Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

WikiProject Video games

Main page

talk

Archives

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

Project watchlist

• view
• talk
• edit
• changes

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

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

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

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

1986-1989

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1990-1993

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

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

Got Conquests of Camelot: The Search for the Grail (#160), DragonStrike (#161), Ultima VI: The False Prophet (#162), Secret of the Silver Blades (#163), and MegaTraveller 1: The Zhodani Conspiracy (#164, started this one). That caps off 1990; been slow going because I've been busy, but will start 1991 before long. :) BOZ (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion clarity

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

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

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

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

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

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

How about this for the edit notice?

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

Feel free to copy edit and expand the text.

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

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

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

Any admins in the house that can create the notice? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC))

Anybody? Don't be shy now. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC))

Largest wikiproject?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MZMcBride ran a quick check for us, per [1], we have 424 users who display the category on their main userpage and have edited in July or August. Will see about getting a more exhaustive report as some might not have the category on their main userpage. –xeno^talk 15:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

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

We used to have a list, seen here that was eventually replaced by the category. It would be a good idea to do more updating based on activity, any update on that? JACOPLANE • 2009-08-29 17:51

MZM made us a better list [2] that includes people that have the userbox at all, not just their main page, and it shows 476 who have edited in July or August and 547 if you include June. –xeno^talk 18:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The Addams Family games

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

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

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

I have now added a lot more information to the article. I still don't think there is enough information to split them down into individual articles. I will go ahead and redirect the old pages to this one once I have moved it from a user page to a proper page. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 09:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Proper title for this article

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

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

K, I'll just wing it.  ^{æronphonehome}  08:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Scratch my back... FAC review

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Turok: Dinosaur Hunter/archive1 is suffering from a lack of reviews. If anyone could go and provide their comments, I would be eternally grateful... plus, if you needed a FAC or GAN or Peer review down the line, you can lord this over me :) Thanks, --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Reading the article now. I'll try to post some comments either today or tomorrow. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC))

Premade VG citation templates

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

First off, very kind of you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Game Plus prod

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New banner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requesting peer review on Advance Wars 2: Black Hole Rising

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It looks better then I last saw it. But I think that the second paragraph in the lead should be expanded and also make a third paragraph too. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you be a little more specific in what this third paragraph should consist of? ♥ichi 19:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe talk about the Reception and its awards. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, after reading the AWDS article, I have a better idea of what you mean. Also, I've edited the Wars (series) page as well; if someone could take a quick look there and see if the content is appropriate, that'd be awesome, thanks. ♥ichi 20:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm.. it needs a reception and development section. A good example would be the Chrono (series) since its GA. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Old AfD

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

Navbox ordering

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

• Current templatespace template:

Current individual articlee) (non-templatespac template:

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

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

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

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

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

Same for me, release date order. To add on to what Guyinblack25 said, fictional continuity can be difficult/impossible, just last week Kojima stated that even he gets confused about what happened when in the Metal Gear storyline. - X201 (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

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

I have no idea what the policy is. Personally I think if they're referred to by an English name by reliable sources that becomes the default common name that English language speakers are likely to refer to the game by, even if it's not the official name. Slightly ironically of the three you mention the only source ([3]) for an English name I can find is for the third game which is the only article currently under a Japanese title. Guest9999 (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

That goes against what seems to be common practice. In most case editorsa wait for an officially announced english name first and don't use a translation of the Japanse title. For example Dragon Quest XI does not use an english translation of the title. There a two reasons I think it is not the best idea to do so. First, an english title could confuse people into believing that an english version has been announced and secondly there is no guarentee that it will be the English title. In fact, the second game of this series had a changed name.--76.66.189.152 (talk) 03:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense I guess, thanks for the explanation, the other two titles should probably be changed then. Guest9999 (talk) 13:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see they already have been, the wonders of Wikipedia. Guest9999 (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to keep the chronological order. Most things are kept in that order. My arguement, is that the Star Wars series is listed chronologically. I would like to keep the Professor Layton series in the same way. I would also like to use English names because we dont speak Japanese, and the press is refering to them by an English title.—Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderLD (talk • contribs) 16:15, 28 August 2009

The Star Wars example is not a good one. That is listed the way it is because it is a collection of two trilogies seperated from each other. This is not the case for this series. If in the future they create a trilology of games that take place before the first game it may make sense for the template to reflect that but not a this point. In short, the existance of the star wars template is not a valid reason to list the games of this series by a fictional chronology.--76.71.208.35 (talk) 20:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

An article to potentially be split for disambiguation purposes

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

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

The multiple uses for this term include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Super Mario Bros. US release date

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

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

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

Sources that support an 1986 release date in the US

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

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

• Marty provided some info that demonstrates the lack of SMB's presence in advertising at the time.[4][5][6] While this isn't concrete, I agree that it is odd given the success SMB had in Japan. If it was available, it stands to reason it would have been advertised.
• Smartbomb and Sheff's Game Over go into a good amount of detail regarding Nintendo's efforts to bring the NES to the US. SMB is mentioned before (describing it's success in Japan) and after (describing it's success in the US), but nothing about it is mentioned during the whole process. The less commercially successful R.O.B. is covered in greater detail, which I found odd because SMB was very successful in Japan at the time.
• Mario777Zelda and Marty have contacted Nintendo of America about the information on the Nintendo's website and it turns out they just pull info from a database they have no little explanation why it's that date. More details are on the talk page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I think you are misunderstanding the point I was making with this article, and the issues you bring up above are not actually issues at all. What the article appears to prove is that a)Super Mario Brothers was released in Japan in September 1985. The sales mentioned in the article are referring to Japanese sales, not North American sales. b)A test run for Super Mario Brothers was held in New York sometime in 1986 involving 200,000 copies. The article language is unclear here (they get the name of the North American subsidiary wrong, for one), but what is clear is that this is referring to a 1986 test and not the late 1985 test release of the NES, which you correctly state was 100,000 units, ie these are two different events. c)This test aside, the game had not been released yet by August 1986, but it was coming. Therefore, the article establishes that no copies of SMB had reached American shores before 1986. Indrian (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Whoops, my mistake. I think I misread your comment as saying "...proof as to a 1985 release date..." rather than "...proof as to a 1986 release date...". Must have been a long yesterday. :-p Please accept my apologies. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC))
• Found the full article in the New Straits Times, 10 August 1986. I think it's the same as Indrian's article, because I also found it in the Inquirer. Interestingly, it also doesn't mention a September 1st release date, only saying "6 months to February." The most important point is that it doesn't mention America at all, and calls Mario the "superhero of Japanese children". So you can conclude that it hadn't been released there yet. Link. Xenon54 / talk / 21:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, same issue with that as with the ones listed on Nintnedo's site above. Modern game (just like the modern site) quoting the same questionable date in passing, getting it from the same source - if they have that date in their database, it would make sense they'd also be putting it in to games now, etc. According to the previous interviews mentioned, including the detailed development time (specifically that development did not begin until *after* the Japanese famicom version became a success and took several months), October 18th would be out of the question. That's also reflected in their actual material from the time, including press, commercials, coverage, etc. as stated. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 02:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I know WP:IAR gets thrown in our face all the time, but this time I think it's a valid application. Taken by themselves, the sources that simply state October 1985 appear valid, but they don't match up with other facts. Add in some deducing and it seems completely reasonable to me that a 1986 date is more likely, even though we only have one source (Ultimate History) that explicitly states that. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC))

If anyone has that old book that came with or sold as extra or something, from Nintendo Power, that had a listing of all the official NES games up to that point, I'm almost positive SMB was listed as 1985 in it. This is from like 1990 or so, so one imagines it may be a bit more accurate... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Section break

I finally found another source that explicitly states 1986: Learning by Doing: A Comprehensive Guide to Simulations, Computer Games, and Pedagogy in e-Learning and Other Educational Experiences. It's got a timeline in the back, and on page 329: "1985 - Nintendo test-markets its [NES] in New York...1986 - Nintendo releases its 8-bit NES console worldwide. In the United States, it retails at $199, including Super Mario Brothers..." Xenon54 / talk / 15:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

While I 100% agree based on the Kent book and the Philadelphia Inquierer article that both explicitly give a 1986 date that 10/85 is wrong, I do not believe your new source actually proves anything. I think it is merely claiming that SMB was bundled with the NES in 1986 in a $199 package. The quote really does not speak to a release date for SMB. Indrian (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree that the quote just claims that SMB was bundled with the NES in 1986. I need to clarify my previous comments. The first on this page, responded to by Indrian, was actually in response to reading the article in the New Straits Times found by Xenon54, which differed significantly from the one that Indrian found. The New Straits Times article didn't mention the U.S. at all, which was used by Xenon54 as evidence that the U.S. release couldn't have been in 1985 (this is evidence, just not definitive). I still haven't seen the full text of Indrian's article; is it verifiable? Also, my second post, in which I mentioned Indrian's article as not being "well-written" was not well-written by me. I should have said well-researched; I really don't think the game was introduced in Japan on September 1, 1985 (and the American subsidiary's name is also wrong, as previously mentioned by Indrian); however, if this article is taken as definitive proof of a 1986 U.S. release, then we might as well change the Japanese release date as well. We can't pick and choose. Mario777Zelda (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the Philadelphia Inquierer article is slightly different from the New Straits Article. Near as I can tell, they used that article as a base and added some new information of their own. As for it being verifiable, it certainly is. The article appeared in the August 19, 1986 issue of the Philadelphia Inquierer on page C8 under the byline of Caroline Dale of Reuters and contained the portions I quoted above. That is all that is necessary for verifiabiliy, the ability to create a citation to a reliable source. I found the article in a premium database available through my local library, which is why I cannot post a link. Indrian (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the clarification, Indrian. For now, I suggest we list a compromise release date, something like "Officially 1985 [cite Nintendo, IGN, Gamespot], but other reliable sources say 1986 [cite this Reuters article and Steven Kent's Ultimate History of Videogames]." Mario777Zelda (talk) 19:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

That kind of wording would put undue weight on the '85 date, as one of the '86 articles uses Nintendo as a reference as well. We already have the "compromise wording" defined in the previous discussion at the article. This discussion is about whether to use IAR, and go with the 1986 date entirely, which consensus seems to be moving towards. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, we will still need to address the 1985 date in some way even if it is just in a footnote. Otherwise, there will be constant edit warring on this issue since Nintendo appears to officially maintain a 1985 release date. Indrian (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, and that can be done in the prose of the article if IAR is found to be applied for the date itself. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Indrian (talk) 20:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I would wonder where the books get there 1986 date and where Nintendo gets its 1985 date. I'd rather say based on what I've seen neither is more reputable since some of the 1986 dates talk about the bundled game and the others are talking about something that appears to be a novelty and thus could easily have been missed if it wasn't a nationwide release. Remeber this is when consoles were considered a dead commodity in the industry. The 1985 date is also on similar ground as the sources, except Nintendo, aren't as reliable, and Nintendo could be seen as trying to push it's console back further in date or have lost the actual US release date and made one up. Therefore I would question anything trying to say essentially say that one release date is probably more reliable than the other.陣内_Jinnai 20:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Kent (the book) got it from interviews with Minoru Arakawa, Howard Lincoln, Howard Phillips, and others in NOA around at the time. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't care what the compromise wording is; I just can't see how the weight of one reliable source (the book) and one semi-reliable source (the Reuters article, which does have several inaccuracies) provides grounds for IAR when Nintendo officially maintains a 1985 release date, as does every other source that I've found. Mario777Zelda (talk) 22:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

If that's where he got it from it's no more reliable than Nintendo's official site and therefore neither date should be favored.陣内_Jinnai 22:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Mario777 - Reuters is considered a reliable source by any standard here, if anything the difference in Japanese release date could point to issues with that claimed date by the current Nintendo as well. Reuters got it's info from Nintendo at the time, that's how it works. Likewise, your summation is incorrect. IAR is not being considered based on just the book and the Reuters article, but everything presented and clearly laid out here as a whole - on both sides. Jinnai - not the case. Those were people actually involved with the launch and distribution at the time. The current Nintendo are simply regurgitating a date from a database as mentioned. I'm actually working my way through management now to work on updating it with the correct info. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

←Mario777, I understand that the sources point to a 1985 date, but none really explained why. The ones that do give details dance around the issue, skipping from SMB's success in Japan straight to its success in the US. Nothing about SMB is mentioned in the detailed accounts of the NES launch in the US. Kent's book explains why he lists 1986. Add in the lack of advertising and media coverage of SMB from October 1985 to mid-1986 and I think that casts reasonable doubt on any 1985 and even early 1986 dates. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC))

I'll address each source, to hopefully prove that nothing has been proven. The Reuters article, according to Indrian's quotes, definitely mentions 1986 as the release date for SMB. I know that Reuters is generally reliable, and that they wouldn't purposely spread false information; however, the article does seem to have other factual errors. Kent's book, the best source of information on either side of the argument, does not explicitly state that SMB was first released in the U.S. in 1986 (as far as I can tell from the quotes that have been provided). Rather, it wasn't available when Nintendo first came to NYC (October 18, 1985). This still allows over 2 months for the game to get to U.S. shores before 1986. The second quote:"By the end of 1985, Nintendo began packaging Super Mario Bros. with the Famicom. This marketing move was so successful in Japan that Yamauchi and Arakawa decided to do it in the United States. It took a few months to create an American version of the game, and the cartridge was available by the time Nintendo of America went national - the end of 1986." The first part deals with the bundling of SMB with the NES, not the release of the game. Kent never states when the work on the U.S. version of the game started, only that it took a few months. He then states that SMB was available by the end of 1986, not that it was first available then. Either he didn't know when it was first available, or he didn't tell us. I've already addressed how the lack of media coverage could be explained (small, localized test markets, with a product that may or may not have turned out to be a fad or novelty). Finally, the lack of advertising, as apparently evidenced by one 1985 commercial not mentioning SMB can also be explained/refuted. This commercial was advertising what Nintendo thought would be the coolest parts of the NES: ROB and the Zapper. Thus, Nintendo advertised games that used these (especially the Zapper). Finally, here are two commercials, claiming to be from 1985, that show SMB:[7],[8]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mario777Zelda (talk • contribs) 21:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken or missrepresenting the information on most of your points and it seems like the same argument over and over, with a proposenity to twist or missrepresent as you do so. Once again, the reason we're here is that IAR is being considered because of all the info as a whole, not on any one individual source you may want to try and incorrectly explain away. A) If there's errors regarding the Japanese release dates, again they got them from Nintendo - figures, sales and such are garnered from PR given to them from the Nintendo back then. Once again, it points to the possibility of the current Nintendo PR dates being off for even the Japanese release dates. B) Incorrect, it states it was not availabe for New York test marketing - that's the period of the day after Thanksgiving until after Christmas. It also further states it in the context of the games that retailers like for the system when approaching them to sell it. October 18th is once again, by all published accounts, when they started approaching retailers about selling it. By the time the actual Christmas sales test started, they had 500 retailers in the new York Area, through which they manged to sell 50,000 of the 100,000 shipped units. C)Incorrect, it deals with the packaging of the Famicom, not the NES, then states explicitly they decided to create an american version to try it in the US - bundled NES/Mario's did not appear until the Action Set in '87 as was already explained. Likewise the book explicitly states the end of 1985, which is commonly November/December (which would also account for the initial slow sales period that occured first), and which is also the actual Christmas season (which once again officially starts the day after Thanksgiving). Additionally, as someone who actually codes games and has also interviewed plenty of coders from the time, game development took a minimum of 3-4 months back then (I was trying to be extra giving with the two months). Again as well, it was a limited test market. Stock was moved and/or bought back from there to be sold at LA - there was no "could have still been at the end of '85". D) And again, your explination of lack of media coverage suffers from everything taken as a whole, if it was just the media that's possible. If it's the media, marketing material, the books and personal accounts, that's a completely different story. Likewise, there was coverage by January of the New York test where it was considered a dismal failure. E) That's once again an incorrect premise. First, there was only one commercial released in '85, the design of which is covered in detail in Game Over. The first commercial you referenced is from '86 not '85, the unreliable poster also states "The original commercial for the Nintendo Entertainment system. With all 5 games that where available at the time!" when there were far more, and this is *not* the original commercial either. Additionally there's well over 20 cartridges in the commercial showing the aditional titles that were added in '86. It was part of the national launch commercials for Fall of '86 (and also turns up correctly labled as '86 on Youtube, as does your other commercial. F) Lastly, you're twisting facts on the ROB/light gun marketing, which was specifically how they approached retailers and the initial New York test where SMB was not available. They still promoted the games as well, and in fact specifically came up with the term "Game Packs" for them so as dissasociate them as "game cartridges" and the possible negative linke to Atari. And in fact, the only reason they got it in most retailers is because they offered to buy back all unsold merchandise, which is also well documented - Rob and the lightgun was use as a tool to get them in the door and the buyback was used to seal the deal. As stated, the whole reason for developing the US version was because of it's success in Japan. You do not, by any measure of marketing experience, go to develop a US version because of how good another version is selling and not market it. That logic just astounds me. It appears on no material from '85, it was *not* covered or present at the January '86 CES at their booth, and it finally is presented at the June '86 CES. Advertisements start springing up in the months leading to the June CES, press coverage including Nintendo's push of SMB starts springing up during and after, commercials finally start showing up, etc. etc. as has already been stated. That's the way the video game industry works and worked especially at the time (in the days long before E3), no matter how much wishful thinking you want to play fast and loose with these facts with on an individual basis. Each one supports the other as a whole, and reflects how things were at the time - not just for Nintendo, but other game companies at the time as well. Atari Corp. test marketed the 2600 Jr. at the same time as the New York test (the Christmas season), and did so well that they decided to ramp up it's production and bring out the 7800 as well and start promoting them as the January CES - long before the actual late '86 release came, and against the entire negative context the brand already had against retailers. If something sells well you put it forward, front and center - which is why Yamauchi decided to have the US version developed in the first place. His mindset is all well documented - when people were telling Yamauchi to give up on the US becuase of the retailers, he felt it was more important to let the public decide (and rightly so), hence the New York test and then the LA one. There was no "holding back" of games and marketing to the public. As described, that had to do with approaching retailers - that's not who the marketing is for. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 01:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we're now starting to waste time. What's the consensus of the community? Mario777Zelda (talk) 02:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The point of the discussion was to decide whether or not to list 1986 as the NA release date, ignoring the fact that it cannot be verified in reliable sources outside of Kent's book. It seems that consensus is to list 1986 because a) Marty has pretty much proved singlehandedly that the game could not have been released on Nintendo's date of 18/10/85 and b) despite the fact that date is in reliable sources, no one knows where they got it from. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) Xenon54 / talk / 02:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to add something to this, but I really think it would be a good idea to avoid using NoA for release dates period. According to this from their website, Tetris for the Game Boy was released in the US in June 1989...which is mighty strange given the Game Boy used to play it (and it was bundled with!) didn't come out until August. Even the other launch titles (Super Mario Land, Alleyway, etc) show an August date in the very same document, a mistake repeated by GameSpot.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd say not to list the release date at all in the infobox or list 1985-1986. I realize the october release date is inacurate, but the other sources do not support a claim for the infobox.陣内_Jinnai 07:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the most glaring issue in this whole discussion is that reliable sources get it wrong sometimes. IGN listed Kingdom Hearts X as the "The third chapter in the mash-up adventure of Square-Enix and Disney." The Sheng Long rumor persisted because other reliable publications didn't do fact checking (See Sheng Long#Original EGM April Fools 1992).

So while I have to concede that Kent maybe got it wrong, others have to logically concede that it's possible for other reliable sources to get it wrong as well. With that in mind, the lack of detailed evidence showing SMB around in the US during October 1985 and February 1986 points to an inaccurate piece of information. An mid to late-1986 date is the only one that makes sense to me.

While an October 1985 date is supported by reliable sources, I believe there is cause to ignore the rules in this case and use a 1986 date. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC))

I wholeheartedly agree. My thoughts are, if all the other resources/info that are supporting Kent's version did not exist then I could buy it as a simple issue of two reliable sources contradicting each other and one of them (Kent's) being wrong. But that's not the case here, and it is precisely a scenerio like this why we at the project go through multiple sources to evaluate and get a bigger picture. My own feeling is the same, sufficient evidence has been shown that the '85 date is incorrect and a "mid to late-1986" should be used in the infobox. Likewise, neutral prose should appear in the article that repeats some of the points raised here, i.e. that the current Nintendo corporation acknowledges an '85 date, Kent's variation and interviews with NOA people of the actual time of the release and supporting evidence (news, etc.), and Kung Fu Man's example of how the current Nintendo have other dates wrong such as the Tetris date. Basically a paragraph of neutral prose, as discussed earlier in the conversation, that summates everything leading to why IAR has been taken (not actually mentioning IAR of course, that doesn't belong in the article itself). --Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm biased, but this seems like the best compromise. It doesn't ignore the other sources and presents both sides. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC))

New information. On this discussion (near the bottom of the page), Kent, on his own blog (linked to from his website, sadsamspalace.com), says that SMB was released in Winter 1985. Does this change matters? Mario777Zelda (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Not that much I think. We've already established that the system was not released nation-wide in 1985. Also, it was not an arcade port like the original Mario Bros. The game started as NES exclusive and was ported to arcades after its console release, which was in September 1985 in Japan. I know how lame this sounds, but given the errors in his response, I'd guess he answered based on memory and didn't look up sources. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC))

Correct, an off the cuff remark from a distracted memory, and frankly I'm appaled at MarioZelda stooping to even try taking advantage of a retired author on their blog. His mind wasn't in the answer as it hasn't been in several years (he even had to correct himself once) - according to his own blog, he's smei-retired from video game journalism since 2005, focusing completely on novels and Sci-Fi authoring. You also neglected to mention what was in his own book (both editions) to him - and his book covers a very wide range, not just the NES or Nintendo - any time I've talked to him in the past about specifics, he always has to refer back to it directly. An off the cuff answer given while he's obviously (by his own admission) busy with his parents visit, and obviously in discussion on a completely unrelated topic, is hardly conclusive evidence to the contrary. If he had responded with "I checked my notes and interviews and..." or "I know I said this in my book, but since then I've found out...", then you might have something. But an off the cuff distracted answer? I've corrected that err and posted the following to him: "Steve, according to your own book (both editions) you stated the opposite - "When Nintendo went to New York, Super Mario Bros., which would become the linchpin during the national launch of the NES, had not yet been introduced." pg 297 ("The Seeds of Competition"). Furthermore, on pg 300 you state development of the US version did not begin until after it began being packed in to the Famicom version at the end of '85, development took a few months and it was ready for the national launch at the end of '86. I realize the other poster blindsided you with your mind elsewhere (your parent's visit). Hopefully quoting your book will help the matter." --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for following up Marty. But I'm sure Mario777 meant no ill will and was only trying to get to the bottom of this like we are. Hopefully between following up with Nintendo and Kent, we'll get some resolution. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC))

Here's his direct response: "Wgungfu, I just looked it up and you are correct. More importantly, I stand corrected, by myself and by the Mes suers Lincoln, Arakawa, and Philips, upon whose quotes much of that chapter was based. I still maintain that the arcade version of the game was available in 1994; but considering what I wrote at the time when all I ate, slept and breathed was video game history, I will stand by the book. Again, standing also by the first-hand recollection of the people I interviewed while writing the book. Wgungfu, thank you for bringing that it my attention." So now we have verification directly from him as well that the information was based directly on Lincoln, Arakawa, and Philips - all who were hands on directly invovled with the launch. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

As a follow up to this, Kent has now posted this info in a new blog entry at http://sadsamspalace.blogspot.com/2009/08/okay-now-that-i-haveofficially-looked.html, which gives us another source for the 1986 date. Indrian (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes and besides verifying the original answer on his blog was indeed off the cuff, now he also verified SMB wasn't available at the February test market either by stating Winter instead of just Christmas (the Winter season lasts of course from December through March) and stating just "limited trial launch" vs. one or the other (since both occured over winter). --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

And he just posted a comment further clarifying why the original off the cuff remark that has now been deleted - "Yeah, I tried to answer a question while entertaining my parents and cooking dinner simultaneously and fell short at all endeavors--my answer was wrong, my parents were bored, and my zucchini bread was raw in the middle. After having my errors pointed out to me, I decided to start again, this time paying attention to my work." --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I can accept a 1986 date now. However, he said it wasn't available during the winter of 1985; he didn't rule out the winter (January, February) of 1986, if I read that right (but he may have meant that whole season starting in 1985). Is he referring to some sort of winter retail season? I consider March to be spring. I'd hate to pester Kent about it, though, since Marty was so "appaled" last time. Mario777Zelda (talk) 23:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Winter in the US is officially December through late March, then Spring begins in late March, regardless of what you personally consider them defined as. Winter '86 would not begin until December of '86. And I was "appaled" at the rather shallow attempt at trying to put one over on people - asking him and running here saying "see, see, he said it on his own blog", without any attempt to clarify the conflict between what he previously published. That didn't have to come from me asking him, it could have just as easily been approached neutral by you, which it wasn't. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 00:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

That's part of the clarification I was looking for. I had thought that you meant (in your previous comment) through March 31. Additionally, meteorologists often define spring as beginning on March 1. However, this is just more discussion of extremely minor points; let's just ask Kent again. I'm sorry for that quick post; I was in a hurry earlier today. Mario777Zelda (talk) 02:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Section break 2

More new information. IGN has a detailed article called IGN Presents The History of Super Mario Bros. in which they claim SMB was released in the U.S. in 1985, and also give some explanation for the claim. What say ye? Mario777Zelda (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to say that article is similar to the other accounts, but this one is worded rather weird/poorly. I had to reread it a couple times to get it.

"In October 1985, the Famicom, by then redubbed the Nintendo Entertainment System, went to America in several forms -- one of which included a R.O.B. the Robot-less Super Mario Bros. bundled in the box."

This reads to me as "one form which included a ROB peripheral and not a Super Marion Bros. game (less Super Mario Bros.)". Also, the sentence about it's success doesn't give any time frame either. Super Mario Bros. did drive sales of the NES, but only after it was released. I'd file this as another ambiguous account. Others may disagree though. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC))

*Sigh* I thought we were done with this and now you were moving on to yet another agrument on it being available in Feb '86 or not. Honestly, this is getting ridiculous - unless you can find another interview with Licoln, Arakawa, and Philips that says otherwise, there's not much else to discuss. Nothing new here, that article was already known - they give no explination, no references, no actual facts, etc. and it looks to be a compendium of several other sources. It simply covers it in a single paragraph that states "In October 1985, the Famicom, by then redubbed the Nintendo Entertainment System, went to America in several forms -- one of which included a R.O.B. the Robot-less Super Mario Bros. bundled in the box. Arakawa found exactly one unenthusiastic distributor willing to gamble a limited stock in their New York stores as a test run. Expectations weren't high. That fad was over. Everyone expected the NES to sit on the shelves and stay there right through the upcoming holiday season." The entire paragraph is one big error - there were 500 retailers carrying it in the NY area, not one. Nobody expected it to sit on the shelves "right through the upcoming holiday season", becuase it wasn't being sold until the holiday (Christmas) season - again, October 18th is simply when they started approaching retailers for the Christmas season. There were two packages, the control deck and "deluxe" and neither one contained a pack-in SMB as we've already shown. Likewise the next sentence about "Only it didn't. Word got out about a system that blew Atari away, and the amazing game that came with it", again based on the fallacy it was a pack-in game, and that the system was well recieved - which as once again the press in January were saying it was a failure. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm honestly just curious, where do you get the figure of 500 retailers carrying SMB in the New York area? Anyway, SMB was available in the U.S. by mid-March, 1986. This Google News search, as mentioned earlier, confirms it. I actually bought the rights to look at the ad. Target is advertising NES systems for $139.99, and a Super Mario Bros. cartridge for $21.99. The ad is dated March 13, 1986. Mario777Zelda (talk) 23:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

"Even so, most of the 500 retailers who sold the NES that Christmas might not have taken the merchandise if it were not for a risky offer made by Arakawa himself - a money-back guarantee." Steven Kent, Ultimate History of Video Games pg 297.

Yes, as previously stated, that ad is the earliest one. However, you still need to verify if it was actually available or not being advertised for pre-advertising. Long before the concept of pre-ordering that's around at places like GameStop now, in those days games were actually advertised as available to garner interest before they were actually available, and the customer would fill out a raincheck - delays were a commonality. March seems reasonable for a test release of SMB in Los Angeles (given the previous test of the console itself that February), but given the volatility of game releases and advertisements, you'd still need additional references to state anything other than that's when it was first advertised. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 00:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Gah! Stupid edit conflicts!!! Anyway that ad is enough to meet WP:V and would probably pass WP:RS. Right now your placing too much emphasis on the late 86 date when a lot of those clearly state it came bundled with the NES and there was a time SMB did not.陣内_Jinnai 00:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that quote, Marty. I can't time travel to an L.A. Target store in 1986, but I can tell you that the price is a sale price (a reduction from the regular price of $24.99), and that other video games commonly listed as available at the time are also listed as on sale. Moreover, these sale prices are good through March 15; it would really appear that Target intended to sell the merchandise, not hand out rain checks. Do you have an example of this practice or a source confirming it? Mario777Zelda (talk) 01:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on character merging for Sonic.

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

List of antagonists in Xenosaga

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

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

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

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

I attempted to delete those articles but they were keep voted because of inclusionists. I think they should at least be merged, but there doesn't seem to be anyone willing to do maintenance.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

KOS-MOS could pass WP:N if someone wanted to actually work on her. On breif stints to find sources for MOMO almost every article talked about KOS-MOS and several giving paragraph more if not almost exclusively focusing on her role.陣内_Jinnai 20:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the references, I posted a mergefrom on List of characters in the Xenosaga series to see if that increases discussion on the move. Jeepday (talk) 23:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Partner peer review for Collins class submarine now open

The peer review for Collins class submarine, an article within the scope of the Military history WikiProject, is now open. The Military history WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 14:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Category for games with more than 1 disc?

I've been playing around with this idea in my head for a bit. Might there be a useful category here? I understand that there might be an overwhelming number of PS1 games here, so possibly make them a subcategory. Games with more than 1 disc very roughly indicate a certain threshold for content to justify a second disc. Also, starting in the PS2/GCN/Xbox era, I haven't heard of any games needing more than 2. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It's an unneeded triviality (and I say this as a relative inclusionist for trivial stuff). Most of the time multiple discs mean more/longer/higher quality movies than anything else, not more content inherently. Xenogears is about four times as long as Panzer Dragoon Saga (at the very least), despite having 2 discs to PDS's 4. And hell, Xenogears is itself a perfect example -- disc 1 has about 4-5 times the amount of game disc 2 has. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to point out that there are dozens and dozens of PC games with more than 1 disc (e.g. The X-Files Game 7 discs or King's Quest V 10 3.5" floppies). --Mika1h (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

International version

I've noticed that a lot of articles that use {{Vgrelease}} use the parameter INT= to list worldwide release dates. However that parameter links to the article International version which is not about worldwide releases but "relocalized version of a previously released title in its native territory that has gained additional features and contents in foreign releases." There's something contradictory here, isn't there? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by contradictory, it just sounds like a misunderstanding being caused by a vague name for a parameter. I suggest deprecating INT= and replacing it with something like relocalized=. If you meant that the article title was contradictory with what it actually means, I can see how it could be interpreted that way, but it can't really be helped -- it's jargon and that is the correct usage. Ham Pastrami (talk) 08:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I mean the parameter INT= is widely used for "worldwide release" (a game which is released on the same day in Japan, America, Europe, etc.), but the link International version refers to something totally different (a game which is re-released in Japan after having been released somewhere else). The article International version is fine; the problem is that people are linking to it via INT= as if it were about worldwide releases. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 08:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

So what's to be done? Not only is the name mistaken to mean "international release date", its context is different from the other parameters. The other parameters are for regional release dates for the original game, while INT= is a secondary Japanese release date for a new version of the game. IMO this is overloading the infobox field. International versions should be treated the same as any other "deluxe edition" type of release, and not be in the infobox. So I would suggest removal of this field or deprecation as above. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually we do list "deluxe" versions if they are released and marketed separately. Usually this is not the case.陣内_Jinnai 03:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Garfieldfan78138

Someone familiar with the Sonic series should take a look at the contrib history of User:Garfieldfan78138. Most of his edits look pretty questionable. — RockMFR 23:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I, Robot (arcade game)

Since Development sections are not my strongest section to work on, can I get help with I,Robot's? GamerPro64 (talk) 20:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Icewind Dale II

Is anyone able to help out this hard-working soul? BOZ (talk) 02:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Able-bodied reviewers, report!

This is an open call to any experienced good article reviewers; in case you weren't aware there's currently a sweeps project going on to reassess old GAs and make sure they're still up to spec (or meet current criteria). It's slow going, but we're reaching the end... there's still a few video game articles that need to be checked, and I've got my hands full with everything else. If you're interested in helping out, read this and jump in. Thanks, --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Another port collection question

Like the Metroid Prime: Trilogy (which included ports of two GC games to the Wii), there's now going to be a God of War Collection that will provide PS3 ports of the first two PS2 titles. Note that the port version of the individual game is not by itself.

Question: For the purposes of a game's infobox, if there is a future port of it that is part of another title (as the case above) as opposed to its own standalone product, should the port-as-collection details (platform, release date, etc.) be added to the original game's infobox? I'm thinking not - because while it is that game that is being ported, it is not be sold as that game in the port; it's the collection that is. --MASEM (t) 16:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless it was a multi-platform release, I've always avoided release information for ports because I believe the article should focus on the original game. (See Space Invaders, Marble Madness, and Robotron: 2084, which have all been released as part of compilation titles as well as stand-alone ports for different platforms.) The port information is mentioned in a relevant section and the categories are added as well, but I like to keep the infobox tidy and focused. Cramming the relevant information here into an infobox seems excessive and tangential to me. Of course though, I don't know if we have a guideline for this. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC))

Well, it should still mention the release dates of all the documented re-releases if they were not mere reprints.陣内_Jinnai 22:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking at how Metroid Prime 3: Corruption does it, where it calls out the name of the collection, seems to be a fair representation and distinction in the box. That is, as long as all aspects of the changes in infobox fields are marked as being in the collection, then it's clear that it's a port or repackaging. However, this is not consistent with the other MP articles but should be easily fixed. I will try to add some language to the guidelines to reflect this. --MASEM (t) 16:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost article

Hi everyone! I'd like to do a report on this WikiProject for an upcoming edition of the Wikipedia Signpost. Are there any members who are familiar with how the WikiProject works and its history and who would be willing to answer a few questions? Thanks! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 13:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Not that I'm complaining, but we already did a report in March 08. Is it our turn again?

History-wise, Jacoplane is probably the most knowledgeable among our active members. He's been around longer than most of us. There are a number of members that are knowledgeable about and active in the project's workings: myself, Kung Fu Man, KieferSkunk, MuZemike, MrKIA11, Masem, David Fuchs and a few others that aren't coming to mind right now, but I'm sure will pop up here. :-p (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC))

Well, I'm interested in helping out if needed. It has been 18 months since the last interview, so I'm not going to complain too much :P We can really just jump off the questions from the last one and hopefully talk about issues that affect all projects. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

As a disclaimer, I'm utterly unqualified to talk on the WikiProject as I'm relatively new and only show my head up at obscure times (such as now, HELLO!). Anyhow, I just wondered what format this report would take. Whilst I generally approve of the original format (asking questions that are answered by a selection of members) the article itself isn't pleasing to read though admittedly I'm not sure what I don't like about it. I also share the surprise at re-investigation since there appear to only have been two WikiProject reports since VG's last (Australia and The Simpsons), but welcome anybody interested in the Project with open arms and a whole host of cheerful commentary. Though, to regain my questioning stance, what format is this report likely to take? Cheers! Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 22:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There's actually been many more: Oregon, Years, Food and Drink, Chemistry, LGBT Studies, Opera, Birds, Michael Jackson, Final Fantasy, Films, Color, China, Judaism, Christianity, Norse History and Culture, Islam, Gaelic games, Music, Motto of the Day, Pharmacology, Ice Hockey, Solar System, and Military History. --PresN 22:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, and New York State Routes. They're listed here- User:Cryptic_C62/Interviews. --PresN 22:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Good call. I was dubious, but thought it was worth asking. Also, the format looks a lot nicer in more recent reports, due to the new Signpost design. So no qualms there. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 15:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! I've prepared some questions at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/WikiProject report/Video games; responses (on that page) from anyone here would be very appreciated. Thanks again! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Main Halo Games Question

I got a question on the three main Halo games. I can understand that Halo: Combat Evolved for being a High-important article because it was a revolutionary FPS and Halo 2 for its help with online play, but should Halo 3 be a High-important article, too? If so, What's the explanation? GamerPro64 (talk) 00:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure "best-selling game on a major console" is justification for High-class, even if it's basically the same as previous iterations. Someone is welcome to correct me if that's not the case. Nifboy (talk) 00:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Per our new importance scale, it looks like just being a best-selling title isn't enough to be "High" anymore. I quick read of the article didn't point out any major impact or legacy outside of the series. I'd say moving it down to "Mid" would be a justifiable edit. Though it wouldn't hurt to see what a few others think too, so there's more of a consensus.

General FYI- Be sure to update Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Essential articles with any importance or quality changes to important articles. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC))

Heroes list in Kingdom Under Fire: Heroes

I'm not familiar with all the nuances of the WP:VG/GL ... can someone more familiar with this project take a look at Kingdom Under Fire: Heroes#Heroes? The Heroes list seems excessive to me - at the very list it's written in an in-universe style, for which I've tagged it. But it also seems to be more about the characters than about the encyclopedic mechanics involved around them. Can someone either assist or provide feedback here? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)