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 Randomran (talk | contribs) at 21:37, 13 May 2009 (→A first attempt: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template Replacement/Fix-up Project

Shortcut

Note: Do NOT archive this section. It will be needed until the project is over. Until then, it must remain at the top of the talk page here.
(See here in Archive 67 for archived discussion on the project and template transferral.)

  • Phase 1 - Unknown amount of time needed  Done
  • All project pages.  Done
  • All instances of code in task force pages  Done
  • Phase 2 - Approximately 1-2 day(s)  Done
  • All Top-importance pages  Done
  • All featured pages  Done
  • All FA-Class articles  Done
  • All FL-Class articles  Done
  • Phase 3 - Approximately 4-5 days  On hold
  • All A-Class articles  Done
  • All GA-Class articles  On hold
  • Phase 4 - Approximately 2 weeks
  • All B-Class articles
  • All C-Class articles
  • All List-Class articles
  • Phase 5 - Approximately 1 week  Doing...
  • All NA-Class pages  Doing...
  • All Disambiguation-Class pages  Done
  • All Portal-Class pages  Done
  • All Template-Class pages  Not done
  • All Project-Class pages (Seperate from project pages above)  Not done
  • All ???-Class pages  Done
  • Phase 6 - Approximately 2 weeks
  • All categories
  • Phase 7 - Approximately 1 month
  • All Start-Class articles
  • Phase 8(Final Phase) - Approximately 2 months
  • All Stub-Class articles

Please note that the given completion times are NOT 100% accurate. They are an estimation; no fuss should be brought up if the phase lasts longer than the given time.  Dylanlip  (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Project log

Okay. This section will be for following my current progress with the project. It will be more in-depth than the outline, but the outline will remain for overall progress. Everything for Phase 2 has been completed, except for the S and T Featured Articles. I'll update soon when I finish. (This will also prevent the Archive bot from archiving this section)  Dylanlip  (talk) 14:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phase 2 is now completed, which means that all Featured Articles and Lists, and all Top-importance pages are done. I will start Phase 3 soon.  Dylanlip  (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've completed all of the A-Class articles, and I will now move on to the Good Articles. Oh, and by the way, I also added shortcuts to the section so it would be easier to link to.(They mean Video Game Banner/Template Project[Depending on Shortcut]) I'll update here again when I finish with the Good Articles.  Dylanlip  (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All due respect, it's great that you're doing this, but I don't think all these updates (and those shortcuts) are necessary. If you want to keep a personal log, then make a user subpage to house it. –xeno (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is to inform the editors of the current status of the project, and it also prevents MiszaBot from archiving the whole section. The shortcuts are mainly for making it easier for me to link here when making up edit summaries and other links to here. And on the topic of updates, I'm going to be temporarily on a break from the project.  Dylanlip  (talk) 13:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I'm now back to continue the project and finish Phase 3. It shouldn't be that long.  Dylanlip  (talk) 14:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since I'm sorta in the mood, I'm going to also do Phase 5 while still working on 3. I'm just wanting to get all of the special types of pages done and out of the way.  Dylanlip  (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I've finished the disambig pages, so now I will work on the Templates.  Dylanlip  (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Hey, can you explain to me why you've been giving project pages importance ratings and removing the sidebar which links to all major project pages and their talk pages? Nifboy (talk) 15:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging them a project-class is fine imo (it would help to have a category that lists all of our project pages) but the importance rating is unnecessary and confusing (importance rating is used to determine which articles should appear in a paper/CD-based version of Wikipedia; project-class pages should most definitely not appear at all in such a compilation). I've re-rated all the project class pages with importance ratings as importance=NA –xeno (talk) 16:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that some articles that had archived peer reviews are now, with the change, being listed as having an active peer review. MuZemike 07:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

need help with a compiling data on video game AFDs

Hi everyone, I've begun work on a very important project for WP:VG. I've grabbed links to all of the AFDs over the past year, and I've begun sorting them into categories based on the types of content. If you've seen Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, then you know that analyzing actual AFD data can let us make valuable conclusions about what's appropriate or inappropriate for Wikipedia.

Here is the AFD data that I'm looking at: User:Randomran/VGAFD. As you can see, I've sorted the first two three months already.

The reason why this data important is because it will help provide an objective basis to discuss our guidelines on video game content. According to WP:POLICY, the major source of our policies is "Documenting actual good practices and seeking consensus that the documentation truly reflects them." I've organized data on VG AFDs from just two three months, and already some trends are becoming obvious. This will help us guarantee that articles that deserve to be kept are kept, and articles that deserve to be deleted will be deleted, and maybe even give us some guidance on everything in between.

In the long run, I'd like to put all the data into a magnificent table, with sortable columns. (By date, by name, by outcome, and by type of content.) But in the short run, I have to go through the pain-staking process of pulling apart the AFDs on different kinds of articles. Most articles are on actual games, but many are on companies, people, characters, mods, websites, and so on. I've been doing it one month at a time.

Would anyone care to adopt a month or two worth of AFD data, and help sort them into subsections/categories? Randomran (talk) 02:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe next week. I have finals right the moment.じんない 05:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Next week would be fine. I appreciate the help! Randomran (talk) 06:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am interested but unavailable, for the same reason as Jinnai. I'll look into it when I don't have finals staring at me. --Izno (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an art student and don't have finals, but I'm busy trying not to be homeless and I still have to do that GA review anyhow :P But I'll see what I can do. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take August 08. Can't guarantee when it'll get done soon though. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Guyinblack, thanks for adopting August 08! And to the others, let me know when you guys might become available. Any help is appreciated. Randomran (talk) 22:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I'm sorry, but I'm unable to devote time to this project at the moment. Way too much stuff going on in my personal and work life right now. Thanks for the invite, tho - good luck! — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added March 08. My suggestion is just to start a scratch page in your userspace and copy the format from random's list. Use the actual AfD log, not the deletion sorting list. It should take about 1-2 hours to do a whole month. Protonk (talk) 23:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did december. May or may not be able to do more. What comes next after those are finished?じんない 02:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Finished another. Looks like 1 left, although Randomran or someone else might have to go through and do a final cleanup as we each had slightly different classification schemes.じんない 04:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability question

I came across an article for a game called Mental Omega recently. Apparently, it's an unofficial mod for an expansion pak of a spin-off title in the Command and Conquer series. It makes no attempt to assert its notability except to note that it is an unofficial part of the Command and Conquer series and that it recieved an award from a website that specializes in mod news. Concerns about its notability have been brought up on the article's talk page, and there exists a notability tag on the article, but I wanted to find out once and for all if this thing has any hope of surviving an AfD before I do any work on it. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 07:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there significant coverage in reliable third party sources? The article has a few references, but they seem to be mostly forums—not good enough. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only notable aspect of it is perhaps the award nomination, which isn't enough. Notability requires multiple reliable sources. The other sites look like fansites and there is one forum post that doesn't appear to be from an expert.じんない 21:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. I'll see if I can get it nominated for AfD. Who knows, it may inspire someone to find a reason why it's notable. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 05:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it again, I'm instead going to start a merger discussion at Command & Conquer: Yuri's Revenge. If anyone smarter than me wants to contribute, please do. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 05:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since it did receive an award, it can be noted on the main article, but really that's all that should be there. Thus a redirect with noting that info is probably better.じんない 03:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Half-Life 2: Episode Three merger

It has been proposed that Half-Life 2: Episode Three (currently a stub) be merged into the Half-Life (series) article, any input would be appreciated. Cheers! Rehevkor ✉ 22:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. So little info not worth a merge.じんない 03:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to move WP:VG/D to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video game

(While I brought up the Deletion page in the above thread) This would make sense I my view, as there are far more video game-related XFDs, and also gets more traffic, than plain Game-related XFDs (WPVG's parent WikiProject). This move would also have an additional feature of closed XFDs being automatically removed (and archived) by a bot as opposed to manually. We would still have this page, (which would also provide links to relevant TFD/CFDs, which cannot be transcluded) but instead simply have everything from Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video game transcluded to WP:VG/D. Any thoughts? MuZemike 20:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not that active with deletions, but this sounds reasonable. Especially if it would get more traffic. A few questions though. How would the bot archive things; would they continue to be subpages under WP:VG/D or get moved under WP:DS? Is there a way to include Wikipedia:Files for deletion to the list like the TfD and CfDs? (Guyinblack25 talk 15:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I don't understand what the benefit is. If traffic is the issue, why not translude WP:VG/D on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Game? Although that would be redundant. I personally don't like the auto archive format. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:The wubbot archives everything at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting. Looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Game, the bot adds archived AFD discussions to an archive subpage. I suppose the one thing, as MrKIA11 noted, that I personally don't like is how they are archived, formatting-wise. I still wish there were ways to transclude TFDs and CFDs directly, but there still isn't. MuZemike 16:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it will archive things differently from our current ones, it may best to go with MrKIA11's idea of transcluding our current page to the deletion sorting one. Perhaps we should also consult the editors at WT:DS. (Guyinblack25 talk 13:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Using a bot to get us out of backlog for unassessed importance

I made a request to have a Wikipedia:Bot requests#Bot to categorize all WP:VG articles as low by default. It looks like Xeno is willing to lend us the bot to help if there is consensus. I brought this up a couple times in the past as the backlog is immense and 95%+ of the articles would be classified as low to begin with. This would basically be a one-time thing to help clear away the debris so to speak. Any article that would be bot assessed is perfectly legit in having its priority raised if if anyone thinks it deserves a higher rating based on our assessment scale.じんない 23:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another option pointed out by Sam Korn was we could have the bot categorize all articles as low if the priority was undefined. (But I gather the motive here is to "cheat" once , to get us out of backlog, and then try to keep up with unassertive going forward.) –xeno talk 23:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just make sure the bot auto-tags certain classes as NA (Image, Disambig etc), since I've noticed a lot of these haven't been classed as such and might get swept up in the unassessed pool as a result.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

じんない 21:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy series cleanup

It has recently been brought to my attention that the series of articles and categories is in need of a serious look at. Categories as well because I was just being bold and emptied 2 categories of 3 entries each a category for FF1 video games and a category for FF2 video games, both of which also were covered in the parent category.

Right now there are still a lot of subcategories left in Category:Final Fantasy games. As for right now the number of divisions for a seperate category for each other main title game and Chocobo games. With the exception of Category:Chocobo games and Category:Final Fantasy VII I don't think any of them has enough to warrant a level of sub-categorization and FF7 does not need its own sub-categorization. It appears FF series has a case of overcategoization.

As for the articles themselves, I note first a number of inconistancies with other WP:VG practices. First Final Fantasy I and II (compilations). I do not believe we make seperate articles for compilations unless the content warrants it and the amount of real-world impact and changes could easily be covered under each article. Final Fantasy IV (Nintendo DS) could also be covered in the same way Dragon Quest IV covers its DS version, which if we are considering this a remake, then the latter is probably a more radical remake than the former. Then there is a Final Fantasy VII (Famicom) remake article which all the real-world information soruces seem to be from dubious, at best WP:SPSs with only 1 name I recognize on the list and even then it's a pretty common name (and the article doesn't give a profile so I can't verify its the person I'm thinking of), thus I think a lot of the content may even fail WP:V, let alone WP:N. A a few others as well in some of the subcategories, like Final Fantasy Anthology which offers absolutely no new gameplay but is just a compliation port.

Beyond that, several of the character and media pages fail WP:N. While and may also appear to favor more newer releases over older ones. Beyond Final Fantasy VII which had historic impact, most of the series, aside from the main protagonist, do not have enough to have stand-alone child articles.

It's my belief that the series of articles is in gross violation of WP:Content forking.じんない 05:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. You do realize that we have a Square Enix wikiproject for a reason? It's generally considered common courtesy to wait longer than 37 minutes after announcing on the WP:SE talk page that you think that the project's pages should be reorganized before you start emptying out categories and taking the issue up to the parent wikiproject.
That said, lets look at what you're saying. There are 106 articles in the "Final Fantasy" category, so yeah, you may be right that we don't need to subcategorize as much. There used to be many more pages, so it may have made sense then, but we don't need a subcat for 5 articles. As for the so-called "non-notable" child articles... to be blunt, BS. Final Fantasy VII (Famicom), your example of a NN article, is a GA. As are well almost two dozen of the "non-notable" child articles. I'm especially peeved that you term the "media pages" as non-n, as the only articles that would count as that are the discography articles, and I've gotten almost all of those to GA myself. You also say that the character pages "appear to favor more newer releases over older ones". Well, duh- newer releases have more sources to support breaking off individual characters from the main character list.
I recommend that instead of rushing in to implement sweeping changes across a wide spectrum of articles, that you slow down and say, either here or at WP:SE, exactly what articles you think should be changed, deleted, merged, or whatever. --PresN 06:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since FF7 Fam's article is a pet article of mine and someone wishes to call it out (ironic given weren't you the one to support Chrono Compendium as a source Jinnai?): The article's primary source, Derrick Sobodash, is a published journalist with articles in even PiQ. Brandon Sheffield, the insertcredit editor cited, has his own list of credentials. Joel Johnson, the Boing Boing Gadgets fellow cited, is a writer for Wired News. GPara.com is a source readily cited by other news sources and even one google books result. Luke Plunkett is an established editor at Kotaku, Baidu has its own credentials...you know I'm rather tired of rattling off source at this point, especially given I've been playing through the thing to write out the plot section (which really is mostly FF7's original plot).

This was handled in very poor form Jinnai. Not only did you rush in but you opted not to inform any of the major editors working on the articles that you were rushing in like this. I'm particularly annoyed over this however after the tooth and nail AfD that went down and the fallout rubbish I had to endure from that just to be greeted with this months later. I am assuming good faith here, but I am annoyed at the same time.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, I can say for a fact that many of the game articles violate WP:Content Forking I can list every one and why. Mostly these have to do with ports, complication or not, and otherwise. As for the Final Fantasy VII (Famicom), it could possibly pass WP:V if someone had an actual cart to cite, but every last source there is either outright fails WP:RS or is a situational source as described in WP:WikiProject Video games/Sources and fails the test of notability of the author. As for the number - if the article cannot stand on its own with real-world notability, it should be merged. Even then it may still be better merged - see FE: WP:Content forking as systemic bias for breaking out newer content (i know there is a policy/guideline dealing with that...just forgot what one).
To be blunt any article that is a remake or port, even complications should be merged per WP:Content forking (if you want, I can list each and every last one). The Final Fantasy VII (Famicom) should be put up for an AfD per failing WP:N and WP:NOR using mostly blogs (most of whom are by non-proffessionals). Kiss Me Good-Bye should be merged into Discography of Final Fantasy XII on the basis of lack of notability seperate from the discography in general. Ivalice should be either seriously cleaned up or redirected per WP:WAF and WP:PLOT (for the latter it fails the second part of the statement as it is mostly just plot with token real-world coverage). As it is now, the importance of Ivalice appearing in multiple titles could be covered on a series main page. Also Rikku and Yume (Final Fantasy and Spira (Final Fantasy fail WP:N as well with just a few awards given for the former (not enough to justify her own page) and no RW info for the latter two. Minigames of Final Fantasy really doesn't need to be an article and could be handled on the main series page. World of Final Fantasy VIII although it does pass notability, does not really need to be seperate. It does fail WP:WAF though as it really talks only about the reception in the real world, no impact or anything beyond concept and creation. It's at best a borderline case. The only FF7 articles I really think needs to be merged is Gaia (Final Fantasy VII) for the same reason as Spira and Compilation of Final Fantasy VII since all that should be covered on the main FF series page. The rest are fine.じんない 07:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait how the hell does it fail WP:N? Because it doesn't have some magazine going "this is the best ever?" Those are established journalists commenting on the game, and none of them are related to the game or its development at all.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kinda, yes. Nor does it have a scholarly review of it. It may be notable enough as a section within the main FF7 article as it meets WP:V and has 1 independent secondary source, but not enough for a stand alone article which requires multiple independent reliable secondary sources and the more obscure they are, the more likely they are to need more.じんない 08:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait WHAT? Are we looking at the same article? How are insertcredit, Kotaku and others being disregarded completely in this? While they each linked back to the Derrick Sobodash article they gave their own coverage and reception on it as well. Each of them is a third-party source and I've already been arguing the reliability of them above. Common sense needs to play a factor in here, you're not going to find a magazine or scholar writing about this unless some editor actively takes an interest in it. Even English computer game mods play hell getting that kind of coverage.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not disregarding Kotaku or anything listed as a situational source, but the burden to prove they are notable is on the person adding them as a source because they are listed specifically as situational sources. Each one must show they are notable and reliable sources on their own. Just as in Wikipedia, notability is inherited with sources. If it were, I could post a link to an established reliable source and give my own opinion piece and be reliable by that standard.じんない 08:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. I'm not saying that notability should be inherited. I'm saying the sources used are by reliable authors. Insertcredit's has it covered above. That's one. Boing Boing Gadgets's Joel Johnson is a writer for Wired News. That's two. Combine that with Derrick Sobodash's credentials and you have three reliable sources in the matter of ten seconds. Gameworld Network is also cited, and is under the ownership of UGO.com, which also owns 1UP.com. There's a fourth. Are your wording was at least two reliable sources was it not? I could dig deeper if you really want but I think I've covered the standard you wanted.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two as a bare minimum...very bare, usually for something like a stub article to keep it from deletion and as most are SPS, more would probably be needed in this case. Gameworld Network is not necessarily considered reliable. Being owned by someone who produces reliable info does not make you reliable. If Gameworld Network is cleared as a reliable source on its own mertis then it's possibly enough for it's own article, although even then it may be better served as a section under the full article as being able to stand alone is not always the case. I can make cases for a number of articles that could probably meet WP:V and WP:N at the bare bones, but that doesn't mean it enhances anything to make them. I mean I look at the article and see rehash of core concepts like turn-based RPG system as a element being given its own subsection as if somehow that's special. Noting it has a turn-based system, yea. Describing it in the level of detail better that resembles what's covered in a more general article, no. Beyond that though as this is a remake, an unofficial one but still a remake, a lot of the gameplay section other than fact its 2D and the combat system is rehash of how the original game works.じんない 09:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being owned by them does incline that they've put them to certain editoral standards. See the discussions on the WP:VG/S regarding CraveOnline properties. Can I toss in Joystiq's Kyle Orland is a published author as well?
Beyond that though you sound like you're trying to change the argument: it's similar to the base game so therefore not worth its own article? I could understand that but even the plot itself is condensed in some areas and completely diverges at one point: by such a standard almost any remake should be barred from having an article. The gameplay, development, plot and reception are different from the parent game, which by the way is a 67kb hulk by itself which would lead to the recommendation of splitting parts off anyway rather than merging into it. If you haven't noticed I haven't been arguing Yuna or Rikku because I do agree with you on those fronts so please don't take this as "oppose for the sake of it". But I don't see the purpose of merging or deleting this when it has the sources to stand on its own, moreso than similar articles.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the article could possibly stand as a separate article and given that the mechanics and plot differ from the original I could agree if the information from all of the sources could be backed up as being reliable. It certainly has more differences to it than a standard remake I will admit. My issue is mostly with the sources (and also the way its written in some sections, but that's a separate issue). I just don't know how good of an article it is on its own. If that's the best it'll get as far as sourcing, even with cleanup, I'm not sure its GA worthy. And while I realize that the article isn't perfect given the talk with you outside here I feel it may be reaching the end of its potential.
That said, once again, if the sources can be shown to be reliable, other than a cleanup of the gameplay section I won't insist on any major changes to it, which includes merging. As for Gameworld Network generally that's a better argument when you have more solid sources to go with. With that being one of your most sold jounalistic peice, its not all that convincing.じんない 09:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If? They have been shown to be reliable.
But your remakes = merge argument is completely extreme. Sword of Mana, Day of Defeat: Source, Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon, Metroid: Zero Mission, Super Mario 64 DS, etc. And you seem a bit much like a rabid inclusionist... I'd like to think that I've proven a lot of times that a split article can be a quality one. EarthBound 64 and Controversy over the usage of Manchester Cathedral in Resistance: Fall of Man are two articles I've split that come to mind. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some of them have been yes, but not all and arguably not enough to pass WP:N if this were up for an AfD. It may, which is why I say arguably.
As for remakes = merge is unless it is notably different beyond fluff, ie better graphics, cutscenes and audio should imo be merged as we many of articles have seen told to do just that. Only when either the signifigant gameplay and/or plot changes radically alter things should it be seperate. New dungeon does not constitute enhanced signifigant. And ports never should be. The differences can be wrapped up in their own subsections. Most of those you listed meet that critiea, with the exception Super Mario 64 DS being arguably an enhanced port, not a remake. As to the contriversy split, that's in line with other stuff that caused major newsworthy incidents so there is no problem with that.じんない 10:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
<tab reset> Hmm, I'm more of a mergist so the drive to merge the articles about ports makes sense, however, remakes can get their own article if there's enough information to merit one. Looking at Final Fantasy IV (Nintendo DS) it seems like a merge candidate, as it didn't recieve many changes besides improved graphics and some tweaks and extras. However, the article on Final Fantasy VII (Famicom) should not be merged - grouping an illegal "demake" with the original game might be confusing, misleading and unrelated. I don't see how the compilations are bad, since they're fully separate games which have nowhere to go except on the main series page (???).--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to table the discussion on the famicom game until I can get a clarification of what "However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." means exactly in WP:SPS since that has only really SPS or questionable non-SPS ATM.じんない 19:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The question is really how much different a remake has to be to get its own article. It seems the general opinion is that if there are both significant graphical changes and plot or gameplay additions it should have its own article. Usually, either the graphics are changed, or the entire game is enhanced. However, things like improved translations and graphical upgrades without changes to the core gameplay or plot should be merged.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By that standard there should be a Dragon Quest IV (DS Version) article, not subsection, but there's been no move to do that. Also by that standard Super Mario 64 DS should be merged as aside from gameplay, which is signifigantly different, its the same game. It has the same plot basically, nearly the same graphics, just higher polygon count and use of 2 screens, yet we have it. So obviously we need a better clarification of what consensus really is for splitting articles as it appears right now its "because I want to do it and can find sources (or not sometimes)" and that's it.じんない 21:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Because I want to do it and can find sources"—doesn't that sum up the ideal editing practice on Wikipedia in general? -- Sabre (talk) 21:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was about to say... --PresN 21:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:TLDR (sorry!), but I'm very much convinced this is a problem that needs attention. If someone can break it down into a more bite-sized, manageable task, I'd be happy to help out. Maybe start with a few merges.
  • That said, some of the remakes may be sourceable and maintainable as fresh articles. But only if it makes sense to write a wholly new article. If we're better off adding one or two sections to an existing one, then we should do it. Randomran (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think a clear set of when to spinoff a remake/port and when not to is needed here. Obviously exceptions may arise, but its clearly needed. Right now its anarchy driven, not consenus driven. IMO ports never should be, even if they are compliation ports. As for remakes, imo only if they signifigant changes to atleast to of the following: audio-visual (this counts as one as they go hand-in-hand with better tech), plot, gameplay or development issues. By signifigant I mean altering or adding elements that radically changes the way the game is percieved, except for the last one which should be more about issues arising due to the remake, not press releases about release dates and the like.じんない 21:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you need to think about what articles you're listing... so what, Super Mario 64 DS ONLY has its own reception, development, and gameplay? Wow, apparently, if every aspect of the entire game isn't completely different, it can't have its own article! Thanks.
      • And Final Fantasy IV. Really? The main article is 70kb long, there's no room for it. It's notable enough and the main article is big enough that it can and should exist on its own. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Article size is not am excuse to spinoff.
          • How about: a game should have its own article is two or more of the following are modified significantly: graphics&sound, plot, gameplay. Otherwise, it can have its own article if something notable happened during development (in the case of Earthbound 64, being cancelled and then restarted). RE: Retro Hippie, the FFIV article has a lot of restatements and can easily be trimmed down to a paragraph or two. Plus, article size is no longer an issue unless it's REALLY REALLY Long.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think that's a good guideline, or at least a good starting point. Why are we covering a remake if the graphics, sound, plot, and gameplay are more or less unchanged? A significant change in gameplay, maybe. A graphical update, maybe. Both? Definitely. Randomran (talk) 22:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • My only issue with that is what is "significantly". What if there are significant amount of changes (numerous gameplay, audio, visual, and plot changes), but they were all minor. Coming up with our own definitions of what constitutes a remake, enhanced remake, port, re-release, etc. sounds like dangerous ground to me; much like some of the categories we come across. I think the compromise here is checking whether or not the sources exist for a balanced article (something that complies with WP:V). If there are a number of sources for development and reception, then I'd say that's enough for a separate article—reviews that only cover reception is not enough. If not, then the extra content should be a part of the original game's article as it will strengthen both topics. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
                  • It's possible that there will be sources for development and reception, even with a port. That still doesn't give it enough CONTENT for a full article.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I gave an idea what could be considered significant above. And its hard to say that reception probably the least important part and saying that should determine it is a content fork. If there is nothing noteworthy of difference beyond the reception that is a POV issue. That's what I'm saying is problem with most of these articles. They are forks for no major reason beyond POV issues that could be summed up on the main article page. Those than might have better graphics but nothing else and get reception is also forking because its saying that game is essentially not the same as the original. Somehow just updating eyecandy makes it a new game. To me thats forking.じんない 02:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The truth is that "remakes" are a recurring challenge, and we could stand to write a guideline that will deal with the obvious cases, even if there's a "gray area" in the middle. Or at least give us a few factors to weigh. I'm flexible on the criteria, but we need something that will prevent us from being excessively redundant to the point that we have a content fork. Randomran (talk) 03:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but the way this discussion is being handled is ridiculous. "Final Fantasy series cleanup". That's more than 100 articles. You should have started individual discussions on the articles' talk pages; there's no way we can properly discuss dozens of different cases and topics and have de facto two or more GA Reviews on this single section of talk page. Kariteh (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek games

A whole bunch of text-interface turn-based Star Trek tactical starship games from the 1970's have turned up for deletion at WP:PROD (see WP:PRODSUM for 6 May) with a flimsy excuse for a rationale ("Any evidence of notability?" - a question, not an actual rationale) because if the nominator ever actually read the article, the question would be resolved by the claims made in the article. (which is not the same as actually being true, but nevertheless, it's there). If you wish to keep the articles, just delete the PROD template. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 06:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be an excellent article about early text-based spaced sims (including several Star Trek ones). I lost the link, and it might not be considered reliable since it was written by a fan. SharkD (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gears of War 2: All Fronts Collection

All Fronts Collection was announced yesterday and it has been added to Gears of War 2 under down loadable content. But the DLC will not contain all the features the retail game will. The retail game has a new stealth mode, a poster, strategy guide, an Xbox Live theme made by Cliffy B. and everything the DLC will have included. So is the retail game notable enough to have it's own article?--(NGG) 12:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really; the additional pieces lists really aren't details that would be expanded in a VG article save for the stealth mode and there's enough space in Gears 2 to include this discussion (also, be aware there's varied reports on the "differences" between the retail and DLC version; obviously the physical items are one thing, but there's mistakes in some reports that the DLC will not contain features in the box version). --MASEM (t) 12:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question about New Play Control!

At List of Wii games, all games are listed with it as part of their title. I personally don't think it's an official part of the game name. It's a group of GameCube games with new Wii controls, so new play control refers to the group itself: not the game name. What does everyone else think? RobJ1981 (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that they belong on the list because they are re-releases. It's not like there's an article with that name, they just have "new play control" to show the difference between that and the original game.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never said once that they don't belong in the list. I was just stating "new play control" is just a term Nintendo uses for GameCube ports. It's not part of the game title, so they shouldn't be listed. The links for the games go to the relevant sections for the ports, so there is no reason to list it under something incorrect. RobJ1981 (talk) 01:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Williams (Writer/Designer)

Just a quick heads-up ... I change a fair number of speedy deletions (maybe 5% to 10%) into {{prod-nn}}, and notify the relevant wikiproject by adding your project tag to the talk page. You guys probably know already that that will make the page show up here. I always give my rationale on the article talk page, and I'd appreciate your feedback on whether there was anything you wanted me to handle differently about your articles. - Dank (push to talk) 22:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned this up a bit, but it still lacks assertion of notability and any references. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

D&D video game articles lacking sources

Hey there,

I was looking through D&D articles lately and I noticed that of all the articles with a template indicating that we are lacking any sources, there are several video game related articles. Anyone care to dig up a source or two and improve any of these articles?  :) Thanks!

There are plenty of other cleanup issues, but lacking sources is a serious one, so I figured I'd bring that up first.  :) BOZ (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FF7 famicon discussion of WT:V

I started a discussion about clarification of some of the wording in WP:SPS in light of FF7 Famicon discussion at WT:Verifiability#Clarification on SPS statement. Feel free to chime in.じんない 02:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Famicom cartridge specifications, looking for a reliable source to cite

Resolved

Topic pretty much says it all, I'm after a source that covers the design specifications of the cartridge in terms of hardware and programming. Official would probably be best, but something third party yet reliable would be helpful as well.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember all that was in this PC World article about the Famicom in general, but I remember it was very informative. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Actually one of the articles on the FF7 famicom site talks about Famicom hardware as well.じんない 03:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping for an unrelated link at this point, Guyinblack25's did the number. Thanks :D--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guidance on separate articles for remakes / ports of existing games

Given a few of the threads above, we probably should issue some guidance on when it is appropriate to create an article on a remake or port of a game to a difference system.

In general, these should not get their own article unless they are necessary. This is determined by a number of factors:

Size of the current article - A game with an existing 100kb article could likely have port information, if necessary, in a separate article. A 20kb article, on the other hand, has plenty of room to include the port. (Final Fantasy IV is too big to include information on Final Fantasy IV (Nintendo DS); Rez is short enough to include the XBLA version)
Time since original and/or Cross-generational ports. A port of a ten-year old game to a modern system, or from a, say, 4th gen to 7th gen system, is likely going to attract more attention due to development information and reception than a port to a console of the same or next generation, or 6 months to a year later. (eg: Klonoa (video game), a 2009 Wii game vs Klonoa: Door to Phantomile, a 1997 PS1 game, are appropriate; Okami for the PS2 in 2006 and the Wii 2008 versions are fundamentally close enough to not require a page)
Differences in port A straight-up port with no fundamental differences in plot or gameplay likely needs not much more that is already in the main game to require a separate article (it would be more a disservice and duplication of content to have to repeat these); a port where much is changed probably will have more to talk about those changes, particularly in terms of reception. (Dead Rising vs Dead Rising: Chop Till You Drop where there major features lost between ports, as opposed to Resident Evil 4, where the Wii version, while adding Wiimote abilities, fundamentally is the same game)
But most importantly, Sourcing - A port that gets little coverage outside the usual reviews likely doesn't need a separate page; one that is discussed at great length, particularly in terms of development and legacy of the original title, will probably get an article due to the size issue. (Braid (video game)'s PC port made narly a blip after the 360 release, so reception was grouped together; the FFIV and FFIV(DS) version above is an example of a plethora of sources on the port beyond the original game's sourcing). --MASEM (t) 13:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
as for Size of the current article - that should not be an indiciator really, but maybe Size of the current section(s) might be more appropriate. Still that should be one of the least used ones, kinda like if you're in doubt, then go with that. Reason I say sections is I don't want to see it used as a justification for spinouts of stubs.
Time since original and/or Cross-generational ports This shouldn't matter as long as plot and gampley remain the same. This is because the comments made will almost universally be relevant to the oroginal. The few exceptions, like the load times on the PS1 Chrono Trigger remake can be noted in the same article. There is 0 justification here for making a new article if its just a port and no signifigant elements were added/changed.
Differences in port this is possibly the most likely to be the best, if the changes are signifigant. If they aren't they can probably be summed up in 1 section (with possiblity of s sub-section or 2).
Sourcing - ultimately each and every one must meet WP:V, WP:N and WP:NOR. In addition the removal must not make the original article fail any of those. Thus if talk about the remake gets all the coverage and you only have primary sources for the original, you shouldn't be spinning it out.
Defining Signifigant - because this came up as to "What is signifant?" I say this obviously needs some clarification. Yes, there will be some grey area, but it will also give a general idea where people can look when deciding. My proposal is:
Changes that are considered "signifigant" enough to warrant a remake being spun-out into its own seperate article require to at least 2/4: graphics & sound, gameplay, plot and/or development. Changes to the first three would have to radically alter the player's experience to the game while the latter would be signifigant issues, such as problems or radical innovations.
じんない 03:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with anything that adds editor opinion into the matter. The idea that editors decide how different a game is from the original is far far too subjective—I strongly dislike anything that adds an arbitrary post for such an article to reach before it can have an article. First and foremost should be sourcing, if its got the sources available to create decent and unique reception and development sections, the possibility should be open to having its own article. A lot of remakes won't meet this threshold alone, but those that do should not necessarily be penalised simply for similar game mechanics. -- Sabre (talk) 10:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think Sabre summed it up well. If it has its own unique reception and development sections, then it can support a new article (although that's not to say that it always should). Otherwise, you can probably sum up the graphical and gameplay changes in one section. Randomran (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sabre certainly expressed it better than I did in the above thread. I think the key word is "unique" development and reception. Like regular article creation, the sources need to be there to establish notability and verifiability. But if the two sections don't provide enough information outside the original's development and reception, then it would be content forking.
I'd say something like the development and reception sections in Super Mario 64 DS are a good threshold for a separate article (maybe I'm being biased though). The development of the game is very minimal but focuses more on its release. The reception is pretty different from the original game's and focuses on the changes/additions. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Echoing everyone above that it's about the sources. Myst was ported to every platform known to man, but the sources (and important legacy) rests solely in the PC sphere. It's got a shortlist of remakes and later ports, and that's about all she wrote on the matter. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For Mario DS, while a lot of the release date stuff is WP:V it doesn't really add to the article in a way that would make it unique to the original game. Release date information could be summed up in the main article. The reception and its separate gameplay, are what make it different enough to justify. And as for sources, I think everyone else is forgetting that these articles will sometimes be split if a remake has enough sources, but the original does not.
Guidelines are there for a reason. We have a guideline for how to write a VG article for a reason, because otherwise it's anarchy. Everyone assumes their's is the best way. Sources don't come into that picture, yet we have a gudieline. So stop applying double standards when there is clearly a need for it...at the very least for ports which constitutes violated an existing guideline: WP:Content forking as it is essentially the same game and giving reception on one is giving reception on them all.じんない 18:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds to me that you agree that distinct development and reception are enough to support a new article, though? Randomran (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the same criteria (unique dev/reception) is a good metric to use for splitting out expansion packs and downloadable content. Nifboy (talk) 04:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Randomran: Distinct development - ie beyond release date info and screenshot releases plus significant part of the reception comments on the new aspects, FE: comments on the DS and multiplayer controls for Super Mario 64 DS meet the latter, but the development doesn't really. They gameplay however is different enough to marginally warrant a seperate article. I'd have to say that that article is the bottom threshold. If it can't at least show that much difference, it shouldn't have an a seperate article for a remake; and ports never.
As for expansion packs, yes, I'd agree. Downloadable content though is a murky word. It can mean downloading of 500 doll items for equiping to your avatar. I do not believe many would support each of those 500 getting their own page for the same reason most weapons and items in-game don't get their own page, even if they have some reception.じんない 20:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, then... you think the principle is that a separate article should have (1) distinct reception, apart praise for the original release, and (2) distinct information on development *or* game design? Once we have an overall principle, it will be easier to deal with this material in general. Randomran (talk) 04:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close. (3) both former points must be significant and splitting would not likely endanger the status of the current article (especially if its GA+ one).じんない 05:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to toss my hat into the ring - I think that if the gameplay is original enough from the source material (ie Final Fantasy Adventure to Sword of Mana), it has, by common sense, original development information and original reception, so Sword of Mana is definitively an example of a game that warrants an article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the three numbered points Jinnai and Randomran stated are a good guideline to follow. I also agree that SM64DS would be the bottom threshold, and think it's a good example for it.
Retro Hippie brings up a good point, one that Masem also touched on earlier: that a lengthy time between two very different versions inherently leads to unique developments and receptions.
While this is not a free pass for the article, I think such situations should call on us to do some digging for sources. Perhaps something along these lines can be mentioned in the new guidelines. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Perhaps we should make a port/remake task force? Devoted to the management of port/remake articles? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 17:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad we're approaching an overall agreement. Does someone want to draft something for WP:VG/GL? Just a starting point, which we can discuss some more before we add it to our guideline page. Then we can work on applying it to specific cases. Randomran (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda related, but something I've been curious about on this subject: for remakes that warrant their own article, how much of the content do we treat from the parent game as unique to itself? This comes more apparent in cases of RPGs where a game can have a similar storyline and characters but divergent content: spelling out the content is a different tune than simply pointing out the differences. The problem is chunks of said content will probably end up copied from the parent game's article anyway. So what's the verdict on this?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the storyline is the same, I don't see why you couldn't use <onlyinclude> for that section linking back to the main article if you were going to copy it verbatim anyway.じんない 21:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A first attempt

Ports/Remakes

When multiple versions of a game have been made before spinning out the article into multiple articles for each version careful consideration should be made about whether it is appropriate. First and foremost are reliable secondary sources that establish notability of the different version. In addition the splitting of the article must not endanger the notability and verifiability of the parent article; in addition one should also take into consideration the status of feature and good articles and consider the impact a spinout would have on their status. However, that alone is not enough as spinning out in some cases can be considered content forking. For this, several criteria must also be met before splitting. An article must meet at least two of the following: (For terms of this guideline, significant is defined as altering the original enough that it becomes an entire new playing experience based upon the changes.)

  • Significantly enhanced graphics and sound
  • Significantly altered plotline
  • Significantly altered gameplay

In addition the real-world impact must be shown to have had unquiet real-world impact based upon the above criteria in either:

  • Unique issues during development (beyond release dates and screenshot releases)
  • Significant unique reception of the game
  • Other significant verifiable impact, such as cultural impact, spinoff titles based directly on the remake, etc.

In addition, the element of time can be used as a deciding factor in close cases. For direct ports with little to no change a separate article should almost never be made as it would likely be considered content forking, even if it was remade as part of a compilation. じんない 17:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Other significant verifiable impact, such as cultural impact, spinoff titles based directly on the remake, etc."
This one bothers me...almost no remake is going to have the same degree of impact no matter how hyped as its original. I can't think of any remake really that has resulted in spinoffs based solely on on it and not the parent game, or if there are any it's probably a rather small number.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any strong feelings on the substance, but I think we can off this guidance in much more concise terms. All in all, a good starting point. Let's see what other people say. Randomran (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

I posted a comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#PlayStation_palmar_hidradenitis, and, if available, would appreciate this community's feedback. Thanks in advance! ---kilbad (talk) 15:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Messed up moves

Someone did cut and paste moves of Sega division pages and now their histories are broken, could someone fix them?

That's all that I noticed. --Mika1h (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Video games notability guidance

Is there existing guidance for how to measure whether video games are notable enough to be included in Wikipedia? If not, do members of the WikiProject think it might be worthwhile creating such guidelines? My query comes as more and more games are being created for the iPhone and suchlike, with the authors or fans creating articles on Wikipedia. Some of these games are extremely minor and shouldn't be included, but is there a particular line we can draw? Cheers. Greg Tyler (t • c) 20:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of a specific video game guideline, but they certainly must fulfill the basic notability guideline: the game must receive significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right now we use WP:GNG or in some cases WP:WEB. For those interested I think atm. The only kind of content we are discussing that could indeed be notability worthy is on remakes/ports as their own separate articles (see above).じんない 03:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs in the Guitar Hero On Tour series/archive1

Hi, could someone from this WikiProject look at this FLC? It desperately needs reviews. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the FLC failed due to a lack of reviews. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sports game

There's a section on Sports game called Notable sports games by type of sport. Firstly, it's an eye-sore. Secondly, it's superfluous. Thirdly, it's unmaintainable. I direct you all to Category:Sports video games, its contents, and all their sub-contents. We have a helluva lot of Sports video games categorised there and I don't think anyone would ever suggest putting them all into the Sports game article.

So why the current list? It seems to imply specific notability above other games, but that's entirely subjective and opinionated. Also, we don't have it for other genres. And with those categories in place, it serves no use as navigation. Hence, I want to remove it. But, seeing as it makes up a good quarter of that article, I didn't want to do so without discussing it with the VG community. Does anyone have any objection to an all-out removal of this? Greg Tyler (t • c) 19:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and delete it - a category would be sufficient. An article shouldn't contain embedded lists like that.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with removal. Anytime you see the word "notable" in an article body, especially with flat lists of things, it's usually a way of trying to protect the content from scrutiny by associating it with a wiki buzzword. It's a form of WP:PEACOCK. If the games were so notable as to be important to the genre, then there should be prose written about their influence (history of the genre, etc.) instead of just calling them notable and sticking them on a list. Ham Pastrami (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article Writing Guide

I've been observing good articles in multiple projects and it seems like all projects have a different way of writing article(Example: When we write a lead, we split it in 3: intro, plot and reception but WP:NOVELS bunches all their info together in one paragraph). So users new to the project may not be sure how to write a good video game article. So maybe we should make a guide that can be accessed from the side bar that tells users how to write articles under WP:VG. What do you guys think?--(NGG) 12:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a newbie to WP:VG, I'd certainly agree with that idea. And as someone who likes unification and style guidelines, I'd also agree with that idea. There are two major issues though. Namely, who can write it and how will we decide on the correct style? Different people have different interpretations and I'm sure there will be several conflicting opinions that will need to be overcome. It's manageable but potentially a big project. Nonetheless, I'll support. Greg Tyler (t • c) 13:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Guyinblack25 wrote one here that is pretty close to primetime for inclusion in the project. --MASEM (t) 13:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. I guess we should ask him first before we use it eh?--(NGG) 14:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need to ask for that in this case, as it was written to be the project's writing guide; also, I didn't write all of it. If a few editors want to give it a final push to finish it up, I'd love to have my sandbox back. :-p
I think the part most in need of finishing is the biased point of view section. Other than that, it just needs some verification to make sure it is current with our present practices—this thing was started over a year ago. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I agree with Krator that the bias section isn't particularly needed. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about his other suggestion: "bias towards fan communities, mods, etc."? (Guyinblack25 talk 15:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I just feel we should keep it as streamlined as possible. I'm not sure what Krator was referring to--bias in terms of trying to use them as sources and proofs of notability? That can be covered in the reliable source section. I'm just saying it's best to keep this from turning into a WP:MOS-type document and keep it grounded in the most pressing elements. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Make sense. I'll remove it. Any other suggestions? (Guyinblack25 talk 17:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Characters of Final Fantasy VI#Kefka

I've been digging around online for awhile and believe I have enough reception for a full article for the character, but what's lacking is development information, outside of tidbits for his appearance in Dissidia. Anyone know of any good sources to use while I prop the article up?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...anyone at all?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Bitness" of a console

I'm sure there've been discussions on this before, so if someone knows about them and can either point me to them or summarize them for me, that'd be awesome. In Talk:Mega Drive, there's a discussion currently going on about whether the Mega Drive/Genesis is properly classified as a "16-bit" console, or if "16/32-bit" is a more proper designation because the CPU is 32-bit capable. I've already said my piece there, that "16-bit" not only is appropriate because of the architecture of the rest of the machine, but also because that's how it's marketed and how every reliable source we have on the topic refers to the machine. User:Theaveng seems to believe that a console's "bitness" is always determined by the capabilities of the CPU, though, and he and I disagree on some of the finer points of the Mega Drive's CPU's capabilities and uses.

In general, though, I'd like to ask what the consensus is on what defines the "bitness" of a console. Is there an actual definition for it? Is it based on technical specs, marketing, some combination of both? Just curious, so I'll have a better idea of how to handle these kinds of discussions if/when they come up again. Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lowest common denominator of the hardware. --MASEM (t) 22:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, back in the day I always though the "16-bit" referred to the graphics capabilities rather than the CPU. In retrospect, it was probably 90% marketing: "16 is twice as much as 8! 32 is twice as much as 16!" Anomie⚔ 02:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I'm not picking up on a strong consensus on this, tho. There are a number of arguments on whether it's based on the architecture (memory bus, coprocessors, etc.), the CPU capabilities alone, or marketing, and IMO they're all valid. Most reliable sources are, in this case, going to be concerned with the system's marketing, since the Mega Drive clearly says "16-bit" right on it. But this falls in that kinda grey area between correctly representing something and going by what all the sources say, and there may be legitimate evidence that both sides of the argument here are equally valid. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it sounds like we are looking for rationale. Here's mine. The big missing piece here is the software. A system architecture is not just about the hardware. The hardware has to be designed in accordance with the software that it is going to run. Try making a video card without adhering to the DirectX API, you see what I mean. Likewise, even if you have a 64-bit CPU, your system isn't 64-bit unless your OS is also 64-bit. So, were any Genesis games 32-bit? I'm pretty sure the answer is no. If the Genesis never specified 32-bit functions, never provided developers with tools to compile 32-bit programs, and subsequently never had 32-bit games, it would be incorrect to call it a 32-bit system. The Genesis hardware may be capable of pounding a nail into a desk, but we don't also call it a hammer. What it's capable of doing is not the same as what it does. It's well and fine to say the CPU (or any other part) has 32-bit somethings, but the CPU is not the Genesis. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And that was my main point of reasoning in that discussion. While there's some disagreement about whether the 68000 is truly a 32-bit CPU (the article on that CPU states that it has 32-bit registers, but 16-bit internal structures, 32-bit addressing, and it sat on a 16-bit bus), the fact remains that the rest of the hardware in that system is 16-bit in nature, and so is the software. The CPU only did a fraction of the things it was capable of doing in that system. And I brought up the parallel of 32-bit vs. 64-bit systems and OSes in modern technology. In this case, I don't think I was terribly successful at swaying Theaveng's opinion, but in the process, examples were brought up about the PC Engine and the Atari Jaguar, both of which have had disputes over their claims to a certain bitness. (Jaguar was the more controversial, as I understand it, since it was billed as 64-bit but an examination of its hardware called that into legitimate question, and I think reliable sources commented on that.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get why people are trying to invent our own original criteria. We go by what the sources say, as always. In cases where there are different numbers for different aspects of the hardware, explain this in the text. But, categorize them the way the sources. Friday (talk) 19:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised how this discussion already went this long without the mention of the Atari Jaguar, which is apparently not 64-bit (I know, crossing into WP:NOTFORUM territory). MuZemike 07:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd already brought it up in Talk:Mega Drive, and I mentioned it above just last night. I think it's appropriate wiki-talk since it directly impacts the article and how we handle other similar articles. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still of the opinion that as we all know it as a 16-bit console, and all the sources and the manufacturer say it's 16-bit, so should we. The CPU having 32-bit elements or capabilities that are unused in the Mega Drive is all very well, but seems irrelevant to the console and should be covered on the CPU's own page. Miremare 15:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EU or PAL?

I was about to do some work on a list and was checking the current featured list and noticed an inconsistency. On List of Sega 32X games the EU/PAL region is listed as EU where as List of N64 games lists PAL instead. The N64 even says "EUR" in the opening paragraph. I simply figured it should be consistent across articles.

Personally, I would go with EUR as neither use NTSC instead of NA or PAL for Japan. Crimsonfox (talk) 01:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Austrilia and New Zealand fall under PAL? If so, wouldn't there have to be some disambiguation among games that are released separately in Europe and those countries? ~ Hibana 01:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, PAL implicitly includes Aus/NZ. If it doesn't apply to those, then EUR is the way to go. --MASEM (t) 02:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, even more of a reason to go EU instead. Just wanted to check before making a change. Crimsonfox (talk) 03:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion on the new Pokémon games

Hello everyone. There's a discussion taking place about whether the just-announced Pokémon HeartGold and SoulSilver should have an article or just a section on the Pokémon Gold and Silver article. It should be noted that the article is currently merged, so it's actually more of a "split" discussion. Just letting you guys know in case anyone wants to participate. Cheers. -sesuPRIME talk • contribs 06:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Guzzler arcade Flyer 1983.jpg

This image was tagged as being in the public domain, which I don't think it is. Am I missing something that I don't know about? MuZemike 16:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, same user also claims that he owns the copyright to this image: File:Zarzon Arcade screen shot.jpg. Probably miss-tagged. Salavat (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixing the tags right quick should solve the issue.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Along with these other images by the uploader: File:Zarzon Arcade Flyer.jpg, File:Galaxy Wars 1979 Arcade Flyer.jpg. Salavat (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed all of the above. Salavat (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

R3match

R3match is a highly used website for clan matches and singles matches for the Xbox and PS3. Is the website notable enough to have it's own article?--(NGG) 20:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got sources? Nifboy (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Power Glove sourcing

Has the potential to be a quite an intriguing article - more sources would be grand. My nintendo experience is limited to Gamecube and things subsequent.  :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What? No NES in there? I was hoping you might to the same with NES Zapper, one of the most iconic symbols of the 8-bit monster. There's also WP:NIN that might be able to help out. MuZemike 17:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Lunar articles

Okay, so, here's the deal.

Lunar I is getting remade, again, this time for PSP. The current remakes for Lunar I are spread between 2 pages (Sega CD, GBA, and PSP on one page - PS1, Saturn, and PC on the other), with the only real dividing line being whether it has "Complete" in the name or not. I got both articles to GA over a year ago, but as time went by, I found that the small differences between each game don't necessarily warrant separate pages. In the grand scheme of things, it's all just Lunar I. At the same time, I have no problem keeping the articles separate, but they might be more useful as one singular resource instead of splitting all the info across two pages. Not to mention that, in their current state, Lunar Legend (the GBA version) has no development or reception info since it was hastily merged a while back, and is really more of a remake of Complete than the original Silver Star (of course, we could always un-merge it, but then we'd just have more articles for the same thing). What I propose is that, after trimming some development and story info, and possibly moving the music to a separate "discography" page, merge all six versions of the game into one cohesive article complete with appropriate development and reception info, with each re-direct leading to a well-defined portion of the gestault-article. If this is a good idea, the same process will be done to Lunar II and its remakes, as well as Walking School and its one remake, but I'd like some input either way.

Oh, and about Walking School - I think that it and its remake remake are actually the last articles to still use translated article names despite never being released in English (I created them in 2005 when English titles were still protocol). So that might have to get fixed, too. Nall (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games&oldid=289754803"