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 The Free Gift Wagon (talk | contribs) at 16:22, 22 October 2008 (→‎This may be useful). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Version 0.7 update

Currently, 48 old ids of the selected articles have been submitted (35 FA, 1 A-class, 10 GA, 2 B-class). If you have worked on a Featured, Good, or A-class article, your assistance in providing clean up and identifying a vandalism free id of the article would be greatly appreciated. If you have not worked on one of the selected articles, your assistance would still be appreciated as the deadline for submissions is next Monday, October 20th. Please ask any questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Wikipedia 0.7 workshop. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Since we might as well prioritize, how many FAs does that leave still requiring oldids? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
40 FAs (technically 41; Final Fantasy is all but done, just need to add a source and submit the id). (Guyinblack25 talk 19:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

It's starting to get down to the wire now and I think focus should shift to removing poor quality articles of low importance. Please feel free comment at the workshop talk page on articles you think should be removed from the list. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Pikachu GA reassessment

Pikachu is up for GA reassessment - please comment. -Malkinann (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Pikachu/2 for discussion. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Dealing with Total War factions

I'd like some advice on how to deal with the factions in the Total War series. The key difference from other cases of lists is that these aren't fiction, these are real kingdoms and states, so many people believe that full lists are prudent, as evidenced by the very very large amount of article space taken up by them. However, the level of detail in Rome: Total War is clearly unsustainable, while I decided to dump a similar approach as done in Age of Empires III into Medieval II: Total War, it doesn't look that great either (although I do like being able to use free-use flags). I'm looking for a way to properly approach these factions for a cleanup rewrite of Empire: Total War, which you can see here. I can't imagine the approach of so concisely summarising the factions in the game as:

"Empire: Total War will feature approximately fifty 18th century factions, such as Great Britain, Prussia and Spain. The emergence of key nations during the era, such as Revolutionary France and the Thirteen Colonies, and the fall of native states to the larger empires will be reflected in the game. Players will be able to access twelve factions at the start of the game, and unlock others later in the game."

rather than a full list of the fifty is going to sit too well with the fans (and the bulk of writers of the Total War articles, judging by the presence of lists throughout the series). So, what would be the best way to approach these factions and maintain article quality? -- Sabre (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you need to list the factions at all? I'm WP:GAMEGUIDE wary. I don't think the AoE3 article is the best example (shameless self-plug follows) and I think Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings deals with civilizations better (though one could argue more information in that article wouldn't go astray... I'm open to ideas). I think your proposed phrasing is fine; if the fans dislike it, show them Wikipedia policy/guidlines/etc. and explain to them how things are done around here (and more importantly, why). Giggy (talk) 02:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC) I've never played a Total War game for the record, so I may be way off.[reply]
Kill it. The factions are not "historical" but a game adaptation; the virtual and real versions are separate. Unless sourced material is gotten on how the game-entity relates to the real-world-entity (development information), I fail to see why such a full-blown list should exist. Even when such information exist, they can be written in prose. Giggy's suggestion of lumping them into clearly recognised groups (take heed the need to avoid OR) is a good one. Jappalang (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Jappa. Generally I'm against factions being discussed in length unless there is lots of information on development, et al. For historical factions, you would need information on how they stack up to their real counterparts, et al. It's unlikely, though not impossible, that these sources exist. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. That's pretty much confirmed what I already thought, ditch lists and concisely summarise in prose, as has already been done in the sandbox article I quoted from. I can't imagine the fans are going to be happy, but they'll just have to put up with it under WP:IINFO and WP:VGSCOPE. -- Sabre (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of Game Revolution

A recent dispute at Super Mario 64 raised the question whether Game Revolution satisfies WP:Reliable sources. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 12:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I always considered it reliable. Where's the dispute you mention? Some background to the debate would be useful. Giggy (talk) 12:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing worthwhile on reliable web-sites that can help Game Revolution's case. Like I said at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#A few sources for your consideration, the site's staff and their grading system do not inspire confidence in their reliability.
Book-wise,
  • Playing Video Games: Motives, Responses, and Consequences by Peter Vorderer, and Jennings Bryant — used as a source for an investigation into the failings of Sims Online.
  • Alice's Adventures by Will Brooker — used as a source for reviews on games based on Alice
  • Screenplay by Geoff King, and Tanya Krzywinska — used the site's review for Half-Life as a reference on the role of technology in digital narration and pleasure
  • Asian America.Net by Rachel C. Lee, and Sau-ling Cynthia Wong — used the site's Duke Nuken 64 review as a source material for a discussion on the failure of Shadow Warrior
That is about all the substantial uses of the site among books; the rest are insubstantial, like part of a list of recommended sites, references to hosted press releases or product description, etc. (Remember: notability does not equate to reliability; mentions on reliable sources of the subject need to be scrutinized on what the subject is used for.) Personally, I would hesitate to call the site even close to 90% reliable; it is debatable (on one hand, a smattering of published materials references it; on another hand, it seems unprofessional and unrecognised by the media and professional gaming sites). Jappalang (talk) 14:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This first started at Talk:Super Mario 64#Wikipedia is not a fanboy website. when User:Handsome elite added review content sourced from Game Revolution and Nintendorks. It looked like they were using an IP address and the account User:Dr90s to edit war. After some discussion, it ended up with Sephiroth BCR taking some admin actions.
It popped up again recently. I'm trying to assume good faith by explaining editorial oversight, and am looking into GR again. Like last time, the site just doesn't feel right, and I couldn't find a page about their editorial process. But I noticed the site has been sourced on various other pages, so figured I'd get more input this time.
Unfortunately, they look to be acting up again, which is really bad timing since I'm trying to get the article cleaned up by Monday. :-\ (Guyinblack25 talk 17:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Let's clarify that Ealdgyth isn't going to complain (and hasn't) about Game Revolution and Gaming Age as long as they are used for reviews, the reviewer's personal opinion, and are sourced as such. Using them for controversial statements and facts, should be considered differently. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To add to that I share a similar opinion on that subject, that such a source is valid for published opinions and not so much controversial facts, as there is an editorial team in place to keep things "in check".--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable enough. I'll add the GR content back to Super Mario 64. Though personally, I don't see myself using them as a source for articles I plan on working on.
Should WP:VG/S be updated with Game Revolution and Gaming Age along with their limitations? (Guyinblack25 talk 20:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
The problem, IMO, with allowing sites we wouldn't use as sources for reviews is the slippery slope it creates; "if this site, which you agree isn't an RS, is allowed, why not the website I started last night?". If we stick to the same requirements for reviews as we do for, say, development information, it avoids having to answer these sorts of questions. Thus if we say GR isn't reliable as a source, we should apply this to reviews as well. IMHO. Giggy (talk) 13:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Giggy. GA and GR arent exactly horrible sources, but we shouldn't endorse them and should scrutinize their use in articles. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Scrutinized certainly, just not excluded. It becomes troublesome when we're allowed for using scores such as GameRankings for a subject (at least, I'm fairly sure we are, it's on the table just fine) and sites such as GA and GR both are possible contributors to a score. So it boils down to "is there a reliable editorial process on the site that we are citing for an opinion on a subject" compared to "is the site reliable and trustworthy enough with an editorial process for this factual statement to be cited".--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

in-universe odds and ends

I want to say, we've done a good job of cleaning up and re-organizing low-quality in-universe content. Some of the merges have even resulted in some pretty good articles. Let's keep pushing forward.

  1. Vice City
  2. Elsweyr - (no consensus to keep/delete in 2007)
  3. Tamriel - (no consensus to keep/delete in 2007)
  4. Gaia (Final Fantasy VII) - Kung Fu Man says it has potential, and I believe him.
  5. Twinsun - (AFD now)
  6. Nosgoth - (AFD now)
  7. see prior discussion...
  1. ACME and V.I.L.E.
  2. Guardian Units of Nations - (no consensus to keep/delete in 2008)
  3. Organization XIII - (the only GA in a category of 3 articles)
  1. Common elements of Final Fantasy
  2. Poké Ball
  3. Pokédex
  1. BFG 9000 - most agree it's important and has real potential
  2. Gravity Gun (Half-Life) - most agree it has potential, and could even be expanded in scope
  3. Halo (megastructure) - Kung Fu Man says it has potential, which is probably true.
  4. Master Sword - (merge discussion now)
  5. Metal Gear (fictional mecha weapon)

I have a few ideas. (I think all the video game weapons are decent, and could be merged at worst.) But I wanted to get some other feedback here first. Ideally, I'd like to reduce down a category or two. Category:Organizations in video games is a category of 3 that can really just be merged in with Category:Video game characters. And I'm contemplating a merge of Category:Video game items and Category:Video game weapons into Category:Video game weapons and items, since there's only 10 articles between them max. Let's discuss. Randomran (talk) 17:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen a few people suggest that Gravity Gun (Half-Life) be moved to Gravity gun and changed to represent the concept of a tool that manipulates the physics in the game world. Doom 3: Resurrection of Evil also includes a gravity gun, being the second game to do so, and I'm sure that other games have as well, although the Half-Life 2 one remains the most influencial. There's certainly plenty of real-world information on both the HL2 and Doom 3 ones, it just needs to be rewritten. In regards to the BFG 9000 article, I'd be surprised if there weren't sources out there, its been spoofed enough throughout the industry for one. You certainly have my support for the "items" and "weapons" categories to be merged. I've added a few additional articles (UAC, Combine and Covenant) to the "organisations" one though, I think its probably not used just because its not known. It shouldn't be too hard to populate. -- Sabre (talk) 23:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Sabre on the BFG 9000: it's a significant bit of gaming history as a stand-alone item, with nods to it including spins on just "BFG" (saw that in Halo 3 even just the other day) and "Big Fucking Gun". I think it's safe to say that article is an approachable subject. Will look at the rest in a bit.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Halo (megastructure) is being worked on by the Halo project and looks salvageable. Gaia (Final Fantasy VII) is salvageable as well and has potential like I said before, and Organization XIII is pretty much only hear because it has the misfortune of being an organization. With the Gravity Gun and BFG discussions above I think these articles can be safely ruled as kept just fine, just re-categorize when the dust settles.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've crossed a few items off the list as being keepers for stand-alone articles. For the others, try to check in at AFDs and merge discussions. Let's keep talking this out. Randomran (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gave my input on the AfD's. Metal Gear (fictional mecha weapon) looks like it can be chopped down and either made into a suitable list of the different series Metal Gear-types or worst case combined somewhere. The info it presents is mostly plot material though. Rather than an AfD in this case, a hard redirect to the Metal Gear series articles may be a better bet and allow salvageable information to be gathered from the article's history as needed. From the looks of things there wouldn't be too much objection to such a move.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created a category merge discussion for video game weapons/items. Check in when you get a chance. Randomran (talk) 00:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Videogame articles needing geographical coordinates

I've found a couple of videogame-related articles that, quite remarkably for video game articles, could usefully have geographical coordinates added.

The articles in question are:

You can find out how to add geographical coordinates at the Wikipedia:Geocoding how-to for WikiProject members. Please let me know if this is useful! -- The Anome (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinates have been added to Joypolis. SpencerT♦C 20:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple Joypolis locations, only the Odaiba one has been marked. - hahnchen 23:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So is it worth adding such co-ords to all location-specific games? Some randomly-chosen examples below.
--Oscarthecat (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a nice idea, but please, no! Unless they are real physical places, they shouldn't have geographic coordinates. -- The Anome (talk) 21:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: both articles have now been geocoded. -- The Anome (talk) 17:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arcade cabinet images

Quick question- I'm looking for an image of the Marble Madness arcade cabinet. I found one on the KLOV page, but am not sure if it would be permissible to snag and what licensing tag to use if it is. (Guyinblack25 talk 03:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Isn't the whole point of fair use that anything is permissible to 'snag' so long as it falls within the guidelines and used correctly? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at http://www.klov.com/legal.php, it's fairly clear, "We also ask that you don't post any of our site's content onto Wikipedia. ". --Oscarthecat (talk) 07:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well that clears that up. :-p Thanks for the info. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Looks great with the new cabinet image you got from arcade flyers, Marble Madness. --Oscarthecat (talk) 07:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (NES)

Should this be moved to Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (video game)? I havent found any other Temple of Doom video game, so I see no reason why NES must be in the title. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was one, but it was merged to the film article: [1] --Mika1h (talk) 18:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the lead of that old version is to be believed, they are the same game. So the NES one should be renamed and all ports covered. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, was release on many formats, see some here so the (NES) suffix title is completely bogus, and the article needs an overhaul to reflect this. --Oscarthecat (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Partner peer review for Captain class frigate now open

The peer review for Captain class frigate, an article within the scope of the Military history WikiProject, is now open. The Military history WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! Kirill (prof) 01:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick thought, should we list these cross peer reviews at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review to give them more exposure, and maybe ask the Military project to do the same on their PR page? (Guyinblack25 talk 15:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

This may be useful

Sorry, since when are printed sources inappropriate? The Free Shit Wagon (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unauthorized magazine scans should not be linked, it's copyright violation. –xeno (talk) 16:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At least please use these sources in the relevant articles. The Free Shit Wagon (talk) 16:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. Scans of magazine articles, or links to pages hosting scanned magazine articles are copyright violation. --Oscarthecat (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Not expecting a reply as your username's just been blocked) --Oscarthecat (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you have these articles in hand, you could add some relevant facts to the talk pages of the articles, providing the source for us... Or implement the facts into the articles themselves. cheers, –xeno (talk) 16:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with magazine scans is the necessary information to cite it does not always accompany it. Info like the issue number and publication date. I've forgotten the number of times I've been told "the latest issue of X magazine says this."
    Magazine citations need at the very least the publication name, article title, and the issue number or publication date. Stuff like the publisher, author name, and page numbers would also be nice. If you can find out that info, then using it as a source is perfectly fine. Without it, then it's hard to include the the information since it doesn't comply with Wikipedia's guidelines. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I understood that, Oscarthecat. My second question was about using these sources as citations, which is precisely what Xenocidic and Guyinblack25 are describing. It would be a shame to ignore these sources totally just because I made a mistake by posting scans. Anyway, thanks for the heads up. The Free Gift Wagon (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games&oldid=246972329"