Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 24

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 20 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 30


Navboxes III: Son of Navboxes

Let's get this all in one place. Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Navboxes, the result of previous discussions about game series navboxes, has come under dispute.

Previous discussion:

I'm fairly sure we have a dispute about sectioning, a dispute about upcoming games, and...I think that's it. Are there any other disagreements out there? I've advertised this sort of ad hoc RFC on the talk page of pretty much everyone, pro and con, who has expressed a strong feeling about video game navboxes. If I missed anyone, it probably means it was a calculated move to exclude them from the discussion. If I missed a debate, by all means, add on a new section for it. Please do try to keep things sectioned, though; previous discussions have suffered from a lot of topic wandering, making it difficult to tell who felt what way about what. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think a recurring problem with this discussion is that the majority of the consensus over this issue has been made on WP:CVG and by CVG members, alienating non-project members such as myself. Also, many of the disputed concepts (ie Should all navboxes be standardized? Should we have a seperate template guideline for every different genre, like we do now with video games?) apply not only to video navboxes, but to all navboxes. Thus, I personally think it would be better if we moved this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Navigational templates instead.--TBCΦtalk? 07:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree here, we want to mantain a certain look for the pages that fall within our domain: i.e. {{Infobox VG}}, guidelines, reception, plot, etc. Nobody else really follows our approch; i.e. see {{Cold War}} for just some of the gigantic navboxes that projects like WP:MILHIST have implemented. Hbdragon88 07:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
However, many franchises have branched out into different medias, making it difficult to determine which "domain" the franchise falls under. Books are being adapted into movies, movies are being adapted into video games, video games are being adapted into books, etc. For example, Pokemon isn't just a video game franchise anymore, it's also a manga franchise, an anime franchise, a TCG franchise, and a toy franchise.--TBCΦtalk? 07:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
We can deal with those small handful of cases when they come up. Usually, movies/books/etc. are just licensed properties, and aren't typically core subjects required for understanding of the articles on the game series. The Pokémon project wisely only handles a portion of their games in a single game template, the RE template now has separate template for games and films, and the MK project only has a single theatrical film release. Additionally, none of the overlapping projects (the film project, for example) have bothered to standardize any of this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I see that you have wisely chosen not to acknowledge Annihilation. Good thing, too, as that was one absolutely horrid film. Hbdragon88 08:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
"They don't care" is not a good reasoning for trying to make standardization only exclusive to video game-related templates. Also, many franchises are premiered in multiple forms of media. For example, Viva Pinata began as both a video game and a TV show. --TBCΦtalk? 08:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
This discussion is about navboxes for video game series, and it specifically advises interpreting that narrowly for a variety of reasons. If there's a bunch of other junk, then there's probably a need for a separate template for that other junk. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
But that "junk" is exactly what causes conflicts and disputes between editors. Although nothing extremely controversial has happened yet, it's better for us to deal with those issues now instead of ignoring it and having to deal with it later.--TBCΦtalk? 21:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added to the very beginning the archived discussion that started all this, which I thought was completely uncontroversial when I did it. Nifboy 10:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

In general, I do not believe we should be using the standardised blue colour for template headings. Too many templates already use that colour. We must distinguish this project from others, by using a unique template colour that others do not use. Wolf ODonnell 14:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
You suggested using a shade of green on another page, didn't you? I thought that worked well. -th1rt3en 19:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I advocated that colour, because links of both colours appear quite clearly on the green background. Wolf ODonnell 22:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Is anybody still discussion this, we're still far from any consensus whatsoever. TH1RT3EN talkcontribs 20:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, reading over this new discussion, while there may not be a complete consensus over the little minute details here and there, I am seeing a quite clearly that there is little support for what is currently being declared as verbatim policy. The only real advocate for this guideline is the one person who proposed it, declared it official, and proceeds to tyrannically enforce it upon others in places where it is certainly not wanted (Or as I would like to more appropriately label this situation; the judge, the jury, and the executioner). However, despite its pronounced disputed status, this "guideline" is still being enforced to the letter. The number of reverts made by AMIB alone in order to make a many number of templates conform to this "policy" should be a glaringly obvious red flag that something here is definitely not right (And a pretty irrefutable piece of evidence that confirms its disputed status). I think it's time to declare this total embarrassment of a guideline void and null. MarphyBlack 02:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree. This is way to disputed to be considered a policy or guideline. TH1RT3EN talkcontribs 17:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


The current guideline suggests that navboxes not have multiple sections, and that templates instead be split when sectioning appears to become necessary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Hyperspacey 10:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I do not agree. If it is necessary to have multiple sections, these should be clearly labelled. Only when the template gets as large as the Mega Man template, should they be separated into different templates. Relevant non-game articles within a videogames template should be separated into a different section, so users can never mistake such articles for videogames. The template's purpose is to ensure good navigation between articles and more importantly, to ensure that the user can never get confused. Clearly labelled sections will prevent this. Your template proposal does not. Wolf ODonnell 14:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
i agree with AMIB on this. if an article has sections that hold a lot of information, the sections probable deserve there own template. (An example would be sonic games, which started off as one big template with lots of sections and now has four templates without any lose of information.) - El cid the hero 14:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, since this could unnecessarily split up a navbox with only a few sections. Resident Evil's navbox was recently split up into three navboxes, which clogs the end of the main series page and limit's navigation between one part of the series to another within articles. This problem could be fixed with a simple sectioning (similar to this older edit). -th1rt3en 16:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm torn; while it does hinder navigation between branches of a franchise, it's not all that hard to just go to the core page and then continue from there. And I fail to see how the three RE navboxes "clog" the main page anymore than the one would. I think I'm going to go with the current guideline (split). ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目話す貢献) 19:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
It's of course not that hard but then they could just go to the Category page to navigate, which would then negate the purpose of even having navboxes to begin with. And by clogging I mean adding extra unnecessary space to the page, more so than if they were combined into one sectioned template. -th1rt3en 19:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with the "they could just go to the category" excuse. First of all, scrolling down to the navigational template is much less of a hassle than going through numerous subcategories, hyperlinks, etc. Second, not all viewers—especially newbies—know the fuction of categories on Wikipedia, making it much more difficult for them to navigate.--TBCΦtalk? 21:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Wolf ODonnell. When non-game articles are in the navbox, some sort of sectioning is needed. --- RockMFR 21:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The "just go to the category" excuse is unacceptable. If we rely on this, we might as well get rid of the Template altogether. Wikipedia is not about looking good. It's about portraying useful information that is clearly presented in a logical, methodical manner. Wolf ODonnell 22:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
You misunderstood me, that's what I was trying to point out. Navboxes were implemented to make it easier to navigate between related articles, which is what unnecessary splitting of navboxes would hurt. -th1rt3en 23:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. So, sectioning the navboxes is key. Wolf ODonnell 11:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Idea- link to appropriate other navboxes/ master pages within navboxes? If there's a series of "Mega Blastood" movies, link to the "Mega Blastood Movies" page in the navbox for the games, and vice-versa? Hyperspacey 23:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

What was the original reasoning for not using sections in the first place? -th1rt3en 04:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can remember, AMIB stated reasons of: it allowed fancruft and was visually appealing. How getting rid of sections would prevent that is beyond me. After all, if someone wants to add fancruft, they'll do it. Wolf ODonnell 11:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Breaking templates down into smaller narrower ones is not useful, at least to the extreme extent at which it is being taken to right now. The Resident Evil series template, which was once a simple three-lined navigation box (technically four, but I'll get to that in a moment) during its better days, has now been split into three entirely separate single-lined templates. This is an absolutely ridiculous approach to be using. At this rate, we'd end up being saturated with hundreds upon hundreds of single-lined navigation boxes fairly quickly. What particular benefit is this to anyone? This simply makes it harder for the readers to understand and navigate these articles, harder for the editors to keep track of and maintain these templates, and, when comparing the two approaches, one will see that three separate templates actually takes up more space than the old single template (Almost twice as much space, actually). In the words of A Man In Black, space is not a premium, and hundreds of single-line templates would definitely take up much more space. Also, I noticed that the List of Resident Evil characters and List of Resident Evil creatures articles are only included in the "main series" template, not in the spinoffs template (The missing fourth line, as I previously mentioned). These said characters and creatures have made just as legitimate appearances in the spinoff games as in the main series. Why would they not be included? A mere oversight? Favoritism? Bias against the non-main series? Intentionally trying to baffle and confuse the readers and severely impede their ability to navigate around in any sort of logical or sensible manner? Of course, it would be a simple task to add these two links into the spinoffs template, but then wouldn't that be causing redundancy? Two templates wherein half of each is identical to the other? Hey, why not combine these two Resident Evil templates into one! And then include the movies from the RE film template as well since a single-line template that's completely isolated from the rest of the series by itself isn't very helpful! It would probably look something like this (Although ideally, in order to make it look less like a massive jumble of random words thrown into a box, it should probably be labeled into something comprehensible along the lines of this, which I suppose is where that handy sectioning may come in.) MarphyBlack 06:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Having one template with four lines is much more simple than having four seperate one lined templates.--TBCΦtalk? 08:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Here's an idea. How's about we define what sections are allowed and how big these sections can be? This would prevent AMIB's fears of fancruft and navboxes getting too big. We can define size as in a minimum number of links, with appropriate exceptions. Wolf ODonnell 11:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
That could work, but might end up being too specific for some navboxes. If we leave it up to the average editors, perhaps we can have a new cleanup template: something like this. -th1rt3en 18:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with sectioning over splitting as well, because if we do splitting, we'll eventually run into the problem that there's a movie of some game but there's no other branching off of it. So we put the movie one in its own template and the games together? That doesn't make any sense to me. Plus, separate templates is a lot more work to maintain, as stated above. Navboxes getting too big and fancruft aren't going to be solved by splitting, assuming that the same links go on the sectioned ones as the split ones. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
well i understand these sorts of fears for Mario, but a vast majority of games do not seem to have this sort of problem, and would be unlikely candidates for cruft. Additionally, should cruft occur what is wrong with removing it and then discussing it with the contributor? We shouldn't sacrifice usability of the encycolpedia because of misuse - that's akin to not having articles because they'll get vandalized. I agree with those people who are saying that it breaks the continuity of games in a franchise when they are split up, as with the Sonic templates. i look up Mean Bean Machine and have no way to directly go to Sonic the Hedgehog (16-bit)? That just doesn't make sense, the person then has to go, "well maybe i'll find it on the main sonic page" and for a modem user that could take a while. Usability is severely compromised by splitting up sections. That said, i do agree that non-game related articles would be best placed in another template because for many of the lesser known games it would be irrelevant to have links to other media (e.g. Mario Tennis is unlikely to be the next page someone wants to look at after reading about the Mario movie). -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 18:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

So three lines is a snarl of links, but one line is too simple. A template with sections tripling the size of the unsectioned template is okay, but having three templates in one single article isn't.

Sectioned templates inevitably cause people to want to make comprehensive lists in the template. Comprehensive lists end up being huge, and overwhelming uninitiated readers with a plethora of unexplained or poorly-explained lists. The RE series template won't get that big? Don't believe it for a second. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, AMIB, but don't forget that this was because there were no guidelines to say what could or couldn't go into the template. With no guidelines, anything goes. If you only provided a rule that navboxes couldn't have sections, you'd still have the same problem. People would still put an insane number of links into the navbox. Wolf ODonnell 16:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, yes, because it destroys the purpose of the navbox. One triple sized navbox is smaller than three single sized navboxes stacked together. And just because we can allow certain sections doesnt mean we would allow all. I still suggest creating a cleanup template for bloated navboxesTH1RT3EN talkcontrib 19:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
i don't understand why you think someone made the argument, So three lines is a snarl of links, but one line is too simple. but as for your example of RE, the current template is just as bad, if not worse than the bloated version in ur diff. How did we go from 14 games down to 6? We're doing a disservice by not including those other games. If you then split up those other sections, like Soundtracks, into their own templates, they can be included on the main page and soundtrack pages (no bloat on the video game or character pages). If it's decided that the soundtracks aren't notable enough, then that specific navbox can go up for TFD. I have no problem with including multiple templates on certain articles. If the lists are unexplained or poorly explained, the fault isn't with having the list, it's with explaining it properly, which is something that can be easily fixed. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 19:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
A three- or four-lined template could be a "snarl of links" if there's absolutely no indication whatsoever of what the reader is supposed to be looking at. For example, this was the Resident Evil template that you were forcing on us for a while. The way each line is divided up apparently suggests that they're all supposed to be grouped into different sections. But, what sections, pray tell? Am I supposed to be psychic? Are you blatantly assuming that every single reader will be familiar enough with the series to know why Outbreak would be on a separate line than Code: Veronica? Also, remember that on lower screen resolutions a single line could become two. These problems could all be entirely taken care of with simple sectioning, such as this, and it still only takes up four lines (There's a little extra vertical dead space in this example, but I think that can be removed). MarphyBlack 21:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The thing here is, we don't section it so it would contain only games, or we section it with side-headers. I agree with MarphyBlack on the basis that we can't automatically assume that people know what they're looking at. I must say, though, that splitting into separate templates is a horrible experience, having known where things were before and then having to use categories to navigate. I call on it being inconvenient. - Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 21:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Sectioning needs to happen. Why should things such as "list of characters" just be jammed in with games? An "other" section doesn't do any harm, and helps navigate much better. RobJ1981 22:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to note, not all video game series have an actual series article. So if navboxes of one of those series were to be split up, there would be no simple way to navigate between the sub-series. TH1RT3EN talkcontribs 19:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you an example of a game series so large that it needs a sectioned template, but has no series article or comprehensive list article? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
If by "large" comparing to Resident Evil series, than {{Duke Nukem series}} and {{The Sims series}} (compared to a rough sectioning example and the original version) for example. Sectioning would also allow links to just be game titles (Duke Nukem, Duke Nukem) rather than article titles (Duke Nukem (Game Boy Color), Duke Nukem (character)), which was also in the RE template. TH1RT3EN talkcontribs 21:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
List of Sim games for the Sims, and sectioning the Duke Nukem template would add more wasted space than those notes require. (Plus, I'm not entirely sure why the relatively minor handheld games are in the Duke Nukem template at all.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Noted, though the issue might exsits again. However, if there were no sectioning, the Sims template would look like this. There's still the matter of adding clarification to the titles, for instance the films in this version of the RE template actually wastes more space than if there was a section header. TH1RT3EN talkcontribs 21:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Upcoming games/Canceled games

The current guideline suggests that games be excluded from navboxes until they have a final name, an actual release date (as opposed to an estimate, quarter, or year), and until they have been shown to press or gamers in playable form (to allow for hands-on commentary in reliable sources). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Current guideline does not take into account need to access information games' expected release window, current production staff, etc. See Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots; title has sufficient developmental information and non-promotional info to support its existence. Users also expect articles from in-production titles to be accessible from templates are are likely to assume there is not one. NOTE- I think "N+1" articles for titles that are likely to exist, or have recieved minor indication of being in development and have not enough informative meat to justify an article should not be included- see Tekken 6 or, even worse, Silent Hill 5; article essentially summarises trailers, and developers have not provided enough concrete info to justify article (I would in such cases suggest merging with main series page). Gameplay details and suchlike should be kept to an absolute minimum in any upcoming game article unless playable in some form, but nevertheless users expect to have access to certain important and definite facts. Example of a good in-production article from other media: The Dark Knight. Hyperspacey 10:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
This is a complicated issue. On the one hand it’s important to keep templates from getting cluttered with useless information but on the other hand if the information is relevant, and is notable enough to have its own article, it deserves to be included on the template.
My personal feeling is that if a game has a build of itself showcased, a release date announced, and a significant amount of information know about it, I should be on the template. If it has none of those things, I shouldn’t be on the template as not enough is known about it. Anything that is in-between those two benchmarks however, should be discussed on a case by case basis on the relevant talk page if it should be included or not. - El cid the hero 14:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I think this will be different for each game that is released, and as such perhaps should be left up to a discussion for each series/navbox. Some games may be more into development but not follow the same structure of releasing information. -th1rt3en 16:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
This doesn't seem all that hard to me. While we should always be careful about using confirmed information rather than just speculation, if it's quite obvious that a game is being made, and it has at least a tentative title (simply so we have something to call it), then it should go in the navbox. An exception would be if it doesn't even have an article yet, of course, or if it's a very small stub. I have my doubts whether this should have a general guideline at all - each company, even each developer, releases information in a different way. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目話す貢献) 19:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
If an upcoming game can get past Afd, then it should be in the navbox. There should be no middle ground. Either an upcoming game is important and notable, or it's not. Articles on upcoming games should not be hidden or of lower status than existing games. --- RockMFR 21:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the problem with including every game that has an article is that a lot of upcoming games should be deleted, and when they are deleted, they keep popping up again. The upcoming Zelda game for the Wii has been through the AfD process on three separate occasions, and was added to the template only to be taken off because there was no article to link to.
Besides, upcoming games often become cancelled games. When do we decide it's been cancelled and can be removed from the navbox? When months go by without new information? When it misses its tentative release date? When there's a formal admission it's been cancelled? I think there's games that have never been formally cancelled that haven't been seen for years. ― El Cid 22:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
To avoid Crystal Balling and article out of a template, I'd suggest formal announcement. Even if a game is cancelled, if it's development was notable enough to justify its own article (as oppossed to a mention in the series main page) then it may be suitable for inclusion in the template. HOWEVER, notable game cancellation is something of a rarity. Ultimately a game that hasn't even been formally unveiled (see: next Wii Zelda) should never have an article, nevermind be part of a navbox. Hyperspacey 23:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I think if there's a reason to believe that the game is in production and will be released with some form of proof shown to the public, it should be left in the navbox. As for cancelled games, should we leave out all cancelled games, including Star Fox 2 and Duke Nukem Forever? --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 :O Duke'll come out! God told me so! Err, seriously though, where possible cancelled games should be included in the main series article as oppossed to being given their own- their development and cancellation informs upon the series, but it isn't an entity worthy of an article in its own right. Duke Forever would be an exception, IMO, due to its imfamy, and would deserve being placed in a non-canon line in a navbox. Hyperspacey 18:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Hyperspacey on both points; that the current guideline is prohibitive and "hides" articles relevant to the navbox and sufficent in length/quality - and that if a game recieved enough press coverage to merit a worthy article, it should remain on the navbox even if it is formally cancelled. Like was previously stated, games that have enough info to write an article are rarely cancelled anyways. RockMFR puts this simply by reuqiring the article to be able to pass AFD, if it can't (for example, if there is not enough confirmable info) then any important content should be merged into the main article under a Future releases section and the original page redirected there (no need for it in navbox now). Once the game is released or there is enough info per WP:SUMMARY, it should be split out of the main article and recieve a link on the navbox. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 18:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed on the points of Zappernapper. Press coverage (and enough of it) is sufficient, and if there's enough to write a notable article, by all means, keep it as an article (it'd be able to pass AfD) and keep it on the template even if it is formally cancelled. Of course, cite the cancellation. - Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 21:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Cancelled games in a navbox? Does including projects like Metroid Dread, Sonic X-treme, or The Legend of Zelda: Mystical Seed of Courage in a navbox really help? If someone's really researching a topic to the point that they're getting into ancillary topics like cancelled games, I think they'd go though the series main page for something like that. ― El Cid 22:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, best way to do it is to put cancelled titles in the main series page and link to a further title-specific article if one is justifiable by the amount of information available. I think only in extreme examples (say, if Duke Forever gets cancelled) it would make sense to include them in the navbox. Hyperspacey 22:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

There's press coverage when a name is announced. I strongly oppose "When a game is announced" or "form a consensus on each talk page" because then we get crap like Resident Evil: Umbrella Chronicles in navboxes. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the criteria is right now to include an upcoming game in a template (The "guideline" is very vague and non-specific about a lot of cases), I personally feel that it's completely daft. Apparently the necessary requirements for a game to appear in a navbox is currently stricter than the requirements needed for the existence of the article at all. Take, for example, Half-Life 2: Episode Two and the Half-Life games template. By using A Man In Black's policy, Episode Two is not worthy enough to appear in the template. Now, ignoring the blatantly obvious fact that readers reading the Half-Life 2: Episode One article would probable expect to see Episode Two listed in succession in the navbox as well (It's the second game in a direct and confirmed three-part trilogy; two comes after one! Doesn't get much clearer than that), Episode Two seems to clearly fit most, if not all, of the requirements:
  • Episode Two does have an official confirmed name – It's called "Episode Two" and it comes after "Episode One". Isn't that clever?
  • Episode Two has a release date as confirmed in a press release from Electronic Arts and Valve themselves.[1][2][3][4] A Man In Black does not to seem to agree with this. I'm now somewhat confused as to what would then qualify as a release date. If the date at which the game is set to be released at (Not through vague speculation or predictions, but in a statement straight from the developers and publishers themselves) does not fit the definition of the release date for game, then what does? Do we need to narrow it down to the exact day? Hour? Minute? Second? Yoctosecond?
  • Now, the third requirement of being in "playable form", I'm not sure if Episode Two qualifies for this requirement, at least only because of a technicality. This is an odd requirement being that most games are not playable before being released (Hence, people must wait for the release date because they can only play the game after that point in time, not before). However, Episode Two has been seen in action as early as the release of Episode One. It was included in a video trailer immediately after beating the game. Since that time, numerous other trailers and "gameplay demos" have been released through various means (The game's article covers these quite thoroughly as of now). Note the terminology of the latter, gameplay demos: "Gameplay" might just mean that it's showing actual gameplay (And unless Episode Two becomes an RPG anytime in the near future, it's obvious that this is indeed regular HL2 gameplay); "demo" implies that someone actually played the game at some point and had this recorded. A Man In Black shot this down, though, saying that "videos" don't count. This happens to also ignore the large amount of press that the game has received in magazines and interviews and other released forms of media such as screenshots and concept art. Of course, none of this matters since, according to A Man In Black, someone has to physically have played the game at some point for the game to be considered "playable", even if an alarming amount of evidence does suggest that the game is.
Clearly it seems that Episode Two meets all the necessary requirements set by A Man In Black's guideline. However, and I reiterate, I believe this is all moot. Having three more sets of criteria needed for the inclusion of a game in a navigation box even after the article for the game has been created is totally asinine. Take it to AfD or wherever relevant if this is the issue. There could be some template exceptions, such as old and obscure cancelled games or very minor ports and updates, but these are just that, exceptions, not what we should be basing our rules on. MarphyBlack 01:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
In response to El Cid, yes if i were to look up Sonic 2 I would be quite interested to know that there were cancelled games and would read the article on Sonic X-treme (which i did, and found it a good read even if it was light on the refs). Now the other article AMIB brought up, Resident Evil: Umbrella Chronicles is a good example of an article that has such little info that it would fit fine on the main RE site. My solution isn't "upon announcement" but "upon enough info per WP:SS." The sonic game would qualify, while the RE game would not. The conflict is that there are many developers who don't want to release info like Titles, solid release dates, or demos. If "code names" are used in the media, approximate dates given, and videos and other info available (like Spore (video game)), provided the information is substantial enough to stand on it's own article, it should get a place in a navbox. I think merely providing a qualifing question, "Would the article survive an AFD?" should be enough to decide if it's included. Personally, the above-mentioned RE article should NOT exist and the info should be merged into a nice paragraph on the main page under a Future releases section. Odds are that as it gets nearer to the date more info will become available and WP:SS will justify it's own article, then it becomes included on the navbox. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 07:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the aforementioned inclusion if they pass AfD. But if there's going to be a guideline for restricting upcoming games then there should probably be a guideline for what counts as reliable sources. For example: A Man in Black has constantly stated that Hideo Kojima is not a reliable source for Metal Gear Solid 4 (he is the game creator; {{Metal Gear series}}), because of how he misled fans about the main character in Metal Gear Solid 2. I don't see how that would discredit him (or Konami) as being reliable sources. TH1RT3EN talkcontribs 17:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

well see, now we're just re-inventing the wheel. The issues with AMIB, yourself, and Metal Gear Solid are outside the scope of this discussion. They are best brought up further down on the page in their own section. As for myself, i'm at odds with AMIB over enough things :D he's my special friend right now... -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 17:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, no, I'm just bringing up the example because if things aren't discussed all the way it could end up with more disputes over reliable sources. I did misspeak though, I didn't mean coming up with a new guideline, but rather have it pointed out about what popular places to get information counts and what doesn't. Basically, if it's reliable enough for an article, is it reliable enough for the navbox? That just seems to be something that is in dispute now. TH1RT3EN talkcontribs 18:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Examples of articles that have been added to navboxes, and are written about one single trailer (or even less content):

And this is in the last 500 edits. I don't believe that things are self-regulating, to keep rumors or games so far away that we know nothing at all about them out of navboxes, and frequently we're getting long-lasting rumor-only games sticking without any kind of reasonable standard. (Metroid Dread wasn't even removed until the first push to standardize templates.)

This is why we need a reasonable standard. Throwing our hands up means we go back to the snarl and go back to placing rumors and speculation alongside articles about games that actually exist. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I may have missed it in the discussion above, but shouldn't they be put through the AfD process before removing them from navboxes? --Scottie_theNerd 01:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
They're notable as upcoming projects, but they're not core subjects (i.e. the actual games in the series) until we actually know something about them.
Besides, no sense sending them to AFD; "This might be notable at some point" is almost always enough to get a no consensus. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Well We know SimCity 5 is going to be the next in the series, but a lot of things are not confirmed such as the title of the game and its release. So should it be included or not? I lean toward yes, as long as the article exists it makes sense for it to be linked to, and it could easily be deleted if it is just a crystal ball, there was consensus for deletion last time and it could happen again. Camaron1 13:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I would argue GTA IV is probably noteable enough at the current time as it's rather unusual for a game with so few details to be the part of a noteable controversy nearly a year before it's intended release Nil Einne 17:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Said "notable controversy" slides neatly into Jack Thompson, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
why doesn't this project just make a new guideline that prefers sections in the main articles for upcoming games until enough info is available to create a Start-class article (beyond a stub)? That would prevent barebones articles from being created to link in the navboxes in the first place. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 06:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I suggested this a hundred years ago (or, last week). If there's enough verifiability to enclude it in a series article it goes in there; if enough verifiable info to justify a seperate article, make one. It would, IMO, make more sense to have a five-paragraph section in a series article than create an article that isn't linked to in a navbox, until such time as an article-sized amount of info is available. Hyperspacey 04:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

In-universe topics in series infoboxes

TBC (talk · contribs) brought up whether in-universe topics, like characters, should be handled in series infoboxes. Currently, the guideline suggests that in-universe subjects be limited to umbrella articles, such as list articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but that's been continually disputed among editors, as evident with discussions at Template:Resident Evil series or Template:Banjo Kazooie series. Also, how is Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Navboxes a guideline? Note that a guideline must receive consensus among the majority of the entire Wikipedian community, not just among CVG members--TBCΦtalk? 08:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
CVG members are the entire video game editing community (by definition), and anyone who doesn't edit video game articles doesn't care. Feel free to invite anyone (neutrally, please) that you think should offer their opinion here.
So, where's the argument? There's reasoning in the guideline itself why not; otherwise we get giant, cluttered templates filled with links incomprehensible to an uninitiated reader. There's a place for character- or setting-specific templates for in-universe content (see {{Mario characters}}), but the game series template isn't it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
CVG members are clearly not the "entire video game editing community", as evident by this. --TBCΦtalk? 08:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
That membership list is meaningless. Anyone who wants to make a comment here can, and will be heard in proportion to the quality of their arguments and history, pretty much the same way it works anywhere. We could have this discussion at the village pump or at RFC or whereever; it's here because it's visible and interested editors are likely to be watching here already. You seem to be implying that "non-members" are excluded from this discussion, and I don't see how anyone is excluded. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
This reminds me a bit of Esperanza. Though it was true that everyone was allowed to participate in Esperanza discussions, Esperanza had given the impression that non-Esperanza members were set apart through their activities, such as Esperanza Collaboration of the Month.--TBCΦtalk? 20:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
A great example of this is Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Navboxes. If this was truly intended to be a guideline, then why is it but a subpage of the CVG Project? From my point of view, this can give non-members the impression that either: 1) The guideline only applies to CVG members. or 2)The CVG project dictates the format and content of all video game related articles.--TBCΦtalk? 21:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Size—albeit perhaps not always aesthetically pleasing—does not make a template "incomprehensible". Having two or three more lines will not magically make the reader confused or befuddled. In fact, in many ways it's simpler for the reader to navigate through a large template (like Template:Cold War), then to go shift through numerous categories and articles, especially for Wikipedia newbies who don't know how to navigate through categories.--TBCΦtalk? 08:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
{{Cold War}} doesn't err on the side of including issues of lesser importance; instead, it errs on the side of having too broad a scope. It's more {{Nintendo games}} than {{Everything related to Mario}}.
Newbies don't need a link to a character article; instead, they need to see the character mentioned in the context of the game or games in which it appears, where it will be wikilinked. Cramming a link to Yoshi in every single Mario game article serves only to confuse readers who are reading an article that doesn't explain who or what Yoshi is. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
But for newbies who have already read a page, finding a desired wikilink among all the text is more of a hassle than simply scrolling down and using the navbox.--TBCΦtalk? 20:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with the current guidline; most videogame navboxes which add more than, say, side-games and a character list link tend to explode into crufty fun pretty quickly. I'd add that, in examples where a title justifies it though, there might be worth in adding another line. But that'll be an exception and should be dealt with if and when it comes up. Hyperspacey 10:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree, except for more important articles that would help explain a main part of the series. Those can be brought up in the talk pages as needed. -th1rt3en 16:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
My opinion: large, extremely well-known video game series (Mario) should have a separate box for characters. Smaller series should contain the characters within the main article and the articles for each of the games. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目話す貢献) 19:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the difference than having it on the same navbox, to be honest. If anything, I prefer a link to a page that lists the characters. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
This suggestion seems clearly the best to me. Decide on a series-by-series and article structure by article structure basis. I'd think that even huge series can easily fit in at least one link to topics like "characters" or "setting." For something like the Mario series, where each character also has their own article, then the "characters template" may also be appropriate, and even that can usually be kept to reasonable size. SnowFire 02:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
What EOTD is suggesting is currently the status quo. If the guideline does not currently reflects this, it's only a matter of bad writing, not intent. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Wait a minute, A Man In Black. Are you saying that you agree with what e.o.t.d. said? Just to make clear, e.o.t.d. stated that "extremely well-known video game series ... should have a separate box for characters". However, A Man In Black, were you not the one (And only one, mind you) who so vehemently championed the deletion of the Mortal Kombat characters template? Were you not the one who listed it at templates for deletion, where it ended up being deleted "by a nose"? And then were you not the one who personally proceeded to delete the template again twice more after someone who did not participate in, was not aware of, and had nothing to do with the TfD attempted to recreate it? Correct me if I'm wrong, but going on a one man crusade to delete this one character template does not seem to agree much with what e.o.t.d. said, much less your claim that this is what your "guideline" intended for. (Unless you're claiming that Mortal Kombat is not a well-known enough series and therefore not meritable of a character template, in which case I'd tell you to get out from whatever rock you've been living under for the past decade and a half). MarphyBlack 19:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
There's a difference between unsorted, lengthy lists of characters in games with huge ensemble casts (like fighting games) and orderly navboxes for in-universe topics (see {{Half-Life topics}} for an example off the top of my head). The old MK character template had the same problem as {{Mario characters}}, but there was no way to focus it on core topics to make it useful and not redundant.
If you try to make out a consensus to delete a template at CFD, then a couple standard speedy deletions of previously deleted material as some sort of malfeasance, though, you've made quite a mistake. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
As I said before at the MK WikiProject talk page, do not try and pass off a decision made by one vote that tipped the scale as any sort of consensus. In fact, I think this meets the definition of the exact opposite of what a consensus is. It was a split decision, right down the middle. I made sure to quote the closing admin's comment of "delete by a nose" because I knew you'd attempt, once again, to deliberately misinform everyone of what occurred in the actual debate and TfD. Tsk tsk. MarphyBlack 02:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Um. The closing admin seems to have called it a consensus, so I'm not sure why you're taking me to task for their wording on every talk page you can find. (Perhaps you'd find more satisfaction talking about the decision of the closing admin with the closing admin? I was just the nom.) In the meantime, EOTD is correct in stating that the intent is that in-universe topics have their own navboxes, instead of marrying game series and in-universe topics in the same navbox. Let's try and stay on topic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Link it or keep it as a separate template. No point in listing the characters in a box with all the games. - Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 21:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Other issues

I'd also like to add that there are many other issues currently being disputed, not just sectioning and upcoming games. This includes:

  • Should characters be in the navboxes or should navboxes be only limited to games?
  • If there's a seperate template guideline for video game articles, why aren't there any for other subjects?
  • If video game templates are standardized, wouldn't that mean other navigational templates must be standardized as well?
  • Is Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Navboxes an actual guideline? How can it be if consensus has only been determined by CVG members?--TBCΦtalk? 07:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there anyone else who thinks that WP:CVG can't form consensus on how video game articles look? I don't think there's actually any dispute here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it has recently been brought up somewhere that wiki project editors shouldn't think they own the project, and CVG sprang to mind. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 08:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Where, and in what context? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't recall. Might have been MOS talk, or Navbox talk, etc. A wiki-wide style talk, within the past week. I'll look for it tomorrow if you'd like. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 08:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Navigational_templates#Video_Game_Template_Discussion?--TBCΦtalk? 20:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Trying to standardize all video game templates just won't work, ever, partly because of inevitable differences in the structure of the series themselves, and partly because of the inevitable ego conflicts that standardization efforts tend to create. Aside from all that, you'll always have the series/franchises that, because they extend beyond the scope of video games (Pokémon springs readily to mind) are exceptions, and don't fit neatly, or even messily, into whatever guidelines had already been determined. Very broad guidelines are likely to help somewhat, but start getting too detailed and it'll all fall apart. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目話す貢献) 19:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed; differences between various video game series merit the use of templates with different structures.--TBCΦtalk? 21:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed as well. There should be a style guide that's suggested for use, but not anything beyond that, as long as it doesn't violate wikipedia's guide for navboxes. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Also agreed. One strict standard would not for every navbox. Any guides should be used as an idea to work around and towards to make a conforming style rather than a strict rule of style. -th1rt3en 23:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, is the standardizing template just for video games, or also for consoles, films about video game series, video game companies, other hardware, etc.? -th1rt3en 16:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Controversy over Zelda merges

Please see here (wanted to reach a larger audience to gather consensus). - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Open source games WikiProject

The Video games project sorely lacks a subproject for open source games! I'd like to help out creating one. Where to start? There's a category at Category:Open source games that could serve as base. --Himasaram 03:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion: a taskforce is a better route to go. RobJ1981 12:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I sort of agree, but if you think you have something, go here and see if others agree with you.--Clyde (talk) 15:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Post-credits scene category

Special:Contributions/ and previous similar IPs really want to create a "Games with post-credits scenes ('stingers')" category. I think the problem is that too much games have stingers (virtually all RPGs ever). Discuss. Kariteh 07:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

There was a similar category for movies with post-credit scenes which was quickly shot down by CFD. I can't imagine it would be any different for this one. It's not enough of a defining characteristic to be categorizing by. --SubSeven 17:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Would make a good list, though. Probably would get deleted still, unfortunetly...♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 17:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Torchic FAR

Torchic has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

MobyGames policy?

I'm writing here in response to a Wikipedia editor (Wgungfu) reverting my edits. I had removed a few MobyGames links from some Wikipedia articles for which not only have virtually no content, but also included random links to different versions of games to the games on the Wikipedia article. The edits were reverted promptly and in response to this I was told that it is the policy of this project to add these MobyGames links despite them having no benefit to the articles. Why is this the case? It feels to me like free advertising for MobyGames. --Mathsgeek 22:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not policy to add a Moby Games link to any article that could plausibly have one. That is fiction. WP:EL is the external link guideline. It states that first a link has to be useful. Then, perhaps more importantly here, it states a link has to DIRECTLY apply to the article, so you would not link to from the Bill Clinton article, but you could link to Here if there is no direct Moby Games page about a game, a general page should never be linked. That is the guideline. But then also, some low content page should not be linked just because it exists. that is directly against the guideline and never appropriate editing. Moby games links will often be just fine, but all low quality or non-direct links should never be added, and be removed when found. 2005 22:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, yes, it is. This was discussed here numerous times over the last few years and general consensus was to add them to the articles. Likewise, that's why a template was created for that and KLOV. Both sites are well known and often cited references by professionals (such as my self and others in the industry that have discussed this here in the past). --Marty Goldberg 00:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
We should absolutely not be adding Mobygames links to all game articles "by default." Unlike IMDB, Mobygames as a database is chock full of entries that are incomplete to the point of consisting of nothing more than a game title. Linking to a mobygames page in that case is woefully stupid. We should only link to Mobygames where such link actually provides substantive information that we don't want in the article body itself, and where that information isn't provided via other, better links. Nandesuka 22:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
See above. --Marty Goldberg 00:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be confused about the word "policy." Where the "policy" of a given WikiProject is in direct conflict with an actual Wikipedia policy or guideline (in this case, WP:EL), the WikiProject's policy is wrong, and should be ignored (or, more appropriately, changed to reflect reality). Regardless of what consensus was reached in the past, consensus can change (and note that Wikipedia:Consensus — unlike adding mobylinks to all game pages, even if said links are empty and/or useless — is a real policy.) Nandesuka 00:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it seems the confusion is on your end. There is nothing that states that on the consensus page. What is stated however, is that consensus is reached through discussion here, which it was, and decided on. Likewise it clearly states you are welcome to try and change consensus through later discussion, but it must be a majority consensus and its not an immediate reversal of the previous consensus as soon as discussion starts. I've been through these types of discussions enough times to know how it works. Likewise, there is nothing stated in the EL that's being violated here. What there is, is a possible interpretation issue on your end. This is not a case of some lone editor popping up and deciding this on their own. This was done by consensus here, by people who are members of this project that regularly contributes, edits, and polices the video game related article. --Marty Goldberg 00:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I recommend that you read the Wikipedia:Consensus page again, since apparently you managed to completely miss the section Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_can_change. Since you seem to be having difficulty, I'll risk an extended quote:
Once established, consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, 
for the community to change its mind. A small group of editors can reach a consensual 
decision about an article, but when the article gains wider attention, members of the 
larger community of interest may then disagree, thus changing the consensus. The original 
group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision.
I appreciate that you feel that a consensus was reached. However, it's clear that that consensus is leading to poor results — not the least of which is your characterizing another editor's good faith application of the external link policy as "vandalism" — and so clearly it's time to revisit the issue. Nandesuka 00:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
And to point out for you further, the very next line:
This does not mean that Wikipedia ignores precedent;
There's nothing "felt", it was reached and a precendent was set. There is an archive and there were templates crated. To change consensus, you need to discuss it and gather consensus from everyone as a whole, or as is clearly stated:
On the other hand, it is very easy to create the appearance of a changing consensus simply by   
asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people will discuss the 
issue. This, however, is a poor example of changing consensus, and is antithetical to the way 
that Wikipedia works. Wikipedia's decisions are based not on the numerical fact of how many 
people showed up and voted a particular way. It is based on a system of good reasons. Attempts to 
change consensus must be based on a clear engagement with the reasons behind the previous 
consensus - not simply on the fact that today more people showed up supporting position A than 
position B.
As is also stated:
Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone 
agrees to abide by the outcome.
Lastly, if another editor (which wasn't myself) clearly stated it was reached by consensus to said good faith editor, and I stated the reasoning and said editor repetitively ignores this (and nowhere was EL brought up until you did), that's vandalism. If they don't agree, take it to talk page and discuss before any further edits. --Marty Goldberg 00:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Your insistence consensus has been reached when it has not is absurd. Additionally it isn't relevant since WP:EL is the external links guide, not any project decision (especially a fictional one). Any Moby Games links that violate WP:EL will be removed. Additionally you have violated the three revert rule and behaved badly by labeling good faith edits as vandalism. The existence of a Moby Games template doesn't mean that every and all Moby Games pages should be linked! That is just silly. Please stop asserting a consensus that does not exist. Please stop labeling appropriate edits as vandalism. And please do not violate the three revert rule again. You have reverted three different editors four times in 24 hours. You need to step back and read what ARE the guidelines of the Wikipedia, and not just make everything up to suit yourself. 2005 05:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe such a discussion ever occurred. There was this mess that didn't get anywhere, and so I'm happy to leave it at "Do what you want". Nifboy 02:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC) (Hint: Click on the date.)

Despite repeated assertions to the contrary, there is plainly no consensus to deliberately violate the Wikipedia's External link guideline by ALWAYS linking to Moby Games. Low quality or non-directly relevant links should never be added and should be removed where they can be found. Useful links that directly relate to the article normally should be added. If you aren't sure of value, don't link. This is not rocket science. Add good links, don't add links to nearly blank pages or ones only tangentially related to the article, remove any remaining low value links that violate WP:EL when you find them. 2005 00:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
As someone who has taken part in various other Mobygames discussions here. I can flat out say that any claim that "consensus supports adding MobyGames links by default" is erroneous. - hahnchen 17:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Something that concerns me is how single users such as TnS are placing hundreds of links that are irrelevant or would be considered stubs if they were Wikipedia articles. I would like to edit these links out, however I am concerned about any repercussions and wrong being branded a vandal as in a previous occasion. I feel that by adding these MobyGames links by the hundred is spamming Wikipedia as the links generally lead to a pretty content less page with several affiliated links that generate revenue for MobyGames. There maybe a few screenshots and credits (which often are for random versions of the game), however these can easily be found using Google and really do not need to be in the article. Adding the links seems to just damage the integrity of an article. --Mathsgeek 00:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The indiscriminate (even alphabetical) addition of links to Mobygames should be halted immediately. For example, just checking the last 10 additions of the link by TnS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), I do not find a single link that passes WP:EL. In many casese the links have less content the Wikipedia article. In other instances, they simply contain the same information. This indiscriminate linking is spam WP:SPAM. The justification for linking is the responsibility of the editor who adds the link. It should not be the responsibility of other editors to sift through hundreds of repetitative edits and decide which are valid. Nposs 02:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
That is a good point, where someone indiscriminately adds hundreds of content less links it would be unfair that the person removing the links have to look at each link and justify the removal of the link. I would like to begin removing the MobyGames links that have been added without justification by TnS, I would like to begin this today at 1900 GMT. I will ofcourse check this page incase anybody strongly objects. --Mathsgeek 07:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I was doing my MobyGames linking according to Talk:MobyGames#Why link to MobyGames?. You are right that some MobyGames pages I linked contained less information than the actual article. But I thought that is still useful to link to them, because of the database nature of MobyGames. (Eg. you can easily list the other games of the developer, etc.) What should I do? Link those only what contains more information, screenshots and credits? I not wanted "spam" those articles by any means. The NeveR SLeePiNG 13:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know, MobyGames is a database site just like IMDb that relies on user contributions. IMDb links are standard on film articles here, so why not have MobyGames links on game articles? They often contain information that would be unencyclopedic here, such as detailed credits, etc. Green451 17:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Basically, I'm agreeing with what Nandesuka said above. If the MG page contains info like credits, screenshots, which wouldn't work here, then the link should be included. The only time the MG link shouldn't be included IMHO is if the link has no content. Green451 17:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you that when the mobygames link adds screenshots and such where the article can't, then it would be beneficial to use the mobygames link. However if there is a link that includes something such as the Official Site with screenshots inside, then the mobygames link should be relegated if all it includes is screenshots. The main point I am arguing is that the mobygames link should not be added just as a default, but should be added if and only if it benefits an article. I think that more consideration can be put into adding links that are more appropriate, rather than just going for mobygames pages with their 2 advert banners and 3 affilated links. --Mathsgeek 21:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
If is a blankish page, or is redundant to a more comprehensive link (say a site with one screenshot when a site with twenty screenshots - including the one) that is already linked then that redundant link adds literally nothing. Its a simple concept. Links need to go over and above the article, and an official site. All non-official links have to meet a criteria, they can not just be added because a site happens to have good content on other topics. 2005 02:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Setting Standards for Moby Links

I'd support you in this effort. Heck, create a subpage and list articles to be examined and I'll help. I think what would be helpful is to have clear standards as to what sort of Mobygames page is "not good enough" to be a link. It's clear that the ones that just list the name of the game and the release date aren't worthy of being linked, but there's a continuum as more information appears. Any suggestions? Nandesuka 00:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response and support. I'm unsure on how to create a subpage but I will be happy to sift through article and their MobyGames link that have been add the article I feel have links that are irrelevant. However before I start this I do think you're right in saying that there should be some clear standards, and I think theses should be sorted first. For a start I think pages that just include credits should be removed as often the credits are for random platforms of the game. eg the Ghosts 'n Goblins link has credits for the Amiga version however the article is for the original version. --Mathsgeek 01:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
To add to this discussion, the problem with that line of thought though is that the template/structure of most articles usually cover all versions within the single article - usually as "Ports", etc. You don't really find seperate entrys for seperate platforms here, they're all covered in one (under the "ports" entry), whose main focus is the original. There are some far exceptions in the arcade vs. console or computer which may have seperate entries. But rarely by "Amiga" vs Atari ST vs Atari 2600, etc. By your own Ghosts 'n Goblins example for example, the Amiga version is indeed covered. In fact it would be more appropriate to link to a page at Moby that covers all the versions rather than seperate links for seperate ones. That's also the problem with say, removing the Moby link on the Puzzle Bobble page because it links to a page that lists multiple versions of the game, when in fact that link was originally added some time ago (not be me) because of that fact. I'm all for setting a standard as to what's useable and what's not. It does have to take in to account the actual entry content as well though. --Marty Goldberg 03:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:EL is clear on this point (regardless of whether it is a good idea or not). General pages should not be linked from specific articles. From the encyclopedia's point of view this is not a problem. 1) Any general Wiki article can link to the general Moby page. 2) The general Wiki article should link to the specific Wiki pages. 3) The specific Wiki pages should not link to the general Moby page, but rather clearly link to any general Wiki article. In other words, the focus is internal linking, and making articles about related things to be organized. General Wiki articles link to specific Wiki articles, and general external links. Specific Wiki articles link to general Wiki articles, and specific external links. Another way to put it... lots of Wiki links, few external links. 2005 07:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Not sure how to interpret what you're saying, but going on that you're saying "WP:EL is clear on this point. General pages should not be linked from specific articles" means that we shouldn't have links to a specific game's multiple platform index there, I have to say I'm sorry, but that's your interpretation - WP:EL is not clear on what you're interpreting. (Please correct me if that's not what you were saying). What it actually says verbatim is "A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject." There are two things with that statement there: 1) It clearly states "a variety of subjects". Multiple listings (different platforms) of the same subject (the game) are not a variety of subjects. 2) Just as stated, when you have all platforms discussed on a single wikipedia entry, that is directly related in this case. 3) Even if you were to interpret how you are, the problem is the word "Generally", which means there are exceptions. This is also covered in the main entry of the WP:MOS (since the EL is part of that), when it states very specifically: "These are not rigid laws: they are principles that many editors have found to work well in most circumstances, but which should be applied with flexibility."
Now, in the same token, if those individual platform entries listed on the multiple platform Moby page for the game each simply listed only very basic info (name, date, etc.) already included in the article, I can completely agree its a waste of time. --Marty Goldberg 13:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not an interpretation, its a guideline. "the link should be directly related to the subject of the article". Everybody who thinks they can do whatever they want falls back on the "these are not rigid laws" idea. Let's not go there. A Moby Games page that is linked should be about the topic of the article. That's it. In some cases a Moby Games pages could be about more than one thing... for example, it would be perfectly fine to link to a page that has content about Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan from the Jimmy Carter article. But linking to a "20th Century presidents" section would not be right. The first challenge is, find the specific page to link to, don't just link to That practice is already in place. But above that, if a page doesn't add to an article, it shouldn't be linked. We wouldn't link to a Moby Games page about Parker Brothers from every game made by Parker Brothers. We aren't looking to just add external links for fun. If a page has content that meets the external links guideline and has content directly on the topic of the article, then it could be linked. Just don't link to a page that has no good content on the specific topic of the article. 2005 02:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Hate to say it, but someone has been going around deleting all the mobygames links from every game article, regardless of whether mobygames link has more or useful information about the game. In some cases, the mobygames link has been the ONLY SOURCE for the article.--Lendorien 23:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Commodore 64 FAR

Commodore 64 has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 02:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

John Dekker

This article has only ever had one edit and that in March 2005. It needs attention as the poor thing is abandoned. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Articles. --Bduke 08:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You could nominate it for next weeks colaboration of the week if you want. Mattyatty 14:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Eek. That's a lot of characters. If someone wants to pull a Suikoden on it, they're certainly welcome to. Nifboy 14:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

DS cartridge question

There are several inconsistencys in the format of the "media" section of the infoboxes on DS game pages i want to ask about:

  • Why do some DS articles list the cartridge size in bits, but some in bytes?? One example is Metroid Prime Hunters, which list it as a 1 gigabit cartridge, yet Final Fantasy III (Nintendo DS) lists it as a 128 MB Cartridge, both of which are the same size.
  • Some list giga/megabit as Mb/Gb, some write it in full
  • Furthur confusing things, some pages list them as Flash cards (e.g. Clubhouse Games), some as Game paks (e.g. Bomberman Land Touch!), some as game cards (e.g. Pokémon Diamond and Pearl), some as a DS card (e.g. Jump Ultimate Stars), some as just cartridges (e.g. Star Fox Command) and some as just cards (e.g. Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time), and i dont even know if thats all of them, I havent looked at every single DS game page.
  • Some pages for games which information on the cart size just list it as a game card (or one of the above alternatives) yet others do not have a media section.
  • Another slight problem is that some of these link to the page explaining what a cartridge and megabit/megabyte is, some do not.

Shouldn't they all be consistent?Mattyatty 16:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It's all because of the nature of what Wikipedia is. Probably best to consult the DS article -- and its sources -- and use that as a guide on what to fix up. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 17:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Personally I feel all console/handheld system games should not have anything entered in the "media" section at all, unless it differs from the standard media. Same for input and system requirements. What's the point in constantly adding the same information about something that is virtually always the same for all situations? Anyone who wishes to learn more about the cartridge/disc/whatever used for a particular system can find out about it on the article for that system. --ADeveria 18:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Character names in Katakana?

Apparently I'm involved in a minor edit war involving Soul Calibur Characters, so I thought I would try to see what people here think of the situation. A user named Bethereds has recently deleted the Katakana renderings of the names of various fighting game characters (Hwang_Seong-gyeong and Seong_Mi-na for example). His reasoning for doing this is that he believes that since the (fictional) characters are of Korean nationality the Katakana renderings of their names are irrelevant. I argued that since the games and related literature originated in Japan, then the Katakana names have a reasonable basis for inclusion in the article. I have attempted to discuss this with the user in question on the talk page of one of the affected articles, but he is unwilling to compromise. I would appreciate it if someone would weigh in on this. Shabby 20:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Apostrophe (talk · contribs) is probably the one you want for this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
This sounds very familiar. Was it posted somewhere else (the anime project page perhaps)? Either way, my opinion is that it depends on reality of the names, and their origin. Would you add them to obvious English names too? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 20:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, I brought the subject up here some time ago but didn't get many answers. I thought it would be worth trying again just in case the first one was too confusing. In the case of English names appearing in non-English literature, I think the original rendering of the name in whatever language the original source was written in warrants at least some small mention within the article. Shabby 00:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Erk, I think that stating all of the alternate foreign spellings takes up too much space to be in the main article text. They should be mentioned in footnotes instead. For example, see I handled the Hwang Seong-gyeong article.--SeizureDog 21:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Melodia: A similar issue involving books came up on WT:MANGA earlier today, though it was simpler.
SeizureDog: I don't think that's the optimal solution, since people won't be looking for footnotes of name translations.
My personal opinion is that for the initial mention of their name, English and Korean characters is the best option (Side-question: is there a Korean version of {{nihongo}}) and then mention the katakana elsewhere on the page. --tjstrf talk 21:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
My 2¢: We should have the English name as well as the name in the original language of the work and if the character's name is not in the original work language, it should be included as well. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, Namco has not released any official materials or literature depicting the names of these characters in Hanggul. I'm not questioning the legitimacy of the transliterations, I'm certain that the Hanggul transliterations are accurate and have every reason to be included in the article. On the other hand I would say that the fact that these characters were originally created in Japan justifies the inclusion of the Katakana renderings, which I'm going to assume is how their names were originally rendered. Shabby 00:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Re: Tjstrf: Most people don't look for name translations, period. It's the kind of extremely specific and narrow information that, while important, should be set aside.--SeizureDog 05:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If they're Japanese characters (as in, Japanese-created, not whatever the Hell the fiction says they are), providing their name in their original context is standard, and this style is used for various other topics and languages (Vienna, Zeus, Tsar). Offering a possible source of the name doesn't sit well for me, as it's basically original research, but I won't be opposed to it. However, the focus must be on the language of people who created the character, as we're focusing on their position in the real world, which includes the country and language the character was created in, not what the fiction says.

tl;dr ver: Original context is important, moreso than what the fiction says or implies. ' 23:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I really do tire of these endless nationalistic squabbles between Chinese, Japanese and Korean users. -- Exitmoose 00:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I think Bethereds is the only one here trying to make this into a Japan vs. China/Korea dichotomy. I don't care about any of that nonsense, simply what their names are when the characters are presented in their original context. If those characters were Korean-created, this wouldn't be an issue for me at all. ' 01:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The articles have been reverted back since I reverted them. I'll revert one more time, but after that, someone else needs to. I'd like to just outwait him, but looking at the history, he's been at it for some time. -- Exitmoose 03:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The four articles in question are Hwang Seong-gyeong, Seong Mi-na, Hong Yun-seong and Seong Han Myeong. I suggest that if Bethereds continues to revert them, that we appeal to an admin. -- Exitmoose 03:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Seong Mi-na, Hong Yun-seong and Seong Han Myeong need to be reverted again. Bethereds has shown no interest in respectful discussion. He even posted the following quote on Talk:Hwang Seong-gyeong discussion page "I think we've all expressed our opinions enough. This is going in circles. If you want to change it back that much, go ahead. I'll simply change it back until the end of time." and "Nationalistic me or not, these otaku need to know that I am right, and they are pansies who should be laughed at.... Stupid otaku." on his user page. It's become obvious to me that he's not interested at reaching a conclusion acceptable to all but just forcing his own opinion on the articles. His recent reverts need to be referred to an admin, though I don't know how to do it. -- Exitmoose 00:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that Bethereds has added a Hangul transliteration of Mitsurugi's name in the article. I can think of only one reason behind this. Bethereds is probably waiting until someone deletes the Hangul (which is technically the correct course of action) and then he is going to try to use it to further his argument that since Hwang and Co. aren't Japanese, then their names should not be rendered in Japanese. It seems to me that Bethereds is too caught up in fictional backstory and pro-Korean rhetoric to recognize and respect the original Japanese source material. In real life, these characters are technically Japanese subjects and properties in that they were created by Japanese designers, appear in a story written by Japanese writers, are playable in a game created by Japanese programmers and was published by a Japanese videogame company. I guess Bethereds really believes that any and all Korean characters are solely Korean properties and should be treated as if they were actual historical figures regardless of whether they were created and are copyrighted by non-Koreans and completely fictional.
That said, I formally give up trying to reason or otherwise deal with this person. It is clear to me that he is unwilling to work towards a compromise or even consider other points of view that are even slightly contrary to his own fervently held beliefs. Even the democratic processes of Wikipedia hold no importance to him. As far as he is concerned his answer is the only correct answer, and as such his vote is worth more than those of all other uninformed, stupid "otaku" combined. I don't know about anyone else, but I didn't come to Wikipedia to be insulted or engage in drawn out edit wars, so I'm just going to walk away and wash my hands of this whole thing. To anyone else who is willing to try and discuss this matter with Bethereds, I salute you, but I fear that he may be much too stubborn to willingly consider any views other than his own and he seems to have an almost vigilante-esque diligence in stamping out any content that does not adhere to his own beliefs. Shabby 17:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Maintenance templates

I've cleaned up 2 of our maintenance templates, {{gamecleanup}} and {{move to gaming wiki}}. For {{gamecleanup}} I've refocused it into being in line with the main {{cleanup}} template, and for {{move to gaming wiki}} I've recreated it more in line with the other transwiki templates. Are there any others that need work? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I've also nominated Category:video games cleanup to be renamed to Category:video game cleanup. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I've created Category:All video game articles requesting maintenance as a master repository for all articles needing our attention. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Criteria for bosses in list of character articles

I don't think there's any set criteria for what constitutes a character in these articles. For instance, many articles list bosses as characters. I was hoping that one could be set up. Anyone interested in working on it? - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well... to be notable for a list page: the boss should be an end of level boss for one thing. A mini-boss (partway through the level or such) isn't always notable in my opinion. End of the game boss/bosses = notable. If the character has been a boss in a few games, that's certainly list worthy as well. Other than those, I'm not sure what criteria there could be for listing bosses. RobJ1981 04:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, if a boss is a character - ie, Ganondorf, he should be included. But Moldorm (from ALttP, LA, and TWW) wouldn't be. Bosses without personality, backstory, etc. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Rayman characters

Are Globox, Murfy and Ly the Fairy notable enough to have them in separate entries? — Canderous Ordo 20:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

From Murfy: "Murfy is only a minor character, so nothing is told or known about his background, family, or even about his race". Self explanatory. Rayman is now a decade old and still kicking, so I'd expect to see a character list somewhere, but judging by the standard of writing in the Murfy article I doubt there's a great deal to actually say about them, once the unsuitable material is cut. QuagmireDog 01:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok. When i have time i'll create a list for these characters. I'm also uploading several screenshots from Rayman 2 to Wikimedia Commons. — Canderous Ordo 00:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comments: Splitting List of Wii Games by Region

Hello. Myself and others have been working tenaciously to improve the status of List of Wii games to FL-quality. As of current, the list is comprehensive, listing all titles in all regions together. The current debate is whether to keep the list as is, or to split this list up by region and into different pages as seen in List of Virtual Console games. I am presently neutral on the topic, but leaning towards splitting the article.


  • Easier to read as less stuff is present
  • Would be able to encompass various differences between regions not already present(i.e. different names, publishers)
  • Would be able to add a ratings column (ESRB, PEGI, CERO)
  • Would be able to re-add Australia (we took it out to save space)


  • No longer comprehensive
  • Splitting article means less collaboration as different editors are working on different pages
  • Some articles may be updated more frequently than others (esp. NA vs Japan)
  • May hurt FL-chances as no one list is complete

I look forward to your input on the matter. For everyone's convenience, please direct your comments here, at the List of Wii Games Talk Page. Thank you. -Digiwrld1 22:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Rule of Rose external link - spamming type stuffs

I'd appreciate some advice on what to do regarding the Rule of Rose external link and its constant facelifts.

I'd done some work on the article.. yesterday and noticed there seemed to be a lot of activity over the fansite link. I thought it might blow itself out and carried on. Today I thought I'd try to reduce the pressure by clearing up the external links (some were unnecessary, others were actually sources for citing), so the fansite link could stay without the ELs being bloated. I left a message on the talk page and pointed to it in an edit.

Lo and behold, one response from one contributor, another anon ip has gone ahead and flipped the wording straight back. The issue seems to be the wording of the external link - someone wants it to read 'largest fansite in existence' whereas the rest of us seem to want to word it simply IE 'fansite and forum' without the needless vanity.

The ip who did this has two spambot messages and one warning about blanking a userpage on their talk. What's frustrating is that it's not the link itself that's the problem, just the wording. The fansite gets the coverage anyway, just that someone has decided to be bloody-minded about it and flip the bird. What can I do about this? QuagmireDog 01:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I would put on his talk page why the description isn't allowed with the links to WP guidelines and warn him about why it shouldn't be reverted, as well as maybe a 3RR warning if he has been reverting it a lot. Then if he still reverts, report him to WP:AIV. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 02:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Another user reported him/her and a moderator has issued a small temp. block since the ip has also been spamming at least one other survival horror game page, I'll use the 3RR template when the spammer resurfaces and start the ball rolling again. QuagmireDog 18:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


So, Gaming.wikia. I'm not exactly sure what it is (besides very undeveloped), or what purpose it serves beyond open-source noise. But hey, I thought it'd be worth mentioning. Nifboy 07:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I too completely fail to understand the purpose of this. Is it performing some sort of Digg-like role for games? Or what need exactly is this expected to fulfill? Surely we don't need a duplicate of Wikipedia, or a duplicate of Gamefaqs, and there are already lots of gaming news and review sites. -- Slordak 19:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
It just looks like a Digg-style gaming site, which is ok, but I don't know why you'd want such a site to be a wiki. Why would I want to edit someone's brief blurb pointing to some gaming-related link? --SubSeven 05:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for assistance with Team Chaos and Total Chaos

Hi guys, hoping you can help me with an issue. The Total Chaos games are a series of Amiga Chaos remakes. Team Chaos are the programming group behind them. The latter page makes no assertion notability for the group, and only discusses the games in the series anyway. Yesterday I put up a proposed merger tag (Team Chaos into Total Chaos), but two new users (Amiga fans, judging by their names) are repeatedly removing the merge tags (along with some other edits) before any proper discussion has taken place. Rather than put the merge proposal tags up yet again, I thought I would raise it here. On another note, the article itself is in a horrible state, mostly comprising of 'Rules of the game' and there's no independent references that I would call reliable. Marasmusine 09:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Video game article assessment is almost complete!

...for now at least. As I took a look today at it: there is 90 articles in it (plus the unassessed Mortal Kombat articles). I'm sure the category will get populated again, but let's try to keep it low from now on. RobJ1981 16:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Er.... so there's quite a few in there once again, sorry :) JACOPLANE • 2007-03-20 18:47

Characters of Final Fantasy VIII

Hi everybody. Work is finishing up on Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, which has sprouted up from a list of in-universe character miniarticles to an article with full out of universe perspective. I believe this is a concept and format we should adopt for all our "Lists of..." articles while merging all but the main one or two protagonists (and maybe a couple antagonists, depending on how much out of universe information is available). Your thoughts and opinions would be appreciated. — Deckiller 16:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Very well; I'll contain this concept to the Final Fantasy WikiProject then. — Deckiller 16:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for comments at {{Sonic games}} inclusion criteria

An inclusion criteria for {{Sonic games}} has been proposed at Template talk:Sonic games#Proposed inclusion criteria, with an introductory preamble at Template talk:Sonic games#Shadow III: Son of Shadow. You are cordially invited to discuss the proposal. — 00:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Final Fantasy XII box shot

I recently changed the Box art for Final Fantasy XII (Image:Ffxiicase.jpg) to the original Japanese version since the main text on the Japanese box was in English, so I thought the original should be used.

It was reverted with the reasoning: "Please note that the North American cover is used in place of the original Japanese cover because this is the English language Wikipedia and readers would be more familiar with cover art released in English-speaking countries."

I believe that the original Japanese box should be used because:

  • This is the original box.
  • The main text on the Japanese box is in English.
  • The American cover art is used ONLY in America, Europe and other regions also use the Japanese art, not the American.
  • The majority of the world is not American.

Rather than get into an edit war i decided to post here to get your opinions. Mattyatty 09:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Your reasoning is sound, although you may want to also mention this at the Final Fantasy Wikiproject. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, use the most common graphic available. Combination 03:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The debate has continued at the FF WikiProject here. Axem Titanium 21:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Kororinpa: Marble Mania

Rather than getting into an edit war, I will bring it here (and maybe WP:RM). A user moved Kororinpa: Marble Mania to Kororinpa. I moved it back , but then he reverted the move. Any thoughts on where the page should be? TJ Spyke 11:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

My two pen'th. Most common name, Kororinpa. Redirect from the Marble version. - X201 11:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Additional: After a quick search it looks like it's Kororinpa everywhere in the World and was only renamed for it's NA release. So that leaves us with the fact that it was released everywhere else before NA under one name and in NA last under a different name. Speaks for itself really doesn't it? - X201 11:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Let's go with Kororinpa. First came out in Europe with that title. - A Link to the Past (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Note that the original location for the article was Kororinpa, and not Kororinpa: Marble Mania as the user above suggests. - hahnchen 17:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review of Kirby's Dream Land

Could someone add some additional comments here? Thanks. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Screenshots vs. Package shot

The infobox on most games has space for one image (such as the one for Head Over Heels (game)). Assuming both are available, should it be taken up with

  • An image of the cover art
  • A representative screen shot?

I feel that as the article is about the game itself, the screenshot (i.e. the closest thing to a representation of the game we're able to directly show as part of an article) is more important. It struck me as risible that Head Over Heels (game) had the cover art (nice though it is) in the most prominent position, and no screenshots until the end of the article, two or three screens down.

Yes, cover art can often look prettier than screenshots as the main image in an article (case in point; Star Raiders). But we're not in the business of prettifying articles at the expense of the content. Are we?

Simple question; is there a rule of thumb for this?

Fourohfour 14:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes. Here. The box cover should be used in the infobox, and should be the most recognized english-language one. Whether or not it's prettier than a screenshot is not the issue- the issue is whether you can recognize what the game is from the infobox alone. The picture in the infobox, therefore, needs to be desciptive of the game, with it's name, etc. A screenshot is not recognizable by anyone who has not played the game. This is why (though I con't find the guideline), if you can't find a picture of the box (like, for an older game), then you use a screenshot of the title screen. A screenshot of the game itself is only used to illustrate a point in the article, not to stand as a representation of the article as a whole. --PresN 14:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Call to arms - help find a source that says that a Player's Choice title must also be a million seller

With the exception of GCN, which IGN states to be a "minimum of 250,000 copies sold". Would anyone want to help find a source on this? If anyone can find both a list of all Player's Choice titles and a confirmation that a PC title is defined by selling 1 million copies, that'd be great. I've seen boxarts that say "Player's Choice Million Seller", but we need better sources. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Can't it be used anyway as it is a WP:SELFPUB? The box art claims it's one million. It is relevant, not contentiuos, not self-serving, does not involve third-party claims, and it is reasonable to say that Nintendo affixed that medal onto the box. Hbdragon88 22:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't prove, though, that it HAS to be one million to count. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 22:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think that it's not too much of an assumption to say that "Player's Choice Million Seller" means exactly that. There may not be a stated criteria to say that all PC titles are million sellers, but the logo is self-explanatory. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems like I heard that the number needed to be re-released as a Player's Choice is different for each console. I'm also not sure if they mean that it's sold a million in America (for our Player's Choice games) or Worldwide. Major difference there. Personally, I'd like for a source telling me how many units need to be sold to qualify for the Japanese-only "The Best" series of budget priced re-releases for PlayStation systems.--SeizureDog 05:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Video game character article.

Speaking of video game characters... the actual article on video game character is of, well, questionable worth. I've proposed a merge over at it, but it's linked to by a large number of articles thanks to being used in templates like {{videogame-char-stub}}, plus it's currently listed as "high priority," so I figured others might be interested. SnowFire 18:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Related MfD

Members of this project may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Super Monkey Ball project and portal. The Super Monkey Ball Portal seems very likely to be deleted given its extremely narrow scope. However one option for the WikiProject pages would appear to be for them to become a subproject or taskforce of another larger project, such as this one. Would you mind considering this possibility and commenting upon it. Thanks, WjBscribe 22:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Small alteration to your project banner

As some of you may know, there's been some discussion regarding the number of WikiProject banners on article talk pages. There are three projects underway that attempt to "reduce the clutter". The first, of course, is the "small" option - see Small option for more info. The second is {{WikiProjectBanners}}, which hides all the banners in a one-line box. As has been discussed on that template's talk page, this option has the disadvantage of hiding all WikiProject banners, which defeats one of the purposes - to recruit new members. The third option is {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}, which addresses that issue by reducing each banner to one line (with the option to view the full banner).

Now the reason I'm bringing this up is because adopting this third option requires a small alteration of a WikiProject's banner - to add the "nested=yes" parameter. I'd like to determine consensus within this project around the change and see if we can move forward with it. I've put together a sample of your banner with the new option coded in (code). As you can see, there would be no change to the banner if the "nested" parameter isn't there. If it *is* there, the banner would be part of the "within the scope of the following projects..." box.

Several projects have already implemented this option, including WP:MILHIST, WP:LGBT, WP:ALBUM, WP:AVIATION, WP:India, WP:FRANCE, and WP:CCM.

Thoughts? Concerns? Would going ahead with the alteration be okay? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd still rather see small options (for 2 to 3 WikiProjects) and Project mergers and task forcing, but I have no major objections to this. A better option than WikiProjectBanners. -- Ned Scott 04:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for more comments at Template talk:Sonic games#Totally new inclusion criteria

Hello. A few others and I have been working on nailing down an inclusion criteria for {{Sonic games}} and its other compatriots. A Link to the Past helpfully pointed out one glaring oversight, and I have drawn up another inclusion criteria that addresses his concerns. However, it would be nice if as many editors as possible participated in this discussion because I think my proposal of applying any sort of inclusion criteria on templates might be charting interesting new territory in the navigational template saga. You are cordially invited to discuss the proposal. Thank you. — 10:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


{{Rise of Legends}}

Wtf? Am I the only one seeing mass unreferenced game guide cruft? What do the masses think?--Clyde (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. RTSes tend to accrue that kind of junk. All I can suggest is that you go ahead and remove redlinks and merge and redirect. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Well Rise of Nations: Rise of Legends already has way too much game guide info in it. Adding more game guide info doesn't really make me happy. Is there such thing as a mass AFD?--Clyde (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd suggest redirecting anything not worth merging. The AFD is just going to tell you to take a bunch of bad articles and make a bad list article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Well I'm worried that there is some editor or some group of editors that put a lot of work into these and will get seriously mad if I just redirect all their work. Perhaps there is some way of putting up a notice so the editors can know about this. Perhaps they could even discuss or help with it. However I'll start by removing red links.--Clyde (talk) 01:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd suggest pointing them to WP:WAF and WP:FICT, as a start. Sometimes all you can really do is just dive in, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Well I redirected the places, but I left the characters. I'll try to compile them into a list later.--Clyde (talk) 02:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear God I found a worse one.--Clyde (talk) 23:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's one that doesn't have a lot of cruft :)


Deckiller 23:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well you look to be an anti-cruft Lieutenant, so do you have any ideas to decruft this without anons and new user's going balisitc if this goes to AFD?--Clyde (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
The key is to use only use AFD as a last resort. Plus, merges must always be followed by redirects, not deletes. People hate it when their information is removed entirely, so the key is to use two resources: other wikis and redirects. The information should be moved to the appropriate Wiki, and then the information should be consolidated, with redirects to preserve edit history per the GFDL and simple courtesy. An article about the vehicles of starcraft and the characters of star craft are good; eventually, these two articles (and more if needed) need to attain an out of universe perspective. — Deckiller 00:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay AFD=Bad. I don't know enough to make this out of universe, but I think a good starting point might be consolidation and redirecting. So maybe characters should be list of characters, but what about the others? Factions, species, locations? And what about the Universe part? Gameplay of StarCraft seems to just be in-universe unreferenced game guide material.--Clyde (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
For characters, the best advice I can give you is to follow the concept of Characters of Final Fantasy VIII. For FF8, only the two main protagonists have articles, and the rest are in that article. When possible, the article talks not just about the plot, but how those characters were developed, received, and merchandised. A general article, like "World of StarCraft" is good, but I don't know much about StarCraft. I'll have to take a closer look. — Deckiller 00:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
For factions, all those faction and organization articles should be merged into their respective race. So the Protoss council thing would go into the Protoss article. — Deckiller 00:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Rise of the Kasai

Could someone take a look at the history of Rise of the Kasai? I think there was an article there before it's speedy deletion (might have been vandalized first). Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Formerly Japan exclusive video games

Please comment on the debate which is taking place on Category talk:Formerly Japan exclusive video games. Kariteh 15:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. As noted, any Japanese game which is released in Japan and then later released in the US is a "formerly Japan-exclusive" title. Hence, there's really no point in having such a list. -- Slordak 16:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

A Load of Useless Templates

Can someone tell me why we have templates such as Template:Wii-screenshot, Template:C64-game-screenshot and all the other system-screenshot templates in Category:Video game media templates? It would be a lot simpler if we used a system such as Template:Game-cover, in which the editor specifies which category it falls in. I really am not a fan of all these different templates and different images, they should all be standardised to the WP:VG game controller to make recognition of category easier.

If others here agree with me, we could set the ball rolling for more heavy botwork to sort this out. What do you think? - hahnchen 18:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Tycoon Games

I was bold and moved the tycoon games project to a task force of our project in an attempt to revive it. I hope I changed what was needed, please help if I didn't. Greeves (talk contribs) 21:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

That project is long defunct. Might as well kill it off. - hahnchen 22:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Land of the Legend discussion

I've invited JackSparrow Ninja to assert the web site's reliability (the site being [5]). After he's done so, would anyone care to comment? - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Notability doesn't enter into it, unless it has an article. Reliability is typically the issue, when using a website as a source. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Fixed. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a fansite. Pseudonymous authors, mostly just recaps stories from other sites, no apparent editorial control or oversight. Who is saying this is a good source? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

User:JackSparrow Ninja. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed several times before, see Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess/Archive 2#Is LotL a reliable source and countless other pages. Even if TSA's claims of plagiarism were untrue (and I'm not saying they are or aren't) I see nothing that makes this site more reliable than any other fansite. GarrettTalk 05:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I've seen JackSparrow commenting on and linking to User:JackSparrow Ninja/Source reliability like it was some kind of semi-official body or guideline, when most of it is either slander or half-truths. He's not listed any of TSA's positives for The Hylia, nor has he bothered listing negatives for Land of Legend. To be quite frank, they're both just fansites and I wouldn't mind them all purged. On the other hand, I'm not too bothered if we leave the references in, although I'd take a reference to Official Nintendo Magazine and IGN over Land of Legend any day. - hahnchen 19:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Source reliability should be taken on a case by case basis. There is no golden rule for all scenerios. — Deckiller 19:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

First A-Class request up

Please view Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Assessment#Requests for A-Class status for the first nomination. Hopefully many more will follow! — Deckiller 16:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Banning spoiler warnings on the Final Fantasy Wikiproject

Please add your opinion to the discussion currently taking place on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Final Fantasy#Banning spoiler warnings completely. Kariteh 22:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Just as a clarification: spoiler warnings are handled on a case by case basis. In the case of the Final Fantasy WikiProject, the decision is with those editors who work on the Final Fantasy project. The project does not badger other projects around about this issue (unless it's an unassociated article without a wikiproject and most of the editors are against the tags), so it should not be vice versa. — Deckiller 22:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

(video game) naming consistancy

I have been going through and renaming articles with (game), (computer game), (arcade game), and others to be (video game) in an effort to obtain consistancy of titles like (film) has become. My logic is as follows:

  • (game) is too vague. It should be used for articles like Tag (game).
  • All arcade games are video games, but the ports that arcade games get are not covered by the former; (video game) covers everything. Same logic applies to (computer game).
  • (video game) and (computer game) can be treated as synonyms, in which case (video game) is better as it is shorter.

Multiple video games with the same name are a case call:

I've tried to bring up discussion on the subject before, but there didn't seem to be much opposition, just people wanting a standard. Anyone else who wants to help is free to.--SeizureDog 09:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. Marasmusine 10:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand the logic for E.T., if it's the only E.T. video game why it can't use (video game)? I would understand it if there was another E.T. game released in 1982 for a different platform. --Mika1h 12:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
If released for only one console, use it (e.g. E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (Atari 2600)). Under that logic then, not all (arcade game) titles should be moved to (video game) then, since not all were ported to other platforms. Just to make that clear. Likewise All arcade games are video games is not a true statement. We just got done discussing this here and correcting that Video_game_console here. Only games that generate an actual video signal (i.e. raster display) qualify under the actual definition. Vector games would not qualify, unless "video game" is being used under the broadest (and incorrect) generic terms. --Marty Goldberg 13:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

How about this?

  • If there's no other thing with the same name, use the game's name. (E.g. Kwazy Quux)
  • If there are no other video games with the same name, use (video game). (E.g. Kwazy Quux (video game).)
  • If there's another video game of the same name...
    Use the platform on which the game was released, if the game was released on one single platform. Do not add (video game). (E.g. Kwazy Quux (DOS))
    Use the year of release, if the game was released on multiple platforms or if multiple different games were released on the same platform. Add (video game) only if there is going to be a possible naming conflict with another work of the same name (such as a book or film) released in the same year. (E.g. Kwazy Quux (1988), or Kwazy Quux (1988 video game) if a Kwazy Quux film came out that year.)

As a side note, I think splitting hairs on the definition of "video game" is a mistake. Games that use vector monitors are commonly known as video games, and they use many of the same principles of design, programming, presentation, and so forth. It's like saying such-and-such motion picure should not be called a "film" because it was recorded using a video camcorder or digital recorder. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what I said in the first place. :| Except you say to drop the "video game" when using the year. --SeizureDog 04:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I think everything sounds great standards related. I just completely disagree with the splitting hairs part on definition of video - its not splitting hairs. This is an encyclopedia, and correct terminology has to be used. The matter of what a "video" game is by definition was already decided in the courts and a matter of fact. (I'm not aware of any any previous court cases or patents being defended with regards to film vs. video as a term). As I've said previously, I realize its gone on to be used (incorrectly) in the generic sense for almost any electronic game. Common useage does not equal correctness (i.e. just because people commonly refer to vector monitor games as "video" games does not mean its correct), however popular vernacular must still be covered here as well. As such, most definition entries include both. --Marty Goldberg 14:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Common usage tends to define correctness. Court decisions tend to resolve issues of patent or trademark, not issues of terminology. That said, I'm not saying it's a good idea to refer to individual vector games in particular as video games, but, like the "computer and video games" silliness from before, it isn't a mistake to include vector games when referring to video games collectively. I don't want to go back to the CVG madness with "video and vector games." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Please do NOT disambiguate by system such as E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (Atari 2600), I'd much prefer (video game) or (computer game) instead. It makes it a lot easier for the layman to get to, as they might not know on which system the game was released on. Other than that, I don't see it as a big deal, I usually use (computer game) and if 2 games have the same name, than I disambiguate by year. - hahnchen 18:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Are you objecting to my system, or Mika1h's? I was simply trying to reflect and codify existing practice. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I was objecting to seizureDog up top. I understand what you were trying to do, I follow the disambiguate two games of the same name by year rule. - hahnchen 19:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, E.T. would use (video game) but there are another games with the same title (but nobody's bother to make articles for them yet). And people certainly remember which system a game came out for more far easily than they do the year. --SeizureDog 04:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with A Man in Black's initial proposal. Problem is.. I see a computer game more for a computer, and video game for console (PS, PS2, Xbox, etc.). Calling, say, The Sims a video game, just doesn't equate for me, really. Disinclination 23:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Project consensus is strongly against making a distinction between computer and video games, AFAICT. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Project consensus is that the top level is video games, which can be subdivided into computer games, console games, arcade games and such, and then subdivided from there by system (Windows, Dos, PS2, etc.) Ergo, calling something "Game Name (computer game)" is like naming it "Game Name(console game)", so we'd rather either call it video game or go all the way down to individual system (if necessary). --PresN 15:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
PresN said it better than I did. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Celebrity / video game lists.

I recently extracted a gradually-bloating List of celebrity gamers from Gamer. Since a few of the entries were actually celebrity cameo appearances (rather than specific gaming interests) I've also started List of celebrity appearances in video games.

However, since I've wavered into listcruft before, I thought I'd stop and get project member opinions before I continue. Thanks for any comments. Marasmusine 11:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ugh...this looks like a list for the sake of being a list. We could just shaft these over to the respective BLP articles and leave it at that, rather than grouping them together. As a start, I've chucked out the claims that had fact tags on them, as it involves WP:BLP. Hbdragon88 17:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, WP:BLP involves possibly defamatory claims; is saying someone plays video games defamatory? That said, this is a list for list's sake, I'm pretty sure. None of these people are noted for playing video games; all of these references are either famous people being interviewed or mentioned on game fansites, or trivial references in interviews on other subjects. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
BLP is not just for negative claims, though it's often used for it: Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. Hbdragon88 17:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's not particularly contentious, either, but I sympathize with the intent. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm questioning it, so I'm removing it. Hbdragon88 18:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
You're right to remove the uncited entries. As for the list itself, I'm begining to think it's a bit pointless; I'm sure most celebs like playing some game or another. If this is the case, should the 'celebrity gamers' section on gamer be completely removed? How about List of celebrity appearances in video games?
I think both lists should be sent to AFD. It's listcruft that certainly isn't very notable. Why is it important to know celebrities play games? And why is it important to know their appearances in games? Appearances in games is a little notable I suppose, but celebrities that play games doesn't seem like an important enough list. RobJ1981 23:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, no need for AfD, I'll speedy it and remove it completely from gamer. I'll work on the latter list though. Marasmusine 08:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of listcruft, does anyone have an opinion on List of Wii games using Miis. It's a tiny article and I think the tables could easily be shrunk and they'd be of much more use on the Mii article rather than having to click on a separate link to see 2 table of just 7 games. Timkovski 12:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
We should delete that, it's indiscriminate. "using Miis" is quite unncessary. It would be like starting this article List of Wii games that use the Wii Remote. Hbdragon88 01:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


I ask once more, can somebody involved in video gaming look over every single article on Soulcalibur characters and do something about the {{unencyclopedic}} tags there? Thank you. >Radiant< 17:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an SC fan, but I finally located an article that had one of those tags on them. Kill them. A "Character analysis" section without a single citation is a textbook violation of WP:ATT. Hbdragon88 03:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Character analyses have been removed. That entire section of Wikipedia needs a lot of work. — Deckiller 01:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No importance category

I think it should come back. Reason? Some people say that being of no importance in cvg means that it shouldn't have an article. However! Not all articles that are of no importance to the cvg spectrum only fall under cvg. And just by being associated with cvg does not mean it's of importance to it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think low covers it well enough (it's not as if there's a huge diff between low and no), and changing it to "low-priority" removes that impression that we shouldn't have an article on it. Hbdragon88 03:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
If it's of no importance to the VG project, then why would it be in it in the first place? I request an example to back your logic.--SeizureDog 05:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with SeizureDog. If something is not important to this project, it should not be tagged as being in the project at all. --- RockMFR 05:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
But just because it's not important does not mean it doesn't fall under the category of video games. Anyway, this discussion is irrelevant, since it's not even no importance anymore, but no priority. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It is my understanding that an article of low or no importance only relates to inclusion within the offline versions of Wikipedia, not it's relative merits in all of gaming. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 12:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Essentially, yeah. WP:1.0 will (eventually) be generating automated lists based on project assessments, and a no-importance assessment doesn't really fit there. Nifboy 13:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
People, we're not even discussing importance - it's been relabelled as priority. An article can be on Wiki and be no priority to the VGproj, and yet in the spectrum of the VGproj. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Video Game Images Task Force?

I was going to start a Video Game Images WikiProject, devoted to including images and boxart in every Video Game article on Wikipedia, but it seems that it would make a good task force. Does anyone agree/want to be a part of it? NiGHTS into Dreams... 00:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this would be a good idea, and I'll try to help out. The new features of the cvgproj talk banner would be helpful here. JACOPLANE • 2007-03-25 00:52
Are you interested in making a task force centered around this, or just making this an item on the to-do list? (Also, who do we need to contact about adding this as a task force?) NiGHTS into Dreams... 01:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
To my knowledge there's no leader or council for this project, so just get a consensus and a few members and go to town. I would suggest getting a subpage for your group though.--Clyde (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, subpage added, here! Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Video Game Images Task Force
I'll help out if you need more people involved. --Marty Goldberg 05:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Cool! Anyone and everyone interested in helping just sign the "Participants" section and get to uploading! NiGHTS into Dreams... 13:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Dedicated video game consoles

Shouldn't the Dedicated video game consoles template be added to the video game history pages? I believe that it used to be on the now-defunct comparison pages. Bevinsky 11:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


The VG PR has a problem. We have several games that are up for regular Peer review, but they did not show up in the bottom section of the VG peer review. Also, the Serious Sam II PR was archived, yet it still shows up on the VG PR page. What is with the breakdown and how can it be fixed?--Clyde (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The answer is blindingly easy- the articles don't show up there automatically. Never have. The way to fix it is to place/remove them from the page as they are placed/removed from the PR page. Also, update the VG gamebox. --PresN 22:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Wow I am stupid. I should check my brain to see if it is still there....--Clyde (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)