Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

WikiProject Video games

Main page

talk

Archives

Archive index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176

Project watchlist

• view
• talk
• edit
• changes

RfC: Designer credits in Infobox video game

I've been seeing some increasingly comprehensive listings of staff rolls in the infoboxes of certain video games. For example, at the time of this writing, The 3rd Birthday features the names of a whopping 23 people in its infobox, most of whom have a parenthetical description of their exact title as listed in the credits. Not knowing whether this level of detail was appropriate, I looked at the documentation at Template:Infobox video game, finding this discussion linked. While it has some general guidelines, mostly erring on the side of including less people in the infobox in favor of dev section prose, I think it might be wise to be a bit more specific and prescriptive in the template's usage notes. See the below subsections for my initial thoughts and proposals. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Producer field

I think it's safe to say that the "executive producer" credit is generally meaningless. For example, Satoru Iwata is named executive producer on every single 1st party Nintendo game. I'm also not a huge fan of listing all the "sub"-producers (e.g. creative producer, associate producer, assistant producer) since it's rarely clear what their actual role was in the game. If these sub-producers actually had a meaningful contribution, it should be noted in prose in the dev section. Criteria:

1. List only the person credited specifically with the title "producer"
2. Do not list the "executive producer" or other "sub"-producer credits
3. If 3 or more people are credited as "co-producer" discuss who is the "main" producer and list that person
4. New: List the "creative producer" only if said person's involvement in the game is discussed in the development section

Please discuss with reference to specific numbered criteria. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I support this idea. While only the main producers should be listed in the infobox, we should can also incorporate the executive producer, sub producers and co-producers in the prose section. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Support all three criteria. Other figures can be mentioned in the text if relevant, (so disagree with SJones on "should", substituting "can") but the infobox shouldn't be a listing of every manager in the company. --PresN 02:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with 1 and 2 with regards to Square Enix titles. The "creative producer" is an important role as it's the producer equivalent to a "creative director". People like Tetsuya Nomura have been credited in many games with this role and it's therefore become important enough to add to the field. Also, the executive producer field is important as there are different executive producers within Square Enix. For example, there are games by Square Enix 1st Production Department where Shinji Hashimoto is almost always executive producer. However, any games made out of this department have different executive producers. as a result, it's something that needs clarifying with each Square Enix page and therefore a requirement for the Producer field. --G-Zay (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I can abide by "creative producer" since guys like Nomura-as-creative-producer actually do interviews and talk about design in that role (e.g. TWEWY). The mere fact that someone named Nomura was credited does not automatically make it notable enough to include in the infobox, though. I've added another bullet to this effect. I still maintain that the executive producer of a project is a meaningless piece of information to include in the infobox. The role of the executive producer of any project (game, movie, tv show, etc.) generally ranges from jack squat to "I write the checks that pay all the dudes below me". If Hashimoto has something meaningful to say about the project, it should be mentioned in the Dev section, not the infobox. Also, Square Enix is not special. These criteria are for Infobox video game, not Infobox Square Enix game, which should not exist. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with all four criteria and Axem's last comment. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Director field

I think this one is also straightforward. "Art director", "sound director", "scenario director", etc. belong in other fields anyway.

1. List only the person credited specifically with the title "director" or new: "co-director"
2. Do not list other types of directors in this field
3. For games with multiple directors in sequence, e.g., MMOs and games with exceptionally long development cycles, indicate their years of involvement in (parenthetical small text)

Please discuss with reference to specific numbered criteria. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Support all three criteria. --PresN 02:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Support all three criteria. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with 1 with regards to Square Enix games. The director should be mentioned but so should the co-directors. --G-Zay (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Fine, no objections. Also, Square Enix is not special. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with all three criteria. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Designer field

Here's where it gets tricky. Designer can mean a lot of different things and there are a lot of different types of designers, especially in modern AAA developed games. This field is probably easier to fill out in older games with smaller teams and more creative power vested in the "lead designer". In Japan, this position is usually called "lead planner" or "main planner". If you've seen Indie Game The Movie or are familiar with the development of Fez (video game), I would list Phil Fish as designer and Renaud Bredard as programmer. Beyond these small teams, I think the usefulness of this field diminishes as the team size increases. This will require some discussion to reach a consensus but here's a proposal to get the conversation started.

1. If a single person is credited as "lead designer", list that person; synonyms for this position include "game design director" and "lead planner"
2. If there is no functional equivalent to #1, omit this field
3. If 3 or more people are credited as "lead designer" discuss who is the "main" designer and list that person or omit this field

Please discuss with reference to specific numbered criteria. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Support all three criteria. This is easier in smaller teams, but for large games where there is no one "designer", we shouldn't be listing every person who was involved in designing something in the infobox. --PresN 02:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Support all three criteria. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with 2 with regards to Square Enix games. Their modern games are always divided into the sections Game Design, Map, Battle and Event. Each of these areas will have a director. I believe that all the directors for these areas should be added to this field. --G-Zay (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I completely disagree. The middle management of a video game production is not something that is critical to an infobox. If there is not a single person I can point to who is responsible for "lead design", which would indicate an amount of creative control that matters, it is not salient to the infobox. These four sub-directors can have stuff to say in the Dev section, no problem, but it shouldn't distract from the more important roles that are highlighted in the infobox. Also, Square Enix is not special. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Can someone provide an example of a modern game in which the lead designer is not the director or the producer? I am under the impression that this field is really only useful for small projects or older games, for which there was no director (back then the "designer" was basically the director except he didn't have a team to direct). Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I think this assessment is correct. Looking at "modern" large-scale game releases, I haven't found any that have a specific title called "lead designer" because of the way responsibilities are broken down in large teams. Thus, this field should probably be left blank for most modern AAA games. In indie games and older games, this field is probably more useful. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Programmer field

This is another problematic field, especially for modern games with staffs of 100+ people, most of whom could be called "programmers". I would treat this similarly to the designer field; there was an age in video game development where a single person could be adequately described as the "main programmer" or even the "only programmer" but that age is mostly past except in indie development. See Fez example above as well.

1. If a single person is credited as "lead programmer", list that person; synonyms for this position include "main programmer"
2. If there is no functional equivalent to #1, omit this field
3. If 3 or more people are credited as "lead programmer" discuss who is the "main" programmer and list that person or omit this field

Please discuss with reference to specific numbered criteria. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Support all three criteria. I don't think most non-indie games should be filling out this field- tons of people program AAA games, there's no way in general to narrow it down to just one. --PresN 02:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Support all three criteria. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with 2 with regards to Square Enix games. If there is no overall main programmer listed, then the section programmers should be listed instead. For example, "main programmer: map" and "main programmer: battle". --G-Zay (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, see reasoning above for lead designer. Also, Square Enix is not special. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Can someone provide an example of a modern game in which the programmer is notable at all? IMO the programmer is only notable for small projects or older games, for which there was only one programmer. By the way, for small projects or older games in which the designer was the programmer, I think only the designer field should be listed. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense, no need to list the same person twice for what amounts to the exact same responsibility. This field should also probably be left blank for most modern AAA titles. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Artist field

I think the art director should definitely fill the prime, unqualified spot here. Character (or environment) designer might go here as well, on a case-by-case basis if the work is famous for using that designer or the designer got famous for doing the work. E.g. Akira Toriyama as character designer for Dragon Quest or Jen Zee for Bastion.

1. List the person credited as "art director" first and without qualification, edit: also "lead artist"
2. List the person credited as "character designer" if their work on the game is notable or they became notable for their work on the game
3. List the person credited as "environment artist" if their work on the game is notable or they became notable for their work on the game
4. Do not list "character designer" or "environment artist" in this field; describe notable people in these roles in the development section
5. List no more than three people in this field, the less the better

Please discuss with reference to specific numbered criteria. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

To all points, only the art director should be listed, surely all the others answer to, and take instruction from, him/her. Determining if 2-3's work was notable is a slippery slope which is completely open to interpretation and anyone who has spent any time on this site knows, people think all kinds of crap is notable. Anyone who can be sourced as notable should be discussed in prose. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree regarding only listing the art director in the infobox. Any notability of environment artists/character designers etc can be discussed in the prose of the article. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I think those are good points. I forgot about the "out" I had previously used for other fields about only mentioning extra names in prose. What about games that lack an art director? Should it default to some other title? If so, which? Axem Titanium (talk) 06:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Support all three (current) criteria. A lot of games may not be able to fill this field- the lead artist or art director should be the only one listed. Sometimes in massive games that might be more difficult, which means that no one should be listed, rather than 5 people. --PresN 02:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Support all three criteria per reasonings provided by Cabe6403 and PresN. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah right, forgot about "lead artist". Added. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with 1. The art director and lead artist should always be mentioned. The rest are irrelevant. --G-Zay (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Can someone clarify what "lead artist" is? I'm pretty sure someone here thinks that means character designer while the others don't think so. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I would say "lead artist" is whatever the development team decides it means. If someone is influential enough on the game to be given that title, then it should be listed. The vast majority of games won't have both a lead artist AND art director but if they do, then I would imagine both should be listed. Regardless of what the lead artist actually did for the project, be it character design or environment art or anything else, they must have had some significant input in order to earn the title. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Writer field

Again, modern game scenarios are generally collaborations between multiple people. I think that if the scenario can be mainly credited to a "scenario director" or a single "scenario writer"/"lead writer", then do so. Sometimes the main scenario is a close collaboration between two people, e.g. Killer7 by Suda51 and Shinji Mikami. The rest of the contributing writers can be described in prose if the need arises.

1. If a single person is credited as "scenario director" or "scenario writer", list that person; synonyms for this position include "lead writer"
2. If there is a person credited as "scenario concept writer" or "original concept", list that person here as well
3. List no more than three people in this field, the less the better

Please discuss with reference to specific numbered criteria. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Support all three criteria, same as above. --PresN 02:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Support all three criteria. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with 2 with regards to Square Enix games. Instead of mentioning the "concept writer", the actual writers should be mentioned instead. The concept writer can be mentioned in prose. --G-Zay (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, with the way games writing works, it's usually the scenario director and original concept writer who come up with the entire story arc and let the writer minions flesh out the specific scenes and all the NPC dialogue (cf. Hollywood script-writing, which is usually hacked to pieces by an army of editors). In this situation, I would still call the director and concept writer the "original authors" of the story, even though they didn't physically write every word in the sometimes massive script. It's very similar to the concept of ghost writer who does the actual labor of writing and typing words on behalf of the original author. The original writer (in our case, scenario director/concept writer) proofreads and ensures that all the minion writers' work is in line with the overall creative vision. Also, Square Enix is not special. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with all three criteria as well as Axem's last comment. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Composer field

This one should be relatively straightforward. Very few games have multiple composers and even then, it's usually one person whose style the others emulate to generate the soundtrack.

1. List the main composer of the game. If multiple people contributed a roughly equal number of tracks, list them all. Otherwise, defer to the one.
2. If a single (music) was released for a particular track, list the composer of that track.

Please discuss with reference to specific numbered criteria. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Support all three criteria. Not really an issue; even in large games there's generally only one main composer. --PresN 02:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Support all three criteria. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I feel about these criteria. "Roughly equal number of tracks" seems a bit of a slippery slope. What if someone contributed one third of the soundtrack? What if someone's only contribution is the game's main theme? Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I know most games have single composers, but let's take God of War III as an extreme example. It has 5 composers, with 3-7 tracks each, something I might call "roughly equal". I don't know if all 5 should be listed in the infobox but I could certainly never say that only one of them deserves to be listed. What do you think? As for the main theme issue, I would use Kingdom Hearts (video game) as an example. Utada Hikaru composed the main theme which was released as a single, so she should probably get listed as a composer, perhaps with a parenthetical note. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

For movies, when a theme song is composed by someone other than the score's composer, they usually aren't noted in the infobox(take for instance Beaches (film), where it only lists Delerue as the composer despite having spawned a hit song which he had no involvement with). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

That's fair enough. Since both you and Jonathan have an objection to it, I'm striking #2. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Other discussion

Can we make it a rule to generally avoid (parenthetical small text qualifiers) where possible? Shouldn't it be assumed that the only person listed in the programmer field is the "main programmer"? Axem Titanium (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. I support listing no more than 2-3 people per field. Anything more goes into prose if that many people all need mentioning. They need to be of significant contribution, besides just working on the project. If the names need small parenthesis, probably too many are included already. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • 2-3 sounds a bit high. I would prefer the "default" to be 1 and 2-3 only if absolutely necessary. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
    • I said "no more". 1 is too high in many cases. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment This RFC is really long. --Odie5533 (talk) 10:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
  • That's why I broke it up into multiple subsections so you can comment on each one individually, which I invite you to do. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I feel that most fields should have one person or be left blank. I really, really don't like infoboxes like at Fantasy XII, where there has to be show/hide buttons to keep the infobox from reaching to the end of the 8-paragraph gameplay section. --PresN 02:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it looks like FFXII's infobox ballooned since this discussion started. Thanks to Sjones for controlling the flow earlier today. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem with not adding info in brackets is the readers don't know that persons specific role. --G-Zay (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The goal of this proposal is to condense the info found in infoboxes to the point where a person's specific role should not need to be called out by parentheticals. It should be obvious what role the person listed under "Director" or "Programmer" had without such brackets. If absolutely necessary, use them, but avoid them if possible. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

An infobox is not meant to tell us new information; it's meant to summarize the article. Readers will always know a person's specific role because that will always be explained in the article. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: If there are enough credits in a particular field that the use of Template:Collapsible list becomes necessary, there are too many credits in that field. Thoughts? Axem Titanium (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I remember someone mentioning a couple of years ago that Collapsible List caused problems for people using screen readers; and to a lesser extent magnification tools. Does anyone know if this is still the case? - X201 (talk) 08:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the talk page, I can't really tell if it still does. I've dropped a line to User talk:Thumperward to confirm. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

It does not, had this discussion at FAC a couple weeks ago. Screen readers and browsers without javascript just get an uncollapsed list/table. --PresN 03:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I see. Well, regardless, I think that Collapsible list should be avoided because it encourages credit creep in the infobox. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Star Wars Combine Check Needed

Hello all, I've been told to contact someone from the videogames project to check a page that was created, then deleted, then restored, then deleted again for lack of sources. Now I have added several sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RubenWan/Star_Wars_Combine Any feedback is welcomed and appreciated. RubenWan (talk) 09:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you can expand or rewrite the Gameplay section, because I'm having trouble understanding what the game really is about. You can also add a Template:Infobox video game to the page and fill it with properly sourced information. Best way to understand how to add an infobox is probably to look at other video game pages.Bergakungen91 (talk) 09:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Bergakungen91. The Template:Infobox video game has many fields that are not suitable for an online non-profit MMORPG. Should I use it nonetheless, adapting the data to its fields? I'll expand the Gameplay section as suggested. --RubenWan (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Most games don't use most fields in that template. As it's a game, it should use the template. I don't know what being an "online non-profit MMORPG" has to do with it- it still has a title, a developer, a platform (browser), a genre, and a release date, just like every other game. --PresN 22:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

A big problem with your article is its use of the top-level sub-headings (=). Change them to second level subheadings (==). That would be a big fix. The top-level subheadings are never used. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 00:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I did a few quick run-throughs to clean things up a bit more in accordance with standards. Didn't do much, though. --Teancum (talk) 01:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Your article has several problems: "very peculiar in comparison to many other games." in the first section is a bit vague, and should be properly sourced or removed. "offers the best Star Wars universe simulation fans may ever dream of" could be used as a sourced quote, or should be removed. Wikipedia pages should be objective and properly sourced. Bergakungen91 (talk) 11:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all for your feedback. I have removed the offending sentence as pointed out by Bergakungen91 in the first section with an explanation of its origin which I sourced. I turned the second offending sentence into an author's quote. I apologise for the top-level headings, they have been changed into subheadings by Teancum. Now, is the article up to your standards? I will not ask for it being moved to mainspace until I have not the "green light" from you. RubenWan (talk) 14:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I have made additional changes and updates and submitted the article for approval at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Star Wars Combine. If anyone is an admin a speedy approval would be appreciated. I uploaded two non-free images for the article and would prefer them not to get deleted. --Teancum (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Recognized content

I just stumbled across this page and I have to say, this project has come a long way according to this. GamerPro64 15:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep, and despite an ongoing request for comment on Niemti which was closed a week ago but swiftly reverted by Salvidrim a few hours after the closure, the project has been doing very well. We may need to clear the GAN backlog if anyone can help. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Mike Dailly fact or fiction?

A user has removed every reference to Mike Dailly from the GTA and RockStar articles. Stating that he had nothing to do with GTA. Now either its a good catch at a spoof, or its someone with a grudge, or some misguided editing that has confused a fan website call dmadesign and the company of the similar name.We have sources to say Mike Daily was a key member of the GTA Rockstar team, but its always possible they could have been spoofed as well. - X201 (talk) 08:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Additional: After a little bit of digging it seems the user is misguided or malicious, there more than enough reliable sources covering Mike Dailly at DMA and involved in GTA. I feel a revert-a-thon coming on :( - X201 (talk) 09:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

G4 links

It's been news for a while but its been affirmed that G4 TV is being rebranded as Esquire Network come April - becoming a "man" network and definitely losing any focus on video games.

As G4 has been a reliable source in the past I suspect we have a lot of links to it, and I fear those links may disappear when the rebranding hits. While its not as much an emergency, we've had a bot do WebCites for us on closure of websites, I think this might be a good time to evoke that for G4 based on links. --MASEM (t) 18:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

WebCitation may not be an option given the current funding situation with the WebCite organization, for the future. Internet Archive may be a better option, where archived links already exist (though I've noted such are hit and miss). --Izno (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Webctie's not closing down, just not accepting new links after 2013 if they don't get their funding target. There's a proposing at meta to get the FOundation to help invest to assure that since archive.org is very hit or miss. --MASEM (t) 22:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Ys RfC discussion

There is an important RfC going on at Ys (series) regarding the version of text to use with respect to grammar and the manual of style. The discussion can be found at Talk:Ys (series)#Which version of text is more preferable with respect to grammar and the MoS?. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

VGMDB - reliability

Hello,

currently, User:TransVannian disagrees that [1] is unreliable. I would like to ask the project members what they think about this site. Footnotes redirecting to that site were previously removed, until he put back certain information on List of Castlevania media, citing only to vgmdb. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 18:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

If anyone is unaware of the site, VGMDB is a database of video game music releases. It is invariably correct- I trust it implicitly- but it is also entirely user-generated. Many of those users are the same authors of articles and interviews that are used as reliable sources throughout the wiki, but many are random people, such as myself. The editors of the site have a backend view to review/revert any change made to the site, but user changes still go live immediately, and they have no way of catching plausible but false data. It is not a reliable source, unfortunately. --PresN 18:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

VGMDB is not really considered a reliable source, and that is similar to why Wikipedia disallows IMDB as a reference. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. It's up there with IMDB, Wikias, or Neogaf - they can make for a nice personal read, but don't qualify as a reliable source based on Wikipedia's current definiton for one. Sergecross73 msg me 18:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

How can you say it's not reliable? You have any proof? Also I'll like to inform that I've used Konami's online shop Konami Style as a ref for Pachislot Akumajo Dracula III OST. Although it might be in Japanese but it's an official source even though it's an online shop. TransVannian (talk) 07:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• For the exact same reasons that Wikipedia can not be used as a reliable source for articles. I can go on VGMDB and rewrite the credits and then cite it. That makes it unreliable. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Exactly. Anything that anyone can change like that, violates WP:SPS. Sergecross73 msg me 13:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The site DOES have a lot of scans, however. Things that can be checked directly from them should be ok...though it'd probably be better to cite said liner notes, granted. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, cite the liner notes, and then if possible just provide a url to where they are hosted online. For that, any website could be used provided we don't think they have altered or faked the notes. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Well I didn't know that they were edited by the public just like us. I'm sorry I did not know that. If any trouble has been caused due to my mistake I apologise for that too. In this case I also agree with the majority consensus that Vgmdb can't be used as a reliable source. I'm in favor of not using the site as a source. Thank you. TransVannian (talk) 12:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Reception section from Devil May Cry games articles

More eyes are needed for reception section from individual articles on some Devil May Cry games as one or two IP(s) made uncited changes to the review/aggregation scores. Here are examples:

• Devil May Cry 2 - [2][3]
• Devil May Cry 3: Dante's Awakening - [4][5]
• Devil May Cry 4 - [6]

Thanks, Hounder4 (Talk) 18:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Also in the Devil May Cry 4 article, the links from GameRankings and Metacritic sources leads to pages showing aggregated scores on DmC: Devil May Cry instead of DMC4. One IP added GameRankings and Metacritic with these links from revision on January 18. Hounder4 (Talk) 18:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I've just corrected this issue. The1337gamer (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hideaki Itsuno

I noticed that Capcom veteran Hideaki Itsuno did not have an article. So I created one. Feel free to expand upon it. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I've expanded the article, so that it's a very nice start. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I've further cannibalized sections from other articles that discuss Itsuno. Please review it. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Pokemon - 1st or 2nd party franchise?

That rotten "Nintendo Franchise" template is causing trouble again. While I'm just about done trying to manage that trainwreck, it has raised a question that I'd like to know for the future.

Pokemon. As a game franchise, would you label it as a "first party" franchise, because Nintendo owns it as a property, and wouldn't let it be on anything that not a Nintendo platform? Or would it be considered second, or even third, party, because its developed by GameFreak, which is not a Nintendo company/subsidiary/dev team? Sergecross73 msg me 20:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'd consider it third party, but see what references call it. As you said, GameFreak is not owned by Nintendo; they just have dealings. --Odie5533 (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Video game developer describes it as second party. --Odie5533 (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

From what I understand, Nintendo owns controlling interest in the brand since they own controlling interest in Creatures Inc. Interview says, "The mainstream games are created by Game Freak, and then Creatures creates the card games, mainly. But the games that Game Freak doesn't create, Creatures often works on. The 3D modeling for Pokémon is all created within Creatures, too. The 3D modelings will be used in the card games, in the actual games, in commercials, everything else." « Ryūkotsusei » 21:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

"Second party" is a meaningless game forum neologism that should never be used in an article. - hahnchen 23:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Is it time to clear the GAN backlog?

As noted in the RFC on Niemti, Bridies (talk · contribs) has listed some concerns about saturating the GANs because, in Bridies's words, "they are a mess" and also due to "the user's behaviour during GA reviews, and while editing in general." Some of the GANs here are already being reviewed, but some of the GANs (i.e. Lemmings (video game)) are in desperate need of second opinions as well given the fact that some of the original reviewers bowed out due to some issues. At this point, I think it's time to start doing a backlog cleanup drive. Thoughts? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I've made a stand to not be involved with any of his stuff from this point on. Having been a second op on some of his GANs consensus doesn't help with him, so I stand aside and ignore all of his GAN and assessment requests. --Teancum (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm with Teancum. I am not touching another GAN nomination by him again. GamerPro64 23:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand where your frustrations are coming from. I have never touched a GAN nomination or assessment requests by Niemti as I don't want to run into issues with his behavior, but what do you think is the best option here? Last time this came up, the ban proposal on AN went with no consensus, and the user was topic banned from any and all discussions related to Anita Sarkeesian. Time to take action against him? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Just let his GANs sit, honestly. Someone uninvolved will eventually come along and help out, and until then they can sit indefinitely in my opinion. --Teancum (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Very well then. Given the fact that there is a still ongoing RFC on Niemti and that a lot of users were exasperated, I think we should just let the GANs sit unless an uninvolved user eventually comes along. I was only trying to see if anyone is interested in cleaning the backlog, but since there might be some concern about this matter, I have notified the Good article WikiProject about this here. It's only a matter of time before another site ban proposal will take place if Niemti does not change his behavior, as his relationship with the community is still on a downward spiral and the site ban possibility was not discounted by Kurtis, one of the outsiders who commented on the RFC. Does anyone else have their opinion about this? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

As I said at WT:WPGA#Clear video game backlog? I don't know what the best solution here is. When you develop a bad reputation on Wikipedia it tends to spread. I personally am not keen to take on any of those reviews. He seems to do some good work, but does not interact well with others, especially when they disagree with him. This is particularly problematic at WP:GA as reviewers should provide critiques. Looking at his talk page he does get a few reviews and passes, he just nominates articles much faster than they get reviewed and this doesn't look like slowing down. One solution to the backlog is to ask him to slow down his nominations to maybe having four unreviewed on the page at a time. AIRcorn (talk) 07:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

As far as I am aware Niemti has been asked multiple times by a selection of editors to slow down on his nominations. It doesn't appear he has any intentions of doing this. I have reviewed some of his GANs and will, likewise, not be doing any more for a few reasons. Those being that I am involved in the RfC and I see it as a COI to be reviewing his submissions while maintaining a position in the RfC and also that his battleground mentality does get a bit wearing as I get the feeling that any GAN of his I would do I must be prepared for a fight unless the article is perfect first time round resulting in a critique free pass (which is unlikely). Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 15:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd support removing his nominations outright, as it seems very few, if any, likely candidates are willing to review them or deal with him. I mean, this is more of an informal process, right? It's not rigid like AFD or RFA. But if that's in bad taste or something, then I don't oppose to just letting them sit in the backlog for forever either, though I do know that that bothers some users too... Sergecross73 msg me 15:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• His GANs are getting reviewed, just slowly. With respect to the GAN issues, the discussion should really be had at WT:GAN. They are video game articles, and WPVG members often do the reviewing (and butt heads with the user), but the GA process is independent of the video games wikiproject. Sports and recreation has a GAN backlog going back to October, and they have a larger backlog, too. If one editor adding so many GANs gets to be a problem for the wikiproject GA people then they could remove some or impose limits. Niemti responded once saying something like "I nominated a bunch of GANs. Don't review them if you don't want to." I think this is probably the best course of action: leave them, and for whatever reasons you have, don't review them if you don't want to. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine too then. I was saying it in a "if there are no repercussions, then lets just toss them. But if it falls more under a separate GA jurisdiction like that, then yeah, just let them sit. Sergecross73 msg me 16:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Letting them sit is really just sweeping the issue under the carpet. If he refuses to slow down we can try and get consensus to enforce a limit on the nominations. Odie is right this really does need to be discussed and decided at WT:GAN or WT:GA. AIRcorn (talk) 21:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I have already taken this matter to the GAN talk page in order to get a more centralised discussion and I also feel that this backlog cleanup seriously needs to happen sooner rather than later. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Clearing out the VG backlog. Please direct your comments there. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Sjones23, your now nearly one year long continued obsession with me is crazy. In a literal meaning of this word. As I said so many times, try to find yourself some kind of another hobby, such as playing vidya games, or maybe consult a therapist if you just can't let it go because of a crippling trauma or something, because it's pretty sad and creepy.

Anyway. This year's completed GAs (last 6 weeks):

• Claire Redfield
• Leisure Suit Larry in the Land of the Lounge Lizards
• Leon S. Kennedy
• Mona Sax
• Resident Evil 4 (GA earlier, but now into "Capcom Five")
• XCOM: Enemy Unknown

Also films:

• Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters (within 2 weeks since the its release)
• Jacob's Ladder (film)
• Kony 2012
• TMNT (film)

Oh, and btw: Lemmings isn't "in desperate need of second opinions" at all, as "tune" is not colloquial (as noted there by Tomcat), it's used 100% correctly while "songs" is 100% incorrect because there are no songs there at all and it's all melodies (yes, melodies) without lyrics, the developer himself referred to all the tracks as "tunes", the tune in question is actually referred to by its Wikipedia article as a "tune" (and correctly so), etc, etc, and ALSO over month ago I even wrote it can be even wholesale deleted/whatever and I don't even care (because what exactly music was used isn't even actually important). --Niemti (talk) 00:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I can't in good conscience remain silence: that was damn rude and really uncalled for, and I'm finding it really hard not to carpet bomb this with profanity. But I will give you this: Niemti, you're an ass. You're not a prolific editor, nor some savior of wikipedia as you seem to think yourself. You're just a guy with way too much time on his hands and a handful of articles that yes, while you're able to fix up some, others come across as a complete trainwreck. Articles like Mona Sax for example have several issues that should have been brought up during GA status that weren't addressed, but I'm going to presume probably because you're rather insufferable to contend with:

• Single paragraph sections.
• The prose is messy as hell, and is not written in a tone often to make sense to a reader unfamiliar with the subject of video games in general. And so help me don't hit me with "it's not FA" because the same bloody concepts should apply too.
• The Character Design section suddenly discusses the movie appearance in a jarring way, and goes on with a long winded quote (another issue: quotes should be summarized. If they don't add much to the article, don't quote the entire thing and focus on the most important aspects).
• What exactly is a "likeness factor?" What is Complex basing this on? Does it have any real significance?
• How does the nude cheat reflect on the character in terms of reception and not the game?

And I can keep going. I wouldn't have passed this. In fact I'm really concerned on the overall quality of the articles in general and would be more than willing to spend the time to drag more than a few of these to GAR to force them through cleanup. You might be able to hit hard and fast with GANs, but quality is superior to quantity. And having a bunch of free times on your hand to crank out and nominate articles en masse does not make them properly written. So I think over the next few days I'm going to take a look at some of your nominees and go very in-depth with them.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

How do I know the class of an article?

On this project's home page, it says that they want certain amounts of a-class, b and c class articles. Apart from checking the list of articles, is it possible for it to show in the top right corner of an article like it does with good and featured articles? Supercuty27 (talk) 04:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

You can take a look at one of our article's talk pages or go through one of our "(X)-class video game articles" categories (X meaning the class of the article). Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

You can also go in your Preferences, under Gadget, and enable "Display an assessment of an article's quality as part of the page header for each article." :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 06:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you go to "preferences" up top, and go to the "gadgets" tab, down in the "appearance" section there's a box labeled "Display an assessment of an article's quality as part of the page header for each article". Check it, and then from then on article titles will be colored according to the article's assessment, and it will give the current status below it- both the class, and if there's a current/former GAN/FLC/FAC going on. It's based on the templates on the article's talk page, if you didn't know. --PresN 06:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Really helped. :) Supercuty27 (talk) 08:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

{{Vndb}}

template:Vndb has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The Legend of Zelda: Spirit Tracks

Check its history. Can someone deal with this? I've had to deal with this on File:MetalGearRisingRevengeance.jpg. « Ryūkotsusei » 16:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

No description or link? Sergecross73 msg me 16:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Appears to be mini-edit war over cover art. - X201 (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Seems pretty major actually, spanning 50+ edits and 5 days. Salvidrim warned them just now, so I'm sure either one of us will block them if they do it again. Sergecross73 msg me 16:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I was only commenting on the image changes, not the article. Ryūkotsusei only left a link to one image so I assumed the Zelda problem was the same. - X201 (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought of that just after I wrote that response. We're both right; its minor in the effect that it was a very small image change, but major in the effect that they both basically both broke 20+RR.... Sergecross73 msg me 19:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Update: Both continued to edit war, even after Salvidrim's final warning, and so both were blocked. So this is taken care of for now. Sergecross73 msg me 19:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Question

I don't know if this has been discussed before; but this IP has changed all the Mario templates so that the games' full names are displayed, instead of the shortened ones. Is it better to have full names or shortened names? Thanks, ~ satellizer ~~ talk ~ 00:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know of any official word on it, but I've seen so many experienced users switch things to the shortened version that I assume that's the preferred way... Sergecross73 msg me 00:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. Thanks. ~ satellizer ~~ talk ~ 01:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Resident Evil 6 edit warring

Can someone deal with the edit warring on Resident Evil 6? IP user 184.152.58.203 violates the three-revert rule and still reverting edits, ignoring the others. Check the page's history. Hounder4 (Talk) 19:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The page is protected; hopefully this influences the IP to discuss on the talk page. Sergecross73 msg me 19:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Is open world a genre?

As the title states, is open world a game genre and should it be listed in the video game infobox? The wikipedia article does not define it as a genre yet some article like The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim and Destiny (video game) currently list it as a genre. Thanks. The1337gamer (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Open world is not a genre its a design method, you wouldn't list Linear as a genre. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you. So does anybody else support/decline the removal of open world as genre on all video game infoboxes? The1337gamer (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I think I would support it. Darkwarriorblake does have a point, and it also seems a little silly to define such a thing as a genre, thus going against what a 'genre' is defined as and bringing hundreds, no thousands, of games into it from all the various genres proper. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Genre - a category of artistic, musical, or literary composition characterized by a particular style, form, or content. It follows this definition, but is this the definition we want to use? I think that a video game genre, as it is displayed on Wikipedia, should be anything that describes the core elements of its gameplay.Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 19:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Open world is a core element of gameplay. Video game genres focus more on gameplay elements than narratives, so I think open world would fit this. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Are any games described simply as open world games though, without the use of another video game genre? To me, "open world game" itself doesn't like seem a suitable description for a video game without being accompanied by a different genre. It just serves as a design choice to cater non linear gameplay, rather than describing what the gameplay actually involves (i.e. racing, shooting, etc). The1337gamer (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree with 1337gamer here. Having an open world is an important part of many games, but it doesn't describe the core gameplay appropriately enough to be considered a genre in and of itself. To try and draw a literary equivalent, it would be like saying that "second person" is a genre--it's a tool authors use in their novels, sure, but it could be applied to almost any kind of novel, poetry or prose. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I think I agree with the above. It's a gameplay mechanic, but not a genre. Some genres (aka GTA clone) necessitate having this format as part of the genre, but there are games that use open world in a less specific manner, and as noted, are more akin to non-linear gameplay. --MASEM (t) 14:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, Masem and I had a similar discussion recently about Assassin's Creed 3, and I think that Open World should not be in the opening sentence as a genre because it isn't sometihng everyone will understand. We fall into the trap on here of writing for gamers but as I've learned with my Arkham City FAC, reviewers are not gamers and don't understand anything and will knock you down because of it. Open World can be mentioned in hte lede as it's generally considered a technical feat to accomplish a proper streaming open world, but it should be mentioned elsewhere where the concept can be briefly explained in the context of the game. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Definitely in cases like Assassin's Creed, one could describe that the setting takes place in an open world of (location) or similar language but yea, it's less a genre than a gameplay mechanic. --MASEM (t) 19:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, wouldn't 'survival horror' not really be a genre either? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Why not? Horror is a genre, survival horror is like action comedy, literally if you saw that film with Bruce Willis and Tracy Morgan. It's a tone, not a level design.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to ban Niemti from the Video Games WikiProject.

• After further discussion, a thread will be initiated at some point on AN. It may take a few days. I'll update here once it is done. Thanks for the input! :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 05:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Withdrawn temporarily pending broader AN thread.

Proposal After reading the complaints of numerous exhausted and exasperated editors, I think we have come to point where the only way we'll be able to minimize disruption is to ban Niemti from WP:VG. As the RFC/U demonstrated, the editor seems unwilling to improve his behaviour or to even discuss the issues. He has already been topic-banned from articles relating to Anita Sarkeesian. However, considering the general feeling I perceive from the WP:VG community, I think people have tried, and failed, to work with Niemti constructively. I haven't had much interaction with Niemti myself and am only involved because I am part of WP:VG, but I see editors either actively ignoring the user or who are feeling stress due to his behaviour and that's totally and completely inappropriate as far as I am concerned. I am undecided as to whether a topic-ban from Video Games articles would be an eventual solution, as his editing isn't completely destructive... however his behaviour is starting to demotivate other great editors and that's incredibly worrying me. I want to avoid losing good editors because one of them is impossibly hard to work with. For these reasons, I propose that Niemti be formally banned from all pages in the WP:VG subspace. Of course banning him from actual VG articles, or GANs, is another matter entirely, but at the very least this would demonstrate beyond any doubt that members of this project have tried to come to terms and work with Niemti, and he has continued to behave in such a way that produces more problems than improvements and that goes against the spirit of collaboration that WikiProjects are supposed to be about. It clearly indicates that his presence in discussions is destructive and hopefully will help him focus on content contributions and less on demoralizing other editors. Since I am a member of WP:VG, once this discussion has run its course, I will ping AN so an uninvolved administrator can close the discussion and officialize the result if need be. I do not know if this kind of action has precedent but I do believe it is the best solution for everyone. A wider site ban may, in the future, be pursued if this solution's scale ends up being too small but that's neither here nor there. If you think about opposing because it's "not enough", please instead support and propose further steps. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 20:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Evidence I think the lot us knows the situation well enough for diffs to be superfluous, but I will point you to the most recent post by Niemti, which is a prime example of his recent behaviour. It led the target of his vicious attack to plead for help and prompted a generally level-headed editor to lose his cool somewhat. The kind of atmosphere that is brought about by Niemti's behaviour isn't productive... it's destructive and demoralizing to anyone trying to improve Wikipedia. In the words of a great man: "The line must be drawn here; this far, no further!". :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 21:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Discussion Support - As proposer. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 20:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Support - per his RFC/U and the most recent evidence posted here. This one is long overdue. Driving away good editors due to disruptive editing is unacceptable and this evidence matches the criteria specified in that guideline. The user has failed the WikiProject for the last time. No thanks, we really don't want this type of behavior here and with that said, enough is enough. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Support - per pretty much the entirety of his RFC/U. Sergecross73 msg me 21:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Support - Agree with all those above. I have had a few unpleasant experiences with this user myself, especially during the last time this community tried to ban him. I dare not edit any Resident Evil character section because of his seeming want to dominate them, and it needs doing. Some of the grammar is horrific. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Support - I was expecting this to happen soon. His RFC/U and the latest evidence provided means he doesn't belong here at the project anymore. ZappaOMati 21:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Question - how would such a ban be enforced? Can a person be blocked from a specific set of articles? --22:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Maybe we should specifically ask him to be civil on WP:VG pages, and then consider a ban if he remains uncivil? --Odie5533 (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Answer We tried that, but in the long run it didn't work. It only quietened him for a short period as far as I have gathered. "You'd bring the Calm, and then what?" --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC) I would want evidence for this before supporting this measure. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC) I don't think there can be any reasonable assumption that editors have never asked him to remain civil. The RFC/U demonstrates this, as well as his disregard for discussion about his behaviour, rather clearly. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 22:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Pretty certain that was requested up and down his RFC/U, not to mention countless other discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 22:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC) It has. There are two different, very long discussions about the user in question in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 96: here and here. There is also a lengthy one on the Administrator's noticeboard which came to nothing, now stored in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive241. this is the discussion mentioned. Within these are several examples and pieces of evidence, brought forward by users at the time, to attest to Niemti's constant uncivil and disruptive behavior. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Shouldn't this be done at WP:AN? AIRcorn (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC) As it involved specifically this project and its members, I felt it preferable that we should form consensus before asking an unvinvoled admin to assess that consensus. I am unaware of precent for banning an editor from a WikiProject, but I will gladly defer to established procedures, should they exist; I wasn't able to find any documentation relating to this specific kind of situation. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 22:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Oh, for some reason I read it as a ban from all video game articles. AIRcorn (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Question - what is this supposed to accomplish? As far as I can tell, Niemti rarely if ever posts at WT:VG, except when specifically called out by the community (like here). His other interactions in this project space are mostly confined to requests for assessment. If this is meant to simply be a public humiliation in the manner of a stockade, then fine. However, if you're looking to minimize his "demoralizing influence" on project members, I don't believe that anything short of a topic ban from game articles will suffice. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC) As Salvidrim is a largely uninvolved admin, in rather good standing in the community, I find it hard to believe he's looking for "public humiliation". I imagine it's more of a "starting small" type thing, but I'll let him respond for himself. (I'd support a topic ban myself, so I do hear that part of what you're saying though.) Sergecross73 msg me 22:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC) I wouldn't be opposed to withdrawing this and replacing it with an AN thread proposing a ban from... what, all video game article? Or more specifically GANs? I'm open to suggestions but the problem has to be tackled. This has been going on for too long to ignore. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 22:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC) I apologize if my comment came across as snarky. Banning Niemti from WP:VG is all well and good, but I'm afraid it wouldn't have a large impact on his behavior at the areas of Wikipedia where he actually edits. I believe there was a semi-fruitful discussion here in which he agreed to bring down the number of open GANs. His hostile behavior must have returned since then, I take it? Axem Titanium (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Yep, I actually proposed that discussion as I felt that it has become a very serious problem, but his hostile behavior has returned once again. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC) I gonna stay Neutral on this discussion but I'm wondering: is this the first time someone will get banned from a WikiProject like this? I mean I don't think this is thing anyone would do normally to get rid of an obnoxious editor. GamerPro64 01:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC) I haven't found any precedent. But I cannot assert for certain. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 03:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Comment - I am concerned that this is the wrong venue for a topic ban (from what I understand, the proposal is to topic ban the editor from WikiProject Video games Wikipedia-space pages, so this is not a particularly unusual request). For the most part, bans have either moved through WP:AN or WP:ARBCOM primarily due to the fact that community consensus for the removal of an editor from any page or number of pages is paramount, and I would personally see it as inappropriate for a ban to be instantiated anywhere else. From my point of view, holding this discussion elsewhere (at WP:AN) may also produce results which deal better with the problem, which may be better appreciated by members here.... At the minimum, WP:AN (and possibly WP:ANI) should be neutrally WP:CANVASSed prior to the closing phase to receive input from editors outside of the project's purview as to whether a topic ban from these particular WP-space pages is an appropriate remedy for any of Niemti's behavior. --Izno (talk) 05:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment at Template talk:Super Robot Wars

Your comment is requested at Template talk:Super Robot Wars#Naming of list items regarding recent history of that template. --Izno (talk) 04:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Is there any differences between a B-class article and a GA?

I found delisted GA will be re-assessed as C-class (instead B-class), so is there any articles meet B-Class criteria but not meet WP:WIAGA?--Overview2 (talk) 09:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It's up to the assessor whether the delisted GA is C or B. Yes, articles can meet B-Class but not GA. One difference is that GA must comply with 5 pages from the Manual of Style (GA criteria 1b). B articles don't need to comply with much any of the Manual of Style. B doesn't have to be neutral or stable. Oddly, B has a more stringent criteria for 6 while GA has no comparable requirement. As you have noticed, there is a lot of overlap. For practical purposes, the referencing requirements are identical. --Odie5533 (talk) 09:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

If you look on the talk page you can see a link to what the article looked like when it became a GA. It's possible that damage done since then has lowered it to a C or it was passed when it shouldn't have been. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The A,B,C class listings are separate and specific to Wikiprojects, compared to GA which are WP-wide global expectations. So there can be VG articles that meet our B-class (generally defined in terms of completeness and sourcing) and fail GA (which is more towards MOS compliance and writing style). --MASEM (t) 16:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

In addition to what everyone else has said, which is all true, another difference is that B-Class can be self-assessed, while GA status requires a peer review from someone else. (So, getting an article to GA can be a slower process because first you have to find someone willing and able to review your work, and then you may have things to work out if there's much of a descrepency between interpretations of the work. Not really the case with B-class, unless someone challenges your assertion of it being a B-class article, which would lead to discussion and whatnot.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Destiny on next gen consoles?

What's to be made out of this from a encyclopedic pov? CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 11:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Speculation currently as that information is being interpreted from an outdated contract. Here is a link to the full contract: Bungie-Activision publishing agreement. Contracts change so until it is officially confirmed, Destiny should not be considered a next-gen console game. The1337gamer (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It was announced for PS4 tonight, FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 03:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

UGO

UGO [7] appears to be shutting down.

I don't know what the plans are - for the site to go dark, keep content up, etc - nor am I aware of our reliance on UGO (I don't think I used it much, but that's just me).

I would suggest that we may want to get a bot to webcite UGO links as we've had to done in the past. --MASEM (t) 17:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

UGO is a reliable source according to WP:VG/S#Reliable sources. As for the bot, I also support it to webcite UGO links. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Well damn! 1UP, Gamespy, and UGO are all shutting down. Can we get a bot to webcite all of these places? I'm quite sure I've used 1UP and Gamespy a ton in my featured articles. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Webcite might shut down yet, though it has a lot of time to make that 50K. Not a good thing though, 1UP and Gamespy at least I know are sourced in my FAC nominee article. Archived but still, a nuisance. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Requesting input on Final Fantasy article titling

Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Final_Fantasy:_All_the_Bravest

I believe the article should be titled with a lowercase "t" in "the", per MOS:CT. Lucia Black believes it should be an uppercase T due to it being used by Square. Input would be appreciated so that we can come to a consensus on this. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 20:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to inject something here: Please discuss on the talk page. Thanks. --Izno (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Why me specifically? G-Zay also believes it to be capitalized aswell. I merely defended my point.Lucia Black (talk) 20:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I forgot the other person's name when writing it. Didn't bother looking it up because it really wasn't the point... Sergecross73 msg me 20:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

it appears hostile, you should really think twoce before posting.Lucia Black (talk) 20:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

How is mentioning you by name "hostile"? Sergecross73 msg me 20:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The fact that i didnt start the conversation is one, two its better mentioning both, or neither. It looks hostile because it insinuates that "we're having this debate because of Lucia Black". I know you dont mean to be hostile but thats why i suggest you think twice. If i started this convo though, it wouldve been ckmpletely different.Lucia Black (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say any of that, you're reading into things way to much. I mentioned you because I remembered your name. That's it. Yikes. Sergecross73 msg me 20:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I said insinuates. Like i said for probably the third time, think twice before you post. Example:

If someone else started discussion, and you didnt however support the idea, i appropriately canvass the discussion however only mentioning you. You can easily fall in the same chain of tjought i did. Doesnt matyer how much i defend my lack of thought, it still gave a bad sign.Lucia Black (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I did think before I posted, and I didn't see any rational cause for why that would be offensive, (I still don't) so I posted it. (I can only address that part of your response, I don't understand the rest, there's too many typos. It seems at least one user doesn't like that we're arguing here, so if you want to continue this, please move it to my talk page. Thanks.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Everyone, calm down. It's only one letter. "All The Bravest" seems alright, but "All the Bravest" also seems valid. Maybe we should roll with the current title for now. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I just hope it does not go as bad as bad as the Star Trek (i|I)nto Darkness dispute. That went over 40,000 words. Also, that was not a typo it really was over forty thousand words.--174.93.160.57 (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)