Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

The New Assesment Scale

Support

1. Support.I think we should accept the class because it will make grading much easier.Gears Of War 13:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

   Totally unrelated, the word you're looking for is accept, not except. Inner grammar-nazi at work. Chan Yin Keen | ^UT_C 13:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

2. Support: A start class article is more than a stub, and a B class article is something that has some decent references and information but a lot of OR too. A C class article, to me, is an article that has gone some way to include useful information, but might lack the research or organization to be taken seriously. Randomran (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Support: Start class, the way I've been using it, encompasses a lot of ground between "A little bigger than a stub" and "B-class with cleanup tags". C-class would fix that.
4. Support: I believe there is ample room between start and B-class. Start just means stub+, whereas B is a largely complete article which is either ready for GA or would be with further fixing. Someoneanother 02:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Support: There's some pretty broad distance between a Start-class article and what should be a B-class article. A C-Class is just the way to fill that gap. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 06:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
6. Support, this plugs a substantial gap between Start and B-class articles. -- 90.202.37.20 (talk) 09:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
7. Support for pure consistencies' sake. It's best to have everyone using a similar scale (even if the actual guidelines for the scale are different by subject) rather than a patchwork. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
8. Support: I agree with everyone else. C class is like and extra drawer with which we can better organize articles. For example, you put you red clothes in one drawer, and whites in another, but you have no place to put your pink clothes. The C class would be the drawer for the pink clothes, so to speak. It makes sense to me. --SWJS: The All Knowing Destroy All Humans! Nerd(Cortex Scan) 07:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Like I opposed its implementation. I'm not convinced the start-B gap is that major, and while I will respect consensus if the project chooses to use it, I'd rather not. giggy _(:O) 01:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose: Unconvinced that an extra class will really bring anything different to the table, cleanup of an article is still the same to me be it Start, B or A. While it can be argued the C-Class will give the article a pitstop as such between Start and B, adding that additional class really doesn't feel like a milestone for an article to achieve but more like what the article would look like if it was assessed in the midst of being properly written up to a B. Chan Yin Keen | ^UT_C 02:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Recently, C has been added to the scale(the first change in 3 years), that update needs to be added here. Thanks.Gears Of War 13:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I oppose. Is it possible for specific WikiProjects to dissent? User:Krator (t c) 14:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

From what I've read, it's opt-in (or something like that). See also Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MelonBot 7. giggy _(:O) 14:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well yes, the editorial team did decide that no project had to except the C class. Should we have a vote just like the editorial team to decide wether or not the project embraces the C class. We could use the traditional Support, Oppose, and Netrual vote.Gears Of War 14:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I personally think we should go for it. I think many VG articles in particular are highly subject to the "not quite B, not quite Start" situation. --.:Alex:. 15:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we should go for it too. There are a lot of articles that don't really qualify as start articles, but not B either. Is there anywhere I read more about this? We should put this to a discussion in the near future. Randomran (talk) 15:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You can read the entire page for details but look here for the main discussion.Gears Of War 15:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Adopting the grade would allow us to reserve B class for articles which are genuine future GA candidates without requiring a complete overhaul and gaps in coverage. Start class doesn't actually ask for much at all, yet when assessing I often find it necessary to keep an article at start rather than promoting to B because of a range of problems. Another notch would also act as positive reinforcement for editors with little time or experience who are trying to improve a particular stub or start class article. Someoneanother 16:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I too would like to embrace the new class.Gears Of War 16:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Not quite sure how to set up a poll, but we need one. There is currently work being done on the project template to incorporate new classes (cat, dab, & template), so if C should be added too, it'd be nice to know. JohnnyMrNinja 08:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If we do embrace C-class, how to define the approach then?

• Stub - One, two paragraphs about the topic, typically unreferenced but notable
• Start - More than a stub, but not well organized and referenced - The basic information we expect to see in VG articles is there, but may not be all complete, sections are off, etc. Most commonly the gameplay and plot and story have been written (the "easy" sections) but nothing on development or reception. (example: Klonoa 2: Lunatea's Veil)
• C-Class - Article is organized decently, but missing one or more sections generally considered appropriate; referencing may not be completely there, but there is some. This would be the class I would use for a well built "future game" article since it will lack any reception section, a necessity for more VG articles. I would also say that the bulk of our articles on games from this and the last console generations are probably around this class. (eg Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time is a C-class to me as it's got most key sections, so its beyond start-class)
• B-Class - Pretty much a good copyedit and cleanup away from being a GA; all sections necessary are present, all referencing appears to be done, and so forth.
• A-Class - An article destined for FA that just hasn't been put through FA. Prose is super-tight, references are perfect, etc. Should be assessed that way by two VG assessment reviewers. --MASEM 12:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, at the link I left they had ideas for the discription. Note that the conclussion was to make a C class. To get some examples, there is indeed already a new cat called list of c-class articles. But though the class has not officially been added to the scheme, it will be soon, maybe we should vote now and then see the discription for all of Wikipedia and then incpoperate it into our own style.Gears Of War 13:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Voting is evil. User:Krator (t c) 14:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Seriously. We don't need to vote to use it or not. I mean, if someone assesses a video game article as C-class, it's not right to change it back to either Start- or B-class if C-class fits better until it's expanded to B-class or higher. Quite frankly, edit warring over article assessment is a quick road to WP:LAME, and I don't want to see it happening, especially not on any articles I work on. Either you use it, or you don't, but since it's now apart of the assessment scale, I think we should embrace the change when it arises, and where it is applicable.--十八 02:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we can't use it effectively until it's been implemented (in templates and categories. The main question is Does this Wikiproject opt out? As it has been added to the grading scheme, I think we'd need a strong consensus to not use it, which it is not looking will be the case. While I don't feel this class is the most useful improvement that could have been made, it was made, and I feel we should embrace and implement it (for now). If and when the uselessness of the class asserts itself, it should be adjusted. I don't feel any progress will be made by pretending this change didn't happen. JohnnyMrNinja 03:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

So is it safe to say that there is no consensus to opt out of using the C-Class rating? As it would take some work to make us unable to use {{C-Class}}, and it also would take work to be able to use it properly, we should either be for or against. As the new class has already been added to the grading scale (after a Wiki-wide debate), I am assuming the default to be to use it. As there has been no consensus to completely opt-out as a project, I am going to go with the default, which is supporting this new class. Have Imisjudged the situation? JohnnyMrNinja 08:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No, you're right. New Wikipedians who come into Wiki now are not going to be even aware that this debate ever existed for the most part, and as such will be the ones who utilize the use of C-class the most. Trying to ignore something which is already implemented is probably the dumbest thing a Wikipedian can do.--十八 08:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the opportunity has been seized to ovrhaul much of the assessment scale. There is a proposal to raise B-Class standards to meet 5 particular criteria (just like WP:MILHIST) and to increase minimum A-Class status requirements in a manner we already use here at WikiProject Video games. --.:Alex:. 11:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

List class

So, we apparently have 73 current list-class pages, despite my honest belief that the previous discussion, at the very least, did not achieve consensus. I think list-class is a really bad idea and will lead to a decrease in the quality of lists in this project. That's why I'm appalled that without clear consensus, some decided to implement this on 73 pages, and now it's on the assessment page again too (diff).

No bad feelings to those who did this in good faith and thought that a consensus existed, or to those who are just excited by a new 'class' in general. So, can we find a consensus here? In order to summarise the previous discussion (probably biased to my POV):

• The main argument in favour seems to be that it allows further classification of things, which some believe to be an inherently awesome thing. I beg to differ, and think that you should only classify things if there's a good reason to.
• A smaller argument in favour is that it allows people to see earlier whether this or that page would be "FA" or "FL". I differ here too, because we currently have (just) 13 featured lists, and I think that any controversy surrounding which featured status a page should attain is best solved on a case-by-case basis, if it happens more than once in a year at all.
• My main argument against is that people writing lists now have no way to fit into the assessment system, which is mainly about feedback, criticism, and achieving goals, because their article will always stay list-class.
• A middle way argument offered by Masem was to allow Lists to be 'upgraded' to one of the article classes. Though this would work, I don't see the need for it at all, as it would negate any benefit List-class would have (see the first two points), and would be reason for confusion ("My list just because start class! Is this an improvement or not?").

Flame away. User:Krator (t c) 16:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

In order to use the list class effectively we have to differentiate between navigational lists (eg List of Sega Mega Drive and Sega Genesis games) and sub-articles which deal with specific elements of a game or series (eg Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, which a lot of 'character lists' actually resemble). Navigational lists do not require re-assessment using the full breadth of article classes - they're either complete and adequately cited (FL class) or not (list class). Discussion on what data they should contain and how it should be organized would take place on the talk page or be brought up here for wider consensus. 'Lists' which contain substantial prose are articles, and would benefit from access to the full assessment scale and article assessments. If one of these should be considered for FL rather than FA status at the final hurdle, the assessment scale has already been used to its full affect.

So in short, why don't we call pure navigational lists 'list class' and use the full assessment scale in all other cases? Someoneanother 17:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we could do a separate List classing? "Incomplete list", "Starting list", "C list", "B list", "Good list", "A list", and "Featured list"? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If we're talking about a list which is really an article, then adding a 'list' qualifier creates another layer of classes which perform the same function as the existing ones. If you mean navigational lists, there's a real danger of it becoming a spin-the-bottle rating. Once the parameters are worked out, they're either comprehensively filled or not. Having someone claw through a list just to say "well there's some Domark games not listed, so it's a B" isn't time well spent on their part. If you see what I mean. Someoneanother 18:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this kind of ghettoizes the lists, and prevents people from really know what to work on and how far to improve. I think the most useful and elegant solution is to make the list class into a list "tag", which can be put on any article of any class. Randomran (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Part of forming a list is identifying what fields are needed, what needs citing and how large the population is of the list. Once that's done there's a clear goal and it's either achieved or it isn't. If guidance is needed on prose, depth of information etc. then the list isn't really a list in the strictest sense and should be classified as an article. Someoneanother 18:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. I think the list class is really meant for stand alone lists that are either good or not good, and can't really be subjected to the same assessment scheme as prosaic articles. I'm talking about lists such as this or this. They're either comprehensive and informative/encyclopedic, or they aren't. Ones that would always be rated either Start or FL, in which case Start is possibly misleading. --.:Alex:. 20:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with Someone another. List of Sega Mega Drive games = list, Characters of Final Fantasy VIII = not list. I don't think we should complicate things further. Articles which look like Characters of FFVIII but are named "List of..." something should simply be renamed to not have "list" in their titles. Kariteh (talk) 08:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I remember suggesting that somewhere, something to do with them being prosiac articles detailing the characters rather than being a simple listing of characters. I agree though, I too think that these prosaic "lists" should have list removed from the title as they really aren't lists at all. --.:Alex:. 09:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

There were numerous discussions at WT:FAC that were focused on whether FAs such as Characters of Final Fantasy VIII and Characters of Kingdom Hearts were really lists or not, with no real consensus reached on the issue. However, List of characters in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow (then Characters of Castlevania: Sorrow series) actually had its FAC failed and was sent to FLC since the discussion had resolved that it was a list and not an article. Now it's a FL and we now have two character FLs (List of Metal Gear Solid characters, the Castlevania characters list) and two character FAs (the Final Fantasy VIII and Kingdom Hearts ones). Personally, I believe that at their core, they're lists regardless of the amount of prose they have, as it's listing the characters with a repetitive structure, even if it is in prose (List of works by William Monahan has a ton of prose, and it's was classified as a list) and the only reason conception and reception sections are present are to ensure the topic is comprehensive (and so it could pass WP:FAC/WP:FLC). That said, it would be nice to figure out a solution to the lack of consistency we have. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly; List of works by William Monahan is further evidence that there's no clear guideline on this issue. I think we need to reach a consensus for our video game wikiproject. (The film wikiproject should also try to reach a consensus for their lists, but that's not relevant to the discussion here unless a Wikipedia-wide discussion occurs somewhere.) Kariteh (talk) 10:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to note, this isn't a WikiProject-level discussion - it's a community one. Either the FLs will go to FAs (which would mean going through WP:FAC, as Sandy, Raul, and the FAC regulars would want to see that) or the FAs will go to FLs (which would go without a hitch). You can't demote a FA/FL simply because there is WikiProject-level consensus for it. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 10:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Then why are we discussing here? We should move to WP:FL or WP:FA. I didn't have any demotion in mind though; in my opinion, any FL could become an FA if it's not a problem of quality but just a matter of defining "list" or "article" (i.e. List of Castlevania: Sorrow characters could easily be "converted" to an FA, it's of featured quality either way). Kariteh (talk) 11:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's have some examples here that are currently asssessed List-class. The top of the list below has relatively uncontroversial lists that IMHO should never be List-class, the bottom has some more controversial examples. I wouldn't rate any of these List-class.

• Characters of Chrono Cross
• Characters of Chrono Trigger
• List of characters in the Ratchet & Clank series
• List of characters in Manhunt 2
• Wipeout teams (AfD!)
• List of Final Fantasy compilation albums
• List of Final Fantasy media
• List of best-selling video game franchises
• Logitech Racing Wheels compatibility

Discuss. User:Krator (t c) 10:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that there are inconsistencies with FA/FL, until that is conclusively resolved (chances are it won't be), using the list class to classify list articles which would not benefit from the article assessment seems a valid use. From the list, I'd use the article rating system on Characters of Chrono Cross, Characters of Chrono Trigger, List of characters in the Ratchet & Clank series and List of characters in Manhunt 2. They're lists of fictional characters which presents additional challenges in terms of real-world vs in-universe, notability and scope. Whether they would be FAs or FLs on promotion is not something we work out here so in terms of classifying them as articles or lists the only thing I'm looking at is whether or not the full assessment scale would be useful or not. Wipeout teams is a tough one but is AFD bait. List of Final Fantasy compilation albums does not contain a reception section like the individual 'music of (FF game)' articles, but contains a large lead instead. It's prose, it's not a navigational list and it would benefit from the full assessment scale. List of Final Fantasy media, List of best-selling video game franchises and Logitech Racing Wheels compatibility are lists, the article assessment scale is redundant in cases like these. Someoneanother 21:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

More examples of articles inconsistently labeled as "List" class:

List of Super Nintendo Entertainment System games -- Noted as "List" Class

This is a full list of all SNES games including producer, developer, and release information. This had been previously graded as a "B" with a suggestion to nominate for GA, but my machines were not working correctly with the GA nomination process, so I couldn't proceed down that track.

List of Super Famicom games -- Noted as "B" Class

This list is complete with all released games, but much of the producer developer and release information is missing. With so much information missing, I question even grading it as high as a "B".

List of Super Famicom and Super Nintendo games by genre -- Noted as "Start" Class

Just this week, this list became complete. So, I'd say its beyond "Start" class -- probably "C" at this point (but then I'm the main author, my opinion doesn't count). At this point, a lot of work needs to review of the game classifications. And realignment with the constantly shifting Video game genres article.

Either all three should be "List", or all should be graded, IMHO. Dawynn (talk) 18:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Bump so the discussion doesn't get archived. Kariteh (talk) 16:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, discussion closed with no consensus. Pages can continue to be variously assessed as articles or lists depending on individual judgement. Kariteh (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Blue Dragon

I need a good old copyediting over at Blue Dragon.Gears Of War 15:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the article has been comepletely redone(in a way), but I still need someone to copyedit the article. And I mean a full lookover the article, because soon it will be a GAC.Gears Of War 13:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I did some copy editing, as requested. Since I had originally composed portions of the text some time back, I found parts of it already quite well-written ;) There were some duplications of text, i.e. literal cut and pasting from one section into the lead-in paragraphs, as well as some issues with internal consistency. Hopefully it's improved now, although it still needs more work. --Slordak (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hong Kong as videogame region

I'm having a minor dispute at the Lair (video game) article over whether to include information about a demo that was released exclusively in Asia - Hong Kong being the only english-language release of it there. My argument is basically that while Hong Kong is english-speaking, it's not notable as a video game region (where NA/AUS/EUR/JPN are). This kinda leads into the article guidelines for release dates too, which state that english-language releases should be included - is a Hong Kong release notable enough for inclusion with its own entry? Thoughts? Fin©™ 18:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If there was only one demo released for the game, then I believe it's notable regardless of where it was published. It would go in the Development or History section. As for the infobox, I don't think release dates for demos ever appear there. Kariteh (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Kariteh on this point; the main reason it's an issue is because it's in its own section, because the article does not yet have a proper History/Dev section. I'd suggest renaming it to History/Dev in order to encourage people to add more general info, and then it would be less of a sore thumb. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

While it is in the best interest of the reader and the project to stick to coverage English Language releases, if something happened out of English-influence it can still be noted, provided it is relevant and interesting. If a demo was only released in one area, it doesn't really matter what language they spoke there. Keep in mind that Japan isn't an English-speaking country per se, but Japanese releases get plenty of coverage here. Also, the release of a demo only in non-primary market is in itself novel. JohnnyMrNinja 08:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Cool. Obviously Japan isn't an english-speaking country, but it is a huge videogame region, so it's easy to see why there's often japanese info in aticles. Hong Kong is more a grey area. Kariteh, I actually meant full game releases in the infobox, not demoes - like Gran Turismo 5 Prologue. Any thoughts on this? Fin©™ 08:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe the demo info is relevant and HK an important region. By the way ™ is lying HK is not the only region with this english language demo since it was released first in south korea. Hk is important since HK people are likely to use the English language wikipedia (remember this is not wikipedia for england). In other hand i don't think JPN is considered relevant in the english language wikipedia even though japanese users are likely to use the japanese wikipedia not the english one. to my best knowledge main game regions are JPN, NA, EU, AUS/NZ, ASIA (includes HK, SING, TWN) and SK. Synchronicity I (talk) 08:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

for your information GT5P is not a demo but a full release, you know like halo 3 is supposed to be a HD game. by the way HK is an important market, with some japanese releases sold only in Japan and HK (renamed "Asia edition"). Synchronicity I (talk) 08:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I am of course not lying, I just assumed the south korean version was in Korean. I do believe this discussion should be over notability, not the language of the country. Like I pointed out on Sync's talk page, India and Pakistan are both english-as-a-primary-language countries, but any video game releases for them are not included. Also, the same logic cannot be applied to Japan, which is a huge videogame region (though JPN releases shouldn't be included in the infobox if that's not the country of origin, and generally, articles do not contain any Japanese information for non-Japanese games). Fin©™ 08:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I've no idea what the first point of your second paragraph is trying to say. If Asia editions exist for games (and they are severely different), I'd say that's probably notable enough to be included. Fin©™ 08:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

since everyone but Fin agree to conclude HK is a relevant English-language market, it fits to the English Wikipedia and the info about the English language Lair Trial Version is important i'll revert Fin's removal of Lair demo. thanks everyone. Synchronicity I (talk) 08:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Em, what? I just agreed when replying to Johnny. I've reordered and renamed it per the actual consensus. Also, no consensus has been reached on whether HK is a notable market, consensus was reached that the demo was notable enough for inclusion. Thanks! Fin©™ 08:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Errr... Now I'm being called a vandal for editing the article to include a dev section per Ham and Karieth above.... ? Fin©™ 08:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

"Stable article title"

I've grown somewhat tired of this. Oftentimes, I have to deal with this, because people, in their attempt to prevent a move from their ideal article, they pull that card out of their sleeves. Because of the industry's set-up, Googlehits are skewed towards North American names when discussing disputes between different regions' names. For instance, Another Code: Two Memories came out in Europe and Australia months earlier, but is at Trace Memory.

All I can say is - in the case of Brain Age, Brain Age 2, Trace Memory, and several other titles, they're ONLY there because of being North American titles. Because of this bias, I think that these titles are not stable, because they weren't there for a good reason, just regionalism. Now that PAL titles are used more often because of stronger enforcement, any suggestion that these articles are stable at these titles should be erased, and we should actually discuss which title is better based on the evidence, not "it's been stable, we don't need to move it". If the reason it was there in the first place is faulty, I don't think it's stable. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree to that. The primary arguments I've seen for article naming (and overall style) have been:

1. Wikipedia is based in North America (United States), and thus should use American naming conventions and linguistic styles over those of the UK.
2. Article titles should be based on the "best known" title available (disputable because of regional differences).
3. Articles should be named in English (first and foremost), and then after the first title under which the game was released.

Each of these has a problem. The first one enforces a regional bias based on the location of the Wikipedia servers, which isn't really a valid argument in my opinion. The second one is too subjective - it's hard to form a consensus on what title is the "best known" - it'll just lead to regional arguments that almost invariably turn uncivil. And the third one proposes that we use the first-known title of a game, even if that title is totally obscure and hardly anyone would recognize the game by that title. (As a fictional example, "Peter Pepper's Hamburger Factory" might have been the first-release title of the game much more popularly known as Burgertime in all regions - it would be incorrect, IMO, to title the article by that first name. Similarly, our article on Pac-Man is not called Puck Man, even though that's how it was first released in Japan.)

So which of these do we go with? Or do we go with any of them? Is it a case-by-case thing? How do we decide on this and come to consensus on it? Enquiring minds want to know. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, we have to devalue the policy's usage, basically. It shouldn't be excluded, but in the examples I provided, I seriously think that the only reason they were moved to their current targets is bias towards those targets (all of the articles I mentioned were at the original title initially - that is, Brain Training for Adults, More Brain Training from Dr. Kawashima: How Old Is Your Brain?, and Another Code: Two Memories. People are basically able to end a discussion by citing that policy. However, like I said, the articles were only there because of bias, and now that we've repaired much of the bias in the project, we should reevaluate what should and should not be at the NA title. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, 'Article titles should be based on the "best known" title available' is the general rule on WP, but it needs to be combined with 'Use English'. Of course it's often hard to know what's "best known" (I guarentee many many people in the US haven't even heard of a Megadrive while at the same time own(ed) a Genesis, as a for instrance), but from all I gather, a mix of 2 and 3 IS what one should be worked toward. Being released first shouldn't really be an issue at all. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

LTTP, you've set up some nice straw man arguments then had a lovely time of beating on them.

Contentious moves on Wikipedia and regional English disputes are generally handled this way: the status quo prevails unless there's a pressing reason and a consensus to change it. NA vs. EU titling is a perfect example of this; both the NA and EU titles, covers, etc. are just as reasonable for a game originally developed and released in Japan. If you want to make a case that a game that fared better in whatever region belongs under that region's name, fine, see if you can convince people. If you want to make a case that a game's first release region prevails, fine. If you can't convince people, do a little bit of assuming good faith instead of beating on the tired systemic bias horse.

In the meantime, I stand staunchly opposed to creating a WP:CVG-specific way of handling contentious regional differences in titling, images, etc. in the name of preventing illusory biases. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The project is already strongly tilted towards North America, and this needs to be fixed. The pressing reason is that the people who moved to those titles in the first place ignored the status quo. And like I've said, the problem is that people won't be convinced because they do not want to be convinced, and hide behind the "status quo". If one title blatantly fails to trump the other in any regard, THAT is what I would call unstable. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

the problem is that people won't be convinced because they do not want to be convinced, and hide behind the "status quo".

If you're convinced that there's a a conspiracy against you, give up now and go away.

When you're prepared to assume good faith, we'll be here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

So you chose to summarily ignore the first half of his message which was the potential that someone moved an article before, thus ignoring the original status quo? Chan Yin Keen | ^UT_C 01:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's false and had been refuted before, but I don't mind clarifying.

The article was moved from its Japanese title to the NA release title in February 2006. Barring a May 2006 move that added an exclamation mark, the page was untouched until LTTP tried to move this in Feburary, got reverted, and couldn't get consensus. Now he couldn't get consensus, then moved it anyway. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, after reviewing the history of that, the other Brain Age title and the dark chronicle title I'm inclined to agree that moving the pages again and again is a fruitless and pointless endeavour. I can't be stuffed what the article is called, as long as the article properly mentions all the names of the game. If most of references call it an orange, call it an orange. If most call it an apple, call it an apple. Little need to flip flop over what we feel should be the title. Chan Yin Keen | ^UT_C 05:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The possibility that there may have been some bad contentious moves biased for NA (can we have some examples?) does not mean that bad contentious moves should now be made policy. The proper course of action in dealing with bad moves is to have them reversed, on the exact same grounds provided. There is no actual bias here, the policies can and should apply both ways, regardless of which direction it's going in. Link's argument in these discussions is that if a game sells more copies in EU vs NA, it has the same inherent relevance to Europe as the European Union, or in the opposite case, the same inherent relevance to NA as the American Civil War. (These are the examples given by WP:ENGVAR). Trying to equate sales figures of a video game to the nature of these topics is, to me, absurd (using the very British, Monty Python sense of that word). More than that, to defy WP:COMMONNAME he also argues that it's not just absolute commonality but proportional importance -- that is, even if the NA title is more common, the EU title should be used if the game was better-received there, i.e. the title of the article should be decided by sales figures and which country gave it better reviews, a novel argument which I neither agree with nor is supported by any guideline. I have yet to see a proposal to rename a EU title to a NA one on these grounds. Yet somehow he manages to accuse others of regionalism if we should contest a poorly-justified move proposal that appears to have little other purpose. Even if the moves occurred, they would still be equally controversial, which is the whole point of the "stable" name issue. We don't want to get in a situation where people are constantly moving or proposing to move the title back and forth -- that's what an "unstable" article is, one that requires e.g. repeatedly changing redirects and pipes and such. If the current title, albeit controversial, is one of the front-runners, it should be left as-is. The guideline does not say or mean that the title encourages stability, it means that we should try to maintain stability by discouraging controversial moves. FWIW, if we seem a bit blase with respect to Link's arguments, it's because we've already been through all this, excruciatingly, on the proposal discussions. I don't plan on repeating more of that than I already have. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

1. The three I just gave? Another Code was released in Europe first, and yet was moved to Trace Memory anyway.
2. That's very easy for you to say - especially when I DID reverse the one move I was immediately aware of, Brain Age 2, and wasn't going to wheel war with someone (who didn't even provide an edit summary in one of his moves). Opposing biased moves was impossible back then.
3. Yeah, that was my only argument. In addition to that, up is down and black is white. Brain Training had and has more marketing - which is not sales, it is EXPOSURE to anyone watching television or reading a magazine - and we've established the games' influence.
4. Defy? You brought up common name in your favor because of blatantly skewed Google hits - "oh, Brain Training is too vague, so we'll make it extremely specific, while we use Brain Age". You compared "Brain Age", the most common name for the NA version, to "Dr. Kawashima's Brain Training", definitely NOT the most common name for the PAL version. The Google hits with "Brain Age" +Nintendo versus "Brain Training" +Nintendo are 300k higher for Brain Age. That is not a substantial difference period, let alone when you consider that there are many, many more video game websites based in North America than PAL regions. The fact of the matter is that most coverage of Brain Age that you'll find on Google is old - not so with Brain Training.
5. And the term "Brain Training" is instantly recognizable to most anyone, while looking at Google, taking the Nintendo out of the search returns the exact same hits - it's exclusive to the game, and so the only people who understand the term are those who have played the game.
6. The only people who would find it controversial are the people who are the cause of the problem of this infernal bias.
7. I don't see how one can misspell "blatantly lying" as blase (wrong é). Yeah, because despite having never mentioned reviews, that was actually a point I presented!
8. The fact of the matter is that Ham Pastrami, you are blasé because you don't have to deal with fixing the bias that screwed up these articles. We should treat this problem like any other problem - erase it. Would it kill you to actually argue any point because "oh hay it's already stable". - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

ALTTP, that last stepped over the line. Please cool it; I would advise any others who have previously been in this discussion to take it easy on the accusations; Link isn't the only one guilty of uncivil remarks on this page. The sarcasm can definitely go. --Izno (talk) 06:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You need consensus for change to happen, the "stable article" argument is made by editors who feel that the argument for change is not strong enough. It's not like you'll be able to get rid of it, as onus is on the instigator of the change to make the argument for it, and there'll always be those who are unconvinced. I've been involved in a few page move disputes and the view I take echoes Melodia's above. You'll see the "stable article" card played in other areas too, such as British vs American English disputes. - hahnchen 19:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

At what point to create new articles/redirects for sequels? (Part Two: Mass Effect)

Okay last time we disscussed when to make new articles in the GH series. But now I have some questions about the Mass Effect series. Many things were announced and few days ago, but the future of the Mass Effect series was announced. Mass Effect 2 and 3 were announced(in a way) and it is posted on IGN and Gamespot.(see the request for articles M)We already have a Mass Effect 2 article, but at what point do we decide to continue on the series and make a Mass Effect 3 article.Gears Of War 18:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Having a profile page on a games website is not a reliable source for inclusion, I think, as until it's confirmed by the publisher it's still speculation - though until there's an actual press release, it can still be unreliable (Call of Duty: World at War was initially claimed to be on PS2 during an investor conference call but it turned out not to be). Generally, until there's a definite confirmation from a publisher, the page shouldn't exist - rumours can sometimes be filed in a "Sequel" section in the prequel's page, but that varies, depending on quality of rumours and such. Don't forget to keep WP:CRYSTAL in mind. Fin©™ 08:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Future-Class

I swear I'm almost through, but what about using {{Future-Class}} for article assessments? It was originally designed for WP:FILM for upcoming movies, and has since been adopted for several other projects. Could we benefit from using a Future class for upcoming video games? I could see the advantage, in that an article could never be complete before the game is actually released, as much of our real-world content is reception, reaction and sales. Most development details aren't available before the article is released either, and often-times much of the plot. Content in the article is likely to drastically change after release, so a pre-release rating seems somewhat redundant, or even unfair. Thoughts? JohnnyMrNinja 05:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally I don't find future class that useful. I think we can easily rate articles as stub (or even start in many cases) before the game is released. A lot about the plot and other details is released ahead of time before the game actually comes out to stores. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

{{future game}} serves essentially the same purpose, and development hell can sometimes complicate things (Personally, I think the Duke Nukem article is stable enough for GA). Nifboy (talk) 08:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No need for this class. Nifboy and Rob covered everything I could say about it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Using this class to say "it isn't out yet, so we can't assess it" seems like an admission that the article shouldn't be there in the first place. Articles on future releases can be guided a few notches up the assessment scale, some kind of note to say "don't bloat this article with crud which will be deleted the moment the genuine info becomes available" would be a lot more useful than an opt-out class IMO. Someoneanother 13:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Figured as much, just wanted to put the option out there. JohnnyMrNinja 21:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Editors can spend a good deal of time creating a good article about future games. StarCraft II, for example, is B-class. Just like any other article, these articles could benefit from assessment and the class scale. User:Krator (t c) 22:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning up Capcom and Konami-related cruft

I'm working in cleaning up all the articles on Category:Street Fighter and Category:Resident Evil, since most of these articles are in pretty poor shape as they were right now. I'm thinking of merging all the salvageable Resident Evil characters articles to List of characters in the Resident Evil series and merging all the movie characters to their respective films. I'm also working on cleaning up all the Zone of the Enders and Boktai related articles when I get the chance to do them.

I was recently involved in an edit war with another user on Template:Major Street Fighter Characters. Kung-Fu Man believes there should be a link Saturday Night Slam Masters on the navigation box, since the characters of Slam Masters are mentioned in some of the Street Fighter games. I beg to differ, since none of them have actually appeared in a Street Fighter and most of the references are superfluous at best (i.e: Character from game A was a tag partner of Character from game B). Jonny2x4 (talk) 13:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there a discussion on this somewhere? I can chip in.

(BTW a hand with the Sonic articles would probably be appreciated.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no discussion right now, which is why I decided to bring it up here. A lot of the Street Fighter articles are in pretty pathetic shape right now (focusing more on the characters' fictional backstories, even though the games themselves have a very loose continuity), even as I'm cleaning them up. And not just the characters articles (i.e: Ryu). The articles on the games themselves are not much better either. Street Fighter 2010 for example talks more about the backstory of the Japanese version and doesn't even have a gameplay sub-section.

As for the Sonic articles. I'm not much of an expert on that series, but I'll do my best there.Jonny2x4 (talk) 13:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd be more concerned why Gouken and Goutetsu even have articles at this point: both of the articles are relying on heavy speculation, but have the problem that they can't be effectively merged anywhere. Slam Masters ends up cited enough to at least warrant that it is involved: heck, even Zangief's moveset similarities to Haggar's get 'explained' via it. The tie ins have been noted by magazines as well, though mainly Haggar's case.

As for the others I'd rather rebuild than mass merge: some of the articles abound can be cited with enough notability to keep them standing. Also regarding the matter of storyline vs. gameplay, it's rather interesting Master Chief (Halo) ends up a feature article while focusing on the character's weight in the series as well as a fictional character. So you can't shout "cruft" for the entirety of a character's background (and really how much gameplay could you cite for many of the characters?). The articles suck, but a slash and burn isn't going to improve them.

Regarding SF 2010, it's a mess I plan to address once I finish writing The Final Fantasy Legend (I'm still waiting on a source regarding the soundtrack). Also it would serve you a lot better to work with people like I suggested rather than try to circumvent with shouts of "cruft" when you know that'll get a rise.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Note that Master Chief (Halo) is about 60% real-world content by volume. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but still it's relevant is what my point is. As it stands, like I suggested to Jonny2x4, it'd be better to pool real-world content relating to the character articles, sort out and merge those that lack enough content, then completely rewrite the rest. The alternative of tearing out whole chunks of the articles here isn't going to do much to actively fix them as you'll just have the same article with less content.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The difference between the Master Chief article you point there and an article like say Chun-Li (which is one of the better written Street Fighter articles) is that the Master Chief article is loaded with references and real-world production info such as the character's design and voice actor. Yes, there's some plot summary there too, but unlike the Street Fighter games, the Halo games are very plot-heavy, whereas the Street Fighter the backstories are mostly told through sourcebooks and character-specific endings. Also, a lot of the plot elements of the Street Fighter games were influenced by the anime and manga based on the games (like Gouken, Cammy's codename Killer Bee, and the origin of Ryu's red bandanna in the Street Fighter II Animated Movie), all of which can be undermined with a strictly in-universe/"canon only" perspective. It wouldn't be a bad idea to have a characterization sub-section for all the character articles, detailing how the characters' histories slowly evolved. Jonny2x4 (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

To use A Man in Black's words from the Sonic cruft discussions, is "burn them with fire" too harsh? This is what we need to do with a lot of fancruft, and I can see that that would apply here as well. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 19:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

More than SF characters, pretty much every fighting game character in any fighting game that got at least one sequel has an article for every single character. This is not the first time this has been brought up, and, well, nobody's been angry or determined enough to really make a difference with them. I tried merging some KOF characters into lists, which has slowly been undone over time. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I am now! I think as soon as we're done cleaning up most of the Sonic stuff, we should work on the Street Fighter-related.

My main problem with a lot of these Street Fighter articles is that cite "Tiamat's Street Fighter FAQ", which is based on the author's own assertion of what's canon and what's not (i.e: a certain detail in Game A contradicts Game B, since Game B is more recent, Game B is canon). The Street Fighter games don't have much of a continuity, other than "3rd Strike" and "Alpha 3" making references to the previous games.

As bad as the Street Fighter articles are, they're nowhere near as bad as Category:Mortal Kombat.Jonny2x4 (talk) 17:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Is the Mortal Kombat Wikiproject still around? Last time I tried to clean up the MK mess I was roundly rebuffed by that crew. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I tend to be surprised at the amount of real world info (namely creator commentaries and acknowledgement of their reception) that tend to be overlooked here. And most of it in English too. Sadly, most Wikipedian users are kids who are more concerned into turning this site into the "backstory database". Jonny2x4 (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, once the worst of the dross is gone, what do we do with these articles? When a character is only in one game, it's easy to deal with; merge (sometimes very little material, as appropriate) and redirect. Omnibus lists tend to be terrible (bad long articles instead of bad short articles), and that's the usual proposed solution. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I have in mind to merge all the characters who first appeared in Street Fighter II to be merged in a Street Fighter II-specific list (although that probably won't be neccesary, seeing how its the most popular incarnation of the series and there's bound to be several real-world references). All Alpha-debuting characters (including Alpha incarnations of SF I and FFight characters) in an Alpha list and all Street Fighter III into Street Fighter III. Jonny2x4 (talk) 18:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

So merge them to the games by first appearance? Sounds reasonable. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't shout "merge it all!" so readily there, save for the SF3 exclusives (Gill may be the only exception revolving around his difficulty as a boss and whole "here's what SF3 can do", as well as early design sketches. Merging the rest should be handled case by case: this isn't the same issue as the Sonic articles because you can reduce storyline content while emphasizing character development, design changes, gameplay, promotion and reception (okay maybe not T. Hawk, but how likes him anyway?). All a merge results in is the same we have with the Pokemon lists and similar: a bunch of useless CRAP that does a half ass job informing anyone of anything.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Depends on what we can source. There's a fair bit to say about most of the SF2 characters, but not so much to say about Adon or Birdie or Sodom or Ingrid and such. If all you can say is "They appear in such-and-such game and they're such-and-such cliche," that's all we really need. It's what happened to most of the SF3 characters.

The Pokemon lists are what we're trying to avoid. Big bad lists instead of little bad articles aren't an improvement. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you there. My only suggestion being tackling each case by case and merging if nothing can be said but a bunch of storyline content. That's why in the end I agree with the SF3 mergings. Cases where storyline can be cut back and design info and promotional material (hell even Sodom lucks out having that) can be cited should be able to satisfy notability and help make the character articles encyclopedic.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, it's going to be case-by-case. As for design and promotion, a lot of times even that ends up duplicated in character articles, when we could just put it in the game or series articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If I were you all, rather than just discussing it, if there is a problem, I would just be bold and fix it, and keep things within your own talk pages or dispute resolution if needs be. The last thing we need are editors being banned or given warnings under 3RR or likewise. We really don't want another discussion between editors going the same way as the similar one on Sonic above. --tgheretford (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, mostly we're brainstorming aloud on how to fix the problems. Everyone agrees on the short term, and we're discussing the long term, fairly amicably as far as I can tell. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I already went ahead and fix a couple of articles. Mostly Resident Evil stuff like Albert Wesker, Ada Wong, Barry Burton (merged into S.T.A.R.S. members (Resident Evil)) and Nicholai Ginovaef (merged back into Characters in Resident Evil 3: Nemesis). Most of these articles don't have enough real world references and are barely above stub-class. Carlos Oliveira and Billy Coen should just be merged back into Characters in Resident Evil 3: Nemesis and Resident Evil Zero respectively (their appearances in Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles don't count for much, since the game is mostly a cliff notes version of the series). I think its best to merge everything into List of characters in the Resident Evil series (I've removed sub-sections that only covered minor supporting characters from the comics and novels).

Also, its hard to do any real work on these articles, when other users are challenging your changes. Jonny2x4 (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Merged Urien, Sean, and Elena with Street Fighter III. The others should have enough to keep them separate articles, though I doubt that with Ibuki. On the SF3 article, it does mention design stuff regarding Dudley though doesn't list a citation: might be worthwhile seeing if anything in the SF3 Bible or All About Capcom books have anything to say about his design that could make it worth a separate article again.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposals are in place for Ingrid (Capcom) (w/multiple targets), and Maki (Final Fight) (to Final Fight 2). Neither article has much to go on in terms of solo articles, as Ingrid is mostly story, and Maki really just had a design and goal change that could easily enough be mentioned in FF2's article. The toy bit could easily go at the CvS2 article under promotions. Someone feel free to tend to either if they get a chance.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of above discussion

Resolved

General comment re title of thread: Please avoid insulting other contributors by calling their work "cruft" per WP:ITSCRUFT, [1], Wikipedia:Cruftcruft, etc. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. When referring to unreferenced plot detail, made up nonsense, fanon, speculation, and the like, make sure you call it crap. This is much clearer, without the emotional baggage of the word "cruft". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

AMIB, that was just not called for.Fairfieldfencer FFF 18:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it was exactly called for. These articles are full of useless crap, and we need to clear the dross so we can figure out what to do with the salvageable material. That's the point.

If you're adding unreferenced plot detail, made up nonsense, fanon, speculation, etc. to an article, you should be made to feel bad so you stop doing that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a matter of tact and respect for fellow editors. There are ways to say "excessive detail" or "unverifiable" that would not come off in a manner that discourages editors from contributing. We have to remove words like "crap" and "cruft" from discussions, because they prevent editors from commenting productively. If you tell someone that the article is hard to follow because of excessive detail, then they can respond with an "okay, so let's tighten it up," but if you say, "It's full of crap and cruft," it's more apt to either offend them or make them defensive rather than conciliatory. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

AMIB, you could at least pretend that users edits are in good faith, by not calling them crap, or is an admin going against the rules of Wikipedia.Fairfieldfencer FFF 18:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Le Grand, you really need to read over WP:ITSCRUFT, seriously. Bridies (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

"Please note that while declaring something to be "cruft" in itself is not a rational argument for deletion, actual cruft — vast amounts of specific information on topics of little notability — is not acceptable for Wikipedia. "Cruft" is often used as a shorthand term for failure to meet the above criteria, and should not be treated as a bad faith dismissal of the information. Nevertheless, editors who declare something to be "cruft" should take care to explain in their rationale for deletion why it is cruft. Bridies (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

In other words, editors need to stop using that word. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no. If editors are going to use that word, they need to explain why (just like any other rationale). Again, please just read it. Bridies (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If others beyond me take issue with the word and find it unconstructive, why would anyone still use it and not instead try a more polite and respectful way of arguing? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not what I'm taking issue with. I'm taking issue with the fact that you link WP:ITSCRUFT as if it supports your argument, which it does not. Bridies (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I only like to it when it supports my argument. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Can you please quote exactly what part of WP:ITSCRUFT supports your argument. Bridies (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it's listed on an essay titled "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions." Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, I suggest you actually read the essay. The 'argument(s) to avoid' is 'it's cruft' without offering an explanation, much the same as saying 'keep/delete cos I (don't) like it', without explaining why. I'm going to quote, explicitly, again: "Cruft" is often used as a shorthand term for failure to meet the above criteria, and should not be treated as a bad faith dismissal of the information. Nevertheless, editors who declare something to be "cruft" should take care to explain in their rationale for deletion why it is cruft. Bridies (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Which is exactly what many do, i.e. "Delete as cruft." without saying anything beyond that. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, this isn't an AfD and people are not writing 'delete as cruft'... Bridies (talk) 19:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I pointed out that others find use of the word unhelpful in general per [2], User:Alansohn/Cruftcruft, etc. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You're digressing again, we're talking about the title of the above thread and again, I have no problem with you claiming others find the term unhelpful (though in my opinion that's nobody's problem but theirs), but WP:ITSCRUFT takes absolutely no issue with the term 'cruft' itself, in general, merely the expression of 'it's cruft' (or 'i (don't) lie it', or whatever), without any expansion. Bridies (talk) 20:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Cruft and crap are just terms we use to describe stuff that shouldn't be on wikipedia. We could call it pixie dust and flowers, but we still have to remove it, and ultimately disappoint the people who added it in good faith. In AMIB's defense, he wasn't calling the whole article crap. He was calling specific parts of it crap. And he was right. Part of this discussion is identifying parts of the articles that are crap, and parts that are not. If you can't accept criticism, grow some backbone, or leave. Randomran (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

They are unhelpful and unconstructive terms. If editors want to stay here and edit in a cooperative and civil manner then they need to respect their fellow contributors by not insulting their work. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If they make people feel bad for adding bad stuff, then they're helpful. You can't insult the inanimate, and if you aren't ready to have your contributions edited mercilessly, then you're on the wrong project. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Our goals should not be to make people feel bad. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It's the only way to keep them from adding crap to articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

There's almost always a polite alternative. My hope here is that we disuse language that raises the temperatures needlessly in discussions. I am not saying that some stuff shouldn't be removed, but that we don't go about it in even a mildly antagonistic way. There are far worse things to feel frustrated about (proce gouging by oil companies...) than Wikipedia. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with people who act like jerks is a fact of life, and unfortunately acting like a jerk may not be against WP rules itself. You just have to know how to deal with it: grow a thicker skin and continue arguing or let it go as not as important for how much your blood pressure is going to raise. I had someone act like a jerk to me a short time ago in much the same way, I let it go since it didn't matter that much to me. Though I don't think the word 'cruft' is not insulting if properly explained (and not used as the entire arguement). Cigraphix (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I know this discussion has been resolved, and is pretty much a non-issue. But I see honest criticism of article content as the epitome of respect. It's something people have to learn to accept. Randomran (talk) 22:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

"You are a bad person" is not okay. "This is a bad article" is okay. Nobody disagrees about this. The rest is details.

Now let's stop noding about noding and get back to the business of writing an encyclopedia that doesn't suck. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Partner peer reviews with Milhist

How's it going? Is it delivering what you were expecting? Thoughts, gripes, comments? To keep the discussion all in one place, could you respond here please? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ninja Gaiden – Article Naming

I've been extensively helping to clean up and edit Ninja Gaiden (video game), which currently goes to the NES version of the series released in 1988. However, I have noticed some blaring ambiguities in the article naming of not only this article, but most of the articles regarding Ninja Gaiden. Much of the confusion arises from the fact that most of the Ninja Gaiden games have been released under the exact same names over and over again. I think some of the articles, by how they're named, can be misleading. From judging by looking at the "Move" record for the article I'm editing, this hasn't been discussed for quite some time.

Here's how the Ninja Gaiden articles are arranged and my concerns:

• Ninja Gaiden – This goes to a disamb page, which I wouldn't think would be necessary since we are dealing with only the series and its games.
• Ninja Gaiden (series) – The entire series of Ninja Gaiden.
• Ninja Gaiden (arcade game) – The 1988 arcade version; the first Ninja Gaiden game in the series.
• Ninja Gaiden (video game) – The 1988 NES version. (Could be confused with the arcade version, the Master System version, the game gear version, or the xBox version)
• Ninja Gaiden II: The Dark Sword of Chaos – The 1990 NES version. (May possibly confuse those looking for the 2008 version.)
• Ninja Gaiden III: The Ancient Ship of Doom – The 1991 NES version. (Fine)
• Ninja Gaiden (Master System) – The 1992 SMS version. (Should be renamed Ninja Gaiden (1992 Video Game))
• Ninja Gaiden (2004 video game) – The 2004 xBox version. (Fine)
• Ninja Gaiden II (2008 video game) – The 2008 xBox 360 version. (May possibly confuse those looking for the 1990 version, even though I really don't think it would.)
• Ninja Gaiden (Game Gear) – The 1991 version for the Game Gear. (Would make sense just to rename it Ninja Gaiden (1991 video game))
• Ninja Gaiden Shadow – Game Boy version. (Fine)

Wouldn't it make more sense to dump the disamb page, redirect Ninja Gaiden to the series article, and then disambiguate the rest of the game articles (of the same name, that is) by year or console if necessary? Thoughts? MuZemike (talk) 07:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Lose the disamb, redirect to Ninja Gaiden series article. From there I'm kinda lost on ideas. Someone else wanna chip in on this? Chan Yin Keen | ^UT_C 08:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Lose dismbig and redirect it to the series article. - X201 (talk) 08:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ninja Gaiden Dragon Sword is missing up there. Anyway, I would suggest setting up the series article as the primary Ninja Gaiden (no disambiguation). The page in describing the games in the series should have the links to the various versions (having another page serve as a disambiguation page seems redundant). The second version of Ninja Gaiden then could have a Ninja Gaiden II disambiguation page. Redirects are set up for Ninja Gaiden DS, Ninja Gaiden 2, and Ninja Gaiden 3. Thus, we end up with 11 articles, one disambiguation page, and 3 redirects. Jappalang (talk) 08:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the dab page can be dumped, but do not redirect it; just move the series article on top (probably you'll need to request at WP:RM, and potentially for other moves as well). For article titles, here's my suggestion: Ham Pastrami (talk) 09:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Move Ninja Gaiden (series) over Ninja Gaiden dab page.
2. Leave Ninja Gaiden (arcade game) where it is (or simply shorten to "arcade" for consistency).
3. Move Ninja Gaiden (video game) to Ninja Gaiden (NES). It was eventually ported to PC Engine/Turbografx, and emulated elsewhere, but I don't think this needs to count in the title -- otherwise we are looking at a lot of ugly conversions because of services like Virtual Console. If the PC Engine version has independent notability, by all means, add Ninja Gaiden (PC Engine) to the fray.
4. Redirect Ninja Gaiden (video game) to Ninja Gaiden.
5. Leave all the other articles where they are. If the other games can be confused with each other, use a hatnote on each respective article.

Ham Pastrami (talk) 09:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Successfully moved Ninja Gaiden (video game) to Ninja Gaiden (NES) and changed the redirect of Ninja Gaiden (video game) to point to Ninja Gaiden. I also moved Ninja Gaiden (arcade game) to Ninja Gaiden (arcade) to improve consistency in naming. I have requested a move per WP:RM to move Ninja Gaiden (series) to Ninja Gaiden, as it cannot be done automatically since Ninja Gaiden is a disamb page. MuZemike (talk) 16:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The version on the PC Engine is a pure port of the NES version, so it doesn't need its own article. MuZemike (talk) 18:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't move Ninja Gaiden (Master System) to Ninja Gaiden (1992 video game). Its an obscure version of a game released for only one platform and its less confusing that way. Same thing with Ninja Gaiden (Game Gear)/ Jonny2x4 (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's best to keep them as it is, as well; I would not move them, either. Otherwise people would start to get confused trying to associate a year with a console version, which goes against what disambiguation is supposed to do. MuZemike (talk) 01:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Ninja Gaiden should redirect to the first game. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

As in the arcade game or the more popular NES game?Jonny2x4 (talk) 20:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

NES version - I'm of the opinion that the NES game is the by-far most well-known thing called Ninja Gaiden.

Although, overall, considering that there are four things called Ninja Gaiden, Ninja Gaiden should be a disambig. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

But I'm sure that there are some people (i.e. people who are just getting into gaming with the current-generation consoles) may not realize that the NES version exists let alone was very popular. Furthermore, people who grew up playing the NES and know Ninja Gaiden are going to relate to the popularity of the NES version. On the other hand, people who are right now growing up with the xBox are going to relate to the popularity of the two xBox games.

Assuming that both the NES version and the xBox versions have achieved some degree of success and popularity, we'd only be splitting hairs over which version is more important, more popular, etc. Therefore, I think there would be confusion on both sides if you make Ninja Gaiden point to the NES version or to the xBox version (which for the latter someone who may only know the xBox version primarily can contest).

With that being said, I think the most neutral thing viewpoint-wise to do is to point Ninja Gaiden to the series (which I have already requested) and then disamb all the games separately by console version. And with that change, a whole disamb page on Ninja Gaiden would not be necessary. MuZemike (talk) 01:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Why? There are five articles called Ninja Gaiden, that's plenty for a disambig. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, dab pages are to distinguish heterogeneous subjects, not to serve as a WP:SETINDEX, which is what a series article is. If JK Rowling's next book was Harry Potter and the Ninja Gaiden, we would need a dab page. But no matter how many Ninja Gaiden games there are, they would not need a dab page, just the series index. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, we don't apply that logic ever it would seem, since there are dab pages for tons of series (Mega Man, Donkey Kong). There are still five things that people would likely do a search for on Wikipedia. The fact of the matter is that people would likely search for the original game or the Xbox game before they'd search for the series, so making them auto-go to the series article isn't the best idea. The only reason it's suggested to redirect to the series is because it's too difficult to pick which popular Ninja Gaiden game it should redirect to. Because there is no way to pick which should be at the main article, or where it should redirect, it should be a disambig. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there are a lot of misused dab pages, and I don't believe that encouraging more is the proper course of action. If the most likely search target is for one of the Ninja Gaiden games, but it's uncertain which, why exactly is it a bad thing to send the user to the series page? In what way has the user been led astray? Either way, the user is brought to a page that provides a list of more specific topics. On a dab page you get an obscure parenthetical and a one-line description to help you tell the difference. On a series page you get an excerpt from the main article, maybe a screenshot, and other details which makes it fairly obvious whether or not you are about to click on the right link. I don't recommend putting the series article up front because "it's too difficult to pick" a game to redirect to. I recommend it because it is strictly better than a dab page. Ham Pastrami (talk) 05:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

These are heterogenous subjects; they're four different games all with the same name, plus a series of the same name. We're not including Ninja Gaiden 2 or Ninja Gaiden Black or whatever in the dab page, just things that are named Ninja Gaiden and only named Ninja Gaiden. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

No, they're not heterogeneous; they're four games with the same name, using the same IP, in the same series, owned by the same company. That is fairly homogeneous in my book. Certainly you cannot say that it is incorrect to bring you to the series article for any one of those games; if, on the other hand, you were expecting something that wasn't related to these games at all, then that would be a heterogeneous subject. I understand you're saying that games titled "Ninja Gaiden" are a subset of the Ninja Gaiden series, but they're just as effectively disambiguated in the series article regardless. Ham Pastrami (talk) 05:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The whole idea of redirecting to the series article ignores the fact that series articles shouldn't get preference. Especially in this case, where the series is most definitely not the most popular usage. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I have followed A Man In Black's thoughts and removed any title that is unlikely to be mistaken for Ninja Gaiden from the page. I believe having Ninja Gaiden as the series article is a good idea. The series article itself is a summary of the Ninja Gaiden titles. There are no other notable Ninja Gaiden that are not within the scope of the series article. Hence, having a set index article instead of a disambiguation page makes sense in this case. Jappalang (talk) 01:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That is not a criteria for an article to be at the main article. In fact, your reasoning is exactly opposite to what's appropriate - the series shouldn't get precedence unless it's clearly superior in notability (ie FF series vs. first FF). - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Who stated that ("series shouldn't get precedence unless it's clearly superior in notability") to be a criteria or policy? In any event, Final Fantasy is pointing to the series, instead of a game. Ninja Gaiden amounts to the same thing. Reading through articles from established reliable sources point to the three NES games (and even the new NG and NG II) being referred to as Ninja Gaiden games. Instances of the phrase Ninja Gaiden alone are also used to refer to the series as a whole. Tecmo and the official sites state Ninja Gaiden as encompassing the whole franchise ("Ninja Gaiden and Tecmo are registered trademarks of Tecmo, LTD."). I see no heavy obstacle in us putting the series in the Ninja Gaiden slot. Jappalang (talk) 05:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It was a decision based on the fact that in most cases, the series is not the most popular usage. And your example of FF doesn't really stand - I already used it as one of the series that DOES have more popular usage. Here's more examples for you:

1. Bomberman
2. The Legend of Zelda (good article)
3. Crash Bandicoot
4. Spyro the Dragon

And I'm sorry, but your argument of trademarks does not establish anything. For one, what Tecmo registers doesn't establish what is best for the reader. For another, how does it refer to the series? The trademark refers to one thing and one thing only - the name "Ninja Gaiden". That point is completely irrelevant, as it doesn't establish the series as the most well-known usage of the name "Ninja Gaiden". - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Not the most popular usage in whose eyes? Certainly the series article needs cleanup, and once that is completed, one can claim that that the series article contains information about the franchise as well as the series of games in a way that pointing Ninja Gaiden to the series article does indeed benefit the reader the most.

As I stated earlier about splitting hairs over which game is more popular, etc., the same applies to these articles. Taking that into account, why should we have to determine among roughly equally popular usages when we don't have to? MuZemike (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

My FF example? Link to the Past, you were the one who brought it up ("ie FF series vs. first FF"). Just as well, you claimed it is a decision based on fact. Whose fact? Please bring up the fact that Ninja Gaiden is the most common name for the NES game (as you have stated much earlier), or are you now standing by the claim that the Xbox version is now the popular (common version). These sites show that Ninja Gaiden refers to the entire franchise.[3][4][5][6][7] [8] Jappalang (talk) 01:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I do have another idea, in which School makes for a good example: we make Ninja Gaiden the series and then create a Ninja Gaiden (disambiguation) article. The appropriate hatnote in the series article would then point the series article to the disamb page.

I acknowledge that this is not consistent with WikiProject Video games guidelines, but I don't think the guidelines take into account the situation in which multiple games of the same name for multiple consoles, all different games and not ports, exist – which seems like the unique case here. Thoughts? MuZemike (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

So many people know Ninja Gaiden only by two games - Ninja Gaidens 1 & 2 for the Xbox and 360 - so it's very absurd that one could suggest that the series is the most well-known usage. I've seen that most people consider either the NES game or the Xbox game the most popular usage. Your argument of so many things using the name Ninja Gaiden is an argument for disambig, not for one of those to be used - especially when you suggest a less popular usage of the name. And your example of school? I'm finding it hard to comprehend that you're comparing school, which most people attribute to what it's at right now, to the series, which has no arguments suggesting why it is the best usage of the name. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I gave school as a general example of a disamb structure, not as a parallel to Ninja Gaiden. MuZemike (talk) 22:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

School has so many terms describing it, but the term School is known as an institution of learning. Your argument would require that series be given preference in many, many more cases. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a bad example. Disregard what I said. MuZemike (talk) 00:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

How about instead of referring to it as a series, we refer to it as a media franchise under Tecmo's umbrella, which is actually what it is? MuZemike (talk) 00:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

A series article is about the franchise in the context of our current articles. Examples: Age of Empires, Resident Evil, and Halo. Jappalang (talk) 01:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

On another note, WP:VG/GL state that "Disambiguation pages are not required if the only disambiguation exists between similarly named articles related to the same video game series, but hatnotes are strongly encouraged to point between these items on their individual pages." By that guideline, we can rightly say that a disambiguation page for Ninja Gaiden games should have been discouraged. The Ninja Gaiden "disambiguation" page should not exist. Jappalang (talk) 01:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

On another note, that doesn't establish that the target should be the series. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Who said it does? It is to eliminate the option of a disambiguation page, which has been brought up earlier. Facts are further above to present the series' case as the default Ninja Gaiden. Unlike any assertion that one of the games is the commonest name which has no backing, the game industry (fans, reviewers, journalists) has associated Ninja Gaiden with that of the entire series. Unless someone can bring up proof (policy, guideline, data) otherwise, we should have the series as the set index for Ninja Gaiden. Jappalang (talk) 05:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The only thing EVER presented to support people attributing Ninja Gaiden with the series over one game was a trademark (and fun fact: trademarks have NOTHING to do with series). - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Since you did not notice this above, I repeat this again. These sites refer Ninja Gaiden to the entire series.[9][10][11][12][13] [14] Jappalang (talk) 06:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That evidence is awesome, so long as you save it for when we're arguing whether the series' name is Ninja Gaiden. I'm just curious how the fact that people call the series "Ninja Gaiden" proves that it's the most popular usage. If people DIDN'T call the other uses of the term Ninja Gaiden "Ninja Gaiden", you'd have an argument. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

In fact, doing a quick Googlehits test, we see that almost every single hit is for the Xbox game, NOT any kind of series. It's very, very hard to establish that the series is known as Ninja Gaiden more than anything else called Ninja Gaiden, simply because Googlehits doesn't establish that people were looking for the series - when they go into that Ninja Gaiden franchise page, it's far more likely they go in for interest in the Xbox games or NES games, not for the series. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Google hits are not a wholly acceptable test for common usage. In this case, your test is flawed, especially with regards to recentism and the ineffectual separation of games from the series. Simply put, you have nothing to prove that Ninja Gaiden will be the commonly used name for only a single game. On the contrary, the industry and society look upon the games (series) as under the Ninja Gaiden trademark as shown in the articles. The facts (and reliable sources), policies, and guidelines show that the case stands for the series article to occupy the Ninja Gaiden page. Jappalang (talk) 07:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

So, if guidelines apply to Ninja Gaiden in such a way, why are most of the video game articles in similar situations going the opposite route? And here's a thought - how can you call recentism for this game? Let's see, that was what, 2003? 2002? And how many games have been released since then, four? - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Just because "other articles do not follow the guidelines does not mean that this article has to do the same. Four, five years are still recent compared to the history of Ninja Gaiden (20 years) and the "greater focus" of any "fan" tends to be on the latest release of a series before things fade. How many of your Google hit test (flawed as it is) are truly on the first Xbox game instead of the NES games, II, DS, Sigma, and Black? After ten, fifteen years, the NES games are referred to as simply Ninja Gaiden games encompassing the trilogy as a whole. When reviewers talk about how Itagaki (with his new Ninja Gaiden works) is propagating Ninja Gaiden and following its history, they are certainly not talking about a single game. Jappalang (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Rather than continue being railroaded and extending this thread way beyond what it should have been... Five editors (Jappalang, MuZemike, Ham Pastrami, Chan Yin Keen, and X201) support the notion of moving the series article into the Ninja Gaiden article namespace. The basis for this is compliance with guidelines (WP:VG/GL, WP:SETINDEX, WP:MOSDAB) and the use of the name as representative of the series by the industry. One editor (A Link to the Past) opposes but has no solid backing for his arguments. Since Ninja Gaiden is currently occupied, the series article cannot be simply moved into it. Administrator assistance is required. Can an administrator voice any concern or reasons this move should not proceed? If not, can an administrator effect this move please? Jappalang (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Have already requested a move here, but they are backlogged as is. MuZemike (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I see more trouble outside the titles, for example Ninja Gaiden (Master System)'s article is 2/3 cruft, if we remove the lenghty "Stages" section and half of the "Gameplay" section we are left with a really vague article, it should probably be merged into the series article due to its obscure nature; Ninja Gaiden (Game Gear) has the same problem. If there is consensus to get rid of the disambig page the logical step would be renaming the series article to Ninja Gaiden, it may seem trivial but this series has already reused a title three times (Ninja Gaiden) and a second one twice (Ninja Gaiden II) we can't expect that all casual readers will be familiar with that. Naturally if all the titles of a series share the same name, they will be referend to as such, seeing examples of Halo, Devil May Cry or Final Fantasy being used when refering to their respective series is actually very common. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I do agree, but we should do the "big move" first and deal with the merging, if absolutely needed for lack of sources, as a separate discussions on those articles' talk pages involved. Also keep in mind that many of these articles, including the NES one that I am currently working on, are in a huge need of cleanup. MuZemike (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Pokémon GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I have reviewed Pokémon and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have left this message at this WikiProject's talk page so that any interested members can assist in helping the article keep its GA status. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left messages on the talk pages of the main contributors of the article and several other WikiProjects. Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix if multiple editors assist in the workload. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I did a couple, but someone actually familiar with Pokemon should do the rest. It's not much, and it's worth it to try to keep a GA. --PresN (talk) 13:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The article needs a lot more work in referencing than what is listed there. Unless someone is willing to put significant work into it, I don't think it's worthy of GA status. —Giggy 03:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Non-en Ratings

There seems to be ambiguity in the vg infobox documenation - for releases, it says "Use the first public non-festival release in the game's country of origin, as well as any English-language release dates available.", but for ratings, it says "The game's censorship rating most widely accepted in the game's country of production (or other countries it has been released in)." - shouldn't the ratings also just be for English-language releases (and/or country of origin)? Fin©™ 12:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes I've been wondering about this for some time myself. This is the English Wikipedia after all, so they are not necessary, yet some infoboxes have around 10 different ratings for many different countries. Really these are only really notable if there is a particular reason for it, such as a game being rated much higher or lower in one country than all the others for specific reasons. I can't remember which articles they were, but I have seen some where over half of the ratings where not even for english language speaking countries. I too think it's confusing as everything else is basically a case of "country of origin and all additional english language countries involved". This too should follow the same mould. --.:Alex:. 15:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I say go for it. There is no disagreement within the project. Kariteh (talk) 07:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool so, I'll change the template documentation! Thanks! Fin©™ 21:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Pure CRYSTAL over at Guitar Hero World Tour

Most of the sources at World Tour are from a blog, are we excepting that as a reliable source?Gears Of War 15:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, we have to weed that section every day to avoid outright speculation. What is presently there that has a properly formatted reference is generally ok. Ultimately, when the game's out, this will all be fixed. --MASEM 16:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:vgrelease

I have come up with a new code here that always only requires one call, and displays the dates in the order that they are given. There is a better explanation on the page. Please provide comments on the talk page. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 22:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Transcludable XfD discussions

I became very irritated when I couldn't add a CfD to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Deletion (because CfDs cannot be transcluded) that I have proposed a (basic) change to the way they are setup. Please see and comment at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Transcludable XfD discussions. Cheers! JohnnyMrNinja 00:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Partner peer review for Operation Tractable now open

The peer review for Operation Tractable, an article within the scope of the Military history WikiProject, is now open. The Military history WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 03:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Ian McKellen?

Ian McKellen is included in the video games project but his only connection with the topic is having voiced two video games. Shouldn't the article be excluded from the project? Kariteh (talk) 10:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason he's included is because he is in Category:English video game actors, but yeah, it does seem a bit far fetched. JACOPLANE • 2008-06-28 11:26

I think that one sentence about video games in the whole article isn't enough to include the article in the project. --Mika1h (talk) 09:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Release dates for Japanese localizations

The article guidelines currently state:

"Releases in non-English countries should not be included in the infobox (unless it is first released in a non-English country), but if determined to be necessary to include, can be discussed further in the article's body."

However, I have noticed that, in practice, Japanese release dates are always included in infoboxes, even when Japan is not where the game was first released. See for instance Lair (video game). Since Japan is a non-English country, should these kinds of release dates be eliminated? Kariteh (talk) 13:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

What about Japanese localizations of American-produced sequels of Japenese games? Jonny2x4 (talk) 14:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Per the guidelines, they should be removed. But as you say, this isn't the case on the wiki. I'd be all for removing japanese dates from non-japanese games, but methinks this needs more discussion!! As does my other section above! Seems hard to get discussion on infobox stuff these days, doesn't it Kariteh? ;) Fin©™ 00:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I think we can go with the idea that unless the main text mentions the information in other countries, we should leave them out of the infobox? (This applies to release dates and ratings.) Jappalang (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, since nobody disagrees, I'm going to remove all Japanese localization release dates from infoboxes now. Kariteh (talk) 07:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Small question. What about games from a Japanese series that were for some reason or another released in the US first such as Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty. Should we keep thoses Japanese dates. --76.71.208.204 (talk) 13:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sonic the Hedgehog Cruft

(Was Sonic Cruft part two; renamed so the merge discussion links all work)

Okay guys, can we at least try not to get into wars with other editors this time? If it happens again and the discussion gets archived again, then there's a good chance we'll never get this done. Anyway, let us pick up where we left off in terms of the cruft. If you're going to continue working on this, then please leave the edit warring at the door. If you've got reasons for something, explain your point of view. Now, let's try this again. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 13:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

We can all agree at least that we don't need an article on every variation(s) of every character. Jonny2x4 (talk) 13:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I can agree with that, with a few exceptions.Fairfieldfencer FFF 13:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll be closely monitoring this discussion, FYI. User:Krator (t c) 14:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Krator. The last thing we need is another all-out war. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 14:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The baseline is probably a single list for all the characters. Articles for individual characters should be the exception when they can prove notability and have enough non-game-guide material to make a reasonable article. I'm particularly concerned about articles about settings and items, because that's pretty gameguidey, too plot heavy, and generally outside WP:VGSCOPE. That's speaking very generally, though. We should talk specifics before we do anything. Randomran (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, we already got rid of the settings, and most of the items are being redirected to the series article where there's a relevant section. As for the characters, at least Sonic has enough to do that, and as for the rest, I'm not so sure anymore as I used to be. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 15:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

A Man In Black's edits should be undone until we've made a choice of consensus.Fairfieldfencer FFF 15:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to revert everything because "a choice of consensus" has to be made. That can be done without reversion, which saves everyone a lot of headaches. User:Krator (t c) 15:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay. But his edits to the Chaos Emeralds article, (now a redirect without any form of notification or discussion), should be taken into consideration.Fairfieldfencer FFF 15:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

What should be done with the pages within Category:Sonic portal? Are inactive things like that usually deleted, redirected, or marked as historical? TTN (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, Sonic Christmas Blast, Cast in Sonic X, Mobius: 25 Years Later, Mobius: 20 Years Later, Sonic the Hedgehog franchise timeline, and EndGame are some articles that should probably be dealt with. TTN (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Portals should be taken to deletion, like Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Halo, then redirected to the VG portal. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The cast in Sonic X article should be merged with List of voice actors in Sonic the Hedgehog, which isn't too much work really.Fairfieldfencer FFF 16:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually that information is already there so; delete and redirect I think.Fairfieldfencer FFF 16:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, strongly oppose calling this thread "Sonic cruft" and also suggest that any and all of the above can be dealt with by revising, merging, and redirecting, but that deletion is totally unnecessary and counterproductive. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:BAIT. Let's confine our discussion to how to identify the cruft and deal with it appropriately. Randomran (talk) 19:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's confine our discussion to improving encyclopedic content and other editors' hard volunteer work. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

These are just two articles with the same content, the other one, (Cast in Sonic X) is not needed. The edits were done in good faith and were done well, but the article doesn't need to exist.Fairfieldfencer FFF 20:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

If they are duplicative, then I recommend merging and redirecting. I also recommend notifying the article creators and those who contributed to the articles of this discussion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest we just erase the content, (which is what I meant by delete) and replace it with a redirect.Fairfieldfencer FFF 19:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

If we are willing to make a redirect, we can do that without having to misplace time with AfDs as well. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree with you. In fact; I'll take care of it now.Fairfieldfencer FFF 19:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like A Man In Black already took care of that.Fairfieldfencer FFF 19:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Are those the only articles we're dealing with right now, or are there others? A lot has changed since the initial discussion began. It would be helpful if we could focus on a specific list of articles to merge/delete/clean-up. In abstract, we're all against cruft. The specifics are the issue. Randomran (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Those should be the rest of the cruft articles that aren't characters. There are about eighty of those still around. I think there are also some songs that should be redirected. TTN (talk) 22:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks! Randomran (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Assuming nobody can find any references that would help these articles meet their individual notability requirements, I would suggest:

• Clean-up/shorten and merge Sonic Christmas Blast into Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog or List of Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog episodes
• Clean-up Sonic the Hedgehog franchise timeline. This is an encyclopedic way of summarizing the history of the franchise. I might be wrong though.
• Find a way to summarize Mobius: 25 Years Later, Mobius: 20 Years Later and EndGame into Sonic_the_Hedgehog_(comics)#Storyline_Summary, which itself needs a clean-up.
• Delete Cast in Sonic X per WP:NOTE and WP:NOT. Wikipedia isn't IMDB.

That's my initial reaction. Although further evidence / guidelines could persuade me otherwise. Randomran (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I found Sonic the Hedgehog franchise timeline under some godawful old name, and was surprised at how decent it was. If we ditch the "Such-and-such character debuts", add some more bullet points for the associated people and development studios, and reference the hell out of it, that's almost GA ready.

Cast in Sonic X was redundant and has been redirected to a larger list. What we want to do with the larger list, I dunno. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Right now, I've been focusing on the worst of the cruft in the character articles. There's a lot that needs to be deleted on sight, but I think I've gotten the worst of the glaring stuff. I'm going to be digging into some of the in-universe writing.

We need to decide what we're doing with the characters who just don't have an article when all the garbage is cleaned out. I'm not entirely happy with the idea of a big character list; it ends up being a big ugly list instead of small ugly articles, in the case of a series with a large ensemble cast. (I do like how it turned out for MGS and FF, but not any other series, like Pokemon.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, a secondary thought: we need to eliminate "SatAM" on sight. I would recommend "1993-1994 Sonic the Hedgehog cartoon" on first reference, and "Sonic the Hedgehog cartoon" in later references. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It would definitely be a few different lists for the different pieces of media. That should keep them fairly tame. I can't really tell with the comics, but the video game character list would probably be about 30kb at most. TTN (talk) 23:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please try to get Fairfieldfencer over his ownership complex? He is so into it that he believes that he and his "friend" edit warring over 20kb of pure cruft nullifies the discussions here and just policies and guidelines in general. This whole process would be a lot smoother if he could just start using another wiki for this kind of information. TTN (talk) 18:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

What you call cruft I call important information that I know can be sourced. And why are you trying to force me off Wikipedia? This encyclopedia is for everybody not just people like yourself.Fairfieldfencer FFF 18:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fancruft (second nomination) in which I nominated Wikipedia:GAMECRUFT for deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

(useless offtopic argument deleted) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, whoa, whoa, let's slow down the "forcing people off" and debates about calling it "cruft". This is what got the last discussion archived, and do we really want that again? No, we're all here because there's a problem and we're working together to fix it. A Man in Black calls it "crap", many call it "cruft", Le Grand Roi hates the term "cruft", and I really could care less what we call it as long as it gets fixed. But whatever it is, let's work to fix it, not antagonize each other. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 23:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I think we need to keep an open-mind to what can potentially be referenced and improved as well as merged and redirected before bringing the material to AfDs, i.e. please be sure to first discuss with the editors who are working on the pages in question and offer merge ideas as AfDs really need to be a last resort when there is no chance the articles can be improved. And I for one have subscriptions to a variety of video game magazines and can possibly help with sources not found online. So, please do not hesitate to ask me if I can find sources before going ahead with AfDs. Thanks. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Resident evil page vandel

An anon user 80.5.143.72 has been repeatedly been vandalising resident evil articles especially the Raccoon City page. His other edits on other RE pages have been reverted often and has been uncivil in his comments. Can something be done about him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.134.128 (talk) 17:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't wait to see what other users say about my 'vandalism'. 80.5.143.72 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

No, he's not vandalizing anything. If anything, he's removing fancrap. For starters, the producer of Resident Evil 4 clearly said that the setting is NOT Spain, but a fictional unnamed country. Jonny2x4 (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Would appreciate a hand over on Raccoon City. 86.132.134.128 (and the same person using idfferent IPs, as you can tell by the spelling coming from those IP's) keeps reverting the page to a much worse version (please do check the diffs to see) and this has gone on for a silly amount of time. Thank you.80.5.143.72 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Gameanyone.com spamming Wikipedia

This editor, 67.181.228.6, has been repeatedly spamming a website, gameanyone.com on several videogame articles. In the future if you see any more edits by this user (search gameanyone.com's EL, I have cleared all of them already) in an article please report him.

Thanks. Strongsauce (talk) 09:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Report it over to WP:WPSPAM as well, I believe they can help get the domain blocked. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 09:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask

The review needs more input for the article to be kept or demoted. Please comment if you have the time, thanks. Kariteh (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Resident Evil cleanup

I'm thinking of cleaning up List of characters in the Resident Evil series and List of creatures in the Resident Evil series and merge most of the articles in Category:Resident Evil characters and Category:Resident Evil creatures in those respective articles. Most of the articles in both category are barely above stub-class now. Jonny2x4 (talk) 05:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you should, most are permanent stubs, and together perhaps something worth while can be scrapped together. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Sidebar show/hide functionality

As you may have noticed, the sidebar now has show/hide functionality. There's a discussion about this change here: Template talk:WPCVG Sidebar. JACOPLANE • 2008-06-30 13:47

New taskforce (Destroy All Humans!)

Ill Like to create the Destroy All Humans! Task-force. Which will help to clean up all the DAH articles which are in desperate need of help. EE 19:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Images in character lists redux

Forgive my french, but it seems that the shit's hit the fan. All editors of WikiProject Video games are entitled to be informed of such debates, which is suddenly spread out to many pages. See:

• Talk:List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City#NFCC does not forbid using images here
• Talk:List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas#WP:NFC says the images we have here are fine
• Talk:List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas#Non-free images in list articles
• Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Images in List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Non-free images in "List Of" articles
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#non-free article discussion and 3RR

All input to help resolve this matter once and for all would be very much appreciated. Please do not reply here. The debate is spread out enough as it is, this is simply a notice. --.:Alex:. 20:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Portal update

Guyinblack25 has made some changes to the Portal:VG, so there is now also a dynamic pictures box (next to the dynamic featured articles box that was already there). Any feedback? JACOPLANE • 2008-06-30 22:54

Spiffy, but we might want to put it below the FA space. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

C-class article discussion on to-do list?

Could the discussion on whether to allow C-class to be integrated into the project be put on the to-do list? Though I'd be disappointed if it isn't, it'd be nice to know one way or the other. Coming across articles which could be rated C-class is beginning to seriously get up my goat, checking back here to see the discussion's stalled. Someoneanother 20:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Right now it's 80% for, albeit not with a major turnout. I've been marking articles as c anyhow. I think being bold is best here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Please post it on the to-do. It will help a million.Gears Of War 21:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done, have added the discussion to the to-do.Gears Of War 21:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, some closure on this issue in the forseeable future would be good, having it slip away due to lack of participation would be bad. Someoneanother 22:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Meh, I think I was the only one really resisting it... I'd be ok with C-class being added here. (Note that I am still willing to incinerate anyone forcing List-class on us ...) User:Krator (t c) 00:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This thread is not about whether or not C-class is desirable or not, just about whether or not we want to add the discussion about it to the todo list that's in every {{vgproj}} template. I personally don't know enough about the whole C-class issue, so I'll go with whatever the consensus is. JACOPLANE • 2008-07-2 00:46

Guns of the Patriots

Exactly how big of a role did USS Missouri play in the game? I keep getting these one-liner trivia points in the article, but those aren't really acceptable for both WP:NOT and WP:OR reasons. If Missouri does in fact play a big role in the game then I would be happy to add a mention of that fact on the main Iowa class article, but having never played the game I need some input from those who have. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this AFD trying to set precedent that any video game with no "third-party" articles should be deleted from this site?

Betacommand has nominated the ZX Spectrum game, Roller Coaster, for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roller Coaster (video game). The article appears to be decently written for a ZX Spectrum game and is noted on Mobygames and World of Spectrum, but this whole AFD feels very, very dirty.

If this is deleted, what's next? Any NES game that didn't get reviewed by a popular magazine? Most Atari 2600 games? ALL Ti-99/4a games? I really don't understand nominations like this, or a previous one at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xena: Warrior Princess: The Talisman of Fate. It's just another thing to add to my list of reasons as to why I shouldn't even bother attempting to expand any articles on the mainspace. If I expand Gate of Thunder, which has no coverage from 'reliable' sources that's easily available, how does it stand a chance against a gang of well-known deletionists? SashaNein (talk) 03:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think you answered your own question. WP:N sets the standards for what articles really should be included. If a game is not particularly notable, it probably doesn't need its own article. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This AFD in itself was a bit misguided: the article is pretty clearly citing a review, even if the article does need a rewrite. Either way it seems to be sorting itself out. As for third-party coverage though, while that doesn't required major magazine articles, it does require some attention. Mobygames really isn't the best citation: it's more or less saying "this existed and here's some info from others".--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

As Miremare pointed out in a previous AFD, there is a database of ZX spectrum magazine scans here at World of Spectrum, there is also the Amiga Magazine Rack which is exhaustive and contains a fistful of reviews for the average game. I should get my finger out and add these to the sources page. If a multi-format game came out in the Spectrum/C64/CPC era, then chances are it's in the WoS archive, if a game came out during the ST/Amiga/DOS era then chances are it's in the AMR. if anyone sees a similar resource for different systems (or an archive of multi-format magazines) please let us all know. BTW the discussion has been closed as a speedy keep. Someoneanother 11:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Release date categories

I think that there needs to be a fix in the release date category placement - for instance, games like Phoenix Wright are listed by their first release date, which is true - it should use that date - but it should also be listed at 2005, because that was the first English release. The GBA release and DS release are very distinctive and important. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. The template documentation is pretty clear "Use the first public non-festival release in the game's country of origin, as well as any English-language release dates available". Obviously, this would be done on a per-format basis (eg, JPN, EUR, NA release dates for GBA and DS). I notice Phoenix Wright doesn't have GBA English releases, but I assume that's because nobody's added them yet, not that they're not meant to be there. Where's the problem? Fin©™ 09:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

He's talking about categories not the infobox. Personally I wouldn't add any extra year categories. Books and films don't have them, why video games should be special?

As yes, the title kinda gave that away, my bad. I would lean towards including the extra years, but as said, if books and films don't, games probably shouldn't either. Fin©™ 13:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Chrono Trigger DS announced; can someone help?

I've never handled an article that's had a significant rerelease, so I have no idea if Chrono Trigger DS (which just exists at http://www.square-enix.co.jp/ctds/ for the time being) should get a new one, or how it should be integrated into Chrono Trigger, or whether it should even get its own separate infobox right now. Any help is appreciated for smoothly integrating this news. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 04:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Right now we just have clocks, "ctds", and some magazine scans floating around. At this precise moment, there's not much to say about it, though I imagine news will come quickly over the next day or so. I would suggest initially placing the game on its own page, at Chrono Trigger DS, when we actually have something concrete. --- RockMFR 04:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not of the opinion that CTDS will be a significant enough of a remake to warrant an article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with ALttP on this : Wired point out it's merely a port, see here. --Oscarthecat (talk) 06:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If it's just the same thing with 'something' added to the second screen, a single screenshot showing both screens and additional infobox details should do most of the work. A few snippets could also be added to reception. Someoneanother 11:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Update to Template:WikiProject Video games

{{WikiProject Video games}} has been updated to automatically rate a non-article page by namespace, and sort it into the appropriate category. So please start adding it to every Template:, Category:, Image:, Portal: and Wikipedia: page that falls within our project. Thanks! JohnnyMrNinja 09:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

FIFA soccer articles

I think a lot of these articles need some cleanup - a lot of them list every national team, every stadium, the entire soundtrack and every league. This, to me, is complete overkill (as is the blatant overuse of flagicons to denote the nationality of everything). I'd be all for culling everything I just mentioned, instead having a concise article for each iteration, detailing how it was different from the last, features, reception, etc. Anybody have any other opinions, or is that the way to go? Fin©™ 11:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Formula 1 articles

This point is much the same as the FIFA one above - a large number of the Formula 1 articles list every driver, every team and every track present in each game. Shouldn't these be removed under wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information? Normally I'd do it straight away, just want to make sure it's ok first, as it'll effect quite a few articles. Thanks! Fin©™ 11:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)