Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

WikiProject Video games

Main page

talk

Archives

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

Project watchlist

• view
• talk
• edit
• changes

File sizes for games: needed or not?

Currently: List of PlayStation Network games, List of Xbox Live Arcade games, and List of WiiWare games show the file size of downloadable games. There is also discussion to add it to Virtual Console lists: see Talk:List of Virtual Console games (North America). Is this needed or not? Personally I see it as content that doesn't help the majority of readers out. I think this falls under shopping details. People shouldn't be coming here to find out if they have enough space for a new game. Also it should be noted: infoboxes for regular game articles don't have this information. Plus, for last-generation consoles (GameCube, PlayStation 2, etc): those game articles don't have information on how much memory card space is needed for every game. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

File size is pretty excessive. Wikipedia isn't the place for every detail. You just need a summary so people understand the general concept. Randomran (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Listing file size isn't unprecedented, you'll find that cartridge based games such as Metroid Fusion, Donkey Kong Country and Professor Layton and the Curious Village will list the capacity of the cart. The capacity was a trait that used to be listed in game reviews back in the 90s, and can give some indication of scope, and with file size limits on services like Xbox Live Arcade, I think the size is a notable aspect, more so than the price, which has also found its way onto some of the lists above. - hahnchen 19:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

There are reasons on some games (like Super Metroid or DKC) to point out file size, as that was a part of the marketing campaign. Unless there's some sort of point for the size to be there, it's not really notable. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, file size is something you note when it's exceptional: a big game for its time. Otherwise, covering which game was 6 megs and which was 7 megs doesn't really do much but clutter the article up. Randomran (talk) 20:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Half the items could be dropped from the WiiWare list, namely everything including and between Mii Support and Block size. As far as the XBLA list is concerned, again everything from Price onward is unnecessary and only serves to bloat the already-big list size. Finally, for the PSN list, definitely drop the origin and possibly the trophies list (though I know there has been some heated discussion over that, but that's my take). Oh yeah, and ditch the flag images - nothing but excessive HTTP requests there. MuZemike (talk) 04:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, I do like how the Virtual Console list is set up, with the exception of the ESRB rating column; I would say it's not really needed. Other than that, it looks clean and concise, and all it would need is a reference for every game on the list. MuZemike (talk) 04:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Can someone go through the download lists and clean them up? I don't have the time right now to do them. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think file sizes are pretty important, especially for WiiWare and Virtual Console games where people may come to Wikipedia to find out about a game and find out if there have enough free blocks to download it. -Zomic13 (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure they MAY come, but they also MAY come to find out many other things that are against general convention. This stikes me as similar (though maybe not QUITE) to game-guidishness. We don't have file sizes in PC games, which would we add them here? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It falls under shopping guide details. Wikipedia isn't the place to go to find out where to buy a game, how much space it takes up, etc. People shouldn't be using this encyclopedia as a shopping guide, when there is many video game sites that are better suited for that. RobJ1981 (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I've managed to remove it from the Microsoft list, the Sony list is the only one that still has file size I think. RobJ1981 (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

In addition, I removed the file sizes for List of Xbox Originals to help RobJ1981 out. Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 04:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Also I removed file sizes for List of PSOne Classics and List of PlayStation Network games. I think the List of PlayStation 3 games doesn't have the file size. Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

List of WiiWare games needs table cleanup

Too many columns make it so I have to scroll to the right to see more information. From the looks of the talk page: one editor just decided to make the table huge with no consensus from others. The people on that talk page seem fine with it, however things such as block size and multiplayer need to go. Block size isn't notable (as per the discussion above), and multiplayer can easily be found on the article for each individual game. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I liked it the old way (Title, Developer, Mii Support, WC24, WFC (+ Pay & Play), and region releases) the rest is too much. Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 23:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I dont see why the columns: Mii support, WiiConnect 24, and Wi-Fi Connection need to be in this list. These things already have lists, at List of Wii games using Miis, List of Wii games using WiiConnect24 and List of Wii Wi-Fi Connection games. This multiplayer column i think should go, and the release dates should merge and then resplit to form "Release date" and "Regions released". Controller support and multiplayer can be adressed in seperate article and what the hell is block size (im sure it isnt notable). Salavat (talk) 10:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree mostly with Salavat. The Mii Support, WiiConnect24, Wi-Fi Connection, Pay & Play, Offline Mulitplayer and Controller Support columns should be removed from the list. I also wish to change the dates to the yyyy-mm-dd format (international style). Ratengo (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that the editors that make these lists have got to remember that their making a list of games and not a list of game details. Salavat (talk) 14:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed those sections and made it look like List of Wii games. Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

While it is a matter of opinion in regards to the value of the other columns, I think it was a huge mistake to remove the Wii Points column seeing as there is no standardized pricing for WiiWare games like there is for Virtual Console games (and even retail games for the most part). -Zomic13 (talk) 08:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I restored the Wii Points table after I read the comment above this. (Zomic13). Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I added a new version of the table (replacing the old one) with the columns Salavat mentioned. For the World Chess game (Wii Chess in Europe) do I use the WiiWare release date in "First Available" or the Wii one? Also, do I put Europe in regions release or not? (Japan was released on WiiWare, and Europe on Wii). Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 04:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this isn't the correct place to talk about this, but I think the cleanup made it harder to browse and look for information, when was it released in MY region, and will it ever be? Before, it had some "this will be released in october" texts for different regions and also if there are no such text, how do we even know IF it will be released or not? And now I find it a struggle to see "newest european releases" since I don't know when it was released for my region etc... You get my point. 130.236.146.154 (talk) 11:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The previous Nintendo lists (List of Nintendo Entertainment System games, List of Super Nintendo Entertainment System games, List of Nintendo 64 games, List of Nintendo GameCube games, and even List of Nintendo DS games) do not have a release date for every region. On those lists, it's just the year or the original release date (the first region that got the game). Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Also you can find release dates for the three main regions on the video game info box in the game's article. Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 15:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

But this makes the table useless, for me anyway, I used to be able to sort by date and see when what was coming out. On mondays I could check to see if there was a game I wanted to download. Now it doesn't say what latest games coming out in my region. I'm sure it took alot of time to change, but can it be changed back? (Mattsshelton (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC))

The table is looking much better but on the regions released column what about Australia? Nintendofootball (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes we should add it (but I forgot what the template was for that region). Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 18:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand why people need to tinker with things that were just fine, and many people had come to rely on. Changing it to "first release" has made it an absolutely useless page for those of us that check it every Monday and use this page regularly. There was nothing wrong with it - it was extremely handy to see what titles had been released in your region with a simple click.

It is terribly confusing now. Who cares what the date of "first" release is? THAT is the type of information you should have to click on the game page for. I want to know when the release was/is in my region without having to go to the individual page. Just like the Virtual Console pages, I do not understand why some people want to reduce the usability in the name of making it more "encyclopedic". We all understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but since it is a dynamic, online resource and the way people use the information needs to be considered.

Everyone I know who has a Wii has this page and the region-respective Virtual Console pages bookmarked, and this is the first place we check every Monday because it's always updated first and such a great site. Before, I could come here and sort by region release date and see what the recent releases are; now it's just a big useless list that I have to click to go to another page to get the needed information. PLEASE CHANGE IT BACK!

"no consensus" articles

There have been a number of AFD discussions over the past year. Most end in consensus. Some don't. Of those, some are resolved as merges, others are improved, and yet others are re-nominated. I pulled out a few discussions from the past that haven't really moved forward since then, and figured it would be helpful to re-evaluate at this time:

• Clank - (Old AFD) → merge discussion
• Chao (Sonic the Hedgehog) - (Old AFD) → merge discussion
• Characters in Call of Duty - (Old AFD) → merge discussion
• List of songs in the Donkey Konga series - (Old AFD) → merge discussion
• List of gangs in the Grand Theft Auto series - (Old AFD) →
• List of minor Mortal Kombat characters - (Old AFD) →
• List of creatures in the Resident Evil series - (Old AFD) →
• List of units in the Age of Mythology series - (Old AFD) →

Discuss and be WP:BOLD. Randomran (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

To offer a few quick thoughts... 1: there's actually a merge discussion for Chao, with a growing consensus to merge it. 2: Clank wasn't merged, but his co-star Ratchet (Ratchet & Clank) was. 3: The resident evil creatures are generally not-notable, but there's one or two characters in the list that might be -- I might suggest splitting the notable ones out, and dealing with the list after. 4: The songs in Donkey Konga does sort of follow the same form as List of songs in Guitar Hero, but does it need reception from reliable third-party sources? Randomran (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe gangs in the Grand Theft Auto series and Units in the Age of Mythology series probably should go back to AFD sometime. I see little improvement in them. The same issues apply: they are full of repetitive plot details found in the main article, game guide content, trivia, etc. RobJ1981 (talk) 17:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The list of units in the Age of Mythology series is a tricky one. There's a lot of information in there which is well-referenced. However it's all the real-world information from Greek history and mythology. Of *course* that stuff is notable, but it's already covered in the historical articles like Chthonic and Hoplite. The fact that the article goes the extra step from the game unit to the historic concept verges on WP:OR -- okay, you've managed to dig up the historic concepts, but what about the units in the series? And once you remove the historic research, I don't think you have much left. But that's a very convoluted argument for deletion, and it's something that would make an AFD discussion very blurry. Maybe it's best to clean-up the article first, and decide if an AFD is necessary later. Randomran (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's a relevant data point - when I was working on Okami, it is completely possible with that game to create a list of characters that point to all the Japanese legends and folk lore tales that exist on WP. However, in the context of encyclopedic coverage of the game, these meant little save for the main characters (Amaratsu, Issun, etc.) Thus, the character page was eventually scrapped. I would argue the same in AoM's case - yes, they are encyclopedically-linked topics, but as a aspect of gameplay, they matter little, but examples of the units would make sense to cover in the main article. --MASEM 18:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the Mythology information is OR per se, as the AoE games all have loads of historical information in their manuals, etc. (The Age of Empires II one was half an inch thick). That said, I'm not sure it still falls under our scope. I would say the gangs, creatures, songs and units are all possibles for deletion. I'm also unsure about Characters in Call of Duty. There's been some effort to add out of universe information, but it's very scant and not anywhere near the level of Characters of Halo or Characters of StarCraft. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Call of Duty's focus isn't on the characters in the same way as it is with Halo, StarCraft and properly story-driven games. Information on characters is very sketchy, no characters have backstories and reliable sources haven't really seen fit to comment substantially on them. There simply isn't the information to properly flesh out an article on it. The toy stuff is useful, that should be placed within the series article, but the rest of it cannot really be more than plot repetition. -- Sabre (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Some quick comments on this, too: most of the AFDs listed I left were kept because of either bias and/or personal attacks against the nom and failed to discuss the subject, have been stymied by the Wikipedia:Five pillars argument, or some have fallen into the pitfall that some clear consensus exists out there that major characters of every video game is notable, verifiable or not. (I think there was one in which I also agreed to keep as well, so there ya go.) Of course, WT:NOT is also talking about the same things that I am touching at, as well, in regards to the recently-disputed WP:PLOT. Personally, I like the discussion here, so far. MuZemike (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I've created a merger proposal for Call of Duty, since nobody is really sure about deletion, but everyone seems to agree that a standalone article is inappropriate. We need to figure something out for the List of units in the Age of Mythology series as well. I don't think we should even consider deletion until we clean up the historical information -- then we'd be able to tell once and for all if there's some real coverage of the game, or just gamecruft. If that seems too tedious and with questionable benefit, maybe we should just start a merge discussion and take it from there. )Keep the discussions coming, or be bold!) Randomran (talk) 22:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting how every time an article has been brought to AfD, its defenders yell that there are reliable sources out there and promise to improve the article within the project's guidelines. Yet, when we look at the article a few months later, the same basic faults remain (no reliable sources that prove notability or back up certain statements, game-guidish material still remainining "20% chance that a shade will appear at the player's temple", indiscriminate listing of every game element, etc). Jappalang (talk) 02:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Going down the list, Clank has a standalone article, but Ratchet (Ratchet & Clank) redirects to the series. I think a merge makes sense here. But should we redirect it to the series, or to the List of characters in the Ratchet & Clank series? Feel free to be WP:BOLD here. Let's keep this discussion moving. Randomran (talk) 20:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC) User:TTN boldly merged Clank, to some resistance. We should try to form a consensus here, so please do chime in on the merge discussion to figure out something we can all agree to. Randomran (talk) 01:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

From my perspective, these articles could fit into the main articles of their topic just fine with some trimming, and don't really justify being on their own. If AFD has proven controversial, I think someone should take a deep breath, trim and merge them. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't merge this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Error96 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

request to check in, one more time

There were a few merge proposals voiced right here, and I've followed through and created the merge discussions. Follow the links and check in -- whether you support or not. Let's try to find a consensus.

The next on the list are the "minor characters of MK" and "list of gangs of GTA" articles. Both of these seem like deletion fodder, to me. But I'm interested to hear if anyone has a better strategy to deal with these. Check in when you find a moment. Randomran (talk) 23:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I merged the List of DKa songs. Though, I wonder if the three DKa articles should be merged together. DKa1 & 2 aren't nearly as notable, and the gameplay is the same in all three. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: Video Game Priority Scale

Considering the size and scope of video game project, it might be a good idea to do a better clarification of what should be given what type of rank for priority similar to what is done for quality.Jinnai (talk) 06:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this. Right now, there are many game articles that assign themselves High or Top, regardless of the game's importance to the video game topic. The table in Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment serves as a good model for this project to think on. Jappalang (talk) 08:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Since February 2007 I've employed the following table as a rule of thumb:

Importance	When
Top	Never. All Top-importance articles exist already.
High	Main characters in important games (Link (Zelda), Pikachu). Companies that have produced multiple award winning games. (Blizzard Entertainment) Games that have influenced their genres a lot. (Super Mario Bros)
Mid	Award winning games (Age of Empires 3). Main characters in mid or high importances games (Donkey Kong). Companies that have released a single high-importance game or multiple mid-importance games.
Low	Any company that has released a mid-importance game. Any character in mid-importance games. Any game that has been professionally reviewed, and any company that has released multiple of these.
Template:No-importance	The rest.

At appears fandom has left many of my old examples with a higher importance than I would assign to it. User:Krator (t c) 08:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

In all honesty I'm really finding the importance factor to be pretty badly flawed, especially given the CD articles that came up and the number of very bad articles that were initially included due to importance ranking (i.e. Lara Croft) and the multitude of good or higher articles passed aside due to "low importance". I'm more inclined to think because of that importance as it's treated in that regard should relate more to the quality of the article, not the weight of the target subject.

Importance as it is now just ends up feeling more a subjective case of opinion on the weight of a subject: is a launch title important? What awards count towards importance? What about fighting games and similar where many characters are important but no lead characters are clear? Etc. Especially the last one given you have cases where I've noticed while doing research on subjects that sometimes lead characters end up getting almost no notability while others (for example those with...well to be direct, sex appeal) tend to get a significant amount of coverage and recognizability in comparison for notability.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I've never understood the importance thing either. While there are a few things one can say are obvious, it's in general so subjective I always wondered why the whole system is so prominent in WP. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

My take on importance is a way of sorting the articles such that someone who is completely unfamiliar with the field but needs to research it can start with the most important articles in order to gain the best overview of the field, and then if they need more they can read articles presented at the next level. Thus, the articles at the top and high importance should be less about the games themselves save for those that are established as genre-establishing titles, and more about general VG topics. An average game, even if awarding winning, will likely only get to Mid importance until time itself tells us that it is more important than that. --MASEM 13:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Aye, I tend to use Krator's method of determining importance, but I agree with Masem, the best indicator of importance is time itself. We have a clearer idea of how important games back at the turn of the millenium (influencial series like the LucasArts adventure games, Myst, Doom, etc) than we do now, when potentially groundbreaking games are released regularly these days. We are only just beginning to feel the influence of Half-Life 2 on the industry, for instance, and it will be a few years until we can establish what sort of importance Crysis is in the grand scheme of things - I'm not entirely sure at the moment that the "high" importance assigned to Crysis is entirely justified. -- Sabre (talk) 13:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems everyone is in agreement as to how importance should be determined. The thing to do now is establish some standards so less experienced editors will know how to determine the importance as well. I think Jappalang's suggestion to model the table at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment is something that should be done. Creating a table at WP:VG/A that applies that general format to Krator's descriptions and examples will be a good step to take, and is something editors can be directed to during disagreements. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC))

I do think some kind of importance scale is valuable... and we especially need to recognize the importance of gaming terminology / genres. How many articles link to platform game? (Actually, the number of "link-to"s is a decent heuristic to measure importance, IMO.) It's just too bad that nobody really uses importance to guide their efforts. Hence some of our most important topics are actually our most underdeveloped articles. But hey, we can't twist anyone's arm. Randomran (talk) 17:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

We do what we can. You were able to get 4X to FA and have done some good work with fighting game. David has gotten some older games to FA. I made sure the last four articles I pushed to FA were all essential articles, and plan to keep pursuing that. Several others have contributed as well.

But unfortunately, the top rated articles are generally the hardest to write; especially the genre and terminology ones. Some good steps have been taken towards improving them. We just need to keep up the momentum. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC))

Table ideas

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Assessment may be a better place to discuss this, but since the discussion started here it makes sense to finish here. Feel free to move this to the assessment talk page though.

Let's try to get some table worked up to include under "Assessment instructions" on WP:VG/A. I think it would be a good compliment to the Quality scale we have there. Feel free to edit, tweak, change, whatever the table below to suit our needs. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC))

Type	Top	High	Mid	Low
Definition	This article is of the utmost importance as it forms the basis of all information.	This article is fairly important as it covers a general area of knowledge.	This article is relatively important as it fills in some more specific knowledge of certain areas.	This article is of little importance as it covers a highly specific area of knowledge or an obscure piece of trivia.
Series (Main article)	N/A.	Lasting impact at least 3-5 years after it was initially released e.g. Final Fantasy (series), Guitar Hero	Achieved wide commercial success or critically acclaimed outside of Japan e.g. Gran Turismo (series), Ratchet & Clank (series)	Other.
Video games (Main article)	Ground-breaking titles that are nearly ubiquitous with the term "video games". Likely no game younger than 10 years should be rated as such. e.g. Space Invaders or Pac-Man	Highly influential works, generally considered the best games of their time or a fundamental game of the genre. Generally requires at least 2-3 years of being on market to be assessed as such. e.g. Halo, The Legend of Zelda: The Ocarina of Time, Grand Theft Auto III	Successful games that have led to sequels, influence of other games, or franchises, at least 1-2 years since release for proper assessment. e.g. Katamari Damacy, Gears of War	All other video games.
Lists of video games, characters and other media	N/A.	N/A.	Lists related to topics rated at least "High", and written in an encyclopedic fashion, e.g. Characters of Final Fantasy VIII.	All other lists.
Characters	N/A.	Characters that have become cultural icons outside of the series e.g. Pikachu, Mario	Well known characters, typically appearing as the main character in a long-running game series. e.g. Fox McCloud, Solid Snake	All other characters.
Individuals	Individuals with an essential historical influence on the medium (e.g. Nolan Bushnell, Shigeru Miyamoto)	Individuals with a career of highly influential works, or historically significant accomplishments (e.g. Hideo Kojima, Tim Schafer, David Jones)	Individuals with a career of internationally successful or critically acclaimed works (e.g. Chris Metzen, Cliff Bleszinski)	Other notable individuals (e.g. )
Companies, organisations, websites	Highly influential companies, particularly the major Japanese, American, and European companies involved video game production, e.g. Blizzard Entertainment, Capcom, Nintendo	Top developers and publishers, e.g. Epic Games, Neversoft	Most other well-known companies in the industry, e.g. IGN, Gamestop, Naughty Dog	Other, including websites, e.g. GameFAQs
Other	Core topics including articles on core game genres and major consoles e.g. Action game, Platform game, Nintendo 64	Sub-articles of core topics, including cross genres, minor consoles e.g. 4X, Grand Theft Auto clone, Atari Jaguar	Game concepts e.g. boss fight, New Game Plus	All other (unless discussed here).

I trust by "list of characters" you mean actual lists of characters, not the collective character articles, such as Characters of Halo, Characters of StarCraft, etc, which are articles rather than lists. And why are all video game importances listed as "N/A?"-- Sabre (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd say video games that have had important impact on the genre that have lasted decades like Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, Super Mario Bros, etc should be listed as High, including both the series and particular games. At the least they should be ranked mid to set them apart from titles with lesser impact.Jinnai (talk) 18:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I've boldly added how I think VGs in general should be considered. Basically, the older and more influential the game is, the most important it becomes. --MASEM 18:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Sabre- The N/A's were there because I basically copied it from WP:ANIME. And as far as the list vs. article question. I have no idea. That's something we've never really sorted out. :-|

Masem- I like the time frames and think they are reasonable.

For the mid importance individual, would Tetsuya Nomura be a good example? He's currently rated low importance, but his work the past decade seems to fit the description. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC))

I personally don't agree with setting hard, or even general, age limits to determine the importance of a game. There are relatively recent games, such as Halo and World of Warcraft, that I think could easily qualify as either High or Top importance, since they are extremely well known, highly influential on the industry as a whole, and are or may become synonymous with a particular aspect of the video game industry as a whole. I doubt anything will, in the next decade or so, trump Pac-Man or Space Invaders in terms of overall impact, but the game industry has diversified to such an extent since then that there are more categories under which a game might become a Top Importance game. Also, consider the possibility that, great as they were, games like Pac-Man may become less important in the grand scheme of things as time goes on, except from a purely historical perspective. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that a time measure is important, and I wouldn't want to lose it. In general, something has to be around for a while for it to assert its importance. But I agree there are exceptions. Perhaps we can come up with a more gentle phrasing? Randomran (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The time "limits" are meant to be rough numbers. A game that zooms to popularity after 6 months and clearly needs to be marked more important that "mid" can be marked higher. The idea is to provide a rough guideline there. I will also say that I don't think any game or article loses importance over time. Thirty years from now, Pac-Man may be "huh, what's that?" but in the overall historic context, it is still one of the key defining games. Articles can only move up this scale over time, not down (that's why the time period is important, as one may mis-assess a game as higher than it really is shortly after its release when, a year later, it's not even played anymore). --MASEM 21:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, personally, I think that table practically nailed it. I pretty much found myself nodding with each criteria and example. It'll always be subjective, but the above seems to have very good generality... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with series and characters having no articles of top importance. I think that Final Fantasy, The Legend of Zelda, Mario, Pokémon, etc. are all of top importance, and Mario, Link, Pikachu, etc. are of top importance. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any article dedicated to a series or a character is a "top" article, if only because, to the general researcher, the details of the series aren't important, just that the series was influential, and in most cases, this is a point covered by the other article types. It's a matter of taking off the "gamer" hat and thinking of what we have in a different light - the "top" articles should delve less into details of specific games and more into the overall field, only using games that, as I listed, ubiquitous with the term "video game". All the examplesyou give are of course High importance, which we can replace our "gamer" hat and go from what we know there. --MASEM 21:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

rather than continue to edit the above table, i'm posting my proposed changes below so they can be seen in comparison:

Type	Top	High	Mid	Low
Video games (Main article)	Ground-breaking titles which defined core concepts later used by all games of a genre. e.g. (in most cases these will be more than 10 years old) Pac-Man, Bard's Tale or Super Mario Bros.	Highly influential works, generally considered the best games of their time or titles that radically influenced or revitalized a genre. Generally requires at least 2-3 years of being on market to be assessed as such. e.g. Halo, The Legend of Zelda: The Ocarina of Time, Grand Theft Auto III, Final Fantasy VII	Successful or critically acclaimed games, most likely having sequels, that had some level of influence other non-sequal games, or franchises, at least 1-2 years since release for proper assessment. e.g. Katamari Damacy, Gears of War	All other video games.

The purpose is to more clearly define the top and high priority for games that had influence on core elements of almost every other game rather than just a well known in popular culture, though sometimes this is the same.Jinnai (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Bard's Tale is Top. It's not a game that non-games will instantly recognize when you talk to them about it. It's "High" for sure since it is an early RPG example. --MASEM 21:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

That's why i say popularity is not best fitting.

Bard's Tale iconified [almost] everything most RPG players take for granted when playing video game RPGs. They were notable, along with Ultima, in developement of Dragon Quest and it is WP:V that the creators were heavily influenced by those games and Wizardry. Bard's Tale was the first notable game to use MP in the way most games use it, or something akin to it, now. It was the first game to replace large amounts of item drops with gold drops from every monster, it simplified the stat system similar to what most non-D&D-based video game rpgs use today, it simplified the equipment system to basic weapon, body armor, shield, boots and accessory used for almost major RPG in some fashion until FFVII. I can go on, but I hope you get the point. Popularity =/= importance.Jinnai (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The "top" games are not there for popularity, they are there because they have entered the general popular culture and are well known outside of video games. Again, I'm not saying Bard's Tale isn't "high", as it is a genre-defining game, but if you ask non-gamers about that, you'll likely get blank stares. Our top articles should be the ones of most interest from an academic standpoint, not from a gamer's standpoint, since these are the first ones that are included when WP makes DVDs for educational purposes. --MASEM 22:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

And I'm saying that's not how it should be. Those should be high and those that defined a genre should be top. We're not disagreeing their importance, just the level of importance. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, historical importance of genre setting should take priority.Jinnai (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The key result of assessment is what articles are first targeted to go into printed or published versions of WP when they do that (we just had/are doing the 0.7v DVD). These will go to schools and will be used to research a large swatch of topics, video games being one of them. We want our "top" articles to reflect the field, in general, and not drill down into any particular video game field or aspect that is not critical to understanding the field at large. Ideally, due to this, the number of "top" article on specific video games should be as close to zero as possible, the field being represented better by the general archetypes of video games (core genres) and the core companies, people, and hardware in the field. Only those games which, relative to other human events, are rather important as to gain significant non-gaming news coverage (eg Pac-man and Space Invaders), should be rated "Top". Games like Bard's Tale and Halo and Doom are very influential games and thus all should be High assessment, but they are not core to understanding the overall field of video games. Remember, as long as we are covering the core genres, the games that define those genres will be mentioned, so it is not like we are snubbing them from any mention in those articles in the "Top" assessment level. --MASEM 23:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The idea of what defines "video game" is very subjective. If you ask 10 different people what game defines a video game, you are likely to get ten different answers. Thus saying Pac-Man is more important to that field than Zelda is making a judgment call purely on subjective reasoning which can vary even within different English-speaking cultures.Jinnai (talk) 23:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to propose some actual wording, but I must say that I agree with most of the table, except for two parts. First, I think we can do some kind of blanket thing with game-derivatives like characters and fiction within a game: one step lower than the game itself, unless there's significance outside that game (Mario, Pikachu, who should be Top). Second, I think we should be much more lenient with classifying games as 'High' or 'Mid'. Mid importance, for me, is achieved by getting something like an IGN Editor's Choice award. Not extremely important, but quite so. That's why it's 'Mid'. Games like Gears of War that actually have received unanimous praise and present some advancements in the genre, generally games that will be remembered for the next ten years, should be high. A typical game that's rated 'high' would appear in some of the "Top 100 games that .. " lists that go around a lot. A game that's rated Top would appear in most if not all of such lists, typically.

Other importance ratings can then simply be derived from the games, if we have those explained in detail - with an exception for Top-rated things, both characters and the game itself can be 'top'. As a final note, use actual objective criteria, not vague terms like influence. These criteria don't need to be 'hard', but they do need to be some kind of objective. 'Ground breaking title' is different for everyone, but my 'Appears in some Top 100 lists' above isn't, though both of these cover about the same games. User:Krator (t c) 00:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Characters shouldn't be top unless they are key to understanding a culture. I don't think any character qualifies as that, Mario would be the closests and I'd still give him only "High" status. Other than that, I'd say the suggestion on characters sounds fine, as a general rule.

I do not agree that we should lower standards on the game importance, especially high. Top and High should be reserved only for game titles that are truly deserving of it; games that massively altered culture, politics, genre or were key to being the foundations of a genre. Minor improvements and critical acclaim might make it to mid depending on other factors, but Wikipedia isn't about popularity, it's about importance. Sometimes those go hand-in-hand, but a game like the afore mentioned Bard's Tale never really made it on any "TOP 100 List" [for popularity, and I don't know given the quality of the research of those TOP 100, if it would have made it on TOP 100 influential] and yet is more important a game than almost any other out there in terms of what the impact in had [on video/computer RPGs and everything it spawned (like MMORPGs)].

You are right, about these criteria not being hard-fast rules. Wikipedia doesn't have that for the general one, WP:AM doesn't have it as a hard-and-fast rule for theirs. There will always be exceptions that need to be dealt with outside the rule, but they need to have a good reason.Jinnai (talk) 03:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at WP:ANIME, WP:TV, and WP:ALBUM to get some points of comparison. Of those:

• Anime has a very limited (14 out of 7000 some) top-level, no specific examples of the field.
• TV has 40-some top, including key series (I Love Lucy, Dallas, etc.) out of 10000
• Album has 80-some top, all key albums, out of 70000

So from our side, I would restate the scale as follows:

Type	Top	High	Mid	Low
Series (Main article)	A series of games that has defined a genre or became an international phenomena (moreso than any one game in the series) e.g. Final Fantasy (series) I really think this is the only true example here as a Top series	Lasting impact at least 3-5 years after it was initially released e.g. Devil May Cry (series), Guitar Hero	Achieved wide commercial success or critically acclaimed outside of Japan e.g. Gran Turismo (series), Ratchet & Clank (series)	Other.
Video games (Main article)	Games either that are ubiquitous with the term "video games" in the common vernacular or are the core game for a genre. Likely no game younger than 3-5 years should be rated as such. e.g. Space Invaders or Pac-Man, Halo, The Legend of Zelda: The Ocarina of Time, Grand Theft Auto III	Highly influential works, generally considered the best games of their time. Generally requires at least 2-3 years of being on market to be assessed as such. e.g. Ico, Super Mario 64]], Sonic the Hedgehog	Successful games that have led to sequels, influence of other games, or franchises, at least 1-2 years since release for proper assessment. e.g. Katamari Damacy, Gears of War	All other video games.

I think we should try to aim for similar numbers, however, somewhere between 0.05 and 0.2% of all our articles as Top (we actually have a lot - 110-some of 21300, or around 0.5%) --MASEM 04:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

In response to the series comment, what suggests that Final Fantasy is the only "true example" of a Top series? Mario is the most successful video game franchise ever made, Pokémon the second (and one of the most successful animes, mangas, and trading card games), Grand Theft Auto is a veritable hot box of controversy and the leading series in its respective genre (sandbox), The Legend of Zelda is one of the most well-recognized video game series out there - I don't really see anything that would make FF the one and only series of top importance. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, in the interest of trying to keep as few "top" articles as possible: no one single FF game is really so much better than the others, it is simply that the series overall has the impact. On the other hand, for Mario, it's a handful of games (SMB1, SMB3, SB64) that really stand out, Pokemon is Red/Blue, and Zelda is likely OOT; however, the series in each itself has had a number of duds, and while the series is very important to video gaming, I would not say they are top-level importance compared to the specific examples from each. --MASEM 06:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

SMB is the best-selling game, SML is the best-selling standalone Game Boy game, SMB3 is the best-selling non-bundled game, SMW is the best-selling SNES game, SM64 is the best-selling N64 game, etc. There's more than just SMB1, 3, and 64 to speak of as famous games. The Mario franchise has a large expanse - '93 showed its starring character to be the most well-recognized character to children by a national survey, and he was one of the three first video game characters featured on the walk of fame. On top of all this, he is the first video game character to be featured in the Hollywood Wax Museum, and the series has won seven world records. Onto Pokémon, it has a 500 episode-long anime (and counting), many various series of mangas, is a billion dollar product, has toys coming out the wazoo, has arguably the most popular trading card series of its kind (that is, excluding stuff like sports cards), and has won several world records. And all four main titles in the series are very prolific - G/S is the best-selling game of the past three generations, RuSa being best-selling of last-gen is unknown, it's between GTAVC and it, I believe, and D/P is the best-selling RPG on the DS (which is notable, since it was included in the Guinness Book of World Records). I really don't see why FF, which has little outside of gaming, is more important than Pokémon, which is arguably more significant with its anime, manga, TCG, and real-world affect. FFXII wasn't significant, nor was FFIX, FFIX and VIII weren't terribly significant, and FFV and III weren't either. I mean, if you're attempting to be strict, I'm lost as to why you're looking at Pokémon, of all things, as a series not of top importance. I'm all for trimming the fat, so long as you trim it evenly. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like to present an abstract for discussion. Personally, Top importance articles should be reserved for subjects that deal closely with "what is a video game". If there are no such articles (subject), then video games as we know would not exist. Hence, the items that spawned video games and the ideas and objects that defined what would become such games should be Top. Off-hand, I would propose joystick (or game controller), arcade game, personal computer, video game console, DirectX, OpenGL, and Pong as obvious candidates under this scheme. High importance articles should deal with the revolutionary subjects that created distinct "generations" of the Top importance subjects. If they are missing, one would be left with the sense that "there is something missing here" when one thinks about video games after going through the Top articles. Long history characters and games (10–20 years of constant popular rememberance) befit the bill as well as major technological developments (consoles). Mid class articles would contain less remarkable innovations, objects, and ideas that while not crucial to the video games concept, can provide insightful or interesting points about the industry. Low importance objects simply applies to subjects that when deleted or missing, would not be missed except by hardcore fans. Jappalang (talk) 11:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense to me if I'm understanding correctly. Basically a tree setup: you start with the fundamentals, then trickle down. Series-starting games like the original Zelda should effectively take a higher precedence in such a hierarchy than the later titles, and from there spinoffs being of less importance, possibly taking up the Low rank in the end. Non-series games can then be argued individually as needed, with launch titles and award winning games getting precedence over random titles. It would be nice if we could make a page of some sort to keep track of this too: it's kinda difficult to keep a system like this intact when many new editors might not be on the same page and feel so-and-so game should be of high priority.

I think using this system too we could set up a means for "child of" parameters in the template. What I mean is for cases like Final Fantasy VII, where it was noted to be included on the CD, but the related character articles, while of GA or higher, were not due to various reasons (site hits, etc). Such material however is necessary to get a better grasp on a subject. A system like this could effectively make having to suggest the addition of such articles an automatic step for the .8 version of the DVD, no? Just some thoughts.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Top level for video games should not be "what is a video game" but "what has led to the core elements of what we take for granted in video game". The former is subjective, varies from English-speaking culture to English-speaking culture and isn't as important for researchers than "what is a video game" because that can be defined by reading about the articles like Dragon Quest 1, Final Fantasy 1, Ultima 1, Pokemon Red/Blue, etc. That criteria is not something that is subjective as it can be verified by what the creators themselves have said in interviews inspired them. Nor is it likely to change over time.

As for series, well, again I'd have to say Final Fantasy 1 and Final Fantasy 7 stand out as major cornerstone titles: 1 being one of the core RPGs that defined standards which would be applied to RPGs for decades to come and FF7 for revitalizing and expanding the RPG market into more mainstream market and the implications that had on other RPGs.

The key for what should be TOP should be "signifigant impact on all other aspects of a political, cultural or economic status and/or signifigant impact on a genre or video games in general, either of which must have lasted at least a decade.Jinnai (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

A point to come back to - If we assume that a WP DVD would only have the "Top" rated VG rated articles, thus to establish what the core of video games are, then I would think that the genre articles should have mention, if not deeper coverage, of the core games that established that genre, diminishing the need to have actual video game articles in there as well. I think these genre articles are much more important than the actual games themselves as long as the influence of certain titles on the field are spelled out. --MASEM 15:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

That could be a possibility, however those titles listed in the genre would should still then be given High priority above most other titles since those will be the next logical step anyone researching a genre would look.Jinnai (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course, those games and series can be placed High - again, comparing that to the DVD approach, the High levels should only be read after an appreciation of the Top level ones are obtained. --MASEM 16:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I've done enough to establish that the Mario and Pokémon series are more than popular enough. I mean, your logic of FF having "no titles standing out" is terribly flawed - FFI is more famous than II and III, VI is more famous than V and IV, VII is more famous than VIII and IX, and X is more famous than XI and XII. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Final Fantasy should not be the only top rated series, but I don't think Pokemon should be. It is one of the most popular franchises ever, but I don't think it really furthers a layman's knowledge of video games. That being said, I don't see it's contributions to video games in general as important as Final Fantasy or Mario. No other series as a whole comes to mind that has contributed in such a significant manner.

To get back on point. I think limiting the number of top articles is the right idea. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC))

Pokémon is definitely more important than Final Fantasy. It's one of the first monster-raising games, it is thought to have extended the life of the GB by many, many years, and the series spans more than video gaming, which FF and Mario can't really say. Not only is it very famous in more than just video games, but throughout its life, there's been a lot of history in its controversy from parents and religious figures, and is an excellent example of addiction second only to MMORPGs and the like. Pokémon has had a significant impact on the world and gaming, an impact that FF has never ever made. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that Pokemon has not had great cultural and industry impact. But I attribute that to the franchise as a whole, and not entirely to its video game components. And while, FF and Mario both do extend beyond video games, their main areas of impact have been in the video game industry. This is why I consider them to offer more to the layman's understanding of video gaming.

Regardless, these are based more on our personal interpretations of the bigger picture. It would probably be best to get a better grasp of what the bigger picture should be in the section below. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC))

Section break

Type	Top	High	Mid	Low
Definition	This article is of the utmost importance as it forms the basis of all information.	This article is fairly important as it covers a general area of knowledge.	This article is relatively important as it fills in some more specific knowledge of certain areas.	This article is of little importance as it covers a highly specific area of knowledge or an obscure piece of trivia.
Core topics	Articles on core topics, game genres, and major consoles that are essential to understanding video games. (e.g. Video game, Platform game, Nintendo 64)	Sub-articles of core topics, including cross genres, minor consoles. (e.g. 4X, Grand Theft Auto clone, Atari Jaguar)	Game concepts and terms. (e.g. Boss fight, New Game Plus)	All other (unless discussed here).
Series (Main article)	A series of games that has defined a genre or became an international phenomena—moreso than any separate game(s) in the series. (e.g. Final Fantasy, Mario (series))	Lasting impact at least 3-5 years after it was initially released. (e.g. Devil May Cry (series), Guitar Hero)	Achieved wide commercial success or critically acclaimed outside of Japan. (e.g. Gran Turismo (series), Ratchet & Clank (series))	Other.
Video games (Main article)	Ground-breaking titles that are ubiquitous with the term "video games" in the common vernacular or are the core game for a genre. Likely no game younger than 3-5 years should be rated as such. (e.g. )	Highly influential works, generally considered the best games of their time or titles that radically influenced or revitalized a genre Generally requires at least 2-3 years of being on market to be assessed as such. (e.g. )	Successful or critically acclaimed games, most likely having sequels, that had some level of influence other unrelated games or franchises, at least 1-2 years since release for proper assessment. (e.g. Katamari Damacy, Gears of War)	All other video games.
Lists of video games, characters and other related items	N/A.	N/A.	Lists related to topics rated at least "High", and written in an encyclopedic fashion. (e.g. Characters of Final Fantasy VIII)	All other lists.
Characters	N/A.	Characters that have become cultural icons outside of the series e.g. Pikachu, Mario	Well known characters, typically appearing as the main character in a long-running game series. (e.g. Fox McCloud, Solid Snake)	All other characters.
Individuals	Individuals with an essential historical influence on the medium (e.g. Nolan Bushnell, Shigeru Miyamoto)	Individuals with a career of highly influential works, or historically significant accomplishments (e.g. Hideo Kojima, Tim Schafer, David Jones)	Individuals with a career of internationally successful or critically acclaimed works (e.g. Chris Metzen, Cliff Bleszinski)	Other notable individuals (e.g. )
Companies, organisations, websites	Highly influential companies, particularly the major Japanese, American, and European companies involved in video game production. (e.g. Blizzard Entertainment, Capcom, Nintendo)	Top developers and publishers. (e.g. Epic Games, Neversoft)	Most other well-known companies in the industry. (e.g. IGN, Gamestop, Naughty Dog)	Others including websites. (e.g. GameFAQs)

Here's another full table with some of the suggestions integrated (hopefully successfully integrated)into the previous one. Also, the length of the discussion looks like it needs a section break too. I've also moved the core topics row to the top as those are really the topics which define video games. Any thoughts? Are we getting close to a final version? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC))

Arb Break - What do we want as representative articles?

I think we need to make a mini-consensus decision here so that we can better fill in the table and go forward. There seems to be two possible paths that we can take to consider our Top, "must read" articles

1. We can go the route the Anime project has done, with only technical articles about the field or those that introduce specific areas of the field, or the like. In other words for us, this would having our genre articles, key video game companies and people, but no video games, series, or elements thereof in the Top, with the assumption that the other articles that are in Top will hit on these. The most influential games would be High then.
2. We can go the route of the TV project where the most influential games are also in Top along with technical aspects of the field.

We should decide which is the route we want to go, and then I think the chips will fall from there. (There may be another option that I'm not aware of either). --MASEM 21:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Support #1 - mostly because I do not believe the idea of "games ubiqituitous with the idea of video game are more important or less subjective than video games that had core design concepts for a genre that are now taken for granted. That way there would be no dispute as to which was more important as they would both be High.

If not, I would request we hold off until a good way to decide what's best for top video games, perhaps seeking advice elsewhere and/or having a vote.Jinnai (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards the first proposal, but am a bit hesitant to exclude all series and video games from the top category—specifically video games. I must admit though, if a game is so important, it stands to reason it and its impact would be adequately covered in the respective genre and company article. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC))

I disagree with any proposal that suggests that there cannot be a top-class article in one section (specifically Characters and Series). - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I support option #1. High is not too far from the tree as Top, and can be applied to articles that established a legacy quite easily (Tetris, Halo). Mid used for noteworthy video games second that have won awards or been launch titles that defined a console, and low for lesser everyday game articles that are still notable. It's a strong hierarchy, and exceptions can be discussed here as needed if the case arises, no?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I support no. 1 as well, but can I request that people lay off the reclassification of articles from top to high until after a consensus has been established here (A Link to the Past, I'm looking at you). Until consensus is reached, the mass change of articles from an importance levels should be avoided as the old way still applies. Anyway, I agree with Guyinblack's statement that the impact of a game of high importance to the genre and the industry should be adequately covered in the respective genre and company articles, even if it isn't at present. -- Sabre (talk)

It seems number one is the popular choice. Should we proceed with this in mind, or give people more time to voice their thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:48, 18 November 2008 )

I'd give is a little longer, say until Sunday? -- Sabre (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I Support no. 2. Without the games as the driving force behind the hardware and the industry then their would be no sales so thus it could be argued that the games are more important than the consoles they run on and the genres they defined and therefore should be in Top importance too. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 00:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Minor quib but upon re-reading mid importance level, I'd change it to read:

Successful or critically acclaimed games, most likely having sequels, that had some level of influence other non-sequal unrelated games, or franchises, at least 1-2 years since release for proper assessment.

This makes it more clear distinction as to make certain spin-off titles wouldn't be used as justification since they are basically one-step removed from sequels. The removal of the comma also changes the the meaning to mean to help clear that as well by associating "unrelated" to both games and franchise. Leaving the comma in would muddy that.Jinnai (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

To get this motion moving (and amend from there on) instead of letting the current situation persist, I am in favor of no. 1 as it is the closest to my personal opinions stated above. Jappalang (talk) 09:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Just trying to get an idea where everyone is coming from. How many people are placing more importance on history and how many are placing more to impact? And are there any people trying to weigh them 50/50? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC))

It seems that no one proposal allows for top importance in both series articles and character articles. I definitely think Mario, Pikachu, and the like are of top importance. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If #2 was supported, that Top articles are more than just the field's technical basis, then in addition to games, there would be a few series and characters Top articles. --MASEM 19:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Link to the Past: This are guidelines. That means, without good reason they should be followed. For something like Mario you can always propose pushing it to a top level article.Jinnai (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

What is a guideline? A miserable pile of secrets. But also, are you referring to the proposals as guidelines? If so, as long as it allows for characters and series to be of top importance, then I'm all for it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

First, let's make one thing clear. As of this moment, the above is nothing more than a proposal. However when it is adopted (and at this point it appears in some fashion it will be), it will become a guideline. A guideline differs from policy in that policy does not allow much, if any, wiggle room. If policy says something, it needs to be done or contested to change policy. Guidelines are a step below. They are there to flesh out policy and to help writers design better articles. Guidelines can be ignored at times, but there must be a very good reason that is adopted by consensus.

Using your example, simply putting "Mario" and "Zelda" as top because you believe it should be would be a violation and get them removed ASAP to at most "High". If however, you think they should be, you must make a case as to why they are special and convince others. Even if you succeed though, at a later date it's still subject to revision as people might have other reasons, or more people might chime up who weren't active during the discussion. However, you do have precident on your side, so at that point, the onus would be more on them, but still with the intent of guidelines behind them.

Bottom line is, don't expect any article about a character, video game or video game series to be "TOP" in the near future without it being reverted.Jinnai (talk) 03:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I support #1. It avoids favoritism, and reflects the topics that are truly important. Randomran (talk) 06:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Arb. Break 2 - Moving forward

Given the above discussion it seems the preference is for option #1 - that our "Top" articles define the field of what video gaming is through core genre articles, companies, hardware, and people involved, without emphasis on any specific title, series, or character. We probably should review what is currently given as "Top" for our assessments and consider each.

To address a few points above for those that favored #2, this is not meant to prevent any game, series, or character from being "Top", but I would be hesitant to include a game, series, or character that is already mentioned in the other "Top" articles, avoiding as much duplication in topic coverage as possible assuming that these are our core articles. (This is why the genre articles should be "Top" since they hit on so many games and usually those that are standouts in the field). For example, there's no doubt that Nintendo should be a top article; that said, since coverage of Nintendo should obviously mention Mario, there's no need to specifically call out Mario the character or the series (which itself should also be called out via platform game as well). --MASEM 23:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point, that top importance covers the most important aspects of gaming - genres, companies, systems, etc. But I think it should also encompass series articles. While the Mario series should be covered in Nintendo, it may not be covered sufficiently. The Nintendo article has a lot to cover, and Mario can cover a lot more than Nintendo could, making it not redundant. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why Series has to be top: an article on a series is more important than the concepts that make the games? Just seems a little odd to put that much weight on something when High can suffice. I mean to someone that isn't knowledgeable to Nintendo's work, how is the Mario series top priority to them to be informed of over the company itself? On a side note, not entirely sure Link's Awakening needs High priority over Mid...it's an important game, but without going into opinion it doesn't seem as influential to the series as the original LoZ.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I've always seen series articles as a higher-level, overview article—not as high as a genre article, but certainly a step above a normal video game article. Because of that I view them above most game articles in importance.

Having said that, I still have to agree that most game, series, and character articles don't really need to be Top importance.

Should we start finalizing the table now? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 02:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC))

In general, i'd say series should be equal to the highest level of one of its related games. There are exceptions, both ways. FE: Dot Hack video games might very well be low priority as invidisual video games. Taken as a whole though the series probably warrants a mid level importance. On the opposite side, Bard's Tale likely warrants a top rating, but a page about the series probably doesn't warrant that high of one because the series as a whole was not as influential as the first game, so a mid level would be more appropriate.Jinnai (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Pokémon is not actually covered in Nintendo. But the issue is that regardless of it being just a series, Pokémon is way too large to be covered in enough detail at Nintendo, because Pokémon encompasses many series - RPG series, spin-off series, and then it's got the anime, trading card game, manga, and merchandise, all of which have been extremely successful and received incredible coverage. It's stuff like this, where the series vastly transcends its role as a video game series, that should define it as a top importance article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It should be covered in Nintendo. It's one of their biggest franchises, extended the life of the Game Boy, earned them billions, and kept them financially afloat during their slump with the N64. If it isn't now, it should be covered in Nintendo and Game Boy when they get cleaned up.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with the rationale of Pokemon being top importance. I believe the top articles should further a layman's understanding of video games, not just show them the most popular and influential. And I don't see how knowing the details of Space Invaders or Halo 3 are "essential" to that understanding. Knowing the general information will certainly help though, just as it would to know general info about Pokemon. And all that info would likely be covered in the related top articles. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC))

Ongoing issue regarding ESRB as a source

Since late October, there has been discussion about ESRB being a source for future releases on List of Virtual Console games (North America). See: Talk:List_of_Virtual_Console_games_(North_America)#Question_about_future_releases_section and Talk:List_of_Virtual_Console_games_(North_America)#Remove_all_titles_referred_to_as_future_releases_by_their_ESRB_rating. for more information on this issue. I personally feel ESRB isn't a reliable source on it's own (I stated this and my other views on the matter in both of those discussions). RobJ1981 (talk) 06:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

In addition to this, I believe any decision on this should reflect ESRB's usage as a source for anything, as it is common practice to register a game and end up doing nothing with it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

IMO, if the ESRB has rated a game that's probably worth a mention on the game's page but shouldn't be taken as an indication that the game will be released very soon now, which is how people are treating it. Some of the long-standing entries on the list of games (i.e. two years or more) are more WP:CBALL than the rest. Nifboy (talk) 12:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The ESRB is a valid, industry-sanctioned source.[1] If you want to change the phraseology describing the status of the titles to something more fitting, then by all means. Perhaps listing the date each title was added to the slate would be to everyone's satisfaction. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, no? We're not going to change the definition of a future release so we can have a bigger list. I know that having a valid list of titles with strong sourcing is so silly, but let's give it a shot. It would appear that your only argument is that "it costs money to register with the ESRB, so it must be coming out", which means that since Kirby Super Star was once registered as a VC game with the ESRB, it is indeed coming out, because Nintendo spent a nominal fee to have it registered. And Capcom must be making Viewtiful Joe 3, despite having no developer to make it, because they registered the domain name long ago. And Square Enix must be making Chrono Break, because they filed a patent. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I want to comment about Cheesemeister: he is one of the regular editors of the article. He always seems to disagree with any suggestion for change. Anyway, if no one cleans it up within the next week or so, I will personally be removing all games in the future releases section that only have ESRB as a source. This crystal balling has gone on long enough. Link makes great points, which prove ESRB isn't a reliable source on it's own. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I imagine it's relaible that they /rated/ a game, but not that it'll be released. I fully agree that it doesn't mean any sort of "soonness". ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally I see the ESRB as a valid source because a game has to be rated to be released. If you read the discussion in the VC NA article you will see that Cheese and myself showed proof via system name. Just my two cents. Also, I've said this time and time again, don't just pick on one article, there are others that do this as well. Rob knows which pages I'm referring about. I hate having to repeat myself over and over again. Thank You. Edit: I also don't see this as crystal balling. Neo Samus (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no objections to listing the games that have been rated. That does not seem to me to be equivalent to declaring that they will be released soon. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

To say that being rated and being announced are related is pure OR. We've already shown many examples where the ESRB rating didn't result in a game's release, so why is it a reliable source? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Neo Samus: did you even read A Link to the Past's post? He gave several examples where the ESRB was wrong. I would bet there is more examples as well. This isn't "picking on an article", this isn't a school playground where someone gets teased. Don't compare a non-living article to something that refers to living people. Also, where else is there a future releases section based solely on being rated by things? I checked: all current generation systems/download services don't go by speculation like the North America VC list does.RobJ1981 (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Xbox_Live_Arcade_games has a Future Releases section. I believe PSN pages does too but that I cannot confirm since I haven't been to that page in a while. I'm not comparing this to a school playground, the point I am making is if you are going to start an argument about this (and other issues) you have to look at the bigger picture. Darn it. I was trying to read too fast and didn't realize there sources. Sigh. Neo Samus (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I've re-added ESRB-rated titles under a separate table, with a disclaimer stating that they're not guaranteed. If you don't agree with this proposed compromise version, please discuss it and reach a consensus before editing. Thank you. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The article isn't a test page for you to try out new tables. Use the sandbox, or your user space for that. That would've been the correct thing to do, instead of just placing it in the article and saying no one should change it until discussion happens. Either way: the seperate table is speculation, and doesn't belong. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. A new table with a note saying it's not guaranteed isn't a compromise. It's just your way of sticking the information back into the article. I also want to point out: several regular editors of the article have been re-adding the ESRB rated games back into the article. From the looks of it, they either ignored this discussion or just chose to do what they want. They claim there is no consensus, but this discussion here is more than enough proof that the list doesn't belong. RobJ1981 (talk) 01:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Proof? I was very thorough in proving out the logic in using the ESRB as a source. I'll repost it here for those who missed it.

What is the purpose of this article? To inform people of facts regarding current and future VC titles. Who would read it? People who want to be informed of these facts. Aren't there other places that have similar lists? Sure, but what purpose does this article serve if not to deliver the facts available? How do we know ESRB-rated classic titles in the Wii category will be released as VC titles? We have hundreds of examples of this listed: a publisher wishes to re-release a classic title for the VC, and as a part of the process of doing so, has the title rated by the ESRB. The title is later released on the VC. But what if a particular title is canceled? Titles like Zombies Ate My Neighbors have been removed from the ESRB website, and as such, have also been removed here. But what if it's been a long time since a particular title has been listed? Some titles are held in the release queue longer than others for marketing, licensing, strategic, or other reasons; NOA is not very transparent about it.

However, given that it costs publishers actual money to pay for a title to be rated by the ESRB, the title in question is listed under the "Wii" category and not the classic platform, and there isn't a title synonymous with a classic in the works (i.e. Sonic the Hedgehog), we can then conclude based on the ESRB rating that a classic title is due to be released on the VC. One might complain that the ESRB isn't a primary source, and that this is all speculation. The ESRB was established by the video game industry itself, and as such, can be considered a primary source. Ratings that appear in its database are there at the behest of publishers preparing titles for release. To say that a game is not slated for future release with facts from a game industry-established entity saying otherwise is, in fact, a contradiction. Vectorman and Super Turrican 1 & 2 are just a couple obvious examples of games that were ESRB-rated for over 6 months before VC release. Denying the facts listed on the ESRB website would only serve to confuse readers and prompt them to re-add titles missing on the article. If this article does not list some upcoming titles that are supported by the evidence, it does the readers of this article a disservice. Bottom line: list the facts, don't hide them. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 04:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The price argument is not valid. We've seen games get rated for the ESRB and never followed up on - Bit Generations titles, various VC titles, etc. We've established that the ESRB is not a reliable source, because it never states once that the titles will be released, merely that they have been rated. Listing titles implies that they are to be released, when no one said anything of the sort. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

ESRB has never said "once a game is rated, it will come out". Link provided several examples of rated games that didn't come out (see above about Kirby Super Star, Viewtiful Joe 3 and more: since you obviously didn't read it, or chose to ignore it). Wikipedia isn't for speculation. Until something has a source other than ESRB, it shouldn't be listed. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Once a game is rated, we've seen that it's extremely likely it'll come out. How many dozens of titles have we seen this happen to, on the VC alone? Yes, there are a few isolated exceptions when a title is canceled after being rated, and generally these disappear from the ESRB database. Companies put money down for a rating with the intention of releasing a product. Action by these publishers towards release is basically tantamount to an official announcement. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 06:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Why do you keep bringing that up? It's not tantamount to an official announcement because they don't always get released! Please, just explain how your argument is not speculative in nature. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

"Extremely likely" isn't 100 percent. Neither is "basically". Articles should have reliable sources, not just a "maybe it will come out, after all..it did get rated!". A few isolated exceptions is what Link said, but I would bet there is several more. The fact that there is exceptions shows ESRB isn't always accurate. We can't just go by "most games rated have came out, so these will too". Games with just a rating are speculation at best. As I stated before: just put the list on a word document, print it out if you want: and there you go. The information simply isn't helpful to the article, so why must we just repeat the same things over and over again to you? Unless you can give better reasoning, the information will remain out of the article. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

More times than we can count, titles released on the VC have come from the pool of games that had been ESRB-rated, but weren't listed by other sources. Removing all of these titles, being the bulk of titles in the future releases list, does readers of the article a disservice by not letting them know what can be reasonably expected to be released. That's one of the main purposes of the article: to inform interested readers of what's coming up. You said yourself, Rob: "There should be something in place: if the game has been listed for at least 6 months and no release date or year has been mentioned: remove the game." While I disagree with an arbitrary deadline, you at least agreed in principle with retaining ESRB-rated titles. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 06:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

No he doesn't. Now please stop! Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 06:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

He said so right here, in his very first comment. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 06:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's an idea - propose that it be added as a reliable source to WP:VG's source guidelines. Until then, it should not be considered a reliable source, and as such, should not be included. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

See you there... --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 07:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Even though most people agree it's not reliable: people such as TJ Spyke, Zomic and IP editors continue to re-add the list of ESRB rated games. It's pretty clear there is indeed a consensus: which is to NOT list games only rated by the ESRB. This is getting very frustrating. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The edit war message is even more frustrating due to reverting all games listed by the ESRB. Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 01:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

List of NES games/List of Famicom games suggestions

After working on and off both of these lists for several months, both are, for the most part, complete with a separate reference for each and every game on both lists. However, this leaves the NES list (779 entries) at 105KB and the Famicom list (1077 entries) at a staggering 148KB. Before I go the split route, I want to ask and see what else could possibly be cut out before doing one. I would think my suggestion for the NES list would possibly be to cut out the developer column. At a minimum, both (and most other video game) lists would need a title, some sort of date of release, publisher, and reference. Suggestions? MuZemike (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest splitting off the larger (more prolific) publishers. (Similar to how DC and Marvel are typically split from comics-related lists when they get lengthy.) - jc37 19:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with getting rid of the developer column. You may also want to remove the English title column, as it's just taking up space and is better served by the links to each title's article. As for the references, each title's article should have this link already, so duplicating it there is unnecessary. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

As this is the english Wikipedia, the english name might be worth keeping? - jc37 20:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I can see the use of keeping it actually on those grounds. It'd make quick searching through a list easier. But yeah, developer column is not needed.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

From what I gathered from the discussions on the talk pages on some of the other VG lists was that you had to provide a reference for all titles. MuZemike (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

NOA has a PDF list of all NES titles, currently listed as reference #3. Additional references are redundant. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 05:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

That's only for games they licensed though, no?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

That's correct. That doesn't include games by Tengen, Color Dreams, Camerica, etc. I could remove the developer column from the NES list, and then we can remove a lot of the redundant GameFAQs references for the games on the official NOA list. MuZemike (talk) 04:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Something to add in here. Would Kart Fighter, Final Fantasy VII (Famicom) and Mr. Splash be fine to add to the Famicom list? GameFAQs has a page for Kart Fighter at the very least.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I am wary on pirates and have been in the past, but they are verifiable. My concern is that I don't want to proverbially open the flood gates and everyone start adding every homebrew remake, hack, etc. I would say it's OK provided the games can be verified by a reliable source as listed in WP:VG/S. MuZemike (talk) 04:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty, added Mr. Splash to the list using the Kotaku ref (Someone speaking Japanese needs to translate that Gizmodo page, my translator is missing these days so I'm unsure on the manufacturer). FFVII Fam is the only other I'd suggest adding as there are refs to cite for the list, but the date is only known as "2005". Will that suffice?

Other than that the article intro needs to be adapted now it seems ^^;--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, but make sure you use the {{dts}} template to maintain sortability with the dates. MuZemike (talk) 17:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Move proposal: Star Fox (SNES) to Star Fox (video game)

I'm just making a quick proposal for it to be moved to the now-disambig between two articles. We've already got a disambig page for Star Fox, which is what anyone would type in for the Atari 2600 game, and for the most part, the 2600 game is known because of the legal issues. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You really should remember that putting links in make your discussion more helpful to people, Star Fox (SNES), Star Fox (video game), Star Fox. As for the move wouldnt you move the Atari one to "1983 video game" and the SNES to 1993 video game". Salavat (talk) 01:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Like I said though, the 1983 video game is only notable because of the 1993 video game - the only thing that is notable about it it seems is the naming controversy. From what I can see, there's no development nor is there reception. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Anymore comments? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

New infobox for video game franchises

{{Infobox_VG_series}}, because I think the articles on the main franchises could use their own infobox too. ViperSnake151 15:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Looks like it's worth exploring. The only grey area that comes to mind is what constitutes the latest release version? Like for Final Fantasy, would it be FF XIII or the latest spinoff? Same thing with the Mario series, Galaxy or the latest Party/Sports game? And would a spin off series use one too, like the Chocobo series or Mario Kart? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC))

Yeah Medal of Honor (series) for example. You might want to add in Platform :). --SkyWalker (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The "Primary distributor" field is useless. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If we use this, I would make it consistent with the alternating colors of the normal VG game template. --MASEM 22:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Generally spinoffs aren't considered the latest version.Jinnai (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Should we use just the main games in a series or forgo first and last versions altogether? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC))

I've been using the less-than optimal template {{Infobox Media franchises}} instead of something like this, so I'm all for it. The last one, practically speaking, is not as important as the game which spawned the franchise in terms of 'impact', so I'm not sure we need it. Beyond that, we don't need lists of games or media, as that should be in the series article. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass peer review

Peer reviews are welcome for The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass at Wikipedia:Peer review/The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass/archive1. Gary King (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Need some eyes to watch Street Fighter II and Street Fighter IV

Hey. I could user some other VG Project users to keep an eye out on the articles for Street Fighter II and Street Fighter IV, as there's a user there who's insisting on pushing original research about the relationship between the two games. He's been indef blocked as Big Boss Inc. (talk · contribs) but now he's shown up again as an IP sockpuppet. Admittedly, I've been warned for going 3 reverts on both articles, but I still use a few other folks to keep an eye out for this guy on those articles. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 18:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked, but I could still use a few more editors to keep an eye on this article. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 18:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Quick Japanese translation help

I need someone to provide me with a translation of the Japanese in the 5th paragraph of [2] (about Ico, Steven Geraghty, and Libera). Google gives me the gist to know it is what I need but I'd like to provide the quote in non-Engrish if possible. --MASEM 22:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Good lord that's a terrible run on. My Japanese isn't that great, but here's my interpretation of it. The first part of the sentence sounds like it's about a separate soundtrack/album. I didn't read the rest of the article so I'm not sure. I'm also not sure if the last part applies to the Angel Voices part or the Ico part.

"Furthermore, Angel Voices, which adds to the classic and healing genres, by the the same composer who last year managed the game soundtrack ICO: Melody in the Mist with vocal participation from vocalist Steven Geraghty of Libera, which also accomplished a big hit and new memory."

I think the only part you really want is the middle part: "大島ミチルが手掛けたゲーム・サントラICO霧の中の旋律ではLiberaリベラのヴォーカリストSteven Geraghtyスティーブン・ガラティがヴォーカルで参加" which means: "Oshima Michiru who managed the game soundtrack for ICO with vocals by Steven Geraghty of Libera"

I'd recommend a second opinion to verify and/or correct my translation. I wouldn't provide an exact quote if that's what you're thinking of using. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC))

I'll see if it's needed by the FAC. (Angel Voices is another Libera album, so this makes sense). --MASEM 00:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I doubt you need to quote a translation for that (Guyinblack25's was pretty accurate for that statement). Just quote the original statement if you must (although I would only put in such for direct quotes that are translated). Jappalang (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

RfC template

I've made an RfC template for the project. To use it just add {{VG-RfC|NAME OF DISCUSSION}} to any page. Eg, for this message add {{VG-RfC|RfC template}} to produce

Thoughts? --Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 11:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it should include the section heading. Gary King (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I would be careful about using the term (and link) of requests for comment unless there is actually one being filed. If this is just a notice that a discussion about the article has been started on this talk page, it should be re-worded.--Koji† 16:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a good idea, but the concerns above are valid and should a discussed before this is used. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC))

Merge two histories (2)

Rayne (Bloodrayne) and Rayne (BloodRayne). Thanks! - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I've got it all fixed now, check both articles (and talk pages) and let me know if it looks ok. Pagrashtak 15:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Planet Cazmo Seeks 3rd Party Writer

I represent Planet Cazmo, a virtual world of online community and video gaming for youth. We're looking for someone who can learn the facts about the state of Cazmo in order to write a good 3rd party article. We have numerous noteworthy activities. Is this something people do? Thanks. Pileated47 (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Pileated47, Ambassador@PlanetCazmo.com

Right, first off your post is very misleading. I assume you mean you want someone to write a Wikipedia article about you? Your post makes it seem that you want someone to write an article about you, but not for Wikipedia... that aside, could you provide some decent reliable, third-party sources to demonstrate your notability? _TalkIslander 00:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:VG format for WPP:CBB

I hope nobody minds, but I've applied the basics of the format found here to the college basketball WikiProject. If anyone has any large objections I'll be sure to revert it back to the old standard there. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 02:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no problems with that. If a design works well, why not use it else where? Plus, I stole my userpage design from enough people. -- Sabre (talk) 11:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, beautiful. I was just checking to make sure there weren't any vehement objections but apparently not. Thanks. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 19:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The Warren Spector Master Class lectures

Warren recorded and published interviews-cum-lectures with thirteen "gaming luminaries" last year. They are freely-available goldmines of information that have yet to be tapped on Wikipedia or anywhere else. This will not do! :-P

There is all manner of historic information, particularly in Harvey Smith's, Marc LeBlanc's and Seamus Blackley's videos (I've yet to watch past Blackley's), about the founding and founders of the modern Western video game and video game console industry.

The problem is that it all needs extraction from 2-to-3 hour audio streams. There are 3.1 gigabytes of low-res video (35 hours-worth by my rough, and conservative, calculations) to process. This is going to have to be a group effort, where everyone takes a chunk of video, say 10 or 15 minutes, to transcribe.

Is anyone up for it? --Tom Edwards (talk) 12:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, if you can't download from Bittorrent there are HTTP mirrors here and here. --Tom Edwards (talk) 12:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Shame that Paul Weaver's video is cut short. --Mika1h (talk) 12:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Good god. I'll probably forgo it as none of the speakers are in my projects scope, but that does indeed appear to be a great treasure trove of information that can be used. Thanks for the links. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Multiple reviews from one source

I saw this edit and at first blush thought it looked like silly vandalism. However, I checked the source instead of reverting and there is some truth to it. Nintendo Power has gone through several different review strategies—when The Wind Waker was released, the publication had one short, written review with additional two-sentence (or so) comments from five reviewers, and five separate scores from the reviewers on a 5-star scale with half-star increments. No single or combined score was given. In the case of The Wind Waker, all five reviewers gave five stars, (5×5=25) so I've switched to stars in the article. That's a simple case, though—what would we do for a case like Golden Sun, where three reviewers give 5/5 and two reviewers gave 4.5/5? Short of leaving it out of the table, I don't see a clear solution. Any thoughts? Pagrashtak 15:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Game Informer does something similar with their "Second Opinion" section for reviews. I remember another magazine uses three reviewers, but I forgot which. I've normally avoided using them in review score tables unless they all gave the same score.

I've seen the cumulative scores in a few articles before also, and think it's not a bad idea; that's how the Famitsu scores are given. I don't know if it's the proper course to take though. :-| (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC))

Another reason why I think that if we can work practically towards removing tables of reviews and instead focus more on the content than scores themselves (though still linking to MC/GR aggregates), this would be better. I've done it for a couple of articles (one FA, one going through FA) and seems perfectly fine to me. Such "second looks", particularly if they vary from the original review significantly, can still be called out appropriately. --MASEM 16:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Leave it to Masem to take the opportunity to rail against score tables again :P But he does have a point; with such "round table" reviews or second opinions more attention to be spent on what differing conclusions (if any) the reviewers from publication X drew, rather than "Jimmy the Reviewer gave it an X, while et al". --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the focus of the reception should be on the prose rather than the review table. But I don't think they should be removed all together, even if they are abused now. This is a good argument in minimizing the number of scores though.

That being said, perhaps we should just keep such review scores out of the review tables. Nothing wrong with limiting the number of scores or even excluding it like Masem does. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC))

A review table without scores would be.. well, not much. And I'm not say this is a reason to scrap review tables, either. Just that we have to be careful to use them as either crutches to replace a good verbose text section, or as a way to bias the reviews of a game. --MASEM 17:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

A bit off topic, but that is something that should probably be mentioned or discussed further in the writing draft when one of us gets the chance. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC))

The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time vandalism alert

As you all know, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time is Today's Featured Article on the Main page. This means increased traffic as well as greatly increased opportunities for vandalism. Please think of watchlisting the article to keep tabs on the article, and revert any and all vandalism if necessary. MuZemike (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

One a side note, the talk page comments have been largely positive compared to other video game TFAs. Either there are a lot of OoT fans or people are glad to see older and influential games featured on the main page. Probably both. :-p (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC))

Still got the standarised "shouldn't there be spoiler warnings?" comment though! -- Sabre (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

True but if that was the worst we had to deal with we are in good shape here. --70.24.176.144 (talk) 19:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It's actually going more smoothly than I thought. Pagrashtak 19:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

RfC Template: Rewording

As per the discussion above, I've reworded the template and removed the header

{{VG-RfC|RfC Template: Rewording}} now produces this

-Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 18:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Archive function would be nice, maybe as a second parameter you can add later once the section has been archived? User:Krator (t c) 20:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well this would really only be used for active discussions rather than archived ones so I don't think that would really be needed --Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 15:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Although the archive function is well-intentioned, chances are someone would just remove the template altogether once the discussion is done. No? Randomran (talk) 22:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. Should that be mentioned in the template documentation? Also, should the template be renamed to not included "RfC"? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC))

Release dates in infoboxes, yet again.

Let's keep this short.

Proposal: make it the standard to format release dates in infoboxes like it's done on today's featured article, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, with a collapsible list showing the earliest first.

User:Krator (t c) 20:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I looks like it will comply with WP:Accessibility and satisfy detail oriented editors. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC))

It looks awful when the "[show]" overlaps the "1998" in the date, it doesn't expand itself when printing, and it doesn't expand itself when Javascript is disabled in the user's browser. I prefer the setup where the infobox contains the original release dates and a link to the section where all the remakes/re-releases are covered. Anomie⚔ 12:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Forums a reliable source?

DrSturm (talk · contribs) contends that forums are a reliable source, whereas WP:V says no, usually. Article at issue is Yggdra Union: We'll Never Fight Alone, site given as a source is a fansite, http://www.leyviur.net/.

Advice appreciated.Mr T (Based) (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Forums are very rarely reliable sources. You hit it on the head here, you have no idea who wrote it, there is absolutely no editorial oversight, and no way to verify fact checking. Forums may qualify s a reliable source in very closed areas of WP:SPS, such as if a developer made a comment on the official forums, in a reasonably official capacity, but it couldn't be referenced to a proper third-party source. The usage of this forum in the article in question isn't acceptable as a reliable source, that sort of information should only be included if a proper source, ie someone in video games journalism writing for a respectible publication such as IGN or the like, has commented on it, not someone with no credentials on a forum. I also sense a conflict of interest, the person adding the sources is a major contributor to the forum (as member no.1 probably also the owner), and the author of some of the threads linked to. The use of this forum to reference the points being made is really not acceptable under Wikipedia guidelines. -- Sabre (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, really should have spotted that possible COI as I've looked at that page.Mr T (Based) (talk) 23:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Better idea: Point him directly to Wikipedia:Reliable source examples. It has a section that directly addresses web forums. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 03:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we could accept forums as sources in these situations if it points to an overwhelming consensus of posters corroborating a factual (emphasis: factual) point from first-hand experience. --Tom Edwards (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

In which case, WP:OR applies. Forum stuff aside, this is all original research and isn't acceptable anyway. -- Sabre (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Reading a page of text and extracting meaning from it cannot be OR. It's the process gone through every time a source is checked, and Wikipedia would have no articles if it was banned. Unless you mean that it's OR by the forum posters, in which case I think you are misunderstanding the rule. --Tom Edwards (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It is when the person, someone without credentials or editorial oversight, conducts their own tests, posts results on their own forums, and then adds it here as a source. That's original research. Remember there's a potential conflict of interest problem here. -- Sabre (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that certainly is. I was talking generally though. --Tom Edwards (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think you should judge consensus based on posts in a forum. Multiple posts in a forum could be made by the same person signed up under different names. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The same could be said of many sources used on Wikipedia. Of course, the body of the article would point out that the source is "forum users". --Tom Edwards (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Well you don't know if it is multiple users. It could be one or two people. By allowing this as a source, anybody could create a forum or sign up for one with multiple names, post many times about a certain issue and there'd be a source for a fabricated issue. It's just too easily manipulated when compared to what a reliable source should be. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a theoretical complaint (for a start all forums I've ever seen display join dates, in profiles if not on posts). As long as the forum itself is of reasonable repute, it's silly to damage Wikipedia's quality by getting hung up on things like this. --Tom Edwards (talk) 17:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The counter argument (echoed in policy) is that inclusion of forums as sources damages Wikipedia quality far more than not including them. How do we know that this forum is of "reasonable repute"? Simply looking at a page and going "this looks in order" is not acceptable. I haven't been shown any evidence from reliable sources that this forum is known to be reputable or reliable. -- Sabre (talk) 17:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm talking generally. I haven't even visited the forum this conversation started with, though it sounds like you are right about it. --Tom Edwards (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Occassionally in forums, there are sources provided to support what is said. When that happens, we should ignore the forum and jump right on the source and use it if it is reliable. An other case would be that a producer/author/director/programmer is unchallengeably proven to have posted in that Forum (for Exemple, it is proven that Guillermo del Toro posts in the One Ring net forums). In that case, I think that only what is said by that person should be used in the form of:" In X forum, Y claimed that...". But, aagain, that is rare and has to be proven.--Michael X the White (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend starting dispute resolution on this, starting with editor assistance. It may also help to report this dispute to the conflict of interest noticeboard; just make sure you slap on a {{coi}} tag and place a warning {{subst:uw-coi}} on the user's talk page. MuZemike (talk) 16:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll be banned from editing Wikipedia before I give this up - great. Reported to COI, article COI tagged, user COI warned. Thanks to all for the help.Mr T (Based) (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a clear a statement as any that consensus won't be followed on his part. Well, he's dug his hole. The only way he'll climb out of it is with a willingness to follow established policy here. -- Sabre (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

As much fun as the forum = kill-on-sight mentality is, I'm of the opinion a COI notice is both overkill and WP:BITEy. What I see on that page is a typical case of cataloging bugs and other irrelevant nitpicks, which is the real problem, while the citations to forums are more of a distraction. Nifboy (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about the BITEy aspects, the editor in question has been a member since 2006, so he's hardly a newcomer. -- Sabre (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Warning a user for editing a conflict of interest, judging by the wording of the template, I think hardly construes biting a newcomer, had this user been one. However, since he isn't, my point really isn't that moot. MuZemike (talk) 04:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: removal of date linking in cite video game template

Given that all the other citation templates have removed the formatting of the date if given in ISO (YYYY-mm-dd), I have removed this from the {{cite video game}} template. This should only affect those that rely on this for articles going to FA (as template dates should be consistent), and otherwise will not impact articles directly. --MASEM 00:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Coordinators

The MilHist project has institutionalized certain contributors as coordinators, see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators. Perhaps a similar approach would be beneficial for our project. I nominate MrKIA11, S@bre, and Guyinblack25 (there are many other fantastic contributors who would be great too). Thoughts? JACOPLANE • 2008-11-23 13:37

Though I do see your reasoning behind having project coordinators, I disagree on the basis that we are simply a smaller project. WikiProject Military History has about 48 task forces; we have 26. I know that may sound like a rather large number (and that number does not include projects such as WP:FF), but I feel the less bureaucracy we can have, the better -- the project appears to be running fine now without them. It's just my personal opinion though, and I'd have no problem if the project decides on consensus that coordinators would be for the best. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 14:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I certainly did not intend to advocate more bureaucracy (libertarian here :). The reason I'm advocating more central organizing is because although we often have good ideas about how to give new energy to the project (think: restarting WP:GCOTW), we rarely have people who truly take the lead in making it happen. JACOPLANE • 2008-11-23 14:57

Just making sure that we don't create a bureaucracy in the vein of Esperanza (and its crazy elections). As long as there's set priorities for the coordinators, I have no major objections. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 15:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I admit we're lacking in initiative to get things going, but I too am uncertain if coordinators are the way to go. However, I can't really think of an alternative. A few questions come to mind on how this would be implemented.

• How would they be appointed? Nominated, seconded, voted, etc?
• How would responsibilities be designated (this may tie in to the above question)?
• How long should coordinators be in their position?
• This may sound selfish, but what is the incentive to being a coordinator? Many things on Wikipedia come with a lot of trouble and little benefit.

This idea certainly has potential, but I think some of these questions need to be explored before we decide to implement it. Any thoughts? Or am I just over thinking things? :-p (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC))

Hrm... I think we should follow WP:MILHIST's example here. Six month term limits; a two week sign-up period and a two week voting period. It would be an approval vote, thereby avoiding negative conflict. I think that coordinators should run the project as a whole, not just task forces, and however though, there should be specified leaders of seperate task forces to keep them active. I'm not sure how that would work though.

One rather major thing though... people who become coordinators would have to actually want the job -- it would be their major motivation, to make the project work better as a whole. There wouldn't be too many perks in that but they'd have to be willing to accept it. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 18:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Really, I think we get along fine without the added b'cracy. In terms of sum articles and task forces, we're smaller. While I understand the issue Jaco brings up, really, if we're not motivated, we're not motivated, and assigning a job to someone isn't going to change that. :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

David speaks the truth. However, I think some sort of leadership will help provide direction and alleviate some of that unmovitation. (is that a word?)

Jaco- How many coordinators did you have in mind and in what kind of capacity? We obvisiously don't have the scope MilHist does and would not need as many serving in the capacity they do. Would they oversee the various departments and associated discussions? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC))

Jaco: "Zolang ik niet weet welk probleem hiermee opgelost wordt ..." -Wiegel. User:Krator (t c) 10:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The Sims (Expansion Packs)

I noticed when I was browsing through The Sims article page that all of the major expansion packs are simply a part of the main article instead of having their own separate articles. Unlike many expansion packs, these have extensive coverage (see here to see the plethora of reviews for The Sims: Hot Date), both from a reception and a development standpoint. The Sims 2 also has coverage for each expansion pack separately (see the University expansion as an example). I'm asking to see if there are any vehement objections to the idea before I go ahead and start creating separate articles for the expansions. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 15:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Most expansion packs have significant coverage in the media, especially if they are for successful titles, and they are often reviewed with equal status to full games and have full development history. I've no problem with spinning the articles out, too many subjects just roll the expansion packs into a quick sentence or two in the parent article. -- Sabre (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'll probably start writing up the articles as a whole over the next few days then. The article appears to have existed previously; does anyone know why it was merged into the main article? -- Nomader ^(Talk) 16:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep most of them should probably have their own articles. On a side note, it'd be interesting to see someone build a featured topic out of the series, considering that they release a new game fairly often! Gary King (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

That's around 20 articles that would need to get to FA or GA... that's a fairly tall order. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

What about a compromise of creating an article for all the expansions like: Expansions of The Sims? --Mika1h (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Considering how things used to be on WP, I can't imagine that they never actually had articles. It might be wise to check the redirects for older article history and go from there. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems all of them used to be articles, until they were all merged into The Sims without any sort of clear merge consensus anywhere. The Sims: Livin' Large is the only page that still exists; looking at the sorry state of the article though, I can see why they might've been merged. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 18:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of the Sims, should we merge the inactive WikiProject Sims into WP:VG as a task force? -- Nomader ^(Talk) 19:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The merger would be me, because I thought that any coverage it received was not anything so important that it could exist as its own article. And yes, WP:SIMS should be merged. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Princess Peach versus Toadstool and Bowser vs. Koopa in article body

That is, I'm trying to figure out the usage of the latter.

In articles of games that use Toadstool and/or King Koopa, should their original names be used (unless of course a remake of that game changes the names)? And further, when discussing those games in other articles, should the original names be used? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The names used in the specific article subjects relevant to that instance should be used. We're not here to try to maintain our own version of the Mario canon. We just repeat what the subject itself uses. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. If the game in question uses "Princess Toadstool", use that. If its "Peach", then use "Peach". If there's a difference between the Japanese version and English localization, point that out and stick to the English name for the rest of the article. Many users here (mainly anon users) are too concerned with "canon", that they forget to preserve a real-world perspective. Jonny2x4 (talk) 00:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Look at Aerith Gainsborough for a good example of how to do it -- she's called Aerith, except in the parts that talk about FFVII and FFT, where she's called Aeris in the English versions. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyone an IGN insider?

I'm working on The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening and trying to find more development and reception info. This article looks to be promising in terms of content, but it's only for IGN insiders. Anyone here a member who can view it? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I can do it. But, I'm logging off now. If someone else hasn't, I'll help tomorrow. _Skeletal SLJCOAAATR ^Soulsor 02:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm a member, but I just joined to recieve Destroy All Humans! Path of the Furon updates. --SWJS: The All Knowing Destroy All Humans! Nerd(Cortex Scan) 03:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you access the article though? (It's for insiders (paid); I'm assuming you just did free registration). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed category - "top priority video game article (featured)"

That is, a category used to weed out articles that are top priority articles, but indicating that they are already "prepped" so to speak. This can be used to make it easier to focus on articles, so if we were to get all the genres, companies, histories, and platforms to featured status, we can bump the high importance articles up to top importance. So the gist of my statement is to make it and establish top priority based on what should be featured first. This will allow us to move articles up in the queue while keeping the queue clean of articles already finished. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Once an article is featured how can they be top priority if they have passed the final hurdle, wouldnt featured articles be either no priority or low priority due to their be next to no more work to be done on them. Salavat (talk) 10:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Is the existing category Category:Top-priority video game articles sufficient for this? --Oscarthecat (talk) 10:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Extremely long plot summaries.

On the Syphon Filter (series) pages (Syphon Filter 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Syphon Filter 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Syphon Filter: The Omega Strain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) etc), 64.85.234.166 (talk · contribs) and Dibol (talk · contribs) are favouring some extremely long plot sections (I think they're the same user, not sure), and have been since March 2008 (see here), this is an average example: here, and so on in that fashion. Dibol has tried to misconstrue my edits as vandalism (here, here), accused me of bias, 'stalking' (?) the articles, "Get your elitist head out of your fucking ass." etc. If other editors would like to chip in it would be appreciated.Mr T (Based) (talk) 12:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Dibol. Looks like he's been busy aside from trolling Master Chief to keep on adding to the bolded title... at Syphon Filter 3: Yikes. Have you pointed them to WP:PLOT and WP:WAF? The plot summaries are way too long indeed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)