Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 09:47, 7 February 2012

Shortcut

WT:VG

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 12 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games → Wikipedia:WikiProject Video Games – This project name has three words in it. I could understand WikiProject Video Games or WikiProject: Video games or WikiProject video games but the current title, WikiProject Video games, makes no sense. Why capitalize Video and not games? It seems to me that this name is a proper noun, and like all proper nouns in the English language, it should be capitalized. There are other projects with both variations; I'm simply concerned with this project at the moment, and they can sort themselves out later. Obviously this is a minor improvement, but a small step forward is still a step forward. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose: I don't really see a compelling reason or benefit to doing this. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll oppose this, primarily because it is not a proper noun. And the reason the first letter is capitalized is to distinguish it from the word "WikiProject". As for why not "WP: VG", that's because of custom with the entirety of Wikipedia. This change is needless bureaucracy. --Izno (talk)
Sorry, but in what way is this not a proper noun? There is one WikiProject for video games, and its name is "WikiProject Video games". Even the use of CamelCase is almost exclusively for proper nouns (in English, anyway). As far as distinguishing one word from another, how does capitalization do that? Isn't that what the space in between is for? And as far as the benefit, it seems pretty straight-forward that if we are a project dedicated to the consistency and quality of video game editing throughout Wikipedia, the first thing we should do is ensure our project is capitalized properly. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 07:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Video game is not a proper known per se, but when used in the context of a WikiProject, it becomes a proper known, such as Salt Lake City. A salt lake city is not a proper known, but that it is the name of an actual city makes it one.∞陣内 Jinnai 07:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. 'Wikiproject' seems to be a proper noun, but 'Video games' or 'Military history' or 'Indigenous peoples of North America' or whatever describes the Wikiproject. You might have a Camaro, but you wouldn't have a Red Camaro, you'd have a red Camaro. Just because the Camaro is red doesn't mean 'red' is a pronoun, unless the Camaro was made out of people named Red (which would be a bit mean). Likewise, just because the Wikiproject is about video games doesn't make video games a pronoun. Emmy Altava 10:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the "video games" part of the name isn't a proper noun, then why is Video capitalized and games is not? What you are talking about are adjectives, which don't apply here. "Video games" is not an adjective in this case. It could qualify as an adjective only if used before WikiProject (as in "this is the video games WikiProject"). This is a name of a project, and just as "red" isn't a proper noun when used to describe a category of Camaros, it is a proper noun when describing a particular Camero (like Big Red Camaro), or a particular work about that category of Camaros, like Red Camaro. WikiProject Video Games is a self-identified group of editors, and like any organization, the name of the group is a proper noun. Even though U.S. National Video Game Team has adjectives in it, it is still a proper noun, as it is a name of an organization. There is no negotiating with that, that is what a proper noun is. "United" is an adjective, "states" is a noun, "United States" is a proper noun, because it is used to describe a specific entity. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 11:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an intensely informal argument, but the people at WP:Military history do it like this, and they're certainly better at Wikipediaing than I am, so I'm just going to meekly agree to whatever they're doing. In any case, this seems to be the case for most if not all Wikiprojects, so you'd probably be better off taking this to Wikipedia instead of us. In my personal opinion, there should be a colon, but honestly, altering it would probably break too many pages to be worth doing. Emmy Altava 10:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio Stations, Wikipedia:WikiProject Television Game Shows, etc. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - There are plenty of examples both ways, but we're talking about this project. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 11:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Passively Oppose - I am not actively opposing the RM; I present no argument to directly oppose it. However, no convincing reason is presented for the suggested move. While Video Games or video games would not be worse than the current name, I don't see a reason to change.

Quite the opposite, it follows the standard in use with other projects whose name is "WikiProject {ADJECTIVE} {NOUN}" (WP:MILHIST, obviously, but also WP:CM, WP:HR, etc.) Examples of the opposite can also be found -- which, while it falls under WP:OTHERSTUFF, only supports my "either is fine, no convincing reason to change" argument; there is no established consensus. Salvidrim! 11:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support only because when I'm in a hurry and and spelling out the wikilink to the project page i tend to capitalize Game.∞陣内 Jinnai 20:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Page titles should use sentence case, and "Video games" is not a proper noun. --MASEM (t) 20:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Masem, video games is not a proper noun, but "WikiProject Video Games" is just as a salt lake city is not a proper noun by itself, but Salt Lake City is.∞陣内Jinnai 20:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, I didn't get that's what people were thinking before. I'd like to clarify that I am not implying that I think "video game" is a proper noun, as in "Susan, I'd like you to meet my friend Video Game", I meant that the name of the project is a proper noun, the exact phrase "WikiProject Video Games". Jinnai's salt + lake + city example is a great one here. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I just took a cursory glance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory and there is no unanimity, but more projects seem to use our capitalization approach than others. On a personal note, I agree with this approach as I see "Video games" as the name of the project, and see "WikiProject" as more of a sub-namespace than as part of the name of the project. This treats "Video games" like we do any other article title in the mainspace. I would not be opposed to redirects in other cases if they are desired. —Ost (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per no consensus with other projects; this should be proposed globally, not just for us. I don't think there's much merit in the move for individual projects if there isn't consistency globally. I mean neither choice is grammatically correct, and given the two (discounting the one with proper grammar, as no project uses that), I would stick with sentence case starting the project name. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I don't see the merit in this proposal. DarthBotto_talk•cont 11:39, 06 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Universal acclaim"

Recently there has been a series of large-scale arguments over the use of the term "universal acclaim" in the reception sections of video game articles. The root of these arguments seems to be the fact that Metacritic employs this term as a label for some of its games with high average scores. While some editors find that the existence of one or more negative or mediocre reliable reviews should bar use of the term "universal" to describe the level of acclaim, others feel that "universal" doesn't necessarily mean "all" and that since Metacritic is a reliable source, its implied assertion of universality represents the final word on the subject. Currently there are over 500 uses of the term on Wikipedia. Not all of these are to be found in video game articles, but many of them are. If possible I'd like to have a community-wide discussion of the issue here to reach a broader consensus than the article-by-article discussions that will otherwise be necessary. Generally I'd like to know if editors think this term should be:
a)never used,
b)generally avoided unless there are a few sources that directly state "universal acclaim",
c)used per Metacritic's assessment alone (possibly with a disclaimer like "according to Metacritic's scale"),
d)used whenever it seems appropriate on a case by case basis, or
e)something else.
Thanks for your help. -Thibbs (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the film project has taken steps to rid itself of the term, using less severe terms like "mostly positive" or "generally positive", etc., that allow for outliers. I think its fair to have the VG project follow that lead. --MASEM (t) 23:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it inherently carries a too strong connotation. While it is undisputable that somes games do have universal acclaim (meaning, no negative critics at all), I believe it should be avoided whenever possible, even in cases where it would not be innacurate. That's just my personal opinion - it would avoid lengthy debates, and other less controversial terms could be substituted for an equivalent meaning. Salvidrim! 23:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

universal does tend to engender the idea of everyone. Generally or broadly are better terms. If someone wants to use it, it should be quoted and mentioned that it was according to Metacritic in the prose (not just a cite).∞陣内 Jinnai 00:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the other arguments, I'm against using the term for two reasons. One, "universal" is too strong of a word, as it leaves room for no margin of error. Secondly, it seems redundant, much like it would seem unnecessary to write "The game was extremely very good", when "extremely good" or "very good" is sufficient. I much prefer the "mostly positive" type wording. Sergecross73 msg me 00:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the debate that prompted at the the Skyward sword talk page it seems quite clear that there is no real debate on the issue and the only decent there is a single editor that won't drop the issue.--69.159.111.241 (talk) 02:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The same issue has cropped up in at least two other places on my Watchlist alone. I cannot imagine it is limited to that either. Salvidrim! 02:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Universal' implies that the acclaim is across the board, no exceptions, and 'acclaim' is a word that heavily jeopardizes NPOV as it implies fantastic approval and is often used in advertisements. When a game gets perfect tens from every single critic, then we can talk about using the term. However, considering that such will almost assuredly never happen, just avoid the phrase entirely. Skyward Sword didn't get universal acclaim: Gamespot gave it a 7.5. That's not acclaim and as a result contradicts usage of the word universal. Emmy Altava 03:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Universal acclaim doesn't imply that every critic gave it a perfect score: it implies that every critic gave it a good score. 7.5 is a good score (literally, it says "good" right below the score), so your example is invalid.--Remurmur (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the reviews Metacritic collected for Skyward Sword all give acclaim doesn't imply that universal acclaim exists in the larger world of RSes (i.e. outside of Metacritic). But anyway, as Salvidrim and I have pointed out, this issue is not limited to the Skyward Sword article. If possible let's avoid relitigating the Skyward Sword issue and focus on the term's use in general. -Thibbs (talk) 01:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with using the term universal acclaim is that it doesn't divide between fan and critic opinions. For example a game that gets critical acclaim from reviewers may have mixed reviews from fans. That is the core problem with universal acclaim. Cutecutecuteface2000 (Cutecuteface needs attention) 14:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So it looks like, at least according to this discussion, most people are against this term. It's good that we have this to reference to, but is there somewhere/someway to get something like this into WP:VG guidelines, so we're not always having to dig up this conversation? Sergecross73 msg me 16:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should be able to add it under Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines#Style, or the section right under it. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Master System Sales

Have a bit of debate going on over at Talk:Sega Master System over this issue and at this point it really needs some fresh eyes and attempt at consensus. The topic over there wanders a bit and only really picked up in the last couple of days even though the start of the topic was last September, so I am going to start over here and discuss the points from scratch so that people do not have to wade through everything unless they absolutely want to. If anyone else involved over there thinks this post leaves out something important, please chime in with your own views. My apologies, but due to the complexity of the issue, this will be a bit long.

So, back in September, I decided to challenge the currently prevailing view that the Master System sold 13 million units. This attack was based on two main thrusts: the reliability of wikipedia's sourcing for the figure, and my belief that aggregating totals from surefire reliable sources would never reach that figure. The second attack is one based on OR, but only to debunk a source, not to settle on a new and certain sales figure for the article itself, which was never my intent. Suffice to say on the numbers that new evidence has come forward in the last few days thanks to some fine research by User:Jagged 85 on Google Books combined with my earlier sources that gives 9.8 million as a baseline sales figure for the system and makes a final figure between 10 and 13 million a definite possibility, though one that cannot currently be reached through source aggregation. Therefore, the second attack is no longer an issue and I concede that aggregation neither really supports nor hinders the reliability of the 13 million figure. Therefore, the outstanding issue is with the reliability of sources explicitly stating a 13 million figure, which I will expand on below.

There are several sources on the Internet that give this figure. Conversely, no print sources have yet been found. Also, there are no known primary sources that give this figure either through company information releases, interviews with knowledgeable personnel, or information made available in news accounts or through data tracking services and stock analysts. Of the Internet sources that give the figure, most of them are unreliable for not being professionally authored or subject to editorial control. I certainly cannot claim to have found every article on the Internet giving the figure, so editors are certainly free to bring others forward for consideration. For my part, I will focus on four specific sources, Eidolon's Inn, wikipedia itself, Game Tunnel, and IGN.

Eidolon's Inn (http://www.eidolons-inn.net/tiki-index.php) is a fansite dedicated to all things Sega. Looking over the site, there is no evidence of professional staff or editorial control. Reading some of the history articles shows that the site is incredibly biased towards Sega, which is exactly what one would expect from a fansite. There is no evidence that it meets wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources in any way. What makes the site interesting, however, is that it appears to be both the oldest source to claim the 13 million figure on the Internet and the only one that claims to have reached that figure through primary source research. As such, there is a reasonable probability that this site is ground zero for the spread of this figure across the Internet.

Specifically, the site has a history of Sega written by one Sam Pettus available at http://www.eidolons-inn.net/tiki-index.php?page=SegaBase that claims to have been last revised in Januray 2007. Within that history, you have a page discussing the Sega Master System at http://www.eidolons-inn.net/tiki-index.php?page=SegaBase+Master+System+and+Game+Gear&bl=y which was last modified on Januray 22, 2007 as indicated at the bottom of the page. This essay contains the following: "Taking into account the three iterations of the console, along with Sega's own figures and those of its licensees, it seems that over 13 million SMS units were sold worldwide between 1986 and 1998 - and that doesn't include the clones and knock-offs." Note that he claims primary source info but does not cite to any figures. Also note, that this article and the 13 million figure both existed by at least August 3, 2004 as seen at http://web.archive.org/web/20040803114918/http://www.eidolons-inn.net/segabase/SegaBase-MasterSystem.html

Now we flash forward to December 25, 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sega_Master_System&oldid=32678934) which is when the 13 million figure first hit wikipedia unsourced. Note that this is after the Eidolon's Inn article already existed. Sourcing to Eidolon's Inn was then provided in wikipedia on November 29, 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sega_Master_System&oldid=90932673) in response to a citation needed tag. I cannot be 100% certain that no reliable source used that figure before December 2005, but I have yet to see one presented. That citation stood until October 28, 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sega_Master_System&oldid=167594779), when another citation was added to the Game Tunnel article, which was from September 2005, still postdating the Eidolon's Inn article. There was some moving back and forth between figures for a bit that does not matter for the point of this debate before a talk page discussion initiated on February 5 2010 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sega_Master_System/Archive_1#number_of_sold_units) brought the 13 million figure back with new sourcing from IGN joining the Eidolon's Inn source and a German fansite that is easily dismissed. This is how the sourcing stood until the start of the current round of talks last September.

So now on to GameTunnel (http://www.gametunnel.com/). This project had a discussion about the site as a source at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources/Archive_2#Evaluation_of_sources_covering_indie_games. The site is currently not considered either reliable or unreliable, but the brief discussion focused on its reliability as a source on Indie games, which is the main thrust of the site. Looking at the site, there is no evidence that it regularly engages in coverage of non-indie subjects, and it seems unlikely that it is an expert on earlier console generations. The article sourced to for Master System sales is at http://web.archive.org/web/20061018183935/http://www.gametunnel.com/articles.php?id=263. It discusses the console wars of the 2nd through 5th generation and gives sales figures and market share data for each period. It is full of errors. It fails to list the Atari 7800 and its over three million in sales in the 2nd generation, meaning its marketshare data is wrong even if the Master System figure is right. It gives Genesis sales as 30 million, which is also wrong as proven on wikipedia itself. According to the article itself, most of the material was not professionally researched and was derived from amateur research conducted on a forum, with independent confirmation "when possible," meaning some info was included without independent confirmation. He presumably got the 13 million figure from the forum post at http://web.archive.org/web/20061126161527/http://forum.pcvsconsole.com/viewthread.php?tid=14306 dated Januray 17, 2005, which does not list its source, but also postdates Eidolon's Inn. Since the GameTunnel article appears to have been cobbled together using often uncited forum postings, I believe it may be dismissed.

That brings us to the final article, the IGN piece on the battle between the SNES and Genesis (http://retro.ign.com/articles/965/965032p1.html). This article gives several sales figures, all without attribution and all readily available on wikipedia at the time the article was published on March 20, 2009. It states the Genesis sold 29 million units, the number given on wikipedia at the time that has since been proven wrong using priamry sources that the IGN author would have been able to access in 2009 if he were actually doing in-depth research on his article. The article also states that Sonic the Hedgehog sold 4 million units. This was also the number reported on wikipedia at the time and has also since been proven wrong. The article also states that Sega lost substantial ground to Nintendo in 1994 in the United States. This is also quite wrong. A Sega press release at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_1995_Jan_6/ai_15997617/ uses NPD data to trumpet its leading marketshare in 1994. Sega will of course be biased about its own sales and make itself look good, but the data is from a neutral source. If you still do not trust Sega to be honest, however, we have a research paper from a couple of professors (http://archive.nyu.edu/bitstream/2451/28396/2/Clements_Ohashi_04-01.pdf) that includes the same NPD data for 1994. This article gets so many facts wrong I don't see how one could trust the author to properly research Master System sales when the system was not even the focus of his article. Furthermore, it shows evidence of using other erroneous sales figures found on wikipedia at the time, meaning wikipedia was a likely source.

Well, if you are still reading after all that, you probably deserve a medal or something. As a final point I want to emphasize that I do not know what final Master System sales are and that I am not interested in the "truth" of one holy grail figure, as that is not in keeping with wikipedia policy. My argument is that no reliable sources have given a 13 million figure. My evidence for this is laid out above. If anyone else finds another source worthy of consideration, feel free to give it. Indrian (talk) 06:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This should actually be very simple -- is there, currently, a reliable source stating a clear sales figure? If yes, use that info and source it. If not, do not present the information, as it is not verifiable. If the reliability of the source is under question, WT:VG/S should be used to determine any given source's reliability. Salvidrim! 06:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that's the point. Two sources have been presented that past editors have found reliable. My argument is that neither one is reliable. The wall of text above is to show how I find the sources not to be reliable. Consensus is needed for or against that position. Indrian (talk) 07:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After reading through this, the thing that caught my eye was Useer:Jesus.Arnold's update which added a printed source claiming 10 million. I have verified the book exists, and it was updated last year. Maybe I'll buy it. Nevermind, it's $50.--SexyKick 07:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That could be intriguing, though I find those catch-all encyclopedia style books are often riddled with errors. Still, there could be a good cite in there somewhere since there is little doubt the system sold at least ten million. Indrian (talk) 07:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Do I have that book? Rings a bell. Lemme look through my bookcase. Salvidrim! 07:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the issue is simple. We have reliable sources which clearly support the 13 million figure, and we have original research into sales figures which aggregate to a number of 9.8 million, recognizing that that figure must be higher based on how the other information was collected (it leaves out markets in which there were positive sales, and it under-reports markets it includes because it sources active user-base, not sales). Therefore, we have a reliable source which is supported by independent research. Case closed.LedRush (talk) 14:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, now would you please explain to me why any of the error-riddled poorly researched sources listed above are reliable? Also, the independent research is neutral on the matter. It supports the possibility that there were thirteen million in sales. It also supports the possibility there were 11 million in sales or 15 million in sales. All it shows is that the final number is somewhere above 9.8 million, not any specific number. Indrian (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IGN is reliable because community consensus is that it is reliable (and for other resons involving editorial oversight and generally meeting the RS criteria). Seeing as the independent research does not call into question the reliability of the numbers IGN used, this is a complete non-issue.LedRush (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's follow that logic for a bit. The above article from IGN states that Sega lost substantial ground to Nintendo in 1994. NPD figures prove that Sega had the leading marketshare in 1994. So because IGN is generally reliable, we should include the fact that Sega lost substantial ground to Nintendo in the fourth generation console article even though this is demonstrably false? Indrian (talk) 17:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you keep making straw man arguments (this is your third time in 12 hours). My point is that the number of 13 million is not only not demonstrably false, but seems completely reasonable based on the aggregate numbers others have researched. You yourself have conceded this point.LedRush (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot see the relationship between my points and your arguments that is not my fault. Labeling something a straw man does not make it one. Your argument hinges on the article being reliable. Your argument that the article is reliable stems from the fact it was published by IGN. You claim that information from this article should be used because IGN is a reliable source. According to that position, then all information from this article should be used whether it is accurate or not. Therefore, the question I put to you is central to debating your position. Indrian (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have not said that, and no, that isn't my position. Your personal attacks, uncivil tone and reluctance to engage others honestly makes exchanges of ideas with you impossible.LedRush (talk) 19:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to be patient with you, but your inability to acknowledge that we are talking about the same thing makes it very hard despite repeated attempts at doing so. You want to use the 13 million figure from this article because IGN is considered a reliable source by the project. I get that and have acknowledged that you have stated this position many times. I suppose you don't see yourself as advocating any further action beyond that point, which is why you think I am putting up straw man arguments. I am exploring the logical follow through of that basic position. If the article is reliable for the 13 million figure, does that make it reliable for all other facts in the article? If yes, how does that relate to the fact that some information can be proven inaccurate? Does some inaccurate info in an article invalidate the whole article? If not, why would we trust one sales figure when several others are wrong? These are all valid questions and concerns. Indrian (talk) 20:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are making this much more difficult than it needs to be, but I appreciate your note above not overtly and deliberately misinterpreting my position or personally attacking me. However, I do not want to use the 13 million figure merely because IGN is a RS. I want to use it because: (1) IGN is a RS; (2) the number is supported by other data gathered in independent research; and (3) I don't see the errors in the article that you do. No one reason is dispositive. All information should be viewed on it's own merits under the specific circumstances. For example, many have argued pursuasively that the 29 million number for the Genesis is correct (I personally disagree with that point, but I'd be lying if I said that others don't strenuously disagree with me). In fact, that is a number still used by several RSs. I don't have enough data to know whether the Genesis lost market in 1994, though I must say that's what I've read in other RSs. Furthermore, your initial post incorrectly states that the article says that Sonic 1 sold 4 million, when the article says over 4 million. An undeniable fact. Furthermore, I think it's safe to say that they are counting separate sales, not pack-ins. (when discussing the correct 6 million sales for Sonic 2, it calls the game the best selling one for the Genesis and compares it to "the best-selling non-pack-in game for the Super NES".) So basically, what you are counting as 4 glaring errors I am counting as one substantiated fact (13 million), one disputed but widely accepted fact (29 million), one unclear fact (Ninty v. Sega) which seems true to me, and one facially correct fact which may have used a different counting scheme than you. I just don't see the issues that you are seeing.LedRush (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a discrepancy in sources - and singular sources at that - it is probably better to state a range, eg "Sales of the system are estimated between 9.8 and 13 million units." --MASEM (t) 17:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, no source says 9.8 million sales. One source gives individual active user install bases for limited geographic regions which add up to 9.8 million, meaning that the actual sales number must be higher than 9.8 million.LedRush (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not a source discrepancy. The issue is quite simple, though requires the thorough explanation above to get a handle on the facts. Quite simply, is an article with at least four major factual inaccuracies, one of which undermines the author's own thesis, still considered reliable just because IGN has been labelled a reliable source by the project. This is not a dispute over what figures to use. This is a dispute over whether a source can be trusted at all. Indrian (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is it about Sega articles that attracts long arguments about small things? Though at least this one isn't about the title. Every day, about 850 people come to that page and see a C-class article. They would all be much greater served by having a B-class or GA article, even one that had wrong (or "wrong") sales information, than a C-class article with that one number perfectly accurate and precise. --Pres N 18:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, you are exactly right. Lets just throw anything we find on the Internet into wikipedia. That way every article will be really long and that will be great. Of course, half the material will be factually inaccurate, but wikipedia is only about having really big articles with lots of sources, not providing useful and accurate information to the people. You have my personal apology for messing up your day. Furthermore, your inability to tell the difference between wanting to find "one number perfectly accurate and precise" and wanting to eliminate a figure that appears to have come into being solely through faulty research without a corresponding desire to come up with an alternative is truly mind-boggling. If you cannot tell the difference between source critique and number hunting and have nothing to add to a debate other than "wah, wah wikipedia has lots of short articles," you should stay out of debates that you cannot follow well. I really do not care how many units the console sold or in finding the "truth" of the matter. I just don't want sloppily researched articles being deemed reliable solely because they were published under the umbrella of a generally reliable news website. Indrian (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This extended uncivil personal attack should be stricken.LedRush (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boy you sure are taking things awfully personally in this debate. I am sure PresN can speak for himself if he has a problem. Rather than engage in the discussion or ignore it, two perfectly viable options, PresN issued a personal attack implying that we as editors are wasting our time exploring these issues and and belittling those that deign to engage in discussion on topics he does not think are important. That's his opinion, and he has chosen to state that opinion in a public forum that invites comment. I have the right to address his opinion in kind. Indrian (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On wikipedia you never have the right to engage in uncivil personal attacks.LedRush (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well the pot is sure having a nice conversation with the kettle, eh? Throughout this discussion I have countered policy point with policy point, debate with debate, and dismissive attacks like the one mounted by PresN above and the one mounted by you in the topic below with dismissiveness. Seems about right. PresN wants to interject a frivolous comment that has nothing to do with the discussion, he will get a frivolous comment back. Sarcasm is not a personal attack; I have made no claims regarding his character and the only statement that even comes close to an attack on him is in regards to his choice not to offer anything useful to the discussion. Anyway, he can contact me himself if he has a problem. He does not really need you and I to fight his battles by proxy. Indrian (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did have a snotty reply thought up a while earlier, but decided not to submit. Let's try a non-snotty, blunt reply. This is not a "short article". This is a perfectly lengthy, mediocre article. It is an article full of accurate facts that nevertheless fails to inform readers as well as it could- or should. The worldwide sales of the system is not trivial- it matters to you, clearly, for one, and it's an importance measure of the console's impact on the world. What is trivial, however, is this argument- it's trivial this time, it was trivial the other times it was brought up, and it will be trivial the next time it comes up, as I'm sure it will.

The time you spent researching this fact, in proving that one of the sources used wasn't well-researched, was not wasted. But every minute of the countless hours you have spent arguing about it, both in this round and in previous rounds, have been utterly, pointlessly wasted, primarily because every reader that goes to that article and doesn't find a GA or FA-class article has been underinformed, mislead by word choice, led into not learning the information that's further down the page because they got bored halfway through, or a combination of all three. But here you are, pouring time and energy into a debate that's about that article but that's not going anywhere, and will never go anywhere. The same energy could have been put into fixing the article, and then the next time you bring this up, instead of the fourth time spent fixing one flaw among many without progress, it could have been the first time that you try to fix that one last flaw in an article that has better informed literally thousands and thousands of readers. But you can't see that. If you were a person that could recognize that spending 10 points of energy on getting 1 HP out of 10 (instead of spending the points to get the other possible 9 HP first so that you were better prepared) is just a horribly inefficient idea, then you would never be fighting this sad, wasteful fight.

But goddammit, someone is wrong on the internet. --Pres N 23:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to try to improve wikipedia in the way you want to, and I will try to improve it in the way I want to. If you think this kind of effort is not worth it, then you don't have to do it. If I decide I have nothing better to do with my time than vet sources and engaging in a round of arguments that I personally find fascinating, entertaining, and frustrating in roughly equal measure, that's my choice. It really does not affect you. I long ago decided that adding to wikipedia articles is not worth my effort due to the many headaches it involves. I focus my scholastic pursuits elsewhere. That's a personal choice, and I would never try and stop you from spending countless hours providing FA class info to every last article in the space. Thanks for keeping it (mostly) civil, but your opinion on the best way to improve wikipedia is no more the gospel than mine is. It takes all kinds. Indrian (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your call in the end for what you want to spend your time on; the mini-rant was more in the hopes of convincing future combatants to re-evaluate their choice. At least it's actually about something, and not about the page title- I flinch every time I see "Sega Genesis" on this page. But I'm not adding anything here, so I'll drop out of the discussion.

Oh, but as far as the actual discussion goes- if it's agreed that the IGN author was wrong about the genesis/sonic sales numbers, then I would not trust any other sales numbers in that particular article- it has become, by definition, unreliable. This does not however, in my opinion, de facto invalidate IGN as an RS or that author as an RS in other cases. --Pres N 00:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Masem here. A range is best. Even if they, according to LeRush must be higher, that is OR to state a higher figure with such certainty.∞陣内 Jinnai 18:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, to be clear, there is no source that says there was 9.8 million in sales. The sources talks about active users for specific regions of the world. I believe it is inaccurate original research to use a source about limited active user install bases and proclaim that it is a source about sales figures. Consequently, in my opinion we cannot use a range because we have no source giving a lower sales number. We have reliable sources saying 13 million and independent research (yes, OR) which supports it. Of course, we can discuss active install bases in the article and use the source to list that.LedRush (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with a range if the project deems this article reliable. The issue, though is whether this article should be considered reliable even though it has demonstrated errors. For some reason, no one seems to want to discuss the issue of the underlying source problems. Indrian (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's because you haven't stated what kind and how many errors. The NYT makes errors all the time. That doesn't mean we throw out every NYT article.∞陣内 Jinnai 18:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say it, but this indicates that you did not actually bother to read the original post (or that I made it too long and convoluted, sometimes its the audience, and sometimes its the author). The errors contained in the article are discussed in the initial posting, second-to-last paragraph. Indrian (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the issue is that there's concern that a normally reliable source has factually incorrect information even internally (which does happen of course to the best of sources), but there's no other source you can use to invalidate it, the best way to state it "IGN's John Smith estimated that 13M units were sold...". Assign the "blame", to speak, so that if it is wrong, it is not WP's fault it's wrong. --MASEM (t) 20:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with that. I think a sentence saying something like "Sega has never released official sales figures but estimates have been provided by some sources" followed by the IGN claim as well as the individual country breakdowns would be fine. That way wikipedia is making no assertion to the truth or accuracy of the figure while acknowledging that an outside source has made an estimate. If that's fine with everyone else, then that is fine with me. That still leaves the question of the infobox and the various pages that list best-selling consoles, however. Those places are, unfortunately, more concerned with "truth" than with explaining fine distinctions like this. I would be disinclined to use the 13 million figure in those places, but as always am interested in hearing other opinions. Indrian (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the infobox (where yes, I know some editors fight for accuracy), this is where I would use a range that the prose supposed, with "(est.)" clarification and re-linking the sources used in the prose. Cleanest, least combative way to show that. --MASEM (t) 21:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But 9.8 million is not a sales figure, is not an estimate of a sales figure, and is 100% demonstrably not accurate. I don't see how we can support including it in the manner you suggest.LedRush (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am in agreement with LedRush on this point, but I imagine we disagree on using the 13 million figure in this manner. I think it has reliability issues too, which is why I think it should be used subject to the caveat discussed above. I would personally rather leave the infobox blank on this matter, or maybe use a link or footnote of some kind. Indrian (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if there's agreement that you can't sussinctly sum up in an infobox line, then my suggestion there is to state "N/A (see below)", where "see below" is linked to an {{anchor}} to the section in the prose where you are talking about the sales. But make it clear at that section to lead it off that "The sales figures for the unit are unknown, but estimates from blah blah blah... ". This makes it very clear to the reader there's no source to affirm the numbers, WP is not creating OR nor biasing any reliable source over another, etc. --MASEM (t) 22:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But we have reliable sources that say the sales figures are known. And they aren't estimates (at least, any more than any sales figures are). We don't have to treat all information equally. The infobox calls for sales figures so only sales figures should be entered. We have a RS telling us what the sales figures are, unequivically. We have no information which disputes the numbers. I know that compromise is often commendable, not all information is deserving of equal weight.LedRush (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And this is where things break down between us in the discussion. We have an article on IGN riddled with errors claiming a figure. An article riddled with errors is really not all that reliable even if published under the umbrella of a reliable site. I am more than open to a compromise that includes this figure in the article in deference to IGN's general reliability, but I do have concerns over wikipedia implicitly making a value statement on the quality of this figure by including it in the infobox. The same article that gives the 13 million figure gives inaccurate numbers for both Sonic the Hedgehog and Genesis sales and misstates Sega's 1994 16-bit market position. Again I must ask, why would we trust the author of the article to get one sales figure right when he got two other sales figures dead wrong? Indrian (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I've argued above, you have not pointed to a single verifiable error in the article. To summarize: (1) You misquoted the article regarding Sonic, and it seems likely they are not including pack-in numbers; (2) other RSs agree with them regarding $29 million for the Genesis, as do many editors on WP (I think 29 million is wrong, but I can't prove it); (3) you've not provided proof of the wide belief that the Ninty gained market share on Sega in 1994.LedRush (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's Genesis page already has the sources that show the 29 million figure is outdated and has included a larger figure based on reliable sources such as the New York Times and company press releases. I imagine you are aware of that since you are active on that page. The IGN article says the following about Sonic: "The first Sonic game sold over four million units." Your accusation of misquoting is either a deliberate personal attack intended to cast aspersions, a misreading of the article yourself, or evidence of not reading the article in the first place. The article makes no reference to whether these are standalone or pack-in sales, so your rationalization of the figure is original research. In my initial post, I have linked to two different sources that quote NPD figures that put Sega's marketshare in the US in 1994 above Nintendo's at 57%. Whatever disagreements you may with me on a personal or professional level, you should at least acknowledge when info is provided even if you disagree with the positions. Indrian (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You stated: "The article also states that Sonic the Hedgehog sold 4 million units."

The article says "The first Sonic game sold over four million units." (emphasis mine). I made this clear in my post under your other claims. Furthermore, immediately after the Sonic 1 claim, they talk about Sonic 2: the article compares Sonic 2 to " the best-selling non-pack-in game for the Super NES". Clearly they were trying to compare best selling non-pack-ins for a fair comparison.

I believe the 29 million number is wrong, but that is a belief not held by everyone. Because many RSs use the 29 million number and almost no one uses the numbers that WP uses, it seems unfair to criticize IGN for stating the majority view on the matter.

Finally, the article states "By 1994, SEGA had lost substantial ground to Nintendo in America." If they once held 100% of the 16 bit market share (which they almost did by virtue of launching first) and then they hold 57%, they "lost substantial ground". You have provided no proof that their assertion is wrong.

Basically, that leaves us with no valid criticisms of the IGN article at all.LedRush (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, with responses in two different places and not checking for updates every second I did not see that you responded to some things in an earlier part of the thread before I posted the stuff directly above, so there is some disconnect for that reason. Anyway, you are misreading the article when you say it makes a claim of going down from 100%. The author specifically mentions Sega's 55% marketshare in 1992 and makes the argument that it fell from there. Going to 57% is not falling. Indrian (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_1995_Jan_6/ai_15997617/ here is one article about 1994's sales %'s (1994's market share data, not overall, all years combined market share I should note, which means Sega's market share went UP in 1994, not down). Guys, what happened to the book source that says 10 million SMS's were sold? That gives us a surefire reliable source for 10 million. Personally I'd say "Sweet, that's good enough". Otherwise we have to write a footnote explaining Eidolonn's Inn (not IGN) vs. the book source. I'm almost certain the Inn got the sales figure from one of the user FAQ's listed as sources.--SexyKick 23:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with Indrian about IGN's article. Clearly Wikipedia is most likely the sole source for their article. If they used a book source for DKC's sales, they would hit 9 million. Not 8 million. (I need to update that info in the SNES article as well BTW, it's in Kent's book, Page 497). If you read the 16-bit Sega article at the date of IGN's article, it says Sega goes from 65% market share to 35% market share during 1994. That they "lost everything" in that year. Sonic 1 is at 4 million, DKC is at 8 million, and as Indrian says, the sources for the current sales information were readily available for any editor doing his homework. Sega still captures the dollar share win of the market in 1995 as well. So they didn't even lose everything that year either either.--SexyKick 23:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that Sega reported that they had 55% "going into 1992". I don't know what happened in 1993 according to IGN. But let's say they jumped the gun on this one. This is one, soft, inaccuracy. I don't see how it undoes everything else we know about the sales. (However, if there is a book citation to 10 million, I say we use Masem's approach).LedRush (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's true actually. They had 55% at the end of 1991 (Kent's book), they got 60% in June of 1992 (Discount Store News), and they ended 1993 with 67% (Business Week), all currently sourced information in the article (well actually I think we got rid of the first one since it was getting redundant). I've not been able to find a source that comments on total market share after Sega sold 55% of all 16-bit hardware during 1994, but that leads us to believe that market share is over 67% for sure at that point. Sega won every Christmas season until 1995(Kent's book) and then Nintendo wins years 1995-1997(Business Week, Video Business, and Business Wire - a difference of only 1.5 million consoles in those three years combined as 16-bit sales were near dead) and then Majesco wins 1998-99 with the Genesis 3 (Sam Pettus).

But yeah, you should probably take the IGN source to wp:source discussion, and we should use this source for 10 million in the meantime. We can even do a 10-13 million thing if we really need to.--SexyKick 00:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with using the book citation in some form as well. The IGN article does not commit a soft inaccuracy, however. The thesis of the article is that Nintendo handily beat Sega in the 16-bit generation. A major support of that thesis is that Nintendo ended up clobbering Sega in North America. That support is inaccurate. Sega won in 1992, 1993, and 1994. The NPD data is out there on the web for those willing to search for it, and some of it has been linked to on this very page. Another pillar of that thesis is a sales differential of 20 million units. The SNES sold more, but adding up sales of the Genesis in a variety of reliable sources covering the United States, Europe, and Japan (one does not have to add Brazil figures to show the 29 million figure is wrong, which is good since there are some issues there) shows the gap was much smaller. Those two big mistakes undermine the whole article. None of this has anything to do with Master System sales, of course, but the problem is that an author who makes such mistakes on points central to his thesis cannot be trusted to have properly researched anything in the article. Therefore, I would personally discount anything the gentleman has to say.

On a related, but separate note, I think I am going to do something I have been trying to avoid because of the headache it will involve and explore whether it might be useful to bring up IGN on the RS page to try and get it labelled situationally reliable as a primary source only (ie contemporaneous reporting of news, reviews of newly released games, analysis and opinion pieces discussing current trends and issues, information gleaned from interviews, etc.) This will take a few days, however, because it is going to take a lot of digging and linking to multiple historical articles that contain easily proven inaccuracies (some far more easily proven than some of the issues in this article) and some examination of how much of IGN's historical output is lacking to see if it constitutes enough of a trend to take action against the whole site (its possible these articles are just isolated incidents). That's why I have not done it until now, but the arguments over IGN's sloppy history reporting are getting old for all of us I think. That will provide one forum to discuss all of that mess. Indrian (talk) 00:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hate this strategy. Forum shop and go downstream until you wear out anyone who disagrees while convincing barely interested editors to get your way. Oh well.

Back on topic (almost), the 15 million number on Sonic is wrong. If you listen to the actual youtube video, Sega says that Sonic was on his way to a million sales after launching in all major markets before he became a pack in. Sonic was a pack-in for 15 million consoles. Any reference to this youtube video (for best selling lists or the Sonic articles) should be deleted and we should try to get the real total number (we already know the non-pack-in number of 4 million, as reported in numerous RSs).

This leaves us with one possibly mistaken statement in an otherwise very well researched article from a RS giving us a sales number which is supported by independent research. I really don't understand how this issue is hanging around.LedRush (talk) 01:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forum shopping, really? You just cannot keep a conversation civil for more than a couple of posts of someone with a differing view than yours. This discussion was never about IGN as a reliable source, just one article. I have seen enough annoying stuff from IGN that I think it may be worthy of an examination. My preliminary look at reveals that the bad articles appear to be outnumbered by the well researched ones though, so it is looking less likely I will go that route. ALso, if you can remember back that far, I made the thread here at the request of another editor who figured it would be a good idea to seek broader input. Hardly qualifies as forum shopping. Also, the Sonic number is not wrong, sales are sales. I never claimed the 15 million was non-bundled copies. The IGN article makes the claim that Sonic 2 "outpaced" the original with 6 million sales. That statement is not true because that totally dismisses sales of bundled copies, assuming the 4 million number refers to unbundled specifically. Also, it does not leave one error. The Genesis sales are wrong; reliable sources show that the number is in excess of 29 million. Anyway, it really does not matter, we seem to have a solid consensus for the 10-13 range based on the two sources. The point of bringing this here was to gauge consensus, not to score a "win" for my specific position. You are the only editor I have carried on an extended argument with because you appear to be uninterested in leaving things well enough alone. If you were not so ready to try to distort everything I post, I would not keep engaging with you. Even then, its probably time I stopped feeding the troll. Its possible we are talking past each other a bit and there is some misunderstanding, but there it is. Indrian (talk) 03:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have repeatedly gauged in personal attacks, uncivil behavior, and deliberate distortion of others' views. While I'm not always super nice, your claim of my trolling is absurd, as is your claim that I've distorted your views. While I've repeatedly tried to steer conversation back to the merits, you merely ignore the points. While others here have disagreed with me, and I them, why is it only you that is having trouble playing nice with multiple editors? Think deeply about your motivations for this topic and whether it is worth the aggrevation...not just in terms of the time you spend, but in the effect that your methods have on others who edit the project. Because consensus seems formed around the 10-13 range (assuming a source for 10 million is found), I see no need to further engage you in discussion and further open myself up to your personal attacks.LedRush (talk) 03:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To add my two cents, I think the best approach would probably be the suggestion above that we use 10-13 million, since we now have two RS's giving 10m and 13m. While the reliability of that IGN article may be an issue worth discussing separately, in this specific case, the article's claim of 13m is well within the realm of possibility given the independent research we've done at the Master System talk page (which indicates it could be any number above 9.8 million). Now that we have a lower-end estimate of 10m and upper-end estimate of 13 million, I think it would be best to put it down as 10-13 million for now. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 03:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a blessing that creating this topic here lead to the discovery of that 10 million source. Because IMHO all the 13 million ones have been discredited despite the number being a real possibility, it's the origin of the number being taken into consideration that destroys its credibility. No console deserves to be under represented though, and the absence of its sales information was noticed. Getting 10 million is only 3 million off. My honest !vote is to just put down the 10 million since it has been discovered, and it's a surefire source no one may question. However I am not very interested in the SMS, so if you guys really want a 10-13 million range I think that's fair and we've reached the consensus to use that.--SexyKick 06:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that 10 million is most definitely an under-estimate (since the 9.8 million figure we reached excludes Brazil and under-estimates Europe and Japan), while 13 million may possibly be an over-estimate (although I'd say the actual sales is much closer to this figure than the 10m one), hence why I think a 10m-13m range would be most accurate. Nevertheless, I think we should wait for Indrian and LedRush to give their views on the matter before we can reach consensus. Jagged 85 (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My first choice would be to just use the ten million figure because of my misgivings about the IGN source. However, if the general consensus is to go with a range, I am fine with that since the 13 million figure is certainly within the realm of possibility. Indrian (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LedRush consented to use a range I believe (he may correct me if I'm wrong), Masem proposed a range, Jin proposed a range, and Salvidrim proposed you take the IGN source to here to get that specific article checked out for reliability, and if reliable we can just use that, and if deemed not, then we just use 10 million (this was his proposal). We can try to proceed with the groups sentiment though.--SexyKick 01:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since it seems the 10m-13m range is the one idea that (I assume) all of us can agree on, maybe we should go with using a range then? Jagged 85 (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since everyone seems to be in agreement with using a range, I've went ahead and updated the article to list a 10m-13m range. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

10 million Book Source

If anyone still cares, here's the book source mentionned above. Cheers! Salvidrim! 14:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of Factually Inaccurate Articles Published by Generally Reliable Sources

Ok, since the above conversation has become laser-focused on Master System sales figures rather than on the larger issue I hoped to call attention to, I hope a different topic divorced from that specific issue (and with much less text) would be helpful for achieving consensus. The title says it all. I think it would helpful to establish a consensus as to whether an article is considered trustworthy because it is published by a reliable source even if it can be proven to have lots of bad information or to have been researched using sources wikipedia does not deem reliable.

My personal argument would be that being published by a reliable source gives an item an indicia of reliability that allows it to be used without further investigation by the editor using the source but that if the article can be proven to contain numerous inaccuracies then that article should be considered unreliable. Establishing consensus on this point would halt lengthy arguments like the one above. Indrian (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First off, using sources Wikipedia does not deem reliable is a non-starter. Every source using sources Wikipedia deems not to be reliable (well okay that is an exaggeration, but not by much). Even if it comes from The Urban Dictionary, if a RS uses it, we consider it reliable because we assume they know what they are talking about. That doesn't mean we use TUD's link; we still cite them. I asked a similar question at RS/N and got that answer so its wider community consensus on that point.∞陣内 Jinnai 18:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT:As to your other point, I guess it would depend. It certainly wouldn't help its credibility and would at best be considered a low-quality reliable source (ie would have issues passing muster at FA which wants the highest quality available for that info).∞陣内 Jinnai 18:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that makes sense as far as it goes, but what really concerns me is that when one points out errors in, say, an IGN article, the knee-jerk reaction is "IGN is considered a reliable source so there is no need to explore further and errors do not matter." Does the wikipedia project truly support the willful addition and retention of material that is suspect or flat-out inaccurate based on the shoddy nature of an individual article just because it is published under the banner of IGN or the New York Times? And further, do wikipedians really believe that because IGN is subject to editorial oversight that it actually has the time and resources to thoroughly research and fact check every article to insure they reach a uniformly high standard of quality and accuracy? Indrian (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your inability to discuss this issue without deliberately distorted others' views is disturbing.LedRush (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What in the heck are you talking about? This is a series of hypothetical questions tied to no individual views. If you want to add your views to this discussion specifcially (separate from though initiated because of the discussion above) then I would be happy to discuss your personal views here. There was no real need to interrupt a civil discussion between two editors about wikipedia policy for this personal attack. Indrian (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In general, no. That's what WP:DUE and WP:V are for. However the VnT slogan is exactly imo what gets us into this mess (that's for another talk page though). In general we don't support factual errors unless they are widely circulated by RSes. Even then, we try to put it into context. FE: School Rumble#Anime series notes that shonen is the proper genre for the title, but that it is mistaken as shojo at times. While it mentions the factual accuracy, it gives it context. We don't throw out what's her-name just because she made a factual error.∞陣内 Jinnai 23:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, that is my understanding of how wikipedia works. The issue I am interested in is a gray area between these realms. If a small section of a reliable source that has dozens of contributors (a specific article on a website, not an entire monograph which will almost always have one or two problems no matter what) has several glaring inaccuracies in it, should we discount anything that section (article) says and not just the specific facts that can be proven to be errors? I don't mean a name or date typo or a mistaken background fact, but one or more major errors that undermine the central idea of the piece and appear to demonstrate sloppy research. Indrian (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt there will be any general consensus because it will be so complicated to assess each source. Each one will likely need to be taken on a case-by-case basis depending on the types of statements that were proven inaccurate and which are known to be correct.∞陣内 Jinnai 01:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Again, that should be simple -- if a reliable surce states a fact, it is verifiable. Your claim that it is "innacurate" is OR unless supported by a conflicting reliable source, in which case that's a debate between two conflicting RS. Wikipedia requires verifiability in reliable sources, not truth or accuracy in information. Salvidrim! 01:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as to the OR thing, I don't think that is a problem because I believe the OR policy only applies to material used in the article itself and does not apply to the evaluation of sources. Looking at the reliability policy though, I suppose you do have the right of it. I like to think that something inaccurate is unreliable on its face, but the policy really does not make allowance for that view. Truly when IGN or some other generally reliable site screws up, we just have to deal with it for the most part. Thanks for walking through this stuff, I found it helpful. Indrian (talk) 03:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no. We do require truth. We require vertiability of the truth. The truth can consist of peoples beliefs that have been proven faulty though. We are not about posting items known to be false even if there is no source to contradict it.∞陣内 Jinnai 04:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any fact not supported by reliable sources is by definition not verifiable. "Items known to be false" -- how do you "know" that? If there's a reliable source, it's verifiably false (or at least uncertain, in the case of conflicting reliable sources). Otherwise it is what you, as an editor, claims to know. Isn't that the definition of OR? :)

To quote the verifiability policy:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think unsourced material is true. (...) To show that all material added to Wikipedia is not original research, it must be possible to attribute it to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question."

According to this policy, even if you (or any editor, or group of editors) believe an information to be false (untrue, innacurate), it has to be supported by a reliable source. If a RS states something and no other RS contradicts it (no matter if editors believe the information to be false) it is verifiable, and is what will be in the article. Salvidrim! 05:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to argue that, but beyond that there is something called editorial discretion and consensus and WP:IAR. That kind of logic is in part why VnT issue (along with the whole revising of the lead for V) is still being debated.∞陣内 Jinnai 05:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reading a bit more into it, I'll have to say I can see your point and am not necessarily disagreeing...hm. Salvidrim! 05:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me toss out an example that might fit that actually occurred here on Wikipedia: A source was found which stated directly that Defense of the Ancients was a derivative of the tower defense genre. One editor attempted to add that to the article on tower defense, but I and a few others said that this was incorrect and that DotA has its history founded in the Aeon of Strife (AoS) games of Warcraft III and the much earlier StarCraft. The statement was eventually removed after some discussion.

It really does come down to the discretion of the editors. I think we're free to not include something. This is not necessarily original research because we haven't been synthetic in our use of sources; in other words, we aren't coming up with something new combined from other sources and then state that as fact. --Izno (talk) 13:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Succession boxes

Do succession boxes like the one below have a place in Video game articles?

Preceded by Call Of Duty: Black Ops	UK all-formats number-one game November 27 - December 10, 2010	Succeeded by World of Warcraft: Cataclysm
Preceded by Call Of Duty: Black Ops	Japanese all-formats number-one game November 28 - December 4, 2010	Succeeded by Monster Hunter Freedom 3

I ask because they're being added to some some VG articles again. Personally I don't think we should have them; as there are never any references attached to them to allow verification of the information, and there's a tang of bias to them, in that only a few country's charts would be covered, and tough luck to the rest of the world. Any opinions? - X201 (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no difference between games and other media types like films or books. Anything you say here is just as valid or invalid there also. Personally, I think your point that "only a few country's charts would be covered" is unimportant. See Wannabe (song) or Thriller (album), which have multiple boxes (6 and 8 respectively), as well as number-one categories for each of 19 countries!

References, you possibly have a point, but the format over at music charts suggests we don't need this. Also, a number one game is likely popular and with a well developed article, and in that case the sales/reception references should have been provided long before the end of the article (where the boxes are customarily placed).

As a different slant on this, see the category request discussion at User talk:Armbrust — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.37.100 (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say that I see the usage of succession boxes as being necessary, and I personally detest their overabundance in some articles in the TV and music realms (really, 19 different countries?!?!?!). In general, I agree with X201's concerns, and disagree that video games be necessarily treated the same as films or books. They don't need to be. --Izno (talk) 14:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These succession boxes do not add to the article. I don't think they are good for navigation, and I would remove them from the article. The focus of the video game media/audience has never been the sales charts in comparison to how they're viewed in the music industry. Consider the various industry awards for gold/platinum status such as RIAA certification, there is no such industry equivalent within games. - hahnch e n 19:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Regardless of my opinion on having a dozen of these boxes on Music/Film articles (thumbs down), weekly sales charts are not used in the video game industry in the same way as they are for other media. --Pres N 04:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I've ever found them useful is historical rulers and countries. Almost anywhere else and they imo have no place.∞陣内 Jinnai 06:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, with the demise of the CD, the video games chart has become more important than music, especially at xmas. The revenue generated by games far outstrips music, and the focus has shifted accordingly. Videogames are now the most desired Christmas gifts (with major newspapers normally publishing lists of such) - who ever gave somebody a download under their tree?

Yes, there is an equivalent to the RIAA certification. One example is the Platinum Range.

And yes, I can vouch for the 19 different countries. In the case of the Thriller album, they are all hidden away under a blue template at the end. In fact, the number of countries in which something was a bestseller is something of a selling point statistic.

As for the navigation, yes, this helps set the content of an item. Knowing what else was number one around the same time sets the history (gaming now has a rich history going back several decades). Besides, it also shows which game/album knocked another from the top spot (eg, the lead text of the Nevermind article makes much of the fact that it replaced Michael Jackson at number one, for example) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.127.96 (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about which one makes more money, it's about whether the industry has such a chart position oriented culture. It does not. The platinum range isn't industry certification, it's one company's budget promotional feature. The mainstream media refers to music in terms of what highest chart position they achieved, this does not happen in the video game industry. This just doesn't happen. - hahnch e n 22:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just backing up Hahnch's statement that video games do not have a "chart position oriented culture". If video game charts mattered to publishers, January and February wouldn't be the new release wasteland that they are each year. - X201 (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The fact that video games are becoming more and more popular does not in turn necessitate that the sales charts are as popularly tracked as they are for music. Platinum Range is not equivalent to RIAA certification for "going platinum"- the RIAA is a group covering the whole music industry, while Platinum Range is one company re-publishing games of theirs that sold well. Not the same thing at all.

I'd recommend instead creating a List of number-one video games or whatever (that's a bad title, though) that lists out what all the chart-toppers were- right now all we have is List of best-selling video games and it's sublists, which isn't really what you're talking about here. The sales charts may not be a useful linking device at this time, but they could certainly support a list article. --Pres N 22:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WRONG - I think some people are underestimating the importance of charts. In the UK, dedicated games stores don't lay out the new games alphabetically. General music stores stores don't lay out the new games alphabetically. Department stores don't lay out the new games alphabetically. Newsagents don't lay out the new games alphabetically. Supermarkets don't lay out the new games alphabetically. The reason for this is that ALL of them use the numerical chart position to place them on the shelves.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.211.125.130 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They just use it because its a system that people are used to from other media. The games charts are rarely printed in non-specialist media, and when they are they're used as filler in a minuscule video games section in a magazine or newspaper. - X201 (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, at least once a week the Metro (3rd most popular paper in the UK) features an entire multipage games section, with charts, etc. The Telegraph (an upmarket newspaper) features full chart listings, plus an editorial comment on new entries, number one, etc.

Games publications websites like edge-online.com always feature the sales charts heavily - right now their front page has 3 news headlines (in the top 9 stories) that discuss chart positions (of UK charts, nordic charts and Japanese charts)

When you look at all retail websites like game.co.uk, the default sort order is always highest selling games first. That's the way people expect it to be laid out. There is even a FAQ to explain how the Amazon Sales Rank works.

Publishers want a number one, and release their games at carefully selected times. EA were very proud of getting the Christmas Number One with FIFA for 5 consecutive years in the 1990s.

Deny it if you wish, but games being a bestseller IS a big deal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.39.200 (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also sales data tends to be more disjointed. The best company who can really say for certain that a game sold X copies, Media Create, does not chart PC game sales which other companies do. Also there sales tend to be Japanese-centric. There is no one company that comes close to them today (there were a few more for specific niches in the past) that compile the data and are RSes. What you then have usually is taking a company's word for it, something we especially don't like for things that can be skewed for promotional reasons. And yes, it can easily be skewed (while stuff being truthful in a way).∞陣内 Jinnai 23:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Need a hand with Terra Branford

Awhile back this article got merged due to notability, but an anonymous user's been steadily reviving the article without actively been working on it. Instead each time the reason is "rv v" as if its been vandalized, and attempts to talk to him have gone nowhere fast: he's aware that I'd rather discuss it and collaborate, but instead it's becoming pretty obvious the article's coming back just for the sake of having it around.

Google's turned up next to nothing in regards to the character that I can use for reception, other than one brief bit of criticism from the Zeboyd Games's founder. Some additional eyes on the subject, or at the least help dealing with the anon, would be appreciated.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warned him, he's past 3RR for the day but I hate blocking people without saying something to them first. Next one's a blockin', I'll keep an eye on it. --Pres N 23:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a short description from IGN. ~ Hibana (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AOE 3

A new article: List of Age of Empires III characters needs some expanding. OKelly (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mean to shit on your article, but it needs a lot more than expanding. Some games have character lists, but these are usually character driven games with development, narrative and reception data. AoE 3 is not one of these games, the article is likely to be deleted because it is only of interest to those playing the game, and unlike say a Guitar Hero tracklist, is not enough to define the game. - hahnch e n 01:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um... so what things does it need other than expanding? OKelly (talk) 02:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basically you need some real world impact from these characters. Has anyone ever discussed them in a reliable source as AoE3 characters? Anyone ever mentioned any impact they've had on the real world? I mean, expanding out the characters is certainly necessary in the end, but if you don't have any out-of-game information, then there's nothing for it- the article will get merged/deleted. That's what separates Wikipedia from Wikia wikis- an article needs more than just in-game information in order to exist. I haven't done any looking myself, so I'll withhold judgement, but I do doubt that you're going to be able to find anything. --Pres N 03:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taskforce article count

How can see how many articles are tagged under a specific Taskforce of WP:VG? Salvidrim! 04:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can't, unless the task force has it's own category - for example, /Indie is Category:Indie video game task force articles. Looking through {{WikiProject Video games}}, only /Indie and /Visual Novels have one- if you create a category and add in |TF_<number>_MAIN_CAT to the template, every tagged article will be automatically added. It's locked, though, you'll need an admin. --Pres N 05:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NIN says that is had "900 articles as of August 2011", but how was that number reacjed, and how can it be updated?Surely there must be a way better than manual counting... and I dunno much about the backcode of it all, can you tell me exactly what I'd need to ask the admin? :) Salvidrim! 05:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately for you, I am an admin! You need to create a category to put the articles in - such as Category:Nintendo task force articles - click the "Start the Category:Nintendo task force articles page" link. Once done, just tell me or another admin what the category is, and I can add the line to the WP video games template, and all of the articles will be added to the category automatically. I have no idea how the 900+ number was arrived at, besides manually, which leads me to suspect it is wrong- I have a hell of a time accurately maintaining the number/names of articles for the Square Enix project, and it is automatically counted by a category. --Pres N 06:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I can click a button as well as anyone else. Created- give it a bit to add all of the articles; the number is going up each time I hit F5. --Pres N 06:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pshah, should've checked. I was thinking of asking MuZeMike who's kind of the "resident admin" at WP:NIN. Thanks a lot, this is definitely going to come in handy. I'm assuming there is no way to generate an assessment table (like this one for that category, eh? Salvidrim! 06:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you can, if you break it up by quality, see Category:Visual novel articles by quality for instance. If you want to, looks like you just make Category:Nintendo articles by quality, and then make all the Category:A-Class Nintendo-related articles‎ cats, like B-class, GA-class, etc. Add these latter categories to "Nintendo articles by quality", and get me or MuZeMike to change the VG template to have "|TF_3_QUALITY=yes" and "|TF_3_ASSESSMENT_CAT=Nintendo-related articles". That will autopopulate the assessment categories- to get that fancy table, follow these instructions - there's a bot that runs over the categories and generates the table every few days. --Pres N 17:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's was some previous discussion on assessment categories being slightly overweight for the task forces, on the template talk iirc. (comment) --Izno (talk) 17:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yea PresN, I use that bot to manually run the table refresh every once in a while. I make sure all articles are assessed in WP:VG, so a WP:NIN would be redundant for that purpose -- I guess I just thought it would be good information for Nintendo-centric editors like me. But I agree with Izno it is quite heavy for what little gain it gives. Salvidrim! 22:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resource for instruction manuals

Is there an existing resource to view these (to source gameplay elements) if I don't have a physical copy of said instruction manual (namely for older games, but not exclusively so)? Salvidrim! 13:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have one in place on Wikipedia as far as I know. You can try a website like replacementdocs.com. Which manual are you looking for? ~ Hibana (talk) 16:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yea I was thinking more of an online resource. I don't know if the publishers make them available for games that are no longer commerically sold. Mostly for the games on my "To Do" list but I was asking more in general. Salvidrim! 16:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems the site you talked about has a healthy number of manuals, and most others can be found with a thorough Googling. Thanks. :) Salvidrim! 16:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try worldofspectrum [1] - they have a lot of 8-bit stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.211.125.130 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Isaac Clarke notice

I'm worried that this might not receive any attention otherwise, so I've decided to post a notice about possibly merging Isaac Clarke into Dead Space (series). Discussion here. – Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute

Could somebody help settle this dispute on my talk page? Sarujo (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain your position a little better? I'm not trying to pick a side here one way or another, but your position seems to be "This is a stub article, so it doesn't deserve box art or game play screenshots." I can agree that unless there's a particular aspect to demonstrate, the gameplay screen shot probably should be limited to 1 at most, simply to demonstrate the graphics. But I'm not sure why box art is in question. Yes, I know "Stuff Exists", but it's pretty standard across video game articles to be included. Is there some cut off I'm unaware of for when a VG should have it's box art and/or logo and when it shouldn't? This is less about your particular dispute and more for my own knowledge going forward. -- ferret (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VGSCOPE has subsections on the topic of media use. Salvidrim! 18:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question of whether article should be redirected or not?

Recently the game Gyakuten Saiban 5 was announced and an article was created. I redirected it to the series article since the only info currently known is that the game exists and what the logo looks like, however the original created reverted the change without any explaination. So I am now asking for a wider audience of whether the article should remain or be redirected to the series article again.--70.24.204.79 (talk) 04:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not to pull a there-must-be-sources, but GS5 has been in limbo for a long time. Certainly, you could find a few decent (and reliable) sources involving this? Maybe a list of vaporware, or games people hope to see on the 3DS, or those pre-announcement rumors about Professor Layton vs Ace Attorney? It could really go either way, but this seems like an instance where development info (and specifically development hell info) should exist, somewhere. I'll look if it starts getting bloody, but I've got a lot of work on my plate at the moment. Emmy Altava 01:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Xbox dept. does not exist

Why not make an Xbox department, or a Nintendo department? After all, there is a PlayStation department. 203.11.71.124 (talk) 06:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you refering to a Task Force? There is a PlayStation task force and a Nintendo task force but the Xbox has its own project: Wikipedia:WikiProject Xbox. Salavat (talk) 07:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability (web) criterion three

A discussion has been underway for a couple of weeks about criterion three of WP:WEB, "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators". The debate is about whether or not this criterion is necessary, and if the guideline is changed it could affect AfD discussions on webcomics, flash games, and other online content. Editors are warmly invited to take a look and leave their opinions. The discussion thread can be found here. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 03:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 2012's TFA

Pathways into Darkness will be on Today's Featured Article on February 3rd. GamerPro64 01:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting choice, but wow there aren't many references. Regardless, thumbs up to David for getting yet another article on the main page. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know Korean?

There's an AFD happening for Special Force (online game), the AFD page is here. Now, if you take a look at my comment in that discussion, I think the game is certainly notable. I've linked to some sources, and a Google news search for the game's Korean name. It looks like that there are plenty of sources, but they're all in Korean - here's just the articles from Gamespot Korea. It would be very useful for someone who knows the language to look through the links, stub and then verify the article - it is very difficult to do with semi-broken Google Translate results.[2][3][4] - hahnch e n 12:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video games set in Australia

I wasn't sure where to give this heads-up, so decided to do so here. User:Collingwood26 has recently removed Category:Video games set in Australia from a whole gaggle of video games using the edit summary "Spelling error". Here is just one example. Could someone who is familiar with these games please check this. These edits may have been made in good faith but, given the bogus edit summary, it looks unlikely. HairyWombat 16:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reverting the articles where it is clearly mentioned at least part of the game takes place on Australia, with an appropriate edit summary. Salvidrim!

As I've posted on his page, it is near impossible to assume this was done in good faith when taking into consideration games like this one, or that one, which take place entirely of exclusively in Australia. Salvidrim! 19:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those games takes place or also takes place in Austalia. I don't understand why that user removed it. --Hydao (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the game's title is Odell Down Under and the first line of the article says "...takes place in the Great Barrier Reef." plus the misleading edit summary, its hard not to assume bad faith. - X201 (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: ...and when you find edits like this. - X201 (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well it seems my edits haven't gone unnoticed. Anyway, I "deleted" Australia from those games because they are not set in Australia, and if they are its only a reference or just a small level,etc. This is why I don't feel they should be included as games "set in Australia" because they're clearly not. Of course my edit summary was "Spelling error" which I felt was just easier to use than get into an argument on every single page about whether or not its relevant to Australia. The only article I was going to keep was the Crash Bandicoot game however, even then I wanted to delete it as it was only partially set in Australia. To date there are no games set in Australia, which is why I think its best to just delete that page as it may mislead people.--Collingwood26 (talk) 04:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid admitting openly that you used an erroneous edit summary to deceive editors and avoid having to explain your edits is not going to help you. As pointed out above and on your talk page, some of the articles you mass-removed the category from were set entirely or exclusively in Australia, which directly contradicts what you're asserting. Salvidrim! 04:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dont have to explain myself again do I? Actually, to what you said where some of the games were set in Australia is false, none of them were set in Australia. Being set in the Great Barrier Reef does not constitute being set in Australia I'm afraid as the Great barrier reef crosses many island nations. Other games such as Crash Bandicoot weren't set in Australia either, they only use a native Australian animal and thats it. To date there are no games set in Australia, which is why I believe the category "should" be removed.--Collingwood26 (talk) 04:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to propose it for deletion, I am sure a discussion will ensue and consensus will be established solidly. For the record, the Great Barrier Reef is part of Australia. Salvidrim! 04:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would if I knew how, however, yes the Great Barrier Reef is within Australian waters, but it also falls within Papua New Guineas waters and many smaller island nations. Therefore it cannot be set in Australia, like I said before, unfortunately Australia is shafted with every new game.--Collingwood26 (talk) 04:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said, I've no wish to engage in a discussion with you pertaining to your apparent anger at the number of games located in Australia. However, I'll say this: Australia is a continent that includes New Guinea. Also, all of the games in the category are set (at least in part) on the Australian continent. Your repeated assertion that no game is set entirely in Australian only evidences the fact you did not bother to read the articles you've removed the category from. At leats two of those, Beneath a Steel Sky and AFL Premiership 2007, are set in Australia. Salvidrim! 04:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like someone needs a lesson in geography, New Guinea is not part of the continent of Australia, however, New Guinea is part of the Oceania region. I would know I live here. Secondly, no, almost none of those games are set in Australia and like before I've already provided evidence. Those two you mentioned AFL is what I would call a "sports game" (meaning its just about the sport not the location) so it doesn't count. And the second game "Beneath a Steel Sky" is obviously (just by looking at it) a flash game for the computer meaning its not a real game. I'm not expressing anger at the lack of games set in Australia because THERE ARE NO GAMES.--Collingwood26 (talk) 05:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is going nowhere. You are choosing to disregard facts that contradict your opinion that "there are no games in Australia". You are clearly feeling strongly about Australia and related topics -- I would strongly suggest you thoroughly read our policy on neutrality before you resume editing. Salvidrim! 05:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't disregarded anything as I am yet to see any evidence put forth by you that there is a game set in Australia. You said 2 but I already gave you reasons for them. I'm not feeling strongly for Australia, because if i was i would want the article to stay. However, even I cannot deny there are no games set in Australia, so I have trouble understanding how an article on it could be made?--Collingwood26 (talk) 05:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly, I've never liked these "Video games set in [location]" categories. They strike me as trivial, crufty, and of little use. I could maybe see a case for them if it was reserved for games that only take place in a given country, but instead it just ends up cluttering the category section of certain globe-trotting games. To pull up some quick examples: Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 has 10, Street Fighter II has 12, and F1 2011 (video game) has a whopping 17 such categories. I'm sure these aren't even the worst offenders either, those are just what I found in a minute of searching. I would not be opposed to just purging the whole series of cats.--Remurmur (talk) 05:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am personally not opposed to deleting the category either -- a discussion should be opened at TfD, in that case. Salvidrim! 05:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure the whole category needs to be pulled down but I see what you mean. I won't speak for the other categories but the Australian section should be pulled down as there are technically no games that have been set there.--Collingwood26 (talk) 05:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The awful NES game that is Mad Max does, or at least it can be inferred that it does. I don't think it directly states it. Just sayin'. --Remurmur (talk) 09:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I can see the usefulness of the categories, at the same time they seem a bit pointless to me as well. One possible solution would be to change their use. Make the inclusion criteria that the game must be set wholly in the country named. Then the underpopulated categories could be removed using the criteria that is already in place for small categories. - X201 (talk) 09:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this is that it's too difficult to enforce inclusion guidelines. I'm sure the categories started out along those lines, but then some intrepid gnomes started adding every game that was even slightly set in said country. As the categories are named, these people are doing the right thing, but it's become apparent that these categories were a lot more useful when they were incomplete and only included major examples. I think that trying to enforce a standard will just mean a lot of petty talk page squabbles over what should and shouldn't be included, which just isn't worth it.

Revision as of 09:19, 7 February 2012 edit X201 (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Template editors 117,295 edits m →‎Category:Video games set in Australia ← Previous edit		Revision as of 09:47, 7 February 2012 edit undo Remurmur (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers 16,322 edits →‎Category:Video games set in Australia Next edit →
Line 379:		Line 379:

	Whilst I can see the usefulness of the categories, at the same time they seem a bit pointless to me as well. One possible solution would be to change their use. Make the inclusion criteria that the game must be set wholly in the country named. Then the underpopulated categories could be removed using the criteria that is already in place for small categories. - [[User:X201\|X201]] ([[User talk:X201\|talk]]) 09:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)		Whilst I can see the usefulness of the categories, at the same time they seem a bit pointless to me as well. One possible solution would be to change their use. Make the inclusion criteria that the game must be set wholly in the country named. Then the underpopulated categories could be removed using the criteria that is already in place for small categories. - [[User:X201\|X201]] ([[User talk:X201\|talk]]) 09:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
			:The problem with this is that it's too difficult to enforce inclusion guidelines. I'm sure the categories started out along those lines, but then some intrepid [[WP:GNOME\|gnomes]] started adding every game that was even slightly set in said country. As the categories are named, these people are doing the right thing, but it's become apparent that these categories were a lot more useful when they were incomplete and only included major examples. I think that trying to enforce a standard will just mean a lot of petty talk page squabbles over what should and shouldn't be included, which just isn't worth it.