Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 30

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 25 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 35


Some merging input

Before reading, understand that notability on this site is determined by the amount of non-trivial information verified by reliable sources. With fiction, the information required is out of universe information, so being popular in the games is not a factor.

I hope that message is not forign to people, but I really don't want to deal with that kind of comment. OK, so I need some input on a few merges, so I can just get a consenus and move on already. The first two are Goomba and Koopa Troopa. They have no real world information (people have looked and looked), and their content doesn't reach past a list enrty, so there is no reason not to merge them. The next one is Tingle who, despite being popular like those two, has no real world information to back the article up. TTN 17:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds perfectly fair to me. No references is no references, so I would support merging all three into the relevant "recurring characters" articles. Miremare 17:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the merges too per the reasons explained. Perhaps Tingle will have a separate article one day if Nintendo continues to make spinoffs with him and if these make him more notable as a character, but for now the two games that star him are really not enough (there are notable information on these two games, but none on the character himself). Kariteh 20:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty much for it as they are. However, I think that they could warrent their own articles if there were more information on their design and development, which I feel is the most important aspect of character articles on Wikipedia. Otherwise, it's just fluff. --SeizureDog 23:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
That's certainly true. People go for notable rather than notable. Troy McClure is a pretty good example of the latter, but not so much of the former (at least compared to other characters). TTN 23:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure? Goomba was once a featured article... where'd the rest of the article go? Andre (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
It was trimmed due to excessive game guide material, original research, and general fluff. Its featured article status was given during a much more lax time when dealing with content, and it was essentially removed because of the same reasons that it is being merged over. TTN 23:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
People REALLY need to reevaluate the definition of cleanup - is it improvement or just completely obliterating any not-good content and making it impossible for a passer-by to know that there was once content there for them to clean up? Don't call the act of highlighting and deleting "cleanup". It's just destructive and completely unhelpful to the improvement of the article. The only reasons one would do this is A. to validate merging and B. because the deleter honestly thinks that deleting content is a valid method of clean up, even though the content cannot be cleaned up if it's not there. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. If there is writing that should not be in the article, the only way to fix it is to remove it from the article. When people add weapons lists to games, rewriting it into a paragraph doesnt solve the problem. deleteing the list does. DurinsBane87 06:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. There's often entire sections that don't belong in our articles. --SeizureDog 06:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
If any content he removed was comparable to a weapons list, you'd have a point. Bad prose shouldn't be in an article, so logically, the best thing to do is just delete it? I mean, that's cleaning up, right?
If it's broken, fix it, don't just break it into a stub. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
If i don't have alot of specific information on a subject but see something that is clearly unacceptable, I see no reason why I need to spend hours researching it in order to justify getting rid of obvious trash. DurinsBane87 07:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Some things shouldn't be fixed because they shouldn't be there. It may seem like the article is been totally desecrated, but it should be done. It is wrong to think that this is the fault of the editor (who is deleting), and not the fault — or misconceptions — of the previous editors who added this inappropriate material. Ashnard Talk Contribs 08:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
So basically: It's good to make it virtually impossible for the content to have been improved? Where is the logic in that? In the toilet, I'd say. It basically FORCES editors to do a complete rewrite. Fun fact: It's a WHOLE lot easier to clean up content than to recreate content that was deleted. All TTN did was make editing a whole lot harder for anyone who didn't know that he removed the content. Anyhow, let's see all the completely and utterly unsalvageable content he removed:
  1. (their level on Bowser's totem pole) because no one on THIS planet could reference that.
  2. (Mario RPG weakness paragraph) Completely true - TTN made it completely impossible for anyone to find a source that states that. A professional review could state that, the developers could have said that, an official profile on the Goomba and its history could state that. But TTN has decided that those sources are nonexistant.
  3. (the whole paragraph on Micro-Goombas and Paragoombas) How is this warranting deletion? Is it original research to point out very common variations of Goombas? Or is it guide content?
  4. (the whole paragraph on SMB) Am I to understand that there's no encyclopedic value in stating their first appearance?
  5. (the grey Goomba paragraph) Very easy to reference - I remember reading it at a major web site.
  6. (the SMB3 paragraph) No encyclopedic value in stating the origins of several common Goomba variations?
  7. (the SML paragraph) Again, their appearance in SML is worth mentioning - they are decidedly different from their console versions like most enemies in it are (such as Koopa Troopas exploding after being jumped on), and the different name is worth mentioning and can easily be referenced.
  8. (the SMW paragraph) Their drastic difference in design and how they work (no longer "squishable") is certainly notable and can be referenced.
  9. (the SML2 paragraph) Their appearance in this significant game is certainly worth mentioning.
  10. (the SMW2 paragraph) Their appearance in this significant game is certainly worth mentioning.
  11. (the SM64 paragraph) Their first appearance in the 3D realm is very significant.
  12. (the SMS paragraph) The fact that this is the first main Mario game excluding SMBUSA to not feature a Goomba is notable and can be easily referenced.
  13. (Goomboss) Goomboss exists, should be mentioned, and any info about him can be referenced.
  14. (another Mario RPG paragraph) The fact that SMRPG is the first Mario game to feature "good Goombas" is definitely notable to the evolution of the enemy.
  15. (Mario & Luigi paragraphs) Their appearance in them is notable, and the fact that they have several variations is as well.
  16. (Paper Mario paragraphs) The various Goomba characters such as Goomba King, Red/Blue Goombas, Goombario, Goombella, and Professor Franky should be mentioned.
  17. (other appearances) Their appearance as an enemy in SSBM is notable - only a handful of enemies are in it, including Goomba, Koopa Troopa, Koopa Paratroopa, Like Like, Polar Bear, Toki, ReDead, and Octorok.
  18. (their appearances in Mario spin-offs) This warrants mention no less than it does in all of the other articles (Donkey Kong, Mario, Wario, Peach, etc.).

This is absurd. All I see is TOO much information. Removing entire paragraphs because there's some trivia, OR, POV, poor prose, etc. is SO lazy and destructive. The majority of the content that you deleted could be easily referenced (until it was removed), so I'm going to remove this absurd, destructive "trimming". If you want to trim, do REAL trimming. When you trim a beard, you don't completely shave everything off. - A Link to the Past (talk) 09:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Single game appearances are trivial for minor enemies. Do you know why? Because they contain nothing for an encyclopedia. We don't care about minute changes, minute attacks, minute roles, or anything like that. None of that helps build a reasonable article. A single game is mentioned only if that information is actually relevant to the development of the enemy. Kariteh is doing the right thing with Koopa Troopa (which is just essentially an expanded version of my trimming, even though he started from scratch), but there is still not enough real world information to support needing that level of detail.
That is the main problem. You can really just skip all of the other "This information is important." and "It's popular." arguments. Like I said above: Notability on this site is determined by the amount of non-trivial information verified by reliable sources. With fiction, the information required is out of universe information, so being popular in the games or having a lot of in-series information is not a factor in having an article. That's all. You need to find some shred of real world information for any of your arguments to even have a point. TTN 11:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
First, TTN please stop reiterating a modified version of our notability guideline, it undermines your more valid points. From WP:Notability "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Not all of the information on Goomba has to be notable, just the Goomba itself. The information just has to be readable, valid, and helpful to the topic at hand. This current expanded edition of Goomba is not helpful, for several reasons. First, if Goombas are "the most common enemies in the Mario series", then why is it helpful to list every game they have been in? It would be like the article on tires listing every car that has used them. When something is incredibly common, it is much more helpful to list where they have not occurred, and no great detail needs to be used to explain how much they weren't there. A list of variations is helpful to an article like this, but as it is variations are scattered throughout the article. As it is Name and Characteristics could easily be merged into the intro, Appearances can leave, and a (succinct) Variations would be helpful. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 17:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I have to reiterate it due to people not understanding it. People think notability means their view of it, which is not how it works. TTN 18:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
...Hi, I'm Earth, have we met? You've basically argued "it's better to have horrible coverage of Goomba's appearances rather than too much!" Your "ideal" version basically acknowledges only ONE game that Goomba has EVER appeared in. And the fact that you brought up notability for it having an article when we're talking about you destroying content shows that this is all about your merge attempts and you just wanting to turn it into a stub. And there's only one way to describe that - "vandalism". The fact that Super Mario Sunshine is the only game to not feature Goombas is not worth mentioning? The fact that Super Mario RPG CLEARLY describes them as the lowest ranking of Bowser's minions is not worth mentioning? What are you going to do, remove any mention of Mario having incredible jump from his article as well, even though this is claimed several times throughout the series? For Christ's sake, the very idea that your removal of all this content is valid is the biggest farce I've heard in a long, long time. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
And on top of all this, you have failed to make any sort of argument that would legitimize removing any mention of common forms of Goomba. Paragoomba has been in the series since SMB3 and has been a common enemy in the series. And on top of that, at what point is their inclusion in SSBM not notable? I get the feeling that you would fail at removing mention of the SSB series from the articles of other characters who have appeared in the SSB series, simply because there is worth in mentioning their appearance in it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
As I said, out of universe information needs to exist for anything else to matter. Show that before even bothering with content, or the amount and the type of content doesn't matter. It'll go on the list either way. TTN 18:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I freaking knew that you were vandalizing the article for the sake of merging it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
No, I was removing and compacting unneeded content due to it being worthless. I was also prepping for a merger, so it killed two birds with one stone. Please actually show some real world information instead turning this back on me in a strange manner. TTN 19:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I showed the need to NOT indiscriminately delete content. The fact that he was in Smash Bros. IS notable, regardless of your bastardization of what notability is. All you're doing is removing content to validate the merge. You're removing valid content just so you can merge, and because doing such a thing is absolutely destructive, it's vandalism. Do you think you'd get away with doing the same thing on Mario? - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I just told you that I am not arguing about the content until you can actually prove that arguing over it is actually necessary. To do that, you need to show that the topic needs an article. TTN 19:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Stop vandalizing articles to get them merged. And funny - I like how you said you won't argue about the content. Except for of course your response to my post where you DID argue about the content. You only refuse to argue about the content because you = wrong and are saying "if you can't give out of universe info, I'm allowed to trash the article!". - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I am trying to avoid going off on a completely pointless topic when the root of the problem is right here in front of us. Articles need real world information to exist. Otherwise, they are merged or deleted. First, we need to see if this article needs to exist. TTN 19:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
...So I'm going off-topic by discussing what I was discussing in teh first place? YOU were participating in the discussion over why content was removed. I refute that you have the ability OR the right to vandalize articles just becaue they have no out of universe content (besides merchandising). - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Please just address my point. I remembered that you don't back down easily, so I just want to get this over with. After you show real world information, I will get back to that topic. TTN 19:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that articles should have out-of-world references. However, I think that if there's article that someone has spent more than a small amount of time with to develop but lacking references, that there's some courtesy to put a warning like Template:In-universe/Video game to allow the edits some time to improve the article without just wiping out their work by being WP:BOLD. Obviously, there's some cases that can be speedily dealt with (one-liner articles about characters), but most other cases should be tagged to allow any active editors time to make the article out-of-universe. If after some time (a month or so), there's been nothing to address it, then certainly removal is fine. This is basically how WP:TRIVIA is handled, I see no reason why it should be different here. --Masem 19:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
There already has been a one and a half to two month merge discussion on merging all of the Mario enemies, including these two. No sources were found by anyone, and I also spent a good deal of time looking. Time is up. TTN 20:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
The first discussion was not a consensus, and the second one dismissed certain participants of the first because they were not present, an act which is not supported by any policy or guideline. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
That is in response to the out of universe information remark, not the merging. That is all that matters in this current discussion. TTN 20:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm talking about your general behavior and how it applies here. Please see The redirection of the Frank West article to "Dead Rising" despite a consensus to not merge just a month before (two other DR character pages were given the same treatment). I didn't say anything then because I thought that there was no reason for the Frank West article, thus agreeing that it shouldn't exist (as it was all in-universe details without references), and only noticed because other users were pissed off about it; however, the method by which the article was redirected (and not even merged) to the main game page is very abrupt - no reasonings given at all. That's why I'm saying that there has to be some period for people to be able to fix up their articles before a merge/redirect because of lack of out-of-universe info. It's not the question of making sure that out-of-universe information is used, it's the manner of removing existing content just because at a particular moment it lacked such information and thus unquestionably should be removed. Every article on WP can be improved to meet WP standards given time and editors - you just have to make sure that the editors are well aware such problems exist and give them opportunity to fix it. --Masem 21:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Due to the large number of pointless character articles, it is easier just to redirect first, discuss later. If something cannot be improved, tags are worthless, and merging happens if there is something that needs to be kept (not in that case). No, most fiction articles are doomed to lists. They lack the amount of real world coverage to make them necessary. TTN 21:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Could this dispute between two editors please be moved to their respective talk pages? I don't see how either editor can be seen to be acting in the best interests of the project if they continue to make the decision to litter the project talk page with this kind of bickering. If no balance can be found then perhaps it would be in the best interest of the project if both editors were to stop editing the disputed articles. Unless the point is really to show everyone how wrong the other person is, then by all means, let the cat-fight continue. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 19:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree - I was about to remind both TTN and Link of WP:CIVIL - this discussion is not only not going anywhere, but both editors are starting to attack each other personally. Let's keep it civil, guys.
BTW, Johnny, I've gotta say that the following quote by you above is the best argument ever. :) "First, if Goombas are "the most common enemies in the Mario series", then why is it helpful to list every game they have been in? It would be like the article on tires listing every car that has used them." — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you kindly, KieferSkunk. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 04:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
To only mention one appearance of the Goomba is absurd. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
To list every game in which the Goomba appears is equally absurd. My opinion is that it's appropriate to mention its first appearance (SMB1), the fact that it is nearly ubiquitous in the entire series, and to mention the one or two times that it has not appeared. All of that could be done in a single paragraph of prose. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Is it really that hard? To paraphrase "It first appeared in SMB. It's been a staple enemy, appearing in most games, with the notable except on blah blah blah. It was described as lowest class blah in SMRPG. Etc." Seems pretty straightforward to me. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 03:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to add (in reference to the point-by-point list that Link brought up earlier) that descriptions of specific iterations of the Goomba (like the Goomboss, micro-Goombas, Goombella, etc) would be more appropriate for the respective articles of the games in which they appear. General commentary about the Goombas' appearance and behavior is appropriate for an article about characters in the Super Mario Bros. series.
I do agree that there is somewhat of a grey area here, since Goombas have many different variations and have evolved significantly throughout the series. But I believe that if you were to move game-specific information to game-specific articles, the remaining encyclopedic prose would not constitute enough useful information to warrant a standalone article for Goomba. — KieferSkunk (talk) — (date lost because I forgot to sign my post.)
Being less informative is no worse than being more informative? I've never said "every appearance by Goomba". I said "every major appearance by Goomba". Am I to understand that it's not worth mentioning that Goomba was first made playable in Mario Superstar Baseball. The first playable appearance by Donkey Kong is notable, but not Goomba? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody besides ALTTP disagree with merging the three that I have mentioned at this point (as long as there is no real world information to be found)? TTN 18:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I do agree with the merging, but your reasoning upsets me. The information in the article does not need to notable, just the subject. The information just needs to be helpful towards an understanding of the notable subject. The information was formatted badly so as to make the article oversized and uninteresting. Instead of reformatting the information you've deleted it. Neither one of the two of you seemed interested in reaching a balance, just in getting everyone on your side. Personally, I feel that the deleted material should be replaced, then trimmed and reformatted, then merged. Also, Shroobs should be moved there too (not under Goombas, just the same list). ~ JohnnyMrNinja 20:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Article subjects are declared notable due to the information that it can possibly have at its peak state. The articles lack the required information, so they need to be merged unless somebody can show beyond a reasonable doubt that it is available. The information that I removed was not useful, and it was primarily removed to prepare for a merger (but it was not cut specifically to say "This is short, merge it." like Link is saying), so there really cannot be a balance, and nothing that I removed needs to be added to the current list entry. It is "Show the information, or merge the articles." TTN 21:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Whaaat. So if this is "ideal", then why isn't every single video game character article set up like this? Link, Mario, Wario, Kirby, Zelda, Ganon, they ALL mention the many appearances of them. Are you saying that Goomba is a different situation? That Kirby's can mention every single major game appearance, but Goomba can't mention more than one? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
The characters' involvement in the actual plot can be used to supplement the real world information, and it is actually relevant to the characters. These have no real world information, so any plot is unnecessary (as it would be for Mario if there were no real world information), and even if real world information is found, single game appearances for a generic enemy don't actually provide any substance. Only major, major, major changes need to be mentioned. TTN 21:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Several - you remember those silly little opposers in the several specific discussions you've held on these articles? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to make sure, besides Link, everybody here agrees that they should be merged, correct? If there are no objections, these should be redirected soon (as they are already merged). TTN 23:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I like how you basically state that if you don't participate in this discussion, your opinion is irrelevant. Fun fact: People opposed. You are blatantly aware of them. But since a second discussion was started which didn't include them, they don't count, and you just decide that they "no longer care about expressing their opinion", but you do NOT have the authority to make that declaration. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
All right you two, time out. Back to your corners.
TTN: I don't believe a consensus has been reached on this issue yet. As several people pointed out, the information in the original Goomba article was bloated, but was not necessarily delete-worthy. It could have been condensed, reworded, cleaned up, and a better effort made to reference it and bring it into real-world context. Link has a point that the first time the Goomba was made playable may be an important milestone in the character's history. Also, it may be appropriate to note special cases where the generic Goomba has been adapted into a specific character (for example, Goombella from Paper Mario TTYD). And in-universe information is not always bad - it is often necessary to refer to a character's (or architype's) role in a plot BECAUSE that's the only way in which that character is significant. There are still ways to do this in an out-of-universe perspective.
More importantly, you are being urged to take a closer look at the original content and see if there's a way to improve it - it seems a number of editors are not happy with the current state of the article, and merging it may not be appropriate at this time.
A Link to the Past: Please stop attacking TTN, and please stop taking this issue so personally. A Wikiquette Alert was already filed against you for the kind of bickering that is taking place here, and if necessary I will reopen that alert to deal with the Wikiquette issues in this dispute. You have a tendency to get pretty hot-headed, and unfortunately that's not helping here. I suggest you back off a bit and cool down, then come back to this discussion later and focus solely on the content.
Thank you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Sub-discussion on fictional writing

Before we even discuss content, real world information needs to be established. Otherwise, merging is the only option. I believe everybody except ALTTP believes that the article should be merged if none can be found (which is where I am drawing the consensus from), though it is disappointing to some, myself included. Believe me when I say that I have searched far and wide for actual information. The only things even close to real world information come from fan sites, fake interviews, or trivial places that don't really fall into it enough to bother. Other than that, the left over sources to look at would be in print, which certainly won't have much. TTN 01:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I guess I don't fully understand the heavy importance of "real world information" regarding a fictional character. Fictional characters rarely have "real-world" information, but that doesn't automatically invalidate their place in an encyclopedia. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The two relevant guidelines are WP:WAF and WP:FICT (read the proposal, as it will be replacing it pretty soon). A fictional topic has to assert that it is just more than a piece of the fiction. It has to stand on its own with little support from main topic. If it cannot do that, it has no reason to exist on its own, and it also fails WP:N and WP:V due to not having an acceptable amount of coverage from non-trivial independent sources. These sources have to depict real world information to be non-trivial and independent. Topics that cannot have this information need to be merged or deleted. TTN 01:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so this goes back into one area that is a real point of contention for me, personally: The apparent need to cite "reliable sources" for patently obvious stuff. For instance, describing the overall appearance of the Goomba: You can say that it is shaped like a mushroom, has two eyes and a mouth, and it walks on two feet and has no visible arms. That is completely true, but I doubt you'll ever find a "reliable source" that can back up this assertion - it's simply a fact. But given the current state of those particular policies, it seems that anything that can't be cited is automatically unverifiable OR and thus has no place on WP, and that in turn seems to go against common sense. I realize this turns the discussion into a policy debate, so I can't really say much more with respect to the article content, but I'm just voicing my opinion that this really doesn't make a whole lot of sense. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
My points have nothing to do with that. Stuff like that should probably be sourced, but it is fine to leave obvious things unsourced. Now saying something like "It has no arms, but it Goombas in Paper Mario can still lift objects." requires a source. I'm talking about having this stuff along with in-universe information to show that subject of the article is important. TTN 01:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, that example ("It has no visible arms but can still lift objects") can be supported by the primary source (the game itself), according to the WAF guidelines. WAF also mentions that you should use what secondary sources are necessary and useful to support the fiction. I'd question whether a secondary source is actually necessary OR useful in a case like that. Again, common sense. Now, if you made a more POV-ish assertion like "All Goombas are evil", you would definitely need a secondary source to back that up, as that implies a design decision that should be well-documented in interviews with the games' creators, if true. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
So what would be good out-of-universe sources? The game manual(s) are iffy, since (particularly for Nintendo games) they're written with in-universe perspective, but on the other hand, they are the most authoritative source on gameplay and character descriptions. Strategy guides (NOT gamefaqs, I'm talking like the Primo ones) which usually cover all the characters; they're definitely written more out-of-universe? Nintendo Power backissues (which goes back to the magazine archive task force?) It's sort of the same problem the E.T. article is suffering. When the game was new, I'm sure people talked about what Koopa's were and the like but written sources are rather hard to find at this point, but now a Koopa is taken for granted within any Mario game, so no one talks about what they are anymore at a serious level. I think there is appropriate out-of-universe information for all these articles and they don't need to be merged, given the depth of history with these characters, but just because we can't find that information right now doesn't mean that we need to merge right now. Once we define what are acceptable out-of-universe references, we then know what is never going to satisfy the needs for that and what will likely be able to be met, given time and indications of where OOU references are needed. --Masem 01:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I worded that wrong for my example. It doesn't really matter right now anyways. The point isn't to source anything in the series. To assert notability, information that details the pure development of the enemy in its design, personality, role, and other things (this is from creators and reliable "critics") is necessary. Information on how it has been taken over the years by reviewers and fans, how it has been referenced in media, and how it has impacted media is also necessary. Other things like mass media attention, and stuff listed on WAF also applies. None of that is avaliable for single enemies, but it is probably available for the enemies as a whole. TTN 01:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I see your point, but I still don't know how something as ubiquitous as a Goomba can be properly cited in OOU perspective when hardly any OOU documentation exists for it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion here. We're looking for OOU information (which, of course, would have a source), not just OOU sources for in-universe information. -- Ned Scott 03:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That's why it needs to be merged. That way, the in-universe information is fine due to the OOU info being covered by the enemies as a whole (like Characters of Final Fantasy VIII). TTN 02:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking at Discussion about writing about minor characters and it seems that they came to the agreement in that Fictional characters which are cultural icons transcending their appearance in a particular work of fiction, or who cannot be neatly tied to a particular work of fiction or fictional universe deserve articles of their own, regardless of other circumstances. Now, I argue for at least Koopas and Goombas both ways: Ks & Gs are strictly in the fictional Mario universe so they fail one aspect, but on the other hand, both are cultural icons that transcend just that universe (they are instantly recognizable outside of the video game). Of course, I do concede that they mention that Harry Potter fits this, Hermoine Granger does not though she should still get her own article. I think Ks and Gs fall on that same line. (Tingle, on the other hand...). --Masem 02:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

both are cultural icons that transcend just that universe (they are instantly recognizable outside of the video game)
[citation needed]? If we could attribute claims like this, we'd have something to write an article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Including that, the discussion is rather old, so it really doesn't reflect anything at this current point. Much has changed since then, including WAF being developed. It is all about following those two guidelines, WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS. These cannot do that at this point, so there really is no alternative to merging. The second that real information is found, they can always be brought right back. TTN 02:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Two points on which I strongly disagree with some views presented here.

  1. Sources do not need to be out-of-universe, and never have. The writing of the article needs to be out-of-universe.
  2. The subject needs to be notable to have it's own article. The information provided does not need to be notable, just verifiable and pertinent. Information that adds nothing to an article, no matter how verifiable, should be deleted.

"To assert notability, information that details the pure development of the enemy in its design, personality, role, and other things (this is from creators and reliable "critics") is necessary. Information on how it has been taken over the years by reviewers and fans, how it has been referenced in media, and how it has impacted media is also necessary. Other things like mass media attention, and stuff listed on WAF also applies."

TTN, this is not correct. Please read Wikipedia:Notability again. I quoted it for you above but you still do not seem to understand. Goombas are notable (51 hits on Gamespot alone [1]). A search for Goomba will land a ton of pages. All of these mentions might be minor or contextual, but they add up to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." It does not matter what sort of coverage it is, just that it is coverage. Please do not present people with a modified version of WP guidelines, and please stop telling us what options we do and don't have. I assume you do not realize that you are doing this, but I do not appreciate it.

Now that they have been shown to be notable, information on Goombas can come from anywhere verifiable, including the games themselves. So long as the information adds value to the article. Real-world context would be great, but is not necessary as Goombas are not real. They exist in games, and are notable in the context of games. Real world info is a plus. As long as the article does not imply that Goombas are real (which they are not), we're fine. Let's move on to how best to present this information to Wikipedia readers. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The games aren't sources. They're subjects. We can no more use them as sources for Goomba than Cat can be cited to my cat. Such writing would be original research. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Current policy (I forget which one, sorry) states that referencing games is perfectly OK. Giggy Talk | Delete 08:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I was always under the impression that citing games themselves was not acceptable. However, I have seen it done recently -- there's even a {{cite video game}} template -- so I'm wondering when and if this changed. Andre (talk) 08:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Apparently it must have. Featured article Final Fantasy X does it a lot and has no objections in its FA nomination. Some complaints were raised about their relative number (which was found to be acceptable), but not about using the game itself as a primary source.
Games seem to be a primary source like books, recordings and articles, and primary sources are expressly acceptable in WP:OR, with the caution that "anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source." ("Reads" is not to be taken literally, since the passage specifically mentions videos as an example later.) That's not a problem here, especially if the games are quoted. --Kizor 09:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Kizor has it right here, but also note articles shouldn't rely on such sources. Pokemon, ex-FAs Torchic and Bulbasaur in particular, started getting merged because there was almost nothing specifically about a given Pokemon except in plot summaries (e.g. pre-merge Torchic). Goomba and Koopa Troopa look a lot like Pokemon articles, I'm sad to say. Nifboy 09:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
That exactly correct. Primary sources can be used, but they cannot be the sole sources. There needs to be sources that prove that these are notable beyond the piece of media. Otherwise, the article is just a minor extension that should be merged. TTN 14:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Notable has nothing to do with sourcing. To quote Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Look, [here] is a third-party source. There are more but I do not feel like digging. As it is a Mario-themed site, it would not imply notability, but notability has already been established. This is just a source. Please stop referring to policy until you have a firmer grasp of it. Unless, of course, your intention is to deliberately muddy the issue until everyone thinks they agree with your viewpoint. If so, by all means continue. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 16:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
No, you are the one that is misrepresenting it. Notability is established by the possible sources that the article can have in its peak state (allowing articles time to establish notability). These sources have to contain information that asserts that the topic is notable. People, bands, events and the like have to be established in a wide spectrum to be declared notable. This is the same with media and any fictional subtopics. This concurs with WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS. TTN 16:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, TTN, but you're describing verifiability, not notability. I'm with Johnny on this one - a topic can be very noteworthy and not have much published information on it. WP's policies try to strike a reasonable balance, but evidently there's some room for misunderstanding here. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
No, it's notability. I mean, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." is pretty clear that something that has received no coverage is not notable here. This site only bases notability off of the use of outside verifiable (N builds of of V) information and sources. This is reflected in WP:N#Notability requires objective evidence.
The actual definition of noteworthy doesn't apply anywhere here as it is too limited to personal perspective. How do you actually say that something is notable? You have to prove that the masses recognize and respond to it. Saying, "Mario is popular, so Goombas are popular" cannot actually do that. Having sources that give things like "Goombas are icon due to X" does actually show that. TTN 22:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
And yes, the games are verifiable. But are they non-trivial or independant in the scope of the world? No. TTN 22:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, verifiability and notability are more closely intertwined than I thought. Still, we're in a grey area here: Goombas don't get much press because they are lower enemies in the Mario games. But they are instantly recognizeable to almost everyone - very few people who have even a passing familiarity with video games in general will not recognize a Goomba when they see one. (People who have never played a video game probably wouldn't know what one is, but that's part of why we describe them.) Yet, whenever anyone talks about a Mario game, the main characters (Mario, Luigi, Peach, Bowser, etc.) get all the attention. So in terms of notability, it really is a grey area since you can argue both sides of the issue and be technically correct on both.
As I was writing this response, I realized what your point was: You're right - recognizeable as Goombas are, there isn't much information about them that isn't really relevant outside the individual games they appear in - a one or two line description about their rank, status and appearance is probably all that's necessary to adequately describe them. They may be well-known, but I think you're right in them not being "notable" by the strict definition - Goombas are ubiquitous, but they rarely take center stage. And specific cases where a single Goomba does (again, I cite Goombella) would make it more appropriate to create an article specifically about that character than about the overall species. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I would not make a separate article for such a character. For both times there's been a named Goomba (PM games), it's an assistant character, so would end up as a part of a brief character list, wikilinking that such and such a character is a [[List of Characters in the Mario Universe#Goomba|Goomba]]... Unless a game came along that made a Goomba a major character, I would think that you'd want to avoid creating a special page for a secondary character. --Masem 22:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources can be used for content that isn't synthesis. So, using a game for an article on that game for, say, the name of the game or a plot summary that reflects the form of the game's plot, that's fine. However, when you start cherrypicking bits of plot (or just things you noticed) from many games to create a new plot summary, or a profile on a character, or other synthesized or conclusive claims, you have problems. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Man In Black: Here's a question, then: When describing a Goomba's rank or status in Bowser's chain of command, or describing its general behavior, you're very unlikely to find OOU sources with OOU information on this. But there's lots of information about this within the whole series of games - Paper Mario and Super Smash Bros. both contain lots of in-game information about Goombas, and you can argue that this information is verifiable because it comes from the games (and thus from the developers). It doesn't explain why the characters were designed that way, but making a factual assertion about its rank, appearance, behavior, etc., CAN be backed up by using the game as a source. Is this not the case? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

So are you all set with merging at this point? If there is common ground, that's all that matters. TTN 23:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been convinced. I think the other editors who've been involved in this discussion should weigh in before a decision is made, though. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 14:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I think I'm good with it now. Given how heavy some of the CVG coverage is on WP, we may need to go through and give several several pages this same approach. The only caution I have is that in a very short time from when the merge goes, you're going to have a new editor come along and create a new Goomba page, and you're likely going to have to police that heavily unless you get protection on it (and even then, I wouldn't be surprised if they try other variations (eg "Goomba (Mario series)") as well. I strongly suggest we restate the conclusions of this, even if they are parroting WP:FICT in the CVG MOS, using Mario vs Goomba as a specific example of when individual character pages aren't needed. --Masem 14:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

So... Are we ready to go ahead at this point? TTN 19:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

TTN, a word of advice: Please don't keep pestering people every day or two like that. It can be really annoying. That said, I'd say you're clear. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, there isn't anything else to do. Just merging them wouldn't work, and nobody is actually going to come in and say "I think this is over." when nobody is actually discussing anymore. Anyways, here it goes. TTN 20:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd say from the discussion above, we started to come to an agreement, and the people who had arguments against merging either changed their minds or dropped out of the conversation. (I hope Link doesn't think that my "stop attacking TTN" comment meant to stop participating in the discussion.) Keep in mind that consensus discussions sometimes take a little while, since not all editors can respond quickly. Also keep in mind that you can be bold - if it looks like the discussion is likely to end in consensus and you've given it a reasonable amount of time, you can go ahead and make the edits you want to make. My point is, you came across as going "Can I merge it yet? Can I merge it? Huh? Can I can I?" At least, this is my opinion - I can't speak for the other editors in this discussion. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The fact that they take a while is why I need to check in with people. If I just merge them after only a couple of days, someone may be all offended or something (That always leads into a little side discussion like this) .In a normal merge discussion, that's fine, but having brought this here, I need to make sure everything is all set. Plus, this is only the second time, and the first time I definitely saw that there was a consensus to merge (that suddenly broke down for some reason). Anyways, I doubt this discussion needs to continue. TTN 21:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not completely convinced that a merge for Goomba is necessary. For example, it would be possible to source the existence and notability of the Goomba from published sources, like Nintendo and third-party player's guides, books like How to Win at Super Mario Bros., a book in print since the 1980s I believe, or i am 8 bit, an art book featuring Goombas, or Creature Features: The Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror Movie Guide, which discusses the Goombas in the SMB movie. Andre (talk) 20:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The same goes for Koopas -- a simple Amazon "Search Inside This Book" shows several book references. Andre (talk) 21:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
You'll have to show that those are useful. At face value, there is only game guide material and cruft. Even then, more than a paragraph has to be available. TTN 21:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, now we're getting into "how much OOU information is available?" We could argue that one to death. External sources are not automatically cruft. Andre, a few paragraphs up, there were some good points about the fact that Goombas in general are minor characters that can be adequately described in just a few sentences, and notable Goombas are probably best described in a Characters section or "Characters In" article for the specific game(s) they appear in. I'm good with that at this point, but still open to discussion about it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
There's something to that, but I think Goombas are meaningful in general. Andre (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Since when does "more than a paragraph [have] to be available"? That sounds like a made-up rule to me.
  • In the Nintendo Power Paper Mario player's guide, on p. 104 it says "The cannon fodder of Bowser's army, the familiar Goomba is among the smallest and easiest enemies."
  • In a 1987 Nintendo publication called "How to Win at Super Mario Bros.," it says on p. 12 "Little Goomba: These are the 'baddies' that betrayed the Mushroom Kingdom. They go for MARIO in a straight line, and are easily trounced with one attack."
That's just what I happen to have nearby. From just a little bit of text, we can source a lot of statements. I don't think a proper search for references has been done. Andre (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
That is in-universe information backed by independent(?) sources. While that is good for an article, it doesn't define one. You need real world information (see WP:WAF). TTN 21:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
So give me an example of what you mean by real-world information. The development of the Goomba character from behind the scenes? Andre (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, anything from the creators on the development of the single enemy character, comments from critics/professional reviewers/whatever on the actual enemy character, any sort of media coverage on the actual enemy character, and stuff like that. That kind of information doesn't apply to the single enemies, but it should apply to them as a whole, thus the reason for merging. TTN 21:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Not every item in a list has to have real-world information; there just has to be enough available as a whole to show that the topic has more than just fictional material. If a list can't have more than, say, a couple paragraphs of real-world information spread throughout, then it doesn't show real-world notability, and should be merged even further. Naturally, there is the occasional exception (things like the pokemon lists). — Deckiller 22:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, that's the one policy I have an issue with. It's very difficult to discuss fictional topics in an OOU perspective at times. The policy as written says that you should write like: "The plot of this game follows X, who is a Y and does Z..." -- at some point, you're going to step back in-universe just to describe the plot, because you can't keep going "According to the game, ... in this chapter, ... Nintendo Power says... etc.". It seems to me that if you're in a clearly marked "Plot summary", "Synopsis", "Character Description/History", etc. section, you should be able to write in terms of the universe set forth by the article's intro, which SHOULD be clearly OOU. But the policies and guidelines seem to say otherwise. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
You don't have to say "According to the game, ..." everytime. However, you should say stuff like "One hundred years before the events of the game, ..." instead of "One hundred years ago, ...". Kariteh 08:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Plot chronology is relatively easy. Let me use another example: "Samus Aran was raised by the Chozo, an ancient bird-like race..." - in her article, the lead clearly establishes that she is a fictional character and the protagonist of the Metroid series. But how do you write her description and history in a strictly OOU perspective? At some point, you have to describe her and the universe around her in at least SOME in-universe perspective - otherwise, it just doesn't flow and it doesn't make sense. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

ALTTP has decided that this discussion is completely void, and has reverted the redirects. He cites that there is past opposition like he did in the first place, but they have no substance to add to this. It's mainly just a way to get around this, though. Now he has just gone on to stating his own reasons to keep them (the larger paragraphs here). I have been advised to start an RfC or use some sort of mediation, but that won't really accomplish anything. Does anyone have some thoughts on this? TTN 19:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't see any consensus to redirect the two articles in question. It seems that there's still a lot of discussion going on as to whether that is the way to go. I'd suggest leaving them alone and moving on. 21:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. We do not have consensus either direction right now. We have a couple editors (including myself) who are okay with a merge, but we have other editors who still disagree with it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, TTN, don't be so quick to say that an RfC won't accomplish anything. RfCs are meant exactly for this sort of debate and lack of consensus - it gets more editors involved to provide an outside perspective. I think you should try it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Unless I'm mistaken, isn't it just Andre and Link? As they haven't given anything groundbreaking and there are enough people on the other side, there really is no need or way to continue (unless you're feeling compelled by their arguments or something). Otherwise, its just going to be "This is good enough." and "No, it doesn't actually show anything." over and over.
The RfC reccomendation was for ALTTP, not this discussion. The ones for discussions bring about mixed results, but ones for users never actually change anything. TTN 22:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, then I am officially recommending an article WP:RFC for this content discussion. An RFC/U against ALTTP may be useful IF you or other editors believe his behavior is out of line. I will withhold comment on that. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
If you want to, go ahead, but I really see no reason for it. Do we have a lot more than two active people that are against this? I believe we have at least ten people that agree with merging, which is certainly enough to declare a consensus. TTN 23:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I've only counted two or three people who've expressed agreement with merging, other than yourself. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I guess if you want only people that directly stated their opinion, it is only five counting me and you. I'm also counting the people whose comments definitely lean towards merging (as this is a discussion we don't need actual votes, only a certain flow). TTN 23:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
As I stated before (and more recently on your Talk page), I don't believe a clear consensus has been reached, and at this point I think restarting the discussion with a short summary of what's been said so far would help. Maybe calling for a vote as well. Right now, we have a HUGE discussion with several digressions that are likely not helping the matter. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Just a note to everyone: I'm bowing out of further discussion on this topic. I've said my piece, and TTN has made it clear he intends to keep pushing and pushing as long as he believes he's right. I don't agree with this attitude, regardless of my opinion on the content, but there is little more I can do at this point. Good luck working out the rest of this discussion. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I've never actually bowed in to this discussion, mainly because I feel that this debate is beyond the scope of any one WikiProject. It seems to me that such merges affect all fiction related areas of Wikipedia, so discussing this here doesn't make much sense to me. Look at all the articles on List of characters in the Harry Potter books... I'm pretty sure that almost none of those articles have any out-of-universe information. If you really want to get a Wikipedia-wide debate on this issue started, I would recommend merging those articles. Harry Potter-related articles are the most viewed articles this month, so anyone who proposes mass merging of the character articles will draw a lot of attention. I think that this discussion on this talk page is obviously not going anywhere, so I suggest widening the scope to include more of the community in the debate. JACOPLANE • 2007-08-12 00:14
We already have WP:FICT to take care of that part. After that, it is up to the editors of the article to determine how to apply it. There isn't any other way to effectively do it. I'm certainly saving the big stuff until the rest is under control. TTN 00:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

(←) I've put a request for input over in the talk page for WP:FICT. This is the policy we're having issue with in how it applies to these two articles, so they're going to have the best input on it. --Masem 00:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Likely the Deckiller will be the only person to respond, and he has already chimed in up above. TTN 00:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Please just let things happen, TTN, and stop trying to force them through or predict how they'll turn out. That is discouraging discussion, and it's one of the reasons I'm fed up with this dispute, quite frankly. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll repeat what I said on WT:FICT: Finding sources might be hard, but I suspect they exist. Reasonable potential should always be considered, and with that in mind, I wouldn't say they fail WP:FICT. They might both need some trimming, but that's it's own thing.
So cut some cruft, keep looking for sources, but keep them as articles. -- Ned Scott 05:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Oops, I thought we were talking about Koopa. -- Ned Scott 06:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I stopped reading this discussion as it bored the crap out of me. TTN, I have supported a merger of Goomba from the beginning, but I disagree with your reasoning. I support a merger of Goomba because it is not likely that enough information is possible at this point to justify an interesting and readable "Main article" split from "List of Mario enemies", no matter how many sources found, or how notable it is. A merger would be the best way (of the two options), to present the information, and to prevent the topic from getting weighed down with trivial mentions.

I do not support the merger of Koopa Troopa. To be honest I think the topic could be much better served by being moved to Koopa, and being used to describe the whole Koopa race (which it already starts to).

I couldn't care less about Tingle.

Please do not view your persistence as a consensus. If a consensus is reached, let someone else call it. Until such time, please remember that there's a great-big-Wikipedia out there, just begging to be improved.~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Sooo... What is going on with this? This is one of the reasons that I have to be pushy with this stuff. It just dies otherwise. TTN 23:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Since this seems to be the never ending thread, it would be nice if those involved in the discussion could indicate when this thread can be archived. Perhaps it is a good idea to make a concise summary of the current arguments and views and start over at the bottom? I don't think any newcomers are going to read through this entire thread and jump in, so the discussion here seems to be limited to a few editors. JACOPLANE • 2007-08-17 23:39

I suggested that idea several times. :P (Okay, apparently I didn't on this discussion page - did to TTN directly, though. Sorry!) Personally, I consider my portion of the discussion over - I've raised my objections about TTN's aggressive merging practices, but otherwise have no objection to merging Goomba at this point. (Much ado about nothing, really.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

External link checker

Getting some use out of my tool. So here are the external link evaluations for the active task forces:

  1. GREEN are status link, typically redirects, tend to work fine if left.
  2. YELLOW are warning for the link.
  3. BLUE indicated the problem is remote.
  4. ORANGE, these are links in need of attention, there status has been elevated using heuristic detection.
  5. RED, the server sent back a 4XX message, indicating a dead link.

I've programmed in a javascript enhancement (only tested on Firefox) that has build in searches that can recover ~20% of dead links. It also provides an interface to submit those changes to WP. If you find a link that shouldn't be listed at the read/orange levels or the other way around please notify me. —Dispenser 19:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Christ, so much of Frank Klepacki is 404ed. Here's hoping there are Wayback replacements. I'm glad I made the article when I did... 06:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed the GTA3 missing item - X201 09:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

List of Cardfighters Cards

Could someone with an interest in SNK vs. Capcom: Card Fighters Clash please take a look at List of Cardfighters Cards. This list would be simple enough to complete, to an interested party. I have prettied it up but know nothing of the game itself. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 20:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Link (The Legend of Zelda)

Link (The Legend of Zelda) has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --carelesshx talk 21:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

An obvious concern is that the lead image is rationale-less (new word?) and is about to be deleted. How could this not have been addressed if your nominating it for FA review?Ashnard Talk Contribs 21:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
No, this is a review, it was featured long ago. It might become unfeatured. Andre (talk) 21:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
My thoughts on the matter still apply. Sorry for the mistake. Ashnard Talk Contribs 21:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
FURG added to the image. I really don't see any other (controllable) problems, see my comments at the FAR. Giggy Talk | Review 22:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Of course, that doesn't change the fact that it's an inappropriate image for the beginning of the article, as it is not his most commonly recognized form, nor his most current. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 00:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

(<--)For a character who has gone through so many phases, which is his most commonly recognised? Giggy Talk | Review 04:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Perchance his initial appearance or his Twilight Princess appearance? The hand-held cartoonish Link seems almost like a separate character. The most logical seems to be his Super Smash Bros. Brawl appearance. I don't know if it makes sense to anyone to use an out-of-series appearance as his default, but Nintendo makes the SSB characters look their most recognizable because they are making an out-of-series appearance. In a Legend of Zelda game they can make Link look like whatever they want (and have), but in SSB he has to look as much like "Link" as possible, so people looking at SSB Link never think "Is that Link's nephew?". Thoughts? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Johnny's assessment on SSB appearances, and I'd say that also applies to Mario, Luigi, Peach, Bowser, Yoshi, Samus and Kirby (and to a lesser extent, Fox McCloud and Falco Lombardi). Nintendo has evidently taken great pains to make those models look as much like the definitive characters as possible, and at least from my own experience, it worked - I instantly recognized the characters and would have no trouble recognizing them without text. While I can say the same for most of the in-series appearances of those characters, Link does have some ambiguity throughout the series, and someone looking at his Windwaker appearance for the first time might not recognize him at all, since his appearance is so radically different from other games in the series. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 07:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

{{Vgrationale}} / fair use rationale

User:KieferSkunk has created a nice little template, {{Vgrationale}}, that greatly helps with adding fair use rationales to images. See the template documentation and Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Video Game Images for details. We really need to move on adding the rationale to all images since there is such a large push to delete all non-free images that lack any. JACOPLANE • 2007-08-5 21:12

Is there a list of video game images needing a rationale, or do we just have to find them? Giggy Talk | Review 00:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
The Grand Theft Auto task force has been listing images here. Perhaps it might be a good idea to do this sort of thing for all images that fall within the scope of this WikiProject. Perhaps we could add something to the {{cvgproj}} template as a parameter like "rationale=yes" to indicate that a rationale is needed. These images could then be categorised and we could tackle this problem collaboratively. JACOPLANE • 2007-08-6 00:11
Or, we could just create a category, say Category:Wikiproject Video games images requiring fair use rationale and start tagging images with that. That should be easier. D'oh.. JACOPLANE • 2007-08-6 00:14
Why tag images with a "needs FURG" tag when you can just add the FURG? I'm all for just doing it, rather then even more tagging ;) Giggy Talk | Review 01:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, you did ask for a list... JACOPLANE • 2007-08-6 01:44


Hello, I'd like to work on CVG articles. The first thing I noticed is the inconsistent titles, such as Railroad Tycoon series, RollerCoaster Tycoon (series), and Zoo Tycoon franchise. Is there a standard naming convention for these? Would anyone object if I renamed these articles to be consistent? --Cvgjunkie 00:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The standard is "(series)" and yes, please do fix them.--SeizureDog 00:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I can't move anything yet. I'll have to wait a few days. --Cvgjunkie 00:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Since you're a new user and can't do that for a couple days, I've gone ahead and moved the two incorrect ones to Railroad Tycoon (series) and Zoo Tycoon (series) --Masem 01:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey thanks! But how will I get my edit count up if you keep doing things for me? --Cvgjunkie 01:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't edit for the edit count. This isn't a contest.--SeizureDog 01:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Just kidding :-). --Cvgjunkie 01:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to assess articles, is there any guide to assigning importance levels? --Cvgjunkie 01:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Assessment#Assessment instructions. However, I would recommend that you refrain from doing any assessment until you've become a little more familiar with Wikipedia and in particular the policies and guidelines regarding this WikiProject. JACOPLANE • 2007-08-6 01:18
Assessors are always welcome at VG Assessment as the rate at which articles are assessed is quite low.
Before I started to assess and peer review articles I gave myself some experience by getting a couple of articles up to GA myself. Getting such experience makes it even easier to see what's wrong with articles and what could be improved. I'm not sure if this applies to all other assessors/peer reviewers (you could probably learn the same things by looking at assessments, which would take a lot less time), but I'd recommend going through the process of bringing an article up to a high standard yourself. UnaLaguna 06:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
This is not my first account; I have indeed contributed substantially towards several GA's. I have also done a great deal of assessment work for other projects. Mostly I just need to get a feel for importance levels in this project. I couldn't find any explicit description, but I can certainly browse around the assessed articles. Oh, does 'A' require a project-wide peer review here or can I assign it myself? --Cvgjunkie 06:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Mall Tycoon series

Mall Tycoon and Mall Tycoon 2 are very short, would anyone object if I merged these two into a new article, Mall Tycoon (series)? --Cvgjunkie 01:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No, Mall Tycoon (series) should be created seperately. We generally have an article for each game, and one for the series. For an example, see Age of Empires Series; we also have Age of Empires, Age of Empires 2, and so on... Giggy Talk | Review 01:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I can do that too, but I ask because it looks like Railroad Tycoon (series) was created by merging some short articles together, if you look at this version you will see infoboxes and screenshots for two games that look like they were merged in, and there are no separate articles for those games. --Cvgjunkie 01:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, yes, I misunderstood. By all means, include info from the two separate articles, but don't redirect them or anything. Sorry :) Giggy Talk | Review 01:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (Atari 2600) for FA

It's been over a year since I first pushed for this article to make featured, and I never was able to pull it off. It's apparently a lot harder to write an FA article for a really bad game than a really good one. Anyways, I obviously can't seem to do it myself, so I would like someone else to polish it up and try to get it featured. All the information is already there, it's just the little things that keep holding it back. Little things that I'm apparently blind to. So...any takers?--SeizureDog 07:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Would it be wise to throw it in the FAC queue and then see what comes up and let others (ie myself) help to fix those edits? I looked through the last FAC comments and it seems you got most from the Jan 07 one. --Masem 14:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I did some edits. Take a look and see if you think they helped. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 17:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Looks good. I rewrote one sentence ins the beginning as well. It gets a bit tiresome to hear E.T. blamed for the crash when Atari's financial problems and that of the industry began before it. --Marty Goldberg 19:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I would say that the Gameplay section should be condensed somewhat. There's a lot of info in there that may be too specific for an encyclopedia - might fall under game-guide material. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Good point. I welcome you to try your hand at it. Atari 2600 games are tricky because they're so simple that it's easy to be too general (and have only a sentence or two) or too detailed (and still be able to desribe every aspect of the game in under a page).--SeizureDog 23:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I tried my hand at cleaning the gameplay section. It should be expanded to give a feel of what these screens are supposed to be, and sources should be cited for it. After that, it can probably be expanded and rearranged as needed. TTN 00:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, TTN - I actually also worked on it at the same time, and we ended up hitting an edit conflict. I condensed it a lot more, though - removed mostly game-guide material and kept it to a general synopsis. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and nominated it. Comments welcomed of course.--SeizureDog 23:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Manual of Style

I've started a Manual of Style article that I hope to have eventually moved out as our main MoS for video games. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 12:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

How do you see this being different from the current guidelines ? JACOPLANE • 2007-08-6 12:24
I agree. The "VG MoS" is redundant with the guidelines and the main MoS. I don't mean to devalue your work, CyberSkull, but I believe this should be speedy-deleted. If you want to change some things in the main guidelines, please feel free to take up discussion on those changes either here or on the Guidelines Talk page. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Just redirect and merge what's not already in our guidelines. Andre (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and did this per this discussion, though I do have to admit to feeling a little guilty that CyberSkull hasn't had much of a chance to respond to the discussion yet. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Multi-platform releases in one article

It is my belief that if a game is released on multiple platforms under the same title (unless the games are completely unrelated, like and WWF Superstars (Game Boy) and WWF Superstars), these games should be contained in the same article, even if gameplay is significantly different. Also, updated versions of a game (such as Gold or Collector's editions) should be included in the main game article, unless differences are so great as to make the game unrecognizable. It is a simple matter of explaining the differences. Is this a guideline, and if not can it be? I started thinking about this after taking a look at the vastly overpopulated Category:Rayman. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This was discussed about a month ago. The status quo is what you describe, all versions into the same article unless there are major (with major meaning more than just better graphics, sound or extra levels) differences that warrant a separate article. - X201 07:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I redirected Rayman 2: Revolution. All the necessary information was already in the main article. Rayman Gold and Rayman 10th Anniversary should also be redirected. --Mika1h 12:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The Nintendo DS and Game Boy Advance versions of Rayman Raving Rabbids should be merged together, as they are a completely different genre to the Wii and PS2 versions. Rayman 3's GBA article can be merged. The Nintendo DS version of Over the Hedge should be separate, at it is noticeably different in genre to the console games, and is noted as having greater reception. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Bad faith AFDs?

A three day old account (Mayor_mike_haggar) has nominated three articles for deletion and by a staggering coincidence all three just happen to be about videogame journalists. What's the process for reporting suspected bad faith AFDs? - X201 11:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI? Unless you think it might be a sockpuppet, then that goes to WP:SSP. --Masem 12:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Talk to him first. Tell him what he's doing is wrong. WP:AN or WP:ANI (I forget which) if he persists. Giggy Talk 02:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Fire Emblem naming crisis... again

Basically, Fire Emblem: Fūin no Tsurugi has been moved by an editor to its English translation, Fire Emblem: The Sealed Sword. Please note that this is a rough translation and there are other possible interpretations of the Japanese title. This game was never released in the West or had any notability in the West, so should it really have the English title? I think not, but I may be mistaken. So, I just want to know from people who will know. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 16:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

As the one who made the move (two moves, one under Sealed Sword and one under Sword of Seals, both since reverted), I simply felt that the naming conventions supported this. Specifically- If a native spelling uses different letters than the most common English spelling (eg, Wien vs. Vienna), only use the native spelling as an article title if it is more commonly used in English than the anglicized form.

If you are talking about a person, country, town, film, book, or video game, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article... Using a Google test, Fire Emblem: Fuuin no Tsurugi (the current name) nets 15,700 hits. Fire Emblem: Fūin no Tsurugi gets 18,100 hits. Fire Emblem: The Sealed Sword gets 161,000 and Fire Emblem: The Sword of Seals gets 309,000. Taking it to Yahoo, I get 9,910 hits for Fire Emblem: Fuuin no Tsurugi and 141 hits for Fire Emblem: Fūin no Tsurugi. Fire Emblem: The Sealed Sword gets 113,000 hits and Fire Emblem: The Sword of Seals gets 167,000. This article is clearly more well known to English speakers by the English translations. As for being "unnofficial," Sealed Sword is a direct translation of the words. Fuuin = Sealed, Tsurugi = sword. How can it be unofficial when you are saying the same thing? Sword of Selas, on the other hand, is the more accepted way, and is supported by the sword of the games title being called as such in the English release of Super Smash Bros Melee. Onikage725 17:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Input from an experienced editor would be really appreciated. The current discussion on the talk page is going nowhere. Thank you. Ashnard Talk Contribs 20:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
It is not an English version. As no one has officially called it that, it cannot be considered a version of the name, only a fan translation (and by the fact that fans were the ones who translated it, it IS a fan translation). - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Link agreees with me!!!! That's a first. Thank you for your input; that's what I've been trying to tell them. Ashnard Talk Contribs 20:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Link doesn't agree with me! That's...not remotely surprising :p Onikage725 02:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Is there an actual policy against translation in article titles for subjects originating in another language? I haven't seen it. There is, however, a policy that states "Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity"(WP:Naming conventions). Also of note "If the common name conflicts with the official name, use the common name except for conflicting scientific names"(WP:Naming conflict). It would appear the officiality of the title is irrelevant; the real issue is this – which form of the title is more commonly used? Infernal Inferno 21:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Where do the sentences in italics come from? It's the first time I see them. Kariteh 20:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

What a way to distort the facts. I said once that the it needs to be verifiable; you don't hae a source and therefore it's original research. That "policy" is in the conflict of two legitimate names—not between fan names. I find it ludicrous when you're talking about which is the most popular when the game was never released and thus is common knowledge generally amongst fans; it is generally an unknown in the West. I really don't like the way people are trying to twist policies in their favour. Ashnard Talk Contribs 21:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Distorting facts? Twisting policies? First off, how about some good faith? My only interest in this is to address the concern that the page name may not follow naming policy. Also, your assertions that the game is not notable in the West is unfounded. It happens to be a popular import game for Fire Emblem fans, though I don't have any sales data with which to determine its overall import popularity. The title also may draw interest from Smash Bros. fans who are interested in knowing more about Roy's origins; they probably won't import the game, but they might like to know something about it. Realistically, there is no definitve answer for whether a game like this is notable or not – such assertions are almost purely personal opinion.
As for sources for the Sword of Seals name, a few gaming sites list Sword of Seals as the main title of their article – Neoseeker. Others mention it on the page in some form – IGN, MobyGames. Several prominent fan sites – EFED, Serenes Forest, FE Planet – also refer to it as Sword of Seals, some to the exclusion of the Japanese title. Additionally, a Google test puts hits for "Fire Emblem Sword of Seals" more than an order of magnitude above "Fire Emblem Fuuin no Tsurugi".
And keep in mind, I'm not supporting this because I like the change, but rather I truly believe it would better follow Wikipedia policy locating the article at the English translation of the name. It seems to me that Sword of Seals is not only a common name for the game, but it would also make the article more accessible to the general reader of the English Wikipedia, who may or may not have detailed knowledge of the Fire Emblem series. Infernal Inferno 22:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll throw out the example of Osu! Tatakae! Ouendan or its sequel, which despite never being released to the West does have notability in the West, but we NEVER call it "Hey! Fight! Cheer Squad!" (the rough English translation); in fact, most gamers know what you mean when you say "Ouendan". I'd say that the same logic applies here: the page should be the Japanese title, and while the rough English translation can be in the lead, the page should not be permanently located there. --Masem 22:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I admit I don't know Fire Emblem much at all, but it seems to be that Ouendan is known by Ouendan, and NOONE translates it when refering to it. The Fire Emblem game, it's being argued, is commonly known by its translation. So your logic fails. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 23:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

When Nintendo verifies that this title is an "English version", then I'll accept its usage. Isn't there also a guideline which states that we should retain the original language title of a subject if there is no better title to use. Why isn't it original research to say that the translation is better? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Link, the guideline stats thus- Use English words Convention: Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form. I have found nothing to state that if people who don't speak English don't translate something into English that the title can't be translated. Guidelines on English seem to support using a translation, unless the original language useage is more common (as would be the case in Ouendan that was mentioned above). If someone can point me to one that disagrees or actually states that a product must be translated from another language by the native country or a licensee or else then I would accept it and find it enlightening. So far though, everything I've found says to only use the native language if it is the most common. Noone's actually disputed this thus far accept to say that they think there are guidelines that state otherwise. I'd like it if anyone could actually cite one. Onikage725 02:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

ALTTP is right, the translated title is OR and probably not verifiable. Use the Japanese title. Andre (talk) 01:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep the original Japanese title, there's no harm done since nobody's heard of "Sword of Seals" anyway!--ZXCVBNM 02:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Please read the topic at hand before contributing. Sword of Seals (and the more literal Sealed Sword) are FAR more common to English speakers than Fuuin no Tsurugi. The "Fuuin no Tsurugi" of the game's title has also been translated by Nintendo as the "Sword of Seals" in Super Smash Bros Melee (which was also the very game to introduce the series to western audiences). So claiming that "noone has heard of it" is frankly incorrect. Onikage725 02:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
You could have just said "The game is called Sword of Seals in SSBM" and that would have been sufficient. No need to talk down to the other editors. Nifboy 04:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
You're right, and I apologize to ZXCVBNM. I'll admit Ashnards bad faith assumptions have me a bit on edge. I'm actually dropping the issue and moving on to other articles, as a critical flaw in my reasoning was pointed out and consensus is clear on the issue. Onikage725 12:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect Inferno and Onikage, you are being so tenacious because you want to prove me wrong. Like I said, the name is only notable amongst fans. You've misinterpreted the policy; you've missed the WP fundamentals of OR and verifiability. How many experienced editors do you need here to tell you that you're wrong before you realise it. Ashnard Talk Contribs 08:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me? Please refrain from telling me what my reasons are. Look, the guidelines and my searches coincided. I was bold and made the edits. For proof that I was mistaken, I wanted evidence and not just gut feeling from hardcore fans. Citing something in the guidelines that contradicted the guidelines I was citing, for example. Calling me "inexperienced" does not = sufficient proof. And for the record, I've been here for about a yr and a half and have been active. I don't claim to know everything (farrrr from it), but don't expect me to not make an edit due to "inexperience." To be honest, I find the post below pointing out the error in my search technique to be compelling enough for me to drop the issue. Onikage725 12:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Onikage725 should learn to use Google properly. Quotes, please. Fire Emblem: Fuuin no Tsurugi: 11,900. Fire Emblem: Fūin no Tsurugi: 396. Fire Emblem: The Sealed Sword: 718. Fire Emblem: The Sword of Seals: 198. So, in fact, the Japanese name is more popular. There is no official use of an English name, hence there should be no qualms about using the Japanese name.-- 10:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

My original Google test was in error as well (totally forgot about quotes), but you have omitted the most common title variation, "Fire Emblem: Sword of Seals," which gets 10,200 hits with the quotes in there. That puts it at about the same level of popularity as "Fire Emblem: Fuuin no Tsurugi." I'm going to assume you omitted that unintentionally. Use of a translated title would go along with the guideline that "If you are talking about a person, country, town, film, book, or video game, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works. This makes it easy to find, and easy to compare information with other sources"(WP:ENGLISH). Infernal Inferno 18:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a good reason it's not at Faiā Emuburemu: Fūin no Tsurugi? Isn't "Fire Emblem" OR? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 10:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the box art, it clearly says "Fire Emblem". -- 10:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
As Onetwofive says, it's clearly written on the box arts. And even if it wasn't, "Faiā Emuburemu" is not a Japanase phrase but a simple transliterations of an English phrase. The naming conventions say: For transliterations from katakana, use the English spelling if available (i.e., Thunderbird (サンダーバード Sandābādo) instead of Sandābādo). Kariteh 11:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


For what it's worth: I believe there have been several breaches of WP:CIVIL in this thread. Not really worth going into details at this point, but I would like to advise you all to tone it down a bit, for future reference if nothing else.

  • I do believe that Ashnard took things a little too personally in this discussion, and thus made himself prone to stepping over the WP:AGF line, though I don't agree that he was outright assuming bad faith on your part, Onikage725. It seems that this was as much a misunderstanding of each other's motives and tactics as it was any assumption of bad faith on anyone's part.
  • Likewise, Onikage725, you seemed to be taking parts of this discussion rather personally, thus making it all too easy for you, Ashnard and ZXCVBNM to start sniping at each other. For future reference, if you find yourself starting to get riled up on a topic like this, it's always a good idea to step back for a moment before you hit the "Save page" button, and consider whether what you're replying to was in fact a personal attack or just a strongly worded statement.
  • (the IP that said that Onikage should learn how to use Google): Please refrain from making statements such as this. You can (and are encouraged to) point out information about Google hits and what not, without making personal remarks about other editors. Personal remarks like this can, in some cases, breach WP:NPA, but more importantly, they usually only serve to get people mad at each other and further inflame an already heated discussion. I will say that your post was otherwise very informative and helpful to the discussion - just some advice for future reference.

Hope this helps. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

He should learn to use Google properly, his misuse of it created confusion. It's the same as suggesting someone should learn about flooring if they want to edit the flooring article. -- 04:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is the same, it is rude. Phrasing is important, and telling someone that they "need to learn how to floor"... well it's hard to imagine anyone taking that any way but offensively. It could easily be true, but there are better ways to put it, and Wikipedia discussions run on civility. Arguments should be won by factual merit, not by attempting to point out flaws in another editor. In other words, attack logic, not people. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I did find that condescending. I appreciate the correction to my error, but "learn to use Google" is a bit much (and I must admit I miss the analogy, as I wasn't editing the Google search article). I forgot the quotation marks. I'm human, I make mistakes. That aside, the info was enlightening and I revised my stance on the matter. I also took a similar tone with ZXCVBNM and Ashnard, so for what it's worth I apologize for any offense caused on my part. Onikage725 09:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Me too; no offence guys. I shouldn't have made it personal and specuclated about users' reasons. Thanks for that, KieferSkunk. Ashnard Talk Contribs 10:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
No problem, glad to help. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't mean to appear angry but I guess exclamation points make a difference...--ZXCVBNM 01:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Nah, I didn't think you were angry. I was being crabby. Hence the apology. Onikage725 00:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart Campbell (video game journalist)

Could I get some help here? The VAST majority of comments are made by new users/SPAs, possibly socks, so I'd like some people who actually know some wiki-policy and whatnot to give their opinions here. Thanks, Giggy Talk 02:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Video game naming conventions

Unfortunately, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) clearly goes against our project's current naming standards; i.e. foreign-language titles articles (even video games) are to be located at their most common English translation. It says nothing about who does the translating. We need to either accept this, or propose a new guideline. My suggestion:

  • Any article on a video game originally produced under copyright in a non-English language is to be located at the official title it was originally released under, until such time as an official English title is announced, by either the copyright holder, or a representative thereof. If the language of origin uses a non-Latin alphabet, the article should be located at an appropriate transliteration.
  • If more than one official English title is announced (such as between NA and EU markets, or ports/updates), the title released first is to be used unless it is overwhelmingly recognized by a new title (as in Beastorizer vs. Bloody Roar).
  • If the game has yet to be released it should be always be known at the official "working title".
  • If no official title in any language has been announced (pre-release), the article should follow standard naming conventions, even if an unofficial "working-title" exists (i.e. "The Something Project", or "Something Sequel"). Foreign-language video games not under copyright that have not been given an official English title should also follow normal naming conventions.

I have proposed it for acceptance, please comment there. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 10:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, WP:NOR and WP:V take precedence over the naming conventions. It says nothing about who does the translating, but fan translations violate Wikipedia's core content policies. We can just boil down what you wrote to "Don't use unofficial titles unless they can be sourced and are significantly more common than the Japanese transliterated title." Andre (talk) 20:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Crazy Taxi: Fare Wars

Since the current trend seems to be for merging, I figured Crazy Taxi: Fare Wars had little enough new stuff to need to have its own article. It's JUST a port of CT1 and CT2, the only real new thing being the ad hoc multi-player (so far as I can tell). Certainly less stuff than Final Fantasy IV Advance, as I mentioned on the talk page. Anyone else care to chime in over there? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 10:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The new stuff is notable, so part of the problem is that you'd be duplicating info.
My suggestion (a bit wild)? Merge all current Crazy Taxi articles into one. The gameplay changes between each one are minimal that a single page can safely cover all of them.
But if that's over the top, I would merge only into the first CT article, making sure to have a section in CT2 to call out that it is included in CT:FW with appropriate linkage. --Masem 11:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Well apparently I'm wrong and because it's a port of two games it "can't be merged". Whatever, I tried. Almost noone cared. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 03:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that it's a matter of stagnation there. I looked through the articles, and really, there's nothing notable about the sequel beyond that they were made and the slight changes to gameplay. I wonder if there's any previous examples of a game series that really only needed one page to describe all the games in the series instead of having 5 separate, and highly disjointed, pages. --Masem 03:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
How about SNK vs. Capcom: Card Fighters Clash? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 04:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Definitely a starting point to argue the point further. Basically, I'd convert Crazy Taxi (series) to make it work. --Masem 05:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Here's a quick version of how I see one could merge all these articles into one; it's obviously lacking some information to put it up to snuff: User:Masem/CrazyTaxiSeries --Masem 16:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Nah, I may like merging but this is ridiculous. Even if they have the same gameplay, different games deserve an article. It's not like Crazy Taxi 2 was an add-on or expansion pack - it's an actual game, with totally different locations, cars, etc.--ZXCVBNM 01:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm looking at this from a notability aspect. CT the original game was very notable, but CT2 really wasn't a big release, and all subsequent ones have "been out there", and really lack notability; you may be able to find some reviews and some other bits, but compared to many full-fledged game articles, you're likely never to get one this close.
If you feel that merging all the games into one, then I still propose the same page approach for the series, and only have pages for the major games (in this case, CT1 and CT2) - the other games can be redirected to there. --Masem 01:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with this. I never even know CT3 existed until I saw the WP article about it, and I've enjoyed CT ever since it was released on DC. The problem with Fare Wars (and probably CT3 and the GBA game) is that there's simply not much to SAY about it. If we're going to take a stance that articles need to have more than just in universe info and broad machanic overview (i.e., reception, critisism, etc) then yes, more game series need to be merged. CT especially is a good example where you can't even show any real VISIBLE difference. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 01:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
What about the Mega Man Battle Network series? It might seem like OCE, but the problem is that if there's a new game in the series and it's completely revamped, you can't just "merge" into the series article.--ZXCVBNM 02:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, first, having a game series page is part of the status quo. What I'm suggesting if we really need a separate article for one or two entries, but not all, is that when the game merits it, we use something like {{main}} to refer people to it. For games that are not notable, they are simply covered in the series page with any necessary info boxes to describe them. That covers the situation that, say, CT4 comes out and it's massively popular, we don't have to revamp our approach. --Masem 02:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
<outdent>This sounds like a great direction to go in general. It's all about what's the best way to present information. If games have massive overlap in gameplay, interested people will probably just skip the sections that seem like overlap, and miss the differences. It doesn't even matter how notable the game is, what matters is if there is enough relevant information that it might A) weigh down a (series) article, and B)outweigh the redundant gameplay/series info necessary to flesh out an independent article. Most sequels do (or at least fans will undoubtedly think so, and those are arguments I'd rather avoid), but perhaps it might be a good idea to assume that sequel articles should be built from previous articles unless the "new material/redundancy" ratio is outweighed. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 03:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
In fact, I remember similar discussions with the Zelda Oracle series, and something like CT2 is closer to CT1 than those two are to each other. So...yeah. 11:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead with this plan in a bit and replace the CT series page with my test page above, adding a few more details from what I can find (and leaving out infoboxes for now). Once I get that in place, I believe the proper action would be to recommend the merging of all the other CT pages into the main - if there are significant objections on one or two pages, I'll leave them be, but I think this is how we'll figure out notability for the topic. --Masem 14:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Masem, I left a comment here, though it would probably be safe to assume you're watching it. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 02:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Question: Multiple infoboxes on one page

Related to this, as one can see on my present test page at User:Masem/CrazyTaxiSeries that putting all the infoboxes for all the games does some funky things with the page. The CVG infobox template page says the template's recommended, but it's not required. My thought is that if there are multiple games with notably different release information (more than just remakes), that I could make a table, columns for each game (sans boxes images only because, like with discographies and TV shows, a list or table with images is not recommended per fair use), and rows for each major callout. It wouldn't take the space that each separate box have and through off the rendering like multiple infoboxes do presently. --Masem 16:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Use {{Infobox VG Hidden}} TH1RT3EN talkcontribs 17:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Boo-yah! Perfect. --Masem 17:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Informal Peer Review

As I've not yet moved it into place, I'll ask if anyone wants to comment on my CT page now - I've incorporated all the elements I believe are necessary to give the series its notability (did you know Richard Donner was going to be part of a CT movie!?) but eliminated the need to really describe the game further in individual game pages. I'm missing a few references (mostly gameplay - easy to fix). The page is (still) currently at User:Masem/CrazyTaxiSeries; thanks! --Masem 23:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge Up

I've moved the series article over to the main namespace, and posted the merge discussion request. I'm offering it up as a game-by-game basis in one common discussion area, as per above. --Masem 16:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

List of (company) games

I'm trying to complete the List of Square Enix games but I wondering what layout I should use. Should the games be ordered by chronological order or alphabetical order? I like the chronological one, but for it to be perfect and make sense we would have to list every annual releases separately (FF1 for NES in 1987, FF1 for MSX2 in 1989, FF1 for WSC in 2000, etc. instead of a single FF1 row). The list would be very long in that case, so perhaps the alphabetical order is better (to have all releases of one game in a single row). Thoughts? Kariteh 17:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

There's ways to make sortable tables. Help:Sorting. As default, I would use Chronological. --Masem 18:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Personally I would prefer to have lots of separate tables (so as to have the headings always close to the information) rather than a single huge table with the headings stuck at the top, but this Sorting function does look nice. I'll try it. Kariteh 12:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Chronological, as the category takes care of the alphabet. BTW, great job. It's leaps and bounds from the pre-Kariteh days. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 04:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. So, should we keep all releases of one game in a single entry or separate them? Separating would make the tables quite longer, but grouping makes the Square Enix table devoid of many Final Fantasies; it kind of hides the fact that Square Enix re-released tons of them. Kariteh 08:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The best way would be to separate releases, as it would make it a much better reference point to people unfamiliar with the series. Perhaps they bought a GBA game in 2006 (Final Fantasy V Advance), they might not understand that it came out in 1992, and may just not find it. Also, this would give it further weight in the classic "Wouldn't this be better as a category?" that always seems to pop up. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 03:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The Videogame Style Guide and Reference Manual

Just a heads up, the "Videogame Style Guide and Reference Manual" is available as a free PDF. We might want to incorporate some of the information into our article guidelines. JACOPLANE • 2007-08-11 22:20

There's also a wiki page, see the full index. JACOPLANE • 2007-08-11 22:25
Videogame? No thanks. Why is it favorable to use broken, less popular English? --Teggles 07:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Which to believe? Dictionaries that have been cataloguing words for centuries that say that both on-line and online are valid. Or journalists who set up a Wiki and published a book - which doesn't even pay lip service to international variations of English - that says one version is correct and the other is totally wrong?

What I having been thinking about for a while though is our own style guide, especially for spellings and grammar and taking account of the MoS requirements of WP. Yes the bulk of people writing CVG articles know the correct spelling/grammar of Game related words/names but it would help to have alternate versions listed. - X201 08:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

We already have a guidelines page with most of this information listed. Can we incorporate any additional missing info into this? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Yep. That was where I was going to aim it. - X201 08:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know where those guys got their info, but "video game" is definitely correct. It can be said both ways, but "video game" is two words, and it doesn't have to be shortened like other words, (e.g. carpool).--ZXCVBNM 22:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Metroid Creatures transwiki?

I worked a bit on the Creatures in the Metroid series article a while ago, suggesting it be broken up and such. However, as I recently looked through it, I noticed that

1) People were deleting everything that wasn't a boss, and
2) Game strategies are all over the place, and are pretty much unavoidable.
3) All this stuff is non-notable and has no real-world basis.

So, this should probably be moved to Wikitroid as was Items in the Metroid series. It needs the extra information and help.--ZXCVBNM 03:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are no objections, so I'll move it.--ZXCVBNM 22:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
On second thought, it's way too big for me to move by myself. Anyone there?--ZXCVBNM 22:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I've been busy, but good call. The article can then be redirected to the main Metroid article. — Deckiller 23:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Done Judgesurreal777 22:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Could you guys look at these articles? I was thinking of pulling a Ghostbusters (franchise) with the remaining fictional articles that probably cant stand on their own and building up the Metroid (series) article.

I think they would go well in the series article. Judgesurreal777 23:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to imagine that Ridley and Metroid have the potential to stand on their own, but the rest can probably be merged to the series article or to a general character article if there is enough information on the characters as a whole. TTN 23:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Ridley (Metroid) should stay, as he's featured in many games and is Samus's archenemy, sort of like Lex Luthor is to Superman. He killed her parents, etc. Dark Samus, Metroid Prime (creature), and Phazon should be merged into the series page, Ing (Metroid) and Luminoth should be merged into MP2, the rest to the series page (except Metroid (species))--ZXCVBNM 19:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Where to talk about articles

I found the same error in two articles (Space Wars and Cinematronics) - namely that the link for Larry Rosenthal leads to a baseball player. (I am 99% sure they are separate folks.) In any case, my main question is whether talk about the problem can / should go on the respective talk pages, or do you video game folks like to keep all the talk to this one page? That is what seemed to be implied on the Space Wars talk page. Benthatsme 04:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

If the issue seems specific to those two articles, might just want to bring it up on their talk pages. If you think it's a situation that other articles could benefit from discussing, then it's a good idea to bring it here to the project talk page. Also, if you leave a message on the article talk page, but no one responds, discussing it here is a good way to just get attention when not a lot of people are watching that article. -- Ned Scott 05:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Either way is good. Article talk pages are more relevant, while this page gets more eyes. You can do both or either. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I made the change on those two pages, and made notes on their talk pagesBenthatsme 22:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Aircraft of Ace Combat

I believe similar vehicle lists have been deleted in the past. Should this go to AFD? I wasn't sure. RobJ1981 09:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not? It appears to violate WP:NOT's point on collections of indiscriminate information, in addition to being unsourced and unverifiable. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 14:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not unverifiable, as the games themselves can be the source for that, but delete it anyway per WP:NOT. Miremare 14:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok it's in AFD now. RobJ1981 15:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the AFD is turning into a blitz on other video-game list articles, such as List of cars in the Ridge Racer series and List of Cars in Project Gotham Racing 3. --Oscarthecat 19:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
So? What makes those articles worth keeping? --Mika1h 19:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps nothing, perhaps they're completely unworthy of keeping. Such article do have a tendency to survive AFD's though, see the repeated nominations of Talk:List of Battlefield 1942 mods --Oscarthecat 19:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Mods lists are different; they're lists of things that actually exist in the real world. Lists of in-game items are not. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I've nominated both of those car lists mentioned by Oscar. Frankly I don't see the purpose of these game vehicle lists. Many have been deleted in the past: I don't see these as special exceptions that need to be kept. RobJ1981 19:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Need someone with Game Informer March 2006

See Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)#Need someone with GameInformer March 2006 issue Nil Einne 15:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Fire Emblem at general peer review

Fire Emblem (the series) is currently up for review at the general peer review. It has been nominated as part of an effort to get it to Featured Article status. It hasn't gotten many comments, so any reviews would be appreciated. Infernal Inferno 19:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It's only had an automated "peer review", but as you will probably know, this isn't the most helpful of methods. Ashnard Talk Contribs 23:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Several things in CFD, and a question

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_12#Category:Legends_of_Wrestling: several very broad video game categories are in CFD now. The last time they were in it: one person commented, which lead to a no consensus (which lead to a default keep). Also: I was wondering if anyone could update the deletion section on the project page? I tried typing in 3 new AFDs to the section, and I couldn't figure out the instructions. It kept telling me to subst the page, but when I did that: it did the AFD template which goes on the article not the deletion section. The AFD's are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aircraft of Ace Combat, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Cars in Project Gotham Racing 3 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cars in the Ridge Racer series. RobJ1981 00:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

31 December

Something I've noticed on quite a lot of (I think mostly retro) video game articles is a claimed release date of 31 December. I've never heard of this happening, and it seems to me to be a fairly stupid day on which to release a game, or indeed anything else, being just in time to miss out on the Christmas market. Does anyone know of this ever actually happening? Miremare 16:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Any examples? My guess is they can't find a verifiable exact day of release, only the year, but to someone fit the date into an expected format, they're using the last day of the respect year. Most of the templates (cvg infobox) can handle non-day specific year releases, so it's probably better to drop the made up date. --Masem 16:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't really remember the games, just the recurring suspect date! But today I noticed Beetlejuice (Game Boy) and there was this, which was changed when I enquired about it. That one was actually sourced too, from ign. Miremare 16:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmmmmmmmm, I just checked IGN's page for the Beetlejuice GB game, which has , ok a different year, but also the Dec 31. Ok, now I'm suspecting that they're getting the date from the gaming sites, which are a bit more strict, likely running off a database that needs a fully qualified date (DD-MM-YYYY) and can't handle just a year.
I wonder if it's possible to dump a list of all games that list a December 31 somewhere as something to check against, I can understand really old games not having exact ones, but anything on a GB, DC, or other hardware since should be easier to find. --Masem 16:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Good idea. How do we go about doing that? Miremare 16:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Can't think of any easy way at the moment using existing tools. If this really needs to be done, we can always request a bot application be written, one that would scan any page in the WP:CVG project space or that uses the CVG Infobox templates, AND has the date December 31 or January 1 contained within the article, and to give those articles a category such as "Video Games With Suspected Incorrect Release Dates". This would then give us a list of articles that we can task force (if that large) to seek out right information. --Masem 17:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've made the request. Miremare 17:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit protected on Infobox

A user has put an edit protected request on the Infobox template to add something called a hCalendar Microformat. Their project page is here Wikipedia:WikiProject Microformats I've read it and can't work out what benefit it is to us or anyone else. Would have been nice if they'd informed us of what it was and that they were going to do it beforehand. - X201 21:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this is something to do with the discussion imediately above, and the bot request that I made. However, I can't make head nor tail of that project page, so I could be wrong! Miremare 22:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it's so that outside applications can distinguish data on WP and extract it. I said "I think" at the start of this sentence though. - X201 09:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
That is correct. It has nothing to do with the discussion above. — madman bum and angel 16:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Puzzle League series

I created a new page for the Puzzle League series and would like to propose that all of the games in this series (see Template:Puzzle League series) be merged into that series, except in any case where a single game is notable and unique enough to warrant its own article (I doubt that will hold for any single game in the series). The reason for this is because all of the games feature nearly identical gameplay (which has to be described redundantly in each individual article), and differ only in plot details (which can described in one paragraph), presentation details (another paragraph or two), and/or unique features (one or two paragraphs).

Basically, if you just merged the common gameplay elements of the series into their own article, the remaining details for each game would not constitute enough information for a good article. By having it all consolidated, we might end up with a fairly lengthy article, but all the salient info would be in one place and could be better maintained.

My only question (aside from if people agree with this idea) is: How would we handle the infoboxes for the individual games? There's enough info in those infoboxes that including one for each game might be impractical in a merged article. Same might also be true for screenshots and title/box art. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

See what I did for Crazy Taxi (series). There's a CVG Infobox Hidden version. --Masem 00:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Cool, that's helpful. :) I've made some initial edits to the series article, so the article is probably ready to receive merges. I don't have time to deal with the merge-proposal templates at the moment, and I know a lot of people follow those articles, so I don't want to just go merge everything right now. Could someone setup the merge discussions? (This is assuming that the entire idea of merging doesn't get shot down here.) Of course, discussion about the idea is welcome here. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that any articles should be merged. Pokémon Puzzle League and Challenge could be merged as they are pretty similar to each other, Tetris Attack and Panepon could be merged because of their significant similarities, and Dr. Mario/Puzzle League should be a "disambig page" linking to the series articles. So in the end, I don't agree with articles being merged into series articles. The only ones that may or may not need merging are Pokémon Puzzle Challenge and Panel de Pon, but Planet Puzzle League, Tetris Attack, and Pokémon Puzzle League warrant separate articles no matter how a merge discussion goes. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Is it better to duplicate the gameplay sections (with often very small differences between games) in each article? All of the games are virtually identical from a gameplay standpoint, and as I mentioned, the presentation differences can be easily condensed without excluding any important details. (Note that a lot of the stuff that keeps getting added to the Tetris Attack and Panel de Pon descriptions is considered unencyclopedic by the CVGProj guidelines - like a list of the characters, a list of the character mappings between PdP and TA, etc.) - I just don't see why we should preserve separate articles where they all say pretty much the same thing. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Planet Puzzle League features online play, touch screen controls, daily training mode, customizable interface, several modes of play, a Mission mode, different critical and commercial reception, different development information, etc. The fact that out of many sections that one section shares similarities does not warrant a merge. If that were true, Link's Awakening should be merged with Oracle of Ages and Seasons. A series article should not be a substitute for a game article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I just went through with Crazy Taxi, so I think we can take a similar approach. Unfortunately, I've not played any but the DS version, so I cannot comment on how the similarities are, but going by what I'm reading, it sounds like as Kiefer is saying that there's a bulk of information in common with the game, and that at least a handful of the games are non-notable, while some may be. A good question would be to ask, exactly how much stuff can one find on things outside of gameplay, to demonstrate notability? I would guess that you're not going to have a lot of luck with developer information, and while each game would technically have a different reception section, it may be possible to condense it down to talk about the reception of the series as a whole. If this was a big game, scale of "Bioshock" I would figure you're going to find lots of developer notes, but for something like this series, I don't know how much you can find in a single article.
Given that there is question, and it's not clear cut, I would take exactly the same approach I did with Crazy Taxi. The series page is written to describe the gameplay, a brief segment on each game (including any developers notes, if any, and additions to gameplay), and then a generalized series reception. Then in my call to merge, I'm seeing if any individual game page is needed, and if it is, I call it out as a {{main}} section. Thus, if there is a Puzzle League game that truly needs an article to demonstrate its notability beyond the series, it can have it.
These types of games, where there's minimal story and characters, and basically only variations in gameplay and other aspects, are the types that are prime for grouping into a series article. eg: the same idea that it's a television series that's notable but not the individual episodes. For something like Zelda games, that's not going to be the case, since story, characters, gameplay elements, and reception significantly change from game to game.--Masem 05:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The plot of each game is completely different. And the similarities between Planet Puzzle League's gameplay is no different from the similarities between LA/OoA/S' gameplay - and you know what? The gameplay section for Planet Puzzle League would differ MORE than LA's - the only differences LA has are those which should not be mentioned in the article (dungeons and equipment), while Planet Puzzle League can describe its training mode, its touch controls, and its game modes. Different reception, different gameplay features, different visuals, different soundtrack, and PPL is clearly notable (strong reviews and news coverage). And of course, Tetris Attack should never be merged. Anyway, this is just becoming absurd. Merging two very similar games together is one thing, but merging them all into an article about its series? It's completely absurd. I say that people will want to look up information on Mario Party 8 without having to go to the series page, and with this idea, it would inevitably become merged. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

(←)Sure, PPL and TA would require their own pages, they have that notability. What is being suggested that by default, any Puzzle League game will be only described on the main page; if an individual game deserves more merit due to it's notability beyond the series (TA for its story, PPL because of being the most recent with a lot of coverage), you provide a link from it, but you still can use the series page as as "seealso" backlinks from the individual game page. What can't hurt is to make a better series page that describes the series as a whole, propose a merger of the individual games into the main page, and if in the end, each game has its own pointer off that page to their individual pages, so be it. The work on the series page would not have gone to waste, there's likely better ways to set up each individual game page to match the series, and as a result, you gain N+1 articles of better quality than if you treated each game as it's own entity without considering what has been stated about the other games.--Masem 06:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's my proposal, after the discussion above: For non-notable games, just merge the games into the series article. For notable games (Tetris Attack, Panel de Pon, Pokemon Puzzle League and Planet Puzzle League), preserve the main articles, but reduce the Gameplay sections with respect to the common gameplay elements. Briefly summarize the "align 3+ blocks" gameplay in two or three sentences, and provide a {{main}} link to the Series article for a more in-depth description. Remaining gameplay features that are unique to that game (like Planet's Item blocks and use of the stylus) can be described in more detail on the main article's page. Plot elements on the notable games similarly would be described there.
Meanwhile, on the series page, any game that still has its own main article should get a brief summary of the game's unique features, plot and presentation, etc., and should have a {{main}} link to the game's article. I think by doing all of this, we can cover all the bases. I can understand feeling that merging everything into a single article is too much, so I propose this as a compromise. How does that sound? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, I should specify that I feel Panel de Pon and Tetris Attack should remain separate articles. They are currently merged in Tetris Attack, but as I pointed out in the discussion there, Panel de Pon has enough of its own notability. (These two games are part of the reason I wanted to do this whole merge in the first place - it should be much easier to compare and contrast the two games in a single neutral article about the series.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

New task force proposal

Hi! I was thinking about starting a new task force dedicated to the universe of Beyond Good & Evil. See the proposal here. Currently there isn't much information on wikipedia about this topic, but if the task force is created that could change very fast, bringing in material from another wiki dedicated to the subject. --MrStalker talk 11:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I would read the discussion above about Goomba inclusion and much of the discussion at Writing about fiction. The "world" of a single game, even one that may have been critically praised, is going to be very difficult to write out-of-universe style. I think a worthy goal of getting a good BG&E game page is worthwhile, and maybe a page to list characters, but I really can't see how many more pages there would be that would require a task force. --Masem 13:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Merged todo lists

I merged the two separate todo lists, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/to do and Gamebox contents. I could not see any good reason to keep them separate, if someone can come up with a good reason why they should be separate then I'll undo my changes. JACOPLANE • 2007-08-17 14:21

Also, it would be good if we tried to update the "todo" list more often since it's been rather stale. It gets a lot of eyeballs due to its inclusion in {{cvgproj}}. JACOPLANE • 2007-08-17 15:01

Infobox CVG template

Further to the above post about 31 December, it was suggested at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Video game release dates request that the Template:Infobox CVG itself be modified with "#if" to automatically place games with suspect release dates into Category:Video games with suspected incorrect release dates. Anyone savvy enough to carry this out? Miremare 16:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll make an {{editprotected}} request. — madman bum and angel 16:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Animal Crossing task force

There does not seem to be much activity on Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Animal Crossing, so I'm thinking we should abolish this task force. Agreed? JACOPLANE • 2007-08-18 03:46

I'll abolish you!! But seriously, I think specific series WikiProjects or task forces are just a bad idea in general; look at the failure of WikiProject Nintendo Wars and WikiProject Kirby Dream Land for instance. Actually, I really can't comment that well; seems that The Elder Scroll and the Mortal Kombat ones are swimming well enough. hbdragon88 04:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
As are WikiProject Final Fantasy and the Devil May Cry Task force. It's hit or miss, really, depending on how serious the creators are. --PresN 04:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. Games factor in there too. I think Nintendo Wars was doomed as you could count the number of localized games on one hand (AW/2/DS and Battliion Wars), which makes for difficult article creation. The games of the Kirby franchise seem comporable to Final Fantasy and The Elder Scrolls, but the project seemed to only be pushed by two editors, DisasterKirby and A Link to the Past. hbdragon88 05:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Kirby's Dream Land project was more a fault of a fall-out between separatists and mergists - because we didn't see eye-to-eye, a couple of editors were not interested in cooperating within the project (I believe they left for the Kirbypedia on that one Kirby web site). If more people were interested and not so antagonistic towards each other, I think the project could manage by itself. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I propose moving it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Nintendo/Animal Crossing, unless we really don't want it, in which case we MFD it. hbdragon88 04:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Merger of new versions of Pokémon Red and Blue

I have proposed that the expanded versions of Pokémon Red and Blue (Pokémon Yellow and Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen) be merged into the main article. Please discuss on the talk page. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Lists of cars

Should racing video games lists all the car models? I argue that this is listcruft and not necessary and removed them from Need for Speed: ProStreet, but MrStalker reverted me. It would be like listing all the weapons and characters from a video game, and weapons clearly be game guide info. hbdragon88 23:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. It can help when removing stuff like that to add an external link, if possible, to a site hosting the information contained in the list, then there's not really any argument in favour of having it in the article itself. Miremare 00:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
The keyword here is consistency. Almost every racing game related article I see list cars. Here's a few: The Need for Speed (video game), Need for Speed II, Need for Speed III: Hot Pursuit, Need for Speed: High Stakes, Need for Speed: Porsche Unleashed, Motor City Online, Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit 2, Need for Speed: Underground, Need for Speed: Underground 2, Need for Speed: Most Wanted & Need for Speed: Carbon. This is only articles from the same series. I can't see why Need for Speed: ProStreet is any different. --MrStalker talk 07:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
"Everybody else does it" isn't a good argument. I agree that it should be consistent. If the inclusion of cars in all articles is bad, we should remove all of them. Do you have a better argument other than "everybody does it"? hbdragon88 08:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Listing all fictional characters and weapons from a video game would be fancruft, yes. But this is not a list of fictional cars, it's a list of real world cars and is thus not fancruft. Besides, Wikipedia:Notability clearly states "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." --MrStalker talk 08:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Um, who ever threw out WP:N? We know that NFS is notable (a fwe months ago we were not so sure). Second, while cruft does tend to apply to fictional subjects, it can also be crufty to create lists on real world subjects (WP:LC). Listing every car model bears little or no importance ot the understanding of ProStreet except to the much smaller group of people who play the game, thus why I see it as crufty. hbdragon88 08:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Notability doesn't only apply to articles, it applies to topics within an article as well. I would like to see some official wikipedia policy that supports your arguments. As it clearly states at the top of the page, Wikipedia:Listcruft "is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline; it merely reflects the opinions of some of its author(s)." --MrStalker talk 08:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Ummm, the N guidelines pertain "to the suitability of article topics but do not directly limit the content of articles." That section links to the relevant guidelines: Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections, and WP:RS. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 08:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Forgive me, it seems like I was mistaken. --MrStalker talk 08:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

(outindent) WP:CON (Miramire, RobJ1981, me) think that the lists of cars are unnecessary. If you wish to apply WP:N to the cars, then this fails as well: nobody has seen fit to comment on the function of the cars within Need for Speed. In other contexts, they have, but not for its purpose within NFS. hbdragon88 08:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Okey, I can accept that. But in that case I think it's appropriate to highlight a bigger problem: Why hasn't this been discussed before? Why are there loads and loads and loads and loads of articles that includes what you call fan/listcruft? I hate to see articles inconsistant with eachother. It's a hell of a lot information to remove. And one might ask the question: Since so many articles, and users, include this kind of information, perhaps there is a consensus that it should be? --MrStalker talk 08:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted my revert in respect of this discussion, but for the record I do not support it. Feel free to invoke consistency on all similiar articles. But please, before you do, take a moment to think about my questions stated above. --MrStalker talk 08:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree with MrStalker on this - doesn't appear to be fancruft to me, but will toe the line for consistency. There's a few related AFD's going on already at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aircraft of Ace Combat, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cars in the Ridge Racer series, List of Cars in Project Gotham Racing 3. Any more that need rounding up and nominating? Furthermore, where a game article has the car list embedded in it, should they be removed from there, or does the cruft rule apply only where it's a seperate article? I think it should apply throughout - whether it's embedded in the game article or whether it's an article in its own right. If that's the case, there's a pile of editing needing doing to remove the cruft from each of the games listed above by MrStalker. --Oscarthecat 09:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the support. I don't think that is what you meant, but for the record, there is nu such thing as a "cruft rule". See WP:LC and WP:FAN. --MrStalker talk 09:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Further, I could use some guidance on when it becomes fancruft. It's okay for a football team article to list its players and managers past and present (such articles reach FA status), it's okay for an article to list video game characters (List of Metal Gear Solid characters, a leading light as an example as it's a featured list). Hell, it's even okay to have List of Earthlings in Dragon Ball, but isn't okay for a video game to list its core component parts? --Oscarthecat 09:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
That's a very good question. I've found a whole category dedicated to fancruft: Category:Fictional elements from video games. --MrStalker talk 09:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Crikey, lot of cruft there, I've made a start in Category:Video game items, adding merge tags or afd tags. --Oscarthecat 18:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
That's a good point raised by Oscarthecat. My assumptions regarding the football team comparison (we're talking soccer here, right? For I know nothing about that other sport) would be that the players and managers are an integral part of the team - rather they are the team - and this lineup changes constantly, players join, leave, managers get fired etc., so you have to make it clear who the team IS or the article isn't doing its job. A football team's success is directly dependent on its players, whereas cars are just an element of a game and aren't that important to the game itself, in that it doesn't matter what the cars actually are (they could be supercars, saloons, or even plain fictional) so that can easily be covered by a paragraph or so.
As for lists of fictional characters, I suppose if they qualify as notable by the relevant policy, and there's actually something to write about them, then that's perfectly acceptable, though I'm a bit suspicious about that List of Earthlings in Dragon Ball one... Miremare 14:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd say on lists of cars that these are not notable, and can be transwiki'd easily. The main article can fairly cite selected notable manufactures (which some games do spell out in their press blurbs), and if there's a notable model or two within the game (not aware of such cases) that could be added as well.
I think between the notability issues that we've talked about lately, it is fair to give a list of significant minor or oft-repeating characters as part of a "list of" for a gaming article. but we're talking a paragraph or two at the most. The various DBZ articles are way too much fancruft, and I'd argue the various Zelda character lists, for wont of a better example, are also a bit fancruft heavy. Remember that we have a good example of a featured character list: Characters of Final Fantasy VIII that show to what extent in- and out-of-universe citation is probably needed to make a strong character list, but I doubt that most can get it that close (note the large number of dialog citations), but at least people can use the various size and descriptive elements to see what extent these should be spelled out. --Masem 15:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Would it be worthwhile creating a comprehensive list of game articles that need car lists removing? So that they can be cleared all in one go if required. - X201 13:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Easiest thing would be to start with Category:Racing video games, and check each one (AWB would be assume to help with this) to create such a list. Then we could go through, maybe give a warning to the editors of those pages that we're moving the car lists (if this is needed - if not, at least some blurb why they were removed), --Masem 13:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

On a side-note, I've raised the same issue in the past, especially in regards to the debate on Live for Speed, and each time I brought the issue here, editors have dismissed the car and track lists as being listcruft as outlined above. I am in agreement with the points made opposing car lists, in much the same way that other games should not list every weapon and item. A common argument for first-person shooters, for example, is that "guns are part of the game" - but it seems to be consistent with WP:VG editors that weapon lists are game guide material that covers content not integral to the topic itself. I believe the same applies to cars and racing games. Based on my interpretation of WP:NOT, I do not consider a comprehensive list of in-game content to be encyclopedic. --Scottie_theNerd 14:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Totally argeed. Another metric is that if you cannot easily convert said list into readable, not repetitive prose, it's likely fancraft or too exhaustive for a encyclopedia article. (I know I helped to carefully craft the weapons descriptions in Gears of War, since at least a couple are notable alone, but I don't list them out or their stats or the like). I think we need to make people painfully aware that transwiki-ing information is perfectly acceptable with links from WP to, in this like, Encyclopedia Gamia, where such lists are not only encouraged, but needed. I think if we offered that up as acceptable replacement to WP, we'd have a lot less resistance and trouble with people adding listcruft to games. --Masem 14:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
On the subject of readable non-repetitive prose, this Test_Drive_Unlimited#Downloadable_content_.28Xbox_360_and_PC.29 made my eyes go funny whilst reading it. - X201 15:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. I look at this, and yes, immediately I go, "Yeah, that's extraneous and hard to read", but that leads me to another thought that I think we want to be sure of before going down this path.
Take List of songs in Guitar Hero II (which I've worked on, so I'm using something I'm invested in). I would think most people here would say this list is notable. So (reading the TDU article above), what's the difference between this list of music and the list of cars? Where is the line drawn for notability? The only major difference here is that for the list of GH songs, we can arrange them as they appear in the game and add two bits of additional information: the song being a master track, and the uniqueness to the 360 platform. You likely can't do the same in a driving game, where cars have to be unlocked by specific means (definitely guide material) or by price (definitely guide material).
I could say that the songs define GHII for what it is, and to not have them anywhere on WP would be bad, but .. I can see a racing game fanatic arguing the same thing - the inclusion or lack of certain models would affect how one treats the game (To some extent).
Maybe we're being a bit too fast. Ok, there's some car lists I'd nix right away, anything fictional like the cars in Ridge Racer. But when a car game uses real cars, maybe it is worthwhile to include them, but the presentation of such lists has to be cleaned up (I'd recommend making a table by manufacture just to tighten the use of white space). If its a series game, like Gran Turismo or Forza, the lists should be shuffled to a separate page.
(No, I'm not flipping, I just suddenly had a blur of devil's advocacy for this, so I'm trying to urge debate on the issue). --Masem 16:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd say the songs in music games are far more relevant to their respective articles than cars, weapons, or whatever other miscellany some people like to list. Not only are they practically all there is to the game, but they're almost always notable tracks of themselves, and fewer in number than the likes of cars. I think there's still a case to be made for talking about them in prose rather than listing them, but I don't find them as disagreeable as most lists. Also, on a related note of cruft, (in fact more related to X201's comment about eyes going funny), how's about this article for cruft? Made my brain go funny, though I'm better now. Note that I've since removed some of it, but carefully selected highlights are: Storyline (in 100,000 words or less, with a rather helpless-looking {{plot}} template at the start), almost complete mission walkthroughs, (small unimportant section on gameplay), list of differences between this game and its prequel, complete list of flyable aircraft, complete list of non-flyable aircraft, list of characters, list of "other" characters... and a grand total of 1 reference in the entire article (and just wait until you see what the reference is for!). Anyone beat that? Miremare 17:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't suggesting it, but User:Oscarthecat has put an AFD up for List of songs in Guitar Hero II, comparing it to listcruft of lists of cars in Ridge Racer. --Masem 18:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Oscarthecat (and any other interested) please be aware that Cruft is not a valid AfD argument, and often simply irritates those who might otherwise agree. WP:Cruft is an essay, and quoting essays like they are policies or guidelines makes it look like the nominator has no idea what they are talking about. And Miremare, please warn people before showing them disturbing articles like that. I'd edit it, but when I start to read it, I hurt inside... ~ JohnnyMrNinja 18:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I say remove them all because an encyclopedia is not a game guide and this is exactly the stuff to be found in a game guide. The same goes for maps, weapons, songs and other trivial information. I play plenty of video games (xfire profile), so please dont take this as coming from a video game hater :) Corpx 05:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
There's a line here between what is game guide material and what isn't. I am almost positive it has to do with the presentation and out-of-universe information that's appropriate for the material.
  • A list of levels in a game is very unlikely to have any out-of-universe support, and in most cases, are not notable outside the game. (counter example would be some level design in Pyschonauts, but that's the exception, not the norm.).
  • A list of weapons in a realistic military shooter like Rainbow 6: Vegas will likely have the ability to wikilink to the weapon articles, but as the individual weapons in context of the game are not notable. One can say "there's a variety of weapons, such as (examples)", but a full list would be excessive. Counterpoint here would be Gears of War or Ratchet and Clank, where specific fictional weapons have out-of-universe notability.
  • A list of fictional cars in a game (Ridge Racer) is non-notable outside its universe.
  • A list of real cars in a game (GT, Forza, NfS) may have notable cars that can be wikilinked, but like the weapons argument above, no individual car within the game is notable within the game's context. Summarizing manufacturers and possibly specific examples (noted by outside sources) would be sufficient to define the scope of vehicles in the game. I can't think of a case where there is a game where the inclusion of the car is what makes the game notable.
  • A list of non-licensed, soundtrack music within a game is non-notable
  • A list of licensed soundtrack music for a game where the music is a background element is for the most part, like the list of real weapons and list of real cars above, non-notable. (Counterexample, "All I Want"/Offspring/Bad Religion in connection with Crazy Taxi, or Nine Inch Nails and Quake 1, but again, few and far between)
  • A list of licensed soundtrack music for a music/rhythm game is notable in that these songs define the game itself. DDR is defined by the specific J-pop and dance beats, Guitar Hero by specific metal and rock songs, Amplitude/Frequency by electronica, and so forth.
I know, this is tricky, and it doesn't seem clear cut, but I think it's easy to see that line where notability exists. I think I tried to outline several cases where you can say the notability line is crossed for information to be kept.
Also another point that separates these. I can go to a reliable, verifiable source, and find the lists of songs in those materials. Repeating such a list here is not original research. On the other hand, what we generally call list cruft is lists that are put together by non-reliable, non-verifable sources (GameFAQs, message boards, etc), and/or are built from original research. If there needs to be another criterion besides out-of-game notability, I would say the amount of OR built into the list would be another consideration. Mind you, car lists for certain games do pass this criteria (I can find verifiable sources for Forza 2's car list), so it's certainly not the only criteria I believe should be applied, but it definitely is the case for many fictional element lists. --Masem 06:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
For the real world cars in video games, the list would merely be a collection of internal links and nothing more. It tells a reader that such a car was used in the video game, but the real world information may not be mirrored in game. Corpx 06:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
My argument echoes that notion. Cars are an important part of a racing game, yes. Exactly what models are in the game are not as relevant. A brief outline of what can be found in the game (e.g. a brief list of manufacturers, whether they are real or fictional) is more than sufficient for the needs of the casual, non-gaming reader. A full list adds nothing and serves only to complete trivial details for the gamer. If items are to be listed, there has to be something notable in order for them to specifically highlighted in an article. --Scottie_theNerd 06:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Listen here Scottie, I see no VALID reason to NOT list the cars as people who wish to buy the game would like to know just what cars are in there. Would YOU buy a box with pretty pictures without knowing what's inside??? I think NOT! If I was going to sell you a car but didn't tell you any details about it, would you buy it sight unseen with absolutely no knowledge? NO you wouldn't. So the car list in games is a valid issue as far as I'm concerned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:45, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

See the discussion above. I'm not the one who decides policy, nor have I played any major role in building the consensus. The discussion here has outlined the reasons why games should not contain extensive lists of in-game features. Furthermore, I do not see the validity of your argument. Based on my extensive experience with video games, I have come across no one who has researched every single weapon, item, boss, map, character or vehicle in order to purchase a game. If I were to buy a game, I would be interested in the game's content, but I would not be required to know every single thing in the game. Additionally, should I be curious enough to find out, there are plenty of video game wikis, site and fansites I can visit to find such information. I have referred you to WP:NOT as well as this discussion. It seems that you have decided to single me out as the scapegoat despite the other editors having established consensus.
Please explain why car lists should remain in response to the arguments already presented in this discussion. I should also warn you that you are only your last revert on Test Drive Unlimited, and a further revert will violate the three revert rule. --Scottie_theNerd 07:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Wondering if we can come up with some pretty clear guidance and update the WP:CVG article guidelines guide page to reflect this info, perhaps expanding on the "if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it is unsuitable." Masem's bullet list looks worth adding to the guidelines. Otherwise, we're going to be running into these battles over again and again. I'm doing what I can to AFD up some of the more obvious candidates, as below
--Oscarthecat 19:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Animated screenshots

Over on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Platform game, someone asked for an animated screenshot, so I created an example, Image:Super mario world.gif. Took about 5 minutes to make with the right tools. The thing is that the image is 3 megabytes (1.6MB as a thumbnail). What do people think, is this too big to include in an article? Does anyone know of a way that animated gifs can be further compressed, or would it be better to use png or something? JACOPLANE • 2007-08-18 23:23

There are definitely things you can do to help. Remember, GIF is a 256 color format, and, while it can eliminate redundancies between frames and offers some RLE compression, it's not going to be able to do that very well if your source is 32 bit. When you record the video, it should be a 1:1 scale with no filtering or interpolation effects on. When you record, you should record in raw, uncompressed format. When you convert to GIF, make sure to use a global palette and not a per-frame palette, and make sure its optimized to use a transparency mask, and crop to dirty rectangles.
No matter what you do, some sequences are going to be pretty big. SNES games are about the limit of what you're going to get a decently optimized GIF of. Older games like NES and such you'll have much better results. Frogacuda 01:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
The current size - even 1.6MB, is much too big for an article - remember, we provide information for everyone, even dial up users ;) It may also go against print philosophy. Giggy Talk 01:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Sound and music extracts are also against print philosophy. If it's too big, just link it as an inline text link like you did in this section. Kariteh 08:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Print philosophy? What's so great about Wikipedia is that it's not print. We can do things traditional print encyclopedias can't. In general, I think animated images, when used judiciously, can greatly enhance an article. But, yeah, at 1.6MB, it is probably too big to use directly in the article. But a link to it would be great. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 12:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
This image by Frogacuda is only 330K, and is being used in Platform game now: Image:Wonder boy platform.gif. JACOPLANE • 2007-08-20 16:47

I made a really low quality image at Supreme Commander, very small too. Using Paint Shop Pro animation thingy. User:Krator (t c) 23:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

While animated gifs certainly enhance an article, you're really stretching fair use guidelines Corpx 06:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Some merging input Vol.2

The Koopa Troopa/Goomba/Tingle merging discussion was archived even though it wasn't finished yet. I create this section in case someone wants to revive it. The state of the discussion when it was archived was no consensus. Kariteh 21:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned before, I'm fine with these items being merged as appropriate, since strong arguments were made that it's difficult to both justify notability and find verifiable out-of-universe information on these characters. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I think there's very verifiable info on Goomba AND Koopa Troopa, it just requires more digging. We've seen merchandising, several examples of it being references alongside Mario and co., coverage of it in books, etc. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Merchandising must be more than a simple "This was a toy along with five others" to have any sort of point other than filler. The coverage in books has nothing to bring to the table. It's quality over quantity. Just being mentioned doesn't cut it. It has to bring actual information in to the picture. TTN 00:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I support merging Goomba and Tingle (although once you put Tingle in that article I don't know if you'd find him again). There is just not enough possible encyclopedic content. I think that Koopa Troopa would be better served being moved to Koopa and (with a small rewording) serving as a foundation for an article on the entire "Koopa Tribe" (as they were called in SMB), covering all of the overly-aggressive turtles from the Mario games. Looking at the article, the rewording really would be small. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 23:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
We could merge Dry Bones and Lakitu as well into that article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The race as a whole has no more real world information than any one of its sub-species. Unless you want to merge Bowser, you're not going to get anything. TTN 00:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that the users that oppose the merger are given a certain period of time to fill the requirements, I noticed that Deckiller has already added skeleton sections to Goomba that need to be filled with material to make it reach a reasonable article structure, Tingle has to have enought informatiom to fill these spaces specially a "reaction" section. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
There has been quite a while to do this, so there should at least be a glimpse of hope before taking yet another stalling break. TTN 00:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I see what you mean, however back then they didn't had any time limit to find at least a moderate ammount of information to prove the character's notability, this clearly led to lazyness and made them react on a defensive position instead of actually trying to fix the problems here, for example we have Tingle a character that has appeared in several LOZ titles and two games of his own, the reiews out there must have reactions to his unusual persona and other stuff that gives a Out of Universe perspective to the article. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The species as a whole so DOES have notability. I'd argue that the Koopa species is more known than some of the games in the Mario franchise. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Notability, especially the WP:N#Notability requires objective evidence section, is the key here, not self-defined popularity. How do you show that they are more popular? You get sources, and by getting sources, you show the article's notability. TTN 00:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Individual "out of universe" sources for notability have been privded for Tingle. He should not be moved. And none of these discussions should be going on here, anyway. They should be conducted on the pages in question where those actually interested will know where to find them. And this is not a "stalling break". This is clearly a group of people who have not come to a consesnus and are not going to. You can try to merge these articles, it will not hold. It will not hold because you do not have consensus. Move on. Rhindle The Red 00:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Part of the reason the discussion is going on here is because such discussions don't tend to get very much traction in the article pages at times. I suppose that could be an argument against the articles' notability, if only one or two people care enough about the articles to monitor them... — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
They go on here because it is felt that the merges will get more support here than they will on their own pages. If that was not the incentive, then links to this discussion would have been left on the articles' talk pages by the person who started it. They were not. Rhindle The Red 00:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Did you even check the merge tags? They have a link that precisely leads to this talk page here. If you or people do as if they don't see these templates and the links, that's not our fault. Kariteh 08:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The merge tag at Tingle (the only one I've discussed) leads to Talk:List of recurring characters in The Legend of Zelda series, not here. Rhindle The Red 14:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
It's a mistake then. You could have fixed the link instead of pretending there's no relation between the merge tag and the past/present merge discussion. Kariteh 15:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't "pretend" anything. When this discussion was started here, there was no attempt made (at least that I can find on the Tingle page) to note it on the page itself. The merge tag linked to Talk:List of recurring characters in The Legend of Zelda series, where a discussion led to no consensus. The discussion here was then begun later, without referring to it on the original talk page. In future, I would appreciate not being accused of duplicity.Rhindle The Red 15:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
At most, you have reviews that call Tingle creepy. That is fine, but you'll get two sentences at most out of it. Then there are ones calling him gay, but those are unreliable sources as far as I have seen. There really isn't much more than that. TTN 00:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you said that already. I found an ARTICLE that discusses the nature of the character. It was not a review, but a discussion of the character himself, indicating that he is NOTABLE enough to be discussed on his own, divorced from any discussion of the games in which he appeared. And I linked to an ARTICLE in which his "gayness" is discussed. Again, not a review, but a discussion of the character that was deemed significant enough to be picked up by gaming media. They felt the character himsefl was notable enough to talk about. You asked for "out of universe" mentions. I gave them to you. You dismiss them. I don't. Your main argument against the character has been refuted. Rhindle The Red 00:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Quality is the most important aspect here. They have to be useful reliable sources (which the one rating the top twenty homosexual characters is not) to matter. Just existing doesn't cut it. Even then, it still needs to be enough to build an article. Just assuming that all of that is reliable and useful, it still doesn't amount to more than a paragraph. TTN 00:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
No, I think you're wrong. I think the material already on hand, plus the stuff I have added more than justifies the page. I think a character of such clear, individual notability as Tingle cannot recieve a proper encyclopedic treatment within a list. So, according to Wikipedia guidelines, he needs his own page. Rhindle The Red 01:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You need to actually back that up. In the very least, show a rough outline of the three or more paragraphs that can be built from these sources. Two paragraphs would easily fit on the list, so you'll need at least that to justify an article. 01:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)TTN

Okay, TTN, this is what I meant when I said you were overly aggressive in your attempts to merge things: When someone DOES bring up a good reference that shows notability, you are very quick to shoot it down however you can. That's what disturbs me about this - this argumentative pattern makes it seem that no amount of research will be satisfactory to you, and thus you'll keep the argument going until everyone drops out of the conversation. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, nobody needs to do anything for anyone here. Maybe stepping back and letting other people have opinions could work toward the idea of "consensus". Or at the least it would help to not annoy the crap out of everyone again. If everyone gets tired of being badgered again, they will stop talking again, which will mean "no consensus" again, which will mean no merger. Again. So play nice. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 04:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Please forgive me for trying to avoid substandard articles. Along with avoiding WP:FICT, people also just "pass" articles in their own fashion, so I have to be aggressive to make sure that we don't end up with crap. If you find the sources are able to build an article, help show it. Otherwise, please don't just assume that I am trying to be right at all costs. TTN 16:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Let me just say that you are not the only judge of what is "crap" and what is not, TTN. While you have some good points, you're coming across as trying to run roughshod over the much larger group of editors who have worked on this stuff for quite a while. My point is that other editors are helping to show how good articles can be built out of external references, but you are consistently shooting them down at every turn - within minutes at times. You're literally saying that every reference that has been brought up so far is not good enough, though if you go back to look at the collective set of references people have pointed out, there may in fact be more than enough good information.
I really do think you tend to interpret WP:FICT and the related guidelines WAY too strictly, and you are also WAY too eager to just throw away the work done rather than give us more time to improve the state of the articles before they get merged. It's a lot more work to undo those merges than to improve the existing articles when there hasn't been an agreed-upon consensus toward doing so. THAT is why I'm urging you to slow down and give it a rest. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
They are trying, but just because they put effort into it doesn't mean that there will be results. I believe that I have analyzed all of the given sources correctly, and they cannot be used to build anything. If you believe that I am wrong, gather some up and make a case. Or the people can actually work on the articles to show something (There is absolutely nothing stopping them). Again, it you're making it sound like I have a vendetta against these articles. If there is any chance that these can become something, I'll be happy, but as of yet, we only have fancruft or a base amount of information that means nothing.
You're also making it sound like this is something new, and I have just jumped on it without warning. The topic has been up for months at this point, various people have known about it, and still, nothing has happened. There has been plenty of time to find sources, prove a case, or do anything, but nothing has happened. Giving it a rest at this point just means another break that leads to nothing. If someone wants to say "Give me two weeks to do X, and if it doesn't happen, let's merge them", fine, but other than that, we need to get this over with. TTN 18:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The only reply I really have to that is that, yes, this topic has been open for months. I'm not saying that you're new here and that you're just jumping in without having read anything. But what I am saying is that apparently months worth of discussion have failed to lead to a consensus. Neither side is winning. You've rather adamantly refused to go on to the next step (WP:RFC), saying it won't accomplish anything, but apparently it's not accomplishing anything to just keep pushing and arguing here, either.
If you won't file an RFC on this issue, I will. It's apparent that this thread isn't making any more headway than the last one did. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What these articles need is good ol' nominations for deletion. That will make people not stop talking. Kariteh 08:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Just merge the Tingle article. I understand he has his own games, but the article has pratically little in it (the headings take up all the space) so until someone can greatly expand the article, he should be merged into List of recurring characters in The Legend of Zelda series. .:Alex:. 14:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Let's not start this all over again. There is no consensus to merge and until one emerges (which is unlikely), things should stay as they are. Rhindle The Red 16:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Be careful, Rhindle. The purpose of this discussion is to see if a consensus CAN and DOES emerge. Please don't discourage the discussion. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
That was a reaction to the "just do it" nature of the previous comment as if none of the previous tortuous discussion had occured. I don't think I said anything to discourage actual discussion, just that (as is standard practice) no changes should be made without consensus. The "unlikely" comment may have been an overreaction, but it is an honest opinion. Rhindle The Red 12:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Well I am sorry, I came here to give my opinion on the main matter at hand and help achieve consensus and not discuss what constitues as crap or discuss who gets aggressive over what. .:Alex:. 18:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm done with this thread, my opinion remains as stated. Please do not view my boredom as a consensus. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems like RFC is the only solution at this point. Kariteh 10:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

CVG Infobox Maker Update

Since it's been a while since the last update, I thought I'd remind everyone that I've uploaded the latest version of the CVG Infobox maker. This version finally generates the correct year, genre and stub categories since we dropped the "computer" part in titles. Feel free to let me know if you see anything that needs fixing. Thanks! --ADeveria 11:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the fixes! Marasmusine 15:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


Has anyone received any email recently from this person, promoting "Wikia Gaming"? By registering on Wikipedia, and joining this WikiProject, I haven't asked for and therefore don't expect my email inbox to be spammed with this sort of promotional shit. I want an explanation as to why this is happening. Haipa Doragon (talk) 21:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a user who has been banned since April for spamming Wikipedia users with adverts for his own Wikis. Full story in the admin logs. - X201 21:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I got the email as well. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah, well it's good to see it's nothing done by anyone related to the WikiProject. Haipa Doragon (talk) 22:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what your email said, but mine said "I noticed you're in WikiProject Video games". I replied with a brief "thank you", but then left it at that. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Was it like this: "Hi,
I see you are in Wikiproject Video games and I thought you'd be interested in Wikia Gaming is a community of passionate gamers. Read, write, and talk about gaming. Meet other gamers. Rate games and platforms, and even earn points and receive gifts.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Rob"? Haipa Doragon (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Yep, that's the one. I may have inadvertently gotten myself onto a new spam list by replying to him. Ah well - not like I don't already have some good spam filters in place. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I got it too. His talk page is quite telling, even if he was banned well over a year ago. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 22:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, but I've already seen that. Haipa Doragon (talk) 22:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Reported to WP:AN. Actually, Essjay unbanned him in Feburary 2007, but even banned users can continue to send emails unless they are blocked with email disabled. hbdragon88 23:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The thread is now at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Roblefko. I have blocked that account with email disabled.--Chaser - T 00:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
It can now be found at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive287#Roblefko for the purposes of posterity. hbdragon88 03:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject - Nintendo - Super Mario Series?

Out of all things video games you don't have a WikiProject on tbe Super Mario series? The very character is the longest lasting video game character (next to Donkey Kong of course) for 26 years! Surely since you have the Ledgend of Zelda (Link) series WikiProject I would think you would have the Mario series WikiProject too. I'm sure that there are plenty of Mario fans and willing contributors who are ready to start on a project of this subject. Think of it, you could have the games, the characters, walkthroughs of the games, development, the creators, etc. because as we all know the Mushroom Kingdom is a HUGE one. So why can't we put it as one of our priorities and upgrade the quality of all the articles in this area to FA standard and get our moustached friend featured? I think it's worth it. Mario is, after all, one of the driving forces behind Nintendo and would to the world of good to the Nintendo Project as well as Video Game Project too. What do you say? If you all accept, could someone put it on the To Do list? Thanks in advance.

Please excuse my lack of Wiki code as I don't know it very well.

Mush Man 10:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

You'd think so, but even the zelda project has very few active contributors. I've noticed that the more you divide a wikiproject, the fewer people are actually involved. That in mind, I see no reason why not to try it out, although I personaly wouldn't attach myself to it. I'm not sure how to propose a project or task force, however, but I'm sure one of the other regular editors here could help you out. DurinsBane87 10:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, be aware: From this line: "Think of it, you could have the games, the characters, walkthroughs of the games, development, the creators, etc. because as we all know the Mushroom Kingdom is a HUGE one." Games, development, and creatores are notable, major characters can be noted out of universe but see the discussion about Goombas above. Walkthroughs are NOT appropriate for Wikipedia inclusion. And again, like the Goombas, while the Mushroom Kingdom is "HUGE", you need to have out-of-universe references for this. You may be better off looking to see what The Nintendo CVG Sub-project is doing and work with them, since the Mario games would be bounded by this one (and they have subtasks for other games). Masem 10:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Ahh, I see. Thanks for your quick responses. Sorry for the walkthroughs point. I do read rules, but not extensivly. I still think that since there is a Zelda Project there should be a Mario one since Mario is bigger and more well known than Zelda and Link (but I'm not comparing them in quality. Zelda is quite good too, although I've only recently got into it). Apparently, Mario is as well known, if not more so, than Mickey Mouse. That's an achievement, though I'm not sure if the source is completely relible. You see. I will also post this in Nintendo Project because it also belongs there too. If any mods could respond I'd be greatful to see your point of views too!

Mush Man 10:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

While this isn't an AFD, reading WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS might be useful. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I've been doing some more looking around and I find it hard to believe that the Mario article doesn't even have GA status amd it's not on Wikipedia Version 0.5! Let's try to get this project off the ground so that one day, Mario will be on Wikipedia v1.0! What do you think?

Also, I read the article above and I agree that there shouldn't be an article on every single Mario character in existance. But the quality of the Mario related articles should be improved. And, sorry, I feel the need to express my opinion here, but I am very surprised that there's an article on EVERY single Pokemon. Wow. Do they have all the characters from the cartoon and games too? And I'm almost sure Mario is more well known than Pokemon. I would just like the quality of the Mario related articles so they are up to scratch.

I just want to add that I've done a bit of Mark-Up on this page so it's clear on where the posts start and finishs. If you wouldn't mind, if someone could put a line under their posts when they've finished just to make it cleaner. The code is < hr > but don't type the spaces (I only did because if I didn't, it would put a line there). And if you have a really important point, don't be afraid to make a sub heading. To do this, surround your heading with 3 =s. Thanks in advance. I also place (Active Topic) after the topic name as I think this topic still needs some attention.

Mush Man 06:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

  • Pokémon is not comparable with Mario in that way.
  • The characters in Mario mainly just make appearances, some are playable (Luigi) some have their own games (Luigis Mansion) in which case, they may well merit their own article.
  • Pokémon on the other hand, is different in that, in a Pokémon video/trading card game, the game could specifically revolve around any single Pokémon out of hundreds depending on the player. Each one is significant, it is only in the PokémonTV series & the Movies that the main character & his progression decide who are notable characters & who not. Make sense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle Salie (talkcontribs)
Pokemon no longer have their own pages, it's broken up as 10 to a page. Turns out that even the Pokemon project eventually had to acknowledge that most of them aren't individually notable. --PresN 14:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Quick question? What's with all the horizontal lines? - X201 11:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The colon indentations are supposed to be used to distinguish between posts, not horizontal lines. Ashnard Talk Contribs 11:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
In the Pokemon - Mario compare subject, I just said it's hard for me to believe that every single Pokemon gets a page or a spot on Wikipedia. My arguement is not to write an article on every single Mario related character, but to improve the quality of all Mario related articles and maybe make a few necissary ones. I believe that quality wins over quantity. And it is quite true. But rather than disputes about some little things, can we get some action? I'm a free user as you should see and I don't know who would be the one to present my plan or idea to. So I'm posting this publicly in the hope that some people who knows the ropes can use them to improve a substantial part of the Nintendo and Video Game articles. I can't do it myself, but in numbers, we can improve the quality of the Mario related articles.

Please don't remove the lines. I inserted them to indicate the different posts of the people. Without them, it's hard to distinguish where someone starts a post and where the next person takes over. Please leave them alone. Thanks.

Mush Man 11:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I'm sorry, but those lines are extremely distracting to other editors. I just tried formatting it a little better for you, but those lines are unnecessary, and stop removing your signature. It's there for a reason. DurinsBane87 16:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Since this conversation is more NES than VG, and this conversation was started in two places, please take the rest of this conversation to WP:NES. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 18:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone want to help with category cleaning?

Category:Video games based on films needs to have it's subcategories gone through, as it's getting cluttered. In my view: things with 0-3 contents probably should go (some exceptions could exist I guess). Small categories aren't helpful for navigating in my view. This is also a form of overcategorization. RobJ1981 06:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Release dates

Something I forgot to mention! Articles using the CVG template which feature the dates 31 December or 1 January have been included in Category:Video games with suspected incorrect release dates. There's not as many as I thought there was going to be, but anyone who wants to help sort them out, please do. Also please try to find a correct date if possible rather than just removing the day and month, although obviously this will often not be possible. Magazine review dates can be broadly useful, for example a game reviewed in October 1992 could be given a date of "late 1992" which is better than simply "1992". Cheers then, Miremare 00:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

List of Final Fantasy media

List of Final Fantasy media is being proposed for demotion here. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Dead external links

I had selected the VG WikiProject since dependent on many constantly changing online sources. The scanning method was changed to use the references from the wikilinks on the talk page. In this most recent scan I've updated the software providing more information on the redirects links, improved the dictionaries, and a tweaked the scoring system. And the JavaScript interface has seen some adjustment, though still not complete yet.

Between the two scan we can see some improvement. However, the lead digit should be near zero. Dead links are a citation problem and should be treated as such.

I'm still look to improve the interface, so feedback is appreciated. —Dispenser 22:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Got the Silent Hill pages done and added more scans of wikiprojects. —Dispenser 16:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Halo 2 is nearly done, I'm searching for some similar pages to replace refs. Should be done by Monday, and then I'll start wacking the others at WP:HALO. David Fuchs (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I've turned on the JavaScript interface, which mean that you'll be able to fix the links on the page. Those wonder what the colors mean, there a legend at the top :-). And there should not be so many dead links in our featured articles. Should we put a notice on the talk page for those editors who aren't watching this particular page? —Dispenser 23:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

CVG vs. VG

Is there any reason that the usage of CVG is still encouraged in relation to this project? The project is "video games" now, not "computer and video games", can we please start renaming templates (of course keeping the old redirects) and such? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 19:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I must have joined Wikipedia after the name was changed and I initially found it very confusing. I'm sure many other new users would feel the same. .:Alex:. 08:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Why bother renaming templates? I'm sure the redirect from {{cvgproj}} to {{vgproj}} will do just fine. Giggy 09:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Why bother renaming the project in the first place? Why bother doing anything? Because the project was renamed, then apparently people got distracted. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone actually object to renaming any pages/templates that got left behind? These seem like uncontroversial moves to me, as I can think of no reason "CVG" would currently work better than "VG" (except for in reference to Computer and Video Games, obviously). ~ JohnnyMrNinja 18:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, since this project was known for years as the CVG project, I'll keep referring to it as such. I never objected to changing the official name to "WikiProject Video games", but most people agreed that the "CVG" name should still remain relevant. I see no good reason to change the acronym at all. Consider it a nod of appreciation to us old-timers who have been here since the beginning. JACOPLANE • 2007-08-29 20:57

I think there may have been a valid reason for certain things remaining as CVG, but off the top of my head I can't remember why. I'd need to search the archives. - X201 19:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion in the archives is here JACOPLANE • 2007-08-29 21:01
WELL, as far as templates go, I have renamed as many as a non-sysop can. Would any administrator like to finish up? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 22:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
There are also a couple of cats (although outdated). Lets purge this outmoded CVG from our pedia! ~ JohnnyMrNinja 22:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Jacoplane, I didn't see your first comment, just the second one, and I read that archived conversation, so I thought it meant you were for it... Seeing the first comment makes me look like a jackass. Again, sorry. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Graeme Davis (game author)

Just recently a {{notability}} tag has been placed on this article's page. I figured that I would post a note to this effect here so that those who would know appropriate sources/references for Graeme's work can add them to the article in order to verify his notability, and ultimately keep this article from being deleted. Thanks. --Craw-daddy | T | 10:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If you know how to, you could reference from the external links on his page. I know the first is from his own website, but you could use the other site to establish notability and his own site to verify what's in the article. You should also be able to use this: Amazon profile. Thank you. Ashnard Talk Contribs 10:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Some template thoughts

  1. Has there been/would there be use for a PC Game requirements template? While I know the Infobox CVG template has a "requirements" field, this is usually too small for most modern PC games, and these have usually taken to a table within the body of the article to report these, specifically including the reported minimum and recommended fields. I would figure such a template would account for older games where there's only "recommended" versions, and where other things are lacking (certain video cards, etc.) Furthermore, I would recommend this be a template that could be hidden/rolled-up, or have an option for such a version.
  2. In doing the Crazy Taxi series article, in which I use the hidden CVG infobox template, I got to thinking, would it make sense for other game series articles to include, via a hidden CVG infobox, the infobox details, with the game page using the non-hidden version? The Crazy Taxi case is special (as I'm still proposing deleting non-notable game pages and grouping them there), but take a series like Ratchet & Clank (series), where each game is notable and there would still be a separate page for each game. This would help for someone researching the series to see dates, platforms, developers, etc on the single page without having to click too far off. The only problem I can see that I've yet to figure out is that to avoid having two separate places to edit the info in the infobox. I tried a couple transclusion approaches where a subpage of the game article would have all the fields but not the actual template name , so that in the game page I could use the non-hidden infobox, and in the series page, the hidden version, but that didn't work, and I'm struggling on the WP documentation to see if that is at all possible. If there is absolutely no way to do this, I would not even recommend this approach, but if it can be done, I think there's some value to it. --Masem 17:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea to me, but don't call PC specifically, let other platforms use it too! Miremare 20:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm assuming you mean other platforms like Mac and Linux, etc., as consoles pretty much have fixed requirements that can be easily captured by the current Infobox (eg., an Eyetoy game requiring an Eyetoy camera can easily fit). --Masem 23:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, those and older computers too. Miremare 00:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd argue that the proposed template should only be used if it is unreasonable to fill in the existing "requirements" field in the CVG infobox. Example: "Zork"'s requirements should likely fit in the CVG box, the first Doom maybe, and BioShock, definitely not (though if a representtative subset of the reqs can be put there, the better). --Masem 01:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking more about older multi-format releases where the system requirements for various platforms (mostly only memory requirements, but still) tend to clutter up the infobox if listed. Especially early 90's releases when there were so many active 8 and 16 bit platforms around. Miremare 02:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

(←) Understood. As I'm seeing it, the template would have to support:

  • Up to 3 (?) possible release platforms (console games must not be included in this, this is only for personal computer-type games)
  • Each platform would have a minimum and recommended requirements column. Minimum is the "default" that is filled in, additional parameters for recommended ones.
  • For each platform, for both min and rec, there would be (what I'm thinking):
    • Op. System
    • CPU
    • Memory
    • Hard Drive Space
    • Media (floppy, CD, DVD, etc.)
    • Graphics Card
    • Graphical Output (VGA vs EGA, displays capable of 800x600, etc.)
    • Sound Card
    • Network connection (modem or ethernet, up/down speeds, etc.)
    • Other (eg weird input controllers, etc).
The list would expand if Physic cards become a significant gaming addition, for example, but for the time being, I don't know what else could be added that incorporate older games too. All parameters would be optional and like infobox, will not display if not entered. To be pretty, if a recommended requirement is the same as the minimum (like OS for example), using a recommended parameter set to "same" would colspan the details of minimum into req.

Am I missing anything obvious here? I'm thinking this is a good thing to wrap my head completely around templates. I'd follow a format as the Template:ArticleHistory would do, where the first platform fields would all be followed by "1", and then "2" for the second, and so forth, ignoring any non-filled in numbers. --Masem 14:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'd go with that, there's nothing I can think of that you've missed out. Miremare 17:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Doom FAR

Doom has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Ashnard Talk Contribs 19:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Request feedback on guidelines

I would like to have the feedback of active wikiproject members on the following. Wikipedia has a number of guidelines on articles about fiction, predominantly WP:FICT and WP:WAF. These guidelines have been rewritten some time ago, but this appears to have been done without substantial input from editors who write about fiction.

Guidelines on Wikipedia are supposed to be a description of common practice. At present, however, these guidelines call for the removal of most material that does not include real-world information, which could be read as to include most articles about fictional characters, locations and concepts, such as those about many computer and video games.

This does not reflect actual practice, because Wikipedia has thousands of such articles. Now there's no need for alarm, because to my knowledge, nobody is actually deleting any of this. However, it would be prudent to reword and update the aforementioned guidelines to accurately reflect how, and on which aspects, articles on fiction are written.

Please feel free to update the guidelines as needed, or direct your feedback to their respective talk pages. >Radiant< 10:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll post feedback here initially. The WP:FICT and WP:WAF don't seem to get abided by. I've nominated a fair few AFDs for Gundam anime articles (of the many remaining, List of After War mobile units and GT-9600 Gundam Leopard are good examples of sheer fancruft non-notable articles to me). Who wants to know that the GT-9600 has a head height of 16.8m? On the other hand, video games seem to get a more realistic result, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DROD Elements that I nominated for deletion recently. --Oscarthecat 21:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Who wants to know? The fans do, that's who. Just because it's not important to you doesn't mean it's not important to someone else who's interested in the subject material. Jtrainor 22:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I think we agree on that then, this sort of material is of important and of interest to the fans. So articles which go into such detail ought to be on the Gundam wikia site, rather than wikipedia. Similarly, articles which in the past I've voted to keep (List of cars in ....) and overly detailed gaming articles ought to go in Gaming wikia. For example, the article on the gaming wikia 10 Great Flash Games Featuring Celebrities wouldn't survive very log on wikipedia, but is fine for the gaming wikia. --Oscarthecat 06:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
That can be any topic. A person might be interested in reading about my neighbor's cat, but I'm not going to write an article about it. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 22:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
But why would a fan come to WP to get the info in the first place, if they are already a fan? The main point that a lot of people seem to not understand whenever this comes up is that WP is supposed to be an overview, not a detailed listing of everything possible on a subject. There are plenty of sites, including wikis, that are for such info out there. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 22:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The way I consider the notability rules is that if I were a researcher that needed to understand a given topic, but I have never heard of it before, and will likely never hear of it again after I'm done with that, I would want an article that avoids discussing any detail that does not directly pertain to understanding the topic at hand. If further research beyond that is necessary, then I expect that I can find more specialized sources to learn more (External Links, trans-wikified articles, etc.). This applies to both non-fictional and fictional topics; I don't expect to find a whole dissertation on quantum theory here, not do I expect to learn the entire biology of the Mushroom Kingdom. This really helps to quickly identify what is game guide material, what stays around because its fancraft, and what really should be in an article (there's always cases, of course, that are difficulty to classify, nor is there a fine line that defines where things fall).
Generally, I'll write out all the things I want in an article, then step back and think of it from this completely external POV; not as a fan, not as an avid player, but someone that needs to know and needs to know quickly about the content. If you fan-cruft around it, it makes it hard to figure that out. --Masem 22:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia has a number of guidelines on articles about fiction, predominantly WP:FICT and WP:WAF. . . . At present, however, these guidelines call for the removal of most material that does not include real-world information, which could be read as to include most articles about fictional characters, locations and concepts, such as those about many computer and video games."

Might as well add WP:NOT to that list, since it forbids articles that consist purely of plot summary. If someone writes an article on a fictional character and uses the source fiction as his or her sole source, that's a violation of WP:NOT just as much as it's a violation of WP:FICT and WP:WAF. These guidelines have been through the ringer, multiple times, and they've survived. I don't think they need to be shot down so that the article on Padmé Amidala can be rewritten to look like its Wookieepedia counterpart. That would be a bad thing. — Brian (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"Series" articles FACs

People looking to write "series" articles have occasionally noticed that while there are several Good Articles about series, there aren't any Featured Article about a series yet to serve as a model for the other articles of the same kind. However, Mana (series) and Kingdom Hearts (series) have now been nominated as Featured Article candidates. This is a unique situation in the project's history; please help comment, fix, vote, etc. at these two articles' FAC entries. Kariteh 22:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone wants to copy-edit Mana (series)? That would be nice. Kariteh 14:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)