Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:27, 28 January 2009

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5
6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15
16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25
26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35
36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45
46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55
56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65
66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75
76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85
86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95
96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105
106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115
116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125
126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135
136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145
146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155
156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165
166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174

Any sections older than 5 days are automatically archived by MiszaBot II.
An archive topic index is available here.

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by .

Image size in infobox

According to Template:Infobox VG's syntax guide, the image size in infoboxes should be 252px, but I've noticed that most users prefer/use 256px. Lately, I've been reducing box arts in favour of WP:NFCC to 256px since that's the most commonly used size. Just to be sure: should I start reducing to 252px instead? The Prince (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

252px is the maximum size that will fit without making the infobox wider. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been using 256px because I remember that it was the recommend size at one point. Apparently it has been changed. --Mika1h (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been using 256px, as I think 90% of everyone is doing. Someone should change the template so that it fits 256px, because it's the de facto standard (and as the Prince brought up, most people end up reducing box art to 256px horizontally to meet NFCC.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kind of torn. Scaling the image to fit the template seems kind of silly compared to doing it the other way around. However, if there are other templates in the article whose sizes you want to match the infobox it can become a hassle (though this may be futile anyway due to browser differences). SharkD (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remember a time when 250 was the standard. Is there some reason that 2⁸ is better suited than 252 or 250? Pagrashtak 15:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multiples of 2 for image sizes have been used for some time. Take a look at the image sizes used for the .ICO image file format, for instance. Gary King (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean powers of two, as 256, 252, and 250 are all multiples of two. Pagrashtak 20:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like powers of two, too. :) SharkD (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SharkD, this is the wrong way of doing things. You can't just state that just because the infobox allows 256px, that the maximum width of all uploaded images must be 256px to match WP:NFCC - that's not how it works. Low resolution is not predetermined by an infobox, it depends on the size, resolution and aspect ratio of the original.

There's a difference between a four foot tall movie poster and a CD jewel case. If you are uploading covers for SNES and N64 games using the 256px width rule, then because of their original size and aspect ratio, you are uploading those at a lower resolution than DVD cases at 256px width. I do not think it is productive to resample and reupload images such as File:LoV-KeyVis.jpg, when the original at 300px wide was already low resolution. - hahnch e n 17:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC specifies the lowest possible resolution. Box art is only defensible under NFCC (in most cases) in that it is used to help readers identify that they've reached the proper place and aids identification. It should be no larger than the infobox because there's no defensible reason otherwise, unless it meets WP:NFCC some other way. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC specifies low resolution, not whatever width the infobox comes in. Template:Infobox film has a default image width of 200px, yet if all posters were to be uploaded at this width, identifying details would be lost. Take a look at Dirty Harry for example. Another example is File:The Wild Bunch.JPG, an image reduction that I reversed, it's of obviously low quality anyway given the artifacts, but in its reduced state, the tagline was rendered unreadable. - hahnch e n 17:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But as you stated before, there's a difference between a four foot tall movie poster and a DVD or CD-sized cover. There's less necessary text, and what's there is much easier to read scaled down than a movie poster; thus, we can have a lower resolution. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that low resolution is subjective and isn't defined by what size your infobox is. If you're going to use infobox width as your bible, then each N64 cover you upload is going to be significantly lower res than the PSP covers you upload. It's not inconceivable with the growing popularity of widescreen displays that at some point in the future, the infobox will get wider. Then what? Redo your images? Non free images should be uploaded at a low resolution, this does not mean at whatever width the infobox currently is, is a 300px wide cover low-res? In most cases, yes. - hahnch e n 19:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I remember seeing somewhere that .1MP is considered low resolution. Has anyone else seen that? MrKIA11 (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is User:Elcobbola's general rule of thumb; that translates to roughly 333x333 square, or 256x433. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or whatever the pixels translate to so that the image keeps the same aspect ratio. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. But if the image is longer than it is wide like old NES/N64, it can just be flipped. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was that choosing a width of 252px instead of 256px within the infobox was potentially dubious. I wasn't referring to the size of the uploaded file. SharkD (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's better to have the same width in the infobox image as in the actual image file. If the image is made smaller in the infobox, the wiki server will actually create a resized copy of the image and this will make the page load time slightly longer. Not to mention the resizing done by the wiki is not topnotch and makes the image more blurry than it should be. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 10:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aye. That's why I use PNG when possible, as the scaling artifacts aren't an issue, but it still makes more sense to keep it the infobox size in most cases. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bumping so this doesn't get archived. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 09:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Machinima

I was wondering that does machinima related articles belong under the VG project or not? The main machinima article is tagged but many sub articles are not, like Red vs. Blue and The Strangerhood. --Mika1h (talk) 10:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say yes because they all use video game models to create them. But I don't see them being rated above low-importance. Others may disagree though. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I concur...machinima is an offshoot of video games, so they belong in the Video Game Wikiproject. I've added RvB to the Low-importance tier.--_{ZXCVBNM [TALK]} 17:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, maybe they weren't in the project because Wikiproject Machinima is an offshoot of video games as well? Perhaps I should remove the templates since they sort of overlap each other.--_{ZXCVBNM [TALK]} 18:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That shouldn't matter much since WP:MACH doesn't seem to be very active looking at their talk page. --Mika1h (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we ought to combine Wikiproject machinima with Wikiproject Videogames, and replace all their machinima boilerplates with ours. It doesn't seem like a very big project at any rate, and it's intrinsically linked with this one.--_{ZXCVBNM [TALK]} 20:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added it to our Project clean up page, and started a discussion on the Project's talk page. Let's see if any of the members are still around. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Well, I founded the project a long time ago, and just came back from a year-long wikibreak. It turns out that we had a lot of difficulty maintaining sustained interest in the project as a whole, even though there are/were a number people interested in specific productions. The little twist is that, technically speaking, machinima requires merely a real-time 3-D engine, not necessarily that of a video game. However, the vast majority of notable productions have been made through video games, and in any event the technology of all contemporary real-time 3-D engine will be closely related. So although the concept is technically not a proper subset of video gaming, and although there may a machinima-related article eventually that technically doesn't mention an actual video game in any way, shape, or form, it's splitting hairs to some extent.

By the way, as a suggestion, given that popular machinima series create their own fictional universes, feel free to help us with keeping the in-universe stuff in check if you happen to see problems, even if the production technicalities go over your head. Fiction is fiction. Popular fiction tends to have in-universe bloating problems now and then. :) — TKD::Talk 09:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New category

I was thinking of creating a new category, Category:Video games featuring space colonization. I wanted to run it by you guys first. SharkD (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know, does Category:Science fiction video games not already adequately cover that? Just out of curiosity, how many games are we looking at here? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

It seems a bit too specific for a category. Then we'd have to make one for "video games featuring earth colonization" and that would be everything else.--_{ZXCVBNM [TALK]} 19:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's lots of games, such as the Galactic Civilizations series, Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri and Outpost (video game). It's no biggie though. Someone could instead create a list, which might be better. SharkD (talk) 02:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anywhere that this topic is discussed, on-wiki or off? It seems like a non-topic, smacking of "Games featuring people in red overalls" to me. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, just here. :) SharkD (talk) 03:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed another category, Category:Video games with time travel, that was similar, so I thought I'd suggest it, though I did think it might be excessive. SharkD (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic- That's weird, there's a Category:Time travel video games and Category:Video games with time travel. Based on the difference being that one is a plot device and the other is a gameplay device, that seems like over categorization to me. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Yeah, the second has already been proposed for deletion in the (unrelated) CfD I started for the category. I'll propose that the other one be axed as well. SharkD (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, nevermind. I didn't see that one was about gameplay elements and the other wasn't. SharkD (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There also seems to be a broader Category:Time travel in fiction category, but nothing comparable that deals specifically with space colonization. SharkD (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serious OR issues at Comparison of racing simulators

Someone put a lot of work into this article... but unfortunately it has serious problems with WP:No original research. I would hate to have to nominate the article for deletion, so please fix it. Blueboar (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's really intricately detailed. I don't think all of those can be referenced though, even if all that info did exist on "reliable" sites it would probably be a complete pain to add citations. I think the best course of action is to copy it to a gaming wiki if it's unsuitable for Wikipedia due to its "game-guide-ness".--_{ZXCVBNM [TALK]} 17:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow is right. Amidst all the cruft we sort through, you occasionally see something that looks pretty well thought out. I remember seeing something of similar detail done for the PS2's clock system. I can't even begin to imagine the amount of work that goes it something like the racing comparison, but it is unfortunately original research.

Copying to a game wiki sounds like the best option, as a lot of work into this and I'm sure others would find it useful, regardless if we can verify it or not. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Agree. I think that it's inherently too POV for Wikipedia and out of our scope. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise contacting the major editors (possibly not the IPs, except for the more recent) and inviting them here, if they are active. One of them may have a preferential wiki to move it to, as I don't know of any Wikia that would be receptive to it, so that leaves us to move it to StrategyWiki, possibly. I'm sure there's another... --Izno (talk) 01:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it could be moved to GamingWiki under the same title, since it's a general wiki about gaming.--_{ZXCVBNM [TALK]} 04:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article's creator and early major contributor looks to be BMF81, but they haven't edited on Wikipedia in year and a half. Another major contributor is Stenyak, who hasn't edited since September. Some of the other user names have maybe 10-25 edits for the article. So I'm not sure if contacting the major contributors will work.

A discussion was started on the article's talk page, and the article was tagged for OR and copy to gaming wiki. If they don't know about it by now, they probably aren't active. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Slew of suggested renames

Here's a whole slew of articles I suggest renaming. SharkD (talk) 02:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And your reasoning? The whole "Sid Meier's" bit seems completely unnecessary, as no game but Alpha Centauri is generally known by that save in promotional materials. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Sid Meier's" is shouldn't happen. Those with sub-subtiles probably should be renamed if that is what how they are usually dealt with. Classic Empire should be renamed if it that's the official title, unless it is communally referred to as Classic Empire by reliable sources. Rest are fine.じんない 02:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reasoning is that "Sid Meier's" is part of the actual game title, as is printed on the box and in official promotional material[19], as well as sites such as MobyGames[20]. IIRC, it's standard procedure to use a game's full title in articles as opposed to acronyms or other "popular" (i.e. fan-made) titles or shortenings. SharkD (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's used on the box and in promotional material and nowhere else. (In the case of Mobygames - a user-edited encyclopedia in any event - it uses "Civiliation" all through the text.) Titles reflect common usage, not promotional tics, and don't include strictly promotional or little-used prefixes or suffixes unless they are necessary for disambiguation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If they are the only one that uses it, then we shouldn't. Wikipedia isn't beholden to cooperation naming schemes.じんない 03:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seriously doubt it's used elsewhere besides promotional material?? There's 750k hits on Google, 50k on GameSpot, 150 on GameSpy, etc., etc.. Maybe a third of them are false hits. Of course, I knew you were pulling my leg. SharkD (talk) 04:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not seeing where these name changes come into play. Some are just plain wrong (on the official site it's Worms Armageddon, no colon.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 04:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You link Gamespot's replication of press releases, but ignore its review, which calls it "Civilization IV". Gamespy calls it "Civilization IV" in its overview and review. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, these don't look necessary. It's better to KISS (Keep it simple stupid). And the colon renames remind me of when Metroid Prime: Hunters was renamed Metroid Prime Hunters, you have to be careful because some titles don't include the colons.--_{ZXCVBNM [TALK]} 04:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the references in Metroid Prime Hunters, and a good half of them use the colon, including one whose title was mis-typed in the actual article. If your point is that it's the game's "official" name given by Nintendo, then this goes directly against A Man In Bl♟ck's point. SharkD (talk) 04:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The name's interchangeable, but why do a bulk rename just to include a colon? As I said, the simpler the better - people aren't going to search for "Sid Meier's Civilization II", they will look for "Civilization II".--_{ZXCVBNM [TALK]} 04:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just prefer it if articles all used the games' full titles. The redirects will always still be there. SharkD (talk) 04:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the title of the GameSpot article uses the game's full name as does its URL. Secondly, the body of the IGN overview you linked to also uses the game's full name. Thirdly, I had to go to the *third* page of the Google results to find any blurbs containing material copied from press releases. SharkD (talk) 04:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further, listing the full titles may actually have some "encyclopedic" value. SharkD (talk) 05:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And that value is? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The value is that readers learn what the full titles of the games are from the standpoint of ludography. SharkD (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:NAME "...article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." So if there is no clear indication that "Sid Meier's" is placed all the time by such sources then it should remain. If they are all, or almost all on the same page, it might still not be preferable if more people would more easily recognize it without the title.じんない 06:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also think it's sloppy to have one title in the page name and another in the article lead and infobox. Most of the Civilization articles feature the full title in one or both. The gain in "ease of understandability" may be offset by confusion arising from this inconsistency, the reasoning being that a sloppy encyclopedia is one that is difficult to understand. If it's important to clarify the distinction between the shortened name and the long name in the page title, then it should be even more important to do so in the article lead—which is currently not being done. SharkD (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worms games shouldn't be moved since I've never seen colons used with them and a Google search seems to support this. --Mika1h (talk) 10:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the only ones that use the colon are the more recent titles in the series, such as Worms 4: Mayhem, Worms: Open Warfare and Worms: A Space Oddity. I suggested the rename more for consistency's sake. SharkD (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Consistency" is not a compelling reason; the most common name should be used. –xeno (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the colon is used at least occasionally, such as by IGN, AVault and InsideMacGames. SharkD (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Star Trek one and other similar Star Trek video games with a series name should be renamed like that, their official documentation (ie readmes and the like) tends to list them like that. I've already done that for Star Trek: Voyager – Elite Force a while back. However, be sure to use the – rather than the -. The Worms ones are all correct in official documentation, they shouldn't be changed. I'll look into the Total War ones. -- Sabre (talk) 12:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the Civilization ones should be moved. Gary King (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sidenote, I'm pretty sure Civilization II is not related to Sid Meier, and it was never called that. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 19:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The cover art has his name on it. SharkD (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Red is labeled Pokemon: Red Version, they all are I think, though nobody calls them that. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 19:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Pokémon, I'll speculate and say it might be due to translation issues and the fact that "Version" doesn't appear on the Japanese version's box. SharkD (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue that that the renaming fixes is that in at least one instance it eliminates a disambiguation. As I understand it, using full titles is preferred over disambiguations. SharkD (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Sid Meier hasn't been the lead designer on a Civ title since the original game. Of course, that has nothing to do with how the title is actually marketed. (And you guys are welcome to debate whether Wikipedia reflects the official corporate trademark or box art or what.) Randomran (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to change Civilization to Sid Meier's Civilization and only that one for disambig reasons, that's fine. That one I have actually heard at times being used to distinquish it from just saving "civilization." However, newer titles don't have that since the numbering scheme makes it clear we are not talking about civilization.じんない 20:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One could draw a parallel with all the "Tom Clancy's" video games, in which we have included the title in full; Tom Clancy#Video games. If we're going to be consistant, there's going to be a bulk renaming one way or another. Marasmusine (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Clive Barker games which are similarly named. --Mika1h (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the American McGee games and Buzz Aldrin's Race Into Space. SharkD (talk) 02:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to be consistent. That's not the goal of our naming guidelines. The goal is to reflect common usage. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know... That kind of attitude makes us look like a typical fan site. Maybe the goal should be changed? SharkD (talk) 02:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering it's the overriding philosophy behind naming of articles for every single thing in the entire encyclopedia, you're welcome to change it but I don't think you'll have a lot of luck. Copying the entire text on the front of the box often both defies logical placement of articles but also leads to some fairly ridiculous situations like Kojima Production's Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots - Tactical Espionage Action. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't FORCE you to state the entire game name. It's based on the good judgment of the article writers whether to include subtitles if they are necessary. In most cases, they aren't. Speaking of subtitles, it seems that my move of Race 07 has to wait a bit, since they're not supposed to be copypasta. I still think it's warranted, since there's no disambiguation for "Race 07".--_{ZXCVBNM [TALK]} 07:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're only partially correct in this case, as Race 07 - Official WTCC Game is the game's tagline—not subtitle. SharkD (talk) 07:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the Metal Gear example; It's not a matter of what's printed on the box. It's the possesive "'s" that's indicating inclusion in the title, which isn't the case with MGS. Just to confuse matters, I've took a look at some commercial sites to see how they print the titles. Amazon and GAME for example mostly include the possessive but not always - but always with "Clive Barker's" and "Tom Clancy's". I'm still undecided but my gut instinct is to rename for consistancy. Marasmusine (talk) 11:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After some consideration, I support the proposed rename of the Civilization articles. I got my computer's opinion for the ones I own. It calls them Sid Meier's Civilization IV, Sid Meier's Civilization IV: Beyond the Sword and Sid Meier's Civilization IV Colonization (that last one curiously without a colon.) Marasmusine (talk) 12:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon

I'll suggest some more here.

In these cases I'm not sure whether "versions" should be capitalized. SharkD (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

versions should not since it's not a proper noun in this case.じんない 23:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These seem to make sense, since the games refer to themselves as "Red Version" or "Blue Version", not just "Red" and "Blue". But since it's part of the subtitle, is it correct to use "Red and Blue Versions" or "Red Version and Blue Version"?--_{ZXCVBNM [TALK]} 23:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither - they may have "Versions" at the end, but it's commonly accepted without the "Versions" at the end. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Names are common usage. This is not common usage. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is tricky - it looks to me like if you want to be technical, the games are all simply called Pokemon, and that new editions get released as versions - so the game is the Red version of Pokemon, not Pokemon Red Version. That said, the clear popular convention is to call them Pokemon Red, Pokemon Silver, etc. I would be inclined to maintain that approach. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[21] - Nintendo refers to the originals simply as "Pokemon"... But they should stay at common usage. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 00:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NAME when there is a dispute like this, the most common usage is to be used.じんない 00:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pac-Man Series pages

Not a regular wikiproject contributer, but I thought I'd stop by and mention that many of the Pac-Man game pages seem to be a straight up copy of the pages at [22]. Of course, such copy and paste work doesn't fly on wikipedia, so these pages obviously need attention.oknazevad (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, actually, the opposite is true. Superpacman.com is using the Wikipedia articles. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. It's obvious from the article histories that the articles have grown and evolved over time instead of simply being copied and pasted from an outside source. SharkD (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not the first time I've seen other sites copy and paste a version of a Wikipedia article to result in people claiming that we're violating their copyrights. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. The official Devil May Cry website copied the plot descriptions from Wikipedia too. That was a big day for those editors. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

You know, if only they'd released the game as open source everything would have been OK. But no... SharkD (talk) 05:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think all they would have to do in most cases like that is note that it comes from Wikipedia. Kinda sad that something so trivial could stop a whole bunch of those copyright disputes.じんない 05:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually quite glad to find I got it backwards. I agree with Jinnail. I too wish sites that "borrowed" from Wikipedia would be more vigilant in crediting it (us, really). oknazevad (talk) 01:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New stats page

I created an article (forgive me if such an article already exists and I missed it) to easily track and compare changes over time:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article statistics

What other patterns can you see in these statistics? SharkD (talk) 02:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say something to the effect that the number of VG articles is now dropping, but I see that this has occurred previously. SharkD (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My god... you mean that we've been cleaning up crap? It's a revelation! --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I noticed is that the number of deletions tend to peak around the same time as the number of unassessed articles. SharkD (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please also read this. SharkD (talk) 05:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may be stating the obvious, but because I'm a bit of a numbers nerd here's what I got from the numbers.

Our assessing process has changed over time. I personally think we've tightened our standards, but that may be subject to debate.
- Last winter in 2007, the number of B-class articles dropped significantly, while the number of Start-class increased suggesting a mass reassessment of articles.
- Last Summer in 2008, the number B-class articles dropped again. This was when the C and List-classes were implemented.
- The number of total articles has greatly increased, and, as expected, the number of stubs has increased more than any other quality class.
- The number of articles unassessed by quality and importance have dropped dramatically.
- This all tells me that the project's assessment efforts have created a better representation of our article quality. I say this on the assumption that most articles are not in the shape they should be for whatever reason: sourcing, prose, balance, etc. I see this as a positive this because accurately knowing where articles are on the quality scale is one of the first steps to improving things.
Our output of quality articles has been steadily increasing over the past two years.
- The number of FAs increases by an average of 3.45/month. (The number represent the net of promotions minus removals)
- The number of GAs increased by an average of 7.77/month. (Ditto)
- FLs and A-class, especially A-class, have been more erratic, but have increased overall.
Our deletion habits have increased.
- The number of AfDs increased dramatically starting December 2007
- The pattern of AfDs kept generally matched the total number of AfDs. However, the gap between the total and keeps is gradually increasing. In short, we're starting to keep fewer articles that are going to AfD.

Basically, David summed it up much shorter than I just did; we've been cleaning things up. While some of this may seem trivial, I believe the assessment and deletion trends lay the ground work for more quality articles in the future. It also tells me that our efforts aren't going to waste, and it looks like we're making some real progress (which is always a pleasant thought). My two cents. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 05:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The stubs were created by Wikipedians. They evolved. They rebelled. And they have a plan...--_{ZXCVBNM [TALK]} 05:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll copy your timeline into the article so that readers aren't confused as to why there are sudden spikes in the numbers. SharkD (talk) 06:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what me and my copy of Calc noticed: the relative number of FA articles has been increasing steadily, from 0.0023% in March '07, up to up to 0.0052% in Jan '09, compared to Wikipedia's total rate of 0.0009 (as seen on WP:FA). The same applies to GA articles, which went from 0.0060% to 0.0123$, compared to 0.0022. This all translates to us being about five times better than the Wikipedia average, which I think is a pretty good result. Of course, it could mean our standards are lax (or are getting lower), but I doubt it. --VPeric (talk) 10:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that's probably explanable by the fact its relatively easy to find solid sources for this subject as opposed to other areas. We can just go online to places such as IGN or GameSpot, occassionally picking up a print magazine or scholary source when one turns up. Other articles require more research: something like cat, Kingdom of Great Britain, and even other fictional elements such as Klingons are topics grounded in scholary research, which needs to be properly looked up rather than just using Google to find "[game title] review". -- Sabre (talk) 11:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable information on old games can be pretty hard to find since the relevant publications haven't made their way online yet. SharkD (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like the point out that dip in total articles in July '08 was caused by me going through and removing {{vgproj}} from over a thousand talk pages whose articles had been redirected (see [23] and [24]). Ever since I've been cleaning up the list on a monthly basis. Nifboy (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I added a fourth set of stats (page views) as well as your comments in a new section. The next thing I will be doing is overhauling the other page views list and requesting that a bot be created to update the list as well as the image. SharkD (talk) 12:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a test version, here. I've made it so that the text in the first row is rotated 90 degrees. However,this only works in Internet Explorer. I was wondering if the formatting were satisfactory for you Mozilla users despite the text not being rotated. I know of an alternate solution using SVG images that I can always fall back upon if it's too ugly. SharkD (talk) 13:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick suggestion- Maybe split the one table into two. Like have all the project pages in one and the task forces in another. I think that will make it easier to view for everybody, and easier to compare the subpages since the project and task force pages serve different purposes. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Yup, that's a good idea. I'll do that. SharkD (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created some charts using the data. I added the charts to the main project page as well as to each article. There's an 8 month backlog on some of the data. Hopefully it will get filled in by the bot that I requested be made. SharkD (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I missed something here...

Chrono Trigger is put up for FAR. User:Jappalang points out that Chrono Compendium, a source the article relies upon, isn't all that great a source. Discussion drawn out there. Gets brought here. Inclination seems to be in agreement that it's not the best source to use.

Totally regardless of the mega discussion, two people show up and vote Keep. No counterargument to the discussion at hand there, just a big stand alone keep vote, followed by a smaller one. Article stays at FA as a result.

Now I'm no rocket scientist but how do two left field keep votes totally negate the rest of the discussion?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should bring that up with the FAR/C director; I myself did not notice the FAR at all save the source discussion. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 04:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought he cleaned up the article and sorted out the sources. Also, there's something to be said for the reputability of sources when there are barely any others available.--_{ZXCVBNM [TALK]} 05:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reputability of CC hadn't been totally quashed as a lexicon of information that could be directly attributed to the game itself. At worst it would be a qualified reliable source. Beyond that it depends upon how peer overview is interpreted, in this case it may have been taken too liberally.

I have brought this to the attention of the director at FARC.じんない 05:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Free image icons in navboxes

Just a thought I was having after asking David for an icon for a future FT. We have all these lovely icons sitting over at FT, but they really don't get much viewing over there: its hardly the first stop for a regular Wikipedia viewer. Is there anything really stopping us from adding free icons to navboxes if such icons are available, such as {{Law}}? Similar things are in place on some of the other language Wkipedias. I've applied this to {{StarCraft series}} and {{Sam & Max}}, and it looks fine to me, just a little something that helps colour the end of an article in some circumstances. The size of the file at such a small size is negligable in loading. -- Sabre (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that some templates replace the header with logotype such as {{House}}. The chances of game's type being general enough that it would qualify for free use are slim, though. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reason we can include images. :). All of the United States related templates (like, all of them) have an image included, such as {{Oregon}} and {{US Presidents}}, so I'd say, go for it! --Izno (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please link to FT so that we can all know what you are talking about. SharkD (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FT. Some have appropriate icons, others do not. This isn't limited to the navboxes for articles that are in FT's, I mean generally, if a descriptive, appropriate and free icon is available. -- Sabre (talk) 02:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any of the icons that are good should be added to this category. SharkD (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I am whoring myself out to Sabre to provide his pet images, but if anyone else needs one (that can be made so it's not a blatant derivative of the original, natch) I'd be happy to make it. I've got a few of the images I made in its own category at commons, here, so if anyone wants to add more cats to them by all means do so (they were pretty much all uncategorized until a day or two ago.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Whoring" is a bit of a strong word, but don't worry, I won't take up any more of your time. I'm sorted for the two FT's I'll be pursuing over the next year or so. I can't ask any more of you now, to do so at this point would be rude of me in my view. -- Sabre (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping someone might redo this image. I like the general idea behind the image, but the dice are of the wrong type (d8 or d20 might be better), and the swords are ugly. SharkD (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Campbell

I completely missed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart Campbell (journalist), as it wasn't listed under the video game deletions. It's a bit of a surprise to me, as I had always thought that he was one of the more famous video game journalists. To me, the discussion seems more of a "no concensus", and one of the main deletion reasons was "because Campbell wants it deleted", which is surely irrelevant. Just wondered what the thoughts of this project were. Marasmusine (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a marginally notable figure was deleted per his request, which I am generally fine with. The article was, it should be noted, fairly poor. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does bring up an interesting question though: can we be forbidden from covering a subject?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, the exact opposite would be frowned upon, so why can an article be deleted upon the subject matter's request? SharkD (talk) 03:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well consider subjects that get bad press, but other subjects readily mention or discuss it. The holder of the copyrights or the individual or whatever steps forward and says "This is mine/me, remove it." Yes as it stands it was just a journalist in this case, but you can readily see where it can be a much larger subject instead in this sort of situation, no?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was specifically because he was minor that it was allowed.じんない 04:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, we do not delete articles on request, but in the case of people who pass WP:N but are still not hugely important, we take their requests seriously and ask "do we really need an article on this?" Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for your comments. Marasmusine (talk) 15:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few problematic articles

I went through a good part of the new video game articles in the first half of December, and I found the following articles that may not establish any notability (as noted by the tags on the articles), but I want to get some other informal opinions on these before I consider going the deletion route on them (also, knowing me, I may have missed something):

~~Characters of Persona 4~~
~~Chicago Syndicate~~
~~Extreme Pinball~~
~~Filament games~~
~~Pedro (video game) (is there anything besides World of Spectrum?)~~
~~STCC - The Game~~
~~Takahiro Izutani~~
~~The Forgotten Realms Deluxe Edition~~

MuZemike 01:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Characters of Persona 4...there is some developer commentary from the collector edition artbook about them at least. I can add it in a bit. Too busy to look up which pages and what ATM.

EDIT: Also, there is undoubtably merchadise for all for the protagonists.じんない 01:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

here is a pre-order plushie of one of them, here is some commentary on the game and specifically in 2 paragraph about the character's presentation, though it may not meett WP:RS. [This one does, but the commentary on characters isn't as much, but still there. This site goes into more detail, even referencing characters breifly from Persona 3 to compare and contrast giving a level of analysis. Other ones from this list probably also have info.じんない 03:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro has potential. On the WoS link there's a few reviews in publications that could be used to build a decent article with gameplay, reception details. --Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I see it there, now. I'll remove the {{notability}} tag there. MuZemike 01:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MobyGames lists one review for Chicago Syndicate. SharkD (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's also mentioned in an old GameSpot article. SharkD (talk) 02:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another mention here. SharkD (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for Takahiro Izutani, there seem to be quite a few hits when searching for Japanese articles. SharkD (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Filament Games:

An academic work that mentions them: [25] SharkD (talk) 02:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the developers speaking at a games conference: [26] SharkD (talk) 02:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some topics having to do with mixing education and electronic entertainment: [27][28][29][30] SharkD (talk) 02:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Forgotten Realms Deluxe Edition can probably be redirected to/mentioned in each game's own article, though I'm sure MobyGames at least has its own entry for it. SharkD (talk) 03:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STCC - The Game

Over a dozen articles are linked to from here (see the "Aggregate news" section). I haven't taken a look at each of them individually, though. SharkD (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goddamn SharkD, use the preview button. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged STCC - The Game with Race 07 (which I have taken the liberty of moving because there's no title confusion), so that clears that up. Expansion packs don't get their own article unless they're pretty large.--_{ZXCVBNM [TALK]} 03:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged Deluxe Edition too. Nobody cares about a compilation.--_{ZXCVBNM [TALK]} 03:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Pinball has a description of the gameplay on IGN,[31] and a review on CVG.[32] Not much yet, but it's an indicator that there's some coverage. --Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My guess would be that other coverage would be from print (magazine) sources, like an old GamePro or similar. MuZemike 20:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, everyone, for your help; it's very appreciated. MuZemike 20:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tachyon: The Fringe

Not a member, but is currently rewritting Tachyon: The Fringe, is rewritting outside of Wikipedia so nothing can be seen in the articel, have mostly so far moved allready written parts to under diffrent more fitting headlines and writting down the story better, it is becoming pretty big, wonder if someone could check the current articel and see if something should be removed or so, isnt familiar with your guide lines regarding a articel. --> Halmstad, Charla to moi 03:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the article needs a major wikification. Secondly, there's a huge amount of in universe information that needs to be trimmed down immensely, so per WP:NOT I would suggest to stop rewriting the article here and move all the info to an external guide like Gaming Wiki, start your own Wikia wiki, or maybe write an FAQ on the game or something. Wikipedia is not a game guide, it focuses on real world events first and foremost. And, not to be mean or anything, but it's spelled article.--_{ZXCVBNM [TALK]} 03:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Character merges

Template:RFCsoc

Akari Kanzaki (talk · contribs · count) has been undoing character merges for Xenosaga characters, which results in multiple articles with in-universe and notability problems. I'm getting tired of this—every time progress is made with merging non-notable articles, all it takes is one dissenter to undo everything and force us to start from scratch. I don't feel comfortable protecting such articles, as it gives off the appearance that I'm abusing admin powers. If someone else would like to re-merge/start a discussion/start a new VG page where we can agree to these and lock the redirects/whatever, please do so. I'm not edit warring over this. Pagrashtak 18:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)la[reply]

Have you alerted the user of the notability guidelines? Just so that they do not think that it's "just your opinion". Perhaps we could ask him to talk to us here about it? --.:Alex :. 18:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you post a message on his talk page? If he still doesn't stop after alerting him to the guidelines, then you could maybe request a temporary block or something.--_{ZXCVBNM [TALK]} 19:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Off topic, but it's amusing how you both call that user a 'him' even with a female name.) Back on topic, I don't think it forces anything -- if there's a clear and obvious merge reason, then simply bring up notability guidelines, consensus, and if necessary, DO use the admin tools you have for a reason. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you alerted the user of the long running disputes over the notability guidelines? --Pixelface (talk) 01:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution. Before going to editor assistance, invite the user to explain her (that is a her, right?) actions here. MuZemike 21:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the initial unmerge citing notability and in one case, an actual AFD. When all that got re-reverted, I didn't do anything, I haven't even talked to Akari about it beyond my edit summaries. I'm aware of what I'm supposed to do—start a discussion, inform the editor of notability, etc. The point is I'm too tired of all this. The longer I edit here, the more merged pages I have on my watchlist and the more I see this kind of thing happen. I can talk with Akari—maybe I can convince her, maybe I can't and we have to go through dispute resolution. I suspect we'd end up with the merged version in the end, but how long is that going to stick before I have to go through the same thing with someone else? I'm weary of pushing this boulder. Pagrashtak 22:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At least post once. It may be she is truly unaware. After that if she argues, well then i think at that time it may be more appropriate to ask for help.じんない 23:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message using Friendly, so let's see what happens. BTW, nobody is FORCING you to be the article police, you are free to go AFK, there are millions of people to take your place.--_{ZXCVBNM [TALK]} 23:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine and dandy to say Zxcvbnm, but more often than not there isn't that many people to step in there. There are readily more people willing to undo a merge because "OMG MY FAVORITE CHARACTER IS GONE" than to readily remerge it becuase it lacks encyclopedic content.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The regulars of this project have, for the most part, a pretty good grip on Wikipedia basics like notability, verifiability, and out-of-universe perspective. Quite a few of us know how to write featured articles. However, we are far outnumbered by Wikipedia readers who do not understand these concepts as we have come to define them. Many of them assume "major character" implies "article-worthy" and balk at our supposed destruction of hours of volunteer work. Trying to deal with this on a case-by-case basis is proving untenable. Pagrashtak 03:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "regulars" are pretty good at impressing new editors with their recitation of WP:ALPHABETSOUP. If you're outnumbered by readers who think a major character is notable, you may want to consider that you're the one who's wrong. I'm sure many do balk at the destruction of hours of volunteer work. So until mere commoners can view deleted pages, you may want to stop pushing that boulder, and stop and think what you're actually accomplishing, and for whom. --Pixelface (talk) 01:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe it shouldn't be remerged. --Pixelface (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is nice. People talking about me behind my back like I'm some kind of troublemaker. I've read the merged article, and it's not right. Xenosaga, sadly, is a series that never got enough attention. What I mean by that, is, there were three games never released in the US, along with several guides explaining things in the game that were never released in the US. Those character pages are for characters featured in six games, a manga, an anime, and several drama CDs-some even make appearances in other games. They are the characters the story centers around. Fans put years of work into those articles, and even more work into translating those games, CDs, and guides, to ensure they had the most information possible. The articles thus contain a lot of information, most of which is not easily available to us fans living in the US. Merging the articles results in this information being lost, and the hard work people put into those articles is chopped down into uninformative little paragraphs. It was bad enough someone deleted the article for the minor characters, but now the main characters are getting the same treatment. There is no reason to delete six or so articles on characters with this much information. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 06:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an admirable goal. It is not compatible with an encyclopedia whose aim is to be based on independent sources with a reputation for reliability. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That said, if you could even get the articles written from a out-of-universe perspective, and offer some information about development, reception, or commentary on the characters, it would go a long way. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - we're not here to make less articles, we're here to make less "bad" articles (that is, less articles that don't cite sources or assert notability). - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well A Man In Black, you can always head over to Britannica 2.0, and see if your views on what's "encyclopedic" are compatible with a real encyclopedia. --Pixelface (talk) 01:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense. First of all, there will never be an article that doesn't have uncited things. Even a game summary can't really be cited properly, due to the fact that there are no official sites that list that information. I'm not familiar with citing and how to do it, but I can provide links to the pages with the information. There is still no reason to merge the articles. Wikipedia's goal is to be an encyclopedia, right? Yet it frequently allows incorrect information to be added and removes valuable and rare information, just for the sake of having less articles. I've read the articles in question, and they are not bad. They contain information that is not easily available to US fans of the series. There is no need for them to be merged. Six games, manga, drama CDs, an anime...that's more than enough to support notability. Heck, even Sailor Moon has her own Wikipedia page, and what makes her anymore notable than these characters? Akari Kanzaki (talk) 06:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say "Just because other stuff exists doesn't allow similar content to be on Wikipedia", but you picked a terrible example, since there's a lengthy development section, and it's full of out of universe information, while there are six games, a manga, drama CDs, and an anime because Namco Bandai commissioned six games, a manga, drama CDs, and an anime. The number of appearances a character makes is not how we determine if he or she warrants an article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about Sailer Moon, so comparing this to that isn't helpful at all. Every article needs to estabilish notability, and things aren't instantly notable by association. Everything related to Xenosaga isn't a suitable article just because Xenosaga is. Who said this was "for the sake of having less articles" ? Now you seem to just be making things up. Akari, I suggest you actually read policies, before assuming everything is notable. The editors in this discussion know what they are talking about. You seem to be ignoring most of what people have said, which isn't productive at all. RobJ1981 (talk) 07:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every article needs to "establish" notability? Wrong. I suggest you learn the difference between a policy and a guideline before you start enforcing guidelines. You have no clue what you're talking about. --Pixelface (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're still failing to make a valid point. So, what, an article on a character is fine as long as you have stuff like development information? That somehow makes it more important? You have yet to provide any good reason for destroying those articles. The info in the merged article is second rate and leaves out a lot. We're not talking about a million articles for every little thing related to Xenosaga. We're talking about six or so articles for the main characters that the series centers around. Fans have worked hard, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who is sick of having Wikipedia claim one thing and then do another. You can't claim to want to be some master encyclopedia, then use whatever excuse you can find to delete articles and remove massive amounts of information. These characters are important enough to warrant their own articles, and to remove said articles is to give those who read about the characters less than enough information. Also, please quit redirecting the articles until this discussion is done. It's tiresome. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 07:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, it is a valid point by the fact that a quality article must have out of universe information. Your only argument thus far is that Namco paid to have several Xenosaga properties. A master encyclopedia is certainly not an encyclopedia that lets any article exist "just because". And yes, concept, creation, reception, history, merchandise, etc. IS important for an article. Why do we need these articles? Why are they important in any regard in the real world? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're still not making a valid point. It makes no sense to have a merchandise and such sections for characters. That kind of stuff belongs only on the article for the series itself. The articles do not exist "just because". They contain information not easily available to the fans. That is what's important-to give out information. And whay do you mean, in regards to the real world? Why is the PS3 important to the real world? Why is Sailor Moon important to the real world? They're really not. That's not the point. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 07:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sailor Moon is important in the real world as one of the first successful mainstream localizations of a Japanese series for a North American audience, and, crucially, there are dozens of independent reliable sources that saw fit to comment on it. All of these things are important in the real world because independent reliable sources saw fit to comment on them, whereas the same is largely not true of secondary characters in Xenosaga. The fact that it wasn't popular enough to localize much of what you decry as "not easily available to the fans" is especially damning. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Specific merchandise is more important to the character than the game. And just because you don't like Wikipedia quality guidelines does not mean that my point is not valid. And to answer your question, the PlayStation 3 is important to the real world because it is a product released in the real world and is very well known, having been covered by most major news outlets all over the world. Sailor Moon has importance in the real world because it has real world information - it actually discusses the process of her creation rather than just talking about her powers and crap like that. I don't think you understand. When an entity is not directly available in the real world - ie, Xenosaga has importance in the real world because it exists in it, while MOMO does not because she exists in something that exists in the real world. MOMO's article must assert notability that isn't the result of Xenosaga. Mario has a wax statue in a Hollywood museum, his creator was knighted by the Queen of France, he was shown to be bigger than Mickey Mouse through a poll, etc. Anything that would suggest MOMO to be important would be great. However, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and the point is not to further the Xenosaga series. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DARN IT!!!! I was writing up the (lengthy) WP:AN3 report when the user got blocked! MuZemike 07:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well. What can you do? *Goes back to Mother 3 article* - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for the record, I completed the AN3 report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Akari Kanzaki reported by MuZemike (Result: ). MuZemike 07:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See, this was resolved rather quickly—if it had been just me on Akari's talk page it would have lasted at least a week, during which time the article would have sat there because Akari thought she was on the other side of WP:BRD. I don't want to have to come running to the VG project every time this happens, but I get the feeling that I would have eventually needed to come here to resolve this. We need a better system for this kind of situation because I only anticipate more of these in the future.

Akari—if you read this, please know this wasn't an attempt to talk about you behind your back. I was hoping to raise a general issue here, and I hope we still can. Pagrashtak 14:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe a few of these characters could *perhaps* warrant standalone articles. There might be some precious development information in the Xenosaga Ultimanias (they're not called "Ultimanias" but you get the idea). Look at Rinoa Heartilly; its development and reception sections are really short but the article still managed to pass GA. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we all wish it wouldn't have been resolved like this, though; and I have a hunch that this isn't over, and it's going to get worse before it gets better (at least judging from the uncivil response made to me here, which still indicates a lack of understanding). At least I think it was the right thing to come to here and try to talk some sense. MuZemike 18:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KOS-MOS already has one and should keep it. Shion Uzaki might. Chaos could if there were independent reliable sources on a comparison with Fei Fong Wong and Jesus Christ. Momo, I believe though, aside from KOS-MOS, probably has the best chance because I know there was a contriversy her Xenosaga I version caused and the need to radically alter her model for Xenosaga II. I know that reviwers commented on that as well. I think undoing the merge for Momo should be fine. If you want, I will look for the sources to back it up.

There are also a few antagonists that should be listed there and the whole page is listed as in-universe divisions.じんない 01:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MuZemike, unless you're A Man In Black, that response by Akari Kanzaki was to A Man In Black, not you (speaking of a lack of understanding). --Pixelface (talk) 02:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I rarely wear black ;) MuZemike 04:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pagrashtak, it wasn't "resolved" rather quickly. You canvassed for backup and a bunch of editors bullied a newer editor, which resulted in that editor being blocked. How was anything resolved? BRD is an ESSAY. DON'T come running to the VG project every time this happens. If you only anticipate "more of these in the future", stop and look at what you're doing, and why. You're an admin. Act like one. --Pixelface (talk) 10:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't blame me for the actions of other editors. I'm not in the mood for a proper response right now, but your comment is completely out of line. Pagrashtak 15:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed Pixelface. Coming here for assistance is hardly the wrong measure, and as a project this is what we're supposed to do: work together to think and try and resolve issues that come up. As an admin this was the responsible measure to take. The event was far from "bullying", especially when the individual came here and claimed they were being "talked about behind their backs" and showed little desire for a smooth resolution to the issue. So cool your jets Pixelface.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You came here asking for backup, Pagrashtak. What did you think was going to happen? A newer editor was tagteamed into violating 3RR and blocked, because you started this thread — instead of doing what you should have done — taken it to the article talk page or explaining to Akari on their talk page what you were doing.

My comment was not out of line. You're an administrator. Have you even looked at Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers? Look at User talk:Akari Kanzaki. It's disgusting. And you think the matter was "resolved" rather quickly? --Pixelface (talk) 03:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made a quick sandbox version of a possible Shion Uzuki article. I've never played any Xenosaga game at all! so the descriptive Designs section is quite lacking, but with about 6 different titles I think there are rooms for expanding this section (see Poison (Final Fight)#Designs for how it could look like if completed). In any case, the Conception and Reception sections are larger than in Rinoa Heartilly so I think this could be a standalone article, though the plot summary obviously has to be shortened. Thoughts? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 10:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a well rounded plan and a solid start. Nicely done.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pixelface is right, and this is something that often happens on Wiki. If the user had a problem, they could have said something on my talk page to try and work it out. Instead, they come here and report me, and I'm falsely accused of vandalism. Then, a bunch of people gang up on me and continue to make accusations. While this bullying discussion is going on, users continue to mess with the articles in question, prompting me to politely ask them to refrain from doing this until the discussion is finished. It was a move meant to antagonize me, in hopes that I would get banned. Then, I was further antagonized on my talk page, where I was treated like a psychopath and a child. I was nothing but polite and trying to have a civilized discussion, but I was told that I would get unbanned if I "chilled out", and other such insulting things. I further argue the Xenosaga issue below, not that there's much hope in this one-sided battle. When I made arguments about keeping the character articles, I'm insulted and brushed aside regardless of what I say. But when someone else comes here and just says a character is deserving of their own article, everyone agrees readily. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 03:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also working on a sandbox version of Momo as well due to the fact, as mentioned, I know there was commentary on her as well. Actually Jr. has a lot as well. I posted all the stuff from 1UP i found on the characters in general on the list page.じんない 03:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting redirects of merged articles

I'd like to propose that we adopt the procedure of having an unrelated admin protect possibly-contentious merged articles. Clearly the tendency here is towards inclusion of minor characters, and there aren't as many people doing cleanup as there are writing minutia on Sonic and Pokemon. We could have a simple page where a protection request could be left, if the material has properly merged and a consensus is clear and if policy is clearly in support of the merge, the redirect is protected. That way if someone wants to undo a successful and appropriate merge, they must talk about it first. If the merge and redirection is the result of consensus, then the recreated page could fall under CSD G4, recreation of deleted material. If this is such a problem that it is causing responsible editors to want to leave (I;ve seen several editors contemplate leaving over this sort of thing). We would need to leave a templated message on the redirect's talk page to explain why it was protected, so that an unrelated passing admin doesn't just unprotect, and so that editors know they can change it if they talk about it first.

It is also very hard to catch this sort of thing. Although we have people patrolling new pages, this sort of page creation is listed as a normal edit (right?). This sort of protection is very different from normal article protection, which is aimed at content protection. This is along the lines of requiring editors to sign in before they make a new page. As it is less noticeable than making a new page (and harder to undo), and far easier (any IP can do it, and all you need do is hit UNDO), it makes sense that it be a little more complicated to do. Thoughts? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 19:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMO It should be done case-by-case. I am wary against protecting redirects for the sake of restricting editors access, especially if only one or two are doing all the reverting (blocks serve better purposes for that). In my practice, I'll watchlist something I redirected for about a couple of weeks before unwatching it. Of course, with FlaggedRevisions seemingly around the corner, a lot of how protections are currently being handled are going to change drastically. I wouldn't readily support it, but enact flagged protection—if it goes through—over the redirect if problems come up. MuZemike 20:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about implementing flagged protection for ALL redirects, as well as protected, semi protected, and other maintenance type pages? Since the general public is probably not interested in maintenance of redirects, etc. except to delete them, new users should only be allowed to edit regular pages. While we're at it, how about making new pages flagged as well, so that people can check and see if they're notable?--_{ZXCVBNM [TALK]} 20:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're missing the point. The last thing that should be done is to implement any type of protection. If one single editor is going to contest the merge by reverting it, then it falls upon that editor to follow WP:BRD and not devolve into outright edit-warring and/or 3RR, which we saw both happen. Honestly, sporadic reverts done here and there by a single edit warrior (in a theoretical sense) does not and should not result in page protection, not when other venues (such as blocking) can accomplish the same thing. MuZemike 04:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change JohnnyMrNinja. So redirects shouldn't be protected. Unless of course there was consensus to redirect and "salt" at AFD. Even better would be for people to stop performing contentious mergers. --Pixelface (talk) 01:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The only status quo that cannot be overturned by one loud voice is the status quo of having a million articles about every game someone likes, describing every person, place, and thing in explicit detail.

These merges weren't at the time contentious, and Akari's only argument is that the fans demand having articles on all their favorite characters. Akari points to the fact that years have gone into these articles; I see that years have gone by and nobody's yet produced anything like any sort of independent reliable sources. List of characters in the Xenosaga series doesn't have any reliable sources. Until it does, talking about splitting it up is highly premature. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well they obviously were contentious. I'm sorry, could you point me to the merge discussion at Talk:List of characters in the Xenosaga series? Oh right. There isn't one. And that wasn't Akari's only argument either. Do you see where Akari mentioned a main character that appears in multiple games? Is Xenosaga a notable videogame series? Videogames are reliable sources for things that appear in the game. --Pixelface (talk) 10:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One doesn't always need a discussion, but what are we having now if not a discussion, which is considering the potential of some of the articles? As for use of the video games, articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Primary sources are good for stuff after an article has already been built on third-party sources, they are not sufficient alone for an article. -- Sabre (talk) 11:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realize one doesn't always need a discussion S@bre. But when Akari reverted, there should have been a discussion on an article talk page — not an admin asking for backup at WikiProject Video games. I know that articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. But that's a vague generalization meant to cover all of Wikipedia's 2.7 million+ articles. Who has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy when it comes to Day of Defeat: Source? What is a reliable, third-party source going to go to? The primary source — the video game. Editors are allowed to summarize sources. Take Mappy for example. A third-party is going to check their facts by going to the video game. --Pixelface (talk) 02:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gamespot, Gamespy, (to some extent) IGN, Electronic Games Monthly, Computer Games Magazine, Edge, and Play Magazine are all sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that would have made comment on DOD:Source. Mappy is a horribly sourced article that can trivially be improved; Kent's video game history text (whose name completely escapes me) talks about it in the context of Namco's and Bally-Midway's histories with each other, and I'm sure there are other good sources.

You can write a LOT about a video game character based only on the game. The problem is that it's all plot summary and personal interpretation, often inextricably mixed. Taking User:Megata Sanshiro/Shion Uzuki for example, the article is about 60% plot summary by weight, mixed in with some game-guide detail or trivia with very tentative sourcing (the entire "Conception" section), and a reception section that's all single lines cherry-picked out of reviews that are about the games the character appears in.

This is bad writing, and it cannot get any better because there are few if any reliable sources that ever covered this subject in detail, and with so few sources we're better off covering fictional things as aspects of the fictional works and not subjects on their own. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So where exactly do Gamespot, Gamespy, IGN, EGM, CGM, Edge, and Play go to check their facts about Day of Defeat: Source? The game. If an editor can summarize Gamespot, they can summarize the game. The video game Mappy is an acceptable source for the article about Mappy. Wikipedia already has a policy about personal interpretation, WP:NOR. If someone wants to know who a video game character is, you're going to have to give a plot summary. If a critic mentions a character in their review of the game, that's analysis that can be added to the character article. If a reader wants to know who a video game character is, we're better off telling them who the character is — not making them hunt for the information in some other article. --Pixelface (talk) 04:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can cite their research. Researching the subject ourselves is not part of this project. This is the difference. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've discussed this before, on your side of the argument, so I think I know what I'm talking about. There's a difference between research and original research. Editors are allowed to summarize sources. Editors are allowed to summarize primary sources. Editors are allowed to summarize third-party sources. If Gamespot writes someting, we're allowed to summarize it. If the game says something, we're allowed to summarize it. Whether playing a video game actually constitutes "research" is a-whole-nother topic. --Pixelface (talk) 05:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've lost focus on the main point. Of course you can use primary sources, for simple factual claims which are not in dispute. Nobody's saying you can't. However, primary sources don't establish importance, and articles composed entirely of plot summary and personal speculation/conjecture/interpretation are not part of this project. These articles are all plot summary and cherry-picked statements. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That said, protecting redirects is nonsense and I would freely and cheerfully undo such protections. We don't protect pages to keep them the way we like them, we protect them to prevent otherwise unpreventable vandalism. Content disputes are not vandalism, ever. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion I was referring to. It IS a discussion, and it is about the merging of the articles, so I fail to see the problem. Because of these redirects, a lot of important information is lost. You may not find Xenosaga notable, but in that case, why should it have an article at all, if that's your logic? This is not a small game. It spans six titles, a manga, an anime, and drama CDs. Some of this and a lot of guide material was never released in the US. The only way to get this information was from the character articles on Wikipedia. This game is like an encyclopedia in it's own right, and it deserves more than those half-baked, tiny character summaries on a merged page. It may not be notable to YOU, but it is notable to other people. The same is true for the character pages, which those people worked hard on for years. If someone takes the time to write and article for a character who plays an important role in that many things, then there's no good reason to get rid of it. Sure, by doing so, Wikipedia converts six or so articles to one, but at the same time, they are cutting out precious information. Heck, why don't we just merge all games you think aren't notable onto one page?-.- Akari Kanzaki (talk) 02:57, 28 January 2009

It's not that the games aren't notable (they clearly are) but just because a topic is notable, that doesn't mean every detail about it is. Notable isn't really a subjective standard either on Wikipedia (I suggest you brush up on WP:N). And nowadays, there's a number of places one can put the info so it doesn't become 'lost'. Yes it won't be on WP, but the WP has its own goals, which having articles on every character from game series X isn't one. Make no mistake, I think so people are overly hasty in what they get rid of, but you still have to work within the guidlines of what is and isn't what Wikipedia wants to have, as it were. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Melodia, notability is subjective. If Akari would like articles for main characters in the Xenosaga series, who are you to say otherwise? Those guidelines were written by people like you, and me, and Akari. There's nothing special about them. --Pixelface (talk) 03:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pixel, if you want to fight about WP:N having general support, WT:N is that way. In the meantime, it's a reasonable and widely-accepted explanation of how we actually go about enforcing WP:V's instruction that we not have articles we can't properly source without writing original research. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think there may be more notability to some of the non-character elements merged some time ago, specifically I am finding critical analysis on Realians, this with only the most basic search. I think there was an over-reaction to the amount of articles to consolidate them at the time instead of editors assuming good faith they wanted to remove stuff without first checking the notability of anything.じんない 04:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do keep in mind that merging of articles with some notability into a larger article is also an acceptable editorial decision if the larger article would end up being more effective at describing the topic than the individual articles alone. Obviously this is never required, but long-term quality should be a consideration here. --MASEM 04:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I do not believe from the logs it was preserved.じんない 06:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the larger articles aren't effective and leave out quite a lot. You'd probably get more information reading the game manual... Akari Kanzaki (talk) 05:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FICT

I normally would not do this, because of neutrality of the polling, but this is clearly a contentious case as we do seem to have members on both sides here. So I want to note that ~~it is in the process of~~ a final poll being ~~finalized~~ is being put up (but with remark about Wikipeida not being a democracy) and may directly impact some of the articles that were recently merged here, most notably those who were primary protagonists of one of the 3 games: Shion, KOS-MOS, Jr.. KOS-MOS already has enough to qualify for WP:V and WP:GNG, but the others like Ziggy have a lot less on them, but still some minor remarks to show real-world perspective, plus I believe they all have merchandise associated with them as well.じんない 04:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is also coming back to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pixelface; we are making a complete turn onto ourselves in this dispute. MuZemike 05:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ziggy has his own game, so I fail to see how that's possible. And the translated guidebooks contain even more for these characters, including development stuff and personality explanations based on some kind of chart. At the very least, all of the main characters should have enough.Akari Kanzaki (talk) 05:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enough what? Recreating Namco-Bandai's licensed guides isn't part of this project, so where are the other sources? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being a participant in the afore mentioned discussion for some time, you should be aware that such arguments are often enough, as long as they can be sourced, to pass an AfD.じんない 05:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean. What other sources? You have to realize, all information online comes from something like a game or a guide or just someone talking. You can't prove anything is true on the internet, usually, save for very basic things. Even things on official game websites can be incorrect. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 05:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Ziggy might just squeak by...however just because he could, does not trump the editorial descion as a whole...if it is believed his content could make the more main article (in this case the character list) better and his own article just barely claims note, it may be best to merge him in. Not because we are biased against Ziggy or any other fictional character, but its the best way to shore an article that can be shown to be one that an GA or a FA article.

Even if FICT passes, developer info is not enough; real-world commenatary or impact is still needed, however the amount would be far lower and information from those books would be helpful. In all, I think so far a case could be made that every one of the protagonists has note, except Chaos, since I've seen very little on him as a character. Jin is on the borderline, I've seen some, but I'd want to see more if I were the one making the call.

Remember this is information from Wikipedia quality verifiable and reliable sources, which fansites, forum discussion and blogs (except developer comments) don't matter.じんない 05:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem. These articles are collated from games, licensed guides, and speculation/conjecture/interpretation from non-experts. None of these things are good sources for establishing importance to justify a stand-alone article. You're saying we must use these sources even though they don't meet our standards because they're all we have; I'm saying we shouldn't have an article because we lack sources that meet our standards. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And that's the problem! All sources are technically against Wiki standards, aside from offical sites, which contain minimal information and are often wrong. For example, each of the Xenosaga game pages has a complete story summary, but where was this gotten from? The official sites only have a basic plot summary, with no spoilers. These summaries are generally typed up by fans, with no sources other than having beaten the game. If you look around for some official source with the game plot, you'd never find one, most likely, and have to delete it, along with many other plot summaries. Also, if you can say that about chaos, you REALLY need to replay the series. He is right up there with KOS-MOS and Wilhelm in terms of importance, and there are a lot of connections between him and ancient biblical stuff. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 05:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The game's plot we can use straight from the game, as long as it's a brief summary and uncontroversial. When you start slicing the pie into pieces (the plot from, say, Jr.'s POV or KOS-MOS's or whatever), we start having problems with personal interpretation.

Remember, when I talk about importance, I'm talking about the quality of having been covered in reliable sources. The most important character to the series may not be important enough by this standard. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, he's right up there with KOS-MOS in terms of stuff, so if she's got enough stuff for an article, he does too. Someone else mentioned that as well, I believe. And the game is not an acceptable source, yet you suddenly say it's fine to use for just that? And most game articles have a complete plot summary-that's how you get complete information. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 05:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the stuff something other than a work of fiction, a Namco-Bandai licensed work, or a fansite? The game is fine for a brief summary on itself. Multiple articles slicing the plot into different pieces is not brief. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did say that. There are biblical connections. You can't give a "brief" summary of a game like Xenosaga. To avoid going insane on the game pages, character articles are also useful. Within the game, those center characters all kind of have their own seperate stories going on. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 06:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can. You summarize the main thread of the story, and omit lesser details. The Biblical connections aren't relevant until you can properly source the claim that they exist. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even then you don't need to make a point-by-point reference (and to be clear, there have been claims of other religious references than just Christianity). If you get enough commentary from enough sources, especially academic ones, then a whole new article might be best.じんない 06:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And for example, I was able to trim the plot of Chrono Trigger down to about 7 paragraphs (which included a setting). Yes, a lot of game details are omitted, but the point is to provide the flavor of what's going on, not to replace playing the game. --MASEM 06:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've all been going on about how there needs to be non-fictional character stuff, but the connections between chaos and religion mean nothing? It's the same as with KOS-MOS and her connections to the Mary Magdalene. And there is also significance in his name as well, just like hers. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 07:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who claimed that these connections exist? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to bring over leftover information from individual redirected articles to the main list, but it has occured to me such a task requires a deeper understanding of the series than I currently possess.

If you feel that the coverage of the characters in the list is insufficient, you should try fixing up their respective entries. I would start with recovering material from [[33]] and filling up [[34]] then bring the rest of the characters in line one by one. DDDtriple3 (talk) 07:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, so, according to AMIB the sandbox version of Shion Uzuki is not notable enough to be a standalone article? Other users seem to have a different opinion, but this is slightly confusing since we're also discussing all the other Xenosaga characters in general. So can should Shion be unmerged or not? Should I open a specific discussion somewhere? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 08:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sandbox version is on the edge of passing WP:N, but lacks any referenced information that justifies a standalone article. It's all minor points from reviews of the games, or plot summary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for her getting her own article. Many people note these connections? KOS-MOS' past self was named Mary Magdalene, and she was the partner of chaos, who was named Yeshua. I'm not a master in all things religion, but both of them and the games as a whole have multiple ties to religion. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 11:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being tied to things in the real world isn't the requirement. Having references in sources that are not themselves fictional works is. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To-do-list reviews

Should we list FLC/FLRCs separately from FAR/FARC? Especially the reviews gives the impression that they are articles reviews, not list reviews.じんない 23:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"(FLC)" is usually placed next to FLCs. Gary King (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MGS4 resolution dispute

User:Falcon9x5 is pushing the information that MGS4 "native" resolution is 1024x768 (4:3) based on fanmade PS3 website review PSXExtreme

According to him the 720p at the back of box "is not realiable source" as their PSX3Extreme link that not clarify why and how that resolution was measured.

He engaged in revertwar on MGS4 article and claims a "consensus" was achieved, with at last 4 opinions oppposing him.

Is PSXExtreme a reliable source?
Is MGS4 box a unreliable source?
The Falcon9x5 consensus exists?

What to do? I ask for community help to clarify this. Thanks. --PS3 Addict (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Normally the box should be good enough, however sometimes companies fudge information for profit motives, especially with reguard to 1080. Companies would list items claiming they were 1080p, when they were really only 1080i/720p. Sometimes they'd just like 1080 and sometimes they'd list 1080p native, even though it was enhanced upscaling. So if there is a dispute like that, i would say that a neutral-third party source is best if their is a dispute about the back of the box. As for the link, judging by what i saw here, on the website and on the MGS4 page i'd say it's not a reliable source.じんない 01:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok is not reliable source but I need some support to resolve this. I don't want to enter on crazy revert war with him. He is full of himself about the realiability and consensus suposely achieved. --PS3 Addict (talk) 09:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off, as i said, do not use the box as the source, except to cite that the box says it is. That is a perfectly reasonable claim. The issue is disputed beyond the boundaries of Wikipedia as well, so questioning of the statement on the box is a reasonable objection in this case. In this case their are claims of "upscaling" by a number members on other fourms and boards (not really WP:V material, but it's okay to look her to make certain Falcon9x5 is not simply trying to disrupt Wikipedia.じんない 10:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this may be the source of the controversy as it does not describe what "compressed" means. I still have not found any reliable source dealing with the issue.じんない 10:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is better to do? erase information or retain sustained by unreliable source? --PS3 Addict (talk) 11:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If a piece of information is disputed, WP:V should be used: a citation from an independent, reliable source. The game box is not independent , fansites/forums/blogs are not reliable. I propose leaving that section blank until a reference can be found. Marasmusine (talk) 12:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sums it up and seems the best course of action. With an inline note explaining that it should be left blank until a reliable source is found. - X201 (talk) 12:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, I wasn't informed about this discussion and only just found it now.

The arguments over the resolution of Metal Gear 4 stretch back a long way - originally it was whether the game was 720p or 1080p (PAL box says 720, NTSC says 1080), now it's whether the resolution is 720p or 1024x768 (Metal Gear Online runs at 1024x768, the Beyond3D forums - which are of questionable reliability, so I haven't used them as a source - also state so). Reliable sources are incredibly hard to come by on this issue - the PSXExtreme source was the best I could do (I don't really see why it should be considered unreliable, it seems respectable enough). I've reiterated multiple times that the back of the box (or any Sony website or a picture of the game running at 1080p) cannot be considered reliable, as Jin says above (as the upscaled resolution is put on the box, not the original, native, resolution), but this seems to have fallen on deaf ears. I'm also not sure why the gamesarefun link is relevant - it references the size of the game, but not the resolution. I claimed consensus as User:Ffgamera agreed that PSXExtreme was a reliable source - at the time, he was one of two other parties involved. Finally, I reject the idea that I'm disrupting wikipedia - this issue had been dormant at 1024x768 (save for an interjection or two by the third party I mentioned) for the past three weeks. Much thanks! Fin ©™ 18:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have to "do as best as we can"; if there's not a reliable source for a fact, the fact shouldn't be in the article. Unless there's some sort of reliable source from the likes of 1UP.com, GameSpot, IGN or the like, it's no dice (a developer comment would also help; for example, just because these guys speculated on Halo 3's resolution[35] wouldn't mean beans, except that Bungie actually clarified that it does in fact run at 640p[36] -Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just noted another PSXExtreme source is pushing Killzone 2 resolution. Falcon, how many PSXExtreme sources you used on articles? --PS3 Addict (talk) 10:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have used one source on one article (MGS4). I did not add either use of PSXExtreme on Killzone 2 - as an aside, the second diff there shows it was added by User: Cliché Online, who later claimed it was not reliable on the Metal Gear talk page. Thanks! Fin ©™ 11:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration report

I just wish to announce the completion of the first successful collaboration of the week since we have revived the process. Video game genres was the focus, and has arguably been improved significantly by the 35 revisions made during the week. Participation was mixed, with some users such as editing more than others. Special mention goes to Zxcvbnm, who made 20 of the 35 revisions to the article. It was a tough article to overhaul, but I am personally pleased at the effect the collaboration has had on the quality of that article and am looking forward to seeing the effect it has on article quality in future. A reduced focus on bureaucracy appears to have successfully increased motivation for the collaboration, as well as minimising backlog work in the process. Some further changes still need to be made for the collaboration process; specifically to the {{WikiProject Video games}} template.

This week the selected article is History of video game consoles (fourth generation). This is an article that is in serious need of improvement, requiring additional citations, expansion and general cleanup. We hope to see you all there, and hope to successfully improve another article. --.:Alex :. 16:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats to all who participated. I probably won't be as aside from RL and other articles i am trying to get passed for GA/FL, i am doing backlogs here for our unassesed importance articles.じんない 20:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it improved a lot in terms of organization, though not much new content was added. Since I'm a WikiGnome I tend to make a million minor edits.--_{ZXCVBNM [TALK]} 20:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should we have a category for Physics-based puzzle games?

Not sure if this has already been discussed, but I didn't see a category for this already, so I wanted to float the idea here. Since Category:Puzzle video games is such a broad category and the sub-genre of puzzle games relying heavily on physics simulators is growing rapidly, I think we might want to create a new subcategory for "Physics-based puzzle video games". This would group together games like:

etc.

Although I'm failing to come up with all that many examples right now, there has definitely been a big trend toward using physics as the primary means for presenting puzzle challenges, as opposed to more "classic" non-physics games like Tetris and its ilk. Whatcha think?

I think the category threatens to be indiscriminate, moreso than most categories. You can't say that Tetris doesn't have physics (gravity), or that Puzzle Bobble / Bust-a-Move doesn't have physics (deflection). Where does Lemmings fit in? You're right that there are more than 400 puzzle games and the category is getting a little bloated, but we should get a little more research from reliable sources and improve the puzzle video game article before figuring out how to re-organize these. Randomran (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can, I think, usefully define physics based games (the upcoming Gravity for the DS, and the existing Boom Blox also probably qualify). The term gets multiple Google hits, at the very least. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion (mind you, not an officially researched one), "physics-based puzzle game" means as its name implies: A game that is based on physics. By extension, it's a game that uses a physics engine as its primary form of presentation and/or gameplay. There's a distinction here: Games in the "falling block" category probably wouldn't qualify because, even if the blocks speed up as they approach the "floor" (Columns comes to mind), the effect of gravity is quite secondary to the concept of arranging blocks, and the blocks are usually directly controlled in one way or another.

Lemmings strikes me as kind of a middle ground: Physics plays a very minor role in that game, and really only comes into play because the lemmings can only fall so far before they die (and they can fall into traps, etc.). But objects placed in the level are not affected in any way by physics. I wouldn't readily classify that game in particular as a "physics-based" game.

Games like Crayon Physics, World of Goo, etc., are very clearly based on physics engines, and the simulation is essentially the core of the game in each case. In the former, puzzles are solved through drawing objects that behave in physically accurate ways, including transfer of momentum and kinetic energy, etc. In World of Goo, emphasis is placed on engineering concepts (including statics and dynamics). Switchball has a strong physical element that's reminiscent of Marble Madness (which itself might qualify, but as Randomran said, there is some grey area there).

I'd say that we should at least mention the growing trend in physics-based games and highlight some of the earlier games that clearly used this concept. My opinion is that a game is only "physics-based" if the application of physics accounts for the primary gameplay, as opposed to being an extra option (like having gravity in Space Wars) or a minor effect. (Note also that I'd consider Super Mario Galaxy to qualify as both a platform game and a physics-based puzzle game because of its unusual application of selective gravity.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know categorization is not as much subject to WP:OR as article content, but I would be careful here, and make sure that if the category is created, its bounds are clearly defined - that using laws of physics is a primary means of solving puzzles. We don't want every game that uses the Havok engine to be in this. It may be useful to create a small hierarchy of categories here - I wouldn't call Half-Life 2 a physics-based puzzle machine, but it does have strong emphasis on physics in the game. --MASEM 19:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having had experience with these kinds of categories and lists, it doesn't take very long before the list starts including virtually any game. First it starts with a few games that can be supported by actual research. But then people start going on gut reactions and the list degrades into opinion. Eventually it goes from "games that are based on X" to "games that include X". Next thing you know, you *will* have any game with a physics engine. I don't think it's a good way of categorizing puzzle games, especially since people are already talking about games that aren't even puzzle games -- just action games that have a lot of environmental puzzles (which is an action-adventure game by definition). Randomran (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I don't think "physics-based" has the same unifying theme that, say, Category:Falling block puzzle games does, because even the five games listed above are all very different games. Nifboy (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) (nod) And to be fair, I think it's pretty much just a natural step forward in gaming in general to have more accurate physics playing roles in games as technology and programming techniques evolve. Probably so much so that in general, it would be useful to note for historical purposes but not so much for categorization. Anything that tries to simulate the natural world in any way is going to have some element of physics to it. I'm just saying that I think there is a class of games for which application of physics really stands out because it IS the game, not just an environmental part of it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I think that there are a lot of games that are deeply rooted in the whole concept of physics. Just make sure it doesn't go overboard with people saying Tetris qualifies because it uses gravity. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems the consensus is leaning against doing this, and I can see the point. Application of physics is too broad to categorize games - perhaps just better to note physics as primary gameplay within each article, and to mention it in a general sense in the puzzle-game article. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Kiefer. Any mention of "physics-based puzzle elements" or any similar term in an article would need proper sourcing. A category such as Physics-based puzzle games leaves too much to interpretation and could result in editors edit warring to add and remove the category from articles.

Perhaps the gaming industry, press, and/or community will further expand and label such a genre down the road. We didn't always have platformers, shoot'em ups, or 4X games, they popped up and people came up with a fitting name later. But until then, it's better to err on the side of caution. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Yeah I think that's fair. If someone else finds a distinct grouping of puzzle games, though, it could help us with organization. I know someone recently created a stub article on hidden object games. Randomran (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can envisage exactly what you mean by this term - Bridge Builder immediately sprang to mind. However, as always, we should use WP:Verifiability for both the term and game classification, in order to avoid WP:NEO and WP:OR. Marasmusine (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Release Date vs Ship Date vs In-Store Date

Okay, we need resolution here at Major League Baseball 2K9. Basically every gaming (like IGN, GameSpot, 1UP, 2KSports) all claim March 2nd is the release date. Now obviously this is the date it ships out to retailers. My understanding is this is what we should use per WP:VG/DATE. Another user, who claims expertise in the video game industry, argues we should list the date after cause that is when it will be in stores. Those who know what the guidelines are should really help us out here.

Here is what WP:VG states: Usually, but not always, the "release date" is the date on which the publisher ships the game to retailers, resulting in an in-store date of between one and three days later. In general, a video game article should use the official release date and not the in-store date, if two separate dates are announced. (WP:VG/DATE)

The other user argues "big whoop" to that and its wrong and should be removed. Someone set us straight. JeremyWJ (talk) 04:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We've been here before (I think it was Super Smash Bros Brawl last I saw it) but we always use the sourceable release date and ignore any store/ship date, only mentioning a broken street date if it is found to have a significant impact. --MASEM 04:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please clarify more, or have a look at Major League Baseball 2K9 and determine what it should be? This debate has really got out of hand so we need a clear cut answer. Thanks. JeremyWJ (talk) 04:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we have to continually go through this all the time, why can't we just change "release date" to "shipping date" since it's clear to the average user. In fact the way i see it described in the ~~forum~~ article would violate WP:JARGON since we have to go and specifically qualify something that means one thing to one group and another to another group.じんない 05:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"ARMs" VS "Arms"

No idea if this page should be used for this, but it's a video game dispute. I admit, I'm hesitant to get involved with this one, since I'm already involved in another game dispute, and everyone who argues this point in this specific dispute so far has apparently gotten banned. I know two individuals with admin friends have made it a habit to attack anyone who argues this point, despite having never played the series in question.

This issue is with the Wild ARMs series of video games. Quite some time ago, the users in question successfully tried to start a fight by visiting every single page in relation to this series and changing the title capitalization from "ARMs" to "Arms". Many have argued the case. The former spelling makes sense to have played the game. XSEED Games, publisher of post of the games in the series, has confirmed this spelling, explaining that the title is an acronym in each game, which is true. They even pointed out where this was explained on the official site for Wild ARMs 5 official site, in the "History of Wild ARMs" section. "Wild ARMs" are even featured in many of the games. Avid fans like myself are upset, but due to how they gang up and use their connections to attack everyone who argues this point, no one is willing to get involved anymore. I'm hoping that posting here will somehow end with the matter being resolved without any victims. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 05:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NC and MOS:TM - even if it is trademarked all caps, unless it is an abbreviation, use standard capitalization for naming of articles. --MASEM 05:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It IS an abbreviation/acronym. For example, in the case of the first game, it is an abbreviation of "Ancient Relic Machine". The abbreviation meaning changes in each game, but it is always "ARMs". This is explained on the official site. It's not just a trademark. The title only makes sense with the proper capitalization in this case. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 06:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not the entire name ("Wild", best I can tell, is not). MOS:ABBR stated to only use acronyms with all caps when that is the obvious name, but this case doesn't fall into that, instead into the MOS:TM. --MASEM 06:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The entire name is not the issue. "Wild" is fine as-is. But "Arms" is inaccurate and makes no sense. The "ARMs" part IS an abbreviation. And your statement that that is not valid because it's only part of the title is not valid in itself. What about stuff like the game series "RPG Maker"? By your logic, changing it to "Rpg Maker" is fine? And it should be an issue regardless of abbreviations or not. Take the CGI tv series "ReBoot". You saying it's fine to change that to "Reboot"? It just doesn't work. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 06:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since ARM is an abbreviation it should be in allcaps. I don't think this case is quite like radar or sonar which hardly anyone knows is an acronym. Looking at the sources in the article, nearly all of them use the correct capitalization. SharkD (talk) 07:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to link so people can better follow the discussion, Wild Arms. You could probably use WALL-E (example [37]) as an example which came to an agreement to use capitals due to it being an abbreviation. Although saying that XSEED doesnt capitalize Wild Arms 4 on the web page title Salavat (talk) 07:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salavat, what are you saying at the end there? You don't finish the sentence properly, so I'm unsure what you're trying to say. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 11:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is capitalized, however, in the copyright notice at the bottom of the page. SharkD (talk) 11:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The correct capitalization of it is "ARMs". "ARMS" is just used by the logo, which is not uncommon in video games. Take "Kingdom Hearts", for example, which capitalizes the whole title in the logo, or ".hack//INFECTION" which has a whole part capitalized for no real reason. As for the copyright, XSEED actually explained this. According to them, "Wild Arms" is sometimes used in legal lines for the sake of simplicity. Similiar to how one might just say WA5, instead of going through the trouble of typing out Wild ARMs 5 or the much longer Japanese title. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 11:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Best chart type

I need some help determining which chart type is best in this article. I like the second one better, but am worried people will confuse it for a regular line graph. SharkD (talk) 07:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 548: / Line 548: @@
 :Salavat, what are you saying at the end there?  You don't finish the sentence properly, so I'm unsure what you're trying to say. [[User:Akari Kanzaki|Akari Kanzaki]] ([[User talk:Akari Kanzaki|talk]]) 11:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 :It is capitalized, however, in the copyright notice at the bottom of the page. [[User:SharkD|SharkD]] ([[User talk:SharkD|talk]]) 11:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
+The correct capitalization of it is "ARMs".  "ARMS" is just used by the logo, which is not uncommon in video games.  Take "Kingdom Hearts", for example, which capitalizes the whole title in the logo, or ".hack//INFECTION" which has a whole part capitalized for no real reason.  As for the copyright, XSEED actually explained this.  According to them, "Wild Arms" is sometimes used in legal lines for the sake of simplicity.  Similiar to how one might just say WA5, instead of going through the trouble of typing out Wild ARMs 5 or the much longer Japanese title. [[User:Akari Kanzaki|Akari Kanzaki]] ([[User talk:Akari Kanzaki|talk]]) 11:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 == Best chart type ==