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

Edge - Broken links

The Edge website has just undergone a redesign. Its actually a new back-end system as well as a redesign. The articles and reviews appear to have made it across OK by the looks of things, but the URLs of them have changed.

The easy part: All of the reviews appear to have moved from http://www.next-gen.biz/features/stacking-review to their new location of http://www.next-gen.biz/reviews/stacking-review

The hard part: The features (such as A short history of Lucas Arts and The 100 best games to play today) have moved across OK, and are still in the same directory hierarchy, but, their URLs appear to have changed ever so slightly, and in a non-uniform way.

(Old URL on top, new URL underneath)

http://www.next-gen.biz/features/a-short-history-lucasarts

http://www.next-gen.biz/features/short-history-lucasarts

http://www.next-gen.biz/features/the-100-best-games-to-play-today

http://www.next-gen.biz/features/100-best-games-play-today

The "Just to make it more awkward" part: The search function on the site appears to only work for users who are signed in. Not sure if this is by design, or just a bug to do with the move. Accessing content still works OK for non-logged in users, but searching for anything will result in failure.

According to LinkSearch we have 534 links to check. The reviews should be easy with a bit of nifty RegEx, the features look like they may need the manual approach though. - X201 (talk) 12:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• *sigh* when will publishers realize that bare URLs are meant to be permanent (even if you provide redirects to the new location...) 500 links (ignoring talk pages ) probably can be easily burned through with a dedicated effort. AWB gives me back only about 350 non-talk article pages, here User:Masem/Edge URL Fix List. --MASEM (t) 12:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I say we write a well written letter explaining the damage that moving pages and deleting links causes. Then try and get publishers to forward it as a chain letter. :O _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
    • This is why I WebCite every page of every web article that I use as a reference. Unless they're already in the Internet Archive, that is. I don't think publishers will ever learn. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there an automatic way of converting citations to WebCite versions? In the same style as Reflinks? - X201 (talk) 08:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

No, there's a bot that's broken and in limbo, but right now you have to doit manually. I have a python script that submits requests and modifies txt versions of articles that I've downloaded, but it tends to get my ip tempbanned from webcite. :) --PresN 04:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Right, so that's the links that start next-gen checked and fixed. There are 21 that need further work to hunt down a working link. Love the irony that the Edge article is the one most affected by the the URL changes. Now onward to help young Ost316 with the articles that start with edge-online - X201 (talk) 12:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

We're gonna need a bigger boat

Just when I thought I was nearing the end... have just discovered that there are also http://www.edge-online.com references that are broken as well. Any of these URLs that has a ?page= command at the end of the URL is breaking, remove that and it tends to redirect to the correct article. Not sure of best way to proceed with this: Bot to remove the ?page= code, or the safe and sure manual way. Masem, could you knock up a separate URL page like you did for the Next-Gen URLs please? So we can see how many we're dealing with. - X201 (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit: for "remove that and it tends to" - please substitute "remove that and it rarely" :-( - X201 (talk) 13:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yikes. I think I've got most of the Edge ones for Halo archived already as they already dropped features off the face of the earth on me before, but I'll double-check. Thanks all for the heads-up. (And why didn't Quint just take the fancy metal boat Dreyfuss' character rolled in on? Another topic for another time.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

edge-online list User:Masem/EdgeOnline URL Fix List. --MASEM (t) 13:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. - X201 (talk) 13:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Helpful hint- seems like all urls that were at edge-online.com/magazine/whatever are now at next-gen.biz/features/whatever, and they're not redirecting, unlike the /news/ ones. --PresN 18:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Also Checklinks appears not to work. Have just tested it on an article, Checklinks said it was OK when it was actually just pointing at the website home page. - X201 (talk)

(Super) Famicom or (Super) Nintendo Entertainment System

Doing some edits in preparation for Dragon Warrior's FAC, several people outside of the project have had trouble understanding the usage of Famicom (and Super Famicom) and some copyedits have changed it to the NES/SNES respectively. Others have simply had outright confusion as to what they are are.

The issue with Dragon Warrior comes with the whole section devoted to its localization and people get confused because they assume its for a different system; that the Famicom and NES are not in any way related.

So with that said, should we use the NES/SNES names and only mention the first instance that the system is called something different, ie "The NES (known in Japan as the Famicom)...", only use it for Japanese exclusive titles or not at all?陣内_Jinnai 15:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Well they're not the same, so I think it would be a mistake to use Famicom and NES interchangeably. Usually you would just call it Famicom, wikilink it, and let readers figure it out, but if you think it's a problem you can throw in some explanatory language. I would probably use a footnote, but in-text would work just as well. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that if you are talking about the Japanese version, you should call it the Famicon, because that is what it was. Don't call them something they aren't. If possible, just avoid using the words entirely to avoid confusion. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Yea, the problem comes when you have to deal with different versions of a release like DW and the versions are radically different. I think the general public, given the statements I've read, will if I go with footnotes question why even bother noting the difference as it appears to be a simple name-change. I've actually had that said to me. I've also gotten that Famicom and Nintendo Entertainment System link to the same page and even the same section (ie there Famicom goes to the top of the page), so I've also had people say its must be close enough that we should just use the NA name.陣内_Jinnai 15:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I ran into the same thing when writing Final Fantasy. It turned into a lengthy debate that found its way to this talk page a few years ago: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 71#NES vs Famicom. I ended up using NES/SNES; the consistency avoids confusion. The regional names don't change the fact that the NES was just the Western version of the Famicom. That being said, we should use the term that the English-speaking layman will understand. I believe that to be NES/SNES. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC))

To me (and also as Blake pointed out above), it always depends on context. Another example would be whether to use "Sega Genesis" or "Sega Mega Drive" – if a 16-bit Sega game was released only in North America, then it would make sense to call say "Sega Genesis"; however, if a game only came out in Europe or was primarily known there, then "Sega Mega Drive" would be OK. In the context of Dragon Warrior, the 16-bit remake was only released in Japan, so it makes sense to call it by the Japanese name of the system, the "Super Famicom". –MuZemike 17:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If its come up before, perhaps we should come to some kind of standard that is codified in our guidelines? I'm okay with using (Super) Famicom with Japanese-only games and (S)NES for games originally released in English, the trouble comes with those games that get translated, especially historically signifigant ones that'll likely be much more heavily looked at in an FAC like FF and DW.

Things get really tricky when you have remakes that only come out in 1 region like DW rename for the Super Famicom. Since NES would be used previously if we go with Guyinblack's way, using SF would just likely confuse an English audiance. On the other hand, switching between Famicom and NES also confuses them.陣内_Jinnai 17:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I think generalizing the name to (S)NES is the way to go because our audience will largely be ignorant to the differences. Having it be context sensitive requires us to also explain the context to the reader. That may be easy for some games that were released in only one region, but as Jinnai points out, it becomes complicated in other situations. I think using the common English name for all cases will serve our readers better and make writing easier for us. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC))

A similar situation is Pokémon Red and Blue vs Pokémon Red and Green. For example, are Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen remakes of which? Obviously Green version, but putting that in the article would greatly confuse 90% of readers because they have never heard of such a game, so it says that LeafGreen is a remake of Blue. Trying to explain something like that without being too wordy is very difficult. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 18:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Try "Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen are GBA remakes of the Gameboy versions of Pokémon Red and Blue respectively Blue uses the coding from Pocket Monsters: Blue, but the Pokemon and gameplay from the Japanese release of Green." - That wasn't as verbose as you claimed it would need to be. Yes, there was some additional text needed to clarify how LeafGreen was linked to Blue, but it doesn't take that much. It's only made more difficult when you want to rename the systems also.陣内_Jinnai 21:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it depends on context. For example only using the English console name would not make sense for the video game Mother (video game). The reason is it was released on the Famicom and then was later announced to be released in North America under the name Earth Bound but was later cancelled. In that case it would make more sense to use both Famicom and Nintendo Entertainment System or we would have a case where it would be implied the game was released and cancelled on the same system. In that case it would likely be even more confusing if we did not use both names.--76.69.168.124 (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there aren't all that many games relevant to the NES that are so different on the Famicom that it's worth noting the Famicom in particular. Most games that are Famicom-specific are either Japan-only games or are games that were made specifically for the Famicom and took advantage of features only available on that system (like Famicom Disk System games - Zelda, Metroid, etc.). This is even less the case for SNES/Super Famicom games, since (to my knowledge) very few cross-region SNES games used SuperFam-specific features. So I agree with stating NES/SNES since that's what the majority of our readers are likely to know, except for special cases. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Even with special cases (like the Earth Bound game mentioned above), I think you could avoid using the term "Famicom" by referring to the region(s) the release applied to. I believe that provides better jargon-free prose. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 03:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC))

So we use it even for games released exclusively in Japan?陣内_Jinnai 01:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I think just adding some clarification would be the best bet here. For instance in the Mother article, after it says the game was released for Famicom, it should be noted that the Famicom is known the NES in the rest of the world, and then let it be. Famicom should still be mentioned as the platform the game was released for.--SexyKick 02:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I just redid Dragon Warrior. I was able to remove all but 1 mention of Famicom/Family Computer and some for Super Famicom. The former is mentioned at the first point in development. The Super Famicom is kept because its part of a title. I would have removed the former, but its necessary for understanding the latter when it comes up.陣内_Jinnai 02:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it should work out assuming that people don't try to go overboard. For example the Family Computer Disk System should not be moved to Nintendo Entertainment System Disk System since that device was never released or marketed under that name, the same for the Twin Famicom. Also on Mega Drive article mentions some of Sega's slogans for their system and I wouldn't think that falsfing a slogan is a good idea since Mega Drive does what Nintend'ont was never a slogen.--76.66.180.220 (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course. This is strictly for prose in articles. Different guidelines would apply to the article names. The prose in the respective console articles would also have more leeway given that the terms would be explained in the lead and the rest of the article. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 03:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC))

I previously stated that I was in favor of using "NES/SNES" in general situations, but a discussion on Talk:List of Donkey Kong video games has me thinking I should clarify my position: I think that when a singular release has occurred for both Famicom and NES at the same general time, or when the time doesn't matter (all we're saying is that it's out on both), then just saying "NES" instead of "NES/Famicom" should be fine. But in more specific instances, like the one being debated at the DK list, I think we should stick with the most accurate and specific term that applies to the entry in question.

In the specific case of the DK list, I disputed a reference to DK being released on the NES in 1983, two years before the American NES itself was released. I felt that saying it had been released in 1983 on that console was confusing and misleading - someone would have to know a lot about the history of the game and the consoles to realize that we really meant "Famicom" there. The fix I put in place for that specific entry was to go ahead and say "Famicom" for 1983, and make a separate entry for "NES" in 1985. But that, of course, might cause some confusion because now we're talking about two apparently-different systems, and again someone MIGHT need to have advanced knowledge to know the relationship between them. But IMO, that's what the article link is for - if someone goes "What's a Famicom?" and clicks on it, they'll be taken to the NES article which has info on the Japanese version.

Nutshell: I think the best policy is to use the more common name when both apply, to reduce wordiness and awkward referencing, but to be as specific and accurate as possible (within reason, of course) when referring to a specific instance. To me, DK in 1983 on the NES is wrong, but to say the game had been released in the 1980s on the NES would be accurate. Does that make sense? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Genesis vs. Mega Drive

Does that mean we should also wipe out "Genesis" in favor of "Mega Drive" everywhere, even in prose referring to North America only? Or vice versa, even in prose referring only to other parts of the world? Anomie⚔ 04:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Huh, I hadn't considered that. I'm inclined to say that we should favor Mega Drive for the same reasons I mentioned above. Unless there's a compelling argument that it should be an exception. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 05:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC))

In general I'd be willing to go with that, once the statement I just asked above is clarrified, save that it doesn't seem to be the most common.

• Sega Genesis ~8 pages
• Sega Master Drive ~8 pages
• Sega Genesis - Google scholar ~8 pages
• Sega Master Drive - Google scholar - 1 source
• Sega Genisis - general google search ~8.5m
• Sega Master Drive ~37.5t

This needs some more searching because it appears Genesis > Master Drive, except for the customized RS search we use. That one requires more care looking at the sources to see if they really are "reliable". However, even then I think it would only apply with WP:COMMONNAME for the article's title, not the body text.陣内_Jinnai 01:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Master SYSTEM, Mega DRIVE. Personally, I don't think this is a popularity contest. So long as we're consistent within individual articles, I don't think there's a right way or a wrong way to approach this. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 01:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

"Sega Genesis" is really the common name, the article is only called Mega Drive because that's the original name of the system.

1. The Sega Genesis was the most successful brand of the Mega Drive, with sales accounting for over 55% of the consoles sold bearing the name "Sega Genesis".
2. There are more native English speaking people in North America than everywhere else in the world combined.
3. Genesis name is used on GameFAQs, GameSpot, GameRankings and other CNET websites, as well as MobyGames, Ebay, and Amazon.com. These are sites a user new to the subject would go to, and are considered valid resources for Wikipedia articles within context. (as Sega Genesis was the name which most controversy was sparked under)
4. To date, no equal importance third-party websites shown using the Mega Drive name as a primary have been presented in this discussion.
5. Sega continues to use Genesis branding for North America releases. See Sega Genesis Collection.
6. Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), by far the most English references used in the article use the name "Sega Genesis" or simply "Genesis".
7. People new to the subject are more common for English speakers to encounter it as "Sega Genesis" due to the primary hubs used for information on video games for said group.
8. Sega Genesis name is much more common to produce results in search engines over Mega Drive, and Sega Genesis turns up more google search results than Sega Mega Drive.
9. Sega Genesis was the brand that was first presented to English speaking consumers.
10. Original name doesn't matter - only common name.

That being said, here are three reasons why the Mega Drive article is not called the "Sega Genesis" article.

1. The product was intended to be called Mega Drive in America, but a trademark dispute prevented it.
2. The product is originally named Mega Drive in Japan.
3. Apart from North American countries, the product was released in all other countries as Mega Drive.

I know it may not be this simple, but this is the best information I can present to this part of the discussion. I disagree with only mentioning one name over the other in all contexts. Mega Drive (Sega Genesis in North America) should be used when discussing a game that did not come out in North America, and vice versa.--SexyKick 02:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

First off, before using amazon, ebay, etc one should check their UK counterparts and perhaps also the AU one for ebay. (Google shouldn't matter so much as it hits the same sources, just different priorities).

Anyway new and correct search results:

• Sega Mega Drive - google ~3.5m
• Sega Mega Drive - google scholar ~2 pages
• Sega Mega Drive - RS search ~8 pages

I'll note our RS search seems to cap at 8 pages so the only general RS search that shows a difference at-a-glance is the scholarly online sources favoring Genesis 4:1.陣内_Jinnai 02:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Because more text has been generated about it by US based writers as opposed to other nationalities. Just because the population of North America is bigger, does that mean we have to change the name of everything to the North American version and become the North American Wikipedia as opposed to the English Language Wikipedia? - X201 (talk) 11:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Certainly not. Wikipedia only stresses to use common names for article names, while still listing the alternative names. What's important is that we don't go by just one name over another, omitting the other name completely (like some have suggested here in regards to Famicom). If (if) my understanding is correct, and more text has been generated about it by North American based writers, and more people in North America know about Sega's 16-bit console than the people in other countries, then, isn't that common name? Not only that but Sega's 16-bit console was introduced to English natives as the Sega Genesis, before the PAL release of the Mega Drive.--SexyKick 12:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe that alternating between interchangeable terms that the reader is unfamiliar will lead to confusion. There's no need to use gaming jargon, especially when region names will accomplish the same thing more easily for the general reader. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC))

I guess some of us are just a little confused on how stating the simple name of the system in one region is something else could ever be considered jargon? Now if we were simply spamming acronyms, that'd be jargon. As long as there's wikilinks and the reader has enough common sense to either read the intro, or click the wikilink then it should be all good. Right? That's two "well of course they'd do that" ways out right there.--SexyKick 15:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I consider it jargon in the same sense that we consider HP, unlocked, respawning, and the like as jargon; i.e. they are terms frequently used by gamers in the context of games. I've seen the terms used in a confusing manner too often—Famicom, specifically, is one of the worst offenders. I think Genesis/Mega Drive, however, is less of an issue. Regardless, I believe uniformity will avoid confusion and better serve our audience. Even if the wikilink is there for the reader, there's no sense sending them to another page just so they can understand the page they are currently on. Article pages should be fairly self-contained as far as providing information about a topic.

All that being said- If you can word the information in a straight-forward manner, then cool beans. But I think adding this to our style guidelines would do wonders. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC))

I would agree those three examples you posted are jargon, but not Famicom. Either way, if you're studying a new subject, of course you're going to have to use wikilinks and go all over the place if you want to understand. For example when I was using Wikipedia to learn about Sucralose, or Energy Drinks, I had to use about two dozen wikilinks before I was done. If I were to go learn about Dragon Warrior/Dragon Quest, and I didn't know anything about the NES or Famicom, I would expect to have to learn about both systems.--SexyKick 05:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Those links are there to provide further information for those interested, but we shouldn't force a reader to leave the page just so they can understand it. I've done that many times myself and find it troublesome. And more often than not, it happens in a lower class article. Sucralose and Energy drink, for example, are B and start clase, respectively. When shooting for GA and higher (which is a common practice for our project), we should strive to construct the article as best as possible.

Regardless, the NES and Famicom are simply two regional names for the same system. The only real difference between the two is the regional lock out system Nintendo put on the NES. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC))

As Guyinblack says, Wikipedia is meant for the average reader to understand. Wikilinks are there for more detailed understanding for those interested, but the article itself should be able to stand alone without confusion. Thus when terms like Famicom, Super Famicom (and to an extent Mega Drive) are used, the average reader who is not stepped in the gaming history is likely to be confused. They probably have heard of the NES or SNES and the Genesis (even if they were in Europe). They probably will have a WTF moment when they see Famicom and for the majority of English readers, Mega Drive. That's not to say there aren't times when one can and should mention those names, but one should think "What does it add?" and "Can I explain this without using those terms?" Most of the time one can, but not always. I had to make reference to Famicom in Dragon Warrior because one of the soundtrack titles which was revewed used the term. However, had that not happened, it could have been left out entirely.陣内_Jinnai 20:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah. All right then.--SexyKick 23:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Re-reading some of my earlier comments, I think I may not have been as clear as Jinnai just was. Sorry for the confusion.

To sum up and hopefully gain a consensus, I think that we should add something about regional names to our guidelines. Of course, being guidelines, they are meant to be best practices and are subject to case by case analysis. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC))

Proposed wording

This is the proposed worded for WP:VG/GL. Note I'm including games here also because they'd follow similar practices.

For systems and games, English terms are proffered over foreign ones when the difference would be beyond those who do not have the history and/or technical knowledge to tell the difference. For example, while the Famicom is not quite the same as the NES the differences are so minor that they are generally considered the same system. For systems with multiple English names, the one most widely cited by reliable sources should be used. For example, Sega Genesis is more widely used than Sega Mega Drive. Articles should generally avoid mention of the foreign names unless there is a good reason, such as it being part of the title, there are changes that rely on one of those specific regional versions, etc.

I'm not sure if we should allow foreign-released titles only to be automatically exempted. I'm not in favor of this after considering it because in most circumstances you can explain things with the descriptor "Japanese" or whatever country it is.

Thought?陣内_Jinnai 01:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

On the one hand I consider this method to be generally less informative, on the other hand I understand why we're doing this. But, if Sega Genesis is the common name, should we change the title of that, and the related articles - List of Sega Mega Drive games and Sega Mega-CD?--SexyKick 02:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

SexyKick- This would apply to article content only. WP:COMMONNAME would apply to article titles.

Jinnai- The wording looks good to me. And I don't believe that we should automatically exempt foreign exclusives. When mentioning system names in the article, we should stick to the common English term. When mentioning the game title, I think we should stick to the common name, whether that is Japanese or English.

And I'm almost afraid to ask how this would apply to something like Aerith? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC))

I don't understand, how is commonterm different from commonname? I thought this discussion was 100% revolving around commonname.--SexyKick 15:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No real difference. Just my terminology to differentiate from common name, which we typically use when discussing article titles. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC))

No difference, just where it applies.

As for Areith/Aeris, well that would really take a more fine-tooth comb similar to what we did with Goku/Son Goku spelling.陣内_Jinnai 23:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:Crafting video games

I've been wondering if Category:Crafting video games is an encyclopaedic category and if it doesn't violate WP:OVERCAT? It seems a bit arbitrary to categorize games based on individual features. It does not look like there are many other category examples like this. I would think this is similar to categorizing something like Category:Video games featuring weapons. I haven't spent too much time looking at VG categories, so I'm asking here first before possible CfD. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd say it is an overcat just because there really aren't any games focused solely and mainly on crafting. I mean, even Minecraft is crafting towards the aim of actually building stuff. Unless there's documented evidence of this being a viable schema or subgenre, I don't think it makes much sense. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

What he said. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC))

Not only that, but its poorly defined. I was thinking it was just stuff like Cooking Mama and here I see The Lord of the Rings Online: Shadows of Angmar as a crafting game. WTF?陣内_Jinnai 01:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The line seems to be games in which new items are created rather than existing items are augmented. It doesn't seem to be a useful categorization and in practice is a bucket to sling the vast majority of MMORPGs and other randomly related games into. There may be a few games with an emphasis on item creation (in particular I'm thinking of the Atelier RPG series), but there can't be many. Someoneanother 20:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I have CfDed the category at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_August_17#Category:Crafting_video_games and took the liberty of copying the above replies there. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Updated WP:VG/FC

I just updated Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Featured content to better describe everything listed. Some one may want to give it look to see if further edits are necessary. I also added Robin Hunicke and Circle strafing in Featured picture and Former featured sections. Did I miss any other pictures or other Featured content? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC))

Thoughts on moving Mass Effect (series) to Mass Effect?

I'm never too certain on how to interpret things like #5 at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(video_games)#Disambiguation. The article does meet the requirements (three video game articles, with the third one still announced but yet-to-be-released, with plenty of extra related articles like comic books, etc.) So is it time to move the article? Personally I just went to Mass Effect and just assumed that it would be the series article since the popularity of the series rises with each new entry, rather than the first game in the series having had an immediate impact when it was first released, so most references to "Mass Effect" would, I think, be to the series rather than the first game. Gary King (talk · scripts) 23:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Series with multiple games and spin off media. I would clearly say that the series is more recognizable than the first video game. --MASEM (t) 23:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree, more like massive effect these days. Not that I can stand the series (blech). Someoneanother 23:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay well another reason that I brought this here is because Mass Effect (video game) already exists, so an admin needs to perform this move. Gary King (talk · scripts) 02:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd do it but I think a bit more time for discussion might not hurt since this was moved back and forth. Personally, I'd support the move though, the reasons mentioned above are pretty convincing. Regards SoWhy 19:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

There is currently a move request on the page for the video game which has yet to be commented by anyone other other than the user who made the request so comments should probably be made there.--76.66.180.220 (talk) 00:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Question about external links

An anon has been placing external links in various articles [1] [2] from IMDB. Since that site is reliable, can it used as an external link? I also had the same questions with the wikias which are being added in various articles. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 16:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

2¢ External links should be encyclopaedic or at least very useful. Some games have Wikis that indeed cover every miniscule detail and have a devoted fanbase to keep it updated and well-presented. No problem to include a link to such Wiki. IMDB on the other hand is case-by-case basis; usaully they only list video games/characters as directory entries, without any useful info. We don't link to IGN/Gamespot or whatever pages (at least I think/hope so), and neither should we to IMDB in such cases. On the other hand, if the character appears in a wide media franchise, it may be useful to link to IMDB. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Question about Unsuccessful Fan Petitions

This is a discussion that originated on Operation Moonfall, Operation Rainfall, and 100,000 Strong for Bringing Back Mega Man Legends 3. What are the criteria for making a standalone article about a fan petition? Online gaming news sites crank out enough information 24/7 to establish noteworthiness of dozens of unsuccessful petitions, is volume of coverage the sole qualifier? Some examples:

• Dedicated Servers for Modern Warfare 2 Petition
  • http://kotaku.com/5403680/all-out-war-games
  • http://www.joystiq.com/2009/10/19/petition-for-dedicated-servers-in-modern-warfare-2-growing-rapid/
  • http://www.joystiq.com/2009/10/20/infinity-ward-responds-to-modern-warfare-2-dedicated-server-peti/
  • http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/modern_warfare_2_disallows_dedicated_servers_generates_85000_signature_petition
  • http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2009/10/21/infinity-ward-responds-to-modern-warfare-2-petition/
• Starcraft 2 LAN Multiplayer Petition
  • http://kotaku.com/5304995/and-the-starcraft-ii-lan-petitioning-commences
  • http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/92818-Fans-Petition-For-StarCraft-II-LAN-Blizzard-Responds
  • http://www.destructoid.com/over-100-000-nerds-sign-starcraft-ii-lan-petition-144437.phtml
  • http://www.1up.com/news/petition-protesting-lack-starcraft-lan
  • http://pc.ign.com/articles/100/1003148p1.html
• Anti-Diablo 3 Petition
  • http://kotaku.com/5021118/diablo-fans-petition-against-diablo-iii
  • http://kotaku.com/5021491/diablo-iii-producer-+-color-is-your-friend
  • http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/40493/Blizzard-Responds-to-Diablo-III-Fan-Petition
  • http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/starcraft-ii-lan-petition-gets-100-000-sigs
  • http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/darker-diablo-fan-petition-rejected
  • http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2008/07/02/diablo-iii-art-direction/
  • http://www.destructoid.com/bitchy-diablo-fans-whine-about-diablo-iii-s-art-direction-93237.phtml

Should diversity of sources (e.g. something other than a gaming website), success of the petition, or any other factor play a role? 100,000 Strong for Bringing Back Mega Man Legends 3 has already been merged but I believe there is sufficient material to expand a standalone article if no other factors apply. On the other hand, I also believe the basic gist of any of these petitions could easily be covered on the related game article if that made more sense. Suggestions? - Crabbattler (talk) 18:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me to be the case that articles on fan petitions are particularly encyclopedic (though they may be notable!). Without having assessed the articles or news articles, it would seem to me that such petitions would be best covered in the related game article in a paragraph or two, at most. Less, if it's not particularly important to the game's content. --Izno (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I think they could be mentioned if they have garnered sufficient coverage to be relevant in a given article (our notability guidelines are probably good in determining this). I mean, what we don't want is to mention some unknown online petition from some Joe Schmoe Forumite from some back-in-the-wood fan forum that nobody knows about and has only 20 or so signatures. –MuZemike 18:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I would think one thing that would be important would be if there has been coverage over a period of time. For example if the the coverage of the campaign was a one or two day story it would be different than if the campaign was covered months later. Operation Rainfall in particular was still being covered about a month and a half later.--76.66.180.220 (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I really don't think any of those campaigns are particularly notable, given that the chances of having a longterm impact are fairly limited. If "Rainfall" factored in to Nintendo's decision to release a game, a mention of the petition might be worth a sentence to a paragraph in that article, but I don't see much reason for such a limited-scope article otherwise. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Given the fact that (unless they actually proof successful) that MML3 is not coming, it makes sense to use the otherwise empty void of a notable unreleased game to talk about the fan petitions that have been noted in sources, using redirects to point to them. If MML3 does suddenly arrive, then these can be broken out into an article (if needed) to discuss the announcement, cancellation, petitions, and subsequent reannouncement. --MASEM (t) 00:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

So the consensus here is that none of the articles mentioned warrant being standalone topics? - Crabbattler (talk) 19:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that yet, no. Only a handful of people responded, and atleast one said that it would be acceptable if there is enough coverage, which is what I feel as well. Some of them, like the Megaman one, deserved to be redirected because majority of the article was merely info about the game series itself. I think it all depends on third party coverage, AND if there's enough things to be said, like continuous developments, or if it's merely "Party X has a petition, Party Y says it's still not happening, the end." Sergecross73 msg me 19:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Based on a discussion at the Majora's Mask article it looks likely that Moonfall will be merged so the real question is about Operation Rainfall which IMO has the best coverage of the three petitions.--76.66.180.220 (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, there's not that much there at the Moonfall article. I'd be fine if that was merged. But I feel like there's enough coverage and content at the Operation Rainfall article to keep it. Sergecross73 msg me 20:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Some of them, like the Megaman one, deserved to be redirected because majority of the article was merely info about the game series itself. - There is ongoing coverage about the campaign and a wealth of information about it. Pretty much everything that exists in the Operation Rainfall article (company response, response to the company response, and in this case even company response to the response to the company response) has a parallel. If that wasn't all included in the redirected article then this conversation is partly about whether that article should be revived and expanded to the same point as Operation Rainfall if possible (and I'm pretty sure it is). Some entire paragraphs of the Operation Rainfall article are totally incidental to the campaign and more about the games than anything else, as well.

If this is what we want to agree petition articles should be like, let's examine the composition of the Operation Rainfall article. The first two paragraphs are a summary of the rest of the article and the games it's about. The next half paragraph is incidental information about Nintendo of France wanting to exhibit Xenoblade (there's a parallel with CyberConnect2 wanting to continue Megaman Legends 3), with no reliable source provided showing a direct link between it and the formation of Operation Rainfall. The next half paragraph is a foundation of the campaign (which all stories we're talking about have a parallel for). The next paragraph, "concept", describes the structure of the campaign. Most campaigns have a coordinated write-in effort, the main difference here is that there is an Amazon purchase campaign for Operation Rainfall. But is exactly one more detail, not covered by sources who weren't talking about the campaigns anyway, enough to render this article-worthy? The final two sections are about coverage, company responses (both again with Megaman Legends parallel) and other petitions. I think I'm missing what makes that topic so much stronger vs. the others. - Crabbattler (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

WPVG's quality scale definitions vs. their practical use

There seems to be a decently-sized gulf between the way Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Assessment defines the various article classes, and the way they're used by editors. The following three are articles I've recently started--I know it'd be more objective to link articles others started, but I don't really have the time spare to research at the moment--which have been rated as Start (the first) and Stub (the latter two): iCade, iControlPad, Nyko Wand. While I may have some personal bias as to their quality, I think it'd be quite neutral to say their ratings as defined by the project seem not to line up with their status.

Class	Criteria	Reader's experience	Editing suggestions	Example
Start	An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and may require further reliable sources. More detailed criteria The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent; but the article should satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability and BLP, and provide sources to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted.	Provides some meaningful content, but the majority of readers will need more.	Provision of references to reliable sources should be prioritised; the article will also need substantial improvements in content and organisation.	Real analysis (as of November 2006)
Stub	A very basic description of the topic. More detailed criteria The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article. It is usually very short, but if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible, an article of any length falls into this category.	Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition.	Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority.	Geodia gibberosa (as of July 2009)

"Very little meaningful content" doesn't seem to me like an accurate description of the iControlPad or Nyko Wand articles, and contrary to the definition ("quite incomplete"), the iCade article is about as complete as it's possible to be for a niche topic like this. It covers the device's development, a laymen-friendly description of the technical concepts behind it, the device's reception, and the only really incomplete part, the list of compatible software, which is the nature of lists of current-gen software releases. I'm not taking these descriptors personally at all--they're Wikipedia articles, not Vague Rant articles, and the definitions pretty clearly don't apply, so there's very little to be offended by. I have noticed this tendency toward low quality-class rankings on other articles, so I'm just trying to gauge whether the project feels the issue is in application or definition of the classes.

If anyone desires to reclassify these articles, that's fine, but not really the purpose of this discussion, as the phenomenon is far more widespread than the few I've noted here. - Vague | Rant 18:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't read them, but just looking at article length, layout, referencing, etc., I'd say all three of those should be C-Class. Perhaps Start, but certainly not Stub. –Drilnoth (T/C) 19:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I hazard to guess many C+ articles are tagged as Start/Stub is because no one has bothered to re-rate them since the banner was placed. Anyone is free to reassess them following the criteria, but no one is forced to do so. VG is a project which gets a lot of fan edits, so relatively many articles develop beyond Start. But those may not have an established editor doing the major work and anons/new editors don't know about or don't feel comfortable changing rating. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Irony - you're actually the one who rated Nyko Wand as a stub, yesterday, when it looked basically as it does now. :) In this case, I'd say the ratings mismatch on the articles is more likely due to the fact that new articles tend to get rated very quickly, and in batches- since the rating is very easy to change, most people don't worry over-much about being perfectly accurate, since the VG project tag itself is more important than the actual rating. --PresN 19:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, we tend to "overmark" articles as stubs when they really are not (i.e. should instead be Start-Class). That said, it wouldn't hurt for us to go through them, though needless to say, that would take time. –MuZemike 19:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

LOL, sweet irony! Yeah, PresN's right, I was going through User:AlexNewArtBot/VideogamesSearchResult tagging redlink talk pages like I usually do when I see an update. My excuse is that my attention span isn't long enough to read them all for proper quality assessment (and there is no easy tool to do this either, except manually). The banner is more important than the rating/importance, and it's best I place a banner quickly than the article gets tagged for deletion and not reported anywhere, like WP:Article Alerts. (Don't forget to watch and follow VG Alerts. </anotherShamelessPlug>) Not that I couldn't have been a bit more careful. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

You don't have to give it a rating to tag the article. If you don't set quality or importance attributes, the article will show up here and can be assessed later. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 01:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Given that most ratings are invisible to the average readers, they really are more of a project and editorial tool then anything else. Overmarking prolly is a problem but better to underestimate progress than overestimate :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe if turnaround for those assements would be quicker. In general most requests can be done in WP:Anime's assement in 1 day, sometimes 2-3 if no ones watching.

However, the clarrifications are a bit clearer over there, especially the checklist to go from C -> B.陣内_Jinnai 23:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Nexon Korea Corporation

This article has been constantly moved because editors can not decide what its name should be. It has been moved to Nexon Co. Ltd. but I believe it should stay at Nexon Korea Corporation as they refer to their company as such on their official website. I'm not sure about the guidelines for the article so I'm hoping an experienced editor would take a look at the article and tag it under the right project. Thanks! DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

tbh, I would not know what you were talking about if you said Nexon Korea Corporation, but I recognize Nexon Co. Ltd., although I have never heard it called that before. I don't know what should be done, but I think the name you are suggesting seems odd, and if policy does not specifically back it up, I would rather it not be used. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 21:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Comparison of Donkey Kong ports

I'm certain that we discourage articles like Comparison of Donkey Kong ports without a massive amount of third-party sources directly about the topic. But I'm not certain if we redirect or delete such pages. Should I take it to AfD or start a discussion to redirect it? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC))

I've PRODded the article (of course, can be taken to AFD if contested). The release dates and consoles should already be in the Donkey Kong article, and that feature comparison chart would not stay in the DK article if a merge was considered. –MuZemike 17:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like an IP removed the PROD.[3] I'll try to AfD it later this week. Unless anyone else more on the ball would like to beat me to it. :-p (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC))

Metal Gear

Metal Gear has seen drastic improvement since it became the COTM. User:Tintor2, User:Game-Guru999 and I (but mostly Tintor) have been working on it without any real game plan or intentional collaboration, but the article is looking much better than it was before the drive. Seems like making it monthly instead of weekly really was a better idea. Considering the jump in quality, I bumped it from C-Class to B-Class. If anyone else wants to tweak the article, the more the merrier. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually planning on separating the soundtracks into articles of their own next week. The Soundtrack section seems cluttered. GamerPro64 23:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

You mean into a list of soundtracks? Some soundtracks already have their own articles like Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake Original Soundtrack, and Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots (soundtrack). There is some information from the music and CDs available in various of the game's sections that may help with them. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 01:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. That's what I meant. I'm planning on making the layout like Music of the Final Fantasy series. GamerPro64 02:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Any progress on the separate article? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I have problems with looking for reliable sources. I don't know where to start looking. Anyone know where to find sources for video game music? GamerPro64 20:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

[4], [5], [6] [7] and it looks like some of the music was played at Video Games Live. It might be better to just slam the album articles together as the overall series music article; it doesn't seem like the music as a whole has had a whole lot of commentary, as most of the RSs are reviews of the different albums, so the article might need to focus on that. --PresN 21:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I'm planning do doing. Thanks for the links, Pres. Though, it seems weird that a website that's called Square Enix Music has music not by Square Enix. GamerPro64 03:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, they're rebranding to something else soon- it was originally just SquareEnix music, then RPG music, now it's video game music in general. The name's always been a problem, as they're not associated with SE in any way, but the name looks it. --PresN 04:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it's safe to call the Metal Gear collaboration a resounding success. Good work, everyone. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011's Today's Featured Article

Devil May Cry (video game) will be up on TFA tomorrow. However, it may need some improvement, like more info in the article's lead. GamerPro64 02:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• I remember when this was featured. I reviewed it pretty thoroughly back in the day, which probably didn't earn me any popularity points with the article's editors. Glad it's getting recognized. I thought it was in better shape than this, though. We lost DMC2 recently, and I doubt this will be far behind unless it's heavily expanded. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we can get a second TFA this month to make up for July, which there was no VG-related TFA :) –MuZemike 19:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Video game ratings

What should we go with for ratings in the infobox and prose? Specificially I'm asking when a rating was changed due to structural changes, such as those with CERO rating. Should the initial or latest rating go in the infobox? How do you add the rating to the prose (probably under release) when you don't have date changes? I'm asking because Oshiete! Popotan was changed from CERO 18 to CERO D. I don't have any dates for this as the packaging wasn't changed I just found out because of an edit to the infobox.陣内_Jinnai 23:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I think in that case it would make sense to use the new rating since CERO 18 was replaced with two different ratings CERO D and CERO Z. One is for 17+ and the other 18+. Cero D is for 17+ so it seems the rating changed from 18+ to 17+ so I think it should be mentioned since it seems to be technocally a rerating.--76.66.180.220 (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell only one was re-rated.陣内_Jinnai 05:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Ratings don't cease to exist just because they've been superseded. Unless a particular game has been rerated, it should be described with the old rating. I think taking it upon ourselves to describe a CERO 18 game as either CERO D or Z would constitute original research. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say use the original rating. We don't often mention ratings in prose anyhow, unless it's particularly notable (re-rating, commentary regarding performance based on rating, what have you.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Indie references needed

I tagged Honor in Vengeance II earlier today. Its a decent enough stub/start article but I feel the references let it down. In the reviews section there are self published blogs, and another site that is sort of a half review site and half "buy this" recommendation site. I just wondered if any of our Indie Task Force or our search ninjas knew of any reliable sites that we could add in, to give it some backbone. - X201 (talk) 12:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I looked around, but no joy. I see an AfD in that article's future. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 11:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Dota 2 at GAN

I just noticed this at GAN. It thought that articles about unreleased games were ineligible for GA and FA unless the industry had deemed it vaporware. Unless the article is not current and the game has been canceled. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC))

Unreleased games in active development (like Dota 2) are commonly considered to be inherently unstable, and thus ineligible for GA as per criteria 5, and is mentioned in Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles ("The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint") as a good reason to quick-fail the article. --PresN 22:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I have quick-failed the GAN, as PresN is right. No way that article is going to be stable until sometime after its release, preferably after all the hype and buzz have quieted down. –MuZemike 22:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Zynga AFD binge - incomplete and not guud

There are several listings on Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article alerts of Zynga games, though the nominations weren't completed, including games like Cityville. At first glance they don't look like they're eligible for deletion in the first place. Not sure what to do, um help? Someoneanother 20:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

If the AfDs for any reason can't go forward, an administrator can Ignore All Rules and delist the articles and remove the AfD templates. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 20:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

These articles were listed for deletion by an IP, and IPs cannot create AFD pages. I would WP:AGF and create these deletion discussions for the IP. If that should be done, I'm not sure as to whether lump this all into one AFD or spread this all out on separate ones. –MuZemike 01:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If one places the AfD tag, but does not start discussion, or ask on WP:AFD for it to be created, or leave a talk page message within reasonable time, it can be simply removed. In good faith, one can complete the nomination though if they feel its reasonable. But these ones weren't really. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all. I'll try to shore some up regardless, running a little low on time ATM.. Someoneanother 10:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)