Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 217.117.172.36 (talk) at 09:10, 3 March 2008 (→‎Spore talk page: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:WPCVG Sidebar

Input on new VG Infobox template w/ alternating color rows:

style="float: right; width: 264px; font-size: 90%; text-align: left; border=0; " cellspacing="0" cellpadding="3"
The Orange Box

The Orange Box in a golf hole
Developer(s) Valve Corporation
EA London (PS3 version)
Publisher(s) Valve Corporation
Distributor(s)' Electronic Arts (retail)
Steam (online)
Engine Source engine
Platform(s) Windows, PlayStation 3, Xbox 360
Release date Microsoft Windows
& Xbox 360 (retail):
[1]





Microsoft Windows (online):


PlayStation 3 (retail):


[2]

Genre(s) First-person shooter, compilation
Mode(s) Single player, Multiplayer
Rating(s) ESRB: T-M
PEGI: 16+
BBFC: 15
OFLC: MA15+
Media Steam, DVD-ROM, Blu-ray Disc
System requirements 1.7 GHz processor, 512 MB RAM, DirectX 8 compatible video card, Windows 2000/XP/Vista[3]
Input methods Keyboard, Mouse, Xbox 360 Controller, SIXAXIS controller, DualShock 3 controller

Per a suggestion on the {{Infobox VG}}, I created the example template as a drop in replacement for the current one as to add alternating row colors with the removal of the line frames. Anyone have any input on it (the picture is to avoid nfc content on talk pages, and no, I can't get rid of the white line down the rows) --MASEM 03:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to get rid of the border (technically, spacing) between cells. I kind of like it with the border, though. SharkD (talk) 12:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I much prefer the unified line meself. I'd be happy with this as an alternative to ungainly cell borders. David Fuchs (talk) 12:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks a lot better, I salute thee! --AeronPrometheus (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suits me, go for it. -- Sabre (talk) 13:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it intended for the caption to be bolded? It is normal text in the current infobox. Jappalang (talk) 14:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. --MASEM 18:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The alternating colours add nothing. - hahnchen 18:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why do they add nothing? Elaborate. Simply stating they "add nothing" isn't exactly helpful feedback. -- Sabre (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea when the changes will be implemented? I have a list of articles that I want to overhaul the infoboxen on and I don't want there to be a last minute change I have to account for. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On that note, is the template/doc keeping up with recent changes? --AeronPrometheus (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The new version is (should be) a complete drop-in replacement; no parameters to the Infobox VG will change. (I do expect maybe one or two bugs, but minor.) --MASEM 22:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the only thing that would sweeten the deal would be to add the additional functionality of Template:Infobox VG Hidden with Boxart to the main template as an optional argument that can be added to the articles' code. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the hidden infobox template, it should be straightforward to make a hidden version of this one. --MASEM 22:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like it. Makes it easier to see where the fields end, especially when they run multiple lines like the example xenocidic (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice idea. The only thing I'd suggest would be a little more contrast between the two colours. It may just be my monitor and/or eyesight, but they are barely distinguishable to me. Miremare 01:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The color is the same used for alternating colors on {{Navbox}}, which is very subtle but meant to be a visual cue for seeing rows, not so much a strong distinction. (However, I would consider adding a CSS class name for that so that an end user can customize it). --MASEM 06:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone else think this is redundant, and might need changing? Specifically, does our infobox really need a title? I can see the need for this for other infoboxes (e.g. persons), because their picture is different. For video games, the picture always contains the title. User:Krator (t c) 14:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It may seem redundant, but remember that some people are visually impaired, or may not wish to see images; furthermore due to improper non-free fair use, images on unwatched articles may disappear. Also, it helps with making it clear what the name of the game is when the title may include a disambg statement or the like. --MASEM 14:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree, the title can still be useful. -- Sabre (talk) 11:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like it! Much easier to read, thanks Masem :) Someoneanother 01:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

style="float: right; width: 264px; font-size: 90%; text-align: left; border=0; " cellspacing="0" cellpadding="3"

Here's the hidden version (note that I've had to force it due to how collapsable sections work). --MASEM 06:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So... can someone go ahead and implement it? Das Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chrono Trigger TFA

Wow, I've been hitting the WP:VG talk page a lot lately. Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. It's getting objections because...it's a video game article. Apparently, one per month is too many for a diversified encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. Any support there is appreciated; it was a fight to the death to merely get ONE in line for February (the Agatha Christie Orient Express game). Chrono Trigger's been waiting since August 2006 to hit the main page. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 19:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I urge anyone who reads this to read the entire discussion before making any moral support votes. The "fight to the death" described above is more indicative of the shrillness of some of the arguments rather than of any organized hatred of video games. If anything, it would be good if video game supporters were more forthcoming in discussing the place of video games in the big picture.
Peter Isotalo 11:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem isn't so much not looking at the big picture as it is that VG article editors tend to be more dedicated toward making FAs as a group (which is unsurprising if you think about it for a bit), so there ends up being a systemix bias toward them. With the way the system is set up -- that it, TFAs are chosen from a pool of articles that have been made FAs -- it's only natural that video games will be asked to be featured more, if there are more VGs FAs to chose from, isn't it? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what you're saying, Melodia, and I consider it a very good reason for members of WP:VG to take a bit more responsibility for this state of affairs. What we're seeing over at the requests page right now is looking more and more like a rather one-sided shouting contest. The requests for sane dialog are either entirely ignored or wholly misrepresented.
Peter Isotalo 08:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spore

A user JAF1970 has created separate articles for the DS and Mobile ports of Spore without consensus. The two ports are arguably not notable enough to justify their own separate articles, and if other video game articles serve any precedent, then games that are released under the same name (regardless of platform) are to be contained within a single article, with version-specific information confined to their own separate section within the main article of the game. One such example is The Sims 2: Pets. Despite the name, there was 6 completely different versions of the game (across 9 different platforms) released for the game, yet any information regarding the game was confined to a single article. JAF1970 is being highly uncooperative and it's impossible to reach a consensus at the moment. Matters are being discussed in the Spore talk page.

In short, my argument is that any information regarding the DS and Mobile versions be confined to the main article. It would be silly to create yet another article for what is essentially the same game once/if the next-gen console versions are released. Sillygostly (talk) 06:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is JAF1970 the same editor in the "two lists for XBox live content" thing above? User:Krator (t c) 13:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, though I don't see as how that's relevant to the present discussion. xenocidic (talk) 13:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should we propose a merge using Template:Merge? That way, we could have the re-direct while keeping all the content in the main spore page. Apparently, in the DS version, Sillygostly has already tried three times [1], [2], [3] to create a merge link to the main article, and three times, JAF1970 has reverted the article back to its original status. Isn't that a violation of WP:3RR? -- Nomader (Talk) 04:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, it all depends on how different Spore DS is from other versions. - NotanAnon (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Making new articles doesn't always require a consensus. I think the articles should remain until more information about them is known. Spore for the DS has a completely different concept and name, so at least that one seems to deserve an article of it's own. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even more assessment!!

Posted this above, but probably best to post here again, I'm repopulating Category:Unassessed video game articles (once again :) So get assessing! We now have over 20,000 articles tagged! Metadatatest.js is a nice tool which makes assessing articles a lot quicker. JACOPLANE • 2008-02-16 22:30

FL Category

I know that our banners support the "FL" (Featured List) category -- but, we haven't created a category page, and several lists (such, as, these) are listed as Featured Articles in our banners instead. Is it really important? Or should we create the FL category page and add games into it? -- Nomader (Talk) 00:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think changing the class parameter from FA --> FL will create and populate the category. Not sure about that, someone else may want to chime in. But I think having the category is helpful, as I think there are enough FL to fill it and more will probably pop up in the future. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I've put in a request to add support for FL in the class parameter in the VG Project banner, so hopefully we should be able to start the category sometime soon.
On a similar note, should we be supporting the regular list class? I know it is not an official grade on the quality scale, but it seems to be fairly widespread and it might organize our pages better. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 04:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Hi

Hi I'm PrestonH, and I'm new to this WikiProject that I recently joined. Can anybody help me out a little? (In terms of MoS, what to do, what not to do etc.) PrestonH 19:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Preston. If you are looking for specific information regarding writing VG articles, I'd check out WP:VG/GL. Of course, other Wikipedia guidelines dealing with MoS and other policies still apply. The best thing to do is just try editing an article you're interested in and learn as you go. If you have any questions, please feel free to post here again, or maybe try the talk pages of some of the editors that post here frequently. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Keep an eye on Gran Turismo 5 Prologue

A car list keeps getting re-added to it. I've clearly stated in the edit summary: the section doesn't belong, as it's a game guide. The user that keeps reverting me, because the information is "interesting". RobJ1981 (talk) 19:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magazine request

Does anyone have a copy of the October 2007 issue of Official Xbox Magazine? If so could they cite this paragraph please. I live in Australia so I wouldn't be able to get it from a library or newsagent etc. Alternatively could as many details be filled into this as possible: 

 {{cite book
  | last = 
  | first = 
  | authorlink = 
  | coauthors = 
  | title = 
  | publisher = 
  | date = 
  | location = 
  | pages = 
  | url = 
  | doi = 
  | id = 
  | isbn = }}

And then I can use it to provide citations for the paragraph. Thanks in advance. James086Talk | Email 03:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --MASEM 14:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! James086Talk | Email 23:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with fad category at Pokémon article.

Since both the article and talk page for Pokémon are protected from editing by new and anonymous editors, I have to post this here.

While some may make accusations of "fandom", make note I'm not a fan of Pokémon. However, I must say that it doesn't fall under the definition of what a fad is, as provided by Wikipedia - and putting it in a category of 1990s fads implies that it is not of significant popularity anymore, when the anime and video games are just as popular and prevalent as then, if not more so. It certainly isn't at the popularity it once was, but that doesn't make it a fad. As it stands, Pokémon Diamond and Pearl combined is the second best-selling video game of this generation, behind only Nintendogs. - NotanAnon (talk) 07:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat this mantra a thousand times: "Thou shallt not argue about categories, except about the Categories" User:Krator (t c) 14:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I recall an argument about Bowser being underneath a category relating to gay furries. That seemed like a good argument. - NotanAnon (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FT picture

At the featured topic nomination I've recently made, I'm in need of a picture to use for the topic should it pass. As my graphics skills are nil, any aid would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 08:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What should Blood Bowl (video game) be split into?

I was thinking of using the article that exists now and Blood Bowl (2008 video game)? Currently both are on just on Blood Bowl (video game), and the new version seems to be a completely new game. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there enough information available to make the new article at this time? xenocidic (talk) 18:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I would suggest waiting until the game is released before setting up new articles on them (unless one is like waiting forever ala Duke Nukem Forever). Games nowadays typically take up to 3-5 years development time, get announced in the beginning or middle of the development, and get cancelled before the release date or sprout new spin-offs and such. With such randomness throughout, it would be best to collect your sources, edit and save your articles off-line (or in personal Sandboxes), and implement your ideas once the game is officially gold. This way, many conflicts can be avoided. Jappalang (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spyro: Enter the Dragonfly

I made some major modifications to Spyro: Enter the Dragonfly in the reception section, and I believe this article needs some major improvement. I list some suggestions here, so are there any other suggestions that this articles need to improve on? PrestonH 16:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Various edits by User:Wikipedian06

You may have come across the above user's edits during the discussion over the listing of Gamerankings and Metacritic rankings in articles and how they were biased against Super Mario Galaxy. The conclusion seemed to be that transient ranking data need not be included, a position (among others) that Wikipedian06 pushed for. So its surprising that after this discussion, he went and included a link to a rankings site to the Ocarina of Time article (diff1), which I subsequently removed (diff2), as it was totally unnotable, inaccurate, and took into account user reviews on another website.

But I've had some other run ins with this editor of late. It usually goes like this, Wikipedian06 posts some of his opinions (diff3) onto article pages (diff4), and then gets reverted for poor sourcing. This can also be seen in his opinions of Famitsu, which found themselves onto the article (diff5) via a very poor inadequate source.

His latest agenda is to rail against organisations he feels are biased for not paying attention to Japanese games, with edits such as this. When challenged, he'll remove his claim of "criticism" and "controversy", but try and leave in some Synthesis of published material to advance his POV. He then pleads that any removal of his synthesis should be discussed first - [4], I say no, kill this behaviour where it stands - [5].

I'm asking here for more eyes on this user's edits, and for any further feedback. - hahnchen 18:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedian06 is clearly not following Wikipedia's guidelines on the way different points of view should be sourced, and how to avoid inserting your own opinion into articles. I think you've done good to come here and not write on some kind of noticeboard seeking some kind of punishment, because it's some good feedback that is needed. I would be willing to write some on User talk:Wikipedian06, but it may be better if someone who actually saw and read the edits in question wrote some feedback. Some tips on doing that, if you even need them, but I'm giving them anyway in good faith: keep it clear (no euphemisms, no hyperboles), be constructive (tips on changing, not only signalling wrong things, and go beyond policy/guidelines) and be personal. User:Krator (t c) 22:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at List of best selling video games on how to treat MMORPGs

If anyone is interested, there is currently a discussion on this issue on the talk page of List of best selling video games. Please join the discussion there rather than post opinions here so as to keep the complete discussion intact in one easy to find place. Indrian (talk) 04:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tetris Attack and Panel de Pon split

Per what appeared to be a growing consensus on Talk:Tetris Attack, I went ahead and split Panel de Pon back into its own article, following a previous merge together. The reason for the split was that basically there were enough differences between the two games (and enough notability for each) for them to warrant their own articles. I've done a lot of work to try to condense the common parts of both articles as much as possible, moving details about gameplay into Puzzle League (series) as much possible.

Both of these articles still need some work that I'm less qualified to do at this point. If you have time, I'd really appreciate the help:

  • PdP and TA both have exactly the same information in "Newer Releases". This section should be tailored to each game's specific release/market info in the respective articles.
  • PdP needs images! If someone has boxart and screenshots of PdP, please add them to the article. :)
  • Both games could use more information about their cultural impacts and popularity. I'm sure there's plenty of info about this for each game.
  • Could someone please fact-check the release information for both games, listed in the infobox and intro sections of each article? I'm pretty sure I made some mistakes when splitting this info apart.

Thanks! — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorcerer's Place website

There's a discussion starting up at Talk:Baldur's Gate#Sorcerer's Place link about whether to link the website Sorcerer's Place from various articles. Interested parties are invited to join the discussion. --Muchness (talk) 05:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Clean-Up articles

I joined this group kinda recently, (about 8 days ago) but I have left some major edits (so much to the point where nearly 70% of the text is my work) and I wanted to know if it fits the article standards here they are...they're not a lot of articles but it's something....


~Ya Boi Krakerz~ (talk) 06:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did some copyedit on Conker: you want to avoid the use of "you" or second person in such articles (I don't know if that text was there before or not). Both otherwise seem on their way to improvements and nothing glaringly wrong (though I'm sure a more detailed lookthrough would fine more to improve on). --MASEM 16:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR 09

Hi, I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but can somebody please put some kind of lock on the NASCAR 09 article so only registered users can edit it? It has been getting vandalized a lot since it was created. Thanks Fisha695 (talk) 02:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a request at WP:RPP, and placed a note on the page itself as StarCraft II has one. Also, I've made a note on the talk page explaining the inappropriateness of driver and track lists here. @Fellow WP:VG editors, could some of you when reading this check Talk:NASCAR 09#Drivers and track lists and chime in when necessary? I really don't want to replicate Talk:StarCraft II/Archive 4. User:Krator (t c) 09:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Damnit Krator, I could've sworn you were an admin... dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 09:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I posted this on the NASCAR 09 talk page, but I'll post it here too. "Well then if we can not place the list of content in the video game then there should not be any articles on any video games, as the driver and tracks included in the game is the content of the game, just like saying in the Grand theft Auto games what city they take place in and what your characters name is. Please show me to the Wiki-Rule that says that correct information on the subject of the article should not be included. If you can do that, then fine, just make sure you go through and delete ALL similar information on Characters that you can play and places where the game takes place from EVERY video game article. Until you can do that then I am putting them back in. Thanks" Fisha695 (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A complete list of drivers and tracks is not necessary for a layman's understanding of the content of the article. The relevant guidelines are at WP:NOT#GUIDE and Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Unsuitable content. xenocidic (talk) 17:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the same time, An article on a Fictitious character (ala the GTA ones) is not needed either and is not even anywhere close to being encyclopedic IMO, as it is a made up Character. Having the Track list is no different then saying what city the GTA games take place in, and if anything it has more relevance as it is actually a real place Where-as last time I checked a place like "Liberty City" is not real. Same thing with the drivers. Have a driver list is no different then having the Character list in the movie articles, or the Character listed in the GTA articles, well except that the drivers are REAL people not Fictitious characters like 99% of the other video game/movie characters are. All I am saying is that REAL People and Places hold more encyclopedic weight then Fake ones, yet the Real ones are the ones getting removed why Fake ones are staying, and even have their own articles (tell me what is exactly relevant of a made up character to warrant it a separate article?) I know thats a little long winded, but all I'm saying, is if you are going to remove the Characters and Places from one video game article (real characters and places) then you should also remove all the Fake ones from other video game articles, as well. 18:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fisha695 (talk • contribs)

imo, a few notable drivers and a few notable tracks should be listed in the article. However, a complete listing is not required and will make the article unnecessarily bloated. xenocidic (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that they get bloated but that is because of the way they have been setup. Maybe a table say 4 or 5 names wide, and instead of being broken down into series, it would just be all the real drivers in the game (judged on years past around 50) listed in Alphabetical order, same with Tracks. Or what about this. Two new Articles, 1 is called something like List of NASCAR drivers in video Games, and one would be for tracks, and it would list for every NASCAR game ever made and hopefully future games what drivers and tracks were in those game (not the sponsors or anything, but just the drivers/tracks)I'll use the GTA games as an example again. Since they have the following pages for that series List of gangs in Grand Theft Auto series and List of Grand Theft Auto voice actors, except they'd be Tracks and Drivers in the NASCAR series of games. The games could be broken down using the same catagories for the lists of games at the bottom the the NASCAR 09 page. Just a thought Fisha695 (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At least one of those articles are themselves under attack, so I wouldn't really use them as arguments. The argument also fails WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Again, only a few notable drivers and notable tracks should be included. As for your suggestion to create an article "List of Drivers in NASCAR Games", again, I'm not sure if this would survive an AFD. Your efforts in this regard might be better appreciated a gaming wikia. (Note all of the above is just based on WP and WPVG policy, and not my own personal opinion on whether an article should have a complete list of drivers) xenocidic (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But what is "notable", you know what I mean? Especially in a sport like NASCAR. For example I live about 15 minutes from the Pocono Raceway so I think that is a notable track to be in the game, yet a lot of people that follow the sport and play the game think the tracks is boring and shouldn't even be on the schedule. Same basic thing with Drivers, the driver I think are notable, you may not think are notable, and somebody else may have a completely different list of notable drivers. And also with the drivers and a notable list, it'd bring up the fact that while yes certain drivers may get more tv time, or certain drivers may have more fans, that doesn't mean a driver that "you" didn't list as notable isn't notable with their fans, people in the region they are from, etc.... I guess what I am trying to say is, when involving real people/places especially sports related ones, "Notable" is more of a personal subjective thing then it is an Encyclopedic thing. BTW I'm not trying to argue or tick anybody off I just like to debate what I feel is right, or a better way to do something then how it's being done. Fisha695 (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that subjective a thing, and policy disagrees that it's not an encyclopedic issue. The best way to judge notability is to look at third party sources. Lets say you read a review of the game in question. There's not going to be a list of tracks in it, at most the reviewer will talk about the few best tracks in the game. The notability issue is just one problem anyway, in addition to the game guide issues, WP:NOT etc Bridies (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once again that still is a subjective thing. Just because the reviewer only reviews "X" track does not mean they are notable, it means those are the tracks that the reviewer ran. Getting encyclopedic info off of some hack who writes for a magazine is stupid IMO. Just because that person who reviews said game and rates it what he does, does not mean that everybody or anybody agrees with him. Here I'll use a real life racing example. My boss likes his modified set up loose, I like my car set up tight, I got into his modified last year and almost destroyed it in the first turn because it was too loose of a setup for my personal tastes. Out of a scale of 10 I would rate it a 1 and he'd rate it an 11. Does that mean that setup is a good setup...? Well going off of the idiotic thought that just because somebody plays mentions that track in a review means its notable, it does. Fisha695 (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you just need to read over the policies pertaining to notability, original research and the need for (reliable) third party sources e.g. WP:NOT. Bridies (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're getting a little off-topic here. Again, only a few notable drivers should be included, and the test of notability would typically be when they're mentioned by a reviewer. We have to follow established policy and consensus. xenocidic (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the company making the game mentions that a driver who has not been in the last few games is not notable, but when some person sitting at a desk (for a lack of a better word) blogging about what he/she thinks of the game that is notable..? The Board of Directors that runs this "project" really really need to re-think their rules IMO. Fisha695 (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I agree here with Fisha695. If it is appropriate to include a few examples of what normally would be game-guide or list-type content (as in the list of drivers or tracks here) as a summary in the main article, I would nearly always turn to the company's press release or media information for the game and pull examples there. (This is what we did for a few of the Guitar Hero games, since otherwise we'd be arguing left or right over what example songs should be listed). Mind you, this might not exist, and in that case, it's then you turn to reviewers to provide such examples. In either case, you avoid a possible issue with WP:OR by creating your own version of the list of examples. --MASEM 20:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I agree with including a few notable drivers where sources are available, but I do believe Fisha695's argument is that the entire list should be included because notability is subjective. xenocidic (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WWE SvR 2008 roster: list or prose?

This is cross posted with the Wikiproject: Professional Wrestling here

There has been an edit war in the past possibly 6 months whether to list or prose the roster. Since discussion guidelines to reach consensus is not to vote for a decision but to discuss it and make sure most people agree with it. And read the Talk page of the article and archives to see previous discussions of the issue. Please voice your opinion.--TrUCo9311 03:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaaarrrrrggggghhhhh. User:Krator (t c) 09:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hide the list by default. hahnchen 18:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excess gameplay description template

There's a template under discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Role-playing games#Excess gameplay description template for marking articles for cleanup. Comments from members of this WikiProject would be welcome. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The process of writing five featured video game article and nominating them for Today's Featured Article has revealed a lot about how video game topics and editors are treated. I have some advice and cold realities for those seeking to have their work featured on the main page someday. So let's say you've written a video game featured article; you've invested a lot of hard work, sought the aid of peer reviewers, searched for or played the game to obtain relevant, fair use screenshots, and of course, copyedited the article like a madman to pass the grueling FAC process. You are happy to have that star on your article because you know that it means something you love will now be shared with a wider audience. Perhaps you've even secured more spotlight for an obscure, underrated video game that needs appreciation. You are riding high and can't wait to nominate your article for TFA on one of the anniversaries of its release date. You maintain the article with zeal and personally see through that its quality will never decline.

So you head over to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests and wait for a few days because the request system is always packed. Vigilantly keeping watch, one night you see Raul654 schedule a couple successful requests; you remove them from the page and insert your own TFA blurb. What can you expect from the people who monitor that page?

1. Expect intolerance based timing and notability.

There is apparently consensus by the TFA police that one video game article on the main page per month is too many, because the main page is supposed to represent a diverse sample of interests and video games aren't notable enough. Nevermind that your game might have sold ten million copies. Nevermind that WP:MH and a few other projects appear multiple times per month at times. Nevermind that with a technically-savvy audience, a website encyclopedia will probably get more people who know about a video game than an obscure archbishop in England in the 9th century. Nevermind that other pop culture articles like TV and music appear more than once per month on average. Nevermind that WP:VG is a very successful project with a lion's share of FAs to its credit (most of which haven't hit the main page). And nevermind that your article may have been waiting almost 2 years to appear on the main page. Your nomination will be opposed because there was another video game on the main page recently, whether someone nominated it or Raul selected it.

2. Expect prejudice based on the subject matter.

Video game articles are second class topics, and video game editors are second class Wikipedians. This is the cold truth you must learn. Your nomination will be opposed because your FAC-proven, polished, sweat-borne article is "pretty weak" or "just another overlong synopsis of just another video game." Your game could be considered critically perfect and have sold in the millions, but it is a video game, which relegates it to the back of the line behind all the other obscure topics in Wikipedia. Video games are not art, not popular, not notable, and not important. Every video game article should be trimmed down to two paragraphs in a single merged list, because that's the breadth of their importance. If you wrote out detailed, well-researched sections on development, impact, or gameplay, you are an idiot for making mountains out of molehills on a genre of work no one cares about (but people mysteriously decide to write many FAs for anyway).

3. Expect a fight. Arm yourself.

Your video game article is trash on the request system, preventing some other editor from nominating his soccer club topic. No matter what evidence you provide for notability, your article is a video game and that is that. So bring this up as provided by User:Guyinblack25:

While I can understand the reasoning to which Marskell mentioned in limiting "short-term culture", I feel its main purpose is to help Wikipedia gain creditability as a reliable encyclopedia. I could be wrong, but that's my interpretation. And while I agree that Wikipedia should do what it can do bolster its image, I can't help but feel its created a negative view among editors towards "short-term culture" articles. In regard to the demographics Marskell commented on, I feel some data should be mentioned to get a better perspective on the audience interested in video games and how it falls into our culture.
The Entertainment Software Association found that in 2006, the average gamer age was 33, only 31% of gamers were under the age of 18, only 23% of gamers were males under the age of 18, adult gamers have been playing video games an average of 12 years, and 69% of American heads of households play video games.[6] The BBC found similar results in the UK with the average age at 28 and 59% of all people ages 6-65 play games, with the two largest age groups being 25-35 (5.5mil) and 36-50(6.7mil).[7] Though I don't know the age demographics of internet users, I think the data shows that interest in video games is not relevant mainly to a male, teenage demographic/generation. Video games have been around for more than a few decades, and have gained in popularity and in notoriety. For example, the Writers Guild of America just started a Videogame Writing award.

Call on your compatriots at WP:VG and point out the hypocritical bias and baseless claims of topic weakness. Cite Raul's first and truest law that Wikipedia relies on dedicated editors such as ourselves for its well being and advancement, especially in featured writing. Remind that this is an encyclopedia created and owned by the users, and the users are creating numerous articles on an emerging artform with a wide and growing audience. To disenfranchise WP:VG would be to sacrifice the support of hard working, core editors who hitherto believed they could eventually share their work on the main page. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 19:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet rant. xenocidic (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As an editor of CVG and fantasy topics, I assure you they are overlooked by other editors. I understand the reasoning (let's be clear, it is much more important an article talking about health, geography or society than one about a game, otherwise you would be taught "Advanced Dual Shock handling" at primary school instead of Biology). The truth is, no encyclopedia talks about as many fantasy and gaming articles like ours because they are unnecessary.
Now, I also understand people who are gaming fans and spend their time polishing articles. I would not like someone deleting an article I have edited over 1000 times just because it is not as important as another.
I also have this feeling that people from the CVG WikiProject who support gaming articles that are currently under FAC don't spend their time to review other FACs in "boring" topics. Maybe I am wrong, maybe not, but it is my impression that gaming editors help to promote gaming articles, but don't even care about medicine, history or any other FAC. It could be that the editors of other articles are just as the CVG ones I mentioned here, but for some reason I don't have that "feeling". -- ReyBrujo (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Taking myself as an example—and I assume that this is the case for others—I don't review other articles at FAC because my level of expertise is in this area is hugely different to that of others. My experience as an editor comes mainly from editing gaming articles. I'm not making a conscious effort to somehow promote these articles at the expense of others, it's just I don't feel that I'm in position to review others. As an editor, I feel it would be irresponsible of me to make a judgement on the quality of a type of article to which I've had no experience in editing. Ashnard Talk Contribs 21:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What a wonderful message, one that has been sung in the heart of every VG editor who has gone to FA, including me. To be honest though, many of us already know this, it is the rest of the world who doesn't understand. I don't know statistics, but I would be curious how many editors are specialized to one specific area here, and remain in that area their entire wikipedia "career", for lack of a better word. I think that you'll find many who only work on battles, movies, video games, football/soccer clubs, historic figures, towns, etc. and defend their importance just as we do. I guess what I am saying is nobody up top really cares how many VGFA's there are, or something would have changed by now. So we can rant and rave and get all riled up, but at the end of the day how much does it do unless we have a plan for change?--CM (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to Ashnard's comments-
I felt the same way until SandyGeorgia stated in a discussion at FAC, "Why are reviewers tied to the idea they aren't qualified to review certain topics? Anyone can pick out prose, MOS, citation, etc. issues. It's good for uninvolved reviewers to look at articles outside of their usual realm." I got me thinking, "yeah, that's right." Doing so helps me as an editor become better at copy editing and writing articles in general and helps the article sharpen up quality-wise. Some of the most helpful comments I've gotten at FAC are from non-VG members.
So while I may not be the most qualified person to point out a lack of comprehensiveness or accuracy, I can certain look at the formating of references, grammar, image fair use, and MoS issues. Besides, my support/opposition does not mean the article will pass/fail. The FA director ultimately decides which articles meet the criteria, our comments merely help it along. So I say give it shot, what's the worst that'll happen? (Guyinblack25 talk 22:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Indeed, every little comment helps. I used th peer review articles about anything, until I realized I was not enjoying that. And I felt hypocrite by only working articles I knew when others almost never get feedback just because they are obscure topics. But again, this is just me. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should do this sort of stuff since such things don't require specialised knowledge. However, I still wouldn't be comfortable with casting a judgement. Doing so affirms that I believe an article meets or neglects the criteria, but how could I could know whether such articles are comprehensive, or give enough weight to topics that I know nothing of? If I was predisposed to not giving judgements to such articles, then it would just kind of be a peer review on the FAC page. In that case, maybe I should just drop a note on the talk page. I realise that my editing habits confines me to particular articles and subjects, and I am considering editing articles of a different nature in the future. Of course, I'm not advocating that every editor takes this approach, it's just that I feel uncomforatble with this with 99 percent (estimate) of my mainspace edits at WP:VG. Thanks for the input. Ashnard Talk Contribs 22:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To CM, I started discussion on scheduling things on basis of topic diversity on the request page's talk page, but someone basically said that it'd be impossible to nail down and represent every topic and genre in Wikipedia with missing some bases. My proposal over there was to adopt the policy that having having too much "short-term culture" is a problem just like having too much Eurovision in DYK or narrow articles in ITN. People complain, but then they are encouraged to go write in their subject of interest and help balance it out, like a recruiting tool. Versus hiding the frailty at the cost of disenfranchising editors... ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 23:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, and I add another rant: the WikiProject itself is not that useful. I requested help from it several times, and nobody ever cared about commenting. Recently we have had another discussion at the list of best selling video games, and again the WikiProject failed to give any feedback. I think even members don't care about gaming articles, only about a very small set [of games they like]. Since the WikiProject isn't pushing the same side, it is no surprise others outside it regard us as a bunch of children who are interested in having creating articles about Pokémons. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I've written/helped to write plenty of FA VG articles - Iridion 3D, Halo 2, Halo 3, Populous: The Beginning, Golden Sun, et al- and I'm satisfied, at least. Still, I admit there's truth to whats written. Das Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the greatest help is needed in copyediting. That's the number one opposition in the FAC process, and the hardest thing I've found help with. It's well within the realm of one's personal abilities after reading Tony's tutorial and trying his suggestions (like printing out the article; it makes a HUGE difference), but nothing substitutes for fresh eyes. I've had difficulty with that, but I always assist when asked; I helped System Shock that way. I worry that some system of identifying copyeditors will fail like the magazine project, though, when the original crop of editors goes inactive. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 04:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new here, but I'm happy to review articles as needed. Just give me a poke and I'll scan through something and make reccomendations. Besides, it'll give me something to read during my daily commute. Gazimoff (talk) 07:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's my turn to rant.
You know, reading over the comments in this thread is kind of depressing. Things sound pretty bad here within this Project. Admittedly, it's hard to really argue what's been stated. I think one of the issues here is the inherent nature of Wikipedia, it's a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Because we're all basically volunteers here, we dedicate what free time we have as best we can. And what that amounts to is we edit the topics/articles that mean the most to us and generally keep to ourselves. Looking at the VG member category, there are well over 800 editors listed, but I'd be surprised if we had more than 50 regular editors that frequent the project talk pages. To be honest, I'd say we're pretty lucky to have editors like Krator and Jacoplane that help out with the reviewing, assessing, and try to maintain a system of quality control. (If I didn't mention you specifically, it's because those two editors were the first to pop in my mind. So no offense if I didn't mention someone.)

Maybe things don't have to be like that though. Maybe we could all be a bit more bold here and try to fix things. So long as we are willing to work together in a respectful manner and compromise when needed, this shouldn't be too hard. I'm not saying we all need to be completely dedicated to the VG Project, I'd like to edit other topics too. I also have a life outside of Wikipedia and plan to keep it that way. Personally, I'd like to see more of the essential articles brought up to better quality. Of our 175 Good articles, 26 are on the essential list, and of our 77 Featured articles, 17 are on the essential list. Heck, our top-level article, Video game is B-class. I'd certainly like to change that, as I'm sure it would warrant more respect from the rest of the Wikipedia community, and essential articles have a better chance of being featured as Today's FA because of their significance and culture importance.

So if you're new here, Be Bold. If you've been around a while, still Be Bold. Do your best and don't be too afraid of making mistakes. Everyone here, even the more experienced editors have their fair share of mistakes. If you have questions, ask the other editors here or at any related project. There are editors here with a wealth of experience and knowledge that are willing to "collaborate" with others. The keyword being "collaborate". If you're unwilling to compromise and bend on your vision of what is best for encyclopedic articles, you came to the wrong website. Wikipedia is about group collaboration with one of its five pillars being Wikipedia has a code of conduct- "Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. Be civil. Avoid conflicts of interest, personal attacks or sweeping generalizations. Find consensus, avoid edit wars... Act in good faith, never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming." My two cents. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Guy's hit it on the nose, and I think we really need to rekindle the idea of the collaboration of the week, in a two fold manner: one collaboration would be to target those articles rated high importance to get them to GA and better on a one by one basis, and then a user-sumbitted collaboration to help get non-"high" importance but still worthwhile video game articles also up to a similar spec. We've mentioned the idea before but it's never taken legs, but I think this will help improve the overall quality of the VG article space. --MASEM 18:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Collaboration is a nice theme to work on. I for on would welcome Collaboration of the Week as, among many other things, it would give me a chance to work with experienced editors, which is something I really haven't done much of since being here having worked solo most of the time on articles. I'm sure that would help me improve as an editor. I like the positive post, Guy ; ). Ashnard Talk Contribs 19:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think a collaboration project would be a good idea, but I'm afraid our other departments and sub-projects are spread so thin that we'd be digging ourselves in a hole. The recently created Cleanup department is slowly crawling to get going. The Assessment department has been rather successful, but I believe sees assessment from only a small number of editors. And our efforts to consolidate inactive sub-projects are currently on hold.
We need members to be more involved, even if it's only a little bit extra. I know I wasn't that involved because I didn't know any better. I figured there were more experienced editors that knew better than me and that it would be best to let them handle it. It wasn't until it hit me that some of this stuff wasn't that big of a deal that I started to be more active. Anybody can give their opinion on an assessment, copy editing, or whatever issue is going on. So long as they are respectful to others, and others give that same respect back, it can work.
So I guess the question is how do we encourage others to be part of the group? And how do we help them learn how to assess, clean-up, get an article GA/FA, or whatever they want to do. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 20:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
On the assessment department, the assessors are spread thin, but the actual requests are from a wide range of editors. User:Krator (t c) 21:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to respond to Guy's comments more in-depth, but maybe it's best to make a new section called "project review" or "project status" below? User:Krator (t c) 21:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New section started below. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I've been planning to enter the assessment and peer review departments after I finish my GCSEs in about three months. It's hard revision until then, so I won't be too active here. Ashnard Talk Contribs 22:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hope they go well. I'm sure there'll be plenty waiting here for you when you're done. I'd like to be active in the assessing process too, but don't really know what standard to hold articles to. Hopefully we can fix that for editors like us. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

To me, a big problem is references. Because video games are a relatively young and evolving phenomenon, there isn't a lot of reliable research on video games. A lot of information in the articles is common sense, which can be found on nearly any gaming forum, let alone easily observed by anyone who has played a few games. But very few people have actually taken the time to write a journalistic article on a lot of this stuff, let alone a book.

Video games ARE treated like second class articles. But it's because of the rules. The rules favor historical and academic phenomena. Video games have trouble meeting this standard. That said, "different things should be treated differently". I'm not sure that video games need to be studied by academics in order to constitute good wikipedia articles. Maybe we need to re-examine the standards in this one case? 65.93.222.5 (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • As far as TFA is concerned, the fact that contributor time is spent on discussing the merits of including this or that article on the main page, as opposed to a bot randomly selecting an FA and edit protecting it on the day, seems like a waste of valuable time. Cherry picking articles according to subject flies in the face of what WP is - a non paper-based encyclopedia. Until that changes I'm not going to bother getting worked up about it.

As far as this project is concerned, we have the same problems every other project has - we're volunteers swimming against a tide, trying to balance the beaurocratic needs of the project against the goal of writing articles for the encyclopedia. Things may look Bad but at least the project is active, unlike countless others which are little more than dustbins which collect signatures. The processes undergone here take time to do properly, providing feedback on assessments for instance means actually reading the article and comparing it with others. The project's remit has also increased vastly within the lifetime of WP - casual games have been turned into a large industry and are now released almost daily, with several sites dedicated to reviewing them. Christ, Jeff Vogel's work results in several articles being needed, that's one guy aided by his wife and their office manager.

Streamlining some of the processes here would help, as well as a rock-solid 'how to write videogame articles guide', well spaced, jargon free and in a fucking big box on the project's main page. What sections are expected, where are they expected to be, what should they contain. A section emphasizing the importance of referencing, templates for referencing, a link to the list of references etc. would be good. It goes for the entire encyclopedia that encouraging contributors to actually reference properly would go a long way towards improving articles on the whole. Too many times you can flick through random game articles and find no references, yet a google search spits out several on the first page of results.

The progress which has been going on is having some beneficial effect, but we need to get our heads together and keep streamlining. Peer review, requested articles and the front page could do with some more tinkering.

Collaboration (sp>?) of the week could work, as could the other idea (I think Masem suggested it) about having another area where 'almost X grade' articles could be pushed over the top, but only if they're streamlined and realistic in the way they're implemented. A week is a very short time for a handful of volunteers to make improvements to an important article whilst balancing their own needs, interests and the health of this project. A month is a far more workable period of time to get Important game article from start/stub to whatever class. That's 12 important articles dragged up by the scruff per year, a way of getting most of the genuinely important articles up to snuff in the forseeable future. Having it done every week encourages contributors to run around like blue arsed flies "nobody bothered to improve the article", only to slap down the next piece of work. It's like being charged to wash someone else's clothes. Until we've got the kind of participation which can turn over articles in a week, attempting to do so will just cause frustration.

For helping articles up and over hurdles, I'd suggest a separate section for getting B grade articles to GA. Unlike collaboration of the X, I'd suggest this one had no time limit whatsoever. Unless it's found that there are insurmountable problems in elevating the article, it should stay there until it's done. GA's a more feasible hurdle than FA - it takes all the patently unsuitable material out, points the article in the right direction for further improvement and deals with referencing. Having several hundred GAs would provide examples for newer contributors, this is what you should be aiming for, and hopefully games of a similar nature to the one they're writing about. It also means there's something that contributors can hammer at together without someone standing there pointing at the clock, we get to be 'community' whilst adding another green + to the pile. Someoneanother 05:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fightersgeneration

  • We have a bit of a problem. Many images of fighting game characters in this site source themselves to fightersgeneration.com, a site that is notorious for copyright violations. In other words, the webmaster simply takes images from other websites and puts them on his own without giving any credit. He's been a bit of a paraiah in the SF community for a long time because of this, but that's besides the point. Again, there are a lot of images which claim FG as the source. Efforts should be made to find the original source of these images, or they could quite possibly be deleted. JuJube (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous. Images are copyrighted by the game's developer and publisher; webmasters have no rights over them. From a legal point of view, the screenshots shown on Fightersgeneration.com are as illegal as the ones shown on other fansites. The only "original" source of a screenshot is the game it was taken from. When a source is given on a Wikipedia image page, it's just for description, it's not that important. What's more important and essential is to put a fair use rationale, and note that these rationales typically refer to the developer, the publisher or the copyright owner, never some fansite or random person. Pictures are deleted because of a lack of fair use rationale, not y a lack of source or improper sourcing (lots of pics don't have a source apart from "I grabbed this with an emulator", but they are fine as long as the FU rationale is fine). FightingStreet (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Images are copyrighted by the game's developer and publisher... yes, that's my point exactly. An effort should be made to track down the origin of these images. I never said I would be the one to mark these things for deletion, but given the higher scrutiny that Fair-use images are going through, it is quite possible that they might go up in the future, so we should head that off at the pass. JuJube (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

System Shock 2

Hi, I posted a peer review of System Shock 2 almost a week ago and the only response Ive received was from a bot, haha. I know you guys are busy, but if you have time to look at the article, Id really appreciate it. Its gone through an extensive rewrite recently, and i would like to get some suggestions on how to improve it. Anyway, thanks and I look forward to meeting you. : ) Here's a link to the peer review. Noj r (talk) 08:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do one today. Done. User:Krator (t c) 08:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help, Ill get on that after Im done with my classes. Noj r (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help, Krator and Bridies, I really appreciate it. System Shock 2 is still under going peer review. If you would like to help, drop by and give us a rundown of the article and how it can be improved. Thanks, Noj r (talk) 00:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(now Square Enix)

Every Final Fantasy article before the merger notes in their leads that the games were "published by Square (now Square Enix)", with Square Enix wikilinked if Square is not. Someone aims to take that note out of Chrono Trigger, so I'm putting it up whether (now Square Enix) is necessary or contributory information for discussion. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 08:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it makes sense from a historic standpoint. In 30 years, I doubt many of the younger generation (born after 2000) will have heard of Square simply because the company would have been out of the public light for over a generation, but people will most likely know of Square Enix, and since Wikipedia is meant to be timeless, it'd make sense to inform people that the game was created by a now-unkwown company which became a now-modern company (in terms of someone reading the article in 2038).--十八 08:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The historic standpoint makes sense... however I would say no. It is better to leave it out. For one, Square Co. is the company responsible for the game and not Square Enix. It is questionable why the name "Square Enix" should be brought up in an article whose product they were not responsible for. Furthermore, the Square Co. Wiki-link serves to direct readers to details which would have told them about the fate of the company (merged into Square Enix). Hence it is unnecessary to put in a "(now Square Enix)". Jappalang (talk) 09:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above. There's an untold number of companies that are now "something else" that don't get similar treatment in WP. Square-Enix didn't publish the game, Square Co. LTD. did. If the merger is relevant to the game, that'd be one thing, but it's not. One wouldn't say that Taito is now part of SE in the lead of Space Invaders, or whatever. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 11:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Taito isn't Square Enix, it's a subsidiary which keeps its own trademark and label: the label "Square Enix" don't appear on games released by Taito. This is completly different with Square Co. because Square Enix is the direct successor of Square Co. Final Fantasy 1 for instance was developed and published by Square, but a lot of ports and re-releases of that game have been released after the merger, by Square Enix. Similarly, both Chrono Trigger and Chrono Cross have been re-released by Square Enix in 2006 as part of the company's Ultimate Hits series. Some games have an even more mixed release history: the Japanese version of Final Fantasy X-2 for instance was developed and published by Square Co., but the North American, PAL and International versions of the game were published by Square Enix. FightingStreet (talk) 12:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case, then it simplifies the matter. Just point out Square Co. developed the games—pointless to affix a "(now Square Enix)" to the developer; and certain versions are published by Square Co. and Square Enix (e.g. "after 2004, Square Enix released ??? versions of the game.") Whoever is interested in the histories of the companies are free to click on their links. Square Enix is not just Square Co., it is Square Co. and Enix. The "now Square Enix" without background, implies Square Enix is the rebranding of the Square Co. company. Jappalang (talk) 13:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's how I would treat the situation, which is case by case: If in the context of the article and its references, it is important to note that the company changed names, merged, was bought out, or so forth, with both pre- and post-event names being used within the sources, then the name chance should also be noted and in the lead. This happened with BioShock (Irrational Games bought and renamed to 2K Boston during its development, so both names can be found in the sourced articles). Otherwise, one should check the original company's topic on WP and make sure that the change is covered in the lead (like it is for Square), and then leave it at that, as would be the case for Chrono Trigger. --MASEM 13:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Masem and Jappalang; that's what wikilinks are for, but there would be a few cases were it would be needed. A few that come to mind are say in the Kingdom Hearts (series) article. The first KH was released by Square, but all others after that are released by Square Enix. Final Fantasy III and Final Fantasy IV were released by Square, but their remakes were released by Square Enix. Since Square and Square Enix are technically two different companies, they should be treated as such unless the need to explain the connection comes up in the article. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I also agree. For historical correctness, the original company's name should be used in the article, with a link to that company's article if one exists and is appropriate. The company's article should serve as a proper redirect point to current information about the company (again, if it exists and is appropriate). If the company changed hands during the relevant timeline of the game article, then it should be noted in the article - otherwise, it should be left as it was during the article's timeline. In Chrono Trigger's case, I'd leave the publisher name as "Square Co.", since that was the name of the company at the time both the SNES and PS1 versions were published. The Square-Enix merger didn't happen until significantly later. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you miss my post? Chrono Trigger (probably just the Japanese version) was re-released as a Square Enix Ultimate Hits in 2006. FightingStreet (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I did. Sorry about that. In that case, it makes sense to mention Square Enix as the publisher for that release. (Incidentally, what system(s) was that released for, and did they fix the stupid loading-time issues with Chrono Trigger? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Project review/status

Per Krator's suggestion, here's a new thread to discuss the praticipation of members in the various departments. Like how to encourage others to be part of the group. And how to help them learn how to assess, clean-up, get an article GA/FA, or whatever they want to do to be regularly contributing members. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 22:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

To be honest, despite being here for quite a while, I don't have much idea of the number of active, experienced, editors. I recall something in Cleanup Task Force where they made a list of active members to weed out who had left. Perhaps something of that nature here (who knows? how to assess copyedit, research, collaborate, who's even here, etc.). Maybe we need a bot to do roll call to see how many of us there actually are. It'd be a good place to look for people willing to help, since you just click a name and ask. I don't know how or if it would work, but I doubt all 800 members are doing stuff.--CM (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What could help along that line would to have an automated bot to drop a message weekly to members to summarize what things need to be done (list out what articles are up in FA, GA, peer review, any collaboration efforts) etc, as a combo newsletter/to-do list, along with instructions to tell people how to remove themselves. That would not only remind people what needs to be done for VG improvements but also help to make sure people that no long are interested can remove themselves. --MASEM 23:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I said, I'm happy to lend a hand. Just give me a task and I'll get on with it :) Gazimoff (talk) 00:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think a weekly update on user's talk pages would be a good idea. It would help encourage the users to be a part of the project and work with other people on articles. From past experience with this wikiproject, I honestly doubt anyone will take into account what I have to say, and I think for the project to be more efficient, that feeling needs to change, not just with me, but with a lot of editors. Evaunit♥666♥ 02:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True that. Members should feel like they are welcome to contribute and not feel excluded or ignored. A newsletter sounds like an excellent idea. I hope there is someone here that would know how to set that up. :-p (Guyinblack25 talk 04:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I've created Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter for a centralized discussion point for a possible newsletter for the project, with my initial thoughts (and ultimately where the newsletter would come fromt). Feel free to comment more there. --MASEM 14:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm considering spending more time around the assessment department, considering the sudden decrease in activity there in recent months (right from the moment of trying to populate the A-class category to be precise). The assessment department is in my view the most important and useful function this Wikiproject performs, we need to get participation in assessing requested articles up considerably - some of the requests (namely the GA ones put forward by Guyinblack for A-class) have been sitting there for over a month. -- Sabre (talk) 00:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The assessment department's recent decrease in activity is due to UnaLaguna's wikibreak and my own lack of time. Some help would be appreciated :) - I do not think, by the way, that inviting mass effort in this department will help. A few dedicated contributors is necessary and most efficient. User:Krator (t c) 03:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Krator, it sounds like there is a good handful of editors that are willing to assist with assessment. About how many extra did you have in mind, and what would be the best way to get them up to speed on the assessment process? (Guyinblack25 talk 04:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I'd help more, but it turns out getting an electrical engineering degree takes a lot of time and work. Who'd of thought, eh? Anyways, I'll try to knock one or two out tonight, the list has been bothering me for weeks now. --PresN (talk) 06:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The best way is simply to put WP:VG/A on your watchlist, and assess some of the requests. Think peer review, but quicker and briefer. There's not much more to it. Key is to remember that the actual rating doesn't really matter much, and that it's about recognition of work and improving articles. User:Krator (t c) 13:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks for the tip. I'll get cracking Gazimoff (talk) 15:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I'd love to finish is User:Ryu Kaze's guide (he's the one who pushed all the Final Fantasy articles to FA back in the day) to writing featured video game articles. I know the WikiProject is supposed to cover that on its home page with its own manual of style, but his guide allowed for candid commentary and other substance that might appear too casual for the real guide. But perhaps a conversion is possible. At any rate, the process of writing my own FAs is still fresh in my mind; do you think we could find a home for it on the project? ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 04:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had some thoughts like that myself. I've wanted to write a "how to" for GA/FA VG related articles of some kind, but have been a bit busy. Technically it doesn't have to be on this project page. It could be a user's subpage like Deckiller's essay on WikiCommunication or Tony1's tips on How to satisfy Criterion 1a for Featured Articles. Do you have a link to Ryu Kaze's guide? (Guyinblack25 talk 16:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
My ancient WIP edit of it is at User:Zeality/GuideWIP. I aimed to get in specifics, like what usually can be found in the development section, what images can work best, how to structure the reception, etc. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 18:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon Blue Japan

I came across this article today, and I was wondering if it's necessary? The game doesn't seem that much different than the other versions of Pokemon blue. RobJ1981 (talk) 00:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree it doesn't seem to be any different, although I know nothing about Pokemon. It also doesn't cite any sources, however it was only created a week or so ago. Bridies (talk) 01:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It should probably be merged into Pokémon Red and Blue. It's already mention in the "Development" section of it and the Blue Japan article in its current doesn't really provide much additional information. Unless it can be beefed up with content specific this particular version, I'd suggest bringing up a merger on the talk page. (Guyinblack25 talk 03:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Gaming jargon

I've just added a gaming jargon section to the guidelines. My own knowledge of jargon is restricted to certain genres, so please add more examples as you find them. Also, discuss :) User:Krator (t c) 14:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree that jargon should be either avoided or defined where possible, but do we have a standard method for defining jargon where required, or where a particular game/genre has spawned jargon that has since entered popular culture?Gazimoff (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've encountered the resistance to 'downloadable' before, but I don't see why: Bungie Studios, for example, has referred to DLC or downloadable content many times in announcements and podcasts. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a manner of style. Game reviewers and publishers use the words, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia should. An encyclopaedia has a very different audience than reviews or announcements, and is expected to have a more formal style too. Love the signature, by the way. User:Krator (t c) 17:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of "downloadable", "for download" is suggested, right? So "content for download" rather than "downloadable content"? I've always found that "content for download" a bit of a mouthful. That said, I have no objections to the guidelines if it's generally accepted that "downloadable" is a term unsuitable for a mainstream encyclopedia. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 20:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think a section header of "Downloadable content" could be justified, but usually it's better to just go for something like "Expansions" or "Additional content". The really bad uses of "downloadable" are as a mid-sentence adjective: "the downloadable horse armour pack was.." User:Krator (t c) 21:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone possibly provide a comment/opinion on this matter?

Hello. I probably wouldn't be so forward about this, but this issue needs to be resolved before Super Smash Bros. Melee can go back to FAC. Basically, the dispute is about whether to include Ken Hoang, a prolific tournament player in the "tournaments" section. I've requested an RfC, but there's been no response. There's an IP on the page who will watch and revert anytime Ken is removed from the article. So basically, the article can be viewed as failing stability until this issue is resolved. I'd probably wait longer for RfC, but as I said, this needs to be resolved before FAC. I don't really care about the outcome anymore, I just want the argument over and done with because it's been a gigantic pain in the arse. Thanks, all. Ashnard Talk Contribs 11:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Cooling" section in Xbox 360 accessories article

There is a major section in Xbox 360 accessories listing a bunch of cooling products. These products are NOT officially-licensed by Microsoft and are known to cause more issues since they steal power from the console. Similar cooling products are available for other consoles, yet they are not listed in PlayStation 3 accessories for example. I do not think these products should be listed nor recommended on wikipedia, but someone reverted my edit on that page so I'm asking for other opinions here first. SeanMooney (talk) 13:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the name of the article, they appear to fall within its scope. The same idea should be applied to the PS3 one too. Basically, simply being listed in an article is not an endorsement by Wikipedia. So long as the information about the products is not written like an advertisement, it should ok. If the products do cause negative issues, then adding that information along with a reliable source is also acceptable. It would be probably be preferred since it'll help establish a neutral point of view. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I have to agree, there's nothing wrong with that section. It would be nice to have a third-party review of the coolers (particularly explaining why they are bad, or why MS doens't endorse them), but it definitely doesn't fail the WP:NOT#DIR test for being a sales catalog or product comparison. --MASEM 15:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also agree. I would hope that it would include both MS lisenced product as well as third party ones. In additon, if there is a cited/published problem with an accessory category then I'd argue that it's worth including to note that as well. Besides, didn't the Xbox 360 have overheating/cooling issues to begin with? Gazimoff (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A list of 700 articles to clean up

For the automated-suicidal among you, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Cleanup/Automated. User:Krator (t c) 17:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a note: several articles on that page are redlinks. RobJ1981 (talk) 17:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I went through and corrected some of the links. I couldn't find three though: "I_Have_No_Mouth", "Microïds", "Recycle_It". If anyone recognizes what games those might be, please correct them on the list above. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I'm not positive, but I think I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream (computer game) is one of those games you're looking for. Evaunit♥666♥ 00:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in Bully needs some opinions

A discussion here: Talk:List_of_characters_in_Bully#Things_that_need_to_be_cut.2FThings_you_don.27t_like_or_agree_with_etc_etc_discussion. shows that several editors to claim ownership on the article (due to them working on it longer than everyone else). The list needs massive cleanup. It shouldn't just be a "catch-all" for every character in the game. However not much cleanup can happen, due to these editors refusing to understand the list has problems. Also this section: Talk:List_of_characters_in_Bully#New_People_stopping_by_to_edit_.28February_2008.29 was done in bad faith. The two editors (that claim ownership) are attacking new editors to the article. Does anyone think this should be brought up at an admin board yet? These two editors simply control the article in my view, and it needs to be stopped. Removing vandalism is one thing, but they've taken it way beyond that. Also if you look through the talk archive, their ownership attitudes are in some of the most recent archives at least (I havent had time to look through all archives yet). RobJ1981 (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The thing that bothers me about this is that RobJ1981 has lunged into the page, condescending and swinging WP:NOT around without actually putting a single bit of constructive criticism into the article.
Now, I've tried twice to explain myself on this page, and both times the post got wiped by someone else posting something while I was working on it.
However, I'll make this real short.
The article is suitable as per WP:FICT, WP:N and WP:SAL. McJeff (talk) 18:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And there has been no bad faith unless saying "help instead of criticise" is bad faith. McJeff (talk) 18:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stating that the list needs to be cut down seems constructive to me as it's a valid point. Ashnard Talk Contribs 18:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, but it's frustrating to have people say that and then offer no suggestions as to what can be done to improve the article. This incidentally is why little has gotten done in the way of improvement. If you check the edit logs, you'll notice that no one complaining about the article has made any edits to it. As per discussion, info that violated WP:NOT#GUIDE has already been removed, several weeks ago as I remember. McJeff (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, but remember that to offer criticism is a courtesy in the first place—users aren't obligated to do it or make editions to the article itself. Frustrations do occur depending on the wording of the critic, and how the major contributor consequently may interpret it as an attack on their editing rather than the article. I'm not talking about this case in particular, just that it does happen. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 19:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I'll try to dive into this later. User:Krator (t c) 17:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a brief note on the talk page, and will hang around to see what they say. Ashnard Talk Contribs 17:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why this article exists. All the cited references are to either the game manual or a fansite. I'm not sure if it stands up to scrutiny when you ask if the content is notable or important enough to warrant being listed. It may be worth culling the list to purely notable characters that are mentioned elsewhere, or something further. Gazimoff (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A list of characters is appropriate, and does not need to demonstrate notability per WP:FICT or WP:N McJeff (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd disagree with this, as per the debate that occured on the Deletion discussion for Characters of Warcraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Warcraft_characters_%282nd_nomination%29). Gazimoff (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason the WoW characters were deleted is that it was non-notable and contained a lot of excess information (aka "cruft") that was not encyclopedic, and after being told to that end that the article needed trimming after the first AfD, it did not happen nor did any editor seem to want to deal with it. Thus, it was deleted. Here, at least, there's a few on the Bully character page that seem to want to help to cut it down, so there's no need to rush and delete it before they get a chance to do something, however, the ownership issues are a factor here. --MASEM 18:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd disagree with that, on the basis that the problems with the Warcraft article seemed to be more along the lines of a poorly written article with no one trying to improve it. Many of the people voting delete in fact voted Delete and start fresh. McJeff (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, but many of the statements also included copmments about failing notability and policies on fictional characters. I can understand about the comments on not being updated here, but my point was that I don't see how one list of characters from a videogame can be accepted, while another article with similar citation sources is deleted. It appears to be inconsistent to me. I'm not advocating that the article is nominated for deletion, but that it is condensed heavily to meet notability reqirements. Gazimoff (talk) 19:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Be aware that there is an issue here with taking a non-notable list of characters straight to AfD (this is what has caused many issues with TTN, WP:FICT, the Arbcom case on episodes and characters, and much else); at the time that the WoW article was around, AfD was generally an appropriate place to discuss failure of an article to show notability or to get improvements made, but this is discouraged now; we should work out any issues we have with an article with the page editors before thinking about AfD'ing. If the old WoW character article was being looked at presently, likely it would be undergoing the same discussing we are having (how can it be improved) instead of being sent to AFD. The key is giving those involved time to discuss and edit the article to meet those concerns. The WoW article didn't seem to have any of that, while, despite some issues, there is a general good faith effort for the Bully article to be improved. Thus, there is absolutely no point yet in considering an AFD for this, merely that we need to really help them to condense the information down (and as pointed out, similarly with several other VG character list pages) --MASEM 19:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Completely incorrect. All articles, especially those forked off from the main one, need to establish notability. No notability = shouldn't be on Wikipedia, we aren't an indiscriminate collection of information. -- Sabre (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have no idea why you think that AFD is "unsuitable" for this article, I've had my finger over the button for half the afternoon but will see how the page progresses over the next couple of days. --Fredrick day (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You need to familiarize yourself with WP:IDONTLIKEIT before you "press the button". McJeff (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

vehicle-simulation-videogame-stub

A proposal by an anonymous IP has been made for a stub type for vehicle simulations. The idea seems sound enough at face value, but I have no idea whether this proposed split would be welcomed or optimal. Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not that knowledge of the sorting of categories, but the idea seems fine enough. If it gets depreciated it can be deleted down the road. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Portal game merge

Quick question to whoever is familiar with Portal (video game). I stumbled across Portal - The Flash Version and it looks like it should be merged into the 360/PC version. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 21:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I'm not sure it needs to be mentioned at all, it's just a random flash game based on portal, no connection to Valve or anything else. Other than ripping elements from the game, it has zero notability that I know of, or rather, no more than any other flash game. --PresN (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be a candidate for deletion then? (Guyinblack25 talk 22:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
If it doesn't get deleted, it at least needs to be moved to the version with the colon or a proper dash and not a hyphen. The article name uses a hyphen, yet the bolded name uses a colon. Ashnard Talk Contribs 22:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest a note in the PC/360 version to say that it spawned a flash version, but nothing more. Gazimoff (talk) 22:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unless it recieves outside coverage, it is not notable and should not be included on its own page or on the 360/PC page. --MASEM 23:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a CSD A7 (Web) to me, and I've dealt with it accordingly. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spore talk page

There is a massive catfight going on over at Talk:Spore (video game), with users accusing each other of sockpuppetry, trolling, and generally unpleasant things. Perhaps people from this WikiProject could intervene and calm the situation down.

  1. ^ a b Mullen, Micheal (2007-09-26). "Orange Box Goes Gold". GameDaily. Retrieved 2007-12-10. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference europe11 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ "Steam - Portal". Valve Corporation. Retrieved 2008-01-25.
  4. ^ "Steam - Portal". Valve Corporation. Retrieved 2008-01-25.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games&oldid=195518303"