Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 88

Archive 85

Archive 86

Archive 87

Archive 88

Archive 89

Archive 90

→

Archive 95

Category:MegaMan Battle Network

Shouldn't this (and several articles & subcategories within) all be at Mega Man ... rather than at MegaMan ... ? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Considering the articles for all the games in the entire Mega Man series as well as the article for the character himself use Mega Man the category should be changed.--76.66.187.132 (talk) 21:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Help for Book:Mega Man

I just created this a few minutes ago, and I'm having trouble figuring out how to best order the Battle Network and the Rockman EXE. They seem like the same series, but I'm not 100% sure. If they are, they should probably be merged into one chapter and ordered by universe chronology (which eludes me at the moment). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Rockman EXE is the Japanese title for the series. They refer to the same series, but a number of them haven't been released outside Japan. I don't know what the correct ordering would be though. Reach Out to the Truth 01:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Great stuff on Volition

For anyone who his/is working on a Volition game article (Descent, Red Faction, Saint's Row, etc) they just release a huge vidoc over at Game Informer. It's split into parts and covers the entire history of the company, including their upcoming games. --Teancum (talk) 13:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

And FreeSpace. Don't you dare forget FreeSpace! Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources covering something as a result of canvassing

I often come across game articles that have sections on mods. Oftentimes, I will remove these since they're not notable, but once in a blue moon, they'll be included with a reliable source like this, in the format you see in the article -- One or sentences, ending with a note thanking a user for the tip. As I understand it, this doesn't constitute significant coverage in reliable sources, and even falls under the category of self-promotion. I just wanted to get you guys' perspective on this. Am I complete off-target when I dismiss (reliable) sources like this? Meaning minimal coverage in reliable sources that's a result of users contacting the source. Eik Corell (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

You're probably right in dismissing those sources and removing the mod text. As noted, mods are generally self-published, so we'd be here forever if we included them all. Mods rarely may be notable for their own article (some are linked off List of Source engine mods) and others can be included in such lists if they have more that just "it's available" sourcing (eg, there's some reception about them). --MASEM (t) 22:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

To me this isn't about the WP:RS, but WP:N. The reliable source has the choice to publish it, but the question is really whether the coverage is significant. --Teancum (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

But WP:N is explicit about applying only to article creation, not to piggyback content. The policy argument I have used in these types of purges is due weight (WP:NPOV). Most mods (by which I mean any form of user-created content) have almost no bearing on the public perception of the game they are based on, and representing them in the game's article as a sub-topic is undue weight and usually promotional in nature (either by self or misguided fans). Notable mods by definition stand on their own as articles, so piggybacking is a means to circumvent WP:N. It might also be worth citing WP:NOT for news blurbs without sufficient context: "matters of transient attention" and "news reports" are forms of indiscriminate information. Ham Pastrami (talk) 21:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Help on improving a TFA: Populous: The Beginning

Hey all, Populous: The Beginning has been set as April 10's today's featured article. It's in better shape than Golden Sun was, but its reception and development are a bit thin. Jimmy managed to find some excellent sources via the archive posted on the talk page, but I'd only started integrating them. If anyone has some extra time, I could use the help in prepping it for the front page. (And of course, once it gets there, dealing with the usual issues. ) Thanks! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

COI editor

MasterAbbott, who is editor-in-chief at Capsule Computers, has been adding their reviews (and also breaking formatting on pages). I reverted a few, but don't have time to do any more. Just passing this on. --Teancum (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Silent Hill (video game)'s RFC

There is a RFC for Silent Hill due to "unsourced statements (possible original research) to the article's plot section". Please comment here. GamerPro64 (talk) 00:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking for Computer Games Strategy Plus articles

In my continuing quest to improve Looking Glass Studios coverage, I have come across two issues of Computer Games Strategy Plus that contain inaccessible critical information. The issues' covers and dates are shown in the following links: here and here. Anyone have access to these? It'd be a huge, huge help. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 08:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Notice of my own potential WP:COI

I recently took a position at xblafans.com as the Deputy Editor. As such I've tried to be very careful about the use of that site since I came on board since it's already a situational. Since that time I have one edit that I recall which uses XBLAFans, Days of Thunder (2011 video game), and I only did so since there was virtually no reception for the game. In total there are only about 10 refs on all of Wikipedia that use the site, so if someone feels these would be critical to replace it could probably be done. Anyway, I just wanted to make it known. I'll also be far less active as my free time is now devoted to writing for the site. --Teancum (talk) 21:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it wouldn't matter as much if you weren't adding reviews made by yourself, which you did in that article. That is definitely a bad thing to do. It's good you are being honest about it though. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 23:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I added one review by me, and solely on the basis that we were the only site to review the full version that I could find. The only other review I found that was even semi-reputable was for the trial version. The other post in Swarm (2011 video game) I specifically made on XBLAFans so I didn't have to link to four different vidocs — since nobody else seemed interested in the article and my focus is now writing elsewhere I wanted something to put everything in one spot. I know you weren't attacking, but I wanted to provide a rationale anyway. Like I said, if people want to replace them with something more reliable I encourage it as I'm not out for fame. --Teancum (talk) 00:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I get that, but I think the standard for COI issues is for the person to post the source on the talkpage, and let somebody else implement it. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 00:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Touche. I used to preach that to others actually. Anyway, it doesn't matter; from here on out hit the talk page if we have a scoop nobody else does (and thus might merit being used as a source), but it's more likely I'll be retiring here anyway due to time constraints. --Teancum (talk) 00:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, thats too bad. I hope you find time to edit. :) _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 01:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Recap of Year

So I'm trying to get back into editing after being gone for a year. My question is, are there any major changes that I should know about, specifically in the project? MrKIA11 (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm even more ruggedly handsome, and... oh, wait, the project? Errr.... no? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, articles were created, deleted, promoted, demoted, expanded, referenced, featured, etc. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

For a real answer, you could go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter and check out the issues since you have been gone. If you go to "News items and announcements", the announcements tell you basically a summary of important discussions that happened here. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 01:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Jeez, look who's being all helpful :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The announcement section in the newsletter was added right after I left, but that's exactly what I was looking for. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 02:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

There were some heated debates, we lamented the drop of editors (blaming it on the economy), and a few other things. I think the biggest item (one that required formal mediation) is coming to a close (hopefully). (Link is at the top of the page, just below current tasks).陣内_Jinnai 06:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back! I thought we lost you for good.

You can also check the talk page archives. A year back would put you at around Archive 80. If you're looking for the bigger discussions, go to Archive index, sort by "Replies", and check the longest threads that a occurred in an "80" archive. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC))

The Old Man Murray deletion/undeletion was an interesting 24 hours. So much so that it made it into Wikipedia Signpost and Wikipedia was even called "professional". - X201 (talk) 15:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources for vg designers

http://www.gamespot.com/wii/action/ninjagaiden/video/6306863

This video has a lot of info about various game designers' influences. Donate to Japan! :) Axem Titanium (talk) 01:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like that has to do with Ninja Gaiden (NES); I will definitely have to take a closer look at this :) –MuZemike 06:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, after having watched it all the way through, not as much :( However, quite a bit of reference to Super Mario Bros., Donkey Kong, Pac-Man, and even the games by Fumito Ueda such as Ico and Shadow of the Colossus. Makes me want to jump on the next plane to Japan :) –MuZemike 16:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Might wanna' wait until after they stop being stomped on by mother nature :\ Thanks for watching it, I have limited bandwidth and didn't wanna blow it on a video that might not be helpful. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, darn. –MuZemike 20:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Mass Effect move

There has been a discussion about moving the game Mass Effect, to the title Mass Effect (game) and moving the Mass Effect (series) page to the page labeled "Mass Effect". Any input would be greatly appreciated. (Link to the merge discussion) Thanks Oldag07 (talk) 04:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Character Lists for Fighting games

Recently the character table for the fighting game Tatsunoko vs. Capcom has been deleted. Before that and still going on is a dsicussion if this was appropriate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tatsunoko_vs._Capcom:_Ultimate_All-Stars#Character_Table . Since we seem to be reaching no consensus, i wanted to ask some opinions on this.IchiGhost (talk) 23:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

A similar discussion is being held here. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Could we get some comments on the non-playable characters section in Super Smash Bros. (series)? Thanks, _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 03:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Street Fighter characters

122.174.74.45 (talk · contribs) has been merging Street Fighter characters that are barely notable, if at all. I don't believe some of the merges moved all of the relevant info. Could somebody figure out if these merges were actually warranted, and they were done properly? Thanks, _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 20:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Most of the merges seem moreorless warranted, though some discussion wouldn't have hurt. None of the articles seem unsalvagable and had about a paragraph of reception each, though whether they passed WP:GNG could be debated. Harry Blue5 (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they are almost notable, but not quite. If somebody wanted to and tried, they could be notable. My problem is that the IP editor might not have correctly merged the content(at least for Balrog). _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 00:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

For Crimson Viper he got pretty much all the details, though I think he might've missed out the other two characters. Harry Blue5 (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Breath of Fire image

I am currently in a dispute with another user who is arguing that the two images in the article's body are both necessary to the proper understanding of the subject, in spite of the fact that they use the same fair use rationale. Any comments on the talk page would be welcome. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Resident Evil 2 FA nomination derail

At this point I'll be eating a hat if this user is not just a sockpuppet trying to derail the current FA nomination with an edit war, out of some weird kind of personal vendetta. A new editor signing up to specifically target a single article that happens to be nominated for FA, continually insisting on reverts after having joined? That'd be a first. Prime Blue (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

resident evil games

Several Resident Evil games have been prodded for deletion. I've suggested they be merged instead, see Talk:Resident Evil. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 08:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Using videos as a reference

I've noticed couple of notable online review video series have reviewed games which their articles may need some reliable links. I was just wondering how would we use videos as a reference in the article? --Victory93 (talk) 09:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Has to be from a reliable source, has to be accessible. what the purpose of the video is about. i doubt it's important enough to use if theres something incredibly small to cite unless can't be found anywhere else. But it's pretty hard. not alot of videos used by reliable sources are accessible, as sometimes need to download certain things such as flashplayer.Bread Ninja (talk) 10:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Same is true for PDF readers, nevertheless we use .pdf`s a lot. There's {{cite video}} and reliable sources like G4tv's xplay do loads of videos. If it's a reliable source, I see no reason not to include it. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if this is what you're looking for, but video interviews with developers and publishers can be used per past consensus as long as it can be confirmed that individual(s) interviewed are who they claim to be. --Teancum (talk) 12:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

There's no real concern about video accessibility anymore than anything else. We cite books which often have more accessibility issues, ie getting a hold of a book with a limited print run or magazines and newspapers which may only be on microfilm.陣内_Jinnai 15:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

What they all said.

1. Make sure the publisher is reliable.
2. If it's online print, best to cite that first.
3. If not, then use {{cite video}}.
4. Remember that cite video has a few special parameters that are very useful to others when verifying the citation: medium and time.

(Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC))

The difference is that if a web site goes dark, it's much more likely you'll be able to salvage a PDF or an HTML file as opposed to a video, so keep that in mind--I think I'd prefer written word over videos any day. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Except as far as I'm aware of, there's never been anything in the guidelines that says you need a direct link to anything in a citation, so the issue of a video going dark is irrelevant. Past non-video examples of this are rare books from special collections, and even articles from older magazines or newspapers not available in a free online database, as Jinnai mentioned. As far as the original video question is concerned, it's been ok in the past as long as the conditions mentioned by others above are met. Direct linking is not always ok though, per copyright issues. I.E. there's plenty of interviews and such on youtube where the posters do not have the rights to be posting that video, such as the interviews with Eugene Jarvis and other Williams alumni from the Williams Arcade Classics cd. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

but youtube isn't reliable source, despite potentially having reliable info. it's all added through users, which we don't cite. however, if the video was placed through 1st-party in youtube. than yes.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

What if the video is from IGN's channel? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

than it's reliable. but it has to be under IGN.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Re youtube, yes and no. You simply can't direct link to youtube unless it's a 1st-party source that put it up as you mention, because of copyright issues. But for example if you watched an archived news report on there you were quoting you simply have to cite the original source (the news station, air date, etc.) Same goes for the Williams interviews for example, where access to the original cd with interviews is limited. You can watch it to verify content for citation, but you would only cite the actual CD because of copyright issues. I think it's important to differentiate that process, because otherwise it scares editors away from using youtube as part of their research for references. There's plenty of times I've gone there to look for quick copies of stuff and then used that as a starting point to look for the original source info to actually cite. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Well one video I'd like to use as a reference is an episode of the series Pop Fiction on Game Trailers (which I'd assume is a reliable source). In the episode, it goes in-depth into the original Zelda Fire Temple theme and uses research into how it wasn't public outcry which caused later releases to change it. The video can be found here. I was just wondering what is the Wiki coding to use when citing a video? --Victory93 (talk) 03:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd say it depends on how the video is presented. Sometimes {{cite web}} works just fine, especially for an online video. I used cite web for the GameTrailers retrospectives in Final Fantasy:

• {{cite web| url = http://www.gametrailers.com/video/part-xi-final-fantasy/26204| title = Final Fantasy Retrospective Part XI| publisher = GameTrailers| format = Flash video| date = 2007-10-10| accessdate = 2009-04-03}}
• "Final Fantasy Retrospective Part XI" (Flash video). GameTrailers. 2007-10-10. Retrieved 2009-04-03.

I could have used the {{Cite video}} as well.

• {{cite video| url = http://www.gametrailers.com/video/part-xi-final-fantasy/26204| title = Final Fantasy Retrospective Part XI| publisher = GameTrailers| format = Flash video| date = 2007-10-10| accessdate = 2009-04-03}}
• Final Fantasy Retrospective Part XI (Flash video). GameTrailers. 2007-10-10. Retrieved 2009-04-03.

The only difference is that the output is slight different. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC))

International version

In many, many articles (just two examples: Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, Pier Solar and the Great Architects), "INT" is used in infoboxes to signify worldwide release dates, but the abbreviation links to the article International version which talks about something else. This is very widespread and I think something should be done about it. Like changing the abbreviation (how about removing it as redundant? if there's no tag next to the release date we can assume it's worldwide) or turning the "International version" article into a disambiguation page or something (then again the article isn't sourced at all so maybe it's totally original research derived from a supposed Japanese use of an English term). Lol-kitas (talk) 08:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

If it's not an actual "international version" (a game that was localized for other markets and later rereleased in Japan) but a simultaneous international release, then the {{Vgrelease}} template does not need to be used. The date without region markers such as ^NA, as well as an explanation in the lead should be enough to tell the readers that the date does not apply to a specific region. Prime Blue (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the issue here, as I've run into it, is that sometimes what you actually want is a "rest of world" (not worldwide) marker, rather than listing one date for e.g. Japan and then multiple identical dates for other regions. It just looks repetitive when that happens. As you say, a true worldwide date doesn't need any qualifier, but relatively few games have true worldwide launches. When not fully region-specific, it is often just a question of domestic vs international, and it's in these cases where the "international version" is going to confuse the layman. Maybe this should use a code such as JPINT so that it isn't used mistakenly, and then INT or some other code can be used to mean non-domestic release. Ham Pastrami (talk) 08:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Copyeditor for Resident Evil 2

As stated in the featured article nomination, the article is still in need of some copyedits. It shouldn't be too problematic, so I'd appreciate if someone took the time to go over the article and to correct any remaining issues (maybe weird wordings, punctuation etc.). Prime Blue (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Soliciting opinion regarding New World Computing article

Hello all - I just wanted to solicit the opinion of a larger audience regarding an issue on the New World Computing article. The discussion is over whether there should be (in the infobox or in the article at all) mention of the now defunct gaming company's former website, nwcomputing.com. Some (myself included) don't see that there is any value in having an old web address for the company in the article. Others, such as Shaddim, believe there should be such a mention of the address in the infobox. There is already a small discussion of it within the New World Computing talk page. Thanks in advance for any insight that can be added to the discussion. Caidh (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto

The usage of Grand Theft Auto is under discussion, see Talk:Grand Theft Auto (series). 64.229.100.45 (talk) 06:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Patrolling recent changes in whole project

Is there any tool for checking recent changes in video games category, or can one use CatScan for it ? Sir Lothar (talk) 12:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Bumping up the question, Sir Lothar (talk) 08:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You can view related changes for categories: Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Video games. But it will only pull from articles that are directly in that category. Is that what you were looking for? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC))

I use Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games and the toolserver app. I put them in my user page for easy use. --Teancum (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I've meant something like Catscan (crawling deeper in subcategories), like Teancum wrote. Thanks for hints :), Sir Lothar (talk) 09:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Music Video Games

So whats happening with the template now that the Wikiproject has been deleted. Is it to be removed? Or is it turning into a task force like the PlayStation project? Just a query so I know to remove it or similar if I come across it. Thanks, Salavat (talk) 09:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The project was deleted, not taskforce-ified, so the template should be deleted on sight. --PresN 20:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Ill get my gun. Salavat (talk) 07:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done, but keep the gun nearby just in case we are able to cleanup any other projects. MrKIA11 (talk) 02:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

FAC, GAN and PR backlog update

Currently, the project has:

• Ten articles at GAN;
• Five articles at FAC; and
• Nineteen articles at PR.

Only one of our nine GANs is being reviewed. At FAC, Lara Croft has been up since March 28, but has received no significant commentary. Resident Evil 2 and Cloud have been up at FAC since the 18th and 20th, respectively, and could use a few more reviews in the near future. At PR, Valkyria Chronicles has been up since September 2010, Tommy Refenes and MUD since November 2010, and Neotopia since January 2011. Archiving these might be the best course of action. The other, more recent ones should be examined; several have been given significant or minor reviews, but a few have received no attention whatsoever. Review/archival should be done as needed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and delete the DQ PR since its at FAC and i've gotten no comments (no need to archive it).陣内_Jinnai 03:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done MrKIA11 (talk) 06:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Fast work. I hope others are willing to help out; the backlog is starting to get out of hand. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure i placed my input in Dragon Quest not too long ago, including Valkyria Chronicles...oh well.Bread Ninja (talk) 07:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I made sure there were no comments before I deleted it. I'm trying to get back into editing, but this week is busy, so next week I plan to help with the backlogs. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll do my best to pop in, but right now getting a new job takes precedence :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Backlogs are a recurring problem for us, and I urge our newer members to help out with these. If you're new to reviewing articles, peer review is a good starting point. You just provide suggestions that you think will be helpful. The reviews have no bearing at GAN or FAC. Participating benefits you in turn:

• The more you help out, the more likely people here are to help you out.
• The more you review, the better editor you become, making the writing of your own articles easier.

(Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC))

Great work on the PR backlog, KIA. It's looking much better. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't take that much credit, all I did was archive the PRs that were over a month old. MrKIA11 (talk) 03:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

We now have a FLC for The Appy Awards. GamerPro64 (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

lolwat. This is a stub article, not a featurable list. Lol-kitas (talk) 00:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

If you even call that a list. –MuZemike 00:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Are Sys Reqs, Content Ratings, and Distribution Media appropriate?

The infobox for video games can contain a lot of information, and while some of it is clearly notable (like developer, publisher, series, genre, etc.), I have questions about some categories. System requirements are highly technical, highly debated, verbose, and seemingly only useful for people who are trying to play the game, so I have trouble understanding how they can be generally considered as neutral and notable and succinct enough to belong in an infobox. The number of content rating systems is numerable, and they don't generally seem to be individually notable, as they are only useful for parenting in a specific region (they may give some insight to the themes of a game, but why not list those themes instead?). And the distribution media gives no useful insight to the game itself, and there is already a section for platforms. Any thoughts on this? Pyroguy (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

For the last several years, my standard practice has been to remove system requirements from infoboxes whenever I start working on an article. I don't think they're at all necessary. Distribution media can be useful, though—particularly on old DOS games, which were often released on both CD and floppy disc. Content ratings are also fairly notable; I don't think they need to be removed, either. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Distribution media may be useful to collectors, but that's about it. Style manuals for music, movies, and film all mark these kinds of sections as unnecessary, so I wonder why it's not the same for video games. --Pyroguy (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I've always thought that we should in general be adhering to the principle that if it's not mentioned in the body, it's not really important for the infobox. By that metric, I'd say in most cases a rating isn't really important (there are of course exceptions; content in Turok: Dinosaur Hunter specifically mentions that it was a risky enterprise given its high price and Mature ESRB rating.) I realize I'm in the minority on this. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that {{Infobox video game}} is needlessly bloated. System requirements seem pointless to me. {{Infobox software}} doesn't have them, and I see little reason for us to include them as well. My biggest gripe, however, is how we handle release dates in the infobox. Though I imagine that getting anything removed would require a lengthy discussion. :-\ (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC))

Depends upon your definition of lengthy - X201 (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I know we don't vote, but what if we create somewhat of a poll for each parameter in the infobox to see whether people think it is necessary, and from there we can see which ones need to be discussed and/or removed. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

What do you not like about release dates? I know they get a bit lengthy, but I tend to used a collapsed list when there's more than, say, 3 lines. --PresN 18:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

A straw poll sounds like a good idea to get the ball rolling.

My complaint deals with exhaustive lists of release dates. The collapsed option fixes the bloating, but the [Hide] link often runs into the default date listed, obscuring the text. I also wonder whether or not the default date should be bolded or not. With exhaustive lists, the platform list becomes redundant because each platform is used as label for the different dates.

And since we're airing grievances, the ratings encounter hiccups as well. Like when an older game that was rated with a depreciated label gets re-rated because of a re-release. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC))

Could you give an example of what you think to be "exhaustive lists"? The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time has a list of 12 dates through 5 platforms.(one of those is the 3DS remake) Lego Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy has a whopping 17 dates under 7 platform headers, most of which seem to be similar, but are reproduced due to slightly differing release countries. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Those are both good examples. Another one that comes to mind is Mega Man 2. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC))

Awww, that barely beat out the one in Ninja Gaiden (NES) for length. –MuZemike 05:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Mega Man? Please. A mere blip in the box compared to Final Fantasy . 21 dates in 10 systems! It's longer than most infoboxes! --PresN 08:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm really not following why this is an issue when the information is collapsed. It's probably just me but I feel like all to often we nitpick on things that in the end are debatable as to their helping or hurting the cause while we could be working on bringing more articles up to the current standard. I guess my point is if the standard is changing rapidly there's just no way to keep up, let alone help articles that suffer from lack/poor quality content. --Teancum (talk) 14:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Disabled(visual and/or physical) users of Wikipedia rely on screenreaders and specialised browsers that may not (fully) support Java or CSS. Hidden lists are outlawed in prose but are allowed in Infoboxes(see MOS:COLLAPSE). But I think MOS:Collapse is working on the supposition that Infobox content is always repeated in the prose section. Obviously every VG re-release date/format is not repeated in most articles, opening up the possibility of information being inaccessible to certain users. - X201 (talk) 09:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Which is why I rarely bring it up unless I get into an edit war in an article I'm working on.

I just feel that the obscured text defeats the purpose, and that the list of platforms is redundant when they are listed with the release dates. Such issues make me think that brevity is the best course here, especially for a template that is suppose to provide a quick summary.

I've taken that approach on older games. The infobox and article focuses on the game and its original release. I treat everything else, like re-releases and later ports, as derivative and omit it from the infobox. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC))

While I believe infoboxes shouldn't be a repository for everything, I believe that content rating typically isn't covered in the prose body, unless coupled with controversy so you'd practically be removing the information altogether if it is removed from the infobox. Release dates also aren't covered to an extent, ex.: Halo 3, The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages. System requirements are in the same boat, and really only apply to a development or gameplay section. We could make a few modifications to the WP:VG/MOS to require that information be switched over to prose. My 2 cents. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

There was a discussion on the system requirements field before, though nothing too strict came of it because of a lack of participation. The (lax) outcome was that the field was restricted only to be used for the original version (say, if a console game was later ported to PC, the PC requirements would not be listed). The "media" field is only used "for games where at least one of the platforms it was released on uses several types of media (e.g. Windows, MSX), or leaves the method of distribution ambiguous". So a Game Boy game should not use the field, for example. Can't say I care much about exhaustive release dates as long as they're collapsed. The "ratings" field looks like the most arbitrary, currently. It can get pretty confusing with port-happy games. Prime Blue (talk) 14:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Ratings however are something you would expect to be listed along with the title and developer; they have been since their introduction core elements of what is essential info when describing a video game. Just because we don't list something in the prose doesn't mean that it isn't essential and expected info.

As to system requirements, I'd not be too upset if it went away.陣内_Jinnai 18:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on why parental ratings are so important? They aren't included for other forms of media on WP (neither films nor music). --Nicholas Davidowicz (talk) 08:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Few extra eyes today on Portal 2

In about 2 hrs as I write this, the Aperture Science countdown timer hits zero. Whether that's an early release of Portal 2, or something less exciting, no one knows. Either way, the fandom will react, and there may be a high degree of nonsense editing on Portal 2 today. I expect to be able to watch it, but just in case...

Also, and only because it was hinted during the ARG (I have no inside knowledge if there is a connection), we also may want to watch our various Half-Life pages. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow, Valve, way to completely thread that needle. Crisis averted :D --MASEM (t) 17:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

consensus at AFD to merge "virtues of ultima"

Dear wikiproject video games...

There was a recent AFD where the consensus was to merge the Virtues of Ultima article into the main series article, in accordance with your WP:VGSCOPE guidelines and WP:NOT. A few of us have undertaken the hard work of completing the merge, and it should more or less be done now.

User:Dream Focus has taken the position that "there is seldom such a thing as a good merge". I don't expect him to full on revert the AFD consensus. But I'd ask for people to keep an eye on the talk page discussion just in case, and keep us focused on consensus instead of heated rhetoric.

• See the AFD closed as merge: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Virtues_of_Ultima_(2nd_nomination)
• See the merge discussion: Talk:Virtues of Ultima#Merge completed
• See the merge: [1]

Thanks for your assistance. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Dream Focus, not to disrespect him, is known to have a fairly inclusionist standpoint. The merge looks consistent with WP:VGSCOPE. Good work. --Izno (talk) 05:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

{{Infobox video game series}}: order of spinoffs

In the infobox {{Infobox video game series}}, should the entries in the "Spinoffs" field be listed in chronological or alphabetical order. See [2] and User talk:Jonathan Hardin'#Final Fantasy. Also was I "dishonest" here when I changed two stuff but explained only one of these two stuff in my edit summary. Thanks. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no hard and fast rule that I know of, so I guess its back to a combination of boring old WP:COMMON and WP:CON. - X201 (talk) 08:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somari (5th nomination)

I was wondering if anyone could give input on this deletion discussion over the article Somari. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Sonic Generations

See Sonic Generations. There has been a trailer for a new Sonic game, but the name has not been announced yet. All the information is speculation minus the fact that a trailer was in fact shown, and that the game would be for ps3/360. Obviously needs to be deleted, but I not an expert as far as which avenue to take, or how to go about setting that up. So here's a heads up in hopes that someone here can do it. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 19:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I think simply listing the article for WP:AfD would be fine, as the name is speculation and hence not to be a redirect we would want to have. --Izno (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Prod removed. Listing for afd. I honestly didn't know prod is now a week, instead of 5 days. What's the point in it existing anymore? « ₣M₣ » 03:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI, the game was formally announced today, so the article's existence is no longer an issue. Thanks for the help though. Sergecross73 msg me 18:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

P:VG DYK

Out of curiosity, does anyone know why most of the months of DYK on P:VG have some events commented out as 'Extras for variety'? Why not include them? MrKIA11 (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I added those for two reasons:

1. Some extra tidbits to occasionally switch things up during the month and the following year to avoid repetition.
2. Some extra items to extend the length of the section depending on the length of the Current events section above it.

Feel free to make changes. I thought of switching it to something more dynamic, but never had the time. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC))

List of DJMax track listings AfD

as title says, the article list of djax track listings has been nominated for deletion.Bread Ninja (talk) 14:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Your contributions to this would be greatly appreciated.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject PlayStation

Template:WikiProject PlayStation has been depreciated and so is ready for an admin to do as they will. Salavat (talk) 07:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Also meaning that this category and all its subcategories are empty: Category:PlayStation articles by importance. Salavat (talk) 07:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done and  Done. Shouldn't Category:PlayStation articles by quality be deleted as well? MrKIA11 (talk) 07:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeh, i guess anything like that to do with the PlayStation project would now be redundant. Salavat (talk) 08:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done. MrKIA11 (talk) 08:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Salavat (talk) 08:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Dragon Warrior as TOP rated

Bringing this up here rather than assement because TOP rated video games/video game series have had contentious history.

I would like this one to be bumped up as TOP because its been credited by several sources as being a singular game that is a notable point in video game history one can point to and say "This is when the industry fundimentally changed". Multiple sources back up this claimed directly (by stating such) or indirectly by stating how its influence has had a tolkien-like grasp on the RPG genre.

Note: I will note if someone can come up with other games with similar impact, I'd be fine with listing them as TOP rated games. I'm sure there are others.陣内_Jinnai 01:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

To be quite honest. I don't think that single video game articles should be rated TOP (though I don't under why Elite (video game) is). Though, in my opinion, Dragon Quest should be TOP. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that Dragon Warrior should definitely be Top-rated. It's the progenitor of the JRPG genre, among other things. To this day, a large portion of Japanese games are based directly on its concepts. As for the principle that articles about single games should not be Top-rated, I must disagree. I think that's an old, out-dated idea that needs to be rethought. Articles about games that fundamentally altered the industry and/or had a huge effect on the world at large (read: Doom (video game)) should be Top importance. I've always found it ridiculous that our only Top articles are on game consoles, people, genres, programs--everything besides actual video games. Also, for the record, I'm the one who set Elite to Top. Basically every Western game takes from it in some way, particularly over in the UK. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not too keen on putting the games themselves as top-importance because it puts them on par with the people and concepts behind the game itself. What you described is, to my understanding, what "high" priority should consist of, and everything major that sprang forth from that mid priority and beyond that low-priority for what's left. In that way importance becomes a tree-like structure where you can make a clear distinction of the core ideas, the games that set those in place, the major works inspired by such, and the minor works that were in turn inspired by them. I don't see why high-importance would not suffice in this case.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

What's the problem with people, their ideas and their creations having the same importance rating? It seems to work just fine when it concerns, for example, Peter Molyneux, God game and Populous. (I disagree with Molyneux's rating, by the way, but that's an argument for another day.) Importance ratings aren't value judgments; they deal with a subject's importance in terms of Wikipedia's coverage. For example, until Mario is Featured, the Video games WikiProject, and Wikipedia overall, will have a gaping hole in its coverage. The same goes for many video game articles. When a game changes the world, its article should be Top-rated, right alongside the elements behind its creation. I mean, seriously, who's going to argue that John Carmack (Top) is more important to the Video games WikiProject's coverage than Doom (High)? They're clear equals. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly why imo DW should be top-rated. Some other examples given here, notably Doom, I'd agree with. The Legend of Zelda (video game) would probably qualify too. Those that have impacted the industry or become central to the culture to a phenomenal extent should be highly rated. Will there be disagreements as to what is Top/High? Of course; there are disagreements now (FE I'd say Super Mario Bros. and Dragon Quest wouldn't be Top unless we included cultural impact because for the former it just further popularized the platformer game and DQ hasn't had the same impact with all of its games (although some of the other earlier titles might be top rated); however both have had huge cultural impacts.陣内_Jinnai 16:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Project Cafe

Please come comment on Project Cafe and it's AFD. It'd be nice to hear more input from people who know more about Wikipedia policy. There's an awful lot of "It's useful" and "It's probably true" type arguments going on right now, rather than about it's actual notability... Sergecross73 msg me 12:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Flag burner required

I'm currently on my second run through every VG article that uses the infobox; in order to remove flag icons and to tidy up formatting and refs. I've come across this - Granado Espada and could do with someone who understands what should and shouldn't be included - regarding publishers and version numbers- to tackle this one. Thanks. ps, Safety goggles are not supplied. - X201 (talk) 12:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That was one way to solve it :D - Thanks - X201 (talk) 13:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I started going through it, but then I realized it was unreferenced anyhow and so I might as well take my patented GordianKnot^TM technique. : ) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Before you go too far check and see if they are also under other WikiProjects. I know Anime and Manga WikiProject prefers the use of flags in their articles and there's enough crossover titles that we'd be stepping on a huge toe there.陣内_Jinnai 16:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

They should have a read of MOS:FLAG. Infobox flags are a virtual no-no now. - X201 (talk) 08:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Well its not an absolute no-no, merely "avoid" and the anime project has WP:MOS-AM, so they are both equal-level MOS guidelines. My point being, its just best to steer clear of removing flags from those articles without getting local consensus.陣内_Jinnai 17:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Opinion sought for creating an article

Those that have followed the Portal 2 news likely know it was all preceded by an alternate reality game, which we'll call the "Potato Sack ARG" for now.

Many sources covered its progress, moreso when it appeared that it would end on 4/15 with the release of P2 (instead going to spoof GLADOS@Home). It has been critically praised and panned in RS's, and possibly tied to the low MC user scores. Edge magazine promises a behind-the-scenes featurette tomorrow on how it was created.

Effectively, I've got a who, what, when, how, and why, all the elements for an article, and I'm thinking that this can be split off into an article on its own given how long Portal 2's article is without the 3-4 para of reviewing information yet. I'm looking for any opinions mostly if there's any problems with this, because frankly I cannot see anything that would prevent this from occurring. --MASEM (t) 17:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like general notability is met. The only question in a case like this is whether the topic presents better separately or together with the game or the whole marketing campaign. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC))

Well, I have considered if the first ARG (the one that involved the SSTV images) could be mentioned as well, but that itself had less coverage though we now know the hows due to an easter egg in P2. The other publicity, the TV shots and ad campaign, really were a separate facet for the regular John Q Public, with only two ARG hints embedded in the last two videos (which otherwise were meaningless for the non-ARG player). So really just focusing on the Potato Sack ARG seems right. --MASEM (t) 17:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

List of Dance Dance Revolution lists has been AfD

Another list AfD. I think this list will be cleared up right away. i doubt there will be any trouble.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (Nintendo Entertainment System)

There is a dispute over the use of images at the above mentioned talk page. Anyone interested please participate in the discussion. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Dream Chronicles: The Book of Air

I'm currently reviewing the Good Article nomination for this article, and would like expert second opinion on issues specifically relating to the style of video games-related articles. Please discuss the review here. I would like to draw expert attention to three specific issues:

1. Whether the Gameplay and Synopsis sections are likely to be challenged as original research, and therefore need additional inline citations;
2. Whether the tone of the article, in particular for content regarding Gameplay and Synopsis, is appropriate;
3. and whether all the cited sources qualify as reliable independent sources. --Deryck C. 14:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Moved section to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/RfC on video game console grouping. Please participate there. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

So this is still going on at WP:OR/N. I guess this will end up being yet another community-wide discussion with no resolution? *sigh* ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 16:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The discussion at WP:OR/N finished and is archived here. - X201 (talk) 10:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

So, looking through some of that, no conclusion has been reached on this still, correct? I just wondered because with the 3ds out, and all the Project Cafe discussion about, it's being brought up more frequently... Sergecross73 msg me 14:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I think since there are some sources ([3][4][5][6]) that say "Eighth Generation", we should make an article about it with what information is known. Ignoring the issue and letting all the other generations have pages does not get us anywhere. Until a full revamp is done, the Eighth Generation has sources, and they should be made into an article, or made at History of video games#2010s. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

All those sources are in relation to the industry moving towards an eighth generation eventually. Nothing about specific consoles representing that generation now. I don't think an entire article on eighth gen is warranted based on WP:CRYSTAL at this time. I'm sure certainly once the Wii's successor is shown off at E3 we'll get some press mentioning it though. With regards to Sege's question, it has been pretty unanimous (both in the discussion here and in the deletion discussions) that the handheld consoles don't define console generations and the 3DS is not a marker of a next generation in game consoles. Handhelds certainly. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Member purge

Anyone else think that it's time for another member purge? MrKIA11 (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Probably for the best to. I think some users may be either inactive or banned on the list. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC))

I have already gotten a start by removing all indef-blocked users as well as corrected all user renames. –MuZemike 20:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey how long does an editor have to be inactive to move them to Inactive? GamerPro64 (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

6-9 months? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

8–9 months sounds reasonable. Just to err on the side of caution. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC))

Idea about future video games

Now, there;s a new a page for Future Films. Reading through it, I thought that there should be one for video games, called Wikipedia:Future Video Games. Any thoughts on it? GamerPro64 (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Judging by our AfDs, I think this project has a pretty good handle on when articles about future releases should be kept, merged or deleted. Marasmusine (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Pokémon Black and White setting image

A discussion is being held at Talk:Pokémon Black and White over whether an overworld map of the game's region should be used. Anyone interested should please participate in the discussion. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

If anyone could give further comments on the issue, that would be great. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

COD:MW3 up for afd

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 is up at AFD, thought you all might want to weigh in. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

(not to harang on this specific AFD, but to instead make a general comment with regards to the last few AFD notices here) We have Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Deletion for a reason, and that's where project members should be observing for deletion discussions. IMO such AFD notices ideally should not be mentioned here for that reason, plus it wouldn't be fair for those lesser-known VG-related deletion discussions, as they don't get mentioned here at all. –MuZemike 02:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I was going to say a similar thing. Unless the AfD didn't get mention from many of our established editors, and it is going in an undesirable direction, it doesn't need posting here. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

What they said.

The AfD for the Saints Row characters further down is a good example of what to post here. AfDs typically run 1–2 weeks. Something that hasn't gotten enough comments after that to build a consensus is reason for a notice here. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC))

Silent Hill issues

A recent discussion suggests a compromise that the house fire and fake death from the plot section of the Silent Hill (video game) article should be moved to List of Silent Hill characters, but a possibly disruptive user seems to disagree with others. I believe moving it to the characters article should be a good idea. Can someone look into this issue please? Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

This is absolutely insane. First of all, I'm not a disruptive user. I added, literally, about three or four words to this article. Another editor,GoldenSugarplum, went crazy about it, because my additions were not sourced. She flat-out admitted knowing the information I added was true, yet repeatedly undid my edits anyway. As it is, the article is so cluttered with sources, it's near impossible to read or edit. Due to this and her repeatedly harassing me and acting superior by "notifying" me and acting like I'd done something wrong, I found myself repeatedly asking her to stop harassing me. She did not, and I finally accused her of vandalism, since she was undoing edits she knew to be legit, simply because she could. She has not only harassed me repeatedly on my talk page, but on the article's talk page as well. She's also reported me. And now this. There is no reason to keep doing this. A Request For Comment was opened ages ago, and the matter was discussed. Golden has lied repeatedly about what people have said any what has happened, and she'll no doubt do it here as soon as she learns about this. Both the house fire and the resulting death are mentioned in the prologue of the game, in the manual, and both are fairly important. That the child is not actually dead, that her death was faked by another main character, and that her mother is the one responsible for the fire, are all relevant. It's also quite important to make it clear that she was not hospitalized in the hospital she was hidden away in for seven years, but imprisoned. Officially, she was reported dead. She was kept locked bedridden in the basement and essentially tortured. You can't even call that forced hospitalization.Yomiel (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Insane, perhaps, but it might not be right to accuse good faith editors as vandalism (this counts as biting) or accuse the editors of lying (that could count as a blatant personal attack). Also, engaging in disruptive activity to prove a point and harassment of any user is not tolerated anywhere as well. When we are looking for reliable sources, we mean secondary, third-party sources, such as books, game manuals or quotes from the game itself. Even if it is impossible to read or edit this article, reference stripping is usually not a good idea (even if there is a dead link in there, we still need an archive link and there is even an Arbcom case about this). Anyway, I understand your concerns about the wording that you described, Yomiel, and the wording has been clarified to make more sense, but we should have other users from this project to get involved and help out on this matter. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Golden accused ME of vandalism first. I only accused her after she continued doing these things. And I do consider deleting edits you know to be factual vandalism. I say she is lying, because she is. She comes to places like this and talk pages and blatantly lies about what she said or did or what I said or did or what others said and did... I had no choice but to call her on this, both to defend myself and to make sure others know that the things she was trying to claim to support her actions were false. If I removed any references, it was by accident, and she knows that. I don't see why it's even coming up. A reference was provided for everyone when it was insisted upon. And there is no need for this. It's just making this go on even longer.Yomiel (talk) 22:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I know. But also when any user lies about a situation, it is a clear violation of our civility policy and also no one owns the article. If no one objects, we should not continue beating the stick on a dead horse. If that is the case, then I am really sorry about getting involved and I have already requested an administrator to resolve this discussion. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here. You're all but admitting that Golden was not being civil and breaking rules, even though you suggested I was the disruptive one. And you're saying we should stop, but wasn't it you who kind of continued it by doing this here? She's already talking about this all over Wikipedia. There's really no need for this at all. She's really the only one still complaining.Yomiel (talk) 01:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I have repeatedly emphasized on Silent Hill's talk page that I am a boy, not a girl. I am forced to intervene because I can see here facts concerning me being twisted, either deliberately or not deliberately, and inaccuracies. All of the following can be verified by checking out Silent Hill's talk page and Yomiel's talk page, where we've had discussions, in which Kaguya-chan has periodically participated. I ask anyone who intends to comment on this situation to first read these discussions, so that they have complete knowledge of the situation.

• As visible in both talk pages, I have never used the term "vandalism" to describe Yomiel's edits. I have mentioned on both Yomiel's and Silent Hill's talk pages that I believe Yomiel's edits were done with good intentions, so vandalism is out of the question. I have only used the term "disruptive editing," which, according to this Wikipedia policy, is valid, fulfilling 4 out of the 6 criteria which define disruptive editing and, probably, the one about "campaign to drive away productive contributors". The only criterion definately not fulfilled is the one about "disruptive cite-tagging".

• According to this Wikipedia policy, the conclusion that my notifications of Yomiel are harassment is unfounded, fulfilling none of the criteria which define harassment.

• The conclusion that I have acted superior is unfounded, as it is based on Yomiel's personal interpretation of my actions' motives, and not on objective, solid evidence and Wikipedia policies. He/she does not know me and, thus he/she cannot know my character and what lies behind my words and actions.

• The conclusion that I have undone the debated edits simply because I could is also unfounded, for the same reason as the above sentence.

• As visible in both talk pages, the conclusion that I have lied about what I, Yomiel or other people have said or did or about what has happened is unfounded. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 02:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I have already asked an uninvolved administrator, PresN, for further input on this situation. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll say it again-this is insane. Golden has started a war over me adding a few words to an article. Repeatedly, Golden undid my edits and made accusations, even though he admitted to knowing the added information was factual. He refused to drop the issue, creating discussions on my talk page, another user's talk page, the game article's talk page, an admin report board, and even doing a comment request thing. Everyone agreed this was a foolish thing to be fighting over, and I repeat that there is no point to any of this. Everyone also acknowledged the resources I provided upon their request. Really, though, only a few people responded at all-very few. Golden repeatedly "notified" me, accusing me of things and warning me. I consider this rude and harassment, as I did nothing to warrant any such thing, and she is not a staff person. He has in fact repeatedly lied about how things played out. And everything about his attitude and treatment of me have shown him to think he is superior to me. Sjones, you already said you wanted to end this issue. As I pointed out, you caused it to drag on further by unneccessarily bringing it here. And now you are taking it to some admin as well? This is all too much.Yomiel (talk) 13:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I know, but I only needed an administrator to help calm down the situation. Your unfound accusations of harassment towards Golden are unfortunately personal attacks, which are not tolerated. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Anachronox mutual copyedit invitation

I'm ready to push Anachronox for FA. Its 10 year anniversary is at the end of June, and I want to try and DO THE IMPOSSIBLE and get it to FA and on the main page in time (I know; I probably won't be able to get the request approved, but it's worth a shot). The most consistent crippler of FACs is copyedit concerns, and so I want to obliterate the very chance of that happening. Like The Real Adventures of Jonny Quest, I want to offer my services in copyediting 5 articles requested by other editors, if they'll take a look at Anachronox. I'll print out the article you request and do an actual hardcopy review of it, which always seems to produce more tight results than copyediting a computer. This worked out great last time; TRAJQ flew past FA with great prose. So if you'd like me to copyedit your article in exchange for taking a look at Anachronox, give me a reply here and I'd be glad to do it! I'm going to limit the number to 5 to prevent complete loss of my free time and sanity. ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 03:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You're editing Wikipedia and you think you have sanity to begin with? Oh my. --Izno (talk) 03:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Very tempting. I took advantage of this last year for Lara Croft. Zeality's copy edit really tightened up the prose and made it more engaging.

I don't think I have the time for such a large article right now though. :-\ (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Saints Row characters

Hey guys, this AfD has been open since the 2nd of April. It's awaiting further comment, so I invite you to do so. Thanks! Marasmusine (talk) 08:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

How about including some AfDs in the todo list? I'm thinking maybe the ones that will be ending soon and only have X number of votes, or maybe just the ones that have already been relisted. Thoughts? MrKIA11 (talk) 23:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be good to highlight discussions that need further input, but a good cut off never occurred to me. :-\ (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC))

Well I went ahead and added it, and we can see how it goes. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Teplate:Video game multiple console reviews

There has been discussion on {{Video game multiple console reviews}}'s talkpage that brings up important points to be edited into the template. These things have not yet been done, and somebody who is knowledgeable in the field of template-editing should see to it. For instance, adding a "General" setting where a score applies to all platforms, and adding 3DS scores. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 18:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

There needs to be consensus before these could happen. I'll get the ball rolling on some of them. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Why? I wouldn't think that anybody would object to these changes. What reason would anybody possibly have for not implementing these? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, for example, I don't want Mobygames to be removed from the template so I want other people give their opinion on that as well. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you meant the changes I brought up. Yes, some of the discussions will need more talk. I think adding "General" and "3DS" as platforms should be non-controversial though. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

{{Infobox VG character}}

There's some discussion on whether to remove any fields from {{Infobox VG character}} on the Fictional characters WikiProject. Please keep all discussion centralised there, please. Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Terra Nova peer review

I'm getting ready to take Terra Nova: Strike Force Centauri to FAC, and, as preparation, I've nominated it for a peer review. I want to preempt any major issues that could occur at FAC; I haven't nominated an article in two years, and quality standards have obviously changed since then. I'd be really grateful if anyone could spare time to review the article. Thanks. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep, it is already listed on the peer review page and the to-do list. MrKIA11 (talk) 02:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Atari Mergers

This needs to happen. I am not lying. The Atari pages are in such bad condition. I mean why are there seperate pages for each Atari company that used to exist, those are just stubs. We need to put those into the main Atari page. We also need to merge the Atari and Infogrames page, seperate pages for these two are okay as long as there is a main page that links to them. Like the Activision pages. --Schmeater (talk) 01:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you give some examples? GamerPro64 01:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Completely disagree. Those pages are about the individual companies that have held the brand vs. the actual brand name, and not one single one is in stub format. The Atari page was deemed to cover the generic brand itself, a summarization of the generic brand history and separate entities associated with it. It was formed via a split up from a confusing and overly long single merged page via consensus many years ago and as part of the project here. Each one of the companies (Atari, Inc., Atari Corporation, Atari Games, Atari Interactive, Atari, Inc. (Atari, SA subsidiary), Infogrames Entertainment, SA, and Atari, SA) that have held the brand entity (the later ones completely unrelated except via IP and brand purchases) are companies with long and varied separate histories in their own right. Likewise, the Atari SA and Infogrames SA are separate business entities, and as is routinely done here, a new page is created accordingly. Nor should Infogrames be merged with the Atari brand page any more than Hasbro (another one time brand holder) should, Infogrames is only a small part of the brand history and vice versa. Previous discussions on mergers failed to achieve consensus as well for these very reasons. Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the history of the brand, which is why you have the viewpoint you do of some sort of continuous single entity? Everything is more than well referenced and documented at the relevant pages, but I'd be happy to clarify further. Certainly pages like Atari, SA could use more expansion (as there's a lot that's happened with the company in even the past 6 months), but calling them stubs is not accurate either. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Marty here. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll echo GamerPro64's request for some specific examples of proposed pages to be merged. From reviewing the pages Marty Goldberg has linked, it looks like a merger might be counterproductive. These pages are clearly not stubs and they all seem to contain non-redundant info so a merged article would be extremely lengthy if a full-content merge were used. A brief version of such a merge seems to already exists at the "History" section of the Atari article, and expanding this subsection with small details from the sub-articles via a merge seems to tread close to main article fixation. -Thibbs (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Look lets settle this on the Atari talk page. I've included specifics there. --Schmeater (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion was started here initially and the current consensus is already being generated here. I'll move your proposed structure over, which is not much different than what you already stated. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Now all of those other Atari pages thats spawn out from this article are nonsense. They are horrible, no information, just nothing more than expanded stubs. The history of those pages is clearly stated in this page already and I see no need to keep them. Remember, this is not Wikia. Now this is what I propose: Make one page named Atari. In that page, put in the whole history of Atari and part of Infogrames History as well (but not all of it, just starting from the acquisition). Now here is my idea for the layout of the page, start with early years, Atari Corp, Hasbro, Infogrames (this should be one of the only two sections with a Main Page thing), then the last section should be Atari, SA, which should actually be a sub-section of Infogrames. Then include the Noteable Games Published Section, then include subsidaries and then finally a products section which has a Main Page thing. --Schmeater (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Now as stated above by myself and others, such a proposal would inaccurately reflect the history and structure of things as there is no one single company called "Atari", rather a continuous brand and IP shared by all the companies listed over the years. Likewise it would be counterproductive as Thibbs suggested, and nobody feels these pages are stubs. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Well if that can not happen then somebody needs to dearly improve on the quality of the page itself, I mean the first two pages Atari Interactive and Corporation are just horrible and simply repeat what is alreay said in the Atari article with nonsense inormation and I know they are no longer stubs but they are in horrible quality. Plus Atari Interactive a subsidary of Atari, SA should be merged with Atari, SA. I see no reason as to why there are two seperate articles if they are both the same company. I mean I know they have a different history, but Atari Interactive, a subsidary of Atari, Sa's history is virtually the history of Atari, Sa. --Schmeater (talk) 18:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Please give examples of what you consider horrible quality in Atari Interactive and Atari Corporation, and the "nonsense information" you're declaring. As someone who is actively interested in improving those pages (as a member and founder of the Atari project - which I encourage you to join as we can always use more help), I have to say that calling other editor's work (not necessarily mine) "nonsense" is a bit offensive. We're certainly always looking to improve the articles here, and as I stated before I don't disagree the pages like Atari Corporation, Atari Inc., Atari Games, etc., need more expansion and there is certainly enough references and content out there to do it with. My edits have been mainly limited to edit/revision monitoring as of late (via Recent Changes Patroller), and providing references and resources for others working on bringing VG articles to FA and GA status, as I've been to busy with my video game industry work. So I haven't been able to continue their expansion as much as I've liked. Likewise regarding your statement on the Atari Interactive article, Atari Interactive is a name that has been used separately by three unrelated entities as is shown on the page. The page is not about just the subsidiary of Atari, SA, nor is it one a direct continuation of another. You would not be able to merge it with Atari, SA because of that. Just as Atari Inc., the subsidiary of Infogrames is not the same Atari Inc. that founded the Atari brand. The latter was dissolved in the mid 80's, the current arrived upon the name through coincidence after being renamed from Infogrames Inc to an Atari branded name. I have to be honest, it doesn't seem like you're actually reading through the content on these pages more like taking casual glances and forming your opinion on that. If that's not the case, I apologize, but the comment regarding the Atari Interactive seems to demonstrate that. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

These two pages are the ones I find nonsense the most and I feel should be merged to create a better and overall article. --Schmeater

Via clip and paste, as it's been answered already: "Likewise regarding your statement on the Atari Interactive article, Atari Interactive is a name that has been used separately by three unrelated entities as is shown on the page. The page is not about just the subsidiary of Atari, SA, nor is one a direct continuation of another. You would not be able to merge it with Atari, SA because of that. Just as Atari Inc., the subsidiary of Infogrames is not the same Atari Inc. that founded the Atari brand. The latter was dissolved in the mid 80's, the current arrived upon the name through coincidence after being renamed from Infogrames Inc to an Atari branded name. " Atari Corporation as well would also fit in to what has already been established via non-consensus for merger to the Atari brand article. Additionally, "I don't disagree the pages like Atari Corporation, Atari Inc., Atari Games, etc., need more expansion and there is certainly enough references and content out there to do it with." At a minimum the articles should be expanded towards a GA status goal of course. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I still was not clear with you. Its these two pages: Atari, SA and [[Atari Inc. (Atari, SA subsidary). The reason is that the products of the new Atari Inc are also the products of Atari, SA, and the history of Atari Inc. is also the history of Atari, SA. Plus, the new Atari Inc. is a subsidary of Atari, SA, the article of which is really short and provides no explanation as what Atari, SA really is, and merging it with Atari Inc. I feel that merging these two articles would be the start to improving the main Atari page's quality. --Schmeater (talk) 23:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Understood now. The problem with that is twofold, and again appears to be via unfamiliarity with the subject: It only became a full subsidiary recently. Up until that point they were two separate companies with their own corporate histories - their own boards, management, publishing, and Atari Inc. was traded on the stock exchange separately as well. Infogrames (now Atari SA) was simply a majority holder until they wound up taking over the company after it got delisted. Atari Inc. was formerly GT Interactive, which was forced (by Infogrames' majority stock purchase) to rename itself Infogrames Inc. and then to Atari Inc. when Infogrames bought the Atari properties from Hasbro. In fact, Infogrames even forced Atari Inc. to lease the Atari name, logo and IP from their (infogrames') subsidiary holder Atari Interactive. It wasn't until the complete buyout a few years ago that things began transferring to a one in the same entity which resulted in the Atari Inc. board dissolving and eventually culminated in Atari Inc. CEO Jim Wilson moving over to head Infogrames now renamed Atari SA. Likewise, it is only recently after that the Atari branded publishing operations were moved directly under Atari SA (hence some of the games you tried to add as a notable list were done under Atari Inc. and later ones under Atari SA), with the move of Atari SA's operations to Los Angeles and the reliance on Cryptic for staff and daily operations. So because of all that, I don't think a merger is appropriate there as well. Rather you simply have a tailoring off of content for Atari Inc. (Atari, SA subsidiary) and more content moving to the Atari SA page, as Atari Inc. is rarely heard from anymore since Jim Wilson's move. But both have very separately active and documented corporate histories. And I also disagree on the notion that the Atari, SA provides no explanation as to what Atari, SA is - that is in fact what the entire current content is about. The lead description is taken directly from their corporate page and the main body currently consists of an explanation of the renaming. What simply needs to be done is the addition of a lot of material that's "out there" on quarterly and annual earnings, press releases, board info, there was a recent attempt at a buyout, there's all the publishing going on directly under it now (such as the Centipede: Infestation game you created an article for, the recent Yars reboot and others). It's a matter of expansion, not merger. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

But how do we apply this expansion, Atari Inc. makes no mention of Atari, SA anywhere in its article yet it has it tagged on in the title. It does not talk about how the creation of SA affected it. Plus, would the products released 2009 plus be the products be the ones mentioned in the Atari, SA article. The products that were released prior to the re-naming are also included on there. Whereas these products should be on the Atari Inc. page only, but since Atari Inc. is a subsidary of Atari, SA, those products are listed on there. (If your wondering which products, try RCT and Civilization 3). What do you propose we do? --Schmeater (talk) 04:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Good and valid points. The information you mention regarding Atari SA on the Atari Inc. page still needs to be entered there, which is why I said this all mainly an needs for content expansion. This includes Jim Wilson leaving to head Atari SA. Notice the corporate information on Atari Inc. hasn't been updated since 2008. Same goes for all the material I mentioned that's happened with Atari SA since it's naming. As for which game would be mentioned where, you need to look at the actual boxes and press releases. For example, Centipede: Infestation is clearly under Atari SA where as the PSP's Atari Classics Evolved (which I was a technical advisor on for one of the games) was under Atari Inc. If games are attributed to the wrong actual publisher, certainly that should be corrected and moved to the appropriate page. The confusion often comes in as well with the press just referring to everything via "Atari" which has produced confusion for years now. Like when Phil Harrison was reported to be leaving Sony for "Atari", when in actuality he was leaving to head Infogrames SA, the then current owner of the Atari brand. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 06:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

So lets forget the merger, out of that we have come to this conclusion. We need to clean and expand on the Atari Inc. and Atari, SA articles. I'll start by adding information about the Atari Go program. --Schmeater (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

TFA tomorrow

On May 3rd, Shadow the Hedgehog (video game) will be on the Main Page for Today's Featured Article. Expect exclamations on how bad the game was. GamerPro64 00:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Awww, we can't start it here now? --MASEM (t) 00:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Category links and Portal:Video games in navboxes

I would like to seek consensus on whether Category links and Portal:Video games links are necessary in video game navboxes. See {{Need for Speed series}} for example. Thanks! Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think having the category linked on the infobox is necessary as any article with the infobox should be in the category. As for the portal link, various video game series templates should not link to the general VG portal. That makes no sense. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Categories shouldn't be linked in the main space as a general principle (I suspect there's a policy or guideline around somewhere specifying as much), and the portal link is inappropriate because it's nonspecific to the series. Not quite what Blake said, but agreeing to the ends. --Izno (talk) 22:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

revised Wikipedia:Notability (video games)

The proposal has been revised. Please check it out. This one is more concise.陣内_Jinnai 22:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of game map for Exile (1988 video game)

A map is available for Exile (1988 video game). Discussion of its possible inclusion is at Talk:Exile (1988 video game)#Game map (BBC micro). --Trevj (talk) 11:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Need Additional help!!

I think these three articles need additional help Video gaming in Brazil, Video gaming in Japan, Video gaming in the United States. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

GAN help

I just noticed that Teancum has retired and he has Bionic Commando Rearmed up for GAN. Anyone want to work on it? I would do it but I don't think I would have any time for it. GamerPro64 20:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

From talking to him a couple of weeks ago he's only half-retired atm- he's sticking around to finish that GAN (his last comment on the page was 2 days after he put up the retired notice) and might poke around occasionally, but doesn't intend to write any more articles. More concerning is the fact that the reviewer stopped halfway through a week ago! --PresN 21:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going to finish out any open GANs, including helping out with Super Meat Boy if necessary. I just listed myself as retired so folks wouldn't look to me for new stuff. And let's be honest, nobody ever actually retires, they just slow down. :) --Teancum (talk) 13:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Lol true true. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC))

New game console iSec

Just wondering if we should create a new article for this upcoming new console the iSec which will be released in China? More information about it can be found here: http://kotaku.com/#!5799558/china-unveils-the-isec-its-first-game-console

--Victory93 (talk) 04:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

If more information, sources and such is revealed, then possibly. For now, its best to start up a special page.Bread Ninja (talk) 05:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The Art of Video Games selectees announced

80 video games have been selected to be included in the Smithsonian's The Art of Video Games. The list is marked in that article, but you can also cross check here: [7]. Note that these are from a publicly-voted list out of 240 games (3 each per platform/genre) after selection by a small group of experts, so its reasonably fair to include in some articles. --MASEM (t) 21:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm such a non-fan of this whole thing. Just chiming in. :v - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

So these images will be {{PD-USGov}} then? –MuZemike 01:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Wait, what do you mean by images? Like, screenshots of gameplay or something? GamerPro64 01:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I doubt the images will fall into the PD just because they're exhibited at the Smithsonian. --MASEM (t) 01:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

They're not works of government provenance, so yeah, the copyrights still apply. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

That said, if you have screenshot that is on the borderline for inclusion because of its artful nature, and its one of these games, that's a helpful NFC rational reason to keep it. --MASEM (t) 02:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't a fan of their categorization, as terming "era 2" as the "8-bit" era makes no sense. The 2600 and Colecovision are of course 8-bit as well (with the Intellivision being 16-bit). --Marty Goldberg (talk) 02:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

They also put the Xbox/PS2/Gamecube with Xbox360/PS3/Wii, which is a bit strange. --PresN 02:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, while the Smithsonian is showing a lack of video game knowledge, at least they're calling video games "art". GamerPro64 02:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

No, they're calling "console games" art. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a PC category... Also recognize that they got a bunch of VG figures to provide input on the games to select, so this isn't just some random collection with public polling... --MASEM (t) 03:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing that it can't be used as a reliable source. Just that how video games as art encompasses Star Fox Assault, but not Tetris, Brain Age, Link's Awakening, Pokémon, etc. I'm just griping. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, what was the "small group of experts"? I never saw a listing, and I have my doubts because of the categorization issues. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Brenda Brathwaite, Louis Castle, Ed Fries, Jerry Holkins, Chris Kohler, Mike Krahulik, Jennifer MacLean, Steve Meretzky, Ray Muzyka, David Perry, John Romero, Tim Schafer, Kellee Santiago, and Greg Zeschuk. --MASEM (t) 04:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Bah, the one game that is the closest the industry has come to being art isn't selected. There is no justice in this world. -- Sabre (talk) 12:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

My biggest issues were with the categorization and titles selected. No one uses those categorizations. They also took out all the early computer games that had huge impact. According to their history, PC games only start according to that in the 3rd era. Finally, their selection of games, even before the "final 80" are really skewed and don't really represent, in many instances, the key turning points in video game industry.陣内_Jinnai 20:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Remember, this is an exhibit about games as an art form (which the NEA today just has said that VG ARE art [8]). VGs as art really couldn't come around until there was hardware that made graphics more significant than just large blocks or text. Hence the skewing towards the 90s and 00s where. --MASEM (t) 23:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

That of course is a controversial statement.陣内_Jinnai 23:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Still, the fact they had two of three games in the "adventure" for PSX be GameArts games says their selection was not fully based on the popular and impact. Grandia especially seems odd over something like Chrono Cross, or even a 'real' adventure type game. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand I think every generation that could have a Zelda game had one and for every spot it was in Zelda won. Now sometimes, like the N64, there wasn't much competition, but not every Zelda game has had the huge impact the others have. In that sense its hard to say it wasn't just a popularity contest. Zelda didn't deserve to win in every slot it was in. Not to diminsh its impact, but the choices scew things and make it look like most impactful series on the broad "adventure" genre is Zelda which is flat out bogus.陣内_Jinnai 21:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Well you can't fault them for the winners, which obviously was a popularity contest. I'm talking about their initial choices. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Prose review help

Hey, guys. Just thought I'd mention that User:Prime Blue, in his peer review nomination for Resident Evil 2, has asked for commentary on the article's prose. Once I get some free time, I plan to help him with the issue; however, RE2 is a huge article, and I think a few more pairs of eyes would be for the best. Is anyone else willing to pitch in? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 09:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Former studio name

When a game development studio changes it name, should the articles about their past games refer to the studio as it's current name or the name it was known when the game was released? Some examples: Bioshock (current name in lead and infobox), Dead Space (past in the lead, current in the infobox), The Lost Vikings (both names in the lead and infobox). --Mika1h (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• While working on Looking Glass Studios articles, I've run up against this problem as well--the company had three different names over the years. My standard practice has been to use whichever name was applicable at the time of the game's release, and wikilink it to our article on the company (which uses their third and final name). In the cases where it's so significantly different that it would confuse people, I add a bit of disambiguation in parentheses. For example, they were called Blue Sky Productions when they released their first game, Ultima Underworld; in that article, I wrote, "Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss is a first-person role-playing video game developed by Blue Sky Productions (later Looking Glass Studios)". This method has served me pretty well. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed, and I think the way The Lost Vikings does it is slightly backward. It should refer to the name at the time first, and then allude to the change in name. Andrevan@ 02:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

GameDaily

All GameDaily links appear to direct toward Joystiq (that I've seen). If you see any GameDaily links, please archive them. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Some spring cleaning help needed on some subprojects

A few things need to be taken care of around the project, which I hope that a few people can get working on:

• Unassessed articles by importance → see [9]

Taken care of by myself and my bot. –MuZemike 15:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Updating of all article ratings at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Essential articles
• Review and rate remaining articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Assessment/Requests (a few of which are over a month old)
• Update Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Templates, especially external link and stub templates
• Update Portal:Video games, in which every part seriously needs an upgrade, including current events

There are some others, I'm sure, and I'll add them when I get to them. –MuZemike 00:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I have finals next week, but after that, I should be able to get back into assessing articles and helping with WP:VG/N. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I can update the rating at Essential articles. Shouldn't be too hard. GamerPro64 00:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, while I saw looking through the article in the Essential Articles, I saw some are Mid-importance. Are they suppose to be there or is High and Top-importance articles the only articles allowed in Essential Articles? GamerPro64 01:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we can have more discussion on that, either here or on that talk page. IMO I cannot come up with a reason why we should. –MuZemike 07:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Started a dicussion about Mid-importance here. GamerPro64 00:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources

There are still sources up for discussion at WP:VG/S. Please leave comments if you have time, Nintendo World Report in particular is a very useful source but hasn't been promoted so far. Prime Blue (talk) 14:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Addition of multiple genres to many articles

I see Jagged 85 has added lots of secondary and tertiary genres to lead sections and infoboxes. While I don't doubt that some games are a mix of two genres, classifying titles like Silent Hill as a "stealth game" because of some subtle stealth elements, or claiming Dead Aim to be a light gun shooter, first-person shooter and a third-person shooter because of the gameplay views, is pushing it much too far for my tastes. I mean those titles are still primarily just a survival horror game and a light gun shooter – mentioning the primary genre in the lead section and infobox is enough, any details and influences from other genres can be mentioned in the gameplay section. Also, as a heads-up for Jagged 85, the platforms, genre, modes and media fields of the infobox use commas rather than line breaks to separate items. Prime Blue (talk) 14:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The infobox should only give the primary, and if a mixed title, secondary genres. If there are minor elements of other genres represented and can be sourced, this can be included in the gameplay (eg, COD:MW2 is not an RPG, despite having an experience point system for unlocks). The infobox still needs to remain the 5 second overview, and filling in every possible genre just doesn't work. --MASEM (t) 14:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Template:Upcoming video game

Just came across this template. I seem to recall there being a discussion that resulted in similar templates being deleted, but I can't find it. Thus, I'm dumping it here so someone else can figure this out. Reach Out to the Truth 00:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

well this is highly unnecessary....Bread Ninja (talk) 05:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

This is familiar with Template:Future, which was effectively deprecated and deleted over a year ago. –MuZemike 06:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

We already have an Upcoming games category and an Upcoming by year category. An additional template isn't needed. - X201 (talk) 09:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

CSD G4'd. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The most unloved VG article?

Is Ultra Golf the most unloved video game article on WP? With just 24 edits in 6 years. We'll have to make it a special case and have a group effort on it. - X201 (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Unless there are some print sources, I couldn't find any sources besides the general "this game exists" page. I added in a legacy section, which the games listed might not even be related, other then having "ultra" in the name, which might be a complete coincidence. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

No-one reviewed it. It has an entry in "Ultimate unauthorized Nintendo Game Boy strategies" (page 71). I don't think it's notable. Recommend redirect to Ultra Games, job done. Marasmusine (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess. If these games are indeed not related to it, then it really has no legacy, which makes it very un-important, and non-notable. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 17:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• I don't know; I think British Open Championship Golf (another golf game!) is pretty strong competition. Created in 2005, and it has something like 23 edits--three of which are mine. I need to take it to GA eventually, since it's part of a topic I'm working on, so one day it'll be loved. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

M.U.G.E.N

M.U.G.E.N was nominated for deletion. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 04:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we keep track of pages up for deletion under our scope on our deletion page, as was noted on the nomination. MrKIA11 (talk) 04:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

And don't forget Article alerts </shameless plug>. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

New release editnotice

People on this WikiProject may be interested in Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#New release editnotice. Yaris678 (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Robin Hunicke

This FPC (a portrait of a video game producer) is close to closing and it's looking like it'll be a no consensus, which is no good for anyone. Comments one way or another are appreciated! J Milburn (talk) 18:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of VG websites

Hi. Does the project cover websites, too? E.g. should Acorn Arcade be included? The site merged with The Icon Bar (website), which continues to cover games and has a games forum. Thanks for reading. --Trevj (talk) 13:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

DTIPBIJAYS GA

Don't take it personally, babe, it just ain't your story made GA status within 12 hours of mainspace creation! Someone pull out the record book. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

We didnt even get to add it to New article announcements (just added it then). Salavat (talk) 14:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd only started writing it in userspace 12 hours prior, too; that was a fast review. --PresN 16:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Lets see, record books... Kung Fu Man once took a new article (Dance, Voldo, Dance) from creation to GAN in 4.5 hours, though it didn't get reviewed for weeks. --PresN 16:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm just trying to make sure that the GAs don't pile up so my three GAs get attention. :3 I just hope that I'm not being too lenient toward them. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 18:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:Notability (video games)

This is up for proposal as a SNG.陣内_Jinnai 16:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to Add Cast to Video Game Infobox

With Video games now being a major form of entertainment and also now being put on Actors Resumes do you think it's fair that we add a cast part to Video Games, because there are some games that have budgets akin to hollywood movies, in this current time Voice Cast is very important and critical to the video game itself, I mean you thought the Director Worthy, so why not allow for a cast add-on only for the very major parts?--Jack Cox (talk) 23:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I would think this is not appropriate. If the cast is significant to be notable by sources, then these actors can be put in the lead. My fear is that on the counterside, for video games that don't have notable actors, people will want to fill these in, and then don't get started on the international actors and differences therein. --MASEM (t) 04:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Video games, even in this day and age, do not have a notable cast, as voice actors are less notable than live actors, especially in video games. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Jack Cox: Don't think so, the video game infoboxes are long enough as is and actors would only clutter them up further. If the cast is notable enough, there will be a separate prose section where it is explained in detail. Otherwise, they can be mentioned in a characters/setting or plot section if "notable" enough. Prime Blue (talk) 05:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

(Devil's advocate) However, while this would not apply to any video game released over 10 years ago, we cannot ignore the fact that video games are being structured more like films and are starting to have actual casts; hence, we may need to start taking casts into consideration. –MuZemike 13:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Why should we care if they are notable or not, the fact still remains Video Games are vastly becoming another avenue for actors to pursue work, take a look at L.A. Noire recently, the game is almost so life-like that in some ways, the people are not only providing their voice for it, but they are also providing their faces. I know Video games from 10 years ago it would not apply, but yes Video games are starting to be structured like films, they even showed L.A. Noire's Cutscenes as a Movie at a film festival.--Jack Cox (talk) 07:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Those games are the exception. Most games have no use at all for this proposed infobox parameter. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 07:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you have to ask yourself what are the main details that people would be looking for in a video game, platform, publisher, developer, release. I can hardly see someone going "gee I wonder who acted in that video game". Im sure it can easily be incorporated into the lead and main article if need be. Salavat (talk) 08:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Our position has been that any notable actors can be listed in the prose, or possibly during the synopsis/plot section in-line with their character names. My biggest fear with cast lists is one that constantly plagued us prior to our update to WP:GAMECRUFT — that is that folks would list every role for every actor/actress. We'd get lines like the following:

*John Nobody - Homeless man on street, Security Guard #4, Grunt #2, misc voices

That sort of stuff is inevitable and hard to police once allowed. I'm all for any notable cast being mentioned. Good examples are X-Men Origins: Wolverine (video game), where it's listed in-line with the characters and makes the focus the characters rather than the actors, and Spider-Man: Shattered Dimensions and Halo 3: ODST which list them as part of the prose of the development section. --Teancum (talk) 12:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Copy edits for GLaDOS and Pong Toss! Frat Party Games

While with GLaDOS I'm looking to get someone to sign on to do a copy edit of it (once I finish rewriting the entire article and fully sourcing it), I think Pong Toss! is ready for a second set of eyes. Anyone up for it? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 01:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Dealing with a long VG article that has all the core sections

Portal 2, nearly pushing 200 references, is probably well past the suggested 100k of text for article length. The problem is is that I have all the core sections of a VG article in there: gameplay (short, so a series article to offset that to would not help), plot (maybe a notch this side being long, but it is sourced), development (LONG), and reception (already long, and we're not at end of the year awards yet or deep critical analysis that may be coming). I cannot see how I could split off any one of these to maintain integrity of a standalone VG article, but I am open to any suggestions. --MASEM (t) 00:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Development maybe? I mean, they made a book for iPad and Kindle about its development, so one could say that it is a notable subject. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Good god. Is Portal 2 really that serious of a game? So, do we have any similar articles to use for guidance? « ₣M₣ » 00:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I got an idea for development... Development of Portal 2. Also, I'm kinda concerned about how many images there are. Am I the only one? GamerPro64 00:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

There's only 6 non free, each being discussed as part of the work. Not that I'm saying that there couldn't be some pruning further as I get this towards FA, but its not the images causing the size bloat. --MASEM (t) 00:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to separate the development because, as a standalone article, there's aspects of the gameplay and the plot that feature into the development, so you'd be splitting across this. --MASEM (t) 00:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, we would not necessarily have to exclude a ton from the main article; while I am not suggesting that any of the content is trivial, we could always make a "cliff's notes" version of the Development article that would cover as much is necessary. I think that the History of Portal 2 has become notable enough that, while not hugely independent of the game, has become its own thing. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I am pretty sure I have seen a "History of ..." or "Development of ..." article before. So it's been done before. I don't see why not. That is the concept of splitting. If a section gets too big, then you split it into a new article. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes normally in articles if a section gets too big, you "cliff notes" it and and add a "Main Article" link to the full new article page. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so it sounds like a "development of Portal 2" subarticle is appropriate. --MASEM (t) 02:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Cool. I've added some references to GLaDOS that may or may not be used in Portal 2 already (though considering its size I'm not sure how likely that is, ha) for her development. Also, if you haven't bought it yet (or have no way to), there's also the Final Hours of Portal 2 book. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to support a "development of" article. My reason would be that if the development section really takes up that much space, maybe you should trim it. Valve is the kind of company that loves to give interviews and insight into its game design, but that doesn't mean we have to use ALL of it. In reading the section, I can also see a number of spots where the same information can be conveyed more concisely. I'll see what I can compress in the coming days and then we can consider splitting, sound fair? Axem Titanium (talk) 03:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's the right approach. Idyllically, every article should have that much development information if that much information is available. A full history of the game is important, and while it could use some compression perhaps, removing actual information is the absolute last thing that we should be considering. Content-forking is a far better idea than mincing content and removing useful information that contributes to the better understanding of the subject. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It's also representative of the sourcing for Portal 2 - there is a LOT of dev info out there from numerous sources, and thus the article reflects that. Most games don't get this much dissection on the dev side. --MASEM (t) 04:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm more with Axem on this. I don't think splitting anything out of the article into a development article is a good idea. It just makes the whole thing feel disconnected. I have seen development of articles before, and all they end up doing is if not degrading the overall quality of both articles, then certainly degrading the quality of the parent article. Its far better to keep it all together as much as possible. Some of the writing comes along as long-winded, it could probably be worded differently to make it shorter, a couple of the more precise details may not be needed in this article but can be safely moved elsewhere without compromising the parent article - we've got articles on Glados and Wheatley, use them. The same goes for the reception section. Frankly though, I don't really see too much of a problem to begin with. The article still loads quickly enough and, for the most part, its structure doesn't make it a beast to read. -- Sabre (talk) 10:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

You mention the use of Wheatley and GLaDOS's articles to what I assume to mean that we should give only a summary of content relevant to the two characters in the main article and lead readers to the article; but isn't this an example of content forking when used in this fashion? As I've said, the coverage is so significant that the development and release of Portal 2 has clearly managed to become its own subject. The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion is a great example of no such drop in quality occurring when the article Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion was created. All we see is a more limited development section that covers the more integral parts of the game's design, which is pretty much precisely what would occur here. A more concise and focused version would be used in the main article while a main article would allow for further examination into the game's development. Speaking of GLaDOS and Wheatley, a very small portion of the development information from Portal 2 would be reduced if we were to limit the coverage of the two of them. Only about four or five paragraphs of information are primarily about GLaDOS and Wheatley; and even if we reduced it through tighter wording, it would still be quite large, significantly more so than most articles. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 10:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Axem and Sabre. I don't think this article needs a split. It just needs a good copyedit to convey the information more concisely. If anything, this is actually one of the best video game articles because it actually goes in depth on real world stuff instead of focusing on useless in-universe details that only players would care about. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

That is why it needs to be split. Instead of cutting down the real world information, you could move and expand it. Everything important would still be in the article, while the lesser development details would be in the separate article, and go into more detail about the things that matter. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I dunno about a split. There's only ever been one video game article I've split a section off of, and that's Marketing of Halo 3. The difference between that article and a "Development of..." type however is that Halo 3's marketing was eye-catching, award-winning, and had a major impact. It's notable outside of Halo 3. The same cannot be said for the process behind a game, even if it's a popular one, in most instances.

Looking over the article myself, I can see the development and reception as benefiting from some cuts—a paragraph about people talking about Metacritic user scores strikes me as unhelpful, for instance, the ARG content is a tad fetishistic in its detailing, and there's lots of kind of random content that is pretty extraneous to the core themes of the paragraphs in development. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I do need to trim down the second arg since I actually have split that to Potato Sack, but we're talking taking two paras to one. The metacritic thing was actually noticed by the press at large (compared to other negative user opinions that contrast to the mainstream press reviews), but again, we're only a paragraph.

To comment on Blake's statement, the dev section is probably expanded out as much as it can reasonably be; barring further insightful interviews, I cannot see any more really being added. Now going off the fact we have GLaDOS and Wheatley articles, I can likely look to trim the paras I have there about the individual characters and add see-alsos to the respective character articles for those, but I can't see removing them completely. --MASEM (t) 16:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Gameplay is imo a better choice. There is articles like Gameplay of Dragon Quest which goes into finer detail. I do think though that perhaps if there is that much info then there might be WP:WEIGHT issues and certain items could be trimmed entirely.陣内_Jinnai 16:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

That's only 4 or 5 paragraphs at most for Portal; I can understand it for DQ or FF, but there's little depth of game here. --MASEM (t) 17:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, don't talk to me about Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. Even though it's a featured article, it is an absolute chore to read, bordering on WP:UNDUE. I would specifically try to avoid splitting out the dev section of Portal for fear of it turning into Dev of Elder Scrolls. Anyway, to respond to NARH's point, exporting character-specific dev info (e.g. for GLaDOS) to the relevant article avoids problems of WP:UNDUE since the character itself is notable. On the other hand, the "development of Portal 2" is not necessarily a notable concept since notability isn't inherited. Portal 2 is notable, but its development is not independently notable. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

That's why I AfD'd the Oblivion article, but obviously it hung around. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so here's what's going to happen: I'm working with New Age Retro Hippie - who's the primary author for the GLaDOS and Wheatley articles - to offload some of the dev info in P2 into those articles, but will still summarize the basics in P2 (i've loaded Seealsos for those). I'm aware someone's working on a Chell article, so that will do the same. I've already offloaded the ARG piece now. Barring possibly ApSci (and if Black Mesa can't get its own article, I find it hard that Ap Sci really can either - but at the same time, there is Rapture (BioShock)...), there's little else that I can really move out without breaking flow, so I'm just going to deal with it being a long article until I get more comment as I move it up through GA and FA. --MASEM (t) 21:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a semi-off topic question about all this. Are you planning on making a Featured Topic out of all this? I mean, either by the series as a whole or with all the characters (maybe with a possible creation of List of characters in the Portal series. GamerPro64 21:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not seeing that Rapture breaks the rule either (ergo, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, blah blah blah...) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking about it myself to at least bring some more topics to GA/FA status. Harry Blue is working on Chell in his userspace, and I've got adequate references for Cave Johnson, the cake is a lie, Weighted Companion Cube, and Turret. And after I implement those, I'm hopefully going to be able to find some references for the credits song, Aperture Science, Portal 2: Lab Rats, and "Atlus and P-Body". What does everyone think of making a general series article for Portal? I mean, true it's only two games, but I think it could work, especially since the series is so strongly connected in terms of story and gameplay. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, seeing that Left 4 Dead (series) exists, I don't see why Portal (series) shouldn't. GamerPro64 22:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

True, though I think Left 4 Dead has had a little more exposure outside of the video games (more merchandise for example). - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Given my read of the reviews of P2 when I had to write out the reception section, most reviewers don't consider Portal a series, as compared to the L4D reviews (possibly in part to the fast turnaround on L4D2). This is Valve so releases are all standouts compare to Activision's yearly cycle. --MASEM (t) 22:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

This mentality that just because a game gets a sequel it needs a series article is completely silly anyway. At least in the case of Portal, its part of the Half-Life series and is already within the scope of that series article, Characters of Half-Life and Locations of Half-Life; we don't need to split out into Portal-specific versions of those articles. A Half-Life FT is inevitably dependent on the quality of the Portal articles anyway, so if you want to work towards an FT, well, Gary King and I got most of the Half-Life articles up to FA/GA already, so it wouldn't be too much extra work. -- Sabre (talk) 23:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with using Portal and Half-Life as one subject. In several interviews, Wolpaw has expressed the interest of keeping them separate parts of the universe with only minor connections. Portal was in fact not even a part of the Half-Life series in the first place. It's kind of like Wario and Mario: while they have connections, they are their own thing and are not dependent on each other. So if there were a Mario FT, we would not require Wario to be a part of it. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

All the interviews I've seen with Wolpaw and Newell stress that the two are intrinsically linked, despite Portal's status as the less serious part of the franchise and a lack of direct crossovers. You confuse a design decision to make it so that players don't need to play either Half-Life or Portal to understand the other, thereby increasing the accessibility to both for customers, with a conscious effort to create a Wario-like series. It doesn't matter that Portal was not initially conceived with the Half-Life connections, the end thing is. Portal at most a spin-off or a subseries of the Half-Life franchise, a contained part of a larger series rather than a full series in its own right, and this is what Wolpaw's own words support: "a fun-house of science, this bubble in the otherwise serious Half-Life universe" or "how the X-Files had an overarching plot but then also standalone episodes that were a little looser"[10]. Despite the fact we're not liable to see Freeman wandering past Glados anytime soon, we have Valve considering that Chell's future story arc could be based more solidly in the Half-Life setting;[11] combine that with the major Aperture Science stuff introduced in Ep2 and lined up for the main story of Ep3, its hardly "only minor connections". Valve considers that Portal is Half-Life, so any Half-Life FT would definitely need to include the Portal stuff. -- Sabre (talk) 01:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, an absurd proposition. The developers also intended to keep their connections to Half-Life to a minimum. We see mentions of Black Mesa, the Borealis mentioned in Ep 2 (and presumably appearing in Ep 3), and a connection in the timeline. This is a CONNECTION, and it can be said that Portal is a part of the Half-Life universe, but not the Half-Life series. Again, we've seen Wario in Mario Party, Mario Kart, etc. Wario is effectively considered a Mario character, and as seen in Super Mario Land 3: Wario Land, Mario makes a minor appearance at the end stealing back the Princess Peach statue. However, a huge majority of Wario's games are completely exclusive from Mario's games. WarioWare games' stories, as limited as they are, have their own characters and setting, and Wario Land, with the exception of his first game, have little to nothing to do with the Mario series. A series can have connections to another series without being a part of the series. The notion that these two games and their elements are required to be a part of the Half-Life topic is absurd and completely incorrect based on how the Wikipedia operates with Featured topics. We've seen crossovers and cameos that do not require their respective topics to include them (should every Mario Kart game be a part of the Wario FT? Or should Konami Krazy Racers, which features Dracula, be featured as a part of the Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow topic?). - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

As an additional point, most of the topics that would fall under a Portal topic would not fall under the Half-Life topic. GLaDOS and Wheatley have almost a nonexistent connection to anything from Half-Life; Potato Sack is exclusively linked to Portal only; the only vague connections to Half-Life include Aperture Science and the Borealis as far as we can see. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Half-Life universe, Half-Life series, Half-Life franchise. You argue semantics and against what Valve themselves actually say, as I've already outlined. What happens with Wario or Krazy Racers is also irrelevant, they are different franchises, different situations. There is never one size fits all. -- Sabre (talk) 09:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm making a point. We don't require them to be connected because Portal without Half-Life is almost the exact same experience. Being a part of the Half-Life series isn't even a major point of Portal, nor is it even remotely obvious. They make very little attempt to make people aware of their links. In terms of Wario, there is even MORE reason to include Wario in the Mario series than there is for Portal because Wario is intrinsically linked to the Mario series. In terms of Portal, Portal was created as its own thing and made as a light part of Half-Life in the last minute (and particularly because it's based on the same engine). You are arguing that there simply cannot be a Half-Life topic without all of the Portal topics. Let's take a look at each Portal-related article.

#Portal (video game) - Uses the Source engine, a few sentences in Setting about Half-Life occurring during Portal and elements about Aperture Science used in Half-Life 2: Episode Two. The article even says that the only reason it's tied to Half-Life is so that they could use the art assets.

1. Portal 2 - Similarly mentions the light connections to the Half-Life games and the Borealis. Half-Life mentioned as inspiration for some characters. However, discussion of Half-Life is significantly decreased.
2. GLaDOS - Makes only one significant mention of Half-Life; namely, a single line of hers which references the events of Half-Life.
3. Wheatley (Portal) - Nada.
4. The Potato Sack - Nada.
5. Still Alive - Says that Coulton was a fan of Half-Life; does not link song to Half-Life.
6. Narbacular Drop - Nada.
7. Tag: The Power of Paint - Nada.

As for other articles that will be made in the future, I very much doubt that anything other than Cave Johnson or Aperture Science will have even the slightest mention of Half-Life. The fact of the matter is that requiring us to include Portal articles in a Half-Life topic when discussion of Half-Life is so minor in any Portal article that you could in theory read 90% of an article and have no idea that it is in the Half-Life universe. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 10:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thats using your own personal interpretations of what you saw in-game to form how it should be seen, that's just original research. Most secondary sources and the developer themselves say in some capacity "Portal is part of the Half-Life universe/series/franchise/world/whatever", and that is what we go with. I refer you back to Wolpaw's "off-beat X-Files episode" comment, that sums up the situation nicely. It might not be heavy on the crossovers, nor have Half-Life in the title, but if Valve and secondary sources consider them the same, so should we. -- Sabre (talk) 10:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

No, these are my own personal readings of the articles. This is me pointing out how irrelevant Half-Life is to most articles relevant to Portal. Immediately upon searching for interviews on Portal 2 that mention Half-Life, I found one that describes Half-Life and Portal as having a "sort of connection". Using your X-Files comparison, it almost seems like they are saying that it is a separate thing. The quote that I'm reading suggests that it is "outside" the scope of Half-Life. The plot of Half-Life is irrelevant to both Portal games; any rules established in Half-Life do not apply to the rules of Portal. Aside from a couple of subtle connections, Half-Life and Portal operate on different plots, timelines, cast of characters, setting, etc. Portal 2 even made sure to drop Half-Life 2-based sounds to make it more independent. Your argument would work if there were not SO many things that are completely independent of Half-Life. The two games that it takes strong inspiration from have no application to the Half-Life universe; the song Still Alive is related to a character that's related to a game that's a spin-off of Half-Life. Should we also have a featured topic for every single Stephen King book because most (maybe all) are in the same universe and even crossover? And please, do not give me the spiel that that's a different situation. If we did this, it would create a bad precedent. The level of disconnect between Half-Life and a number of Portal-related articles is so great that if it was required for it to be a part of its parent series just because they are in the same universe, we would have to apply this same logic to many topics that have a much stronger argument for inclusion but would be declined simply because of the absurd level number of articles and the absurd level of topics that would be removed because this proposal would make it impossible for a featured topic to be made. At what point is the quote "They both take place in the same universe, although we think of Portal as taking place in Aperture Science, which is this absurd bubble buried in the ground where anything goes, to a certain extent" advocating keeping them together as one topic, when in almost all respects the two series act independently of themselves? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 11:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Continuing with the personal analysis over the secondary sources-previews and reviews that remind that its part of the same franchise, interviews like the ones I linked to that discuss the series' level connections and possible future avenues between the parent and the subseries. I fail to see how you can take Wolpaw's X-Files comparison for anything other than them being part of the same—the analogy doesn't work for them saying they are separate. Clearly we're not going to get you out of the strawman "one size must be made to fit all!" approach either. Whatever. I agree to disagree, neither of us are going to convince the other. -- Sabre (talk) 11:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

You still miss the point completely - if brought to FT with Portal and Half-Life articles all together, at no point will the reviewers not wonder why many of the articles have no connection to Half-Life. The "Half-Life universe" and the "Half-Life series" are two different things. Portal absolutely would not fail as an FT because so many of the articles are exclusively about Portal that the series is clearly not dependent on Half-Life. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, is it allowed to use two subjects as the main articles for the topic (so for example, the FT could be "Portal and Portal 2". - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

From my research, you can do this instead. GamerPro64 00:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Two main articles in a topic was tried with FFX and FFX-2 (since demoted), but I think the Aria of Sorrow model is the best practice because it treats the original gane as the main topic. This follows the article structure more closely, which is what I understand to be a distinguishing factor of a what constitutes a topic. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC))

Chiming in on the length of Portal 2, I think that the "Announcement" and "Promotion and release" sections should be split from "Development" into it's own level 2 section. I think that will help with readability and trim that section down. The "Reception" section is a beast though. I think there's far too much in there. I would split off what you can to other articles, like the character ones, and trim what is left down to five paragraphs. There are so many reviews out there we have to be selective of what we cite. We can't mention everyone's reaction to the game, nor do we have to comment on every aspect of the game. We just summarize the good and bad highlights. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC))

I don't know about the Announcement but Promotion and release seems like a good section to split off. It would be kinda like what Halo 3 has. GamerPro64 01:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

To draw from another example, most full-fledged film articles bundle their release section into another section (c.f., Star Trek: First Contact) and I've tried to follow a similar structure with AAA games. You don't necessarily have to have subheads unless of course you have the content. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the parallels to film articles. But re-reading my comments, I don't think I was clear with my idea. I meant to say that the content in "Announcement" and "Promotion and release" would go well together in a new level 2 section rather than as sub-sections of "Development". Announcement content sounds like it ties in with promotion to me. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC))

This makes sense - I've grouped them (but not split off yet). --MASEM (t) 17:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

As to avoid further issue on this, I think I'm not going to worry about splitting off unless I get serious resistance to its length at GA/FA. If I do get that, I have a plan from the suggestions above - the marketing of Portal 2 (possibly portal 1 too, but we'll see) - but I'd rather not split and only trim out from the characters as those articles are expanded and put into place. But as for input, is there a general agreement that we could possibly make a Aperture Science article (is it notable enough and could we have enough outside the fiction of it) that would likely include discussion of Cave and Carolyn? --MASEM (t) 15:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I actually have more than enough references for Cave, so I could make a Cave article today if I wanted. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

And as for Aperture Science, I'm pretty sure that we could salvage something. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Just another two cents, if you have stuff for both Cave and Aperture Science, why not group them both into the latter rather than spinning out two articles from it? It might avoid some redundancy among articles. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

For the same reason why we have Rapture and Andrew Ryan. The reception info for Aperture is irrelevant to Cave, and vice versa. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

History of role-playing video games

There's a similar problem at History of role-playing video games. SharkD  Talk  00:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I see problems like {{Citation needed}} tags everywhere. But, what exactly is you're problem? GamerPro64 18:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Given the context, I'm guessing size. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 18:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the article and besides the size of the "1990-1994: Early Golden Age" section being a little too big, I think that references should be taken care of. GamerPro64 19:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the article has nearly 450 references and is over 250K in size. SharkD  Talk  19:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

So I was right! Basically, I'd definitely suggest making some splits, maybe of Western and Japanese RPGs. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Glass Joe at FAC

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Glass Joe/archive1 - Please contribute. I just hope that if it fails, it's not due to lack of response. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 00:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Geez, small sized Featured Articles are becoming popular for this project. Its even small than thatgamecompany. Yet bigger then MissingNo. GamerPro64 00:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Which reminds me- thatgamecompany is at FAC as well; it probably will pass but the more reviewers the merrier! --PresN 00:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thatgamecompany has had one of the smoothest FACs I've ever seen. Each time it's bumped up to the top of my watchlist, it has another support vote. It's unheard of these days; it's refreshing to see that it's still possible. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 12:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Coverage of female characters in video games

I'd like to address the issue that there's no easy way to find significant characters that are protagonist of notable video games. I'm dissatisfied with Category:Female video game characters which is being used to list only stand-alone articles about female characters. But there are other characters that have received significant third-party coverage at reliable sources and have made an impact in the video game scene (like April Ryan from The Longest Journey or Yorda from Ico), which aren't included in the category because they're discussed inside their respective video game articles or in lists of characters (see April Ryan).

I have a proposal that can be summarized this way:

1. Create categories to tag video games with significant female characters. It should need to include just video games having a female character that has received media attention from reliable sources.
2. There actually should be two categories, not one: playable characters and NPCs that have a major role in the storyline. This way the categories would provide additional information above just "this is a female character".

There's clear interest in such a compilation of female characters; a "populate" tag was recently added[12] to Category:Female video game characters in an attempt to find more characters, and several categories and lists of female characters have been created at various times (see Category:Video games featuring female protagonists, List of video games with female protagonists, List of video games with female antagonists). But this goal is not easy to achieve: those lists have regularly been deleted or challenged for deletion as they provide too broad criteria for inclusion and would likely grow without control.

My proposal is the creation of two new categories or lists that I think would not suffer the same fate: Category:Video games with female playable characters and Category:Video games with female main characters. As I explained in the category talk page, an strict inclusion criteria would make those lists useful - the first one by avoiding user-generated or computer-generated characters from RPGs, and the second one by including only notable characters that have received coverage in reliable sources, but not enough for a stand-alone article. I ask you fellow Wikipedians at this project what do you think of this proposal, and what would be the best approach to solve the problem.

(Disclaimer - I've already posted this request at the WikiProject Fictional characters, but it seems to have been misunderstood as a proposal to classify all female characters). Diego Moya (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest we leave it as is. If there are list articles that feature both male and female, then we dont categorize it. And i didn't misunderstood. like i said, i said things as they came, the idea i disagreed with and i disagreed with the minor points you added.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we should categorize people in lists that aren't notable enough for a full article. If they aren't notable for an article, they aren't notable for the category. That's it. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 23:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:RCAT says "Redirects to sections of minor character lists should generally only be categorized within that fictional setting, and not in the wider fictional categories." --Mika1h (talk) 00:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

As an alternative, I would not be surprised if there are enough references to have an article on the general idea of "female vg protagonists" such that a list article could be created to identify the major ones - not only those that have their articles but the ones that are minor but have some coverage to be included. As long as the sourcing is focused on the fact that this was a female protagonist rather than male or what that effects on the game, rather than just the fact they happen to be female. --MASEM (t) 02:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

That may actually pass. but depends on the sources.Bread Ninja (talk) 03:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

If these are "characters that have received significant third-party coverage at reliable sources and have made an impact in the video game scene" as you say, why not make them separate articles? Andrevan@ 09:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

If there is, then it could potentially make an article depending on how much coverage there is. But if it just mentions one character and they're inpact (not directly related to VG) than its best to put that info in the respected articles, not make a new one.Bread Ninja (talk) 09:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

That's the idea. The characters I have given as examples (Amaterasu, April Ryan, Yorda, Galatea) don't qualify for complete character articles, which makes it difficult to find them. Nonetheless they have made a verifiable impact with respect to portrayal of femininity and/or gender studies, so there should exist a way to find them based on this criterion. Diego Moya (talk) 10:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yea, to me, even if you can find a couple secondary sources on a specific female character, if that can only give you a 3-5 paragraph article at best (which you add in primary sourcing), that's not good. Establish that female characters in VG is a specific topic of interest, and then you can add a list of examples of noted female characters like that likes above. --MASEM (t) 12:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Point taken. Thx. I thought that was already established by Category:Female_video_game_characters, [13] and Portrayal of women in video games, but I will gather a collection of reliable sources that support my proposal. Diego Moya (talk) 13:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

For some context, we once had an article on Krystal, the blue vixen introduced in Star Fox Adventures. The original article had lots of good citations, expression of notability, development history, cultural impact, etc. - all the stuff that (at least at the time) you'd have wanted to see in a good article on a notable character. But even then, there were lots of arguments about whether she REALLY was so notable, and her article eventually got sliced up and merged into a list of characters in the Star Fox universe. I believe the Pokemon argument was used several times in that discussion. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

This does not look like it has any "good citations, expression of notability, development history, cultural impact, etc." I don't know what you are talking about. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

(Offtopic) I know this is WP:OTHERSTUFF, but I can't believe that we have Category talk:Video games featuring anthropomorphic characters and that a category for female characters meets so many problems. Diego Moya (talk) 20:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Because a videogame featuring anthropomorphic characters is more interesting then a videogame featuring a female character. Nowadays, there are many more video games with female lead characters. Listing them all in a category or a list article would be too much. "Category:Female video game characters" only features female characters with full articles because listing every single list or game or whatever that has a female character in it would be too much. There would be no reason for that.

If you think a character is notable, but does not have an article, then make it, and it can be added in the category. It seems like the only reason you want this new categorization is to add it to your article, Galatea (video game), which is bordering on notability itself. Find sources that talk about the subject. If enough of the sources talk about the character itself, then it might have a split article, and can have these categories. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 20:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, Galatea is a reason why I'm pushing this classification - but not to promote the article but because what it represents. In fact I want to learn about other articles in the same class; I wan't to know what interesting characters have received favorable reviews from critics, without the constraint that they appear in a video game series or A-class blockbuster, which is the only way a whole article can be created for the character. My concern is not having the Galatea article listed, is having a way to find those other articles that I know exist but I don't know where they are. Nobody so far has proposed a way in which this need can be satisfied. (Also, I severely doubt there are more games with notable female playable characters than games with anthropomorphic characters, given the issues with the portrayal of females in video games, and that every single non-human character that talks is anthropomorphized). Diego Moya (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

@Blake: Thanks for reminding me. I guess my recollection of the quality of that article was wrong, but I do recall there being far more encyclopedic content about Krystal at one point. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

By definition categories and lists should contain clear inclusion criteria, they're blunt yes/no tools with limits. Unless there is a clear defintion it is better not to use them and I can't see a clear definition here. Someoneanother 23:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Reminder about circular sourcing

Hey guys, just a reminder to y'all, since I got one myself: be aware of circular sourcing. As we've gotten a whole lot better at referencing and expanding our topics, a lot of pubs are pretty much cribbing it. Kotaku's recent bio on Bungie is cut from the whole cloth of Bungie and Pathways into Darkness (to the point that they totally leave out Myth, in part because those articles aren't as good in quality.) Be vigilant! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Another potential issue to look out for is the possibility of mistaken deletion attempts by people mistaking the Wikipedia article for a copyright violation of the other article. I remember reading years ago that the Water well article was up for deletion as copyright violation but was closed when it was shown that the info was on the Wikipedia article years before the article is was alledglly copying Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Water well (2nd nomination). That was dealt with quickly but it may be best to stay on guard for simmilar situations.--76.66.185.169 (talk) 00:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Obstinate user

User:Fufufufufufufuf created an article called Athanaton, the article was moved from the article space by an Admin and userfied. I disabled the category fields on the page - as per WP:UP#NOT - and added the userpage tag, twice. Each time the user has reverted my actions and re-added it to the categories. Could do with an Admin or user with experience of this to chip in and stop it appearing like a Me vs Him edit war. - X201 (talk) 12:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Mfd notice of Wikipedia:WikiProject Koei Warriors Games

I have listed Wikipedia:WikiProject Koei Warriors Games for deletion at WP:MFD. Please comment here for any concerns. Thank for your time. Regards, JJ98 (Talk) 02:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Daggerdale

The game is brand new, but Dungeons & Dragons: Daggerdale is kind of a trainwreck. Could anyone take a look at the article with an eye for improvement? The main user who has been working on it is kind of newish and may need some help as far as WP:OR and WP:V in particular. 108.69.80.43 (talk) 02:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Robin Hunicke

Do people feel that Robin Hunicke is sufficiently notable in the video game industry to have her own article? I suggested the idea of merging her article into Thatgamecompany (her current employer), but others don't seem to agree with this proposal. Please understand that I'm not trying to lobby for getting rid of Hunicke's page, and if the consensus is that her bio should stay as its own article, I'm fine with that. Richwales (talk · contribs) 20:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Since the discussion has already started there, please leave your comments at Talk:Thatgamecompany so as to keep it centrally located. --PresN 21:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

New to the VG project

I'm entirely new editing Wikipedia in general. I saw that there was a clean up project for video games, one of the loves in my life, and I'd like to see what I can do to help. Thing is, I don't have the slightest inkling of what to do or where to start. I'm pretty sure this isn't the place to put something up like this, but it is closely relevant. If anyone could give me some pointers or help, maybe a direction to start, I'd be very grateful. Gamefreak1346 (talk) 00:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you link the article to the discussion so there can be opinions on how to improve the article? GamerPro64 01:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Gamefreak. A good place to start is by looking at the Wikipedia:Five pillars article, which, in a very small space, tells you pretty much everything you need to know as a beginning editor. You might also want to check out the WikiProject Video games article guidelines, which summarize how things are done in this section of Wikipedia. After that, all you've got to do is find an article that interests you and make an edit. Even the small act of adding a comma to a run-on sentence is a help. If you want to see the best articles our project has produced, look no further than WP:VG/FA, which lists our 100+ Featured articles. Hope this helps. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Welcome aboard! You will find that there is a lot to do with the over-30,000 video game articles on Wikipedia. Don't feel like you have to tackle the entire wiki-world at once; I started with one article (about 3 years ago to just about this day, my very first edits were on the improvement of the 1986 video game Zanac) and then moved on to others as I gained more experience on how the wiki markup, Manual of Style, and editing guidelines work. You have a lot of good people who are willing to answer questions and/or concerns that come up. –MuZemike 22:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Nintendo 64 Logo.svg

Hello, can i have the source of this file because the currently source is dead. And you have a problem in the title of Nintendo 64 with "Fouad2000". --82.234.134.207 (talk) 14:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed the incorrect title. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Street Fighter II cleanup and split.

I'm considering in splitting up the Street Fighter II, as well Super Street Fighter II, into five different articles.

• Street Fighter II could split up into the following:
  • "Street Fighter II: The World Warrior" (or just Street Fighter II) - Would cover the original game and its SNES port, as well as the licensed ports U.S. Gold released (and probably the Game Boy version).
  • "Street Fighter II: Champion Edition" - Would cover the second arcade game, the PC Engine and X68000 versions, as well as the versions included in the SNES and Genesis ports of Hyper Fighting. Not sure if we should include the prime mark on the title since it wasn't as prevalent as it was in Japan.
  • "Street Fighter II: Hyper Fighting" - Would cover the third arcade game, the SNES port released as "Street Fighter II Turbo", and the Genesis port released as "Special Champion Edition".

Super Street Fighter II would be split as well, with a dedicated article to "Super Street Fighter II Turbo", which I think is different enough from the original to warrant coverage. It also doesn't make much sense to have a separate coverage for Street Fighter Anniversary Collection and not Hyper Street Fighter II. It's like having an article for a DVD movie set without one for the actual movie. I mainly doing this to make coverage about specific versions (especially home ports) easier. Jonny2x4 (talk) 04:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I've just moved all the "Super Turbo"-specific content from Super Street Fighter II into its own article (Super Street Fighter II Turbo). Feel free to argue against the bold move, but you have to admit it's a lot less confusing. Jonny2x4 (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Definitely support these splits. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 04:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Street Fighter II: Champion Edition is done. Street Fighter II: Hyper Fighting will be next. If I can't finish it tonight, it'll most likely be up tomorrow. Jonny2x4 (talk) 22:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Split is almost complete

Now we have the following articles.

• Street Fighter II
• Street Fighter II: Champion Edition
• Street Fighter II: Hyper Fighting
• Super Street Fighter II
• Super Street Fighter II Turbo

I will still need to write a specific article about Hyper Street Fighter II, and then moved away all the "sequel"-specific information in Street Fighter II to their corresponding articles, so that it covers only the first game and ports of that specific version (like the first SNES game). I'm hoping the lack of opposition is due to silent approval and not because of lack of interest. Jonny2x4 (talk) 04:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• • Hyper Street Fighter II is now done. These all the Street Fighter II until another big version comes along (unlikely at this rate). Jonny2x4 (talk) 00:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Not knowing that this thread started, I have made a comment or two on the various article talk pages. –MuZemike 23:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that the articles should have been split off. Their current state discusses very little real-world information that is different from the original SFII. Without development and reception sections specific to each version, I don't see each article satisfying WP:N and our guideline for remakes. My two cents. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 02:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC))

You could make a borderline case about how Champion Edition and Hyper Fighting are "barely" different from The World Warrior, but there are more differences between Super and Super Turbo than there are between Pac-Man and Ms. Pac-Man, and like I previously wrote in the Super Turbo talk page, Super Turbo is still played in various tournaments, even after the release of the supposed "sixth installment" HD Remix. "Real-world information" is often Wikispeak for quotemining so-called "professional" game critics, regardless of their actual qualifications. I'll say the Street Fighter Collection and Street Fighter Anniversary Collection articles are both more redundant, since they're basically compilations of past games and the latter is just the U.S. PS2 version/Xbox port of Hyper Street Fighter II with Street Fighter III: 3rd Strike throw-in as a bonus game. Jonny2x4 (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

While Ms. Pac-Man is basically an upgraded Pac-Man, the games both have a decent amount of unique information about their respective development and reception. This is not the case with the SFII games. If the articles are a work in progress, then that's another story. But if not much else is available, then I think the content is better presented in a consolidated form. Regardless, I consider "real world information" to be content that focuses on a game's development and reception. The gameplay and in-game details are larger cosmetic to me. Not a view shared by every one, but a view I hold nonetheless. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC))

I think that most of the articles split out probably have enough information not already present. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 23:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Big Fat Simulations

I would be grateful for some help with Big Fat Simulations -- Thomas888b (Say Hi) 07:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Is the company notable? I see articles that may make Office Jerk a notable topic, but I would expect this company article to be a redirect to that title as notability is not inherited, none of the company's other games appear to have notability, and the company is only mentioned in passing for Office Jerk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ost316 (talk • contribs)

Only search hits are either primary sources, directory entries, or passing mentions from Office Jerk; which is probably notable [14], but not the developer. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussions at Mortal Kombat (2011 video game)

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Mortal Kombat (2011 video game)#Blanking referring to the removal of pre-release reception information and trimming of the lead. While this talk page also needs more users' comments, there is also another Talk:Mortal Kombat (2011 video game)#Characters list. It talks about how should the characters be list or if they should be listed, and such section already had dozens of changes ever since the article was created. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 15:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Features on the Newsletter

Does anyone have ideas for Features on the Newsletter? Likewise, any suggestions for an editor to interview (besides Gary King)? GamerPro64 20:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Well damn, we've practically done every single topic under the sun for feature, haven't we? I suppose there's some merit to an article on the actual process of promoting VG content, although a lot of that is covered by more general guides. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps something could be written on Good and Featured topics? For example, how to define a scope, create a repeatable format, stay motivated during such a long project, build from WPVG's past F/GTs and so on. We don't have that many FTs (5) these days, but our GT collection (11) is pretty respectable. Mr. Fuchs above me, PresN, Masem and other active WPVG members have a fair amount of experience with the concept; one of them might want to volunteer for the article. I think it would be an interesting read. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

OK. I think that a feature on FTs and GTs can work. How about someone to interview? GamerPro64 02:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Gary's still not willing? :P I'll start working on the FT/GT draft this week, anyone can chime in and help, of course. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Alright then. I got New Age Retro Hippie for an interview so this quarter's issue is covered. GamerPro64 19:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll help out here and there as I can. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC))

Famitsu review archive

Hey guys.

Some editors might remember the Famitsu Scores Archive page that went down some time ago that housed a fairly large archive of Famitsu scores going back a few years, but I've recently found another site which has a list of every game that has ever received a score of 30 or higher in the magazine's history (as opposed to old archive's 35 or higher), so it has a few more games that we weren't able to find scores for before. It's in Japanese, but running it through Google translate will make the titles recognizable at least. This information could be useful for articles with little Japanese reception, or no reception at all if the game was Japanese-only.

http://www.ne.jp/asahi/dq/dq/meisaku/1986.html Nall (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Very cool. I wish sites like this included the score's publication dates though. That would really help us a lot. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC))

I have a feeling some information is missing here...for example, Super Mario Land scored less than 30? According to this, The Final Fantasy Legend is the second highest scoring game for the original game boy? Okay holy cow apparently it was.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, It's possible that it's missing some scores, or it could be that Mario Land was just never reviewed (not sure why it wouldn't be, but it's possible they just never gave it a formal critique, which is rare, but I guess it's possible). I'm just gonna put the Google Translated link up to save some people some clicks. Nall (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Super Mario Land certainly wasn't the best Mario game ever. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 18:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't be dissing my Mario Land :) Can these scores really be verified, though? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Cover artworks by country of origin.

I recently got into an interesting discussion with another user about the subject of video game cover artworks. He insists that video game cover artworks should be used based on their country of origin (i.e. an article about a Japanese-developed video game should use a Japanese cover artwork). I can sort-of see where he's coming from, since most film articles usually use the theatrical posterfrom the film's country of origin. Same thing with book articles. And often times, the western cover illustrations of Japanese-developed games are not really accurate (the Mega Man series being a classic example). On the other hand, there's overseas versions of games that are so radically modified from their native releases (like Renegade and Flying Warriors) that they might as well be completely separate games. Not to mention there's also Japanese-developed games like Rolling Thunder 3 and Snake's Revenge that never received native releases. Still, I agree that we should use the native cover illustrations and only use that of another region in the aforementioned special cases. Jonny2x4 (talk) 05:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The official WP:VG rules for cover art are: if there's an English language version of the game, put in a cover in English. Else, the native country. Think that the Europe/US cover is better than the other one? WP:STOPCHANGINGIT. As the English WP, we don't put the Japanese cover art since almost none of the readers would have seen it, and the stated purpose of the infobox image is for identification of the subject. Putting a foreign-language cover breaks that argument, and leaves no reason to be using a copyrighted image. --PresN 05:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I already know about the official rules. I'm just wondering why video games are given a different treatment from films and novels. The Big Boss, Nikita and Seven Samurai all use posters from their native countries. Jonny2x4 (talk) 05:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

There is also Final Fantasy series where certain ones didn't release in English and were originally renamed. I personally think its best to keep the original cover from whatever nation. I understand we have to be English focused, but i don't think we have to place the English cover instead of whatever country of origin the given media is jsut because we got an english version. A cover of the original might give help be more nuetral. But then again, the covers don't always change so drastically unlike covers. I don't think its worth fighting about it a lot. But it could help be more neutral.Bread Ninja (talk) 07:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I think films are a little different from video games though, in that often times films are usually seen in their native language across the world and simply use subtitles; video games are modified for each different region, and using a Japanese language cover may not reflect the version that was released throughout the rest of the world. It's our job to be an English encyclopedia, so for better or worse, we should continue to use the English language boxarts to better illustrate the game in question to our readers. Nomader ^(Talk) 07:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I dont think its because of that reason. And i dont agree with the analogy of "for worst" we stubbornly use english cover. Again, i'm not really looking for that big of a change, but at least keep your reasoning up to par.Bread Ninja (talk) 07:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Regardless on why the other projects do what they do, we have a good reason to keep doing what we do. Fair use has gotten more stringent the past 5 years and I don't think the trend will stop. I'm sure there are those on the project that think we shouldn't even have fair use covers in infoboxes. That being said, I think we should go with the strongest fair use rationale, which would be an English release cover.

But if we want to know "why", we should invite the other projects to this discussion or seek out the answer on their talk pages. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC))

I don't quite see how the English release cover would have the 'strongest fair use' rationale. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It would be the most recognizable/identifiable to an English-speaking audience. And identification purposes has been a main reason behind including covers in articles. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC))

I don't agree with that in this case, if the original cover appears. Sure, it could potentially be the most recognizable. It just seems a little too subjective. Most recognizable to who though? First time readers, or potential fans (which ironically might ask for the original cover). I believe it should be a case by case sort of thing. The most recent games, probably won't do much change, but the older game articles back in the 70s and 80s that were originally from a foreign country might serve better to use the original.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

We always approached article content from the angle that the reader is a layman. That being said, I don't see why we should treat images any different than prose in this respect.

In regard to the "case by case" aspect, yes, we should always look at each case individually to apply the best treatment. But there is nothing wrong with having a general practice that we apply regularly. Even then, fair use and mass identification should still be considered.

Bringing this up again, do we know why the other projects do what they do? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC))

I've been around a few of them that seem to focus on a cover art of a specific one. Though the novel has had some mention of it. THe rest...i'm not entirely sure. However, it doesn't seem like a bad idea.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Scalable navboxes

I would guess that many VG editors have wide-screen monitors, and WP is one of the few websites that doesn't force a screen width, instead scaling to fit. Our current standardized navboxes leave tons of whitespace across the screen, at least when there aren't very many entries per heading. I came across this Crytek navbox, which on my screen left like 12" of empty screen to the right. I reformatted it, grouping links horizontally, also adding links and an image. The biggest thing is it is scalable, so that no matter how wide your screen is, the links look half-way decent and maintain consistent groupings while filling the space (see this version, try adjusting your browser width to see it scale). I would like to know opinions on the idea. Currently the code is unsightly so that I could get the groupings right, but if people like the idea we could make a template. There may be better layouts in general, but I can't think of a better way to keep consistent groupings and keep whitespace down. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

THe Crytek one should be organized horizontally, possibly with columns along the top instead of rows going down the side. SharkD  Talk  08:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

E3 Reminder!

Lots of new games are likely to be introduced over the next 3-4 days. From last year, things to remember:

• Announcements with only a title, platform(s) and anticipated release date do not make for good articles. This will likely be the case for most games that are introduced new at the keynotes, but more info may come later in the week. We don't need to rush to have info out there immediately.
• If the game is a sequel or part of the series, and there's limited information on the game, a section in the original game or the series article is better than a new article.
• If the game is a new IP by a specific studio, and there's limited information, info can be put on the developer's page.
• However, salting a redirect for any new game is always a good idea. Just make sure you watch these.

It would probably be very helpful that if you do create new articles or even redirects during this week to list them on the New Articles page, so that we can review after the week is over and make sure that there's not too much fluff and redirect where possible. --MASEM (t) 15:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

One that grounds could someone please redirect Halo 4.--76.69.169.220 (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

PlayStation Vita, and Project Café will also need future attention. « ₣M₣ » 01:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll make a comment as far as the next Halo game is concerned on Talk:Halo 4. As far as Project Cafe is concerned, I think that will stay separate; unsure about the new PlayStation console, though (eventually, it will have its own article, but, as with all the other years, there should be something substantive there before making a separate one). –MuZemike 01:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Both Vita and Cafe have had previous discussion, yes largely rumors but also discussing the business decisions for these systems and platforms. New confirmed hardware is less a problem with new confirmed games, since the consoles *will* be covered. --MASEM (t) 02:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The Vita actually was an article for several months under different titles originally created in early Decenber 2010. It was originally at PlayStation Portable successor and then Next Generation Portable and survived an AFD in January. I don't see any reason to merge that one and I think there is enough one the Cafe to keep that seperate as well.--76.69.169.220 (talk) 02:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Threshold for unreleased game articles

Can we finally just nail this down and save ourselves grief? We can't have as easy a bright line as WP:NFF, but how about "in most cases, unreleased video games that have not had in-depth previews from secondary sources should not have their own page"? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like something that would go well in Wikipedia:Notability (video games). I use to think we didn't need a specific notability page, but it seems like it would be pretty help about now. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 13:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC))

Also heading off at the pass: Project Cafe as "8th Gen"

As, unless all indicators have been wrong and Nintendo's not debuting new hardware today (we'll know in 1.5hr), we are likely going to have a new Nintendo console to work with. I have a feeling because it is the "next" console after the 7th gen Wii, somebody is going to try to categorize it as an 8th gen console. I'm going to suggest, given we've never really resolved the past discussion about how we are breaking about the generation articles, that we need to use constraint unless the press start calling it that specifically (particularly, if the rumors are right, this unit will only be, at best, equivalent to the 360 and PS3, and very difficult to call an 8th gen). --MASEM (t) 14:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, Its now called the Wii U and its being called an 8th gen console on the article. Should there be a note on the talk page to say not to call it an 8th gen console yet? GamerPro64 20:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It depends on who is calling it an Eighth generation console. If it is people on message boards or the person opinion of people on the talk page then there should be a note warning against its use. If However, it is reliable sources such as IGN, GameSpot, etc using the term that would mean that the eighth generation is getting mainstream use outside of Wikipedia and in that case we don't need the note and should in fact call it an eighth generation console.--76.69.169.220 (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I put in an edit notice about the issue (yay admin tools); the statement was in the article but the source didn't state such. I'll check back to the page occasionally, but if a source pops up ping me or any other admin and I'll pull the notice. --PresN 22:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no source calling it eighth-gen; however virtually every article mentioning the new console describes it as "next-generation". Per WP:CALC, I would imagine it is perfectly reasonable for us to assume that eight comes after seven.--Dorsal Axe 14:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Except that video game journalism has made "next gen" a loaded word simply to be "the next console from X". The generation articles are based on major shifts in hardware and software, and the Wii U, 3DS, and Vita aren't really that. This is why the whole "generation" thing is really bad for us because its a poorly defined term. --MASEM (t) 14:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Blackwater

Blackwater (videogame) is a bit of a mess - came across it as a newly created unreviewed article (a tag the new article creation wizard automatically applies); it is notable in itself, but I'm not sure if the content is valid - I suspect WP:COPYVIO, but that's just a hunch. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure if it's notable or just flash controversy to be honest. The reports on Google News don't inspire the most confidence on the matter.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you have the CEO of a company that specialises in killing people talking about a game, that is something that you don't see everyday. Though I do admit the notability of the game isn't entirely concrete, and it might perhaps be somewhat lacking in various criteria that would make it notable. I suggest tagging it with the {{Gng}} template, and see whether additional mentions in third-party sources surface in the next few days. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Please help improve Development of Duke Nukem Forever

I'd like to see some more eyes on and updates to Development of Duke Nukem Forever, based on what has actually transpired, especially in the section about 2010-2011. I could change tenses and such but I'm not sure what demo was shown where and other information like that. It will be very interesting to look back on all this info now that the game is about to actually be released, and new background info might come out as well. Grandmasterka 04:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I fixed a lot of the tense issues with the article, but the 2010-2011 section and possibly the lede need to be re-written so that they reflect the most important information about the development process, and not just a running commentary on what was being announced at the time the article was being edited. Grandmasterka 05:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Mario games on 3DS

Perhaps I'm missing something here, so I thought I'd ask you all. I noticed User: Jaguar recently created the article Super Mario Bros 3DS. However, isn't that the same game as in the article Super Mario (Nintendo 3DS)? Or are they different? I know at one point Miyamoto said something about there being both 2D and 3D games, but I thought the only one that was really officially announced was the latter article. Additionally, Jaguar's sources in the article weren't loading for me, and when asked, he told me they were definitely 2 separate games, and that E3 definitely had info on both.

I followed E3 pretty closely, and Mario games are usually pretty big news. Am I really missing something? Or does one of these need to be deleted? Sergecross73 msg me 19:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It's the same game. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 19:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I've redirected it. Seeing as there is no question about whether an article for this game already exists, I see it as an uncontroversial move. --Dorsal Axe 19:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see I'm not going crazy. I notified the article creator of this discussion too. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 19:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It's the same game? Are you sure that some 11,000 results on Super Mario Bros. 3DS are merely errors? Even if the preview appeared in the Official Nintendo Magazine? They can't be the same game. The screenshots may look the same, but there haven't really been many screenshots released for Mario Bros. yet. This source for example officially announces that Super Mario Bros. 3DS is going to be released. Unlike most sources, it isn't compuerised and Iwata, President of Nintendo said at E3 2011 "In the interests of adopting new technology for the Super Mario Bros. tradition, I am now making a new Super Mario Bros. game for the Nintendo 3DS system.". This game cannot be the same! Jaguar (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Also I have read in OMN's preview: "Super Mario 3DS is going to be cross between Super Mario 64 and Super Mario Galaxy whereas Super Mario Bros. 3DS has carries on the Super Mario Bros. genre." - Hence they are both completely different games! Jaguar (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why would Nintendo be making two Super Mario games for the 3DS at the same time, unless they're making both a 3D Mario game and a 2D Mario game? And we don't even know that, according to the source. –MuZemike 20:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Wheres the link?Bread Ninja (talk) 20:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing on ONM that fits the quote tha Jaguar posted. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I've nominated the article for speedy deletion. Nothing in the cited link suggests it is anything but a misinterpretation of Iwata's comment, taken literally. "Super Mario" and "Super Mario Bros." are interchangeable names for the same franchise of games; Iwata's comment does not suggest he is developing two different games and nothing was shown at E3 to suggest another title is in development. The cited source provides screenshots for the game which are actually from the other Mario title, lending credence to the likelihood that someone at ONM simply misunderstood the comment. I'd also like to note that if it turns out a 2D Mario is in development, it does not warrant its own article as no screenshots, trailers, or official media of any sort have been provided to suggest the game is in active development. ShadowUltra (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

If interchangeable, it would be best just to go ahead with a good faith redirect. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 23:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

FLC input requested

Hi-

It would be much appreciated if I could get some input at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs in Rock Band 3/archive1. The nomination has been up for a whole week now with only one relatively minor comment, and more input (whether for or against Featured status) would be much appreciated. I'm just starting to get concerned that the nomination will get forgotten and be declined due to a lack of comments.

Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Anyone? Please? There still hasn't been much input beyond a couple of comments about grammar, and now the page is working its way towards the bottom of the "new" nominations section. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd drop by to review it, but I'm afraid that my ability to judge the quality of a list is nearly non-existent. I wouldn't even know what to look for. Sorry; I understand your frustration. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry too much- FLC is slow, but they pretty much never drop nominations for not getting reviews- if nothing else the delegates run by and review it. I've had noms that took upwards of a month, and the oldest one there is 6 weeks right now. I'll try to drop by and review it. --PresN 22:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that's reassuring. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

RPG dialogue, voice acting, narrative dispute

See here, here, and here. The essence of the dispute is over whether Western RPGs or Eastern RPGs place more emphasis on spoken dialogue and narrative. SharkD  Talk  08:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No thoughts? SharkD  Talk  20:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Help keep a look at Dungeon Siege III

Hi there. Appears that Dungeon Siege III has been leaked and now one or more users feel that this has to be included at all costs, no matter that it's unsourced. I have to leave now, so I cannot keep an eye on it, so if someone could watch this situation and fix it if needed, it would be great. Regards SoWhy 14:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Semi-protected it (2 weeks), let us know if it continues. --PresN 19:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Template Assassin's Creed chronology

I would be grateful if someone takes a glance at the {{Assassin's Creed chronology}} template (history). The question is about positioning Assassin's Creed: The Fall comics. It takes place in the beginning of the 20th century (events with Nikolai Orelov) and at present times (events with Daniel Cross), so I moved it to the last position in the template, but both my edits were undone by an IP user. I'm beginning to doubt my facts so I ask somebody to check it up and to add the template to the watchlist. Greetings, --Sergey WereWolf (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

FAC - Terra Nova: Strike Force Centauri

Hey guys. Just wanted to point out that Terra Nova: Strike Force Centauri's at FAC; any reviews would be appreciated. The article isn't in danger of failing due to lack of response (it hasn't been up long enough), but more reviews are always better than fewer. I'll try to address any concerns promptly. Thanks. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• Anyone? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Updated the section title so it'll show up better in Recent Changes and Watchlists. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm on my final week of school so I'll probably review it on Friday. GamerPro64 01:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
      • I'll look forward to it. Also, thank you, Kiefer. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It's been a week since a comment was made on the FAC. I'm getting a bit concerned that it could be failed due to lack of response. GamerPro's review, as he said, should be up by Friday, but any other reviews would be greatly appreciated. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been busy; I'll review it tomorrow. --PresN 07:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate the help. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• SandyGeorgia and Nikkimaria have requested image reviews and a spotcheck for source adherence and/or plagiarism. If anyone has the time to look at that stuff, I'd really appreciate it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Destruction Derby

Hey all. My quest to create a Looking Glass Studios G/FT continues, and I have yet another question. Apparently, late in their life, LGS created a version of Destruction Derby for the N64, which was aptly called Destruction Derby 64. LGS was no stranger to ports, having created the Mega Drive version of Madden '93 and the N64 port of Command & Conquer. Here's the key difference: those ports don't have articles. My question is about what to do with DD64, in light of this. Was it different enough from the PS1 version to warrant a separate article? I don't know enough about the game to say. I've managed to dig up a bit of material on it, but it's going to be a stretch to craft a GA out of it. If anyone has some advice, I'd be grateful. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Never played any of the Destruction Derby games or know anything about them, but I'd say if you can't find enough information about DD64 to prove that it's different than DD, then it doesn't need its own article. Merge it in. --PresN 07:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

That was kind of what I was thinking. Still, I'd like to know a bit more before I make a decision. I can't tell if this game is an original title or just an upgraded port, like with Resident Evil 2 64. Even the few reviews I've found don't say. Anyone else have something to say? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I was going to comment here that it should probably be in a seperate article judging by the fact that it seems to have some separate reviews from IGN and GameSpot, but a closer look at those reviews shows that they should probably all just be one article. Essentially the main difference from the PlayStation version is that it has some sparks and looks and plays a bit better according to GameSpot, and IGN says that its physics are a bit worse. Nothing here really unique-- merge them into one article. Nomader ^(Talk) 19:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay. That's three people in agreement on this, so I'll just merge the article into Destruction Derby. Thanks for the help, guys. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of Mortal Kombat (2011 video game) still ongoing

The discussion regarding removal of pre-release reception from Mortal Kombat (2011 video game) is still ongoing with various users still commenting on that but no consensus achieved. The most current one is Talk:Mortal Kombat (2011 video game)#Various reception edits. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011's TFA

Tomorrow's VG TFA is Myst, the game that involves puzzles and not killing people (an oddity for this generation, isn't it?) GamerPro64 13:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey, if you screw up you either get trapped or Atrus calls you an idiot, so there are stakes. :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems like half of our TFAs are by David. Maybe that's because he's written 50% of our total FAs? Ha! Anyway, congratulations, yet again. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It's the psychic powers that come with arbitratorship. Prime Blue (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

That 50% figure has to be bullshit... and even if it isn't my two-year stint in teh courtz gives y'all a big chance to catch up! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk); 23:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

*cough* --MASEM (t) 23:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You're 17.8% of our total (25/140), and 10.2% of our TFAs (6/59, counting Myst). So, a pretty large chunk, yeah :) --PresN 23:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC) (I'm only 3.5%/1.7%)

Wow. Obviously, the 50% number was a joke, but those statistics are pretty huge. 25 VG FAs? 17.8%? That's amazing. Makes me want to work harder. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Super Nova

The usage of Super Nova is under discussion, see Talk:Darius Force.

65.94.47.63 (talk) 06:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Argument in LGBT characters in video games (please help)

A discussion about splitting information about specific LGBT characters in that article into a list article List of LGBT characters in video games. There wasn't a strong consensus for split, but the one who supported did it anyways. So I'm here to see if anyone can give there 2 cents so a stronger consensus can happen.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Also note that there wasn't consensus against the split either, and that the other option was to delete the content instead. Everybody there agreed to edit the article in some way, and at the talk page the reasons to do the split are explained. Diego Moya (talk) 10:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Not note worthy, but whatever. There isn't a strong consensus supporting the split, which is why i asked for people's 2 cents (whether its spliting or deleting, and reasons for deleting it are there as well).Bread Ninja (talk) 10:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm OK with gathering third opinions, I just didn't want people reading this call for comments to center too much in the existence of consensus or lack of it, since that's not the primary issue discussed; and I wanted to provide a direct link to the discussion. Diego Moya (talk) 10:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Plot trim needed

Seriously, can anyone help out? Dungeons & Dragons: Daggerdale#Plot just keeps getting longer and longer. 108.69.80.43 (talk) 12:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Just done some but for now I need sleep. Muskeato 01:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

LOL, thanks. 108.69.80.43 (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

HAL <-> Hal

I recently requested the article "HAL Laboratory" to be moved to "Hal Laboratory" to adhere to the Manual of Style rule of avoiding all capitals if a word is not an acronym or initialism – as official stylizations of company names, such as "NVIDIA", are reduced to lowercase in Wikipedia prose. I have received reasonable opposition for this move from The Rambling Man, so I'll start a more thorough discussion here to reach consensus. Prime Blue (talk) 22:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, the move of NVIDIA to Nvidia appears thoroughly flawed as it fails to meet WP:V, given the company refers to itself as NVIDIA. Why would Wikipedia decide to rename a company based on its own style guidelines when the company itself does not verify the name? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that both moves were justified. Wikipedia's Manual of Style has specific guidelines on how to treat official stylizations by companies: MOS:ALLCAPS and MOS:TM. That is, all capitalizations and special characters in normal words are eliminated here. Prime Blue (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and that's a guideline. WP:V is a policy. NVIDIA is known by nothing other than NVIDIA. No-one on planet Earth has ever called it Nvidia. Nor HAL -> Hal. Why "fix" the unbroken? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that verifiability does not apply here: if WP:V meant to render names solely as they appear in other sources, I guess MOS:ALLCAPS and MOS:TM would not exist. Even though you have retracted your opposition, some more opinions will be needed here, as this seems to be a move that people are likely to disagree with. Prime Blue (talk) 22:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Can't see anything wrong with either move. While we're on the subject, would moving Zeit² in line with MOS:TM need a discussion, or would WP:BOLD suffice?- X201 (talk) 07:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I think a move for that article could be justified with MOS:TM (which also lists Alien³ -> Alien 3). Prime Blue (talk) 12:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

IMO this case is closer to IBM than to NVIDIA. HAL is an acronym, as it comes from HAL 9000 (which stands for Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer). Not only that, the change to lowercase made it difficult for me to recognize the name (is this HAL in the name the HAL, or is it something else? I had to read the article to be sure). So it should be moved back to all caps. Not so for NVIDIA and Zeit², which should be simplified to more readable titles. Diego Moya (talk) 12:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that makes the MOS:ALLCAPS rule inapplicable here. Reverted the HAL -> Hal changes. Sorry for the inconvenience. Prime Blue (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Info Box improvement suggestion

Could we perhaps add a '<-Preceded by... Succeeded by->' field? When a game is in a series it would be a very handy way for the reader to see how the series evolves and improves according to technology. There are some games such as Supreme Commander which aren't straight sequels but 'spiritual successors', so the link between the old and the new needs highlighting even more in these cases. I make this suggestion simply because I frequently go to the info box naturally expecting to to be there. For an example, I believe similar fields exist in the Aircraft wikiproject. In this info box for the AM-35 engine, it lists a field for the next model, or successor to the engine (developed into):

AM-35
Type	Liquid-cooled V-12 piston engine
Manufacturer	Mikulin
First run	October 1939
Major applications	Ilyushin Il-2
Developed into	Mikulin AM-37

I'd suggest placing the new field underneath the 'Series' field of the Video game info box. I'd also suggest putting the 'Preceded by' field above the 'Succeeded by' field, as some game titles are very long and placing the fields side-by-side could compromise the box's width:

Developer(s)

Publisher(s)

Director(s)

Producer(s)

Composer(s)

Platform(s)

Release date(s)

Genre(s)

Mode(s)

Rating(s)

Series

Preceded by

Succeeded by

What do you guys think? Autonova (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

These fields were part of the infobox for a time, and they were dropped because they got out of hand. Since then, it has been suggested many times ([15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]), but it is usually opposed on the same grounds: no clear successors/predecessors when dealing with spin-offs, ports, rereleases, remakes, re-imaginings, same-day releases, etc., the fields cause unneeded edit wars, and navigation is provided by navboxes at the bottom of the articles (which almost all articles for series game have). Prime Blue (talk) 20:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah I see. I'd imagine certain series would be ambiguous and so would cause edit wars, but in those cases wouldn't the field just be hidden and unused, like one or two of the other fields such as 'Media/Distribution'? Surely the majority of game series have a main line of games which would be simple enough. I've been editing for years but I'm obviously relatively new when it comes to this discussion, so I'll leave it. Autonova (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with you if we hadn't had so many disagreements over the order of games. It's been our experience that if the field is available, then editors will use it for better or worse. Most games use to have a clear fictional and release chronology, but the spin-off and spiritual sequel trend has grown the last decade, especially in the more prominent series. And since gamers often have strong emotional ties to their favorite series, this mix of elements is unfortunately fodder for edit wars. :-\ (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC))

The Sims Online dispute

At Talk:The_Sims_Online#TSO_Restoration_Project, User:GhostV is arguing that a community of programmers trying to revive The Sims Online should be mentioned in the lead of the article. User:X-Fi6 has held counter to that view, arguing that it isn't notable enough to be placed in the article. He posted a request for outside opinions at the Sims task force, but that's pretty inactive so I thought I'd bring it up here. Comments would be most welcome to solve the dispute. Nomader (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

FUR

Does anyone have a proper FUR for File:Icewind dale 1 box shot.jpg, or can provide a new version with a proper FUR? Thanks! 108.69.80.43 (talk) 11:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that was quick!  :) 108.69.80.43 (talk) 11:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

This explains why it already had a new FUR by the time I saw the bot notification on my talk page. Thanks, Prime. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Infobox styling tweaks

Please see Template talk:Infobox video game#Styling tweaks for some suggested changes to the infobox which (finally) bring its metrics in line with contemporary infoboxes. Test cases provided. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The Irate Gamer

Hi, I know The Irate Gamer is not notable as long time ago but how long time would the page be protected to edit? The Irate Gamer is a popular rip-off of The Angry Video Game Nerd if you not know. Source to The Irate Gamer looks very difficult to find to make him notable like AVGN do.

• After search for:
  • "The Irate Gamer" interview: [21]
  • "the irate gamer" avgn [22]
  • "The Irate Gamer" wiki [23]

Egon Eagle (talk) 16:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused as to what you're asking. If it's not notable, a page shouldn't be created. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) After a quick look, I don't see any reliable secondary sources with broad coverage. Unless someone can give links to usable sources, I highly doubt the article would pass the standards of notability guideline. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

If we wait until The Irate Gamer get more attnetion like got interviews for examples USA Today, IGN or other newspaper he cuold be notable. Egon Eagle (talk) 16:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but until then there's no reason for an article. We don't create pages on the possibility something might happen--it pertains to events as well as coverage (WP:CRYSTAL). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyright concerns related to your project

This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located here.

All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. MER-C 09:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Mfd Wikipedia:WikiProject Age of Empires

The recent Mfd on the Age of Empires (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Age of Empires) led to closure as reported by Salvio "At the moment, I'm not seing a consensus to convert this WikiProject into a task force, but this close is not meant to stifle the ongoing discussion on the matter, which I leave to editorial discretion".

Perhaps this project would like to take the initiative here to look after this project, one way or the other? You could make it into a taskforce, or perhaps just make it a redirect here? Regards. --Kleinzach 02:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

No talk page messages from a member since 2008. It's dead and gone; I don't even think it should be taskforce-ified. It never had too much activity but it did have some and clearly people worked on AoE articles at some point . I'd say no point in deleting it; should be marked historical, removed from the sidebar, and left in case anyone ever wants to start it up again. --PresN 03:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Already done'd the historical preservation part. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 04:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Not yet. (It's currently marked inactive.) There is also an active project banner with about 40 links. If it's really dead and gone, the normal thing is to make a redirect. (This preserves the edit history etc.) --Kleinzach 05:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• The result of the MfD was keep. Apparently even if members are inactive you still can't delete a project. GamerPro64 13:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

No, actually, the closure deferred to 'ongoing discussion' (see above) which means that members here can decide what to do with it. --Kleinzach 23:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I've boldly redirected the main page and moved the talk page to an archive of WP:VG, and will shortly be removing the uses of the main WikiProject template. And to explain a little further: This is inline with the cleanup we've been doing at the WP:VG/IPC. Generally, we've either deleted or redirected the main pages of video games related WikiProjects (and deleted or archived the talk pages) which have become inactive. --Izno (talk) 04:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Best of E3 awards

I thought that the Best of E3 Awards were voted for by canvassing the votes of all (or at least a broad spectrum of) journalists at E3 and then issuing the awards. It turns out that that may not be the case. Non-US journalists are not allowed to participate, and in the weeks before the conference starts publications get private sessions with the games and publishers. The awards are decided upon by 35 websites/magazines. I now feel a bit uncomfortable about the fact that Best of E3 Awards are listed on WP articles. I've read/heard a couple of journalists saying that the winners are decided in the week beforehand, that its just a promotional thing because award stickers look good when the box is on the store shelf and that the judges are schmoozed to death by the publishers. Should we reconsider the awards appearance in articles, and perhaps more importantly, what people think the awards mean? - X201 (talk) 10:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

"I've heard" ... "a couple of journalists" ... "what people think" - come on, man, sources. --PresN 15:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Echoing PresN's comments, we would need sources criticizing the legitimacy of the awards. As it stands right now, most sources tout them as important. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC))

Agree with the above, although in general I don't find the prerelease awards that important to mention in the wake of real reception on release. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 11:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not unreasonable for the awards to be US-centric. E3 is an ESA show, and ESA is a US industry association, and the show is primarily for a US audience (most importantly, US retailers). International readers are free to discount the E3 show just as US readers probably gloss over others like TGS. I can confirm that the viewing/voting process is done before the show. This only makes sense, as E3 is only 3 days long, with hundreds of games on the show floor. It's a little naive to even assume that the judging could be performed "live", especially with the noise and crowds. The judges do travel around to publishers' offices to play the demos ahead of time (the Judges' Tour), in comfort and privacy and with regulated time limits. If you were to simply canvass journalists after the show, you'd have no guarantee that they played all the games (they probably didn't), much less to any degree that would make them a good judge of each (they're just looking for points to write in an article). This would bias the results towards the biggest, flashiest games with the most hype, even more so than usual, as that's where the journalists ordinarily spend the lion's share of their time. And of course schmoozing happens, everywhere in this industry and other industries too. So, the E3 awards aren't perfect, but they aren't any less reliable than any other form of award or reception. I see no reason to single them out. Ham Pastrami (talk) 21:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Halo 4 artwork

I found this poster on the Xbox website and it appears to be a poster version of the current artwork for the game cover, should we shrink it and upload it to put on the article? chris†ianrocker90 02:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Image-wise, the status quo tends to be: Use the logo until the actual cover art is released. You could use that poster if you want to, although I can't see how it would benefit the article, over the current logo only version. - X201 (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

It could be labeled "promotional poster". chris†ianrocker90 23:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Promo posters don't really have the same fair use strength as the final art or logo. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Operation Rainfall

Just a heads up that this new page might see a bit of vandalism since it's getting posted on lots of message boards and the campaign is growing. Please keep an eye on it if you can. Thanks! Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 11:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Help with japanese names in AH3

I added japanes names in Arcana Heart 3, but I need help with Kamui Tokinomiya, Mei-Fang, Yoriko Yasuzumi & Maori Kasuga.--Sasuke-kun33 (talk) 12:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Input needed on History of video game consoles (eighth generation)

Based on the AFD discussion of the above article, input is needed to determine if we should move it to History of video game consoles (2010-present) as to avoid the contentious "eighth generation" term until such a time that it is better established. --MASEM (t) 13:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Disagree - A year just isn't a safe qualifier either. Someone will say "Hey, the PS3 was still around in 2010, why isn't it in this list?" Everyone has their own opinions of course. Mine is that we're spending way too much time on semantics in the project and not enough actually improving what's here. There just isn't a solution at the moment. There won't be until the industry starts to categorize WiiU and other new handhelds. Until then this is an appropriate interim solution that will allow us to just put it to rest in the meantime. There's plenty to do elsewhere. --Teancum (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

So, what should happen when lots of editors support a situation which is against the core policy of WP:VERIFIABILITY? Diego Moya (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

As long as we clarify, first sentence of the lead, that the year designation is for the year of public release of the consoles described, there's no conflict. --MASEM (t) 17:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

<rant>I agree with Masem's approach as it applies to all our history of video game consoles. The idea of us nailing down defined generations is probably not going to happen since the industry has yet to do so. So many sources conflict as which generation is which.

There is almost no disagreement about generations from the 3-7th generations, though it can be a little fuzzy in the first two generations. The truth is that the term is well used, well sourced, and well established. Of course, the use of the term of the 8th generation is none of these things, though news sources are already calling the Wii U an 8th generation console.LedRush (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this is a good amount of agreement. But the amount of disagreement still makes nailing down generations on Wikipedia too difficult. It would be a gigantic effort to do it properly, and even then I doubt everyone would be happy with the result. But I digress, I now realize that my rant is too tangential to the topic at hand. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC))

Using academic sources and other RSs, we've already nailed down 1-7 generations. No effort required.LedRush (talk) 13:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

That being said, we don't need to keep approaching the information from a "generational" stand point. A fixed time frame let's us focus on things chronologically. If the PS3 was still around in 2010, then it should be in the 2010-present article. Another example is the PS1, which was introduced in 1994 and discontinued in 2006. Such a system should be in the 1990-1999 and 2000-2009 articles. My two cents.</rant> (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC))

This is going to sound a bit rude, so I apologize ahead of time. In the end this is why I don't bother in these discussions. Those who have been here longer get their way anyway, and in the end tons of time is wasted on things like this where energy can be put elsewhere. I'm fully aware of policies and such, but in the end it just ends up being how one group spins a policy to work for them over another. It comes off awful WP:BITEy, but I suppose nothing can be done about that. It's all just so frustrating that I tend to stay out of it as "having a voice" is really just lip service. --Teancum (talk)

Possibly true, but this is actually the one counterexample- every time this comes up, we all agree that the "generations" thing is bad and come up with nice solutions to "fix" it, then never actually do it because the history articles are a pain to write. --PresN 21:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

No, we don't all agree. In fact, I've never even seen agreement that the "generations" thing is bad. It works, it is used by our readers, academic sources and other RSs. Easy peasy.LedRush (talk) 13:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It's stuff like this that makes me disagree with reasoning like that... Sergecross73 msg me 16:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

If you had bothered to read the discussion, you'd see that I was referring to the the term "generation" and its use through generations 1-7. I have conceded that the term 8th generation is nascent, and I only find its use in connection with the Wii U and the unnamed nex-gen Sony and MS consoles.LedRush (talk) 22:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, we did come to an agreement. That I think it wasn't the best doesn't matter. You agreed with Masem about a change to move the articles and remove the controversial "generation" label (btw, if it wasn't controversial, it wouldn't keep coming up). IMO its not enough, but it sounds like from the last few statements you aren't even willing to implement the compromise you agreed upon.陣内_Jinnai 01:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)