Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 36

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

→

Films based on video games

I just assessed Films based on video games, which seems a really important article, and is in a poor state. A little notification here in the hope someone familiar with the subject can't hurt, I thought. User:Krator (t c) 20:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't Movie tie-in (video game) equally important article? It's basically its counterpart. --Mika1h (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Lemmings list articles

I came across Comparison of Lemmings ports and References in Lemmings level names recently, and I was wondering if both should just be redirects or be put in AFD? The comparision page is useful, but I'm not so sure about it's encyclopedic value here. The references article: a very trivial list that probably should go. RobJ1981 (talk) 02:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I've prodded the referneces one, but the comparison one seems to have merit. Possilby merge with the main Lemmings article? hbdragon88 (talk) 08:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

What would be necessary to say about references in level names is discussed briefly in the article (referenced even) but need not merit more discussion (can be heavily OR). The port comparison one is a bit heavy for main article inclusion, and presently lacks any references. Maybe the first table alone would be appropriate (no need to discuss what features are or aren't present, nor the clones). --MASEM 10:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Sonic the Hedgehog characters

Ignoring the above section, the articles need to be condensed. The current lists (List of characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (games), Other characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (games), Other villains in Sonic the Hedgehog (games)) are full of one game characters and other trivial ones. That's all compared to this version, which contains only the recurring characters in a trimmed down state. If people can please comment, and just state that that one list is more preferable than those three, that would be great. TTN (talk) 13:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I need some help condensing lists into prose

Instead of a cluttered long list, a prose should be done for all wrestling video game articles. See WWE_SmackDown_vs._Raw_2008#Roster for a good example. Anyone care to help out? RobJ1981 (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Solicitation for VG review

I was wondering if an able editor here could do the Good Article nomination of Halo (series). It's been languishing in backlog hell for a while, and as I'm a significant contributor to the article I can't do it meself. Cheers, David Fuchs^(talk) 22:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

General template for video game lists

User:FMF asked me on Talk:List of Final Fantasy media to create a template that could be used across all video game lists. The results can be seen User:Axem Titanium/Sandbox2. Any feedback would be appreciated. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Strategy game and Strategy video game

In the spirit of the previous split between multiplayer game and multiplayer video game, I think this one has been long overdue. A strategy video game article is basically embedded in the middle of an article about strategy board games. Concepts like "real time" or "4x" or "artillery" are simply irrelevant to board games. We have a separate category for strategy video games, so I see every reason to have a separate article. So I've pulled out the computer game section from strategy game to create a new strategy video game article, and added a few references and new pieces of information. I hope we can build on this. Feel free to leave any comments or concerns here and I will try to make changes as needed. Ludologist12 (talk) 04:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how the issues related to strategy games somehow take a right turn when it comes to video games. Also, your claim that lots of sources claim that strategy games can be discussed as a purely video game phenomenon needs to be backed up with sources. SharkD (talk) 05:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't need other sources that "claim" anything. There are just lots of sources that DO it: Video game articles from video game sources discuss strategy video games and not board games. They're talking about different phenomena with statements that don't apply to each other. (e.g.: "strategy games can be real time" is plainly false for one, while true for the other. "strategy games have no element of luck" is plainly false for one, and true for the other.) That's what supports the need for a separate article. Compare perspective (graphical) with perspective (visual). There's no need for a source that proclaims they are separate issues. Sources just discuss them separately. 65.95.156.135 (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixing up the Mega Man (character) article

This is a call-to-arms, of sorts, for people to fix up the Mega Man article. I feel like such an important character to video games should have a much better article than what is currently up. I tried calling attention to it on its talk page, but no one has replied. I've done a small part; I "prosed" up the "Abilities" section, which used to be a list, but of course, much more is needed, such as sources and references. I'm afraid I'm not too knowledgable about the Mega Man universe so I can't really add information per se, but as far as organization and other miscellanea I'll be glad to help with, if time permits. Thank you. ♣ Bishop Tutu ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 04:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Talking of archives..

Can the deletion archive be... archived? Now that we're covering most if not all AFDs related to video games, it's going to be filling up a heck of a lot quicker and is already a fair old chore to go through. I could archive all December's prods and AFDs first, then it can be 1st Jan 2008 - onwards.

Could someone also explain how to add categories for discussion to the deletion list? Compared to checking the AFDs every day searching TFDs and CFDs takes seconds, but I couldn't add a category for discussion no matter which way it was turned. :( Someone another (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, does anyone in the project use the archive? I'm interested to find out how often they are accessed. Pagra shtak 14:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been tempted to use it a few times as a link in AFD arguments (using fallacies like "twenty articles like this one were deleted last year"), but every time I went to the archive I noticed how much work counting all related articles would take, so decided not to use it in the end. User:Krator (t c) 19:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's archive it to WP:ALLORNOTHING then. ;) Pagra shtak 16:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I used it recently, once, to dig out the recent fictional videogame AFD, and that's it. Are you suggesting that the archive could be culled altogether due to never being used? Personally I would try to file things away if it's deemed necessary, but if nobody is going to use the archive then get the matches. <.< Someone another 22:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I would drop the alphabetising instantly, because of the huge amount of work it takes. A little copy-paste into an archive can't hurt, and I would be willing to do that every once in a while. User:Krator (t c) 14:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Well if I archive the stuff running up to new year's eve, perhaps from that point we could just archive by date (IE older stuff at the bottom, newer stuff at the top) and encourage readers to use the find function in their browsers. Would anybody take issue with switching in this way? Someone another 07:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The archiving's done (including PRODs), just need discussion about where to go from here. Someone another 14:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone? :( Come on, if there's a chance to reduce the amount of time fannying around when archiving I'm sure we've all got better things to do with WP. Someone another 12:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Do whatever takes the least time for you.
Wait until someone complains.
:)

User:Krator (t c) 12:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ohhhkay, I'll be bold at the end of January, try (try) to archive the archive properly and start depositing closed deletion debates in monthly chunks. Some additional info on the archive page (use of CTRL + F for the find function) plus a little explanation should be plenty. It is my pleasure to keep the AFDs up to date, but the archiving system has to be easy to use as well as fit for purpose or it will discourage usage. I'll drop a note here when I do, so if peeps could glance over my shoulder to make sure I'm not ballsing it up it would be appreciated. Someone another 13:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Since when does "Game" mean exclusively "Video game"?

Good grief, did some software company patent the term "game" while I wasn't looking? Never before on WP have I seen such an egregious misassignment of article titles!

When looking at these articles, ask yourself, "Is there anything in this article of what existed and what people knew about games and gaming before 1970? Would any of the current content still be there if we could revert it that far back?"

The above articles make no mention at all of their subjects outside of the realm of computer and video gaming, when clearly the concepts they purport to describe are equally applicable to board games, card games, wargames, etc.

Game design (probably should be Video game design or Game design (Computer and video games))
Game designer
Gameplay

The above articles all pay only cursory lip service to the non-computer aspects of their subjects, while focusing almost exclusively on the video gaming aspects. They typically describe concepts from a computer or video gaming POV, and use examples from those realms only.

Game
Game artist
Game balance
Game club
Game mechanic (the most NPOV treatment I've come across)
Game theory (this one suffers from math geek POV rather than video gamer POV)
Gamer

The above articles are the few I found beginning with the word "game" that actually do at least try to cover their subjects from a non-computer POV, but most of them could still stand an infusion of traditional gaming information.

Now I know that for some articles (such as Game artificial intelligence), it doesn't make sense to discuss the subject from a non-computer realm; and I also know that I'm fighting an uphill battle here, since most WP editors are computer geeks, and most computer geeks are video gamers^{(-:citation needed:-)} - but I'm hoping someone better at this than me would be willing to take the bull by the horns and make the necessary movements to ensure that these articles appropriate for all gaming contingents, and not just the computer geeks. 71.126.99.212 (talk) 06:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

To me this is unnecessary, at least for most of them. I feel it's safe to say that when someone sees "Game artist," "Gameplay," "Game design," "Gamer" (especially), etc., they won't be thinking about board games, which is the only possible name someone could confuse it with. It seems like your viewpoint on this seems to be in a very miniscule minority. I haven't seen all of these articles, but I think a few of them may need to be deleted, if not just taken care of in some major fashion. ♣ Bishop Tutu ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 06:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure we can throw the anon's concerns away that readily. Ok, the NPOV issues are a different issue, but lets consider that some of the articles s/he presents as VG biased really aren't limited to VGs, such as game tester or game design. I suggest we get some input from other (traditional) game projects like WP:WPBTG to determine if there should be a more general article where these are, and if so, move the existing ones to, say, game design (video gaming) and so forth (as it's never commonly called "video game design". --MASEM 06:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I've left them a note inviting them over. I'll get the drinks, Masem can you sort out the nibbles? - X201 (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to X201 for pointing this out on WP:WPBTG. I agree with the IP user; there's definitely a systemic bias in wikipedia in favour of computer-based versions of things - which Klptyzm expresses above. It's understandable - all wikipedia's editors are at least going to spend some time at a computer - but it's something that we should keep an eye on, and avoid where possible. I'd add {{future game}} to the list. I tried recently to get it made generic, but was only half-successful. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

With respect to Bishop Tutu, I'll have to disagree with him (I'm assuming "him", apologies if I'm wrong here and I'll fix it). There are plenty of people who earn their living designing boardgames. (Likely not as many as those associated with video games, but that might also be because video games require a larger number of people to handle all the programming, graphics design, etc, etc.) I'm sure that many of the articles mentioned above can be improved and/or split into relevant articles for boardgames/card games/dice games/etc and video games. The Game designer article likely falls short on the mention of notable game designers such as Larry Harris (game designer) (designer of all five Axis & Allies games, the first one celebrating 25 years), Sid Sackson, and many others. The existence of many large annual (primarily non-video) gaming conventions points to the overall importance and popularity that this subject has. So, in a few words, yes, there seems to be vast room for improvement. --Craw-daddy | T | 09:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, the omission of Sackson there was one of the things I already saw fit to correct, and one of the things that drove me to post here (A Gamut of Games was like a bible for me growing up). 71.126.99.212 (talk) 13:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that trying to include all possible definitions of a game into each and every article that has the word "game" in it would result in a number of {{Copy to Wiktionary}} candidates. The anonymous user's suggestion that the game theory article has a "math geek POV" completely misses the point. Game Theory refers to a specific academic discipline, and it has a very different idea of what a game is than most of us do. Likewise, if I pick up a book on Game Design, I can be pretty sure it's going to talk primarily about video games. That isn't to say articles can't be written about e.g. Board Game development (or the History of American football, which could also loosely be called "game development"), but I think game by itself is too broad a premise to build anything on. Nifboy (talk) 11:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for all those articles, but I can definitely say that Game theory is fine as it is, since it's actually a branch of mathematics to begin with. Even if it weren't obvious at first, one only needs to follow the links to some of the games described and have a quick browse. As Nifboy said, Game theory is an academic pursuit. Ong elvin (talk) 11:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

As for the other articles being disputed, I would agree that there is definitely a systemic bias towards using video games. I think the articles should be heavily edited to be more generic to games as a whole, with subsections for video games, sports, board games, card games, etc. as with the Game article. Ong elvin (talk) 11:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I came here looking for information about card games, and created this section because I was shocked at how little I found when starting from Game design. I expected I might run into some dense theoretical discussion, but didn't expect the video gaming slant I found. While it may be true that afficionados of traditional board and card games are now in the minority, that alone doesn't make their subject matter unworthy of inclusion; and, if there were some decent content here, you might find that this minority isn't as "miniscule" as some presume it to be (Catch-22, I know).

As a relative newbie to this, I admit I might have used the term POV inappropriately to refer to an article's slant or bias, but I still think that a good WP article should cover its subject from every angle from which it could be approached, and not reject or ignore some because they're not as popular; that's one of the reasons why disambiguation pages exist. Had I known that a separate Project on Board and table games existed, I would have posted this there, instead, but there's no way I would have found that out from these pages - which is exactly my point. 71.126.99.212 (talk) 13:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Some pointers on this discussion, I personally do not have any strong opinions either way.

The dictionary definition does not matter much, because Wikipedia naming guidelines are about the most common usage.
The appropriate policy to refer to here is WP:UNDUE. The question that needs to be answered is "What weight should be given to each use of the word game?"
The only way to properly answer that question is as to how people use the word "game" nowadays, and all the other sub-terms like "game design".
I think it's very unlikely that the right solution here would be applicable to everything. "Game" in game producer and "game" in game tester have a different connotation.

User:Krator (t c) 13:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

(I came here from WP:WPBTG, so thanks for the drinks and non-salty non-greasy snacks.) Last point first: Yes, these topics don't all call for the same amount of boardgame/cardgame/miniatures content... but we can't rely too heavily on the connotations perceived by a small number of interested (some of them only in the video side) editors. We need mainly to address each topic encyclopedically: in summary of its whole, with greatest attention to the parts with most lasting influence, but with due attention to all significant parts. I haven't reviewed many of the identified articles, but I trust the word of Percy Snoodle, Craw-daddy, and others that some of these articles deserve more non-videogame content. (Game designer needs such text at all beyond a short list). As I get time I'll try to collaborate on such material, but I'm too far loaded to be the lead guy for these expansions. Barno (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

List of Samurai Shodown Characters

Hey everyone, I need another opionion about this article. I've been working on trying to make this notable since its removal.[1] The deleted version of the article was made on this user's page but it appears he has left Wikipedia.[2] It has undergone vast improvements [3] from when it was deleted [4], and I was wondering if the article as it is now is good enough to be included with the main article [5] again. I have requested feedback for the article here [6] and was told to raise the matter to people more knowledgeable about gaming. I haven't merged the history as Elipongo kindly suggested yet as I was wondering about everyone's thoughts on the matter. Thanks in advance! :) Sake neko (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Template question

Is this necessary: Template:DeadRising ? Dead Rising is one game, so this seems a little too broad to me at least. RobJ1981 (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems a bit overkill to me. Normal practise is to have a nav box for a series of games (or game that has quite a few articles about it). I've only just created one for the Buzz! series and there are 11 games in that series. - X201 (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it's overkill. Two articles can easily be put into a "see also" section. Or the whole wiki markup for the template could just be copied to the bottom of the article instead. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 15:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it was even necessary when all the DR articles were in existence, let alone for two. Someone another 19:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Another question

Might as well ask here without starting a new discussion. Are any other Firefox users seeing the text flow over the right side of the template in Template:Might and Magic series? This is how it displays in my Firefox: [7]. Other browsers (Explorer and Opera) display it just right. Is the navbox not optimised for Firefox or where is the problem? --Mika1h (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm using Firefox and I'm viewing that template just fine. It doesn't look like the JPEG you provided. --Silver Edge (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I do see it, and playing with the browser width, it seems to be an issue only with the links that start with a left-parenthesis "(". Not sure what to do about it. Nifboy (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have the problem also in Firefox. I tried adding/removing a sidebar to see how that affected it, and I get spillover both with and without the sidebar, but in different parts of the text. Pagra shtak 03:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe I've fixed the problem by using {{Nowrap}}. Pagra shtak 03:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. Awesome. Nifboy (talk) 11:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, good job. --Mika1h (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Help needed with List of Wii games

When I went to edit: I noticed several L games (that are only visible when you edit the page only). Can someone fix this? There might be more, I'm not sure.. I only checked that section, as I was wondering why the Legend of Zelda game for the Wii wasn't listed. RobJ1981 (talk) 12:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That page has some size problems. Splitting in two might be necessary. User:Krator (t c) 13:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I've seen bigger game lists, and they haven't been an issue. RobJ1981 (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. It appears to have been a reference tag formatting issue. Jappalang (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

For the DDR mix pages...

I'm thinking that we should split off the song lists and common gameplay elements into separate articles like on the Guitar Hero articles, that may make them a bit easier to understand. ViperSnake151 03:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of people on Wikipedia that feel DDR games don't deserve specific articles for each game, let alone two. Even if they were viewed favorably I would disagree that a whole page needs to be devoted to just the song list when it can fit comfortably in-line with the rest of the article. For instance Dance Dance Revolution (Computer versions) is an article I created (One of the first of many I will be added to this category of games) and in it I simply made the wikitables collapsed by default as to not distract from the rest of the article. And all you need to do is click Show and you've got the full song list, right there in the article. It makes a lot of sense to embed the song list like this and that's the format I'm going to be carrying with the new articles I add. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 10:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening FAC

I've nom'd the above article at WP:FAC. Comments are of course welcome. David Fuchs^(talk) 18:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

ZX-Poly - AFD

I've just put ZX-Poly into AFD. The thing dosen't actually exist and is just a conceptual idea by it's creator. - X201 (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a game guide

The editors of this project might be interested in the thread I started at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Deal with "game guide" content more directly. Pagra shtak 19:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Help needed with Dead Rising/Frank West

There is a conflict going on, that involves several pages now: Frank West, Dead Rising and Characters and Story of Dead Rising. In my view, there was a consensus reached here:Talk:Dead_Rising#Frank_West_merge, however a few people don't want to accept it and have been edit warring. Then they used the characters and story page to just have a redundant copy of information in the Dead Rising article. I'm considering putting the story and characters article in AFD, if the redirect wont stick. Dead Rising was one game, and all plot/character information is described fine in the main article. There is no good reason to move content at this point. The plot for Dead Rising is a bit lengthy and should be cut down a bit, not moved. RobJ1981 (talk) 23:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a huge mess that has lead a good article (Frank West) being merged and merged again into a really awful article. Present information at the place where it is best presented. This place can differ for each subject and isn't necessarily the main article. Going to do an ad hoc assessment of Dead Rising to give the debate more structure. User:Krator (t c) 23:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

And in other people's judgement, the result of the discussion was no consensus to merge. This canvassing needs to stop, Rob. Thank you. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Notifying WikiProjects is generally not considered canvassing, though, and sometimes even encouraged. The description of the discussion could've been more neutral though. User:Krator (t c) 15:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Some have argued that notifying the WikiProjects of fictional subject in particular is a type of canvassing that leads to keeps or no consensus on AFDs of said articles about fictional characters or locations. As departed user Larry laptop put it, no WikiProject about real things would defend the non-notability of a scientist, but that a WikiProject on fictional things will defend it to the hilt. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a large difference between notifying WikiProject Runescape of some Runescape gamecruft for deletion, and notifying WikiProject Video games of that same problem. We're not all keep-happy fanboys here, to bluntly state it. User:Krator (t c) 20:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What are you planning to do? I mean I they don't want to merge just tell them that you guys should work together instead of against each other...Historybuffc13 (talk) 02:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Age of Empires

Hi all. I've been writing about the development of this series a bit, and could do with some help on musical related stuff. Basically, if anyone could find any interviews or info about the music development for the original (Age of Empires (video game)), it'd be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 06:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Found something (although any further help is appreciated). Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 05:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

System/System only categories (again)

I've recently noticed some articles not having both the main category and the "-only" category. Example: Kirby Air Ride had just GameCube-only games, so I had to add the GameCube games category to it. Can someone run a bot to fix the ones that need a category? I brought this up before, but I'm not sure if a bot was ever run. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

AWB'd the GameCube-only category. --MASEM 20:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have time for the others? Category:Single-platform software is where they can be found. RobJ1981 (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll put it on a to-do list for myself. If anyone else has AWB access, I can explain how to do it. (Basically, load up list of pages in the non-exclusive category, then have it skip any that include the exclusive list; all that is left should get the category which is better added manually in the right place in the cat list than relying on AWB's category adding) --MASEM 16:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This should now be taken care of for all the -only categories listed. --MASEM 00:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Deveria's Infobox maker

The link for the Infobox Maker seemed to get lost during the VG:Project front page re-vamp. So I've put it at the bottom of the Infobox documentation, seemed like the best place for it. - X201 (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No More Heroes

some help is needed with the No more heroes (video game) page. Techo (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any cleanup tags, and there is no edit war apparent from the edit summaries—can you please be more specific as to what help is needed? Also, it makes things easier if you provide a link: No More Heroes (video game) Pagra shtak 17:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Character FAs to FLs again

Sephiroth BCR brought this up here a while ago, the discussion is now archived here in the VG talk archive and the original FAC discussion here in the FAC talk archive. The discussion died down before coming to a consensus regarding the current FAs, but the two FAC were moved over to Featured list candidates.

Anyway, with Characters in Castlevania: Sorrow series now a Featured list, I feel there is a discrepancy among the format video character articles have taken. Mainly because articles like Characters of Final Fantasy VIII and Characters of Kingdom Hearts are Featured articles even though they follow a similar outline and design. The only real difference that I can tell is that FFVIII and KH have a merchandise section that relates to the characters. The reason I bring this up is I think a standardize position needs to established for future articles or lists that will or already do follow a similar design.

I would like to eventually bring this back up to the FA discussions, but hoped to get some input from the VG Project before doing so. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC))

Classification of Lists and Disambiguations

Hi, I've been working with unassessed articles recently and giving them appropriate ratings, and I was wondering if it would be appropriate for the project to have a list-class and featured-list class similar to other WikiProjects, such as WikiProject Rock music, and have a category for these articles. With the number of lists in this WikiProject, I thought this might be a clear, concise way to organize lists. Also, I think disambiguation pages should have a category in order to keep them organized. What do you guys think? Redphoenix526 (talk) 00:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability of NeoGAF?

I did a google search and didn't seem to find any reliable results. Should this be sent to AFD or no? RobJ1981 (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Easily fails WP:WEB. I've gone ahead and tagged it as such; give the article some time to see if it improves, otherwise, AfD it. (and sorry I didn't get back to you on this, been busy at WT:EPISODE :-P) --MASEM 14:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "easily". The website has been discussed by notable websites such as The Escapist [8] and Gamasutra [9]. Also of note is its constant use as a source by gaming websites, and its 523,000 Google results. --Teggles (talk) 09:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether NeoGAF passes WP:WEB or not, but since those two articles you linked are about a large donation made by members of that site's forums and not about the site itself I don't think they really contribute towards passing the criteria. Anomie ⚔ 14:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

There are no, as far as I know, articles talking about NeoGAF. You can find several articles talking about rumors or confirmations originating there, but that is not enough. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Anomie, the two articles are strongly related to the website. They are covering a project held by the website. WP:WEB specifies "the content itself", and a project held by the website can only be considered content. ReyBrujo, I just linked you to two articles that discuss the website. --Teggles (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

There must be thousands of sites that have received coverage for a single event in their whole lifetime. The article talks about the event, not the site itself, so you ironically could have an article for the event, but not the forum ;-) Anyways, the criteria says "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." The donation is a single published work, we require multiple non-trivial ones. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the first sentence, that's quite irrelevant if the resultant keeps adherence of WP:WEB. Anyway, you're misinterpreting the criteria. You don't need multiple published works (of the website) to be covered, you need multiple published works that discuss the website's content. --Teggles (talk) 11:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, we disagree on the guideline interpretation. Even with your interpretation, we can agree the article should have been deleted years ago, and should have only been brought back after the charity event. I guess an AFD will help solve this. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 13:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Masem suggested to give the article some time to see if it improves. It fails web, and I doubt that will change now, in days or even weeks from now. So I personally don't have a major issue with it going to AFD now (if anyone nominates it). Otherwise I'll nominate it when I have more free time. RobJ1981 (talk) 15:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I came across this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NeoGAF. The result was no consensus, and it took place in 2006. Since then, I see no evidence the article has improved. I could be wrong though, as I havent checked each and every contribution after that AFD took place. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NeoGAF&diff=186829630&oldid=63123472 --Mika1h (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hellgate: London

Hellgate: London needs some cleanup, and it doesn't seem like many other editors care about cleaning it up, just adding to the article. Please, come by and help, if you can. ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 09:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Should a game article have 2 infoboxes?

See the edit history of Bully (video game). An editor is claiming there should be 2 infoboxes, one for the original game and one for the port. The port has a few new things, but overall: it's basically the same game. An editor is claiming it's misleading to put the port information in the infobox. I've tried to explain things to him, but he just reverts for no good reason. From the articles I've seen, there is one infobox for everything. See Resident Evil 4 as one example. One infobox works just fine in my view. RobJ1981 (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If the multitude of different versions of Donkey Kong can cope with one Infobox, I'm sure Bully can. There should be leeway for two Infoboxes in certain other cases where there is exceptional merit for two. Bully is not an exceptional case. - X201 (talk) 14:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, you only need one infobox for a game, ports included. Unless the changes are so drastic that it requires another infobox (in which case it probably has notability for a separate article), only one should be used. The port in question does not need a second one. The standard VG infobox is more than capable of covering the original platform and ports/multi-platform games if organised properly. Resident Evil 4, The Orange Box, StarCraft, Halo: Combat Evolved are some of the many good examples of how it is easily dealt with. -- Sabre (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If need be, you could always use {{Infobox VG Hidden}} to avoid clutter. ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 16:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that this is a hard-and-fast rule, but it seems to me that if a port or different version of a game is important enough for a second infobox it should probably have a separate article. If not, one infobox should suffice. Pagra shtak 16:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The Infobox has been changed

The style of the VG Infobox has been changed. Template_talk:Infobox_VG#CSS_class is worth a read. - X201 (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Cumulative 7th generation consoles sold

Is there really a need for this article? There already is the History of video game consoles (seventh generation) article. --Silver Edge (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge then redirect?--CM (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Development of Spore

Spore is a massive game, but is a whole article on it's development necessary? I'm sure this article was made to make the main article look better, but I think it's a bit too much. RobJ1981 (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought that ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion was a bit much too, but that's now an FA. And...there's a one paragraph "stub" for ESRB re-rating of Mysims. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I still think it's a bit much. The question comes up: yes, it's possible to write a 50kb article about it but why would you want to? And who would care? No offense to the people who worked on it but I feel like it's a waste to say in 100 words what can be said in 10, if you know what I mean. Even as said article admits, "the events passed by with little notice from the public at large". I would sincerely push for at least trying to cut down the info and merge it back, in the interests of conciseness, for both Elder Scrolls IV and Spore. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If there really is that much content out there, I don't see why we shouldn't have it. No reason not to cut down, but keep as a seperate article. Dihydrogen Monoxide 11:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm tempted to AFD it. It seems like excessive detail that isn't necessary. RobJ1981 (talk) 12:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from, but think to be considering deleting a well written and referenced article will ruffle some feathers. I think I would abstain from voting, only because I'm too torn between too detailed vs. we have bigger fish to fry.--CM (talk) 14:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

"I don't like it" is never a reason for deletion, and if there are reliable sources for it, we should not stand in the way, after all, the Development and Re-rating articles for Elder Scrolls Oblivion is top notch. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I never said I didn't like it. Just because some similar articles exist, doesn't mean every game should instantly have development articles. RobJ1981 (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that, I'm justing saying that if references support it, we should welcome it. I imagine more and more will pop up as wikipedia grows and matures, and the main game articles are high quality. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Complete merger of articles: Turn-based strategy and Turn-based tactics

On Wikipedia we have the articles, Turn-based strategy and Turn-based tactics. There was recently an edit war at Advance Wars: Days of Ruin over whether the game was a tactical or strategical game. Both strategy and tactical articles claim that Advance Wars is their genre. Turn-based strategy is almost the exact same thing as Turn-based tactics except for the (so-called) fact that: "Turn-based tactics do not feature resource-gathering, production, base-building or economic management, instead focusing on tactical and operational aspects of warfare such as unit formations or the exploitation of terrain for tactical advantage." I do not think that this is sufficient enough for a strategy game to be called a tactics game. Chess is a strategy game as well as a tactics game. Wikipedia is the only website on the net that claims a difference between strategy and tactics, therefore we need to delete the Turn-based tactics article and merge the content into Turn-based strategy. If there is no opposition, I will merge the articles together and redirect turn-based tactics to the strategy article. Comments? -- penubag 02:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you please fix the editor hatnotes for this proposal per WP:MERGE? D. Brodale (talk) 02:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed -- penubag 02:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Chess is a weird case. It's too abstract to be purely tactical (see Strategy game#Abstract strategy). Wargames (like Advance Wars), on the other hand, exist more on the simulationist end of the spectrum. SharkD (talk) 06:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

http://www.nintendo.com/whatsnew/detail/ZMgZp55bih7cC-9UG8nnXYT4JNlgLLbW And this link says otherwise that Advance Wars DoR is a STRATEGY game. But I'm all up for the merger. If it makes both sides happy, then I'm all up for it. It really is pointless to try and say tactics and strategy are two different things when they generally aren't.DeathMark (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Merging the two articles is for the best. The differences between the two genres are vague as is, and combining the two into an inclusive turn-based strategy category will prevent further disagreements over what genre best fits a given game. Comandante42 (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Can any comparisons be drawn in this situation to Real-time tactics and Real-time strategy? I think they are too big to merge, but how exactly are we going to treat this? On an unrelated note, why is this still here? --CM (talk) 03:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If I may, as I understand it, tactics is a short-term based plan to accomplish objectives. Tactics are used to move forces into place right in a small area of battle to achieve superiority, e.g. fighting to get places with good arcs of fire, flanking to eliminate a key point of resistance, etc. Strategy is a broad long-term based plan to accomplish obectives. The plans affecting theaters of war in which areas are conquered would fall under strategy. Upper echelon commanders plan strategies, while subordinates plan and execute tactives to complete their part in the strategy. Translating this to computer game genres, those games which involve resource collection, base-building, economic management, etc are strategy games since there is a long-term plan involved (grinding out an opponent in the long run). Chess is long-term strategy in the making (planning out 20+ moves ahead). Tactical games tend to be those which are mission-by-mission based games where one generally eliminates the other side without a long-term strategy. If levelling through experience, areas conquered, and unit health at the end of one mission is carried over to the next mission, then there could be a strategy element since the player has broader concerns (i.e. consider plans for the next mission in the current mission). Looking through the said article, Advance Wars: Days of Ruin is a turn-based tactics game in my opinion. If there is going to be a merger of the two articles Turn-based strategy and Turn-based tactics, it would be better to merge them into a Turn-based wargames article instead. The same goes for the real-time articles.Jappalang (talk) 03:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, but there's still not a notable difference and the difference provided is original research, no where else on the net claim they are different. I suggest the 2 articles to be merged to Turn-based strategy, tactics should be only mentioned in the strategy game and the tactics article should redirect to the strategy article. Turned-based wargames isn't sufficient enough because chess is a strategy/tactics game, but not unnecessarily a war game. oh, and also to mention, you say chess is strategy, but ,"Turn-based tactical gameplay is characterized by the expectation of players to complete their tasks using only the combat forces provided to them, and usually by the provision of a realistic (or at least believable) representation of military tactics and operations." the article says this, so according to that, it is tactical. There are just so many contradictions withing the articles, it really needs fixing-- penubag 02:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

By "now where else on the net claim they are different" do you mean: no sources have differentiated between strategy-games and tactical-games? If the query is between the terms "strategy" and "tactics", might I point out Random House Unabridged Dictionary's clarification as synonyms of strategy, as well as plenty of pages referenced by Google under the terms "strategy", "tactics" and "difference". If the contention is no sources have ever demarcated strategy games as "must have resource gathering, base building, etc..." and tactical games as "must not have ...", I think the reference in real-time strategy, A History of Real-Time Strategy Games has given a glance at what defines a strategy game. References in real-time tactics (Point - CounterPoint: Resource Collection vs. Fixed Units and Strategy Gaming: Part II) also seem to point out what defines it. Now if that still fails to satisfy parties concerned, like I said, putting turn-based strategy-games and tactics-games as sections (or without, and pointing out in the gaming industry, confusion reigns between classifying games or strategy or tactics genre) in a Turn-based wargames would pretty much be better than merging into one of the pages and giving rise to edit wars in which factions cry over "why should tactics-games be classed as strategy", "give it its own page", etc. Regarding classification of chess, it is the broad consideration of the game that should be taken into consideration (its long-term aspects of planning, and each square on the board is an area of conquest with long term consequences), rather than trying to pigeonhole it into a category. In any event, chess experts might wish to correct any of my beliefs if incorrect. The concern here is primarily on computer games (though as per other discussion on this board, we should also broaden the examination to board games, card games, etc).Jappalang (talk) 03:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying the word strategy and tactics are the same word, I'm saying a stragety and a tactics game is the same thing, the articles shouuld just be called TBS, not the synonym TBT, as it is less commonly used.-- penubag 08:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

"Interesting, but there's still not a notable difference and the difference provided is original research, no where else on the net claim they are different." This shows a considerable lack of research on your part as well as an insertion of your own original research in order to strengthen your position. There are plenty of articles which discuss turn-based tactics as something distinct from turn-based strategy, going as far as calling it a unique genre. Your logic regarding these games not being definable as either or both categories is flawed. It's like saying a chondrichthye can't also be a fish. The fact that gaming sites don't have a turn-based tactics category in their databases is more a result of a reductionist as opposed to inclusionist philosophy, in that games must be categorized at the most general category and not the more specific. It would go against tradition and would probably make their databases unmanagable. SharkD (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles which call turn-based tactics a type of game

VideoGamer "Commanders: Attack! is a gripping turn-based tactical game with a combination of strategic troop placement and entertaining head-to-head warfare." SharkD (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

CNET "This is one of the worst turn-based tactical games in quite a while, thanks to bad gameplay, horrendous storytelling, lackluster graphics, and more." SharkD (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

GamePro "Original Generations presents a rather diametrically opposing presentation than most turn-based tactics games." SharkD (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

CNET "It's generally easy to get around, so the "why the hell is he doing that?" frustration common to turn-based tactical games is minimized." SharkD (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles which call turn-based tactics a genre

RPGVault "We've got a lot of people here at Nival that love the turn-based tactical genre and we want to make a game that exceeds the capabilities of any other even remotely like it." SharkD (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Xbox.com "This turn-based tactics game expands the genre by providing a unique Level Editor, allowing gamers to create levels and play them online with friends." SharkD (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

WorthPlaying "At the core of the game though, there is a tactical, turn-based strategy game that stands on the shoulders of great games in the same genre like Fallout Tactics and X-Com." SharkD (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

GameSpot "Being a great fan of turn-based tactics myself, I can say that Silent Storm has made a major contribution to the genre." SharkD (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Armchair General "By all appearances this game was designed as a refinement of the RTS genre using tactical elements, rather than a refinement of the turn-based tactical genre using RTS elements." SharkD (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

RPGVault "Nival's recently released addition to the turn-based tactical combat oeuvre is appraised to be unique." SharkD (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Deaf Gamers "At it's heart it's a brilliant turn-based tactical strategy game but whilst these games are usually dry, occasionally dull affairs, Disgaea has so much charm and humour that it will appeal to those who are usually put off by games in this genre." SharkD (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

GameSpot "ALFA: Antiterror is a realistic turn-based tactical simulator that will likely remind you of games like X-COM, Jagged Alliance, and Silent Storm." "Mist Land is currently working to finish ALFA: Antiterror in time for a May 2005 launch, and the game could be an intriguing entry in a genre filled with classic titles." SharkD (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

GameSpot "Gameplay focuses on the old standards for this genre--you develop a base, manage soldiers, scientists, and technicians RPG style, research sci-fi tech, and attack enemy-occupied territories in turn-based tactical scenarios." SharkD (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Eurogamer "Already pioneers of the turn based tactics game with the various incarnation of the Rebelstar franchise, Julian Gollop's team put together a sequel that reinvented their own brilliantly innovative concept with Laser Squad." "Laser Squad is one of those benchmark titles that defined a generation and a genre, yet seems to have been retired from public memory before it's time." SharkD (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

1up "Turn-based tactical or strategy games rank up with RPGs on the list of genres that actually work pretty well with a cellphone keypad." SharkD (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Gamezilla "This game is pretty much like all the other turn-based tactical games since X-Com UFO Defense. It's fun, but it doesn't keep you coming back for more day after day. Playing against another person can be fun just for the strategic element, but again, not something compelling that you would play over and over again. It's too bad that turn-based tactical games have never risen above X-Com. I love the genre, but long for the day to come when I can be proud of it. If you are a turn-based tactical game lover, get this game when it hits the bargain bin." SharkD (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles which discuss turn-based tactical combat as being a unique gameplay element

Strategy Informer "The game, which is currently in development at Hungary-based Mithis Interactive, is described as a combination of turn-based tactical and real-time action gameplay." SharkD (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

PCGamer "Andosia War meshes traditional turn-based tactical combat and real-time economic simulation." SharkD (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

GameSpot "King's Bounty: The Legend is an adventure game with tactical turn-based battles and role-playing elements." SharkD (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles which are basically the same

PCGamer "Don’t let the subtitle fool you; Brigade E5: New Jagged Union bears no relation to Sirtech’s classic Jagged Alliance series of tactical combat games. Some elements are there—mercenary squads, turn-based gameplay, varied real-world weaponry—but the execution is so lame that you’ll probably kick yourself for spending $40 on this bargain-bin-in-waiting game." "These are pretty good games that we recommend to fans of the particular genre, though it's a safe bet you can probably find better options." SharkD (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

IGN "A turn-based, tactical treasure." SharkD (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Console Gold "Front Mission 4 is a very good turn-based tactical warfare game." SharkD (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

GameSpy "Tactical strategy games are nothing new to the GBA." SharkD (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles dealing with Advance Wars, specifically

IGN "Publisher Sierra is planning on waging war on Advance Wars with its own Commanders: Attack!, a turn-based strategy game for the Xbox 360 Live Marketplace (it'll also be released on PC platforms.)Developed by Swedish game creator SouthEnd Interactive, the game is a single- and multi-player, turn-based, tactical strategy game. " SharkD (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

GameSpot "Take Advance Wars and meld it with the wargame classic Panzer Generals, and you'll get something that looks quite like Panzer Tactics DS, a simple yet deep game that should appeal to fans of turn-based tactics game, as well as wargamers in general." SharkD (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

GameSpot "We're very interested to see what the reaction to Shattered Union is, as games such as Advance Wars have definitely shown that there is an audience for turn-based, tactical games out there." SharkD (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

GameSpot "While big-budget turn-based tactical games aren't often made for consoles or the PC anymore (even the Advance Wars series was morphed into a real-time game when it debuted on the GameCube as Battalion Wars), the genre seems like a natural fit for the casual and handheld markets, as the games like Advance Wars, Fire Emblem, and Band of Bugs demonstrate." SharkD (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

GameSpot "In fact, this incongruous mixture of happy-go-lucky attitude and large-scale warfare has become Advance Wars' most recognizable hallmark--well, that and the series' exceptionally well-balanced turn-based tactical gameplay." SharkD (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

GameSpot "The look and feel may be different, and there may be new units on the battlefield, and so on, but the core turn-based tactical combat that has been the heart of the series is still fully in effect." SharkD (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Deaf Gamers "The level of popularity enjoyed by its sequel and the GBA Fire Emblem games proved that tactical turn-based games could enjoy great sales figures in the increasingly popular handheld gaming market. In fact the real surprise is that we haven't seen more games in the same vein given the success of Advance Wars." SharkD (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

GameSpy This interview with Julian Gollop, developer of X-COM and Rebelstar: Tactical Command, says that Advance Wars heavily influenced the development of R:TC. It's pretty clear to me that he places both games in the same genre. SharkD (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Games Extreme "I liked Advance Wars on my old Nintendo. I also liked Battle Isle on the PC so I wanted to get this game for the PSP. Field Commander is an Advance Wars turn-based tactical strategy game for Sony’s handheld console and rather than being rubbish it’s actually a good game." SharkD (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

IGN "The gameplay itself is similar to past tactical turn-based strategy games on the Game Boy Advance. When the original Fire Emblem hit shelves more than a year and a half ago, the game that could be best compared was Advance Wars." SharkD (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Eurogamer "Putting aside its presentation, its most recognisable feature is that rather than having its combat in a phase-time system, it in fact plays in a pure tactical turn-based mode. When combat kicks off, you're moved off the main adventure map into a full grid-mode where your skills and spells can come into play in a more leisurely manner than the majority of games. For those fans of Advance Wars, Laser Squad Nemesis and anything with some beautiful squares on, it's a change of pace." SharkD (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

EGM "Almost visually identical, they share the same friendly setup and solid gameplay—turn-based tactical combat with a rock-paper-scissors-style attack priority system." "Strip away the epic story of good versus evil (I dug it way more than Shawn did) and the dizzying number of characters, and you have very straightforward combat—essentially nothing you haven’t seen before in kindred spirits like Final Fantasy Tactics or Advance Wars. ... It’s definitely one of the GBA’s best tactical games." SharkD (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

IGN "The best comparison to a popular game I can think of for PopTop's Shattered Union is probably Advance Wars. Don't get me wrong here, there are a lot of differences between the two. That comparison is mainly to get the tactical turn-based nature across." SharkD (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

SharkD, those references you provided do not verify that TBS and TBT are different. TBS and TBT are synonyms of each other, they are not different genres. Your sources do not prove that they are different in anyway, they prove that the word turn based tactics exists (merely showing me a site that has the word TBT doesn't prove that TST differs from TBS). But, I need to see a source that says that they are different, any source, a dictionary or what ever with varying definition for TBS and TBT, or easier yet, just show me a source that shows both words TBT and TBS on the same website explaining each. I'm not doing WP:OR rather, the content of those articles (TBT) are original reaserch; there are no citations for the definition and per WP:REF, it is legitimate to remove the parts that arent refed (the citations provided in the definition did not back up the definition). So please just show me a link that defines TBS and TBT from the same website, and the articles can stay as is. And just because you wrote most of the article, doesn't mean it's going to stay. -- penubag 07:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Show me a source that says they are the same thing. SharkD (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

C'mon, don't be stupid, you're asking me to find a source that says a dog is the same thing as a cat. You have to show me the source that says they are the same. -- penubag 21:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Your argument that turn-based tactics and turn-based strategy are synonyms is completely silly. If they were synonyms, why would these ([10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]) articles call them "turn-based tactical strategy games"? SharkD (talk) 07:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Why wouldn't they? They are just calling a strategy game a turn-based tactical strategy game, still not proving that TBS and TBT are different. You wouldn't want to make an article on turn-based tactical strategy now wouldn't you.-- penubag 21:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd far prefer genre article merges and improvement were the result of research rather than bickering, so long as there are several genres which reach beyond 'video game' there will always be disagreements. Only the other day I had to switch Battleships Forever's genre from real-time strategy to real-time tactics because of a review actually focused on its mis-labeling by the developer. (Reminds me, have to fix the article lead which still says RTS). Without taking a good long look, how do we know if a) they need merging at all, b) whether the term tactics has any currency and c) whether it would be better to merge real-time tactics to turn-based tactics instead? Let the editors so bothered about Advance Wars' classification do the legwork themselves, dig up multiple sources, discuss them properly and apply them to that article. There does need to be improvement on pretty much all genre articles and genre hierarchy articles (list of genres etc) and that'll take the project's input, but this isn't the right reason to instigate it. Someone another 14:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This edit was a little bit too bold. I can't say that I have much research on strategy video games to talk about the difference between turn based strategy and turn based tactics, but I know the distinction exists and is used very deliberately. Just because the distinction is fuzzy and controversial, it doesn't mean the distinction is non-existent. Ludologist12 (talk) 05:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The merger wasn't really a merger. The material was adapted to fit turn-based strategy. E.g., the genre characteristics were made to seem like they were characteristics of turn-based strategy; the "Types" section was changed to become types of turn-based strategy; the intro section was omitted entirely so that no mention of "turn-based tactics" was made anywhere in the article. This was a pretty disingenuous edit on the part of User:Penubag. I've since completed the merger. SharkD (talk) 06:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

(same as reply from your talk) I erased the mention of TBT because it is the same as TST, but it may be better to mention it once in the intro. None of the sources you provide tell me it is a genre, the sources provided just state TBT in the article. Show me a site that has both TBT and the word TST in it (I don't think you will because they are synonms of each other (which is why we are merging the articles)). My removal of content is not original research, rather, I am removing original research. -- penubag 07:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

They're not the same thing. You would never describe Civilization or Masters of Orion as turn based tactics, because it isn't. Turn based tactics is a subset of turn based strategy, merging the articles is fine, but do not refer to them as the same thing when they are obviously not. - hahnch e n 11:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

(redented) Allow me to bring in some published sources.

Mark H. Walker wrote in his book Games That Sell! on pg 93 that RTS is a broad category encompassing production based strategy, fixed unit, and tactical games. On pg 193, he compares Ground Control as a RTS to a TBT, effectively displaying there is a separation. On pg 189, he also called it having "real-time tactical strategy" features. If tactics and strategy genres were the same, his actions would be curious to say the least.
Dave Morris wrote in his book Strategy Games on pg 10 strategy is not tactics, and on pg 53 stated (paraphrased) "a game cannot involve strategy without resources".
Andrew Rollings and Ernest Adams on Game Design states strategy and tactics are distinctly different from each other on page 232. The same page states it is possible to make a tactical game without strategic elements.
Erik Bethke explains his team coined themselves the term "real-time tactical" to describe Star Trek: Starfleet Command as a tactics-only game on pg 23 and sets out a survey on pg 99 of his Game Development and Production where he specifically requests readers (would be game developers) to classify their game's features, amongst the choices are real-time strategy, and real-time tactical.
Nexus Entertainment LLC declared in Game Developer's Market Guide By Bob Bates page 341 that they are developing RTSes and RTTs (which they call a hybrid of RTS).
Here is a site mentioning tactical-games and strategy-games as different in the same breath, The Future Of The Real-Time Strategy Game @ Gamasutra.

Personally, while elements of tactics games are usually part of strategy games, I think we cannot simply classify them as strategy games. Like shooters, platformers, and fighters have been under the action umbrella but have distinguished themselves, so have tactics-only games.Jappalang (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC

This stuff looks pretty good, let me have a moment to process some of it.-- penubag 22:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now this is what I was looking for, thank you very much Jappalang, none of the other sources proved anything. You have effectively proven to me that they are different. But, the TBT and TBS articles are still a complete mess. They contradict each other every which way, which is why I though it was all written based on original research. Reading this: "Turn-based tactical gameplay is characterized by the expectation of players to complete their tasks using only the combat forces provided to them, and usually by the provision of a realistic (or at least believable) representation of military tactics and operations.^[1] makes me think chess is turn-based tactics, which isn't (also implying that Advance wars is stragical). I also think we should delete all those nonsense citations on the turn-based tactics articles and add your sources. -- penubag 22:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Jappalang's references from the real-time tactics article were pretty good, too. SharkD (talk) 06:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This is pretty good research material. Thanks! I think the original editor was overzealous in merging. He waited, what, all of a few hours before concluding there were no objections? At any rate, the difference between strategy and tactics is pretty common sense. This all could have been avoided with a simple tag requesting more references. Thanks for providing some good research. I hope someone has the patience to undo this mess, and add some citations. Ludologist12 (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Super B-Daman: Battle Phoenix 64

Ran across this during a run through Special:Random. Does anybody have access to Japanese magazines, any reviews or dev info? If not I think it should be deleted. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with leaving it as a stub? It seems to be part of a popular franchise - B-Daman. Regardless, Google came up with an IGN review, so it'll do for the time being. - hahnch e n 11:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Matchday serie

Hello all.

I've been checking the entries Matchday, Matchday Soccer, Match Day II and Supermatch Soccer.

I have seen several strange contributions to Matchday_Soccer supposedly made by the author of the game, Jon Ritman. Of course I didn't think it could be him (I even wrote about it at Talk:Matchday Soccer).

But I've seen that a detail about the cover is absolutely true and (as far as I know) I couldn't find any information about it in the web: the cover of Match Day 2 uses a photo of Gary Lineker also used in other videogame of that time ([16] Gary Lineker Super Star Soccer).

So I don't know what to do with it ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by El Pantera (talk • contribs) 22:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hang on. I'm on the brink of solving it all. It's a name confusion issue. More info soon. - X201 (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

On seconds thought perhaps not. But it's not by Gremlin. - X201 (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Matchday Soccer needs deleting, or moving to something like Match Day (series) or Match Day (disambiguation). - hahnch e n 23:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You beat me with an edit conflict Hahnchen. what I was going to say was...

I've given the article a severe going over. It needed major work and was a total mess. It's a borderline delete job to be honest. We don't really need a series page for it given that there were only ever 3 games in the series. - X201 (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for your quick help.

Finally I could check that the person writing was really Jon Ritman, the author of the serie, but keeping his writing could be a Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest.

I'd like to comment that I really consider Matchday a serie. The games in the serie are Match Day, Match Day II, International Match Day (not created yet) and Supermatch Soccer (by the way, that entry should be changed to Super Match Soccer according to its home site). And there are two other projects (Soccerama, a never ended project that lead to Match Day and Match Day 3 that was renamed to Super Match Soccer). I think it's quite a serie for soccer videogames, lasting from the eighties (8 bits home computers) to the new millennium (3D card powered PCs) and a 128Ks version of Match Day II slightly different of the 48Ks one.

And I'd like to say that I'd be delighted to help to improve the quality of all those entries. I've been helping WikiProject_Video_games creating stubs so far, so I think it's time to write good full length entries. I've been playing soccer videogames for long time, and my job is related to them, therefore I think I can do it right. Although English is not my first language, but I promise to do my best.

--El Pantera (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

VG Images that need saving

If anyone would like to save some video game images from deletion, see Special:Contributions/Project FMF. A lot of the images he's been tagging are box art, and would meet Wikipedia's non-free content criteria if rationale was added. I've done some, but there's a lot there if you look through the whole history. If you add rationales, remember to mention the article for which the rationale applies and wikilink it, to prevent a bot from auto-tagging the images as non-compliant. If you aren't sure what any of this means, feel free to ask me, another VG admin, or someone from the VG images department and we'll fill you in on the details. If an image you want to save has already been deleted, contact the deleting admin (or me if you want) and explain that you want the image restored so you can add non-free rationale and we can restore the image. Pagra shtak 04:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Last 500 image contribs - go nuts guys. The ones with a "top" alongside them haven't been touched since he tagged them, so they need rationales. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 07:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Small additional - Make sure to check the bottom of the image page to see if the image is used on more than one article. If it is it will need a separate rational for each article that the image is used on. - X201 (talk) 09:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Or removed from the second article if it does not meet Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. Pagra shtak 16:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Video Game Images lists some good templates that can be easily used to add a fair use rational to the image description pages. JACO PLANE • 2008-01-18 22:53 The first few I clicked through were much larger than the 300 width/height maximum recommended for 'low resolution', does this just apply to screenshots or what? Someone another 12:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we get more editors addressing this issue? Hundreds of images have been tagged and deleted already. - hahnch e n 01:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Case in point, look at all the deleted (and soon to be deleted) images at User talk:Thunderbrand. Rationale a few if you have the time. - hahnch e n 02:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I've got his page on my watchlist and try to get a few whenever I see it pop up. If there are any other inactive editors who have uploaded a lot of VG images, say so here and maybe a few of us can keep watch. Pagra shtak 05:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

See this one as well, User talk:Hibana. This is fucking ridiculous, FMF has just tagged hundreds of images within a couple of hours using scripts, it is impossible to keep up. - hahnch e n 11:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

And another - User talk:Timkovski. - hahnch e n 11:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The main problem is that the images are not low resolution (less than 300x300 pixels). And while it is easy to add a FU rationale to most of them, it's often impossible to find the source of the image. Kariteh (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Though the source of the image is normally wanted, only the proper licensing tag and fair use rationale are required. If we know the source, list it. If not, then I wouldn't worry. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC))

Where did you get 300x300 from? I've just uploaded Image:Flink.jpg, at 349×480, I'd classify that as low resolution. Given that I've downscaled it from 300dpi. As Guyinblack mentioned, sourcing is not as important as getting the license, copyright holder and rationale right. It doesn't matter who scanned the image, but who owns the rights to it. - hahnch e n 11:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I read it here: Template:Non-free use rationale# note-1, but it's actually talking about "raster image"... No idea what that means. Kariteh (talk) 11:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Raster images are normal digital images composed of pixels. Jpg, bmp, gif, and png fall under this definition. As far as the 300x300, this is the first I've heard of that, but there it is. It says it is a rule of thumb, and to explain why if it is larger than those dimensions. To me this says that there can be some exceptions. I didn't find too much reasoning why those particular dimensions are the requirement either. Basically it sounds like another safeguard against copyright infringement. A 300x300 image would print out very small, especially if it was 300dpi, and thereby reduce its reproducibility. I'm sure there's leeway on this, So long as images don't go over 300x300 too much and are 72dpi. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC))

Seeing as virtually all game cases are oblong in shape, 300x300 will be an impossibility anyway. - X201 (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the 300x300 is mainly to keep the image under .1 megapixels. So long as images are around this, we should be ok. 250x400 yields .1 megapixels and 300x330 yields .099 megapixels (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC))

As noted above, I believe the guideline is specifically to prevent cases where one can print a photo-realistic version of the original from the image. It's not some magic number (e.g. 300x300) that causes the problem, but rather when one gets up to a DPI level nearing what professional printers use. I believe we can refer to images as "relatively low resolution" even if not strictly 300x300 or less (which seems arbitrary and too low). In any case, I've tried to salvage at least some of the images which have been tagged, but there are still so many... --Slordak (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You weren't kidding about there still being so many. It took me over 40 minutes just to do less than 20 images. This is definitely an uphill battle. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC))

Seems a bit counterproductive attempting to lower resolutions to make it "unprintworthy" since we have to give them a nice link to the original (normally high res) version as a source if it was got off the net. -- Sabre (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It does seem a bit counter productive, but since we don't have to give the original source it's not that big of an issue. It's probably just an issue of Wikipedia legally covering its own butt. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC))

Category:Video game articles without infoboxes

Could someone add an 'infobox' attribute to the template? The films project does this and it would be the same approach as the 'cover' and 'screenshot' parts.Quickmythril (talk) 09:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Definitely something useful! Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 06:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Templates to help with tracking redirections

For purposes of tracking redirections of game characters and elements into lists, I've created two templates that should be useful:

{{CharR to list entry}} - This is for fictional characters that have been redirected to a list entry.
{{FictR to list entry}} - This is for fictional elements (other than characters) that have been redirected to a list entry.

These templates populate the categories of Category:Fictional character redirects to lists and Category:Fictional element redirects to lists. Both templates support an optional parameter to indicate the game/series that the character/element belongs to, eg {{CharR to list entry|Sonic the Hedgehog}} would sort the redirect into the category Category:Sonic the Hedgehog fictional character redirects to lists, which then would be a sub-cat of the former. This also allows this sub-cat to be included in a more general category for the game/series (eg. Category:Sonic the Hedgehog or even more specifically Category:Sonic the Hedgehog characters) as such that the list of redirected articles can be found easily from these. --MASEM 22:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This should help for all the Halo character merges I did... thanks! David Fuchs^(talk) 00:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

How are you supposed to use the darn thing? I tried putting it in the Samir Duran redirect, I put it below the redirect code and the text doesn't display (but shows in the preview before I save it). I put it above and it displays but the redirect doesn't work. -- Sabre (talk) 09:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at what he did for Sergeant Johnson. Jappalang (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

But the text doesn't show up. Seems a bit pointless having the text if it doesn't show up when looking at the standard redirect page (ie, not through previews or past versions). -- Sabre (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I will look into it, I think it's something on my template end with include-only and noinclude. Best I can tell , the fix will not require any changes on your end. Also, note that the series-specific pages should also be tagged with {{Wikipedia category}}, since this is more admin-related than user helpfulness. --MASEM 15:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

{{R from merge}} doesn't show up unless you are previewing it too. I think that's how it was originally designed. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC))

Should we tag every single redirect to a character list, or just the "correct" or main variation? The wording on the template implies that the redirect the template is on is the one that should be used in articles as it is the "correct" one. In practical terms (since that didn't make sense to me and I doubt if it makes sense to anyone else), Category:StarCraft character redirects to lists currently contains all the primary redirects to the characters, many of which were articles themselves before being merged. Do I add common misspelling redirects - such as Ulrejaz - and variations-on-the-name redirects - such as General Duke - to that category as well? -- Sabre (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I would presume the one with the longest article history. Nifboy (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I would agree, I'd use {{R from alternative name}} to make the redirects from the alternative name to the correct one, and then the correct one to the merged page; the idea being that possibly in the future, the merged info may be broken out again back to that page, this still leaves the redirections from alternative names pointing to the right place. --MASEM 16:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources citing unreliable ones

What is the standing of this WikiProject regarding reliable sources citing unreliable ones? For example, Tom's Hardware sister site, TG Daily, quoted VGChartz numbers in an article, same as Gameworld Network using VGChartz numbers here. A reliable source using unreliable numbers makes them reliable? How "deep" we need to go (for example, if IGN quotes GameSpot which quotes VGChartz). I revert those numbers when they are added to articles, and would accept when a reliable source uses those numbers, but I am not sure everyone here will allow with that. Thoughts? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I may be off me rocker, but doesn't a reliable source citing it make it reliable in the context of the reliable source? David Fuchs^(talk) 00:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This issue was also brought up here. SharkD (talk) 06:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought it to be established that using VGChartz with inline attribution (e.g. "VGChartz writes that the game sold one million copies.^[1]" instead of "The game sold one million copies.^[1]") was ok. User:Krator (t c) 12:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Here are two reasons, either of which, if you find it to be satisfactory, precludes the use of reliable sources reporting information from unreliable sources.

1."Sources should be appropriate to the claims made." Using a source that links to another source is not appropriate to the claim being cited because the linking (reliable) source bears no responsibility for the information reported by the linked to (unreliable) source.

2. Insofar as a reliable source reports unreliable data, it is an unreliable source because, when it comes to that aspect, it does not have a reputation for fact-checking. This idea must necessarily be adopted by video-game article editors, because even reliable sources like GameSpot, IGN, Amazon, etc., incorrectly report release dates or fail to update them. I have run into this problem a few times (with people reverting back to the incorrect dates because they're published by a reliable source.) If one were to stick to the notion that anything published by a reliable source is perfectly fine to stick in an article, one would find oneself knowingly inserting false information into articles. Though the threshold for inclusion in Wiki is verifiability and not truth, if a piece of information is known to be false or unreliable, then it doesn't matter what kind of source is reporting it.

A reliable source must be taken to be reliable strictly with regard to the information it gathers and publishes. When it begins reporting what unreliable sources have published, its status as a reliable source cannot apply.

(Inline attribution is not appropriate because VGChartz is not a reliable source and should not be cited in articles.) clicketyclick_yaketyyak 02:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's an unfortunate fact that many news publications are now resorting to unreliable sources to gather material for some of their articles just to fill in a few more pages. But I think it's a lot more pronounced in the gaming industry. Ong elvin (talk) 03:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to standardize templates

{{Infobox VG}} - {{General VG character}} - {{VG Reviews}} -- {{Infobox VG system}}

It's frankly rather strange that our templates look and occasionally act differently from all the other ones. Since the point of infoboxes is to streamline and provide a unified presentation of information, I suggest we drop the borders and garish colors and go with a look more along the lines of {{Infobox character}}, and any of the other media infoboxes, et al. --David Fuchs^(talk) 22:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the colours can be kept. They seem soft enough for that, and I don't think there's anything wrong with using a subdued colour to distinguish it. Shades of blue seem fine if you ask me. Ong elvin (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Beyond colors, there's simple organization and actual code. David Fuchs^(talk) 22:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Standardise all three (be sure to do the sub-templates on General VG character! Otherwise someone will just come along and revert it because of inconsistency with the inuniverse fields) with code and colour - or there in lack of, the grey is far more preferable than the pale green used in the last attempt for the overall effect on Infobox VG - it works with the current structures of VG character and VG reviews, but not with an Infobox VG code similar to Template:Infobox Film. As long as thats taken care of, its absolutely fine by me. -- Sabre (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Add {{Infobox VG system}} to the list; the last time this was discussed, someone changed it to the proposed redesign along with {{Infobox VG}} but no one ever bothered to revert it. Personally, I am neutral on this whole redesign issue so far. On a side note regarding {{Infobox VG system}}, does anyone else think the combination of title and logo looks strange where the logo is or clearly includes the name of the system, as on PlayStation 3, Wii, Xbox 360, Dreamcast, PlayStation 2, Xbox, Nintendo GameCube, Atari Jaguar, PC-FX, Nintendo 64, SNES, ColecoVision, Intellivision, Vectrex, and maybe Sega Saturn and Sega Mega Drive? Anomie ⚔ 16:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it does; I hadn't noticed that before. But that infobox appears the most similar to the other film/book/et al infoboxes, so I'm not sure how much we'd want to change. David Fuchs^(talk) 17:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

In addition: I suggest for both appearance and actual guts that we swap out the current infobox vg with the code from Thumperwad's superior version David Fuchs^(talk) 17:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems good to me! Although perhaps the "(s)" could be incorporated into the wikilinks, like they are currently. -- Sabre (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

What are the opinions for "platforms" to be moved to the top field? This would allow abbreviations to be declared right at the start of the infobox fields, and allow differention of platforms in the fields for developers, release dates, etc without making the platform field in the current scheme redundant for multi-platform, different development group or year of release games. Jappalang (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I still think that developer and publisher should go first. Platform should be moved up simply as its too far down, but I disagree that it should be the first one. -- Sabre (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I've moved 'platform' up a bit, and wikilinked the (s). See [version]. David Fuchs^(talk) 19:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been following this small controversey closely, but I noticed that the lines in the infoboxes theat separate the sections are gone now and I was just wondering if there was a reason for that? I personally thought they made it a lot easier to read. Evaunit♥666♥ 01:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Just as an update here, I've now pushed out the same style changes to {{general VG character}} (which should really be renamed to something containing the word "infobox"). Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Sega

Wikiproject Sega is going on a upwards spiral so get somewhere, maybe a few Sega fans could join and help? Gao gier ^Talk! 04:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there's definitely scope for a Sega project, Wikipedia must host a shitload of Sega fans given the "extensive" articles on Knuckles the Echidna et al. You need to remove all fair use images from your project page though, they can only be used in the article space with acceptable rationales. - hahnch e n 13:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been trying to deal with User:Gaogier regarding these non-free images on his project pages, but he seems to refuse to get a clue. Assistance would be appreciated, I don't want to 3RR over this. Also, could someone give me a second (and third, fourth, etc) opinion on whether his newly-uploaded image Image:PictureSonicWikiprojectSega.png is a derivative of Image:Shadow rivals.png? Thanks. Anomie ⚔ 23:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I admit i took a few idias from that while drawing mine but its not a derivative ir you. Gao gier ^Talk! 03:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually it is. You just contradicted yourself: to derive means to get something from a source. You got the idea from something else so it is a derivative. ♣ Bishop Tutu ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 03:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately Klptyzm is right. The similitudes are very obvious making it derivative work and, therefore, licensed under fair use (since technically, Sega owns the copyright to your image as with all derivatives from Sega properties). You should do something much simpler, maybe a blue ball with two eyes or something so simple that, even though you obviously based it in something, it is so simple that cannot be copyrightable (something that you could have drawn it by hand in less than 10 seconds is hardly copyrightable). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 04:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

File:Hereimage.png Tell me that is simple enough? Gao gier ^Talk! 16:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

As I told you in your talk page, it may be. I am not copyright expert (just worked in the copyvio section of Wikipedia for a year long), but it is much safer than the original. It still may be considered derivative work in strict law terms. You could try asking at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions to be sure, anyways. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If i take a photograph of sonic on the case of a game i own is that copyright to sega and i cant use it on my wikiproject Gao gier ^Talk! 16:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

To answer this and all future questions: it is impossible to have a picture of sonic, in any form, on your WikiProject page. User:Krator (t c) 20:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Improving the Quake 2 Article

Hi,

I've been trying to improve the Quake 2 article, but someone reverted my last edit (made on the 20th of January). I asked for an explanation but they only gave one which I consider to be inadequate, then just ignored my questions after that point. I don't want to edit war on this but on the other hand, I don't think there was anything wrong with my edits that were reverted. Someone suggested I ask for help here. Can anyone help with this? I really think the Quake 2 article needs some work. I'm willing to do it, it's just frustrating when people come along and revert without being even willing to discuss why. Thanks. Ben 2082 (talk) 16:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I can understand the reasoning for removing the screenshots of mods: they're only ever needed if the mod has substantial notability (and in most cases it would have its own article for that screenshot to go in). Reverting the inclusion of the reception section, on the other hand, I can't understand. Reception sections are the best place to establish full notability for a product. While the one you wrote was not first-class quality, it is certainly a start for a very important section in a video game article. I'd certainly put the reception section back in, but be prepared to put a lot of work (and references to reviews) into it, as well as removing mention of fan-run sites like "tastyspleen.net" (or whatever it is, all I know is it doesn't belong there) to get it up to scratch. Take a look at some of our Featured and Good articles on games on the main VG Wikiproject page for an idea of how to properly create a great reception section. -- Sabre (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I can accept what you're saying about the screenshots. What annoyed me was the way that guy just removed everything I did, including the reception section, with no explanation. It's just rude. Personally I'll get over it and just get back to editting but that kind of rudeness would put a lot of other people off editting stuff on here. With that Tastyspleen.net thing, I did wonder about putting it in. But the thing is, if you used to play Quake 2 online ages ago, and then you come back to it today, that site is a really useful one for helping you find a game online- something that you would have serious difficulty doing otherwise. Considering how many people used to play Quake 2, it's not exactly unlikely that a lot of people will come to the wikipedia article hoping to find information on how to play it today. I mean, I've seen people asking questions about it on the talk page. Is there any other way I could work this information into the article? I just think it would be useful to a lot of people if that information was there. Of course on the other hand I totally understand that there need to be rules though. Anyway, thanks again for your help.Ben 2082 (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If it passes the criteria, perhaps as an external link?--CM (talk) 02:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible page move

Hello all. It looks like Nintendo have posted an official English translation of the name of Fire Emblem 1, Fire Emblem: Ankoku Ryū to Hikari no Tsurugi. I was just wondering whether an article move to the English name is warranted now. Wikipedia: Naming conventions states that 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. The problem is that barely anyone will know this new English name, and that a break in the trend from other Fire Emblem games could be confusing for readers. Any ideas? Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 16:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

How about, leave it at the original most know by name and slap a redirect on the new name? - X201 (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and follow your suggestion. Thanks for the advice. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 20:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Inactive projects and taskforces revisted

Sorry for drudging up another old discussion, but did we ever come to a conclusion on this? The "Creating a new Task Force" discussion reminded me of it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC))

I've been busy with trying to clean up FICT and a few other places, but let me draft something out for how we want to approach this. --MASEM 21:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No rush, just didn't want it to be forgotten. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC))

Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Inactive project cleanup as a start. Not a big problem. --MASEM 21:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast. I guess all future discussions should go page's talk page. Thanks Masem. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC))

Fast indeed. But if we do this, we're going to have to make a task force subpage where we can list all these (and mark as inactive/moved so we know what's going on.) David Fuchs^(talk) 22:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Like a todo list? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC))

Added to {{WPCVG Sidebar}}. JACO PLANE • 2008-01-30 22:46

8bitJoystick.com a reliable source?

Just noticed this edit on Xbox 360. I took a look at the source,an interview on 8bitjoystick.com, that was used to support the assertions made in the edit. However, I haven't heard much of the reliability of this website, and a look around the site shows that it's a blog, which are usually not reliable (with a few exceptions) per WP:RS and WP:V. A look at Special:Linksearch indicates it is linked at very few places (and none as a reference), so I undid the edit. However, the person who added it keeps adding it back, asserting that since the interview is with a Microsoft "insider", it's still reliable. So, can anybody vouch for or against the site, and can "insider" interviews on sites like these count as reliable? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Since you're apparently wondering why, one of the links explains the interviewee: http://www.8bitjoystick.com/archives/jake_confidential_xbox_360_red_ring_of_death_source_responds.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dibol (talk • contribs) 23:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've seen this same report on Kotaku, labeled a rumor, so I dunno if it's credible or not. As for the site, I cannot say, much of the video game industry news leans against "insider" information and rumors. The information in question should be rewritten as a "possible" explanation to a factual problem. Kinda like talking about how Elvis died or something. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Update: Changed wording to keep source & meet Wiki guidelines. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well it seems to ME, that if a source isn't considered reliable, then it's not reasonable to go off info from the site -- how do we know they aren't making it up, or that their so-called insider person isn't, as that's the very definition of reliable, that we know they aren't. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The source isn't good enough. How is that info credible, when the source is a disgruntled possible-employee? And phrasing it as "some claim" is not a get out of jail free card, you can't just link to unsubstantiated material under the guise "some claim". "Some claim" that Hilary Clinton is a lesbian, it shouldn't be included in the article. - hahnch e n 00:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Paraphrase from link I gave out:

Here is their response:

Hi everyone. I understand the questions you all have. I hope you understand that it's a bit overwhelming to try and answer everything in real time. After tonight, I'm going to ask Jake (or Jacob?) to field your questions and funnel them to me for answers. Then we can do that in an organized way. But for now, I'm going to try and answer some that I thought were most important.

First, why the secrecy?

MS knows who I am. That's why I'm not concerned about self identifying to them in these postings with details only they would know, as some here have pointed out. The people who founded Xbox hw number 10. 1 left to go be the VP of manufacturing at Qualcomm, 1 left to go be the GM of engineering at Zune, 1 left after only 2 months in ‘99 due to conflicts with toddhol. He works on Surface now. The rest still work on Xbox. I am the only one who left the company entirely.

I am not concerned about MS knowing who I am. They are worried about me revealing their problems. Not the other way around. Plus, I have contacted every single attorney who has filed a lawsuit against MS and offered to help. Some have accepted, and that work is in progress. We'll talk about that in another post. It's very interesting, I just don't want a bunch of fan boys trying to hack my home PC (that I use for work). Harass my kids, call my house, etc.

Second, why now?

Well, it's not just now. I've been reaching out since before the product went into manufacturing. I left before launch. But many employees continued to contact me about the problems with the product and its launch. I did my best to help them figure out how to mitigate the problems caused my bad management decisions, and test the boxes right. Sometimes my ideas worked, sometimes they didn't. I then started to contact reporters. Sometimes it went no where. Sometimes, it resulted in a spectacular thing, like the ambush interview with toddhol just before MS admitted guilt. But still, it happened too slowly for me. That's one reason I'm doing this now.

When those articles were posted last July, I chimed in as a commentator. That's when Jake invited me for an interview. But I didn't see it then. It was only recently when I goog'ed "xboxfounder" on a whim that I found that old invite. So I contacted him to see if he was still interested. I sent him a current resume from my current work email account, and he believed me. If you guys don't, then tell me what you need to see as proof. And I will provide that.

Last: My motivation.

I have always been in a position to stand up for the customer. MS stopped me from doing that. They need to pay the price now. If you guys won't get together and make that happen, you have no hope for the future with them. It's not my fight, but I am here fighting. You decide what you want to do. And then do it!

Established facts: Ex-employee attempted to go through proper media channels, attempted to talk to news outlets, but attempts were for nothing. There's also the fact that Microsoft knows who he is and did not want the early problems to get leaked to the public. He offers to provide aid to parties suing against Microsoft due to the defective 360s. This is the closest thing you'll get for a reliable source other than whatever lawsuit proceedings there are on cases filed against Microsoft. Dibol (talk) 00:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You can say all you want about how "close" it is to being a reliable source because of who the person claims they are, but the fact of the matter is these blog posts are still not reliable sources. The blog posts are unverifiable - there's no way to check that this anonymous person is telling the truth about what's going on Microsoft, or even if they are an ex-Microsoft employee. Wikipedia:Verifiability is policy that must be followed, and these sources in no way verify the claims it's supporting - per policy, it should be removed. There are no exceptions just because someone claims to be an "insider" who supposedly is closest to the "truth" on a blog. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

All this is showing is that some users are willing to hide behind Wikipedia policies to cause ad hominen arguments. All I've seen not only on the XBox 360 page, as well as The Matrix Online is that whatever closet skeletons said topic has, it's constantly swept under the rug because of the "There's no reliable sources" card. I stated repeatedly that there could have been reliable sources, but no action was taken whatsoever by said outlets interviewee approached. If you're doubtful about him telling the truth, fine. Try emailing the guy yourself if you bother trying to find his email address.Dibol (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This is about reliable sources. Don't give me ad hominem bullshit, ad hominem would be attacking you. Why is the source unreliable? Because he's a disgruntled anonymous ex-employee. His claims do not rise above rumour, and certainly aren't strong enough to hold weight. - hahnch e n 17:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There "could have" been reliable sources? That isn't good enough. How can anyone possibly verify his credentials or his motivations? How is emailing him going to be of any help, I could just be emailing you and wouldn't know the difference. - hahnch e n 17:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The claim this source makes has been made repeatedly by more reliable sources. I think the current mainstream hypothesis is that the symptoms are due to faults somewhere in the manufacturing/design process, i.e. on Microsoft's side. Many sources have discussed this, including mainstream Dutch newspapers after the Dutch TV show "Kassa" uncovered the original problem. I'd advice against using this fringe source, because these other sources are available. User:Krator (t c) 13:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Reliability of a blog written by a journalist with published work?

I'd like to use some posts by Jared Newman, a journalist who's work has appeared in Wired and The Escapist, would his experiences of Urban Dead be considered reliable enough? They would be a big help. Someone another 00:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd say yes, following the doctrine that is present in WP:V, which reads (paraphrased), that self-published sources by experts who have previous published work in the field can be used with care. It doesn't take much to be considered an expert (someone knowledgeable) in the field of reviewing video games, but it does take much to get your work published by reliable sources in the field of video games. User:Krator (t c) 12:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Cheers :) UD's plot is minimal but the complexity of player interactions is where the thrust of the article is, having several 'survivor diaries' to use as sources is a real shot in the arm. Someone another 19:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for additional opinions

Template talk:Command & Conquer series#Cleanup, additions and other assorted issues. Help needed. Thanks. --MrStalker ^(talk) 17:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion archive archived

Just to let you know I've archived all the deletions up to and including December 2007, and moved January 2008 to the freshly vacant archive. Someone another 23:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Board games

I recently came across this review. Should this board game be mentioned in the Age of Mythology article, in a separate article, or nowhere at all? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 00:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as there is a Doom: The Boardgame article, you can create it as a stub article under the board games wiki-project if there is material to go about it. Jappalang (talk) 03:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

User adding GameSpot succession boxes

Does anyone feel this is useful? I removed it, but got reverted. Pagra shtak 18:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

A) It's hard to verify just from the box, B) it seems rather pointless. I'd remove it again. David Fuchs^(talk) 18:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I dunno - I actually kinda like that. It's not that hard to verify (they publish the winners, don't they?). It may not be the most useful thing in the world (succession boxes rarely are...) so I'd leave it. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 00:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are my problems with it:

It's largely redundant—we already mention the award (with a reference) in the reception section. Some articles have it twice already (text and review box). Why do we need to tell the reader yet again at the bottom?
The extra information isn't helpful—If you're reading about The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker, you would likely be interested to learn that it received GameSpot's GameCube game of the year award for 2003. You are not likely to be interested in what game won the award in 2002 or 2004.
Relevant information is no longer grouped together—In the Wind Waker article, the awards were are found in the reception section, with the exception of the lead section, which summarizes the article. Now we have a box labeled "Awards" in the reception section, and a box labeled "Awards" at the bottom of the article, with different information.
This will expand into something unreadable—right now the article just has a box for GameSpot's GameCube game of the year. Eventually, someone will add game of the month awards, and awards from Nintendo Power, IGN, Edge, Game Developers Choice Awards, Interactive Achievement Awards, GameFAQs user polls, and so forth until we've got a quarter of the article taken up with these boxes. Pagra shtak 14:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

My main objection to it stems from your last point. What makes a Gamespot Game of the Year better than any other magazine's opinion?. Mention it in text in the actual article but in no way does the award need it's own box. Delete it. - X201 (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the above reasons, particularly the last point - it will encourage more of the same.

Now, that doesn't mean categorizing these awards isn't a bad idea. Through templates and categories, we could make a series of award categories for major publications. For example: LoZ:WW could have {{gamespot award|2003|Gamecube GOTY}} tagged at the end, which then puts it into two categories, the year and the award. The subsequent categories would be heirarchial from a general "Category:Gamespot-awarded video games" categories. I don't know off hand if more can be done as, say, to make an autosortable table (doubt it), but at least if you are interested in other similarly awarded games (either by year or by award type) that list is readily there. --MASEM 14:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Gives undue wait to GameSpot over other magazines. Get rid of it before it spreads, or causes the creation of similar boxes for other journalism outlets. We're not dealing with something akin to the BAFTAs here, GameSpot is hardly anything so special to warrant its usage. -- Sabre (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

As it is clear that there is not consensus for these boxes, I have removed all of which I am aware. Pagra shtak 17:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I just found a whole bunch more of these for GameSpot PC game of the year, I wouldn't be suprised to find them on other platforms as well. Keep your eyes open for them. -- Sabre (talk) 10:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

2008 in video gaming

In 2008 in video gaming and all the "year in video gaming" articles found on {{History of Video Games}}, the North American release dates for games are listed when some games were released in other regions, such as Japan or Europe, prior to being released in North America. So shouldn't a game be listed with its Japan or Europe release date if it was released in one of those regions before being released in North America? Take Super Smash Bros. Brawl for example, it was released in Japan on January 31 2008, but the user who made this edit believes it should list its North American release date instead, which is March 9 2008. Am I wrong in believing that the original release date should be listed instead?--Silver Edge (talk) 04:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

So a game doesn't exist until it's released in the US? and the Buzz games I've been playing for the last three years have all been a figment of my imagination? First Published date is king. - X201 (talk) 12:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

OTOH, this is the English Wikipedia and not the Japanese Wikipedia, so covering only Japanese release dates is unlikely to be helpful to our readers. IMO, as with most things it depends on the situation which release dates are worth mentioning; for a console or an extremely notable game, there is probably reason to mention all three of the Japanese, North American, and European dates instead of picking one arbitrarily. Anomie ⚔ 13:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with X201, the original first release date is more important than just the US release date. It creates a bias otherwise. List the first release date, regardless of what country the release date corresponds to. -- Sabre (talk) 14:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Linking to Game Trailers on Youtube

Hi,

I'm working on improving the Quake articles and I've noticed that on youtube there are a few official trailers and adverts for them. Would putting links to these movies be against wikipedia rules? I think they'd be pretty useful for illustrating to people what the games are like. The movies I'm talking about are the following: [17], [18] and [19]. Thanks for your help. Ben 2082 (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

If I happened to see any of those links added to an article, I would remove them and give a {{uw-copyright-link}} warning to whoever added them. There are only three ways linking to a Youtube video is acceptable: either the uploader must be the copyright holder, there must be credible evidence that the copyright holder has given permission to upload the video to Youtube, or the video must be public domain. Anomie ⚔ 20:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

List/prose question

Are lists necessary to list all the characters for fighting video games (and generally most games with many characters)? A prose looks much neater in a majority of cases. I've seen many game articles (for games that feature many characters), and there is only a minority that have lists and tables for them. The recent problem is with wrestling games. They have huge rosters, and people insist on lists because they are "neater" and "the way articles have always been done". People refuse to accept change, and assume the default standard is the best. See WWE Smackdown vs. Raw 2008 and this discussion:Talk:WWE_SmackDown_vs._Raw_2008#Roster_-_list_or_prose.3F. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Cooperative video games

Anyone else find it odd to have the list in the category? (not to mention MOS issues and stuff) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 04:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, yeah. Split it off into a list article. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Split. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Release dates

Do sites like IGN/Gamespot qualify as reliable sources on release dates for unreleased games? I understand Amazon/Best Buy shouldn't be used. Should release dates only come from official sources? -- pb30<talk> 04:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If they have a news story that states the date, that's generally good (official word from the distributor is best); however, if all they have is a date on their game summary page and no apparent justification for the date, it's not really reliable. --MASEM 04:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

IGN/Gamespot are reliable here, sometimes more so than the developers. Keep in mind that Wikipedia writes according to the reliability of sources, and does not consider "officialness" at all. User:Krator (t c) 08:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

One good example where "officialness" could not be considered a good source is the official DevilMayCry.com site, where they actually used the Wikipedia "plot" sections from the articles for the official synopsis on the site, see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Devil May Cry#I guess we're kind of "official" now. JACO PLANE • 2008-02-4 22:50

I believe that technically were suppose to use the third party source rather than official first party sources if there is a conflict. I don't remember where I read that, but it sounds in line with the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia regarding verifiability and reliable sources. Once again, I don't remember where or when I stumbled across that, so take it with a grain of salt. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC))

Deathmatch article probable typo and possible improving

In deathmatch_(gaming) article, there's a section stating that the game Sniper was the source from which "Novel NetWare" originated. I believe this to be incorrect; I played "Novel Netwars", a multiplayer space shooter in DM style, which would make sense. Novel Netware has nothing to do with gaming and the sentence doesn't make sense.

Also, I'm thinking about prolonging the part of the article about the concept of deathmatch, especially mentioning some fundamental changes to the principle, such as adding death penalty for suicide, which (without the penalty) used to be a way to quickly get to powerful weapons in Doom, spawn-protection (implemented in Unreal Tournament, which is an important game in this genre), Last Man Standing and Team Deathmatch variants. But being new to Wikipedia, I'm asking if it is a good idea.

... "I'm asking if it is a good idea." Yes. In fact, it's really good that you want to edit this article - articles not about specific games tend to get overlooked a lot. Good luck in editing, and feel free to ask anything here when needed. We're pretty nice folk here. User:Krator (t c) 21:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

GameFaqs

I'm interested in knowing if the guides on GameFaqs.com can be considered reliable sources. I suspect the answer is no, but it would make writing gameplay sections for articles somewhat easier. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 18:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

While GF itself is a notable site and anything specifically written by GF's own staff would be fine, in order to use a FAQ you'd have to assume that editorial oversight extends to a member of the site's team checking each FAQ and rubber-stamping it as being 100% accurate. Don't see that happening. Are you having trouble referencing a particular article? Someone another 18:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The above is correct; however, gameplay sections can rely on the instruction manual (even given that they are primary sources), though it should be easy to identify very unique or notable gameplay aspects from reviews. --MASEM 18:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree with the points put forward here, but as Masem said, I feel its much better to use reviews to construct a gameplay section as it helps draw attention to the more notable aspects. -- Sabre (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're lucky, IGN's staff would have done an FAQ of the game. I can usually cite a whole gameplay section only using references from them because they're that comprehensive. It saves you from looking for the odd reference to a particular aspect in a review. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 18:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

At the very least you can use GameFaqs reviews and guides as references for the game's reception. Which is exactly what you want when talking about how the game was received as fan-based entries are often heavily opinionated. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

What, do you mean using a random user's review in the Reception section? Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 19:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Using reviews to populate the section of the article that talks about how players and reviewers felt about the game, usually called a Reception section. Using a selected review or guide can help illustrate how gamers liked or hated the game or one of its elements. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

These reviews are not appropriate reliable sources, since anyone can post a review or other information to Gamefaqs. Thus, they cannot be used for the purposes you are talking about. --MASEM 19:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Amazing, I never said to use opinion as article source. I must shout it seems, I only said to use them FOR SOURCING THE RECEPTION OF A GAME TO THE MARKET. Seriously, do I gotta draw a picture? --AeronPrometheus (talk) 09:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

<--(remove indent) To use user reviews for sourcing the reception of a game to the market would be Original Research and/or Synthesis, both of which should not be used on Wikipedia. Even so, would you randomly select a review or two, or take an average of all the reviews? Basically, how would you choose which reviews to use on the article? Randomly selecting reviews could lead to (possibly unintentionally) an editor's point of view and taking an average would be OR and synthesis. These are some of the reasons not to use user reviews. I hope this helps. ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 09:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Wow, after writing seven Good Articles I never knew that;). What I mean is that I don't think that you can use reviews from randomers. I could just write in what I thought of the game by the same logic. Only established, reliable sources can be used (IGN Gamespot, etc). It doesn't make sense to use anything else. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 20:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding GameFAQs FAQs, if the FAQ was written by an "expert" on the subject it would be acceptable. The question then is what makes an "expert", particularly in a field such as this. For example, some games have had people disassemble, trace, or otherwise search the game code to prove or disprove certain prevalent rumors; does that qualify as an "expert"? Regarding user reviews, I wouldn't accept them for the purpose of passing WP:N and generally wouldn't find them at all useful, but if there is reason to contrast "reception by fans" with "reception by critics" they might potentially be useful to help establish the former. Anomie ⚔ 23:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you could cite the main reviews page (if I recall correctly; it's been a while for me) to give a general idea of the rough "community consensus" on how good/bad a game was. I also think it'd be OK to use a FAQ (if well written etc., use judgement) to cite aspects of gameplay. But no GameFAQs reviews (except perhaps staff ones) in the reception section. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 08:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone got it! --AeronPrometheus (talk) 09:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

~~The only problem with getting a general idea of community consensus would still be a violation of OR and synthesis.~~ ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 09:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the OR in saying "of 28 reviewers, 13 gave the game 4 stars". Unless you need cite the ability to count to a reliable source. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 10:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

~~The OR is that an editor would be doing the research(no matter if it's one website or twelve) by saying "of 28 reviews...". Crunching the numbers to find out would be the research.~~ ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 10:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I call BS. If you go to that extent, then everything on Wikipedia is OR because the editor went out and found information in primary sources and combined it all into a Wikipedia article. There is a difference between "research", "original research" as a broad abstract, and "Wikipedia:Original research"; I suggest reading the essay Wikipedia:These are not original research to (hopefully) gain some perspective on the issue. Anomie ⚔ 13:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Anomie. It is absolutely not OR so do a basic tally of numbers like that. Drawing actual conclusions from the numbers might be a bit more sticky, but any normal observation is simply that, an observation. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

(←) OK, I'll concede the OR point. However, the question becomes should WE use user reviews like this? How verifiable are they? ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 14:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Citing GameFAQs for any kind of "player response" statement is a really bad idea. User:Krator (t c) 09:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I would personally only use a GameFAQs review to back up a "Some people found the game repetitive" statement, for example. But if you insist on policy thumping the issue I guess I can't stop you. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 10:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Even then it's murky territory, since I know FAC tends to respond to a "some people..." statement with "Who, exactly?" The extent of my use of GameFAQs is to look up release dates and other basic information that doesn't really get cited. Nifboy (talk) 10:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

<cue jaw drop> GameFAQs release dates are user submitted. That means they're the devil! No touchy. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 10:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Could there not be a better source for that information? If there were a lot of people finding the game repetitive, shouldn't there be a review by some magazine who felt the same way? We shouldn't HAVE to resort to using user reviews (not just that it goes against policy) to make a point. It should be out there in a published review. ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 10:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No, but it contributes to the whole. It compliments the other resources no matter personal standing with some users. If GameFAQs is not to be used then draw up a general ban from linking to them. Instead there's a template used specifically to cite a GameFAQs article o_o. Nothing more I need to say on this, too tired, not a politician, etc. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 10:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I only care if the sources are verifiable, not original research, and not synthesis. If any of these are violated, it shouldn't be used. Not because the information isn't accurate, but because if we start doing it here, someone will want to do it where it's less appropriate on another article. I'm sure some of the information on GameFAQs is verifiable, but this isn't. ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 10:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

AeronPrometheus, do you mean Template:GameFAQs? That is an "External link" template which is not a citation template. GameFAQs reviews are not reliable. GameFAQ summary pages on a game (FAQs, info, screenshots) may contain useful information which could not be included in the article due to policies, which is why they could be an external link (which is what the template is for). Jappalang (talk) 11:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

(←)There is an interesting case to consider here. Let's assume there's a game that gets positive reviews from all professional sources , but there is a known glaring bug or other aspect of the game that users are heavily complaining about, but there's absolutely no press coverage of it (rarely this is the case: there is bound to be a reviewer that at least comments on that issue, but lets assume the hypothetic case where there is not). We as gamers know this to be true, but as WP editors, we have to be somewhat blind to it. Now, as suggested, it seems reasonable to include user review summary scores, particularly if there's a large variance between those as the main "official" site review, but that doesn't address the point where users are finding the game to be bad. I think in this case, and only this case, we first assume good faith and can include a link to a user review or two to source the point (ideally, using "trusted" user reviews), but that should not be the end of it - editors should still be encouraged to look for sources. This way, instead of including the point about what was bad with the game, and then slapping a cn/or/fact tag to the point, adding the user reviews, even if not completely reliable sources, at least gives other editors the framework to understand the point that is being discussed, and may lead one or more editors to know where to find better sources. However, before an article can become Good, these sources have to be dealt with by replacing them or removing the statement altogether since it can't otherwise be verified. --MASEM 14:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Spot on. Two forms of bias to acknowledge:

Professional reviewers tend to be overly positive with any game from an established publisher.
Players, particular the kind that dwells on online media like GameFAQs and forums, tend to be overly negative.

User:Krator (t c) 15:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Never ever cite GameFAQ reviews, they're meaningless. I don't even know why we have an external links template for Gamefaqs, I see it on so many articles, and if I work on an article with the link in, chances are I'll remove it. What does it offer? - hahnch e n 18:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

As wikipedia isn't a game guide, the external links template for Gamefaqs allows for people who have come to wikipedia looking for help with a game (and I am sure there are a few) to find it! Doktor Wilhelm 19:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

By that viewpoint, the GameFaq external links are advertising for the site and should be removed with extreme prejudice. We aren't a collection of links for people wanting to find help with a game, that's what Google exists for. Help with a game does not come under "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews". -- Sabre (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

(←)Using GameFAQ reviews as a "player reception" is an idea with an unreliable basis. Under what grounds do the player reviews in the GameFAQ section constitute a fair representation of the entire gamer population? Though Krator have pointed out those player reviews tend to be overly negative, I have to point out there are also the "fanboyz" elements there who give overly glowing reviews. To avoid WP:OR, one would have to be extreme in detail such as "In x player reviews on GameFAQs, y have found...", what purpose would that serve? If GameFAQ player submissions are to be accepted, what about GameSpot, IGN, and the other multitude of gaming sites' player reviews? What does GameFAQ possess which raises its player review section above all others? Jappalang (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with GameSpot/IGN player reviews, but are they reviewed before being submitted? All GameFAQs review submissions are reviewed by a site admin before going live. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 08:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

GameFAQ reviews are approved by appointed volunteer administrators on the main basis of grammar and formatting. Submissions are scanned for incivil remarks and inappropriate content. In a way, they are no different from MobyGames', Amazon.com's, or Home of the Underdogs' player/customer reviews. GameSpot and IGN require registration, and are rated by their peers, a process similar to the ratings systems in GameFAQs and Amazon.com. As such, GameFAQs' reviews are in no way a cut above the rest. More importantly, GameFAQ player reviews (and each other site's player reviews) cannot be construed on their own as fair representation of the entire gamer population. To get a fair representation of "players' opinions", one would have to sum up the reactions of all prominent gaming sites, and derive a conclusion. Jappalang (talk) 09:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification; only one point I would make is that GameFAQs only have 2 admins would give this slightly more weight than what your comment implied (but let's not debate this). As for summing up the reactions of the entire community; I agree that this is difficult, but I also think that, in summing up the thoughts of all GameFAQs, or all IGN or GameSpot, player reviews of a game, we could at least give some idea of the community perspective. Not perfect, but we never are. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 09:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

True, though I must point out it is uncertain how many administrators handle the user reviews at the other three sites mentioned with similar systems. I did say it would be possible to point out player reactions at a certain community in detail, but we would then be running into little wars where one community supporter crying out why should some other community be excluded and such. A sad situation. The best thing we can hope for a player reception source is an established notable survey, or said reporter/journalist actually writing out an article stating "players/fans however .......". Otherwise, sales figures do show a sort of player reception to the game. Jappalang (talk) 10:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm in agreement on that point. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 10:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Japanese translations in articles

Over at the FAC for Link's Awakening, a reviewer has said of the original japanese translation provided in the lead "What earthly use is the Japanese script in an English-language text?" I was following examples such as Final Fantasy titles and Golden Sun, and I think that it makes sense to include the original title of a game, but what do you think? David Fuchs^(talk) 21:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It does indeed make sense to include the original Japanese ("Nihongo") title, simply for the sake of completeness. It's not as if there's a massive Japanese language section in the article; it's just the title of the game. See our VG article guidelines for reference. --Slordak (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

While Tony is a fantastic Wikipedian who has helped raise the copyediting standards on FAC a great deal, I believe he's wrong in this instance. It's definitely worth engaging Tony in this discussion though, since his experience and intellect can only help in improving our own standards. JACO PLANE • 2008-02-6 23:43

Characters in the Virtua Fighter series

While looking at Virtua Fighter (series), I noticed that every character thats ever made an appearance has their own articles. In all honesty, I don't really think the game is important enough to have a page for every character. I mean, all the pages are are a rundown of their past and a trivia section, and most, if not all of them, don't site any references or have any real-world info. I think they might even fall under WP:NOT#GUIDE. I'd suggest merging the articles into either Virtua Fighter (series) or List of Virtua Figther Characters. The articles in question are:

Just thought I'd see what you'd all think about this. Dengarde ► Complaints 07:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

If any substantial real-world information can be found, they could be merged into a Characters in the Virtua Fighter series or List of Virtua Fighter characters or whatever, else they can probably be covered in very short sections in the individual game articles. -- Sabre (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as these currently are nothing more than plot summaries, I would say that redirecting all of them to the main article would be best. If we want, we can also merge each section to its respective game under a plot section, and just place a cleanup tag. TTN (talk) 13:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

For once, I agree with you. Since they're really just plot summaries, I'd go with either merging the summaries of all five games to their respective articles, or merging them all into one. Having a page for every one of them is extremely unnecessary. Dengarde ► Complaints 21:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep all as individual articles as they concern notable elements from notable series with many editors willing to work on and many readers interested in their content. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is it that makes them so notable? Like I said, all the articles are doing is summing up the plot, which can be easily done is the game articles themselves. Theres no need to have them all as individual articles. Dengarde ► Complaints 21:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

They are familiar to millions of game players around the world, appear in notable games, appear in notable secondary source magazine publications, strategy guides, etc. Thus, they have notability to millions of people in the real world with reliable sources readily available for them. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Every character in every fighting game has received a similar treatment. Cleaning them up would be a massive project, with a great deal of resistance from fans.

As usual. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been able to remove the minor ones pretty easily. The only ones that'll be really annoying are Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat, while the second tier games don't really receive more than the usual fan complaint. TTN (talk) 13:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Make a huge blanket AFD nom of this one. It will pass. User:Krator (t c) 08:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you link to it, please? Dengarde ► Complaints 04:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Do NOT do that. Please do not. People will vote keep on the principle that so many of them should not have been nominated at once. Huge AFDs result in nothing but flared tempers and "no consensus." And AMIB will bring out his TRAINWRECK FROM WHICH NO CONSENSUS CAN EMERGE line and picture if that happens... hbdragon88 (talk) 08:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I really doubt it would pass as myself and others would surely vote keep. Plus we are still attempting to determine if the injunction would prevent such actions now anyway. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

to be honest, this stuff seems pretty harmless. unlike most 'fan' articles it's all well presented, totally objective plot summaries; crucially, there is no subjective matters being discussed without references and no personal opinions or agendas being pushed (although i haven't checked it thoroughly). i'm not opposed to cutting it down and merging it (or deleting it outright), but it seems like a lot of hassle to me Bridies (talk) 01:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Oddworld page

Along with the recent incident involving the necessary removal of the fansites from this page, I feel that this page needs a major overhaul; a couple of IP editors are preventing me from doing necessary edits to improve the quality of this article and because the page is so low-activity, no other editors have showed up to help resolve this matter. Basically I'm here to ask for editors to not only resolve this conflict but to help fix up this page. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 04:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Following up with the issue; discussion has been started on the talk page and some of the more questionable content has been removed pending the outcome of the discuss. However, an anon has added the content back 4 times in the past hour and is ignoring requests to discuss in the edit summaries. Is there a resident admin that can semi-protect the page? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC))

IP address has already been blocked by another admin. Admins generally won't protect if just one anon is doing it – only when it becomes unreasonbly disruptive will SPP be used. Wtih one, block the one. If that one keeps hopping IP addresses, rangeblock or semi protect. hbdragon88 (talk) 08:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Judging from the comments in the edit history, they have been using 3-4 IP's over the span of the last two months. It wasn't that excessive, but it escalated yesterday. I'll give it some more time and see if it dies down. Thanks for the info. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC))

admin attention is needed again imo. the IPs edits go against policy and consenus. furthermore they are being abusive in the edits summaries; on the talk page the IP states they will wilfully prolong the edit war as well as admitting a conflict of interest on their part with regard to the edits Bridies (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Bridies is right. One of the anon's IP has been blocked twice regarding the issue, see IP talk page They have been asked to stop edit warring and discuss the issue multiple times on another Ip talk page and on Talk:Oddworld. They apparently have been using two IP addresses, 217.150.112.45 and 82.5.133.228, and has stated the ability to circumvent "such silly systems" as IP banning.

The issue has really gotten out of hand in that discussion is not working and the edit war has escalated. Admin assistance would really be appreciated. At the very least can their other IP address be block for violating 3RR? I realize there are more appropriate channels for this, but I figured posting here would be quicker and more effective. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC))

~~I believe you are looking for WP:ANI if admin assistance is required (are admin requests to go through official channels all the time?).~~ Looking through the history of the Oddworld page and its discussion, the IP user(s) (I doubt its more than two or three people at most) has taken up ownership of the page, and used personal reasons for arguments. The IP has a serious conflict of interest. Its insinuation in being "experienced in internet" and "able to avoid blocks" could be construed as a threat and being disruptive. Going through the dispute resolution process, it seems either a report should be filed at WP:COIN, or a request for mediation should be made. By the way, you might want to check the references placed in the Citizen Siege section. The last two are to external wiki sites, which is odd. Jappalang (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

the 'references' on the page are to the fansites/wikis that the anon(s) keeps adding in external links. the in-line citations have either escaped attention because theres no actual ref list or because they kept being put back in. Bridies (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Multiply cover arts?

Is uploading one image, so that it has all 3 different region covers on it allowed? For example, User:Chessage replaced Image:European Club Soccer Coverart.jpg with Image:World Trophy Soccer Covers.PNG. Thanks. Salavat (talk) 02:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring the problem with putting that into an infobox (~256px), that image is effective 3 non-free use images (derivative works of 3 copyrighted works). Particularly since it's generic guys playing soccer, I'd argue this is excessive non-free use and only one is needed. --MASEM 03:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

On a separate game from Salavt's. How would I stand if I wanted to upload three covers of the same game that has different names in those three countries, not for the infobox but for a separate section actually about the different names and cover styles?. Everybody's Golf 5 if you were wondering. - X201 (talk) 09:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

So the best thing to do would be to find out which one was released first and upload that one? Salavat (talk) 03:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

What I would do for any time there is multiple images is that unless there's a strongly compeling reason to include both (note later) then use the same rule of thumb for naming when multiple English titles exist: specifically, use the cover that is (best guest) the most recognizable cover either based on release date or where the game has sold more, if this info is available, falling back on the first released English version if possible.

(There are exceptional cases for multiple game covers , like Mega Man (video game), but this being a case where the cover actually has some critical commentary regarding it; most cases, a cover is just used for ID.) --MASEM 15:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a solution, thanks for your comments, im going to go change it back to the single cover when i get the time. Thanks, Salavat (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

List of characters in Bully needs cleanup

This list needs a lot of cleanup. As of now: it's just a massive list of everyone in the game. This falls under game guide content in my view. Bully is a popular and well known game, but that doesn't instantly make every character in it notable. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't even seem like the game needs a character list. After removing the minor characters, the main characters should be able to be covered within the plot and characters sections of the main article. TTN (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Please state rationale for the minor characters being "not needed".

Rationale for them to be needed is that one of the key characteristics of Bully was that all minor characters had distinct personalities rather than the repeating character models utilized in the GTA series.

Article has also been under the supervision of a Wiki admin, Marasmusine. It is fine the way it is. McJeff (talk) 03:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep an Admin came to watch the article for a month or so, deleted the things that wasn't neccesary and reminded us that citing was important, which we the editors on the article have done a lot of in the past. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 04:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

First, I would argue that any significant reduction/movement of this page at this time is against the ArbCom injunction on such edits. So I suggest only talking about it and figuring out issues without making significant changes.

As to the issue at hand, while a list of characters is appropriate, and does not need to demonstrate notability per WP:FICT or WP:N, this list violates WP:PLOT - it is overly excessive plot summary as well as edging on being a game guide. As suggested, the list should be pared down to the major characters, and possibly a summary of the minor characters with a paragraph for each of the major groups.

I'm curious when and what this admin did. A lot of change in consensus on policy and guidelines for what is appropriate has changed over the last year. Mind you, there's no problem with selected quotes and game dialog to help support certain aspects of character descriptions, but what is on that page is pushing fair use allowances. --MASEM 04:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The admin in question was Marasmusine. He stepped in to stop an edit war and then got myself, Dan the Man1983 and Paul1953 on the right path when it came to citing those sources.

Now the argument that the article is unweildy is valid. But my question is - how do you determine whether a character is important? The major vs minor characters in some cases is very clear (Jimmy is major, Bo is minor), but what about characters like Zoe or Mr. Hattrick? They're not precisely major, but they are heavily involved in plotlines. Or what about Algie? He doesn't actually do much of anything important, but he's ALWAYS there... I think he has more cutscenes than any non-main character in the game.

If anyone wants to help trim the fat from the article, I'd suggest heading over to the talk page and saying what you think should be cut. Like, for a crappy comparison thing, making topiary. Trim the excess, see what's left, decide what still needs to be trimmed.

For starters, if being a Game Guide is against wiki policy, I think all the references to errand missions could be cut, and that would significantly reduce the article's size. McJeff (talk) 04:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

VG Assessment category

There's a lot of things in Category:Unassessed video game articles that are in fact assessed with WP:VG. What is the problem here? User:Krator (t c) 14:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have an example? Anomie ⚔ 14:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There's now only four articles in the category. At the time of the post above, this was about a hundred. Seems something got fixed :) User:Krator (t c) 20:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I did a lot of that. I assessed about 60 articles in a 4-hour stint and someone else took care of the rest. I'm working on assessment and other stuff at WikiProject Sega now, but I am glad I could help out this project. Redphoenix526 (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed task force for WP:CVG

A Bemani task force of WikiProject Computer and video games has been proposed; feel free to comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Taskforce for Bemani. --Core desat 01:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Navbox custom styling, does it improve or reduce the quality of an article?

I recently flipped through the current list of video game Navboxen and conducted some updates and code fixes. Some of the Navboxen weren't using the current Navbox template and some had coding errors which I scoured through and fixed. It wasn't a thorough job, I only updated templates that were visibly in need and plan on going through all of them to make sure the code is neat and tidy.

Another thing I did was remove all custom cell coloring and custom template sizing that I found. The reason I did this was because according to the template docs these stylings were "NOT RECOMMENDED", the all caps phrase having mysteriously disappeared from the doc since, however the note of discouragement remains. They also detracted from the clean feel of the articles as a whole and make them an eyesore in many cases as well as difficult to read in extreme cases. Especially when a custom styled Navbox butted up against a standard one. Some objected to what I was doing in regards to styling and reverted them back however after discussing my reasons with them they offered no further objections, with the exception of one. This person singlehandedly reverted, not changed back, reverted the changes I had made and in tandem reverted genuine changes that I don't believe even he was objecting to. This has since been rectified but I'm now curious...

What does everyone here think should be accepted and avoided when placing a Navbox?

In accordance to the docs, colors and custom sizes should go. I agree that they're not "illegal" but the spirit of the law is that they mismatch with each other especially if there are more than one on the page and would look a lot better and be more presenting to readers than treating them like a website with a color scheme. In addition, the technical side of things is that some of the color arrangements were unreadable on LCD and older CRT displays and custom sizing a Navbox to 75% of the page width would start to look bad real quick on computers running at a lower resolution, making the Navbox a pillar until they became unusable. But because of recent action-based complaints I would like to create an open discussion so that consensus can be reached on the matter. Please note that I'm basing this discussion on the video game templates only, not the entirety of Wikipedia templates that use these features. If you object to custom colors and sizes and off-standard styles say Object and give your reasons why. If you support the styles set and feel that color, size and other formatting is purely discretionary say Support and give your reasons why. Thank you. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 10:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

AeronPrometheus didn't supply any examples, so I'll do so here:

{{Nintendo developers}} - before, after
{{Pokémon anime characters}} - before, after

I don't see anything controversial about your edits. SharkD (talk) 12:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for linking the visuals. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 12:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree on keeping consistency for the navboxes. The worst offender I've seen for this is {{Daredevil}} David Fuchs^(talk) 12:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

As per MOS:CAPS, do not capitalize individual words in a phrase, "First Party" should be "First party", and so on. It would also be good to inform the main articles the templates you are correcting are based on. Jappalang (talk) 14:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Went back through the list and got them, thanks for pointing that out. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I checked again the "Nintendo developers", found the "Former Second party" oversight and fixed it, but you might want to go through your changes once more just in case. Jappalang (talk) 22:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That's what I did, you just caught the one oversight :P --AeronPrometheus (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Aeron has the right sprit, but is taking this to an unreasonable extreme. He's insisting that even changing the width of the template is not allowed [20], or even colors that go with the colors of other templates for that series of articles (such as the ones for The Simpsons). Take this before and after for Template:Pokemon directory here.

This "zomg NOT RECOMMENDED" section was put in place by a single editor in some template documentation, not a guideline, not a WikiProject page, but a template doc. It was likely added to prevent people from going really crazy on it, but not to be a template nazi. It does not improve templates to insist that all templates take up 100% screen width even if they have six links, or removing a green shaded title bar.

I largely helped make the most used episode list template on Wikipedia, Template:Episode list, specifically to help standardization, but made it a point to add options like "LineColor" and "TopColor". Assuming people aren't using eyesore colors, this is largely desired, and often requested from templates that lack such options. -- Ned Scott 02:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I should point out, Ned, that mass-reverting his edits (which also include updates to the code, aside from cosmetic uniformity) is not the most helpful course either. David Fuchs^(talk) 02:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. I personally saw them as minor technical edits that were not a big loss, but have since restored my changes without removing the improvements he made. -- Ned Scott 02:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that making all templates conform exactly to the documentation's recommendation is a little extreme. The options are there to be used after all. Miremare 01:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd also add that when you're running a larger screen resolution, for example 1900x1200, a navbox with 100% width looks pretty awful. You've either got endless blank space, or endless stuff crammed onto one line. Not ideal in either case. Even an 80% width makes this look much more reasonable. Miremare 05:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

That's another issue all together, if a Navbox looks like a string at 100% are there enough articles to justify one? Additionally, you don't HAVE to run your browser at full screen. Someone with a lower resolution, can't make the browser any larger than the screen without scrolling side to side. In this case a Navbox at 80% or 75% and 50% as some of the cases were will look like pillars. Something I explained to someone else and they seem to agree with that observation.--AeronPrometheus (talk) 07:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

If a Navbox has fewer than... five pages(?) linked inside it would probably be better to dissolve it and put said links into the See also section of each page containing the Navbox. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 07:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It has long been established that nav boxes with only a few links are perfectly acceptable. -- Ned Scott 07:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

AeronPrometheus, I'm not sure that judging a navbox's right to exist should come down to an arbitrary person's screen resolution. :P However, navbox width isn't really another issue, as that's one of the things you're changing isn't it? I haven't examined your edits other than one template on my watchlist, so forgive me if I'm mistaken. But it seems that while nobody HAS to run their browser full-screen, there's not really any reason I can see for making things more difficult for those who do, especially when even the most crowded of templates tend to look fine even on 800x600. Cheers, Miremare 18:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Aeron has now started an ANI thread about me reverting his style removals at WP:ANI#Ned Scott's mass-undos on Navigational templates. If anyone would like to leave any comments regarding the situation please do. If not, no worries. -- Ned Scott 08:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Destructoid

Is it a notable source? I'm curious because it reports certain community activities that the professional gaming press doesn't. Zeality (talk) 05:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Like most sources where you even have to ask, I'd say "it depends". Its "about us" page is fairly self-explanatory; the site is made up primarily of freelancers, and they like accountability, but that's as far as their editorial policies go. As for whether it's a WP:N-notable website, its AfD is also self-explanatory. Nifboy (talk) 07:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

All right; thanks. I've got it referencing the retranslation of Chrono Trigger along with a note from Siliconera; I'm hoping that's enough third-party support. What about links to OCReMix composer profiles? Someone tried to add game profiles to the Chrono articles, and they've been appropriately removed. But, what's the ruling for examples like these? Zeality (talk) 07:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

OCRemix, although it contains a fairly comprehensive database of the composers whose songs have been remixed, has three things going against it: Its "composer profiles" are little more than directory listings (example), it's not a complete directory (only composers with remixes are listed), and the profiles are set up principally for the purpose of finding mixes on OCR. As such I'd remove them. I looked at a sampling of articles and think there are too many external links on them even without OCR. Nifboy (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I would call it reliable for sourcing relatively uncontroversial claims, but far from enough to establish notability. User:Krator (t c) 11:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Eggerland articles need some work

Eggerland - Departure to Creation and Eggerland (Famicom Disk System) are two examples. Freewebs and Geocities are the primary source for these articles. From what I can see, both are just detailed fansites. I've went through others, and they are either stubs or starts at best. Many need screenshots, reception sections and more. I've started to work on some, but I could use some help. RobJ1981 (talk) 12:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

May need help at Talk:Fire Emblem: Ankoku Ryū to Hikari no Tsurugi‎

Myself and TTN have proposed a merge of Marth (Fire Emblem) at this page. A couple IPs are starting to hurl abuse at me and are being blatantly uncivil. One changed my sig to say "Ashnerd" and then proceeded to call me "Assnerd". Help would be appreciated. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 13:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Warn and report the IPs if they don't stop. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sonic the Hedgehog characters

Let's try this again. The current Sonic the Hedgehog characters lists (List of characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (games), Other characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (games), Other villains in Sonic the Hedgehog (games)) are full of one game characters and other trivial ones. That's all compared to this version, which contains only the recurring characters in a trimmed down state. If people could comment, that would be good. TTN (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

While List of characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (games) is likely to be worthy to stay (as a list which Wikipedia allows), the other two articles could be merged into the list itself. Much of the two articles' contents are more of description of the character, their abilities, and in-game special bonuses. Little is of real-world development or context. WP:IINFO could be used as a proponent to merge sourced out-of-universe content. Summarized content for recurring characters should be merged as well. The one-off characters could be summarized into individual game articles or thrown away. Jappalang (talk) 11:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

the version that TTN proposes is a mess, and does nothing to serve the subjects of the article, it also removes characters because of their own point of view (not to say anything of TTN's long running drive to condence all articles on one subject, down into one single article), the characters are better served with the two separate articles, and the list should stay just that; a list that connects all Sonic the Hedgehog character articles.com Doktor Wilhelm 12:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Care to explain where you got the inference I was supporting TTN's version of changes? Care to explain why the articles should remain the same with respect to policies to improve Wikipedia, instead of "TTN is the one who proposeth so we should opposeth"? Jappalang (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question, with a question: Where did I say that I though you were agreeing with TTN? I don't believe that the articles should remain the same, they should be worked, some one-shot chraacters have notability, some don't; some are a foot note, some are a section! I think they should be worked over and references added and the real world needs to creep in (maybe a bit of Character reception could help with that, and there is a lot of notable character reception for the later additions, though it's mostly anger against sega/sonic team), but what I oppose is the use of just one single list, Everything on Wikipedia doesn't need to be condenced into one article (besides what TTN and their fellow Deletionist-Mergist-Redirectionist editors wish to do). As I've stated before: "If the articles are merged, it will end up being too long a list, that is one of the rasons it's seperated into Other villains in Sonic the Hedgehog (games) and Other chracters in Sonic the Hedgehog (games), maybe any information from other bit-part character articles could be merged into them two, with the main characters having their own articles, and List of characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (games) serving as a bridge between them all!" Doktor Wilhelm 00:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

To be blunt, your post is an indented followup to mine, rather than to TTN's original posting, the context of your message will be based off my post. That is where I assumed your mention of TTN's posting as a followup to my opinions rather than as an independent thread. I also requested for policies which support leaving the articles as they are, would improve Wikipedia. Our goals are to improve Wikipedia. Unfortunately, that goal is subjected to the vast variety of individual opinions on what constitutes and improvement, and the laws and regulations which could cripple the efforts of everyone here building up the project to be useful. Hence we have the five pillars as the main 'rules' to build the project on. Under it, it is clearly stated Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source for information. Including every little creature which ever appeared in any Sonic game, describing its appearance and abilitiies in detail, and ascribing their cameos as background characters or one-off appearances in other games, and such is violating that spirit. It is in this spirit (as well as the verifiability policy) that articles are best composed of sourced real-world information, especially with regards to fiction. As stated, the current articles massively fail in this aspect. There is no loss in quality to the articles if my suggestions above are taken, in regards to Wikipedia policies. In short, trim all three articles, merge them together into a list with sourced information. That is an improvement. Readers are able to find development information, what affected development of Sonic games' characters, and what is the impact of these characters on the gaming industry, players or communities, in one single article. If sourced information for these are major enough to split into separate articles, then it is a given for us to do so, but the current articles do not qualify as such. Deletionist-Mergist-Redirectionist are only approaches of Wikipedia editing, and are not policies. Jappalang (talk) 09:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

While I do agree that the amount of unsourced information is a little ridiculous, I don't think trimming the articles and merging them is the right approach. Sure, it would be a step in the right direction, but it may leave out other characters with notability that may be present but not well established. Allow me to make this suggestion then: find someone to find sources or do it yourself. If it is the sourcing that is the main concern, then I don't see why merging is necessary. This is the Internet, after all, and there should be plenty of stuff about most topics period. Unfortunately, I cannot help with searching for sources as I am busy all the time, or I would do it myself. Now, if notability cannot be established (not HAS NOT BEEN established, CANNOT BE established) on most of the content, then I'm all for the merge. But until then, it makes more sense to just find sources and establish notability. Don't get rid of something if it's worthy of note, a philosophy I hold true in my edits. Redphoenix526 (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much all of the characters within the lists appear in one game each. None of them require any coverage outside of the single game, and if by some chance there is actual relevant information, it belongs in the game article. The version that I list up above shows the characters that actually need coverage, and that'll likely have some relevant information on them.TTN (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Normally I would keep an open mind and put full consideration into this proposal, or at least let it be done temporarily to see if it better fits Wikipedia before taking a position, but I am extremely bothered by TTN's actions. After taking unilateral action without discussion in doing a major edit, TTN engaged in an edit war to keep those changes. Upon failing that, the editor finally began a merge discussion and failed to gain a consensus. Now, less than one month later, TTN reopens this discussion here, without any notice on any of the affected articles (the only notice came several days later by another editor). At best this editor's actions are plain sneaky; at worst TTN has ignored several WP rules and etiquettes in a quest to champion others. Cigraphix (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If it were possible to obtain an actual consensus, I would have tried. The problem is that the articles are dominated by fans that care more about presenting the information that they're interested in rather than encyclopedic information. That does not allow for discussion based upon policies and guidelines, only fan banter. The only way to get anything done is to either try with force or gain a number consensus. Plan A didn't work, and for some reason, the people here are too busy to write two sentences backing this suggestion or some variation of it. And why do people let actions that they find bad sway them from a valid suggestion? They have absolutely no connection with each other. 65.175.147.249 (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops, that's me. TTN (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Your actions are important as they establish your crediblity. It seems like you have been selectively ignoring rules that don't suit your needs (it looked like you were edit warring at one point, and your renominating right after a previous nomination seems to bring up problems with both #4 and 6 in Wikipedia:POINT#Gaming_the_system) while portraying yourself as a champion of the rules. Also coming to some distant page to reopen the discussion without putting any notice on the pages most affected by it was a sneaky, underhanded tactic. This has drawn parallels in my mind to President Bush: he may have been well intended but he seemed to think only his interpretations of the rules were right, chose to follow only the rules that suited him, used sneaky tactics, and ruthlessly crushed any resistance, and now his actions seem to have politically castrated himself and he now seems to be a pariah within his own party. Wikipedia may not place emphasis on one's credibilty, but it still matters when one makes an arguement. If you really are just a cynical editor who expects to have to fight narrow-minded fanboys, you should try to at least begin your crusades by forcing yourself to respect the work of others and assume your fellow Wikipedians are reasonable. Discuss such big changes first, then, if you are hitting a brick wall but are still convinced you are right, Wikipedia has provided tools to get around stonewallers. Even the threat of using said tools could create progress and compromise. And if you feel a discussion would be better served on another page, you should provide notice and a link on the pages involved. Cigraphix (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Cigraphix, your words are commendable, and more Wikipedians should have the mindset they display. I think, however, that your reasoning does not apply here. Let's call a spade a spade, and properly examine the discussion process TTN is describing above. You will find out the discussion is indeed between (mostly) narrow-minded fanboys and TTN, and some rare allies.

I agree that it is important to assume good faith, but keep in mind that TTN has had more than a few of these discussions: a few hundred, probably. With that kind experience, I trust that he has gained some insights in what motivates the other side of the conflict. And TTN, for what's it worth, one can indeed blame the anonymous well-reasoning Wikipedian for not dropping by every once in a while to endorse your message. This drags discussions on for longer, and makes them more uncivil as well. So, for what it's worth: I, Krator, endorse TTN. I hope it will make a difference in the severity of the discussions. Maybe if twenty-ish people do so, it will. User:Krator (t c) 21:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say that sums it up. While I guess I come off as hating discussion, I just hate obsessive fans who do not understand/ignore the true purpose of this site, wikilawyering, "filibustering", the same old, tired, pointless arguments, consensus based upon how many people show up, and anything else that makes rational discussion impossible. And while we say that we have this whole great dispute resolution system, there is no relevant place for this kind of stuff, unless you feel like having every discussion lasting three months (I can list the problems with each one of them). The only actual way to get past all that is to either have more people than them or outlast them, neither of which are working in this case. TTN (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

TTN, after taking another look at all this stuff, I have to say (and I know Doktor Wilhelm's probably going to kill me for this in The Sega Project) I don't think this idea of yours is too bad at all, but the version you put up is so far scaled back as to be ridiculous. I took a look at the version you put up for discussion, and it looks like a lot of the information from the other pages about characters you kept has been really trimmed back. If this is to be the pages where these characters appear, then I think all of the information from the corresponding merger pages (as well as the images of each of those characters) needs to move over, too. Also, I think minor one-game characters from some of the later games (such as Sonic Rush Adventure, for example) should slide over, too, because we don't know if they may appear again (it's a safer bet against older one-gamers). I'll be honest, I though Silver the Hedgehog was a one-and-done, but obviously that wasn't the case. Finally, I saw that note on the suggested merge of even more articles into this list (of individual characters from the merger box) like Blaze the Cat, and I disagree with those. Those characters are major characters that have taken on larger roles and are notable enough for their own separate articles. So I'd say your version needs some cleanup to be a practical idea, but when does something on Wikipedia not need cleanup? Most things do. I can't support your idea until this information is integrated and cleaned up. Redphoenix526 (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The version that I created certainly isn't the limit for the entries, but the information that was salvaged was the only relevant information available in the entries. They're just bloated up with OR, unneeded plot summaries, unneeded descriptions, unneeded pieces of trivia, and some other minor things. The information would be cut either way. Any other characters that weren't brought over only appear in one game, so they belong in their main articles. TTN (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It just seemed a little thin, that's all. Even if we keep the original, it probably needs to be beefed up anyway with citable, relevant material. Redphoenix526 (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Us at wikiproject sega are taking this choice into our own hands, we will get back to you with our decision. Gao gier ^Chat! 19:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, you can't just decide to "take over" a merge discussion. You can certainly provide input, but it's not like projects have ultimate authority over them. TTN (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Gaogier's a little aggressive about things like this (no offense, Gaogier.) Anyway, TTN, why don't you bring your argument over to WikiProject Sega and we'll discuss it there as well as here. You might find you'll get some different, and perhaps more useful input on the subject. Redphoenix526 (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

i don't know enough about to sonic to offer an informed viewpoint, but the lists as they stand currently are headache inducing. furthermore, i don't see that a lot of these characters even need seperate articles: for example, someone mentioned 'blaze the cat' above. again i'm not familiar with sonic games after 1 and 2, but typing 'blaze the cat' into IGN and gamespy just brings up a few reviews of sonic rush; she's only mentioned briefly in these. typing sonic the hedgehog into gamespy article search yields 83 pages of results. her claim to fame seems to be she is a second playable character, along with sonic, in a game named after (surprise, surprise) sonic. on a sidenote, two of the references in the 'other villains' list seem to be broken links Bridies (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Bridies, Blaze the Cat is a minor character in more games after Sonic Rush and Sonic Rush Adventure. Add that to her main game stuff, and I'd say she qualifies to have her own article. Redphoenix526 (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that you read over WP:N and WP:FICT. The number of games has nothing to do with notability. While the characters from Sonic to Amy probably can meet those, any characters below that level of imporantance probably don't have enough real world information. TTN (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

going by the above guidelines she doesn't. they are open to interpretation, but in this case not even close. she is not an iconic character in the way sonic himself is and there doesn't seem to be anything substantial written about her elsewhere. judging from how bad the article is (some of it comically so e.g. the personality section), the editor(s) who wrote it couldn't find anything either. although i guess all this isn't directly relevant to sorting out the current list problems Bridies (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look into finding more sources that establish notability, and if I can't find them, then we'll have to talk about this. But since when does IGN and Gamespy count as anything notable? Eh, not important, and not relevant to the discussion. Redphoenix526 (talk) 06:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

i didn't say the lack of coverage on gamespy and IGN automatically makes her not notable; i just feel it's likely to be indicative of a wider lack of coverage. Bridies (talk) 17:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

And I can understand that. I'm just making mention of that. And also, you do know that Blaze the Cat is a relatively new character, right? She has her own storyline in Sonic Rush and Sonic Rush Adventure, and plays the role of a minor character in Sonic the Hedgehog 2006 and is a bonus character in Sonic and the Secret Rings. So I think it's how recent she is and how comparatively fewer video games that she has appeared in compared to Sonic that has resulted in this difference. Redphoenix526 (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The truth is Blaze is non-notable at this current moment if we go by policy and real-world observation. As Bridies pointed out, there are a lack of sites mentioning her in comparison to the more established Sonic characters. As a new character, there is no certainty on her future popularity. Though the policy does not explicitly cover this, Wikipedia is no crystal ball and to create an article or information based on a character "might be popular in the future" would be going against that. It would be undue weight to give these characters the spotlight than to those who are "more Wiki-notable". At this moment, Blaze is just a small-fry. It will be easier to write up a good sourced article/section on her if and when she gains further prominence in the future chapters of the series. Jappalang (talk) 23:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's all just a matter of opinion at this point. Meh, it just doesn't matter, I waste too much time about these petty concerns on Wikipedia anyway. I'm just a little flustered because I'm sure now you're right, it just doesn't feel like the right thing to do. Redphoenix526 (talk) 03:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)