This page is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
I've actually been wondering this for a little while, but while we have been using WP:ANIME/M for magazines such as Dengeki G's Magazine and its derivatives, should we perhaps start a reference library under the task force for fanbooks and magazines that don't fall under WP:ANIME/M's and WP:VG/M's coverage? I am thinking about this because fanbooks that focus only on visual novels (probably) wouldn't belong in WP:ANIME's reference library, and magazines such as Dengeki Hime and Tech Gian generally only cover bishōjo games, which isn't really useful to WP:VG's general contributors. -- クラウド６６８06:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is the task force even large enough to warrant something like this? I mean, there's not too many editors who even have such magazines like Dengeki Hime or Tech Gian, so I can't imagine that there'd be a lot of content on the page.--十八08:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, I was actually thinking that the task force isn't large enough for that as well, and probably none of us have many of them. I guess we can at best add a them below the Resources section simply due to the low amount, perhaps. -- クラウド６６８08:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since I believe I finally found a RS that can link the caramelldansen origin to the title, I've decided to continue work on this to try and bring it to FA. I've started with a PR.陣内Jinnai00:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am wondering how should the titles in the To Heart franchise (especially the To Heart 2 ones) be referred to? My main concern is whether the visual novels themselves should be named with a space or not (ToHeart2 or To Heart 2), when either is accepted by WP:MOSTM. Remurmur moved the articles to where it currently sits a couple years ago after a lengthy discussion at To Heart's talk page. I'm also concerned about the following titles:
Should spin off games like Another Days and Dungeon Travelers be referred to with or without a colon? I think Final Fantasy VII Advent Children was named without a colon with the rationale that the official English title lacked a colon, and Another Days's title is, well, entirely in English.
Should XRATED be referred to as XRATED, XRated, or X Rated? I am leaning towards the latter because of how "X" is pronounced separately, but just wanted to ask for a second opinion.
Should the ad OVAs' titles be capitalized, and how should the words "plus" and "next" be handled (as AD Next or Adnext)?
Well, the first thing I would bring up is that camelCase is not prohibited on Wikipedia, so there's no reason to include spaces just because. As far as the old debate goes, it seems like it was mainly an issue with how the title was rendered on English-localized anime and manga. Right Stuf lists the title as To Heart, and it seems ADV did the same with the manga, though oddly enough, both covers of the Right Stuf anime and ADV manga display the title as ToHeart, though it's obvious this is just a carryover from the Japanese releases. I would say that's enough evidence to suggest we should stick with the spaces, at least for To Heart. Granted, the game was never released in English, but even then the original rendering of the title had spaces, and only later did they use camelCase.
To Heart 2 is different, since it was never released in English, and always uses camelCase. So, like the Japanese articles, ja:To Heart and ja:ToHeart2, I think it would make sense to remove the spaces from the latter. However, the only thing I'd be concerned about is consistency. Someone may say that either both should use camelCase or both should use spaces, and I'm inclined to agree, but this is an odd situation. If either article is ever brought to GA, the inconsistency may be brought up too.
I think the use of colons should be done on a case by case basis. If those titles have no colons, then I don't see a problem not having them. For XRATED, I've always disliked that it's in all caps, but never really thought we could do otherwise. I guess I would go with X Rated, following normal English conventions. For the OVA titles, ad is pronounced A.D., so I think they should rendered be as AD Next and AD Plus, following the same convention as X Rated.--十八05:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine (and actually really want to) get rid of the all caps for XRATED, but I think whether there should be a space inbetween should depend on whether we use camel case in To Heart 2's title. Personally, I really do prefer it with spaces inbetween, and would like to keep the consistency between the two articles, but that's probably something that needs further opinions for. -- クラウド６６８06:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, while the all caps of XRATED should be removed per WP:ALLCAPS, I'm not sure if Xrated or XRated is appropriate here. I doubt there would many English RSes that we could look to for this as the few out there probably use all caps.陣内Jinnai06:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that should probably be rendered as "XRated" or "X Rated" just because X and Rated are read separately, but it really depends on whether we decide to go with "ToHeart2" or "To Heart 2" in order to keep the camel case usage consistent, I guess. -- クラウド６６８06:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then I would say stick with the spaces with To Heart and To Heart 2 to preserve consistency across the series (and to make it easier if Leaf ever gets off their buts and does To Heart 3). If nothing gets camelCased, then it'd make sense to go with X Rated and leave as a note that the original rendering of the title is ToHeart2 XRATED.--十八06:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The other day, I came upon a book titled Anime and the Visual Novel by Dani Cavallaro at my school's library. I decided to check it out thinking that I can steal something from it for To Heart's reception section. After reading a couple sections of the book, though, I've noticed some similarities between the book and several of our articles here when it comes to how some sentences are phrased and structured (although a lot of analysis is added in), in particular in the sections of the book on True Tears, H2O: Footprints in the Sand, White Album, and Da Capo II for the parts that I have read. The book only cited Wikipedia in one instance, and that's when it copied School Days (visual novel)#Delay of finale word by word, and none of the articles are cited.
As an example, this is found in the book: "An especially intriguing strategy resides with the game's employment of so-called 'tear points.' These indicate how each of the heroines associated with specific occurrences is being treated. If the number of points in question exceeds the total of eight, the resolution of that heroine's arc is made inaccessible in the course of that particular play-through.", which kind of sounds like it's taken out of the True Tears article. I am wondering what everyone else thinks, or if I should just shut up and recursively cite it for To Heart, even though I can't find any evidence that establish this as a RS. -- クラウド６６８21:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, well one good thing about Wikipedia is that it's based on verifiability, not truth. If it's not specifically verifiable that the author took those sections (aside form the School Days one) from Wikipedia, then I would say it's fair game for citations. And I thought books published by regular publishing houses (i.e. not those that are self-published) would be considered reliable. The author seems to have written quite a few books, but do you have to find reliable sources citing Cavallaro to claim they're reliable?--十八21:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I guess I confused the RS process with that for websites. In that case, I guess I'll just cite the book for To Heart (and potentially other articles) when I get around to work on that. -- クラウド６６８22:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on... that sounds like plagiarism to me! On principle, do we want to support the act of ripping work from this WikiProject (and then profiting from it)? And if we cite the copied material, then won't it look like the Wikipedia editors are the ones who've copied+pasted from Cavallaro? Here are two other cases where authors were caught copying+pasting from Wikipedia: A book and a newspaper -- In the first case, the author acknowledged that he "screwed up"; in the second case, the editor denounced the author's actions. No apologies were offered though. --Polarem (talk) 01:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But still, we can't independently confirm that he stole passages from Wikipedia, and it'd be OR to say he did without reliable evidence. Besides, since the book came out in late 2009, it'd be easy to confirm that certain passages were first on the Wikipedia articles by checking the history.--十八02:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it might fall under WP:CIRCULAR so you should probably ask at WT:V and let them know its not something that you can confirm for certain. CIRCULAR only really talks about items that can be directly attributed back to Wikipedia (and even then like console generations discussion if becomes part of the wider cultural belief then its fine). What we have here is something that seems unclear which was the source.
Well, from what I can tell, the book didn't really copy anything from the To Heart article (perhaps because of how it is scant of information), and all I want to cite the book for is how it calls To Heart's contribution to visual novels as "foundational", but I was worried because of just how similar the other parts of the book is compared to some of the articles here. To clarify, there isn't an instance aside from the part on School Days (and that's done in a footnote) where the book copies Wikipedia articles word by word, but the paragraphs on True Tears' and H2O's gameplay, as well as Kanon's and White Album's plots and characters sound too similar to the equivalent sections on Wikipedia. -- クラウド６６８06:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok. If he (she?) wrote the To Heart section himself, then I think it's fine to cite that. I'd be wary about citing the other, unusually-similar sections though. --Polarem (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not mistaken, the OR policy says that we shouldn't put unpublished info info into an article, but we can do "original research" when deciding who to cite. So, I can't say in a Wikipedia article that "Author X plagiarised Wikipedia" (unless someone else had said it publicly)... but I can launch my own investigation to figure out if Author X plagiarised or not, and then use my findings to decide whether or not to cite his work in my article. --Polarem (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
