Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 27

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 20 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30

StarCraft articles

A few more sets of eyes on articles related to Starcraft would be appreciated. Edits related to StarCraft II are being placed in articles other than the obvious one and often include speculation, OR, and POV comments and assertions. For example, I've reverted a few edits to StarCraft: Ghost‎ and I'd appreciate some help there. Thank! --ElKevbo 22:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

On a slightly different note, I've brought the StarCraft: Insurrection article up to (what I percieve to be) a satisfactory level, taking a similiar structure as the StarCraft: Brood War article. -- S@bre 17:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

GCOTW

I don't think that I'll have the time to prune or update the GCOTW in the next three weeks... could someone here volunteer to take care of it for a while, I'd be more than happy to explain exactly what needs to be done. Thanks in advance. JACOPLANE • 2007-05-21 01:09

Template:Infobox CVG footnotes

On April 1, 2007 at 15:58 (UTC) we came to consensus in Talk:Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars (archived here) to add information to the infobox of its article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars, however, unlike other the other infobox templates, {{Infobox CVG}} did not support foonotes, so I edited the template to support footnotes and discused the change on Template talk:Infobox CVG § Footnotes on April 1, 2007 at 17:19 (UTC). On 23 April 2007 at 11:53, Combination reverted my edit without discussing the change on the talk page. I explained I do not support Combination removing footnotes, because it is not an unused field, and the purpose of this field and why it is necessary. Articles such as Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars use footnotes in their infobox. Other infoboxes use footnotes, such as {{Infobox Country or territory}}. (See United Kingdom for an example.) They are not redundant, and they do not belong at the end of an article. Combination continued to revert without discussing it on the talk page. Long story short, we've been in an edit war. I want Combination to talk about this. I have given my reason for adding footnotes, and video game articles, such as Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars use them. We have come to a consensus to move the information from a different section in the article to the footnotes of the infobox, just like {{Infobox Country or territory}} does with United Kingdom, on the talk page. Combination continues to revert without discussing it here. When I go to edit videogame articles that use Infobox footnotes, I see they are gone, and the information is lost and reduces the quality of the article. In addition, the footnotes have citations, and removing the footnotes deletes the linkback to them. In essence, the reader wonders something like, "Um, I see reference 4 in the References section, but it doesn't exist in the article? Why is it here?". Combination finally discusses the issue,

I'm tired of this. Can we just have footnotes like other civilized templates? Thanks in advance! Taric25 18:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why you need a footnote in the infobox itself. Is there something wrong with having the footnote at the bottom of the article just like almost every other one that uses them? You say that they do not belong at the end of an article, but why? You give no reason for that. It seems to me that you changed the template (which I'm shocked isn't fully protected), then used that change in one article, then claimed that a reversion was unjustified because that change was now being used. I know that it's a small change that's being used in one article, but you really should have discussed it here first before you messed with a template used in 16000+ articles. --PresN 06:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted the template to its original (no footnotes) state and protected it, while we discuss on the talk page. --Oscarthecat 08:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Categories for arcade games by years

Do these even need to exist? Arcade games are video games: so the should only have the video game year category, right? Category:Video games by year is where the arcade years are listed now: 1971 to 1999. RobJ1981 20:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Brain Age 2

There's a dispute over the title of the sequel - whether it should be Brain Age 2: More Training in Minutes a Day or More Brain Training from Dr. Kawashima: How Old Is Your Brain?. While the first game was indeed titled in accordance with the NA version based on it being released there first, the fact that the EU version is coming first should trump consistency. On top of that, Iwata recently criticized NoA because Brain Training (the EU version of the first game) has been selling 30,000 on average per week in EU, while Brain Age only did 10,000 per week on average. Additionally, most Chart-Track charts in EU and the Australian chart show Brain Training to be a strong contender week after week, and a press release from at least two months ago say that Brain Training has sold 2 million in Europe (comparing that with New SMB which was 2 million + the fact that Brain Training has been beating New SMB regularly in EU = 2nd best-selling EU DS game behind Nintendogs), while by the end of March it hasn't broken 1.5 million in NA. Fact of the matter is that the series is so much more popular and well-known in Europe and Australia, and Nintendo acknowledged that by the fact that Europe is getting preference with the release of the sequel. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The more notable one seems appropiate. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Be sure to clarify that so I know which way you stand for definite - I have a strong feeling that I know which way you lean, but I want to be sure. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The latter title. If it truly is as popular as you say it is, and was specifically marketed to a European clientele, then that title is preferred, as it is the one that most gamers will know it as. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems like this should really be handled on the talk page for that article.
However, until then, the fact remains that both the north american and european titles are very much well-known. This isn't a case of one obscure title, and one very prevalent title. How well they did relative other games is irrelevant. Even if you wish to talk numbers, what are the precise numbers in both markets? (That is, precisely how many were sold in europe, and anywhere else where it's called "brain training", and how many were sold in the US, Canada, and anywhere else it's called "brain age"?) Of course, I don't think those numbers would be entirely relevant anyways, since I don't get the impression there's a huge margin. (If it is, indeed, 2 million to 1.5 million, then, no, that isn't enough of a difference to break the article titles.)
I think that naming consistency is significant. Having Brain Age for one title, and "Brain Training" for the sequel is needlessly complicated. (Especially considering the fact that there are already so many other similar titles in the market) From a very quick glance, if one were to see "Brain Age", "Big Brain Academy", and "More Brain Training", there would be nothing in the title to indicate which two were from the same series.
Also, do you have any information to cite one title being better-known than the other? Or any reason to have two games within the same series follow entirely different naming conventions, beyond simply, "Brain Training sold marginally better than Brain Age"?
But, again, this really should be handled here. Bladestorm 20:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Brain Training had two million two months ago and it still selling very high since. Brain Age is at 1.3 million LTD by the end of February. That is much, much more than "selling marginally more". The fact that Nintendo is giving Europe the first crack at this game is reason enough. Also, would naming consistency require a Japanese game be translated into an English title to be consistent to the English title? Additionally, perhaps Brain Age's article should be based on the EU title. The "coming to the US first" argument is only good if it can be said that it's also more popular. However, I have both arguments backing me - and while people who wish for it to be based on the NA title argue for the first release claim, I actually had a higher level of popularity for the EU version.
Seriously, would it hurt so bad for certain games to be based on the EU title? I couldn't move Trace Memory because someone decided that anecdotal evidence (Google hits) is proof that it has to be the NA title. Couldn't move Brain Age because it came to the US first. Why must the articles be aimed at NA gamers when sales indicate that the franchise isn't most popular with them? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
For the record, my sole complaint with renaming Brain Age 2 really is just consistency. Yes, the european sold 30-50something% more copies than the north american release (I'm hoping you meant all markets for "Brain Age"; not just the US), but that's still marginal when weighed against having two games with entirely different names.
I consider it different from the case of japanese titles, because japanese titles are (not trying to be sarcastic here) japanese titles. In this case, we have two equally valid english titles. As for your question, "would it hurt so bad for certain games to be based on the EU title?" Well, no. It wouldn't hurt in the slightest. And, (and I realize Spyke probably disagrees with me on this one) frankly, I wouldn't care if both articles were changed to Brain Training. My problem is with having one of each. That's just bad form. Of course, there are other considerations to discuss, like, "which form was used in the earliest significant contributions?", and stuff like that. But I still think this is best discussed on the article's talk page. Bladestorm 00:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
My biggest tiff is that so many people oppose EU titles because they are EU titles. So I can't really even get the first article moved no matter how much more popular it is, because far too many people have an NA bias. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
How do you think I feel? People say "Europe"/"EU" even though the region is called "PAL region"/"PAL". Hell, you did it. Ever heard of South Africa? Australia? New Zealand? Even worse, when there's a separate AU entry, it's says Australia. Are you forgetting New Zealand? It's Australasia. --Teggles 05:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm focusing on Europe. The dialect of the article should be based on what focus is given. I didn't say PAL because that would create complications in how to write the article. It may be the PAL region, but I doubt that the writing of the article would be the same whether the Australian English was used or the Queen's English was. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Heh, I was just whining. Not criticizing you. --Teggles 07:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I actually think both of the articles should be under their Brain Training name, purely because the entire mini-genre that the games spawned are all pretty much named *** Training. But the consistency argument does have some weight, so you'd probably have to move both which is unlikely to happen. It's not impossible to move something to the European name, it just needs to be overwhelmingly more popular such as Sega Mega Drive and Kororinpa, where only the American market was different. It still takes a bit of effort though and probably a revert war at some point involving the usual suspects. - hahnchen 07:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) On the subject of whining about phrasing, can I also please request that people stop saying "American market", "American version, etc? Proud canuck here. :)
To Hahnch, that's actually a reasonably good argument, though "Brain Age" would have an equally good argument, in that the central aspect of the game is that it calculates your "brain age", and tracks your "brain age" across time. So, I'd say either argument was valid in that respect. I still think that this should be discussed on individual talk pages, but I guess that isn't going to happen, eh?
Can I at least try to get you to agree on something?
Regardless of which is chosen (Brain Age, or Brain Training), it really is better to maintain consistency, isn't it? Again, if you have the options of, for example, ("Brain Age", "Big Brain Academy", "More Brain Training"), or, ("Brain Age", "Big Brain Academy", "Brain Age 2"), isn't the latter option really better than the former, in terms of easily illustrating which games are directly connected? And when you start considering all of those other similar games for the DS, doesn't consistency become even more important? I won't bother arguing for one version over the other. Frankly, I really don't care which is chosen. But, I do care that the same convention is chosen for both.
I can sympathize with having your naming conventions constantly stomped on. I'm a canadian, and I keep having to see 'check' (instead of cheque), 'color', and armor, and hear 'zee' instead of 'zed'. But you need to choose your battles, and I think the first thing to ask yourself is, "how would using two different names actually help the articles?" Bladestorm 15:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Using the proper name for these articles is a good battle - it's hard, if not impossible to get an article moved to a certain region's naming because people are so tilted one way. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The consistency argument as Bladestorm presents it does have its merits, and I don't think you're ever going to get the articles to the Training name. I think you'd have a lot stronger argument for moving Mario Strikers Charged -> Mario Strikers Charged Football, where the game has been primarily targeted at the PAL market (they are after all, the ones who know what football is). But the fact that the current name is shorter will still make any move very difficult. Even stronger arguments for moving a page would be Beyond Oasis -> The Story of Thor, being that the article was originally at The Story of Thor until it was unilaterally moved and that the only market to use the Beyond Oasis title is the American one. - hahnchen 16:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why Brain Age could be argued as the better title, based on the simple fact that it's less popular. I've been doing tons of research to show which is more popular, and all the Brain Age side has done is do Google searches. As it stands, "Brain Age" + "Nintendo DS" only has 60,000 more hits than "Brain Training" +"Nintendo DS", and that's considering the EU market's smaller. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Hahnch, if the PAL title was moved to the "American" title, then you may have good cause to move it back. If the original significant version of the article had the PAL title, then there would need to be good reason to change it. (Though the converse is true of the Mario Strikers Charged article. You need a better reason than "Europe likes soccer".) Link, first off, it isn't a matter of where it's more "popular", so much as what it's best known as. But even that is really only for really extreme cases. In this case, there are two valid titles. It isn't that people are saying, "Brain Age is right, Brain Training is wrong". It's that we're saying, "either is a valid title". And your assertions that Brain Age is only slightly more well recognized is certainly no argument in favour of Brain Training. In this case, the only way you can legitimately get it moved is if the first significant contribution was "Brain Training", or if you can illustrate that it's vastly better known as "Brain Training". You certainly can't prove the latter. Off-hand, I don't know about the former. Bladestorm 17:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Slightly more popular according to Google, which as I've said many times, is always going to give preference to the NA version of a game simply because there are not only more video game web sites originating from NA, but also more powerful web sites - IGN, GameSpot, 1UP, they are all based in North America. The only evidence provided to say that Brain Age is big in NA is from me, that it sold 1.3 million, but I provided evidence to show that Brain Training had sold 2 million (months ago). On top of that, the fact that the president of Nintendo's main regional branch criticized the American branch for selling so much worse than the EU version shows that Brain Age and Brain Training are in completely different classes - apparently, what Brain Age sells is inadequate in comparison to Brain Training's. The fact of the matter is not only that Europe is a smaller region in regard to gaming, and yet the DS and many of its games are more successful in Europe. Hell, the UK alone has more than 3 million DS Lites sold. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Bladestorm that consistency is the most important thing here. Can we please forget about the argument of "what the original article used", since on all WP guidelines that's the very last tiebreaking criterion to use? But anyway. I agree that we should have consistency, but then this should also be consistent with other titles in the series, such as English Training. I think both the first and the second Brain games should be moved to their Training versions. Tim (Xevious) 15:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the current discussion for moving the series is below, under NA bias (Yes, I realize the title doesn't AGF, and is needlessly divisive, but ah well). You actually bring up an interesting topic, though. I'd never heard of, "English Training". The only problem is that I can't find an entry for English Training on nintendo's uk website. (or any evidence at all that there even exists an "english" version of the game. Kinda ironic, eh?) The image for the game in that article was actually taken from a french website. I can find lots of references to it coming to Europe, but can't find anything to confirm that it had a UK (or other english) version at all. I couldn't find it on the australian site either (I know australia isn't europe, but I'm really trying to find any evidence of an english version that's actually intended for native english speakers). If there was a truely english version of the game (again, I see the irony), then I'd at least have to entirely reassess my entire position. To that end, I encourage you to find a good official site for the english version of the game (intended for native english speakers). Or, heck, as a start, can you even find a picture of the back of the game, so we could try to pick out details that suggest it's intended for an already english-speaking market? Contrary to how it might look, I really do want to work with people here, and am always more than happy to change my position when appropriate. Bladestorm 15:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, for a start it's not intended for an English audience! It's a 'game' which teaches people how to speak English, and has been released in a number of other languages as a starting point. But the fact that this doesn't have an English-language version isn't relevent, surely? What's relevent is that it's known in all English-speaking countries as English Training, and the other game in the series (which is currently only available in Japan) is known as General Knowledge Training (or in some translations Common Sense Training - yes, I know they mean completely different things!). So for consistency, it makes sense to use the "Training" name. Tim (Xevious) 16:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, it actually is relevant, for a few reasons. (But before I get into that: You are making very good points. Please don't view this as a dismissal!)
First off, without actually having 'english versions', they don't really have 'english version titles'. Titles like 'Brain Age' are recognizable english version titles (as is 'Brain Training', of course). See, a japanese(or other foreign language) title that doesn't even have an english release is a weak argument for changing the title of other games that do have official english titles. If the different games were part of a more cohesive series, then that might make a difference... but, in this case, it's closer to a theme than a series. These aren't Training 1, Training 2, Training 3, Training 4. The two Brain Training games are a series. English Training is a separate title with a vaguely similar goal (but not terribly). General Knowledge Training is similar. I just don't see them as having much weight in terms of changing the two Brain Age article titles. As it is, the English Training article is still a stub, with no reason to expect it to expand significantly. The General Knowledge Training article, though not explicitly labelled as such, is also really a stub.
More importantly, the "General Knowledge Training" article isn't even named "General Knowledge Training". Note the redirect to the real title, "Kanshuu Nippon Joushikiryoku Kentei Kyoukai: Imasara Hito ni wa Kikenai Otona no Joushikiryoku Training DS". So, in that regard, moving Brain Age to Brain Training wouldn't even directly follow the same pattern as "Kanshuu Nippon Joushikiryoku Kentei Kyoukai: Imasara Hito ni wa Kikenai Otona no Joushikiryoku Training DS".
If they ever make actual english-language versions of those two titles, and officially name the english language versions, "General Knowledge Training", and "English Training", then I'll certainly reconsider. (And heck, if that ever happens, I can't imagine supporting anything but renaming them all to "Training") But, in the meantime, I really think those two games don't play a significant factor in the debate.
Of course, the obvious solution would be for them to bring General Knowledge Training over to north america. I wannit, dangit! Bladestorm 16:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, for an interesting read, take a look here, where A Link to the Past makes an argument for ignoring the japanese titles of a series when english version titles exist for part of it. Bladestorm 16:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I must applaud your attempt at taking a completely different naming conventions argument and trying to use it to hurt my argument. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Template edit war

Could I request that project members who have an interest in the CVG Infobox please go to the project talk page and read the Footnotes discussion between the disputing parties and add a bit of practical advise to move the discussion on from the constant revert revert revert that has been going on over the past weeks. - X201 08:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the template to its original (no footnotes) state and protected it, while we discuss on the talk page. --Oscarthecat 08:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Strategy Games Stub Template

What does everyone think about the image of a tank on {{Strategy-videogame-stub}}. Could we get something appropriate for this? G1ggy! 04:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If there's one thing trawling the CGW archives has taught me, it's that wargames (particularly WWII) essentially defined the strategy genre years ago. Therefore, I think it's wholly appropriate. See also: Crimson Fields, the game the image comes from. Nifboy 06:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
That image is actually quite hard to pick out with its dark greens and blacks. I don't think there's anything wrong with a tank image, but something a little bolder and iconic would do. Although to be honest, I really wouldn't mind just standardising all cvg stubs with the cvg controller image. Consistency rocks. - hahnchen 18:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Video game download prices (again)

The previous discussion can be found here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/archive26#Wii Points: to list or to not list?. There is also an active discussion here about it: Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Not a sales catalogue or price guide. To summarize it: in my opinion (and others) download prices for the newest consoles (Wii, PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360) shouldn't be listed. Prices are listed on the official sites for the downloads and many other gaming sites, an encyclopedia shouldn't be a price guide...period. RobJ1981 06:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"Encyclpedic" is defined by Webster's as being comprehensive on a branch of knowledge. In the interest of being comprehensive, naturally we would list prices that are completely standardized - these aren't prices that change from store to store, like most products that might go on "sale" at any time. A copy of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles downloaded off of the Wii Shop Channel is going to cost the same in North Pole, Alaska as it is when downloaded in Enid, Oklahoma. And what do we want to be as an encyclopedia? We want to be informative. Useful. That's the entire purpose of an encyclopedia. So again, to be informative and useful... we list the prices, because that is both. I also notice that the "Wikipedia is not a price guide," they're a general good guideline, is not actually something you have linked as real policy. It's just something that's being DEBATED as policy. That's not the same as something we can take a hardline stance on. And even if we could, something that is a standard flat charge without concern of taxes or sales would be a natural exception. So again, Keep. In truth, I'm amazed this debate is still going. --Bishop2 19:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
If Capcom sets an MSRP for a game, wouldn't that mean that it's the official price and that we must include the price? - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
That's funny, I could swear that, in the interest of being informative and useful, that would mean including game guide information. You're also absolutely wrong about the price changing in different areas, there's a thing called an "MSRP". --Teggles 19:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and do you know what the "S" stands for? SUGGESTED. That's why, today, I walked into Best Buy and saw 'Spider-Man: Battle for New York' for $19.99. Then I went into GameCo 10 minutes later and saw the same game for $29.99. It's also why I can find the DVD of Pirates of the Caribbean: CotBP at Best Buy for $14.99, and then see it in Target for $13.77. Prices are different based on what the store opts to set them at. Prices of Xbox Live Arcade or Wii Shop Channel games don't change anywhere in the continent, no matter where you shop from. --Bishop2 20:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
You don't seem to get it. The MSRP doesn't change. As for the suggested rubbish, hell, the release date is suggested, many stores will release at different dates. Not to mention you completely ignored the game guide argument. We don't have to include information just because it exists and a group will find it useful. When you have something like the Model T, its pricing is important because it made a difference, but all you're doing with Wii Points is providing a price guide. --Teggles 04:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, MSRP's do change. TJ Spyke 04:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to reiterate the opinion that unless it deviates from Virtual Console#Pricing, it's not worth mentioning for each of the twenty-some articles it's in. Certainly, there are days where context can be worthwhile (e.g. a reviewer saying "Alex Kidd isn't worth $8"), but that's an actual reason to mention the price. Nifboy 20:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out (in the case of Virtual Console games for the Wii at least): games are a constant price, with only a few exceptions. The table at the list page for the games: doesn't need a special box to list the redundant price. I've suggested a compromise of just listing the overall price (per group of games), at the top of each section. But no one seems to even agree with that. So this matter seems to be an "all or nothing" deal. In that case: prices shouldn't be listed. I try to compromise, but people don't want to listen. RobJ1981 21:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Can I get more input on this? I'm considering a request for comment (for the list page/pages for Virtual Console at least). This pricing needs to go. Constant prices or not: Wikpedia shouldn't be turned into a price guide. RobJ1981 15:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Enough already. See Wikipedia:Consensus, in particular this sentence: "Asking for a consensus in a completely different "venue" or section of Wikipedia, in the hope of finding more support for a failed proposal, is known disapprovingly as forum-shopping." -- MisterHand 21:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
This isn't a failed proposal in my opinion. There was some discussion about it: then the discussion died. If most people outright said they didn't want the proposal: that would be failed. There is some people that want the prices, and some that don't. That's not a consensus, so I see no reason why the current way should be accepted as default (since nothing new was decided on, yet at least). RobJ1981 22:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
You first proposed that Wii points be removed from List of Virtual Console games (North America). There was clear consensus that the points should stay. Since then, you've been forum-shopping the proposal around, including this talk page and the administrator's noticeboard. -- MisterHand 01:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Clear consensus my ass. Micro-consensus does not trump Wikipedia wide consensus. I've removed Wii points from the article you've mentioned. -- Ned Scott 03:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Where's the Wikipedia wide consensus against Wii points? Even with all the forum shopping, nobody's been able to get it. -- MisterHand 03:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Several past discussions (linked above by Rob) show people not being too keen on the idea of price lists, let alone Wii points. Stating the price of a game can be encyclopedic, but these lists are not. -- Ned Scott 03:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Some people (after the issue was forum shopped to editors less familiar with the subject matter). Not all people. There's nothing even close to a "Wikipedia wide consensus" on this issue. -- MisterHand 10:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Mentioning the price in an article about the game seems fine to me if there's something notable about it, but when it's done in these lists then that's a bit much (way too price-guide-ish). And what's all this about.. Wii points? you have to be kidding me. -- Ned Scott 03:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This edit by an admin clearly states the poll doesn't control the article: of Virtual Console games %28North_America%29&diff=129378690&oldid=129282310. I have the right to continue this, as I feel the poll isn't the solution to this. Look at the other links I provided above: some people are for, some are against. This is certainly not a solved case. The fact several users (TJ Spyke being one) are ignoring the discussions, and claiming the poll is 100 percent right... is a bit rude in my opinion. Not joining the discussion is one thing: but ignoring them because they claim it's over, is just wrong. TJ's edit here (at the bottom) is simply bad faith in my opinion: of_Virtual_Console_games_%28North_America%29&diff=134219395&oldid=134218873. RobJ1981 03:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Voting can be evil, and it takes a back seat to discussion. I'm supporting Rob on this one. -- Ned Scott 04:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
The Wii Points are relevent to each game, as much as even the ESRB rating. There has also been no consensus to remove them, and it's not a price guide (so it doesn't violate any WP policy). TJ Spyke 04:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Besides the Virtual Console list pages (for several countries): there is also the following page that is a download price guide. Xbox Live Arcade#Xbox Live Arcade games for the Xbox 360. I don't think there is one for PlayStation Network games (at least I couldn't find one). RobJ1981 04:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
They are not price guides. TJ Spyke 04:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
It might not have been the intention, but it might be the result. -- Ned Scott 04:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
What is it then, if it's not a price guide? A point guide? Also as a note: the links above don't work (the diffs from Nishkid and TJ on the Virtual Console list page), I'm not sure what I did wrong with that. RobJ1981 04:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • In general such pricing information is trivia, and Wikipedia tries to avoid commercial information (as given by our strong rules against promotion articles). >Radiant< 11:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Closed AfDs

Do we archive the closed AfDs, or just take the older ones off the list? Marasmusine 11:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Archive them to the VG Deletion Archive. It's a complete pain in the ass to do, which is why the closed list gets so long. --PresN 23:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't seem too bad, just cut and paste, surely? Oooohhh, alphabetical order.... I see. :> I'll give it a go. Marasmusine 07:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The Price Is Right games

I am currently putting some finishing touches on The Price Is Right (US game show) article to submit for FA consideration, but the section on computer/video games needs some help. This is not my area of expertise, nor do I have any idea what sort of reliable sources I should be using. I also feel that, even though it is a section of the article, that it should follow some of the standards by the gaming community. If I could get a few eyes over there for some help it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! —Twigboy 17:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It's going to be hard to find sources online for what looks to be a rather casual game such as this from 1990. MobyGames has some information[1], and at a long shot, there may be something from the 1990 Computer Gaming World archives[2]. Just Googling the thing, I found out you can actually download it from a legally dubious website[3]. If you can't find a source for the "cancelled" NES game, then just leave it out. The other 2 products, won't have many sources at all in the video game press, they're not really targeted at the same market as the ones which the press covers. - hahnchen 11:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Pretty much figured on that, since it is more of a novelty item. There were a lot of assertions in there, and just a Google search was coming up pretty blank. Thanks for the assistance.—Twigboy 00:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

NA bias

It seems that in the project, no one is willing to let any article aimed at the EU style of writing or its EU title. The only argument ever given is Google hits, which also say that American football is more popular than football. Is anyone going to try to fix this significant problem? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it matters in most cases. In the few cases where it does matter, it should be based on the sales of each region. --Teggles 03:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Spelling is supposed to be written based on region or writer preference, so maybe writing style and focus are based on the same ideas.--Clyde (talk) 03:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I see people arguing down the superior sales of certain games in EU regions by both saying "Spain etc. don't count, so it's UK + Australia vs. US and Canada" and "there's more people in Europe, so it's an unfair comparison". That's gotta come from an NA-bias. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
While each issue is different, I'd guess that people are comparing English speaking countries in the PAL region to English speaking countries in NA. While this is indeed unfair, it's not really unexpected. I'm guessing you already know this, but how do we shift the paradigm of every user on the encyclopedia? Is it worth? Is it within our right to try?--Clyde (talk) 03:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Most, if not all PAL countries have English as an official language, if I recall correctly. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Most PAL countries don't have English as their official language, but games are generally released in these countries under an English name, as most developed countries are pretty fluent in English. I don't go for in for these arguments too much, and unless there's a strong reason to change something, I just go by what was originally there. Which in the case of Brain Training, is Brain Age. The flat out worst argument I've had at Wikipedia is when editors tried to replace perfectly valid English language box art at Wii Play because they thought we were Conservapedia. It's something, given recent edits, is going to happen at Mario Strikers Charged. - hahnchen 11:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Could you cite an example, showing where this is a problem? --Oscarthecat 09:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

These naming wars are eeirely reminiscent of the gasoline vs. petrol wars way back a few years ago (not that I was there at the time). Anyway, at least according to the WP:MOS, the style was established at the time of the article should be kept. One such example is J. R. R. Tolkien; he's a British author, but the dates use MM/DD/YYYY, presumably because that the American style was established first. Global changes to reverse it to the DD/MM/YYYY style will likely be reverted. hbdragon88 05:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

WP has options to let you have dates displayed the way you want (so can choose to have all linked dates show up as mm/dd or dd/mm, thus the date only affects unregistered users since they will see whatever is written in the article). TJ Spyke 21:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't even really care about soccer vs. football. I'm talking about titles. I think there is too much pro-NA bias and anti-EU bias on the CVG, and I think we have to consider establishing SOMETHING so that the large majority of NA editors don't just flood the polls and block any pro-EU decision with inferior reason - I mean, I gave a pretty good argument for Brain Age just recently, showing the overwhelming popularity of the EU version and - in the eyes of NCL's CEO, the disappointing sales of the NA version. I've shown that the sequel will be coming to Europe AND Australia before NA, showing where the user base is. I've shown that Google hits are not reliable, as they are almost always going to give preference to the NA title. IMO, any argument for the usage of the NA name goes down the toilet when I point out that Brain Age's 60,000 lead in Google hits really means nothing. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
The only guaranteed slam-dunk way to convince NA editors is titles-wise. That is why Sega Mega Drive and Yoshi's Universal Gravitation won out. Of course if this held true consistenly, then it would be Brain Training and Another Code, but they're not. I'm steering clear of this. hbdragon88 05:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Easier said than done, friend. Brain Training has so much reason to use it compared to Brain Age's almost nonexistent reason it's not even funny, and yet people completely deny the usage of the EU title (which is funny, because it's so completely inane). - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
You shot yourself in the foot with that move when you attempted to do so without a discussion, if you try again on WP:RM, you're going to get quite a few oppose votes, just because the previous move discussion went the other way. You seem to have started some discussion on the talk page, but if you want to list on RM, you'll have to be more succinct. You should also try and be positive about why the move should be made, and not second guess the opposing arguments as you have done (by leading with Google). - hahnchen 17:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
What am I supposed to do? That was their primary argument besides "it was titled Brain Age for long enough". No sales trends, statistics, company statements, statements from anyone involved in Nintendo ever implied that Brain Age could even reasonably be called the primary usage. If there's a reason to use one name and no reason to use the other besides "it's always been there", we shouldn't just "stick with it". I actually provided an argument that would show how well-known BT is compared to BA and how successful it was in comparison, should I not get something in return for actually forming my debate well? I've seen nothing to even remotely imply that Brain Age is more popular, so I can say that their argument does not focus on the popularity of Brain Age, but rather Google hits (anecdotal evidence). - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
"What am I supposed to do?" -Follow wikipedia policies for these things. Cite a single policy that even remotely supports the move. Realize that sales and recognizeability are two entirely different things (Not that it'd help, since you've already proven that both are valid). Stop attributing very glib interpretations of other people's counterarguments. Start realizing that conventions for starting an article are different from conventions for moving an article. (Should I go on? How about one more)
Start realizing that not every naming choice is an attack, insult, or attempt to denigrate anyone else. I'm a canadian. I have to see american spellings all the time (and, ugh, hear "zee" instead of "zed"), but I don't assume that every case of an american spelling in wikipedia is based on people being stubborn, or arrogant. It's simply a fact of life that people will tend to favour the styles that are most natural to them. Does it suck that the americans keep getting their versions in first? I guess. But if you don't like it, then start creating more articles yourself. Or, at the very least, try to get them moved while they're still fresh. I mean, as far as videogames are concerned, a two year old article is ancient! Trying to get it moved now is futile. What's more, you should really try being more cooperative. Stop assigning silly strawman arguments to people who might disagree with you. Actually address their arguments. In the end, it's just a bloody name. It's just a silly spelling. It should take a (very distant) backseat to the actual content of the articles themselves. Bladestorm 18:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
It's more like "the majority of CVG editors demand NA conformity and will flood votes with their biased perspective" than a "silly article title dispute".
Let's see - the president of Nintendo, one of the people involved in the creation of the game, viewed Brain Age's sales as disappointing, and gave praise to Brain Training's. If the most powerful person in a multi-billion dollar company's opinion on a product is unimportant, what is important? Additionally, we see Europe given preference in the series by the fact that they got the sequel first (besides Japan). What reason would Nintendo have to give preference to EU if it is not more recognizable? Let's just assume that they're making nearly a billion dollars quarterly because of good business decisions, not luck. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
??? Um... "What reason would Nintendo have to give preference to EU if it is not more recognizable?"
That made no sense. The reason was presumably those, um, sales you were talking about? Which deal with financial success, and don't, at all, address recognizeability? Nor would that, in any event, address the fact that you proved that "Brain Age" is still recognizable, regardless of "Brain Training"'s success?
And, I think we're going in circles here. You keep finding different ways to phrase the fact that Brain Training sold more copies, and I keep trying to tell you that that isn't a criteria for getting an article moved. I've cited precisely why it shouldn't be moved, based on guidelines that were specifically intended to avoid these sorts of conflicts. If you're going to keep using sales as the sole and only measure of recognizability, and if you're going to continue ignoring MoS, I really don't know what I can say. I tried. I really really tried. Bladestorm 18:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
(addendum) Could you please refer me to the official UK Brain Training website? Bladestorm 18:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
[4] There's the official site. Oh, PS: I don't think the lack of a site means less recognizability, it means that they never made one. What gets a site is only based on what they want to give a site to. And you know what? ALL Touch Generations games lack EU sites, they're just given mini-sites on this site.
Also, what are you talking about? I JUST stated that it's more recognizable because A. Nintendo of Europe is currently advertising it on television (unlike NoA), and B. they're giving them the sequel first for a very good reason. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
First off, thank you for proving my point. Yes. Nintendo chose not to bother making a dedicated website for Brain Training. However, that business decision doesn't automatically prove anything. Also, no. You did not say that NoE is advertising it on television. At least, not on this page. Of course, one could argue that, if they need to advertise it, it must not be that recognizable... must not have very trustworthy brand power... (yeah, I'm just kidding ya) But, anyways, back to your actual point: Yes, they're giving europe the sequel first for a good reason: Because it sold better. How does that prove it's more recognizable? If, say, the Hulk (as in, that terrible movie with the CG hulk) were to end up selling more copies in, say, Lithuania (just a random country), would that mean it was automatically more recognizable there than in north america? Or would it simply mean that it sold more? yargh. I don't want to continue with this because it's missing the point.
You personally proved that it's well-known in north america. You never cited a single policy/guideline that supports taking sales above the established MoS guideline for naming conflicts.
MoS says it's Brain Age. MoS then reaffirms that it's Brain Age. 'nuff said. Bladestorm 19:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
At no point does advertising a game constitute low recognizability. The fact that it's consistently in the top ten and is most often the best-selling DS game week-by-week in EU shows that advertising helps much. The fact that it's currently being advertised, unlike Brain Age, shows that people are at present being exposed to Brain Training in Europe much more than Americans are to Brain Age. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)Nice to see that you know what "I'm just kidding ya" means... But, as for MoS, I take it, then, that your response is that, no, you don't have any policies or guidelines you can cite that state that sales should override what's explicitly stated by MoS? And I take it that you don't have any direct counters for both of MoS's unambiguous passages that explicitly disagree with you? Well, at least it's finally settled. Bladestorm 19:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Virtual Console game list sort conflicts

There is currently debate at Talk:List of Virtual Console games (North America)#Alphabatize about how to sort the sortable list of games. On one hand, there is a preference to list all of the released games together in one table. On the the other hand, some people, intmidated by the appearance of one large table, insist on separating the list into five tables, each grouping the games by their original systems, which ruins the potential to sort the games as a whole. I am asking for help in resolving the issue. --Brandon Dilbeck 22:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

MGS4

Could someone please put some level of restriction on the article, because the edit war over the pissible 360 version is getting out of hand. Thanks. Zidane tribal 20:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I count two reverts by two anonymous users, with a relatively stable level on the article otherwise. This isn't the level of vandalism or edit warring that admins will protect for. In any case, WP:RFPP is the place to request protection. hbdragon88 00:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
The war has been long, i myself have reverted at least 10 times, but thet`s not the point, thanks for the advice, i shall take it. Zidane tribal 00:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Survey: end the GCOTW??

OK, I'd like to get the CVG community's opinion... should the WP:GCOTW be disbanded?? There does not seem to be very much participation from the WikiProject (besides X201, Oscarthecat, Mika1h, Xtreme racer, and ZFGokuSSJ1) so what's the point in having a community collaboration if barely anyone in the community contributes... Now, this collaboration has been one of the core focus points of this community since October 2004, but I think that perhaps this WikiProject has become too large to just focus on any one thing at any one time. I'm asking this question since I've taken over the maintenance of the GCOTW since Thunderbrand left. I think that I too have to quit Wikipedia soon and would hope that others would pick up where I have left off... JACOPLANE • 2007-06-1 00:56

Although I contribute to the vote and believe it can do things for articles the response lately for votes has been so low it seems at this point the project has become just a waste of time for the people that do vote since good candidates aren't being nominated or at least being found and even when articles are nominated there isn't a huge difference made with the article nominated. Basically what I am getting at is I believe that the WP:GCOTW should be disbanded. Xtreme racer 02:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I think I worked on four or five a while back, but I really don't know if it's in the low point of a cycle or the bottom of a downhill slide. I say let it die. Maybe leave a mention of it's fate on the main page, and if enough people want to Frankenstein it, we can revive it later. It's too bad; maybe we should let Thunderbrand know. After all, it was his baby, and his presence is probably why it made it this long.--Clyde (talk) 03:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh hell, not you too Jacoplane (your welcome message was very nice). As for me...well, I love video games and the CVG moniker, but I only feel comfortable with video games that I have personally played. hbdragon88 04:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd retire it. CVG has changed from being a smaller niche project in the mediaspace to a large overseer policy and such kind of project. The problem is that all major games have more than a stubbed article, and cleaning up big articles really isn't an interesting collaborative task. - hahnchen 17:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

My feelings towards it are mostly a combination of what has already been said. I think the low vote turnout is down to what hahnchen said, people don't feel comfortable working on articles which they don't personally know (My closest knowledge of the current two candidates is the Mega Drive conversion of Bomberman) also I don't vote for articles which I know that I personally won't be able to help, it seems wrong voting for an article and not helping with the edits when it wins, using this weeks nominations as an example again, I haven't any magazines that date back to Bomberman and Rakuga Kids is a Jap. import which wasn't covered by any of my magazines either, so I can't even do something as simple as add a citation. As for killing it? I wouldn't be happy to see it go but if it's going to stay on it's downward spiral then perhaps a line in the sand is a good idea. I wonder if Monthly would work or whether it would just exacerbate the lack of interest.<br\> I've been worried about CVG for a while to be honest, there seems to be less people taking part in the discussion page and the whole project seems to be splitting into smaller and smaller groups that only care about their own tiny sliver of the CVG world and not bothered about CVG as a whole. Perhaps a recruitment drive for fresh blood might be in order. - X201 18:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Would be a shame to see it go, although you're quite right in pointing out that there's been some poor turnouts vote-wise and numbers of contributions-wise. If people aren't comfortable doing games they don't know, could we find more popular games that need attention? --Oscarthecat 18:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking that as well, but I think that if there were some form of "Quality control" then that would push it more towards a Task Force route, although that may be no bad thing seeing as it's mostly the same contributors each time, why shouldn't the willing pick a subject that they want to work on with the help of others. - X201 18:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If you have been watching the GCOTW the collaboration hasn't been updated since the Bomberman nomination and no one has tried to pick up where Jacoplane left off with it. At this point with participation being so low and no one really taking notice I can't see it being worth keeping the GCOTW pages alive since the project seems pretty much dead. I did remove the template from Bomberman since the nomination was over but I couldn't figure out how to move the project on or set up the next nomination and since no one else doesn't seem to be able to take over I say let's just end it instead of letting this downward spiral continue. Xtreme racer 22:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I started writing a guide to updating the GCOTW here. I'm very busy at the moment and I can't maintain the GCOTW for the moment. Tomorrow I'll update the GCOTW with the current nominations but after that we either need somebody else to update or disband it. It actually only takes a few minutes a week to maintain, but I just can't be sure that I'll have the time each week, and we really need someone who can reliably do the update. JACOPLANE • 2007-06-18 23:01

Infobox ports section

Hi.

How's about having a ports section in the video gaming infobox? That way, you could change 'release date' to 'original release date' and that way it'd be less confusing. You would know which was the original machine the game was released on and when.Doom jester 22:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that would only complicate things further. Third-party games are generally released (almost) simultaneously on several systems, meaning there isn't any "original" platform. I've been in the habit of ordering platforms= in a roughly chronological order, which means it's pretty obvious which platforms came first. Originating systems should be covered in the first paragraph, the infobox is only there to supply additional information the article does not cover--e.g. Golden Axe was released on a vast number of systems but the article largely focusses on the Sega Mega Drive version because it's the most well-known. GarrettTalk 23:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure it would complicate the Golden Axe article any more. As it is, the article's already got release dates for the arcade, and then another one for master system and megadrive. If there was just an original release date for arcade, and then there was another box for what ports were done, the infobox would be the same length. But to be honest, you're probably right when you say it would make things too complicated. I think it's already too complicated. If you've got big long infoboxes it just looks a mess. I think it could be improved, but I'm not sure how. By the way, in that Golden Axe article, it's kind of screwed up because there's a big long stretch of blank space. You could fix that by moving the first screenshot beneath the infobox to a point further down the article, in a different section, but well.. that kind of thing happens in so many articles, maybe that's something that wikipedia in general could address. I've seen the white space thing happen all over the place..Doom jester 13:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

{{Cancelled game}}

Hi! I've created a new template with help from code found in {{future game}}, to use with games that have been cancelled. Help is needed to improve. --MrStalker talk 08:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

What's the purpose of this template? --Scottie_theNerd 10:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Seems obvious to me, though there's a very good reason never to use it -- such templates are supposed to be able to be eventually taken out. This one simply can't be, so it shouldn't be used. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
That's what I was getting at. I get the impression that this template is trying to do what a category is designed for. --Scottie_theNerd 11:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Sharing the sentiments above, there is no need for this. It isn't always clear if the game has been cancelled, and if that is the case, it should be made more clear in the opening sentence or infobox, this banner isn't needed. - hahnchen 12:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The purpose of this template is obviously to inform readers from the start that this is a game no longer in development, and was never released. I've seen this type of template on several other wikis, most of which more game oriented, and I figured that it would be good to have one here as well. But if it common opinion that such notices are unnessesary, so'll be it. --MrStalker talk 17:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
It's not even opinion, really. Templates of that sort are only to be used if they can be removed at a later date. It's not so much that we don't want to inform, but rather than it's not the way articles are made on WP. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 17:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Gaming wikis work differently to Wikipedia. What may be convention on one wiki may not necessarily be consistent with Wikipedia policies and procedures. --Scottie_theNerd 17:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Okey, I understand what you're saying. I'll have it requested for speedy deletion. --MrStalker talk 18:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Vagrant Story

Hello. I've recently nominated this article as a Featured Article. Here is a quick link to the FAC. Your inputs will help WP:VG obtain another Featured Article. Thanks in advance. — Bluerで す。 16:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal - "Basic gameplay mechanics"

Basically, an article for the most basic gameplay mechanics such as saving, game overs, etc. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds ok. Then we can use {{Main|Basic Gameplay Mechanics}} in all related articles, for better organization. G1ggy! Review me! 23:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Why not nominate it for the GCOTW? This seems like the kind of topic a broad spectrum of contributors can help out on. JACOPLANE • 2007-06-4 20:44

Dumb question regarding galleries

Some video game pages have galleries, some don't. What are the rules and recommendations concerning whether a game should have a gallery, and how many pictures should be in said gallery? If this information is already established, sorry and please link to the relevant Wiki info page. -- Solberg 04:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Solberg

Sorry, I haven't seen any documentation on this. But I would think that it shouldn't have a gallery, except in extraordinary circumstances (eg. very highly notable graphics). But don't quote me on this since I may be wrong. G1ggy! Review me! 04:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem as long as each individual image has a fair use rationale; to illustration different aspects of a game for example (which is what I tried to show in Academy (video game)) Marasmusine 10:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything on that link...the gallery has no images (does it?) G1ggy! Review me! 07:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The short answer is, no, generally fair-use images in galleries are not kosher. The long answer is that galleries tend to be towards the end of the spectrum farthest away from fair use, but enforcement tends towards the sporadic. There are a few exceptions; games licensed under the GPL or something similar (public domain) are exempt from explicit fair-use restrictions, but there should still be some reason to have a gallery in the first place. Nifboy 07:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

PSP Firmware versions

Man in Black and I seem to have reached an impasse regarding whether the PlayStation Portable article benefits from a table showing the varying versions. Only him and myself are participating in the debate, I think it should stay, he thinks it should go, and has removed it. Anyone want to contribute, either for or against, just so we get a more reasoned debate? Discussion is Talk:PlayStation_Portable#System_Software_removal here --Oscarthecat 06:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Mario character merges

I've recently seen an edit war over what characters should or should't be redirected to List of Mario series enemies. Some include: Boo (Nintendo), Blooper (Mario) and Petey Piranha. From what I've seen: I believe the Petey article is the only one with an active merge discussion. There is a split tag on the list page as well (but I see very little discussion on the talk page about it). I decided to post it all together here to get more responses. My opinion on the matter is: if the character has done enough to warrant an article is should be an article (not just a section on an ever growing list page). A small section on the list page should be fine still: with a link to the character article. RobJ1981 06:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

They need to be merged because they lack out of universe information and the possibility to ever gain more than a few sentences of it. Only one user actively opposes these anyways. TTN 10:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
There is no need to merge, not all articles have it and it is cramming too much into one too big page. The list is big enough as it is. Henchman 2000 17:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I suggest a split into two articles: List of Mario series enemies (generic) and List of Mario series enemies (villains). That would cut it into two articles of a reasonable length. Gravee 17:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
After the other articles are merged, I plan on transforming the character list into an actual functioning one(for the main recurring characters), so most of them will be able to be placed there after. TTN 17:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The Mario series enemies shows the problem with relentless creation of mega pages. I think we need to start merging into the (often sole) game that they appear in - for instance, I suggested that Fryguy (and the other three boss characters) be merged into Super Mario Bros. 2, because there is nothing to talk about besides his role in that game. Instead it got put into Mario series enemies, which is increasingly becoming bigger and bigger due to the sheer number of one-time appearances in the Mario games. hbdragon88 22:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyways, can people contribute to this to show that these game guide articles shouldn't be allowed? A small number to show a "consensus" is enough. TTN 00:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

We have a neighbor (apparently).

Did anyone notice or discuss this? I think it would be better suited as a task force, but it just sorta appeared yesterday.--Clyde (talk) 16:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree. It doesn't need it's own Wikiproject, would be better suited to a task force. - X201 17:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Unless they are thinking of taking on other forms of adventure games, like Fighting Fantasy books or something. Marasmusine 14:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Stub class video game articles is very large

At the latest count (found here: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Video game articles by quality statistics), there is 9519 video game stubs. Overall video game articles (of the ones with Video Game Project tag on the talk page) are at 16973, so stubs are over half. I'll start to expand some, but could use some help. RobJ1981 10:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Noted. I'll look into it too. --Bishop2 13:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Just having a quick look around there are some Stubs that can easily be bumped up to Start - I know that's just moving the problem but at least it'll leave the stub class with only stubs in it. - X201 13:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with this. Bumping them up to start requires either an outside assessment or the use of AutoWikiBrowser to autoasses, does it not? --Bishop2 13:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Some comments: that many stub articles indicates to me that the scope of this WikiProject may be too wide, and the folks with the Adventure game project may have the right idea. That aside, besides expanding articles, a lot of what's out there can be merged with existing material. If an article is about a minor character in a particular game, we can merge it with that game. If an article is a one-line blurb about a sequel to a particular game, merge it with the original. Other games with a tiny bit of content can be redirected to the appropriate "List of ________ games". -- MisterHand 14:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

One has to be careful about not inflaming or provoking editors when doing this, though. Sometimes we do want to split sections out of larger articles to make them into their own separate articles. However, I do agree that if someone creates a stub about, say, a minor character, and then never goes back and fills in the details, there's no reason to have the page at all; it should be merged with a "List of characters in X" page or with the main page. See Jade (Beyond Good & Evil) as an example of the kind of page which needs to be merged... -- Slordak 16:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
The efficient way is to start with the list article and only split it if and when a section becomes too long. Kariteh 17:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The new draft of WP:FICT will hopefully clarify the need to consolidate stubby articles (even if they take an encyclopedic [out of universe] perspective). — Deckiller 21:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Manual

I am working right now on the 1080° Snowboarding FAC (could use a copyeditor if anyone is bored) and I am finding problems getting the manual for the game, barring actually buying it. I need to cite that when you lose, you restart. I already checked replacementdocs and didn't find it. Does anyone know if another website exists where they have copies of manuals? I'm stuck.--Clyde (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to clutter up the nomination with fairly trivial points, but consider firing up an emulator and replacing this grainy dull image - Image:1080 multiplayer.PNG. A screenshot of a 1080 being pulled off in multiplayer splitscreen (if possible) would be a welcome improvement. - hahnchen 23:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I actually haven't ever downloaded an emulator before, but are they legal (in the U.S.)?--Clyde (talk) 19:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
It's a grey area, the emulator is technically legal, but downloading the game itself isn't. --PresN 00:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think an FA is worth breaking the law, sorry. It's kind of like NOS where I live. Legal to buy and own, but not to use. I'll keep looking for a better picture though. Can anyone help me with the manual problem?--Clyde (talk) 00:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Infobox CVG

I'm just canvassing for opinions on the following proposal. The infobox CVG template to be fully protected and all discussion about new or altered fields to be carried out on this discussion page where there will be a higher volume of the community see the the discussion and therefore a higher level of input.<br\> Opinions? - X201 21:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I've protected {{Infobox CVG}}, since it's a high-risk template and changes should really only be made by a sysop once a consensus has been established. Are you suggesting we redirect the template talk page to this page? JACOPLANE • 2007-06-6 21:37
In which case a version without disputed fields should be reinstated as neither footnotes nor picture format were included without clear consensus, provided one is still required as the last field was added without any. Nevermind this incoherent mess I authored previously, I lost my train of thought and I'll have to rethink my reasoning. Combination 01:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
The reason given for re-adding footnotes yesterday was that you (Combination) were the only one who opposed it, and because you were a red link and no longer here then it was OK to re-add the field. Wonderful logic. - X201 07:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Rather than cluttering this page with talk about the Infobox, it's probably sufficient to drop in and let people know if a conversation is happening. -- MisterHand 21:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

List of NES Game Inserts

I came across this today. Is this really needed? It's just a list of NES game serial numbers. While it appears to be sourced fine, it doesn't seem that notable for an article in my opinion. RobJ1981 05:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You can place it under Articles for Deletion, citing the reason that Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. ColourBurst 05:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Now listed, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_NES_Game_Inserts. --Oscarthecat 06:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

List of video games by genre

I brought this up before, and only got a couple small confusing responses. Rather than put it on AFD, I figured I'd bring it up here. List of video games by genre seems extranious and PoV. Is it really needed? Especially since there's no annotations one could make on most of it, etc. Thoughts? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 20:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably better to have a list of video game genres, or list of categories whose members represent those genres. I agree that this article seems to be "all video games ever made, broken down by genre", which seems... futile. -- Slordak 20:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Seems that in some respects it's duplicating (badly) what the categories do for us, e.g. Category:First-person shooters. --Oscarthecat 20:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

MUDs

Is List of MUDs supposed to have content? The talk page seems to imply this. Also, it is linked from MUD. Axl 20:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

If you'd cared to read the page, it says the reason why it was deleted under "Deletion log". --Mika1h 20:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
There's no need to be rude. Axl 20:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Specifically, it's redundant with Category:MU* games. Nifboy 22:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Mobygames, again

See thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#mobygames.com, and recently added notability tag at MobyGames. Thanks. --Quiddity 03:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Do Mobygames entries have an edit history like Wikipedia? - X201 08:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't know. --Quiddity 18:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

And two TfDs in one: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 9#Template:Moby developer. Thanks. --Quiddity 18:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Nintendo DS games with different names in Europe and the U.S.

In my opinion, this is overcategorization. Many game names differ by country, I don't think categorizing it is very useful. What does everyone else think? RobJ1981 18:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Kill it. No need to ask in future, just send things straight for deletion. - hahnchen 19:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
lol, there's a category we can put into Category:Categories with eleven words in their name. But seriously, I agree, it's a bit overdone in terms of being a useful category. Not to mention it almost begs for sibling categories comparing US to Asia, Europe to Asia, and whatever else. I don't think it's necessary. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Leaves me thinking "what's the point?". Can't see any point in having such a category myself. --Oscarthecat 19:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Discussion on whether to keep this category can be found at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_8#Category:Nintendo_DS_games_with_different_names_in_Europe_and_the_U.S.. --Oscarthecat 19:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I totally disagree here. We need to create Category:Games with different names in Japan and the world first off, and then categorize every article into there. Then this current cat can be a subcat of that category. Problem sovled. hbdragon88 21:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

"every article" is the very problem. An innumerable number of Japan-developed games have names that differ slightly or completely from the rest of the world, so this category would encompass virtually all NES/SNES/Genesis/MSX/FM-Towns/etc. games. GarrettTalk 21:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
My comment was fully tongue-in-cheek, but I forgot that writing it out doesn't have the same punch as it does when I speak it out loud. hbdragon88 22:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
If it's worth anything, I knew what you were intending with that comment. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Alas, I didn't spot your subtlety, just read it and thought "OMG, we're dealing with some sort of category-creatin' zealot here, off we go for a long and drawn out discussion..." Phew. --Oscarthecat 22:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I suspected as much, but some users have said things very much like that and meant every word of it. :P GarrettTalk 04:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Sub-categories

Various systems have a "system-only games" sub category, for example Category:PlayStation 2-only games. None of the games in these categories are listed in the parent category too. Doesn't that strike anyone as a bit odd? Is a Playstation 2-exclusive game no longer a Playstation 2 game? Anyway, this was brought to my attention today on my talk page: user_talk:Miremare#Categorisation (scroll to the bottom) where I have outlined my reasons for believing this to be a bit weird. So what do people think? Miremare 01:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This was brought up before, and I seem to remember consensus leaning toward getting rid of the -only catagories - which makes sense to me, as such catagories could easily be done with lists and be much more effective, IMO. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 02:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
If someone would be WP:BOLD and start the CFD, I'll vote add my comment that would lean towards not keeping to delete them. hbdragon88 04:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I guess I'll do it. Presumably the "x-only" cats need merging into their parents rather than deleting. I may need some help here though -- so far I've got "x-only"'s for ZX Spectrum, DS, Gamecube, PS2, PS3, Xbox 360 and Wii. Are there any more?! Miremare 20:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, these subcats have been nominated. WP:CFD, June 9 Miremare 20:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

More category/list fun - Western video games

Wondering why the project needs List of Western computer and video games (Western as old wild west, not as in USA etc) when there's a matching category Category:Western video games. While the list is just a list and adds no extra information, it seems rather redundant to me. --Oscarthecat 15:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It's also misnamed- Computer and Video Games? Must have fallen through the cracks when everything got renamed to V games only. --PresN 00:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Bye bye pretty pictures :)

Have you folks noticed almost ALL screenshots linked to Video game genres got deleted? :) The Merciful 17:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Go add a Fair use rationale to everything you can that needs/deserves one, if you don't want to see this happen everywhere. --Quiddity 18:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Let's not. Verify each use of the image in question and see if its existence is justified before doing anything else. Combination 19:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Clarified ;) --Quiddity 01:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
It's a consequence of neglecting to provide fair-use rationale. Bots are currently tagging such images and they will be deleted within seven days unless a rationale is provided. Combination 18:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. See Half Life 2 image for a good example of fair-use rationale. --Oscarthecat 19:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps if more people participated in the Images Task Force (which has nice generic fair use rationales to copy/paste), we wouldn't be having this problem. JACOPLANE • 2007-06-9 19:11
Since the HL2 fair use rationale is utterly generic, it follows such rationales are utterly pointless. And Falcon 4.0 did have fair use rationale, but it got deleted nevertheless. I don't mind - this is good comedy. The Merciful 19:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Er.. it might become more than just screen shots. There's a debate over at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Critical_commentary_on_album_covers about removing all album covers that are used for "decorative" purposes, if that passes then the box covers are next in the firing line. - X201 19:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, as the man says, goodbye pretty pictures. It's a great way to reduce the Wikipedia bandwidth bill. --Oscarthecat 20:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

List of Nintendo Entertainment System games

Why does this article pass WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE? Taemyr 21:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Same could be asked of List of Xbox 360 games. --Oscarthecat 21:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Look again at WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. Does it fit any of those 10 numbers? No. But a better question would be: Is this article redundant with Category:Nintendo Entertainment System games? --Temporarily Insane (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
No it does not, one could perhaps argue about it being a statistic list thats low on content. But unless I am mistaken the list is examples of the policy, and not necessarily exhaustive. Taemyr 22:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, games are definitely not discriminate, as List of Virtual Boy games is a featured list. The reason why the list is a list (as opposed to merely a category) is because it has release dates, game names in multiple regions, and publiser/developer information. hbdragon88 22:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess because not every NES game has its own article. GamerWiki, which aims to have an article for every released game since it is a catalogue of games, can use the category in this way, but Wikipedia can't. Tim (Xevious) 09:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Adventure games

Hello everyone. Persuaded by Kariteh, I decided to indulge in a bit of quasi-self-promotion and announce the creation of Wikipedia:WikiProject Adventure games, which came into existence a few days ago, with Klytos making the first move. Understandably, it's a relatively small-scale project for now, but we already have a couple of things planned. If you're interested in helping to improve Wikipedia's coverage of this partially forgotten genre, you're welcome to help out; our first task is to start the article on Sierra On-line (a page that should be useful not only to adventure game enthusiasts, but isn't) from scratch, as it's possibly one of the most unencyclopedic, long-winded and shabbily-written articles on Wikipedia. And that's going to be a colossal task, so the project will need all the help it can get. In any case, I hope this is just the starting phase and that the initiative will grow into something much bigger soon. I apologize for the tone of this message (which is suspiciously reminiscent of bad advertisements); in a nutshell, though, if you're willing to help, welcome aboard. Cromag talk to me 23:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

We found you four days ago; see We have a neighbor (apparently).. hbdragon88 23:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up. I'm not sure if turning the project into a task force would be sufficient, as four of the five task forces already in existence are for specific game franchises and the genre encompasses much more than that. The Video Game Images force, however, is broader in scope and its existence is an argument in favor of the merge. Also, I didn't look around just yet, but I don't believe there are many active WikiProjects devoted to specific game genres. If enough members of WP:CVG and the handful of WP:ADVENTURE contributors agree, though, I'd have no problem with the project becoming a task force. Cromag talk to me 23:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
It's not so much about scope as it is about activity; a Project isn't necessary to coordinate one or three editors. Nifboy 22:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Note that it's been active for less than a week; we can't expect hordes of Wikipedians to join after a few days, especially if the project's not being promoted at all, save here. But again, if after a longer time three or four editors will remain and no new Wikipedians will be joining up, I'm all for the merge. Cromag talk to me 06:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Pirated and unlicensed versions of video games

Quick question: User:WhisperToMe have recently started adding information in articles with supposed pirated versions such as Phantasy Star IV (within the trivia section), or creating new articles (Super Donkey Kong - Xiang Jiao Chuan). Does this fall under the scope of the project and is it important enough to comment upon? I'm concerned about notability and verifiability which doesn't appear to be a simple task due to the nature of these versions. Combination 22:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, we have articles about Somari and Kart Fighter - Remember that Action 52 is also unlicensed. Yeah, we make articles about unlicensed and pirated video games :) WhisperToMe 01:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Those should probably be put up for deletion. They don't seem to assert any real notability

(other than internet fan sites). TTN 01:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know Somari survbived a previous AFD so you may want to see that first before you proceed with another one to see why it was kept. --67.71.78.10 03:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Why not look for them in Chinese, TTN? They ARE originally from China. They may be more well known in that country. WhisperToMe 01:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I doubt they have anything more than "they exist", which is what we already have (I also don't understand Chinese, and online translators suck). Plus, it isn't up to me to assert their notability; it's up to editors that want to keep them. TTN 01:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

In the case of Wai Xing, there are people who take interest in illegally ported versions of games (I.E. ported from the Genesis to the NES, as is the case with Somari) - the same ports are found for Street Fighter and Super Mario World, for instance. I feel that unauthorized versions of existing games sold in East Asia should be listed in the articles of the respective games (unless the games are notable enough to warrant their own articles, i.e. Somari). I am not planning to give Wai Xing its own article; the name "Wai Xing Zhan Shi" redirects to Phantasy Star IV.

NOW, in the case of SDK - Xiang Jiao Chuan, it seems to be fairly known in China, with 1,390 Google hits [5]. Also, TTN, remember that the software here is older, and there are often less sources regarding older software than newer software (as in software released in the 2000s). WhisperToMe 01:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

People may have an interest in the topic, but they still aren't notable by this site's standards. Unless backed by something official recognizing their existence, they assert nothing more than a slight interest from some people (something that the number of Google hits shows). That really isn't enough for inclusion here. TTN 01:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I do not recall anything "official recognizing their existence" with any of the other pirate carts, even Somari. Remember that the carts are pirated and the legitimate game companies, such as Nintendo, do not recognize the carts for obvious reasons. Now, with unlicensed titles, sometimes they get listed on websites such as IGN along with the official titles. Yet, Super Donkey Kong Xiang Jiao Chuan probably will never get listed as it illegally bears Donkey Kong and Diddy Kong. EDIT: Classicgaming.com has an article about Somari [6]; I wouldn't call the group "official" so much as a well-known third party. WhisperToMe 01:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Is Classic Gaming considered a reliable source here? If so, it may work as a starting place. Something official can be anything from Nintendo saying "We didn't make it or condone i.t" to an article in a notable gaming magazine saying "Ooh, look at this!" If they cannot be found in something like that, there is no proper way to cover them. TTN 02:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I believe all of the sites owned by IGN, in terms of the content actually published by IGN (and not stuff posted on forums), is considered to be reliable. This means Somari is more or less notable (not that this is an issue - Somari survived a VFD)
Now, I am aware that Nintendo made general anti-piracy notices. I am not sure if specific titles caused this.
"If they cannot be found in something like that, there is no proper way to cover them." Wikipedia:Reliable sources states that this should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception, so WP:RS is not set in stone. Also remember that the games themselves prove to be good sources; the Wai Xing cart, for instance, claims that the Waixing Company made it. I also see a Chinese message before the title screen in SDKC-XJC, but I have no clue who it is. WhisperToMe 02:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I can't imagine that it is considered one if a single trace of it cannot be found in the featured game articles (it seems to have a plentiful amount of information). Passing an AfD doesn't give it an auto-pass or anything. You just need people that won't vote purely on "It looks notable." Common sense cannot override the need for more than the primary source. That is something we really cannot do, or we sort of break the stance on covering fiction only if it proves to be notable in the real world (something that the games themselves cannot do). TTN 02:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
"Common sense cannot override the need for more than the primary source." Is there a rule somewhere that states that there must be at least two primary sources for any given article? "That is something we really cannot do, or we sort of break the stance on covering fiction only if it proves to be notable in the real world (something that the games themselves cannot do)." Is this talking about writing material in an "in-fiction" stance? As in writing about fictional characters as if they are real people? WhisperToMe 03:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
We need more than primary sources in order to show the real world notability of the subject. Without that, it is impossible to cover a topic. I'm saying, that without sources, these games are comparable to hacked roms and fan fiction, which also assert nothing in real life (only on the internet). TTN 03:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
In that case, you mean you need a source that states that the games are notable in the real world. I never see mainstream ROM download sites include rom hacks, but I often see pirated and unlicensed commercial games included along with licensed, legitimate games. WhisperToMe 03:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Are any of them reliable sources that can be cited? If not, it doesn't really help. TTN 03:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, you'd have to gather a lot of links - Here is a google search result (Yeah, quotation marks help) http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Donkey+Kong+Xiang+Jiao+Chuan%22&btnG=Google+Search - I'd have to cite various ROM sites to state that the ROM is often available to download on websites also offering downloads of licensed, legitimate ROMs. WhisperToMe 04:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe those fall under reliable sources either. Really, there needs to be some sort of published source that talks about these or they assert nothing short of a keen fan interest. TTN 04:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, it depends on what assertion is being backed up by the sources. I believe that a statement stating "This game is downloadable from various websites hawking ROMs of licensed games" can be backed up by these sites. WhisperToMe 13:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
But how does that prove that the rest of the world knows of them? The same thing can be said about many hacked roms. They need something related to the real world to back them rather than the emulation world. TTN 13:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
TTN, to find how often they are in the real world, we would have to search in Chinese (esp. to see if there are pictures of pirated carts) and/or travel to or contact people in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, or Mainland China. Pirates carts are not common in North America. Also, I would like to upload a shot of the screen before the title screen to see if I can trace the group that claims to have made the game. WhisperToMe 18:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Those would likely not be reliable sources. The assertion that they exist isn't reliable because it asserts nothing in the notablity department. Unless published sources are given, it is useless to say "Oh, there might be some over here..." TTN 19:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
"it is useless to say "Oh, there might be some over here..." TTN, what I am saying is that we cannot determine if the cart is still sold in Chinese stores unless we find someone who knows Chinese and/or is familiar with navigating video game stores in China. I have been giving the "how" on how to find a source. WhisperToMe 22:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
How exactly is that going to get a reliable source? That would just be confirming that they exist, which is already done. We need to know who cares about them and who recognizes them as something notable in order to cover them here (as with any other topic). TTN 22:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
So far, I haven't found a source as high profile as IGN talk about DKC-Xiang Jiao Chuan (I did find high profile sources talk about, say, Somari and Kart Fighter). WhisperToMe 01:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if there is a high-profile/reliable source in Chinese that discusses the game. I'm not saying it is automatically worthy of "keep" in this case - it means we have to find someone who knows Chinese who can assess this and tell us the answer. WhisperToMe 01:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have another suggestion: Wikipedia:Notability (software) is inactive. Do you feel that the guidelines here should be reconsidered? WhisperToMe 01:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I really don't want to make a big deal out of it. The regular notability guideline seems to work just fine anyways. We just need something published that asserts notability for these articles (I don't believe just listing a game on IGN counts. They don't actually talk about them at all.) TTN 01:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I found this: http://torp.fateback.com/gamesdkxjc.html - This is a review by a group called "The Ripping Project" - I honestly thought that everything related to this game was a ROM downloading site... till I found this! Still, this particular website is not that well known. I guess I should continue searching and see what I find. WhisperToMe 03:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
EDIT: I found more information about pirate homebrews like DKC-XJC, although the ROMs themselves are better sources for possible articles about them. WhisperToMe 03:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
"The Ripping Project" is not a group, it's one person's fansite. So far the reliable source count is "0". --Teggles 09:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
As I have been saying, I am politely asking for you to wait until someone who knows Chinese searches Google and determines how notable this game is in the Chinese language. In particular, see Wikipedia:Google_test#Foreign_languages.2C_non-Latin_scripts.2C_and_old_names WhisperToMe 13:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I contacted Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China and asked for help. WhisperToMe 13:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll wait for them to find reliable sources. But it'll be difficult to write about because none of us speak the language. Also, that guideline doesn't have any relevance. The amount of Google results doesn't matter, I based it on the amount of reliable sources, which is still zero. --Teggles 19:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
There are Wikipedians who speak Chinese, hence, this is why I used the Wikiproject China talk page. In a moment, I will also post the request for the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style for China-related articles. WhisperToMe 20:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Sub categories again

Hello again. Regarding the proposed merger of the "system-only games" subcategories mentioned somewhere above, there's only been two opinions registered so far, and one of those was by the creator of one of the said categories. Come on, whether you're for or against, let's get some consensus! It's at WP:CFD for June 9. Cheers. Miremare 02:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Arcade games dispute

I am attempting to get Space Invaders (arcade game), Galaga (arcade game), Bases Loaded (video game), and Computer Space (arcade game) to articles without disambigs; however, someone is opposing, claiming that it is standard practice to put disambigs after the titles of arcade game articles and that in the case of SI, the A2600 version is just as well-known and played. And in regard to the disambig subject, most arcade game articles lack a disambig, and the ones that have them have them because they need them - for instance, Centipede (arcade game) and Gauntlet (arcade game). - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I've only been discussing on Space Invaders, not Galaga, bases loaded, etc. As someone who actually works in the industry as a historian, writer, and programmer, I can state with regards to the 2600 version often gets confused for the main platform. So much so that one often sees people mistakingly claim Space Invaders as an "atari game". Happens with a good deal of properties that Atari licensed (such as Pac-Man). My main concern however with these, is the inconsistency of naming. Having some blank titles, some disambiged to (video games) and some to (arcade games) is messy and confusing. I suggested the above user bring the debate here to reach a consensus, which I will be happy to abide by. But it is a naming convention issue that I feel can be perfectly addressed by the fellow members of this project. I know A Link to the Past and my self both have these entries best interests in mind, and I have nothing personal against him. Just thought it was time to get other people's opinions and get something up on the project page as a guideline hopefully. --Marty Goldberg 19:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not use anecdotal evidence. For instance, I've NEVER seen it mistaken and I write articles and game reviews semi-professionally. Is the Atari version ever mentioned in popular media? Is it ever mentioned in magazines or professional web sites? Is it ever referred to as being particularly notable as a successful or great game? - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
With Space Invaders, it absolutely is. Space Invaders was the best selling and is the best know Atari 2600 game out there. We do need disambiguation for that one due to the console version's notability unless we can somhow combine it into one article like most games, which I think A Link to the Past may have been shooting for. There is no need for two articles for the same game unless the game has radical differences. So I think we should just mention the game for arcade titles, like Pac-Man does, not have the disambig, unless the disambig is absolutely needed, which for the titles mentioned above, it does not. Just be sure to mention difference in the console versions in the article. Sorry if it seems like I'm changing my opinion halfway thru, but my vote is no disambig unless absolutely needed, which in these games cases, they are not needed. guitarhero777777 20:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Precisely. The Atari version is nothing more than a successful port. It's not notable enough to get its own article, unlike the Atari version of Pac-Man. Zelda on the GBA was popular, for instance, but it doesn't get its own article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm fully for the articles without disambigs. It strikes me as a bit odd that there is a disambig on a title that doesn't need disambiguating from anything else, And then ends up with the correct article title pointing to a disambig page that holds the actual article. It's just plain daft. - X201 21:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
So that's four to one, so that's 80% for removing the disambigs. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The general rule is that a 'disambig title' is only needed if there's something at the "main" namespace. So You can't have a title like Space Invaders (arcade game) without Space Invaders being something else (and I see it was already tried twice...I did it again, as that IS the correct way). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 23:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I support moving the article back, for all the reasons listed above. Redirecting from the correct title to a title with a clarifier is unnecessary in this case, as this is clearly the primary topic and there's no potential for confusion with other article titles. Parenthetical clarifiers are not intended to classify articles, they're only used to resolve ambiguity when two or more articles share the same title. The following articles also have this problem and should be moved back to their original titles without the clarifier:
--Muchness 23:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Here are some other articles that fit in your list:
And another point - first video games losing the main article to the series article. Since it's standard to give the first game the primary title, the following moves should be done:
There are loads that need moving, do a search for (arcade game). Some obviously need to have (arcade game) but some will never need to be disambiguated from anything else and so should have it removed. - X201 08:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with most but I would not move of Bases Loaded (video game) to Bases Loaded since the second term is close to the baseball term Bases loaded which is a well known termonolgy in baseball and IMO it is more likely the article someone typing in the term was looking for. --69.156.205.119 03:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a good one, [7] there must have been a reasoning behind it but I can't work out what it was. Galaga doesn't need disambiguating from anything else and yet it has two disambig pages. It's starting to look like the disambiguation titles are being used as some kind of filing system, which is not what they are meant to be used for. - X201 09:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia for Schools

Hi guys,

You've probably seen the Schools selection of CVG articles here: http://schools-wikipedia.org/wp/index/subject.Everyday_life.Computer_and_Video_games.htm

There is an update of content every few weeks. If you think there are any important topics with good articles missing you are welcome to propose them here: Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_CD_Selection, ideally by giving the URL of a good version of the article. Please don't submit games with an adult only rating. Thanks --BozMo talk 13:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Frag Ops

Can a few members of the games project take a look at the Frag-Ops page, and at this deletion nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frag-Ops (2nd nomination). I will abide by any ruling made by the project. --Basique 19:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

In terms of quality, the article is probably better than a lot of stuff around. But you need sources, 3rd party sources. If this game garnered any popularity whatsoever, then it will have been reviewed in magazines like PC Gamer. If you get multiple magazine references in such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Science and Industry, it'll be kept. It's probably a bit too late to save the current article, (I can't be bothered to research into it), but if you save a copy and recreate with reliable sources, it should be OK. Forget DRV, it's for muppets. - hahnchen 21:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks man, already have a copy saved so I'll keep it archived. --Basique 00:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

History of video games

I've recommended the above article for Wikipedia for Schools. I'm trying to tidy it up to a standard acceptable for that but it has a NPOV tag on it, the problem is I can't really see a NPOV problem in that section, could someone have a quick read of the Seventh Generation section and tell me if they can see a problem? Thanks. - X201 08:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It needs a few references for the bits regarding reception--"Although widely regarded as a superb console..." and "Spore ... is received well", for instance. Some may need more than one reference, as the opinion of just one website's staff isn't automatically the same thing as the opinion of the press as a whole. That's probably why the neutrality template was added in the first place. GarrettTalk 11:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)