Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

WPCVG Talk Archives

Archives: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17

List of archive topics by section

Luigi page moved.

A user has recently moved the Luigi page to Luigi (Mario) without any discussion whatsoever. What's more, none of the links were changed. Even on the disambiguation page that was created in the process. I brought the subject up at WikiProject Nintendo, but I feel that it should be mentioned here too. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 02:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't care particularly about the move, although I wouldn't have made it myself. If people are OK with this, then you need to do a {{db-move}} at Luigi and then move the disambiguation page in its place. - Hahnchen 03:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this completes the trifecta of major Mario naming disputes (Mario, Bowser, and now, finally, Luigi, although Peach also had a somewhat less controversial article name change). Nifboy 05:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but the Mario paged was never moved. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 02:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Some random AFDs and prods

I came across this AFD for a mod I know nothing about and someone spouted the useless keep vote of "But there's loads of nn-mods on Wikipedia. Look at these!" Well now, these nn-mods have all been prodded or AFDed. I've removed prods on some that I know to be more notable than the article suggests, but the nominations have been on the whole incredibly lazy. I've removed prods on Science and Industry, Hostile Intent and voted on Dystopia (computer game), Firearms (computer game) and the stupidly notable Rocket Arena. - Hahnchen 04:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm very annoyed that someone tagged Dystopia as AfD mere hours after I marked up as a CVG article. Was this guy just waiting for anything to come along that he could afd? I hadn't even had a chance to insert all the awards and links that irrefutably prove it's notability. It won Game of the Year at the Independant Game Festival for crying out loud! The Kinslayer 11:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I think one or two people are being extremely over-zealous in marking stuff for deletion. The reasoning seems to be 'The article isn't finished, and I'VE never heard of it, so it should be deleted.' The Kinslayer 11:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The second pointer in nominating an AfD clearly states: Consider adding a tag such as {cleanup} or {disputed} instead; this may be preferable if the article has some useful content. In the case of at least two of the above AfDs, this hadn't been done, not even giving people a chance to fix the 'offending' problems. The Kinslayer 12:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Wicketthewok seems to be the main culprit for the lazy AfDs. He certainly seems to have stirred up a couple of hornets nests with AfDs recently! He is very over-zealous with deleting new articles within a couple of hours creation, citing non-notability and lack of sources as the reasons, even though he usually deletes the articles before the person had a chance to add the links! Just letting you all know to be careful when your creating new articles, as this guy will probably delete it! He's also fond of quoting wiki policies chapter and verse, but seems to conveniently forget ones that provide arguements against deletion, such as the one I quoted further up the page.The Kinslayer 10:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Lazy though those AfDs may have been, there is no need to attack Wickethewok. Seriously, how about you take the time to explain why his actions were incorrect, and what should be done to correct them? If you have already done so, there should be no need to continue the thread here. Remember, NPA. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 09:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, Wickethewok was completely in the right to nominate any article that does not have meet Wikipedia:Verifiability or similar policy / concern. WP:V says "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." -- Ned Scott 09:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The issues been resolved, and I wasn't attacking him (as I stated on his talk page.) I was just expressing concern over his nominations. But since it's been resolved, lets all just move on now. The Kinslayer 10:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Per request, nav boxes

see Wikipedia:Navigational boxes _→AzaToth 12:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, please explain what you're talking about. It's a proposed guidline for nav boxes. "Per request, nav boxes" doesn't tell me what you're looking for here. --PresN 13:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Cover art to use for simultaneously released cross-platform games (take two)

The following is an edited duplication of Template talk:Infobox CVG#Cover arts to use, which is created following a suggestion to bring the discussion to this page:

For some cross-platform games like Need for Speed: Most Wanted, there are multiple versions released simultaneously for each platform (PC, PS2, Xbox, GameCube and the Xbox 360, for example), and thus has multiple cover art labels. Would a PS2 cover art, for example, be preferable if the port is notable in any aspect (i.e. special edition, launch title)? ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 15:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC) ╫

If it's multi-format, I usually go for the PC box because they don't include a Xbox/PS2 banner advert at the top of the box and you get slightly more of the art. See for example Image:Psychonautsbox.jpg and Image:Tomb Raider Legend Boxart.jpg where I've uploaded PC covers over the originals. The NFS box however, even has a banner for the PC edition, so it doesn't matter as much. But in general, I stick to the generic most common box cover over the special edition ones. For example, I could have uploaded a box shot for the special edition of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (PC), but decided against it, being that the special edition was a different colour to all other box art. - Hahnchen 15:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

And now the Psychonauts box has no source. I'm starting to get frustrated at this. Please provide sources, people. Thunderbrand 16:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for input; the importance of using a plain box art over a special edition or more notable port in the infobox is also noted. However, taking your approach into consideration, the present PC cover art of Need for Speed: Most Wanted would still be unsuitable because it includes an extra PC CD-ROM tag, while the top banner is just about the same size as those on the PS2 and Xbox; as such, I took the liberty of submitting a PC DVD version which has minimal obstructions. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 19:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC) ╫

Can someone please clarify the need for sources in fair-use scenarios where the source has absolutely nothing to do with the copyright holder? I thought the source was needed to confirm that it was indeed fair-use, what use is a link to a random hungarian game site or a link to amazon? At Image:Half screen004.jpg, I replaced a sourced watermarked image with an unwatermarked unsourced version. That image was a widely distributed promotional screenshot, the source is Valve Software if needed, should I have a handy link to gamespot there? - Hahnchen 20:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, as soon as you click on Special:Upload, it says to provide a rationale and source. Thunderbrand 23:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

After a discussion with ZS, I'd rather conclude that:

1. Since Wikipedia is widely viewed using the PC, all games should have the PC box art rather than the console box art, unless the game lacks a PC version.

2. If the game under discussion is MOST notable in its console version, whichever that may be, the box art for that console should be used. (eg. Halo and Halo 2)

What are my fellow Wikipedians' views on this?

P.S.: I've taken the liberty to replace some of the games' console box art with their PC counterparts (vis-a-vis Hitman: Blood Money, Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter, NFS: MW, NFS: U2 etc.)

Here's an easy order, based on how pointless style disputes are handled in other areas:

1. The version most strongly associated with the game (in English-speaking territories, if there's a conflict).
2. The first English-language release.
3. The first publishing in the creators' territory or native language.
4. Whatever was uploaded first.

This is based on the way stupid grammar issues (color vs. colour) and original-language vs. English-language issues are handled, and assumes we don't have a free/unfree situation (use the free version no matter what) or an image quality situation.

This specifically ignores ZS's suggestion to favor PC game boxes. The PC versions of games which are not initially released on the PC are often afterthoughts; it would be silly to represent many of EA's latter-day games with the PC versions. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

List of best-selling computer and video games

List of best-selling computer and video games is currently suffering an edit war that has lasted around 2 weeks already. WhiteMinority believes VGCharts should be used to reference sales information in the article, while A Link to the Past believes it is not a reliable source. I would appreciate some members from this WikiProject to drop by and give an opinion here to try to settle the matter, as I don't want to call for a mediation. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 18:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

What extensive options do we have besides VGCharts? --Tristam 03:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

For every game, we should find an article in a reliable source stating the game has passed the 1m mark in the european, american, japanese or worldwide market. -- ReyBrujo 04:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Which is not easy. -- Steel 10:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

True, but put it this way, are shipping figures the same as retail sales figures? No. Therefore shipping figures should not be used to get numbers for the best selling computer and video games. WhiteMinority seems more concerned with trying to provoke Link by reverting his edits and accusing him of vandalism than he is with the quality of the article. The Kinslayer 10:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

There must be someone on Wikipedia with access to the NPD Funworld sales data. Just like we're using the magazines project to collect information on which users have access to which reviews, we should as a project try to find people who have access to this data. Some other portential sources: [1], [2], [3], japan. It sucks that all this stuff is not just open and out there, but at least if we know who has access we can start using this data to properly source our articles. jaco♫plane 11:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Not someone on Wikipedia, as that would be original research and no reliable source. For japanese titles, it is easy to track which titles are best selling, as there are three independant trackers Dengeki, Famitsu and Media Create. For others, we need to rely on press releases and sites like GameSpot and IGN. The important thing is getting a reliable source stating the game sold over a million copies. No need to get exact numbers, just knowing 1m copies have been sold should be enough for us. -- ReyBrujo 16:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Computer and video games lists issue

Why are the lists slightly different in format? All are a list in alphabetical order, but that's about the only thing that is the same with them. On the Xbox 360 list: List of Xbox 360 games, there is *'s and FP by games meaning certain things, along with release dates for games that aren't out. At List of GameCube games, there is a list of cancelled and Europe games at the bottom. Other game lists have small differences as well. Shouldn't all lists be in the same format and have the same exact things? I think all should be the same, since they are the same type of list: a list of games for a certain console. RobJ1981 22:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Good question. The subject was brought up before, but the subject drifted towards the non-platform lists, and no clear consensus was reached on how to format the lists based on platforms/consoles. Personally, I would suggest including only the title and the regions the game is released in, probably in a list format rather than a table. Adding alternate titles given for games in the list would seem like a good idea too. I'm not sure if publisher/developer information is significant enough to add in these rather large lists, and perhaps release dates should only be shown on a chronological order version of the list, as exists for the GameCube. Not that I care much either way, but I do agree they need to look the same. --ADeveria 23:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

A partial attempt at making List of Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis games more useful (like List of SNES games) was deemed far too time-consuming to be practical. Nifboy 02:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

External Links for Video Game Articles

I do not believe it's necessary to have links to generic, popular websites such as MobyGames. They are popular, so a lot of people know about them and they are easy to find, so it is kind of a waste to link to them in every single game article. If people want those links, they can easily do a search and find them within seconds. Most of these websites do not actually have that much information on games, anyways. They usually just have general stuff that you can find basically anywhere, and, more importantly, on the Wikipedia article. So why bother linking to them? I believe they should be removed. -Yggdra Juril Altwaltz 20:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, believe that they should be included, because they are easy sources for the articles and generally used. This is regarding an edit war over the external links on Riviera: The Promised Land, by the way. Another link that was being repeatedly removed was a link to an external review. --tjstrf 20:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Why does this keep coming up? MobyGames is an extensive database of video games (a term, which I maintain, encompasses computer games as well). It has much more content than we generally have for Wikipedia articles, including game credits and many, many more screenshots than we have for games. Plus, MobyGames has most information in a relational database, so information and context for games can easily be retreived. Because it is a popular game resource is exactly why we should include links to it, just as we link to BoardGameGeek for board games. — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Frecklefoot. Moby should be included simply because of those reasons. But I also feel the courtesy should be extended to other major archives/resources as well like KLOV and http://www.arcadeflyers.net/. --Marty Goldberg 20:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The MobyGames page DOESN'T have game credits for Riviera, though. Besides, "Everything in MobyGames is contributable by users." So I might as well link to the GameFAQs information pages about Riviera. The credits are incomplete due to GFAQs rules, but I ripped them from the game myself and I know they're accurate at least.

Also, the MobyGames page doesn't even list RiviPSP. --Raijinili 00:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the KLOV should be included for all arcade games, but not arcadeflyers.net, whose content is of dubious value, at best. But I don't see the inclusion of links to these sites as a "courtesy" to the web site operators, just to our readers. But I digress... — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that KLOV should certainly be used as an external link; the information on the site usually expands upon the information of articles. arcadeflyers.net, on the other hand, doesn't. That said, I'd love to see some Project-backed encouragement to use it as a source when documenting a game's history (which is something where it could be extremely useful). EVula 22:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding arcadflyers.net, I'd say the view of dubious value" is certainly not the case among industry historians. Its been a pretty standard reference since long before wikipedia was created and has a large significance when discussing and informing about arcade platform games. These flyers (which were distributed to vendors and operators only) represent the commercial viewpoint of the manufacturer and its vision for the game (which is a commercial product). This includes relevant vendor and operator info (if you're not familiar with the coin-op terms, vendor is the distributor or "middle man" and operator is the end location - i.e. the arcade owner), specifications (including design advancements, settings, available formats such as standup, cocktail, cabaret, etc.), artwork, designer info and more. This is also why these types of materials are frequently referenced and presented in books, articles, and references on the subject. While there is some overlap with KLOV from a purely database facts and figures context, KLOV does not address the facets of vendor and operator promotion and explination. --Marty Goldberg 22:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand that, which is why I think arcadeflyers.net should be used as a source, not an external link. EVula 22:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you are all missing my main point. If people want information from those sites, they will go and find it themselves. It is not difficult in the slightest to find them. I mean, it's like saying every gaming website should have a link to Wikipedia, just because it's well-known. Fansites are different because they generally focus specifically on that game, and are usually not so easy to find. Am I seriously one of the only people who think this? -Yggdra Juril Altwaltz 22:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes, you are. We link to those sites because they contain useful information, both to us at times as writers and to the readers. It doesn't hurt anything having them there, they meet WP:EL, and they make it a whole lot more convenient for the reader. We're a reference source, providing links to other useful (non-competing) reference sources is only sensible. --tjstrf 23:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I know they meet WP:EL. Did you think I came here just to whine for the sake of whining? No. I came here in hopes that others would agree with me and eventually stop adding links to these websites. And I'm sorry, I thought this was an encyclopedia. Apparently I was wrong. -Yggdra Juril Altwaltz 00:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I challenge that they fit EL. The usefulness of the Riviera page is the Chinese name (which I have doubts about), the screenshots (which are found on the Atlus page), the links to buying the game (oh, so now we should link to an Amazon search of Riviera:TPL?), and the ranks/ratings, which a link to GameRatings.com can do better. Everything else you can find on the page belongs in the wikipage, instead of linking to it. IMDB at least has things like trivia pages and quotes, while the Moby page for RTPL has... non-trivial information which is already included. --Raijinili 00:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Mobygames again?! Linking to Mobygames is generally seen as alright, although I definitely wouldn't want it being an infobox item like imdb is. If you've used mobygames for research, then it's nice to link to them and they might provide further information. But sometimes Mobygames articles are crap, just as some Wikipedia articles are, I don't think we should link to them when the only information offered is places to buy the game. Another dubious activity is that of User:Ravimakkar who was warned by a non-CVG editor for spamming mobygames, being that every single edit he made, right from the start was just to add links to Mobygames. I know we have WP:AGF and all, but do you really think he was trying to improve Wikipedia, or just to direct more hits towards MobyGames? - Hahnchen 23:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Your rationale doesn't seem to make sense. Technically you can find websites (including fansites) on any topic quickly through Google or other search engines, so why is being "easy to find" an issue? Also, fansites are generally not as reliable or verified as more notable and popular websites such as Gamespot, IGN, or Mobygames.--TBCΦtalk? 23:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the easy-to-find part really depends on the situation. Less popular games will have harder-to-find fansites, and popular ones will probably have a ton that are easily discovered. And you are correct about fansites usually not being very reliable/verified, so maybe we should not include links to fansites that have false information frequently. However, IGN is really not reliable at all. I've seen tons of false information there. -Yggdra Juril Altwaltz 00:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

"Easy to find/difficult to find" is a horrible qualifier for an external link. The official website for Mortal Kombat: Armageddon is easy enough to find with Google; does that mean we shouldn't have a link to it? We're not a link deposit; often an obscure website is obscure because its crap and has nothing on it worth checking out. Such a website has no place being linked to on Wikipedia, as the entire point of external links is to provide the reader additional useful information that is highly relevant to the topic at hand (and a shitty website just plain doesn't qualify). EVula 03:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

" I thought this was an encyclopedia." We are. That's why we should link to Mobygames if we got information from them, because it's part of our journalistic integrity that we source our information. At any rate, I hope you've realized why I kept reverting your link removals. --tjstrf 04:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You're talking about in-general. You're not talking about Riviera's page at all, since we DIDN'T take information from that MobyGames page. Your reverts have nothing to do with sourcing.

Also, your reverts after the first one were UNJUSTIFIED. The editor in question gave a valid reason for his/her edit, and the issue was brought into question. From there, the discussion should have IMMEDIATELY gone to the talk page. You also violated the three-edit rule, and insulted the editor in question by calling him/her a vandal without proper justification. A registered user should know the rules better than an anonymous or new user.

So no, I don't understand why you kept reverting the link removals and the "overweight" comment. Also, I responded to two other people above. --Raijinili 02:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Acceptable genres

Is there a list of genres that should be used for new game articles?
If I asked this in the wrong place, please rudely shout at me and don't give me a link to where I should ask it.
--Dinoguy1000 ^Talk 18:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, why would anyone shout at you, it's perfectly fine to ask your question here. For the genres, see: Category:Computer and video game genres. Hope that helps. jaco♫plane 18:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for mediation on EDGE magazine article

I've been involved with some edits of EDGE magazine's article. Another contributor very strongly disagrees with my opinion that the article is POV and makes uncited claims, with regard to the foreign language editions of the magazine, see the talk page. I'd be grateful if others in the CVG project could get involved with reviewing the article's contents, rather than me getting into an edit war. --Oscarthecat 20:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Game name

• Ninja Gaiden 2 (Next-Generation)
• Ninja Gaiden 2 (Xbox 360)

Anonymous user engaged in reversions regarding these name differencies. I think this need more experiences WP:CVG member to clarify. --Ragnarok Addict 21:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I would vastly prefer a year attached (a la Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 game)), and bar a name change that's where it should ultimately end up, but since we don't have even that, I'd go with the console. Nifboy 00:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)