Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 29

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 25 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 35


What does "only" mean?

Sorry, I'm back on the "Xplatform-only games" categories! :) A user is adding Xbox 360 games that were also released on the PC to to Category:Xbox 360-only games with the edit summary: "Added category to show CONSOLE exclusivity. The Xbox 360-only category does not mean platform exclusivity ( really used elsewhere more than here).".[1] What do people think of this? Miremare 17:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds confusing to me. Most gamers don't differentiate that strongly between console and PC - both are valid game platforms, and for most people, the Xbox 360 is as different to the PC as it is to the Wii. I think this template should ONLY be used if a title is completely exclusive to the 360 (not out on ANY other platform, including the PC). — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Fuck console exclusivity, that's bullshit new-marketing talk. If it's on PC, it's not a system exclusive. We'll have games marked for time and console exclusivity next. - hahnchen 18:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Whoa, whoa whoa, ease off on that language there. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The parent category Category:Single-platform software means software for one platform only, obviously if its on a console and PC, that's not single platform. However, Category:Xbox 360-only games only states other video game consoles, it is the latter which is wrong. - hahnchen 18:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I find the entire category to be redundant with Category:Xbox 360 games. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
As do I. But given the last CFD, I'll probably have to live with it. - hahnchen 18:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I wanted to improve this category as a resource material. Unfortunately, I don't have the technical expertise yet to reform the category to have a separate list of exclusives that include PC exclusives. Many people when looking to compare exclusives between the consoles are interested in seeing these titles that are also on the PC. One of the advantages of developing for the Xbox 360 is that it is fairly easy to port games between the PC and the Xbox 360. In fact, the development environment is performed on the PC. That is why there are a ton of games that are console exclusives but not platform exclusives. The changes were made with the definition that has been in place for all of the -only categories until they were changed to support Hahnchen's agenda of not making these categories about console exclusivity, so my changes were actually correct when originally made. Please see the definition of video game consoles. The name of the category Xbox 360-only is incorrect though. Would it be possible to get the help of expert editors to create a new category named Xbox 360 console exclusive? I would also like to edit it so that people can simply search Xbox 360 exclusives to find this information. I'm wanting to improve this resource. I do not have a "marketing" agenda. What we have now is information that is organized in a way that is not completely correct and thus people will find this information through other resources. . . especially when obvious and big-name games that people will expect to see like Gears of War are excluded. I think that Hahnchen's changes will lead people to dismiss the resource because it will appear incorrect to them. If you can help me make it more correct by creating this distinction, the I would appreciate it.Bean23 23:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking about this too - many of the games that were labeled as Xbox 360-only are (or will be) available also on the PC. This means that the games are no longer 360-exclusive, but they do fit into another valid category, whose description would be along the lines of "360 and PC exclusive". I believe Microsoft has a specific term to describe that, especially for games where PC and 360 players can play against one another (a feature advertised for Halo 3). HOWEVER: The problem we run into with some of the articles that were tagged with this category is that you see "Xbox 360 games | Xbox 360-only games" side-by-side, which looks redundant, and "Xbox 360 games | Windows games | Xbox 360-only games", which appears to contradict itself.
We should figure out how to correctly distinguish 360+PC-only games in a short title, and I believe that category should exist. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Is it possible to place these in a way that they show up on a separate list, but one that is shown with other Xbox 360 exclusives? Can you have two categories display on a page below one another? As far as a name goes, I think that "Xbox 360/PC Exclusive" would be great.Bean23 00:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
AFAIK, no, there's no way to line-separate categories like that. That also wouldn't solve the apparent contradiction/redundancy - the problem is more in the naming than the layout. I support the "Xbox 360/PC exclusive games" category, though - seems like a decent solution to me. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Considering the whole deal about being called "video games" rather than "computer and video games" throughout WP, it seems PCs being just another console is correct anyway. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 21:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and created the new category being discussed above: Category:Xbox 360 and PC exclusive games . Unless there are strong objections to this from other editors, I'd say go ahead and start adding this category to games where the rule specified on the Category page is true. (If a game is also available on the Mac, it doesn't fit.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Strong objection here. That really is a bastardised category. System exclusive is system exclusive, we shouldn't be boxing 2 systems together. That literally opens up a whole big barrel of crap, you can literally put anything in that you want. Since when did we consider console+PC an exclusive anyway? So does Knights of the Old Republic go into Category:Xbox and PC exclusive games? That the Xbox and PC share similar development platforms means that maybe the PC gets a few more games, and the Xbox a few less exclusives (I think the case is the other way round), but we should not dilute our definition of exclusive. That the new kids on the block nowadays actually think a console exclusive is a real exclusive is their own fault, Jack Tretton actually descibed Haze (video game) and Unreal Tournament 3 as Sony exclusives during the E3 keynote. - hahnchen 00:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I think if this new category is for those games mentioned above where PC and 360 gamers can directly play against each other, then it's a good idea because that's a very notable characteristic. However if this is intended to be used for games that just happen to have been released on both platforms then I would be very much opposed to it on the grounds that a game's either exclusive or it isn't - if we're saying the PC is as valid a gaming platform as the others then this "360/PC-only" category could well clear the way for a "PS3/360-only" category, and if that happens we might as well just pack up and go home. Let's not look for ways to overcategorize these things; the existing categories, if it's made clear what's to go in them and what isn't, are more than sufficient. Miremare 01:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
This is a nice idea, but it really isn't going to be a comprehensive resource unless the 360-only exclusives and the 360 & PC exclusive games are in the same place. I think the previous use of the category before Hahnchen's edits to the category description were more informative and correct. Can we edit the category tag for that list to "Xbox 360 console exclusive games" and change the description back to video games? Otherwise, we really just have 2 lists that do not serve any real purpose. With these constrictions, I can understand why Hahnchen feels these categories are useless, because the information is available elsewhere without needing to go to two pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bean23 (talkcontribs)
You're missing the point that PC games ARE video games. Why should PC and 360 have priority over any other pairing? Outside of the one condition above (which would be named something totally different), it's pure and simple overcatagorization to do what you're suggesting. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 02:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you are saying. This isn't an attack on PC games. I'm an avid PC gamer. This is an attempt to make the Xbox 360-only category a useful resource. Removing those games that are cross-platform on the PC from the list makes it far less useful for people who wish to compare exclusives between various consoles, and thus they'll use other resources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bean23 (talkcontribs)
What's wrong with that? I've apparently been overruled on the PC/360 Exclusives idea, so at this point I'll revert to the original argument: If a game is available on more than one platform, it is NOT exclusive to any one platform. Even MS marketing realizes this - if they release a game as "Only on 360!" and then later release it on the PC, they drop the "Only on 360!" from the original version in all future marketing for that game, including box art if appropriate. So it really doesn't make sense to try to categorize 360 games as exclusive when they're also available on the PC - the market doesn't differentiate between PC and console as strongly as you might think. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
It comes down to the reason for this resource material. It is helpful to compare console exclusives, but it is not helpful to compare console exclusives when there is no reference to the immense number of console exclusives that are also on the PC platform due to the ease of porting between the PC and the 360. What is the purpose of the 360-only category without listing all console exclusives? Who could use that information? It would be best if it also had some information regarding those console exclusives that are also on different platforms, but that solution isn't available. Shouldn't the real use of an article come before semantic arguments built around poor word choices like "Xbox 360-only"?Bean23 05:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
That's the whole point of this argument, Bean. If a title is available on both the 360 and the PC, it is NOT a 360-exclusive. Same applies to PS3 vs PC - if a game is on both, it by definition CANNOT be a PS3 exclusive. So the category "360-only" should ONLY apply to games that exist for the 360 and no other platform, and as of 5pm today (PDT), all of the games in that category ONLY listed the 360 as their platform - I painstakingly removed the category tag from all articles where PC, Mac, or any other console or platform, was listed in the Platforms section. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
360 and PC shouldn't just be grouped together. I'm considering putting it in CFD. The category also encourages people to create "GameCube and PlayStation 2 exclusive games" or any other random exclusive pairing. As for the "only" categories, I think they should be listified then just deleted. Maybe they are already lists? I haven't checked. RobJ1981 05:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we should clarify the new category to deal with games that are specifically meant to coexist between the 360 and PC, such that users of both systems can interact with one another through them? It would need a more specific category name than just "PC and 360". If we don't want to deal with that, though, than let's just CFD it - you're right that the grouping really doesn't make sense. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
My two pen'th... Agree with Rob & others that a Xbox360 & PC exclusive category is contradiction in terms and could open the flood gates for all sorts of useless categories (an MSX & Commodore 64 exclusive category for Comic Bakery anyone?). I agree that the only categories should get the bullet. If they survive a CFD then their wording should be made crystal clear that exclusive means exclusive. - X201 08:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
The Single-platform software categories are a useful resource, if and only if they stay the place for true exclusives, not wishy washy console exclusives. Crysis is a PC exclusive, BioShock isn't. It really is that simple. I really don't care how Microsoft want to spin it, the 360 does not have BioShock exclusivity when one can play it on the PC. - hahnchen 15:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

In an encyclopedia "exclusive" should mean exclusive, not what Microsoft or Sony or whoever want it to mean. However, we should decide exactly what games fall into this: the 360-only category currently says that "games in this category are not available on other video game consoles, personal computers, or mobile devices". My point is that if a 360 game has a version released for mobile phones (or whatever), should it no longer be an exclusive despite the fact that mobile versions rarely bear any resemblance to console versions? It should be the game itself rather than the game's title that decides exclusivity. Miremare 16:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, here's an interesting test, then: Say a 360-specific version of Tetris comes out (in fact, I think there is one slated for release soon). Let's call it "Tetris 360". It provides Live-based multiplayer and some new features that no other Tetris game has. But of course, Tetris generally exists in many forms on virtually every computer, console and mobile device known to man. So, does "Tetris 360" qualify as a 360-exclusive? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I've put it in CFD here: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_13#Category:Xbox_360_and_PC_exclusive_games. As for Kiefer's question: that would be Xbox 360 exclusive in my view. Having computer features doesn't seem to just instantly make it a PC game. You can't put a 360 disc in a regular computer (from what I know at least), so 360 games can only be playable on the 360. Just like how Wii games can be played on the Wii only, and so on. RobJ1981 17:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Because there's a knock off mobile phone version of a game, does not mean that the original game is no longer an exclusive. The mobile phone version will pretty much share nothing with the original game. Yeah, Tetris 360 would qualify as a single-platform game. - hahnchen 17:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, see, this is where it breaks down a bit. Let's assume that Geometry Wars had not been released on Vista, and had remained 360 XBLA only. Then Bizarre releases Geometry Wars: Galaxies for the DS and Wii. Essentially the same game, but with new features. Does the original Retro Evolved on XBLA remain an XBLA exclusive? Or does the entire franchise become non-exclusive? (note, I'm not advocating for either side of this issue right now - just fishing for opinions.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
If it's substantially the same game, I think the original lacks exclusivity. Andre (talk) 17:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like we'd have to deal with this on a case-by-case basis. Galaxies is supposed to introduce multiplayer mode and a single-player campaign, neither of which were present in Retro Evolved. However, Retro Evolved is also included in the package, but the package is not shipped as such. In my mind, this would mean that the 360 version would become non-exclusive. If Retro Evolved were NOT included in Galaxies, then I'd consider it borderline: The gameplay and graphics are essentially the same, but new features change the presentation significantly. Judgement call? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
We are going into the grey here, and there will be some confusion. But I actually think that the new features (gravity, play areas, multiplayer etc.) remove the Galaxies iteration far enough from the original to be classed as separate games and treated as such. - hahnchen 18:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Go on then, I'll be Devil's advocate (because the following is bound to be raised at some point in the future). GTA 4 Xbox exclusive content. Does that change GTA 4 enough to push it into an exclusive category? - X201 21:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Hell no, unless it gets its own separate release such as The Elder Scrolls IV: Knights of the Nine, then we wouldn't class the parent article as an exclusive. - hahnchen 22:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

PSNetwork and PS3-Only/XBLA and XBox360-only/Wiiware and Wii-only
How do we treat these? PSN, XBLA, Wiiware are only means of distribution just like Valve's Steam does for the PC. I'm asking this because as Hahnchen has also experienced a serious disagreement with Bean23 about this. Bean23 doesn't consider any games distributed by these services as being exclusive to the platform and hence removes/reverts all additions to *-only categories. I've already started a discussion about this in the PS3-Only category but only found out about this discussion-page today :-|. I was also wondering how he would treat a game like Warhawk or SOCOM:Confrontation because those two will be distributed on PSN as a download and from retail on BD, but he didn't answer me about those two.
Can or can't games distributed by these services by classified as 'Only' games if it really is not a port or remake (HD versions) from a different platform?
--Stef Nighthawk 15:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The means of distribution has no effect on exclusivity. XBLA/PSN/WiiWare games should be treated exactly the same as retail games, unless anyone can provide a reason otherwise? Miremare 15:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Xbox 360 / XBLA Achievements Lists in articles

Calling for clarification and consensus: Should we include the Achievements list for Xbox 360 and Xbox Live Arcade games? Some articles have them, others don't, and it seems a consensus has not been reached on this issue yet. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No, they're utterly utterly trivial, I've mentioned this in passing before. - hahnchen 18:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, delete them with extreme prejudice, they fall under "lists of minutiae." Andre (talk) 19:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Any objections to my adding Achievements lists to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Scope of Information, then? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Go for it. Andre (talk) 21:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Done. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I agree with "Simply stating how many Achievements are available and the total number of Gamerscore points is sufficient." Is it even necessary to do that? Andre (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Generally speaking, probably not. Achievements are a part of every 360 game, but it seems that every DVD game has 1000 Achievement points and every XBLA game has 200, so virtually every game is going to have the same line about the Achievements. Probably isn't necessary to state that in every article - maybe only in places where the number of achievements or the points are unusual for a game in its class. (If someone wants to do research on how Achievement points work, they can easily follow a link to Xbox Live and read all about it.)
The counter to this, though, is that if this statistic is NOT listed in the article, where would it be listed? Anywhere on WP? Does it belong on WP? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
No, achievements are really really trivial. It's akin to stating what bonus levels there are, and what you have to do to achieve them. - hahnchen 21:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Not sure I see it quite that way, but I'm kinda arguing against myself, too. Like I said, Achievements are part of every 360 game, so there's really nothing noteworthy about any one game's use of them. An Achievement probably should only be mentioned if there's something particularly noteworthy about it (like, "This was the first Achievement to require the player to destroy their controller.") — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
How about linking to the games achievements list in the External links section of the game page? SeanMooney 23:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Would a more general link to the game's overall entry on (or whichever is its official site) be appropriate? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think an external link to a game's official or Xbox website would be fine, and probably IS done in many cases. A link specifically to an achievements list I would discourage. Andre (talk) 23:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

For WP, these are totally useless. They're more guidelike than the point lists. There is already the section on the xbox live page about gamerscore, so any information should be able to fit into that paragraph. However, this info would be awesome on strategywiki, so if you see some, either leave me a message, or just take it over there. -- Prod-You 02:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Games for Windows certified games

What are you thoughts on this category? This is a big marketing push to brand all games as Games for Windows which match a certain criteria. I don't think that the criteria is strong enough, or the platform focused enough to form a strong category. The games that will inevitably fall into this are too disparate, and given that we have Category:Windows games, not that useful. Kill it? - hahnchen 19:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this category an easy way to categorize PC games that are DX 10 compliant AND have functionality for the Live Anywhere service? Have you researched this before declaring it "marketing"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bean23 (talkcontribs)

I think it's marketing, but we can cover that marketing in an impartial and neutral way, so the category sounds OK. Andre (talk) 00:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Live Anywhere and Games for Windows are different initiatives. DX10 compliance is not a big deal, at all, it doesn't have to be DX10, just work on DX10, which previous versions of DX do. Hence we have years old games such as RalliSport Challenge and Dungeon Siege falling into that category. Then again, we do have Category:Touch! Generations which is another marketing push, but at least there's a stronger coherence in those games. - hahnchen 00:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the legwork on this. I don't see a reason for this category except to see what games are part of this marketing initiative, but I'd like to hear more from other informed users. It isn't really over-categorization as it does serve that purpose, and I'm interested if it serves other purposes. If it is just for a marketing initiative, I question whether it is worth keeping up-to-date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bean23 (talkcontribs)

Primary images

Who here believes that ideally, the lead image should be from the most recent primary game (for example, New SMB Bowser versus Brawl Bowser)? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

What if the most recent incarnation doesn't define the character as a whole? By this method, the Link lead image would be the Link from Phantom Hourglass. Ashnard Talk Contribs 18:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
(EDC) I think that'll depend on context. I think the most recognizeable image should be used, which might not necessarily be the most recent. For example, if Bowser's overall design were to have changed significantly in Super Smash Bros. Brawl, such that an average reader not familiar with the game wouldn't immediately recognize him as Bowser, I'd default back to a previous game's rendering as the lead image for Bowser's article, and then include the newer screenshot as an example of how his design has changed. It's not an exact science, though - generally speaking, more recent images are better, as they represent the current design of a character, setting, etc. But there may be cases where a character's original design may be preferable over the more recent. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
No, you should use the most recognisable image, not just the most recent. For Bowser, I'd actually go for the Paper Mario one, had it not been disgustingly watermarked - Image:PMTTYD Bowser.jpg. - hahnchen 18:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
How is his Paper Mario look the most recognizable one? Three games certainly haven't overwritten all of the others. TTN 18:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I also think it probably should be more recognizable, not most recent. As for the Bowser image: stick with something from the main Mario series. RobJ1981 18:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I just thinks it sticks to the old school stylings from 16-bit era Nintendo artwork. I think Mario should have a similar lead image to the face shot in this absolute classic. [2] - hahnchen 18:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
As I said, it's not an exact science - personally, I'd say any image from Super Mario Bros. 3 onward would probably be just fine - I'd probably go with his rendering from Super Smash Bros. Melee. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
The Paper Mario series is supposed to be a whimsical deviation from the main series. Although I favour the Paper Mario Bowser personally, one can't use that for the context that it's in and the fact that the lead image is supposed to be representative of the subject in general — which that image isn't. Ashnard Talk Contribs 18:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Another thought on this: I think we can all agree that if you saw ANY image of Bowser from any of the SMB games, you'd instantly recognize him. His image has been pretty consistent throughout the series. At which point, you have to ask, "which of these images is MOST like him?" And that's one that many people would probably disagree on. Again, I think his 3D rendering from SSBM is probably the best, most representative image of the character, but I know others would probably disagree with me on that. I still maintain that most recent isn't necessarily best, but if the most recent image is one that everybody likes over others, then that's when I'd consider changing the lead image. Make sense? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

List of video game collector and limited editions

What does everyone think, another AFD nomination? It's went through 2 from the talk page (I believe 3 though, not sure why the other isn't listed). Let me point out a few examples from the article: Bully Special Edition — special case, dodge ball, comic book. and Ultimate Spider-Man Limited Edition — includes four characters biographies, an interview with Stan Lee, a making of video, tips and trick and a special edition Ultimate Spider-Man comic book. The package has a Venom theme. Why exactly should people even want to care about this? All media has special editions, a whole list of them doesn't seem notable to me. DVDs have many special and/or collector, limited editions: no list here (that I know of). Same thing with CD's and so on. This is simply trivial listcruft/fancruft in my view. Yes, video games have special editions, it doesn't mean we need to list each and every one of them. If anything: put the notable information on each article, and leave it at that. If someone wants to nominate it, feel free. I've had problems nominating articles that have went in AFD before, and I'm not sure why (I follow the steps correctly and all that). RobJ1981 18:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiment on this. Special editions should be mentioned briefly in the main articles, but otherwise their info should go into a subwiki. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I share KieferSkunk's sentiment, but everybody else overwhelmingly voted to keep the article during the last AFD. hbdragon88 23:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
It's not something I'm interested in, but to my surprised nearly every entry is referenced. That's pretty good for a list article. Passes WP:V anyway. If it goes to AFD I'll probably vote to keep. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 18:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Sourced or not, it's still crufty and trivial. When you think about it, you can source just about anything on Wikipedia. That doesn't make it a acceptable article always. RobJ1981 18:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
In response to Hbdragon: opinions can change. Currently (on this page alone): 3 to 1 is the tally. If someone could AFD it for me, then we will see how it goes. Frankly, I've seen very little improvement (besides the sourcing) in the article since the last AFD. Lists like this one, belong on a gaming wiki only in my opinion. RobJ1981 05:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I see in the article history that it's been nominated for deletion four times and has failed each time. I still think the information should be called out in the individual articles, but it appears that the consensus has consistently been to keep the article and to continue to improve it. As one of the arguments for keeping it said, it's not an indiscriminant list of information - it's well-focused and sourced. I don't think it's likely that another AfD is going to accomplish anything. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Out of interest, how many times would it need to succeed the AFD process, for you to accept it should be kept? --Oscarthecat 18:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

List of video games by genre

Just to let everyone know that List of video games by genre was deleted through AfD here; shame it wasn't put on the list of video game deletions. I don't know which way I would have !voted, but it's possible more specific video game genre lists will be nominated. MarašmusïneTalk 19:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Animal Crossing task force

I just noticed this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Animal Crossing. Currently there is a grand total of six Animal Crossing articles (from what I see). Is it really necessary to have a task force about it? I see it as unhelpful, and it could possibly encourage others to make more smaller taskforces. If people want to fix the small group of articles: fine, ask here. From what I've seen: small and broad projects/task forces end up dying after only a short period. RobJ1981 05:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I saw that, there's only one editor in that task force so far. It's up to him to get it going, give it some time, but I don't have much hope for it. - hahnchen 13:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Too many references?

Is it possible to have too many references. I've currently been adding references to the Fire Emblem article. I'm pushing it for GA, so will the level of references be to the detriment of the article and chances of GA? Ashnard Talk Contribs 13:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't a rhetorical question. Ashnard Talk Contribs 21:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
No, it is not possible to have too many references. The only issues that come up with too many references are aesthetic, and more or less easily fixed without decreasing the number of references. Your article doesn't appear to suffer any such problems. Two notes: footnotes come after punctuation marks, and one should not cite the same source twice in a row, like you've done in the first "In-universe" paragraph. Good luck at GAC! Geuiwogbil 21:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Much appreciated. Ashnard Talk Contribs 21:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
As a note, I ran into a discussion a while back about an FAC with a French critic or journalist or something I don't remember, (I was unable to find it, but I think it was FAC a while back) about an article that had so many references it was distracting and hurting the article. It broke down into an argument and nothing ever came of it, but it begs the question of what is it too much. Fire Emblem isn't close to this, as that article had something like 3 citations per sentence. Does anyone know what I am talking about, or have I lost it?--Clyde (talk) 23:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Found it: Horace François Bastien Sébastiani de La Porta. (What a name! As if we needed to properly distinguish him from all the other Horace François Bastien Sébastianis...) Geuiwogbil 00:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
When it gets to this point,[1] then perhaps[2] you should look into deciding which are necessary[3][4] and which are just superfluous.[5] But Fire Emblem[6] is nowhere near that point yet.[7]
On a side note, go through all your images and make sure the fair use rationales address all 10 points listed in WP:NFCC; WP:FURG has some guidance that may be helpful there, and you can look at (recent) FAs for more examples. Also, the self-appointed Fair Use Police will not like all the images in Fire Emblem#Games, so if you want to keep them you'll need really good rationales. Anomie 00:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I was about to say the same thing about the images in that table. Probably not fair use and likely to be deleted at some point, particularly since many (all?) of them lack fair use rationales for that particular article. --ElKevbo 01:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm on to it now. Ashnard Talk Contribs 08:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, don't forget to reuse sources instead of listing them twice. Ref #5 is the same as Ref #3 for instance. Kariteh 14:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
They're actually different — I just forgot to differentiate between the two on the title of reference. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 18:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Super Nintendo Entertainment System FAC

I've submitted Super Nintendo Entertainment System as a Featured article candidate. Please talk a look at the article and give your input. Is it worthy of being the third video game console FA, joining Nintendo Entertainment System and Wii? Anomie 00:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Overall form looks good, and it appears to have good citations. I think it needs some copyediting, though - there are a few weasel-phrases and possibly POV statements in there. Nothing terrible, though. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Please, give me details! I just did a quick read-through looking for weasel words and POV, but everything I found was supported by the sources cited. I'm probably too close to the article to see it. BTW, if you put "Support" or "Oppose" in front of that, it would make a good comment for the FAC page. Anomie 03:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I personally think that the History section reads a little bit like a news story. It covers the history well, but it feels sensationalized when I read it. I'd probably reword a few things, but I don't have any specific examples at the moment. When I have more time, I'd be happy to do a little copyediting. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: Some minor cleanup (grammar) and copyediting would probably make the article even better, but it's in good shape and would make a fine FA. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
You should place your comments on the FAC page. --Mika1h 14:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Oops, sorry. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to let everyone know, this article passed and is now rated FA-class. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice work. If Nintendo 64 were a Good Article, we could have a nice Nintendo console Featured Topic with this, Nintendo Entertainment System, and Wii. Kariteh 22:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Input required on debate at Live for Speed

The debate was sparked over the removal of car and track lists as per WP:NOT. The data has since been converted into general paragraphs, but the change has been rejected by one editor and several anonymous editors who insist on being allowed to write the article as they see fit — targeted to LFS players. I have repeatedly suggested that they seek more experienced opinions from WP:VG, but they seem content with counting their own straws. Additionally, one user has rejected the fact that LFS is under the domain of the Video games WikiProject, refusing to acknowledge that LFS is a video game, instead claiming that is a racing simulator. Despite sim racing being considered gaming, and despite the game categories removed and the WP:VG banner on the Talk page, no response has been gained regarding this inconsistency. Instead, the anonymous editors are continuing the debate and are considering arbitration.

Additionally, User:E dog95 has gone an editing spree on all sim racing articles and removed all mention of "computer game" on the basis of his opinion that simulators are not games.

I don't think it's necessary to go that far, especially when there are plenty of experienced editors here who can offer their input. Whether the LFS editors like it or not, LFS is under WP:VG's scope, and I kindly ask editors to comment on the debate to avoid going through the arbitration process unnecessarily. --Scottie_theNerd 04:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I replied and offered my input. In a nutshell: I agree that the tables of info don't belong here, but rather on StrategyWiki or some such, and just because it's a racing sim doesn't mean it's not also a video game. Look at Forza Motorsport and Gran Turismo - those are racing-sim games. What makes this one any different? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Once we reach a consensus on that, we will need to undo the changes made by User:E dog95 on all the simulation articles. --Scottie_theNerd 06:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Some simulations are games, others are not. In general racing sims, such as this one in question is undoubtedly a game, it is primarily intended for recreation. On the other hand, a flight simulator used by the armed forces to train pilots obviously isn't a game. I actually AFDed Forza 2's list of cars, so in general I don't like really long useless lists, but Live for Speed doesn't actually have too many cars, so I don't think it'd be that big a problem listing them. I just wouldn't bother listing all the specifics such as weight distribution and horsepower. I would list the tracks, there's not a large amount of them and I think making links out of the tracks helps us to WP:Build the Web. - hahnchen 19:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the merit of leaving the lists up. As others have pointed out, even though there's a small amount, it still doesn't add anything. If there were only, say, three choices of cars, mentioning them wouldn't be an issue, but there's a good dozen that does add an unnecessary amount of padding. The same scope of information can still be presented in a readable manner through paragraphs, minus the track distances, weight balance, and other technical aspects. --Scottie_theNerd 23:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Scrottie. The last thing we need is more listcruft around here. If users are persistently putting it back, take them to WP:AN3. Giggy UCP 00:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Listing the details of each car is in direct conflict with the Article Guidelines and qualifies as "indiscriminant list of information" - it's definitely detail that isn't needed anywhere on WP, even if the article wasn't within WP:VG. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's some more listcruft, reported to the overzealous de-lister Scottie the nerd and still no change, yet there's all out war on the lists on LFS... Car list X Track List X Lengthy desction of either X Car list X Track List X Lengthy desction of either X Car list X Track List X Lengthy desction of either X Car list X Track List X Lengthy desction of either X Car list X Track List X Lengthy desction of either X Car list X Track List Lengthy desction of either Car list X Track List Soundtrack list X Lengthy desction of either Car list X Track List Character list X Soundtrack list X Lengthy desction of either Car list X Track List Character list X Soundtrack list X Lengthy desction of either Car list X Track List Character list Soundtrack list X Lengthy desction of either Car list X Track List Character list X Soundtrack list X Crew list X Lengthy desction of either X Car list X Track List Character list Soundtrack list X Crew list Lengthy desction of either Car list Track List Character list Soundtrack list X Crew list Lengthy desction of either Car list Track List X Character list Soundtrack list Crew list Lengthy desction of either Car list Track List Character list X Soundtrack list Crew list Lengthy desction of either Car list Track List Soundtrack list X Lengthy desction of either Car list Track List Soundtrack list X Lengthy desction of either Car list X Unofficial (MOD) car list X Track List X Unofficial (MOD) track List X Soundtrack list X Lengthy desction of either Leagues list X Car list X Unofficial (MOD) car list X Track List X Unofficial (MOD) track List (link) X Lengthy desction of either X Leagues list X Car/Team list X Track List X Car list X Track List X Unofficial (MOD) car list X Car/Team list X Car list Track List X Soundtrack list X Car list X Soundtrack list X Car list X <------- OF THE FRIGGIN' DEMO! Track List X <------- OF THE FRIGGIN' DEMO!

Expert review: Hades Nebula

As part of the Notability wikiproject, I am trying to sort out whether Hades Nebula is notable enough for an own article. I would appreciate an expert opinion. For details, see the article's talk page. If you can spare some time, please add your comments there. Thanks! --B. Wolterding 13:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not claiming to be an expert on whether things qualify as notable or not, but I would hope it is or a lot of our other articles on 80s games are going to be in trouble! It's backed up with sources from Zzap!64 and Your Sincliar, which were notable magazines of the time. Seems fine to me. Miremare 15:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I also think that something being 20-odd years old and still being remembered gives it a notability boost of sorts. Andre (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep an eye on User:Maniac20 / Box art issue

This user keeps on pointless removing cover art and replacing it with his own. It usually goes from Xbox 360 -> Playstation 3. I doubt he actually works for Sony, but myself and some other editors have warned him on his talk page about this, yet he continues to do so. Articles affected include Army of Two (video game), BlackSite: Area 51, Def Jam: Icon, Assassin's Creed and more. This guy has an agenda and I wouldn't put it past him to resort to sockpuppets. If anyone here could just delete the offending images, or just block this guy, that'd be great. I'm probably going to file 3RR against him. - hahnchen 21:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the easiest thing to do is to go through 3RR - he already violated that in the first of those articles. If he continues to do so, he'll be blocked for longer periods of time. As for the images: I don't really see anything wrong with either the PS3 or 360 version of the box art, so long as the box art isn't fake and has valid Fair-Use rationale. So it's not really vandalism per se, but it does appear that he's making those changes without going through consensus discussion. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Dispute on Fighting games

People are having a dispute over some content on the Fighting game article. Several people (including myself) have deleted a section from the article, and it keeps being added back. Someone accused me of working for "NAMCO, TECMO and SEGA" for removing irrelevant links to external sites. Read Talk:Fighting game to see what I'm talking about. Could people please offer there opinions on the subject (on the Talk page)? It is not an ad for Kwonho, and it could be a decent article otherwise. JohnnyMrNinja 06:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Music games and their track lists

Okay, another one to debate: Music games and their track lists. Guitar Hero and Boom Boom Rocket both have track lists, and their lists of tracks aren't enormous. Dance Dance Revolution has an entire separate article listing all the tracks available in the series. My question: Do these also qualify as lists of minutiae? I believe they do, but given that these are music/rhythm games where the music is the primary focus, I can see the argument for letting them stay. Still, I don't see them as any different than a list of levels in a platform game, or a list of cars in a racing game - they are details about the game that aren't really needed to understand the game as a whole, are they? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think for a music game you might be able to make an argument to include track lists, at least in the case of Guitar Hero where the songs are probably themselves notable and we probably have articles on them, or the artists. Also, CDs and such include track listings very often, and that's comparable I think. I don't think we should include track lists for older games without notable tracks, though. Andre (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, then what makes a particular track list "noteworthy"? I'd argue that Guitar Hero's tracks certainly are noteable, given that they're faithful covers of popular songs in American culture, but that the tracks in Boom Boom Rocket are not particularly noteworthy since they're just remixes of classical songs. Such an argument opens the whole discussion up to POV, which is something we want to avoid. This is why I think it should be an all-or-nothing thing, much as I hate black-and-white arguments. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to be awkward as well and ask why the exception for track lists. It could be argued that a circuit is just as integral to a racing game and that circuits like Nurburgring Nordschleife are just as noteworthy and have WP articles about them. So if track lists are allowed because they're noteworthy then circuits must be allowed as well.- X201 21:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Rather than enter into an entirely seperate debate on racing tracks, can I just point out WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS ? --Oscarthecat 06:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

My point is that if we want to be consistent on the policies in general, we should think of all these things as essentially "lists of levels" and define what level of information on these levels is appropriate, and apply that definition to all articles. The guidelines do this already for most content, but there are some cases where it's still a little ambiguous, like with short music track lists. Still, I propose that:

  • Music game track lists
  • Racing game circuit lists (and lists of cars)
  • Sports game lists of teams, countries, awards, etc.
  • Scoring details
  • Xbox Live Achievements
  • Character lists

...ALL be treated the same: Unless there's something particularly notable about one or more specific entries in these lists, the lists should not be included at all. Any notable information should be briefly described in prose (for example, "The songs in Guitar Hero II include hits such as 'Carry On Wayward Son' by Kansas, 'You Really Got Me' by Van Halen, and 'Trogdor' from the Homestar Runner cartoon series."), but should not be a reason to exhaustively list all of the information in that category. People don't need to see the track list to understand what the game is about - if they're interested in seeing the full list of songs (or whatever) in the game, we provide (or should provide) a link to the game's official homepage, where that info will be listed. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm convinced. Your suggestion of describing in prose (for particularly notable tracks) sounds good to me. Andre (talk) 22:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Before I go make changes to the articles in question, I'd like to make sure we have full consensus on this. Anyone else support or object? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Support... ish: Mentioning notable stuff in the text of the article is far preferable to lists, and lessens the temptation for listcruft amongst those so inclined. But! I agree that music game tracks and racing game tracks are important because they're integral to the games, but I still don't believe there's any place in an encyclopedia for the likes of Xbox 360 Achievements. Or scoring details for that matter. Unless it's something particularly notable, like if there was an achievement in a game that gets you a million points or something. That would be noteworthy, but all 360 games include achievements - any description of them in the articles can only be considered as game guide stuff, and I believe we should all be frowning on that. Here goes..... >:( .....That's it. :) Miremare 23:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
But every song in Guitar Hero 2 is clearly notable (aside from the bonus tracks) and they each have their own Wikipedia articles already. Trimming it down to just one or two tracks will only result in arguments of which band or song should be listed. And just saying something like "it has rock music" would not give a good idea of the type of music in the game either - there are all kinds of rock (such as grunge, alternative, indie rock, metal, nu metal, and much more). I can see the reason for not including things like achievements, but soundtrack is a crucial part of a music game. I think you should ask more people to discuss this issue before doing anything, since only three people have commented on this so far. SeanMooney 03:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
So, we have two problems that arise with this: What happens if, sometime in the future, a version of Guitar Hero comes out with 300 songs? That'd be an awfully big list - probably would need its own article. (We have this problem with the DDR series already.) Also, this starts turning into a slippery-slope issue: If articles about music games can have their track lists, why can't racing games have cars and race tracks? Why shouldn't sports games list their teams, countries, etc.? Why shouldn't shooting games list their weapons? RPGs list their characters and classes? The reasons for justifying each would become too complex to simply sum up in the article guidelines.
I don't think we should have any trouble briefly describing the kind of music in GH2 and giving some particularly notable examples. We could use the official press releases, box descriptions, etc. as a barometer of what the publisher(s) thought were notable enough to mention explicitly, and just follow that as an example if there's any controversy. That, to me, would seem like a decent compromise.
I do agree that getting more editors involved is a good thing. That seems to be difficult to do these days, though. :P — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Andre (talk) 20:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
It should be fairly easy to decide what to include and what to leave out just by considering notability. Like X201 said above, the Nurburgring Nordschleife is a notable (world famous in fact) historic real life racing track. Include it. Don't Fear the Reaper is a notable song by a notable band, so include that IF the tracks are integral to the game like Guitar Hero. As for sports teams, mention should be made for example, that FIFA 07 includes the following leagues: FA Premier League, La Liga, Serie A etc. Anyone who wants to know what teams are in those leagues can click the links - it's totally unecessary to include lists of sports teams in game articles. Lists of weapons are generally not going to be notable so should be left out or mentioned in the article text if they must be. How's that? Miremare 20:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Importance of the Devil May Cry FAs?

It seems today became a popular date to asses these articles, Devil May Cry 3 got reassesed from "Mid" to "Low" under the rationable of "Surely if the first DMC is of low importance, than this one is too"[3], oddly enought a few minutes later Devil May Cry got reassesed [4] from "Low" to "Mid". Now I came here to reach a consensus because there has never been a balance regarding the importance of the three titles in the series even if they basically enjoy the same level of sales numbers. - 21:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The importance ratings are messy and no formal and/or rigid guideline has ever been put in force regarding how to rank them. For instance, one of the questoins is whether it should be rated as to importance within WP:1.0. I rate within 1.0, others do not. hbdragon88 23:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
In terms of 1.0 almost every video game-related article would be of "low importance", so that doesn't add much value at all. I think we should rate in terms of importance to this WikiProject. JACOPLANE • 2007-07-20 03:14
Importance is quite messy and informal. I would class DMC3 as low though. - hahnchen 21:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

New stub proposals and stub renaming proposals

I have propsed new stub categories for Atari, Take Two, Ubisoft, and Sony Computer Entertainment. See the proposals here.

I have proposed the following stub category name changes (see the proposals here):

JohnnyMrNinja 23:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I have added proposals for Activision, THQ, Disney Interactive, SCi/Eidos Interactive, and MS-DOS game stubs. I do plan on (slowly) populating them if they are created. JohnnyMrNinja 07:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

An article to watch

Can some people keep an eye on Marvel: Ultimate Alliance for changes? I have it in my watch list (again), because of people re-adding game guide content. I've told them not to do it (one in the past, one recently), but I somehow bet others will re-add it. The section is known as future: and it describes how to get special endings by doing certain things. It's certainly game guide content, not suitable for here. RobJ1981 05:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This article would benefit greatly from a damn good walloping with the game guide hammer, even with the above removal. And that list of voice actors has been mentioned on the talk page for two weeks with no reply or action. I'd condense it myself but I don't know about Marvel or which of the actors are particularly notable. Anyone? Miremare 23:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Should articles about cancelled video games be deleted

Since they were cancelled they are not notable and I believe they should be deleted. Is this acceptable?Marlith 23:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

There might be some cases where a cancelled game is still notable - for instance, if the game is highly anticipated. Take a hypothetical example: Spore. If this game gets cancelled, there's going to be quite an uproar over it, so even though the game would never be released, it's still noteworthy. A real example: Star Fox 2 - this game is noteworthy for several reasons, even though it was cancelled. I'd say take the cancelled games on a case-by-case basis. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Some notable cancelled games include EarthBound Zero, EarthBound 64, Super Mario's Wacky Worlds, Sound Fantasy, and Bound High Andre (talk) 00:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Also there's StarCraft: Ghost. JACOPLANE • 2007-07-18 00:38
And in that category, Duke Nukem Forever. Andre (talk) 00:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Lest ye forget Thrill Kill. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 01:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Marlith 01:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

But I think that there should be articles for cancelled games by company - ie, merge articles into a list of sorts, and unmerge if it can be shown that they are notable cancelled games. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget FE64, go Fire Emblem. As LttP said, it would be better if they were merged by some common factor. These could make decent lists if there is other information like what the gameplay would have been like and why the project was discontinued. The problem with these is that too much speculation can arise from why the game was cancelled — most companies are vague when stating why there game was cancelled so there's not much to go on. Ashnard Talk Contribs 05:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
As we can see by this growing list of "notable" games, there are a lot of them, and probably some disagreement among us (let alone many other readers and editors) as to which ones are most notable. Again, for consistency's sake, we should probably treat them all the same, and my opinion is that we treat them just like non-cancelled games - write an article for the game if it's noteworthy enough to do so. (Exceptions would be for, say, cancelled sequels where little would have changed, or little information is known - we could simply mention the cancelled sequel in the first game's article.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Fire Emblem GA nomination.

Okay, I think it's ready to be nominated, but I don't know whether I should put it in the assessment requests. Other users before have advised me not to go through this process if I want a proper assessment and I'm unsure whether that's the place to go for GA nominations. Please will somebody advise me on what to do? Ashnard Talk Contribs 17:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want the article to go to GA review, all you have to do is make it a good article candidate. Go to the Wikipedia:Good article candidates page and follow the instructions at the top ("How to nominate a page"), placing your article at the bottom of section 6.1.7, "Games and related articles". With any luck, someone should review it soon. Nall 18:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've just done that now. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 19:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Fire Emblem got to GA. I just want to sincerely thank the users that answered my queries. Let's hope this is the first of many more good FE articles. Ashnard Talk Contribs 21:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Article titles taskforce

I'm proposing a new whose duties would include:

  1. Discussing proposals for CVG title guidelines
  2. Proposing article moves
  3. Announcing article moves
  4. Reporting article moves (that is, by having a "moves by date" section, and any CVG-related moves would be listed, regardless of if they're good moves or not)

Anyone interested? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Why would you need a task force? Why not just create a new section at WP:CVG in the style of the new article announcements and the deletion announcements. - hahnchen 22:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's true. Just create a new subsection of the project. Andre (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Pointless Archives

Can I get some input on pages such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements/May 2007 and Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Deletion Archive. The brainless monotony of maintaining these just means that no one can ever be bothered to update our new article announcements or deletion lists (an editor has even <small>ened the text for the past deletions instead of moving them across. I can never be bothered to maintain these archives, kill? - hahnchen 22:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't delete the archives, just slap {{historical}} on them and stop archiving. Andre (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I just like using the word kill. But yeah, that's what I meant, stop archiving. - hahnchen 23:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I regluarly go over the deletion archive to check for re-created articles, and I'm happy to continue maintaining it. As for 'smallened instead of moving them across'; as I mentioned here, I'm archiving all those over 1 month old (so I'm a few days behind at the moment). MarašmusïneTalk 08:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Been bold and just "killed" the articles with the tags. It will at least create some more discussion. IMHO, participants in this project have better things to do than bot-like tasks - and even bots have better things to do. There are more effective ways of checking for re-created deleted articles than watching for blue links in a list of red ones. An AWB plugin that checks the log should be easy to write, for example. --User:Krator (t c) 23:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I just stumbled across a new project

Wikipedia:WikiProject Age of Empires, couldn't figure out which [edit] to click on to add it. ~ JohnnyMrNinja {talk} 05:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Screenshots versus artwork

Characters of Final Fantasy VIII is a featured article, yet contains no screenshots, relying entirely on artwork and cutscenes. Since the game is notable for using realistically proportioned characters and body language, this seems like an oversight. Your comments would be most welcome at Talk:Characters of Final Fantasy VIII#Problems with this article.--Nydas(Talk) 16:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

List of AO-rated products

I came across this today, it's a list of AO rated computer/video games. It seems to be listcruft and/or fancruft to me. If no one objects, I might AFD it. RobJ1981 06:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

With supposed video game related violence etc. being a re-occuring topic in media, the list seems useful and relevant. (Not sure about the article title tough - it doesn't mention "games") The Merciful 08:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Just commenting - it would probably be better as a category, but if that happened we'd need to make a category for all ESRB ratings, then categories for all worldwide game ratings. But that is probably too many categories. So if it is kept, keep it as a category. ~ JohnnyMrNinja {talk} 09:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
JohnnyMrNinja, I wish you hadn't said that - someone will probably go and do it now! But that's probably the worst, most undescriptive article title I've ever seen. As The Merciful says, it doesn't mention games, and "AO" is a completely meaningless term until you click the link. Something like List of AO (Adults Only) rated games would make more sense if it survives an AFD. Miremare 17:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought it read "AO-related", and that it was referring to an MMORPG. :P Definitely needs clarification. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I've put it up for deletion. RobJ1981 10:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Japanese titles

I was wondering why do the articles have to have japanese titles following english titles. They're long, with japanese characters first and then an romanization. They're an eyesore and honestly I don't know what purpose do they serve. Not to mention most of the time the romanization is exactly the same as the english title, with the only difference being the obvious japanese engrish pronunciation. Is there a way to incorporate this info into the infobox or superscript link to the bottom of the page? Blueshirts 21:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with putting it into the infobox is that it's fairly long and would add several lines to the infobox's height. Also, some games only have Japanese names (e.g. BS Zelda no Densetsu) and any translation, even a literal one, is unofficial and sometimes debatable. In the case of pages located at the Japanese name it could be confusing to see the Japanese name in the title but a translation in the introduction. The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages moves the translation details to a footnote so that's another way to go. GarrettTalk 03:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Probably the same reason we have original language titles after most things not originating from an English-language country. See Germany, Athens, Ong Bak, etc. the original language title is an important part of the article, even if it's the exact same (as in the case with a lot of Japanese language titles) the MOS doesn't seem to mandate it, but it's been in practice in many, many articles. ColourBurst 16:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Paperboy box art, couple of Qs

Hello, could I have some advice please, I'm trying to add a new image for the infobox of Paperboy (video game), as currently it features the opening screen and doesn't look right. Questions:

  • It's first and foremost an arcade game, does that mean the infobox has to contain an image of the cabinet, or can I use a videogame box instead?
  • The best image I've found is for the Apple II system, but it's on a messageboard at [5], is this going to cause problems with fair use?

Any help appreciated. QuagmireDog 12:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You can use any of the game's releases to illustrate it, it doesn't have to be the original arcade cabinet. As far as I know, the picture you've pointed to would be OK to use, but don't forget to include some fair-use rationale specifying who owns the copyright etc. Miremare 13:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I've uploaded the image and provided (hopefully) enough fair use spiel. QuagmireDog 13:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Although suitable, I do feel that the most appropriate leading screenshot for Paperboy would be an arcade cabinet, to illustrate the unique handlebar controls. But in general, box art is fine, even for games that were initially arcade. - hahnchen 15:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Google turns up several cabinet images showing those handlebars. Anomie 15:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Need less cruft

This has been mentioned a few times above, but the likes of Marvel: Ultimate Alliance's "voice actors" section and articles like Runescape gods are just not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Unfortunately, as long as the the editors of articles like Runescape gods are falling over each other to type Keep! Keep! Keep! at ALL its AFDs we're unlikely to ever get rid of these non-notable irrelevances. No one can credibly claim that this is a subject worthy of an individual encyclopedia entry, or provide sources to satisfy WP:N, or realise that Runescape being notable doesn't mean everything in it is notable, but the articles remain because there are so many fanboys intent on it. This seems to me to be a problem which tends to be overlooked with video game articles (which appear to attract cruft like crap attracts flies), and I think it's to the detriment of Wikipedia. Not to mention the endless articles full of game guide content. It seems whenever these are removed they get put back again, either straight away or gradually. I'm fully expecting people to disagree with me, but meh. If only there was a policy specifically stating what's notable and includable for a video game... So yes, getting to the point, is it possible to propose one, would there be support for one, and if so what should be in it? Miremare 19:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd be great if you include the articles that are practically novelisations. I'd love to have VG specific guidelines as to what not to include. ~ JohnnyMrNinja {talk} 19:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
What's the difference in fancruft terms between RuneScape gods and Characters of Final Fantasy VIII?--Nydas(Talk) 19:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
RuneScape gods doesn't contain any out-of-universe information, Characters of Final Fantasy VIII does. I don't know if there is enough real-world information available about RuneScape gods but if there isn't, the article isn't notable. --Mika1h 20:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Characters of Final Fantasy VIII gets the meat of its out-of-universe content from a single source. Is the difference between zero sources and one source the difference between deletion and featured?--Nydas(Talk) 08:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it gets it from a lot of different sources, articles and interviews. And all of these meet the criteria set by the official guidelines at WP:WAF#Secondary information. Kariteh 08:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
There are other sources, but the core of the out-of-universe information is taken from one article, referenced 17 times. Such an article probably doesn't exist for RuneScape, but you could use dialogue fragments, subscription figures, reviews, the manual, the official site etc to build up the references on RuneScape gods. Would it still be deletion-worthy if you did?--Nydas(Talk) 08:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not actually too bothered about RuneScape Gods, but would vote to delete. But you're going to get a lot of "Other shit exists" keep votes given we have categories such as Category:Warcraft characters and Characters in Devil May Cry. You may laugh at the idiot kids that amuse themselves with the shit that is runescape, but it does have an absolute assload of players, probably more so than Devil May Cry. - hahnchen 20:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
...which thus makes it notable (finishing off the comment). Giggy UCP 08:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Of course you should know that Characters in Devil May Cry is based on Characters of Final Fanatasy VIII, so we are kind of going in a circle there, and the page development took care of fancrufty pages such as Vergil (Devil May Cry) its not really like we just wanted to have a page to list characters and say how "cool" they are, not to mention we added as much Out of Universe as we could find based on suggestions made by Deckiller. - 08:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

What to include in Infobox for future games...

Over at Beautiful Katamari, there's been an editing mini-war going on, specifically over the inclusion of the Wii version in the lead and infobox. Quick history: Namco-Bandai announced BK for 360 and PS3 early this year, PS3 recently has been dropped, and while the industry rumor is that the Wii version has been taken up over the PS3, there has been no official N-B announcement of this (the 360 version remains the only officially announced one). We have a section on these Wii reports in the body of the article, which to me is ok as they're all cited, but people are continually trying to justify the Wii version as being "confirmed", and thus should be included in the infobox and lead. A similar deal is happening with Apollo Justice: Ace Attorney where there's an issue that despite an official trailer (though linked through youtube, so a possible copyvio), there's an issue within including a France TBD release date in the info box.

My personal take is that if the developing/publishing company has officially announced a platform, a release for a given country, or any other details for a game, it should be included in the infobox and lead, but if not, despite having strong rumor or close sources saying that it's in development, it should not be included -- basically, the infobox should be telling me the best and correct known-to-date information about the game, and should not include speculation even if it is well sourced. I'm just trying to see if there's precedent for this from before to put the editing wars to rest. --Masem 16:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the Infobox should only include official, confirmed information. If the Wii version is being talked about, but has not been officially announced by Namco-Bandai, the Infobox should not include it and the article should mention that it is still being "talked about". — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Full name or in-game name?

On Talk:Characters of Final Fantasy VIII#Problems part 2, I've argued that we should mainly use the in-game names of the characters. See Talk:E. Honda for similar dispute. To me, it's terribly in-universe to use a character's 'full' name, especially if that name rarely or never appears in the actual game(s). --Nydas(Talk) 20:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a large difference between an article title, and a heading within an article. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 21:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm struggling to see how it's in-universe when it's the opposite of the informal norm in the game. The other thing is, these characters aren't just characters within a video game, with manga/merchandising etc. etc. there's more to it than that. I just typed 'FF8 Figures' into google, within seconds I get this store with each character listed with their surname. I'm really not seeing why this article is crippled by the inclusion of the names the developers created. QuagmireDog 21:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with QuagmireDog. The key is to consider not just the initial video game but also all related merchandise. It's also important to make the difference between Japan and English clear when necessary: for instance, Kefka's official English name is only "Kefka", and has never been referred to as Kefka Palazzo, although "Cefca Palazzo" does exist in Japan. What I've just said is totally unrelated to FFVIII, but since we're on the main project's page I though I'd note it. Kariteh 22:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Spin-off merchandise is not key. Using it over in-game stuff is an example of the in-universe perspective giving undue weight to unimportant information. It's misleading and inaccurate. The game dialogue isn't 'informal', it's just written like that (probably so player-chosen names take prominence).--Nydas(Talk) 07:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
The game dialogue is informal. It's focused on discussion between teenage characters, what do you expect? Instead, the last names are used in all manuals, game guides, some promotional material, and merchandising (of course it's "spinoff", anything not part of the game is "spinoff" - it's still official work). Now... how is that unimportant? Simply mentioning the last names - which are not trivial from the promotional and merchandising aspect - is not undue weight. --Teggles 07:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
"Using it over in-game stuff is an example of the in-universe perspective giving undue weight to unimportant information." - what is this, a joke? This is the exact definition of a real-world perspective. It shows that the last name is important enough to be covered outside of the game's plot. Want to see coverage in merchandise? [6][7][8][9][10] --Teggles 08:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and promotional material? This is very difficult to look for, but... [11][12][13][14][15][16][17] Oh, and there are 491,000 uses of "Squall" without "Leonhart", and there are 117,000 uses of "Squall Leonhart". --Teggles 08:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
If Final Fantasy VIII was an action figure franchise with a spin-off video game, then you would have a point about the merchandise. Just because something is 'official' or 'canon' does not overrule the need to use common names for navigational purposes. The official website doesn't use them in this way. Stating that the situation is informal because they're teenagers strikes me as original theorising; I could equally say that they're soldiers, therefore I'd expect much more use of their surnames.--Nydas(Talk) 12:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The promotion and merchandising is a part of Final Fantasy VIII as a whole. It is evident that the names have importance to it because they are used constantly throughout it. I think you have a hard time understanding that the content of a game is not the only information we cover on a game's article. It's simple: last names are used commonly in an important aspect of the game's coverage, an aspect that is equally important as plot. If you can't understand that, I'm wasting my time, and I'm not going to compromise. --Teggles 19:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
By the way, the addition of a last name does not obstruct navigation. Not only are full names commonly used (about 1/5th of the time), but the first name is still there, and it's right where first names normally are. If I know him as "Squall", do you really think I'm going to be confused when I see "Squall Leonhart"? Perhaps "Sailorman de Farlius Village, Squall", but not "Squall Leonhart". --Teggles 19:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The articles have four paragraphs about the merchandise, versus dozens of paragraphs about the plot, design, reception, etc. There is nothing about the advertising or promotion. I agree that articles should contain more than just game content, but the weighting of the content should reflect the real world importance. Action figures, sticker albums etc are not that important compared to the core work. The game presumably sold millions of copies. How much merchandise was sold? --Nydas(Talk) 08:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
You're not getting the point. The merchandise and design-related work both hold the last names in importance. If these two factors of are discussed in the article, then they are important. Hence two important factors of the game use last names, even if they are less important. We have every right to use them because of that. Using a last name is not putting undue weight on an in-universe perspective. It's a tiny amount of weight. Calling it "undue" is fucking asinine. I don't know how much merchandise was sold, but the Final Fantasy VIII soundtrack sold at least 300,000 copies in Japan. The merchandise is bound to have sold a lot because of that, and also because of the mass range produced. --Teggles 00:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't disagree with using last names per se, just using them for article and section titles. It's misleading, since people (especially non-games players) will get the impression that the names are widely used in-game. If sales figures are unavailable, consider that the game was reviewed in hundreds of published sources. How many published sources reviewed the action figures? The soundtrack is probably the highest profile spin-off item, but does that use the surnames?--Nydas(Talk) 08:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
While I'm not sure about Final Fantasy VIII, I think the reasoning should apply to Characters of Final Fantasy Tactics; using "Orlandu" instead of "Count Cidolfas Orlandu" might be clearer for readers. Kariteh 10:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Navboxes once again

{{Super Smash Bros. series}} is ugly as hell. Since all I get is bitched at when I try to cut down a bloated, ugly template, could someone please fix it? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It's ugly how? I mean, it looks OK to me...I'll play around with it a bit, but I don't see many problems. Giggy UCP 03:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Mario#External links, plus all the links to relatively minor characters, etc. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The characters mentioned in it are all equally major. I see the problem when compared to other templates...but I don't know what you can do about it (I'm not too great with templates). Giggy UCP 04:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if this is any better, but I gave it a shot... Giggy UCP 04:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
That template is a mess. When there's that many character pages, use a list of character page link. Tighten the links some more, nav templates should be linking tightly related articles, not so much as a "see also". -- Ned Scott 04:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Plus it links to several articles multiple times, or to lists that happen to have characters on them. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
So you suggest we change it to a list? Or just dump the character information on lists, and only leave the games on the template? Giggy UCP 04:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I think Giggy's change is a definite improvement, but if you still have a problem with it I've come up with a few alternatives. I put them on my user page to avoid cluttering up the CVG talk, but they might be closer to what you're looking for. Nall 06:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
All of those alternatives are far superior to what we have now, please do change over to one of them. Andre (talk) 06:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm up for the "very minimal". Giggy UCP 08:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd agree with the "very minimal", without any "characters". Navboxes should link to articles, not sections. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 21:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm in favour of any of them. They're all better than the original. - X201 07:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason why it's like that is because it was nominated for TFD on June 2, the rationale was that the characters and the games navboxes are redundant to each other and could be combined. I futilely argued that they should be kept separate, per precedent with other fighting game series. hbdragon88 04:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to make the change to the navbox as soon as I'm sure there's a consensus. I'll make a post at the Smash Bros. talk page to see if I can get some support for shortening the template, and invite some people to come to this thread. Nall 05:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Fire Emblem (Game Boy Advance) naming.

This is currently being reviewed for GA, however, there's a problem concerning the name. In the West, it was named just Fire Emblem as it was the first Western installment. However, this is the same name of the series to which it belongs, causing confusion when referring to it as just "Fire Emblem". So now it's called Fire Emblem (Game Boy Advance), which the The Rambling Man has deemed unsuitable for problems concerning amiguity etc. So, how can this be tackled? Should it be moved to the Japanese name, the rough Japanese translation, or anything else? Thank you. Ashnard Talk Contribs 09:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

From what you have told us Fire Emblem (series) for the series and Fire Emblem for the game itself seems the logical way to go. With a dablink to the series on the game article. Look at Shining Force as an example - X201 10:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Final Fantasy appears to be a counter-example though. I don't know much about Fire Emblem, but when a fan says "Fire Emblem", does it more likely refer to the series or this GBA game? Kariteh 10:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I've moved Fire Emblem to Fire Emblem (series), and proposed a move for Fire Emblem (Game Boy Advance) to Fire Emblem (discuss). In-line with Street Fighter (series), Final Fantasy (series), Mortal Kombat (series), etc. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 10:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
This is a thorny issue. Street Fighter, Final Fantasy, and Mortal Kombat are all the first installment of their series, unlike Fire Emblem which is the 7th or so. Kariteh 10:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
This is the first product officially named Fire Emblem in any language, correct? I've also requested that Final Fantasy (video game) be moved to Final Fantasy (discuss). ~ JohnnyMrNinja 10:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Wasn't the Fire Emblem anime released in North America as simply "Fire Emblem"? Kariteh 10:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Good point. I just assumed looking at it that it was another OR translation like Fire Emblem: Ankoku Ryū to Hikari no Tsurugi and the other games. Was this the first usage of Fire Emblem then? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 10:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it was the first usage as a title. Technically, there was the item first though. That gives us four different entities (the item, the anime, the GBA game, and the series in itself), so maybe Fire Emblem should be redirected to the series article. The article encompasses the other entities in its content so it may be the most useful for readers. Kariteh 11:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Isn't the item the Faiā Emuburemu of the title, and Fire Emblem a translation? I'm wondering if the English phrase Fire Emblem was officially used before the anime. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 11:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The guidelines for Japanese says to use the English spelling over Romaji if available. I don't know whether the item in the series is spelt in Romaji, in which case we'd spell it Fire Emblem instead of Faiā Emuburemu; or in Katakana or whatever else, in which case I think we could spell it in Japanese words ("kishi no something"? I have no idea lol) in the pre-English games articles. Either way, I think "Fire Emblem" being a redirect to the series' article would perhaps be the most useful for readers. Kariteh 11:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to assume that you made sense there. I also noticed Image:Fe2box.jpg says clearly Fire Emblem, and I agree with "being a redirect to the series' article would perhaps be the most useful for readers". I've withdrawn the rename request, and I've moved Fire Emblem (Game Boy Advance) to Fire Emblem (video game), as there are no other video games with official English titles of Fire Emblem. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 11:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Four items, so maybe disambig page? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the speedy adjustment. Ashnard Talk Contribs 12:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually what was done was bad, as from what I've read at the naming guidelines implies that a plain name should not redirect to a disambig 'style' name. Fire Emblem currently redirects to Fire Emblem (series) -- I fail to see why it shouldn't be the other way around. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 13:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Are you saying that Fire Emblem (series) should renamed Fire Emblem? Ashnard Talk Contribs 13:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
This is a sticky issue and I'm not too happy with how the Final Fantasy pages deal with it either. Because of their length, the series as a whole is probably a more common thought than the first game in the series. I certainly don't like how the unparenthesesed (is that a word?) article title redirects to one with parentheses. The best solution I can think of is that even though most series articles use "(series)", for the ones that apply, the series article can be without the "(series)" and put the eponymous first/whateverth game at "Foo (video game)". Axem Titanium 14:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I would have to agree. The series should reside at Fire Emblem, which can have a disambiguation saying this is about the series, if you would like the game known as Fire Emblem see Fire Emblem (Gameboy Advance). This method would get rid of future confusion, existing confusion, etc. Although then it would sort of break the pattern that Final Fantasy will be about the series, Final Fantasy II will be about the game, etc., so it's not a perfect fix. Any method would really help one side and harm the other. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

List of articles in need of cleanup

Currently I know of these (which I've done some on, so far). I havent played all of them, and I'm not expert on all either, so any help is needed.

  • Marvel: Ultimate Alliance: This was mentioned before a few times. As of now: the many issues I see are the plot (could use some condensing or better wording in my view). As well as the versions section: seems cluttered and just jammed together in my view. Lastly: the characters box needs work. It should be notable characters only, not just a massive list of everyone.
  • Mega Man Battle Network: This (along with most others in the series, which are listed in the template at the bottom of the articles) need sourcing, and condensiing at parts. Some have huge plot sections, while others have huge gameplay sections.
  • Tony Hawk's Pro Skater: This (along with most of it's sequels) need a lot of list cleanup, gameplay additions and more.

That's all I can think of right now. Feel free to add some, if you want. I will try to help with other articles listed here also. RobJ1981 05:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

A few more:
  • The Ooze- Unsourced, very small sections.
  • Dr. Robotnik's Mean Bean Machine- Stage by stage details: not sure if they need condensing or not, but it looks like clutter to me. A version difference section could be added, if there is enough differences. I wasn't sure if they are too much alike or not. RobJ1981 17:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, there's a lot of these. I'll list the one I remember

Related to this, I cleaned up Mega Man Battle Network 5 a while back. It's not quite GA quality, but the structure is there, and it may be useful for cleaning up the other MMBN articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Christmas / Xmas / Holiday

Regarding the article Xmas Lemmings. As far as I can work out, this is the wrong title. The box image clearly says "Christmas Lemmings", and [18] (an unofficial site dedicated to the game's publisher) lists games called "Christmas Lemmings" and "Holiday Lemmings" (as mentioned in the article), but not "Xmas Lemmings". Anyone know about this? I would have posted this on the article's talk page, but it's empty and nobody's edited the article itself for ages, so I figured a reply more likely here. So is this just a case of someone "censoring" the word Christmas so as not to offend idiots? I would also have just gone ahead and moved it, but I'm not 100% sure, and Christmas Lemmings already exists as a redirect anyway. Miremare 22:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking around gaming sites, I see "Christmas Lemmings" and "Holiday Lemmings", but not "Xmas Lemmings". So I would think it's fine to recommend the move. Also, Xmas isn't really an X, but Ch. See the Xmas article for more information, because I don't seem to have the mental capacities at this second to explain it (headache!!!) --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and be'd bold, and moved it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 22:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
As the article itself states Xmas Lemmings is the original title. The store version was released later as Holiday Lemmings and Christmas Lemmings. Xmas Lemmings was released originally as a free downloable game, that's why there is no box art reading "Xmas Lemmings". I would therefore prefer Xmas Lemmings as the name of the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mika1h (talkcontribs)
This pic [19] says X-Mas, if that helps. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 22:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Mika1h: the article seems a bit confused as to what the titles of all the releases were, as it describes one of the games as "Holiday Lemmings 1994", when the box scan clearly shows it was called "Christmas Lemmings 94", which was why I brought this up. Even if the first in the series (as it appears) was a called "Xmas", it was still only a four-level demo, presumably given away on magazine cover disks, so I don't think it should be given precedence over the others, which were retail releases. Johnny: do you know which of these games that shot is from? Miremare 23:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The article's in one of those "foreign languages"... [20] ~ JohnnyMrNinja 23:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
It mentions 1992, so it must be the (second) four-level demo. Looks to me like Christmas Lemmings is the right move then. But it still leaves the question of where "Holiday" fits into this... Miremare 00:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, to the best of my understanding: the first two were playable demos with four levels each and were called "Xmas Lemmings". The second two were full retail games and called "Christmas Lemmings" in the UK and "Holiday Lemmings" in the US. I've made these changes in the article, though if someone could sort out the clunky sentence structure in the lead I'd appreciate it. But I'm too tired to think properly right now. :) Miremare 01:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Super Nintendo Entertainment System to be August 2's Featured Article

Unexpected but not unwelcome. If anyone happens to be free this Thursday, please join the anti-vandal patrol. Anomie 02:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Arcade game re-release platforms in Infobox?

Okay, here's one I haven't seen an agreement on yet: What should be included in the Platforms section of the Infobox for a game that has been re-released (not ported) on an alternative platform? For example, an arcade game like Galaga that has been re-released in multi-game collections for consoles, as well as made downloadable on Xbox Live Arcade and Virtual Console. Right now, the Galaga article lists ALL of the platforms Galaga has been made playable on, but I think it should only list the platforms that it was created for or officially ported to. In other words, I think Galaga should list:

  • Arcade
  • NES
  • Commodore 64 its platforms, since the game was officially ported to those. But it should not list the PS2, Xbox, Xbox 360, Wii, or any other device where it has simply been re-released or emulated, because that causes confusion as to the game's creation. Instead, these systems should only be listed/mentioned in the "Ports and Re-releases" section. What do you all think? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

What would concern me is that you might be making an unecessary distinction between the two for the purposes of the infobox. The difference between a port and a re-release is pretty specialised knowledge that most editors probably won't be aware of, especially if they don't read the entire article, the result of which is likely to be endless good faith additions to the "ports" list which you'd have to keep reverting. Personally, I'd include both ports and re-releases in the infobox. Miremare 21:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Wii Points article

It's been protected because of edit warring, over a see also link. The see also link (Microsoft Points, a similar online currency) is relevant, and does no harm. There is a discussion here that needs more input: Talk:Wii_Points#Microsoft_Points.3F. RobJ1981 21:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

"As of MM-DD-YYYY, MetaCritic gives this..."

There's a lot of articles I've seen that use the above phrasing as part of the reception. Certainly no problem with the MetaCritic or Gamerankings insertion, but I would think that there's some point after the NA release of a game that the MetaCritic and GameRankings scores aren't going to change much, and as long as the citation includes accessdate, any changes that do occur after that aren't terribly hard to deal with. Thus, the "As of this date,..." lead to these looks way out of place since it's no longer present but a past event, and I certainly wouldn't add it to an older game article that lacks such a reception section but does have aggregate scores. (Game sales are different, I'm only considering the reviews).

On the other hand, a game that's just been released will likely go through a lot of aggregate ranking changes as the reviews file in, and so it makes sense to use "As of this date..." to describe the meta-scores.

So the question is: how soon after a game is out should one stop using the "As of..." statement (if the consensus is to stop using it after some time)? I think its somewhere between 1 to 6 months after the NA release, edging closer to 2 or 3 months. I'm not saying that exactly 2 months past release of a game that someone must go through and strip that line, but more that if I do find an article with it and it fits the above, I'd likely remove it. --Masem 15:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Why NA? Kariteh 15:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
For English-language releases, MetaCritic and GameRankings are significantly weighted on the NA market. Yes, Euro and Aussie ratings get there, but if there's a significant delay between NA and EU/AU release, the additional inputs from EU/AU don't have enough impact to bump the number give or take a few percent.--Masem 15:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
{{cite web}} has an accessdate field for this reason ("Accessed on YYYY-MM-DD"). I don't see a reason to muddle the prose for the sake of redundancy. Nifboy 15:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for Grand Theft Auto gangs

I'm proposing something for some of the GTA gangs. Firstly, I'm proposing that the main gangs get their own page, but also that a new template is introduced on all of the gangs. I've tried and show what I'm on about here in my sandbox. I know the article is a little short, but I plan on expanding it in my sandbox. Is anyone against some of the gangs having their own pages, after all, the main characters have their own pages, so why can't the gangs? (I probably would of request that all characters and all gangs could have their own pages, but that'll probably be straight away rejected!) Davnel03 17:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Shall I go ahead and do it as I'm guessing no one is against this seeing as no one has replied back? Davnel03 07:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
You should only create articles for gangs that are notable. And when/if you create those articles, be careful to stay away from game guide information and original research. I'll look at the pages to see that you understand what I mean. DurinsBane87 08:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh my. I just now got a look at this, and although the article in the sandbox would be acceptable in the context of, say, a grand theft auto wiki, it has barely any suggestion that the gang described in the sandbox is fictional. Even if that was taken care of, all I see is plot summary, both here and on the characters' pages. I'd sooner merge the characters than create more. Nifboy 08:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes but I'm planning to extend it and try and find more information, so that none of the info is original research. Can I create a page for the Leones, and then try and find sources, and go from there? Davnel03 09:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I would strongly recommend against creating an article now, and instead suggest you focus your efforts on making List of gangs in Grand Theft Auto series not suck. Nifboy 11:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'm going to put the template in for every gang and set it out like how it is in my sandbox. If it's bad, we'll come back and discuss on the talkpage. If we feel that seperate pages are necessary, we'll discuss and come to some sort of consensus. Davnel03 12:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at how it looks so far.... Davnel03 13:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Ridiculously crufty. It was AfD'd a while back for similar edits. In-universe and crufty, like I said. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 16:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I think we need a consensus for what I've done as it's pretty clear that some people disagree with it.

Support - The Template Should Stay

  • Write your name underneath here if you believe the template should stay as in this version.

Oppose - The Template Should Go

  • Write your name underneath here if you believe the template should go as in this version The reason given by User:Klptyzm in the edit summary for wanting the template to go is: crufty out of the wazoo; reverted. A bit of WP:FICT as well.
  • Oppose Anybody with decent, if not minute, knowledge of the Wiki policies pertaining to this situation knows the article shouldn't be like this, and every editor who has edited the article since it was last AfD'd certainly knows that the article shouldn't be like this. I feel going through this process is completely unnecessary, as well. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 21:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with Klptyzm, the article should not be like this and is unnecessary. Your version also contains many small paragraphs and is very complicated which is not better than just having one entire section for each gang. I also oppose the infobox for the sole reason that it will lead other users to add unneccessary cruft which is a big problem for this article and one users who frequently edit the article have been trying to avoid recently. - .:Alex:. 08:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose I really can't add upon what was said above me. DurinsBane87 08:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Absolutely not, this goes against all established guidelines and procedures. Andre (talk) 08:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Further Comments

  • This might not be the best way to resolve something like this, but I feel that it needs to be resolved. Davnel03 20:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


Is anyone other than myself tired of TTN's anti-discussion attitude and his overall attitude? I'm tired of him taking bold to the level of boldly ignoring everyone who disagrees with him. And on top of that, he has this idea that if people don't constantly return to the talk page to restate their position on a merge, their opinion has either changed or doesn't matter anymore. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Er, that seems like a personal attack to me...or am I missing something here? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 21:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
This is how the user acts. And it isn't personal attack regardless - I am attacking his actions and attitude on his actions, not the user himself. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Link, you may want to be aware that there is currently a Wikiquette Alert against you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Try to resolve your issues with that user. Don't come here to try and instigate a bitching session. As for your second post, that's nonsense: you're not attacking the person but attacking their actions — like the two things are separate and the actions have no relation to the character of the user. Ashnard Talk Contribs 08:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

No priority - bring it back

So I decided that I am going to give everyone involved in this project indian burns until they cry and listen to my demands.

...Well, demand - bring it back!

  1. People argue that if something is of no priority, it shouldn't be here. Here are flaws in that:
    1. Generally, people view priority assessment as within the VG realm. It can be of high priority in some other realm, but no priority here.
    2. Priority just says which articles are of greater priority to make great.
  2. Being able to find articles with no priority also adds the ability to either reassess if possible or Prod/AfD it. Without them immediately visible, this is impossible.
  3. And the coup de grâce - people still use it. Just because we no longer acknowledge it as a part of article assessment doesn't mean everyone else got the memo. Having a separate category can only help in either changing these articles of no priority to low priority or to Prod/AfD them instead.

I see no reason why category creation would hurt that bad. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we should probably shift toward a more universal 1.0 viewpoint in assessing articles. Isn't that the point? Andre (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Not really. It's like determining which film should be put into a time capsule - we won't assess how important a film is versus how important the Declaration of Independence is. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Near as I can tell, other projects use no-importance for category and disamgibuation pages, to keep them out of the way of really-truly unassessed pages (example: Category:No-importance Olympics pages). After poking around a bit, I found Category:Non-article video game articles. It seems the CVG templates and categories don't get either class or importance categories, but CVG disambiguation pages (which are in article namespace) are categorized as unassessed-priority. To me, this is the proper, most common use of no-importance, and we should use it as such. Nifboy 06:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject merger

Due to a recent dispute at Talk:Air (visual novel) as to whether {{cvgproj}} should be included on the talk page or not, where User:A Link to the Past, User:Kariteh, and myself were involved, I suggest that Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual novels be merged into Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games as a task force. Why? Reasons follow:

  • Mainly due to a rather high overlap of WP:VN with WP:VG, even higher than the already apparent overlap at WP:Anime
  • WP:VN contains 161 articles under the project scope at last count
  • Nearly no discussion occurs at WP:VN, and the few discussions that have occured have not changed much at all. Such discussion would make more sense in a task force, and not something as large as a WikiProject
  • There are tons of WikiProjects that have narrow scopes and not many articles under their scope; this is an effort to remove at least one that is obvious to have both a narrow scope and not many articles

Please support or oppose the merger with reasons below.-- 21:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If there's no activity within that Wikiproject, then it won't matter whether it's a part of WP:VG at all. I wouldn't be against a merge, but if it's already dead, then VG will not inject life back into it. - hahnchen 21:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
That wasn't my concern, and it's not completely dead either; just in really low activity last I checked. I just do not want it to go away completely.-- 21:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me. Andre (talk) 21:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Sounds fine. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. Kinetic novels, like Planetarian, are in the scope of the VN project, but would be outside of the scope of the CVG project, due to a lack of even a minimal amount of gameplay. — PyTom 22:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Reply Even Planetarian started as a game that can be installed and playable on the PC, and then it was later ported to the PS2, so while it's more like playing a DVD, it still shares specific attributes akin to all PC-based video games if nothing else.-- 01:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Support The Wikiproject is dying already, might as well try to resuscitate it.--ZXCVBNM 23:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Support I support the move. All of the articles currently under the Visual Novel Project have as much gameplay features as, say, Radical Dreamers and Machi, the latter of which being listed as the number five game (read: not "program" or "software") of all time by Famitsu readers. I think its safe to fully classify them as such, especially since several of them appear in both Japanese and English game print magazines. Several visual novels articles are also already listed in our project's GA page due to overlapping content, despite not officially being part of the project. Juhachi is also one of the prime contributors to the project, and I'll support his reasons for moving as well. Nall 00:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Support - Whether or not these are games or art or whatever is a bigger debate, but the distinction is blurry. If it can be reasonably assumed that an average person could consider it a video game, it's in the scope. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 00:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - There is absolutely nothing to prevent multiple WikiProjects from running in cohesion. If they cover different subjects (not all VN are VG too) then a merger here would just make it more difficult to define Video games, and there are already problems with that (discussions above). Besides, there are a lot of active projects with less articles...the link in my signature points to one (not VG related, but same diff really). We don't need to create a merger that will only smudge our boundaries ever further to solve the "problem". Giggy UCP 02:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
not all VN are VG too - What definition of VG are you using then? If it can be installed on a computer, and playable on a multitude of video game consoles, then what more is there?-- 02:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
That definition now applies to DVDs and music CDs in addition to games, given the capabilities of today's consoles. If the content you're talking about is just a movie, then it's really not a video game. If it's an interactive movie, then we should pay attention to the purpose of its interactivity - branching storylines and "choose your own adventure" stuff qualifies as a game of sorts, but it's a bit of a fuzzy line between "movie" and "game" at that point, by traditional definitions anyway. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't a program specifically designed to run on a dedicated video game console automatically be considered video game-related by proxy? And a non-video game commercial program on a video game console is automatically more notable than a video game on the same console would be, by reason of using the system for something other than it was designed to do. Also, would the average non-expert person consider a DVD a video game? Not likely. But a visual novel? That is very likely, especially when it comes out on a console. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 03:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
To build upon that, a video game console was not originally designed to play DVD movies or music CDs; it's primary purpose is for video games. Planetarian is quite possibly a cross between a movie and a game, but it still shares enough attributes to be considered a game, and besides, there are only two articles that are considered "kinetic novels"; both found at KineticNovel, so that's not exactly a make or break deal. And besides, the only real difference here is a change in talk page banner. Now the WP:VG banner will be used with a subset notice to distinguish visual novel related articles, but WP:VN will still exist as a task force, so I don't see how it would be much different.-- 05:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - For the relations between the two projects there are still too many differences and conflicts to consider a merger of the two projects. If comments or members are low at the Visual Novels project maybe consider trying a recruitment or other ways to try to get members. This is not the way as some video game editors might not feel comfortable editing visual novels and there are just too many differences between the two projects for me to support a merger. Besides there are already enough issues to deal with, as seen above, over video games just over format, naming and other issues to consider adding visual novels to the mix. Xtreme racer 06:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Support Task force/ WikiProject, whatever you call the VN project, it can still operate in the same way it always has been. The only real difference would be sharing a banner. -- Ned Scott 08:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't mind taking them under our wing. Nifboy 08:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose: WikiProject Video games is already overextended. We should be splitting off articles, not taking new ones into the fold. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 16:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

So far, it would seem that the first two oppose votes are more or less invalid. To say that kinetic novels aren't technically video games when it was produced by a company that produces visual novel video games does not seem like a good enough argument to oppose this merger. And to say that not all VNs are VGs to me seems to be skirting the issue as I do not know of any VNs that would not be considered VGs in at least some use of the definition, even if the definition of what constitues a video game is up for debate, or so I hear.

The third oppose by Xtreme racer is more realistic, but I can still offer a rebuttal. You say there are many differences and conflicts between the two WikiProjects, but I do not see it this way. Would you be willing to clarify what these would be? And I believe recruitment at this point will not solve anything. WP:VN has been slowly gaining members over a six month period, and there's only 17 in the project currently, or at least 17 that have the userbox or category on their userpages. Personally, I have contributed to 10 out of the current 11 GA articles within the WP:VN scope, so I know what it takes to make a visual novel article GA status. Keeping WP:VN a separate project creates undue conflict between editors in WP:VG who want these articles to have the {{cvgproj}} banner and WP:VN that remains the only subproject related to WP:VG to use its own banner. Believe me, if I had realized it at the time, I would have started WP:VN as a task force, just as I am suggesting with this merger because right now the conflict on VN talk pages is there and it'll be sure to arise again in the future, so I'd rather not like to deal with something so trivial if I have to.

And it's not like VNs were always separate. Before the addition of WP:VN, all of those articles were under WP:VG, so it's more going to back to how things were, and back then things seemed to work a lot more smoothly than they have been going these past six months. Dicussion within WP:VN is needed, yes, but nothing's going to happen if there aren't enough editors that want to tackle the problems facing visual novel related articles. Will this merger solve that problem? Maybe, but I think that's a long shot. The main reason for the merger is to reduce conflict, and possibly get more interested editors if possible.-- 16:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Support Seriously, I don't care under what name the VN project is working under, since its function is the main concern. _dk 21:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - visual novels have less in common with video game than with anime/manga, considering there is very little "game-play" and far more reading. They are, in effect, a close cousin of reading subtitled anime on a computer - if a merger is to be made, rather than with the far larger video game project, the visual novel section would be moved back into Project Anime/Manga like with another cousin, the light novel. However, I would argue that, like manga (a sub-set of comic books), visual novels are a distinct, new type of media with roots in various other media, and therefore should remain as an independent project. Terek 07:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Question - Does the WP:VG usually vote at the creation of every task force? I think only people interested in joining the Wikiproject/task force, or the current members, should be considered on this topic. I personally consider this software a video game, but as I have no interest in joining this Wikiproject/task force, does it really matter? Thinking on it now I don't think this is the right way to do this. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Wait, I wasn't about to just merge this into another project without discussing it with the project it's merging into. That would have invariably created a discussion on if the project should have been merged or not, so I chose to start a discussion before rather than later.
And I don't think that the level of gameplay should come into play when trying to define these visual novels as video games. Shouldn't we be focusing on the fact that anything that has gameplay and plays on a computer or home console could be considered a video game? I guess I wouldn't be against making WP:VN a task force under WP:Anime, but it just made more sense to make it a task force under WP:VG.-- 15:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Task force for game genres

Sorta inspired by the issue of visual novels, I was wondering if there's any interest in forming a "CVG Genre Task Force". If you look at the pages linked of Video game genres, there's a drastic difference in quality of style and approach; some are mostly lists, while others are really good (Platform game is a GA, for example). I think a Task Force to help set common approaches for these articles can help a lot, including defining what should be in a genre article, helping to set up categories to avoid having to have lists and lists within article bodies and the like. And since there could always be potentially more genres in the future, this would help to set up guidelines for those articles. Any interest in such? --Masem 04:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Somehow I get the feeling that this would just further sub-divide the video game project and make things a lot harder for everyone or end up like the GCOTW as a dead project that had few members or involvement. Besides in games that can be defined in more than one genre then we still have a problem as then it wouldn't be just one project's focus and there would be potential for conflict. I believe it is better to keep things the way they are with task forces devoted to certain game series and to manufacturers not specific genres. Xtreme racer 06:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
That's not what I am suggesting - going that way would, as you say, splinter the CVG project too much. I'm saying that this task force I'm proposing would need to clean up the pages that describe what the genres are, and possibly including other general pages within CVG that don't fall within a specific game, series, or manufacturer's existing task force. These are the types of articles that someone that is researching CVGs in general will hit first and right now they're in a sorry state. --Masem 13:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sort of in favor of the idea, if only to have a centralized place to shuffle all the lame "zelda is an rpg" debates off to. That and our genre articles were in really bad shape last time I looked at them (after looking at a few, Adventure game isn't too bad, but the rest, eugh). Nifboy 07:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

URGENT. Fair use rationale needed on images by August 1.

I think the "fair use rationale" issue is a huge problem, as roughly 90-95% of the images I come across have the copyright boilerplate, but not the fair use rationale. Has this rule always been in effect, or was it instated within the last year?

Anyway, I'm new to adding this fair use rationale junk, but I'm trying to save as many images for NES games as I can from getting deleted. It's a tough job, but I want to be done by July 31 beacuse someone flagged a ton of images to get chunked on August 1. There's other consoles as well that are effected as well, but I just want to concentrate on NES.

There was one user, Tyan23, who contributed a lot of images years back, but ShakespeareFan00 is trying to undo all of it.

Sfan00 isn't the only one taking advantage of situations like these where an account was abandoned that had many, many images that were not in violation, but now are. Nominating all of these for speedy deletion is nonsense, especially when the guy isn't even there!

I think it should be a HIGH PRIORITY to protect the images that are already uploaded. Someone can swoop down and flag thousands of these in a day, and 7 days later, they'll be gone.

I hate having to add this completely redundant information hundreds of times, but at this point I don't see many others fixing this disaster in the making. A lot of articles, video game and non-video game related, are going to be outright ruined in two days, and many more in the future. SashaNein 17:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, fair use is not redundant, and ShakespeareFan00 isn't trying to undo anyone's work. It is important that Wikipedia be completely free of copyright violation, and Fair Use is an important part of that. People should not slap a generic "Fair Use" blurb on an image, it should be a rationale specific to the image and the article it is located on. If someone uploads a copyrighted image without providing Fair Use rationale then they are in violation of Wikipedia policy, and infringing on copyright. It should not be assumed that one screenshot or box cover is okay because all the others are. Please refrain from making derogatory remarks about someone who is trying to uphold Wikipedia policy in an area that others seem incapable of. Screenshots and boxart do add to an article, but they are not vital, and if you do not agree with copyright law perhaps you should contact your government representative.
However, I do agree that it would suck if these images all got deleted. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 18:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, this thing has been an absolute joke. If you see any CVG images without a rationale, then can you please fill it in. We've already had a shitload of good images deleted. This is especially true of older games and box arts, where finding replacement images isn't just as easy as going to Gamespot. - hahnchen 17:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Who administers this process? It seems that going to the Admin board and asking them to extend the time limit for providing the fair-use rationales is appropriate, given the large number of images needing the rationales.
If it's helpful, feel free to copy and adapt the fair-use rationales I've entered for:
These all have fairly generic information in them that seems to satisfy the fair-use criteria. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
They will not extend the grace period, there's already a massive backlog of these things so normally you have longer than date mentioned. This process has been ongoing for months. - hahnchen 18:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
These are usually removed by bots as opposed to human hands, I thought? I've recently seen articles marked for speedy deletion and exactly a week later, they're gone. I think there is something to be said that because of the large number of images and the short timeframe, pushing the time back a week to allow us to take care of it (because as noted, you can't just copy and paste FUR, you need to make sure to cite the right copyright owner, etc.), this won't be done in 48 hours or however long we have.
(Note that there IS the FUR template which can help outline what's needed for each picture, though... --Masem 18:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
What do you expect, some Wikipedia users are getting a real kick out of this as now people have to go through all of these images and put the rationale on them. I myself have had several images of mine tagged by ShakespeareFan00 just because the redundant rationale template was forgotten. I know that the Crash Bandicoot covers have been deleted and I am sure many more games and series have been affected. For know we are just going to have to get anyone that we can together, dig in and keep working away at this until we can get as many images as possible saved from deletion otherwise we may have a larger problem on our hands. I myself plan to work in the world of PlayStation game articles and will try to get the other task forces related to this project on board so we can stop this before it goes any further. Xtreme racer 18:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
If you want to get images undeleted, then contact an admin in the CVG space that understands the situation. It will not require DRV. It could just be simpler to reupload them. - hahnchen 18:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
On a related note, could an admin restore Image:Final_Fight_(flyer).jpg. As a piece of identifying art, the arcade flyer totally kicks the shit out of what's there right now. This image was orphaned and deleted the usual way, but I think it deserves its place as lead image of the Final Fight article. - hahnchen 18:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Restored, could you fix it up? JACOPLANE • 2007-07-30 18:51

I've mentioned this before, but I've placed boilerplate fair use rationales on Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Video Game Images that can be easily added to image description pages. JACOPLANE • 2007-07-30 18:49

Jacoplane: Are those boilerplate FURs sufficient to meet the fair-use rationale requirements? I've seen cases where custom templates were deemed unacceptable because they couldn't be parsed by the patrol bots and/or because they didn't include the right kind of information. Please confirm, and I'll start using those. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent again) I've taken care of a bunch of these images. Check out my list at User:KieferSkunk/Fair Use Log. I grabbed the references to these images from Category:All images with no fair use rationale, then also took care of detagging the related articles and FUR'ing other images within those articles. Hopefully this will help. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much for that. I'll try and finish T-Z for NES games by tomorrow night. S was a bit of a chore, as expected. SashaNein 21:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

More work done: All images beginning with C64, plus a bunch of related images. I noticed Coleco* images still need some work. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

furvg template available for use

Hey guys! I created a subst-able template to help with fair-use rationales: User:KieferSkunk/furvg - check it out. When you use this template with {{subst}}, it inserts the same sort of Fair-Use Rationale text that I've been manually inputting for the images listed in my Fair Use Log. This implements the standard Fair-Use Rationale template mentioned on the official WP policy page. If you want to use this for your task-force work, I think it'll help speed things up. :) I wrote some documentation to show how the various parameters work. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

That looks awesome. I'll be using this for the rest of my project. Thanks so, so much. SashaNein 01:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I have a bit of a problem with the template. Instead of just outputting straight text, the template is outputting other template code where I'm using parsefuncs - for example: {{#if|Atari 2600|Atari 2600}} instead of just "Atari 2600". This could be problematic. :/ Any idea how to fix that? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Still working on the technical issues, but I've expanded the template to handle descriptions for box art, and also for alternative purposes (comparing and showing examples, not just identifying a game). — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
You should add this to the video game images task force. JACOPLANE • 2007-08-1 23:17
If you feel it's of high enough quality, sure. :) And the technical issues are now taken care of. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) As per below, User:Jacoplane moved this template to {{vgrationale}}. Now it's even easier to use. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Assistance required: Rival Turf!

Please, please, please assist on the article on Rival Turf!. Comradeqsp keeps restoring inaccurate, nonsensical information to the article. Every time I revert the user's changes, the user reverts again and vandalizes some articles I have created, including one on the video game The King of Route 66. Please monitor these articles for changes and if possible, expand them with valid content. Cheers. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If you have a problem, message this user. I noticed on the user's talk page that you did not message him. I personally do not have enough info on the game or any authority to really do anything to help you out, but if this user keeps vandalising you can ask an administrator within this Wikiproject to block this user. guitarhero777777 04:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, there are already four vandalism warning on their User talk page. I have placed another in regards to Rival Turf! (as I looked at the history and Jtalledo is correct), but this editor's entire edit history appears to be vandalism, so I have listed them at Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
And now they are blocked. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Super Puzzle Fighter II Turbo HD Remix

please check out the talk and history for the main article. one person keeps Redirecting to another article and with only the two of us on the talk page it's obviously getting nowhere. I think it's perfectly valid to have a seperate article and preferable to not have the article as a redirect when the discussion takes place, but ALTTP keeps changing it so, there's nothing I can do about that except to make sure you're reading the HDremix history/talk instead of the normal one.BlueArcher 18:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and added MergeTo and MergeFrom templates to the affected articles, leaving the HD Remix article up for the time being. I called for discussion on the merge in the Turbo (non-HD) Talk page.
My personal opinion is to leave HD Remix in its own separate article for now since the preliminary reports are that HD Remix has quite a few significant changes to the game as a whole - it isn't just a graphical update. Since the game is unreleased, it seems to make sense to cite the preliminary reports from reputable websites - if, after the game is released, we find that it really isn't all that different from Turbo (non-HD), we can always renominate it for merging at that point.
The main point in merging is that we don't need or want two articles that say almost exactly the same thing, if we can avoid it. But it's unclear in this case, hence the merge discussion. Let's get more eyes on it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Starcraft-related articles need overall structure

I've just seen a proposal to delete article "Starcraft Prequel". After looking at several I think that: there's far too much duplication of content; in particular several of them contain lengthy plot and mission summaries; we need an overall structure for Starcraft-related articles, so that we can move content to appropriate places, reduce duplication and cross-refer between articles.

A tentative suggestion:

  • 2 separate articles for Starcaft (original) and Brood Wars. Concentrate on mission summaries, link to articles on backstory and characters.
  • Articles giving the history of each race up to the start of Starcraft (Terrans, Protoss, Zerg), plus one about the Xel'Naga since they "uplifted" both Protoss and Zerg.
  • Article "Starcraft Prequel", summarising the events immediately preceding the Terran-Zerg-Protoss wars and linking to more detailed articles where appropriate.
  • Articles about major characters, concentrating on biography and mentioning larger-scale plot elements only as much as absolutely necessary.Philcha 00:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
What you propose would have far too much detail. There's a StarCraft Wikia -- only an overview should be here at Wikipedia. Andre (talk) 00:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
There is also a guide at StrategyWiki:StarCraft, and we'd appreciate any information. Just tell me which pages to pull the info off, and I'll take care of the rest (preferably leave a note on my talk page). -- Prod-You 03:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Andre, I see what you mean - I've just checked the articles on Total Annihilation and Master of Orion II, 2 other mid-1990s games which still have an enthusiastic following, and they have just the one article (apart from links to articles about the developers, etc.).
Prod-You, you'll just have to follow the links, same as I did, since I'm not sure I've seen all the pages. Starting points: Starcraft, Zerg, [[Protoss], Starcraft Prequel. Please post a note on this page when you've finished the trawl.
I think the current Wikipedia articles should stay until both of: (a) Prod-You has finished trawling; (b) we have an agreed single article on Starcraft..Philcha 00:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I think there is a difference between StarCraft and these other games, in that StarCraft is still commercially available in generic retail outlets (i.e. stores with very few computer games) like Target (among others)[22], not just online but on the shelves. I'm sure people in this project understand the average shelf-life of games in these sorts of stores, and this game has been in non-game retail stores for almost 10 years (and the box still says Windows 95 or better). Also, StarCraft Ghost and StarCraft II are genuinely notable, and a few supporting articles will prevent overlap and help reduce excessive info in the pages. However, the articles now are too much. I would like to suggest a modified version of the above-mentioned restructure -
  • StarCraft - For StarCraft and Brood War, with the following Main articles:
    • StarCraft universe - Brief overview of the universe of the StarCraft games/expansions, including history and locations. Not necessarily listing every event or location, just the ones that have a distinct and unique influence on the games.
    • StarCraft expansions - The two authorized, and the one unauthorized (only one, right?), third-party expansions, focusing on how they differed from the original, critic/fan reception/response, and legal troubles.
    • Races in the StarCraft universe - Overview of all four races, brief descriptions of each.
    • Characters in the StarCraft universe - List-ish, self-contained, unless the characters are genuinely notable on their own (possibly Kerrigan?).
    • Books set in the StarCraft universe (Applications for better titles now being accepted) - Self-contained, unless a certain novel is genuinely notable on it's own. Again, focusing on impact on the StarCraft universe, as well as the real universe.
  • StarCraft Ghost
  • StarCraft II

Does this sound more reasonable? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like your opinion

Around the beginning of July, the Jak 3 article was tagged as having an inappropriate style to it. Since then, several people have worked to bring it up to an acceptible standard. I think it looks pretty good now, but I wanted the opinion of a discerning individual who works for Wikiproject Video Games. If it is acceptible, let me know so I have the guts to remove the tags. Thank you. Larrythefunkyferret 04:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The intro needs to be improved (and expanded). The plot summary also needs to be massively shortened as noted. Fair use needed - [23] [24] [25]. However, I don't think it needs the tone tag, since that seems ok to me. Fix up the other stuff though :) Giggy Talk | Review 04:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I've replied on the talk page. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't it have a "media reception" section? Just cite some reviews which can easily be found on Game Rankings. Ashnard Talk Contribs 08:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Help with merge

Hello. I have recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liero as merge all. However I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject to perform the merge myself so I'd appreciate it if someone from the project can take the time to do it. Thanks, Pascal.Tesson 00:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with soundtracks in music games

For the Guitar Hero series games, we've gotten one article through to a GA (Guitar Hero II), but one of the comments that we've since followed was that the inclusion of the soundtrack makes the article scope too broad and should be in a separate article. While we've done this, and there's definitely a good argument for doing this as the rest of the GHII article reads easier, there's another point that unlike, say, Metroid or Zelda where the music is mostly background music, the music in GH games as well as nearly every other music game is actually the core of the gameplay, and thus moving it to a separate page is removing one of the intents of the articles. We're debating this for the other GH games, but there's a couple ways to argue this:

  • For some music games that have a "short" soundtrack (PaRappa, Elite Beat Agents), moving the tracks to a separate article really doesn't affect the scope or size of the article, and makes for a rather short secondary article where it's not needed. But for music games with larger soundtracks (most GH games, Amplitude/Frequency, SingStar, etc...) there is a size issue. There's no fine line of when a track list is too large to be moved out from an article that I can think of, which makes determining whether to move such soundtracks out of articles difficult.
  • One could argue that for music games, the sound track is equivalent to a level list, and though while most lists of levels are not wiki material, they are for music games (eg they met the notability test); but even more so, because they are just "levels" one can argue they can be moved to a separate page without affecting anything on the main page since the gameplay section describes what happens on these levels on a generic basis.

I'm seeing if there's any input from other CVG members the approach that should be taken for music game soundtracks in general. --Masem 16:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

My opinions is that the song lists should be compiled into one article for the entire series. For example, List of songs in the Karaoke Revolution series. So I think we just need a List of songs in the Guitar Hero series and add the first game's soundtrack to it.--SeizureDog 20:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Discussed above -- see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Music games and their track lists. Andre (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Star Wars Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast is a FAC

After a couple of months' work I've put the article up for FAC. Please have a look at the article; any feedback will be greatly appreciated. UnaLaguna 12:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ bogus
  2. ^ bogus
  3. ^ bogus
  4. ^ bogus
  5. ^ bogus
  6. ^ bogus
  7. ^ bogus