Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 17

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 10 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20

Soul Calibur mass copyvio?

I've come to the conclusion that the "stages" and most of the "weapons" sections in all of the Soul Calibur characters were copied directly from the in-game description (such as this edit back in February(!)). Since I only have access to SC2, could someone check a few random pages and figure out what else is directly transcipted from the games so we can remove them? Nifboy 01:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Adoption policy?

I spend a lot more time reading wikipedia than I do editing it... sometimes I find articles about video games, or topics related to games such as game characters or websites. I was wondering what the policy is for adding games to WP:CVG. Is it OK for me to just go to the discussion page and add the CVG template, which would adopt these articles into this wikiproject? Or do they have to meet some kind of criteria first? - New User 10:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games pretty much explains everything. Thunderbrand 14:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

WIkiProject banner headers

Who else here thinks that all the various WikiProject templates (FF, Digimon, PCP, Nintendo, Legend of Zelda, Nintendo Wars, etc.) should be intergrated in to {{cvgproj}}? It would kind of be like the {{WPBiography}} template, where there's a one-line statement saying that "This article is supported by the such and such group." At the very least I would like to see the {{NESproj}} included - it's kind of awkward to have three banner headings for sub-sub-projects like Legend of Zelda and Nintendo Wars. Hbdragon88 20:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You read my mind — I noticed this with {{WPMILHIST}} and was going to suggest it myself. You have my full support. Pagrashtak 20:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Object - Video games is a very vast topic. GTA fans probably hate FF and vice versa (just today one of the "worst ideas" for an FF game mentioned at my forum was a GTA clone [1]) and both have nothing in common with the Supermario guys, which in turn has even less to do with the Sims and so on. It would just be an invitation for confusion and angry editing wars. Renmiri 21:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Set a parameter in the {{cvgproj}} template where you can specify an additional wikiproject. Something like:

{{cvgproj|class=B|importance=low|extraproj=Mario}}

where, in this example, the "This article is part of Wikiproject Mario" or whatever appears in the main CVG box box. -- Steel 21:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I definitely support this idea. In fact there are some other templates that I feel should be included, like the "this is a selected article of WPCVG" and "this article has had a WPCVG peer review" that should be included in the cvgproj template if it's possible.. But I haven't got the time to implement this at the moment... CyberSkull ?? :P jacoplane 21:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for the game-specific projects (FF, LOZ, Nintendo) but as for the Pokémon and Digimon projects, those projects also cover ancilliary parts of the franchises, like anime and manga. It may not be appropriate to combine their templates with the CVG template. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment The same would go for the Warcraft project. Havok (T/C/c) 06:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Or rather, several parameters: (example borrowing the "task force" designations from MILHIST)
{{cvgproj|class=B|importance=low|Nintendo-task-force=yes|Zelda-task-force=yes|selected=yes|old-peer-review=yes}}
Pagrashtak 23:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with selected- it shouldn't exist at all, in my opinion, since the only articles that are selected are GAs and FAs, but hey. Peer Review might be a hard one, as some articles have more than one. I am in favor of rolling the sub-project's boxes into the main one though. --PresN 00:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


If this general format looks acceptable, we can hammer out the details and add the other subprojects. The "class" and "importance" fields look like they don't work above, but this is because we are in the Wikipedia talk space and not the main talk space. You can preview the above code in the main talk space to verify that they still function. Pagrashtak 16:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that looks amazing! Good job! --PresN 16:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
The article class doesn't seem to be showing up. --Zeality 17:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, PresN. Zeality, read my note above regarding class and importance. I added a bold note at the top to make it more prominent. Pagrashtak 18:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Article class & importance are automatically deactivated in non-article namespaces. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be changed from "Nintendo" to "nes" as that's how that project refers to itself - its shortcut is at WP:NES and its banner header is titled {{NESproj}}. There also needs to be a parameter for pointing to old peer reviews - for instnace, the peer review for Link (The Legend of Zelda series) was at Link (Legend of Zelda). Other than that, great job! Hbdragon88 23:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that there was no parameter for old and current peer reviews, just requests, so I struck the suggestion out. Hbdragon88 23:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I've updated cvgproj with the selected, workshop, GCOTW, and peer-review parameters and marked the old templates as deprecated. I don't want to add the subgroups until we've discussed the following:

  • The subprojects mentioned on {{WPBiography}} and {{WPMILHIST}} are not full WikiProjects, but "task forces" or "work groups". Should our sub-projects remain and be referred to as WikiProjects or would they better be described as task forces or work groups?
  • Are the subgroups aware of the proposed change to cvgproj? Are there any objections?
  • Which subgroups should we incorporate into cvgproj? Do some subgroups cover articles outside the scope of WPCVG? If so, should their template remain completely separate, or used only when the cvgproj template is not present?

Pagrashtak 04:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

    • I like the new template, but there are many articles related to Nintendo that aren't directly related to video games. After all, Nintendo wasn't always a video game company, and has been involved in the music, anime, trading cards, food, and even transportation industries. Also, as Pagra mentioned, related WikiProjects should be contacted first before any changes are made.--TBCTaLk?!? 15:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Some wikiprojects (like Pokemon) cover non-game things, so they should still have their own box for those articles that don't have a cvg box. Articles that have the cvg box, though, should use this method of inclusion, imho. I'll get to work on contacting the subprojects right now, if any don't know about it. --PresN 15:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Allright, I left messages on what I think are all of the subprojects. A couple of them (Arcade, Tycoon) don't have templates to start with, but I informed them anyway. If there are any subprojects that aren't listed on the main page, someone tell them too, as I wouldn't know about them. --PresN 16:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, my only complaint is that the CVG and MK projects, while related, are generally independent. The CVG To Do list generally has absolutely nothing to do with any of MK articles, and the "this project supports..." bit is completely lost among the other tags, such as selected article bit. MK also covers stuff outside the usual jurisdiction of the CVG project (such as the films and TV shows); in looking over the discussion, I'd say that this is a common complaint. While I think they should stay separated, I do think it was a nice idea. (cross-posted on the MK page) EVula 16:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Based on WPMILHIST template, I guess? I'm afraid this proposal would reduce usability of WP:CVG by cluttering its categories and lists. Adding several hundreds of articles would be significant. I would object this proposal, since Wikiprojects were created in the first place because the number of articles became unmanageable, and I don't think we should step back and try to manage huge categories again.
Note- this proposal would not clutter WP:CVG, as any article that is having its tags merged is, by definition, already tagged as a CVG project article, making this a cosmetic change only. Any Mortal Kombat game article(for example), is already a CVG article inherantly. This is not the cvg project "taking over" the subprojects, this is jsut rolling all of the boxes into one. --PresN 18:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Considering WP:TES, it is a CRPG series, which is quite a specific genre, and WP:CVG seems to have (almost) no interest in them, for instance, I don't remember a single one being mentioned in the infobox for a long time, so TES articles and editors probably won't benefit a bit. If everyone goes this way, I think we'll consider accepting it, but if not, I'd rather object with the aforementioned reasons. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 16:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Before we go much further, am I right in assuming that no one has any problems with rolling in the selected, proposed cvgpr, old pr, workshop, etc. tags to the cvg template? The debate is only over the inclusion of the subprojects into the template, ne? --PresN 18:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I can't speak for everyone else, but I would agree with your summation of the debate. I think the other items (workshop, peer review, etc.) getting rolled into the CVG tag is a good idea. EVula 18:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Not exactly sure why. At least, the Nintendo Wars, Legend of Zelda, and Nintendo WikiProjects have the same exact text - which can get repetitive. LoZ even hast he importance and class, which isn't really necessary - all ratings are handled by the main cvgproj template. Hbdragon88 20:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I've nothing against ratings by WPCVG, only against integration of wikiprojects - their very purpose is subdivision so that articles and categories can be managed easier. I think it would be better for TES-related articles to be mostly discussed by people who at least are familiar with TES, FF-related by FF players, and so on. If we pass it all back to WP:CVG, it won't deal attention to them.
For instance, look at the official Wikipedia:Peer Review. It's useless. You get one bot response, and, if you're lucky, a one-line comment from someone concerned, usually arriving there from the article's talk page. Now compare it to well qualified and insightful peer review at WPMILHIST. There concerned people don't have to go through piles of bios they have no interest in, and comment on what they are familiar with.
The same with games. If people ask at WP:CVG, they will maybe get some response from some player, or even not a player. But, for instance, I must say the peer review of one of our articles had exactly one good and really on-topic comment, a suggestion that the lead might be broken up into two paragraphs. Good, but not much. If WP:CVG will try to work on categorizing articles inside other WPs scope, it will come up with just copying general guidelines with nothing to add. So I think it's better if people first address the most relevant project, then the others.
One may compare it with WP Military History taskforces, but there's one difference. WPMILHIST has Kirill Lokshin and a lot of other well qualified, mature and respectful people. Many of the participants are former army, navy or air force members, professional engineers or historians, or other interested, dedicated and knowledgeable people. That's why WPMILHIST capabilities are way higher than ones of other wikiprojects and it can organize work in this form. I think it's pretty obvious what would happen if a gamer club would try to use the same management style as ASF; and I don't think something different would happen here in a corresponding case. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 21:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm kind of neutral on this. What's wrong with keeping the images for individual WikiProjects the same size? Why the downsizing? --Tristam 21:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Coming from WikiProject Machinima, I know of only one page currently tagged by both projects: Machinima itself. The CVG project tagged it as of "No" importance to CVG (with which I disagree, but that's another debate), whereas, obviously, for WikiProject Machinima, it's the top-level article. So it'd probably help to maintain the separate importance ratings for our different contexts. Within CVG, machinima's relevance is defined by the extension of video game engines into the realm of real-time animation, be it for use in trailers, in-game cutscenes, or independent projects. Machinima productions are also worth examining as films in and of themselves (case in point: Red vs. Blue was at the Sundance Film Festival last year), and as phenomena made possible largely by the Internet; neither aspect really lies within the scope of CVG in and of itself (which is why WikiProject Machinima has two parents). For the few articles that will intersect, then, the perspectives and priorities taken by the two projects will be significantly different, probably too much so to merge the tags. — TKD::Talk 23:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree basically with TKD- WP Machinima shouldn't really be there. It's not even really a subproject to start with. The ratings problem that hbdragon was referring to is that LoZ project actually rates articles as [importance] cvg articles, rather than [importance] LoZ articles. Mach rates them as [importance] machinima articles. I'd actually recommend that you guys un-child yourselves, and just exist aside cvg- there are a lot more articles in common between wp:anime and cvg than between mach and cvg, but they're seperate, and I think you should be too.

Moving right along- it might be a good idea to make the images for the subprojects the same size as the main one. I dunno, I'm not coding it. In response to CP\M, though- I understand the reasons for subprojects. This isn't turning subprojects into task forces, or work groups. This is taking two boxes, with almost identical text, and combining them into one box. That's all.

To Pagrashtak- it still needs a command for old cvg peer review, though I'm asuming that you're getting to that. --PresN 02:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The only reason I made the subproject images smaller is because I was copying the style from the Bio and MILHIST templates. I don't have a problem making the images equal size, if that's a concern. I will concede that the loss of ranking article as *-importance within the scope of a subproject is a legitimate problem, but I think I can satisfy that as well. PresN is absolutely right — the proposed changes here have no effect on existing Wikiprojects or their structures — this is about cleaning up talk page clutter. All I'm trying to do is take two (or more!) pastel-shaded boxes and combine them.
I plan on adding an old CVG peer review parameter soon. I've been mulling over a few different schemes, trying to decide which is best. Pagrashtak 04:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
That's a fair point about parenthood. But even WP:ANIME has dual parenthood under WikiProject Comics and WikiProject Television. I suppose conceptually that Filmmaking might be a better choice for a second parent for us. . I'll raise the point on WT:WPMACH and see whether there are objections. — TKD::Talk 10:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Modified proposal

All right, take a look at this modified cvgproj proposal. WikiProject images are of equal size and individual projects can rate importance separately. I've deactivated the NAMESPACE check so that class and importance display here - this is purely for illustrative purposes. This will temporarily place this page into categories in which it does not belong, but I will remove this after discussion.

The base template:

{{User:Pagrashtak/cvgproj2
|class=
|importance=}}

User:Pagrashtak/cvgproj2

An A-Class article of low importance to WP:CVG that falls under the scope of WP:Nintendo:

{{User:Pagrashtak/cvgproj2
|class=A
|importance=low
|WP-Nintendo=yes}}

User:Pagrashtak/cvgproj2

A B-Class article of low importance to WP:CVG, of mid importance to WP:Nintendo, and high importance to WP:Zelda:

{{User:Pagrashtak/cvgproj2
|class=A
|importance=low
|WP-Zelda=high
|WP-Nintendo=mid}}

User:Pagrashtak/cvgproj2

Are these better? Worse? I know they look a little rough, I just drafted these and I'm tired, but I wanted to get them out for feedback as to whether this is a step in the right direction. Consider this a proof of concept demonstration for now; I'll clean them up tomorrow. Pagrashtak 04:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it does address one of my complaints in a way, but I still think it is a bad idea to blend two different projects, regardless of their parent/child relationship, into a single box. Just making the individual project listings bigger won't solve it (and yes, I know how frustrating it must be for you for me to say that it was one of my complaints, then complain further when you addressed it...), as then we just have a big mass of icons that are going to get muddied together. Simply having different templates for the different projects that an article falls into isn't really that bad of a thing. (one additional thing you didn't cover is the fact that the CVG to do list is largely irrelevant for most of the articles that this template would be placed on) EVula 05:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
But that todo list already exists on the talk page, so that doesn't really have any impact with this proposal. Pagrashtak 05:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Uh... yeah, I totally knew that. Not like I'm tired and should have gone to bed about half an hour ago or anything... Pfft, what on Earth would make you think that? *cough* EVula 05:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of merging them, but seeing as many of the projects deal with franchises, not all should be merged. As stated above, Pokemón and Warcraft for example have franchises outside the gameverse. Ideas and comments on this? Should they be merged, or keept seperate, or is there another way we could do this? Havok (T/C/c) 06:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The more and more I think about it, it probably would just be easier to have two project banners on the same article. -- Ned Scott 07:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel the same way. This just sounds to complicated. Havok (T/C/c) 08:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how it's too complicated. I definitely don't think that slapping loads of different project banners is the best idea. Perhaps easier, but definitely less elegant of a solution. I think this modified proposal is almost what we want, and we should discuss for a while longer and see if any other major objections come up. We should not expect to have a perfect solution that will work for every single article, but we want something that works for 99% of all articles. Sure there will be exceptions, but for something that falls out of the scope of CVG but in the scope of Warcraft, you can always just use the old template no? jacoplane 10:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't see the point really. So what if there are an extra box on the talk page? And, like I stated further up, what about the things that don't only exist in the gameverse? Pokemón isn't exclusively games f.ex. Havok (T/C/c) 12:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, what I meant is that if something really falls out of the gameverse then just use the separate Pokemon template (and no CVG template at all). But for pokemon video games use the CVG template. Personally I dislike seeing several different wikiproject templates on talk pages, many articles these days have a whole screen of templates before the actual talk page begins. jacoplane 12:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • In short, take Pokemon. For an article about a pokemon anime show- there's one box- a pokemon box. For an article about a Pokemon game- there's one box, a cvg box that includes pokemon in it. Here's a good example of what I'm talking about- Talk:The_Legend_of_Zelda:_The_Wind_Waker. There are 10 boxes on the talk page. On my laptop, that means that I have to scroll down a screen and a half just to get to the text. With this proposal, this goes down to 6 boxes. The CVG, nintendo, and LoZ boxes have almost identical text, text that will get cut down, and the Peer review and selected article sections are made smaller (see the SA box, it's allready rolled in on that article). Basically, after implementing this proposal, the talk page goes down from 1.5 screens of boxes to .75 - 1 screens, without removing anything that's not already redundant and without making the sub-projects look smaller or lesser. There's nothing complicated about it. --PresN 13:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • For articles with many boxes, which are few. For single-box articles it will just complicate things. Let's leave CVG with games themselves and supplementary articles for more narrow-scope wikiprojects. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 22:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I fail to the the relevance that people have to scroll to get to the talk page content.. We don't make these for the ease of use on the talk page, we make them so people are familiar with what the community is trying to do with said article and subject matter. If you have to scroll, then that should not dither the community from growing and expanding. Besides, your example is on the extreme side, as most articles have one, maybe two boxes. And on the comment below; I disagree, each project has their own to-do, and way of doing things. Removing the rating system from the projects that allready have it is silly as they are there to help people interested in helping the projects focus on important articles. Something that is important in the Warcraft project might not be important in the CVG project. Havok (T/C/c) 06:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - We do not need further ratings for articles. Just one rating for the CVG project will do, the other fork projects can work with those. Having 3 ratings for that example above just looks confusing. Also, make the image sizes smaller, and unlink the words "to-do". - Hahnchen 17:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I agree that every article should have one consistent quality rating (disagreements should be handled via discussion and consensus, like any other debate on Wikipedia), but I think that forcing the smaller WikiProjects to use a larger project's priority/importance rating would somewhat hamper the subproject's workflow. Perhaps as a compromise, only the text (and not the color-coded box) corresponding to the smaller project's rating would be displayed. However, the appropriate categories, for both quality and importance (remember, though, that the quality rating should be consistent) for each WikiProject involved would still be added. That way, the smaller project can have Mathbot's auto-generated worklists, and the template would be less visually cluttered. — TKD::Talk 03:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I do not think that at all. The scope of the smaller projects are no way as encompassing as WP:CVG obviously. Surely, they would just be as well served with their own Essential articles page. Having 3 ratings such as that one above just looks confusing. I also don't think the images for the subprojects should be as large. - Hahnchen 15:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I am partially in agreement; I think the smaller subprojects would benefit more from a centralized list of articles (that can be, most importantly, organized) than the automagic listings. Additionally, the only subproject that is listed by MathBot at all right now is WP:WPHALO, which currently has no assessments at all. Nifboy 16:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I would've thought that more projects were using it than that. I stand corrected. I helped set up the template for WPHALO, but the long story short is that many of the articles within that scope are in a pretty bad state and are in dire need of merging and/or condensation on such a massive scale that it's pretty overwhelming, and no one has had the time to get around to it yet. So it was kind of pointless, at least in my view, to begin to rate articles when about half need to be merged. I agree with the smaller images, by the way, and don't really have a strong attachment to the text, if others find it pointless. I still think, though, that if a smaller project wants to use the bot's style, then the category infrastructure might be useful, especially in cases where all of the articles will fit on one bot assessment page. Maybe it's just the programmer in me that doesn't like a static "essential articles" page, which needs to be updated whenever the tags on the talk page change. But I guess that, if it's not really in use right now, it's a moot point, and we could revisit it later. — TKD::Talk 16:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I've added the old-GCOTW parameter for that, if anyone wants to go through the history and populate it. If anyone has any icon suggestion for GCOTW, please say so, I'm using the standard controller icon right now. Also, I've created the old-peer-review parameter for archived CVG peer reviews. You can use old-peer-review=yes for archived peer reviews with the same name, or old-peer-review=Foo for archived peer reviews with a different name. Pagrashtak 01:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone else from WP:DIGIMON will comment or not, but as the only one from that project who's commented so far, I think we'll keep using our own banner in addition to the CVG banner. Those articles don't have more than those two banners at most, and {{WikiProject DIGI}} was recently re-worked to take up less space anyways.

Another thought, why not just throw in one of those hide/show things for the "banner space" above talk pages? You could have a {{toptemplate}} then use {{project banner one}}{{project banner two}} then {{bottom template}} and there ya go. Not sure if such an idea should be hidden or shown by default, but it would at least help some of the more cluttered talk pages. Just a thought. -- Ned Scott 05:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Inherent problem

The problem with all of these proposals is that the sheer amount of extra parameters — one per wikiproject — makes future expansion of {{cvgproj}} messy and possibly contentious. If all CVG Wikiprojects are to use the same template then it would be nice if there were a provision for customization for each individual Wikiproject. I suggest something that uses similar logic to {{General CVG character}}, (without the ugly HTML hacks,) and if possible code it so that it can be used outside the cvg project as well.

Generic templates to look at:

  • talkproj - can be used by any number of projects due to template magic

CVG templates to look at

Example:

 {{cvgproj2
 |class=A
 |importance=low
 |supported={{subproj Nintendo|importance=mid}}{{subproj Zelda|importance=high}}{{subproj|project=Wikiproject Fictionbio*}}
 |options={{talkproj option|field1=[[Image:Gamepad.svg|30px|center]]|text=This article is a candidate for '''[[Wikipedia:Gaming Collaboration of the week|Gaming Collaboration of the week]]'''.}}
 }}

Note that last two templates here would be coded as their own template. They are here in full for demonstration purposes


Gamepad.svg This article is part of WikiProject Computer and video games, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
A-Class article A This article has been rated as A-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of low-importance within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
Mid Wikitendo2.svg This article is supported by and is of mid-importance to WikiProject Nintendo.
High Triforce.svg This article is supported by and is of high-importance to WikiProject Zelda.
This article is supported by Wikiproject Fictionbio*.
Gamepad.svg
This article is a candidate for Gaming Collaboration of the week.

* The last wikiproject doesn't exist.

Conclusion of alternative: Simple, effective, with the added benefit that we don't need to rewrite the cvgproj template whenever a new wikiproject comes along. Also, certain wikiprojects still have the option of using their own categories for importance within their particular wikiproject by making their own subproj template. This sort of functionality would be quick to add to the existing cvgproj template by inserting {{{supported|}}}{{{options|}}} somewhere. Thoughts? --DavidHOzAu 06:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

No offense to anyone, but I think the real problem here is that there is a WikiProject Nintendo and a WikiProject Zelda when it doesn't appear there is enough need for a separate collaborative effort in those areas. WikiProjects aren't clubs, and making this many can actually be counter productive.
But if people want to have that many projects, then what should be done is only use WikiProject Zelda on Zelda related articles, because it's the most relevant child, and ALL child WikiProjects should link back and cite the recommendations of it's parent projects, thus the parent projects will be represented. For article ratings, just don't use the banner, just manually add a category, or something to that extent.
For example, WikiProject List of Television Episodes is a child of Wikipedia:WikiProject Television, and on articles that are under LOE we only use the LOE banner, not both the LOE and TV banners. -- Ned Scott 07:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, the whole idea of changing {{cvgproj}} is probably a case of m:instruction creep. (semi off topic: look at the code for {{cvgproj}} compared to the one on my subpage.)
Anyway, if we were going to amalgamate, it'd be nice if there were a series subpages on the CVG wikiproject where each niche of the computer game industry can be given its own treatment. I'm actually all for any proposed amalgamation because the lines between each niche of this project were pretty much blurred anyway. --DavidHOzAu 07:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
It raises the problem with projects dealing with franchises encompassing more than just CVG. There's a simpler solution: Smaller projects put their banners on all articles they are related to, CVG banner is restricted to pages about games themselves, or important subpages (in content sense, not technical) of games without own wikiprojects. So the most important pages get two banners, others just one. Pretty much like existing practice, we need just to write it down. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 09:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, for those types of situations two banners should be used. Also, I've noticed this lately, WikiProject Council, a WikiProject dedicated to collaboration between WikiProjects and WikiProject development (ironically, that WikiProject itself looks like it needs it's own improvements). Maybe this would be a good place to propose a solution to the too-many-banners problem. -- Ned Scott 09:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
On pages that overlap, the small wikiprojects could use the rating system of the larger wikiproject's box and hide the rating system in their own? --DavidHOzAu 02:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

New article archiving

I just created an archive for the new articles page the other day. I created an archive for announced articles created in august and moved on to september. Was this how this was intended to be done?? I just want to make sure this is consensus. jacoplane 21:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that was pretty much the idea. Good job! --PresN 00:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Date formatting, eg Release Dates

Where a release date just consists of a year, I can see the advantages in making it, say, [[2006 in video gaming|2006]] rather than just [[2006]]. This is what the project's guidelines indicate here.

However, where it's a full date, the guidelines here are a little ambiguous. Should they be [[September 13]] [[2006]] or should they be [[September 13]] [[2006 in video gaming|2006]] ? If the latter, then user date preference formatting doesn't work.

I'm of the opinion that if just a year is specified, then format [[2006 in video gaming|2006]] should be used. If a full date is available then [[September 13]] [[2006]] should be used. This would mean the project's articles follow the WP:DATE guidelines too, rather than having their own rules.

Could we have a discussion on the pros/cons, reach a concensus, update the project's guidelines page, and then work to ensure all the project's pages follow the same guidelines ? --Oscarthecat 19:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been wondering the same thing myself lately. I like your suggestion of just using the year when a full date is used, and the game-specific year tag when just using a year. — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I like it, it allows auto formatting to work and saves having disputes about international date formats, plus the full date is an already accepted policy for the rest of WP. - X201 21:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Year in subject, we should also try to reduce the "surprise" of the link if possible, by specifing the link like this: "The Legend of Zelda was released in 1987" rather than "The Legend of Zelda was released in 1987". Pagrashtak 16:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
As we appear to have a consensus here, I have updated the portal's release date guidelines, see diff here. --Oscarthecat 06:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Advice on my Next Step

I've been working on the article Empires: Dawn of the Modern World and finally got the nod as a GA. I wanted to imporve it further (perhaps up to FA) but I didn't know where to go (I already looked into the suggestions of the person who gave me the GA nod). I just had an archived peer review a little while back, and there really isn't anywhere else to go for the kind of scrutiny I need (the CVG peer review is pretty backed up as it is). Any suggestions?--Clyde Miller 20:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Taking something to FA requires a lot of effort, especially if you're doing it single handedly. Also, this game doesn't seem that popular (correct me if I'm wrong, not a PC gamer myself) so finding resources might be difficult. If you're really determined, submit a proper peer review (which is likely to get more attention than the CVG one). To be honest I'd suggest browsing the encyclopedia and finding another article which you like the looks of and start all over again on that. -- Steel 20:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I'll keep a tab on Empires, but I'm not sure there is enough out there to bring this up to FA. I'll weigh my options. I'm actually rather surprised it got this far considering how few people helped me and how unknown the game is. Thanks for your help.--Clyde Miller 22:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Ya know I kinda realized something. I think I might go for the peer review. The least that'll happen is they say the article is at it's highest potential or sucks beyond all belief that it has no chance at FA (probably the latter; just kidding). You've given me a lot of help, and I am quite grateful for it, but perhaps there is someone out there who can still help improve it. If that's possible to any extent, perhaps my best chance of finding them is on the Peer Review. I'll think more and see if you have anything else to add. Haste makes waste (man that sounded old fashioned).--Clyde Miller 01:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Here's an easy one: add fair use rationale to the images. And fix this: Image:Edotmwbox.jpg states as part of its rationale "The image is of a lower resolution than in real life." (!) Pagrashtak 15:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Wait I'm confused. What do you want me to change? The image size or the summary? --Clyde Miller 20:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
The fair use rationale. Saying "The image is of a lower resolution than in real life." is somewhat silly, because real life has, I suppose, infinite resolution? Pagrashtak 20:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Taken care of. I'll start doing the rest.--Clyde Miller 22:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Game over move.

I don't normally canvass for votes, but since this seems to have been done a few times in the past on this page...

There is a requested move for Game over -> Game Over with currently only three participants voting; I at least would be interested in seeing the thoughts of a few more people interested in gaming. Input would be appreciated over at the Talk Page, which sets out the arguments.

(Side note: Game over doesn't currently have a cvg-proj tag, but should? I assume so, but I'm not a member so it'd feel weird adding it. Any other improvement to the article would also be appreciated.) SnowFire 21:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Game guide

I've created a tag for use on pages that read like a game guide. Please add the {{gameguide}} tag to articles which have such information in them. I have also updated our guidelines on this. Havok (T/C/c) 06:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with {{Move to gaming wiki}}? Pagrashtak 15:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Because sometimes you only want to see half of a section removed instead of the whole thing. Usually because someone takes a short section and adds a bunch of stats or whatnot to it. Nifboy 17:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
What Nifboy said. Most articles that have game guid elements in them can be cleaned up. No need to delete them or move them to another Wiki. Havok (T/C/c) 11:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, {{Move to gaming wiki}} says, "If the article or section can be re-written to give an encyclopedic overview, please do so and remove this message." That seems to cover it to me. Pagrashtak 14:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
There's also a question of process; {{gameguide}} is generic cleanup blue, while {{move to gaming wiki}} seems to suggest some sort of AfD-like process and/or necessary admin/poweruser intervention to get the content removed (such as {{Copy to Wiktionary}} or its brethren). Nifboy 15:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I do see that point. I still think these tags cover the same problem, though. Perhaps we should combine them into something like this:
Also, the template should exist at {{Cleanup-CVG}} or somthing similar for consistency with other cleanup tags. Pagrashtak 17:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I like it. It's the best of both templates. Nifboy 22:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I like that one, I could go for that. Havok (T/C/c) 00:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is relevant (I'm pretty sure it's not) but what's the difference between Encyclopedia Gamia and Gameinfo, other than their size?--Clyde Miller 23:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

PC is not a platform

I keep coming across articles on video games—some of them brand new—that list the platform as "PC". This has been brought up before, but I'd like to remind people that "PC" is not a platform. A variety of operating systems run on a "PC," from DOS to Linux to Microsoft Windows. Please state one of these specific operating systems when writing or editing article on video games. Should something about this be added to the Guidelines? — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd add it to the Infobox section, actually. --PresN 16:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I've been saying that for a while. I agree that we should update policy/infobox with the info. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

If you see a game referred to as a pc game, you can tag it with {{pc game}}. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Would it be worth spelling it out on the template eg. This computer game has been incorrectly referred to or categorized as a PC game. Please check to see what the platform actually is (e.g Windows, DOS, etc) and update the article accordinly.. As it is now, it could be taken to mean that there wasn't a version of that game for PC as opposed to it being labelled with the wrong platform. - X201 17:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I updated the temp. There shouldn't be any confusion about what is meant by platform now. Mitaphane talk 18:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
There still seems to be. Some users are removing the tags from some arcade games that are in Category:PC games, for various odd reasons. See Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:PC games. I'm close to the 3RR on this. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I could see this coming, that's why I asked for the extra text about platforms. I knew there would be people out there who wouldn't understand the difference between a game and the equipment it's played on. I'll add anything more to WP:CVG/PC game - X201 11:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


I'm writing something at WP:CVG/PC game. Please help me out! Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Check the Discussion page at CVG PC_game - X201 11:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
To further confuse matters, see the response by this user on The Sims 2 Talk page. While he has some valid points, personally, I think he's taking things a bit far. And he reverted my edits to clarify that the game is a Windows game (I changed all references to PC to Windows, he reverted it). — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
He makes some good points, especially about incompatibilities with certain Windows versions. The solution that springs to mind first is sub-categories for Win 98, XP etc and the game is placed in the category that matches the manufacturers recommened specs. So eventually the Windows Games category will be a list of sub-categories. - X201 15:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


The other issue with that though is there are some arcade platform games that are dual listed in the PC Games category that shouldn't be there and don't need an "update or correction of the platform". Specifically: Breakout, Joust, Jung Hunt, Marble Madness, Puzzle Bobble, Puzzle Bobble 2, Puzzle Bobble 3, Rainbow Islands, and Space Invaders. While ports of those games did appear on pc's and consonoles, the main platforms (platform of introduction and therefore main platform type) are Arcade Games - hence their listing in Category:Arcade games. I tried to remove those games from the PC_Games listing, but there's no direct way to edit that section (that I saw). --Marty Goldberg 15:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

These games are correct to appear on the DOS/Windows categories. Just because "Arcade" was the main platform, they still deserve to be in cats for the platforms they were ported to.
I don't really want to sub-categorize Windows games into tiny, little niches. The user in question, Carl, says sthat he's seen compatability problems from Win16 to Win32 to WinXP. I've seen some too, but many games that were written for Win16 run fine on WinXP. I'd hate to list it under Win32 and have people think it won't run on WinXP. Plus, who wants to categorize games into all those tiny little niches? I can see a case for making a difference between Win16 and Win32, but not all the way down to Win3.0, Win3.1 (which had few platform dependant games anyway), Win95, Win98, Win98SE, Win2000, WinMe, WinXP Home, WinXP Pro and, eventually, Vista. I think the distinction between Win16 and Win32 (or XP) is reasonable, but anything beyond that is a little anal. JMHO. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Then are you saying that the issue here is all the "computer" platforms these games also appeared on need to be listed instead of the generic "PC Games" listing? --Marty Goldberg 17:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
For the sake of consistency, if we're not using PC as a platform, then "Arcade" can't be a platform either. There are numerous arcade system boards out there which, if we're using the computing definition of "platform", qualify as a platform. Mitaphane talk 21:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with that statement. For most end users of arcade systems, all they know is that it is an arcade cabinet. If you are using a personal computer the operating system is quite apparent. Additionally, we only have 1 category for windows games, Category:Windows games. It is not broken down further. It does not matter whether we are talking 3.1 or Vista. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm just being pedantic here. Coming from a computer background, I've noticed a gaming platform is subtlely different than a computing platform(e.g. much of Windows could just be blanketed by directX). I'm not advocating we go out of our way and research each board that was used on each arcade system. So if we are using a consumer-level distinction, are we putting Java and flash as their own seperate platforms too? Mitaphane talk 04:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
How about we drop the distinction between PCs and Macs and call everything that runs on a computer a "computer game" for the purposes of platform, regardless of OS? Then, in the system requirements, discuss the operating system(s) required for the game. This would address compatibility issues, the lessening gap hardware-wise between PCs and Macs, ported versions of games and the OS-independent nature of Java and Flash games. Just a thought. --Carl (talk|contribs) 04:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Time Crisis

The Time crisis articles need significant work to bring them upto Wikipeida standards - I have made a start but would appreciate all and any assistance off gamers looking for some additional articles to stick on their watchlist. As a start, can someone find out if it's VSSE or V.S.S.E which is the organization featured in the game as various versions are used across and within articles.

--Charlesknight 21:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I've only ever seen VSSE, but I can see why V.S.S.E would be correct for an acronym. - X201 21:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

V.S.S.E is seen in the Time Crisis intro cuts (I've only played II and 3 though, so check with the original and the fourth one). Hbdragon88 23:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Image gallery on project page

On the project page, under "Organization" it says:

"Image gallery: If there are a lot of images, a gallery may sometimes be helpful."

Should we revise this statement? That seemed to be written a long time ago, before the fair use policy was enforced. Image galleries are pretty much a no-no now. Thunderbrand 15:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Leave it there, image galleries are fine on a CVG article, if they are commented upon in the text, or are necessary to display some aspect of the game. Whereas putting a gallery of 12 images in for no reason isn't that helpful, a handful of screenshots at say Ozma Wars is fine. - Hahnchen 00:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, that article seems OK, but the Project Gotham Racing 3 page has 12, and seems like overkill. Maybe revising the statement to keep the screen gallery to a low number. Thunderbrand 00:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, the PGR3 image gallery is overkill. I would probably go for a screenshot of the title screen, a few gameplay shots, and the track editor. Suggesting a low number of screenshots for galleries would be fine. - Hahnchen 01:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Full stop. Galleries of fair-use images without proper commentary on each image individually aren't kosher; they fail WP:FUC #3 and #8. Any article with too many fair-use images won't ever pass FAC and probably won't even make it past GA.

Now, galleries of free images are fine; any game released under a license compatible with Wikipedia's is okay, or any game where the copyright owners have released some images under the GFDL or another compatible license (IIRC, Ubi Soft did something like this).

But the days are numbered on fair-use image galleries. Integrate the necessary images into the text, dispose of the rest. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Join the WikiProject Dragon Quest!

If you are interested in the Dragon Quest series in any way, please join the WikiProject Dragon Quest! The current project page is only temporary; with a quota of five members I will create a proper project with a proper page. I do not believe that the WikiProject Computer and video games serves as an effective umbrella for the Dragon Quest articles, which number over 30 and still require more. The endless backlogs and massive scope of this project necessitates a more specific WikiProject, I believe. Given the deplorable state of most of the Dragon Quest articles (just compare them to the Final Fantasy articles) I hope some of you are interested in joining me and making this project a reality! --Tristam 02:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Video game criticism and those critical of games

I've just cleared out all the politicians and pundits out of Category:Computer and video game critics and have moved it to the parent CVG category. The category is for those who write computer and video game criticism, much in the same way Category:Film critics is for writers of film criticism. As for moving the category, a critique has really nothing to do with ratings and censorship, the previous parent category. So unless a politician writes an actual review/critique (meaning they, *gasp*, played a game), they should not be in that category. Perhaps they should be moved to something like Category:New media opponents. For now I have moved them to Category:Computer and video game censorship and ratings. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 15:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Category name, need suggestions

I came across the Category:Level Editors while doing some related editing. I immediately recognized that it was misnamed (the word "Editors" should not have been capitalized), so I initiated an action to have it renamed (to Category:Level editors). To make a long story short, one editor objected, mainly because it didn't include level designers, just software applications. Now we need some input on what really to rename the category to. The current sugggestions are:

Category:Level editors is currently off the table (which I still favor because it is very intuitive). Please chime in at the discussion, Category rename: Level Editors. Thanks, we need all the input we can get! — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I like Category:Level editors as well. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 16:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Dread Lord CyberSkull, but please make any comments over at the category discussion. Comments made here won't be seen there. I've moved your comments over there. Thanks again! — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I made my comment there some time ago. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Next time please post this type of nomination in the speedy renaming section, as it would have likely been closed by the time I got to making my first comment on it ;) Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It's closed, the new category is the very sane Category:Level editors! Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Proper name: Dragon Quest (video game) or Dragon Warrior?

I've been really wandering about this one, and I could use some advice. The article for Dragon Warrior was previously called Dragon Quest (video game) (since Dragon Quest refers to the series), but has since been changed to the current Dragon Warrior. I'm aware that the game was originally published in North America as Dragon Warrior, but the series is now referred in all regions as Dragon Quest. Naming the article the outdated Dragon Warrior moniker is like naming Final Fantasy VI as Final Fantasy III. Furthermore, the series is strongly rooted in Japan (it gave birth to the Japanese RPG), and I'd actually prefer the Japanese cover in the infobox, since it's much more representative of the artwork of the series (done by Akira Toriyama. Of course, the article's introduction would explain the name change and there would be a subsection discussing localization in North America, but I strongly feel the article should be renamed back to Dragon Quest (video game). I also think that the Quest name should replace the other Dragon Warrior article names, and that Category:Dragon Quest/Dragon Warrior should simply be renamed to Category:Dragon Quest. What do you guys think? --Tristam 21:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • The naming guides for the english wikipedia say that the most common name shoudl be used. I think that Quest is the most common, so it should all be Quest. --PresN 02:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I most certainly agree, PresN. I'll change it (and the rest of the games) first thing in the morning. Thank you for your input! EDIT: Furthermore, if Google's any judge, Dragon Quest wins by a longshot. --Tristam 03:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't rename the games released in the US under the name "Dragon Warrior"; we really shouldn't be using any name other than the only English-language release name used ever. That said, feel free to rename any of the other articles/categories (the series article, the cat, etc.) Dragon Quest, since the most recent game was named Dragon Quest and it's equally well-known among gamers, I'd say. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Its known as Dragon Quest internationally, it shall be Dragon Quest. Make sure Dragon Warrior redirects too for American gamers who forget (like me). guitarhero777777 04:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The series, sure, but when have DW1-4 or DW7 ever been released in English as Dragon Quest? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Were they released outside of the US in English as Dragon Warrior? We should go with the most prevalently used english title for the early games. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, none of the games in the series were released outside of North America or Japan until Dragon Quest VIII. Therefore, ALL English speaking countries outside of North America know it as Dragon Quest! Furthermore, all Square Enix press releases (in English) refer to any game in the series as Dragon Quest and NOT Dragon Warrior. Dragon Quest is a more common reference for any game in the series now, even among North American gamers. I'd like to develop a consensus here because it's obviously rude to revert a move, so input would be appreciated. --Tristam 20:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure English-speaking gamers in the US vastly outnumber Japan-savvy or import-minded English-speaking gamers outside of the US. I don't have any qualms with referring to the series and cats and such as Dragon Quest, as that is indeed now the most common reference in English to the series as a whole, but we shouldn't be referring to the games which have only ever been released as "Dragon Warrior" in English by any other name. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, we might as well rename Final Fantasy IV as Final Fantasy II, renaming the actual Final Fantasy II article Final Fantasy II (Famicom game). Final Fantasy II didn't go by Final Fantasy IV until 2001 in the compilation release Final Fantasy Chronicles - a mere two years away from when Square Enix dropped the Warrior suffix and tacked on Quest to Dragon. I'll still wait and see if some kind of consensus can be reached. --Tristam 22:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The cases are dissimilar. FFIV-VI have been released in English under those names, recently and with great sales success. (Both the PlayStation and GBA rereleases.) Additionally, referring to the DQ/DW games as "Dragon Warrior" doesn't lead to any naming conflicts. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

So if the first Dragon Quest was released on mobile phones in the United States, you would support renaming the article? To continue with your line of reasoning, however, the second, third, and fourth installments would still be listed under the outdated Dragon Warrior name, leaving a terrible continuity gap. And I hardly consider the issue a naming conflict (regardless, Dragon Warrior would still redirect to Dragon Quest (video game)). --Tristam 00:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Only if it was successful and widely publicized, something not usually true for cell phone games in the US.

As for a "continuity gap", so what? The games were published under different names; no need to change them to names under which they were never released in English to make the category listing look nice. First Blood is still under that name, despite the series as a whole being referred to as the Rambo series and the later games being named "Rambo: First Blood (number)". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

If the name change hinges on success and scope of publication, we would most certainly still be referring to Final Fantasy VI as Final Fantasy III. --Tristam 01:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

That would lead to naming conflicts, and FFVI was released under the FFVI name to critical and sales success in Final Fantasy Anthology, and is to be released for the GBA in English as Final Fantasy VI Advance. This is not true for any of the games released as Dragon Warrior. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to Anthology with my previous comment: sales were minimal and critics moaned about the impossibly long loading times. As for VI Advance, only time will tell. Anyways, it looks like neither of us is likely to convince the other of our rationalizations, so I again ask others for input. By the way, I'm overhauling the Dragon Warrior (as it's currently named) page itself; hopefully it'll be completed tomorrow sometime. I won't, of course, change the article's name. I wish I could agree with you A Man In Black (I wish even more you could agree with me), but I think that popularity, current naming convention as given by Square Enix themselves, roots, and continuity combined outweigh the sentiment of the original name. --Tristam 03:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Anthology sold fairly well, enough to merit a Greatest Hits rerelease, I thought. In any case, FFVI could probably stand to be renamed to FFIII, but the naming issues as well as the conflict with a heavily-promoted upcoming game (Final Fantasy III DS) are major factors. In this case, there's the fact that Dragon Warrior is the only name these games have been released under, and no mitigating factors other than "current naming convention as given by Square Enix themselves" (with no source to back this up). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think any source was necessary given that EVERY English press release Square Enix has released over the DQ series has referred to all of the games as Dragon Quest (including a direct reference to the first installment as Dragon Quest, NOT Dragon Warrior). The press releases are readily available on their website. --Tristam 06:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Really? You could cite a source that isn't a fansite referring to the English-language version of the game as, say, Dragon Quest III or Dragon Quest IV? I would be surprised to see it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Wii-only games?

Am I the only one who doesn't like this category name? I'd much prefer something like "Exclusive Wii games" or "Wii exclusive titles" or something along those lines. Does anyone agree? --Tristam 03:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want to change it, you'll need to also change Category:GameCube-only games and other similar categories. Pagrashtak 05:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Heck, I didn't even know that those categories existed. And yes, I hate them. Surely organising the games by the systems they appear on is good enough, why do we need to point out exclusives? - Hahnchen 17:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I think I agree. I think more input is necessary; a large consensus would be nice here. --Tristam 22:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Kill it. Category:Nintendo DS games and Category:Game Boy Advance games don't have the "exclusive" header. Hbdragon88 04:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want those categories gone, you will have to delete Category:Single-platform software and all its children. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

List up for deletion

I recently created the List of level editors. It is now up for deletion. If you are in favor of keeping it, please voice your support on the deletion discussion. Of course, if you are in favor of deleting the list, no furhter action is necessary on your part. ;-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Tagging talk pages and assessing articles

Wikipedia Assessments within AWB. Click on the image to see it in better resolution

Hi. If you still have work to do tagging talk pages and assessing articles, my AWB plugin might be of interest to you.

The plugin has two main modes of operation:

  • Tagging talk pages, great for high-speed tagging
  • Assessments mode, for reviewing articles (pictured)

As of the current version, WikiProjects with simple "generic" templates are supported by the plugin without the need for any special programatic support by me. I've had a look at your project's template and you seem to qualify.

For more information see:

Hope that helps. If you have any questions or find any bugs please let me know on the plugin's talk page. --Kingboyk 12:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Great! I was looking into doing something like this. Looks like someone already beat me to it. —Mitaphane talk 21:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

MobyGames developer template proposal

I've made a proposal for improving the MobyGames developer template. Please hop on over and join the discussion! — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to merge the two together. Create a template claled {{moby}} and have optional paramaters for the developer id and game id. Hbdragon88 01:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Although, you have between 1500-2000 moby game transclusions to update. And you'll need an optional whale parameter. Pagrashtak 03:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd say just redirect moby game into moby and we'll eventually get it sorted out. Once it's orphaned, it...dies. Hbdragon88 03:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, personally, I like the seperate templates. Parameters make getting the template to display correctly tricky. What I proposed hasn't been discussed at all here. Look at the discussion to see what I actually proposed. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Current events

I've updated Portal:Current events/Video gaming so that the days are automatically added. I've also added a little current events box to Portal:Computer and video games which links to the current events page. This current events page hasn't really gotten off the ground, and if it doesn't soon do I think that we should disband it, since it's pointless having a current events page that isn't updated often. We'll see, perhaps with the new functionality it will have people working on it. jacoplane 02:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Notability guideline?

Some editors think that only notable games deserve articles; others think that only non-remake and non-port games should have articles; whereas a few think that all games should deserve articles. Thus, should some sort of standard be created on if separate videos games merit separate articles? Perhaps a Wikipedia:Notability (computer and video games) guideline?--TBCTaLk?!? 05:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking about that the other day as I came across the Madden NFL & Twisted Metal (both games that have their series condensed into one article). Considering how many sequels video games get, I would say this would a pretty worthwhile thing to setup. Mitaphane talk 06:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Let the content dictate the format, with an eye for reducing direct observation of the games whenever there isn't other content to support it. For example, Resident Evil (video game) covers all the remakes because there isn't a lot to say about the remakes without repeating the description of the first game. Should there be a massive controversy regarding Deadly Silence, for example, it could be split into its own article. We don't necessarily need an article for every SKU. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Here's an example of why we need a guideline: The editors on Worms (computer game) feel that none of Worm games deserve seperate articles, whereas the editors on Mario feel that all of the Mario games deserve seperate articles (including all the remakes and ports). Any thoughts on this?--TBCTaLk?!? 07:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Nothing really to contribute to the overall discussion. Just noting that I believe Worms Armageddon is notable enough for its own article and that subsequent sequels (yet to debut, or perhaps Worms 3D) should be separate. These were popular games. --Zeality 12:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the Worms series could do with separate articles too, but it just depends on the content of the article. If too much information is on the main page, then it'll naturally be forked. What notability guidelines may be useful for are questionable cases such as cancelled games, unprofessional fan games (and adobe flash crap), or those meaningless drivel straight to video budget releases which get no attention in the gaming press. I don't think it'll make much difference to the articles that could be merged/forked, and it would be too much difficulty to enforce a strict guideline over these issues. I think that right now, the system is working OK. - Hahnchen 15:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I've renamed the section header into something relevant to the topic. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

fair use icon for game covers

my first poor attempt.

I'm trying to make a fair use icon for video game covers, anyone with artistic talent that wants to contribute would be appreciated! You can see my first poor attempt to the right. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Great job on the pic. Unfortunetly the only drawing program I have right now is Microsoft Paint, so I don't think I'm of much help.--TBCTaLk?!? 07:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
This is just something cobbled together in Inkscape. It's free software, so you can use it. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Ubisoft screenshots

Though I think I've mentioned this before, I'd like to remind everyone that all Ubisoft screenshots are under a free license (see commons:User:Avatar/Ubisoft). I also remember that CyberSkull proposed the creation of {{Ubisoft-screenshot}}. Any thoughts on this?--TBCTaLk?!? 07:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I've made a prototype at User:CyberSkull/Template:Ubisoft-screenshot. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
So I presume that Ubisoft screenshots could be used outside of article space for things like Portal:Computer and video games, right? Also, does this extend to the coverart of their games? jacoplane 02:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Portal use would be fine. As I understand it, cover art does not qualify, only screenshots. Two caveats: it's not clear whether this applies to user-created screenshots or all Ubisoft screenshots. I'd stick with user-created shots to be safe if you're claiming them as free. Also, Ubisoft appears to want to reserve the right to revoke the license in certain cases. If this is true, we're back to fair use with all Ubidoft screens. Pagrashtak 19:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Admin help needed

Lair (video game) is under vandal attack. Any chance that someone could keep their eye on it? I've already reverted but it was attacked again.- X201 11:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added appropriate templates to their pages. Phorenzik and the 152 IP were both given last warning templates. 217 IP was given a second to last warning. The moment they do it again, list them here and kiss them goodbye. --Zeality 12:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Edit. I added the protected template, and I'll request protection from Deckiller. I suppose they can still register to do it, though. --Zeality 12:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reverts and the protection. I've never been in a vandal attack before, it was like reading the manual whilst trying to land the plane. - X201 12:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
You might want to watch the pages that the article links to. I just removed goofy claims that the PS3 Sixaxis controller is biodegradable. —Mitaphane talk 00:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Square Enix and more

There has already been discussion of creating a Dragon Quest subproject as a sister to the Final Fantasy project. Now we're discussing creating WikiProject Square Enix to cover all the corporation's games. Please see this relevant discussion and place any opinions or objections you may have. Thanks. ~ Hibana 15:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Square Enix is now underway. ~ Hibana 02:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Noticeboard

Does anyone mind if we get rid of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games/Noticeboard ? It seems to me that most questions should be raised on this talk page or in a CVG:Peer review. Nobody seems to be paying attention to it, so people who post there will likely receive few responses. jacoplane 08:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Might as well. I personally never use it. Thunderbrand 14:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I didn't know there was one, until now. - X201 15:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Other projects use their notice boards more. CVG shouldn't lose it, just because it's not used enough. People should just use it more, instead of just deleting it. RobJ1981 16:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
We also shouldn't have it just because others have one too. There's more than one way to have things on a WikiProject, and we should go with our own flow instead of trying to imitate things that aren't working for us. This is kind of like the child-WikiProject thing that I posted about below, about creating things before there's a need to use them (or when there is no longer a need). -- Ned Scott 16:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Jaco, I think you suggested this once before and I supported it. Just slap a tag up there saying it's inactive and suggest this page instead. Pagrashtak 19:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I vehemently disagree with this. I've gotten some useful input by noticing that i needed some input. What I wanted wasn't on the level of FA status; it was just input for decisions that I needed some help on. Nobody responded to my SSB template query until I had put it up on the noticeboard, for instnace. Hbdragon88 16:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject merge notices

Before people start to burn me at the stake... I've been leaving some merge notices on some of the child-WikiProjects of CVG, to be "merged" "back" with CVG. My rational is this: they're not needed, it's counter productive, and we're degrading the concept of the WikiProject by creating projects before they're needed.

I'm not calling for these Projects to be deleted, or making any demands here, but discussion is needed on this growing problem. Before anyone gets mad, remember, this is just a discussion. -- Ned Scott 16:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. People can easily get their normal tasks done, even if the project is just video games. If help is needed on Nintendo articles: then we post on the notice board or whatever for help. A project just for it, isn't needed. RobJ1981 16:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I also think there are better ways to make topic-focused efforts rather than splitting an entire WikiProject. We can easily create a sub-page on CVG with it's own talk page, and then it would be easier to find all the things that still apply to everyone, such as certain style guidelines, etc. -- Ned Scott 16:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
You could create task forces. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I oppose merging the Square Enix, Sega, Microsoft, or Nintendo projects to WP:CVG, since the companies are involved in other industries, not just computer and video games. For example, Square Enix owns Full Metal Alchemist, a popular anime and manga, which falls under WikiProject Anime and manga, not WP:CVG.--TBCTaLk?!? 18:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
As you point out, the Full Metal Alchemist articles are already covered by Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga. So isn't everything covered by the CVG & Anime projects? Sure, they might have some things they do in other industries, but do we really need a whole seperate WikiProject just because of this? We've got a bunch of Pokemon projects already (which should also be covered by the Anime project too), what else does Nintendo do that is outside the video game sphere? jacoplane 18:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
If the Square Enix WikiProject were to be merged, then should it be merged into either the Anime and manga WikiProject or the CVG Wikiproject? Or should both the CVG and Anime Wikiproject be merged together? Or should the CVG and Anime and Film and and Comic and Book WikiProjects be merged into an Entertainment WikiProject? After all, films are usually based on a comic or a book which then becomes a video game (like Lord of the Rings, Superman or the Chronicles of Narnia). And sometimes video games can become a book and then later on become a film (like Resident Evil). As for Nintendo, haven't you ever heard of Nintendo's love hotels?--TBCTaLk?!? 19:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
And many of the books, films, or so are based on the culture, real world, and so on. Maybe they all should be merged into Culture Wikiproject, or, to accomodate what culture is based on, Humanity Wikiproject? --CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 23:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
My suggestion to merge is based on the fact that those WikiProjects aren't currently being useful, and are actually counter productive. Notice I didn't suggest a merge with WikiProject Zelda, which appeared to have a very active participation, but was even more specific than some of the other projects. -- Ned Scott 00:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Counter-productive? In which way? Well, I could agree if WP:CVG was a productive alternative. Of course, it is somewhat productive, but if you count participation per article, it is barely noticeable. WP:CVG has
I must also add a few unrelated words, and sorry if this sounds harsh, it is not meant to - Don't tell people how they should live and work. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 05:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
This actually is the reason I'm not a member of the Zelda WikiProject. I support merging certain subprojects; there are many that are too specific. I also feel that having a WikiProject that is too specific will lead to excess cruft, which just happens to be one of our largest problems right now, if you ask me. Pagrashtak 19:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd also like to note that I do support merging WikiProjects such as the Pokemon and Zelda WikiProjects, I'm just against having to merge WikiProjects which aren't directly related to WP:CVG, especially WikiProjects on companies like Microsoft which are involved with many industries other than computer and video games.--TBCTaLk?!? 19:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think anyone wants to merge the Microsoft WikiProject, that's obviously a bad idea. Pagrashtak 19:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
WP: Sqare Enix has existed for what, a day? 2 days? And you're already talking about merging it. Maybe some projects need to be merged, ones that are barely used, but that's not what you're proposing. Looking through this, people are proposing merging WPSE, which is the newly expanded version of WP:Final Fantasy, and WP:Pokemon, as their examples. So, as your examples of "they're not needed, it's counter productive, and we're degrading the concept of the WikiProject by creating projects before they're needed", you're using 2 of the most prolific sub-projects? If you want to have a rational discussion about this, which I think would be a good idea, this is not the way to go about it. --PresN 19:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
This is where I actually state my opinion. Are some of the subprojects very specific and crufty? Yes. Are they necessary? Very yes. You say that they are too specific- this wikiproject has 9200+ articles. It is really broad. One of your arguements is that WP:CVG covers everything in these projects, and WP:Anime covers the rest. Well, WP:Games covered everything in WP:CVG- it was just recently removed as the parent project for CVG, for being completely dead. It died for being way too broad. And to extend your arguement, doesn't Wikipedia itself cover eveything in CVG? Can't we just go to some big main noticeboard if we want to talk about a game related issue? Heck, lets get rid of the CVG peer review and GCotW- there's already a main peer review and collaboration. Well, why not? Because it's not specific enough, you say? Exactly. Your actual arguement is that the line of "too specific" is higher up than many of the subprojects. Therefore, we should discuss where the line is. Unfortunately, what you said is actually "I'm not saying we should delete all subprjects...just get rid of them" No matter what you say at the top about not getting mad, that's all that's going to happen here. I really doubt that any discussion about where the line shoudl be will happen. --PresN 19:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with everything PresN said. This WikiProject is extremely broad. Hell, the WikProject Square Enix is extremely broad (think about every article that could possibly fit under it - this includes artices exclusively related to Square (e.g., all Square games) and exclusively related to Enix). It was actually Hibana's idea to start such a project when I was trying to drum up support for a WikiProject Dragon Quest, but it was deemed too small in scope, and in hindsight I agree. But the WikiProject Square Enix? There's no way that's too small in scope. --Tristam 19:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Problem is, with one project governing everything, there will be many disagreements in style guide formatting, since almost every game has a different style. It's much, much easier to manage these articles (particularly cruft ones) locally so problems can be avoided at higher levels and so a community can be formed much easier. I personally don't understand why you're doing this with successful projects such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Nintendo as well as projects that haven't been given a chance yet such as WP:SE which has a TON of GAs and FAs. If doing that is counterproductive than I don't know what isn't. Sir Crazyswordsman 19:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
The problem with WikiProject Square Enix is that it was only proposed in order to sub group more games. Yes, CVG has a lot of articles under it's scope, but no one has said how that justifies making a forking of guidelines that can apply to all video games. It makes things harder to find, and you will often find yourself at conflict with parent projects and child projects. You want someone to work on these projects because they're lost in the shuffle, but there's a lot better ways to do this than creating a whole new WikiProject. -- Ned Scott 00:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Notice:Ned Scott didn't actually put the merge notice on many of the subprojects. Here's a list of the ones he missed (updated as I tell them): Halo, Mortal Kombat, Elder Scrolls, Final Fantasy, Nintendo, both Pokemon and it's sub-sub, Zelda, Digimon, and Warcaft. --PresN 19:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

To put it bluntly, WTF? The only ones you tagged were Sega, Tycoon, Nintendo Wars, and SE. --PresN 19:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
You're not actually supporting the merges, are you? Sir Crazyswordsman 19:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Hell no. But I think that they should be told that there's a proposal to delete them all. --PresN 20:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Last I checked WP:DIGI was a subproject of WP:ANIME. Shiroi Hane 22:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Nobody is really advocating deletion, we're just discussing. Probably projects like the Final Fantasy project are worth having, not just because of the scope, but also because it is well maintained, something that can't be said for all projects. Let's see:
WikiProjects edit

Directory of VG projects and taskforces

Are all of these really being used? Things like WikiProject Nintendo Wars, Halo, seems to be pretty dead. The situation that we need to adress is that in a few months we could have tons more daughter projects, is that a situation we really want? PErsonally, I think the Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography works well, where they have different workgroups, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Military which are integrated with the main Biography WikiProject. Also, people have to propose new workgroups before just going ahead with setting them up, which ensures that there there is at least some interest in maintenance. I think this is a discussion we need to have, and we should try and stay calm while doing so. jacoplane 20:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I am personally against the merging of WP:PCP with WikiProject games, we are doing plenty fine on our own, and the two have very little to actually do with each other. We're above the level of other sub projects, with 2 FAs, another at FAC, and over a dozens GAs written souly by us. Where is the positive in merging this perfectly fine withstanding project into a large scale project where it's discussion will be drowned? Highway Daytrippers 20:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I oppose any and all mergers of any Wikiproject into the CVG Wikiproject. And I can't relate to the point that it's "counter productive". Havok (T/C/c) 20:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    Do you also oppose having tightly integrated workgroups (like the Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Military) as I suggested above? This way we wouldn't have all these seperate WikiProjects but retain the possibility of groups of people to focus on one specific topic. jacoplane 20:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    In the case of Pokémon, yes, since it's not in the least just to do with video games. Plus, it would be a lot of work for little gain. Nobody has yet explained why having subpages is better than separate ones. Thanks! —Celestianpower háblame 20:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I agree with HighwayCello on the Pokémon front. We are a very active community there, actively making a series of articles better. Surely this is the point? If that is decreased by merging then surely merging is a bad thing. Also, particularly with Pokémon (I can't speak for anyone else), it is a huge franchise of many media - the video game aspect is just that: an aspect. The trading cards and anime were just as popular and notable; a merge into CVG ignores this. Kind regards, —Celestianpower háblame 20:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    • (double edit conflict) So you want to change the names from Wikipedia:Pokémon Collaborative Project to Wikipedia:Computer and video games/Pokémon? What's the point? Unless you incinuate giving the CVG WikiProject more powers over subprojects then all I'm seeing is someone having a lot of work moving names and little result coming from it. Highway Daytrippers 20:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Well for Pokémon I would agree, since the video games are just one aspect of a much broader franchise. But This isn't the case for Nintendo Wars or Mortal Kombat, The Elder Scrolls, Warcraft, etc. It is these underused / limited scope WikiProjects that should be integrated more tightly with this WikiProject IMO, otherwise I see us having hundreds of different WikiProjects in the future. At the very least I think we need some kind of mechanism where we need to have a minimum number of people to agree to set up a new daughter project. jacoplane 20:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • As far as I know, there's a candidate page, and five people have to show interest before it can be created. Unfortunately, not all projects go through that system. Highway Daytrippers 20:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm totally against this merge. If the Pokémon Project and other video game WikiProjects are all merged, people are going to get really annoyed with our discussion of "Pokémon this" and "Pikachu that". Save yourselves the trouble and don't merge them. --Brandon Dilbeck 20:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm against the merge as well. If we merge these, then each project (except for ones than are already "dead" as you claim) will get less attention. And THAT is counterproductive. --Niroht 22:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I am strongly for this merge. We could consolidate a dozen Projects into one, like WikiProject Biography. How many GAs and FAs does everybody have? myTrackerTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 22:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't mean to offend, but it would really be a good idea to read the discussion on top of the page before posting a new proposal. It discussed merging of just the boxes, and generally was objected. I won't repeat all arguments, see the section "banner headers" for more details. Shortly, Wikiproject Military History can work with task forces structure, but WPCVG can't, because the former mostly consists of mature and skilled people with a lot of common interests and views, with a coordinating team, but the latter is very different, covering a broad range of highly subjective topics, and consisting of people with very different views and interests. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 23:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I tend to think that most active contributors to this WikiProject are mature and skilled people with a lot of common interests and views too. The fact that we've got so many featured and good articles (many of which come from the subprojects) would also suggest this. The discussion above was only about adding these daughter projects to the cvgproj template, this discussion is about something else. jacoplane 00:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Seeing this explode from the WP:COUNCIL point of view, I believe that something much more efficient would be to find ways in which the projects can collaborate, without stepping on anyone's toes. For example, there must be some duplicate efforts somewhere - or there may be editors who have the ability for, I don't know, assess articles, but that aren't in a subproject that assesses them. CVG could take care of the "duties" (for lack of a better word) of some projects, and serve as an inter-project noticeboard, while leaving most of the work to the subproject themselves. That is basically what WP:MILHIST does - they just use the term "task force" instead of the term "subproject". The projects that should be merged, though, are those that are inactive - they just duplicate effort. I don't know, just my two pence. Titoxd(?!?) 01:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong; I don't mean WPCVG contributors are bad. It's just that they are very different from WPMILHIST contributors. Practically any editor plays computer games, and WPCVG contributors tend to be a decade younger in average. They also have different interests. You can safely assume that if any WPMIL member is interested in tanks, he also is interested in ships, firearms, wars, tactics - pretty much everything in scope of WPMIL. It's all connected. I'll say more: I have never seen a real debate there, only people consulting about how exactly to do this or that.
On the other hand, WPCVG contributors have more narrow interests. I don't care a bit about pokemon and all the arcade games; I've never played a console game and am never going to. I only play a handful of good CRPGs, a few strategy games, Operation:Flashpoint and VBS1, and I'm never going to play something much different from that. Neither I know anything about pokemons or Zelda, nor I want to, and any discussions about them only distract me.
This goes both ways. WPCVG doesn't care a slightest bit about anything I am interested in. Well, let's leave the good old CRPGs alone, let's even leave the strategy games alone, and Flashpoint never needed a wikiproject anyway; maybe it's right that WPCVG doesn't care about them. Take The Elder Scrolls, one of the most popular computer game series, with many full-size articles here. In all these 16 archives WPCVG has never even mentioned any of the TES-related articles. So what should I do? Call the recently created WP:TES counter-productive, because it really works on these articles, delete it, and leave the WPCVG work on them as before, addressing 0 articles per year? CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 05:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


Clarification

Whoa whoa, wait a second! No one suggested Pokemon be merged! this conversation is not about merging all the child projects but rather is here so we can look at how to best organize ourselves. Some projects would benefit, some would not. You cannot give a blanket treatment to all WikiProjects. I was very selective in what projects I suggested be merged. Instead of taking this personally, like "topic x isn't important" (which NO ONE is saying), people actually need to step back and realizing we're talking about how to make all of our efforts more effective.

You want to grow the article on Car Tycoon? Great, but ask yourself, what is the best way to do that? Does Car Tycoon have an element that would benefit from forked guidelines, such as infobox suggestions or ways to cite sources?

I just posted this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Square Enix:

"It [the wikiproject] was one possible idea, and not necessarily a bad one. The idea of that conversation is to just take a look to see if maybe there's a better way to organize our efforts. I did read that entire discussin you speak of before I suggested the merge. For all you know, maybe this will result in keeping this project but making it even better? Please don't take offense to my suggestion, as I simply want our efforts to be used in the best most efficient way. Keep an open mind, because I have no reason to personally want these merges other than helping the very efforts that inspired their creation. -- Ned Scott 00:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)"

This could even mean that we keep them as separate "projects", but we rethink how to share guidelines and make sure they're all better inter-connected. So please, PLEASE, don't take these suggestions personally. The real issue here is to avoid isolation on the wrong stuff, but still allowing concentrated conversation and collaboration where desired. -- Ned Scott 00:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but most of these guidelines you've mentioned really are typical Wikipedia guidelines. Last I checked individual projects didn't have seperate guidelines. Of course, some projects have more specific things to watch out for, but that doesn't mean we're making a whole new set or guidelines for each project's articles. Collaboration still occurs lacked I checked too: CVG has a weekly collaboration, and it can take place in an article that has, for lack of a better work, a "sub-project". I don't see how forcing all the projects together makes things better, anybody that's in a sub-project but not CVG is in that project because they want specifically to concentrate on the issues of that particular group, not another set of games that they have little or no knowledge of. --Niroht 01:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Specifically concerning Wikiproject:Square Enix, if you're concerning about too many subprojects, WP:FF looks like it's perfectly fine with just completely moving itself into WP:SE, without any child projects. Also, since it was created just a few days ago, it hasn't had time for all the WP:FF people to make the transition. For that matter, WP:FF itself has a great community (similar to WP:Zelda) of collaborating editors who are focused on Final Fantasy which don't need to be concerned with WP:CVG politics. The problem with the scope and specificity argument is that it's completely subjective. The Pokemon project has 600+ articles in its "jurisdiction". WP:Square Enix would probably have 300+ articles at least. On the other hand, CVG has probably over 10,000 articles (and more every day) under its jurisdiction (which includes articles in its subprojects). I would find it hard to discuss something about Final Fantasy if I'm surrounded by editors from every CVG camp, some of who may not like it. Ultimately, I think each merge proposal should be handled individually. I know that WP:Zelda, WP:Square Enix and WP:Pokemon all have core communities of editors and probably won't die out soon. On the other hand, WP:Tycoon and WP:Nintendo Wars are practically dead and don't have that core number of editors who need a Wikiproject to coordinate themselves. Axem Titanium 02:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Separation of guidelines can also mean that when an editor visits a project page and doesn't find any links or mentioning of guidelines. Also, many users have the misconception that having a separate wikiproject will make it exempt from some of the guidelines of the parent project. In any case, it's confusing. If the sub-project doesn't actually have separate guidelines, and doesn't intend to, then it's nothing more than a dedicated discussion page. We can make dedicated notice and discussion pages on the current CVG page and avoid "hiding" guidelines that some might overlook, and encourage the idea that we are interconnected in these projects. WikiProjects aren't "physical", so how they appear to editors greatly effects their very impact on editors. We wish to promote flow and collaboration. -- Ned Scott 02:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
They are exempt whether there is Wikiproject or not. Wikiproject guidelines have no power. The power structure of Wikipedia is: Key Policies - Editor Consensus - other policies - official guidelines - anything else. Note the editor consensus as the second level. It is so, established by the five pillars, IAR, and all practice: unless one of the Three Policies is violated, editor consensus prevails.
The problem of people not accessing WP:CVG might exist, but it is fixed by adding links to wikiprojects pages, not by removing them. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 05:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Somewhat off topic, but yeah, I like this Wikiproject Square Enix idea (it is pretty much a renamed WikiProject final fantasy, which is good for everyone). However, series like Xenosaga, Halo, and Suikoden may not need their own articles, as they only have a few games as central hubs. Square Enix/Final Fantasy encompasses at least 60 games (Star Ocean, Final Fantasy, Parasite Eve, Xenogears, Kingdom Hearts, Chrono series, etc). — Deckiller 03:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Can you please cite some specific examples of guideline discontinuity that have had detrimental effects on articles (i.e. other editors think we're not up to standard on "flow and collaboration") under the umbrella of a subproject within this topic? I'd just like to know because I'm having a hard time discerning whether or not guidelines is the real issue here. ~ Hibana 04:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
It makes it harder to find guidelines that already exist on CVU, implies that the sub-project is under it's own "set of rules", is easily confusing to new and experienced editors, etc. I'd really like to explain more, but I think you're only taking a defensive position from what I'm suggesting.
It's really not hard to see what I'm suggesting, and the benefits from better interconnection between projects. WikiProjects are supposed to make the process easier and faster, by grouping information that can apply to a large group of articles in one area. Many sub-projects don't have a significant difference to warrant a separate grouping, and most don't even list or group the applicable guidelines, thus not aiding in finding the guidelines at all. I've seen many times on child-projects where people start to discuss ideas such as their own split infobox, only to have it later nominated for delete later on since it's redundant with an infobox created by a parent project. There's already a huge amount of Wikipedia guidelines that people shift and sort through, to have a large number of WikiProjects that aren't anything more than a dedicated discussion page and some userboxes, that makes the process even harder.
Maybe you'd like to tell me how it helps to have MORE pages to click through? A better flow of collaboration would be to use the CVU page and then link to CVU specific discussion pages whenever someone wants to raise specific collaborative efforts. They can have their own talk page, then use the paired project page for a to-do list and to keep track of tasks, etc. For many child-related projects, this would actually be the same amount of pages, but would emphasize that things are better connected. This also helps in issues were something is "over-lapping" between two child projects, etc, where discussion then can be taken back to the main CVU talk page when it effects more than those sub-topics.
In other words, we'd be changing how we think of these projects, giving greater appearance to them not being as isolated and showing them as more connected, but still having all the tools needed to give individual focus and effort. There would be no loss in this plan. It would even help other editors FIND these sub-projects easier. -- Ned Scott 05:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Replying to your comment on "MORE pages to click through", does one or two more clicks make much of a difference? Are Wikipedians really that lazy? Please note as well that many of the WikiProjects use shortcuts such as WP:SE or WP:NES, so there's no need to do that much clicking. Also, there's no evidence that having all the video game WikiProjects merged into a larger one will create a better flow in collaboration. In fact, one could argue that doing so may hinder collaboration due to the difference in opinion among different groups of editors.--TBCTaLk?!? 05:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
It's not really about how many they have to click through, but how many links and pages they go through to find the discussions they're looking for (in this case the discussions are likely to be in more than one WikiProject). In other words, this is assuming someone is looking for a WikiProject to join and doesn't know about them, thus doesn't know their locations or their shortcuts. -- Ned Scott 05:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Not only that, but many editors might find a child project first and over-look the parent project, or think that the parent project is not an appropriate place to look for game-specific advice / discussion / etc. -- Ned Scott 05:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
If someone was trying to find a discussion regarding Mario games they would first look at WP:NES. If it isn't there, then they look at WP:CVG. Is doing so really that difficult and time consuming? Also, if people don't know about shortcuts, they can always be listed on WP:CVG. Either way, is there any evidence that having seperate projects will make people think that the "parent project is not an appropriate place to look for game-specific advice / discussion / etc"? After all, even though we currently have many descendant WikiProjects, the discussion at WP:CVG is still the most active.--TBCTaLk?!? 05:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
How would they know to look there... you are asuming a point of view from an editor who knows their way around Wikipedia.. -- Ned Scott 06:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, even for an experienced editor, the great amount of guideline, policy, and WikiProject pages to keep track of can be huge. What's the point of making this needlessly complicated if we can do the same thing more efficiently? As I said before, this will likely result in more editors finding the right collaborative efforts, causing all these goals to be stronger and everyone to get what they want. -- Ned Scott 06:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Really, with all these shortcuts, navigational templates, categories, wikilinks, etc, is it really so difficult for one navigate through Wikipedia?--TBCTaLk?!? 06:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Not to sound rude.. but.. You're fucking joking, right? It's a god damn nightmare for many new editors, and many existing editors don't even know about all the ones that currently exist, or commonly forget them in the shuffle. It happens to almost all of us. It can be really hard to keep track of this stuff AND the actual articles themselves, especially when there's so many sub-projects, where you have to remember that each applies to this or that and so on. Why wouldn't we make it easier if we can? why would it be a bad idea?
WikiProjects are about going out of our way to help the improvement of articles. I guess you don't see the issue of the massive splintering of projects, but many editors see it as a major problem, and with good reason. Just because you have templates and links doesn't mean people will find these things, because there's TONS of links and templates and categories along side of this stuff. It's kind of like the image upload page, there's so many notices that people start to just ignore then and aren't aware of basic image policy. Keep in mind I'm saying we should avoid this when reasonable, and there are some sub-projects that are worth the extra link because of their sub-organizational benefits. I'm not saying this about all sub-projects. -- Ned Scott 06:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, the following (possibly more) should be merged into the computer and video games project: Halo, Nintendo Wars, Tycoon Computer games, Machinima and arcade games. I think all these "child" projects are out of hand, and some must be merged at least. RobJ1981 05:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


Well, now I know where a lot of the confusion has come from. User:PresN has done around and tagged ALL of the sub-projects as ones I thought should be merged, which is completely not true. A major WP:POINT violation as well as misleading others as to my position on the matter. What gives? -- Ned Scott 05:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

But why are you proposing to merge only some of the WikiProjects and not all of them? How is the concept of the Square Enix WikiProject any different from the Nintendo WikiProject?--TBCTaLk?!? 05:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, as I pointed out before, if the Square Enix WikiProject hypothetically were to be merged into WP:CVG, then what would happen to articles such as Full Metal Alchemist or Pani Poni Dash! which fall under the Square Enix WikiProject but not WP:CVG?--TBCTaLk?!? 05:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to quote you here Ned Scott: "Maybe you'd like to tell me how it helps to have MORE pages to click through? A better flow of collaboration would be to use the CVU page and then link to CVU specific discussion pages whenever someone wants to raise specific collaborative efforts." You're kidding me, right? Man, if I wanted to find a past discussion I participated in on WP:CVG, I'd have one hell of a time if I was to look through the archives. Really, it seems like you've formed the idea that users at child projects of CVG are conspiratorially forming new infoboxes and guidelines to be implemented. I really don't know how this maverick status is applied to members of such successful projects as WP:FF, which I'm assuming will be merged into WP:SE, carrying its members with it. The goal of subprojects is to provide inertia and a discussion group for editors who more than likely are experts on the subject. I don't see where you get the idea of "flow" in discussion in WP:CVG. I turned my back for just five minutes on this thread and it required five minutes of reading before I was able to type a reply. In short, successful subprojects don't hinder collaboration, but help it. --Tristam 06:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
This is apart of the confusion explained below. I only suggested a few mostly inactive projects be "merged", and I did not suggest the active ones such as WP:FF. In other words, it does not seem that we disagree. -- Ned Scott 10:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
The rational behind the WikiProject Square Enix is to group in more game related articles. Since when was there a concern about Full Metal Alchemist or Pani Poni Dash! not getting enough attention via WP:ANIME?
As far as why I only suggested some sub-projects and not others.. well, there is my original reason.... that is clearly posted at the top of the discussion... "My rational is this: they're not needed, it's counter productive, and we're degrading the concept of the WikiProject by creating projects before they're needed."(Note that I have since "retracted" my suggestion on WikiProject Square Enix, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Square Enix)
I suggested the "merge" or greater interconnection of projects that just seemed... well... rather insane to have as their own projects. Just because company A gets a WikiProject isn't a real reason to give all companies a WikiProject. That's not why we start WikiProjects. WikiProjects are not based on the notability of their topics or popularity, or things of that nature. We start WikiProjects when there is a need to collaborate a work effort on a topic or group of articles. Sometimes there are no major issues with an article or group of articles, or that they're currently reasonably healthy with the current selection of WikiProjects. WikiProjects are created when normal means of collaborative editing are not enough, and more attention is warranted. This is to not spread ourselves thin, and to discourage WikiProjects as "clubs".
For example, there is a WikiProject Digimon not because Digimon is important or notable, but because there's a large amount of articles that require cleanup and can greatly benefit from a focused collaboration (such as discouraging Digimon specific fancruft).
Editors really need to not be jealous of the existence of some WikiProjects, or think that the only way to get attention for their game / topic is to create a new sub-wikiproject. This is a major misconception that has created a great amount of needless sub-projects in all areas of WikiProjects, not just games and entertainment.
Projects that seemed to have a somewhat reasonable existence and/or healthy activity were not "tagged". -- Ned Scott 06:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Judging by the location of my post, I consider my point proven. --Tristam 06:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Err... could you clarify on what you mean by "location of my post"?--TBCTaLk?!? 06:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I apologize for putting notices on all of the sub-projects, I wasn't trying to violate WP:POINT. I went and reread Ned Scott's post, and he did in fact say that he was just proposing merging th ones that he had tagged. He never said which ones those were, so when I saw people discussing Nintendo, Zelda, and such, I assumed he meant them all. To make up for it, I'm going to start my own proposal, down below this, that specific projects have the "suspected dead project" template added to them, and if not addressed, they be merged back in. I'm afraid that this debate is now to long to do it here. --PresN 06:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I see. As I said in your message on my talk page, I'm also sorry for the confusion, as I also jumped to conclusions in regards to your actions. It does seem that much of this is a miscommunication. -- Ned Scott 06:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Archiving with bot

Is it a good idea to use automatic archiving on this page, like is done for WP:AN?? Like that we don't have to worry about manually archiving the page. jacoplane 22:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I really hate that archivng method, I'd really prefer to move the whole page over - I did that for /archive13 - but nobody else seems to suscribe to that philisophy, so maybe. Hbdragon88 16:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok I guess I won't implement it then. jacoplane 02:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Articles up for deletion as "game guides"

I would really appreciate some feedback on my points in these AfD's, which to me seem a huge abuse of the term "game guide". If everyone disagrees with me then so be it, but I would just like to know if its not a couple of people going loony deletionist or if the consensus is that sub-articles are hurting Wikipedia more than the gain from people visiting them to reference their information.

Cheers. Remy B 03:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with the nominations of those articles. -- Ned Scott 04:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the nominations as well. After all, note that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information--TBCTaLk?!? 05:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
And what's all this about "loony" deletionists? We deletionists have feelings too... Smile eye.png--TBCTaLk?!? 05:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think I'm a loony... --Charlesknight 15:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to break it to you, you are. :P *hug* Havok (T/C/c) 07:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I have had a look back at the AfD's, and I suppose I am not nearly as zealous now to keep the articles (maybe I am the loony one?). I can understand the argument of "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information". I still think however that the term "game guide" does not apply at all to lists of facts even though such lists appear in game guides, in the same way a wheel does not make a car just because all cars have wheels. In a related matter, I would be very keen for feedback on the "cruftyness" of some of the Battlefield 2 article, eg. the huge easter eggs section, and the details of every patch that has come out. To me that seems horribly less relevant to the topic at hand than anything so far put up for deletion. Thoughts? Remy B 09:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Is pinball considered a computer and/or video game?

I noticed the CVG tag on some talk pages of pinball articles, so I've started to tag others. I consider pinball a form of it. What does everyone else think? RobJ1981 06:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It depends on the type of pinball. Older versions of pinball are made from wood, thus aren't technically either a "computer" or a "video" game.--TBCTaLk?!? 06:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm in reference to the ones with electronics, sounds, music and so on. RobJ1981 06:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Then yes, it does fall under WP:CVG.--TBCTaLk?!? 06:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Dead Wikiprojects

To try to pull something out of the extended discussion above, I'm proposing that the "possibly dead project" template be added to some, well, possible dead projects. They would be, Tycoon, Sega, and Nintendo Wars. Lets get some discussion- are they dead? Should they be killed? --PresN 06:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The projects seem to be dead as no one has edited them for around a month (excluding PresN and Nedd Scott who were adding/removing the merge tag). However, I suggest the members of the above projects be contacted first before doing anything, just in case if anyone is willing to revive the projects.--TBCTaLk?!? 07:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I think their inactivity is another sign of why these projects are generally a waste of time and not a good idea. It'd be much more useful to just make a sub-talk page rather than a sub-group like these. -- Ned Scott 07:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
What is not working and can not repaired, should be deleted or archived, not marked. Contact them, if no reaction follows, redirect to CVG. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 09:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Inactive WikiProjects should neither be deleted or redirected, but archived just in case anyone wants to revive the project.--TBCTaLk?!? 09:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm speaking about ones for sure inactive. Just redirect here (soft redirect would fit), take what is useful, archive the page. But usually it's more effective to start from scratch rather than attempt a resurrection. Inactive projects are really not needed. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 10:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, some might be, but definitely not these. -- Ned Scott 10:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
So let's just ask them. I think they will agree to join. It's just that I've seen a few really useless Wikiprojects - they hadn't even cleaned or filled the template beyond name and scope. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 18:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
You're speaking specifically of subprojects to CVG, right? I just noticed that someone has tagged Wikipedia:WikiProject Games, a parent project to this one, as inactive. That's kind of the reverse situation of this one. ~ Hibana 15:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
That was tagged as inactive sa long time ago, actually, if you check their talk page, there's one random guy asking a question a month ago, with no response, and before that, the last comment of any kind was a year ago. --PresN 20:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Council guidelines call for three months to have elapsed without activity to call a project "inactive". However, just to possibly clarify what I think Ned may have been driving at. If you were to look at WP:MILHIST or WP:BIO, you would note that each of these larger projects has largely autonomous "task forces" or "work groups" which work as separate parts of the larger project. I think that an arrangement like this may have been what he was driving at. There are advantages to such an arrangement, in that it makes some things, like portal maintenance and possible upgrade to featured portal status, article assessment, collaboration, and such much less demanding, as the duties are spread out over a greater number of interested people. Also, in the event a project does become inactive for whatever reason, it would take substantially less time and extraneous effort to "merge" it back into the parent project. Anyway, I'm sure you'll all be happy that I'm shutting up now. Sorry for being so verbose. Badbilltucker 17:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
This system works in WP:BIO because all bios are, structurally, the same. It works in WP:MILHIST, because all the aspects are too interconnected, and one can't know about, say, WWII without knowing about tanks, planes and other weapons. However, one doesn't need to know what is MSFS to write about Quake; and it's obvious that, for instance, world of Mario and the Forgotten Realms deserve very different levels of attention. So Quake players have nothing to discuss with arcade, sim, strategy and CRPG players, and will hardly benefit from being under a common Wikiproject.
All above is theory. There is also practice. As I said above, WP:CVG has never even mentioned a single TES article; after WP:TES was recently created, they became better organized and tighter merged. So the evidence indicates that creating a dedicated Wikiproject improves organization; there is no evidence yet that removing them and merging back to alleged parent does any good. If there is, I'd be glad to see it. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 18:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Back on track

WikiProjects connected with Computer and video games:

OK, let's sort this out. I'm thinking of deleting the WikiProjects Pokédex, Pokénav, and PAC, and merging PAC2 into the PCP, so that the PCP becomes a direct parent of WP:NES, along with the LoZ one. Nintendo Wars articles would simply merge into WP:NES, with the Mario Project (if any) being a child of WP:NES. WP:FF would be merged into WikiProject Square Enix. myTrackerTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 16:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Pokedex, Pokenav, PAC, and PAC2 should be kept for archival purposes. Move them under subpages; don't outright delete them or merge them. Hbdragon88 17:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
On a related note, I think Machinima should not be considered a daughter WikiProject of CVG. Pagrashtak 19:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
No disagreement here. In the absence of any objections from the rest of the project, I've removed the CVG parenthood. — TKD::Talk 09:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Err... why would PCP be a parent of WP:NES if WP:NES covers a much broader group of articles?--TBCTaLk?!? 19:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I propose archiving Pokedex, Pokenav, and PAC1 at either Nintendo or PCP, whoever wants it, and removing it from the list. I'd leave PAC2 as a sub of PCP, it's active and that the way PCP and PAC2 see themselves. I'd take Machinima off the list entirely, but I'd recommend holding off on that until they're done discussing it, they've proposed removing themselves as they have only 1 article in common with us. I'd recommend asking Sega, Nintendo Wars, and Tycoon if they're even alive, because it doesn't look like it, and if they aren't, archiving them here/remove them from the list. Other than that, I'd say keep them as they are. --PresN 21:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I got a reply from WikiProject Sega, and the creator of the project said "No reason. I just discovered it one day, and thought "heck, why not?" Perhaps this Wikiproject should be labeled inactive, not many people have joined it... --DavidHOzAu 01:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)" So it would seem there's not a whole lot of activity or motivation there. -- Ned Scott 08:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
This is just an idea I had, and nothing formal. Perhaps for dead WikiProjects we can throw out all of the useless WikiProject stuff (Look at all the useless things on Wikipedia:WikiProject Sega) and move them to a subpage. That way if there are some people who are looking for some sega specific templates they can look there. They don't have a whole WikiProject, with seperate guidelines/peer review/talk page templates/rating system, etc .. just a simple page with some useful things. Is this something we want to do for all dead WikiProjects?? Note: I'm not saying we should transform active WikiProjects to this format, only the dead ones. We could include it in the {{cvgproj}} like this:jacoplane 12:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Famicom style controller This article is part of WikiProject Computer and video games, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Memorycard VMU.png
This article is supported by the Sega Work Group.

I like it. Nifboy 15:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Awesome, I like it as well. -- Ned Scott 20:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I got this response from WP:Tycoon- "Everyone on this WikiProject is inactive. I am Iuio, the last active member on the project. You have the go ahead to merge this project with WikiProject Computer and video games. (Iuio 07:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC))"

That means both Sega and Tycoon are confirmed dead, and Nintendo wars still pending. --PresN 14:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with merging Nintendo Wars into this, I know I posted there a couple of times but I wasn't a regular member and it appears to be dead now. TJ Spyke 19:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
And with that, it's over, as TJ Spyke was the only person to post a non-spam/cvg message in months there. So, I'll be starting a new section down there to restart discussion. --PresN 21:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Rating revisit - how does one go about it?

I recently substantially cleaned up the Doom 3 article, which was rated as Start-class on the assessment scale. I'm convinced that the article has improved substantially since rating, but I'm clearly too close to the current revision to rate it accurately. How would one go about asking for a re-review of the article? Captainktainer * Talk 17:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

You would add "|peer-review=yes" to the end of the template, so that the statement within the double braces reads "cvgproj|class=start|importance=mid|peer-review=yes". This would change both the appearance of the banner and alert those who are engaged in the review process to know that you are requesting that it be reassessed. I've gone ahead and done it for you, so you can go to the page and see what it looks like. Badbilltucker 18:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
My thanks; you were very helpful. Captainktainer * Talk 18:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
If you want to request a peer review, there's more to it than that. Check out WP:CVGPR for the details. If all you want is for someone to rerate the article, just post a request here, I suppose. Or, if you think the article is good enough to qualify for Good Article status, go to WP:GA and follow the nomination procedure there. Pagrashtak 19:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
And that's only if you (like you said) don't feel comfortable rerating it yourself. Doom 3 is a popular game, so it'd be a good idea to get someone else's thoughts, but for an unpopular game I gauruntee that whoever rated it looked at it for 10 seconds at most. --PresN 20:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for speaking out turn there, Pagra, and thanks for the clarification. Badbilltucker 22:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Merger

The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords DS into The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass. The whole premise of this, that there was ever a Four Swords DS game in creation, is false.

If you look in the link in this articles references, this is what is stated in an interview with a Nintendo higher up:

GI: Will there be any connectivity with the Nintendo DS?

Aonuma: No there won’t be any connectivity with the DS. We do have another Zelda game up and running on the DS, but unfortunately, because our goal is to get this one done by the end of the year we can’t focus too much attention on that one.

GI: Is that Four Swords DS?

Aonuma: No, it’s not Four Swords. Actually, the interview that I was talking about a DS Zelda and Four Swords, I was explaining that with Four Swords we worked with two screens, and because of the experience we had with working with two screens we could easily adapt a system like that with the DS and do different things with it. But I never said that we were actually developing Four Swords for the DS.

In light of this, I believe this article belongs in the development section of Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass. Please contribute your thoughts on the Four Swords DS talk page. Judgesurreal777 22:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Portal CVG

I've overhauled the Portal:Computer and video games. It's currently in CVG Peer review, so please comment on how it could be further improved so that we can make this a Wikipedia:Featured portals. jacoplane 07:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

19XX in video gaming

I've made my first tentative steps into using AWB, in this case to go through CVG articles and convert , for example, [198X] wikilinks to [198X in video gaming|198X]. (I'm catching everything from 197X to 200X). It seems appropriate to do this for both CVG infoboxes and the main text.

If anyone has any objections please let me know. Marasmusine 22:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you know about this (Release dates)?. 198x in video gaming is only being used on articles that only have a year in them, not in articles that have a day month and year. Otherwise it screws up the user date format function. - X201 08:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed that. Back to doing it manually then :> Unless I can improve the pattern matching - I'll need to learn some more regex syntax. In terms of the 'avoiding surprises' guideline, I'll restrict the substitutions to CVG infoboxes as well, rather than the whole text. Another thing I thought of was to make sure that 'keyboard' and 'mouse' in the infobox 'input=' section links to [Computer keyboard|keyboard] and [mouse (computing)|] respectively. Again I need to learn more regex syntax. Marasmusine 12:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
That wasn't as hard as I thought actually. It's now ignoring years preceded by months :> Marasmusine 13:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Could I get some help?

I need help here: Marvel: Ultimate Alliance. On the page is a list of confirmed and unconfirmed characters. By each unconfirmed, a note saying "rumored" is by it. Unconfirmed and rumored mean the same thing basically, there isn't any reason to be redundant. When I changed it, it was reverted back with no reason. I even mentioned it on the user's talk page, and the talk page of the article to no response at all. I'm not really sure what to do at this point. I know if I change it again, it will probably be reverted. But it simply looks stupid as it is now. RobJ1981 23:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps report the user? The list of confirmed and unconfirmed characters definitely needs to go. --Tristam 15:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Just Cause - Buggy As Hell

Maybe it's just me, but my version of Just Cause (bought in the UK on the 25th Sept) is buggy as hell! Examples include spinning almost endlessly on the front whell of a bike when turning too sharply, guns not making sounds, traffic vanishing until the game is reset, 'invisible' helicopters and the list goes on. Are there any sources for this, since the first release of this game feels unfinished and should be noted in the article, but because it's based on my experience, would it be Original Research to just say so? (Oh, and the instruction manual is riddled with spelling and grammatical errors.) The Kinslayer 12:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It would be OR but if enough people suffer from it I'm sure it will be reported somewhere and then you can cite it. What platform was it for? I've had some trouble with the PC version, Securom played up but support sent me a new .exe, The only in-game problems I've had are some wrong textures (sand on roads, etc) and the speech for some side mission starts going AWOL. - X201 12:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
It was the PS2 version, I've also had texture issues. On some metal shipping containers, as I looked left and right while facing them, the colors swtiched between red and blue. Also had an 'inside out face' type gltivch caused bhy certain camera angles near walls. Other issues (though maybe not bugs) were delays between NPCs making a gesture and the associated speach being heard, and significant delays with the pop-ups from collection missions. The Kinslayer 12:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Just Cause looked crap, it looked like a mix between Far Cry and Boiling Point: Road to Hell. If it really is that buggy (like Boiling Point was), then reviews will obviously pick up on it and you could easily source it. - Hahnchen 14:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
It not crap, just rather buggy. Now I think about it, I'm sure Gamespots review mentioned some of the bugs. I'll do some hunting round tongiht when I'm home from work. The Kinslayer 14:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Great game and great fun, gets better with time. Very enjoyable, But probably a bit too much to ask of an ageing PS2 - X201 15:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Very true, I was thinking the same thing. I reckon that stuff is worth noting in the article, the only problem being finding sources to cite that say it! The Kinslayer 15:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I can't really find any journlistic sources for bugs, but a google of 'Just Cause bugs' returns a lot of forum results with bug discussions, including the ones I mentioned. WOuld these be OK to cite? Also, since the spelling mistakes are in the manual for all to see, could I just cite the manual as the source of the spelling mistakes? The Kinslayer 16:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I've found a review that mentions some of the bugs and it's a well established often quoted site. I'll put the details and a link on Talk:Just Cause (video game) - X201 17:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Print references for MegaMan Battle Network 5

I must be retarded or something, since I decided, for no reason I can fathom, to get MegaMan Battle Network 5 up to at least GA status. I don't currently have any print game magazine subscriptions, however; could someone help me flesh out the Critical Reception section with something other than IGN, Gamespot, and Gamespy? If someone who doesn't care about the game, even, could scrounge up old issues of Edge or Famitsu or EGM or something, just that would be helpful. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Are print suorces required? You said that Super Princess Peach was almost GA-worthy, and that relied on IGN, Gamespot, and Gamespy...oh, well I guess there was Morgan Webb, but there's no website citation for that bit. Hbdragon88 19:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
There's what I'd be willing to pass on GA and then there's what I'm satisfied sending to GAC. I'm inclined to be more lenient for other people's work. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd say that a GA doesn't need print references, but for FACs, I insist on them. Even more so for earlier games. Sadly I don't have anything to help you guys in my print collection being that they're mostly PC related. - Hahnchen 23:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Would now be a good time to mention Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games/Magazines?
I've checked the Edge review database for you but I can only find Rockman X4, still, have a look at the magazine project, it might be worth contacting a few of the members on the off-chance. - X201 19:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

FARC

Bishōjo game is now up as a Featured Article Removal Candidate, so it needs some lovin' if it wants to keep that star. You can find the discussionhere. --PresN 16:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Creation of Assessment Department

I'd like to start up an Assessment Department here in WP:CVG. This department would serve two purposes: to assess CVG articles upon request and provide a reviewing system to define A-Class articles. Assessing articles as Stub-, Start-, or B-Class would be just as it is now — you mark the talk page and move on, no paperwork. GAs and FAs would still be identified through their respective channels. The rare GA that is approaching FA-Class would be listed under the "Requests for A-Class status", where it would undergo a sort of mini-FAC. This would bridge the gap between GAs and FAs, which are both reviewed for quality. Additionally, the scrutiny of the A-Class assessment might actually lead to improvements that result in an article good enough to be submitted to WP:FAC. The other half of the page, Requests for assessment, is simply a place for editors to list articles they would like assessed, whether because they are unsure of how to rate it, or because they feel they are too close to the article to give an accurate assessment, as was the case with Captainktainer and Doom 3 a few sections above. If you would like to see an example of this system in progress, check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment. Pagrashtak 00:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me (I was thinking something similar myself the other day :). Why not set up a prototype so we can discuss the precise layout and process. You can add it to {{WPCVG Sidebar}} if you like. jacoplane 01:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think a department for it is needed. Alot of assessing is needed, but people just need to work on it more. It seems like only a few others, (besides myself) actually rate articles on a regular or somewhat regular basis. Last time I checked, over 4000 articles still need to be rated. It will take a while, if more people aren't willing to help the cause. RobJ1981 01:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Well I have to admit I haven't really been assessing articles myself much. Still, I think the discussion of what an A-Class article is exactly is one worth having, since it seems rather vague to me at the moment. For requesting assessments, perhaps we could just add them to {{Gamebox contents}}... That template is linked to from pretty much every CVG talk page so it has a lot of visibility. jacoplane 01:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
IMHO, having this group be proactive would be cool, though I don't know what level of formality is necessary. I have seen some good assessments, but also several that (once you go look at the user page) seem to be written by students anxious to feel powerful in the un-policed Wikipedia world at a time in life when they feel powerless in the academic world. The symptom of this is an arbitrary, formula-driven evaluation with an occasional emphasis on condescension, sometimes at the expense of really informative non-POV articles. As a former trouble-fomenting student I can empathize, but I don't think it's actually good for the 'pedia. The "usual crowd" from here (which includes several students!) would do a more balanced job. Coll7 01:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
What about a new talk page for assessment? Don't emphasize it being a big thing, just a second dedicated talk page. That way it's just as useful, but doesn't sound as cool (which, in this case, would be the desired effect). -- Ned Scott 03:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think there are two slightly separate needs for an assessment page: Defining A-class and answering questions (whining) regarding assessments. I think it would work best if we set up a single page and shuffle the whining direct questions to its talk page. Nifboy 05:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

As a trouble-formenting student, I'm in favor of just setting up a page (talk or otherwise) where ratings can be discussed and such. Nothing too formal, but it would be a neat idea. --PresN 18:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, yeah, we still have 4000+ to rate, but remember, while that's a lot, that's down from 6400+ at the beginning of September when I helped point it out. 2400 in a month isn't half bad at all. I will admit though, I've not been as hard working on it as I should. --PresN 18:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Subproject discussion part 3

Alright, bringing the discussion back to the bottom. Here's where we stand: Subprojects Sega, Tycoon, and Nintendo Wars have all been declared dead by the last people to contribute to them. Therefore, the proposal as it stands for those three it to archive them at something like WP:CVG/Tycoon, thus turning them into a sort of work group area, and remove them from the list of subprojects. Additional proposals have been made, by me and others, to do the same to the crossed out pokemon projects, and to add a line to the cvgproj template box for article pages that were under these project that "such and such a page is supported by the (Sega) work group" or some such. See the "Back on Track" section above for details. Anyone have any comments? By which I mean, anyone object? --21:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The work of the retired Pokémon projects has been taken up by the successor project. Their old templates are adapted or deleted, their pages are redirected, they never had any relevant subpages or workshops or anything, and their talk pages are moribund. Little more has to be done with them. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar userbox

Just an FYI, I've created a userbox for the CVG barnstar. You can find it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games/Award userbox. EVula 06:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

PC game cover category

The PC game cover category; {{gamecover}} has been empty for a while now, can we delete it? Timkovski 12:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that the template which is used on Special:Upload? If so it's not wise to delete it yet. jacoplane 20:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I mean't the subcategory of PC game covers rather than the parent category of gamecovers in general. There was a thread on here a while ago requesting people not to put images into it, and now no-one has for a while, if it is removed, no-one will. I don't think it is linked to from Special:Upload, that's just the main {{gamecover}} category. Timkovski 22:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it would be a good idea to get rid of Category:PC game covers now that we have emptied it. I'll nominate it immediately. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Check the deletion section or just go to WP:CFD. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Infobox CVG

I've just noticed that the infobox usage instructions over at Template talk:Infobox CVG are different than the ones that are this article page. All the discussion about the template now seems to take place here, would it be worth clearing the the template talk page and directing all questions and usage instruction to this page? - X201 19:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I just saw that too, and I have it on my watchlist. Also didn't know that Template:Vgrelease exists, although it was created after our discussion. I'm not sure about clearing the talk page, but we could put a note at the top mentioning this talk page. Thunderbrand 21:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Front page FA

Just wondering what the modus is behind FAs making the front page. I didn't bother asking at the request's talk page, since it's a wasteland. Is it truly arbitrary and up to Raul, and are CVG articles generally sparingly featured on the main page? --Zeality 21:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it is just up to him. Majora's Mask is gonna be on the main page on Oct. 1. Thunderbrand 21:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
A little of both; Raul has said that he tends to keep similar FAs apart. Nifboy 21:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article Removal Candidates

Update: BZFlag, Link (Legend of Zelda), and Bishōjo game are all up to be de-featured. I know that no one really cares about BZFlag or Bishojo game, but some support for Link would be appreciated. AMiB and Crazyswordman are helping, but they need more. Also, while they're no one's favorite articles, the other two need lovin, since no one wants that former featured article list on the main page to get any longer. --PresN 05:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was just mostly being critical. :/ - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Being critical is helping :) Raising our standards is key to better articles. -- Ned Scott 06:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I'll help! What can I do ? Renmiri 13:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Head on over to FAR and pick an article (or 2, or 3). Check out the objections- for example, Link needs more citations, consistant citations, and needs to be more comprehensive in general. Then, ummm... fix that. Discuss it there. Oh, and while FAR isn't a vote of any kind, FARC is a vote in the same sense that FAC is, but don't be saying keep just because you like it, only keep if you really think it's Featured quality. --PresN 18:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

New video game legislation

Two new proposed pieces of legislation, the Truth in Video Game Rating Act and the Video Game Decency Act, were introduced in the last two days. Since I'm not a U.S. citizen myself, I don't know too much about these things to write good articles about them. If someone knows a lot about the American political system wants to flesh these articles out that would be great. jacoplane 01:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You can read the bills in full here and here, respectively. Combined it's about seven pages of text. The bills, in effect,
  • The "truth in ratings" act basically tells the FTC to make rules to the effect of:
    • Nobody puts a rating on a CVG unless it has been reviewed in its entirety.
    • No distributor, developer, or publisher will hide anything from a ratings-giving reviewer.
    • Ratings-giving reviewers shall not "grossly mischaracterize" (as would be defined by the FTC) games.
    • A study shall be conducted to examine the ESRB's effectiveness, so on and so forth.
  • The "Video game decency" act goes one step further and makes it illegal to hide content with the intent to get a lower age rating. Nifboy 03:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)