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, 176

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)

It usually works fine, though some of the links do go to valid targets that don't give a 404 error. Checklinks at least gives an interface for checking and fixing the links and will list the link even if it does not think that it is dead. It just takes a little bit of vigilance with these links. —Ost (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Almost there - Need Reference Ninjas

Thanks to a sterling effort by the boy Ost316, The Edge link fiasco is almost over. We just need a couple of Reference Ninjas to help crack the 20 or so references that have gone AWOL. The bulk of them are here. Hopefully, with a little help, we can get this done and dusted quickly and we can vacate the pages created by Masem. It's taken so long, I think he's a bit concerned that we may be trying to claim Squatters rights on his user space ;-) - X201 (talk) 12:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Gamespot/GameFAQs

Per disucssions at WT:VG/RS and WP:RS/N, the release dates for these sites are not reliable. We should probably go through out FA/FL/GA items and change them to another source.∞陣内Jinnai 18:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

We should focus on our FLs first because they rely more heavily on such sources for release dates. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC))

Ill try and fix all the refs on List of Harvest Moon games tomorrow. Salavat (talk) 13:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

If anyone finds a good alternative to GameSpot for release dates, please post it here for the benefit of other editors. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC))

I've been using NintendoLife for recent games and NinDB/MobyGames for older Nintendo ones. IGN and Metacritic can sometimes have information, or first-party sources (Nintendo, the dev or publishers of a game, etc.) Salvidrim (talk) 14:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I dont no about some of the others but you cant be using MobyGames. IGN is what I plan on using (even though I much preferred GameSpot). Salavat (talk) 15:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

MobyGames is generally informative, though its reliability has been contested, as the amount of editorial oversight isn't clear. Most of the times, if you have a release date and are looking for a ref, google the game's name & the date... something'll come up. I'm generally more Nintendo-centric, so my usual sources may not be useful to all. Salvidrim (talk) 15:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

MobyGames is in the unreliable category along with GameFAQs. Please don't use it as a replacement for these GF release dates. Metacritic I'm not sure of. It gets music data from Allmusic and movie data from IMDb, but doesn't say where it gets game data. There's a possibility it comes from GameFAQs. The credits come from GameFAQs for sure. GameRankings also uses GameFAQs/GameSpot data, so don't rely on GR for release data. Reach Out to the Truth 15:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Generally I don't use MobyGames as a ref either. I use it to find information (namely on games released on multiple platforms), and once I have that information, look for a RS to cite it from. So Moby can be useful in research if you don't have the release date, even though it should not be used as a reference in most circumstances. Salvidrim (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Where was that conclusion reached? I don't see consensus of unreliability at either WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 106#GameFAQs and Gamespot_shared_database or WT:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 5#Gamespot and instead read that unreliable dates are marked as being user-submitted. —Ost (talk) 16:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

They are marked only on GameFAQs. If you use GameSpot as the source, there's no way of knowing whether any portion of the data has come from GameFAQs users. And there's also a thread on GameSpot where users can request changes and new pages, and that won't appear as user-contributed on GameFAQs because the changes are submitted by a GameSpot staff member. This isn't limited to the posts you can find in the thread; email is also accepted. GameFAQs data was already considered unreliable, it doesn't make sense not to extend this to the data on GameSpot as well. Reach Out to the Truth 17:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been away so I'm a bt slow responding. I didn't realize that GameFAQs was already considered unreliable; it had been used for release dates on numerous pages. I don't understand why it matters if data is user-submitted if a GameSpot member makes the change as I would assume—perhaps incorrectly—that they check the data before committing the change. And since GameFAQs marks their data, I would think that they would be a better source than GameSpot. I didn't think that we care where that data comes from, we care if it's accurate and checked with editorial oversight. —Ost (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been following this that much, but I believe that a group of editors presented a number of incorrect dates, specifically for older games. The number apparently painted the picture that appropriate level of fact checking was not there. I'm not entirely certain, but that was my take on it. Someone more involved with the discussions might want to chime in, preferably with links to the exact discussion(s). (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC))

I'm fairly confident that Metacritic gets release date information from GameFAQs. Even if it doesn't, it gets it from some other equally unreliable site, because its release date for Professor Layton and the Last Specter is a day off, a trait it shares primarily (if not exclusively) with other sites that get information from GameFAQs (Gamespot, GameRankings); but not with other, unrelated sites (1UP.com, IGN). Metacritic also openly admits to getting some information from GameFAQs, right here, referring to it as a sister site. I would strongly advise avoiding Metacritic for release dates. Emmy Altava 07:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that that's reason to use caution, but not necessarily to discount them, though the discussions Guyinblack mentions may have more insight. Does GameFAQs allow people to report incorrect data and do they fix it? Other publications make mistakes but are still considered reliable because they have editorial oversight and correct mistakes. —Ost (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. GameFAQs allows people to submit errors. Unless its an obvious error (such as December 32 or December 31, 1010) it requires evidence. However, the evidence required is less for less popular/older games than newer/more popular titles.∞陣内Jinnai 16:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Update on examples at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Assessment#Quality scale

I've been going through some new examples for each class at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Assessment#Quality scale, since most of the examples have not been updated in over 3 years. Here's what I have so far for possible new examples:

• FAs
  • Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare
  • Myst
  • Super Mario 64
• A-Class
  • Viewtiful Joe
  • Mega Man 2
• GA
  • Shoot 'em up
  • Half-Life (video game)
  • Nobuo Uematsu

• B-Class
  • PlayStation 3
  • Pac-Man
• C-Class
  • Blizzard Entertainment
  • Tetris
• Start-Class
  • Game Boy Advance
  • FIFA (video game series)
• Stub-Class
  • SuperTux
  • ModNation Racers: Road Trip
• FLs
  • List of Square Enix video games
  • List of Nintendo 64 games
• List-Class
  • List of Pokémon
  • List of Nintendo Entertainment System games

Any thoughts? –MuZemike 06:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

No FLs?∞陣内Jinnai 06:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

List-class, too. And it might not hurt to have examples of the other classes (Dab, Cat, Book, etc.) and a short explanation, but that's probably another debate. --Salvidrim! (t • c) 06:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Having worked on SMB3 and SM64, I can tell you that they are not the most representative of their quality ratings. FPS has a lot of non-free images in it, which I think would discount it as a prime example. I'd recommend Viewtiful Joe or Mega Man 2 for A-class, Ico or Ninja Gaiden (Nintendo Entertainment System) for FA, and Shoot 'em up for GA. Everything else seems fine. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC))

I updated the above by adding FLs and List-Class articles. I've also changed the A-Class and GA articles to Guyinblack25's suggestions; I'll leave to someone else to decide on the FAs, as one of them I have significantly contributed to. –MuZemike 23:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably not the most contributive [sic] comment, but seeing what now qualifies as B and C class really deters me. Are there any good examples of digital download titles that would pass for B class? That's where I set my sights, but both examples have a crazy amount of citations and content, which may not paint a clear enough picture. --Teancum (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

That being said, it might be good to find examples of long and short articles. I think that will give people a better understanding of what quality to look for. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC))

Quick question

Anyone know the size of the cartridge for ToeJam & Earl? 4-megabit? 8? 16? Thanks. bridies (talk) 03:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

This says ToeJam & Earl in Panic on Funkotron has twice the size of the original, but no numbers. --Salvidrim! ^T·_C 03:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It's presumably not 16 then, at least. bridies (talk) 03:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm under the impression the Sega Master System was 8-Bit, Mega Drive/Genesis 16-bit and Sega Saturn & the Sega 32X add-on were 32-bit. Were there really variations between games on the same platform? --Salvidrim! ^T·_C 04:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing that refers to the maximum capabilities, and/or that what's on the console and the cartridge size aren't the same thing exactly. Eg. the article for Sonic 1 gives the cartridge as 4 megabit while Sonic 3 gives 16. bridies (talk) 04:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually the article for Sonic 1 article (contrary to the infobox) says the Genesis version was 16-bit (there was a 8-bit retroport to the Master System), and Sonic 3 says 16-bit also. I'm not intimately familiar with gaming hardware, however. From the Internet, Sonic 1's ROM is exactly 512K, Toejam & Earl is exactly 1,024K and Toejam & Earl in Panic on Funkotron is exactly 2,048K. Take that as you may, though, the size of the file doesn't necessarily indicates the size of the cartridge. --Salvidrim! ^T·_C 05:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps all cartridges for the Genesis were 16-bit, but programs themselves were smaller? --Salvidrim! ^T·_C 05:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

No idea. Are you talking about emulated ROMs above? bridies (talk) 06:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly that. At first I thought the size of the downloadable ROM would have nothing to do with the original game (what with ripping, compressing, I dunno), but such precise values make me think there might be some truth to it. --Salvidrim! ^T·_C 06:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I just noticed... Yeah, so that would suggest 4 megabits for Sonic, 8 for the first TJ&E and 16 for the second. The ToeJam & Earl article has said 16 forever and I always left it assuming the Mega Drive was 16-bit, but an IP has changed it to 8; looks like he's probably right. Factual error in an FA, oh dear... bridies (talk) 06:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

No cartridges were 16-bit. It says "16-bit cartridge" on the box, but that combination of words is basically a lie. A 16-bit cartridge could fit two ASCII characters, without any room for instructions to display those characters. The Genesis has a 16-bit architecture, and it uses cartridges. It does not and could not use 16-bit cartridges. Reach Out to the Truth 18:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

*shrugs* Still might need a source, as "comparing the size of some potentially illegal software" is of doubtful reliability. --Salvidrim! ^T·_C 06:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, if we can't clear this up for sure I'll probably remove the whole parameter as unverifiable. Anyone else? bridies (talk) 06:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to be pedantic here, be sure you keep your terminology straight. When you say "8-bit", "16-bit", etc., you're referring to a technical specification of the console hardware (address width of CPU or RAM, instruction size, etc.). But when you say "8 Megabit", "16K", etc., you're talking about ROM or memory size or capacity, which is a totally different and almost completely independent measure. Just wanted to point that out. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 07:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

And to further it, a ROM is in fact an exact copy of a game so there's no wishy-washiness. As long as it's uncompressed, it's a very simple matter to see the size of a game with a ROM -- so yes, the size of the file DOES 'nessesarily indicate the size of the cartridge', to use the above words. If Sonic 1's ROM is 512k, then it's 4 Megabits, there's no disputing it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 07:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the point was that we're unlikely to reach agreement on whether a ROM image of disputable legality qualifies as a reliable source. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 07:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

In fact, I'm rather certain we would reach an agreement against the reliability of that, but meh. At least the fact seem to be accurate for now. --Salvidrim! ^T·_C 07:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think it's pretty reliable, but I can understand the reluctance. There ARE sources for some - Nintendo Power for instance often made a big deal about size, and sometimes it was even on the box, such as for Donkey Kong Country IIRC...I think they even included it in a couple of their 'game atlas' things. But I can also see it being mostly irrelevant, and where it IS (such as Super Metroid being the first 24bit SNES game) it can be noted in the prose. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, it's mostly listed as a fact for fact-listing's sake (not unlike Age Ratings), when the cartridge size is notable by itself it IS noted in and sourced in prose. --Salvidrim! ^T·_C 15:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm just going to remove the size of the cartridge: the only other FA on a cartridge-based game that I can see Ninja Gaiden (Nintendo Entertainment System), just says "cartridge" in the infobox. bridies (talk) 09:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, linking to ROM Cartridge should be sufficient. --Salvidrim! ^T·_C 09:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Help reviewing a big merger

Lists of Mario video games by year, by console, by genre
into List of Mario video games.  Done on 14:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I would like to have other editors' opinions before copying to namespace and redirecting the other three lists. It retains the ability to sort by year/console/genre, has all the games the other three lists had (details are not "necessary" IMO, all games/genres/platforms are wikilinked appropriately). I also took advantage of the fact I manually built that table to double-check witht he individual articles if all the years were accurate (some were not on the original three lists).
The merge tags have been in place for two years, and I don't see how the lists could be merged and still retain their individual usefulness without using a sortable table as I did, unpretty as it may be.
So please, feedback, feedback, feedback, and once all the kinks are worked out I'll put the merge into effect, unless of course there is consensus against, but... *shrugs* - as I've said, I can't think of any other way to do it, and it eventually has to be done.
--Salvidrim! ^T·_C 14:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Make it sortable by Title as well. - X201 (talk) 15:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

That's one of the things I wasn't sure about. I mean, can't hurt, but... I dunno. Default sort is by year anyways, so why not. :)  Done --Salvidrim! ^T·_C 15:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll make the marge effective tommorow if no other concerns arise. I fully expect that discussion will be sparked THEN by people watching one or more of the three lists and not this page. --Salvidrim! ^T·_C 13:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Completely  Done. All three lists redirected, List of Mario video games now in namespace, and redirs pointed to the three lists changed to redir to the new merged list to avoid double redirs. Link to this discussion in every edit summary, I fully expect to be reverted and more discussion to happen here. :) --Salvidrim! ^T·_C 14:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Ha, I'm excited to see that we've finally done it after it was brought up so long ago. Well done. Nomader (talk) 02:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't found that old discussion! And it went... surprisingly smoothly, I must say. Thanks for linking that discussion, now I'll think if List of Mario series sports games should be redirect too -- seems redundant now. Salvidrim! 02:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done! Salvidrim! 02:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker's at TFA

"The Wind Waker" is now Today's Featured Article, making it the third featured content to be on the main page this month. Hooray for progress. GamerPro64 01:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

This 2nd TFA this month basically resulted from no TFA being planned for today, as Raul has been away the past several days. Well, I suppose that makes up for last month, which we had none. –MuZemike 01:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Who's handling the TFA in Raul's absence. Previous Zelda games have had File:Triforce.svg as the TFA image. Is it too late to suggest its addition? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC))

With two video game TFAs in one month, Talk:Main Page is going to be a great read. :) Reach Out to the Truth 06:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Dabomb87 is Raul's delegate for TFA. User:Wehwalt was the one that actually created the TFA page for Wind Waker, since there was none until a few minutes before the deadline. Gary King (talk · scripts) 16:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Move Halo 3 Marketing to Marketing of Halo 3

Discussion over a proposal to move the article Halo 3 Marketing to Marketing of Halo 3 is taken place here .Lucia Black (talk) 05:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Section link Gary King (talk · scripts) 20:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Notability of the current COTM

I've done some digging, but I haven't found meaty sources for Dnd (video game). This includes the first several pages of Google web and book search. At best, you get an off-hand mention of the game and its creators. Is this enough to establish notability? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Well, the game is certainly notable for being one of the earliest games to bring D&D RPG mechanics into computer gaming, providing an early example of a "boss" monster, and indirectly inspiring the creation of Moria, which in turn led to all the other dungeon crawls on PLATO and ultimately to Wizardry, one of the critical games in the birth and growth of the CRPG on home computers, but I don't think you will actually find any info on the game to expand the current entry. I mean, it would be great if you did because the game deserves more coverage, but I have never seen any sources on the web or in print that elaborate further on what the wikipedia article already states. There may be a little bit more out there on the gameplay, but probably not on the history. Good luck if you try though, because I would certainly like to know more about the game. Indrian (talk) 08:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Maybe try some video game history books.∞陣内Jinnai 03:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I have read pretty much all of them. Unfortunately, PLATO does not figure into any of them except for a brief mention in High Score, where dnd is not mentioned at all, and a small amount of coverage in Barton's history of role-playing games, which contains no more info than wikipedia. When it comes to mainframe games, they all focus on Adventure and MUD because the influence of those two games was far more substantial. PLATO was largely a footnote in videogame history because it was so far advanced in terms of graphics and multiplayer capability over microcomputers of the 1970s and 1980s that few concepts made the jump to the home. Bruce Artwick was partially inspired by PLATO in the creation of Flight Simulator, and Moria et al led directly to Wizardry, but the influence pretty much ends there. This still makes the system important, but not important enough for monographs that have limited space to cover the big picture of video game history. A few game design books also mention PLATO and dnd briefly, but I have not seen any with more info than wikipedia already provides, though my knowledge of game design books is far more limited than my knowledge of the history books. Again though, I would love to be proven wrong. Indrian (talk) 06:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Age of Empires III: The Napoleonic Era for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Age of Empires III: The Napoleonic Era is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Age of Empires III: The Napoleonic Era until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Cambalachero (talk) 02:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. However, in the future, video game-related AfD are usually listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Deletion, which we do watch. –MuZemike 01:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I did not know that, I'm not from this project, I just wanted to report it at a public place where people interesed in the topic may notice. It would be useful to add a link to that section at the top of the talk page. Cambalachero (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. Just for future reference. –MuZemike 02:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There is a link in the to-do list at the top of the page. In fact, there are currently two. A more prominent placement may be helpful, but it's probably not the only thing that could use a more prominent placement on this page. In this case, I think it's fine if we get occasional deletion notifications here. Someone will see it and add it to the project's deletion tracking page, and it will have served its purpose. Reach Out to the Truth 02:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It would be wise to back up any citations for GamePro.

Because the magazine as ending, and it's taking the site with it. It appears that the website is going to be shut down on December 5, and since it's considered a reliable source here, I would reckon that several articles use it to cite things. It would probably be a very very good idea to check at least the quality articles (GA+) and archive anything that cites it to ensure that nothing of value is being lost. [1] Emmy Altava 21:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Yikes. Thanks for the update--there's not much time to start archiving! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

How do we go about archiving podcasts like this one?∞陣内Jinnai 22:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Archive.org's latest pass there seems to be around July 20 2011. I don't know how we can prioritize for newer links but that would be ideal. --MASEM (t) 22:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I have also tossed a bot request given the time frame. A quick AWB check shows more than 1000 links to gamepro.com. --MASEM (t) 22:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Of 1100 links to gamepro.com, 193 are both useful and not yet archived at archive.org. Anomie kindly provided this list from my bot request. User:Anomie/Gamepro links. I recommend that we can break this down into blocks of 10, right now for the act of just getting webcite to archive the links. We can worry about addign the right archiveurl later once we have that. webcite has a bookmarklet (here) that should make this first step easy. Once you do do the archive of the block of 10, the links should be added like Anomie did for the archive.org copies, and marked so we know its complete. --MASEM (t) 23:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind that; Delta's going to submit those all to webcite for us. We'll still have to worry about archiveurl filling in, but no longer have the Dec 5 deadline to worry about. --MASEM (t) 23:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

And so now we have : User:Δ/Sandbox 5 which has the 193 links not yet at archive.org archived at webcite (that is: we now are pretty much assured that all gamepro-based articles are backed up at archival sites), and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 60 at the bot operation request to run through the combined archive.org/webcite links and replace them for us in articles. --MASEM (t) 13:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Damn- that's some fast work guys. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC))

Wow, good job, guys. Seems like nothing of value will be lost. Seeing as the site is due to go down today, if any of you want to go around archiving articles to use for future projects, now's the final chance to do so. Emmy Altava 06:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Is it done? I haven't seen it come by and archive the mp3.∞陣内Jinnai 18:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Webcite can't handle bare MP3s, so this one hasn't been archived. I don't know if you have it part of a link from a larger webpage if that is saved as well. --MASEM (t) 19:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I just saved [2] to WebCite [3], but it doesn't capture the external mp3. However, in such cases, we still have evidence that podcast was done, and I am assuming you are saving the mp3 somewhere. We'll have to treat it like a radio program, something not normally archived so that as long as you validate the program ran, that's some assurance the material was once there. --MASEM (t) 19:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

2 new sections for the Infobox videogame: "Voice actor" and "Portrayal"

Hi everyone!

I had to find a quick info for a contest, I knew the answer, I knew where to look on wikipedia, but the problem is that usually you think that you know where you find the info and it happens sometimes not to be there. This was the case. I needed the information about the voice actor of the main character of a video game. Lara Croft (answer: Keeley Hawes) in Tomb Raider: Legend.

It would be nice and useful that the Infobox video game would contain Voice actor and Portrayal sections for the main character. Actually it should contain a Main Character section with the subsections mentioned before. I know it is obvious for everyone who is the main character and so on... But I have two things to sustain my idea. First, a person that jumps on the article for the first time, they have to do some research by clicking on the main character's page to see who is the voice actor, but actually this info should be inside the first article. Second, there are very rare cases, maybe none, when the main character of the series is changing, and this doesn't mean there should not be a place for the main character in the infobox, even crazily repeating the same information, the idea is that there is vital information missing in the infobox.

--TudorTulok (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not necessary in what is already a crowded infobox. The info is better portrayed on character articles. This is because first off there can be multiple main protagonists. Certainly some games its quite easy to say who the main protagonist is, like most Mario games. But what about Legend of Mana or Romancing Saga or even Star Ocean 2 (is Claud's story the main one or Rena's)? What about Resident Evil games? or fighter games that aren't based on an existing franchise like Soul Calibur? It will just cause needless fights about what goes into the infobox.∞陣内Jinnai 22:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with above that this is beyond infobox's scope. It's certainly going to be the same problem as with other "role" fields -- who to include, who is notable and who isn't, what's the entry limit, etc. This really is prose material. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreeing with Jinnai and Hellknowz, the practically application is similar to "Preceded by" and "Followed by" fields. The character information is typically in the lead, so I don't think it's needed in the infobox. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC))

Thank you all for clarification, I appreciate your words. --TudorTulok (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit dispute at Atari 5200

Could I get some extra eyes on a discussion going on at Talk:Atari 5200? Here's a synopsis:

• Someone asked that we remove a couple of words from the "Market performance" section that state that the ColecoVision is more powerful than the 5200. The citation for this statement is from a Top-25 article at IGN that states the 5200 was "crushed under the technological weight of the ColecoVision".
• An argument ensued, with one side saying the claim is contentious and uncorroborated, and the other (most notably User:ButOnMethItIs) stating that IGN is a reliable source and therefore we cannot and should not be editing or censoring anything they say.
• I stepped in and tried to come up with several compromises, noting that the statement of one system being more powerful than the other is a matter of perception (whether it's strictly true or not, Coleco clearly convinced its target audience that it had the better console), and that the IGN article is an editorial and should be treated as such.
  • So far, several people on BOTH sides of the issue have apparently COMPLETELY misunderstood what I was trying to accomplish there, and seem to still be arguing in absolutes, treating the statement as fact rather than as editorial. This has even resulted in a further revert, even though the nature of the content has changed.

My personal opinion and observations are:

• None of our reliable sources, IGN included, demonstrate in any way that the ColecoVision is technologically superior to the 5200 in any way that matters with respect to the competition between the two. The CV's CPU is faster, yes, and this appears to be the sole statistic that the author of the Top-25 article makes this claim.
• The claim is irrelevant to the section: The article is about the 5200, and the section is mostly about the 5200's shortcomings and its failure to compete. While technology can play a role there, IGN is so far the only source I've come across that attributes the 5200's failure to being technologically inadequate. Every other source I'm familiar with, including "Ultimate History of Video Games", attributes the system's failure to its lack of funding, its small library of games, its controllers, and the fact that the ColecoVision had more games and more arcade-accurate ports.
• To corroborate a statement of power about the ColecoVision, we'd have to go into a lot more detail than is necessary or appropriate for the article, and it gives undue weight to the ColecoVision - discussion of its technology and history should be limited to direct competition, and anything else should be sent to its own article.

That's my opinion. I'd like to see if we can reach consensus and/or at least get some closure on the sources. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

None of the reliable sources have to demonstrate anything, the claim about the 5200's market performance is 100% relevant to the "market performance" section on an article called "Atari 5200", and we are not required to corroborate anything. And just so everyone is clear, the article doesn't need to say anything about which was more powerful. How about "This dude at IGN attributed the 5200's poor market performance to its technical inadequacy relative to the Colecovision.[IGNcite]"? It doesn't sound very good, but it has the advantage of being consistent with policies and guidelines.

How about removing the statement? What's the policy basis there? ButOnMethItIs (talk) 00:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

When I tried to do exactly what you suggested (mentioning it in the form of an editorial statement), you objected vehemently to it. Why is it so much better now, all of a sudden? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The only change I vehemently objected to was the one where you the offending statement in its entirety and replaced it with original research. You rewrote it later, only to remove it because your rewrite focused solely on criticism of the hardware. If what I said above were rewritten added to that section, I don't see how anyone could reasonably object. There's Cmonflippie and his ipsocks, but I don't find him to be reasonable. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Right, so the fact that everything I wrote in that edit is verified in a reliable source makes it original research? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure it was just editing error, but it was still OR. I get the feeling that you're confused about what my position is and what I've objected to, so let's forget about everything that happened since.

Hey, see that thing I wrote up there? Can you think of any reason it can't be included in the section on market performance? ButOnMethItIs (talk) 01:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I still don't actually understand why you call it OR, but whatever. :P

I reverted the removal of my updated version of the statement - perhaps we can fine-tune it? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I am still at a loss as to why we are trying to include it at all (this is not really directed at you KieferSkunk, because I believe we are pretty much in agreement). First of all, the article was not a review, but a retrospective. There is a huge difference. The author was not attempting to convey to an audience whether the console was worth its time. Reviews from the time the systems were competing on the market would be primary sources and could have value even if just to show that Coleco successfully created a perception of superiority; a retrospective is a secondary source that needs to be analyzed based on the quality of its research just like any other secondary source. The thesis of the author is that the ColecoVision crushed the Atari 5200 with its "technological weight." The evidence to support that thesis is that the processor of the ColecoVision operated at a higher clock speed. The only "fact" in these statements is that the ColecoVision processor runs at a faster clock speed, which in and of itself does not necessarily make for a faster processor, let alone a more technologically advanced system in general. This means the author has not proven his thesis and therefore his opinion should not be trusted. This is called vetting sources and is crucial to having a well-written article.

Also, there appears to be some confusion in regards to accepting the entire output of a news organization with little scrutiny and accepting the output of an author conducting secondary research. IGN as an organization is considered reliable as a news and review outlet, but operates in these capacities as a primary source. For news, this means that it is merely reporting stated fact without making a judgement as to the factual accuracy of any statements from quoted sources. When I say this I do not mean that they don't try to independently confirm information, but that if the spokesman for a company says that a vice president has resigned for health reasons and no one is willing to say otherwise on or off the record, then the news organization will run that story even if the truth is that the vice president was fired for incompetence. In this situation, editorial control is crucial to trusting the site because it provides a guarantee that information reported by the site was actually relayed by a competent third-party and not just made up by the site. When acting as a reviewer, IGN is providing advice to a group of users, and its reviews, taken with reviews from similar sites, can help create an understanding of how a game or system was received at launch. In this situation, editorial control is important because it provides a guarantee that the site is giving each product a fair shake without bias to a particular company, system, or genre. When IGN operates as a secondary source, then its articles need to be vetted based on the credentials of the author and the factual accuracy of the work, not the bona fides of the news organization. It is not the IGN editor's job to "correct" the opinions in an article such as this one, so the fact that IGN is under editorial control is meaningless. In the same vein, all the books released by a single publisher are not automatically considered reliable just because said publisher assigned an editor to every book it released. These individual books must still be judged on their own merits, with some deference given to the author if he is a recognized authority in his field. Indrian (talk) 04:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Re "we are not required to corroborate anything": WP:V makes it clear that information must be verifiable. We can certainly verify that somebody says that the CV is more powerful than the 5200. But can we verify (or more importantly, can our readers verify) that the CV actually is more powerful? And furthermore, I still dispute whether the measurement of power is relevant to that section. The fact is, the Coleco sold better, and there were a number of factors to that, perception of technical inferiority likely being ONE of them, but not the sole reason. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

A discussion of power is irrelevant. Citing a statement from a reliable source that bears directly on the subject at hand is very relevant. That the statement was made is verifiable. WP:V is satisfied. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Right, so this comes to the core of the argument I've been making this whole time, and I'm REALLY FRUSTRATED at the fact that, no matter how carefully I word it, people STILL don't get it: There is a difference between "The ColecoVision was more powerful than the 5200" and "Some reviewers have said the ColecoVision was more powerful than the 5200". In my view, it's perfectly acceptable to say the latter (and that's what we're currently doing, despite the revert by Cmonflippie), because this makes it clear that it's an editorial view. It is NOT acceptable to make that a statement of fact (which was what was there originally, and was the subject of the original dispute) when there is evidence to the contrary and when the only source supporting that claim is an editorial.

Now, please, can SOMEBODY tell me why this is so *#!$^&*(&^# difficult to understand!? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I for one understand what you are trying to do with this compromise wording, but as I stated above, I just don't think its necessary. As I see it, the source has in no way been proven reliable and is useless as an opinion piece to gauge public reception as well since it is written way too far after the fact. Also, using the term "some" is horribly misleading because only one opinion is sourced, and using the term "reviewers" is misleading because the author of the IGN piece is not acting in that capacity. Indrian (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

There is also some dispute over whether another site run by three Atari fanboys with no editorial oversight and only token mention elsewhere, is a reliable source. I started a discussion about Atari HG on the reliable sources noticeboard. [4] Dream Focus 00:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that doesn't sound biased at all. :P — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey now, at least one of those guys is an editor here and he doesn't strike me as a fanboy. Even if you disagree, fanboy is a personal attack. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

If I used the word fan instead of fanboy would that make a difference? I don't see this is insulting at all. They are fans of Atari, clearly, and they mention their opinions on why their favorite system is superior without any proof of actual fact checking. Dream Focus 11:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

"Fanboy" is often used in a more pejorative fashion than "fan". For example, look at the first few Google results for Halo fanboys as opposed to Halo fans (watch the false positives in the latter). Not that I disagree with your assessment of the site, though. –MuZemike 14:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Slow things down

With the discussion heated and splintered in two locations (here and Talk:Atari 5200) I recommend that we slow things down and keep the discussion to one page. Here's my take on the situation. The dispute is over wording at Atari 5200#Market Performance. As far as I can tell, this is rooted in the references used and how it is being used. What I've gathered is that there are three references that have been mentioned.

• IGN
• Atari HQ
• Ultimate History of Video Games

The main contention seems to be between the IGN and Atari HQ sources. The IGN article states the ColecoVision was technologically superior to the Atari 5200, while the Atari HQ articles states the reverse. The Ultimate History book appears to be used primarily for information about the ColecoVision. The main difference that I see between the two online sources is that the IGN article provides little reasoning behind it's statement, while the Atari HQ article provides a lot of reasoning. The other difference is that IGN is considered more widely reliable than Atari HQ (which is currently under question at WP:RSN). This is not a statement to discredit one or the other, simply an assessment of them.

All that being said, if there are no other sources in the discussion, then I suggest we put everything else on hold until Atari HQ is examined. The use of the site's content will be a moot point if it is deemed unreliable. The website already was deemed reliable at WP:RSN, but no discussions involving a large number of VG editors has occurred to my knowledge. This is only one I found: a notification of the RS Noticeboard discussion. It's currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Atari HQ. The more input the better.

Once this is settled, then we can move forward with examining the content of the articles to find the best way to settle this. I believe that Keifer has made some good head way towards that, but the dispute is pulling those involved in too many directions. Let's take it a step at a time.

If anyone has any additional information or corrections, please speak up. All I ask is that you be cordial to your fellow editors and use the preview function before you post. This a very solvable dispute, it just might not get resolved as fast as everybody would like. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC))

Break free from the tyranny of badly-used parenthesis!

Fellow Wikipedianarianites, we have become trapped in an article naming system that favors the 1% of editors who control most of the editing. Fat-cats using the awesome power of repeatedly saying "Problem in search of a solution", and the mind-numbing ability to discuss every detail of any topic to the point where nobody cares any more and the status quo is maintained. But no more!

I am talking about parenthesis being used to disambiguate articles they have no business being near! I am talking about series pages, my video game compadreats!

Take, for example, Super Mario (series). This title makes no logical sense. This series is never referred to as "Super Mario". It is referred to as the "Super Mario series" or the "Mario" series, never simply "Super Mario". Even if it were, if there is a need to disambiguate, it should be put at the closest natural title, which is still "Super Mario series". The Super Mario series cannot be properly referred to without using the word "series", it makes no sense otherwise. No person says "I am looking forward to the newest game in Super Mario". By over-using parenthetical disambiguation we are saying exactly that. Even Nintendo clearly refers to the series as the "Super Mario Series". This is because they prefer that people actually understand what they are reading.

Takashi Tezuka has been involved in the development of the Super Mario Series, the Yoshi Series, the Animal Crossing Series and many other games.

— http://us.wii.com/iwata_asks/nsmb/vol1_page3.jsp

There is one context that "Super Mario" makes sense, and that is if it is used as an adjective instead of a noun. "I am looking forward to playing the latest Super Mario game" makes sense as a sentence. Unfortunately, we write articles about nouns, and using the noun as an adjective in the article title is needlessly confusing. The title is a reference to the topic, and should always be the noun form. In series titles, the word series is the noun. This article is about a series, and that series is the Super Mario (adjective) series (noun). It would not make sense to move chocolate milk to chocolate (milk), or parking lot to parking (lot), or maybe car (park). This is putting focus on the adjective, and adjectives do not make good article titles.

Another example is Deus Ex. There is a game called Deus Ex, and there is a series referred to as Deus Ex. Some people proposed that we make a Deus Ex (video game) page, and that we move the series to the primary topic. The logic there is reversed, because the game is referred to as "Deus Ex", and the series is the "Deus Ex series". In contrast, would you ever expect to read an article in a magazine that repeatedly referred to "Deus Ex video game"? "Deus Ex video game is considered one of the best games of its time. I still play Deus Ex video game with my friends." Contrast this to "The Deus Ex series is considered one of the best of its kind. I've played every game in the Deus Ex series." Which reads more naturally?

So where does this behavior make sense? In games with specifically-named and unambiguous series titles, like The Elder Scrolls. The words "The Elder Scrolls" are a noun, referring to a specific series. There is no game with this name, just the series, so no confusion. If you read "The Elder Scrolls", you know that the series is being referred to. Still, it would not seem unnatural to refer to "The Elder Scrolls series". It is never unnatural to refer to a series as "the Series Name series".

So, in closing, what I am saying is that we need to stop falling back on parenthesis. Series titles that need disambiguation should contain the word "series" naturally, unless they are known by an unambiguous name. We need to change Wikipedia:Naming conventions (video games), as those specific lines were added without discussion, and, as detailed above, make no sense. Thank you, and please remember me in the voting booth. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 11:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem is this breaks against the first rule of article naming, WP:COMMONNAME. If the series name and first game in the series have an equivalent title, we have to make some determination which one is the more likely result if someone is searching for that term. This may mean the first game in the series gets the unappended name, it may be the series gets it. No other part of WP, where such naming can be a problem, do we abandon the use of parens for the disambiguation even if they can be removed with a clean title (eg the example of "the Deus Ex series".) We are being consistent with the rest of WP in this way, even if it can be klunky at times. --MASEM (t) 14:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME. "Chocolate milk" or "parking lot" are the common names. So is "Super Mario", it is the common name. Not "Super Mario series", just like not "chocolate milk drink". But the primary topic for "Super Mario" title is taken by the first video game in the series, therefore we have to disambiguate the series article (in the example above the author has to disambiguate in prose, so they use "series" which is a more natural language). If there was no primary topic (no video game article) we would not need to disambiguate, i.e. leave the series at "Super Mario" or "Deus Ex". Neither "milk" nor "lot" are sufficient to identify the topic per WP:PRECISION. "Super Mario" is enough. What you are essentially proposing is disambiguating video game series articles differently than the convention for the rest of the site (which I may not be against per se). But this is not the venue broad enough to discuss that. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually the use of disambigs breaks that. We had an argument about that in Talk:Role-playing video game. COMMONNAME is not meant to be an absolute either. If there is another less common, but still used name its better than artificial disambig. That's why Role-playing game is not the main article for the video game counterparts even though its the most common name for the genre.∞陣内Jinnai 20:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

That's because "video game" is (should be) the common name (not that it isn't contested in many places). Not sure I agree with the nac closing summary interpretation of our policies/guidelines. Anyway, there is always a different less commonly used name for every parenthetical disambiguation. That's why we stick with parenthesis to avoid discussing every case in length. After all, you could argue all "Xxx (video game)" disambiguations should also be just plain "Xxx video game". After all, semantically, there is no difference between "Fanwars series" or "Fanwars video game" or "Fanwars comic book". —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a big difference, and that difference is natural usage and nouns, which is what COMMONNAME is about. "Fanwars comic book" is either a comic book called Fanwars or a comic book in the Fanwars series, so () disambiguation makes sense. The Super Mario series is not called "Super Mario", that is an adjective. People use it as an adjective, but rarely, if ever, as a common name. It is a descriptor. Look at the difference: "Super Mario: Land" is a name comprised of two nouns, one belonging to the other, "Super Mario Land" is a single noun with a descriptor. "The Elder Scrolls: Arena" (noun: noun) is an example of a series with a clearly-defined title, Super Mario is not. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation is never about putting the article at the best name anyway, it is about putting the article at the second-best name because the best one is taken. And I strongly argue that "Super Mario series" is the common name when referring to the series as a whole, which our article is doing. How can this be otherwise? "Super Mario" is a common adjective throughout the series, but cutting out a descriptor and labeling it "the name of the series" is backwards. "Super Mario" is an adjective, Super Mario Bros, Super Mario World, Super Mario Land. The phrase "Super Mario" is only a noun when referring to the character, otherwise it is a descriptor, an adjective. You would not refer to chocolate milk as "chocolate milk drink", but you would also not refer to it as "chocolate", because that is the adjective. You might refer to it as "milk", because milk is the noun, and then clarify that it was (chocolate). "Chocolate milk" is milk that is chocolate, "Super Mario" is Mario that is Super, "Super Mario series" is a series about Super Mario. It's natural language.

BTW, several wikiprojects have naming conventions outside of the norm. WikiProject Plants puts every article at the Latin name, which I don't agree with, but whatever. The point is we should decide what is best for our articles. What I'm arguing for is logic and natural phrasing of the English language. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Series is a natural extension. A lot of sources, including RSes use [Xxx] series to describe a series as shown with "Super Mario series.∞陣内Jinnai 22:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Please review

Hi guys, could one of you please review and promote the "Evil Genius (video game) article if necessary? I saw it was still start class but I feel that it has improved considerably. Cheers. 120.144.72.190 (talk) 01:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

You can request the assessment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Assessment/Requests. Salvidrim! 01:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Still would be better with at least a basic "Development" section, and a more concise "Gameplay" section, for an encyclopedia. Gary King (talk · scripts) 17:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The development team

Is the standard for an article to have a long list of the programmers' pseudonyms?
And then for any former programmers to be crossed out?
Varlaam (talk) 16:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you give an example? Pseydonyms really aren't that important, and I don't think lists of personnel are either... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Did Bach write a piece called The Well-Tempered Fox? Cuz I don't have it on LP.

Check this one out: Katawa Shoujo

In Muenchen steht ein Hofbraeuhaus, Varlaam (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

No, we don't give credits for developers like that. If key development people are noted in sources for a video game (eg Ken Levine for BioShock, Fumito Ueda for Shadow of the Colussus) we should mention them, but a general credits roll is inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 20:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the list from the article in question. --PresN 21:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Good.

I'm credited on some obscure video games from the 1980s so I am happy to be neutral.

They got me on TV, but it was only the Discovery Channel.

Thanks a lot, Varlaam (talk) 06:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

If you can find that program, we can still attribute statements by you in the prose if they help add anything relevant to the article. Would probably better if someone else looked at it and decided so there isn't any COI.∞陣内Jinnai 16:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Expanding Orphen: Scion of Sorcery

I'm working on expanding and cleaning up this article in conjunction with Sorcerous Stabber Orphen. Right now, I'm on a computer which blocks access to certain sites, so adding citations is difficult. Later on I'll be able to edit from a computer with no restrictions, but if someone else would like to help expand and cleanup this article I'd appreciate it. -waywardhorizons (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Citations for plots.

I have just reverted an addition of a bunch of cites to the game Assassin's Creed: Revelations in the plot section. I think we don't need these, however, another user thinks so, I would like a few eyes on Assassin's Creed: Revelations please. Heck, for all I know I am wrong..... Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

oh yeah, and citation needed tags as well. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

From what I've seen, citing the storyline from the game itself (or manual) as a primary source is generally not a problem. Salvidrim! 23:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

If you can supply external references for the plot (not the game or manual) from reliable sources, this is highly encouraged (see Portal 2), but it is not required, particularly given that most games do not get a detailed plot treatment by any source. If there is a critical point to the game where some major reveal is made that is non-obvious (eg: KOTOR, BioShock) would be of this ilk), a brief enough quotation would be helpful. --MASEM (t) 23:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Ditto on this. Plots of media (games, books, movies) are implicitly sourced to the work itself- while it's nice to provide quotes to back it up, and I certainly try to do so for GA/FA, it's not required. Note that the editor also did some copy-editing, so see if that's an improvement before you revert it all. --PresN 02:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Unless what is being cited is controversial or involves some level of analysis beyond the blindly obvious I don't think we need citation needed tags unless the other user can provide some evidence that there is some problem with the content outside of not being directly cited.--70.24.215.154 (talk) 04:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)