Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

Nintendo DS vs. PlayStation Portable console war

Isn't the Nintendo DS vs. PlayStation Portable console war article redundant? It's basically repeating information found in the Nintendo DS and PlayStation Portable articles and there is already a Console wars article. --Silver Edge (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, it should be merged into the general article, otherwise we will soon end with a Xbox 360 vs. Playstation 3 vs. Wii war. - Caribbean~H.Q. 12:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Console wars. xenocidic (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The same could have been said about ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, but it reached FA. Obviously, this not as fleshed out as the re-rating article was at first, but the topic has potential. The article was created on the 20th, so it wouldn't hurt to give it a week before merging. Maybe it could be expanded into something more substantial. If not, then it can be merged. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC))

I doubt there is more relevant material outside of the one already covered in the console articles, but nevertheless if we are going to give it a chance to develop before merging we must begin by changing the current title, what is with "war" anyways? the term "competition" (as long as that will undoubtly make the already long title) is a lot more accurate. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right, but it won't hurt to see if this can go somewhere. The term war shouldn't be that problematic. Numerous online and printed reliable sources have referred to console competitions as "wars". For another title, how about "Seventh generation handheld war" or "Second handheld war" (taken from the Console war article). (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC))

Well, it doesn't seem to have been touched in about a week and hasn't made much progress. I guess it's time to merge it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 01:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC))

Yep, go for it. xenocidic (talk) 02:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

IRC?

The last time I was logged in (and the time before that), there were no users that are chatting at this channel (#wikipedia-en-vg) even though this WikiProject offers it. Do we have any plans to populate the channel of some sort? PrestonH 02:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I am on the channel at most GMT-sane times, but usually the only one. DHMO drops in at aussie times (and we tend to chat when I'm up early), and Jaco is there every once in a while as well. User:Krator (t c) 11:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know there was an IRC channel for the project. I'll be in the channel when I have the time. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Halo Wars

Since alot of info has been released since the initial Halo Wars article, I think a team should help bring it up to date.-- King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 23:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Since the recent theme here appears to Be Bold, you're welcome to give it a shot yourself. If you run into any problems or get stumped, just post back here. Also, we're working on a new guide to writing VG articles. It's still in the drafting stages, but I think it could still be of help to new editors. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC))

GA Nom backlog

A lot of you guys probably already know this, but the GA Noms are backlogged right now, particularly the video game section. Yesterday, I reviewed an article that had been queued for around 3 weeks. I just want to encourage everyone to take the time to review an article. Thanks, and see you around. -- Noj r (talk) 03:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to, but looking at some of the comments on the talk page "should never have been passed" etc., getting involved will probably do more harm than good. Particularly as everyone seems to have different standards, if it's not wrong by the GA project then it's probably wrong by the article nominator.. "that isn't necessary to pass" etc. Nah. Someoneanother 14:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You shouldn't be afraid of making a mistake with GA's : there's several checks in place that can help. If you try to review something and not sure if it meets or not, you can let that be known on the talk page of the article, or you can asked for a GA second opinion from someone experienced in GA reviews. If you fail an article that the editor felt was good, they can take it to GA Review where it gets a larger evaluation. GA Sweeps are "periodically" performed to check the quality of GAs. Mistakes are good: they are a learning process; the only point that will get you into problems is if you are overly stingy or overly lax on what you fail or pass over repeated reviews. --MASEM 14:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Which is what bothers me, how am I supposed to know unless an experienced reviewer double checks the article, it's history and the reviewer comments? They might as well do it themselves and save time. I've spent a good deal of time looking over the page, looking over nominations and DH2O's guide, and the only impression it's left is one of a minefield where every action and statement goes against something somewhere beginning with WP:, someone's sensibilities or 'the norm' for the GA project. Reviews of subjects I was looking at brought up problems that didn't even register, or went through when I thought they would fail. It's a nice idea, but I can live without feeling guilty and additional headaches. Someoneanother 15:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

If that's how you feel, that's cool. You shouldn't do anything you're not comfortable with. But just to emphasize the point again—Masem's right; it's ok to make a mistake here. We've all done it before and will continue to do it again. So if it's something you or anybody here would like to do, Be Bold and do it; it's one of the best ways to learn sometimes. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

Another piece of advice is to participate in FA reviews - here, you're one voice among several, and you'll get the feeling for what GA is looking for. Or participate in Peer Review which is also backed up (not just in VGs). --MASEM 15:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll think on what you've both said. Sorry my first comment looks like an out of the blue downer, been itching to help with the backlog and felt cheap for not doing so. :( Someoneanother 15:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

No worries, we all started out there before. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

I was looking at this myself as well and I'm still nervous about helping out. The great thing is that I know with assessments and FA work that I can make the occasional mistake and the VG people won't bite my head off :). I'll try to help out with peer reviews as well as getting more assessments done. One thought though, Someoneanother, would you like to team up to work on the GA backlog? --Gazimoff (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we take one of the FF music articles each? There's two there, they're both good quality and some have already passed GA, meaning there's a good comparison available. It'd be a chance to get our brain-boxes onto the right track without some 'holy cow' faults. :) Someoneanother 16:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! Gazimoff (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Take your pick, I'll do the other one. If PresN wants to kill us he'll have to catch us first XD Someoneanother 17:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I've grabbed Final Fantasy X and marked it as On Review, if you want to grab the other one. And yes, we can always flee if he comes after us! Gazimoff (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Rarr, I'm coming after you! Really though, thanks, both of you guys did a great job reviewing the articles! --PresN (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been busy with my own FACs, so I haven't been active at GAN like I usually am... my suggestion to new reviewers is to pick high-quality articles that are similar to good article candidates to review; it's much easier to see the GA criteria in effect than to just check an article against the list. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. Someoneanother 17:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, didn't expect to see such a big turnout. Kudos to Someoneanother and Gazimoff for being bold. Now I had a question: How often should wikipedians be allowed to review articles? Since I have already reviewed one the other day, I felt at least a minimum of a week should pass before considering reviewing another. Is there any precedent on this or is it simply a personal matter? -- Noj r (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Occasionally I get off on sprees where I review the entire backlog at once. There's no reason not to review as many as you feel like, but if you're just starting off I suggest getting a feel for the process and for the criteria. If the article has issues and needs to be put on hold, I tell them to ping me at my talk page when they feel they've finished the changes; that way I can keep track of my noms' status a little easier. If you have the time to do good reviews for all, then the follow-up isn't too big a deal and you can do plenty of noms. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. I too am new at reviewing GA articles. Since I want to become a better contributor, I decided to be bold, help with the backlog, and review an article. However I did not want to overstep my boundaries as a wikipedian. With that out of the way, however, I think I'll review another article soon in the very near future. -- Noj r (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Requesting 2nd opinion

I am currently reviewing the article Sega Mega Drive for GA status. However, half of the references used appear to be highly unreliable. I almost quick-failed the article per criteria (1), but after checking the SNES article I noticed that there are questionable references in there as well. And its an FA! As a result, I felt it was fair to get the opinion of others in this matter rather than brashly fail it. The GA review is here. Thanks for the help everyone. -- Noj r (talk) 05:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Judge the article on its own, not by other article's failings. You can refer to the essay Other stuff exists for the whys. GameFAQs are straight out unreliable for use as citation sources. The same goes for MobyGames. Fansites are also out. Personal websites would qualify as reliable sources if their authors are acknowledged by industry sources as experts in the field. If Home of the Underdogs is used as a citation source, the citation must not have a link to avoid linking to copyright material as discussed in an archived discussion (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 37#Underdogs links under attack). Jappalang (talk) 06:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The SNES article isn't a failure. I was using it to find out what kind of sources are acceptable for a console article, and I discovered some questionable ones. To be frank, I didn't want to be rash with the Sega Mega Drive article if more leniency is granted towards console article references. As it stands now (thanks to your advice), I truly believe half of the references are unacceptable for reliable referencing and thus fails the quick-fail criteria (1) of a GA nom. Anyway, anybody else got 2 cents to throw in? -- Noj r (talk) 07:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sidenote: I did not mean the SNES article failed, but rather its failings, in other words, its inadequacies for having reliable sources. The older FAC process tended to be more lenient than the current ones in light of new policies and guidelines. If you are daring, you might want to present the SNES article at WP:FAR, although it is well advised to raise the issue at its talk page first. Instead of quick failing the Sega Mega Drive article, you could give its contributors a week to rectify all the unreliable sources (only) if you believe they can find reliable sources within that time.Jappalang (talk) 07:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

If lack of reliable sources is the only reason you're holding off on passing the article, then I would give the editors a week to fix that. They may not be able to fix that in a week, but best to give them the benefit of the doubt. If there are more issues, like being poorly written, lacking fair use rationale on images, and/or inaccuracies, then it would probably be best to fail the article. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 13:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC))

It meets the Quick-fail criteria as there's citation banners and "citation needed" tags, so it should definitely be failed regardless. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 15:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

All added by me today in response to the GA report on the talk page. You can't quick fail it just because I acted on the GA report and marked the parts that were deficient. - X201 (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I obviously thought that these were added before the nomination. To be honest, I don't see much point in tagging these until after the GA nom if it fails. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 15:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I put the review on hold so that they can at at least try to get some reliable sources. The thing is, the article is GA material, besides the questionable references, it just had some minor quibbles. Anyway, we'll see what happens -- Noj r (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Peer review of Ninja Gaiden (2004 video game)

I have done a major brush up of the article and put it up for peer review. Please take a look. Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Official blogs as reliable resources

I don't know if this has come up before or not. But while reviewing Warhawk (PlayStation 3 game) for GA, I noticed some of the sources listed were from blog.us.playstation.com, which I believe is SCEA's official blog. Do official blogs qualify as a reliable source? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC))

Blogs are classified as self-published sources (WP:SPS), so the restrictions there should apply to corporate blogs. Jappalang (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is WP:SELFPUB that would apply in this case. xenocidic (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that clears it up. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC))

beatmania IIDX articles

I've begun work on some Beatmania IIDX articles for all the versions like the DDR articles (since IIDX is just as big as DDR and thus deserves it). I've started my work with IIDX GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLD for starters. I'm going to try get that person who started the DDR mini-taskforce to start a Beatmania IIDX taskforce, but if anyone else wants to help, that'd be great. ViperSnake151 21:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Images from magazines

This might be a better question for the Video Game Images talk page, but I figured this would get a broader range of input.
Anyway, I was wondering if anybody knows what copyright tag would be needed for an image that was scanned from a magazine or book. Nothing that would feature a model or any real-life person. But say there's a development photo that shows the wire frame from motion capture, or a diagram illustrating gameplay mechanics. Something that I haven't seen on websites and would be great to include in an article. What kind of licensing tag would that need, or is there even one for such a purpose? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC))

I presume it would fall under 2D or 3D arts just like concept arts and renders. Check out Image:Freelancer Bretonia City Concept.jpg and Image:Karas Nue CG.jpg. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. Jappalang (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a fit. Thanks. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC))

Just double checking. Is this acceptable use of the tags? Image:WS-WiiRemote Example.jpg in Wii Sports#Gameplay. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC))

Hmm, since the image consists of a screenshot and original illustration, you might also want to add the screenshot licensing to the 2D licensing. The image will then be covered by two licenses, and a FUR for each use. Jappalang (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Traffic statistics, again

Please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Traffic statistics. JACOPLANE • 2008-04-3 15:08

Wow, very nice Jaco. There have been pretty steady increases in the number of views all around the project. That's very encouraging. Is this something that will be updated regularly? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC))

I'll update that page every month, at least if the traffic tool doesn't go offline. JACOPLANE • 2008-04-3 15:23

Question: should I add any other pages to the traffic page? Perhaps the Newsletter page (I really hope this will be a successful endeavor, btw)? Also, when we see that pages like the Suikoden task force consistantly have under 50 views per month, should we have a discussion about the viability of such a task force? JACOPLANE • 2008-04-3 21:56

Portal

One thing that becomes clear when looking at these statistics is that we should probably put some energy in keeping Portal:VG more up to date, since it is the most viewed page in the entire project. JACOPLANE • 2008-04-3 18:42

What did you have in mind? Adding more Featured articles to the que, and updating the Current events section? Or are thinking more along the lines of a redesign? We could add in the collapsible FA and GA lists like on the Project page. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC))

Yeah in any case I need to update the Featured article list, since the current list is no longer up to date. The current events also needs a definite overhaul. Maybe the portal should be redesigned, do you have any ideas? JACOPLANE • 2008-04-3 19:34

I liked the idea, so I went ahead and added in the collapsed FA and GA boxes --PresN (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

What should be included when updating the Current events? Obviously the high profile stuff, but do we have any guideline as to what that should include, or just what ever sounds reasonable? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC))

Back in the day when there was still a VG-current events page, I made a page that lists current-events sources here. That might be useful. JACOPLANE • 2008-04-3 20:15

Cool, that'll be helpful. How does updating on a weekly or bi-weekly basis sound? And we should probably get a handful of editors to contribute in case one of us is too busy or on a break. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC))

Basically we should update whenever there is a notable story. Here's an example of the old VG-current events page. Of course, that page was more detailed so more stories could be added, but as long as there is a reliable source to back up the story and the relevant articles have been updated to reflect the new information, it can be added. JACOPLANE • 2008-04-3 20:53

Hey Guy, this will put another feather in your cap, make use a Featured Portal :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Essential articles

We need to do a much better job with our essential articles. Especially "General" and "Genres". These are the articles that the rest of the video game category rest upon. We ought to get a few of them to GA status, and reduce the number of stubs and starts. These should be front and center of our portal. Randomran (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely. The essential articles was set up a long time ago in the hope that we would be able to release a WikiReader. If we could get a number of articles up to GA-status, then I'm sure we could find a publisher who would be willing to publish the book for us. I for one would love to have a WP:VG core articles encyclopedia in print. JACOPLANE • 2008-04-3 22:38

Talking of genres, you're not gonna believe what literally just got delivered - Guinness World Records Gamer's Edition 2008. It contains details of pretty much all of the main genres and the original games for each. For instance, Utopia is described as the first god game. Nothing's covered exhaustively, but there's interviews, hardware, genres, individual games etc. It describes RuneScape as the largest free MMORPG. It reckons Street Fighter II was the first game to introduce combos to fighting games, 500,000 arcade cabinets of the game were sold.... Frigging jackpot! :D Someoneanother 10:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow oh wow. That's gold. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

And would be a wonderful addition to the magazines project, hint, hint. - X201 (talk) 10:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, it's a 250 page book *dies*. I'll try at some point when I've got the time, it's why I bought the thing. Someoneanother 11:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I know. I'm still recovering from the wiki linking on issue 80 of Edge- X201 (talk) 11:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that does sound like a jackpot. It sounds like it could be used to boost our "history" articles too, which are pretty essential. Randomran (talk) 14:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a very cool book. I picked it up this week too and it's much better than I thought it'd be. So don't worry Someone, you're not alone of that sizable en devour. :-p Also, Next Gen posted some of the content on their website here. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC))

Any thoughts on restarted the collab of the (rather than week) fortnight to do some essential article work? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we should actually build a task force. There's lots of task forces for individual games or series. But no task force for our essential articles. Nobody's building our backbone. Randomran (talk) 14:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There's definitely a lot of editors supporting the idea. But we somewhat put it off until we got the VG Newsletter off the ground. We hope the newsletter will keep everybody more connected so the multiple departments and collaborative efforts won't die out. Masem set up a talk page and first draft for the newsletter. We're shooting for April 9th as the first date, and feedback would be appreciated. After it's up and running, we'll probably going to cleanup inactive projects and taskforces and then start the article collaboration. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC))

That seems like a sensible way to go about things. Either way, I hope that a task force devoted to some of those backbone genre/history/basic conceptual articles will be in our near future. Randomran (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

New article announcements

Another thing that becomes clear by looking at the traffic stats is that the "new article announcements" page is really taking off, probably mainly due to the efforts of MrKIA11, who has been amazing in maintaining that page. He could probably use some help. I've created a RSS feed that filters out video game-related articles that you can add to Firefox as a live bookmark. That way whenever you have nothing to do you can easily update the new articles page. JACOPLANE • 2008-04-3 22:52

First of all, thanks. I try to update it as often as possible, as it only takes a minute or so with RSS feed. The main way I could use help is if someone could figure out a way to increase the RSS feed size, as 500 pages are created more often than I am able to update the list. It is currently limited by the fact that only the last 500 articles can be filtered, but if someone could find a way to combine multiple feeds then it could combine the first 500 pages, the second 500 pages, and so forth depending on how large the feed should be. I found this site, which can combine multiple feeds and would work great, if it worked. For some reason I can not get it to recognize that I put in my e-mail address. If someone could try this site to see if they can get it to work, that would be great. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Your work's much appreciated, the more active individual sections of the project are, the more contributors and readers will be attracted to the project. Excellent stuff. Someoneanother 12:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup requested for Insaniquarium

Hello, I'm not a member of this WikiProject, but I'd like to request someone with more experience with video game articles take a look at this article and edit appropriately. Perhaps you could add this to your to do list in the cleanup section. The article seems to have too much "gamer" info and reads like a GameFAQs faq/walkthrough. Any volunteers? Thanks. ~EdGl 22:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

eek. I've watchlisted and will try and help out a bit. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've removed a lot of gamecruft and decorative fair use images. Some info about development/reception/anything but gameplay! would be good. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've had a quick poke. At the article that is.. oh never mind. I own the game so it'll be a lot easier for me to fix up, there's a gamedev.net interview with Flying Bear and other sources, I'll stick it on my things to do list and fix it up at some point. Someoneanother 11:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, looks really good now, thanks! Consider that a barnstar-equivalent compliment ;) ~EdGl 14:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

We do our best :) The information is there for some improvements so it should get better in the near future. Someoneanother 15:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice work, SA. I might leave it to you now...I haven't played that game in, like, 3 years...(good times though!). Good luck; EdGl! Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:Video game companies of the United Kingdom

Hi! Do you think Category:Video game companies of the United Kingdom should be organized in subcategories (for England, Scotland, Wales, and maybe Northern Ireland) or should it remain as a single category, considering there's currently only 9 Scottish companies listed and 1 Welsh one? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm personally of the opinion that it should all be in a single category for the UK. We don't have categories for developers in Bavaria and developers in Saxony, nor do we have them for developers in Tennessee and developers in Alaska. While I'm fully aware that the political structure of the British unitary state differs from that of the many federal nations, I don't see the need to localise the categories to that extent. -- Sabre (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd class it as the UK. and leave it at that. Anything more is overcategorisation Gazimoff (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Moved from discusion with the same name below.

Category:Video game companies of the United Kingdom is being depopulated in favour of new seperate Category:Video game companies of England, Category:Video game companies of Scotland, and Category:Video game companies of Wales categories. Despite the fact that this may possibly have a political motive (the creator of the Scotland category makes much ado about being from Scotland on his user page) the net result is every article bar 10 will end up in the England category, with nine in Scotland and one in Wales. To me this seems a highly unnecessary and ineffective split, for apparent reasons of size, of a category that wasn't particularly large anyway. The user who is actually changing all the articles around (not the user who created the new cat) doesn't seem too interested, or bothered either way, though continues to do it. So I just wanted to see what other people think before deciding whether to go to CFD. Cheers, Miremare 20:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

At the very least, Category:Video game companies of Wales should be deleted. Having one article in a category hardly seems worth the strain on the server. I'm not sure about keeping the England and Scotland one though. I don't know whether or not they'd actually be useful. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC))

I still fail to see why any of the categories other than the main UK one are needed, other than for pushing a political viewpoint. This is an international version of Wikipedia, and ought to be treated as such, and for other users categorising by only the UK makes far more sense that pushing the categorisation to such a local level. With only ten articles in the non-English categories, its simply overly bureaucratic. -- Sabre (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ooops, I didn't notice this previous discussion, thanks for the move. :) Miremare 21:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with having only one category. I've continued to use the England/Scotland categories for a bit because I was waiting for User:Andrew22k to perhaps defend his position here (I notified him of this discussion on his talk page), but he hasn't said anything yet so maybe he has changed his mind or reluctantly agrees. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyrighted trailers linked in articles

Are they allowed? I tried to remove one from Tom Clancy's H.A.W.X. but got reverted and accused of vandalism. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

If put under the external links, I guess they can be borderline accepted, although I personally I don't like that sort of usage. Far better that they are used for some sort of reference purpose (very dependent on the type of trailer, conventional trailers aren't good for that but ones like development commentary are) and linked in the reference footnote. They certainly have no place in the article after a game is released unless there is some encyclopedic value to that aspect of the marketing for the game. -- Sabre (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Key addition to what S@bre said. The link to the trailer should not be a copy violation. In other words, the trailer must be uploaded to the linked/cited site by authorized sources of the copyright holder or the holder themselves. In the H.A.W.X case, IGN should be okay, but I doubt the trailer adds substantial information to the article. Jappalang (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

EarthBound revamped, requesting PR

Revamped the EarthBound article and have initiated a peer review. I want to take the article to GA and later, FA. You can help here. Thanks. -- Noj r (talk) 01:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look sometime today or tomorrow. It's nice to see one of the older games going towards FA. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 15:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Greatly appreciated. -- Noj r (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It was a pleasure to do; nice article. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 19:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You might as well go straight to FA. Any problems that will be fixed in the GA waiting period will have to be fixed for the FA queue too. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 06:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't just yet. You should never really send it to FAC knowing that there are lingering issues. Stagnation is to be expected at FAC, but it may still be opposed outright by people who will want sales data and more info from the Japanese media. Anyway, there's no rush. But saying that, I don't see any problems with the article once that info is added. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 12:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Coordinator

Does this project have a coordinator? I work for a major video game magazine and would like to interview someone about the work being done here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.117.171.163 (talk) 14:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, thank you for the consideration. Unfortunately, this project does not have a coordinator or leader of any kind. The work done here is a collaborative effort among editors to improve video game related articles. Though I'm sure there are several long time contributors that would be willing to answer whatever questions you may have. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC))

Thank you for your resonse. Which long-term contributors do you feel I should contact? 16:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.117.171.163 (talk)

Well, a somewhat large number comes to mind. Also I'm not entirely sure which are currently active. I'm sure they'll see this posting and respond here. The major project contributors check this talk page on a regular basis. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC))

What are you talking about, Guy? We all know I run the show with my puppet strings ;) *sarcasm* --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Pick me Nigel!;). Sorry if I seem funny, but have you got any way to authenticate your position? Which "major video game magazine"? etc. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 17:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to stick my hand in the air but I think I qualify as 'newbie' here :) --Gazimoff (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Im not sure what the normal procedure here would be, but I would suggest making a user account and on the talk page(or indeed your ip talk page), and ask some questions in a similar way to how the Signpost works, such as here. John.n-irl (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Your best way of contacting someone would be via Special:EmailUser, for example, I can be contacted by Special:EmailUser/Krator. Some people to contact that would fit the bill are (of the above) Ashnard, David Fuchs, and Guyinblack. I would be open to it as well. User:Krator (t c) 08:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Jacoplane is active and as been around here for a long time. I'd recommend Deckiller too, but I don't know how active/reachable he is right now. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC))

Help requested On EarthBound

It has come to my attention that the EarthBound article is in dire need of information regarding the Japanese release of the title. I am requesting that anyone who has said information that they please bring it to the Earthbound article talk page. Also, if anybody that speaks Japanese could translate these Weekly Famitsu articles (September 23, 1994 and October 7, 1994) located here, I would be very grateful as they speak about game's commercial success and the magazine's score for the game. Thank you very much. -- Noj r (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Noj r, if you don't have any luck finding someone who can read Japanese here, you can always try Wikipedia: WikiProject Japan. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 08:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I just might do that. -- Noj r (talk) 19:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Is "video games" misleading?

I just had a small disagreement (quickly resolved, I think) that was due to a misunderstanding of the term "video game". Someone thought by video game, I was excluding text-based games. I've heard before that some people think of "video game" as excluding "computer game". I know we have our own agreed upon terminology that is working out well... but for people who are not part of this project, and come at our articles from a different perspective, they might be mislead by using "video game" as the naming convention. I'm particularly thinking of articles like strategy video game and puzzle video game, or the stubs templates. This particular person was confused because they approached a video game article as a fan of table-top role-playing games. I figure I would mention it with people more experienced / smarter than I am. I imagine this is an old issue, and there's a reason we do it the way we do it? Randomran (talk) 22:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I second every word (being the other part of the disagreement ;). The term "video game" indeed intuitively seems to exclude e.g. MUDs. For older guys like myself it may also mean "an electronic game NOT played from a computer". Video inevitably brings visuals to mind, so perhaps something like "electronic games" would be a bit better (thanks to Randomran for this creative solution)? Especially when distinguishing role-playing games from computer role-playing games, introducing the idea of video gaming is difficult to accept (in RPG environment we often refer to cRPG, but some of the computer games are not video-based, but e.g. text-only). Pundit|utter 22:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I class a video game as any game that requires a video output displayed on a monitor, pda, mobile phone or TV. This encompasses text-based games that use a screen to output information to the user. Simple, but clear :) --Gazimoff (talk) 00:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The varying usage of "video game" was why, for a long time, this project was the Computer and Video Games project, and our articles were set up accordingly. Then we basically decided this was a lousy way of doing things and decided "video game" is a better name for an all-inclusive category. See, for example, the vote to move the article Computer and video games to video game, and the discussion just above it. Nifboy (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing your view is wrong. What I'm saying is simply that for most readers such an approach may be misleading. While within the project after some discussions your understanding of "video" is totally fine and can be agreed upon, we must remember that Wikipedia is read and used by average Joes who will not come here for clarifications. As in everyday language "video game" is a phrase that was used for non-computer electronic games, and as "video" means typically "relating to images" (to be exact, as Collins English Dictionary has it, relating to or employed in the transmission or reception of a televised image), in case of role-playing games that are entirely textual the name is anti-intuitive. On the other hand, the term "electronic game" seems not to have this flaw. Thus, I'm suggesting "electronic game" instead of "video game", because it does not require caveats and explanations whenever it is used ;) What do you think? Pundit|utter 00:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I rarely see the phrase "electronic game" used in a context outside of small handheld devices (see Handheld electronic game), so I think it creates more problems than it solves. Nifboy (talk) 02:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I am cetainly not smarter than you and thats where you looking for answers from but I have an idea. It sounds as if there is even a conflict with the fact that the word video game excludes computer games, one of two things should happen. Either maybe we should rename the name of the project or someone should branch off from the VG project to form one that focuses mainly on CPU games. Only a suggestion, pay no mind if anyone thinks it's a bad idea.-- King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 03:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is not with the exclusion of all computer games, but some of them. However, your remark is another proof that video and computer games can be perceived exclusively. I think the best thing that comes to my mind at the moment is just being flexible and allowing different names in different contexts. The whole discussion started from computer role-playing games and in this context the word computer is just traditionally used, and also "video" is particularly unfortunate because of image-less games. While in case of most games you describe the word video is just fine, elsewhere it may be less obvious. I'm just suggesting less uniformity, that's all. Pundit|utter 03:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suggest not considering the technical reasons for differences between electronic and video games, but the near similarities that one would go about in creating articles for them, such that it makes sense to keep them under the same purview. Both have a gameplay, likely a development section, likely a reception/sales section, and possibly a story section. The approach in terms of which sections are required and preferred are the same, though obviously what you can get for a handheld portable game is vastly different for what you can find for a modern console game. But still, the key point remains that these articles should have similar structure, and that is advice as part of this project we can give. This doesn't mean a task force underneath the project can't hurt for specifically handheld electronic games or other similar subdivisions, but I think they all should remain under this basic Project. --MASEM 03:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

While I have been looking at articles written about computers game, they just aren't as good as the articles we wright for games on 360 and PS3 etc. I think that for a while maybe we should focus on the computer game side of the project.-- King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 03:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Checking in. Didn't mean to start a big mess. I definitely don't think we should separate video games and computer games, because they have far too much in common. Someone who visits a page about Tetris or Action Games wouldn't want to be forced to visit two separate articles to gather the broad information they're looking for. I think the naming thing is tricky, but I understand why it is the way it is. It's not ideal, but I don't think it's broken either. Randomran (talk) 05:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm also NOT for changing names everywhere, but I'm advocating more flexibility. If you want to write e.g. about Zork or Moria it really makes no sense to call it a video game. It is anti-intuitive and confusing. As you apparently have agreed on a particular terminology, I believe it is totally understandable if you stick to it, but just don't rewrite history ;) In particular, keep in mind that other groups and projects (e.g. Wikipedia:RPG) use terminology a bit differently. For me, as for a person mostly into traditional dice-rolling and narrative RPG, the phrase computer role-playing game is totally clear and commonly used (often abbreviated to cRPG). If you call these "video role-playing games" I don't think it will be as obvious. Maybe it is just the matter of different turfs and thus I am just pointing to the fact that applying your terminology everywhere perhaps is not always the best idea. Pundit|utter 16:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

  I disagree: Zork and other kinds of interactive fiction are video games, and major publications treat them as such (see: [1], [2]). Nifboy (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

  Interesting. Indeed, "computer game" is used in context of Zork less frequently than "video game". Still, I have my reservations - does the name "electronic game" cause controversies? Pundit|utter 19:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because it is virtually unused in sources, and any widespread use of it on Wikipedia would be a Wikipedian fabrication, which is not allowed. User:Krator (t c) 01:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is used over 2 million time in the Internet, but of course it proves nothing about reliable sources coverage. You persuaded me to a much broader understanding of video games. By the way, an interesting discussion on these distinctions can be found here. Still, I insist on the historical distinction between RPG and CRPG, easily proven by different available sources, even in different languages. Please, note also, that a phrase "video role-playing games" brings much less results than "computer role-playing games". As a result, I believe that the phrase "computer role-playing games" is much more established and perhaps in context of RPG it is better not to change the already historically developed term, especially if just because of terminology assumed mainly for the purpose of Wikipedia standardized editing. So, I'm suggesting uniformity of terminology, but making an exception to CRPG, because of the different naming tradition present in the discourse of this field. What do you think? Pundit|utter 01:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

To use a geographical analogy, calling RPGs that use software Computer Role-playing Games is like calling Zimbabwe Rhodesia. Things change, we've got TES4 on distinctly video game consoles, moving along from when the term was first invented where RPGs were almost exclusive to the computer. User:Krator (t c) 01:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you're fully fair in what you've just wrote. Even by the sheer amount of magazines and journals, the traditional RPG are doing quite well (I'd actually think there are more publications about them than about CRPG as a separate genre). Surely, computerized versions are popular, but sticking to the established name instead of introducing an artificial category of "video role-playing games" (practically not used by anyone) is not particularly helpful, either. Pundit|utter 02:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Web page archives for dead pages?

Where can I go to find a decent archived copy of a link that has since died? The few archive things that show up at the top of Google when I search "web archive" all link to the same program which never gives any helpful results. I want to get an old archived version of this link at Blizzard Entertainment's site, which has since been taken down, and a version of the Steam statistics page for February 2008, but I can't get hold of archived versions of either. -- Sabre (talk) 13:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Archive.org, in a nutshell. The only con compared to google's caching is that it's not as fast; there's a lag of almost six months for most stuff to be archived, so you may have to wait. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the one I'm referring to, its no good because the two links have only expired within the last two months. How do I access the Google cache? -- Sabre (talk) 14:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Google doesn't have a cache for the first page. You won't find a cached version of the second one because of the way it's set up (flash app). User:Krator (t c) 15:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there any other place to get an archive of the first page? And surely there's some way for the second one: I can get an archive back for August 2007, and the page still uses the same setup. Although as David Fuchs said, it might just be a matter of waiting six months or so. -- Sabre (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The august 07 page shows January 2008 data. User:Krator (t c) 15:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not the bit I need for the reference though. I need the information contained in the "View detailed statistics by game" section. -- Sabre (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

is 16 articles enough for a category?

Hi! I would like to know if 16 articles is enough to have a category named Category:Paradox Interactive games, or should these articles be categorized in the bigger Category:Video games developed in Sweden instead? Thanks. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It is enough for me. The WikiProject Albums, for example, state there is no minimum requirement for categories: if a single article can be categorized with it, it can exist. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

16 should be fine, especially if they are all from the same developer. Personally, I think a category should have at least 5 or 6, but that's just me. I don't believe the VG Project has any guidelines for categories. We normally look at them on a case by case basis. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 12:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC))

Several Wii lists that could be possibly deleted

List of Wii games (North America) and Multiplayer Wii Games don't appear to be that notable in my view. I don't see why there needs to be a region list for Wii, when the main list is just fine and not broken. If it's not broken, it doesn't need fixing. Plus the North America list is just redundant of List of Wii games (which is long, but that really isn't a big issue). The multiplayer list was just a test article, and no one has cared to expand it. What does everyone else think? RobJ1981 (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Well get rid of the multiplayer one, it looks like a test article like you said. Also i agree any game released in North America is recorded on the main article, kinda pointless having a seperate article. Salavat (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible Featured Topic

With Zelda II: The Adventure of Link passing GAN today, I was looking at the navbox for the zelda games, and noticed that currently of the 13 articles listed in the "main series" section of the box, 8 are GAs and 3 are FAs. That only leaves The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past & Four Swords and The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords Adventures as neither GA or FA. With these articles made GA+, there would be a complete Featured Topic. Something to think about. --PresN (talk) 21:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems like The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker is already being nominated for a Featured Topic. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 22:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking into it, it seems someone nominated the topic on March 27, and removed it a few hours later when it was pointed out that it needed Four Swards and FSA. I guess not all of the tags were removed from the articles, I'll fix that. --PresN (talk) 22:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's clear something up before we do this; is there such a thing as the "main" zelda series that would differentiate them as "Thee" Zelda games and not have to include the LCD games, the Tingle game, crossbow training, etc. Do we have a reference that establishes these games as the main ones? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

If we go with the topic, we need more FAs. (I'll get to [[Link's Awakening]] again when I get around to it!) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Current rules are 20% of the topic needs to be FA, rounded up. 20% of 13 is 2.6, or 3 FAs, which we have. Not that more FAs is ever a bad thing! I'd also like to point out, since he hasn't jumped into the discussion yet, that most of the recent work on the group has been done by User:Gary King. --PresN (talk) 23:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this is fantastic—brings back so many wikimemories looking over these articles. I've been on break for a while, but I'll probably come back to help with this if it's needed. Pagrashtak 23:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe featured topics need a main article, so with The Legend of Zelda (series) that makes 14 articles and not 13. But I think the LCD games, Tingle game, Crossbow Training, CDi games, etc. should be included too considering there is (infamously) no official timeline or document that says which game is canon, non-canon, which is a prequel, a sequel, etc. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 11:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd forgotten about The Legend of Zelda (series), but it's GA, so oh well. --PresN (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of MSP/PSN/Wii Shop costs and WP:NOT

WP:NOT#DIRECTORY states:

Sales catalogs, therefore prices of a product should not be quoted in an article unless the price can be sourced and there is a justified reason for its mention. Examples of justified reasons include notable sales of rare collectors items, prices relating to discussion of a price war, and historical discussion of economic inflation. On the other hand, street prices are trivia that can vary widely from place to place and over time. Therefore, lists of products currently on sale should not quote street prices. In addition, Wikipedia is not a price guide to be used to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices of a single product across different countries or regions

Now, when it comes to our articles on XBL, Playstation Network , and Wii shop titles, it may be that the inclusion of, even if "funny money" points like MSP and Wii Points, could be seen as failing the above policy. Certainly this would be more the case if it were a full list of available games from that source (since the games are competing against each other), but on the otherhand, new downloadable content costing could be seen as useful for add-ons. (I'm running into a problem now with List of songs in Guitar Hero II, which is why I'm bringing this up; here we have several DLC items so it could be seen as a competing list of products).

So I'm proposing that we need to eliminate the inclusion of what downloadable content costs, unless that there is more to it than just the reporting the cost. Cases that would be acceptable: the mention of the cost of DLC for GHII (in its main article!) as due to the complaints of the DLC's high cost; the temporary cut in price of Undertow due to the XBL outage. Alternatively, we could just eliminate the reporting of costs (outside the above cases) for standalone products, but DLC that adds-on to a game, since it is not competing for anything else, can be included. --MASEM 13:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Completely agreed. User:Krator (t c) 13:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

What about when used to show a price difference in types of content? For example the List of Virtual Console games (North America). Though it isn't setup like this, what about stating in the lead something like "pricing varies by the system the game originated on. For example, NES games are generally 500 Wii points while Genesis games are generally 800 Wii points." Not every price is listed, but the general idea is still conveyed. How about that? Or is this blurring the line too much? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC))

I noticed that before putting this comment together, and my take on that specific list is that I don't believe any of those are sourced, a requirement of the NOT phrase above. Mind you, if there was a source that stated that directly, including it seems reasonable, but there is a bit of SYN engaging specific to that. However, I can also see leaving that in, and by comparison, saying that new games on XBL are typically 400-1000 MSP, gamerpics 100-200 MSP, etc. as long as it is not a comparison between specific titles/offerings. So I would modify what I'm saying above to only exclude the mention of price in conjunction with a specific product (whether alone or in a list); the price of a generic glass of products can be left but should be sourced. --MASEM 15:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the prices of XBLA games and DLC are fixed (and do not fluctuate the way a "street price" would, as intimated in the above policy guideline), I see no reason to exclude the price from the articles. xenocidic (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

At first glance of lists like the XBLA and Virtual Console ones, I'd agree with you because the price seems like harmless information meant only to inform. But WP:NOT states "Wikipedia articles are not: Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business." Listing the price for each individual title turns the list into "a resource for conducting business", even if that is not the intention. I think the middle ground would be to state a generic guideline for pricing in the lead along with proper sourcing. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC))

Also, consider, what is the difference between saying a game costs so many points on XBLM, and saying a game costs so many dollars through Steam, and then further saying a game costs so many dollars through online purchasing at Best Buy/Amazon? (I'm sure there's a logical fallacy in there, I'm just throwing out the ideas). Also, per the "funny money" idea, while the Wii and XBL titles would be ok, the PSN store would not be able to have this since they use real dollars, and this could also seem as a bias against it; if one system can't have it, then the rest of the systems should not. --MASEM 15:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose my reasons for arguing against this are that no one has really complained about it (kind of a non-issue, isn't it?). We should follow the spirit of a Wiki rule and not the letter. The fixed prices inform the readers and I'm sure that many readers would be confused if they were excluded. xenocidic (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I get what you're saying, but we can't really ignore the policy just because it's more convenient. The VG Project and similar projects are often seen in a less than positive light because of the subject matter of our articles. Because video games are for kids right? It's because we've adapted and tried to adhere to the guidelines that we have 70+ FAs and 180+ GAs. Not many projects can claim that.
So while I see your point, I feel it is best to be proactive about this matter. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC))

None of these arguments justify including something as variable and irrelevant as prices. 1) They change; 2) they vary by country, venue, etc.; 3) they simply are not encyclopedic content. While obviously people try to keep things fresh, this just isn't appropriate content for a reference work; leave it to the game magazines and websites. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

While I agree prices are pretty irrelevant, I feel there are some exceptions. Something localized like List of Virtual Console games (North America) could include a statement like "pricing varies by the system the game originated on. For example, NES games are generally 500 Wii points while Genesis games are generally 800 Wii points."

Though it does mention two of the prices, it only does so to illustrate how and the fact that games are priced differently. Of course I think the general rule of thumb should be to not include prices, but I believe there are a few exceptions that qualify as encyclopedic. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC))

I've included some language to this end in the guidelines that general reporting of prices should not be included. --MASEM 21:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• For my part, I don't know why Wikipedia is always trying to be so much like other encyclopedias, when it can be so much better. xenocidic (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Pro Evolution Soccer / Winning Eleven

Why is there separate articles for Winning Eleven and Pro Evolution Soccer? Aren't they basically the same video game series? --Silver Edge (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Describing the Winning Eleven one as an article is a bit generous Silver Edge. But to answer your question, Yep they are the same thing, licensing differences aside. Suggest merging usable stuff from Winning Eleven in to the Pro Evo article. - X201 (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone an IGN Insider?

I would love to get access to their articles about the Legend of Zelda games for the Philips CD-i. I'm building up this article, and references are very hard to come by, and it could be crucial. Thanks! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC) CD-i games based on The Legend of Zelda series http://insider.ign.com/teasers/316/316803.html

This isn't from IGN but there's a long and interesting article about these games on [3]. Information from it could probably be used. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Nintendo GameCube Preview Disc

Well, after three AfDs, there has been no effort whatsoever to source any claims of notability. The only claim of notability that exists can also apply to every Official PlayStation Magazine demo disc that OPM has released. Can anyone assess this article in any way? Perhaps make it notable, something which no one who voted Keep on the AfDs (with very few exceptions) have been able to do? - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link to the article in question Nintendo GameCube Preview Disc. --Oscarthecat (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I see that all AFDs have been no consensus. Perhaps a suggestion to merge would help? I see no reason why a short description couldn't be on the GameCube article. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

But would it qualify as a merge? All that needs to be merged is that a demo disc was bundled with the GameCube at one point. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

A partial merger is still technically a merger. The article doesn't really say much, so like you said, not much needs to be merged. It wouldn't hurt to mention some of the demos and features of the disc either. IGN thought it was certainly notable, so might as well include the notable info. They have three articles that mention it. [4], [5], and [6]. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 00:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC))

Nintendo bundled it, so it was news. What games are on the disc is completely non-notable. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for Interview

I am a Georgia Tech research student studying the Design of Online Communities, and I would like to interview some members from this community regarding your experiences in editing Wikipedia. If you are interested in helping out my research, please contact me through my Wiki Talk page. Thank you! Midas7g (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for taking an interest in the project. If I may ask, is this related to a similar question posted above? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC))

This is not related to that request. I am a student trying to find individuals to interview, anyone from new users to the experienced, well-established members. Midas7g (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. We'd be happy to help in anyway we can.

Two more questions though. Do you have a limit to the number people you can or would like to interview? I'm sure there are probably several editors that would be interested. Also, are there any age requirements? I believe some of our editors (including some major contributors) are under 18. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC))

Launch of VG Newsletter

FYI- For those that may not know, we have been working on getting a monthly newsletter for the VG Project ready for distribution. Discussions have been taking place, and will continue to take place, on the VG Newsletter talk page. Since this will be an ongoing effort, suggestions/comments to improve it are welcome and encouraged.

The newsletter will aim to help keep members up to date on the efforts of the VG Project, encourage participation, and offer lesser known editing tips. The current plan is to have the first edition go out on April 9th, and be distributed to all members using the {{User WPVG}} tag. For further editions, editors will have to signup to receive it on their talk page. Further details on how to sign up will be included in the newsletter. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 00:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC))

Redirect pages

Just out of curiosity, should redirects be stamped with the VGproj template on their talk pages as non-articles? --AeronPrometheus (talk) 02:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No. Redirect pages shouldn't even have talk pages, unless there was something there before. xenocidic (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 03:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

VG Project newsletter: 1st edition

FYI- The first edition of the monthly VG newsletter is done and transcluded below. Here's the link to the April edition page.

Members interested in signing up to receive future editions on their talk page, should enter the following wikicode #{{user0|(your username)}} on the member sign up section.

Questions, suggestions, and comments can be left on the newsletter talk page. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 01:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC))

In The Groove (Series) & In The Groove 2 Article Brushups

It was a few weeks ago that I brushed up said articles, but just tonight found out about WPVG, so I thought I should alert you guys to the changes, which mostly boils down to a lot of clarifications and simplifications (stuff I'm often told I'm good at). I'm going to do more work on it within a week. I'd speak more at length, but it's 1:30 in the morning, I'm tired, and I'm something of a Wiki-newbie. I'll read the rules and regs tomorrow to improve my understanding of how WPVG works, and figure out how to get that WPVG banner onto my userpage - I'll be more than happy to help clean up all the In The Groove-related articles. --AceOfHeartsDX (talk), 1:27, 10 April 2008

Crazy Taxi (series) merge proposal

Obviously not many people are aware, so some more comments would be good: Talk:Crazy_Taxi_(series)#Merge. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)