I have recreated this article and given it a real-world context. There is much more potential, showing that Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List of enemies in Doom was a bad decision (User:TTN again! Why am I not surprised?). The problem is that I don't have the original article, and so I can't write anything about the enemies. Is anyone able to access the original article so I can use the information on the enemies? --Teggles (talk) 01:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
First, I like process, and think you should have gone to WP:DRV first after working on the article in your userspace to show that such a list can exist. But that's beside the point now; it exists. I've already denied G4 and asked Pharmboy to hold off on AFDing for a few days, which puts considerable pressure to get it up and going to survive the deletion process.
I seriously wouldn't recommend the deleted article. Full of cruft and lavish detail, and the only reference is a strategy guide. Pharmboy already thinks it's cruft and the article just consists of a list of enemies. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll start going to WP:DRV when User:TTN starts discussing pages before listing them for deletion. I have shown that the enemies in Doom are clearly notable, I do not need to go through WP:DRV to prove that. The sources are there. --Teggles (talk) 02:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Note that I'm not attempting to take a hostile approach, just a stern one. People are constantly getting away with deleting articles without even searching for notability themselves. If they are to be so careless, then when I create an article clearly establishing notability, I should not have to go through meaningless processes. --Teggles (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
IMO, it seems like dangerously thin skating on ice. The sources shown only talk about the enemies as a whole, and not individually (then again, same deal-o with the every Pokemon character sans Pikachu). I think the information could be merged into Doom (series)#Enemies – wait. Apparently there isn't a series article devoted to the Doom series. Why is that? hbdragon88 (talk) 04:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
The sources talk about enemies as a whole, and the topic is about enemies as a whole. While the article does discuss individiaul enemies, each bit of content is not under WP:NOTABILITY, only the topic. This is why World of Final Fantasy VIII is allowed but something like Lunatic Pandora is not. I also have no idea why the series does not have an article devoted to it. I don't edit the Doom articles. --Teggles (talk) 05:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if listing enemies is kosher or not (in the case of Guild Wars that was deleted outright), but I was just imagining, if we removed all of that and only left the sourced information, it owuld amount to a stub-class article that probably couldn't be ever expanded. I see that as a problem, and think that upmerging the 3-4 paragraphs to a general series article would be better. The world of FF8 article discusses a wide number of things - its history, creatures and races, and concept and design. Merging this Doom enemies article would be like moving it under the equivlant of the FF88 world's creatures and races section. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
This article has a lot more potential than you are assuming there is. What I wrote was the result of very little searching. I'm sure we can stuff the "design" section full of information, and since Doom's satanic imagery was so controversial, the "reception" section could be huge too. If you really think I'm wrong, I'll leave it up to you or someone else to create the Doom (series) article. I have no obligation to do it. --Teggles (talk) 07:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not questoning whether it's possible, just if users are permitted to do so. I'm sure a user was once blocked for recreating deleted material. AshnardTalkContribs12:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
That article really doesn't establish anything on its own, so it would be best to just redirect it and place it in a sandbox until it can actually be its own subtopic. It could also just be merged to the proposed series page. TTN (talk) 13:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
If memory serves, there's no policy against recreating deleted material, but norms dictate that if you are going to do so, at least to try and address the concerns that lead to deletion in the first place. Common sense would also dictate that as well, since otherwise the material just gets deleted again. But as TTN said, might have been better to create the article in a sandbox first, then asked here for a look over. That way you can be sure that your precious article isn't going to be suddenly deleted. But I suppose I must give props for attempting to address the reasons for its deletion in the first place. Ong elvin (talk) 14:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I also think that if you truly think a topic is notable and that the sources exist to prove its notability, then it is your responsibility as a contributor to source it, not whoever is claiming deletion under WP:N. Well, not exactly like that, but that's the best way I can think of to describe it, especially if just describing game articles. I also concede that there are a bunch of articles which should always be given benefit of the doubt with respect to notability. Things such as real scientific or mathematic theories. Or other things which are so common that everyone knows it. (eg, Origami, even if no sources were provided to establish notability, should always be regarded as notable nonetheless.) But generally speaking, I don't think individual aspects of games should have their own article unless it's the game universe, which is excepted under WP:FICTION. Ong elvin (talk) 14:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and restored the old revisions so editors can salvage anything for the new article. Seems reasonable enough. --- RockMFR22:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
At the end of Ong elvin's comment that: But generally speaking, I don't think individual aspects of games should have their own article unless it's the game universe, which is excepted under WP:FICTION.
Well Doom is a well known game SERIES, with multiple games and even books with sources about them, themselves. Seems to me like a fictional universe large enough to have an article listing the enemies even when most other games with less games have them. Stabby Joe (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
WP:FICT doesn't make exceptions for game universes; they are bound by the same restrictions as everything else. I don't know where that came from, unless it was in one of the many recent revisions that has since been reverted. But until people have finished arguing over whether or not WP:FICT should allow, and indeed encourage, in-universe articles with no real-world context or not, I'd take anything it says with a pinch of salt. Miremare20:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
To be fair, we're considering cases of character and other fictional lists without notability as being acceptable as long as it is written in a way to support minimal plot information and the real-world notability of the work of fiction; we have yet to come to a consensus on that. However, this is for key plot elements. In the case for monsters of Doom, none of them (beyond that they exist and possibly the final bosses) are necessary to under the plot of Doom and are otherwise non-notable themselves and thus should not have an article. --MASEM20:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if I sounded a bit cynical but, personally, I don't like the direction it seems to be heading - I see such non-notable articles or lists as you mention as being completely unnecessary and undesirable for an encyclopedia. Given that the requirement for notability is not to gauge the popularity of a subject, but to make sure that the article can be reliably sourced and thereby not fall foul of the verifiability, OR, and NPOV policies, and has at least some real-world info to pass WP:NOT, I very much believe that if something deserves an article it will have the sources and if it doesn't it won't. I've yet to see a convincing argument against this, and I would be very wary of starting out on the slippery slope of exceptions. Just my opinion. :) Miremare21:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
We're being careful on all sides - we want to encourage the inclusion of real-world content and discourage pure fancruft. There's more on WT:FICT if you wish to participate but the general idea is that 1) topics or lists that can be shown to be notable are, by no doubt, allowed, but 2) in cases of longer/serial works, for purposes of meeting MOS and summary style, a carefully crafted list that briefly summarizes characters, items, or other aspects as to help to support the plot and the work's real-world notability can be appropriate. In the case of video games, for example and barring what exists there, it would logically follow to have a "List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters" that all Sonic games can refer to to avoid repeating common details. On the other hand, it does not make sense to have a "List of characters in BioShock" simply because it's a single shot game and if you can't talk about all the characters in the game within the plot, you need to cut some out - there's no need to provide more than just was is needed there. But these refer to specific elements that relate to the plot. "List of Monsters in Doom", as I note above, would have no impact on understanding Doom's plot, and thus is more cruft than useful information, unless notability of the monsters themselves can be demonstrated. Similarly, most of what we call Gamecruft falls in the same line.
I don't think we're trying to allow exceptions, but just that the list articles need to be very carefully approached and make sense. Anything more details then high level plot details would not be appropriate in such lists. But again, we haven't settled on a form yet for the guideline and are still working towards consensus, so additional input is appreciated. --MASEM21:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
You're calling it gamecruft because it's not central to the plot. I hate to be harsh, but you're an idiot. The article is notable because the enemies caused great controversy, that has been made VERY clear. --Teggles (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
If there is significant notable information on the topic, then there's no question about including it. However, without seeing what the controversy is (as the present list does not seem to include this) there is likely a better way to combine information. I do not know what the pre-deleted article looked like, and though TTN is a bit heavy with his AfDs, he's generally correct on the lack of demonstrated notability. --MASEM22:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Teggles: if you hate to be harsh, don't be. As far as I remember it, it was as much the image of the game as a whole, rather than the enemies specifically, that caused the controversy. After all, the Doom enemies are nothing particularly special in that respect - games have featured demons as enemies since time immemorial.
Masem: I can see where you're coming from, I just don't think any possible benefits this might have can outweigh the potential drawbacks. I think there's rarely going to be much to say, or repeat through several articles, about such characters - to use the cited List of characters in Sonic the Hedgehog as an example, all of the characters without their own articles have very little that can be said about them, so any mentions of them can easily include the basic details each time (IMO this is true of many of the ones that do have their own articles too, but that's probably because they shouldn't), and as you point out, why would we need to go further than the basics for non-notable characters anyway? What seems to be being proposed is a system of "exceptions sometimes" which is going to be difficult to enforce, and will muddy the waters and thus be taken advantage of - I mean, the fiction situation is bad enough as it is, without ostensibly sanctioning it... The intention that these articles should only be allowed if they significantly add to the understanding of the parent subject is all well and good, but this could be said, with varying degrees of believability, of practically any crufty/gameguidey article. Whether or not this is viewed as an exception by those thrashing out the details, it's going to be viewed as an exception by most everyone else, and as I'm sure we've all seen, when exceptions are allowed, everyone thinks they should be that exception. Anyway, I'd be much in favour of simplifying and tightening up the fiction guideline rather than complicating and loosening it, but I'd even more rather not get involved! Good luck with it. :) Miremare22:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll make sure (and I'm sure at the Pump as well) that when we want a consensus after we've done internal edits, we'll ask for input from here (since VGs are affected by it). And yes, we've run through those cases and know that there's lots of people that can wikilaywer around it. We know what the potential pitfalls are in that issue, which is why I say it's not yet in the guideline. --MASEM22:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Of course - I'm not trying to imply that no one realises this, merely that this is a particular concern of mine. Miremare23:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Here's a summary of my views, because I'm really not interested enough to debate it: the article is WP:NOTABLE as shown by the sources already in the article. That means the article has every right to be an article. The suggestion is that it should be merged into Doom (series) due to a lack of information. While I disagree that there is a lack of information (only current information), it's unlikely that anyone will further expand the article unless I do it. This is why I agree with the suggestion that it be merged into Doom (series), but that doesn't mean I will do it, because it doesn't need to be done. As for being harsh, "idiot" was the only appropriate word. When I make a case very clear and it is completely ignored, there is no better word. --Teggles (talk) 01:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
If the current article is as you plan to leave it stand or contains all that you have for reception, it's not that its not notable, but it really would be much better written as part of the Doom (video game) or a possible Doom (series) article. That is, what you have is while talking a bit about the notability of the enemies is moreso on the graphics and satanic aspects of the game -- which is already part of the main Doom (video game) article. (I do not know what the pre-deletion article looked like so I cannot compare to this version). If you have more material to include, then we'll wait and see, but I'd think for style purposes that article, as it stands now, doesn't work well by itself. --MASEM01:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
What you currently see if the result of literally 2 minutes research. I went to Metacritic, I went to Making of Doom, and I did a basic Google search. If I did an expansive Google search, or did REAL research - books, magazines and newspapers! - the article could easily become large and comprehensive. I don't plan on expanding it, but the point is that there is clearly enough information for to be expanded. As I said, it's unlikely that anyone will bother, which is why Doom (series) is a good idea. I wouldn't disagree. --Teggles (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Teggles here, a position I advanced in the original AFD. Doom contains some of the most recognisable enemies in computer gaming, if there are no sources for the List of enemies in Doom article, then to fix it, would be to find references. Not to delete it. good articles such as Characters in Castlevania: Sorrow series show that in game information makes up 80% of the article anyway. We should not be deleting 80% of a good article, because it lacks some rather simple sourcing. - hahnchen19:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering if anyone would be willing to create a version of this template that displays the boxart by default. {{Infobox VG}} takes up too much space in some cases, but the hidden version hides the boxart. SharkD (talk) 04:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
MMOGChart.com
Is this site reliable? The BBC has cited some of the site's ratings in some of their reports. Just thought I'd ask. SharkD (talk) 06:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
At a glance I'd say no based on the statement "Mmogchart.com is dedicated to my research in tracking the growth of Massively Multiplayer Online Games (MMOGs)". I'm sure you could cite the BBC... —Dihydrogen Monoxide06:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but the source of their data is MMOGChart.com. They say "According to MMOGChart.com..." Here is an article (there's supposedly a radio report, as well). SharkD (talk) 07:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.
I'd say: do what the BBC does. "According to MMOGChart.com ..." - This source is far to valuable not to use, and attribution inside the text means that we're somewhat careful. User:Krator (tc) 12:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
That's what I did. I'm still tempted to remove it completely, despite the BBC coverage. It raises the issue of whether journalism articles should be used as sources when their own sources aren't considered reliable. Normally, you can't tell what a newspaper article's sources are; but in this case it's pretty explicit (maybe because they aren't entirely confident in the source's reliability and want to flag the reader that this is the case?). However, stating that MMOGChart.com is the topic/source of the article is probably sufficient safeguard to the reader. SharkD (talk) 03:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
As a side note, the reason I'm discussing this is because I'm criticizing various NPOV issues in RuneScape. Maybe you'd like to jump into the discussion there. SharkD (talk) 04:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd say yes unless (as usual) some of them are mentioned in external publications etc. Seems unlikely - and thus these tables are usually removed. —Dihydrogen Monoxide06:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
False. WP:GAMEGUIDE means that instructional material is not allowed, and listing guns and their features is not instructional. However, I don't think the list is exactly necessary. In other words, you can get away with having it there, but the folks at WP:GA and WP:FA probably won't be happy. --Teggles (talk) 07:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Within the WP:VG project, we've got a bit more detailed guideline at WP:GAMECRUFT - basically if the information is only of use to someone that plays or will plays the game, its not appropriate to include. Much of the CS article is in bad shape (shouldn't have map lists (map types, fine) as well). --MASEM08:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
"Only of use to someone that plays or will play the game" is completely subjective, and frankly, it doesn't need to apply to this list. Let's say one is researching what the most common guns used in violent games are. That list will be useful. --Teggles (talk) 09:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
A list of weapons is not "excessive". That guideline (not policy) does say exceptions are possible, and considering guns are a central part of Counter-Strike, it wouldn't be uncalled for. As I said, it's unnecessary and I suggest removing it, but you could make a case if it's really wanted. --Teggles (talk) 09:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, yeah, there are exceptions I guess... but they're not "exceptions" unless they're few and far between. Besides, saying that guns are central to Counter-Strike is like saying guns are central to INSERT ANY FPS HERE, so I always consider such arguments to have no point. As I see it, such arguments should never be taken into consideration. Related arguments which should also be ignored since they are central to the genre rather than the game: Monster lists since monsters are central to an RPG (or any game really); and descriptions of the elaborate Rock/Paper/Scissors system, especially in RTS or Tactical games. Ong elvin (talk) 13:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Though there are guidelines to exclude and include content in articles, these guidelines have some loopholes in their wording as we all know. I think the underlining question to all the guidelines is "Is the information encyclopedic?" To the uninformed reader, the list may not provide that much information, and the phrase, "there are different types of weapons that provide various ways to attack opponents. Examples include... (short listing)" may provide the same amount of information as the table. Though the list is up to interpretation as to whether it falls under a specific guideline/policy for inclusion or exclusion, in the end we must think of the average reader and what they expect from an encyclopedic article on a video game. My two cents. (Guyinblack25talk16:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC))
Yeah, my response was going to go somewhere along the lines of Guyinblack's did: to the average reader, this info is somewhat unnecessary and would only benefit readers actually interested in the game material, such as gamers. In the end, this list should be removed. ♣ KlptyzmChat wit' me§Contributions ♣ 17:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Previous discussions on weapon lists (including several relating to Counter-Strike weapon lists) have established the consensus that lists of items and weapons -- unless established to be notable in their own right -- do not belong in game articles. Specific guns may be central to the game, but they are not central to encyclopedia articles. Lists and tables serve no purpose to the casual reader, and only benefit readers who have actually played the game. That alone should be sufficient reasoning to remove such lists. --Scottie_theNerd18:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Links to WP:GAMECRUFT, WP:GAMEGUIDE, speculation regarding what the "average reader" or "casual reader" wants, subjective measurements of "excessiveness", and what is an "encyclopedia article" are completely useless. Blanket restrictions on lists (in this case, weapon lists) have no consensus whatsoever. I don't care about this particular issue at all, but I really take issue to this pointless discussion. Focus on violations of WP:V and WP:NOR. Once that is done, everything else should fall into place. Is the information in this list actually correct? Is any of it original research? For example, does some source (the game, a magazine, the developer, some halfway decent website) say that the "9x19 mm Sidearm" is a Glock 18? Where are these nicknames from? --- RockMFR22:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
It is important to recognise the status of links such as WP:GAMECRUFT. To use this example here, it should not be understood as "Thou shallt not write weapon lists". Rather, it's more like "Weapon lists have proven to be deleted over and over again for the same reason, so let's put that reason here to warn people and make sure we don't waste our time". User:Krator (tc) 22:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
WP:WEIGHT should be considered here. By adding more content that is exclusively known to actual players, we shift the tone of the article away from the NPOV needed to make it accessible to all readers. Do any reliable sources document every single weapon in the game, and if so, do the sources establish enough prominence for the article to dedicate a whole section to list every single item in the game? If the information does -- in exceptional cases -- meet WP:V and WP:NOR, WP:WEIGHT is still a significant factor into sorting out what is "excessive" for articles. --Scottie_theNerd00:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
These seem like unneeded categories to me. All next-gen games run in 720p, and only a handful actually run in 1080p. Currently all of these categories are completely empty aside from the 1080p one, which has false information in it anyway (three of the four games listed on the 1080p category are NOT native 1080p (only Virtua Tennis 3 is). SeanMooney (talk) 09:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree, they're excessive, unnecessary. Even if the categories were being used on all applicable games, games have never been (and never will be) classified by their resolution. Ong elvin (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I find the categories useful (in theory), if not notable. The problem of overlap can be solved by making one category a sub-category of another. SharkD (talk) 04:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Our article guidelines used to say to avoid surprise links whenever possible, but they don't seem to have that now. Who removed that? Pagrashtak17:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Some merging comments requested
Due to some ever so fun wikilawyering, I am in need of some comments in order to establish a number consensus. The articles in question are Meta Knight and others are within the merge tag within this revision of List of Mega Man characters. Even if you don't really care about the issue, can anybody that reads this just comment, so I don't have to do this five more times? Just to keep it together, please just comment here. TTN (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Can't really say anything about the Mega Man characters as I'm not particulary interested in that series but Meta Knight is kind of pointless, I can really see this getting any kind of significant development detail, the character itself its obscure at best and its only a secondary character in most entries (exept for one in wich he was the main antagonist) in a series that while popular its not prominent enought as to having enough out of universe information when dealing with secondary characters, a simmilar situation to what we encountered while trying to source secondary Devil May Cry characters, all of wich are now merged. - Caribbean~H.Q.20:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Is there some policy about listing mods which don't seem to have any notability? I'm talking about in particular List of Might and Magic titles. There's some users insisting to add mods to the list that don't have any outside sources. Have I been wrong or right? --Mika1h (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes and no. Per Wikipedia:Notability, “These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles. Relevant content policies include: Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons.” Thus, as long as the list is notable, then the user can include the mods in the list, as long as that user can citepublished, reliable sources. The user may cite the work itself, but if you challenge the source as unreliable, which you are totally allowed to do (you can the {{vc}} template), then the user must provide outside sources. (Another Wiki or some Geocities cite is not reliable. A book or magazine is.) These principals are non–negotiable and override local consensus. In other words, the user may get plenty of other users on the same side and argue consensus until blue in the face, but consensus is worthless if that user does not cite published, reliable sources. Taric25 (talk) 01:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Do cows exist?It doesn't make any sense at all to try to say that a link to the work itself is not reliable enough to prove that the work exists. As the image to the right implies, there is no need for a secondary source for something that is blindingly obvious from the primary source.
If there is ever a Wikipedia:Notable mod, you could tack on "and notable third-party mods." You can also seek a wider consensus here, I suspect you will find a great deal of support for removing random mods. Anomie⚔03:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't saying that a link to the work itself is not reliable enough to prove that the work exists, however, you do make a good point, that it is better to cite WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOT, and Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) rather than WP:V, WP:OR, WP:CITE for inclusion within a list. Taric25 (talk) 02:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
The name of the article makes it pretty obvious that mods should not be included. "Title" in this case is understood to mean a standalone work made by the copyright holder. It would be more fitting for mods to be added to List of Might and Magic modifications, which doesn't exist. That said, notability would still have to be met. SharkD (talk) 04:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, if the article itself was about only Might and Magic mods, then the Wikipedian starting the article would have to prove its notability. Inclusion of something in an article in which we do not dispute the article's notability as a whole falls within other policies and guidelines. Taric25 (talk) 02:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
In case anyone was wondering, I added the RSS feed for the 500 newest articles, and told feedrinse to filter out any articles that do not either include "video game", "computer game" or "Infobox VG". JACOPLANE • 2007-12-17 21:55
Sounds good. You might want to add "Infobox CVG", in case that's a still-popular redirect, as well as "videogame-stub" or the sub-stubs thereof. Pagrashtak22:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Done, added "Infobox CVG" and "videogame", which should catch all video game stubs, e.g. {{adventure-videogame-stub}} contains "videogame" so the filter catches it. JACOPLANE • 2007-12-17 22:10
I guess because it's filtering a rather large feed. JACOPLANE • 2007-12-19 08:12
Proposing renaming category
I was thinking that perhaps we should rename "Category:Xbox 360-only games" to something along the lines of "Games exclusive to the Xbox 360". The current title just seems somewhat unencyclopedic, and it is not cohesive. So what is everybody's opinion concerning this issue? - Caribbean~H.Q.08:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Caribbean - you're correct about the naming, it is clunky and could do with something more intuitive. Please stick at it because there is support for changing to a "better" name. I'm fully in favour of your suggestion but as HB mentioned above, name changes of "only" categories doesn't seem to have gathered enough momentum to make the change happen at the moment. - - X201 (talk) 09:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I'd prefer something a little more formal like Category:Xbox 360 exclusive games or Video games exclusive to Xbox 360 but anything would be better than the current name - X201 (talk) 09:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
hahah, ya, Pagra is grammatically correct. Better use the hyphenated version. I can't believe I missed that... Does it need to go up for CfD? Can't the page just be moved? I quickly looked over CfD and it seems to be about renaming articles that have inappropriate names. clicketyclickyaketyyak17:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Future-class article?
Over at WP:FILM, I noticed that they have a Future-class designation for all future-release films. Perhaps we could employ this designation here and other as-of-yet-unreleased video games? --Son (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Why, though? The Class rating is for how good the article is- a Stub-class article is a stub, a Start-class article rates a start, etc. "Future" isn't a measure of article quality. --PresN (talk) 06:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I concur. It's especially unnecessary considering that future video games are tagged with {{future game}} in any case. "Future" does not indicate whether the article is at Stub, Start, or B-class, and thus is not indicative of the article's current status. Sephiroth BCR(Converse)06:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree..."Future-Class" is not a measure of article quality, but how can an article be given a proper assessment if the product hasn't been released yet? --Son (talk) 06:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, it can't be GA or FA (fail the comprehensiveness requirement), but there's really nothing stopping it from being Start or B class. So no, no need for a Future-class, IMO. --VPeric (talk) 09:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the GA commentary, (back in early this year), technically the article was stable - no media had come out about the game since 2001, and back then, DNF was still to be done "when it's done". That all changed yesterday, so I'm actually going to put this up for GA delisting. --MASEM19:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I would presume that to be an exception to the rule, not the rule itself. For now, the rating system appears to be sufficient.--CM (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed there are five articles which are listings of video games under this Wiki project, basically "List of video games: X-X" where X is an alphabet (e.g. List of video games: D-H). Why are there such lists which require manual maintenance when a Category would do a much better job? Jappalang (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Categories only show articles that already exist. Lists allow the addition of entries that don't have articles and need creating. - X201 (talk) 22:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject VG welcome message
I was thinking that it might be a good idea to create a welcome message that was specific to this WikiProject. Here's what I've come up with so far, see User:Jacoplane/Welcome VG:
Hi WikiProject Video games! You are receiving this message because we've noticed your excellent edits on Video game-related articles. We need your help at the Video games WikiProject! There is much work to do, so please head over to the project page and help us enhance and increase the coverage of Video game related articles on Wikipedia!
Something to promote interactions with new users has been on my mind lately, and this idea is a great start. I'll be editing your sandbox a bit. User:Krator (tc) 22:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
After thinking about it for a bit, I think two different welcome messages are needed. One for new editors, which may also include elements of WP:WC. Specific advice on how to deal with fair use bots spamming their talk page, how to avoid gamecruft and other common problems may be good to address there. A shorter version for "old" editors containing only an invitation to participate would be the second one.
Secondly, the message may need some work, because I think WP:VG has a different direction (and use) than it portrays. To head over to the project page to do some of the "work there is to do" is not what is mostly happening here. The video games WikiProject is mostly about people who edit the articles about games they like coming together to discuss common problems and ask for help. So, I propose the core message contained would not be "Go here and participate in the project", but rather (schematic, informal) "Go on with writing about video games - if you need any guidance: WP:VG/GL. If you encounter problems, ask for help (WT:VG). If you need feedback: (WP:VG/A). Good luck writing!" The best advertisement you can get is a positive experience with what we do. That's how most of us came here. User:Krator (tc) 22:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Question: Is it possible to include a yes/no parameter labeled something like "new", that will display the appropriate message for a new or experienced editor like Krator mentioned? That way we'd only have a single template. (Guyinblack25talk16:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC))
Technically yes, there's a parser #if directive that can put out different text depending on the value of a parameter. --MASEM16:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we could get a bot that scans articles with the {{vgproj}} template and if it detects users that have made a few edits to VG articles then it sends the message and adds the username to a list. On this list is the name of every user that has recieved the message and the bot is programmed to ignore users who are on the list. Surely this system would be possible? .:Alex:.20:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject banner
Is anyone else aware that after {{Vgproj}} was moved to {{WikiProject Video games}}, it was recreated through cut-and-paste? Since it's been six days without anyone saying anything, I just wanted to check before doing anything about it. Pagrashtak17:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Apparently the admin who moved it (based on a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves) was unfamiliar with the details of Help:Moving a page, in particular the part about fixing double redirects, and so broke the thousands of transclusions of Template:cvgproj. When this was pointed out, he thought he had to recreate Template:vgproj to fix the problem, and then ignored the further note that that was unnecessary. Anomie⚔19:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
This move is kind of annoying for me. I've traditionally added the talk page template using AWB, but if there are too many iterations it becomes complicated. We now have "cvgproj", "vgproj", and "WikiProject Video games". Can we get a bot to ensure that there are no redirects? I had been planning to add a couple of thousand talk page tags, but I won't be able to do so until this issue is resolved. JACOPLANE • 2007-12-25 01:39
Personally, I don't see any problem with the existing redirects in use that needs urgent de-redirectifying (and flooding watchlists with the change). Just use the "new" name for your new tagging. Anomie⚔03:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Basically, I've been working on Super Smash Bros Melee for a while now, and have done everything I need to do except cite the in-universe information. I should be ready to nominate it for FA soon, but I was just wondering whether an experienced editor—or any editor—would copy edit and give it the clean-up and direction it needs before it should go for FA. I know I could request a copy-edit officially, but I wanted a more reliable response and a user who is familar with gaming articles. So... any offers? Thanks. AshnardTalkContribs21:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Dude the do-it-yourself is all here. I know that may sound dumb, but Tony's guide works really well. You can up the level of your own writing just by doing the whole thing and applying it to your article. If you do it well, it makes the overall prose a lot tighter. To be honest, there really aren't many copyeditors left around here, just sort of do your best and and take care of inconsistencies brought up at the FAC.--CM (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that page out. I know Tony is probably the best copy editor on Wikipedia, and he's all over FAC, but personally I'd never seen that page before. Still, some of us will never be great writers and will always need some help, so spare us the irony :) JACOPLANE • 2007-12-22 00:04
My only suggestion was that you can remove extra words, change passive to active voice, remove any misplaced formality, things like that. It never substitutes for a copyeditor, but it certainly improves the prose to the point where you will receive fewer complaints about it at the FAC. And yes, I know continuing to advocate self copyediting is just pouring more irony syrup onto the pancakes of this discussion, but these days, there aren't many other places to turn.--CM (talk) 16:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone else noticed the recent deletion and merging of Character articles? Sora (Kingdom Hearts), Frank West (Dead Rising), Freddi Fish, and many others.
I feel as though the game industry's notable fictional universes/characters are being treated as though they were less important than those of other medias; TV, Movies, and Books.
Frank West was the lead protagonist of Dead Rising, a critically acclaimed and best selling title, and the character himself left a great impression on many gamers. Keiji Inafune mentined in an interview that he wanted to see the character return. He even made a cameo appearence in Lost Planet.
Freddi Fish was in quite a large list of childrens edutainment games, and there's alot more to be said about that character than a paragraph.
Wikipedia is meant to be an online encyclopedia, a place where someone should be able to find out alot about a subject, and/or be pointed in the proper direction to find it. I do agree that many characters don't deserve an article. But, I would think that lead protagonists in top selling games would deserve it, especially if it's impacted a community as original as the gaming community. Smile Lee (talk) 05:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Please see WP's notability guideline, which is the key requirement for any topic; Wikipeida is not meant to be all encompassing. A fictional character (from any media) must have significant coverage about it's real-world aspects (popularity, creation, influence, etc.) in reliable sources to have its own article: even if that character has been in multiple best-selling games, if that is the character's only claim to fame, then we cannot have an article on it. We can certainly move information into a character list article or the main article (Character lists for a game are acceptable in general as long as they don't get too long in [[WP:PLOT|plot), or we can move that info to an offsite wiki where more details can be given.
Remember that we are writing articles for the general reader who many have never played the game and may never play it, but need to learn why the game is important. The details of the plot have to be secondary to real-world info. --MASEM06:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll just write this in bold, because many seem to forget this: It is not all or nothing. Judge the individual subject's merit. You wrote it yourself: Frank West himself was critically acclaimed, as in, the chracter was subject of nontrivial commentary. That makes him notable, and suitable for an article; and that's why the article was kept. Yet, Sora from Kingdom Hearts only seems notable for the games she appears in. This is a fallacy, as notability is not inherited. We cannot make a rule about "the lead protagonist in series which X amount of games", as it differs from game to game. User:Krator (tc) 19:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Would somebody who knows what they're doing take a look at the deletion page? I updated the closed AFDs and between my edit and the last one a massive chunk of deletion information has suddenly appeared slap-bang in the middle of it. I'm assuming that this is part of the WP:FICT discussions about how deletion should be the last option and alternatives should be explored first, but it doesn't seem to be hooked up in the right place. Someone another (talk) 12:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Fixed, someone left part of {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/}} floating around (either adding an article to wrong place or copying and not completing it) and caused the AFD instructions to be transwiki'ed instead. --MASEM14:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I was looking at the diff but couldn't see how I'd clipped anything except the closed AFDs which were moved, I thought that information might have belonged on the page since the project's various departments seem to be being clarified/moved/updated. Someone another (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Wurm Online
I have greatly improved the Wurm Online page and I believe it is due for reassement, please take a look. There is still no section for combat as I am awaiting infomation on that subject. --Mollsmolyneux (talk) 20:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I recently removed from the VG-GA list an article which had been merged to a Pokemon list. At least three on the ex-GA list have also been merged. should some sort of new section be added to it to list these articles? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 03:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I know that there had already been discussions on this, but I see new articles popping up with platform listed as "PC". I do agree that the PC is not a platform. Rather, the relevant OS is. Shouldn't we users discuss this and agree on a consensus so that it can be established as a guideline? speaksrohith. 15:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, PC tends to go hand in hand with Windows, thanks to IBM. Its only recently with this Games for Windows malarkey that "Windows" is becoming more the focus of the platform than the PC. However, look on the side of games boxes: they mostly all say "PC CD" or "PC DVD ROM", putting the platform as the PC, not Windows. -- Sabre (talk) 15:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
What is the meaning of "Platform"? It's something on which the game runs. There are PCs around the world that run on countless OSes and they are all PCs. But will the game run on each and every one of them? No. Most probably on Windows. Some might even run on Linux. This is why I say that Windows or whatever OS it runs on must be the platform, not PC. See also: WP:VG/PC game. speaksrohith. 20:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I actually agree with you. You just asked for a discussion on it, I'm (failing at) playing Devil's advocate. -- Sabre (talk) 20:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I agree, PC is really generic and doesn't specify a platform. PC just means that the game has been released for computers, it doesn't give the reader any information on what exactly it was released for (Windows? Mac? Linux even?). Come to think of it, PC isn't even a platform in the first place, it's just a machine that happens to run Operating Systems. .:Alex:.20:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Table
Some lists have a table with 7 columns
Title | Developer | Publisher | Release date | OS (Operating System) | Engine | License | Notes List of free first-person shooters
Others have a table with 5 columns
Title | Release date | Console(s) | Developer | Publisher List of american football games
Does anyone here believe that Characters of Chrono Trigger is a suitable split off article? Barring the inclusion of notability establishing real world information, the article has no reason to exist. It is mostly plot and character information that is covered within the main article, and it has one development reference which I believe is already present in two other articles. It is currently being defended by people that seem to be stuck in the "It's been this way, so why change it?" mentality and others like the "Every Final Fantasy has a character list." mentality that a lot of people seem to have. Am I off base, or am I correct in this assertion? TTN (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The influence of Chrono Trigger on the genre is quite big in general. I wouldn't oppose such an article in principle, though it has some problems at the moment. The main topic of my response regards the "other stuff exists" argument. Please keep in mind there are two sides to that:
Article x is like article y, why are you deleting/merging/redirecting this, and not that?
This subject x belongs in category of subjects y, which generally has enough to it for an article.
The second thing applies here: computer role playing games released by a major publisher and developed by a major developer, typically receive enough coverage for a character list with good real world information. Chrono Trigger certainly fits that bill, and this is a strong indication that WP:PROBLEM applies. (By the way, TTN, if you'd look back at the AFDs you have started on topics like this, you'd see the above trend - use it to avoid unnecessary drama and predict outcomes.) User:Krator (tc) 20:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Going through the article, I noticed its sources can be boiled down to only two. Chrono Compendium, a fansite, and the character popularity polls at GameFAQs. You might want to investigate how reliable are these two sources considered by Wikipedia's policies. Despite the 18 references, they are only used for 6 of the 14 "notable" characters, and none for the 18 "non-notable" characters (included here for reference on length of article). Jappalang (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Even going by how we're rethinking WP:FICT, the list is bad. Chrono Trigger is a single game so should not need a separate non-notable character list (and personally, I think that the main article plot can be significantly trimmed and replaced with more character details), and there's no notability demonstrated for the characters alone. This is not to say that such notability does not exist - for a game as popular as CTrigger, I would think there would be more information as to their development and the like, so I would not be rushing to merge this quickly, but a bit of prodding to help identify if there really is a need for this list article is appropriate. --MASEM —Preceding comment was added at 22:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The thing is, most of the sources cited at the Chrono Compendium are archives of actual interviews with the creators of the series from other sources, usually ones that fall under WP:RS. --Sir Crazyswordsman16:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see how pages entitled after the characters like these Ozzie, Flea, and Slash are archived interviews with the creators. Where are the official sources stating the contents of Chrono Compendium are as such? The sole interview on the Characters page is originally on Gamepro which is still available, hence rendering Chrono Compendium's copy of it redundant. Jappalang (talk) 16:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
That's because you aren't looking at the right pages. I'll admit the article is poorly sourced, but that doesn't mean good sources aren't available. --Sir Crazyswordsman19:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
It is the responsibility of the article's editors to properly source the presented material. Telling me I am looking at the wrong pages when the article points me in that direction is not helping the article at all in the context of Wikipedia's policies. The current article is telling people its contents are based on those sources. Would its current contents tally with the "the right pages"? If "the right pages" can salvage the article, then by all means rewrite the character page to be an example of how such pages should be written. Jappalang (talk) 22:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
You're right, and I said the article is poorly sourced. However, TTN has no intention of merging the encyclopedic information. Many of the recent merges are merges in name only, and really are deletions. Because the information that is encyclopedic is NOT KEPT from the merge, TTN will not acknowledge that, and there are a lot of editors who claim that text that has some encyclopedic merit is outweighed by the cruft, and thus destroy the content that DOES belong here because the rest of it doesn't. --Sir Crazyswordsman03:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
TTN's usual practice is not the main point here. The main point should be what contents here are notable which is tied to reliable sourcing. Now if there is a belief the merger is going to delete everything, then those who propose there is "encyclopedic content" worth keeping should be the ones writing those information with sourcing into the merger. According to the guidelines, the merger would either only copy over the text which is "encyclopedic" or the whole thing. The current Characters page is seriously lacking in terms of being compliant with WP:FICT. As such, one can hardly blame the merger if the bulk of the contents are not copied over. In other words, make the contents of Characters of Chrono Trigger "encyclopedic" or have them deleted during the merge. If the contents have been made "encyclopedic" (abiding by policy/guidelines) and were left out during the merge, then insert them back into the article. Jappalang (talk) 03:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
We should take TTN's usual practice into consideration, not simply discard it. If User:Crazyswordsman argues that TTN has no intention of merging the encyclopedic information, then we should not place the weight of finding reliable sources and citing all encyclopedic information entirely on whoever TTN opposes. If TTN believes that he can merge, rather than delete, encyclopedic information from the article, then we should see if he can actually cite published sources using citation templates and incorporate them into the main article. Until he does so, I would take TTN's argument with a grain of salt, because his usual practice suggests otherwise. If TTN can show us that he can do some writing on his own and has an interest in the article with regards to improving it by citing published, reliable sources using citation templates, then we can consider his argument to merge. Else, we should only consider his usual practices, because that is what he is demonstrating. Taric25 (talk) 00:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
There is an assumption of significant "encyclopedic" material in Characters of Chrono Trigger. However based on the presented information above, there is little or none. Why should someone merging the articles find and write out Wikipedia-compliant material where there is none in it? It does not matter who is merging the article. The fact is the article concerned in its current status has little to be preserved, and it seems people are trying to avoid making the article compliant with policy. Constantly harping on another user's past practice is not helping the article in question at all. Jappalang (talk) 04:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Upon inspection of the article, I say it would be fine if it has an out-of-universe section that is sufficiently sourced about maybe the origin and development of the characters or something to that effect. Currently, I don't feel that it should have it's own article. Should probably be shaved down to important characters only and merged. Note that I have not read all of the responses or dialogue in this discussion. ♣ KlptyzmChat wit' me§Contributions ♣ 00:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
There are other interviews and material available for the characters for both Chrono Trigger and Chrono Cross. They merely haven't been translated to English yet, no matter how hard we've tried to find a voluntary translator. Zeality (talk) 04:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Wellll, can't someone get down on that then? I'm sure something on the Internet can be used to translate it, if that doesn't violate a policy or something, which I doubt it would. ♣ KlptyzmChat wit' me§Contributions ♣ 04:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Read Wikipedia's policy on foreign sources, WP:RSUE. Editors are still required to ensure the content is suitable for Wikipedia with appropriate sources. Jappalang (talk) 04:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, these are things like Ultimania, art books, etc. published by Square with developer commentary. They aren't on Japanese Wikipedia or anything. I've had an ad on my website for a year concerning a translator, but despite the popularity of the Chrono series, we just can't find a volunteer. The articles would allow expansion of development sections for both Trigger and Cross, among other things, like art direction commentary. Zeality (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Speedrun rewrite requires a little bit of help
Hi everybody. I've been working on the rewrite of Speedrun on and off for about a year now. Lately I've given it a last push to try and finish up the last few remaining sections. Now I need some help: I'm not sure whether it needs a "history" section at all. You see, the history of speedrunning is pretty much covered entirely by the "notable speedrun communities" section. I feel I'd just be repeating the same stuff. What do you think would be best for the article? I thought of modifying the "notable speedrun communities" section into a history section, but I'm not sure whether I should. Some thoughts would be appreciated! I believe that once this issue is resolved, it won't be very difficult to clean up the rest of the article. —msikma (user, talk)20:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
The references are a mess. I expect links to reliable, third party publications, not to mostly consist of notes that read like WP:NOR. Notes like that belong in the text of the article and cited by reliable sources, not used as references, some examples being #41, #6, and #2. Among notable items, #14 and related are a huge no-no: WIkipedia is never a reliable source, and things are likely to break (this happens a lot on the Saw articles because people change the names on the traps without changing the wikilinks, for example).
Primary sourcing needs to be taken very carefully. I've been owned too much on thisdebate, so I'll leave it to be experts to evaluate how good the sources are.
Finally, nothing from me. I got my fingers smashed in the door quite hard the last time I tried to edit, and Wikipedia is supposed to be fun. I'm not up to the rather unpleasant experience I got when nominating two images for deletion, which is the antithesis of fun. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm aware that some of the cited resources aren't perfect. Some of them are added in with me fully knowing that they could be seen as controversial. That is actually not the point of me asking here. I'm able to fix those last few things myself (for example, in case anyone feels that #14, which you mentioned, is unreliable, I'm sure we can find the official release date for Doom somewhere else too).
The main point of me asking for help is that "history" section. What to do with it?
As for your complaint that editing Wikipedia isn't fun anymore, well, I've been there myself, and I've found that quietly retreating to do some original work on some article that doesn't have any other regular editor is nice. I did it with this article, and restructured it completely. Give it a try! You're probably just sick of everything surrounding the actual editing work. —msikma (user, talk)10:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I'd rename "notable speedrun communities" as "History", and then include any other information related to history, as well as the speed runs. I always feel that a generic heading is preferable to an article-specific one, too. As for editing, I don't think most people would find writing an encyclopaedia fun in the first place. Personally, I love it—especially when an article reaches GA, or maybeFA*coughSuper Smash Bros. Melee FAC*cough*. Just make sure that you don't get too deflated about criticisms of your editing. I'm going off-topic here though. AshnardTalkContribs10:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, criticism is definitely discouraging, and I think that contributors to this wikiproject get criticized more often than contributors to other projects. The main reason for this is probably the fact that publications that deal with video games are usually shallow, making them less usable. Original research is more widespread. This is actually why I prefer working on computer science-related articles, since then at least everything can be traced back to scholarly resources. But yeah, going off-topic here... —msikma (user, talk)13:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
This is getting a bit off topic, but I think it's more that many people are annoyed at the systemic bias that happens because the percentage of people who have the DRIVE to edit WP a lot tend to lean toward those who like geeky topics. Many people have a simple problem with the fact that people choose to work on what the like, instead of what's 'important', especially people who might only casually edit if at all (how many times has there been a complaint that the featured article is worthless, and instead X-which-has-a-crappy-article should be instead?). When you combine it when the general youth of video games, the fact that for the most part it's a solo artivity and thus seen by many as basically a time waster compared to movies, music, and even stuff like board games...well there's a general stigma.
As for the whole fun thing (to go OT in a different direction), I think what Hbdragon88 means is that editing should be rewarding and stimulating, and when you get yelled at for trying to help, it's a real downer. I for one am fed up with a lot of the crap that goes on, and can't help wonder how much we've lost because of stuff like the picture issue and stuff like the whole TTN thing, where a little discussion and perhaps a bit more good faith would have caused far far less lameness. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll second Ashnard's suggestion of having a single "History" section. Arrange it roughly chronologically (as you currently have the communities section), but don't be afraid to go out-of-order somewhat if topical coherence demands it. On and off, I've been rewriting the article on machinima, which used to spend the majority of its space enumerating examples by game/engine (see this revision). I still have a lot of work to do, but I completely rewrote the History section from scratch and integrated examples where relevant (what remains of the laundry list of examples is basically a to-do list of material that still needs to be investigated for integration or removal). The situation with speedruns is a little different, since there is more focus on fewer communities, but the point that I'm trying to make is that an integrated History section could help to put everything into a bigger context more clearly, and will more readily accommodate secondary-source material that shows how things evolved over time, from community to community.
I guess that refactoring the section to become more like a real "history" section is indeed the best way to go. I use the word "refactoring" because I don't think it'll be that difficult anyway. The order is already roughly chronological as it is right now, but the "SDA" and "Metroid 2002" sections will probably end up being just one section.
Oh, and I was aware that some scholarly publications mention speedrunning, but I remember checking it out a long time ago and not being very impressed with what's there. But I guess that lots more publications have been added to Google Scholar since then, so I'll definitely check it out again. Thanks for the link. —msikma (user, talk)16:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I brought this up a while back when the rehaul of the template was being done, but it was on the tail end of it and got overlooked/ignored. Its only a minor change, but I want to bring it up anyway. When the rehaul got done, we lost most of the (s) on the column headings. Considering that some games are developed by multiple companies (eg, StarCraft: Ghost, Supreme Commander or Left 4 Dead), are often published by more than one company in various locations across the world or for different formats (eg, Half-Life 2, Max Payne, Freespace or Final Fantasy VIII), and manygame articleshereput morethan one person in thedesigner section, can we change these three columns to reflect this? Going by the film equivalent template, they should be changed to "Developed by", "Published by" and "Designed by", so that either one or more can comfortably be accomodated, and in my view that looks better than sticking a (s) at the end. Simply having it as "Developer", "Publisher" and "Designer" is ignorant of the potential for multiple necessary entries to these columns and should be addressed. -- Sabre (talk) 19:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I would prefer having the (s) at the end. Having "Developed by" makes it look like you're trying to complete a sentence, which conflicts with the table-like format. SharkD (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
He means that if there is a single entry, it won't display an "s" a the end, but if there is more than one it will. Seems like a nice idea, but probably too much work for too little gain - I certainly don't know how to implement something like that. But we need to work something out, whether its a conditional syntax, adding (s) to the end of appropriate columns or changing it to "Developed by" etc. -- Sabre (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
The question is "conditional on what?" We could add additional parameters for "plural developers", "plural designers", and so on, or parameters for "number of delevopers", etc., or we could change it to have "developer1", "developer2", "developer3", and so on. But as it stands, there is nothing we can do to determine whether the 's' should be included or not. Anomie⚔15:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm definately starting to think that a conditional parameter would be far too much trouble. The same problem could be solved by a minimum of adding 9 characters into the code (ie, 3 "(s)"). -- Sabre (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
There are no current software mechanisms that would be able to detect the presence of <br> tag or anything else that would indicate multiple people for the same parameter. The easiest solution is to make the fields read "developer(s)" etc., similar to what is done at Template:Infobox Officeholder. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Do we have enough consensus for a change? Judging by the comments here putting in "(s)" to the publisher, developer and designer fields is more preferable than the "developed by" style, so shall we go for that? -- Sabre (talk) 17:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
A sandbox version is here. Its based on the current coding and shouldn't have any effect on how the template operates: I only changed the labels. I've added "Distributor(s)" to the columns being changed as well - I forgot about it earlier, probably because its not used much, but where it is used its usually got more than one entry. -- Sabre (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I am unclear as to whether (or not) this topic would be improved by adding information on | Gamebrix which is a new Web 2.0 online toolset for the easy creation of animations and casual games, both as individuals, and collaboratively in teams. As a Web 2.0 technology, there are no downloads, plugins, DVDs or CDs required; Gamebrix technology is entirely server-side; only a browser is required. Games can be exported. No traditional programming is required, i.e. no Java, PHP, ActionScript or C++.
I am sorry that other people have to read this. This is a conflict that is a clear spillover from SharkD's problem with the Artillery game article. SharkD is using unreliable research and out-of-context quotes to support the statement that Artillery games are Shooter games and Action games. They clearly aren't. SharkD has taken it upon himself to extend this debate to the Artillery Duel article.
Before I arrived, the Artillery Duel article called the game a strategy game (see Infobox):
Trying to be helpful, I turned the "external link" into a reference. I also added a second reference. Then I clarified that this game was both a strategy game AND an artillery game.
And I have come to realize that I have been the victim of an edit war.
Trying to be helpful, I re-added the research that came from that reference. SharkD deleted it again. Confused as to what else I should do, I reverted the article back to its state before I got there, which stated that it was a strategy game. I did, however, keep the original reference (from the external link). I recently added back the second reference.
This is silliness. The research says this is a strategy game. And while there is no research to support it, it's also clearly an artillery game. But I am not sure what SharkD is trying to accomplish by removing my research. Ideally, I would revert the article back to where it was when I edited it, which said it's both a strategy game and an artillery game (see: MY EDITS). But I would clean up and improve the references, with proper form, as I have in the latest revision.
I am also beginning to be concerned that SharkD is targeting edits I have made at other pages maliciously. But it is impossible to prove that. I am trying my best to assume good faith. Randomran (talk) 08:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Isn't "artillery strategy" redundant, because an artillery game simply is a strategy game? By the way, Randomran, I can assure you SharkD is not "evil". Judge the edits, not the editor. User:Krator (tc) 12:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I've seen SharkD act constructively in the past. I am only talking about his current behavior.
I respect that you are trying to help by honoring the WP:SYN policy. But let me tell you, if we do that, then the entire Video Game wikiproject is in big trouble. You won't find a single article that says what genre an artillery game belongs to. You will, however, find an article that lists several "artillery clones"[4], and then find that each game in the list is overwhelmingly categorized as a strategy game [5][6][7].
What's worse, you won't find a single article that says "these are a subgenre of strategy game", or even a "shooter game". You'll see articles for individual games, with a label in the "genre" section. You'll also see articles with a number of adjectives "this is a ballistics-oriented strategic artillery-shooting game". What is the genre? Is it "BOSAS"? Is it artillery-shooting? Is it ballistics-oriented strategy? Would it be violating WP:SYN to say that shooting means it's a "shooter"? Would it be violating WP:SYN to say that strategic indicates it's a strategy game? Could someone come along and argue that it's WP:SYN to have a genre at all? Maybe these are just activities. We don't have a genre article for "awesome game".
I should also point out that in your effort to delete all research supporting that artillery games were strategy games, you left in the WP:SYN about shooter games. I wish you would be consistent. But I'd prefer it if you didn't take all the references taken away, because that would lead this back to a "my word against your word" edit war.
The only way to stop an edit war of two conflicting viewpoints is with reliable references and research. But perfect video game references are often impossible to find! You have to make small but reasonable inferences about genre, or technology. I believe that allowing these references would be in the spirit of wikipedia, even if it's not in the letter. Otherwise, we'd have to start deleting articles and sections of video games en masse. Again, that would honor the letter of WP, but not the spirit. In essence, deleting the *only* references we can find would be violating WP:LAWYER and WP:IGNORE. This cuts to the very core of WP policy and video game articles. Randomran (talk) 16:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Randomran is going through all the Artillery games and adding "strategy". Isn't it synthesis to say "artillery games are a sub-genre of strategy games" merely based on a reference that puts a game in both categories? Also, I think it's redundant, since the Artillery game article already clearly states that they're strategy games. Additionally, this merely leads to more confusion, as artillery games have also been described as shooter games. SharkD (talk) 05:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Should different types of sports be listed under Sports games in the template? It seems to me they shouldn't be listed, as they're about different sports, rather than video game genres. I think it would be better to list games where they differ widely in gameplay, such as (I'm more or less making these up, as I'm not that familiar with sports games) sports games where you control the players, games where you only determine the playbook, and sports management games. I notice that the Sports game article groups them in a similar manner (e.g., based on gameplay differences). What do you think? SharkD (talk) 08:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Sports_game#Notable_sports_games_by_type definitely groups the different sports by gameplay. Baseball, football, and golf all have wide gameplay differences. If you see the subcategories within the Sports_video_games category, it reinforces these groupings by gameplay. This is consistent with the current template.
I would not object to adding a "sports RPG" link in the template -- for games like Final Lap Twin. Just that nobody has created a sports RPG article yet. But assuming the article meets basic standards of notability and reliability, it would definitely be a subgenre of sports game, and would belong in the genres template. Randomran (talk) 08:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Video Game sales charts
Is there any consensus as to the best resource for game sales? I can name a few, but is there a..."best"?--CM (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
As far as I understand, The Magic Box picks their numbers from Famitsu (or was it Dengeki?) and add them to their site list without modification. VGChartz combine data from different sources (Dengeki, Famitsu, Media Create), extrapolate them with their own algorithms, and release that information as theirs. While the numbers from Magic Box are reliable (because they come from a reliable source and are not modified, and we cite them for easy access, especially about old games of over 10 years old), VGChartz is not because they applying their own algorithms that have not been proven effective. They recently have began to be quoted by GamePro, and I saw them in a press release of a company. However, most of the times they quote their hardware numbers, not for software.
In the ideal world, we would find the Famitsu articles with the sales information ourselves and replace The Magic Box with it, but we are talking about articles back in 1996. Those are the hardest to find!
I am pretty proud of the effort we have put in the list of best-selling video games, as we have over 200 reliable sources there, including consumer sites (IGN, GameSpot), industrial ones (Gamasutra, GameDaily), mass market newspapers (New York Times, Forbes) and many others. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, that makes sense. I actually think that was the article I went to when I searched for units sold (for 1080° Snowboarding, my current project). I actually combined the Magicbox figures with this website. My intent is to take this to the FAC in the near future, and I want to make sure that both sales websites I use are considered reliable by the community.--CM (talk) 06:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Note that you don't combine numbers. According to Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, "if a reference says A = B, and another reference says B = C, writing in the article that A = C is considered original research unless referenced". Or, applied to sales, if a reference says the game sold X units in USA, another reference says it sold Y units in Japan, writing in the article that the game sold (X+Y) units is considered original research unless you can find a reference for that. To bypass that, limit yourself to the facts: "The game sold X units in USA, and Y units in Japan". -- ReyBrujo (talk) 07:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Good advice though for an article writer though. My main interest was to see if both sources are both reliable. Mbox seems to do it, but I was wondering if you or anyone else knew anything about the other website. It seemed good enough, but I always value other opinions.--CM (talk) 15:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
The problem is, that for high quality figures, you have to pay. NPD, ChartTrack, ScreenDigest all cost money, and I'm not sure about their terms of use. I trust VGChartz software sales figures about as far as I could spit a rat, and I don't think any firm tracks digital downloads as close as they should. - hahnchen16:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
So in this case, my two sources are okay? I don't think I'm going to drop green to get sales figures I may or may not be able to use.--CM (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
(ec)(reply to Clyde) There have been discussions about VGChartz reliability, many involving the list of best-selling video games. Here (and subsequent sections "Shipped is basically sold. Use VGCharts." and "Question for A Link to the Past" are lengthy discussions). This was the version of the List of best-selling video games after the first draft. All numbers came from The Magic Box. This is the last version of 2005. There were some sources added, several sites were being included as references. It was not simply a mirror of TMB like in the first version. The article was slowly being improved. Here I arrived for the first time (if I recall correctly). I put a verification tag, since many numbers had no references. On August 2006 people began putting vgcharts.org there. By September 2006, someone added a {{citation needed}} tag to every game without reference, and by October 2006, the article had over 250 references to vgcharts.org. It was back to the very first version of the article, where we had a single source (there were some other sources, but that is because those games were not in vgcharts database). I took myself a day to convert all the external links into references. You can see how many references were pointing to pages in that site. Since the edit war continued between A Link to the Past and WhiteMinority, I asked for advice here, here. I pointed out that, if we were not going to use vgcharts, we would need to run through every game, finding a reliable source for it (someone pointed out it was not easy, he was right!). There was another discussion here 10 days later about the site's reliability, and a third one in early November. Up to November 2006, we finally implicitly agreed to replace vgcharts with other sources, and then basically took myself over 9 hours converting all the external links into references (hmm... I never got a barnstar for that! Talk about being not recognized! :-P). The resulting version can be considered the first really polished "new version" of the article, where most (if not all) the external links were checked one-after another. We passed from 250 or so vgcharts link to 86 reliable references. Sure, a lot of games were purged, but I think that version was closer to what a Wikipedia article should be than any of the previous ones. Since then, we grew up to 214 reliable references (the article grew to over 100kb, which forced us to split it after a lot of discussion in two lists, which will possibly turn into three or four in the near future).
My point of view is simple: I don't think any Wikipedia article should be a mirror of a site in internet. If we take vgchartz as ultimate truth, it means we will be back to that version with 250 links to vgchartz, decreasing the quality of the article (would be easier to just redirect the article to vgchartz.com site for that). Is that site reliable? I once said that it depends whether we take it as a primary, secondary or tertiary source, according to our own policies. It fails as a primary source, but could be considered a tertiary source (in the same way a GeoCities or Tripod page can be considered a tertiary source just because there is some dude who picks information from other sources, combines them in some way and creates their own conclusions). However, it hasn't demonstrated it is a reliable tertiary source because the media does not consider it reliable. You can see GameSpot, IGN, Gamasutra, Next-Generation, GameDaily and so many other sites being quoted everywhere (well, except in sites of the competence for obvious reasons). That means the media identifies them as reliable sources. So far, GamePro is the only that quotes vgchartz hardware numbers from time to time (although it can be said that they do so in order to go with the "We are the first saying Wii sold 20m! Nintendo DS sold 60m! Etc!"). And a single game developer used them in their press release (making them indeed a bit more reliable than a GeoCities page, but not as reliable as NPD, which is being monthly quoted by all the media). They may become reliable some day, but right now they are not exactly recognized for that. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Crack job Rey; believe me I know how you feel, but sometimes the best work anyone does is the work that you do for no thanks and no barnstars, just to know you helped the community. I look forward to using the list for future projects, but for now, I believe I'm off to the FAC.--CM (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I am experimenting with its format, making it a table and a text-only version (for copy/paste). As far as I know, the only way a list can become a good or a featured list is to include some critical comment for every item, a gracious presentation and reliable information. Both list of best-selling video games and the franchise list have reliable information, but are pretty plain. While this is good for the "outside" (gaming forums just copy/paste the information in their discussions, just google for "List of best-selling video games" to check that out), it leaves the article rather thin. By converting it into a table, we add extra necessary information like first release date and franchise introduction, leading to a better Wikipedia article.
I would like to hear opinions about both formats. Ideally, I would like to keep both (to please both Wikipedia standards and to continue spreading its usage in other places), but I fear that would not be accepted. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Region name abbreviations part 2
Further to this discussion a while ago that kind of ground to a halt, can we reach a decision now? To summarise, the current preferred way of displaying a release date in the VG infobox is by using Template:vgrelease, which produces the familiar NAJuly 51996 style. The way consensus was heading (according to X201's recap) was towards three-letter country codes where appropriate, which helps avoid these problems:
EU is a political entity, European Union, rather than the geographical one, Europe, that is intended.
Personally I'd still be in favour of spelling out the names in full for clarity's sake, especially for North America, for which I can't think of a good three letter abbreviation (besides NAM which is also a country code for Namibia), and to avoid possible Australia/Australasia confusion. Thoughts? Miremare23:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I just boldly put my own suggestion for a redesign in place. Note that I in no way want to force this look upon you guys, but from experience actions like this are quite effective in generating consensus and improvements. It's not a big departure from the previous design (it only includes the to do list, and excludes lots of transclusions) in terms of design. Feel free to edit, but I do have a request: keep the length of the page below or equal to the length of the infobox. User:Krator (tc) 19:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
No, it's too short and doesn't include all the necessary information and links. Yet is also too wordy due to the layout of the text. I'd much rather prefer something along the lines of User:Guyinblack25/Sandbox, but don't really see any inherent problem in the current (previous) layout. - hahnchen19:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Well as I mentioned in the previous PR discussion, I've come up with another new layout idea, which you can see here. Feedback would be much appreciated and useful. .:Alex:.21:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I just boldly merged Alex's and Krator's versions together as it seemed too empty. There are still some syntax errors, like how the subheading bars are underlapping the sidebar, but I think it's more useful this way. I like GuyinBlack's version even more, but I'm trying to throw other ideas at the wall to get more people to edit the page, rather than just wholesale changing it. --PresN (talk) 04:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the mix between Alex's and Krator's designs look good. It provides the necessary information without overloading a reader with too much information. One suggestion comes to mind though, maybe adding in a heading in the main intro space just to improve readability. I'll add it in and see what it looks like. If you guys don't like it we'll get rid of it. My one complaint is the statistics box at the bottom. I don't really think it's necessary and it looks a bit out of place with it in it's own section like that. But that's just me. (Guyinblack25talk15:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC))
Actually I don't like the mix, it looks too wordy and parts of it seem out of place. I believe we should revert to the original version and continue sorting this out here first. .:Alex:.15:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we should ask ourselves what we want the new design to do and then build from there. Because ultimately the page will serve a function, and the design will have to accomplish that function. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25talk18:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC))
Well I think the main aim is to make it look more asthetically pleasing, but we want it to be more user friendly. Easier to navigate. I also chose a similar colour scheme to the VG portal in my design as I thought it would be a good idea to link the two together. .:Alex:.19:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that the best thing to do would be to go through something similar as to what happened with the main page redesign. Basically, it came down to creating proposals, discussion (including straw polls) about the proposals, and then several redesign revisions, followed by a final discussion to find consensus. I think the design of the page is worth spending a number of weeks perfecting and deserves more discussion than we've had so far. Also, implementing this change around New Year's eve is not really a good idea since many participants have not been active on Wikipedia. JACOPLANE • 2008-01-1 19:11
Would anyone agree to a revert to previous version until we reach consensus? And how about a subpage to work on this and a message explaining the redesign proposal on the project page? I think Jacoplane's idea is a good one, obviously we won't get as involved as they did with the main page, but a similar process would be the most effective and efficient way of doing this. Plus we may be able to attract the attention of users who might bring some really good ideas to the table. .:Alex:.19:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Using the "real thing" as a testing ground leads to much faster consensus making. The differences are not big enough to make any "real" difference in reader experience. User:Krator (tc) 16:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Archive bot
Would it be worth setting up automated archive for this talk page (specifically MiszaBot II as it is best suited for our needs)? I just noticed that the page is archive quite often and it is probably better to set up a bot to archive inactive discussions and such, some of the archives are also very small. .:Alex:.20:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I think this would be a great idea - I haven't used the bot before so I wouldn't know how to do it (and would inevitably screw up), but I think someone should. —Dihydrogen Monoxide09:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I've brought this up in the past, and I think it's a good idea, but I hope that the archive topics page would still be updated. Of course, if we could automate that as well, that would be fantastic. JACOPLANE • 2007-12-17 23:12
Indeed it may be worthwhile to eventually create our own bot to assist with this Wikiproject. It could be programmed to add all section headings to the archive topics box. For now we might just have to do that one by hand. EDIT: I've added MiszaBot II for now just to test things out. Creating a bot that we can adapt to our needs would be incredibly useful though and is definitely something we need to look into. .:Alex:.15:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Well the bot is currently set to archive sections that are inactive 30 days. Is this limit too high? Should it be lowered or is it fine the way it is? Also I think I might begin manually archiving the first few sections, as the page was already quite long when automated archiving began so every single section (including existing old sections) will have to meet the 30 day requirement for archiving. .:Alex:.13:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Is it possible to change the behaviour of the bot based on the length of the page? Currently, there's been a flurry of activity, so a 30 day delay would be too much; on the other hand, it might not last. So I was thinking, IF length>some_number THEN archive-oldest UNTIL length<some_number, ELSE archive-if-older-than-30-days. Yeah, probably way to complicated and impossible. --VPeric (talk) 14:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Excuse guys, but I want to bring this up for special reasons. I request for maybe a policy to prohibit special mentions of a game's ranking and percentage on Gamerankings, because the webmaster manipulates the scores so a certain (or should I say favorite game "TLoZ: Ocarina of Time") game would be on top. I have proof. If you go and see Super Mario Galaxy's page's history, we can see he makes 100% scores from famous groups, such as Gametap, not value and put as many low scores as he can, in order to put Galaxy under Ocarina of Time. He didn't even putted EGM's score and he switched high scores for lower scores to lower the decimal percentage. Also, there are many missing reviews from games such as SM64 and others. In other words, the games that receive higher scores than OoT would not have all reviews and have most lower reviews, so the webmaster would be satisfied with OoT on top. I don't know, but this was already discussed on the SMG article, told to someone to bring this up, and I think this is the right thing to bring up. --Mr.Mario 192 (talk) 05:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
See here - the consensus seems to be that including GR/MC rankings are not appropriate (GR and MC overall averages and links are fine). --MASEM06:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, since they are not appropriate, then we should delete them, am I right??? And these aren't conspiracy theories, these are true facts. GHo check the history of site. --Mr.Mario 192 (talk) 17:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually if you go back and read the many previous discussions, you'll see that theres many holes picked in these "theories" so they're NOT fact. Stabby Joe (talk) 13:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
BetaCommand's bot has been switched into overdrive and will probably start tagging video game images at a far quicker pace for deletion.
Apparently there was a deadline of January 1 before BetaCommandBot was to be given the green light to start tagging older images at warpspeed, and damned if he didn't flip the 'go' switch at 00:00 GMT and now everyone's completely swamped with warning messages, especially accounts that haven't been active in over a year.
Per this discussion on AN/I, he outright refused to slow down, and several administrators simply wag their finger at those did not add a fair use rationale in the first place, regardless of when the image was uploaded or when they stopped contributing.
In any case, thousands of VG images are going to get trashed.
Please use Template:Vgrationale to save as many video game images as you can. Unfortunately, the template was messed up a bit a few months ago so it no longer showed properly, so the first few thousand tempaltes used were messed up. BetaCommandBot was right there to gobble all of the brownie points up and immediately declare all of the fair use rationales invalid. The template appears to be fixed now, but it leaves me to wonder when someone will make another little tweak that will break it again. You guys can try to save the images, but after that, I just don't have faith. Good luck. 75.65.91.142 (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The bot leaves a note on the uploader's talk page, and the article's talk page, and the image page. It's pretty damn hard to miss it, so do something about it (if you want the image kept). —Dihydrogen Monoxide04:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Please note: even if the images are deleted, it's a very, very simple matter to just undelete and add a rationale. I've done it for several articles where the Fair Use warning slipped through. All you have to do is ask an admin; it's an uncontroversial undeletion (for instance, I'd be more than happy to do so). EVula// talk // ☯ //04:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Or you could re-upload - in most cases box-covers aren't that hard to find (Amazon, etc.), and if you took a screenshot once you should be able to take it again. —Dihydrogen Monoxide04:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
As near as I can tell, the bot is tagging images that have perfectly valid fair use rationales. My response has been to simply ignore the warning messages it leaves, since they appear, in most cases, to be utter bullshit. Nandesuka (talk) 12:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
If I use Image:Death race.jpg as an example, the problem is that we need to make rationale's machine-readable to meet with the Foundation's requirements. To that end, the rationale must explicitly include the name of the article that the image is being used it, which is why this image (and in 75% or more of BCB's tagging cases) is being marked invalid. It is a requirement that it either be fixed or else it will be deleted. --MASEM15:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the best thing to do is keep an eye out for each other, since its really not the active users we have to worry about. If you have some people on your watchlist who have left or haven't contributed lately, do them the favor of adding the rationales. I can think of nothing worse than logging back on after a three month break and finding 30 images I uploaded have been deleted and my talk page has been swamped with out-of-date warnings. Oh, and is it okay to delete the warnings? They are large, bothersome, and I see no reason to archive them with the rest of my discussions, considering how it could possibly be a case of not specifying which article its in.--CM (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
It's your talk page; feel free to deal with old warnings however you see fit. I delete them from my talk page and article talk pages after I've addressed the concerns, since like you said, they serve very little purpose. EVula// talk // ☯ //16:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Request here, as an update to my archived update proposals a few months ago (which didn't take). This alyout is much less crufty and easy to follow, and if the project decides to update the look and feel of the template in future it only means updating the top two lines. Chris Cunningham (talk) 11:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks good to me, I'm for it. Certainly much easier to see what the code is than the current version. -- Sabre (talk) 13:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Glances for cleanup
With a new main page FA nomination system in place, I'm bent on getting my ancient VG FAs on the main page. But first, I need to get them up to current standards. I could use a glance to see if anything needs cleaning or trimming (i.e. excessive plot summaries). I made a post like this earlier but didn't have the time to effect true cleanups.
Chrono Trigger - Ditto; I've always wondered if CT in general looks too crammed or busy as well.
Chrono Cross - Removing anything from the plot summary would sacrifice comprehension with this one...
Chrono series - Not an FA, but as a topical article, could it become an FA? It'd just involve taking important excerpts from the game articles and tastefully arranging them, but that sounds too easy for some reason.
Any advice is appreciated, as I'm going to be intensively examining these articles. I will be leveraging a nomination with pictures of the cartridges. If a Game & Watch console can be used for Donkey Kong, and an image of real life Spartan armor for Halo, then the rest of us should be damn well able to take a picture of a game disc or cartridge. The issue of copyrighted pictures on the main page is an issue begging to be pushed since it was never decided through a formal policy discussion. Someone needs to call WP:JIMBO on it. Zeality (talk)
Requests are limited to dates under 30 days from now and five at a time. There have been complaints about it since Wikiholics always edge in to fill the 5 requests, and a proposed system of merit hasn't been implemented yet. The old system was just posting a request on a giant page that dated back to 2004. These three I've mentioned pretty much ended up at the bottom of the list as old requests before the system was changed. Zeality (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
EL's should be included only if the material at the site would normally be included in the article if it were featured, but otherwise not included due to technical or copyright reasons. Game guide materials should not be included due to this if all the link is doing is providing info on how to play the game. --MASEM02:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Wrong. EL's should be included only if the material at the site would normally not be included if the article were featured, because the material would contradict WP:NOT. These are then subject to all the criteria in WP:EL. Rule of thumb: fansites are always, always, always not to be included. User:Krator (tc) 13:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I think MASEM is right. Material not included if it were a featured article is already covered by the disclaimer, "but otherwise not included due to technical or copyright reasons." Also, the statement, "Any material not included if it were a featured article", is too broad as it embraces a lot of junk material that would normally be excluded. Please, let's clear this up, as I would like to add the text to a WPVG policy article. SharkD (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons. 4. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.
Krator said, "ELs should be limited to sites with material that violates WP:NOT." And, point 3 supports/is the source of Masem's view. SharkD (talk) 07:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
We should come up with a standard set of links we want to see on each video game article, official links obviously, and beyond that do we want to use the moby games template? or a metacritic link? etc.Something standard that a reader would expect to see on each article. Beyond that, links to truly unique stuff (not just reviews) could be evaluated on an article by article basis.--Crossmr (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
MobyGames is somewhat OK because it has lots of detailed information that is pertinent but not necessary for the article to become featured. It also has stuff like reader reviews and sometimes shoddy game descriptions which I would generally rather avoid. MetaCritic is an OK reference, but I don't think it should be used as an EL. I don't think coming up with a list of links is a good idea. If it's a long list, then users will be tempted to list all of them. Also, there are few sites which are pertinent to all games. SharkD (talk) 07:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
You should definitely NOT do this. You should only include external links that meet the WP:EL criteria for that specific article. Nothing, except an official site, gets an automatic pass. While most of their links are fine, some of the game articles have links to basically useless/placeholder Moby Games pages. That should never be done. Again, absolutely nothing should be an automatic external link that is not an official site. 2005 (talk) 09:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow, what an honour :) We have a message from Mrwojo... for those who are not aware, Mrwojo is the one who created the first CVG Infobox, and is pretty much the founding member of this project. Good to see you're still around. </totally offtopic comment> JACOPLANE • 2008-01-6 22:27
Good to see you're still around too. ;) I don't edit video game articles as frequently nowadays but I still watch a bunch of topics in this area. --Mrwojo (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Metal Gear Solid FAR
Metal Gear Solid has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Andersen (talk • contribs) 07:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Welcome message pt. 2
So I've started the welcome template at {{Vgproj welcome}} that welcomes new users to our project. Add it to the talk pages of new users who have contributed to video-game related articles. Use {{subst:Vgproj welcome}} ~~~~. JACOPLANE • 2008-01-2 23:09
—Preceding comment was added at 23:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Need help over rampant IP
There's an IP who's been giving me problems; he actually went by the name of User: Valoem when he was a user. Basically, what he's doing is rewriting information in the "Tournament" section of Super Smash Bros. Melee that I had omitted for irrelevance when I rewritten the article. I reverted his edit, asking him to discuss before making changes; but, unsurprisingly, he reverts me then fails to give a valid argument for the content of his edits. He's actually accused me of vandalism and has placed a vandalism tag on my talk page. After basically rewriting the article and vastly improving it, I feel really insulted by this. Please can someone join the discussion, because I do not what to do anymore except engage in a futile edit war. Thanks. AshnardTalkContribs16:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
This sounds like a good reason to request the article be given semi-protection so that only registered users can touch it. --Bishop2 (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes I agree, I was just going to suggest taking it to ANI, but Melodia beat me to it (darn edit conflicts!). I've left a comment on the SSBM talk page though, I'll try to help however I can. .:Alex:.17:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I feel like I'm morally obligated to help seeing as sockpuppetry is involved. I've dealt with 2 users in the past that have done extensive sockpuppetry for a period of about half a year and I don't want that to happen again to anyone, if I can help it. ♣ KlptyzmChat wit' me§Contributions ♣ 18:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I need some further advice. User: Alphazealot has posted many quotes on the SSBM talk page from Major League Gaming which apparently assert Smashboard's relevance. However, the writer of the sources are himself, on what may be a blog website; I don't know. Moreover, Ken Hoang, the bloke they keep trying to put in the article happens to be a member of their forums, the site which Alphazealot has a strong affiliation with. Actually, I think this user is a gamer at these tournaments. Furthermore, this site that he comes from apparently are linked to Smashboards in some sort of tournament coalition going on. There's a whole distortion of neutrality here and I'm trying to look for answers. Thanks. AshnardTalkContribs17:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm a moderator on the website for the same reason that I'm a published journalist, because I'm an expert on the competitive side of SSBM (this is AZ, to lazy to sign in). If you don't consider the articles written on MLG, the largest tournament organization in the US, to be credible then explain why. These are articles that I'm paid to write and that require my editors review before they are published. It is NOT a blog. View www.mlgpro.com and if you think any of their feature articles, which is what the articles I write are, are not credible sources on competitive gaming, then explain why. Furthermore, Ken could care less about Smashboards, all he does is attends tournaments around the country to win money. Saying that just because someone is a member of a website means that they are biased makes...well just about everyone whose every been to a forum biased. Ashnard, its becoming apparent to me from seeing this that you know almost nothing about competitive gaming, be it Smash, Halo, CS, WoW, or otherwise. One last thing, I'm a member of just about every forum that has anything to do with Smash, and I can tell you Smashboards is the largest of these. I'm biased towards Smash, not towards smashboards.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.107.215.205 (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't make this personal—I'm just ensuring that sources adhere to guidelines. As for reliability, I'm not rating it by the credibility of the website, just about genuine issues of neutrality and bias, which consequently dents reliability. As for "bias" claim, well it does if they're supposed to be providing a reliable source. As for my knowledge on tournaments, I don't pretend otherwise—I'm not the self-proclaimed "expert". AshnardTalkContribs23:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
It sounds like there is a conflict of interest issue involved here, as a number of these editors are closely associated with the topic of the article. There is nothing wrong with that and it doesn't mean they can't contribute, but it does mean they must be extra careful to ensure that they are improving the Wikipedia article and not just trying to promote their group. WP:COI has much useful information on the subject, and the people at WP:COI/N might be able to give some more advice if the issue cannot be resolved by the people involved. Anomie⚔05:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, but to clarify: this is not about this user contributing, but using this user's journalism as a source on the article for Smashboards. Thanks. AshnardTalkContribs10:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I would like some clarity as well. MLG, which is an authority on professional video gaming, should be a legitimate source for articles and reference about professional gaming. Why would an article, or quotes from an article, that was edited, paid for, and hosted by MLG, be inadmissible as a source? I have already proven through numerous sources on the SSBM talk page that MLG is viewed as an authority on professional gaming/tournaments (sources being: ESPN, Gamespot, MSNBC, EGM, Nintendo Power, there is even an wall street journal article I haven't dug up yet). I feel Ashnard is using his opinion that I'm biased towards Smashboards as a reason to discredit using anything written on MLG's website as a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphazealot (talk • contribs) 22:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Your doing this thing again when you're lumping yourself with MLG. I'm disputing the issue about using you, who is a moderator at Smashboards, as a source to gauge Smashboard's relevance to Super Smash Bros. Melee and the pertaining tournaments. AshnardTalkContribs23:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey, Ashnard, I was just wondering some things, before I comment in this section:
Why did you originally omit the information for irrelevance, as you write above?
I assume you are doubting the reliability of a specific source or link. Could you provide that link here?
Suppose the source is reliable, would that change anything in your judgement of irrelevance, as relevance is partly dependant upon sources?
The specific problem Ashnard has with these articles are there brief mention of Smashboards within them. He believes (I suppose) that Smashboards was ONLY mentioned because I'm also a member of that specific community and therefor the articles that were written, paid for, and published by MLG are not credible sources.
I claim that my membership in that community is irrelevant. As published work on a credible authority on professional gaming, my membership at Smashboards has no impact on the article or its content. The content and reference to Smashboards would exist by anyone who was writing an article about competitive Smash.
This is evidenced in an article written by Nintendo Power, which references Smashboards and MLG. The scans for these articles are listed in the SSBM talk page.
Article 1 was written by a different author on MLG. Article two was written by me.
I've already gone ahead and proven that MLG is a credible authority on competitive gaming with numerous links to third party articles citing and reporting on the league (again, check the SSBM talk page, I've already mentioned sources here like MSNBC, ESPN, and Gamespot reporting on MLG).
When it comes to tournaments, MLG is more of an authority than Nintendo Power (which reports on Nintendo). Ashnard believes NP to be a better source.
Writers for NP have accounts on Smashboards. Hate to break it to you.
To me it seems as if Ashnard is choosing to ignore articles written on MLG simply and only because I'm also a member and moderator of Smashboards. He has done nothing to show or prove, other than noting that I'm a member of that community, that my articles are biased in any way. I've already pointed out to him that in 50+ articles written by me as an expert on Smash for MLG that only a handful (I think 4) have ever had a reference to Smashboards.
I personally do not care about the content and judging whether it should be used in the actual wiki or not. What I'm upset about is that Ashnard is claiming that what I've written cannot be used as a source, something that has to happen before you can even judge whether something is relevant to an article or not. As an author I feel I must defend my work upon scrutiny.
view:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Super_Smash_Bros._Melee for the full discussion.
For those to lazy to go there, here is the exerpt from the Nintendo Power article (as copied from someone who had a lot of time, the scans are located on the SSBM talk page): "Though much can be said about the game's bells and whistles, Smash is what it is partly because of its rabid fan base. Smash players comprise a passionate, community-oriented array of gamers that spans the globe. They all have their own nicknames, rules, and strong opinions about how the game should be played. And though Smashers are generally very competitive, the community thrives because of the excitement and good nature of its members. "Smashers approach the game seriously but with a healthy amount of humor and goodwill," notes Jason Rice, a Smash vet and tournament organizer for Major League Gaming. "Because of SSBM and Smash Boards, I've got friends all over the country that otherwise I would have never met and I'm very grateful to be a part of it."
Most Smash players consider smashboards.com - an unofficial website started in 1999 by a 13-year-old fan named Ricky Tilton - the hub of the community. Today, the site has almost 20,000 registered users and receives millions of hits each month. "I still remember the first person who tried advertising his tournament on the forums a few years ago," recalls Tilton (known in the Smash community as Gideon). "I simply glanced over his post thinking, 'Yeah, right, people are going to trust some random user on Smash Boards and fly across the country to a video game tournament!' Amazingly, however, it succeeded!"
Smash tournaments were born out of the desire of fans not only to show off their skills, but to see what other players around the world were doing in the game. During the early days of Smash tournaments in the US, the competitions were conceived and organized unofficially, using the smashboards.com forums to promote the events. Today, larger organizations such as Major League Gaming have included Melee in their offerings, and Smashers can now play for big prize money all around the world. The competition can be fierce, but those involved in the Smash community know that it's all in good fun. And it should be. How seriously can you take yourself when you're pooping Kirby off the edge of Mushroom Kingdom in a Yoshi egg? Fun is the nature of the game, and the affectionate fans know this well. "We're Nintendo fan," exlpains [sic] Rice. "We love the characters in the game and the individual gaming worlds that each of them has come from.... In comparison to other gaming franchises and companies that are relative newbies, we're players who were raised on Nintendo characters."
Not to say that Smash players are softies - hardcore Smashers are capable of feats in the Melee world that can blow the minds of even the game's creators. And it doesn't matter how long you've been playing Smash - there's always something new to see. "Playing in tournaments and being involved in a sommunity that loves the game as much as I do keeps the game fresh," explains Rice. "There's always someone showing up to tournaments with a new trick to learn or tactic to master." SSBM continues to evolve as players explore its deepest secrets. As Tilton puts it: "[SSBM] is never the same, no matter how many times you play it. There are always new situations and variables to deal with each time you play." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphazealot (talk • contribs) 01:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the above, because this now seems pretty clear to me. To settle this dispute, I encourage other editors who agree with this to say so, to establish some kind of easily read consensus (as in an RFC).
The sources seem reliable.
Writing about tournaments seems good.
Mentioning Smashboards with a link seems bad and violating WP:EL.
To have a specific link, a section as in [8], without the words "which has been credited to Smash World Forums also known as Smashboards" seems fine to me.
Wow; slow down people. Krator, no offence, but I'd appreciate if you could hear from my side before consensus is reached. To your questions:
I omitted the content as irrelevant because at the time, there was no evidence to prove otherwise. These sources weren't raised when I omitted the content.
I'm only doubting the reliability of Alphazealot's souces, coming from his position at Smashboards. Here they are [9], and [10]
After reading the sources at Nintendo Power, I don't dismiss the content as irrelevant; they have proved otherwise, and I agrred to using a Nintendo Power source.
Alphazealot has misconstrued the situation; I have never speculated that he is intentionally embellishing the truth, only that his position invalidates the source. A user at Wikipedia: Verifiability has concurred.
I don't care whether you believe yourself to be impartial, it doesn't matter. I'll use a sports analogy. If England were to play Germany at football *cough*1966*cough*, you could never have a German ref at all, because of his position in nationality, regardless of how neutral he believes himself to be.
I believe NP to be a better source because it is has more of an external position to Smashboards, seems more reputable, and uses real names as opposed to forum names.
I have stated that the NP source should be used.
Alphazealot is misinterpreting the situation by incorrectly inferring from semantics alone. When say biased, I mean biased position, which it is.
Overall, they may mention Smashboards briefly, my quarrel is using a site moderator to assess the relevance of that site as a source. Thanks. AshnardTalkContribs11:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I hate to drag peole further into this tedious affair, but they also want to include Ken Hoang in the section. I have no doubt that he is notable in his own right and to the tournaments. But that section doesn't document the history of tournaments; his link to SSBM is only indirect. The section is only reporting the link between tournaments and SSBM. Any ideas? AshnardTalkContribs11:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Could an outsider please read the content within the said links and tell us if you believe the content is an unreliable source? The point I'm making is that my position as moderator does nothing to discredit my work as a source. Ashnard, what your essentially saying is that we should call into the question the content of anyone who has written anything based solely on their affiliation with certain groups and not their knowledge, expertise, and experience. I guess we should double check the political affiliation of any historian and make note of it before their work is used as a source, or actually, we shouldn't use their work as a source because they are biased toward whatever party they are a member of.
I began writing articles for MLG in 2005
I became a moderator at Smashboards in 2006
NP writers have accounts on Smashboards, specifically the person who wrote the NP article on SSBM
Therefor if you invalidate my work as a source, you must also invalidate theirs, especially since one of the articles you linked to was written prior to me becoming a moderator. *Since the NP writers are members of Smashboards their work is obviously biased and they must only be mentioning Smashboards because they want to the promote the website, not because the website happens to be the hub of the Smash community and any journalist writing about competitive Smash would have to know about Smashboards.
Where have I said that Ken Hoang must be in the tournament section? I've asked why he shouldn't be, and I've shown sources that link his relevancy to the tournament community, but I haven't demanded he be added to the section. I only push for the importance of a tournament section, the contents within the section can be decided by whoever. I simply have a problem with my work being brushed over as a source because I'm a moderator at some website. Even if you say I am biased, or that I am writing from a biased position, that isn't enough to discredit my work as a source. There are more sources other than NP that have commented on the Smash community and also mentioned Smashboards. Alphazealot (talk) 14:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Why have you only told us now about the NP journalist? By my logic, that too would invalidate the source. By the way, I have never stated that anyone was trying to advertise Smashboards, this is an assumption that you've made, and you're clearly assuming bad faith. It seems that too much depends on this to you, so it's best listening to external parties. I may have to interrupt again if you misrepresent the debate again like you have before. AshnardTalkContribs18:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
The NP journalist joined Smashboards for the sole purpose of investigating his story and reading up on SSBM. To date he has only made...I think 3 posts, all contained with the thread pertaining to the article that was written 2 years ago (in one of these posts he says it is NP policy not to post, yet he needed to contact the founder of Smashboards and it was the quickest way to do so. He also mentioned that NP writers troll Smashboards). I know by your logic that it would invalidate the source, yet I think you'll be hard pressed to find people who want to discredit NP as a valid source for video games. If any other author saw that his work were being scrutinized like this they too would care very deeply and would want to defend it. You have also yet to point out instances of bias within any of the articles. Please, find quotes or examples of bias within any of the material I have written. Find examples in my writing where I mentioned Smashboards where it wasn't in line with what any other journalist would do. Admitting the existence of Smashboards and its importance to tournaments is not a crime and is not biased, its simply the truth (again, a truth noted by other third party sources, not just myself).Alphazealot (talk) 21:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
As per the advertising comment: I made that comment because it is the logical conclusion of what you claim, which is that my bias 1)makes my journalism inadmissible as a valid source [NOTE user: Krator has said the sources appear reliable] and 2)I'm pushing for Smashboards to be in the tournament section because of this bias. I might as well ask then, what, if any, reason do you think I have for wanting to include a mention of Smashboards in the tournament section? I have nothing to gain from its mention and I'm also not pushing for it to be mentioned, others are however and they want to use my work and others as sources to validate their claims. Do you claim Smashboards is not the hub of the Smash community? Do you claim the website is not the primary location of those who participate in Smash tournaments? Do you claim that Smashboards is not the largest Smash community in the world? Do you claim that Smashboards has absolutely no impact on tournaments and the Smash community? Alphazealot (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Yet again you fail to understand any part of what I've said. I have never said that you made any biased claims; I am commenting on your position. As for Krator, he made a judgement from your misrepresentation of the debates, and before my response. Since the sources have became available to me, I have no longer disputed Smashboard's relevance, so why ask these nonsensical questions? By the way, don't assume that I am assuming bad faith, because I've never accused you of ill inetntion. As for Nintendo Power, if the NP editor's membership is as brief and pragmatic as you makeout, then it may still be valid as a source (unlike yours; in my opinion). AshnardTalkContribs21:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I think Krator actually went and viewed the sources and made a decision based on content and reliability and I think anyone who follows the links to those sources would arrive at the same conclusion. You make an assertion that my sources are invalid based on one point (my membership within a community, not myself being a moderator of that community since many articles were written before I became such), yet you do nothing to back this point up and show that my work has been compromised because of this. I understand what you are saying, what I'm saying is that you cannot invalidate a source based solely on the claim of bias, you have to prove it.Alphazealot (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Please explain what about that invalidates my work as a source, especially when the contents of the articles have nothing to do with Smashboards aside from very brief mentions (where mentions were appropriate). Also, please explain why you still believe the one source written by author Brick on MLG to be irrelevant. It has been pointed out to you before that "It shows his viewpoint is biased but that may or may not invalidate the sources." You still need to invalidate the source based on something within the material. You are going after the author of the material and not the material itself, which is my problem. I also hope you cross check every other author with the same scrutiny for which you've look over my work. If I had decided to remain quiet the entire time and not post you wouldn't even know many of the things you do. It all started because someone noted they had seen things on MLG referencing Smashboards and I came in and provided links along with a wealth of other knowledge.Alphazealot (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
You are starting to aggrovate me as you're putting so many words in my mouth. You just don't seem to have the capacity to grasp what I'm saying at all. I never said that Brick's work was irrelevant. As for "You are going after the author of the material and not the material itself, which is my problem." If you don't know what's wrong with that then there's really no hope. AshnardTalkContribs22:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
You're only point of contention then for invalidating my work is that I'm a member of Smashboards. So, I guess to clear it up all we need is someone else to view the sources in question and comment on whether or not they feel they are reliable. Please view: WP: COI and note that: "Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias. Be guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, try to identify and minimize your biases, and consider withdrawing from editing the article. As a rule of thumb, the more involvement you have with a topic in real life, the more careful you should be with our core content policies" and that pertains to people editing the wiki, not the source material (IE bias alone is not an acceptable reason). Also, does this mean that the article titled "Greatest Competitive Games of All Time: SSBM" is a valid article? If so then none of my material is even needed as the material within that article is evidence enough for what the original user wanted (the person who wanted links about Smashboards from third party sources). Alphazealot (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
If people who are close to a subject may edit the actual wiki than surely sources that are written by people with similar conflicts of interests can still be used. An endorsement that a person can edit a wiki despite bias is also an endorsement that a person can write an article on a professional gaming site without bias. Also note I edited my last post with a comment about Brick, you probably missed it.Alphazealot (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't really know. I would assume he does but at the same time I've never seen him post at Smashboards and I don't know him personally. MLG, which runs Smash tournaments, creates tournament threads on Smashboards. Since they are the ones creating the threads, people who work at MLG obviously have accounts there, exactly who and how many people I don't know. Alphazealot (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Editing is entirely different from being a source author. Technically, the editor is supposed to compile information from relaible sources. The editor shouldn't make any assertions themselves per WP:NOR. AshnardTalkContribs22:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Ashnard, I know that you've got the best intentions with the regard to improving Wikipedia and the conflict of interest guideline, but please keep in mind that such a guideline does not prevent the usage of sources in every case. It simply advises extra caution, and notes the risk of advertisement. Not giving any external links to that forum makes sure it isn't an ad, and reviewing the sources for reliability is important. But, and I'm repeating myself here, that it's the author of the source who added it to Wikipedia doesn't make the source any less reliable. Judge the source on its own merits, which are quite solid in this case, I think. Some of the senior WP:VG people (*prods Jacoplane*) may be able to provide some more input on the issue of reliability than I can. User:Krator (tc) 23:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I seriously appreciate the input, Krator. I just find it hard to believe that as an encyclopaedia that relies upon reliability as its core value, that we should allow a site moderator to gauge the relevance of his own site, especially when better sources are out there. It doesn't help either that my views on the subject have been seriously misrepresented into half-truths and words that I haven't spoken. AshnardTalkContribs00:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Also remember, this not an issue of citing one's self, but of neutrality. The fact that it is Alpha' himself adding his own source is not the issue, but his position at Smashboards. AshnardTalkContribs14:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
An attempt to ban images from character lists
There are a few editors who have taken an extreme interpretation of the guideline portion of WP:NFC to mean that images are banned from any list or group article regarding characters. This has never had consensus, and directly conflicts with what is allowed per WP:NFCC. When I raised this issue with User:Betacommand, his suggestion was to break WP:FICT and simply split the characters into independent articles, which has no bearing on WP:NFC. I strongly encourage everyone to get involved at WT:NFC. -- Ned Scott06:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
What a mess; I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince closed-minded people that they are wrong. My take on the matter is that some are conflating simple lists (e.g. a discography or a "list of episodes" with two sentences about each) with a "list" that is really a collection of short articles for WP:FICT or organizational purposes. I see several references to WP:NFC#Unacceptable images, but except for a disputed paragraph (that appears to have been added to justify the overreaction) I see nothing to support this conflation.
As far as how we should handle this whole mess, I would specifically address WP:NFCC#3a on the article's talk page, reference that from each image's rationale (and make sure WP:NFCC#8 and the other points are addressed too), and re-add the images that are justified. Hopefully then the removers will choose to discuss the matter rather than wikilawyer and edit war over it. Anomie⚔16:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd be interested in seeing what the technical article on the MIDI protocol itself has to do with the fact that many games used MIDI synths to generate music. This might be more interesting for music games, which used MIDI not only for the music itself, but to coordinate several pieces of hardware. But for most games, all it does is generate music and sound effects, and at best it just needs a link to the article describing the MIDI concept, but not the technical specifications article directly. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and pulled the template, as well as one category from the article itself (MIDI 1.0 is not video-game music). I also recommended that the page be renamed to MIDI 1.0 or MIDI 1.0 protocol (note caps and lack of definite article), to match naming conventions. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The Assessment Department for this project is now one year old! The group has provided 167 assessments over the last year, with accompanying reviews and discussions. Come over and assess articles or propose articles for assessment, and make our second year an even bigger success! --PresN (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, great job on the assessments, the comments left on talk pages are always great and definitely help to improve the articles. It also helps new users get involved in the project. Even though I was the one who started the page, I have not contributed many assessments myself, so I want to thank all those who have. JACOPLANE • 2008-01-6 19:38
Only a year? Sheesh, the efficiency they've got into it made me think it had been going for much longer! Don't worry, I'll have some more StarCraft articles for you guys to assess in the coming months.-- Sabre (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone mind if I change the Archive pages to the format of /Archive # instead of the current /archive#? This would allow to have the archive box be automatic. I will personally move all of the pages, and move any links from the old pages to the new ones. I'll also nominate the old pages for speedy deletion, and update the bots' settings. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The reason is that Krator is a robot, and considers 10 to come between 1 and 2 alphabetically. What's this about speedy deletion, though? If you move the page, you'll just leave a redirect. Pagrashtak20:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I think Pagrashtak just found the problem with the auto-archiving. The bot is fine, but there was a lowercase p in WikiProject instead of an uppercase P in the config, so hopefully it should work now. Unfortunately, I think the bot has finished its run today, so we have to wait until tomorrow to see if it works. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Is that supposed to be a compliment or an insult? I have no idea what you are talking about. I guess I'm just naive. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I was (facetiously) saying that someone should give me a barnstar for fixing it—just a joke, definitely not insulting anyone. Pagrashtak20:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I've read the bot instructions. Am I right in saying that it archives 14 days after the last time stamp in a thread?. - X201 (talk) 09:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I would like to get more eyes to review the proposed version of Notability (fiction) beyond what those participating on the current talk page have provided. This is not to get consensus for it yet, but to make sure there are no major issues with it before going to that step. Please address any concerns on WT:FICT. Thank you. --MASEM18:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Request for opinions on a merge.
I'm proposing that Insurrection (StarCraft) and Retribution (StarCraft) be merged into StarCraft (series), as the two add-ons are minor products that I'm struggling to establish full independent notability for and therefore believe that they are best covered as integrated parts of the StarCraft series article. I thought I'd post here to try and get some views from people disconnected from the undergoings in the StarCraft articles, but can give useful VG-related advice. Please, offer your opinions on this at the StarCraft (series) talk page. -- Sabre (talk) 10:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Articles about sonic the hedgehog chracters
I'm not sure if this is the right place, or the right way to do this! So sorry if I'm doing this in error!
user:TTN keeps reoving Other villains in Sonic the Hedgehog (games) and Other characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (games), without waiting until the dicussion is mafe about if and how the articles should be merged, there are also other article proposed for merger! Anyways, I believe the articles would do much better being merged, but not as TTN is doing and the article they keep replacing List of characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (games) with is weak and really not a merger at all. Also my problems with the merger are that what they propose is that the first half of the article is nothing but links to other articles, and the rest are a few chracters, that theu personally believe to be notable! If the articles are merged into one, also, it will end up being too long, that is one of the rasons it has been seperated into Other villains in Sonic the Hedgehog (games) and Other chracters in Sonic the Hedgehog (games), maybe any information could be merged into them two, with the main characters having their own articles, and List of characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (games) serving as a bridge between them all! as I said, I believe a merge could be of benefit, but no the way TTN is going about it! Cream the Rabbit, Blaze the Cat, Silver the Hedgehog, Rouge the Bat, Eggman Nega and Babylon Rogues could easily be merged with other articles: Villains and Other characters, , E-123 Omega should aslo be merged with E-Series (Sonic the Hedgehog), Chaos (Sonic the Hedgehog) is as important a enemy as Doctor Robotnik and Chaotix should have any associated cracters merged into it and then it could even be merged into other character. What TTN is doing, doesn't help with anything to do with real-world significance, only with condencing the articles into one! there really is too many rambling articles on singular chracters (many of which TTN has singled out); and they should be trimed and seperated into Villains and Other characters, the Main characters that are notable enough to have their own articles should also be sorted out! That leaves two seperate articles for 'bit players' and however many seperate main chracter articles (how many are there of those anywayas?), and the article we are discussing on now should be used as a bridge for all Soinc the Hedgehog related chracters within the games, this would make the whole video game related articles better, of the Comic Book/other related articles I know nothing of though. but I'm sure they need tidying up! TNN propsed that all one game chracter should be removed, compleatly from the articles, meaning only Nack the Weasel from Other vilains survives, while Eggman Nega is in two, so are the Babylon Rogues, but they can't be in a merged article?
I put this here, only because I belive it would be better for others interested in Video Game articles, other than Sonic the Hedgehog fans, to have a say about this subject! (Sorry if this isn't very well written, it's taken from my 'discussion' with TTN) Doktor Wilhelm 16:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Report TTN if he keeps it up. He's been given enough warnings about blanking content and blanking images off list articles. Anyway, my view on the whole matter is: some list articles could use some condensing. People seem to think character lists should be "catch alls" for every character ever, but that's not reasonable at all. There is notability and other factors that determine what goes on lists (and articles in general), which should be followed. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
We had this about a thousand times now. Some tips for the discussion:
Even if you win this debate, it will get merged/redirected anyway after a week or so. See Frank West (warning: redirect hell). Thus: concede here.
Most of the content is rightfully merged/redirected. Thus: don't attempt to change everything, don't accuse people of bad intentions, etc.
Most of the merged/redirect content that was not justified was not easily recognised as such, because it was poorly written and referenced. Thus: write up a really awesome article in a sandbox, list it at WP:VG/A, improve it, then move it to the mainspace.
Doing the above is the best way to improve Wikipedia in such situations. @TTN: maybe you should suggest the above, especially the "not easily recognised as such" part of #3, to people when you're redirecting in the future. User:Krator (tc) 19:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
If the merge discussion is still going on, I don't see why TTN thinks he should be redirecting all the articles before it ends. He is assuming just about everything should be in list form, and no character articles should exist. While character cruft does run wild on Wikipedia, some character articles should be fine. Many times he doesn't explain what he is doing in the edit summary, so that's part of the problem as well. Plus he's blanked images off articles for no good reason as well. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The two lists are the articles being forcibly merged and redirected, not the single characters. The lists were redirected before the discussion because there is no point in them. The first list has all one game characters besides one, which was merged, and the second list was half and half, and those have also been merged to the main list (in an old revision). The merge tags, which encompass only the secondary characters, came afterwards. He seems to agree with merging most of them anyways. Still, this is just another overprotective fan that doesn't understand, or want to understand, our policies and guidelines, so it's going to be messy either way. In regards to the comment about images, I only remove images if they are of trivial subjects or if a group image(s) will work in their place. TTN (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
While I do agree with merging the single character articles, I believe the subject would be better of with two list, rather than the one! And I am sorry if TTN believes that I am "just another overprotective fan", but all information on one subject can't be put into one single article, otherwise one day wikipedia will just be one article, reading: "Eveything<ref>The Universe</ref>!", just because the real world is a better reference for eveything! Doktor Wilhelm 21:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
This article was recently created. I was suspicious and Googled it up, nad learned that there seems to be no translated name. Can someone who knows Japanese look to see what the game's title is and move the page to the Japanese one until it gets translated. hbdragon88 (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Archive box
The new archive box looks really weird. Is it possible to go back to the old style or find a way to correct the layout of this one? .:Alex:.18:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I personally also prefer the old version of five archives per row, a leading zero on the single digit archives, and a smaller font. JACOPLANE • 2008-01-11 06:27
Please consider listing one of your B-class or GA-class articles for assessment. If the article is not A-class already, the assessor's comments may prove helpful to put it up to that standard. Some reasons for me to post this are:
We currently have 157 GAs, 72 FAs, and ... 8 A-class articles. Doesn't seem right.
I've seen quite a lot of articles, and many GA-class articles are not actually good. Rather than angrily removing ratings, editing the articles is better.
Rating articles as A-class only seems to have been a recent phenomenom, I imagine many assessors haven't really thought of A-class, thinking that it just goes B-GA-FA since A-class doesn't automatically mean a GA. However, I do agree with your main points there. -- Sabre (talk) 09:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I think part of it is a misconception the Quality scale gives. The way it is set up displays it as a linear progression through a single scale. I thought this myself until a few months ago when I learned that the "Stub - Start - B - A" scale is a project specific scale separate from the "GA - FA" scale which is a Wikipedia-wide scale. Is there a better way to express this? Or is there a way to give the A-class more coverage to help editors strive for an A-class along with GA? (Guyinblack25talk16:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC))
This is a problem I call the GA/A gap, or "GA/Ap™" One problem is that once an article has reached a stage that you feel is A-Class, you might as well submit to FA instead of A-Class assessment. If it would pass A-Class, it should be practically FA already, and the FA system has a lot more traffic and will result in much more article improvement. Pagrashtak16:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I suspect the main difference between FA/A will be that A-class articles will be more lenient towards in-universe language in sections specifically entitled "plot", but will be more stringent in other things, like gaming jargon. I have yet to see any FAC, non-VG peer review, or GA review that commented on gaming jargon. Some articles like certain character lists will never be able to get to FA because of the current climate, but will attain A-status. Similarly, many articles that have no references in the Gameplay and Plot sections could be A-class easily. User:Krator (tc) 19:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Another way to look at GA/FA vs Start/Stub/B/A is that one is a Wikipedia-wide standard, the other is specific to a project. The only intermix between the two is that an A article should be better than a GA (to meet project specific targets) while a B article is less than a GA article.
What this means is that when an article gets to GA (the WP standard) it would probably be a good thing to then request additional reassessment in the specific WP to see if it merits A quality. That is, right now, there's probably of the 157 GA articles we have listed (per above) I would suspect a lot more of them are really "A" quality.
But as noted, what tends to happen is that an article is GA'd, it is NOT reviewd by the project for reassessment, then the articles goes FA. That "A" step is implicit in the process, nor is required, but we should encourage more A-level reassessments after articles succeed at GA. --MASEM22:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the reason behind that is that A-class technically doesn't require GA status and vice versa. I agree that it would be good to encourage reassessing GA's for A-class. Though it may add another step on the path to FA, I think it'll be a good way to better prepare articles for FA. There are a few articles that come to mind that aren't quite ready for FA, but I think would meet A-class requirements. Is there a special way to request reassessment for A-class or do we list the article the normal way on WP:VG/A? (Guyinblack25talk01:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC))
The assessment was very helpful indeed, except that I still had no idea how to improve the article and it has since been demoted to B-class. This phenomenon of prose and timeline – still seemingly impossible to fix. hbdragon88 (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the comments on the talk page its been demoted because of the potential for new information as the game appears to be nearing release, so an article structured around it being vapourware is less valid in describing the game. Proseline's just a matter of wording, work out the bits starting "on this date" and get them integrated as full prose and it should be fine -- Sabre (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I thought it was more than poor quality of the text, some uncited paragraphs – than the release date. There is still no release date for it. It's just a trailer. It's still vaporware until they set a date. If that was the only point I could have argued it down. I'll try to work on it more, though. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This article is a classic example of why I don't "trust" GA ratings. It was not a good article because of the proseline, which makes for some bad prose, and shouldn't have been promoted in the first place. Instead, it was demoted for some arcane reason. User:Krator (tc) 14:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
User:Krator (t c) 21:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC) (Not a robot)
