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 87.8.242.31 (talk) at 16:45, 27 January 2011 (→‎Next Generation Portable). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Sega Mega Drive / Genesis sales figures dispute - input needed!

In several discussions we haven't got anywhere with the Mega Drive/Genesis sales figures original research/synthesis dispute mentioned somewhere above, mainly because of a lack of new people commenting, so could I ask that anyone who sees this section please read it and comment!

The issue in a nutshell is whether the Mega Drive article (and by extension others such as History of video game consoles (fourth generation), Console wars, and List of best-selling game consoles) should use the widely accepted and citable total sales figure of 29-30 million units worldwide, or a new figure of 40-42 million, that some editors have arrived at by adding a variety of sources together.

Sources used in support of the new figure of 40-42 million sales:
North American sales

Note: this article also states at the beginning that the Mega Drive sold "just under 30 million copies in 10 years" (translated from French with Google Translate).
Note: Gamepro, in an article about the Mega Drive/Genesis itself, by the same author the following year, states sales of "29 million units worldwide".
Note: Possibly unreliable source, see discussion at WT:VG/RS#Brazilian fan/blogsite?. Also note that Tec Toy sells its products in Brazil, not North America.
Note: the next sentence says "Total world sales: 29 million".
A passing mention of the Genesis in an article about the Saturn being withdrawn from sale in the US. It is also vague ("some 20 million", "early 1990s"), and fails to substantiate or source this unprecedented claim, despite sourcing pratically everything else in the article. The NY TImes is a reliable source, but not everything is says is necessarily true, and exceptional claims require exceptional sources.
Note: a virtual reproduction of the NY Times source above (or vice-versa), that lifts sentences practically verbatim.

Rest of world sales

  • "15 million", "Chronology of Sega Video Games" by Ken Polsson. Used to support a figure of 15 million for "rest of the worlds first party numbers".
Note: this is the same source as mentioned in support of North American sales above. Bizarrely, this "rest of world" total (in support of 40-42 million worldwide sales) comes from subtracting its figure of 14m North American sales, from its worldwide figure of 29 million(!).

Sources that directly support 29-30 million sales

In conclusion, there are no sources that directly support a total of 40-42 million, but plenty that do directly support 29-30 million, a figure that is widely accepted by the gaming and technology media. I don't believe we have any right to ignore that in favour of a number we've come up with ourselves.

The editors who support adding sources together to arrive at total sales of 40-42 million argue that this is "routine calculation" allowed per WP:CALC, and that sources saying 29-30 million are outdated and should be "updated" by the "newer" (i.e. larger) figures, despite all of the 29-30 million sources listed above having been published more recently. There is also the issue of selected parts of sources that directly support 29m being used to support 40-42m.

I've been against this for as long as it has been discussed, but since looking even closer at the sources in order to write this, I'm more convinced than ever that this figure of 40-42m isn't just synthesis of sources, it's downright abuse of sources. I'm a Mega Drive fan, despite the inevitable accusions of being "biased" against it because of my opposition to this whole thing. It's gotten pretty frustrating and tiresome and it really is time this was settled once and for all, so whatever side of the argument you're on, please comment. Thanks, Miremare 22:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a misuse of sources to arrive at a conclusion; if it were only two or three, I could see it, but so many , we have no idea where overlap is if there is any. --MASEM (t) 22:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that team-aaa.com site seems to be no more reliable than gamehall.uol.com.br, as far as I can tell from a Google translation of [3] it seems to be another site of a bunch of gamers calling themselves "editor" and such. The other so-called source (emunova.net) mentioned in the minimal discussion at WT:VG/RS#Brazilian fan/blogsite? seems to be yet another iteration of the same theme.
I would guess both the NYT and Electronic Times are quoting that "some 20 million" from a Sega press release. Anomie⚔ 01:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was established here that adding the sources together was allowed per wiki policy, [4] and that's where they would know for certain if we're allowed to tally these numbers.
If exceptional claims (20 million in the US in this case) require exceptional sources, NYT's easily meets that criteria. You also forgot to list that 29 million had already been reached by 1995 [5]
It's not abuse of sources to update a total number, and nothing here is synthesis. How many places do we need to take this to before it's enough? The No Original Research board was the best place since the topic of our discussion is synthesis, and it was deemed to not be, before coming here. It's not a number we come up with ourselves to use WP:Calc, and we note in the article that "Most sources agree 29 million, however" so what is the problem??
Here, the overlap is very very clear. [6] 29 million, noting 14 million sold in North America, this is and was deemed a reliable source, simple arithmetic per [[WP:Calc] lets us update the 14 million to NYTs 20 million (do note that NYT's is the most reliable source out of all listed.) This is the original source for wikipedias 29 million, and since it was posted on wikipedia, the rest of the 29 million numbers creep up years after (2007-2009, note pre 2005 how things say 30 million or higher.) Wikipedia is probably where those places got their numbers. Then, [7] notes 29 million, with 14 million sold in the US, and 3.5 million sold in Japan (a number also used by Gamespy today) and the date of the article is May 1995, stating sales up to the end of fiscal year 1994. Sega sold the Genesis for three more years in North America, before letting Majesco take over, and the numbers added together in this very thread (all from reliable sources) gives us an estimated 21.5 million units sold in North America, while NYT's as well as Electronic Times, state "20 million in the US alone." The date on the articles is March 3rd of 1998, later in the same month, Majesco takes over selling the Genesis in North America. We have a reliable source saying Majesco projects over 1.5 million sales, from 1998 alone (and leaves 1999 open,) and we have three sources saying Majesco sells over 2 million, one of the three simply saying 2 million, and even stating how many copies of software Majesco sold as well.
This is clearly just updating of numbers, not contradiction, just updates.
IslandNet's 15 million for "the rest of the world" is probably extremely accurate, is from two reliable sources (including Man!ac's may 1995 issue) and all makes 100% logical sense, if we are to believe that Sega discontinued the Mega Drive everywhere apart from North America during 1995, as is currently stated in the article (sourced to Kent.)
The way I see it, we have 38-40 million. The "nearly 18 million Genesis owners" is too vague, contradicts another 16.8 million source for North America, and involves even more [[WP:calc] than the NYT's number. Majesco sold 2 million to end out the Genesis in America, and TecToy (which still sells the Mega Drive to this day) sold 2 million as of August 31st, 2005. There is possible overlap between TecToy's number and the "rest of the world" number, so stating 38-40 million;with a content note explaining, is the most honest, fair way to do things.--SexyKick 03:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We allow some basic addition when it is clear and obvious to the causal reader how the math was done. There is no way looking at the sources allow can one arrive at the same answer without using your additional explanations. Thus it is OR to say any more than 29 million. It is certainly possible to identify some smaller numbers (like 2 or 3 m) after the 29M year but that's not the same as adding them together in this mish-mash of calculations. --MASEM (t) 03:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But two editors (three if you count me, but I'm bias since I want to add them) both of which were completely uninvolved said since the NYT's source is reliable, and the IslandNet source is reliable, we can add the numbers together.--SexyKick 04:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I applaud SexyKick for his excellent research into Gensis numbers presented here. I believe he has clearly shown that the 29 million number that all of these sites adore so much was derived from the same sales info used for the 1995 Maniac article and is therefore outdated. Other sources clearly show a US install base of around 20 million, not counting Majesco sales, which corroborates what is stated by the New York Times. In the face of this evidence, any source using a 29 million figure is unreliable on its face and cannot be used. However, while the US sales picture is clear past 1994, the international picture is not, as I remain unconvinced that no international sales were recorded outside of Brazil following the Maniac sales charts. Therefore, I believe providing a total sales figure is a ridiculous proposition since any number presented will, in fact, be inaccurate. What can be done is the writing of a nice, fully sourced paragraph in the sales section that states worldwide sales for the system through 1994 and then provides total US sales by citing to the other sources and using the principle of WP:CALC, which clearly applies when only US and not worldwide sales are being considered. This seems a fair compromise that will make the article as accurate as our incomplete sources allow. Indrian (talk) 04:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why in the world are you assuming that every major English-language publication is getting their numbers from some obscure German-language magazine article from 1995? Anomie⚔ 05:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Edited for clarity, as that is not what I meant, but that is sure how it read. Thanks. Indrian (talk) 06:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To me, a couple of things are clear. Firstly, the 29 million units number is incorrect. Secondly, if we are talking about worldwide sales, the 29-31 million number is the one most cited. Because this is Wikipedia, any article we have must include the 29-31 million number (I would say approximately 30 million) and state that most sources confirm this. However, I don't see why we can't include more information similar to the content note and the paragraph described above by Indrian. Wikipedia is supposed to inform. In this case, we don't have a clear answer, so let's present the information in a NPOV way for the readers to digest themselves.LedRush (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is completely fine to include the other sources notable as reliable and the data they provide; it is simply not proper to infer a total sales figure from them, however. EG you can report 14 M in 1995 and 20 M in 1999 for NA sales, but that's all you should say about that. --MASEM (t) 16:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note it's not quite so simple, there does exist a reliable source (EGM's 1999 Video Game Buyer's Guide) from 1999 for 14 M. I think about all we can say is that we have a wide range of numbers reported. Anomie⚔ 17:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From what it looks like the sources are coming from the 1995 sales data and info beyond that isn't as centralized. Yes it should be used, but we are not in the business of misinforming people either by ignoring dates on sources and assuming the world is static. Just because 5 years from now someone uses that same figure doesn't make that figure anymore timely.陣内Jinnai 18:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OTOH, it also doesn't mean the larger figure is necessarily more correct. Who knows, maybe the 1995 figures are actually "units manufactured" (the Maniac article does credit its figures to "Sega" among others), manufacturing stopped in mid-1995 when Sega of Japan decided to discontinue the console to focus on Saturn, and the later figures really are "units sold" from NPD or the like after the inventory was sold out. Or maybe it really is the case that every major gaming news source hasn't bothered to get new numbers since 1995. We just don't know. Anomie⚔ 20:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only Mega Drives stopped manufacturing, because according to Television Digest Sega Genesis was manufactured until 1997, and 1997 sales were so low because of that. Remember the Business Wire source for North America numbers is nearly 18 million "Genesis owners" not manufactured units. (Man!ac is still 14 million US only) The EGM 14 million is simply the outdated data everyone had been using. I'm with Indrian, we shouldn't be using the 29 million number any longer.--SexyKick 00:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not outdated, it is just the last best number that I think you have. That is, it is completely appropriate to say "By 199x, about YY million units of the console has been sold." and then follow up with other facts. You don't need a total number in this case. --MASEM (t) 00:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How interesting, it seems that your Business Wire source from 1994 just further proves the point that none of these numbers are necessarily accurate. Now we have "nearly 18 million" in 1994 with "14 million" shortly after. Not sure how you get "Genesis was manufactured until 1997" from a source that just says "They weren't manufacturing any more" as an explanation of declining sales in 1997. They could easily have not been making any more since 1995 and finally ran out of inventory in 1997. Anomie⚔ 01:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
18 million North America vs. 14 million US only (Canada and Mexico anyone?) But do please note how I've been saying it contradicts other North America sources, is clearly noted as "nearly" and how it's proof no cherry picking was happening with numbers etc.--SexyKick 02:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you have a point that it doesn't explicitly state the 18 million is in the US. OTOH, it doesn't explicitly state "North America" either, and the remainder of the article is clearly about the US only. Yet another case where it's too vague to be able to say anything useful about it. Anomie⚔ 20:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, a comment further above stated that both the NYT and Islandnet sources are considered reliable. That's fine, but the question remains whether there's any overlap between the two. If we have two reliable sources but no indication of whether they represent the same or overlapping statistics, we cannot reliably add their numbers together - that is still considered synthesis. Just thought I'd point that out. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When this was discussed on the original research board, there was no consensus regarding your view (or the opposing view).LedRush (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kiefer, the IslandNet source specifically states 14 million North American sales (15 left over for the rest of the world.) The New York Times says 20 million US, so there is no overlap at all there. The only overlap that comes into play, is how much of that 15 million is part of TecToy's 2 million (as of 2005, and they're still on sale from TecToy btw)--SexyKick 03:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we try and deal with concrete proposals, or are we too far away in theory for that? Arguing in the abstract can be helpful, but I don't know that this is getting us anywhere.LedRush (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Report the number that was sold and is quoted for purposes of 1994 data. If the RSes say its sales data, we can't assume its not and its only "units manufacturered". After that give data from sales and only using CALC when it can be clear to the average reader that there is no overlap.陣内Jinnai 15:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wording

I'll give it a try.

Sega has not released sales figures for the Mega Drive. Mainstream publications report total worldwide sales of 29–35 million as recently as 2009,[1][2][3] with sales in the United States of 14–20 million as recently as 1999,[4][5] although one source reports 29 million worldwide and 14 million US at the end of 1994.[6] These numbers may or may not include some or all sales by third parties licensed by Sega (e.g. Tectoy in Brazil) or sales of compatible devices such as the Sega Nomad.

Sources 1-3 I would pick IGN, GameTunnel, and Retro Gamer; 4 and 5 are EGM's 1999 buyer's guide and the NYT article; and 6 is the Man!ac magazine reference. This takes figures from the reliable sources and also includes mention of the dating issue. I've excluded any sales figures for Tectoy or Majesco since we have no WP:RS, and for the Nomad because it's not really relevant and makes little difference anyway. If we have to include calculated numbers at all, let's just go whole hog and state what is really going on here: "Fans assuming best-case figures have claimed totals as high as 40 million.[8]", or 42 million if we don't mind referencing Wikipedia itself.[9] Anomie⚔ 17:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. Miremare 18:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like an excellent start. I have three questions:
  • Why are we including the following phrase: although one source reports 29 million worldwide and 14 million US at the end of 1994
  • Do we have an indication that any of the sources have or have not included third party systems? Even if not, I would want that sentence tightened: It is unclear whether these numbers include sales by third parties licensed by Sega (e.g. Tectoy in Brazil) or sales of compatible devices such as the Sega Nomad.
  • If we found reliable sources for the sale of third party licensed machines, would you oppose their inclusion at the end of the last sentence?
Thank you for taking a first stab at this.LedRush (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I find the current note to be much more informative, and much more reflective of the sources than this suggestion. I suggest we stick to the current content note, add a part to state possible overlap between Tec Toy and the 29 million number, and use WP:calc to state the 38-40 million that SexyKick has suggested. I see an update to 1994/1995 numbers from NYT's as a clear, reliable update that Wikipedia would typically write in as 35 million total, and never look back (based on my experience from other editors adding numbers in other articles, such as box office movie sales totals.) It gets harder with the 3rd party sales, particularly TecToy, as it possibly has overlap. I see a potential 36-40 million as a compromise, even though there are more Majesco sales sources than Tec Toy's. This is wikipedia, and it is meant to inform.--BeastSystem (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the thing Anomie wrote is total crap from my point of view. He makes it sound like Majesco sales are included in the 20 million, and that it's a 14-20 million estimate for the US, when it's not. It's a 20 million estimate. And they're all estimates besides. It's an estimated 15 (29) million, 20 million, 2 million, 2 million, and well, they probably only made 1 million Nomads, so that could be the exception. I would prefer to stick to 38-40 million, as we know Majesco isn't included in any 29 million worldwide, or 20 million estimate, and it can be presented in a clear way readers can understand. The math is very basic right now, and anyone who reads the article comes to a 40 million conclusion, and has the option to chose whether their personal view includes third parties or not. I don't think it's honest to write "Units Sold: 29-40 million," instead I think it's honest to write "Units Sold: Estimated 38-40 million," in the infobox with a sales note, and content note saying
Sales note
1. Worldwide Sales
1st party: 35 million[cn 1]
3rd party: 4 million[cn 2]
Sega Nomad: 1 million[4]
Content notes
1. While Sega has never released a total sales figure for the Mega Drive, most sources agree that 29 million units were sold worldwide,
with 14 million of those in North America.[8] Other sources claim this total was already reached by 1995,[9] and there are sales figures for North America from the New York Times stating 20 million by 1998.[10]
2. Some estimate Majesco has sold 2 Million units of their Sega Genesis 3.[3] Some users also estimate TecToy has sold 2 million units of their own Mega Drives (as of August 31, 2005)[3],
although they are still being sold by TecToy, this number may partially overlap with the 29 million number that most sources agree on.
--SexyKick 01:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the 29m is probably inaccurate, but we can't just pretend it doiesn't exist since there is a more reputable source that disputes that. The best we can do to include 40m would be 29-40m and cite the problems with getting a more accurate number.陣内Jinnai 03:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Jinnai: The only way we can get 40 million is to add in unreliable sources that may overlap the other sources. We can get to 35 million from Retro Gamer (even though it's the high end of a very wide estimate and no other reliable source goes over 30.75 million) and by taking 15 million non-US from Man!ac (29 million total minus 14 million US) plus the 20 million US from NYT. Personally, I suspect that 20 million number comes from a Sega press release and is well on the high side, possibly includes sale of their remaining inventory to Majesco, and (in light of the 1995 "14 million US versus 18 million maybe-North America" issue raised above) maybe includes all sales by Sega of America (with "America" assumed to be "US"). Anomie⚔ 18:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@SexyKick: You might want to check your reading comprehension. I didn't mention Majesco at all in my proposed wording here. I personally find it completely dishonest to report a figure that does not exist in any reliable source except if prominently noting that it's calculated by assuming best-case numbers. Anomie⚔ 18:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@LedRush: "although one source reports 29 million worldwide and 14 million US at the end of 1994" is mainly to satisfy the fans who insist that all mainstream reliable sources must be inaccurate because that one source exists. We have no indication either way whether those sales are or are not included. If reliable sources really do turn up for third-party sales, I wouldn't be opposed to inclusion in the footnote. But I would oppose trying to WP:CALC a higher number unless it's 100% clear from the sources that the numbers do not include "compatible" devices and it is 100% clear there is no overlap. I see no need to mention sales of compatible non-Mega Drive/Genesis devices outside of the Mega Drive article itself. Anomie⚔ 18:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SexyKick, from your point of view I'm sure it is "crap", but from the point of view of someone who isn't trying to push an uncitable figure it's a compromise. It is citing a 14-20 million estimate for the US, as the sources after that line show. One for 14m and one for 20m, therefore estimating 14-20m. As for Majesco, it doesn't make it sound as if they're included, it specifically says that "these numbers may or may not include some or all sales by third parties licensed by Sega". So Majesco's may or may not be included. That's pretty clear isn't it?
Your version unacceptably presents sales of 40m as the accepted fact displayed in the infobox, while relegating the widely accepted and citable figure to a footnote. It should be the other way around, because we report what reliable sources say, and not one of the sources that states a total agrees with you. Anomie's version says all that needs to be said, and gives each position the weight it deserves. We don't need to overcomplicate things and we certainly don't need to push a figure that no reliable sources state ahead of one that they do. Miremare 18:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is what WP:Calc is here for though, unless everyone has been using this policy wrong throughout the existence of Wikipedia. Old numbers can be updated to become new numbers whether a source has the total number or not. So we can actually state 36 million because three reliable sources add up straight to that, ending with 36-40 million, with footnotes explaining. We also have a reliable source stating the 14/29 million came from 1994, so we have a timeline as well. Are Indrian and I the only ones that are thinking clearly? SexyKick, please accept this.--BeastSystem (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't some of the references to the 29 million post-date some of the other references that add up to the larger numbers?LedRush (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter. If they quote a date from 1994 for 2010, it doesn't make that date any more timely when sales were known to be continuing after 1994. It's still a 1994 figure. It would be different if sales stopped in 1994 or shortly into 1995, but we cannot assume there have been no sales since then since other sites seem to say otherwise.陣内Jinnai 21:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But they don't quote a 1994 figure (at least not explicitly). We have no way of knowing whether they have come up with this number through intense research or by merely checking Wikipedia or VGChartz or the 1994 source. I am not saying that the number is sacrosanct, but I don't think we can argue that they are wrong on their face and therefore do not deserve mention in the article. In my mind, even if wrong (which I believe it is), the 29-31 million number must be mentioned because of how heavily it is used by reliable sources. Just to be clear, this is not an indictment or vote of confidence for any one proposal currently on the board...merely my opinion.LedRush (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It does matter, because none of these numbers really have a strong claim to accuracy. Consensus in reliable sources is 29 million, maybe they really are using 1994 figures or maybe Man!ac magazine got inflated figures from Sega. We just don't know, so we should present all the reliable sources. As I mentioned somewhere before, for all we know the Man!ac number includes shipped-but-not-sold units which were sold over the next 3 years after Sega of Japan ended production in mid-1995. Anomie⚔ 00:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly lets stop this "Mainstream reliable sources" BS, The New York Times is a mainstream reliable source, Man!ac magazine is the longest running videogame magazine in Germany and is a reliable source, that Man!ac scan is a hell of a lot more reliable than the off hand mention of "over 14 million" in EGM, its properly dated, its sources are properly cited, its an article specifically about sales figure's (as opposed to a 1 page overview on the system as a whole), and its a similarly well respected publication.

there is no agreement between "mainstream reliable sources", so cut out this cynical attempt at weighting opinion towards IGN/Gamepro, IGN/Gamepro should be referred to simply as sources, no better of worse than NYT and Man!ac

Retrogamer stating 29-35 million does not "directly support" a figure of 29 million, Game Tunnel's figure does not directly back up IGN/Gamepro either as it states 30.7 million, neither does it state whether its counting 3rd party hardware sales.

There is not only "one" source in disagreement with the 14/29 million figure ALL sources prior to 1999 contradict it, there is literally not any sources that back it up from the time at all, all sources back up a US figure of somewhere in the region of 19-20 million excluding variations, the recent proliferation of the 14/29 million figure all took place within the last 5 years, prior to that the earliest figure's I run into stating that "total" is EGM, and Linux Format.

I've already posted these in the previous thread -

Man!ac Magazine (attributed to GFK, Robertson Stephens and Co, Computer Trade Weekly, and Sega stated 14 million and 29 million were both reached at the end of 1994

Newsday, Video Business, and Pittsburgh Post Gazzette all state that Genesis sales reached 15 million in the US early on in 1995

Note, unfortunately The Pittsburgh post is pay-per-view, it states "both consoles have sold 15 million apiece" the Video Business source can be read if you input your zip code and local library (type in "98362" chose the option which appears and make up an email address, it doesn't need a comfirmation email) video business states "Sega VP of marketing Bill White explains: "One is a peripheral, and one is the ultimate in gaming. The 32X offers the 15 million-plus Genesis owners a way to get affordably into 32-bit. From an economic standpoint for the consumer, it makes a lot of sense."

Obviously 1995 was still a strong year for 16-bit in the US, so sales are going to be much higher than 15 million, as posted before -

1. Over (unfortunately it doesn't give a precise figure) 2 million were sold in the US during 1995 in total - Business Wire

2. 1.1 million were sold during 1996 in total - Business Wire

By my counting that's at least 18.1 million US sales up till 1997 right? well, the March 1997 issue of EMEDIA states "the company still remains committed to the more than 18 million owners of the Genesis 16-bit cartridge system in the US" EMEDIA March 1997

3. 400,000 sold in 1997 - Business Wire

What's missing? well firstly these figures are rounded, so we have lost units both up till early 1995 (it was rounded down to 15 million) and for 1995 total (rounded to 2 million) we also have possible 1998 figures missing up until the New York Times article which was written in March.

So the separate sources add up to ~19 million, possibly more, possibly less depending on how much was rounded off and what early 1998 sales were like.

We also have the second total written on Islandnet (yes that source gives a completely different figure a few pages after the 14/29 million "total") the second figure states a total of 19 million in North America.

and of course there's the The New York Times and Electronic Times article's both stating 20 million excluding Majesco (who took over after these articles were published)

In regards to IGN/Gamepro "but they don't quote a 1994 figure" the problem is they don't quote anything at all, they just state a figure with no mentioning of where they found the information, look at the sources we've posted, Man!ac stating Sega as a source, from early 1995 "Sega VP of marketing.....15 million", and there's the European figure of 8 million in CVG attributed to Sega of Europe.

You guys say that the most recent figures should automatically take precedent, I'd like to know what exactly do you think IGN learned in 2009 about Mega Drive sales that Sega themselves didn't know in 1995?

Anomie, your theory about Sega manufacturing 14 million US/29 million World Genesis in 1994 telling Man!ac, and then taking the next few years to sell them through to consumers is flawed, had this been the case the sales wouldn't have carried on their logical climb (15 million in 1995, 20 million by 1998) now would they? the fact of the matter is that the Man!ac scan's US figure is backed up by both sources directly predating it which state 13 million Business Wire and directly after it which state 15 million (See above).

In regards to the addition of separate figures to reach a total, I'm not really sure how I feel about this tbh, i'd rather we had at least a total NA + Total Europe + total Japan + Total Others calculation. At the moment, correct me if I'm wrong but we're adding the US total, to the rest of the world as of 1994? Man!ac states 29 million world, 14 million US, subtract the US total and you have 15 million, re-add updated 22 million US (which includes Majesco), and add the Tec Toy 2 million, and Nomad 1 million numbers (which may of may not be already included in the Man!ac figures) to make 40 million.

Either way the "Routine Calculations" rule seems to state that editors have to be in agreement on the way that we perform the calculations, which many don't seem to be. Jesus.arnold (talk) 03:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. An amazing post.
I think more of us are in agreement than not in regards to adding to 36 million. Certainly at least four of us (Arnold, Beast, DreamFocus, myself...) support it, while only two directly oppose. Past that when it comes to third parties we're more splintered. Personally I want to add to 38 million no problem, which may be possible given the new reliable source below (at least 37-40 million.)
In more clarity for 20 million...
1989-1990: 1.2 million
1991: 1.6 million (if you can't read this article, taking the 1.5 million from the previous article is virtually the same anyway)
1992: 4.5 million
1993: 5.5 million
1994: over 4+ million
1995: over 2+ million
1996: 1.1 million
1997: 400,000 (20.3 million for those counting)
1998: Majesco Projects 1.5 million
1998: Majesco sells between 1 and 2 million (closest to a reliable source for support of 2 million)
Genesis 3 was still being sold in 1999, so it is very possible they hit the 2 million mark sourced from the Brazilian gaming news site (which happens to be the only source for TecToy, and which we can still note something like "Some journalists have claimed") I also think it is extremely likely the 30.75 million number takes Majesco's sales and adds them onto the 29 million number, giving Majesco 1.75 million exactly, but this is theory speak.
I think we could write in regional sales as well in the sales note, in addition to the way it was, like this.
Sales note
1. Worldwide Sales
   1st party: 35 million[cn 1]
   3rd party: 3-4.5 million[cn 2]
   Sega Nomad: 1 million[4]
     
   Regional Sales
   North America: 22.3-23.8+ million[cn1][Genesis: A New Beginning][4]
   Brazil: 2 million[3]
   Europe: 8 million[CVG]
   Japan: 3.58 million[GameSpy]
   Other: 3.42 million (possibly includes some portion of Brazil)
Content notes
1. While Sega has never released a total sales figure for the Mega Drive, most sources agree that 29 million units were sold worldwide, with 14 million of those in North America.[8][IGN][GamePro]
Other sources show this total was already reached by 1995,[9] and there is a detailed history of North American sales totaling 20.3+ million.[show/hide function with sources and info]
2. Majesco sold between 1 and 2 Million units of their Sega Genesis 3 by the end of 1998,[Genesis: A New Beginning] some fans claim as many as 2.5 million units were sold by the time of its discontinuation.[AAA]
Some journalists in Brazil claim Tec Toy has sold 2 million units of their own Mega Drives in Brazil (as of August 31, 2005.)[3] However, it is unknown if some of Tec Toy's sales are included in the initial figure of 29 million or not.
The system is still produced and sold by Tec Toy to this day.
We may or may not have to source to all of those sources I posted and just write in 20.3+ million instead, giving North America 22.3-23.3+ million, either way we still get 37.3-40.3 million.--SexyKick 05:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of adding to the existing discussion, a new one was started elsewhere. Why not just post a link to it instead? No one is going to read that much text anyway. Some newer sources still use outdated figures, they not looking too hard for a number, just seeing what others have published. That doesn't mean stats in places like the New York Times aren't valid, and since they seem to have actually done actual research, they are more reliable than any newer published article elsewhere. I agree with SexyKick, as I have stated before. There is no reason to doubt the New York Times, and adding in what they say for American sales, to what it says are known international sales, simple arithmetic is not original research. And these other systems were the same as the Mega Drive and should be included in the total, they just cheaper versions, but officially licensed by Sega, and running the same games. If there is any doubt then simply list the sales as 30-42 million, or whatever the lowest and the highest estimates are, and let people sort it out on their own, linked to the various sources in the reference section of the article. Do not however put a CN link in articles, instead of an actual number, that looking absolutely ridiculous. Dream Focus 09:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree almost entirely with what you say, but I do believe we should hold some accuracy and knowledge to the estimate. We know 42 million is extremely doubtful for instance, as the source for "nearly 18 million" is just being overly positive, inaccurate, and we have the detailed data that lets us accurately, reliably hit 20.3 million (instead of the 21.5 needed for 42 million.) So 42 million is out, and 40.3+ million is the highest we should write. According to WP:Calc we're sure we can add in reliable data, I do believe that if we write out the detailed North American history sales (which are all from reliable sources,) we can safely write in "Units Sold: Estimated 37.3-40.8+ million" (3.5 million difference is actually a true estimate, unlike 29-40.8+ which would more accurately be written as 29 or 37.3-40.8+ million, an 11.8 million difference, which is just ridiculous) with a footnote explaining the calculations, first party, 3rd party, regional sales, etc. making the proper note for TecToy's source stating it is possible overlap, and just "some journalists claim" rather than state it as simple fact. For Majesco's 2.5 million note that "some fans claim" since the Majesco numbers do not account for 1999's sales (they explicitly note "by the end of 1998") Then the explanations for every number, and the 3.5 million difference in the estimate is as detailed and truthfully accurate as possible. I have tweaked the content note proposal to reflect this.--SexyKick 22:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, i think a higher number than 29m is definatly more accurate, however, we cannot just simply "ignore" those sources since it'll continue to be an issue. We have to use the 29m somewhere, even if its a footnote.陣内Jinnai 23:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly do not mind using it in a footnote, that's what I mean to address when the content note says "most sources agree 29 million." Can you post your version of my content note so I can understand what you mean?--SexyKick 23:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summary?

Does someone with a decent claim to objectivity want to try to summarize the above and see if we have anything approaching consensus? It seems to me personally that, besides the "diehard Sega fan" faction, there is no support for WP:CALCulating any specific number higher than 35 million. I also note that SexyKick has already declared victory (apparently ignoring the input of many above) and edited the Mega Drive article to prominently claim 38-40 million, and IMO violating WP:OR and/or WP:SYN in an attempt to explain away the 29 million figure. Anomie⚔ 16:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems him and Jin had a talk here, I count 7 to 2 for consensus. WP:Calc clearly states this is not Syn, or OR. I think if you read what is written with a clear mind you'll see all is right.
It also seems you have quite a large deal of bias in your writing, it doesn't state 38-40 million at all, it specifically says estimate from 37.3-40.8, and clearly states "estimates range from 29 million to over 40.8 million" in the introduction, before explaining all in the citations. 37.3 is all from reliable sources, I clearly see you have no intention of being neutral here.--BeastSystem (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately SexyKick has been claiming consensus while ignoring or blankly contradicting anyone who disagrees with him for as long as this has been an issue, making it pretty much impossible to actually discuss. This approach makes a compromise like the one you suggested earlier pretty much impossible, and I think his recent edits to the Mega Drive page confirm he has no interest in either compromise or neutrality. And I note with amusement the comment regarding neutrality above. Could always RFC I suppose, but I'm pretty sick of the whole thing. I reckon just let the fanboys and SPAs sweep the inconvenient sources away into a content note and have their synthetic 40m, or whatever number they're claiming at the moment, in the infobox. Miremare 20:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My stance is just that I do not believe we should be quoting the 29m when there is enough evidence to question that. As for what figure, I'm remaining neutral with regard to what figure above 29m to quote.陣内Jinnai 22:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm insulted honestly. "Diehard Sega fan faction" I am not. When did I fall into a faction? Aren't I just another Wikipedia editor?? My user name itself is based on a move from Super Smash Bros. Melee, and I recently reverted a "pro Sega" edit on the SNES article. BeastSystem may be (and sounds like) a Sega fan, but what does that have to do with the situation really? Is DreamFocus a "Diehard Sega fan" ? No. Is Arnold? No. Is Indrian? No.
You both ignore everything that the other editors state, and then another editor or myself needs to restate the entire situation explaining it again to either of you, only for you to further ignore, or ambiguously state sources as possibly maybe not making sense to yourselves.
Neither of you have to believe the sources, or timeline presented from such sources, that's why there's a footnote explaining and separating all the numbers, sources, and information. You're both obviously bias against believing the 1995 29 million data, both against the North American timeline as far as I can tell, and you're the only two who think WP:CALC is original research.
Either way, Anomie, your first paragraph here chooses to ignore sources, and states false information. I find it dishonest and manipulative, and I am very disappointed in you.--SexyKick 23:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. There is enough bad blood going around here that its becoming hard for some to assume good faith. Maybe we should step back and get a 3rd opinion]] on what sources can be used specifically (we already asked about calc in general).陣内Jinnai 23:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really need a 3rd opinion when consensus is already so lopsided? I'm sorry it's getting hard for me to assume good faith here, but Jin, are you a diehard Sega fan? LedRush didn't edit the Genesis article until he saw the discussion at the No Original Research board, Indrian came from nowhere, DreamFocus started the whole thing after he saw the Fourth Generation article and used WP:Calc to write in 40 million. That's four of you that are completely non-bias. I claim to have no strong preference of one system over the other, I love the 16-bit generation as a whole, and I just want both systems to get fair nuetral treatment. The Super NES already does, but the moment anyone comes to the Genesis article with reliable sources of contradicting data from that which is in the article (usually unsourced or a source no one can read on the internet) it's almost always reverted. Miremare and Anomie are simply not going to believe this is anything except for Synthesis, and Original Research, and it's completely OK for them to believe that, because it isn't Synthesis according to policy.
Anomie and Miremare have taken the topic here in order to get a 3rd opinion already. Before it was 2 to 2, Anomie+Miremare against Arnold and I. The more places they take it, the more anti-29 million stances they find. It's just like running around in court in the USA. Appeal to another judge, appeal to another judge, appeal to another judge.
No facts change based on this new data. The Genesis still came in second, there is simply more numbers to go off of now, and they further cement the Genesis as being the second place runner of the fourth generation. Why have an issue with WP:CALC unless you're trying to keep the numbers down for some unknown reason? No statements need to be changed anywhere, just numbers.--SexyKick 23:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's better if I just address this from another perspective.
"IMO violating WP:OR and/or WP:SYN in an attempt to explain away the 29 million figure."--Anomie
The sources (all sales number sources) have "explained" 29 million away through simple arithmetic. Addition specifically. Per WP:CALC simple arithmetic is allowed.
We easily get "more than" 37.3-38.3 by adding all the reliable sources through that simple arithmetic, and then we just have Tec Toy's questionable source (noted as "Some journalists in Brazil claim" as well as possible overlap being noted) and Majesco's fan source (noted as "Some fans claim as many as 2.5 million units were sold by the time of (Genesis 3's) discontinuation.") Together these make the estimate "Estimated from 37.3 to over 40.8 million"--SexyKick 23:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't participated in this debate and now it's a a bit long, so I'm reyling on what I have read and my memory form last week. My apologies in advance if my questions have been addressed and I forgot or didn't see them. That being said, I had trouble seeing how how this is a simple case WP:CALC was supposed to work and "Some fans estimate" does not sound like WP:RS to me. Can the calculation be explained instead of implied in the text? The fact that an estimated range is calculated implies that it's more complicated than just adding one set of numbers. If enough editors are questioning the calculation, it is almost certainly not simple enough for an unexplained calculation. Even above, I can't figure which specific what numbers are being added. Why does it matter if a figure is out of date if it is the best source we have; we're in the business of reporting sources, not interpreting them. I agree data should be the best available and that it almost certainly is more than 29 million, but this sounds like it should be the job of a third party source to verify and compute the numbers. I could understand adding reliable figures with clear boundaries on what is being counted, but fan guesses and numbers with hazy bounding parameters make this difficult to understand. Can we just put that x units were sold/made by Sega, x units by Majesco, etc.? —Ost (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute on The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past & Four Swords

There has been dispute and edit warring at this article, with editors, after a consensus formed against merging, merging regardless. This is also in light of the fact that the article has expanded significantly, including the only section that was in dispute about its possible expansion, the Development section. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't a consensus to not merge or to keep it seperate.陣内Jinnai 03:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is irrelevant. If there was no consensus to merge, then my point still stands that it should be taken seriously and a merge should not be done until consensus is sought. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The two users involved in the edit war, Prime Blue and New Age Retro Hippie, are both blocked for 6 hours for edit warring. Should we open a merge discussion at Talk:The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past while tagging the ALTTP article and the ALTTP&FS article if it is necessary to gain a clear consensus or not? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it probably needs to happen sooner rather than later.陣内Jinnai 04:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then. I am going to place a merge tag on both articles and start discussion there. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion is here if anyone is interested. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last month, this article had the Four Swords merged into this article without gaining consensus. Today, two editors have edit warred and both have been blocked for 6 hours. I am proposing that we should merge the article with the four swords article. Does anyone have comments or objections over this proposal? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only one I can think of is that the Game Boy Advance copy includes Four Swords, which is a seperate game that may have unique development and gameplay information. I'll let you decide if it's unique enough to warant a merge. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 05:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This whole argument strikes me as a pointless waste of time, but, for what it's worth, the article really doesn't establish itself as a different-enough entity to warrant a separate article. It should probably be merged, just to end the controversy. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 08:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree. Different people were involved in its creation, and it has an entirely new mode of play that is independent of anything found in A Link to the Past. Another fact is that the reception added to the article is not even near half of what exists for the game. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 10:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A different entity? i think if there are enough to show the difference and rather independent from each other, than they could. But if there isn't, then i guess we can't do anything about it. I think if the gameplay was refed and development expanded it could.Bread Ninja (talk) 11:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While development is important, it is not the end-all be-all. Super Mario 64 DS relies largely on impressions and updated information to fill its development section, which this article does as well. Both articles can be noted as relying on reception, as any new content can be summed up pretty easily, which includes mini-games, new characters (something that takes somewhat more to help readers understand, mind you), new abilities, and new levels. One thing to demonstrate the difference is how several video game journalists, before and after the release, noted Four Swords as "as important" or even more so than the single player portion. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 12:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose merge - Lack of Development coverage alone is no basis whatsoever for a merge. If a subject is notable, it's notable. If the development of Four Swords didn't receive much coverage, but it has plenty of other coverage to cover other sections there's no reason whatsoever to merge. --Teancum (talk) 13:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will say one final thing here. The creator/main editor of the article has given us a textbook case of when to ignore all rules. The article clearly has the significant coverage to stand on its own - following the core principles of WP:N and WP:RS, which trump any WikiProject Video Games consensus. Again, I find it completely backwards that the project's specific guidelines state what they do. I see the general idea behind it in that not every port deserves an article, but clearly this game has received significant coverage to pass WP:GNG, which once again trumps our guidelines. --Teancum (talk) 14:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the discussion and pointed the tags to this place as it will get more attention from the project this way. Hope that's okay (I copied and pasted your post over the current one, Teancum, please change it back if you like the other version). Prime Blue (talk) 13:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge – As has been mentioned in the previous discussion, WikiProject Video games has specific guidelines that prohibit article splits of this kind: If you can verify enough information to write a non-stub section about the distinct reception of a video game remake, as well as a non-stub section about its distinct game development or design, then the remake will qualify for its own article. No detailed sources exist that would detail development to expand this section beyond stub status. Adding to that is the fact that the entirety of Four Swords can be explained in one paragraph (taking into consideration that the gameplay section of the separate article relies a lot on WP:GAMEGUIDE-like facts) and that reception of the port has to be addressed in the A Link to the Past article anyway to fulfill the broad coverage criterion for a good article. A split would be a lot easier to justify here if there was enough unique content beyond reception. Prime Blue (talk) 13:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If an article has enough content to be spun off as a notable unit, then it's a candidate for a merge, but that doesn't mean we have to split them off. Right now I see the current article as being good enough as a basis for a good article; I think we're better off having one good article compared to two mediocre ones. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's somewhat true, if an article is too big, then it can be spun off. But argument of having to, isn't really necessary. Also did you look carefully to link to the past? that article is already GA, so no, it's not 1 GA > 2 mediocre. merging could possibly do some harm, i suggest we keep the current one, and expand on it.Bread Ninja (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying to mesh ALttP with ALttP/FS I'm just saying that we don't have to force an artificial divide. I'm not a fan of pages that smash unrelated reception info into another article, but I'm saying we're better with the title article containing aspects of one more than repeating content across pages. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge - While I think the article could survive either way, there should be enough sources found to establish notability. I don't get why Development info has to be a requirement. Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge - per the comments of Blake. Vaste reception section should be enough to indicate that this article is notable. Small development section shouldnt be used as a reason to merge. Salavat (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge Ports and re-releases are never, ever notable enough to have their own article, unless there is extensive original information (and I do mean original) regarding development, major and significant changes to gameplay, and reception, or it is part of a seperate compilation release. The particular re-releases that would fit this criteria are rare, and this port is definitely not one of them. If an article has to regurgitate most of the information from another article, then there is something seriously wrong. The only time we should consider a seperate article, beyond that, is for remakes that have been created from scratch. In these cases, the remake is inherently a completely seperate and independent game from the original that has simply been made to be similar to the original work (e.g. Pokemon FireRed and LeafGreen is not the same actual game as Pokemon Red and Blue). And even then, it's not worth it unless there's enough significant information to fill out a comprehensive and detailed article. There are a fair few articles of a similar situation that I think should be merged as well (Pokemon Platinum, for example, is by far the worst offender, the topic of which simply being a third variation of the exact same game). I'm certainly dreading the inevitable Ocarina of Time 3D article. I really would like to see a more strict guideline established on this though. As has been said above, we should not be forcibly splitting articles like this. The merged article covers the information perfectly well, and is a much stronger article than the two seperate ones. --Dorsal Axe 16:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm curious as to your objection to Pokémon Platinum. Are you arguing that the development section is weak and lacks anything separating it from its predecessors'? Are you arguing that the reception is weak, or redundant to its predecessors'? Are you arguing that it doesn't have enough features to discuss to the point where the Gameplay section is particularly dominated by content not unique to it? Or are you merely arguing that it being a remake with similar visuals and mechanics makes it not worthy of an article on video game remake bias rather than whether it is big enough to warrant an article? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • First of all, I completely dispute calling that game an "enhanced remake". Nothing about the game has even remotely been "remade", and it's a completely inaccurate term that should be changed to something along the lines of "enhanced re-release". It's the same base, same code, with minor additions and changes.
Secondly, yes I do think the development section is weak. Very weak at that. I think most of the info in the article is wholly redundant and what is actually unique to the Platinum article could easily be merged into Pokemon Diamond and Pearl. The reception section would be much stronger in the other article, as commentary could be provided comparing the critical reaction to the changes and improvements in Platinum compared to the reaction to the original releases. It would make for a much stronger article, having comparisons made between both, and avoid having two articles that are mostly very much the same in the process.
Thirdly, don't even dare start accusing people of bias. I simply think that articles based on "remakes" are not automatically notable enough for a seperate article, and only oppose them simply because they usually end up being largely the same as the original article, bar a few unique paragraphs on additional features. I feel this kind of split only weakens the original article, and devoids us of the chance to create a strong, unique article. If a split is to be made, there should be a very good reason for it, and enough good original content there to ensure that the article can and will develop to the highest standard of Wikipedia. I don't feel that both that Platinum and Four Swords are one of these instances. --Dorsal Axe 16:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's go down the development section. First paragraph discusses the designer attempting to change the "most important things," and that since he considered Diamond and Pearl to be the ultimate games in the series, he had to surpass that. Unique development info in first paragraph. Second paragraph we see an entire paragraph dealing with the design of the cover Pokémon, as well as incorporations of concepts such as anti-matter and the theory of relativity, as well as the myth of Reverse Mt. Fuji. It also deals with their attempts at improving communication. Not one sentence in this paragraph is redundant to anything in the original games' article. The third paragraph deals with the name origin, as well as making the story more approachable. And finally, it discusses the modification of Gym Leaders' Pokémon to make more sense to the game. And in the release section, we see a pretty decent coverage of how Nintendo promoted this game. The entire Development section is well-referenced and has nothing redundant about it. I would wager that in the case of most remakes, merging would help the parent article as well. In the case of Super Mario 64 DS, would Super Mario 64 not benefit from it being merged? Wouldn't a comparison of each game's reception help people better understand? It would, but clearly not to the point where the good of merging outweighs the bad of losing a quality article. And going outside of reception, sales, release, and development, we see clearly that the amount of content that is even remotely redundant to Diamond and Pearl are the story and setting section and part of the gameplay section. But even then, the story section has unique information on the enhancements and changes to the plot and overworld, while the gameplay section has a paragraph detailing all of the new gameplay. Even if you removed all of the redundant information, the content has asserted notability and is demonstratively very large, too large to comfortably fit in the original games' article. Diamond and Pearl is so far beyond weak that it blows my mind. The notion that Diamond and Pearl's development and reception requires Platinum information is insane. You look at the two articles and you see one thing - that Platinum uses far more widespread sources. The fact of the matter is that currently, the Diamond and Pearl article is not even close to having all the reception that one could find from the Reliable Source Search, Google Books, and Google News. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and question: In regard to some of the comments above, development info is needed for comprehensiveness of the topic. While other games can exist as a stand-alone article, not every game is a derivative topic of another topic. Taking that into account, we have to keep content forking in mind when writing about remakes.
    Retro Hippie- do you think you could further expand the article? The article is a good start, and I think very close to meeting the threshold. But the development info is still rather sparse; it has maybe half of the content that SM64DS has. Could you expand the development section and clean up the structure in about a week? If so, then I think we can put this matter on hold until then. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment - Maybe I'm misunderstanding Wikipedia:Content forking, but it states "Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork." To me that says to separate and distinct games are not forks. Rather, a fork would be a totally separate article on X-Men (arcade game) based on the Xbox Live/PSN releases, which do nothing more than add online play and enhanced menus. --Teancum (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The guideline doesn't forbid such splitting, but urges editors to keep unnecessary redundancy in mind. The example given in the guideline was for two different individuals that shared a life together. Remakes are different and because of that, we came up with our own guideline to deal with them. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
      • If its a complaint about the content forking link it can be changed to something like WP:AVOIDSPLIT
  • (Jumping back in the conversation) That's not going to do any good. It's essentially the same essence as content forking. No, the issue lies in the fact that the article already has 23 independent sources - pulling out the "most anticipated" links and any links related to sequels still yields ~18 links or so, most related to IGN, which tells me that if one site has covered it that well that there should be plenty of coverage. --Teancum (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Anyway as before, I strong support merge because reception alone is not enough to note something as district otherwise we begin to spin out tons of articles whose on significant difference is how people "perceive" it. I am tempted to overhaul WP:Notability (video games) for proposal and submit it for revierw because people seem to think just about any port, remake or expansion that gets 2 separate sources talking about it is notable and that release dates and new team members are good enough to qualify for decent development listing.陣内Jinnai 18:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • WEll i also think that reception alone isn't enough, (unless mention significance between the new version). This isn't just a port, it's a remake, and it's not just a remake, it's an expanded version. that along of course isn't enough for notability, but considering it's a ported expanded version of the original that was made while back, i would say that there must be some other coverage on it out there to make it more notable than it already is. But if anything, i suggest clean up the article first before anything or if those willing to, look up some sources.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • That would be nice, but often for remakes is much harder, if not impossible. Most of the commentary that usually occurs is just about how they added stuff or updated graphics, etc, which is basically handled by adding a bit more to the gameplay. Of course there's always the few that have a lot more detail, but in general budgets for remakes are lower so their isn't as much to talk about for development and the media usually doesn't walk to interview someone about a remake when they can ask about the newest thing.陣内Jinnai 18:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is definitely possible, and hard depends on how hard you look. Explaining the new features is what makes it independent, the only thing is if one is willing to merge it and remove that content. I say clean up the article first, such as sourcing what is unsourced, and removing stuff that can't be sourced. the simple things. From there we decide to merge or not merge.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • If they say "We added X" and then go on to describe how X works and not how they came about it, then other than "We added X" there is nothing to add to a development section. The rest is gameplay. Trying to do otherwise is WP:OR.陣内Jinnai 15:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is the fact that this isn't just some port or remake, but is a port with a new multi-player game added which makes it a completely different game. This wasn't packaged like "The Legend of Zelda" or "Adventure of Link" were when they were re-released for GBA. The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords was a new game. Maybe if enough information is found, it should just get its own article instead of the port. The official website says This Game Pak is really two games in one: A Link to the Past and Four Swords.... The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past is a massive adventure game which challenges a young boy named Link to save his native land of Hyrule.... The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords is a unique multiplayer game for two to four players. [10] Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that's getting into semantics. At it's heart, I think most would agree that the game is a remake, albeit with great new features. Regardless, I think we should see what can be done about the small development section. If that can be expanded, then that would end the discussion. If time is needed to accomplish this, then I think it'll best serve every one to see what else can be done and put things on hold. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

On that note, I'd like to say that trade show appearances of a game except for the first one do not necessarily help the development section (that same problem also plagues Super Mario 64 DS) since they have little to do with development: we need information on the creation of the story, characters, gameplay etc. Prime Blue (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VG/GL#Essential content: Specifically for articles about games, it is essential to explain how the game was made. Prime Blue (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't saying it is "bad" information, but that it really isn't "Development", but more "Release"/"Promotion", right? I put that there cause usually Release/Promotion sections are a part of the Development section in some way. Blake (Talk·Edits) 00:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think every public or trade show appearance is notable (for example the TV Kumamoto's TKU 15th Day one that just tells us "it was there"), but basically, yes, it would fit a promotion section better if it doesn't detail the actual development. The problem, though, is that there is not even enough to create such a section... Prime Blue (talk) 05:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge, I was looking and found an interview by Game Informer where Eiji Anouma (or however you spell his name) regards ALTTP/Four Swords GBA as a different game from the original LttP and FSA. [11] The interview was done by Billy Berghammer (who has a history in video gaming journalism), the only issue I see is that people will probably ad hominem the interview to death considering it's on an iffy site. If the games were linked like Oracle of Seasons and Ages, sure i'd see a reason to merge but Eiji said it himself, ALttP/FS GBA was done by an entirely different person than himself. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 04:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The interview itself is fine. It's just that it isn't contested that it is a separate game, it is the lack of unique content beyond reception, most notably development, that makes a split hard due to the above-mentioned guidelines. And I think they make a lot of sense: If it wasn't for that guideline, we would have articles on every enhanced port of a game because each one normally has received substantial critical reception. Think about Link's Awakening DX, for example: Easily enough reception, but next to no information about development – splitting that off would just result in one incomplete and one very lackluster article. Prime Blue (talk) 05:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between LA and LADX is one dungeon - which warrants no discussion outside of its dungeon - and colour enhancements. The difference between the Super NES ALttP and ALttP/FS is an entirely new mode that doesn't even run on the same engine as ALttP. There is clearly unique content - the plot summary and gameplay descriptions of FS are unique to this article and this article alone. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Releases/promotion is not a part of development. What they say in there can be about its development, but the act of promoting something is not part of its development.
That "new mode" can also be summed up in 1 paragraph. It would be similar to if we split The Answer from Persona 3 because the remake added a whole new story that didn't use the same gameplay mechanics and whatnot as the original, but was still a part of the game's experience. Instead its not because even though FES got a lot of unique critism and there was some development info on it, The Answer was still just a part of the same game experience like 4 swords is. Both The Answer and 4 Swords are seperate games, but they are meant to played together with the main game on each as both compliment the respective main game in different ways.陣内Jinnai 15:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it doesn't deal specifically with the creation of the game, I don't think promotion material should be discounted. Promotion is not development, but it has traditionally been included in development sections because it outlines part of the topic's history. If it gets too large, then another section is created. If not, it stays in the most relevant section. Development and reception sections were added to our articles to present some history of the game; otherwise, they read like game guides. That being said, I believe that promotion content serves that history aspect. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Promotional material had been lumped with development info for the same reason impact and legacy is lumped with reception. They aren't the same, but there usually isn't enough of one to justify its own seperate section.陣内Jinnai 19:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I expanded it some more. Is this version sufficient? (Guyinblack25 talk 16:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Over half that seems to be release info, the kind of thing we were saying doesn't count. If you remove that you just have a stub section.陣内Jinnai 19:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated above, I disagree that promotion info is irrelevant to the development of a game as it is marketing history. Many of our quality articles include marketing information in development sections.
Regardless, dividing at the game's first appearance at E3 2002, both portions are 8 sentences with around the same word count. I do not consider an 8 sentence paragraph a stub section. Granted, I would love to see more content there, but I'd say the current version meets the threshold established by our past consensus. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
I agree on both counts - promotion is very much a part of development, and two eight-sentence paragraphs do not equal a stub. --Teancum (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Explain then how does a promotion help the "development" (not the exposure) of a game? They are 2 seperate things. Most of that info goes in a "Release" section. I would also say that many of the FA articles we have are pre-2007 when standards were much lower and even those that aren't, a lot of those are a combination because the release info is too short. Beyond the initial release for each region and maybe any major delays you don't even need to list anything and indeed listing too many re-release dates put undue weight on those later re-releases.陣内Jinnai 20:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the two are different. However, I don't think that is any reason to discount the historical aspect of the information. We include development info because we need a history section about the topic. There is nothing wrong with combining sections when one or more is too small. We do this with reception and legacy (both post-release history) and plot and gameplay (both description content) in many of our articles. I would categorize this issue more as an improper section label rather than inappropriate content.
I also agree that we should avoid undue weight. However, I don't think we've created undue weight in this article.
Regardless, the article now has 8 sentences of "regular" development content. I would not categorize that as a stub section. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
I would still disagree that the split -as it stands- is justified. The info is largely about Four Swords, not LttP. There is nothing new with that game; indeed they just say that one is a port. The whole argument by NARH is that Four Swords is a seperate game not really connected to LttP and as such we should treat it like that - A seperate article for that, but not the LttP port.陣内Jinnai 00:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not following - LttP is part of the cartridge. It will only confuse the reader to omit that, and reviewers and critics would treat it as one game, not two. --Teancum (talk) 00:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Break

I would have to say, that this gone far enough. what exactly would you say would be enough to keep these two split?Bread Ninja (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - for those supporting a merge, please be extremely definitive as to what the Development section needs to remain. "Significant coverage" doesn't seem to be good enough to make a consensus here, as clearly everyone disagrees. --Teancum (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've already said my piece and right now I'd support only a partial merge.
In order for me to not even support that, I'd need to see a well developed pragraph that talks about non-release/non-promotional info about LttP aspect.
And yes, just because they are on the same cart doesn't mean we treat them as one. We don't treat compliations that way even if they get reviewed as such (and the few we still have are just holdovers that need to be merged into their respective articles), FE Final Fantasy Chronicles should eventually be merged into Final Fantasy IV and Chrono Trigger and made into a disambig page.陣内Jinnai 03:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As for merging the Final Fantasy Chronicles article, should we discuss a merger there if there is any possible way we can split this? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In response to an above comment, I've never argued that FS is not connected to ALttP. Accomplishing specific things in both games enhances each other. And as demonstrated, the FS series has strong links to ALttP - its sequel reuses sprites and background elements from ALttP, but enhanced visually (another example is how Ganon in FSA uses the same design as ALttP Ganon). While the latter content is not usable as evidence but merely there to demonstrate the SERIES link, the gameplay link is good enough. The reviews are not about Four Swords, they are about a game that contains it. Four Swords was created especially for this package - it would be like considering Professor Layton and the Specter's Flute a compilation game; or Super Mario Advance 4: Super Mario Bros. 3 a compilation game; or Metroid Prime a compilation game; having two games that are very unique from each other does not make them a compilation of games. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand why this is such a hugely controversial issue. Why does it matter so much whether it's merged or left the way it is? The readers surely wouldn't care if, due to redundancy issues, material about the original Four Swords is moved entirely to the Four Swords Adventures article. But then, they don't care that they're currently separated, either. It seems ridiculous to argue so much about this when more pressing matters are at hand, like how the project's FTs have been dropping like flies over the last year and a half—including one on The Legend of Zelda series. If we were arguing about that, then I could understand this excess. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 09:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not to compare the two things - obviously different issues - but that argument is as legitimate as "why debate homosexual rights when we could debate minority rights?". I'm sorry that this discussion is bad because you have not raised these more important issues outside of deriding other discussions because they exist and not the ones you want to exist (but are apparently not proactive enough to form them). - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, you're making a mountain out of a mole hill. In what way is the article status of an expanded re-release of a Zelda game equivalent to the fight for homosexual rights? That typifies this entire argument: an irrelevant, minor dispute made out to be an epic struggle, on par with the Odyssey. In response to your statement, however, I'd like to say that I was illustrating the distorted priorities of the project; I was not demanding that such discussions as I mentioned be made, but giving an example of how the project has more-or-less ignored other, more critical problems as damage was being done, while deciding that this matter is of the utmost importance. Also, I'd recommend avoiding direct character judgments in the future. You're angry, sure, but we're criticizing ideas; not people. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 10:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because it's the exact same argument. I responded to the point you just made before you made it - by saying that this matter is clearly not the equivalent to homosexual rights. Your argument is. You are basically telling us that discussing this topic is bad because there are more important things to discuss. The fact of the matter is that this discussion could very well change the guideline on video game remakes. The dispute is clearly about remakes with ALttP/FS as a focal point of the discussion. Also, there's a difference between "angry" and "annoyed by trolling." - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 10:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • DO we have a consensus or not? because it's getting us no where to aargue like this. Regardless, i think the article should be kept at least for the pure reason of content forking.Bread Ninja (talk) 11:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, NARH, you did not respond to my argument before I made it. The point is that "homosexual rights vs. minority rights" is a major issue vs. a major issue, while "Zelda article status vs. crumbling WikiProject foundations" is a tiny, tiny issue vs. a major issue. I am trying to illustrate, and, hopefully, to end this pointless argument that has been taking up all of the project's time. Accusing me of trolling—when, in fact, I am attempting to help—is a blatant disregard for AGF that I really, truly do not appreciate. We're all here to improve the project, and that "us against the rest" mentality is completely unhelpful to anyone. And, honestly, I highly doubt that this discussion will reform any of our guidelines; it's too specific a case to apply to other games. How many remakes contain a new, influential game tacked on to them? That's the only reason this has lasted as long as it has, and it's just about the only case of this ever happening. The point is, we're wasting our time. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • There is one thing I think that has come out of this. I think we may want to develope a layout formula that defines what is what. People are confusing release and promotion with development. I think developing that into a MOS with some kind of structure (we already have a basic one of what goes where) and how to combine them there isn't enough.陣内Jinnai 22:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd definitely like to see something along these lines, with a more strict focus on actual developer comments for the development section rather than relying on reviewers of the game or general articles with assertions, or the staff credits alone (it is true that one could write even two entire, verbose paragraphs based on the staff credits of a game, but the people involved mostly still tell us little about the development). These kinds of sources are possibly appropriate to add some material, but I don't think a development section should rely too heavily on them, let alone be based on them. Prime Blue (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Development is starting to look better now, but there is still some pretty wishy-washy stuff in there: For example "The company designed the multi-player portion to force cooperation between players in order to progress", taken from a comparison article to Four Swords Adventures without developer comments, over a year after the release. Same with "The developers designed the levels to adjust the puzzles to the number of players participating; if two or four players are connected, then a puzzle will require two and four characters, respectively, to complete it", which would fit the gameplay section better. Or "Four Swords differs graphically from the other portion and features a style similar to The Wind Waker, which was released around the same time", another assertion as part of a review. Overall, more direct developer comments would be needed here, with a bigger focus on the actual creation of the game: how was it decided to make a port of A Link to the Past in conjunction with a multiplayer game, how was the team assembled, why were specific design choices made? Information on the game design, creation of characters/art style/story/etc. There are three Japanese guide books and Nintendo Dream issue 124 (year 2004) has an interview with Hidemaro Fujibayashi. That would be the first place to look for some solid information. Prime Blue (talk) 13:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few things
  • In regards to Four Swords:
    • The whole "these are two separate games" thing strikes me more as a marketing phrase that was mentioned more by the developers. As Retro Hippie mentioned above, the games are very much linked as actions in one effects content in the other. Also, the Four Swords portion is only four dungeons. It is not like Castlevania Double Pack, which literally contained two separate games.
    • While I agree that the development content is not where it should be for FA standards, I'd say it meets the standards we've allowed for GAs. Also, developer interviews are not required to write a development section. Per WP:PRIMARY, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources."
      • Playing Devil's advocate (albeit in my favor), how do you know the writers didn't speak with the developers at one point to obtain those comments? Also, how do you know that they are not knowledgeable enough to reverse engineer the gameplay mechanics? The site is a reliable source for a reason. If IGN and GameSpot is only allowed for opinions, then a number of our articles are incorrectly using the sites' content.
    • Regardless, I believe the article, while not perfect, meets the criteria previously established by past consensus. If this thread has shifted to the validity of that consensus, then perhaps a new, separate discussion is necessary below.
  • A number of comments have been made regarding the content of development sections. If Wikipedia:VG/GL#Essential content is going to be held to such a stringent level, then a project-wide sweep of our GAs and FAs (mine and others') is needed because I know that a great number of them do not meet that level. Again, perhaps a new, separate discussion is necessary below.
  • I do not think FF Chronicles should be merged as the content there meets some of the more stringent criteria mentioned above as an argument to merge Four Swords.
(Guyinblack25 talk 15:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Well TBH, considering how many old FAs we have, reviewing them for Wikipedia:VG/GL#Essential content and other issues that have changed is probably a good thing.
As for the development section, I did a quick overview assuming those in this project would know better than to try and use review sources as development info, or info from other games to validate this one and the like, but if that is the case I'd have to retract my support for even a partial split.陣内Jinnai 16:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that developer interviews are among the best source for development sections. I find them to be invaluable for many of my articles. However, Wikipedia's guidelines allow for other reliable sources beside straight from the horse's mouth. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
It depends on the context. What the 3rd party ones are being used for is comparison, not development info. That goes in the reception area. Otherwise using it here as fact for development is point-of-view issue.陣内Jinnai 21:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I think that to assume everything written in a review or editorial is opinion is a generalization. For the most part it's true, but there are exceptions. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to use reviews to source gameplay sections either. Granted one should be careful when selecting what to use where, but that just takes experience and good judgment.
The content I took from the IGN articles explicitly talked about developer decisions.
  • From Legend of Zelda: Sword-to-Sword
    • Wiki: "The company designed the multi-player portion to force cooperation between players in order to progress."
    • IGN: "Capcom took the time to specifically design a multiplayer game that required you to cooperate with your teammates"
  • From Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past
    • Wiki: "The developers designed the levels to adjust the puzzles to the number of players participating."
    • IGN: "What's more, the game design is intelligent enough to only offer dungeon designs with the amount of players in the network in mind. So, even though the game allows for up to four players to cooperate and compete in the dungeons, the designers realized that this wouldn't always be the case."
I was careful to evaluate the source and take verifiable information that fit into a specific section of an article. Is it scrapping together bits of similar content together to write a section? I would certainly say yes. Is it misrepresenting the topic or misusing sources? I don't believe so. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
It's important that you do not state this information as fact, however; frame it with a line like, "IGN believed that the company...". Whenever there's doubt about whether a source is stating a fact (the developers did this) or an impression (the developers seem to have done this), always frame it as an impression. Otherwise, articles become prone to misinformation. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a valid concern. I took the statements at face value and I can now see where that might be of concern when citing a review. However, what about the comparison article which is a feature rather than a review? Should the same scrutiny be applied there too? What about something like a retrospective feature? I know such sources are used in many articles. (Guyinblack25 talk 08:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
I generally think that even reliable sources need to be examined closely to assess legitimacy of development information. The less input an article has received from the actual developers, the more assertions and errors it contains. For example, the Four Swords developer is given as "Capcom Studios 1" in the feature, when in fact, the studio is called "Production Studio 1" and was never officially confirmed to have participated in development (and IGN's list of games developed Production Studio 1 still continues to include recent games long after the studio was dissolved and merged into one big development department...). IGN is one of the worst offenders regarding this issue, I mistrust their articles if they don't have any developer statements to back up their information...which they usually are quick to point out if they do. Prime Blue (talk) 09:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to echo Prime Blue's first sentence. In the past, I've been guilty of submitting false information gleaned from incorrect reliable sources. For example, a Gamasutra (Game Developer Magazine) piece about game history declared that System Shock used an updated version of the Ultima Underworld engine. I put that in UU's article, and got it featured. I later discovered from two separate developer comments that SS's engine was written completely from scratch. And that was from the highly reliable Gamasutra; IGN rarely, if ever, bothers with fact checking. Basically, like I said before, it's best to state where the information is from if it even remotely seems like an impression. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 11:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that WP's credo is verifability, not so much truth. Even if you know for certain (through some non-standard means like intuition, hacking the source code, having a dev friend) that a fact is wrong that every other reliable print source says, and that fact (or the correct fact) should be in the article, you're still going to have to point to the incorrect fact as the sourced one, because that is what can be verified. There's way to word things to make it less fact-y and more of an inferred assumption that the publication(s) made, such as naming the source in the text, but that's not always possible. WP recognizes reliable sources make mistakes. --MASEM (t) 14:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The verifiability policy is often misinterpreted: inclusion has to be based on verifiability, not truth – that does not mean that wrong information should be included as long as it is verifiable, but rather that right information has to be verifiable to be included. Prime Blue (talk) 15:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you know personally the fact is wrong, but every reliable source reports the contrary, you can't report the correct fact without a source. Usually this means you just don't include the wrong information. But like with the Mega Drive sales above, where we have no idea what is the most reliable number and yet this is a critical piece of information, we have to work around that, usually stating who is claiming the figure. Written this way, the fact that work X says fact Y can be verifiable, but we're not claiming fact Y being necessarily correct. --MASEM (t) 20:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the information from those two IGN articles should be phrased differently, just to be on the safe side, as there's no evidence that it came from anything but assumptions. This has nothing to do with whether the existence of the ALttP/FS article is justified; it's just common sense. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I meant, Masem. ;-) Prime Blue (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge These were two separate games. The fact that one game was used as source material for the second, isn't relevant. The article has valid content, listing differences in them, how they were marketed, how they came about, and whatnot. There is never a reason to eliminate valid content. There are enough reliable sources covering this game, for it to have its own article. And the rules of WP:MERGE clearly state not to merge without proper consensus. Don't just ignore what others say and decide to do it on your own either. Do a proper discussion and if there is no clear consensus to merge, then don't do it. Dream Focus 10:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to keep in mind that the initial split was against the project's guidelines and had no consensus either. Prime Blue (talk) 15:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except for that small - albeit existing - consensus on the ALttP talk formed in a discussion about this exact same notion that we are discussing right now. However, there was demonstratably not much controversy to be found on this matter, since it didn't get any notice for months after such a split had happened. The fact of the matter is that the only consensus to merge it in the first place had only three people - the same amount of people who formed the consensus to split - and I was a part of the consensus in both cases. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge though I understand the reasons for opposing such a merge. Plot and gameplay are identical to ALttP; the only difference is the Four Swords addition and additional reception coverage. I would think one could easily include all relevant information in the original ALttP article with virtually no problems regarding size or undue weight. More specifically, specific gameplay differences between the ALttP versions can be included in the gameplay section, while placing gameplay and development information about Four Swords in its own section; reception information could also go into this section, or it could be placed in the general reception section of the article. Overall, I think a merge is possible here. –MuZemike 18:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What about giving four swords its own article instead? AKA all the LTTP stuff is in the same article, and then four swords has its own article, with a link to such article in the GBA section of LTTP article.--SexyKick 18:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I don't know if that would make much sense, splitting off a part of an article like that by sub-game. I mean, it seems counter-intuitive. –MuZemike 18:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone here thinks that it's impossible to merge - the disagreement lies in whether it needs to be merged. The original article has much more room for growth aside from this merge; the reception is definitely lacking. If one did some serious searching, I'm sure we would be able to make a massive reception section, as big as what this merge could ever contribute to the article. I quantify it by this: If Four Swords was JUST Four Swords, there would be little controversy over it having a separate article. However, by the fact that it has more content than FS, it becomes a merge candidate. The Four Swords mode is notable enough if, in the event of it having its own game separate from the ALttP port, it could sustain as its own article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even disregarding the lacking development section, I'll have to echo my sentiments from the last discussion: Is Four Swords really that expansive a game to warrant several sections? I was able to sum up its plot in two sentences and even the gameplay is one short paragraph at most, mentioning the main objective, the fact that it is a two to four player cooperative game with randomly-generated dungeons, and only one item at a time can be used. Much of the current information of the section goes into WP:GAMEGUIDE-like specifics, such as "The player with the most rupees at the end of a level wins a special prize, though all rupees are shared together in the long run. All players are given respective colours - player one is green, player two is red, player three is blue, and player four is purple. Once all players are connected, player one chooses one of the four stages available to play on.", or "The third level is not a traditional dungeon, but rather a boss battle. Once defeated, they will return to the hub area." Or the trivia-esque "An original item called the Gnat Hat appears, causing Link to shrink and be able to access areas he could not normally reach. This was featured in a later game The Legend of Zelda: The Minish Cap, though it was in the form of a talking hat named Ezlo." Prime Blue (talk) 03:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that, discounting the plot section, The Minish Cap has just as many problems with article size as Four Swords. You must also note that in the first line of the Four Swords section, we call the gameplay "similar to A Link to the Past", which is described in the ALttP paragraph. If we didn't have the ALttP content, we would simply have to explain how the traditional overhead gameplay operates. As it stands, The Minish Cap, when you cut out all of the content that is roughly as gameguidey or as trivial as what's in the FS article, it would probably come out to the same size. And going further than that, the Development section is less fleshed-out. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that, for Four Swords, we do have the same gameplay mechanics as in A Link to the Past with the above-mentioned slight alterations. The Minish Cap was subject to a very short GA review in 2007 and I would not give it a pass with that development section, but there are more interview sources that can actually be used to expand it – and the gameplay section, while easily cut down to two more focused paragraphs, does not suffer nearly as much from the problems Four Swords does. But this is not about the GA status of The Minish Cap, it is about Four Swords. Prime Blue (talk) 04:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second break

Not sure if a separate section or a sub-section is more appropriate, but I'd like to go over some of the thoughts expressed about the development content. I made a sub-section because this topic provides a good example, but this can be moved out if others think it's a good idea.

There is obviously a difference of opinion in how Wikipedia's policies and guidelines should be interpreted. Not in a broad sense, but rather in the finer details. Because of that I think we should further discuss that difference as I think the conclusions we draw will benefit some of the other active threads going on. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but some of the thoughts I saw expressed here include:

  • Release information should not be in a development section and by extension does not count as development information for our purposes of quality assessment, merging, splitting, etc.
  • Development sections should focus primarily on how the game was creatively designed and functionally executed.
  • Source for development content should be scrutinized to ensure a level of accuracy.
  • Certain sources do not qualify as adequate for development content.

The above sounds very reasonable and I think should always be kept in mind in our article writing. However, the execution sounds very difficult to balance. One of my concerns is how WP:PRIMARY applies to these. My take is that the page is intended to avoid original research on our part as editors. The section states that "articles should be based on ... secondary sources", which I believe is intended to establish notability, as well as avoid OR. It also states, however, that second sources can make analytic or evaluative claims. That being said, where does the line exist? Should we question every aspect of a source when we're writing content outside the reception sections? Or can we use a reasonable statement made by a secondary source so long as it complies with WP:VERIFY? Thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 17:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I have general disagreement on the Development section needing to be a non-stub in general. I agree with Gameplay and Reception (particularly Reception) needing to be non-stub, but not Development. Why? Because the same standard should apply to any article. If there's enough content for non-stub (referenced) Gameplay and Reception sections the article likely passes guidelines, however I can think of several games where it's extremely hard to find much Development info on. I'm sure I'm talking to a wall though as several people will say "the sources are out there, you just have to find them". To that I reply that I've been here long enough to know you have to really dig to find things sometimes. I also know sometimes there's nothing to find. XBLA/PSN games pushed by a major publisher often fall into this trap. When it's a more "indie" publisher (Microsoft Game Studios, Sony Computer Entertainment) more is put on the devs to get the word out, so there's lots to find. That's not always the case with, say Electronic Arts or Ubisoft digital titles. --Teancum (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that development sections for older games will be difficult if not impossible to find; before the Internet media era, most publications would give little thought to explaining the rational that a game was developed with and instead hit on the big new features and their review. Even today, if you don't have a reputable studio or an AAA title, dev information can be extremely tricky to track down through what we call reliable sources. Reception is the critical section as to establish notability for any game - without that, it's Yet Another Game, and probably shouldn't have an article or be merged elsewhere. --MASEM (t) 18:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) Not entirely what I was questioning, but I do see your point. I believe the intent with the non-stub development section is to purposely raise the bar for a topic having its own page. It does make writing about remakes more difficult. But I don't see that as a bad thing. What makes remakes and ports special cases is that they are derivative of another topic. Some remakes are not that notable, while others are.
Ultimately, I agree with the remake guideline because (most times) consolidating frames information better. It avoids redundant content and provides a historical overview of a topic. What I'm more concerned with is how we determine what is an acceptable development section, in articles about original games as well as remakes. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
(Edit conclict): also think "promotion" does not apply to development. As for release info, I think its vague. I mean a delay in development with an expatiation related to the development is both release info and development info. On the other hand, release dates for repackagings & compliations, info on the update status of a release dates without development context aren't really part of the development.
For secondary source info, I would say it depends on how it is used.
  • For statements like "John worked as the head of development." if the primary source doesn't contradict that, I'd say its fine.
  • For making descriptive claims in the plot section like "The main character is a shy, enegmatic, nice guy." are also appropriate. That is allowed by WP:WAF since most people who read it would probably see it the same; we just can't say that as it would be WP:OR
I do not think that we can use them for making assumptions on development, production, or anything else that usually goes on behind closed doors. As for gameplay, I'm not sure because what is "fun" or "Easy" for one person is "boring" or "frustrating" for another.
@Teancum - There needs to be some threshold beyond reception to justify a split because its easy to get reception and a bit of gameplay change with remakes, ports and expansions to meet the GNG. We shouldn't be making people surf 5 articles when 1 can suffice just to find out all the detail on the different versions of a game. Development is the best way to do this because it shows that there is something important and distinctive to the game that makes it unique from its original.
EDIT:As to your indie/mainstream comment, that just helps support my reason because indie games tend to have less reception in general. It helps balance things out well imo.陣内Jinnai 18:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with most of what you said, particularly the two bullet points. I agree with the principle of your first statement, but I worry that the execution of it in our articles is difficult to define. "Development context" is a good phrase to include in guidelines, and something I think we should keep in mind your guideline discussion.
One conflict I have in my mind about all this is the assumptions part. How do we know the secondary source made an assumption? If it is a reliable source, then why are we questioning every aspect of the source? If we're questioning the reliability of a publication's content, then it shouldn't be considered a reliable source any more? Just to reiterate, I do agree that some content shouldn't be used, like a game review. But I would think that anything outside a review should be covered by the publication's general reliability. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Maybe If I give a case-in-point as to why I don't agree with the non-stub Development section: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Turtles in Time Re-Shelled. I wrote the article from scratch, and although Ubisoft gave no Development information on the game (the engine, scripting, etc) it features several Gameplay elements with differentiate it from it's parent game, has been reviewed extensively by critics, and is one of the top selling XBLA games. In my opinion these things would have cluttered Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Turtles in Time, so I split the article, providing an in-line link to Re-Shelled in the appropriate section. --Teancum (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To the point of secondary sources making assumptions, I say that because that info is generally behind closed doors and bound by NDAs. If they know something like that and release it, I think its best to treat it like any other rumor or commentary by a RS.
@Teancum - there will always be exceptions to the guidelines. However, those changes, while notable, can be easily described in a a subsection or two (depending how its organized). It is a substanital updating to the game I'll admit, but really what kind of real-world value is added beyond the reception? That's what Wikipedia is more concerned about which is why we list development as one of the criteria.陣内Jinnai 19:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue the opposite. In instances (specific instances I'll admit) we do a disservice by trying to cram content from a remake into the parent article. There are instances when simply placing an abridged version in the parent article does not provide an accurate description of the remake's gameplay, development, and reception. It seems most would argue that the content (in my example) of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Turtles in Time#Remake covers all necessary information. --Teancum (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It just kind of feels like we're treating Reception as irrelevant, when really, reception is the absolute most important aspect of demonstrating notability. As for an earlier comment, the game in question is not one that has a "little bit" of content - it has a whole new mode with a whole new engine, and a lot of redundancies in the article to ALttP actually serve to explain this new mode just as that information is used to explain the gameplay in all other Zelda titles. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't treatiing it as irrelivent. We are saying that there is more to meeting the GNG when it comes to ports/remakes because its SO easy to meet for many games and the content is really basically the same it needs a higher threshold because the subject matter is basically the same. The GNG is worded to make it clear that meeting it is only a "presumtion" of notability and uses "multiple" sources; commonly that is seen as two, but that doesn't mean it must be.陣内Jinnai 19:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To reiterate a point that I've made many times on this matter, the fact that ALttP/FS is clearly not just a remake means that we cannot blindly apply remake guidelines to it. If we consider that all Zelda games discuss their recurring elements, only a portion of the gameplay section and the story section are actually redundant to the parent article, whereas everything else deals with the quality of the adaptation, additions to the game, subtractions to the game, and the new mode of play. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there are exceptions (that is what WP:IAR is for. However, for your example, I do not believe LttP+FS meets that because the amount of changes can be summed up in a couple of paragraphs and the development info is mostly comprised of release dates.陣内Jinnai 19:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As an example of what I'd consider an exception, Final Fantasy VII (Famicom) even without the development info would probably might qualify. It is also a good example of how to use secondary sources for development info.陣内Jinnai 19:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think new additions to a remake are cause for a new article. It's a cause to dig deeper for more sources. However, how those sources can be applied is what I think should be the focus here. Currently, I'd say the Four Swords article meets the criteria for a stand-alone article. But if the content and sourcing issue I brought up concludes that the sources are improperly used, then the article should be merged as the development section is not quite there.
Regardless, this sub-section is getting side-tracked from the original point, which was not to re-discuss the merge/split of Four Swords. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Jinnai- I understand that NDAs limit how and when development information flows, but that does not automatically discredit a secondary source's claim. It simply means that they broke an agreement between two parties. Also, we're assuming that an agreement was in place between the author and the developer. I worry that a lot of assumptions are being made that don't need to or shouldn't be made. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

The point is we can't know. If a RS said "Final Fantasy 15 was coming out in January 2012" we'd not really take that at face value without some other source, usually the publisher or developer, backing it up. It's the same thing if they start claiming stuff about development. Unless they say "i believe..." or "according to (person of X's staff), it's a rumor because we have no way of determing if its their opinion or its a fact.陣内Jinnai 19:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, my problem with that is if we take that route, we have to treat everything on virtually every gaming website we now consider reliable as opinion pieces unless otherwise stated. In short, the editorial over-sight of the publication is overlooked and it is no longer a completely reliable source. We'd have to treat IGN and GameSpot like Kotaku and Joystiq. If that's the consensus, then so be it. It will make writing much more difficult, while ensuring higher quality. But that's something we need to be very sure about as it effects the majority of our articles. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Per WP:RS (bolding is not my emphasis)
"The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made."
The point here is that video game RSes, while they have editorial oversight, don't get a blanket pass on everything they say. The part bolded is there for a reason-for development info they are claiming something and if they don't back it up, its not "direct support".陣内Jinnai 20:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why we cannot trust IGN, which is probably the most used reference for video games on Wikipedia, for development info when they clearly have reason to be privvy to such information. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that statement refers to source content directly supporting Wikipedia article content. Not a source directly supporting its own content. I also believe that policy was intended to prevent reliable sources on one topic being used for an unrelated one, i.e. do not use a source known for reliability in military history for a biology article. A perfect example would be Retro Gamer's "Back to the Eighties" feature, which includes a side-bar for current events and the top songs from the featured month. Other sources would be appropriate for citations in music and event articles.
I think I understand what you're getting at, as some statements would be out of line regardless who reports them, like the FF15 example you gave above. But I think some statements are not contentious at all and do not require such scrutiny. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
I guess give me an example of something you think would be okay then.陣内Jinnai 21:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the recent Zelda ones I don't have a good example off the top of my head. If I think of one, I'll post it, but those are all that come to mind right now.
  • From Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past
    • Wiki: "The developers designed the levels to adjust the puzzles to the number of players participating."
    • IGN: "What's more, the game design is intelligent enough to only offer dungeon designs with the amount of players in the network in mind. So, even though the game allows for up to four players to cooperate and compete in the dungeons, the designers realized that this wouldn't always be the case."
Just to be up front about things, I'm perfectly fine with discounting this example given that it's from a review. But I think this example is fine for discussion purposes because I would consider it is acceptable if it was found in a feature article on the website. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Depending on the site, I'd be a little more willing to accept it, so long as it as clear what was a feature article and not just a featured review. FE:Gamasutra I'd be more willing to do that because they are considered a more reliable site than IGN or Gamespot.

Also for that example, I can see what you're saying there, but I would want a quote in the citation so its clear that we aren't doing any OR.

The other thing is, that info could just as easily go into a Gameplay section. While the developers probably did think this, it isn't clear its really development or gamplay.陣内Jinnai 22:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Gamasutra I'd be more willing to do that because they are considered a more reliable site than IGN or Gamespot." Where do we consider that more reliable? --Teancum (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because it focuses on video game development itself. IGN and Gamepro and the like are more generalized sites. It was founded by developers for developers.陣内Jinnai 23:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gamasutra covers more than game development. The intended audience are developers and those interested in development. But the site posts press releases, sales figures, and other announcements like IGN, Game Informer, etc. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
True, but its like the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times talking about business news. Both of them do it. One of them specializes in it and thus one of them is considered a bit more credible because they do. Not that the other is not credible and not that the more credible one can't make mistakes, but its a more reputable source when it comes to that stuff.陣内Jinnai 07:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that poses the question: why can't it go in development? The whole article is about the game and some details can go anywhere so long as it's appropriately framed and the article as a whole flows. For example, I described the enemies in Robotron: 2084 in the development section, and the wells in E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (video game) in the gameplay, development, and reception sections. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Normally I wouldn't question where something was placed with regard to gameplay, plot, development (unless it was about describing beta-version gameplay in gameplay section for a game that's changed in its final release), but that source raises a red flag because it is trying to assert the developers did this without any actual backing (just common sense). Therefore, I think some might want it moved. At the very least, as I mentioned, it should contain the text where that came from as its making a claim that can be viewed, not just by me, as controversial based on the sourcing, ie non-developer site/non-interview.陣内Jinnai 23:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That may be true, but we don't know one way or the other. That's why we use a source deemed to be reliable. And I don't think it's an issue because such a statement is not contentious. We have someone in the video game industry saying that the developers developed a game mechanic to be what it is.
Are you saying you'd rather error on the side of caution? (Guyinblack25 talk 23:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Well they are reviewers, not developers. It's like a movie critic talking about what goes on behind the scenes. They are making an educated guess and we are using it as a statement of fact. In addition, with few exceptions, we have no idea if they have any real experience or knowledge of video game development. You don't have to have this to do a review - although it is a plus. Yes there is editorial oversight at these places, but that only goes so far. It's not the most reliable type site out there and there are those who would say that the reviews should only be used as opinion pieces.

And yea, I'm probably cautious here because I've been on the recieving end of trying to assert a source is valid when the other editor does not believe so when brining stuff up for feature candicates. It is never fun when they can take down the way your sourcing is done and you have to start over looking elsewhere, sometimes from scratch. Therefore, imo its better to be a bit more cautious than a bit more open when you're talking about using reviews for anything other than opinion pieces or statements of fact that are easily checked.陣内Jinnai 07:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly understandable and a valid concern for FAC. But editorial staff often visit development studios and conduct interviews with developers to learn about the activities. Much like I'm sure movie critics have visited movie sets and interviewed cast and crew about behind the scene activities. Granted, not every one does, but I can't imagine IGN or GI's supervising editors not having that experience given how long they've been in the industry. And those supervising editors are part of the oversight.
Regardless, I agree that reviews should primarily be used for opinion unless development info is properly attributed in the review itself. What I'm more concerned with, however, are the IGN, GI, GameSpot, etc. feature articles; like the Sword-to-Sword IGN feature. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
I think that might require an RfC if we want to say for certain, or atleast ask for a third opinion at WP:RS. Personally I'm unsure. They are definatly better quality than reviews and there is research there, but its unclear to me whether there is behind-the-scenes research.陣内Jinnai 16:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think Pokémon Black and White is a perfect example of what information is what. It has Development, Promotion, and Release sections. Blake (Talk·Edits) 22:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just made Jak 3's development section because it was lacking one, and used all IGN sources. They generally are easier to find release information. Should these types of sections not be called "Development", or is release part of development? I think that is one of the main questions here. Blake (Talk·Edits) 21:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think Jinnai brought up a good point. Release and promotion information is not really development information unless the context applies to the game's actual development. Some examples I would consider as relevant to development are:
  • First announcement
  • Delays
  • Name changes or announcing the official name.
Most everything else should probably go into a separate section. The other option is to rename the "Development" section to something more appropriate and encompassing. Regardless, some actual development information should be required for our GAs and FAs. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Well I tihnk it's fine to leave Promotion and Release. Gameplay seriously needs some refs. And expand so it could be notable on its own...well...notable enough so this kind of problem won't rise again.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking a third opinion

Brought the issue over to them for clarification. You can chime in at WT:RS#Feature articles and what they can be used for.陣内Jinnai 23:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario Bros. Deluxe

This is another split article that also suffers from contradicting the guidelines of WPVG, only to a far greater extent than A Link to the Past & Four Swords as, there, we do not have a development section at all and the amount of unique and non-trivial content beyond reception is infinitesimal. Prime Blue (talk) 04:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could probably just merge it. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed update to our guideline

Due to the recent discussion about LttP+FS, the continued attempt to move wikiproject guidelines to MOS and that our guideline was in need of some overhaul anyway since it was created at different times and is inconsitant formatting and advice, I have made a proposal version at User:Jinnai/VGGL. Feel free to ammed this if you find something wrong or improper but take the following in mind:

  • The guideline does need an overhaul, even if you disagree with mine.
  • Some of our advice directly violats policy and higher ranking guidelines (most notably the In popular culture section links to a guideline that directly contradicts the advice given.
  • A lot of the information was redundant being mentioned elsewhere in the guideline.
  • Some of the info, such as what file formats to use, is far to WP:CREEPy for what a general "guideline" should be doing (let image guidelines handle that).
  • This one was based on a combination of the WP:MOS-AM and our existing guideline, which is why there is a detailed page layout. I did this as it was the only other wikiproject media-specifc MOS
  • Our usage of English-language privatization shouldn't be made to be exclusive of non-English when it is relevant (such as excluding them from ELs) as it is expected information.
  • This wikiproject, among all the wikiprojects I have dealt with, stands alone in not understanding that just because certain sections are usually combined because of the lack of information, doesn't make that combined info a natural part of that section (FE: promotional info combined with production).陣内Jinnai 23:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts- You're correct that the guideline needs an overhaul; there are redundant bits, too-specific bits, and incorrect bits (I cringed at the pop culture section). That said... I completely disagree with your version of the page layout. You've transformed a general set of non-binding suggestions into a rigid mandate, for one thing, and even skimming the strident bits where you try to rigidly enforce your point of view on the devel/promotion/legacy section leaped out at me. The vast majority of video game articles do not need a promotion section or a release section, and to mandate that they all drop this information instead of putting a sentence or two in the development section isn't smart, in my opinion. While, again, the guideline needs overhauling I would oppose adopting this new version as-is. --PresN 00:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously you didn't read the proposal or you would not be assuming i say all those need a release and promotion section. I am saying though that releases (at least after initial one) and promotion are NOT part of the development, production or whatever you want to call that section. That doesn't ment they shouldn't always be mnetioned in that section if there isn't enough to form their own section but we should not equate promotion=development. That was, with a few exceptions, not supported as part of development. Release information was similarly not supported.陣内Jinnai 00:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that you said that there must be a promo section. I said that you said that if you can't make a good promo section you should just drop it, since it's not part of devel. I fail to see how that says that it's okay to sometimes combine them if you only have a little promo information.
Regardless, let me restate my point. The old guideline was not too precise in exactly how one should construct the sections of an article. I would agree that perhaps we should be giving more guidance in that. However, I feel that your version is far too specific and rigid in that respect, and also, in what it emphasizes, reflects your personal style in writing articles that doesn't match up with not only how other editors write but also with the information possible in many cases. I don't feel that the guideline should be telling people that promotion is not part of development. Not because it is or isn't true, but because it doesn't matter in most cases. Telling them that gameplay (generally) comes before plot, that you need a reception section, and not to spin out a character article without devel/reception on those characters are much more important, and get lost if the guideline focuses on philosophical minutia with the same or more emphasis. The guideline should be to inform editors on how to write a solid C/B-class article, not on writing an FA. --PresN 00:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm extremely hesitant to do a complete overhaul on the current criteria. Why? Because the next step would be this crusade to change up every article under the guidelines, to reformat and reassess every GA and FA, and ultimately to alienate folks who can't handle such a workload. I 100% agree with PresN's statement - "The guideline should be to inform editors on how to write a solid C/B-class article, not on writing an FA." Good and Featured article criteria should be determined by higher-level criteria and not limited by our specific criteria. This isn't an attack on anyone, but I really, really hate that the criteria currently focus on GA/FA, and that any change we make is to that focus. Most articles will barely make it to B-Class, and Wikipedia's main criteria will cover GA/FA quality while our guidelines will help articles to B/C class by establishing content. --Teancum (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well-as an aside-I do think our pre-2008 FAs do need to be reviewed. I think many might not be up to stuff.陣内Jinnai 02:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Teancum - Actually, this guideline shouldn't be about writing C-B class articles. These guidelines - by their nature- are meant to be for GA/FA/FL articles because they are cited by such. Well at least they are cited in FA/FL candiate/reviews. That tells me if they are being cited there, they should be brought up to a level that is good for that.
An essay or a specific guideline solely for the purpose of quality assement is better place for dealing with writing to C-B class. Wikipedia quality control doesn't say "B-class is good enough and you can just drop the ball never caring to do better."陣内Jinnai 02:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I never implied that "B-class is good enough and you can just drop the ball never caring to do better." What I was trying to say was that C/B class articles need the structure defined by the guidelines in order to fall into place with the way the project has things set up. GA/FA/FL should be governed by overall Wikipedia guidelines as our guidelines are not what pass or fail articles. In fact, we've had problems with that in the past - our guidelines were viewed as conflicting WP:WIAGA. We should not have so dense of criteria at this level, Wikipedia's main criteria should cover these things since our criteria would have set up the article structure prior to it's GAN nomination. Bottom line is that the guideline should set up the structure of the article and deem appropriate/inappropriate content and leave it at that. The main Wikipedia guidelines are there to handle all else. --Teancum (talk) 15:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"We should not have so dense of criteria at this level,..." I agree with that, but the problem is that the lack of such advice has given rise to ignorance about what is what since we commonly, especially in VG articles combine things because there isn't enough and it has become thought of that X is Y when X is still X, just that per standard Wikipedia procedures X is often grouped with Y when there isn't enough of it.
As for the actual layout, if you feel it could be redone, I did say you are free to go an edit it if you have a better way to organize things without being so strict, but we really do need to tell VG people that X is not Y in some cases.
Finally, it is not better to just work with the existing model and tweak it as there is tons of redundancy, inconsistant formatting, and in many ways more WP:CREEP than mine has.陣内Jinnai 16:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here, lets pull back a bit. Right now we're debating over the "Page layout" section, and specifically over the "Video game (series)" section. Is this the only part we're concerned about? Looking it over, the rest seems pretty good- the style guide got dropped in favor of the overall MOS, as did some specific/specifically wrong bits about images and pop culture sections, but the majority of the information is still there/added to, and I agree with the way it was reorganized. It looks alright overall, and with a copy-edit I'd be fine adopting those sections. Are we in agreement about that? --PresN 22:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think this is a lil too specific. Such as inappropriate content, and various others. if it tone down a bit and re-mention other guidelines that already exist, i think it would be good. I just think parts where "people should not do, is a lil too specific.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well we do need some of those "People should not do" because history has born some of those out. If you think the wording is a bit strong, well, be bold and rephase it. If someone diagrees they'll change it.陣内Jinnai 16:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't finished reading all of it, but I agree that there are too many areas of what not to do, or maybe there is too much bolded text emphasizing it. Not sure. But overall, I think this is a step in the right direction. As already stated though, some flexibility needs to be woven into the wording. I'll post some thoughts later. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
So far I'm agreeing with Guy, although I'm not done reading it (thoroughly). Where exactly do you want comments to go? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going to start doing serious discussions on it, it would probably best go on that talk page so it doesn't clutter this page up. It'll also make transfer of the discussions, should any version of it be adopted, easier to archive.陣内Jinnai 17:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and appreciate that you put a lot of work into this, Jinnai, but I wouldn't endorse the current proposal if only because it seems to be almost a complete rewrite. I think discussion on individual aspects that need to be updated would help establish a clearer consensus on a guidelines overhaul. Prime Blue (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Time to get the ball rolling. I started a discussion about the first section at User talk:Jinnai/VGGL. As Prime suggests, I also think it would be easier to discuss the sections separately. (Guyinblack25 talk 00:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
What I meant was describing any proposed changes to the guidelines in subsections of this discussion page (since it has the most visitors), then drafting the changes one by one. Prime Blue (talk) 12:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that things need to be addressed on a per-case basis. I would definitely say doing a 'blanket update' will not go over well with several members, as nobody will ever agree on everything. --Teancum (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've got to add a "Me too" to that. It must be on a per-case/per-section basis. If only to avoid cases of Throwing the baby out with the bath water. - X201 (talk) 13:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Something similar to what we did for the infoboxes a few months ago would be good, I think. That was a pretty orderly discussion and gathered much attention from the project. Prime Blue (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In that manner, but not the whole Guideline at once. That would be too much. - X201 (talk) 14:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On splitting games up by SKU

This sortof goes along with my opinions on the #Dispute on The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past & Four Swords and #Proposed update to our guideline, but I wanted to further a more general discussion on splitting out versions by SKU on a case-by-case basis. There are two examples that come to mind Spider-Man: Web of Shadows and X-Men Origins: Wolverine (video game). Both games are VASTLY different based on platform, with the PS3/360/PC versions having one specific type of gameplay, and other versions having up to two other totally different types of gameplay. For example, Web of Shadows is a 3D, free roam game on the next-gen machines, a 2.5D platformer on the PS2, and a 2D, totally different platformer on the DS, each with different plots to boot. I gave up on these articles long ago since I knew I'd be stirring the pot splitting them, but I felt they would be overgrown and difficult to read with three plots, three gameplay sections, and three "sections" in the Reception. Traditionally the Transformers DS games have been split (see Transformers: The Game, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (video game), and Transformers: War for Cybertron leads) as Vicarious Visions have ensured that their versions (DS) of the game are well covered during development. Thus far no one has stepped up to work on the DS versions, but the coverage is most definitely there.

Anyway, I want to get some feedback on this. I know there are some strong opinions here, but I'm about to put War for Cybertron up for GAN and want to see what the criteria is for splitting it by SKU, since these are not exactly about Dealing with remakes. --Teancum (talk) 14:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it depends on the level of coverage given to the different SKUs. A good example is Over the Hedge (DS game) vs Over the Hedge (video game), where the former has vastly different gameplay, and thus gains more reception for being the better game. A counter example, is that for Rock Band 3, there actually is a DS version, but I've seen maybe 2, 3 reviews on it, and since it's duplicative of previous games, there's no much to go in on it. --MASEM (t) 14:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
New Age Retro Hippie was wanting to split Sonic Colors because of the differences, but he got tired of arguing with the other editors there. See here.
I think that if you can write two quality articles with good sources and at least 50% of the information isn't duplicated, then they should be ok to split. But if you have multiple start-class articles about the same game that are largely unsourced(*cough* transformers*cough*), then they should not be split. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's a big difference in being able to expand an article and choosing to. If I'm well aware that the coverage is there for the split I'll split it, but I'm not going to do anything but a splash improvement on the split articles. I have no interest in the DS versions of the game. If the coverage is out there, merely not provided, why should I be obligated to do those articles as well? ---Teancum (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AVOIDSPLIT - while they could meet the GNG "If information can be trimmed, merged, or removed, these steps should be undertaken first before the new article is created." In many of the cases that could be done. Basically just because you can meet the GNG isn't a good enough reason to split something. As I mentioned in another talk page recently I could create an article for Packaging of School Rumble as there are 2 sources that talk in depth about the packaging and a 1-2 more that mention it, plus I can use the packaging itself, but that doesn't mean I should.陣内Jinnai 16:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Figures - apparently Wikipedia and I don't agree much anymore. That's rather disheartening. --Teancum (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing would be stopping you from just updating the info you wanted on one page while not contributing to the DS section.陣内Jinnai 17:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose. I mean I won't go back and re-merge the Transformers articles, but the policy basically says not to split out articles unless the core article cannot handle all of the content. That means I'd have to expand the Spider-Man and Wolverine game articles before splitting, which is what I was trying to avoid. --Teancum (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AVOIDSPLIT is for articles which would not meet notability criteria. DS games are independently notable, and can be better covered separately, the Cybertron games is actually a good example. Ask yourself, if both articles were of featured quality, and you were to merge them together - would it place undue weight on the less notable version? Could the prose still flow or would it just be two articles crammed into one place? If so, keep them separate. - hahnchen 20:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AVOIDSPLIT also applies to those that do pass the GNG as the GNG wording was made to say the article is only "presumed". Furthermore, that last line I quoted applies to every article. The question isn't "should they be merged?" it is "should they be/have been split in the first place?" If it was about merging 2 good articles, it would talk about that.陣内Jinnai 00:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the Zelda case is a rather interesting and unique situation, if they're similar enough, and it makes sense to keep the information in one article, then we do a better service to readers by keeping everything in one place as opposed to fragging everything across several separate pages, making it harder to look up stuff. –MuZemike 17:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, while the ALttP portion of ALttP/FS could be summed up in the main article, the multi-player component is different enough to warrant a split. I would not suggest a split in the first place, if not for it. If the FS multi-player mode were its own game, like I said, it would have its own article; why shouldn't the multi-player mode plus a port be even more notable? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't let's start that all over again. This is a discussion about the general issues that have been brought up recently; it doesn't need to be turned into a third titanic argument about that one game. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't respond to my example of a point made with nothing worth responding to. The game was already mentioned in the discussion, and as such, I retorted by using the same game for an opposing point because it is relevant. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just calling it like I see it. MuZemike and the others above only mentioned it in passing; your comment struck me as a return to the Zelda bickering that we've been doing up until now. We need to solve the problem at its root, which has nothing to do with that game. Once the issue with our guidelines has been fixed, everything else with fall into place. But, again, I don't appreciate your hostility. In a previous argument, you accused me of being a troll; now, you've repeated my comment's structure as a way of mocking it. If you have something against me, perhaps from the Masocore discussion, then I'd like for it to be settled. We're all working toward the same goal of encyclopedic improvement, and emotional attachment needs to be left at the door; I treat these matters dispassionately—as business—and have nothing against any of the participating editors. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anything I have "against you" stems from you, on two occasions, deriding the discussion in the first place. You clearly had nothing to contribute to the discussion, and as such, I viewed it as inappropriate discussion for the subject. Any hostility stems from you hounding editors for not discussing what you want. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I see where the multiple genres for one game problem come from-- I made the article Over the Hedge: Hammy Goes Nuts! but there really wasn't enough coverage to split any of the articles out. This whole Zelda business (sorry I haven't written about this before) from what I've read though could really just be summed up in the main article-- the port could be mentioned in a separate section giving extensive coverage to the multiplayer portion. There's no need to make readers go to two different places to read the same material, although I sympathize with Retro's arguments. Nomader (Talk) 02:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Basically that. Yes, I admit Four Swords has some unique gameplay and some unique development, but the LttP part doesn't. Other than the different system, a link through Four Swords and some other minor changes that can be summed up in 1-2 sentences there is nothing different.陣内Jinnai 05:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But again, it really does not make sense that it should hurt the article's chances of being an article by having more content that may be perceived as redundant. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, when a page is spun-out there is some redundancy. That is what WP:SS also affirms (spinning out an article like character ones are often without summarizing is not appropriate). However, there needs to be enough new information to make the spinout article worthy; meeting the GNG is just the absolute minimum - if you can't meet that or WP:NOT, then it shouldn't be made at all. However, just meeting that (as I mentioned with Packaging for School Rumble) doesn't mean an article should be spun out.陣内Jinnai 16:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're comparing a situation that has a few references versus a situation that has dozens, and still has dozens more to be added from Google News, Google Books, and most reviews/previews. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. By comparison, what about .hack (video game series). Each of those games has "dozens, and still has dozens more to be added from Google News, Google Books, and most reviews/previews." There is alo unique development info, especially if we add release dates to them, in addition to some new gameplay elements in some and unlike Four Swords, an ongoing plot.

My point here is those games have more differences between them than the remake does and yet it can be summarized in 1 page. Therefore, LttP+FS, which has less unique differences, should be able to be. It's the same for anything else that's quite similar. That doesn't mean there should never be a spinout article, but I think many here are to trigger happy when it comes to splitting out because they find they can meet the GNG.陣内Jinnai 20:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I must reiterate that FS is really no less different than, say, TMC. It uses a unique engine, unique style of gameplay (both in how you have no overworld but rather levels, as well as how you can only have one item at a time), it uses several items that have no connection to ALttP, a visual style that is only loosely connected to ALttP, and a plot that has no connection to ALttP. If we were discussing FS by itself, the unique content would seem that much more significant. Heck, half of the information in the ALttP gameplay paragraph can be used to describe FS. Without the ALttP content, Four Swords would have enough content to stand on its own. Most of the Development information deals with the FS portion of the game, so in that sense, there's unique content to every section. When you take out the ALttP content (as can be seen in the edit summary "Creating an example of what the article would look like without ALttP content."), it still is a fairly solid article (though the Reception needs expanding in the example, the inevitability of finding sources to cite it is pretty high considering how many are yet to be added). ALttP/FS is clearly not JUST a port/remake, and as such, strictly applying the guideline created for ports/remakes is a bad idea. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article LttP+FS is more of an exception considering, FS isn't known without the remake of LttP.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that it isn't that much of an exception. Yes, FS isn't known without the remake of LttP, but that is the same for most games out there that aren't the oginial. Persona 3:FES's The Answer fits exactly the FS mold in every major way New Age Retro Hippie has described and more since it has a storyline with it. It's not really the "exception" that's is trying to carve out.陣内Jinnai 21:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be the best exception, but it still serves as one. Like I said above, it's not just a port/remake, and as such, we should not apply a rule that applies for ports/remakes. A lot of the content in ALttP/FS that appears to be redundant to ALttP's article, is used in all traditional Zelda articles (such as heart containers, overhead view [or 3D view], item equipment, and dungeon/overworld differences). - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I am saying is neither is my example and simple port/remake and its why we should be applying it still.陣内Jinnai 22:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How's about this. What if, in improving the ALttP article, it became quite large and as such, able to sustain a split while maintaining its quality and depth? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would be better. I can't say for certain (i cannot predict the future) if it should be split in such as case, but I would defiantly say there would be a much stronger argument so long as attempts were made at trimming it first.陣内Jinnai 04:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see such a game-y "overexpansion" being even possible. As I said above, the entirety of Four Swords can be described in a single paragraph in the A Link to the Past article as we do not have to duplicate the gameplay description and are not allowed to add WP:GAMEGUIDE-like specifics to it anyway, and the plot is summed up sufficiently in a mere two sentences. What stays is a "massive reception section" New Age Retro Hippie is planning, though this would be overkill anyway: A reception section should not include every single reviewer's viewpoint, but should use a number of specific reviews to determine those aspects of a game that were received well and not so well by critics. There is no need to artificially expand a reception section so it accounts to half of an article. ;-) Prime Blue (talk) 05:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
just referencing on the gameplay section and it's good to go. Anyways, what do we need to update to the guide? Does everyone think there is a specific problem that should be addressed?Bread Ninja (talk) 05:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Video gaming or Video game for disambiguating

What is the correct wording in disambiguation parenthesis of video game related topics and terminology – "video gaming" or "video game(s)"? For example, Boss (video gaming) or Continue (video gaming) versus Boosting (video game) or Spawning (video game). I always assumed it was "video gaming", but this may not have actually been established. Some references examples: Category:Video game terminology and Category:Video game gameplay. It seems that the majority is dabed with "video gaming" and I propose to add this as the preferred wording in the naming convention. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would use "video gaming" for the disamb. term of art for topics generic to the field, leaving "video game" specifically to disamb. titles of games. --MASEM (t) 23:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Masem; use "video game" only if the title itself is referring to a video game. You can use "video gaming" as a catch-all, but otherwise try to be more specific about what the subject is discussing. Most of the subjects you listed are aspects of gameplay (per the category), which would be an acceptable disambiguation phrase. I would not use "terminology" as a disambiguator however, as that implies the article is about the word, rather than the topic that the word describes, and in turn suggests that they might be dicdefs. Ham Pastrami (talk) 05:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On a similar note, what about "computer game" and "computer gaming"? Should they be made to be moved to video game and video gaming? There are a few articles out there with those disambigs.陣内Jinnai 06:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would imagine that all computer games are video games and, as such, the disambig should stay consistent.LedRush (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If "computer gaming" refers to computers (PCs) only, then it would be fine. If it however refers to a broader scope than just PCs, then it should be "video gaming". —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We've long dropped "Computer game" in favor of just "video game" regardless if its PC or the like. I realize there can be a fine distinction between "computer game" and "video game" but in the larger scope, it can be a hairy and biased mess that it's best to stay consistent within WP. --MASEM (t) 14:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a substantive debate over the title (not just a question of following guidelines), or where there is clearly an overlap, then I would follow the guideline. Otherwise, for titles pertaining to PC-centric games (especially ones that lack graphics), I would leave them alone (one way or the other). There are gray areas like text adventures that many people don't ordinarily consider "video" (i.e. graphical) games. There are also computers and games that don't use video output -- as a trivial example, braille-based games, where the user interfaces with the computer using a braille device. Computer games and video games are 95% overlapping, and we treat them the same out of mutual convenience, but one is not a subset of the other (they are independent), and we should not confuse the stipulated treatment of articles with what the subjects actually are, in cases where the difference warrants consideration. Ham Pastrami (talk) 05:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think "video game" as a general encompassing term is fine. The industry and academics use it as such. The problem is that a good definition of the term has ever been made. There are either too loose and can apply to something it probably shouldn't (like Furby) or too strict and omit something it should probably include (like a braille-based computer game). (Guyinblack25 talk 15:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Which is precisely why, 4 years ago, we changed the name of the project from the "Computer and Video Games" project to just "Video Games" and tried to adjust every article title out there as well. This discussion is giving me a lot of nostalgia/deja vu. Anyways, yes, all "Computer game(ing)" disambigs should be changed to "video game(ing) for consistency. --PresN 21:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up for classic game articles

They just announced an 11-lecture series of postmortems from various games, given by their key developers, will be at the GDC, with the information put up online after the event. [12]

Games include:

  • Prince of Persia
  • Pac-Man
  • Elite
  • Another World/Out of this World
  • Marble Madness
  • Doom
  • Pitfall!
  • Bejeweled
  • Populous
  • Raid on Bungling Bay
  • Maniac Mansion

Clearly going to be a good source of dev information for these game articles. --MASEM (t) 15:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet. I've wanted to work on about half of those games (just need the time to do so). Thanks for the heads up. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
I have some paper sources from various magazines about Maniac Mansion if anyone wishes to work on that; I would just have to dig for them. The same applies to Prince of Persia (which I am assuming is referring to the original Prince of Persia (1989 video game)). –MuZemike 21:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm absolutely interested in working on those. I have print sources as well. Though I'm sure we have some overlap, I'd imagine that combined we'd have a good bunch of sources for the articles. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Given the status that these games enjoy, I'm sure a lot of this has been covered already. What we really need are postmortems of games no one has ever played or cares about. Remember to keep an eye out at the GDC Flickr Feed for free images too. - hahnchen 00:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd definitely be up for a Prince of Persia '89 collaboration, if anyone else is interested. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm about to work on a list of Pac-Man games with Nomader. I can work on the article after that. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Sounds good. I don't have any print sources, but I do have knowledge of the online print archive at my disposal. Plus, I know about a few interviews with Mechner that you and MuZemike might not have; I should be able to keep up on the research front. I've always thought that PoP 89's low quality article was a shame, so it'll be great to help improve it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented on Talk:Maniac Mansion. I can provide sources, but I don't know how good I'll be on actually building the article as I have never really played the game. –MuZemike 18:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is Virtonomics in scope?

I noticed that Virtonomics has your banner on it, although it is certainly not a video game. Shall I just take it off? Arlen22 (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've not played it but reading the article it seems like a video game to me. Business simulation game which is also a browser game. --Mika1h (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then let me explain. It is an economics game where you basically manage a virtual corporation. Each real day is a new week in the game, and it updates around Midnight UTC. It is almost like a game of public chess, where everyone votes on the best move, and the move with the most votes is the one that is played when midnight roles around (never heard of it, but it probably exists). The difference here is that each person makes his own moves (building farms, stores, mills, factories, etc, etc, etc. Then the game is updated and everyone's orders are filled, politics and taxes are set, consumer demand is updated. In short, the world is updated at midnight. Here is a link if you want to try it for yourself: Virtonomics. Arlen22 (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is technically a video game, as it uses video output. This is the sticky part of changing all instances of "computer game" to "video game". Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is remotely similar to chess.com. Each player plays it in his browser, so it doesn't really qualify for a computer game either. I think that it could be played without video output (using audio). Arlen22 (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Series

I was wondering if we were considering the improvement of the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. articles, eventually prepare them for the PediaPress. Considering S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl is mid-importance, it should be improved above "starter class." Halofanatic333 (talk) 12:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder : as a GSC Game World game, STALKER screenshots are freely available. Means you can take those you want as much as you want and use as many as you want in as many articles as you want. Yeah, I am kinda repeating myself here, but I am always amazed to notice how few GSC screenshots we have and how little these are used (especially on en.wp).
Jean-Fred (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Soooo, I can take my own?Halofanatic333 (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They would have to be uploaded to commons:Category:Images from GSC Game World - not Wikipedia itself - and would have to contain all the same licensing info as the other screenshots, but yes. --Teancum (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In light of that earlier discussion about using free images in genre- and gameplay-related articles, perhaps a STALKER image (like this one) could be used to replace this lead image. And this could be used to provide Real-time strategy with an image. Any thoughts? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
RTS sure! However, Doom is iconic with FPS and should stay there.Halofanatic333 (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can. As Teancum indicates, please use the relevant template {Attribution-GSC Game World} when uploading files to Commons. Jean-Fred (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, I think the structure of S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Call of Pripyat's gameplay section needs a major rehaul before we start worrying about screenshots.Halofanatic333 (talk) 12:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an incentive to jumpstart this, I added both S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl and S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Clear Sky to the reassessment page, as they are both beyond start class (in my opinion at least).Halofanatic333 (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good news for those working on '90s-'00s computer game articles

The CGW Museum originally hosted only the first 100 issues of the magazine. However, due to a recent fundraiser, the owner has decided to scan the rest. Meaning that, this year, we'll have free access to an incredible information resource, which is largely unavailable through stuff like LexisNexis. It should be a good year for '90s computer game editing; I can't wait to expand the articles I've worked on with this new coverage. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 10:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To do question

Resolved

I was looking through the project's to-do list and I noticed that this link is messed up. Does anyone know why? GamerPro64 (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because the sidebar is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sidebar. I changed the link. --PresN 17:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
and User:WOSlinker deleted the redirect (Template:WPVG Sidebar) as an unused redirect. Salavat (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. That makes sense now. Thanks. GamerPro64 (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Clickteam

Clickteam is in the scope of WP:VG and was PRODded two days ago. --Pnm (talk) 06:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Onlive and COI

I've had a problem with an IP trying to add Onlive to the list of platforms that Braid (video game) is on. While true that Braid is available through Online, I don't believe that Onlive qualifies as a "platform" - much like the discussion about Steam recently, it's nothing special in terms of unique hardware or the like. With that, I've been removing Online from the platform in the infobox.

Now we have Warrenonline (talk · contribs) who's name and current editors (of today online) clearly suggest a COI problem. It's not an issue of writing about Onlive (if he is a person associated with the company, that would be an issue), but that he's returned back to add in the Onlive as a platform.

So there's two questions:

  1. Is "Onlive" a platform? My sense is no, just as much as Steam or Impulse or the like is a platform. There's nothing special about the "system" it runs on (they seem to be PC versions of games run on a dumb terminal, effectively), so it's not like a console or that. And as there are no unique or exclusive OnLive titles, it's simply a storefront - a unique one, yes, but still a storefront.
  2. Is there a COI issue here? --MASEM (t) 07:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GameFAQs are a pretty good site for listing every platform available, [13]. Onlive isnt listed just as steam isnt. So maybe not a platform. Salavat (talk) 07:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is new territory. Unlike digital distribution, it isn't just an app running on top of a host PC. It can be used without a computer, via a proprietary console device. There are also indications that the games it runs contain unique code to support it. I think it is potentially a unique platform, but this should hinge on the perception in the press and whether they start listing OnLive as a category (for example, most review sites have sections for PC and every major console). Until then I would use a conservative approach and not treat it as a separate platform just yet. The COI is an issue as it is promotional in nature. There are other cloud services on the horizon and we don't want all of them being added until their status as a platform gains some legitimacy in public perception, and we cannot favor OnLive over the others. Ham Pastrami (talk) 08:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did find that there was a thread at the OnLive users forum [14] that clearly is the basis on these additions. Given that it reads that Warrenonlive is simply a fan and not an employee, there's really no major COI problems here - though of course edit warring to get one's point across isn't good either. --MASEM (t) 05:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be listed as a platform on its own. It should be treated the same as Steam, Gametap and GoG. OnLive and all similar platforms should be grouped together as streamed services. If we list OnLive as a single platform, then we have to do the same for Gaikai, StreamMyGame etc. - X201 (talk) 09:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are the 7 generations fiction? If not, where are the sources?

I've been asked to bring this up here. History of video games says there are 7 generations of video games, but provides no cites for this. There are separate articles for the supposed "7 generations", up to History of video game consoles (seventh generation), and *none* of them provide citations either (at least when I looked a couple of weeks ago). Someone wrote in the history of History of video game consoles (seventh generation), when removing the "citation needed", that "There wont be a direct source for this Indirectly, the first recognized consoles had successors and showing this succession is represented as "x generation"". Sorry, that's not good enough, numbering generations by counting is WP:OR. If the 7 generations were widely recognised, finding sources would not be a problem. Therefore, I contend that it is reasonable to leave a "citation needed" next to any numbering of video game generations, until the article provides a cite. Adpete (talk) 09:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

well i don't know how to describe it, but the generations are based more on each installment. But i suppose you're right. But i think it's also something easy to source. iv'e seen being called 7-8 generation for a while.Bread Ninja (talk) 10:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting the history by generation is just a Wikipedia editorial decision, it's just for organisational purposes. Video games have had no formal demarcation of ages, and I guess early Wikipedians chose to use a slightly more original generation marking than relying strictly on years. It doesn't matter now though, because these generational markings are now suitably mirrored in the real world. - hahnchen 13:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A similar discussion of whether the Nintendo 3DS should be labeled as "Eighth Generation" began here: Talk:Nintendo_3DS#Eight_Generation. « ₣M₣ » 18:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, there's never been a formal classification, or even a real term for it. The "Generation" articles and the classification of consoles within each one are all the creations of Wikipedia, and simply because we can't have one huge-ass long article on the history of video games (for various obvious reasons). Although for as long as I can remember, publications have made mention of "generations" and "cycles" of systems. Of course, we run into problems with things such as the Nintendo 3DS. What do we classify it as? Absolutely nothing refers to it as an "eighth generation" machine, but at the same time the 3DS and the speculated PSP successor are considered the next "cycle" of handheld consoles. I don't think there's any problem with "generation" being synonymous with "cycle", as the sources exist. I do think more sources are needed, and that the articles need to be rewritten so that they do not emphasise "# generation". The real issue is where we draw the lines for each one, as this is where we start to really get into WP:OR territory. --Dorsal Axe 22:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've always been of the attitude we should just go by decade divisions as we run into more issues for many of the Sega consoles. They aren't really part of the "generation" cycles that Wikipedia or others use and yet they are forced into one generation or another even though their is no RS that can place them there. Also, as video game systems begin to mimic PC systems more and more it becomes increasily hard to say that they are new "generations" when you can upgrade internal components that would normally be upgraded in PCs, like harddrives.陣内Jinnai 22:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "generations" were invented by Wikipedia. I think it has its roots as industry jargon, which Wikipedia is often quick to adopt. Statements like "this game will be available on seventh-generation consoles" are often made in interviews or press releases, which I think is where Wikipedians got exposed to it. It's also a natural result of the phrase "next-generation" when talking about new systems -- obviously, if there is a next generation, then there must be a present generation, and from there you do the math. It may be difficult to find formal sources (though hahnchen's link turns up some) because it's not a formal construction of video game historians, but a practical view of the industry, created by the industry. Similarly, with PCs there is generational numbering of CPUs which is used by Intel, but possibly more difficult to determine which other CPUs (e.g. AMD) are part of the same generation. In parlance, we use the word to mean groupings of products that directly compete with each other. I think this is more of a case of WP:JARGON than WP:OR. It is just technical shorthand, not an invention of fact. We could just call it the "Xbox 360/PlayStation 3/Wii generation" rather than seventh-generation, but good luck getting people to agree on the order of the consoles. Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I think could help is if we, with sources available (assuming they exist), took the handheld aspects of our generations articles and split them up, since handhelds and consoles are not necessarily "in sync". Is Game Boy a part of the NES generation, or the Super NES generation, for example? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree to that. It really seems like we're forcing handhelds into the existing generational articles, when it's quite clear that there is absolutely no correlation between console and handheld releases. It's confusing at best. --Dorsal Axe 08:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked extensively with the Nintendo 3DS article, and through that I've learned that virtually no reliable sources refer to it as "8th gen". The generations are certainly real, "next gen" and "current gen" are used all the time, but virtually no one numbers them that this outside of wikipedia. I think we certainly should keep the articles highlighting the generations, but I think the numbering them is wrong and should be changed. They need to be named something that is more accurrate with what the rest of the world calls them, in my opinion. Sergecross73 msg me 15:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GameFAQs use generations by numbers but all current consoles are just classed "Currently Active". Salavat (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well "current gen", "next gen" and "last-gen" are terms that are used throughout the industry not only to describe video games (and PC hardware), but everything. They are catch all phrases for stuff that is suppose to in the near-term future, present-day or something previous to the present day. While there is some support for earlier generational divisions, I think that support for straight-jacketing every system into a generational one is WP:OR specifically WP:SYNTH and unlike the Sega sales deal, CALC doesn't apply here because its not clear to the average reader where these generational divides are (FE:PS2 being still listed in some places as a "current gen" console). Furthermore it is also an WP:NPOV issue since we are seperating video console games and handheld games by generation, but not PCs even though, as mentioned, there are markers than can, and have by the industry, been used in similar manners for describing games for PCs.陣内Jinnai 17:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How can it be original research when RSs directly state the generations? The only potential for OR would be in describing the eighth generation. However, when reliable resources agree on what the seventh generation is, and they agree that the 3DS is next generation, I think WP:Calc would allow us to call the 3DS Eighth generation. However, I am in no hurry to include the info, and I assume that this issue will work itself out in the long run.LedRush (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. Calc cannot work here and it is OR because not all the sources agree X is generation Y for everything. I game several such examples. Furthermore, as I said, there are Reliabe sources that list PS2 along with the PS3 in the same gernation. When you ignore those that is WP:NPOV violation.陣内Jinnai 19:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also you can't easily seperate video game consoles from handheld timeline. chronology of consoles till 2005 - includes handhelds.陣内Jinnai 19:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[EC] I'm sure I've just missed it, but could you point out where there is a disagreement about which consoles are in the seventh generation?LedRush (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And what is the Time link supposed to be telling us?LedRush (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Next Generation Portable

Sony calls its next portable console this way: "Next Generation Portable". If console generations are an illusion, the newest console made by Sony is "next" to what? The current generation (Xbox 360, PS3, DS, PSP) or the previous generation (DC, PS2, GC, Xbox)? Or it is next to an unexistent generation? Also, if Nintendo 3DS and Sony's Next Generation Portable are the seventh generation, why Sony calls his portable "PSP successor" and Nintendo do the same for his hardware? I'm puzzled, i demand clarification to the wikipedians that erased the article about the "eight generation consoles". --87.8.242.31 (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources that dispute current listings

That handhelds and consoles are considered by more mainstream sources, those outside the industry, as one in the same for linkage.
As for the 7th, generation one, I have found some sources, but they are all unreliable or questionable. I know there are some out there, but a RS search doesn't allow for listing chrologically.
However, I have found sources that do question the labeling:
  1. Video game seminar presentation for teachers for U. of Maryland
  2. Journal of economics - it requires payment, but the google scholar excert lists "... 32-bit and 64-bit systems 3DO, Atari Jaguar, Atari Jaguar CD, Nintendo 64, Sony PlayStation, and Sega Saturn are included in Generation 4. Microsoft Xbox, Nintendo GameCube, Sega Dreamcast, and Sony PlayStation 2 are Generation 5 systems that use 128-bit processors. ..."
That's just what i could find with a bit of searching. Yes, more sources do support the generations as they exist, but its clear that not everyone agress with how they are defnined. When you get outside the industry and have more scholarly/acedemic sources, they do not agree with the industries generational labeling, and in general those sources would be considered "higher quality" sources than the others so they can't just be ignored.陣内Jinnai 20:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Am I missing something, or does the seminar PPT identify the generations (6th and 7th) exactly the same way Wikipedia does?LedRush (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong. It does not list the Dreamcast.陣内Jinnai 20:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - for the moment


(Edit Conflict)Even beyond all this, even if there are clear generations, it doesn't seem right to refer to them numbered like this if they're never referred to as such outside of wikipedia. Lets look at other things like this. With TV's there's black and white, SD, HD, 3D, etc. But you don't see wikipedia refer to them "Third generation of TV's" for HD TVs. Or with cars. Even if company started a line of cars in 2005, the article would be "X Car 2011", not "X Car 6th generation". Just because it can be numbered/counted doesn't mean it should be called that. Sergecross73 msg me 21:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jinnai. I am not wrong. The PPT omits one of the consoles (one that died an early death). It doesn't place it somewhere else and it doesn't claim to be a full listing. You seem to have some evidence for your contention regarding the different categorization of the generations: you just need to be more careful with what you are using as your evidence.LedRush (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only one of the sources you've listed appears to not have the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th generations in conformity with the way wikipedia has it, and that one seems to conflate generations 1 and 2 (meaning, the substance of 3-7 is the same, but the numbering is different.LedRush (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, what you're doing is WP:OR. You are "assuming" the sources dropped the Dreamcast. That is a clear violation of WP:NOR and WP:V. While you may be right that they did drop it for convience, we cannot asuume that. That is what verifiability means.陣内Jinnai 21:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright I'm done for the moment looking up sources. I think I've showen that there is a lot of disagreement about what is the "first generation" of video games - even Gamespot doesn't agree with Wikipedia - and in addition academic sources base generations on the CPU's bitrate, not industry labels.陣内Jinnai 21:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I disagree with you. You are assuming that the author left the DreamCast off of the list because it wasn't a part of either the 6th or 7th generations. That assumption is original research. The source says nothing about the DreamCast, so we can assume no opinion whatsover and attribute it to that source. I wouldn't use that source to say that the DreamCast is a 6th generation system, and I wouldn't use that source to verify any position on the DreamCast at all. You however, seem to be using the source to indicate that because the other doesn't mention the DreamCast at all, it is proof that the DreamCast wasn't a part of the sixth generation. Why don't you also assume that because the author didn't mention the 4th generation, that that author doesn't think the 4th generation existed (I know that the comparison is not 100% correct, but it's darn close).LedRush (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of why anyone assumes it was left off, the point, I think, is that it doesn't match up with wikipedia...Sergecross73 msg me 23:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see the slide? It was a comparison of the Ninendo, Sony and Microsoft consoles of the 6th and 7th generations. It matches with Wikipedia perfectly. It doesn't state that it is listing all consoles of the 6th and/or 7th generations. Therefore, reading anything into the "absense" of the DreamCast, (including that the slide is inconsistent with wikipedia) is original research. The only thing that the slides can confirm (or be used to cite) is that the GameCube, PS2 and Xbox are 6th generation and that the Wii, PS3 and 360 are seventh. Anything else is original research.LedRush (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I don't assume that because it cannot verified that they left it off. Wikipedia is not about truth, but verification. I cannot assume they left it off for whatever reason. All I can say is - according to that source - there are 3 6 gen consoles - PS2, Xbox and GC; the dremacast - again according to that source - is not a 6th gen console from what I can verify.陣内Jinnai 00:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can easily justify that the Dreamcast was a 6th generation console. There are plenty of sources available. You may want to link generation to History of video games so readers can see which definition we're using. People used to refer to the Early Middle Ages as the Dark Ages, when the really refer to the same thing. It doesn't really matter - it's only there for organisation. Wikipedia may have invented the system, but it has proliferated, and you can be sure that someone out there is going to reliably confirm that the 3DS/PSP2 signals a new generation in handhelds. We can wait for that. - hahnchen 00:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jinnai: You (not me) are making an assumption about the list. The source does not state that they are listing all of the 6th generation consoles. You cannot use it as a source to state that it has left anything off of anything (unless you are talking about the consoles it actually discusses). You cannot say that according to that source there are 3 6th generation consoles because the source doesn't say that. (You might as well argue that the source says that there are no generations of consoles except 6th and 7th - the 4th generation isn't listed so the author must be saying that it doesn't exist!) You can say that according to that source, the GameCube, Xbox and PS2 are 6th generation consoles. Nothing more, nothing less. The fact is, that information kills your argument as it directly confirms that Wikipedia has correctly categorized 6 consoles. The fact that it remains silent on most other consoles means nothing. You are doing your underlying argument a disservice by making this illogical claim about this source.LedRush (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)It does not say it lists them all no, but nore does it say its a partial listing. When you put something down you have to prove it with reliable sources. If they don't say anything you cannot assume they mean its partial or not. You can only go with what they give you. Go read policy. If that was the only source that gave generations for 6th gen consoles, we couldn't assume there were more. That said, its only one source.
Okay, lets' just get past that source as it seems to be distracting from the borader picture - this isn't like the early middle ages/dark ages. There is evidence from other sources that the generational model used by Wikipedia violates WP:NPOV because it emphasizes the industry's rating (and even that is somewhat in dispute as to the first gen as the Gamespot article does not list anything as a solid group before 1977) vs. academic/scholarly review. That is more serious because if they are to be used we cannot use WP:CALC because the application does not "correctly reflect the sources." since there would be 2 different versions of generation in many cases.陣内Jinnai 00:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that, if the terms really DID originate from WP, then, despite its propagation, it's against policy to use them, per WP:CIRCULAR. So the question is, is there any sources that use the generation number pre-WP's use of it? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Someone will have to dig through and see when generation was first used.NM - doing it myself.陣内Jinnai 01:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
first major change - original version was a standard timeline 1970s, 1980s.... this change here was the first major change.
change - naming by consoles.
terminology used today - "golden age"
Generation first used added by User:Tedius Zanarukando
of context - ip address removes the 256-bit part making it just "Seventh generation"
more technical name is changed to "sixth generation" - May 26, 2005 by User:K1Bond007 with the reason as a "fix"
I can go on, but appears that unless sources predate April 8, 2005 then the generation scheme on wikipedia (along with possibly some of "age" terminology are WP:CIRCULAR.陣内Jinnai 02:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just because Wikipedia employed a naming scheme before publication in RS does not mean that a subsequently published RS took the naming scheme from Wikipedia. You would have to demonstrate that the RS specifically took the naming scheme exclusively from Wikipedia and not from other original sources. Have we asked User:Tedius Zanarukando where he got the idea from? I guess I'll do that now. Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for contacting him. I also contacted K1Bond007 to see if changes were based on any RSes.陣内Jinnai 04:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that we to search at all, to me, shows that it's not the best term. If it was really the best term, it'd be all over Gamespot, IGN, or any other easily accessible video game websites. Or other mediums for that matter, I've come across all sorts of articles for 3DS like in USA Today or Forbes Magazine. None of their articles are titled "Let the 8th gen commence" or anything silly like that. Sergecross73 msg me 03:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jinnai, I am not assuming anything at all from the source: I am merely using what it states and nothing more. You cannot make assumptions based on what it doesn't say. The source directly supports the Wikipedia use of the terms regarding generations. Anything that disputes this is logically inconsistent.
Regarding the circular argument: not one of the source I've seen cites Wikipedia, nor are any of them mirrors of the Wikipedia articles on the matter. It is an extreme misreading of policy to require a reliable source from before the first time that Wikipedia used the terms. If a reliable source uses the term, it is therefore verifiable and we can cite it. WP:Circular is intended for cites to Wikipedia directly or for sites that merely mirror what wikipedia says. If a reliable source is silent on why it says than a particular console is from a particular generation of gaming, we cannot assume it came to that conclusion because of when the article was published: again that is original research (not to mention completely illogical and silly).LedRush (talk) 04:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Circular is also intended for sites that take their sources from the sources that cite Wikipedia. If it didn't we would allow RSes quoting a RS blog or post that cites wikipedia as one of its primary sources.陣内Jinnai 04:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But that situation is not what is happening here. We have tons of RSs which just state what they believe the generations to be without reference to either wikipedia or to a source which cites wikipedia.LedRush (talk) 13:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I brought this up at WT:V.陣内Jinnai 15:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is such a trivial issue, it really doesn't matter where Tedius_Zanarukando got the generations from. You may as well ask User:67.181.110.229 where he got this edit from. All you're doing is organising how the history articles are split, there are significant amounts of reliable sources which now conform to this view, it is not contentious. Why are we making work for ourselves? - hahnchen 21:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's confusing to outsiders, both people unfamiliar to wikipedia and video games. Generations are used all the time, but their numbering is not. Wikipedia is supposed to be accessible and readable to anyone (literate of course.) These titles don't go along with the outside world. Sergecross73 msg me 23:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They do go with the outside world as sources suggest. The Guinness World Records Gamer's Edition is a populist book aimed at casuals and gift buyers, it uses this nomenclature. - hahnchen 00:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even if CIRCULAR is fine (which it appears no one has any real issue about it at WP:V, there is still the WP:NPOV issue and WP:CALC issue. There's also, even among the industry, unclear definitions for the first few generations.陣内Jinnai 00:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how the current terminology could be confusing to anyone...could someone explain how accurate language is confusing when all it is is numbering something 1-7? Also, there are no NPOV issues or CALC issues to my knowledge. Could someone explain why the current Wikipedia system has issues in these regards?LedRush (talk) 04:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's because you refuse to acknowledge that I've shown sources that call into question how the generations are mesaured. Those sources dispute the listings used by Wikipedia. Futhermore, there is disagreement among industry sources as to what the first few generations are and therefore the current version violates WP:NPOV and WP:CALC. Note that it isn't just 1 source that disagrees with the scheme; its several. You basically want to favor the industry's labeling of generations over academic ones and also certain industry ones over others; that's POV. Also because its unclear where generations begin, CALC cannot be used as it requires clear understanding of how you get from point a to b by every editor (assuming good faith on their part). I'm saying its not clear and therefore CALC cannot be used as evidence does not support it.陣内Jinnai 04:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no CALC violation because there is no calculation occurring. All we are doing is citing RSs. That's it. There is no NPOV issue because there is virtually no conflicting point of view. The vast majority of sources confirm Wikipedia's numbering system, including the some of the ones you've listed above. Even if you scrounge up a few dissenting articles, those would not undo the numerous other sources. If one source out of 10 says that the Odyssey II is first generation instead of second, we can add that in those articles (being sure not to give undue weight to the minority position). If one source out of 10 conflates the first two generations into one, we can do the same. But you are manufacturing problems where there are none, and you have no substantive arguments to back it up.LedRush (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Care to share some of these "vast majority of reliable sources". I think you're exagerating a little to prove a point. And I'm not talking about any old article that mentions the word "generation", I mean ones that specifically say things like "N64 is part of the 5th generation". Sergecross73 msg me 15:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I've proven there are sources that contradict it. I've seen nothing but stonewalling the other way. A cursory glance at the article doesn't seem to support it either as a "majority of the sources" aren't being used to support the entire generation format. A lot of them there's latterly nothing that clearly indicates that this is "X generation" and definatly not a "majority" by any stretch of the imagination.陣内Jinnai 20:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're getting stonewalled because you're making a mountain out of a non-issue. The other sources don't contradict it, because the generational listing is used for sakes of organisation. They mean the same thing. You cite an economics journal above as a contradiction, but it merely counts the PS2 as generation 5 instead of generation 6 (as per Wikipedia). This doesn't matter, it doesn't matter how they count it, because regardless those generations are the same thing - dark ages/early middle ages. We're using the Gregorian calendar, and they're using the Islamic calendar. If you want to make it clear what generations Wikipedia refers to, then link the word generation to the suitable history article. The whole academic vs industry NPOV is a non-argument, given that there are plenty of academic and popular sources confirming the Wikipedia standpoint. - hahnchen 21:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That you believe its not as issue is your opinion. You're entireled to that. That doesn't mean you can tell me or others to think its not a big issue. It does organize things in a way that groups them as a POV; ie this is how everyone should look at the generational grouping of video games and anything to the contrary is wrong. Now, for some of the later generations, there might be enough support out there to justify that view; however that is not the case for all of it and we are not allowed to make editoral descisions when there is not a clear consensus.
Finally, its easy to throw search results up and "say" they support your claim, especially generic google results which contain lots of unrelaible sources, but its another to dig through them and prove it. A lot of those sources - includng the scholarly ones - you "claim" support the arguments don't'. I know because I spent the past 2 days going through every publicly avaliable scholarly source, article-by-article, i could find with multiple scholarly searches and when you get back far enough in video-game history those sources don't match up. Therefore its a big WP:NPOV and possibly
Just to give one example, I can tell you the biggest one there is a huge divide disagreement is the first generation. A lot of RSes - both scholarly and industry view the first generation as the 1977 one we list as "second generation".陣内Jinnai 03:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While some articles conflate the first two generations into one, there is otherwise wide agreement on the generations. Your own examples proved this (which is another reason your arguments don't generate the responses you want). You make outrageous claims about certain sources (ones that explicitly back the current generations' description you argue does the opposite) and you through irrelevant wikipedia policy arguments whenever you can (it's a circular...wait, everyone at the verifiability board disagrees....it's an unacceptable Calc...wait, we're not doing calc....it's POV!). Gamefaqs lists a comprehensive generation sorting page which conforms to our. If you search out the individual consoles, you'll see that they are listed the way we do. We have verifiably information presented in a NPOV and there is almost no controversy here except for the one that you are manufacturing. If you want to add some notes to the first and second generation articles about how some scholars believe that those two generations are really one (and add a one sentence note to each subsequent generation saying that some scholars see the third generation as the second, etc.), go ahead. No one is stopping you. Otherwise, this entire conversation is pointless.LedRush (talk) 13:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy character template Tfd

the Final Fantasy character template has been TfD here and has yet to have a clear consensus. So if anyone wishes to participate, please do so we can have consensus.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected. It's a template, not an article.陣内Jinnai 00:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elite COTW

Seeing as Elite (video game) is our Collaboration of the Week, I'm wondering if anyone is interested in working on it. It's honestly one of the most important games ever released—more influential than all but maybe a half-dozen other titles—but our article on it is pitiful. It's been covered so heavily over the years that finding sources would be a breeze; all we lack is the drive. It's always been too daunting for me to do alone, even though I've considered working on it several times in the past. If we collaborated, however, I think we could do some good work. Anyone interested? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 10:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy- I'm surprised we haven't done a full blown collaboration before. We both very much have a desire to work on important retro games. Just as test, do you find the ratings at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Essential articles somewhat sad?
I got the urge to work on this article a while ago after seeing it pop up in issues of Retro Gamer. But I typically lack the time to dedicate to the article writing I'd like to see done. Perhaps we could work out a time line of projects to do together considering that we already have two articles we're both interested in. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
I am, indeed, very unhappy about the ratings at Essential articles. I've looked at them over the last few years, and they've been a constant source of disappointment for me. I'd definitely be interested in collaborating with you to improve a few. PoP '89, Elite, Fallout, Populous, King's Quest I—these games and their histories fascinate me, and I believe that they deserve better articles. Those aren't the only ones, though; a large amount of the Essential articles interest me enough to get me motivated. Whenever you have the time, we'll figure out what to work on first. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Development" and "Reception" sections in a stub article

Over on Who Framed Roger Rabbit (computer game), there's a bit of a dispute brewing between someone who insists that without sections on "development" and "reception", an article fails WP:N and should be redirected to a "list of games by [publisher]" (User:Sarujo), and someone (User:Badger Drink) who insists (using crude, borderline incivil edit summaries that he should probably be warned about) that aforementioned sections are only required for an article to reach Good or Featured status, and a stub without these particular sections is just that - a stub, but not an ipso facto violation of WP:N. The game in question is an officially-licensed product, released by a then-major game publishing studio, so it seems to this particular crude, borderline incivil jerk that the game is practically guaranteed to meet some standard of notability - but since this particular crude, borderline incivil jerk doesn't have much access to contemporary computer gaming magazines, he is at a bit of a frustrating loss when it comes to adding a couple sources himself. Because I've more than met my quota of frustration and annoyance for the day, I'm posting this message here in the hopes that someone more prepared and informed than I can inform Sarujo of his misunderstanding of the Wikipedia notability guidelines, and perhaps - as a bonus - get involved in the article as well. Badger Drink (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would point those who doubt the game's notability to the Amiga Magazine Rack for plenty of reliable sources. –MuZemike 21:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well it doesn't automatically fail, but without reception or other similar real-world impact, yes it does and if its brought up to AfD will likely get redirected or merged. The development info is not nessasary for this game though.陣内Jinnai 00:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't the article be merged into the NES one?LedRush (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a remake? I thought it was a new game. If so, then yes, even if it passes notability, it shouldn't have its own article without a good development section.陣内Jinnai 00:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who Framed Roger Rabbit - Merge opinions

Because of the above discussion, I looked at Who Framed Roger Rabbit (computer game) and Who Framed Roger Rabbit (Nintendo Entertainment System). Both articles are stubs, and they even state in the NES article that these are different versions of the same game released on different systems. Is there a good reason not to merge these?LedRush (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the NES game was made by a separate company (Rare, published by LJN) and features different gameplay from the home computer versions. The same would apply to the Kemco game that would be changed from Roger Rabbit in Japan to Bugs Bunny Crazy Castle in America. –MuZemike 21:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about Who Framed Roger Rabbit (video games) (note the "s")? We could add the Gameboy version. It's just that these are sad stub articles that will probably never be anything more than that, and are borderline notable as it stands.LedRush (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another possibility may be Video Games based Who Framed Roger Rabbit.--76.66.180.54 (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See above. I thought it was a different game.陣内Jinnai 00:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Numbering the Zelda games.

Hi, I would like your input at Talk:The Legend of Zelda#"__ is the #th installment in The Legend of Zelda series.". Thanks, Blake (Talk·Edits) 03:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nehrim: At Fate's Edge

I recently found this gem of a game (Total conversion of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion), and I was appalled that there was no article on it. So I created it and gave it my best shot. However, I'm not really used to write VG articles, so I thought I'd drop you people a line and ask for help. The universe section could use some expanding, which I can't do right now because I'm about 20 hours in the game and have yet to discover much about the universe and of the story. Mainstream coverage (IGN, Gamespot, etc...) of this is surprisingly low considering how big this is in the modding community, and it won Mod DB's mod of the year award for singleplayer.

So yeah, any help you can give would be much appreciated. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games&oldid=410392099"