Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

WPCVG Talk Archives

01 - 02 - 03 - 04 - 05 06 - 07 - 08 - 09 - 10 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - 20 21 - 22 - 23 - 24 - 25 26 - 27 - 28 - 29 - 30

How to archive a talk page

MobyGames and COI spammers

Guys,

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#MobyGames.2F_Flipkin. The issue with MobyGames is that about 5500 links of the 6500 links to this website seem to have been added by the sites founders and various sock accounts. Everyone is happy to accept your view that appropriate links to the site need to be kept but can we give some thought to the acceptability of this kind of large scale link insertion, substantial to currently empty pages, by people declared to have a conflict of interest? What should be done with all these spammed links? --BozMo talk 11:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Checking assistance request

I have now been through every instance of {{Moby developer}}, checking that they were useful, and cleaning up or removing if needed. (~95% of them were just fine)

I would appreciate assistance doing the same thing for {{Moby game}}, over the next few days. I'll check off the letters that I've been through below, please feel free to help me :) --Quiddity 22:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Struck, I simply don't have time anytime soon, plus the non-alphabetical nature of the whatlinkshere list makes it a lot harder. Whatever happens will be up to the TfD's closing admin (Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 9#Template:Moby developer) --Quiddity 18:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The TfD was closed as "no consensus". I've left a proposed solution at the end of this thread: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#3 comments. Thanks. --Quiddity 17:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Brendan O'Brien

Apparently, the person with the above name shares it with a record producer and several others and we are getting emails about this at OTRS. So, I was wondering if you can change the links, mostly in Crash Bandicoot articles, to Brendan O'Brien (disambiguation) please. Thanks. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought we weren't supposed to link to disambiguation pages. Don't we just de-link in this case? hbdragon88 01:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, until an article is made about this guy. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I usually redlink such cases to, in this case, Brendan O'Brien (actor) or something similar, rather than the disambiguation page. Nifboy 05:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Whatever works best for yall, go ahead and do it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

SNES peer review

I've been working on Super Nintendo Entertainment System with the goal of eventually getting it up to FA status. Since I've run out of ideas to improve the article, I submitted it for peer review last weekend, and have yet to receive any response. Please take a look and give some feedback. Thanks. Anomie 20:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I still have the SNES. But it isn't plugged in... Anyways, Hello! --A legend 21:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

"Example series" vs. "Example (series)" vs. "Example (video game series)"

Witch name should be used for an article about a video game series? --MrStalker ^talk 19:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Dunno, but see also this dead discussion which proposed that actual franchises be named franchises instead of series: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Final Fantasy/archive/22#Final Fantasy (series) article. Kariteh 20:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe most just use (series). I haven't seen the other two used at all. TTN 20:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Okey, I'll go for the "Example (series)" format then. --MrStalker ^talk 21:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

If there is also a non gaming series of x object, then obviously you should go with the third option. For example, for Pokemon you would go with Pokemon (video game series) and Pokemon (anime series) and so on.... (this has probably already been done and proved me wrong, but it's an example) -- G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 23:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

"system-only games" subcats and their parents

Due to the lack of concensus in the discussion on the merging of the "system-only games" subcats with their parents here: [1], and several users feeling that all-inclusion would be preferable, and indeed in line with WP:SUBCAT ("When an article is put into a subcategory based on an attribute that is not the first thing most people would think of to categorise it, it should be left in the parent category as well"), I have begun including all games in these sub-categories in their parent categories as well, and also adding any relevant titles I notice along the way to the "only" sub-cats also. If anyone has any reason for objecting, please note here or on my talk page. Thanks, Miremare 20:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I think WP:CFD would be a better option. - hahnchen 16:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's pretty much as a result of the last CFD, but WP:SUBCAT#Secondary categorization rule states this is the correct way, so I didn't really see there being any point of a further CFD. There are also literally hundreds of precedents in categories all over Wikipedia, e.g. Manchester United is listed (in ascending order) in the related categories: "Cat:Manchester United F.C." > "Cat:FA Premier League Clubs" > "Cat:FA Premier League", and "Cat:English Football Clubs". These game-related categories have simply not been handled properly. Miremare 16:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Didn't spot that. But those -only categories are really poor, such an obvious hack. If only Wikipedia incorporated meta data or something to that effect which would make it easier to apply different rules to browse data. - hahnchen 18:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions reform.

We need a reform. There is far too much opposition to any title that doesn't adhere to NA naming conventions or Japanese naming conventions.

What needs to be done is:

• Clarify that "we should stick with the original title" is a TIE BREAKER argument. It cannot be the definitive argument that one side can use to stop the debate, it must be used solely for the purpose of deciding what to do when there is no reason to use either or their is an equal amount of reason to use either.
• If an article uses an English title, it should adhere to the appropriate writing style based on the region.
• Success and popularity CAN be brought up as a factor. They may not be winning arguments, but they're most definitely factors. If one name is attributed to a version praised for its success and another name is attributed to a version that is scorned as being not successful enough, that should be taken into account.
• Which version is released first should be taken into account.
• Google hits are not a reliable argument, as they are by default in favor of NA by the fact that video game web sites are mostly NA-dominated (with IGN, GameSpot, and 1UP having high Alexa ranks).
• Sharing the original Japanese title is only an accompany argument. It cannot be the sole argument - it's merely an extra. If you don't have any primary arguments, then this should not be used.
• Article titles should be English-based if at all possible. Even if they are particularly less popular in the English regions versus the Japanese region, they should be used in place of the Japanese title. Transliterations should not be used.
• Length should not be a factor - we don't shorten article titles just for convenience. We may use a shorter official version, but not an abbreviation (ie, using Brain Age instead of its full title is an abbreviation).
• Release dates should always be in order of release - do not put them in order of region (for instance, if someone decided to make a Madden article go JP > NA > EU).

That's just for starters.

Comments? - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you can really make guidelines for what people use for arguments, but I definitely agree that English titles need to be given primacy over Japanese ones, there should be no abbreviations, and release dates should be listed in order of release. This is the English Wikipedia and we should use the English title, not just the original one -- this is why The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is listed at that name and not at Il buono, il brutto, il cattivo. I don't agree about Google hits -- although the Google test is not necessarily the end-all be-all of naming conventions, it's definitely useful to judge the pervasiveness of a given name. Andre (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Strongly agree on the "we should stick with the original title" needing a rewrite. First come first served is an awful approach. Agree on all the other proposals you've put down there too. --Oscarthecat 20:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts: since this is the English-language Wikipedia, the English title should be used (assuming there is one). In cases where there are multiple English titles across regions, we should try to use the title the game is more popularly known by, with proper redirects established from all other title(s). Popularity can be established by sales. Really, as long as the readers can find the article, what it's called should be the least of our concerns. -- MisterHand 20:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

(ec)

My first comment? That videogame articles are still Wikipedia articles. As such, it's best to follow the Manual of Style. Since it's an official guideline, and is intended to be followed in most instances, it seems like the most logical choice if you want to create a general 'rule of thumb' for article titles.

Generally speaking...

• Articles should only be renamed when there is a very compelling reason to do so. The fact that you think it would be better at another title is a very weak reason, and guaranteed to lead to edit wars.
• I'm entirely fine with using the same writing style as the region's title. (That is, if Brain Age were successfully moved to Brain Training, I'd be fine with using commonwealth spellings) I don't think it should be necessary, but it certainly seems acceptable.
• Success is not a factor. Never has been, never could be. And let's explore why. Let's pick a random crappy movie: Striptease. (I know; I seem to only be able to think of stripper movies for these examples) It's a pretty well-known movie. It also didn't do so great. Let's say it's re-released for another market (It's already been released in the US and UK, so let's say Australia). For the re-release, it's also renamed to, "Nekkid". Imagine that it somehow did really well in Australia. Proportionately, better than it did in north america (wouldn't be hard to accomplish). Would that then mean that the Striptease article should be renamed? It certainly wouldn't be better known as "Nekkid", in the sense that it was more recognizable by that title. And, if you think about it, there are a lot of games, movies, and probably even books that everybody's heard of, but few people have purchased. This isn't a measure of how recognizable they are.

• You are assuming that I am saying "use success as a primary argument". I have never done so. Brain Age vs. Brain Training is an argument of two versions released close to eachother, Striptease vs. Nekkid is a case of a much later release in a different region.

• Which version is released first isn't really a valid criteria. And that's probably why it isn't listed in MoS as a valid criteria.

• It is still a factor, simply because it adds weight to the argument of "this is the original title".

• Google hits are not the be-all and end-all. I'll concede that much. Generally speaking, Google should only be used to show massive differences, or to establish that both potential titles are recognizable.

• The problem with Google hits is that they are regularly leaning towards NA. For instance, football is known throughout the world (outside of the US) as the Associated football, but Google hits states American football as being the primary usage.

• The japanese title should only be considered for very special cases. In general, unless mentioning the japanese title makes the articles themselves easier to understand, they don't matter at all.
• This is one of those squishy matters. In general, english titles should trump japanese titles. However, there will always be cases where the english version is just trivial. (I don't have a games reference, but an anime reference is the fact that we have a Tekkaman Blade article, rather than a Teknoman article)
• Length itself shouldn't be a significant factor (unless it's insanely long). eg. "Brain Training" is not long enough for its length to be an issue. However, a logical and recognizable title is ideal. (And there are occasions where 'common names' trump 'official names' in MoS. Though I don't know if that's too significant in this context)
• I don't see the point of the last one. I don't object, but I don't see the point. Personally, I'd prefer to see a somewhat consistent style used across articles (eg. alphabetical: European Union, Japan, North America), but chronological seems fine as well.

But you really have to realize that you need to address MoS.

And, more importantly, you're very obviously (and I'd say, admittedly) trying to address what you perceive to be a problem with bias. But the biggest problem is that you're poisoning the well. You're assuming there's a problem, and expect people to try to 'fix' that problem. Has it ever occurred to you that all editors here might be acting in good faith? Or that the rules shouldn't be ignored whenever you personally disagree with them? Or that you should try to make article changes for the sake of the articles, rather than the principle? Bladestorm 20:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

THere is most definitely bias on Wikipedia. Maybe some of the people aren't biased perse, but I've seen so much ignorance of EU versions and indifference (implying that the EU box art for Mario Strikers Charged is a "fake" box art almost, for one) that it continuously bothers me. I've seen very, very few examples of an article being EU-based when appropriate, and any attempt to fix this is met with severe opposition. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

And may I ask, what do you think of Mario Strikers Charged? There is certainly no case to be made that the NA version or the JP version is the primary, official, or original version - the EU version is. Really, the fact that it has been released in EU for months before the NA version will be shows no reason for the article to be at the NA title. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What I think you fail to realize is that, not only for videogames, but in general, we don't move articles unless there's a very clearcut reason for it. What's more, when it comes to stylistic versions of titles, we don't move them unless there's substantial reason to do so. This goes both ways. You won't see the article listed as simply "Soccer" without someone coming up with an insanely good reason. When it comes to stylistic choices, we're supposed to handle them on a case by case basis, and moves will not be common.

As for Mario Strikers specifically, I really can't comment, since I don't know much about it. From what I can gather from the article, the game was made in Canada, correct? And the canadian title will just be Mario Strikers, right? (Meaning, the country of origin is english-speaking. And the english version of the game will officially be named "Mario Strikers Charged" in the country of origin?)

To be honest, I think that's a reasonable argument for keeping it as-is. We're not talking about a japanese game that also has english titles. We're talking about a Canadian game that also has alternate english and japanese titles. (Unless, of course, I'm missing something. In which case, I'm more than happy to be corrected) Bladestorm 20:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It was released in Australia and Europe before any other region, so we're giving the title to an unreleased game. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If nothing else, don't you think that's a significantly different issue?

1. A japanese game, with a japanese title, is given two different (regional) english titles for release. The question is which of two english titles to use, when, technically, neither is the "real" name.
2. An english language game is made with an english language title ("Mario Strikers Charged"). It also has an alternate english title for another region.

Even if you want to argue that being released first is a valid enough reason to move the article, I should hope you'll still acknowledge that it's definitely an entirely different situation. In the first, neither of the english titles are from the country of origin. In the second, the north american title is also the official title in the country of origin. That must make it a unique case, if nothing else. Bladestorm 20:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with a couple of points mentioned here because they just forget about "common sense". We should always use the article name that is most likely to be queried. English Google hits determine which name is most likely to be accessed. If "Brain Age" gets five millions hits and "Brain Training" one, it means "Brain Age" is being used five times more than "Brain Training", and common sense indicates we should use it. I already countered the IGN argument, but I do it again: we have a few extremely big American sites like IGN, GameSpot and 1Up, and then a few extremely big European sites like CVG, Eurogamer and Kikizo. Any doubt which group covers most of the market share? It is a pity that we have American focused names, yes, but common sense indicates we should go with the most known name. If Bob googles for a game, he is most likely to hit IGN or GameSpot before Eurogamer for most queries. You know what a high Alexa ranking means? That most John Generic Bobs that use Internet Explorer and an Alexa [spy|tool]ware use them than others. That is the kind of people who need help finding articles.

Personally, I would prefer going with the easier names (that are the names that appear in search engines most of the times). Japanese games should stay with their Japanese name, creating as many redirects for every name used in the gaming media, until an official name is released. If the EU name is released first, then the article should be moved to it. However, if the American name differs, and Google determines it is more common than the European name, it should be moved again.

In the end, though, with redirects being cheap, I would not mind the result of the discussion, as long as consensus is reached (you can create Wikipedia:Manual of Style (videogames) and request for support). -- ReyBrujo 02:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

While "common sense" might indicate we go with the entry most likely to be entered, that hardly means we should necessarily go with it. Should we move the article to Pokemon (no accent)? i personally often rely on an article's title for the correct spelling, form, and version of a subject. This means Tekkaman Blade really should be at Teknoman. According to the article, Tekkaman Blade isn't even an official translation (at least Space Knight Tekkaman Blade would be accurate). the "compelling reason" is accuracy plain and simple. my first reaction to loading that article was, "so if the picture is calling it Teknoman and the translation is Space Knight Tekkaman Blade, why the heck are they titling it after a colloquialism?" we should be using this opportunity to educate, not promote the ignorant usage of a misnomer. popularity is impossible to accurately and objectively state. The only grey area i see is when an english translation gets different names in two different countries and is released at the same time. i suppose it should then just go onto a first-come first-served basis. popularity and sales can vary over time, are we to move the article whenever that happens? as for release dates, i like chrono better b/c then we don't need extra code in infoboxes to distinguish countries (i.e. KISS).

in summation:

• Non english-speaking country of origin (First english-speaking country's title -takes precedence over- First official english title article is located at -takes precedence over- Official english translation -takes precedence over- Most accurate literal translation)
• English speaking country of origin (First official english title i.e. if a US company releases a game in UK first, that's the name of the article, likewise a UK company first releases the game in the US we use the US title)

-ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 01:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC) -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 01:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Multiple year categories in articles

I tried to find the old discussion in the archive: but couldn't. Anyway: I recall the consensus was only the original release year to be used for a category. The infobox lists them all fine already. I got a message on my talk page from an editor that disagrees. So I've had to revert his edits of the categories. Once such edit summary of this editor said: Year cats aren't redundant as per CVG project agreement. Unless I missed something: I don't think the editor is correct on this. What does everyone else think? RobJ1981 18:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

One year is enough. Films and music albums use only one year, I don't see why video games would be different. --Mika1h 20:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what consensus was, but did it address multiple release dates? As in re-released years later or released in different places in different years? I don't really care, but I see the logic.--Clyde (talk) 20:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Multiple_year_categories and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/archive26#Games_that_have_multiple_years_for_categories. - hahnchen 21:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a rather nitpicky issue, but if we're only going to categorize by the original release year, we should do the same for the system cats. It makes no sense whatsoever to be "redundant" across system cats but not year cats. Can anyone list a reason justifying multiple system cats that wouldn't equally well justify multiple year cats? --Ecksemmess 21:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, there are also some practical problems with the "only one year category" policy which are rather unique to video games, so a "films don't do it" defense isn't really justified. Take Super Mario Bros. 3. It was originally released in 1988, but that was in Japan; the vast majority of readers on the English Wikipedia would expect to see the game listed in the VG by year cat around 1990 or 1991, as that's when it came out in North America and Europe. There is real potential for confusion here. Categorizing the game for 1990 only or 1991 only is no good either, because that's clearly POV in favor of North America (if 1990 is chosen) or Europe (if 1991 is chosen). And of course, there are hundreds of other games with similar issues. Multiple year categories solve all these sticky problems without creating any additional problems. --Ecksemmess 21:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Multiple year categories ruins the whole point of having categories in the first place, it's like going to the local library and finding Crime and Punishment in the Romance, Crime and Thriller sections, it wouldn't happen the book is filed by it's main characteristic. Forget video games for a second, imagine we're talking about people's biographies. Would we add a new People born in year x category to a person every time they visited a new country for the first time? Obviously not, we are born and we are categorised by the year of our birth, and that's how I think games should be categorised, the category should be Games created in year x and not games published in year x. The important factor is when it was created, not when it was sold in country Y. The differences between release years can be covered in the article. So I propose that this is the consensus we push for - That VG year categories are the year that the game was originally created (with obvious allowances for major re-writes/re-releases) - X201 09:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with X201, it just doesnt make sense to have multiple release years. It's silly. DurinsBane87 09:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with labelling the categories "Games created in year x" though. Created is too vague. Take Final Fantasy XII, was it really "created in 2006"? No, its creation spans a long period which goes from 2001 all the way to 2006. Perhaps the categories should be "Games first published in year x" or something. Kariteh 09:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, a definite, clear cut statement like "Games first published in year x" is what it needs. "Created" could be open to interpretation. - X201 10:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

System categories should include every game released for that system. Year cats shouldn't include every re-release issued in that year. The different years, different regions issue isn't unique to games, in one of the linked discussions above, I've cited films such as Shaolin Soccer which were released in different regions in different years. - hahnchen 21:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not unique to video games at all. Taking a Japanese movie, Princess Mononoke for instance, you get 1997 for Japan and 1999 for the US. I'm sure many movies in both directions have differing years as well. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 22:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention you can get dozens of different years when counting European countries individually. Kariteh 10:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

There have been no complaints or additions to this discussion so can it be taken as read that everyone accepts that each game should have only one Year x in Video Games category and that year should be the original year of release on the original system in the original country of release. And that game articles should include every system category that the game was released for regardless of year. Has anyone got anything else to add? - X201 08:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there might still be problems with remakes. Should Final Fantasy Tactics: The War of the Lions be considered released in 2007 because that's when the remake/port/whatever-you-call-it was released, or should it be considered released in 1997 because that's when the original version of the game was released? The fact that this remake has its own article may or may not be relevant, since many remakes precisely don't have their own articles. See for instance Romancing SaGa, released in 1992 and remade in 2005. That's complicated. Kariteh 09:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said above if the remake warrants separate articles on WP then only one year should apply to each article(like the FF examples). If the game has had large improvements made to it - but not enough to warrant a separate article - then as long as the article explains those improvements there is nothing wrong with having two or more Year x in video games categories, it could be confusing if there were two years with a massive gap between them and no explanation as to why in the article.

Multiple categories shouldn't be used if it's just to signify a long pause between diferent release dates. Multiple years shouldn't be used for standard things that happen during conversion from one format to another eg language translation or conversion to using the DS touch pad, these are normal processes that happen to most games and are, on the whole not noteworthy occurrences. Allowances are going to have to be made for some articles but 99% will be covered by a single year, it's mainly to avoid having Game X appear in 1985,1986, 1992 and 2007 when all four are the same game, and just the format or system are different. - X201 10:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Are there any objections or questions? Am I ok to change the wording of the category to specify the first published year as mentioned above? - X201 08:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Freeware and the "one screenshot" rule

Hi,

I wanted to know if freeware is restricted by the generally-accepted "one in-game screenshot" rule? Indeed, if it is freeware, does that restrict anything?

What I want to do is make screenshots from Stunts of the Jaguar XJR-9 in the game and add it to that car's article for pictoral reference. Stunts is freeware, but I'm not sure if that means I can make more screenshots of the game, nor use those screenshots elsewhere than the game article.

Please let me know. Guroadrunner 04:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This topic can also be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Images_from_freeware_computer_software

If I'm reading the cited reference for the 'freeware' claim correctly, then the game isn't even freeware.

The reference says, "The game is FREEWARE as we checked with the former distributors BRODERBUND and MINDSCAPE, who do not have any copies of the game left. Thus you may download three different versions of the game from our site." That isn't a description of freeware. Abandonware, perhaps, but not freeware. The article itself should probably be amended if a better reference can't be found.

However, for the sake of covering possible future cases, I believe it would depend on the specific licensing of the game. That is, I believe wikipedia can only make unfettered use of images in a free context if the image is public domain, or GNU license compatible. That is, it isn't enough to say that people can spread the image; they also need to give permission for derivative works. (Or am I misinterpreting the rules?) That said, if the 'freeware' game in question were to explicitly allow total distribution and derivative works, then it seems like you could use as many screenshots as you wished. Bladestorm 04:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It appears to have fallen into freeware status, but is not yet liberated ( example: LiberatedGames.com ) Guroadrunner 05:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It just depends on whether the images end up licensed under a license that is acceptable to Wikipedia; several are listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Free licenses, but there could easily be many more that are acceptable. In general, a screenshot of a game is going to end up under the same license as the game, unless the creator specifically makes an exception (e.g. as Ubisoft did). Anomie 12:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

FACs

If anyone cares to wander on down to the bottom of the main VG project page, there are a few FACs up currently that could really use people's comments/!votes, as no one is really voting. Please do read the articles first though, and vote as you see fit, as pile-on supports do no one any good. --PresN 12:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I commented on one of the Agatha Criste FACs. hbdragon88 18:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Kirby project is up for deletion

I placed it there earlier, as it's been inactive for months. Perhaps it could be made into a taskforce (if there is enough interest). The link to the MFD: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Wikipedia:WikiProject_Kirby.27s_Dream_Land. Comment if you want. RobJ1981 00:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Manhunt 2 Request for 3rd opinion

Hi, I'd like to petition for a 3rd opinion on the Manhunt 2 article. It's on the talk page if anyone cares to have a look and comment. Thanks in advance. DarkSaber2k 13:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, 4th and 5th and more opinions would be appreciated here as well. DarkSaber2k 13:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Image Fair Use rationales and covers.

This is more a Wikipedia-wide thing, but figured I'd drop off a reminder here... as many probably know, there is still a huge gigantic backlog of images uploaded without FU rationales at Category:All disputed non-free images. Of course, many were uploaded before this was a necessity and the boilerplate was considered sufficient, and most actually are FU. Deletions theoretically restart on July 1, and there are still plenty sitting there. It'll take a lot of work to sort through 'em, but it'll be much easier if a bunch of people each do a little.

Anyway, I bring this up because things like game covers, book covers, movie packages, album covers, etc. are all really easy to add FU rationales for and in fact were used by Jimbo Wales as an example of where fair use for simply identifying the product obviously applies. Unless the cover is already public domain, there's generally no alternative that's also accurate, and unlike a work of art where that's all there is to it, box images are a trivial part of a game/book/movie as a whole. So, while annoying, it shouldn't be that hard to go around and make certain that box cover images have rationales on them (perhaps using {{Non-free media rationale}}).

More vexingly, many people didn't actually specify a source when they uploaded some of these covers. I've currently handwaved it some rationales I've added by noting that these images are a dime a dozen and easily replaced if someone wants to raise the issue, but as a long-term thing, perhaps replacing those images of unclear source with known-source and non-watermarked images might be good. Other problems are easier to fix- I've noticed some orphaned and duplicated images, and those can just be sent to normal speedy deletion. SnowFire 21:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Video Game Images. JACOPLANE • 2007-06-24 20:17

Image template Deletion

Hi, just to let you know there's an ongoing discussion at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Attribution-Ubisoft, about using Ubisoft screenshots & its license --Andersmusician $ 16:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it's bordering twoards keep. hbdragon88 17:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Picross DS and Brain Age: Train Your Brain in Minutes a Day!

An IP is refusing to allow for European box arts to be used in these two articles. Could an administrator semi-protect it? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Protection of the Picross article may be premature since neither of you have discussed it on the article's talk page yet (and there are only two editors involved-don't forget to watch out for 3rr, btw). However, protection of the brain age article may be warranted if it's removed again. Bladestorm 22:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The IP certainly knows of me, since he references my "ideals and convictions". If he reverts again, I think semi-protection is warranted. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the problem with protecting the picross article is that neither of you are actually discussing it. Protection isn't intended to stop edit-warring between only two parties. And semi-protecting would favour one side over the other. In any event, just start a discussion on the talk page; if nobody engages in proper discussion after a reasonable period of time, then you'll have a very strong case for favouring your version. Bladestorm 22:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Expedition to the Demonweb Pits

Could someone take a look at Expedition to the Demonweb Pits? The plot summary section doesn't sound like a normal plot summary. Should it be there? It doesn't comply with WP:IINFO #2 either. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 19:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the Video games project, we don't deal with pen-and-paper role-playing games. Go ask at WikiProject Role-playing games, WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons or WikiProject Greyhawk. --Mika1h 17:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:FICT rewrite

A rewrite of WP:FICT is being proposed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)#Rewrite proposed. — Deckiller 22:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Harvest Moon articles

Overall (from what I've seen), alot of them need cleanup. Lots of them include game guide content in some form at least. In a recent example: I cleaned up Rune Factory: A Fantasy Harvest Moon a little earlier, but it needs work still. Also, does anyone know if Rune Factory is for DS only, or for the Wii as well? I noticed it listed on the List of Wii games article, but the reference seems to indicate it's for DS (as does the Rune article). So I wasn't sure. RobJ1981 05:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing to indicate that it's coming to Wii. Only DS. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Should it be having a long charater list within the article like that? I believe that there should be a separate character article, although that would leave the main article pretty bare. I am referring to Rune Factory: A Fantasy Harvest Moon by the way. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 15:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

If any of that game guide info is salvageable, can you tell me which pages and I can perhaps move the info to StrategyWiki:? -- Prod-You 00:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Magazine Covers

Me and another editor a while back added list of cover images a while back to Next Generation Magazine. Yet another editor thinks that it has violated Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria and removed them. I was wanting to know the VG project's opinion on the matter rather than one editor's interepretation of policy. You can find the disscussion here. Thanks for your opinions. —Mitaphane 16:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you also pose the question over at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content which deals with a lot of fair use image questions. Bottom line is that if a fair use image is there with no critical commentary, it's a no-no. Galleries are frowned upon as well. -- MisterHand 16:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it was a violation of Wikipedia's fair use guidelines. There really wasn't anything in the text that the images were supporting, and you can't use fair use images to stand alone. Archiving all the covers is definitely a useful thing and would make a suitable subarticle on Next Generation, but outside of what Wikipedia allows. Incidentally, you can find all the Next Generation covers at http://www.magweasel.com/wiki/Next_Generation - hahnchen 17:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Magazine covers are copyrighted, so they are not free pic. Having multiple covers would violate WP:FU, only 1 cover image is needed in the article. Remember that fair use pics are supposed to be kept to a minimum. TJ Spyke 21:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Microsoftpoint.gif

There is currently a debate at Talk:Microsoft Points#Currency symbol over the use of Image:Microsoftpoint.gif as an alternative to "Microsoft Points" in article text for various articles. Few editors have commented so far, and I'd appreciate some other opinions on the matter. Dancter 00:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

As you've already noticed, I've commented at User_talk:JAF1970#Image:Microsoftpoint.gif. I think the images are jarring in text, and the general audience will not know what it means. Regardless of the copyright status, I don't like seeing the image in articles. And a lesser point, currency symbols should be placed before the amount, ie £10. - hahnchen 00:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but I cited you and some of the others I'd found who had tried discussing the image with JAF1970 in the discussion there. There has been some additional discussion of the image at Talk:Xbox Live Arcade#Microsoft Points symbol, but arguments are basically the same. I'm considering listing the image at AfD. Dancter 04:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Help Solving Dispute

Please head over to the List of Virtual Console games (North America) and check out the discussion page. The section titled "Think about this" is where the dispute is at... outside opinions would be helpful. Thanks! Miles Blues 03:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Overworld PROD

Please to be noting that I've PRODed the Overworld article. Just thought that since, you know, a sizeable number of CVG articles link to it, it would be wise to notify the group here. Thanks for your time! Geuiwogbil 03:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed move: "Mario Strikers Charged" → "Mario Strikers Charged Football"

There's a discussion going on about whether the current (north american) or european title for the game should be used for the article.
The original discussion is here: Talk:Mario_Strikers_Charged#Move.
I've also tried to present a more organized 'reboot' of the discussion here: Talk:Mario_Strikers_Charged#Reboot_on_the_Move
As much input as possible (for or against) would be greatly appreciated. Bladestorm 18:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Announce the Ultradog!

Hello everybody, I'm A legend. And I'm announcing the Ultradog! It doesn't matter if you're a guy or girl, you can help extend my stub!

Have a nice day! (I'm not logging out, it was just to be nice.)

--A legend 21:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I'm PresN. And I'm announcing that I just put a speedy deletiong tag on Ultradog! It doesn't matter if you're a guy or girl, making up nonsense and putting it in an article is vandalism! Have a nice day! (I'm putting a warning on the user's page, just as soon as I find the right template.)

--PresN 21:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It's my console in development. --A legend 21:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It's vandalism. Announce it in some forum, but Wikipedia is not meant for someone's side projects. Even if it was an existant product, it would not pass the notability rules. I'm not going to the talk page since PresN took care of that, but I want people to know that people are looking out for this type of foolishness. guitarhero777777 00:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ultimate Play The Game peer review

No one's responded to this yet... Anyone out there? :) Miremare 21:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't gotten any responses for Super Nintendo Entertainment System's review either. I'll review yours in the hope you're return the favor ;) Anomie 23:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If I could help by reviewing SNES, then I would, but it would certainly be better left to someone who knows what they're doing! I'd suggest whining on here until someone does it; it worked for me. ;) Thanks for the review, I'll implement what you've suggested. Cheers, Miremare 15:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Gaming Collaboration of the Week Needs More People!

No one has voted since June 14! I think that it's a good part of the project and a great way to expand and improve articles on gaming, but we need the participation of many people involved in the Video Games project in order for this to work as intended. I would like to see a new Gaming Collaboration of the Week every week! :)

The collaboration of the week is pretty much dead. Maybe we should properly phase it out. The group of editors concerned over the CVG space have very different interests and objectives, this project itself is no longer as focused on article writing and editing per se, but on matters of policy and general guideline. - hahnchen 22:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned the project is dead and already we did have a survey and more than a few editors agreed that we should let the GCOTW die as there is just not enough participation. Now I will see if I can maybe encourage a few new editors into trying out the GCOTW but I say at this point just let it die and see if there is enough response to consider reviving it. Xtreme racer 00:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned this to Jacoplane, but should we have one more collaboration? I was thinking video game.--Clyde (talk) 00:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Basic game mechanics should be. Why don't we just set up a group of people who go around to articles of THEIR choice (and with input from others)? It wouldn't be official of course. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

That was mentioned in the previous discussion about GCOW. Those that are willing should get to choose. Perhaps something along the lines of one per month with all of the research being pooled and then added to the article in one big quality edit with proper citations and notes. - X201 08:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say that we have one more collaboration to finish off the project. I don't think though that the video game article would be a good choice. Maybe we can come up with a really bad game article or system article or video game company article. Xtreme racer 00:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Silk purse from a sows ear? Yeah I'm game. Find the worst CVG article (obviously one that we can find info on) and go to work. - X201 08:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I nominated the Fatal Frame series because it's a fairly popular horror survival game series and there's a lot of information out there on it, plus the framework for the series is already on Wikipedia, including a template, but the articles just need to be cleaned up and expanded!--AutoGyro 13:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should just do Basic Game Mechanics as it was the winning candidate. If everyone agrees I will go ahead and start the nomination and will let it continue till Thursday of next week. Xtreme racer 00:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it doesn't need to have another week. It's already been there for two weeks and should have been the GCOTW in the first week. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Well someone should do it. I don't think Jacoplane can update it regularly. We are standing over a dying man with a defibrillator and no one can do anything.--Clyde (talk) 02:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

How do you create a task force here

{{helpme}} The title says it all.. --The source of the cosmos... 15:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by A legend (talk • contribs)

Asking one of the project leaders is a good way to do it, because they'll decide whether your task force is needed or not. GrooveDog 20:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wan't a task force that mods the Gamecube! --The source of the cosmos... 01:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait, do you want a task force that writes articles fr existing mods, or do you want a task force to make mods? DurinsBane87 01:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

A task force that makes mods.— Preceding unsigned comment added by A legend (talk • contribs)

Such a thing is not appropriate for Wikipedia. You should look for a site related to console modding and start your discussion there. Anomie 17:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

GrooveDog, I don't believe that this project has leaders - most projects do not. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

List of Street Fighter characters Featured List

With sources, do you think this list could become a Featured List candidate? Kariteh 16:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it could, yeah. Looks like it just needs a reference section and an expanded lead. I went ahead and added Ingrid from Street Fighter Alpha 3 Double Upper (PSP), Maki Street Fighter Alpha 3 Upper (GBA), along with Eagle and Yun's appearance from Alpha 3 Upper to the list. Nall 00:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

A vandal

There's been a vandal going around removing/altering non-NA information, such as changing the European dates for Worms: Open Warfare 2 based on NoE's page (which doesn't actually say anything that would back up his given date). He seems to use multiple accounts, and seems to be stalking me with the intention of reverting pro-EU edits. Could an administrator look at the following contributions and consider blocking these accounts?:

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]

Thanks. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You shoud make a Wikipedia:Request for checkuser. Kariteh 17:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, does s/he appear... agressive or hotheaded? There was a user who was particularly interested in release dates and who used a lot of socks and attacks. Kariteh 17:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Slightly, I suppose. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

An anon IP made edits to Sega Mega-CD that changed all instances of Mega-CD to Sega CD & Mega Drive to Genesis, wonder if it's linked? - X201 08:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Good Citations for VG articles

Can everyone just check that when adding citations, particularly web ones, that they complete it as best they can. Its not hard to create a good one, with a quick copy [8], a look at the source and a reference to its place in an article, a good cite can be developed easily. It'll only take 30 seconds, and makes the article much more professional very easily. Thanks RC Master 17:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Auto Assault needs MobyGames link fixed

The game Auto Assault needs its MobyGames link fixed, but I don't know how to do this. It currently says *{{moby game|id=/auto assault}}

The problem is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto_Assault#External_links. Any help would be appreciated as pqart of the Wikification project. -- Guroadrunner 07:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone broke the template page, I reverted the changes so it should work now. --Mika1h 08:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that all the Moby links were supposed to be removed, as it's a non-notable site , and the links were placed in a giant spamming effort DurinsBane87 23:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

That is one perspective that was given... ;)

The other perspective is that there was a Conflict of Interest behind some of the links, but the people at fault didn't know (hadn't been notified/warned). The site is notable, as established by the references added at MobyGames; but not perfectly reliable, as established at WP:COIN#Cutting to the chase. Many of the links that were added by a couple of accounts are not useful (don't provide additional or corroborative information to the articles) and so should be removed. The rest, including those in 24 featured articles, should remain. There is no current consensus on what to do.

That's the very short version, from my perspective.

The main thread is at WP:COIN#MobyGames.2F Flipkin, with recent background discussion archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Jun#mobygames.com and Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_June_9#Template:Moby_developer. --Quiddity 01:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Scope of information

Everyone, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines, as there seems to be an active discussion about game guides and such. Andre (talk) 19:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

That "discussion" has turned in to an argument and will remain so unless someone else intervenes and offers an alternative perspective. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 06:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Suikoden Task Force

Howdy folks. If any of you have ever perused any of the Suikoden articles, you will see that there is a vast amount of information, but also a vast amount of disarray. Some of the information isn't entirely encyclopedic, and needs serious cleanup. That's why I'm interested in creating a Suikoden Task Force. I want to do the following:

• Create a single, coherent list of stars (characters) that shows recurrences, overlaps, and relationships between them - currently, there are several of these.
• Create list pages for all of the stars - currently, some characters have their own pages when, in reality, they are barely noteable enough to have them (see Miklotov). Some are listed on "List of.." pages that are quite good (see Minor characters in Suikoden. I'd like to make these pages the norm of Suikoden characters, and only have full articles about extremely significant characters - if you're a series vet, I'm talking about folks like Flik, Viktor, Tir McDohl, and whatnot. It will require some hashing out and discussing who should still have their own pages, but I'd be willing to defer to consensus on that.
• Make articles like the Geography in the Suikoden series less like "in-universe" language and more like encyclopedic information.

And more stuff as I can come up with it. The only thing I don't know is how to set this up, either in a bureaucratic sense or in the sense of setting a page up and making it look nice. I'm looking for co-conspirators on this, so please let me know if you would like to help! bwowen ^talk.^contribs 18:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of these articles about a single character would wind up heading off to "Articles for Deletion" if I had my way. Such characters usually aren't notable outside the game(s) and themselves have no third party information sources. I would much rather see them in a "List of..." article, if there's sufficient content. Otherwise, we wind up with lots of articles like Jade (Beyond Good & Evil). --Slordak 18:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is usually more the opposite in my experience, with the character articles growing extremely bloated. --tjstrf talk 19:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to move all the excessive fictional database information to The Wikipedia Annex upon completion. — Deckiller 19:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on this, Slordak - I don't think that Miklotov should have his own page, because there really isn't enough information about him to merit it. Tir McDohl has enough to have one because he was the central character of the first game - thus there is plenty of information. Thus, I'm looking for a hand with this Task Force. I don't know how to make one - so I need help setting it up - and I also need extra hands for this sort of business - merging and creating articles like Minor characters in Suikoden - i.e. Minor characters in Suikoden II, Minor characters in Suikoden III, etc. Also, I would like to see Minor characters in Suikoden expanded - currently, there are only ~19 characters on that list. I'd say that almost all but 10 should be on that list. My two cents. bwowen ^talk.^contribs 20:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Slordak, "Articles for Deletion" is for articles for deletion, not merge/redirect. Kariteh 19:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Since the characters are the focal point of Suikoden, you shouldn't have an issue finding significant out-of-universe information to establish notability of groupings of characters (I.E. recurring characters, and then casts of characters for each game). Remember: not every detail has to be listed, and every character shouldn't be given a picture (we don't substitute the game). — Deckiller 20:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want to start a new task force the best thing to do is to create your proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Suikoden, in terms of the layout I would suggest you look at the other task forces that already exist and emulate them. If there are no major objections it will be accepted. There are no real bureaucratic procedures, so WP:BOLD. If people object you'll find out soon enough. JACOPLANE • 2007-07-6 15:50

Figures, since I've been out/busy lately. For what it's worth... it's great if you want to help, as there's a lot that needs to be done. That said, I can't see this matter as needing a Wikiproject, simply because there aren't enough people actively improving the articles. I think it's been well-known what needs to be done for some time, but there aren't enough editors into it. The parlous state of the Suikoden (video game) article is a good testament to that.

Myself, I've rewritten & merged the articles associated with Suikoden 3 and 5, and did some work on 4, but someone more familiar with Suikoden I & II needs to work on those articles (and merging the associated character articles). This proposal has come up before; I set out the tasks that I at least think require doing at Talk:Suikoden#WikiProject?, and they still need to be done. SnowFire 04:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

List of video games with classical music

Is this an indiscriminate list, or do you think it is very encyclopedic? hbdragon88 00:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Indiscriminate list. — Deckiller 02:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there a sister project it could go to? I actually think the main problem is that it's not referenced (or all that referenceable in the first place). Granted, I alas contributed to some of it...but I wouldn't be too sad to see it go. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 03:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Indiscriminate list. They also missed Ride of the Valkyries from Full Throttle. A deletable offence if ever there were one.- X201 08:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I just added a few to it too, but would shed no tears were it to go. Miremare 15:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yuck, nominate as indiscriminate list! Gotta agree with X201 as well, fancy missing out one of the greatest uses of Ride of the Valkyries in gaming history! DarkSaber2k 15:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Prod. Will take it to AFD if Ihave to. hbdragon88 16:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

cvgproj template

It seems that the CVG template can automatically tell when it is placed in a non-article (or at least a category or template), as it does not list the article as unassessed, but it does not automatically change "article" to "non-article". Can that be changed? It would be convenient and reliable, as opposed to relying on people knowing to manually add class=NA when they add the template. JohnnyMrNinja 01:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Game controller template deletion

I have proposed this template for deletion - Template:Gamepad styles My reasons are on the discussion page here. Thought people might be interested.

List of Nintendo 64 games needing review

I looked at the Featured List of Nintendo 64 games today and noticed that a couple games have been added since it became featured. (see a full diff) Could someone re-check them and eventually adjust the number in the lead? Circeus 21:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Problem with {cvg year interwiki} template

{cvg year interwiki} is confusing to bots and it generate double interwiki entries in categories. I think this current template isn't usefull at all and could be a good thing to subst and remove it. --Martin Rizzo 22:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC) (sorry, my english isn't so good)

That's a pretty bad template. We should only interwiki to pages which exist. - hahnchen 23:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Voice actors lists in game articles

When are they needed? Example: Marvel:_Ultimate_Alliance#Voice_Actors. The game features a lot of characters, but I don't see a need for listing every voice actor. Look at movie articles in comparision: for animated films, there isn't massive lists of everyone that did a voice. I've removed the massive list from the example I listed a few times over the course of months. But it usually gets re-added, and my suggestion of just listing the main voice actors is just ignored. RobJ1981 06:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there's some kind of rule about not listing extensive credits isn't there? Miremare 07:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I would think so, but the list on Marvel:_Ultimate_Alliance#Voice_Actors always seems to come back. RobJ1981 07:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY are the closest I can find. Neither mention credits specifically, though there must be something in it otherwise we'd have endless movie articles listing makeup artists and whoever made the tea on set. Did you suggest on the article's talk page that it should be trimmed to just the most significant actors? Miremare 07:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I just listed it on the talk page. But overall, the talk page for the article isn't very active right now. I will try to go through the list and condense it, but I somehow think the same people will revert it back to the massive list though. RobJ1981 18:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think these can be limited to voice actors for the primary characters only, similar to film articles. A link to the imdb would provide a full list for anybody interested. The exception would be if a minor role is played by a notable actor (for example, Patrick Stewart's small part in Oblivion). -- MisterHand 18:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Character merge

Pauline (Nintendo) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

is an entirely nonnotable character in my opinion, with appearances in just two video games. However, this makes it difficult to merge – is she a DK character or a Mario character? Should it just be merged into the game of her first appearance? Should hse show up in both DK and Mario character lists? hbdragon88 22:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

She leans towards being a Mario character more it seems, but has ties with Donkey Kong as well. Putting her in both lists should be the best way to do it. RobJ1981 22:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the reason why she hasn't been merged thus far is because of the ambiguity, and her sheer age as a charcter. I'm not sure if a merge is necessary. Andre (talk) 22:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Action (gaming) AfD

A relevant gaming article, Action (gaming) has been nominated for deletion. Please comment on its AfD. Thanks. I think it's worthy of a Wikipedia article. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 19:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not going very well, but I think it's a valid article that just needs expanding (as any stubs do). The m:deletionist vultures swooped in for the attack, unfortunately. :/ ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 02:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)