross-platform games like Need for Speed: Most Wanted, there are multiple versions released simultaneously for each platform (PC, PS2, Xbox, GameCube and the Xbox 360, for example), and thus has multiple cover art labels. Would a PS2 cover art, for example, be preferable if the port is notable in any aspect (i.e. special edition, launch title)? ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 15:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC) ╫

If it's multi-format, I usually go for the PC box because they don't include a Xbox/PS2 banner advert at the top of the box and you get slightly more of the art. See for example Image:Psychonautsbox.jpg and Image:Tomb Raider Legend Boxart.jpg where I've uploaded PC covers over the originals. The NFS box however, even has a banner for the PC edition, so it doesn't matter as much. But in general, I stick to the generic most common box cover over the special edition ones. For example, I could have uploaded a box shot for the special edition of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (PC), but decided against it, being that the special edition was a different colour to all other box art. - Hahnchen 15:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

And now the Psychonauts box has no source. I'm starting to get frustrated at this. Please provide sources, people. Thunderbrand 16:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for input; the importance of using a plain box art over a special edition or more notable port in the infobox is also noted. However, taking your approach into consideration, the present PC cover art of Need for Speed: Most Wanted would still be unsuitable because it includes an extra PC CD-ROM tag, while the top banner is just about the same size as those on the PS2 and Xbox; as such, I took the liberty of submitting a PC DVD version which has minimal obstructions. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 19:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC) ╫

Can someone please clarify the need for sources in fair-use scenarios where the source has absolutely nothing to do with the copyright holder? I thought the source was needed to confirm that it was indeed fair-use, what use is a link to a random hungarian game site or a link to amazon? At Image:Half screen004.jpg, I replaced a sourced watermarked image with an unwatermarked unsourced version. That image was a widely distributed promotional screenshot, the source is Valve Software if needed, should I have a handy link to gamespot there? - Hahnchen 20:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, as soon as you click on Special:Upload, it says to provide a rationale and source. Thunderbrand 23:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

After a discussion with ZS, I'd rather conclude that:

1. Since Wikipedia is widely viewed using the PC, all games should have the PC box art rather than the console box art, unless the game lacks a PC version.

2. If the game under discussion is MOST notable in its console version, whichever that may be, the box art for that console should be used. (eg. Halo and Halo 2)

What are my fellow Wikipedians' views on this?

P.S.: I've taken the liberty to replace some of the games' console box art with their PC counterparts (vis-a-vis Hitman: Blood Money, Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter, NFS: MW, NFS: U2 etc.)

Here's an easy order, based on how pointless style disputes are handled in other areas:

1. The version most strongly associated with the game (in English-speaking territories, if there's a conflict).
2. The first English-language release.
3. The first publishing in the creators' territory or native language.
4. Whatever was uploaded first.

This is based on the way stupid grammar issues (color vs. colour) and original-language vs. English-language issues are handled, and assumes we don't have a free/unfree situation (use the free version no matter what) or an image quality situation.

This specifically ignores ZS's suggestion to favor PC game boxes. The PC versions of games which are not initially released on the PC are often afterthoughts; it would be silly to represent many of EA's latter-day games with the PC versions. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

List of best-selling computer and video games

List of best-selling computer and video games is currently suffering an edit war that has lasted around 2 weeks already. WhiteMinority believes VGCharts should be used to reference sales information in the article, while A Link to the Past believes it is not a reliable source. I would appreciate some members from this WikiProject to drop by and give an opinion here to try to settle the matter, as I don't want to call for a mediation. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 18:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

What extensive options do we have besides VGCharts? --Tristam 03:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

For every game, we should find an article in a reliable source stating the game has passed the 1m mark in the european, american, japanese or worldwide market. -- ReyBrujo 04:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Which is not easy. -- Steel 10:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

True, but put it this way, are shipping figures the same as retail sales figures? No. Therefore shipping figures should not be used to get numbers for the best selling computer and video games. WhiteMinority seems more concerned with trying to provoke Link by reverting his edits and accusing him of vandalism than he is with the quality of the article. The Kinslayer 10:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

There must be someone on Wikipedia with access to the NPD Funworld sales data. Just like we're using the magazines project to collect information on which users have access to which reviews, we should as a project try to find people who have access to this data. Some other portential sources: [1], [2], [3], japan. It sucks that all this stuff is not just open and out there, but at least if we know who has access we can start using this data to properly source our articles. jaco♫plane 11:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Not someone on Wikipedia, as that would be original research and no reliable source. For japanese titles, it is easy to track which titles are best selling, as there are three independant trackers Dengeki, Famitsu and Media Create. For others, we need to rely on press releases and sites like GameSpot and IGN. The important thing is getting a reliable source stating the game sold over a million copies. No need to get exact numbers, just knowing 1m copies have been sold should be enough for us. -- ReyBrujo 16:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Computer and video games lists issue

Why are the lists slightly different in format? All are a list in alphabetical order, but that's about the only thing that is the same with them. On the Xbox 360 list: List of Xbox 360 games, there is *'s and FP by games meaning certain things, along with release dates for games that aren't out. At List of GameCube games, there is a list of cancelled and Europe games at the bottom. Other game lists have small differences as well. Shouldn't all lists be in the same format and have the same exact things? I think all should be the same, since they are the same type of list: a list of games for a certain console. RobJ1981 22:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Good question. The subject was brought up before, but the subject drifted towards the non-platform lists, and no clear consensus was reached on how to format the lists based on platforms/consoles. Personally, I would suggest including only the title and the regions the game is released in, probably in a list format rather than a table. Adding alternate titles given for games in the list would seem like a good idea too. I'm not sure if publisher/developer information is significant enough to add in these rather large lists, and perhaps release dates should only be shown on a chronological order version of the list, as exists for the GameCube. Not that I care much either way, but I do agree they need to look the same. --ADeveria 23:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

A partial attempt at making List of Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis games more useful (like List of SNES games) was deemed far too time-consuming to be practical. Nifboy 02:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

External Links for Video Game Articles

I do not believe it's necessary to have links to generic, popular websites such as MobyGames. They are popular, so a lot of people know about them and they are easy to find, so it is kind of a waste to link to them in every single game article. If people want those links, they can easily do a search and find them within seconds. Most of these websites do not actually have that much information on games, anyways. They usually just have general stuff that you can find basically anywhere, and, more importantly, on the Wikipedia article. So why bother linking to them? I believe they should be removed. -Yggdra Juril Altwaltz 20:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, believe that they should be included, because they are easy sources for the articles and generally used. This is regarding an edit war over the external links on Riviera: The Promised Land, by the way. Another link that was being repeatedly removed was a link to an external review. --tjstrf 20:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Why does this keep coming up? MobyGames is an extensive database of video games (a term, which I maintain, encompasses computer games as well). It has much more content than we generally have for Wikipedia articles, including game credits and many, many more screenshots than we have for games. Plus, MobyGames has most information in a relational database, so information and context for games can easily be retreived. Because it is a popular game resource is exactly why we should include links to it, just as we link to BoardGameGeek for board games. — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Frecklefoot. Moby should be included simply because of those reasons. But I also feel the courtesy should be extended to other major archives/resources as well like KLOV and http://www.arcadeflyers.net/. --Marty Goldberg 20:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The MobyGames page DOESN'T have game credits for Riviera, though. Besides, "Everything in MobyGames is contributable by users." So I might as well link to the GameFAQs information pages about Riviera. The credits are incomplete due to GFAQs rules, but I ripped them from the game myself and I know they're accurate at least.

Also, the MobyGames page doesn't even list RiviPSP. --Raijinili 00:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the KLOV should be included for all arcade games, but not arcadeflyers.net, whose content is of dubious value, at best. But I don't see the inclusion of links to these sites as a "courtesy" to the web site operators, just to our readers. But I digress... — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that KLOV should certainly be used as an external link; the information on the site usually expands upon the information of articles. arcadeflyers.net, on the other hand, doesn't. That said, I'd love to see some Project-backed encouragement to use it as a source when documenting a game's history (which is something where it could be extremely useful). EVula 22:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding arcadflyers.net, I'd say the view of dubious value" is certainly not the case among industry historians. Its been a pretty standard reference since long before wikipedia was created and has a large significance when discussing and informing about arcade platform games. These flyers (which were distributed to vendors and operators only) represent the commercial viewpoint of the manufacturer and its vision for the game (which is a commercial product). This includes relevant vendor and operator info (if you're not familiar with the coin-op terms, vendor is the distributor or "middle man" and operator is the end location - i.e. the arcade owner), specifications (including design advancements, settings, available formats such as standup, cocktail, cabaret, etc.), artwork, designer info and more. This is also why these types of materials are frequently referenced and presented in books, articles, and references on the subject. While there is some overlap with KLOV from a purely database facts and figures context, KLOV does not address the facets of vendor and operator promotion and explination. --Marty Goldberg 22:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand that, which is why I think arcadeflyers.net should be used as a source, not an external link. EVula 22:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you are all missing my main point. If people want information from those sites, they will go and find it themselves. It is not difficult in the slightest to find them. I mean, it's like saying every gaming website should have a link to Wikipedia, just because it's well-known. Fansites are different because they generally focus specifically on that game, and are usually not so easy to find. Am I seriously one of the only people who think this? -Yggdra Juril Altwaltz 22:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes, you are. We link to those sites because they contain useful information, both to us at times as writers and to the readers. It doesn't hurt anything having them there, they meet WP:EL, and they make it a whole lot more convenient for the reader. We're a reference source, providing links to other useful (non-competing) reference sources is only sensible. --tjstrf 23:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I know they meet WP:EL. Did you think I came here just to whine for the sake of whining? No. I came here in hopes that others would agree with me and eventually stop adding links to these websites. And I'm sorry, I thought this was an encyclopedia. Apparently I was wrong. -Yggdra Juril Altwaltz 00:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I challenge that they fit EL. The usefulness of the Riviera page is the Chinese name (which I have doubts about), the screenshots (which are found on the Atlus page), the links to buying the game (oh, so now we should link to an Amazon search of Riviera:TPL?), and the ranks/ratings, which a link to GameRatings.com can do better. Everything else you can find on the page belongs in the wikipage, instead of linking to it. IMDB at least has things like trivia pages and quotes, while the Moby page for RTPL has... non-trivial information which is already included. --Raijinili 00:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Mobygames again?! Linking to Mobygames is generally seen as alright, although I definitely wouldn't want it being an infobox item like imdb is. If you've used mobygames for research, then it's nice to link to them and they might provide further information. But sometimes Mobygames articles are crap, just as some Wikipedia articles are, I don't think we should link to them when the only information offered is places to buy the game. Another dubious activity is that of User:Ravimakkar who was warned by a non-CVG editor for spamming mobygames, being that every single edit he made, right from the start was just to add links to Mobygames. I know we have WP:AGF and all, but do you really think he was trying to improve Wikipedia, or just to direct more hits towards MobyGames? - Hahnchen 23:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Your rationale doesn't seem to make sense. Technically you can find websites (including fansites) on any topic quickly through Google or other search engines, so why is being "easy to find" an issue? Also, fansites are generally not as reliable or verified as more notable and popular websites such as Gamespot, IGN, or Mobygames.--TBCΦtalk? 23:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the easy-to-find part really depends on the situation. Less popular games will have harder-to-find fansites, and popular ones will probably have a ton that are easily discovered. And you are correct about fansites usually not being very reliable/verified, so maybe we should not include links to fansites that have false information frequently. However, IGN is really not reliable at all. I've seen tons of false information there. -Yggdra Juril Altwaltz 00:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

"Easy to find/difficult to find" is a horrible qualifier for an external link. The official website for Mortal Kombat: Armageddon is easy enough to find with Google; does that mean we shouldn't have a link to it? We're not a link deposit; often an obscure website is obscure because its crap and has nothing on it worth checking out. Such a website has no place being linked to on Wikipedia, as the entire point of external links is to provide the reader additional useful information that is highly relevant to the topic at hand (and a shitty website just plain doesn't qualify). EVula 03:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

No, you should have a link to it. Why? Because it actually focuses specifically on that game, and likely contains significant information on it as well. And I wasn't saying that every single hard-to-find website should be linked to. I don't even know how you came to the conclusion that I even implied such a thing. But don't worry, I have an idea. We should put links to Google searches in each article! It's well-known, will probably lead you to a ton of information on the subject, and best of all, almost everyone who uses the internet knows about it so it will just be a waste of time and space. -Yggdra Juril Altwaltz 03:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

" I thought this was an encyclopedia." We are. That's why we should link to Mobygames if we got information from them, because it's part of our journalistic integrity that we source our information. At any rate, I hope you've realized why I kept reverting your link removals. --tjstrf 04:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Then do not state that it is something other than an encyclopedia. And keep in mind that I only removed the links once before I turned to discussing it. -Yggdra Juril Altwaltz 03:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You're talking about in-general. You're not talking about Riviera's page at all, since we DIDN'T take information from that MobyGames page. Your reverts have nothing to do with sourcing.

Also, your reverts after the first one were UNJUSTIFIED. The editor in question gave a valid reason for his/her edit, and the issue was brought into question. From there, the discussion should have IMMEDIATELY gone to the talk page. You also violated the three-edit rule, and insulted the editor in question by calling him/her a vandal without proper justification. A registered user should know the rules better than an anonymous or new user.

So no, I don't understand why you kept reverting the link removals and the "overweight" comment. Also, I responded to two other people above. --Raijinili 02:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I never broke WP:3RR, don't throw around false accusations. My closest together reverts were 2 within 24 hours. --tjstrf 18:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I actually think in the case of Riviera: The Promised Land that the mobygames link or the Netjak review weren't that important. The mobygames entry was pretty incomplete and didn't include the dev-team which I think is the most important mobygame asset, but still there was some information there. Why not just link to Metacritic or Gamerankings instead? I know they're both part of the CNET global empire, but the Metacritic link looks quite promising. - Hahnchen 00:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe it's necessary to have links to generic, popular websites such as MobyGames. They are popular, so a lot of people know about them and they are easy to find, so it is kind of a waste to link to them in every single game article. - strongly disagree - by that rationale we should remove links to IMDB for each film article too! We might know all about MobyGames, as hard-nosed gamer types, but the casual user doesn't necessarily. --Oscarthecat 04:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do think we should remove links to IMDB, as well. Regardless, people still seem to be misunderstanding me. Maybe I'll just go find a free thesaurus that anyone can edit, instead. Maybe they will be more open to improvement. -Yggdra Juril Altwaltz 23:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me try to validate the links to MobyGames with a list. I don't think any of us want anyone leaving in a huff:

1. MobyGames lists a great deal of purely statistical information that we may not want to include in the article (entire dev team, for example).
2. MobyGames often has large galleries of screenshots of games in play, which we usually do not. Even if we did have the same volume as MobyGames, we usually don't have an elegent way of working them into an article (a few is great, dozens is too many).
3. MobyGames is not commercial. Yes, they have banner ads, but they don't have the bane of the Internet, pop-up ads. And I'm sure the revenue generated from the banner ads do little more than pay their hosting and bandwidth costs (if that). Yes, they now sell some "MobyGear" (mugs, t-shirts, other stuff), but use of their site—including membership—is completely free.
4. MobyGames information increases over time. Like Wikipedia, information in MobyGames is not static, information for entries is being added all the time. For this reason alone, MobyGame links should be added to articles, even if at the time of the writing of articles, the MobyGames entry is "crap."

Now, if MobyGames only had stuff like reviews, I'd contest their inclusion. But with all the pros above, I think we should link to MobyGames in all articles, even if they really don't augment the information in the Wikipedia article when it is originally written (I know I am probably in the minority here).

That being said, I think links to IGN, GameSpot, <insert your favorite online magazine here> can justifiably be included, when they have NPOV information on the game. This doesn't include reviews, unless it is citing, e.g., a major bug (this doesn't include stuff like "I found the gameplay extremely uninspiring"). These game sites also include news and industry info, which MobyGames doesn't, which can augment an article's content. Just cite them as the source for the information. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Except when it doesn't. GameFAQs DOES have the dev list, though incomplete due to their rules about "real names" and such. I can edit in the COMPLETE dev list, but to get it on MobyGames, I would have to make an account.
2. The screenshots in the case of Riviera are easily accessible from the Atlus website. In fact, I believe RPGamer has a lot more screenshots than MobyGames does, as well as news, an interview, the movies (which are ALSO accessible from the Sting website, if not the Atlus one), the character art, and pre-release screens.
3. That's not reason to put it on every page. That's barely justification for ALLOWING it on every page.
4. It's been over a year. They have the bare-bones. It makes Wikipedia look bad for linking to a site that has almost nothing, even after a whole year. No one links to a blank Wikipedia page as a source for information except Wikipedia, and only because Wikipedia wants to encourage people to edit those pages.

Also, I looked at the Netjak review on Metacritic. It was the lowest score on that site. I believe now that the person who originally added it was a vandal. --Raijinili 18:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I doubt the Netjak review was added by a vandal. Netjak scores hard, and we had a fan spamming Netjak links a while back. Probably just linkspam. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what it looks like --Raijinili 22:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Acceptable genres

Is there a list of genres that should be used for new game articles?
If I asked this in the wrong place, please rudely shout at me and don't give me a link to where I should ask it.
--Dinoguy1000 ^Talk 18:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, why would anyone shout at you, it's perfectly fine to ask your question here. For the genres, see: Category:Computer and video game genres. Hope that helps. jaco♫plane 18:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It was meant to be a joke, you know, the whole self-deprecation thing... Regardless of the unintentional confusion, thanks for the link! --Dinoguy1000 ^Talk 06:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for mediation on EDGE magazine article

I've been involved with some edits of EDGE magazine's article. Another contributor very strongly disagrees with my opinion that the article is POV and makes uncited claims, with regard to the foreign language editions of the magazine, see the talk page. I'd be grateful if others in the CVG project could get involved with reviewing the article's contents, rather than me getting into an edit war. --Oscarthecat 20:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Game name

• Ninja Gaiden 2 (Next-Generation)
• Ninja Gaiden 2 (Xbox 360)

Anonymous user engaged in reversions regarding these name differencies. I think this need more experiences WP:CVG member to clarify. --Ragnarok Addict 21:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I would vastly prefer a year attached (a la Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 game)), and bar a name change that's where it should ultimately end up, but since we don't have even that, I'd go with the console. Nifboy 00:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

If there's no Ninja Garden 2 in the first place, why are we even adding a parenthesis disambiguation? That's only needed if we have multiple versions, such as Mission: Impossible, whose game franchise has all featured the same title. Anyway, "(Next-Generation)" is very vague, so (Xbox 360) would be much more preferrable Hbdragon88 22:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I always seem to mix up Gaiden and Garden. I concur with Nifboy in stating a year rather than the time-subjective "Next-Generation" and this will change when PS3 comes out - next-gen would be the eighth generation. Hbdragon88 00:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

CVG WikiProject mascot?

I was thinking it would be cool to have a mascot for the WikiProject. Perhaps someone could create an image of Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan playing video games? This is the character that is the mascot for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga and the Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit. I know, it's very esoteric. Perhaps we could organise a contest? Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games/Mascott contest ?? We could take submissions and then finally vote. Or is this a stupid idea? jaco♫plane 04:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I say no to that idea. A mascot isn't needed, and would just distract from people editing. RobJ1981 04:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

How would it distract people from editing? I think that it might actually improve the project by community building. It would be good for marketing the project to newcomers I think. jaco♫plane 05:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

People should want to help the project, not be attracted in by the mascot. The whole contest thing is the distraction. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to do random contests to create a mascot for a project. RobJ1981 05:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

However, if someone were to create Wikipe-tan in a video game setting of appropriate quality, I don't see why we wouldn't use her. But a contest is simply out of the question. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone already has. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 09:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The only way a mascot would distract editors is if it were a Lara Croft lookalike. Still, not sure if it's a good idea. I don't think there can be a good avatar for a category as broad as CVG. -- Solberg 07:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Solberg

Who would be distracted by a Lara Croft look-alike?? -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 07:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Straight up, no. I don't see anyone coming up with a mascot which doesn't involve stupid cutesy japano-characters. - Hahnchen 00:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

If not Wikipe-tan playing a video game, who else? Would the caterpillar or the Gnu (also seen here) look better playing video games? Wikipe-tan is better than the alternative, methinks. Besides, Wikipe-tan doesn't have to be in "cutesy" pose, just look at her logo for Counter-Vandalism Unit. What's cute about that? --DavidHOzAu 01:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Wikipe-tan is a cutesy japano-character breaks your argument. - Hahnchen 00:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, I'd be highly amused by a picture of Wikipede playing a four-player match of SSBM against himself. That said, we've devoted entirely too much time to this inane discussion, and I really, really don't think we need to follow WP:CVU as an example for anything. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, you should ask Kagura to draw a mascot for you. Ashibaka tock 19:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, have two versions of Wikipetan (as seen in this image) playing against each other seem to be nice.L-Zwei 05:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Image Galleries

I seem to remember there was a discussion here about cover galleries in articles not really being fair use, anyway, I have come across a few articles that contain them, for example NBA Live series. I know this article is about a series, but is it really necessary to have every single cover of every game there? It even has four different covers for NBA live '06! Surely this violates fair use in a big way. Timkovski 22:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that gallery should go ASAP. I'd do it myself, but I can't be bothered to go through and tag all those images as orphans right now... -- Steel 22:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Please Adopt and Audit Panzer General

Hello. Could someone please "adopt" Panzer General and neutrally review the edits for vandalism, spam, and NPOV. Thank you.Wikist 00:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Lakitu

Lakitu is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 02:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Unusual request

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Gaming Collaboration of the week

Sorry if this request is off-topic or otherwise unsuitable for this section, please redirect me accordingly. Over at talk for the article for Motorhead [4] a dispute has erupted. Basically we had for some time the article for Motorhead, a videogame, which had a For-template link to Motörhead, a heavy metal band. The heavy metal enthusiasts argued that the roles should be reversed[5], I argued against. After an AfD nomination [6] (in itself a rather dirty "trick"), User:Freakofnurture [7] performed the move "Motorhead" -> "Motorhead (video game)" and created a dab page at Motorhead (after he first populated it with a #redirect to Motörhead). What happened next was that there has been kind of a revert war [8] going on between the dab and the redirect. Apparently, the heavy metal people have joined forces, so before I go any further (or not), I'd like to hear what the rest of the CVG community feels about this. --Frodet 21:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You would get a better response at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer and video games. Thunderbrand 01:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

As someone from the CVG camp my two peneth is: Redirect to band, link to game on band article - X201 08:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Motorhead should redirect to Motörhead, which should have a dab notice at the top of the page to Motorhead (video game). Common usage VASTLY favors the band. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with the move. I can't believe that some users who were pathetically trying to compromise to save their own petty decision actually thought a disambig page would be the best idea, where the disambig was the worst possible solution in each case. Go go compromise groupthink. - Hahnchen 16:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate since, in my head, there really shouldn't be an issue with dab at all, ref. eg. Ardal vs. Årdal.... --Frodet 16:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't care too much about the page move, but the suggestion and implementation of a disambiguation page at Motorhead was totally ridiculous. You're forcing everyone at the Motorhead article to waste another page load and click again, it was a pathetic attempt to try and keep the video game article visible and baseless cries of undue weight, when having a link at the top of the Motörhead article was enough. As I said, I don't care about the page move, what I do care about are when people decide to go for the worst possible solution in some compromise scenario like a disambig page, one of the worst examples of this can be seen at be bold. To Liftarn and the others who proposed a disambig page, do you really think Ralph Macchio should be a disambig? What about Ken Watanabe? - Hahnchen 16:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree - the dab page is not the best solution - I did not implement it, though. Yes, I was enforcing it based on the what was set up by the mover. What I reacted to was the "sneaky" way this was done, without any real consensus or a call at Wikipedia:Requested moves. I consider myself neutral as I have never played neither Motorhead nor Motörhead, hence why I ask here. But why a redirect and not (a move of) the Motorhead (video game) article to Motorhead? --Frodet 16:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Emulators

There are a lot of emulators with articles on Wikipedia. see List of Emulators. Recently, there have been proposals for deletion of a few of the Nintendo Console emulators(see for example iNes, FCE Ultra), but given the large number of emulators with articles (Not to mention the Redlinks), I felt it would be important to open up a discussion on where to draw the line as regards emulation software. Certain examples (like Bleem! should clearly be kept, although they could clearly be improved, but others might not qualify. So I'm here seeking some thoughts on where to draw the line, so forth. So share what you feel. Mister.Manticore 22:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:SOFTWARE seems good, although software included with a Linux distro is a lame standard we really shouldn't use with peripheral software like emulators. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can agree with applying WP:Software as emulators really don't receive that much published attention. How much though, do you think is the absolute minimum necessary? Mister.Manticore 22:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I can safely say that just because an emulator exists isn't reason enough to have an article on it. Existence and availability are totally different from notability. Surely there are reviews of emulators that can be cited to prove notability? As WP:Notability states: 'a subject needs to be of sufficient importance that there are multiple reliable secondary sources, independent of the subject, on which we can base a verifiably neutral article without straying into original research.' Nearly all these emulator articles utterly fail this, as well as other Wiki guidelines and policies. The Kinslayer 08:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

First, citing rules like that is not convincing to me, for reasons I've already mentioned. It troubles me a lot. But instead of getting into that, I'll just say that for the vast majority of emulators, I must say, I'm completely unaware of any reviews more significant than "here's this cool emulator here" or a release on some website that is nothing more than the changelog. This is particularly true of console emulators, which is something of a less formal environment than most. It really doesn't get the kind of formal attention that say, automobiles do. Does this mean Wikipedia should have no information whatsoever on them? I can't say that appeals to me. I can't imagine how that improves Wikipedia at all. Mister.Manticore 14:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The rules are there for a reason. You can't apply the rules to only the bits you want, and I don't really care if you have a problem with the rules, because I don't, and I intend to use them to highlight my point, which is, those ARE the rules (regardless of whether you like it or not), so how can we fit emulators into that frame? Obviously it can't be done in the most conventional sense, because as you say, emulator communties are too informal. So we have to to adapt. I stand by my conviction that just being listed for download on a couple of meta-emulation sites is not sufficient notability in itself. The Kinslayer 14:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there are reviews at sites like Zophar's Domain and ClassicGaming.Com, which have been standard emulator resource sites since 1996 and 1997 respectively. Zophar even goes so far as to categorize by "Best", "Good", "Promising" and "Not Worth The Download". --Marty Goldberg 14:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, there we go then, that's two places we can use. The problem here is that it can easily turn into a 'if it's not mentioned on them, it shouldn't be here' which may not be the best situation. But a least we've got a starting point. The Kinslayer 15:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Sigh, yes, the rules exist for a reason, but reasoning and discussion exist for a reason as well. Why? Because the rules simply aren't appropriate in every situation. Your own statement covers that, and I agree, the conventional standards don't work for emulators, particularly console ones. And BTW, every emulator I saw you nominate is mentioned on Zophar's(and at least one is also on Classicgaming.com). Mister.Manticore 15:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to say that most of my noms for speedy deletes were upheld today, and I feel that most of these pages have been set up as either ads, vanity pages or, in a couple cases, set up to compare the emulator unfavourably to another emulator specifically. I agreed with Mister Manticore that we'd take the discussion here and try to reach a group consensus on what standards we should be setting for emulators (how do we define notability etc etc) The Kinslayer 22:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

In the case of FCEUXD reveals that it was created in April last year, and counting a couple of people randomly correcting some spelling, has received 7 edits up to this point. This article seems strongly not worth keeping. (I know this isn't an AfD discussion, I'm just providing it as an example of the pages I've been nomination for deletion.) The Kinslayer 22:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• BTW does anyone else think that console emulator needs a bit of work? It lacks sources, and some sections (like the bit on Nesticle ) probably receive too much attention. Mister.Manticore 22:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree it skips right through all the various consoles in the first paragraph, then seems to dwell on the NES and SNES for most of the next 3 paragraphs. The Kinslayer 22:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Any suggestions on how to tag it? I'm not sure whether to go with unverified or simple cleanup.
      • Actually I just removed the entire first paragraph in question because it was completely incorrect. None of those used any sort of emulation. Provided references on the talk page. Marty Goldberg 15:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and another resource is Category:Emulation software stubs that might help show off the problem. Mister.Manticore 23:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Do you mean another example of poor quality emulator article? All the ones on the AfD list on our project page can be used as them in that case. The Kinslayer 23:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • No, I meant to type in a category, but I can't figure it out. Anyway the Category Emulation software stubs has probably a hundred entries in it. Mister.Manticore 23:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, so I'm still going through some thoughts in my head, but in general, I'm going to say this about console emulators. (Note by console I'm also including handheld devices).

1. There's a lot of console emulators out there. Most are freeware, and most are never going to be reviewed or studied by anyone reputable. This doesn't mean they aren't widely used(for an emulator), or important. It just means that this particular area doesn't attract the same kind of scholarly attention as much popular subjects. Yes, there are exceptions that make the news, or get a commercial release. Or are produced by a major company. But that's not true of the vast majority.
2. It doesn't do Wikipedia any good to not have information on them, as this is still a reasonably important subject. Wikipedia not having information is not a good thing. Sure, it'd be a bad idea to get into any comparisons between emulators (as some of the articles tread upon now), but there's a difference between simply reporting that this is Emulator X, and this is Emulator Y, and Emulator Z and saying Emulator X is the ROKS! while Y and Z are deh SuX! .
3. There's a lot of articles on them, some of which will probably never be expanded. See the stub-Category I already mentioned. So for many cases, perhaps a better way to do things would be to merge and redirect to an informational list. See List of esoteric programming languages . This would also help as it would allow us to determine whether or not what's being emulated is important, which may be somewhat easier. Obviously, there are exceptions that merit their own articles, but that can be determined after the fact.

Anyway, that's what I'm thinking right now. Does anybody else have any other input that isn't just repeating some Wikipolicy or another? I'm sorry, but I just don't find that quoting WP:Software or WP:NOT or whatever very stimulating thoughtwise. They actually tend to preclude discussion IMHO. Mister.Manticore 14:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The best compromise I can think is the one Manticore suggested (I think) on one of the AfDs, which was rather than having 70-odd (random number) articles with three sentences about them, compile them into lists of emulators by system. We could then have articles about the TRULY notable emulators. The Kinslayer 15:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, this seems to have stalled now, so can we either have some fresh input from other people, or reach a decision on how to handle emulators? The Kinslayer 19:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid three or four people contributing on a subject that covers at least 90-odd articles isn't enough for me to think we've got enough people to have reached a decision. Especially since some of the people have only chimed in once to cite some already established policy, without replying to comments on why that policy might not be quite fair. I'm just not sure how to get some real discussion going. Considering the PITA that was resulted in over a dozen undeletions from those cookie articles the other day though(or the earlier Esoteric programming languages thing), I'm inclined to advocate patience and thought rather than act improvidently. Mister.Manticore 03:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I do like the idea of a list though. Because emulator use is in most cases illegal, is it not ? Sure, if you have a legitimate bios to make them run, you are kinda ok for personal use. But that's just a technicality IMHO. The risk exists that Wikipedia might get some copyvio complaints. I hate the idea of having Wikipedia lack information but in case of illegal software... The less we have the better. A list with links to other sites would be informative and not too risky IMHO. Renmiri 04:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope, besides the fact that reporting on something criminal is rather different from actually doing the thing, emulation is NOT illegal in and of itself. I don't know of any emulator being found criminal at all, though I suppose it could happen. In any case, relatively few emulators require an actual BIOS to run, and even then, those haven't been the subject of any of the discussion here, or anywhere that I know about, solely because they might require a copyrighted bios. Now if there is a wikipedia page that talks about getting copyrighted ROMs, proposing that for deletion is another matter. But it's not like we go around deleting pages like Abandonware or The Pirate Bay just because they might be "risky" in some vague sense that they could be misused. As arguments go, this is relatively weak. Mister.Manticore 05:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

An emulator itself is certainly not illegal. For emulators that require a bios image (and there are some, but they're more commonly computer emulators), it is the bios itself that would be illegal to have and not the emulator. Even then, there are some bios's that have been released to the PD, and others that have been reversed engineered and provided in PD format. Such is the case with the Vectrex for example, where the owner has released all roms (including the bios) in to the PD. Nintendo is the only one that I'm aware of that took an "emulators are illegal" stance, but has since corrected it since they couldn't prosecute anyone. They even tried prosecuting hardware based "famiclones" (NES's on a chip) but couldn't win that because they were produced with reverse engineering and couldn't prove otherwise. (I believe it was against someone selling them locally to NOA in Washington in fact just a few years ago). Their official stance on emulation is still very negative, i.e. "emulation promotes piracy therefore it is bad". --Marty Goldberg 14:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Consistency for MobyGames in External Links

Does anyone here besides Frecklefoot and tjstrf think that MobyGames should be linked to on EVERY video game page? Because tjstrf is adding it to Riviera: The Promised Land citing "consistency". --Raijinili 01:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Mobygames should be linked to when it is used. Consistency is not a valid reason for external links. There are almost 10000 tagged cvg articles- they don't all need a mobygames link. --PresN 13:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think MobyGames should be added to every article. MobyGames provides screenshots and information that is not appropriate for Wikipedia. jaco♫plane 15:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

If the MobyGames article covers information that exceeds the scope of the Wikipedia article, it should be linked to. If it has just the same info, it shouldn't be. EVula 15:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Jaco, in the case of certain pages, such as Riviera: The Promised Land, Atlus already provides screenshots. Just about the only other things that the MobyGames page offers are where to buy the game, some reviews (which Metacritic does better, in my opinion), and a Chinese name for a Chinese release I've never heard of. Do you think that it should be added to Riviera? --Raijinili 00:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll ammend my previous comment and say that it doesn't have to be linked in every article. If you want to wait for the information and other data to be updated first, before you link to it, fine. But I've always been partial to only doing work once. If I'm working on a game article, I'll link to MobyGames because I know the information there is generally useful and expands on what Wikipedia will have. Linking to MobyGames isn't—and shouldn't be—a requirement. However, it is one of my personal standard practices. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Same stupid edit war, different day... I think that it's important to have a standard system for linking and that there is no reason whatsoever to remove a link that is normally included on other similar pages. --tjstrf 15:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I would typically agree that a link should be provided if it is used as research or if there is additional information not part of the pedia. In the case of Riviera: The Promised Land MG has detailed cover art, detailed release info Example the Japanese release was developed and published by Sting whereas the US release was published by Atlus and developed by Sting. The wonderswan version was published by Bandai. Some people go crazy for these details. Obviously screenshots. I think I may of put the link there in the first place ... but hey whatever you folks decide. --Flipkin 16:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the MobyGames entry had no more information than the Wikipedia article. Now I see it has a great deal more than our article. The screenshots alone merit its inclusion. But since the comment at the top of this thread excludes my opinion, I'll keep it to myself. >:( — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Well MG and the CVP are like sister projects. Both user contributed. There are some philosophical and technical differences but I think both goals are the game. Video games are culturally and historically important. Document everything. Offer that information free to the public. I think both benefit from the association. Obviously the policy should be by concensus, but my opinion is that the MG are OK. --Flipkin 18:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that it had no more info than the Wikipedia article. Pay attention. I said that the other links already covered most of what MobyGames had. If you want me to respect your opinions, then I expect you to actually read what I say so that I don't have to keep saying it. --Raijinili 00:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

And one more link, to finish it off. --Raijinili 00:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems you are just bent on ignoring the reasons people do give to you, which are more than sufficient for the rest of us. This discussion has gone on long enough and it's obvious which way consensus goes: link acceptable or imperative, argument over removal WP:LAME. I'm readding the link. --tjstrf 00:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

What reasons did I ignore? Back it up. You're saying that "we should support MobyGames" is a valid reason?

People said that MobyGames provided information. I responded time and again that the other links provide just as much information and more. Redundancy isn't a valid reason for exclusion now?

"Consistency" for external links is NOT Wikipedia policy and you can't cite that for a reason unless it's decided by consensus that it is a valid reason, because then it leads to stupid edit wars.

People then brought up that MobyGames had screenshots and release info. I replied that I already talked about how the other external links covered those screenshots and release info, and did it better. What exactly did I miss? --Raijinili 01:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Low importance / no importance article assessments

I think we should merge no importance with low importance. Then we would have low/mid/high/top, which I think is plenty. I find it very difficult to say an article has "no" importance whatsoever. Also, other projects like WPBiography don't have this "no importance" category. Another reason is that the AWB plugin I've been using to rate/prioritise articles doesn't have support for "no importance". Anyone disagree? jaco♫plane 08:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, if an article truly has no importance, shouldn't it just be deleted? jaco♫plane 08:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not certain, but I think to actually merge the two, you need to take it up wiht the Version 1.0 project, who made the rating system to start with. Personally, I agree that I don't like slapping on a "no importance" tag. I prefer to not use that tag, basically treating not having a tag as the same thing as no importance. I propose rather than merging no and low, we just don't use no, getting us the same result. --PresN 13:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice edit summary :) Anyway, I actually think we're the only project that has a "no importance" category, see: Category:Articles by importance. No "no importance" there. So I think that we don't really need to take it up with the Version 1.0 project since they're not using this anyway. jaco♫plane 13:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I support their merger. I agree that an actual "no importance" article would equal a deleted article (in which case, there'd be no talk page for the tag to be on...). EVula 18:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

On a historical note, No-importance was created especially for the Essential Articles list, which is meant to list only essential articles and rate their importance appropriately; for example, the EA list has only 9 top-level, whereas 22 are currently top-level on the bot's list. No-importance articles had to be justified or removed. Nifboy 00:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the statement that "no importance" implies that the article should not even exist on the wikipedia. But that's an issue of semantics. If the 1.0 editorial team has use for it, then we shouldn't worry about it too much. Like other editors have mentioned, I've just been ignoring the difference between "low" and "no". Effectively they are synonomous; almost all things in the "low" category are such minor topics(e.g. various minor video game characters, or minor games that have made no impact in their genre) they will never see inclusion in version 1.0. —Mitaphane _talk 00:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

To further the argument, Mathbot would, I assume, classify articles of No-Importance as not ranked for importance - Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Computer and video game articles by quality statistics. I'll change the template so that articles marked as No- are put in Low-Importance. Pagrashtak 01:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I've updated the template, but only with respect to the category. The template will still display No-Importance, but will be categorized as Low. It would be possible to force the template to display Low when No is used, but I don't think it would be worth muddying up the code for that at this point. For now, I suggest leaving the display and switching No to Low if you run across it and feel like updating it. Or, someone could request a bot to update it if he feels it's important. Pagrashtak 01:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It actually should be "priority" and not importance [9] as explained by Morphh. Some games and systems just have no priority whatsoever to be included in Wikipedia 1.0 Hbdragon88 00:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Trenches

Could a couple of people please come and give their opinions in this? At the moment it's just two or three of us debating back and forth, and I think some fresh opinions are badly needed. The Kinslayer 17:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Additionaly, the AfD has now been mentioned on The Trenches forum, so I'm expecting some major sock puppetry any time now. The Kinslayer 18:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

This page's history

I've known about this for a bit, but it's really eating me up lately. This page's history only goes back to July 29, when the page was moved to archive old discussion. The rest of the history is here, at Archive 13. Is it too late to fix it? I know, I'm an admin and I could probably fix it, but I'm one of the lazy admins. Also, I tend to mess up fixing cut and paste moves sometimes, and don't want to make it worse. Comments? Thunderbrand 14:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

What eats me up more is having the history all on one page. Really, why can't we must move pages over instad of cut-and-paste archiving? If I'm looking up an old discussion, I hate having to look through 5-6 archives. I'd much rather try to hunt through my own contribus to find which archive page I put the discussion on. Hbdragon88 22:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It's just that we should probably keep it consistant, as per Wikipedia:How_to_archive_a_talk_page#Controversy. From archive 1-12, they were cut and pasted, and 13 was moved, and the rest are also cut and paste. Thunderbrand 23:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

various stubs up for deletion

I am just notifying you that I am putting a few cvg-related stubs up for deletion since their categories are empty or nearly empty. Please voice your opinion on the SFD page here.

• no template / Category:Computer and video game franchise stubs
• {{cvg-hardware-stub}} / Category:Computer and video game hardware stubs
• {{speedrun-stub}} / Category:Speedrun stubs
• {{MK-stub}} / Category:Mortal Kombat stubs
• {{Zelda-stub}} / Category:The Legend of Zelda stubs

~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 17:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Tycoon Computer Games

Yes, it's still alive! I took a wikibreak, and it seemed to have deteriorated--but I'm back! I was thinking of removing the inactive notice, reply if you have an objection. Primate^#101 01:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I mildly object- one person does not a wikiproject make, and you're the only person who's active in the project. That said, go ahead if you wish, it doesn't really bother me. --PresN 14:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

need some help with CVG by year again

I've got some work to be done on the CVG by year categories.

1. remove interwiki links. Most or all of them are automatically covered in {{cvg year interwiki}}, if not, please add them to it.
2. add it to the parent year in software category (don't worry if it doesn't exist yet, I'm making them).

See Category:2000 computer and video games for an example. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:Unassessed computer and video game articles - Donald Duck

Donald Duck has appeared in the category today. The actual article merely lists video games he has been in. Should it really be part of cvgproj? My opinion is not. Yes he is a game character but it was secondary to why he exists, if you have any comment please add them to the talk page - X201 12:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, just in case anyone cares, the Unassessed catagory now only has articles from F through U, which still encompanses around 3700 articles. So, drop on by, assess some articles! Link is in the to do box on the main project page. --PresN 14:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

No, Donald Duck doesn't belong in the CVG project. His games do, that's it. Articles that just mention video games briefly, certainly aren't a part of this project. RobJ1981 17:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

BZFlag removed as FA

BZflag has been removed as a Featured Article, due to...well, being a B class article that no one cares to fix. This means that the only CVG related article currently at Featured Article Review is Link (Legend of Zelda), though it looks like it's going to pass. This has been your daily Featured Article News Update. --PresN 17:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Doom clone deleted

Apparently the article Doom clone has been killed. This is completely absurd; it was a fine article on an important subject, and tons of pages link to it (there are now a lot of dead links instead). Any administrator who can figure out why it was deleted, or better yet, would be willing to simply restore it? Fredrik Johansson 21:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, if someone had bothered to remove the WP:PROD tag that wouldn't have happened. Just ask an admin to restore it. --tjstrf 21:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)