Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 37

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 30 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40


Fair use on main page TFAs

Halo and Donkey Kong recently used these pictures on the main page:

Now, I'm about to make a concerted effort to get Chrono Trigger, Chrono Cross, Mystical Ninja Starring Goemon, and Radical Dreamers on the main page this year; CT and CC have been waiting since mid-2006. I've invested several hours in cleaning them up recently and getting them up to current standard. My question is...if the trademarked MJOLNIR armor, and the copyrighted Game & Watch design and original Donkey Kong game are allowed on the main page because someone took a real life picture of them, does that mean I can take a picture of the cartridge of Chrono Trigger and also have it featured? What about similar merchandise, like the Chrono Cross alarm clock? Or perhaps the words Chrono Trigger carved into the side of a potato? Zeality (talk) 01:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

In the case of the Master Chief image, trademarked != fair use. See commons:Template:Trademarked (hint: Commons = Free). As for the cartridge, I'd say that commons:User:Geni giving it approval (see the upload log) would make it a 99% given that you can use this...he's somewhat of an expert. I'll contact him and see if he can weigh in here. dihydrogen monoxide (H20)
It's .....complicated. Okey first on the costume. The argument goes that you can't copyright clothing. This is true. For costumes this gets complicated since the the counter argument is that you can remove bits of the costume and it will still function as clothing. For the handheld game. The game consel itself should be okey but we should probably have blanked out the screen or taken the pic with the screen off. The cartridge of Chrono Trigger would be problematical because the non functional 2D artwork would be so centeral to the image. An alarm clock would be more complicated and fall firming into "I don't know" territory.Geni 15:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The alarm clock idea would fall under a 2D representation of a copyrighted "sculpture", and thus would be a transformative non-free work, assuming that the clock design is copyrighted by the manufacturer. (I had to do this for the toy car image used on the Crazy Taxi (series) page. --MASEM 15:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Depends if a clock was considered a sculpture.Geni 17:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Quoting from the licensing tag I was told needed to be on the image: This is a two-dimensional representation of a copyrighted sculpture, statue or any other three-dimensional work of art. As such it is a derivative work of art, and per US Copyright Act of 1976, § 106(2) who owns copyright of the original has the exclusive right to authorize derivative works. (note that the image was original in Commons, as a fellow wikipedian took the actual shot for a ebay auction, but that was deleted per this argument) --MASEM —Preceding comment was added at 19:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Darn. Well, I've got a free image of a clock face I can use for Chrono Trigger. The Chrono Cross clock is...pretty distinctive, so it might fail the sculpture test. Link if it matters. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 19:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's better not to use any image, if there is no decent one available. That Halo one especially is quite awful, Bill Gates and a guy dressed as MC doesn't represent the game well, IMO. --Mika1h (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, one last question. Does Chrono Trigger have too many fair use images? ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 20:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 22:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Would they be found in the plot or different versions section? ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 23:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you should remove the 1st image in the story section, at least one of the audio files, and several of the images in the "different versions" section (else just remove the screenie there). dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 07:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I seem to have missed something here. Are we not allowed to use fair use images for FAs on the main page? -- Sabre (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Jimbo removed a fair use image a long time ago, and sine then we don't use fair use. It sometimes leads to edit wars with people scrambling to determine whether the free iamge is representative or not; when Scooby-Doo was featured, for instance, people warred over including a parade balloon Scooby-Doo, a regular generic dog, or nothing at all. hbdragon88 (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Now this is funny (in a curious sense). Every video game FA has fair use images (screenshots, box covers, concept art, etc). Is there an oversight in letting these through, or is the avoidance of fair use restricted to certain circumstances (merchandises, costumes, etc)? Jappalang (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair use is ONLY permitted in articles. Main Page is an exception to this rule probably because the everything is transcluded on templates, and templates are not mainspace...or at least that sounds reasonable. I'm pretty sure that picture of the day and the In the news has always consisted of free images, and the TFA just followed suit. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Cite video game needs editing

User:SandyGeorgia has pointed out that the cite video game template automatically links solo years; it should not. Can anyone fix this? Zeality (talk) 04:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Link to discussion? --AeronPrometheus (talk) 04:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not quite a discussion at this stage, but Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Radical Dreamers: Nusumenai Hōseki. It goes in hand with WP:DATE's policy to not link years unless a month / day are included. Zeality (talk) 05:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I meant the cite video game template, I'd like to see it. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 06:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
{{cite video game}} dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 07:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 07:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that it has only a date field, which is wikilinked. Full takes like 2007-06-23 should be wikilinked, but when only a year is supplied in the date field, it should not. This would probably require some template guru to fix. User:Krator (t c) 12:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Or a copy & paste from a working example. Additional:I've copied and pasted the date formatting code from the cite web template and everything looks ok but could others have a nose around and try and break it please. - X201 (talk) 09:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm no whiz, but I took a look, and the formatting seems OK to me. Someone can check a few articles (using the Whatlinkshere) if they want to be certain. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 09:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I tried a few that way and they seemed OK. But there's usually something somewhere that... - X201 (talk) 10:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Character lists

Can we go over the criteria of what kind of single games actually require character lists without asserting notability? This was recently expanded upon in the newest versions of WP:FICT and WP:WAF, but it is mainly open to interpretation by those working with the articles. While Characters of Final Fantasy VIII is a fine article, Characters of Chrono Trigger shouldn't be given a free pass unless those empty sections are filled out. While it is an RPG, the characters are not that complicated, allowing them to easily be covered within the two relevant sections in the main article. There are around fifty lists just from single games that really need to be taken care of (not to mention series that don't require lists). TTN (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's (roughly) my criteria I use when doing assessments.
  1. No game needs a list, but articles on some games may improve when the information on characters is split-off. Do not write up a character list if there's no proper description of a story in the main article: you cannot know if you need a list until you actually notice the space given is too limited.
  2. The game has to be story-focused. Age of Empires III doesn't warrant a character list, Myst does. This cannot be easily defined per genre, e.g. Neverwinter Nights has a lousy story with bad characters, but is an RPG.
  3. More than plot summaries and trivia. I am not a big fan of the infamous "real world information" hype, because a lot of the real world information available is simply trivia. On the other hand, it is possible to write a good description of a character in an out-universe perspective without using any secondary sources or real world information. Literary criticism uses almost no real world information in book reviews, for example.
You can see the above is assessment-focused, because some problems and solutions are highlighted. Usually it's very hard for editors, including myself, to suppress the fanboyish urge to write down histories of fictional worlds and collect trivia on which designer said what in which preview. It's also very hard to see what should be deleted (i.e. is unsalvageable) and what should be edited. From experience, most articles that are badly written in this area require complete rewrites, so deletes aren't bad from a practical point of view. They are bad from a broader point of view, as they are usually deleted for notability, which prevents recreation and improvement, and deletion generally angers people a lot, which prevents recreation and improvement. I'll settle for rewrites.User:Krator (t c) 21:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The great Famitsu/Kotaku issue and SSBB

Over at Super Smash Bros. Brawl there is presently an edit war about including the fact that SSBB has received the 7th perfect Famitsu score to date in the header, while others continue to notes that Kotaku has pointed out that the Famitsu scores are purposed biased to games they know will sell well (this is outlimed on the Famitsu article), thus this is a non-reliable statement.

Now, there's two aspects of this problem. The first is that I'm inclined that singling out the fact that a game is the xth game for a review source to get a perfect score, not only as a lead statement but in the article, is a very not-notable and edging on peacocking description of the game. Unless for some reason the source says "This is the first game that we have given such a score to" in their review, we shouldn't be synthesizing how many games have come before it. This is similar to the GameRankings/Metacritic rankings discussion before.

The other aspect is how "reliable" is either Famitsu or Kotaku due to this issue and should that influence the inclusion of Famitsu scores? I'd argue that if you agree with what I state for the first issue, this point is a non-issue.

Any thoughts? --MASEM 22:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

And you are going to believe Kotaku, a blog, rather than a magazine that has been around for 25 or so years? Let's see if they last five more years. My point of view: Famitsu is reliable because it has been in the market for years, regardless of accusations, just like Fox News is still reliable regardless of all the fuss about their points of view in politics. About the punctuation itself: if there is another reliable source that states it was the fifth, sixth or seventh game to reach a perfect score, we don't need for Famitsu to state that. However, I agree that it should not be included in the leading. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 22:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Did you even bother reading the Kotaku piece? This is a serious question. If you did read it, did you somehow manage to miss that the only source they give is an anonymous poster on a forum with less than 3000 members. The piece should not be taken seriously under any circumstance. Dlong (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, wait. I am not saying Famitsu hasn't been questioned. Tim Rogers from Next Generation also says Famitsu reviews are dubious (like when they did not post the score for that FFVII shooter spinoff because it was going to be a bad one, and Square wanted the game to sell at least the first week without the score). Fans think they are unreliable because of Nintendogs, which while many say it did not deserve that score, I point out that it sold more than any of the others, so the reviewers saw something special there. However, our point still stands: two journalists (or bloggers) against 22 years of history is just that, two journalists against a vast experience. By the way, I removed the reference from the Famitsu. Find a better thing as it, otherwise we will begin quoting NeoGAF again in our sales articles. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Just to get the "We need sources to state that it's the seventh perfectly scored game in Famitsu"-thing out of the way: Gamespot, Nintendo Players, Wired Blog, --Conti| 22:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
That'll work , I've added that statement back to the reception section - again, with a source, such a statement is fine, but without it, any statement along those lines would be OR. --MASEM 22:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps a BIT off the topic, but why ARE such weights given to Famitsu scores? I've always been under the notion that the scores are four seperate reviewer's number added together. It seems people put too much weight on the high scores rather than, perhaps, what reviewers gave what scores (not that I know if they say or not, not being able to read Japanese or ever having seen the mag, etc.). Ah well. Just a thought. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it is unfortunate too many people (readers/gamers/editors) place too much emphasis on the points given than what is said in the article. Regarding Famitsu, I can hazard to say it is because it is the only (if one of the few) Japanese gaming magazine notable to the Western gaming community. There are comparatively very few gaming well known magazines in the Eastern hemisphere than in the West. Famitsu always seems to be brought up because it is a Japanese publication; a faction of community members are slanted towards a "Japan is a gaming haven and knows the most about gaming" view. Another faction view I observed is "Japan produces these games, so the reception there is the most important", which makes me wonder what about those games produced outside of Japan (and what about the Japanese games which are targeted at foreign instead of domestic markets). Disregarding these, Famitsu reviews and scores do provide an insight into another market (Japan), thus broadening the coverage of the game's reception. Jappalang (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This is off topic too, but since Smash Brawl was brought up, can someone here fix-up the article in regard to grammar, MoS, etc, etc? « ₣M₣ » 23:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no need for Famitsu's score to be singled out in the lead, it should be mentioned in the reception section. And Famitsu's score is important and reliable, it's the most well read and influential gaming publication in Japan. The scores are the combined totals of four reviews, and I would prefer it if the scores were listed separately (as I do with EGM scores), but if it's 40/40, then there's no need. GameSetWatch has a bluffer's guide to Famitsu worth reading for those unfamiliar with the publication. - hahnchen 00:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless there is a serious accusation of wrong doing, criticisms of Famitsu should go on their page. SO far it does not seem to rise to the point where it would need singling out in the Smash Brothers article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


I suggest do an list with NDS games that are sequel of GBA games, like: Boktai DS, Pokémon DP, Magical starsign, Dragon Quest Heroes: Rocket Slime, Pokémon Mistery dungeon 2, Final Fantasy A2 and Megaman ZX.--MCP9999 (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Creating a new Task Force

Who/where do I need to ask to get a Task Force created? I want to create a Bemani Task Force, regarding all Konami made music video games that fall under the Bemani series (And a few outside of it). Is it a vote? Do I just create the page myself? What's the lowdown? --AeronPrometheus (talk) 06:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Propose it here (best to create a prototype in your userspace), and if there is consensus here (not a vote) that it's a good idea, then we'll implement it. JACOPLANE • 2008-01-30 20:30
Note that "consensus here" is less scary than it sounds :) User:Krator (t c) 20:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess I've proposed it then. But why do I need to create a preemptive project page? Do I need to 'sell' the idea to the people of WikiProject VG? There was once a Konami Task Force, they fell off the grid. I want to create a Task Force focused on Konami's music video game department as that's a major project all by itself. My recent edits to the pages have spurred a couple other people to start making regular improvements so it would be nice to have a centralized place for us and future editors to collaborate our efforts. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Peeps interested in this task force may proceed to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Taskforce_for_Bemani

APPLICATIONS ARE OPEN (: Fireblaster lyz (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Bastila Shan

Could someone restore Bastila Shan temporarily, so that the content can be copied to List of Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic characters and refined accordingly? Thanks. — Raffaello9 | Talk | 22:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a 5-days ago cached copy by Google. Jappalang (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I've placed the Wikitext up at User:Masem/Bastila of the last edit before deletion, please let me know when you are done with it, thanks. --MASEM 23:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, i've copied the text on the list and you can delete you local copy. I will trim it and fix it when i have time. — Raffaello9 | Talk | 23:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Articles needing assessment

I'm repopulating Category:Unassessed video game articles since we finished assessing all the articles that had the {{WikiProject Video games}} tag. So get assessing! JACOPLANE • 2008-02-12 15:57

Don't place templates on pinball game articles. Computer pinball games are good but not actual pinball machines. --Mika1h (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, my mistake, it's because I've been adding articles from Category:Video games developed in Japan, and some of the subcategories include pinball games, like Category:Sega games. I'm trying to avoid adding them now, if you see any please remove the template. Using AWB is kind of monotonous so sometimes your attention wanders off. JACOPLANE • 2008-02-12 21:11
Argh just did it again... JACOPLANE • 2008-02-12 21:15
I just looked at Category:Pinball games and saw a few video game based pinball games (RollerCoaster Tycoon (pinball) & Street Fighter II (pinball)). Those may need VG banners. --Mika1h (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Just added some more articles. This should take us beyond 20,000 articles tagged. JACOPLANE • 2008-02-16 20:06

Quick EL note

I've got Chrono Trigger nominated for March 11. Are the GameFAQs and Mobygames external links necessary? ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 06:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Id say there not, GameFAQs only lists data, like realise dates, which we have here and mobygames has about the same infomation wikipedia has, maybe even less detailed. Also mobygames is on the spam list, i say get rid of them. Salavat (talk) 06:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Where? I see no listing of MobyGames at MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist or in any of the relevant spam admin areas. And personally, I would disagree regarding the Moby link for Chrono. A look at the page shows much more related content that's not allowed on Wikipedia entries (a prime reason for inclusion by guidelines) including related reviews, screenshot galleries, etc. I really think consensus for inclusion should be drawn amongst the regular contributors to that article rather than here. Better to take it to the talk page there and see what the regulars think. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 07:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I have MobyGames (IIRC) on my FA (Age of Mythology), but I think you should take out GameFAQs. No reason not to cite it for gameplay etc. though. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 08:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty much the only editor left at Chrono Trigger. Most of the team who helped promote it to FA in August 2006 have left (most notably Ryu_Kaze), and I've slacked off on watching it was really bad (perhaps even FAR-worthy) before the January upkeep. It's in the TFA request system, and I've asked for suggestions on the fair use images issue. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 08:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Note that the External link section is meant for listing sites which contain further helpful information on the article but could not be included in it due to various reasons (mainly policies, refer to WP:EL#What should be linked points 3 and 4). As such, GameFAQs/MobyGames list need not be included if they do not contain such information. No rule ever existed for them as necessary inclusions in all game articles. That said ZeaLity, it will be better for you to refer to the TFA board on whether such links are acceptable (they might have similar policies on ELs to the no non-free images on the Main Page case). Jappalang (talk) 08:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Except to an official site, external links are never "necessary" as in "required". Besides an official site, no other links should ever be automatically added, but they can be added if they meet the criteria of the external links guideline. Discussion about specific links for a specific article though should go on that talk page. 2005 (talk) 10:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Just to point out to Marty Goldberg, mobygames is on wikiproject spam, Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkSearch/ Salavat (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually no, a linksearch is hardly being designated as spam. Its simply to "find all articles that contain such links", and is usually done to check spamming by an individual with more than one account. Once again there has been no administrative request or action towards designating Mobygames itself as spam as I can see. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
It's dependent on how extensive the Mobygames page, but more often than not it's pretty bare and should be removed. I haven't seen a case where a Mobygames link is actually suitable for inclusion/offers something else from what an FA does. Ashnard Talk Contribs 16:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
As for the example, I can't see a reason at all to include it as an external link. Ashnard Talk Contribs 16:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Ashnard. Something like that should be determined on a case by case basis. Having a blanket ban or inclusion policy oversimplifies the issue. If someone adds it in, we check out the page and see if it adds something beyond the article. If yes, leave it alone. If no, we cite WP:EL. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC))

Links on the Quake 3 Page

I noticed somebody added a couple of links to the Quake_III_Arena page. I think they're useful links, but someone else didn't, so that person reverted them. I unreverted them, but they reverted them again, saying that wikipedia is not a repository for links. But look at the Doom article. That has plenty of similar links to the ones (in other words, comprehensive, up to date ones featuring custom content for the game in question) that were put up on the Quake III page, and the Doom article has been a featured article on Wikipedia's main page before. Anyone got any comments on how to resolve this dispute? I'm not 100% sure about the other two links but the LVL maps page should definitely be kept. Ben 2082 (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Metal Gear Ac!d

I'm a bit confused here...The games are known as "Metal Gear Ac!d" and "Metal Gear Ac!d 2", so why is it that Metal Gear Ac!d and 2 Redirect to Metal Gear Acid and 2? The game is called Ac!d, not Acid, This should not be the case at all! DengardeComplaints 18:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of what ridiculous things companies do to make their product names stand out, we need to use standard English. See: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) --Slordak (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Please help to resolve a dispute regarding "partial" exclusivity on List of Xbox 360 games

Please see recent edit history. IP continues to remove the "partial exclusivity" definition from the summary as well as removing it as a value in the "Exclus." column. Prior consensus seems to have been obtained on the talk page. If you need further information, just let me know. Thanks. xenocidic (talk) 15:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The term seems nonsensical to me - how can you have partial exclusivity? is that like being partially dead? This is a general reader encyclopedia and should use words that people will understand, not mircosoft marketing speak designed to confuse. --Fredrick day (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you suggest a better term? we are looking for a way to denote which games, from a console perspective, are only available on the 360. Many console gamers don't care about the PC gamespace and are only looking to research Console wars. Please note that "partial" was fully explained and qualified prior to the edits by xenocidic (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
While we have to keep our general readers and avid gamers in mind when writing pages, we can't really ignore the existence of PC versions of games or the PC platform, even if some readers may only want to know about home consoles. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC))
As a compromise, I've changed all values of "Partial" to "Console" and updated the article summary to explain what "Console" means. Reasonable? xenocidic (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with this solution, and it actually does make sense. Note that it's possible to theoretically say that any and every game is non-exclusive. For example, a Zelda game written (only) for the N64 might be played through emulation on the PC, so difficult editors could argue that it's not "exclusively playable" on any one system. However, this is beside the point, and the common sense usage is that it's the only gaming system with the game. --Slordak (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Guy; trying to define exclusivity between consoles and ignoring the PC seems to be defining a term that is otherwise not defined elsewhere - in other words, trying to group games as such is heading into original research territory. Unless there's a reliable source that defines this term for you (and thus makes sense to apply it here) or implies that there is such a distinction, I would be very careful on making that assessment. --MASEM 16:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I fully agree with what Frederick and Guyinblack25 have just said, as well. Exclusive means just that. It can only be an exclusive if you need a Xbox360 to play it, if you can play it on a PC then its not an exclusive. The PC is a games platform, you can't just ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist. Just like you can't exclude hand-held consoles as well. - X201 (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
yes that seems a better term to use. --Fredrick day (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it is a step in the right direction, though I don't think it is the best solution. I'm inclined to say leave it off entirely and let the readers find out in the game's main article. Sometimes making lists too detailed can be counterproductive. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC))
As far as I know, "console exclusive" is not a new term, and will make sense (and be useful information) to console gamers. Results 1 - 10 of about 44,200 for "console exclusive". (0.24 seconds) xenocidic (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Technically, per WP:GOOGLE, search engine tests are more for a first-pass heuristic or rule of thumb. Also, some of those articles used "console exclusive" to describe a special feature that was only in the console version or a game that, at the time, was only available in a console version or on a single console. What you're suggesting sounds different to me, maybe I'm interpreting it wrong. I'm still inclined to leave it off. I know a lot of time and effort was put into it already, but that's happened to all of us before. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC))
It's still a fairly widely used and recognized term on the console-gamer space. Gamespot uses it, for example. Anyhow, it wasn't my work, I was just trying to protect it. I still think it's useful information and still don't really see a good reason for it not to be included, now that it has been clarified and fully qualified. xenocidic (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The whole problem I had with it is that it's just meaningless to me. I have a 360/PC/PS3. What does partial or console mean to me? Your argument was that it was to win some kind of fanboy debate between 360/PS3/WII as that's all it really seems good for. I changed it to No because no, I don't have to play Age of Conan on 360. I also wanted to work out a solution to have a better discription for exclusitivity if someone needed to make sure 360 had some sort of exclusive. Some games are PCs and 360, some are 360 and handhelds, some are 360 and arcades, some are timed exclusives, and some are marketing exclusives. The whole console designation just seems pointless to me. -- (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
For now, in a "List of Xbox 360 games" Exclus.-Console means, the Xbox 360 is the only console that it can be played on. xenocidic (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
(un-indent) Currently, I don't really see how it is "fully qualified", because many of those links used it a bit different from each other. Though I can see how the information could be useful. I still think the wording needs to clarified differently if it is to be included. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC))
I meant fully qualified as in the article summary. Your input on what would be a better term and/or description is definitely welcome. I'm amenable to changing it but the actual values are still worthwhile in terms of Console wars. xenocidic (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
While I can understand the additional information could be helpful, the point of the list is not to facilitate research in a console war. If someone really wants to know the exclusivity of one of those games, they can click on the article link.
Why force people to dive deeper when an excellent list with lots of information exists already? xenocidic (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
As far as other ideas, I'm drawing a blank. The only thing that comes to mind is instead of an "exclusive" column, making a "other platform" column and list what other platforms it appeared on. Though, I don't think this will satisfy the editors of the list. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC))
This would also make the list more convoluted. xenocidic (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
No offense, but the current usage could also be seen as convoluted too. Sometimes too much information can overload a reader, and I feel that the more columns added can contribute to that. And while lists are meant to be convey organized information, something like "list of X games" is, in my mind, more intended to serve as navigation. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC))
Removing the column would inevitably lead to an article entitled "List of Xbox 360 games not available on the PS3 or the Wii" which would in turn lead to talks of merging the article with the List of Xbox 360 games , bringing us full circle =) xenocidic (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't see such an article being created, but stranger articles have popped up here before. Even if it was created it would probably be quickly nominated for deletion. Honestly, I don't know what else to tell you. Other than removing it completely, I can only suggest keeping it simple and have exclusive mean XBox 360 only (no other platform). Maybe some other editors here have some other ideas. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC))

Thanks all for the input. the present compromise seemingly resolved the dispute. xenocidic (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh what? Who came up with a compromise? You buy claiming it was a comprimise and getting your own way?-- (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe the compromise is to note that it's "console exclusive", rather than "partially exclusive", and to amend the text and/or footnotes to clarify that this status doesn't take into account non-native emulation. That seems like the correct direction to go, unless we want to remove the column altogether. --Slordak (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Compromise involves finding middle ground, and in my opinion, we've found it. I've qualified the paragraph further and included a footnote to explain the situation of the PS3 running Windows. xenocidic (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Compromise involves people agreeing on a decision, this isn't a comprimise, it's you just changing the wording slightly and claiming it as a compromise to get your own way instead of trying to better the article. -- (talk) 05:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Compromise does not necessarily require the agreement of the other party as long as middle ground is achieved. I'm not sure how your desired changes "better" the article - they make it less informative. Curious - I notice you didn't try to impose the same changes on List of PS3 games. xenocidic (talk) 14:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey, purely out of curiosity, what do you think is wrong with the present version of the table? When I first looked at it, my thought was: "Wow, all of the list of console name games articles should be like that." I think it is an excellent way of conveying to both PC (by that I mean all non-console gamers) and console gamers whether a game is available on the system of their choice or not. If you would definitively state your objections to the present version of the table instead of engaging in revert wars and attacking other users, it would be a lot easier to resolve this dispute. Thingg 03:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

2 similar Xbox Live Arcade lists

I've tried to redirect List of Xbox Live Arcade releases by date into List of Xbox Live Arcade games several times, but it always gets reverted. Do we really need the "by date" list? It's just redundant to the main list. The editors that revert claim "It's not the same page, and includes other things" as reasoning to keep the date list. However, the other things that mention is very few overall. I see no other console or download lists like this, so I don't see why this has to be an exception. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it does contain some additional useful information such as the downloadable content releases, and various milestones and events. It's also a good chronology of releases. PS3 had a similar article that eventually was merged with the List of PS3 games and now it's just a bloated article altogether. xenocidic (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with RobJ, the extra information is minute when compared to the repeated info. The content can easily be merged into the List of Xbox Live Arcade games, probably as prose in the lead. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC))
Edited comment (Guyinblack25 talk 19:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC))
Except for the fact it's readable, easy to understand, and doesn't make you claw your eyes out like the Upcoming Games for XBLA list. Simple = better, and if they want to revert THAT list to the way this one is done, please do.
Get it? Simple = good. It's cleaner, more easy to understand, and shows stuff like when there was NO additions to Wednesday, which was actually a huge issue at the time. But, I suppose if you're part of the Cult of Deletion and can't stand (gasp) 40K worth of useful information... JAF1970 (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, that doesn't really address the fact that the content is essentially duplicated on two pages. With the main list being sortable by date, having a separate list organized by date seems redundant. I'm all for making a readable, informative, and understandable list. But having two lists like this is not within the guidelines of Wikipedia. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC))
in addition to DLC, this article also shows Xbox Original releases, which are both missing from the proposed redirect target. It should be renamed to Chronology of Xbox Live Marketplace Game & Game Content releases by date or something. xenocidic (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Both lists provide a good amount of information, but the amount of overlap is just too great to keep them separate. Information like the launch date and start of the Wednesday program can be presented in prose in the lead. Any skipped Wednesdays can be added in prose too, provided there aren't too many. A link to List of Xbox Originals can be added in a "See also" section of the list, and details like additional downloadable content should be in the game's main article, not on a list. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC))
To respond to JAF: that "cult of deletion" comment was rude and not needed. Wikipedia simply isn't the guide to everything, even if you would like it to be. There is policies and guidelines in place for good reason: so Wikipedia doesn't become an anarchy with no deletion ever. The date list is redundant, plain and simple. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

AFD is the correct venue here, so I nominated the article. (link) User:Krator (t c) 09:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Release Date Problem

Hey everyone -- I was putting in the US release date for GT Advance Championship Racing (a Game Boy Advance game), only to find that different sources use different dates, and some of them just didn't make any sense.

... now, obviously, the GameSpot/GameFAQs date is wrong, simply because the Game Boy Advance wouldn't be on store shelves for another two days. I've put in June 11 as the date I'm using. But what I'm concerned about, is that I'm using the GameFAQs source (not so much GameSpot at this point) to source other things in the infobox -- if it has a release date like that wrong, can it still be trusted? Nomader Talk 07:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe GameFAQs is unreliable as a reference source; reference GT Advance Championship Racing Information should be replaced with more reliable sources. That said, according to THQ's press releases, the North American release date is June 11, 2001; THQ announces GT Advance Championship Racing for US launch of Game Boy Advance, and GT Advance Championship Racing ships for GBA. Advance GTA's Japanese release date (March 21, 2001) can be referred from Nintendo's website. Jappalang (talk) 08:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Plenty of games have been on sale a few days before their console release dates. I don't remember which off hand, but I'm almost positive even as recent as Wii and/or PS3 it happened. It's not "obviously wrong" at all, and if you think about it, it makes sense -- having it already on store shelves guarantees it'll be there for those who buy the console as well as those who might otherwise have missed it among the other launch games, or would go in and just buy X in the madness and not even know the other exists. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The case in question is a conflict in release dates. Disregarding the unreliable GameFAQs, we are left with what are termed 'reliable'; GameSpot and IGN. Logical verifiability should determine which date is retained in Wikipedia. IGN's version is backed by THQ's press releases. What is GameSpot's supporting documents the release is on June 8 (as seen on my browser)? GameSpot itself is carrying THQ's press release which states June 11 but gives no supporting documents on a June 8 release, which renders their proclaimed release date illogical and unreliable in my view. WP:VG/DATE should address which version we should follow in situations where games broke their official release dates (or to go for WP:V). Jappalang (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I've been using GameFAQs after I noticed some users citing it in the articles I created -- I'll switch them over to more reliable sites. But for future reference, should I put all GameSpot release dates under similar scrutiny due to this error, or should I regard this as just a chance typo? -- Nomader (Talk) 23:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Reliable sites can make mistakes. Being declared a "reliable source" doesn't make their presented information 100% correct. If conflicting information is brought up, scrutinize/investigate further. Jappalang (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Dragon Age

I generally do not revert twice, so I'd appreciate someone else solving this. Thanks. User:Krator (t c) 19:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd treat it as vandalism ("Nation enslaving simulator"? Riiiight) - Vandalism is ignorable in considering 3RRs. --MASEM 19:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Yea, I tend to have weird principles. Thanks for the help. User:Krator (t c) 21:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Underdogs links under attack

Just a heads up. A user named ShakespeareFan00 is going around numerous video game articles and removing links to Home of the Underdogs with the comment "Remove underdogs site - Please do NOT support sites that host warez in any form". He doesn't cite any policy that he is enforcing. I think he just thinks HotU is a warez site and doesn't like them. You might want to keep an eye out for him. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 18:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I've notified the user on their talk page. HotU often includes useful information about obscure games that cannot be found anywhere else, and there is a lot more content there than just "warez". It's not like we're linking to some bittorrent site here. As far as I know the legal situation regarding abandonware is rather ambiguous (IANAL), so rejecting the website outright seems to be pushing it kind of far IMO. JACOPLANE • 2008-02-13 18:39
I don't personally have an opinion one way or the other, but per WP:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines#External_links, links to abandonware sites are "questionable" and should be avoided. xenocidic (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
This same user also (under his noted alternate account) has taken it upon himself to delete hundreds of links, many of them perfectly valid and relevent, to YouTube with the simple explanation of "status unclear"...not to mention other issues I've seen. I can't say it's nessesarily a good think to link to HOTU because it IS potentially copyright infringing, but the reasoning is really off and...well if I say any more it might be a personal attack. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
To respond - My sometimes over-zealous nature's already been pointed out.

Before anyone accuses me of being on a crusade, I'm not. Being a wiki (link can and probably have been reinstated.)

The HoTU links were for the most removed because a specific HoTU page linked directly to a download for the game concerned, even when it was clear that the game was likley to be still copyrighted. Whilst to some extent it's still an open area for lawyers, AFIAK websites can be held responsible for something called 'contributory infringment'(?) by linking to copyright infringment( remember TV Links? or the fuss that's raging about TPB?).

In any case I still feel it's unwiki to link to sites that use 'alternate distribution' when the information is duplicated by other links in the article which do not (for example many of the HoTU linked pages also had a MobyGames entry). English Wikipedia should be encouraging 'free' attitudes, linking to abandonwarez is not encouraging 'free' attitudes.

Abandonware is also NOT a grey area. Unless software's been explicitly 'liberated', or it was under 'free' distribution terms in the first place, it will still be copyrighted in some form. It could be argued that current copyright laws have lost the plot in respect of old software, but the way to challenge those laws is legally, not by sidestepping them. Sites like HoTU do have a place in archiving old games, it just a shame more of them don't follow the example of other sites (notably World Of Spectrum or Liberated Games) that actively try to obtain permissions for hosted material.

In respect of You Tube links, these are removed precisely because their status is unclear, If it obvious (or would be obvious) that the You Tube uploader is indeed the rights owner in respect of the clip then I've tended to leave them in.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, seems some HOTU links were over-zealously removed - those links have been restored ShakespeareFan00 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not expressing any personal opinion on this matter, just pointing to the page Wikipedia: Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works where it states "... if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States ..." --Craw-daddy | T | 21:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Any links to sites violating copyright should be removed. Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works. This is why many YouTube links can be removed on sight. I don't know anything about the site in question here, but if it is violating copyrights, then the copyvio material should not be linked to. 2005 (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

HotU says they are about current underdog games as well, games that don't get enough credit, and they say that they link to the sales pages for those games and not to any archives. HotU says they encourage any copyright holders to contact them if there is some problem. They say if an old game pops up for sale somewhere, they will link that and not offer any files. I find that the site has plenty of valuable information for gamers. The policy referred to above says that the copyrighted material should not be linked, but the Rescue at Rigel Wikipedia page didn't do that; it linked to an HotU page with plenty of content about the game. Visitors would have to click on an additional link on *that* page to access the archive for the old game (which was on the HotU site). I do not think HotU should be blacklisted and I don't think a link to HotU reflects poorly on Wikipedia at all. DanielM (talk) 01:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Stolen stuff is "useful", but the usefullness is not in question here. The point is simply no links to pages with copyvio. Whether the entire domain is blacklisted because of a proponderance of copyvio is a separate issue. Until the whole domain gets a death sentence somehow, linking to the non-copyvio pages seems okay according to the policy, but linking to copyvio pages is definitely not allowed. 2005 (talk) 01:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Based on what DanielM says above, I think we should be free and clear to link to HotU pages. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if they have to click on an additional link on that page, it prominently leads to a copyright violation directly stored on their site. Jappalang (talk) 15:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
If we're allowed to link to the site in its main article, then as long as we don't link directly to a page with copyvios, it seems as if that should be ok. Same thing as we're allowed to link to YouTube if the copyright on the video is fine -- even though that vid may link to one that isn't in the 'related' section. IMO, anyway. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The allowance for Youtube's videos are based on faith in their Terms of Service, in which they claim to delete copyright violations, e.g. they recognize full/long clips of television shows as flagrant violations, and actively pursue such deletions (although it is arguable how widespread their policy is). HotU doesn't even take this approach. They take a "links shall be left here until the owners protest" approach, which is flagrant copyright violation. Jappalang (talk) 15:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Quite Unlike Liberated Games, which has only archived 'legit' stuff, or World Of Spectrum which as well as hosting legitimate material for which it has permissions, prominently takes a stance about at least trying to contact rights holders, and has an entire section about the issue, it's why you can't for examples find Dizzy on the site. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Additional references:

I believe it would be better to direct this discussion to WT:EL as "abandonware" is not restricted to games alone but all software, or even copyrighted papers. A wiser approach is to go to WT:COPY for clarification on the HotU issue. Also refer to 2005's comments in this thread regarding current WP:COPY's policy. Jappalang (talk) 15:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

God fucking damnit, I recently had Radical Dreamers promoted to FA because HotU links helped provide information that could not be found in any other notable source. Now, I suddenly have an article with a ton of [citation needed]s that probably wouldn't have passed FAC? When's Wikipedia just going to ban all articles on copyrighted topics period? I'm already damned to not having pictures with my TFAs.

Commons-emblem-copyright.svg This user finds copyright paranoia disruptive.

Enough already. I'd rather not have to rip off HotU's review and put it up on the Compendium just because of this paranoid technicality. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 19:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, removing external links is one thing, but actually removing references and adding {{fact}} tags seems not something we want to be doing. As Zeality pointed out, sometimes HotU is the only source for a piece of information. I hardly feel that using the site as a source is promoting copyright violations. Clearly the text on the HotU site is their own copyright, and that is what we're sourcing. JACOPLANE • 2008-02-14 20:02
This AfD discussion is also relevant here: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_July_28#Template:Hotu. Since the result was keep there was previous consensus that HotU was an acceptable site to link to. JACOPLANE • 2008-02-14 20:07
Umm, the result for that TfD is no concensus which means either side was unable to clearly present its case. The recommendation was to use the External link template on a case by case basis. As for using HotU as a reference source (i.e. citations), funny enough, WP:V and WP:RS never address the issue of copyright violations on a referred site (as far as I can tell). The issue of linking to illegal content is presented in WP:EL, another section of an article on its own. I am uncertain if WP:EL applies to references. Another issue for the guideline/policy makers to thresh out perhaps. Jappalang (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
It is official policy to never link to a page where copyright is being violated, Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works. " not link to that copy of the work" is as clear as it gets. A page on this site that has no copyvio on it is fair game to link to; a page that has copyvio should never be linked to as a reference or as an external link. It's a very clear line -- except of course in an editor being sure the page is a copyvio or not. When it plainly clear though, there should never be a link, and any reference or external link should be removed on sight. 2005 (talk) 01:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
So the policy is no linkage to a page with copyright violations. If an HotU article on 'Abandoned Game#1' has no links to its "abandonware", then it is deemed passable for use; but if the article has "To download this game from our archive, click here", then it is not allowed? Jappalang (talk) 01:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry for skipping all the discussion, but in case it is not clear: unfortunately, Underdogs links are not to be used. Abandonware is not protected by law, and considered copyright violation. The fact that the copyright owner hasn't demanded to have their games down does not invalidate the copyright (contrary to the trademark, where the owner may lose the trademark if he does not enforce it). Anyone adding links to the site must be warned about that. I would suggest removing all the links except for the article about the site itself. Wikipedia:External links#Restrictions on linking is clear: Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. We know it violates copyright. Linking to a page that has no game for download falls in this category: we are linking to a site that we know violates copyright. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Then, to all those whose articles will be castrated by this latest bout of paranoia, I invite you to post the HotU reviews verbatim (minus the ROM links) on the Chrono Compendium's forums, where the appropriate threads can be cited. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 03:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, quoting anonymous posts in a forum is better, right? What happened to our reliable source guideline? If HOTU is indeed reliable, you can cite it without having to use the URL (instead of {{cite web}} use another template, like {{cite journal}}. Don't force me to go through all the articles deleting links to forums again, please. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I presume that if one is to use {{cite journal}} for HotU links, then the url field has to be completely empty and non-included comments have to placed close to the template in the article to warn off adding in the url in good faith? Jappalang (talk) 03:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
If it can be cited by the journal template, fine. That said, I have no respect for wars in gray areas, nor copyright paranoia. That we cannot have fair use images on the main page is because editors capitulated to a single edit by WP:JIMBO, bypassing the policy, discussion, or guideline processes. This is hardly different from the guy who decided to strip all articles of information on notable fan translations. It's just another crippling restriction in a long history against editors of copyrighted articles. I should have made my focus before coming to Wikipedia revolve around rocks or rain. I am already fighting like holy fucking hell on earth to get Chrono Trigger on the main page for March 11 against extreme prejudice against video game topics. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 03:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Well don't link to copyvios then :). It should be possible to find sources that aren't as controversial as HOTU is. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure I'm not the only one who's noticed a decline in WP editing lately. Issues like this are exactly why. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
If the 'temporary' decline leads to an increase in quality, and the removal of 'questionable' practices where's the harm? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Because the people leaving are also heavy contributors of "good" content. I've already seen a few people leaving/breaking/whatever because of various similar issues to this,. The problem isn't nessesarily that people are removing 'bad' things, the bigger issue is being so heavy handed about it. Removing 100 links in a half hour is easy, but it's VERY hard to fix (without a bot any way) if they are found to be allowable in actuality. So even if everything still exists, it's often just simply too much effort to get things back to where they should be, and the encyclopedia suffers for it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Assuming good faith is one thing, but honestly this almost seems like it could be treated as vandalism. I was about to revert it, but decided I didn't want to war here, but seriously, if enough people decided it was a reliable source that the article got promoted to FA, then taking it off is very very petty. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I will say that I've been immensely turned off to contributing by the response to Chrono Trigger in FA request system. I might as well not even try to get video game articles to FA, because they don't have a chance in hell of being supported by 'diversity police' and making the main page. There is a strong undertone that video games are inferior, unimportant subjects, and that the main page should feature the same old FAs on general topics several times over versus permitting every video game FA to at least make it on once. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 22:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
You just realized that? I did almost two years ago. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
We're lucky here, even. My direct translation of the English FA Supreme Commander was not accepted on the Dutch Wikipedia for FA (which has really low standards anyway) because it's on a video game. User:Krator (t c) 01:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I've directly addressed it at a new section in Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests with a few discussion questions. Nothing but eerie silence so far. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 18:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Direct translations of articles almost never create a featured article in another Wikipedia. Also, the English Wikipedia has a lot of gaming-related users who "support" featured article candidates, making it easier to promote them to that status than in other Wikipedias. Maybe it is just me, but whenever someone puts a gaming-related article as candidate, the people who usually give opinion in other candidates just "disappear". Try removing the users with gaming experience from the gaming candidates, and you will notice they would have never been promoted. Other Wikipedias don't focus on gaming so much, and therefore make it much harder to get them to featured status. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
That must typical of others' experience, because every game FA I've had has been shaken down by SandyGeorgia or Tony1. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 04:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Age of Empires III: The Asian Dynasties

Going slowly towards GA. How much game info is too much, what should go, and is there anything else needed? dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 10:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

IMHO: remove the mercs, maps, and wonders. Do describe the wonders, just don't list them. Maybe a few examples to illustrate the historical references. New game modes are significant. Also, delete some of the ridiculous references to plain fact statements. User:Krator (t c) 13:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Some work done. Any more comments? dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 06:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The treaty game mode was not introduced in TAD, but in a TW patch. The no blockade addition is new. Perhaps that section could be converted to prose from the current list?
    • Done.
  • The Gameplay section needs to explain some of the terms, so readers are not required to read the previous articles. What is an explorer? What is a minor civ? How did civs advance from age to age without wonders?
  • The Development section is very informal and could use a copy edit, too.
  • Just a personal question, is it any good? I don't own it, as I can no longer play online, but I may just buy it for the single player campaign. User:Krator (t c) 06:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, one point dealt with quickly, the rest I'll get to one day. I don't own the game either, but I doubt it's better than AoE3, which, in turn, was shite. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 06:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages and items/units

The StarCraft unit pages were deleted a couple of years back, but a lot of disambiguation pages to units that shared their name with real life counterparts still contain a reference to them, although I cleaned most of these up to get rid of the red links: ie, "Zealots, basic Protoss templar infantry in the StarCraft series". However, I wonder if they even have any right to be on the disambiguation pages, I would have thought that the pages aren't meant to list everything associated with their name, but are meant to help navigation through encyclopedic content that actually exists as articles or list things that are otherwise relevant (in the same way HMS Prince of Wales lists two ships that don't have articles, but is dealing with something encyclopedic and actually real). Should I remove the references to the units in these disambiguation pages? -- Sabre (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

If it is a topic that is covered in some level of detail (be it that it may have been merged to a common page or the like), it should have a redirection page and should appear in disambiguation pages should a naming conflict occurs. This allows a reader to find a topic easily by searching. (eg, GlaDOS points to Portal (video game) Now, with the zealots example, I don't think it needs to be such a case since the specific units aren't describe in any detail (as best I can tell) in the Starcraft articles. --MASEM 21:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


A user JAF1970 has created separate articles for the DS and Mobile ports of Spore without consensus. The two ports are arguably not notable enough to justify their own separate articles, and if other video game articles serve any precedent, then games that are released under the same name (regardless of platform) are to be contained within a single article, with version-specific information confined to their own separate section within the main article of the game. One such example is The Sims 2: Pets. Despite the name, there was 6 completely different versions of the game (across 9 different platforms) released for the game, yet any information regarding the game was confined to a single article. JAF1970 is being highly uncooperative and it's impossible to reach a consensus at the moment. Matters are being discussed in the Spore talk page.

In short, my argument is that any information regarding the DS and Mobile versions be confined to the main article. It would be silly to create yet another article for what is essentially the same game once/if the next-gen console versions are released. Sillygostly (talk) 06:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Is JAF1970 the same editor in the "two lists for XBox live content" thing above? User:Krator (t c) 13:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, though I don't see as how that's relevant to the present discussion. xenocidic (talk) 13:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Should we propose a merge using Template:Merge? That way, we could have the re-direct while keeping all the content in the main spore page. Apparently, in the DS version, Sillygostly has already tried three times [4], [5], [6] to create a merge link to the main article, and three times, JAF1970 has reverted the article back to its original status. Isn't that a violation of WP:3RR? -- Nomader (Talk) 04:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Personally, it all depends on how different Spore DS is from other versions. - NotanAnon (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Making new articles doesn't always require a consensus. I think the articles should remain until more information about them is known. Spore for the DS has a completely different concept and name, so at least that one seems to deserve an article of it's own. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


Hi I'm PrestonH, and I'm new to this WikiProject that I recently joined. Can anybody help me out a little? (In terms of MoS, what to do, what not to do etc.) PrestonH 19:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome Preston. If you are looking for specific information regarding writing VG articles, I'd check out WP:VG/GL. Of course, other Wikipedia guidelines dealing with MoS and other policies still apply. The best thing to do is just try editing an article you're interested in and learn as you go. If you have any questions, please feel free to post here again, or maybe try the talk pages of some of the editors that post here frequently. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC))

Keep an eye on Gran Turismo 5 Prologue

A car list keeps getting re-added to it. I've clearly stated in the edit summary: the section doesn't belong, as it's a game guide. The user that keeps reverting me, because the information is "interesting". RobJ1981 (talk) 19:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Magazine request

Does anyone have a copy of the October 2007 issue of Official Xbox Magazine? If so could they cite this paragraph please. I live in Australia so I wouldn't be able to get it from a library or newsagent etc. Alternatively could as many details be filled into this as possible:

 {{cite book
  | last = 
  | first = 
  | authorlink = 
  | coauthors = 
  | title = 
  | publisher = 
  | date = 
  | location = 
  | pages = 
  | url = 
  | doi = 
  | id = 
  | isbn = }}

And then I can use it to provide citations for the paragraph. Thanks in advance. James086Talk | Email 03:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. --MASEM 14:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! James086Talk | Email 23:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Problem with fad category at Pokémon article.

Since both the article and talk page for Pokémon are protected from editing by new and anonymous editors, I have to post this here.

While some may make accusations of "fandom", make note I'm not a fan of Pokémon. However, I must say that it doesn't fall under the definition of what a fad is, as provided by Wikipedia - and putting it in a category of 1990s fads implies that it is not of significant popularity anymore, when the anime and video games are just as popular and prevalent as then, if not more so. It certainly isn't at the popularity it once was, but that doesn't make it a fad. As it stands, Pokémon Diamond and Pearl combined is the second best-selling video game of this generation, behind only Nintendogs. - NotanAnon (talk) 07:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Repeat this mantra a thousand times: "Thou shallt not argue about categories, except about the Categories" User:Krator (t c) 14:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I recall an argument about Bowser being underneath a category relating to gay furries. That seemed like a good argument. - NotanAnon (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

FT picture

At the featured topic nomination I've recently made, I'm in need of a picture to use for the topic should it pass. As my graphics skills are nil, any aid would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 08:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

What should Blood Bowl (video game) be split into?

I was thinking of using the article that exists now and Blood Bowl (2008 video game)? Currently both are on just on Blood Bowl (video game), and the new version seems to be a completely new game. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there enough information available to make the new article at this time? xenocidic (talk) 18:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Personally I would suggest waiting until the game is released before setting up new articles on them (unless one is like waiting forever ala Duke Nukem Forever). Games nowadays typically take up to 3-5 years development time, get announced in the beginning or middle of the development, and get cancelled before the release date or sprout new spin-offs and such. With such randomness throughout, it would be best to collect your sources, edit and save your articles off-line (or in personal Sandboxes), and implement your ideas once the game is officially gold. This way, many conflicts can be avoided. Jappalang (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Spyro: Enter the Dragonfly

I made some major modifications to Spyro: Enter the Dragonfly in the reception section, and I believe this article needs some major improvement. I list some suggestions here, so are there any other suggestions that this articles need to improve on? PrestonH 16:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Various edits by User:Wikipedian06

You may have come across the above user's edits during the discussion over the listing of Gamerankings and Metacritic rankings in articles and how they were biased against Super Mario Galaxy. The conclusion seemed to be that transient ranking data need not be included, a position (among others) that Wikipedian06 pushed for. So its surprising that after this discussion, he went and included a link to a rankings site to the Ocarina of Time article (diff1), which I subsequently removed (diff2), as it was totally unnotable, inaccurate, and took into account user reviews on another website.

But I've had some other run ins with this editor of late. It usually goes like this, Wikipedian06 posts some of his opinions (diff3) onto article pages (diff4), and then gets reverted for poor sourcing. This can also be seen in his opinions of Famitsu, which found themselves onto the article (diff5) via a very poor inadequate source.

His latest agenda is to rail against organisations he feels are biased for not paying attention to Japanese games, with edits such as this. When challenged, he'll remove his claim of "criticism" and "controversy", but try and leave in some Synthesis of published material to advance his POV. He then pleads that any removal of his synthesis should be discussed first - [7], I say no, kill this behaviour where it stands - [8].

I'm asking here for more eyes on this user's edits, and for any further feedback. - hahnchen 18:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedian06 is clearly not following Wikipedia's guidelines on the way different points of view should be sourced, and how to avoid inserting your own opinion into articles. I think you've done good to come here and not write on some kind of noticeboard seeking some kind of punishment, because it's some good feedback that is needed. I would be willing to write some on User talk:Wikipedian06, but it may be better if someone who actually saw and read the edits in question wrote some feedback. Some tips on doing that, if you even need them, but I'm giving them anyway in good faith: keep it clear (no euphemisms, no hyperboles), be constructive (tips on changing, not only signalling wrong things, and go beyond policy/guidelines) and be personal. User:Krator (t c) 22:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at List of best selling video games on how to treat MMORPGs

If anyone is interested, there is currently a discussion on this issue on the talk page of List of best selling video games. Please join the discussion there rather than post opinions here so as to keep the complete discussion intact in one easy to find place. Indrian (talk) 04:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Tetris Attack and Panel de Pon split

Per what appeared to be a growing consensus on Talk:Tetris Attack, I went ahead and split Panel de Pon back into its own article, following a previous merge together. The reason for the split was that basically there were enough differences between the two games (and enough notability for each) for them to warrant their own articles. I've done a lot of work to try to condense the common parts of both articles as much as possible, moving details about gameplay into Puzzle League (series) as much possible.

Both of these articles still need some work that I'm less qualified to do at this point. If you have time, I'd really appreciate the help:

  • PdP and TA both have exactly the same information in "Newer Releases". This section should be tailored to each game's specific release/market info in the respective articles.
  • PdP needs images! If someone has boxart and screenshots of PdP, please add them to the article. :)
  • Both games could use more information about their cultural impacts and popularity. I'm sure there's plenty of info about this for each game.
  • Could someone please fact-check the release information for both games, listed in the infobox and intro sections of each article? I'm pretty sure I made some mistakes when splitting this info apart.

Thanks! — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorcerer's Place website

There's a discussion starting up at Talk:Baldur's Gate#Sorcerer's Place link about whether to link the website Sorcerer's Place from various articles. Interested parties are invited to join the discussion. --Muchness (talk) 05:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Editing Clean-Up articles

I joined this group kinda recently, (about 8 days ago) but I have left some major edits (so much to the point where nearly 70% of the text is my work) and I wanted to know if it fits the article standards here they are...they're not a lot of articles but it's something....

~Ya Boi Krakerz~ (talk) 06:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I did some copyedit on Conker: you want to avoid the use of "you" or second person in such articles (I don't know if that text was there before or not). Both otherwise seem on their way to improvements and nothing glaringly wrong (though I'm sure a more detailed lookthrough would fine more to improve on). --MASEM 16:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


Hi, I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but can somebody please put some kind of lock on the NASCAR 09 article so only registered users can edit it? It has been getting vandalized a lot since it was created. Thanks Fisha695 (talk) 02:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I've made a request at WP:RPP, and placed a note on the page itself as StarCraft II has one. Also, I've made a note on the talk page explaining the inappropriateness of driver and track lists here. @Fellow WP:VG editors, could some of you when reading this check Talk:NASCAR 09#Drivers and track lists and chime in when necessary? I really don't want to replicate Talk:StarCraft II/Archive 4. User:Krator (t c) 09:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Damnit Krator, I could've sworn you were an admin... dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 09:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I posted this on the NASCAR 09 talk page, but I'll post it here too. "Well then if we can not place the list of content in the video game then there should not be any articles on any video games, as the driver and tracks included in the game is the content of the game, just like saying in the Grand theft Auto games what city they take place in and what your characters name is. Please show me to the Wiki-Rule that says that correct information on the subject of the article should not be included. If you can do that, then fine, just make sure you go through and delete ALL similar information on Characters that you can play and places where the game takes place from EVERY video game article. Until you can do that then I am putting them back in. Thanks" Fisha695 (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
A complete list of drivers and tracks is not necessary for a layman's understanding of the content of the article. The relevant guidelines are at WP:NOT#GUIDE and Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Unsuitable content. xenocidic (talk) 17:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
At the same time, An article on a Fictitious character (ala the GTA ones) is not needed either and is not even anywhere close to being encyclopedic IMO, as it is a made up Character. Having the Track list is no different then saying what city the GTA games take place in, and if anything it has more relevance as it is actually a real place Where-as last time I checked a place like "Liberty City" is not real. Same thing with the drivers. Have a driver list is no different then having the Character list in the movie articles, or the Character listed in the GTA articles, well except that the drivers are REAL people not Fictitious characters like 99% of the other video game/movie characters are. All I am saying is that REAL People and Places hold more encyclopedic weight then Fake ones, yet the Real ones are the ones getting removed why Fake ones are staying, and even have their own articles (tell me what is exactly relevant of a made up character to warrant it a separate article?) I know thats a little long winded, but all I'm saying, is if you are going to remove the Characters and Places from one video game article (real characters and places) then you should also remove all the Fake ones from other video game articles, as well. 18:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fisha695 (talkcontribs)

imo, a few notable drivers and a few notable tracks should be listed in the article. However, a complete listing is not required and will make the article unnecessarily bloated. xenocidic (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that they get bloated but that is because of the way they have been setup. Maybe a table say 4 or 5 names wide, and instead of being broken down into series, it would just be all the real drivers in the game (judged on years past around 50) listed in Alphabetical order, same with Tracks. Or what about this. Two new Articles, 1 is called something like List of NASCAR drivers in video Games, and one would be for tracks, and it would list for every NASCAR game ever made and hopefully future games what drivers and tracks were in those game (not the sponsors or anything, but just the drivers/tracks)I'll use the GTA games as an example again. Since they have the following pages for that series List of gangs in Grand Theft Auto series and List of Grand Theft Auto voice actors, except they'd be Tracks and Drivers in the NASCAR series of games. The games could be broken down using the same catagories for the lists of games at the bottom the the NASCAR 09 page. Just a thought Fisha695 (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
At least one of those articles are themselves under attack, so I wouldn't really use them as arguments. The argument also fails WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Again, only a few notable drivers and notable tracks should be included. As for your suggestion to create an article "List of Drivers in NASCAR Games", again, I'm not sure if this would survive an AFD. Your efforts in this regard might be better appreciated a gaming wikia. (Note all of the above is just based on WP and WPVG policy, and not my own personal opinion on whether an article should have a complete list of drivers) xenocidic (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
But what is "notable", you know what I mean? Especially in a sport like NASCAR. For example I live about 15 minutes from the Pocono Raceway so I think that is a notable track to be in the game, yet a lot of people that follow the sport and play the game think the tracks is boring and shouldn't even be on the schedule. Same basic thing with Drivers, the driver I think are notable, you may not think are notable, and somebody else may have a completely different list of notable drivers. And also with the drivers and a notable list, it'd bring up the fact that while yes certain drivers may get more tv time, or certain drivers may have more fans, that doesn't mean a driver that "you" didn't list as notable isn't notable with their fans, people in the region they are from, etc.... I guess what I am trying to say is, when involving real people/places especially sports related ones, "Notable" is more of a personal subjective thing then it is an Encyclopedic thing. BTW I'm not trying to argue or tick anybody off I just like to debate what I feel is right, or a better way to do something then how it's being done. Fisha695 (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not that subjective a thing, and policy disagrees that it's not an encyclopedic issue. The best way to judge notability is to look at third party sources. Lets say you read a review of the game in question. There's not going to be a list of tracks in it, at most the reviewer will talk about the few best tracks in the game. The notability issue is just one problem anyway, in addition to the game guide issues, WP:NOT etc Bridies (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Once again that still is a subjective thing. Just because the reviewer only reviews "X" track does not mean they are notable, it means those are the tracks that the reviewer ran. Getting encyclopedic info off of some hack who writes for a magazine is stupid IMO. Just because that person who reviews said game and rates it what he does, does not mean that everybody or anybody agrees with him. Here I'll use a real life racing example. My boss likes his modified set up loose, I like my car set up tight, I got into his modified last year and almost destroyed it in the first turn because it was too loose of a setup for my personal tastes. Out of a scale of 10 I would rate it a 1 and he'd rate it an 11. Does that mean that setup is a good setup...? Well going off of the idiotic thought that just because somebody plays mentions that track in a review means its notable, it does. Fisha695 (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you just need to read over the policies pertaining to notability, original research and the need for (reliable) third party sources e.g. WP:NOT. Bridies (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

We're getting a little off-topic here. Again, only a few notable drivers should be included, and the test of notability would typically be when they're mentioned by a reviewer. We have to follow established policy and consensus. xenocidic (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If the company making the game mentions that a driver who has not been in the last few games is not notable, but when some person sitting at a desk (for a lack of a better word) blogging about what he/she thinks of the game that is notable..? The Board of Directors that runs this "project" really really need to re-think their rules IMO. Fisha695 (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I agree here with Fisha695. If it is appropriate to include a few examples of what normally would be game-guide or list-type content (as in the list of drivers or tracks here) as a summary in the main article, I would nearly always turn to the company's press release or media information for the game and pull examples there. (This is what we did for a few of the Guitar Hero games, since otherwise we'd be arguing left or right over what example songs should be listed). Mind you, this might not exist, and in that case, it's then you turn to reviewers to provide such examples. In either case, you avoid a possible issue with WP:OR by creating your own version of the list of examples. --MASEM 20:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Again, I agree with including a few notable drivers where sources are available, but I do believe Fisha695's argument is that the entire list should be included because notability is subjective. xenocidic (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

WWE SvR 2008 roster: list or prose?

This is cross posted with the Wikiproject: Professional Wrestling here

There has been an edit war in the past possibly 6 months whether to list or prose the roster. Since discussion guidelines to reach consensus is not to vote for a decision but to discuss it and make sure most people agree with it. And read the Talk page of the article and archives to see previous discussions of the issue. Please voice your opinion.--TrUCo9311 03:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Aaaaarrrrrggggghhhhh. User:Krator (t c) 09:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Hide the list by default. hahnchen 18:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Excess gameplay description template

There's a template under discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Role-playing games#Excess gameplay description template for marking articles for cleanup. Comments from members of this WikiProject would be welcome. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


  • We have a bit of a problem. Many images of fighting game characters in this site source themselves to, a site that is notorious for copyright violations. In other words, the webmaster simply takes images from other websites and puts them on his own without giving any credit. He's been a bit of a paraiah in the SF community for a long time because of this, but that's besides the point. Again, there are a lot of images which claim FG as the source. Efforts should be made to find the original source of these images, or they could quite possibly be deleted. JuJube (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. Images are copyrighted by the game's developer and publisher; webmasters have no rights over them. From a legal point of view, the screenshots shown on are as illegal as the ones shown on other fansites. The only "original" source of a screenshot is the game it was taken from. When a source is given on a Wikipedia image page, it's just for description, it's not that important. What's more important and essential is to put a fair use rationale, and note that these rationales typically refer to the developer, the publisher or the copyright owner, never some fansite or random person. Pictures are deleted because of a lack of fair use rationale, not y a lack of source or improper sourcing (lots of pics don't have a source apart from "I grabbed this with an emulator", but they are fine as long as the FU rationale is fine). FightingStreet (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Images are copyrighted by the game's developer and publisher... yes, that's my point exactly. An effort should be made to track down the origin of these images. I never said I would be the one to mark these things for deletion, but given the higher scrutiny that Fair-use images are going through, it is quite possible that they might go up in the future, so we should head that off at the pass. JuJube (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

System Shock 2

Hi, I posted a peer review of System Shock 2 almost a week ago and the only response Ive received was from a bot, haha. I know you guys are busy, but if you have time to look at the article, Id really appreciate it. Its gone through an extensive rewrite recently, and i would like to get some suggestions on how to improve it. Anyway, thanks and I look forward to meeting you. : ) Here's a link to the peer review. Noj r (talk) 08:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll do one today. Done. User:Krator (t c) 08:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, Ill get on that after Im done with my classes. Noj r (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, Krator and Bridies, I really appreciate it. System Shock 2 is still under going peer review. If you would like to help, drop by and give us a rundown of the article and how it can be improved. Thanks, Noj r (talk) 00:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Pokemon Blue Japan

I came across this article today, and I was wondering if it's necessary? The game doesn't seem that much different than the other versions of Pokemon blue. RobJ1981 (talk) 00:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree it doesn't seem to be any different, although I know nothing about Pokemon. It also doesn't cite any sources, however it was only created a week or so ago. Bridies (talk) 01:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
It should probably be merged into Pokémon Red and Blue. It's already mention in the "Development" section of it and the Blue Japan article in its current doesn't really provide much additional information. Unless it can be beefed up with content specific this particular version, I'd suggest bringing up a merger on the talk page. (Guyinblack25 talk 03:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC))

(now Square Enix)

Every Final Fantasy article before the merger notes in their leads that the games were "published by Square (now Square Enix)", with Square Enix wikilinked if Square is not. Someone aims to take that note out of Chrono Trigger, so I'm putting it up whether (now Square Enix) is necessary or contributory information for discussion. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 08:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it makes sense from a historic standpoint. In 30 years, I doubt many of the younger generation (born after 2000) will have heard of Square simply because the company would have been out of the public light for over a generation, but people will most likely know of Square Enix, and since Wikipedia is meant to be timeless, it'd make sense to inform people that the game was created by a now-unkwown company which became a now-modern company (in terms of someone reading the article in 2038).-- 08:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The historic standpoint makes sense... however I would say no. It is better to leave it out. For one, Square Co. is the company responsible for the game and not Square Enix. It is questionable why the name "Square Enix" should be brought up in an article whose product they were not responsible for. Furthermore, the Square Co. Wiki-link serves to direct readers to details which would have told them about the fate of the company (merged into Square Enix). Hence it is unnecessary to put in a "(now Square Enix)". Jappalang (talk) 09:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the above. There's an untold number of companies that are now "something else" that don't get similar treatment in WP. Square-Enix didn't publish the game, Square Co. LTD. did. If the merger is relevant to the game, that'd be one thing, but it's not. One wouldn't say that Taito is now part of SE in the lead of Space Invaders, or whatever. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 11:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Taito isn't Square Enix, it's a subsidiary which keeps its own trademark and label: the label "Square Enix" don't appear on games released by Taito. This is completly different with Square Co. because Square Enix is the direct successor of Square Co. Final Fantasy 1 for instance was developed and published by Square, but a lot of ports and re-releases of that game have been released after the merger, by Square Enix. Similarly, both Chrono Trigger and Chrono Cross have been re-released by Square Enix in 2006 as part of the company's Ultimate Hits series. Some games have an even more mixed release history: the Japanese version of Final Fantasy X-2 for instance was developed and published by Square Co., but the North American, PAL and International versions of the game were published by Square Enix. FightingStreet (talk) 12:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
If that is the case, then it simplifies the matter. Just point out Square Co. developed the games—pointless to affix a "(now Square Enix)" to the developer; and certain versions are published by Square Co. and Square Enix (e.g. "after 2004, Square Enix released ??? versions of the game.") Whoever is interested in the histories of the companies are free to click on their links. Square Enix is not just Square Co., it is Square Co. and Enix. The "now Square Enix" without background, implies Square Enix is the rebranding of the Square Co. company. Jappalang (talk) 13:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Here's how I would treat the situation, which is case by case: If in the context of the article and its references, it is important to note that the company changed names, merged, was bought out, or so forth, with both pre- and post-event names being used within the sources, then the name chance should also be noted and in the lead. This happened with BioShock (Irrational Games bought and renamed to 2K Boston during its development, so both names can be found in the sourced articles). Otherwise, one should check the original company's topic on WP and make sure that the change is covered in the lead (like it is for Square), and then leave it at that, as would be the case for Chrono Trigger. --MASEM 13:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Masem and Jappalang; that's what wikilinks are for, but there would be a few cases were it would be needed. A few that come to mind are say in the Kingdom Hearts (series) article. The first KH was released by Square, but all others after that are released by Square Enix. Final Fantasy III and Final Fantasy IV were released by Square, but their remakes were released by Square Enix. Since Square and Square Enix are technically two different companies, they should be treated as such unless the need to explain the connection comes up in the article. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC))
I also agree. For historical correctness, the original company's name should be used in the article, with a link to that company's article if one exists and is appropriate. The company's article should serve as a proper redirect point to current information about the company (again, if it exists and is appropriate). If the company changed hands during the relevant timeline of the game article, then it should be noted in the article - otherwise, it should be left as it was during the article's timeline. In Chrono Trigger's case, I'd leave the publisher name as "Square Co.", since that was the name of the company at the time both the SNES and PS1 versions were published. The Square-Enix merger didn't happen until significantly later. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Did you miss my post? Chrono Trigger (probably just the Japanese version) was re-released as a Square Enix Ultimate Hits in 2006. FightingStreet (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I guess I did. Sorry about that. In that case, it makes sense to mention Square Enix as the publisher for that release. (Incidentally, what system(s) was that released for, and did they fix the stupid loading-time issues with Chrono Trigger? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Project review/status

Per Krator's suggestion, here's a new thread to discuss the praticipation of members in the various departments. Like how to encourage others to be part of the group. And how to help them learn how to assess, clean-up, get an article GA/FA, or whatever they want to do to be regularly contributing members. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 22:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC))

To be honest, despite being here for quite a while, I don't have much idea of the number of active, experienced, editors. I recall something in Cleanup Task Force where they made a list of active members to weed out who had left. Perhaps something of that nature here (who knows? how to assess copyedit, research, collaborate, who's even here, etc.). Maybe we need a bot to do roll call to see how many of us there actually are. It'd be a good place to look for people willing to help, since you just click a name and ask. I don't know how or if it would work, but I doubt all 800 members are doing stuff.--CM (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
What could help along that line would to have an automated bot to drop a message weekly to members to summarize what things need to be done (list out what articles are up in FA, GA, peer review, any collaboration efforts) etc, as a combo newsletter/to-do list, along with instructions to tell people how to remove themselves. That would not only remind people what needs to be done for VG improvements but also help to make sure people that no long are interested can remove themselves. --MASEM 23:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, as I said, I'm happy to lend a hand. Just give me a task and I'll get on with it :) Gazimoff (talk) 00:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I think a weekly update on user's talk pages would be a good idea. It would help encourage the users to be a part of the project and work with other people on articles. From past experience with this wikiproject, I honestly doubt anyone will take into account what I have to say, and I think for the project to be more efficient, that feeling needs to change, not just with me, but with a lot of editors. Evaunit♥666♥ 02:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
True that. Members should feel like they are welcome to contribute and not feel excluded or ignored. A newsletter sounds like an excellent idea. I hope there is someone here that would know how to set that up. :-p (Guyinblack25 talk 04:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC))
I've created Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter for a centralized discussion point for a possible newsletter for the project, with my initial thoughts (and ultimately where the newsletter would come fromt). Feel free to comment more there. --MASEM 14:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm considering spending more time around the assessment department, considering the sudden decrease in activity there in recent months (right from the moment of trying to populate the A-class category to be precise). The assessment department is in my view the most important and useful function this Wikiproject performs, we need to get participation in assessing requested articles up considerably - some of the requests (namely the GA ones put forward by Guyinblack for A-class) have been sitting there for over a month. -- Sabre (talk) 00:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The assessment department's recent decrease in activity is due to UnaLaguna's wikibreak and my own lack of time. Some help would be appreciated :) - I do not think, by the way, that inviting mass effort in this department will help. A few dedicated contributors is necessary and most efficient. User:Krator (t c) 03:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Krator, it sounds like there is a good handful of editors that are willing to assist with assessment. About how many extra did you have in mind, and what would be the best way to get them up to speed on the assessment process? (Guyinblack25 talk 04:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC))
I'd help more, but it turns out getting an electrical engineering degree takes a lot of time and work. Who'd of thought, eh? Anyways, I'll try to knock one or two out tonight, the list has been bothering me for weeks now. --PresN (talk) 06:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The best way is simply to put WP:VG/A on your watchlist, and assess some of the requests. Think peer review, but quicker and briefer. There's not much more to it. Key is to remember that the actual rating doesn't really matter much, and that it's about recognition of work and improving articles. User:Krator (t c) 13:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Done, thanks for the tip. I'll get cracking Gazimoff (talk) 15:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

One thing I'd love to finish is User:Ryu Kaze's guide (he's the one who pushed all the Final Fantasy articles to FA back in the day) to writing featured video game articles. I know the WikiProject is supposed to cover that on its home page with its own manual of style, but his guide allowed for candid commentary and other substance that might appear too casual for the real guide. But perhaps a conversion is possible. At any rate, the process of writing my own FAs is still fresh in my mind; do you think we could find a home for it on the project? ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 04:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've had some thoughts like that myself. I've wanted to write a "how to" for GA/FA VG related articles of some kind, but have been a bit busy. Technically it doesn't have to be on this project page. It could be a user's subpage like Deckiller's essay on WikiCommunication or Tony1's tips on How to satisfy Criterion 1a for Featured Articles. Do you have a link to Ryu Kaze's guide? (Guyinblack25 talk 16:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC))
My ancient WIP edit of it is at User:Zeality/GuideWIP. I aimed to get in specifics, like what usually can be found in the development section, what images can work best, how to structure the reception, etc. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 18:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Chrono Trigger TFA

Wow, I've been hitting the WP:VG talk page a lot lately. Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. It's getting objections's a video game article. Apparently, one per month is too many for a diversified encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. Any support there is appreciated; it was a fight to the death to merely get ONE in line for February (the Agatha Christie Orient Express game). Chrono Trigger's been waiting since August 2006 to hit the main page. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 19:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I urge anyone who reads this to read the entire discussion before making any moral support votes. The "fight to the death" described above is more indicative of the shrillness of some of the arguments rather than of any organized hatred of video games. If anything, it would be good if video game supporters were more forthcoming in discussing the place of video games in the big picture.
Peter Isotalo 11:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the problem isn't so much not looking at the big picture as it is that VG article editors tend to be more dedicated toward making FAs as a group (which is unsurprising if you think about it for a bit), so there ends up being a systemix bias toward them. With the way the system is set up -- that it, TFAs are chosen from a pool of articles that have been made FAs -- it's only natural that video games will be asked to be featured more, if there are more VGs FAs to chose from, isn't it? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with what you're saying, Melodia, and I consider it a very good reason for members of WP:VG to take a bit more responsibility for this state of affairs. What we're seeing over at the requests page right now is looking more and more like a rather one-sided shouting contest. The requests for sane dialog are either entirely ignored or wholly misrepresented.
Peter Isotalo 08:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Could someone possibly provide a comment/opinion on this matter?

Hello. I probably wouldn't be so forward about this, but this issue needs to be resolved before Super Smash Bros. Melee can go back to FAC. Basically, the dispute is about whether to include Ken Hoang, a prolific tournament player in the "tournaments" section. I've requested an RfC, but there's been no response. There's an IP on the page who will watch and revert anytime Ken is removed from the article. So basically, the article can be viewed as failing stability until this issue is resolved. I'd probably wait longer for RfC, but as I said, this needs to be resolved before FAC. I don't really care about the outcome anymore, I just want the argument over and done with because it's been a gigantic pain in the arse. Thanks, all. Ashnard Talk Contribs 11:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

"Cooling" section in Xbox 360 accessories article

There is a major section in Xbox 360 accessories listing a bunch of cooling products. These products are NOT officially-licensed by Microsoft and are known to cause more issues since they steal power from the console. Similar cooling products are available for other consoles, yet they are not listed in PlayStation 3 accessories for example. I do not think these products should be listed nor recommended on wikipedia, but someone reverted my edit on that page so I'm asking for other opinions here first. SeanMooney (talk) 13:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Given the name of the article, they appear to fall within its scope. The same idea should be applied to the PS3 one too. Basically, simply being listed in an article is not an endorsement by Wikipedia. So long as the information about the products is not written like an advertisement, it should ok. If the products do cause negative issues, then adding that information along with a reliable source is also acceptable. It would be probably be preferred since it'll help establish a neutral point of view. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC))
I have to agree, there's nothing wrong with that section. It would be nice to have a third-party review of the coolers (particularly explaining why they are bad, or why MS doens't endorse them), but it definitely doesn't fail the WP:NOT#DIR test for being a sales catalog or product comparison. --MASEM 15:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Also agree. I would hope that it would include both MS lisenced product as well as third party ones. In additon, if there is a cited/published problem with an accessory category then I'd argue that it's worth including to note that as well. Besides, didn't the Xbox 360 have overheating/cooling issues to begin with? Gazimoff (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Gaming jargon

I've just added a gaming jargon section to the guidelines. My own knowledge of jargon is restricted to certain genres, so please add more examples as you find them. Also, discuss :) User:Krator (t c) 14:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree that jargon should be either avoided or defined where possible, but do we have a standard method for defining jargon where required, or where a particular game/genre has spawned jargon that has since entered popular culture?Gazimoff (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I've encountered the resistance to 'downloadable' before, but I don't see why: Bungie Studios, for example, has referred to DLC or downloadable content many times in announcements and podcasts. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
It's just a manner of style. Game reviewers and publishers use the words, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia should. An encyclopaedia has a very different audience than reviews or announcements, and is expected to have a more formal style too. Love the signature, by the way. User:Krator (t c) 17:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Instead of "downloadable", "for download" is suggested, right? So "content for download" rather than "downloadable content"? I've always found that "content for download" a bit of a mouthful. That said, I have no objections to the guidelines if it's generally accepted that "downloadable" is a term unsuitable for a mainstream encyclopedia. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 20:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I think a section header of "Downloadable content" could be justified, but usually it's better to just go for something like "Expansions" or "Additional content". The really bad uses of "downloadable" are as a mid-sentence adjective: "the downloadable horse armour pack was.." User:Krator (t c) 21:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


A proposal by an anonymous IP has been made for a stub type for vehicle simulations. The idea seems sound enough at face value, but I have no idea whether this proposed split would be welcomed or optimal. Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not that knowledge of the sorting of categories, but the idea seems fine enough. If it gets depreciated it can be deleted down the road. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC))

Advice to editors seeking featured prestige with video game articles

The process of writing five featured video game article and nominating them for Today's Featured Article has revealed a lot about how video game topics and editors are treated. I have some advice and cold realities for those seeking to have their work featured on the main page someday. So let's say you've written a video game featured article; you've invested a lot of hard work, sought the aid of peer reviewers, searched for or played the game to obtain relevant, fair use screenshots, and of course, copyedited the article like a madman to pass the grueling FAC process. You are happy to have that star on your article because you know that it means something you love will now be shared with a wider audience. Perhaps you've even secured more spotlight for an obscure, underrated video game that needs appreciation. You are riding high and can't wait to nominate your article for TFA on one of the anniversaries of its release date. You maintain the article with zeal and personally see through that its quality will never decline.

So you head over to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests and wait for a few days because the request system is always packed. Vigilantly keeping watch, one night you see Raul654 schedule a couple successful requests; you remove them from the page and insert your own TFA blurb. What can you expect from the people who monitor that page?

1. Expect intolerance based timing and notability.

There is apparently consensus by the TFA police that one video game article on the main page per month is too many, because the main page is supposed to represent a diverse sample of interests and video games aren't notable enough. Nevermind that your game might have sold ten million copies. Nevermind that WP:MH and a few other projects appear multiple times per month at times. Nevermind that with a technically-savvy audience, a website encyclopedia will probably get more people who know about a video game than an obscure archbishop in England in the 9th century. Nevermind that other pop culture articles like TV and music appear more than once per month on average. Nevermind that WP:VG is a very successful project with a lion's share of FAs to its credit (most of which haven't hit the main page). And nevermind that your article may have been waiting almost 2 years to appear on the main page. Your nomination will be opposed because there was another video game on the main page recently, whether someone nominated it or Raul selected it.

2. Expect prejudice based on the subject matter.

Video game articles are second class topics, and video game editors are second class Wikipedians. This is the cold truth you must learn. Your nomination will be opposed because your FAC-proven, polished, sweat-borne article is "pretty weak" or "just another overlong synopsis of just another video game." Your game could be considered critically perfect and have sold in the millions, but it is a video game, which relegates it to the back of the line behind all the other obscure topics in Wikipedia. Video games are not art, not popular, not notable, and not important. Every video game article should be trimmed down to two paragraphs in a single merged list, because that's the breadth of their importance. If you wrote out detailed, well-researched sections on development, impact, or gameplay, you are an idiot for making mountains out of molehills on a genre of work no one cares about (but people mysteriously decide to write many FAs for anyway).

3. Expect a fight. Arm yourself.

Your video game article is trash on the request system, preventing some other editor from nominating his soccer club topic. No matter what evidence you provide for notability, your article is a video game and that is that. So bring this up as provided by User:Guyinblack25:

While I can understand the reasoning to which Marskell mentioned in limiting "short-term culture", I feel its main purpose is to help Wikipedia gain creditability as a reliable encyclopedia. I could be wrong, but that's my interpretation. And while I agree that Wikipedia should do what it can do bolster its image, I can't help but feel its created a negative view among editors towards "short-term culture" articles. In regard to the demographics Marskell commented on, I feel some data should be mentioned to get a better perspective on the audience interested in video games and how it falls into our culture.
The Entertainment Software Association found that in 2006, the average gamer age was 33, only 31% of gamers were under the age of 18, only 23% of gamers were males under the age of 18, adult gamers have been playing video games an average of 12 years, and 69% of American heads of households play video games.[9] The BBC found similar results in the UK with the average age at 28 and 59% of all people ages 6-65 play games, with the two largest age groups being 25-35 (5.5mil) and 36-50(6.7mil).[10] Though I don't know the age demographics of internet users, I think the data shows that interest in video games is not relevant mainly to a male, teenage demographic/generation. Video games have been around for more than a few decades, and have gained in popularity and in notoriety. For example, the Writers Guild of America just started a Videogame Writing award.

Call on your compatriots at WP:VG and point out the hypocritical bias and baseless claims of topic weakness. Cite Raul's first and truest law that Wikipedia relies on dedicated editors such as ourselves for its well being and advancement, especially in featured writing. Remind that this is an encyclopedia created and owned by the users, and the users are creating numerous articles on an emerging artform with a wide and growing audience. To disenfranchise WP:VG would be to sacrifice the support of hard working, core editors who hitherto believed they could eventually share their work on the main page. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 19:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sweet rant. xenocidic (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
As an editor of CVG and fantasy topics, I assure you they are overlooked by other editors. I understand the reasoning (let's be clear, it is much more important an article talking about health, geography or society than one about a game, otherwise you would be taught "Advanced Dual Shock handling" at primary school instead of Biology). The truth is, no encyclopedia talks about as many fantasy and gaming articles like ours because they are unnecessary.
Now, I also understand people who are gaming fans and spend their time polishing articles. I would not like someone deleting an article I have edited over 1000 times just because it is not as important as another.
I also have this feeling that people from the CVG WikiProject who support gaming articles that are currently under FAC don't spend their time to review other FACs in "boring" topics. Maybe I am wrong, maybe not, but it is my impression that gaming editors help to promote gaming articles, but don't even care about medicine, history or any other FAC. It could be that the editors of other articles are just as the CVG ones I mentioned here, but for some reason I don't have that "feeling". -- ReyBrujo (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Taking myself as an example—and I assume that this is the case for others—I don't review other articles at FAC because my level of expertise is in this area is hugely different to that of others. My experience as an editor comes mainly from editing gaming articles. I'm not making a conscious effort to somehow promote these articles at the expense of others, it's just I don't feel that I'm in position to review others. As an editor, I feel it would be irresponsible of me to make a judgement on the quality of a type of article to which I've had no experience in editing. Ashnard Talk Contribs 21:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
What a wonderful message, one that has been sung in the heart of every VG editor who has gone to FA, including me. To be honest though, many of us already know this, it is the rest of the world who doesn't understand. I don't know statistics, but I would be curious how many editors are specialized to one specific area here, and remain in that area their entire wikipedia "career", for lack of a better word. I think that you'll find many who only work on battles, movies, video games, football/soccer clubs, historic figures, towns, etc. and defend their importance just as we do. I guess what I am saying is nobody up top really cares how many VGFA's there are, or something would have changed by now. So we can rant and rave and get all riled up, but at the end of the day how much does it do unless we have a plan for change?--CM (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Responding to Ashnard's comments-
I felt the same way until SandyGeorgia stated in a discussion at FAC, "Why are reviewers tied to the idea they aren't qualified to review certain topics? Anyone can pick out prose, MOS, citation, etc. issues. It's good for uninvolved reviewers to look at articles outside of their usual realm." I got me thinking, "yeah, that's right." Doing so helps me as an editor become better at copy editing and writing articles in general and helps the article sharpen up quality-wise. Some of the most helpful comments I've gotten at FAC are from non-VG members.
So while I may not be the most qualified person to point out a lack of comprehensiveness or accuracy, I can certain look at the formating of references, grammar, image fair use, and MoS issues. Besides, my support/opposition does not mean the article will pass/fail. The FA director ultimately decides which articles meet the criteria, our comments merely help it along. So I say give it shot, what's the worst that'll happen? (Guyinblack25 talk 22:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC))
Indeed, every little comment helps. I used th peer review articles about anything, until I realized I was not enjoying that. And I felt hypocrite by only working articles I knew when others almost never get feedback just because they are obscure topics. But again, this is just me. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I should do this sort of stuff since such things don't require specialised knowledge. However, I still wouldn't be comfortable with casting a judgement. Doing so affirms that I believe an article meets or neglects the criteria, but how could I could know whether such articles are comprehensive, or give enough weight to topics that I know nothing of? If I was predisposed to not giving judgements to such articles, then it would just kind of be a peer review on the FAC page. In that case, maybe I should just drop a note on the talk page. I realise that my editing habits confines me to particular articles and subjects, and I am considering editing articles of a different nature in the future. Of course, I'm not advocating that every editor takes this approach, it's just that I feel uncomforatble with this with 99 percent (estimate) of my mainspace edits at WP:VG. Thanks for the input. Ashnard Talk Contribs 22:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

To CM, I started discussion on scheduling things on basis of topic diversity on the request page's talk page, but someone basically said that it'd be impossible to nail down and represent every topic and genre in Wikipedia with missing some bases. My proposal over there was to adopt the policy that having having too much "short-term culture" is a problem just like having too much Eurovision in DYK or narrow articles in ITN. People complain, but then they are encouraged to go write in their subject of interest and help balance it out, like a recruiting tool. Versus hiding the frailty at the cost of disenfranchising editors... ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 23:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, and I add another rant: the WikiProject itself is not that useful. I requested help from it several times, and nobody ever cared about commenting. Recently we have had another discussion at the list of best selling video games, and again the WikiProject failed to give any feedback. I think even members don't care about gaming articles, only about a very small set [of games they like]. Since the WikiProject isn't pushing the same side, it is no surprise others outside it regard us as a bunch of children who are interested in having creating articles about Pokémons. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Eh, I've written/helped to write plenty of FA VG articles - Iridion 3D, Halo 2, Halo 3, Populous: The Beginning, Golden Sun, et al- and I'm satisfied, at least. Still, I admit there's truth to whats written. Das Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the greatest help is needed in copyediting. That's the number one opposition in the FAC process, and the hardest thing I've found help with. It's well within the realm of one's personal abilities after reading Tony's tutorial and trying his suggestions (like printing out the article; it makes a HUGE difference), but nothing substitutes for fresh eyes. I've had difficulty with that, but I always assist when asked; I helped System Shock that way. I worry that some system of identifying copyeditors will fail like the magazine project, though, when the original crop of editors goes inactive. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 04:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm new here, but I'm happy to review articles as needed. Just give me a poke and I'll scan through something and make reccomendations. Besides, it'll give me something to read during my daily commute. Gazimoff (talk) 07:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's my turn to rant.
You know, reading over the comments in this thread is kind of depressing. Things sound pretty bad here within this Project. Admittedly, it's hard to really argue what's been stated. I think one of the issues here is the inherent nature of Wikipedia, it's a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Because we're all basically volunteers here, we dedicate what free time we have as best we can. And what that amounts to is we edit the topics/articles that mean the most to us and generally keep to ourselves. Looking at the VG member category, there are well over 800 editors listed, but I'd be surprised if we had more than 50 regular editors that frequent the project talk pages. To be honest, I'd say we're pretty lucky to have editors like Krator and Jacoplane that help out with the reviewing, assessing, and try to maintain a system of quality control. (If I didn't mention you specifically, it's because those two editors were the first to pop in my mind. So no offense if I didn't mention someone.)

Maybe things don't have to be like that though. Maybe we could all be a bit more bold here and try to fix things. So long as we are willing to work together in a respectful manner and compromise when needed, this shouldn't be too hard. I'm not saying we all need to be completely dedicated to the VG Project, I'd like to edit other topics too. I also have a life outside of Wikipedia and plan to keep it that way. Personally, I'd like to see more of the essential articles brought up to better quality. Of our 175 Good articles, 26 are on the essential list, and of our 77 Featured articles, 17 are on the essential list. Heck, our top-level article, Video game is B-class. I'd certainly like to change that, as I'm sure it would warrant more respect from the rest of the Wikipedia community, and essential articles have a better chance of being featured as Today's FA because of their significance and culture importance.

So if you're new here, Be Bold. If you've been around a while, still Be Bold. Do your best and don't be too afraid of making mistakes. Everyone here, even the more experienced editors have their fair share of mistakes. If you have questions, ask the other editors here or at any related project. There are editors here with a wealth of experience and knowledge that are willing to "collaborate" with others. The keyword being "collaborate". If you're unwilling to compromise and bend on your vision of what is best for encyclopedic articles, you came to the wrong website. Wikipedia is about group collaboration with one of its five pillars being Wikipedia has a code of conduct- "Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. Be civil. Avoid conflicts of interest, personal attacks or sweeping generalizations. Find consensus, avoid edit wars... Act in good faith, never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming." My two cents. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC))

Guy's hit it on the nose, and I think we really need to rekindle the idea of the collaboration of the week, in a two fold manner: one collaboration would be to target those articles rated high importance to get them to GA and better on a one by one basis, and then a user-sumbitted collaboration to help get non-"high" importance but still worthwhile video game articles also up to a similar spec. We've mentioned the idea before but it's never taken legs, but I think this will help improve the overall quality of the VG article space. --MASEM 18:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Collaboration is a nice theme to work on. I for on would welcome Collaboration of the Week as, among many other things, it would give me a chance to work with experienced editors, which is something I really haven't done much of since being here having worked solo most of the time on articles. I'm sure that would help me improve as an editor. I like the positive post, Guy ; ). Ashnard Talk Contribs 19:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I think a collaboration project would be a good idea, but I'm afraid our other departments and sub-projects are spread so thin that we'd be digging ourselves in a hole. The recently created Cleanup department is slowly crawling to get going. The Assessment department has been rather successful, but I believe sees assessment from only a small number of editors. And our efforts to consolidate inactive sub-projects are currently on hold.
We need members to be more involved, even if it's only a little bit extra. I know I wasn't that involved because I didn't know any better. I figured there were more experienced editors that knew better than me and that it would be best to let them handle it. It wasn't until it hit me that some of this stuff wasn't that big of a deal that I started to be more active. Anybody can give their opinion on an assessment, copy editing, or whatever issue is going on. So long as they are respectful to others, and others give that same respect back, it can work.
So I guess the question is how do we encourage others to be part of the group? And how do we help them learn how to assess, clean-up, get an article GA/FA, or whatever they want to do. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 20:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC))
On the assessment department, the assessors are spread thin, but the actual requests are from a wide range of editors. User:Krator (t c) 21:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I was going to respond to Guy's comments more in-depth, but maybe it's best to make a new section called "project review" or "project status" below? User:Krator (t c) 21:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

New section started below. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC))
I've been planning to enter the assessment and peer review departments after I finish my GCSEs in about three months. It's hard revision until then, so I won't be too active here. Ashnard Talk Contribs 22:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Hope they go well. I'm sure there'll be plenty waiting here for you when you're done. I'd like to be active in the assessing process too, but don't really know what standard to hold articles to. Hopefully we can fix that for editors like us. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC))

To me, a big problem is references. Because video games are a relatively young and evolving phenomenon, there isn't a lot of reliable research on video games. A lot of information in the articles is common sense, which can be found on nearly any gaming forum, let alone easily observed by anyone who has played a few games. But very few people have actually taken the time to write a journalistic article on a lot of this stuff, let alone a book.

Video games ARE treated like second class articles. But it's because of the rules. The rules favor historical and academic phenomena. Video games have trouble meeting this standard. That said, "different things should be treated differently". I'm not sure that video games need to be studied by academics in order to constitute good wikipedia articles. Maybe we need to re-examine the standards in this one case? (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  • As far as TFA is concerned, the fact that contributor time is spent on discussing the merits of including this or that article on the main page, as opposed to a bot randomly selecting an FA and edit protecting it on the day, seems like a waste of valuable time. Cherry picking articles according to subject flies in the face of what WP is - a non paper-based encyclopedia. Until that changes I'm not going to bother getting worked up about it.

As far as this project is concerned, we have the same problems every other project has - we're volunteers swimming against a tide, trying to balance the beaurocratic needs of the project against the goal of writing articles for the encyclopedia. Things may look Bad but at least the project is active, unlike countless others which are little more than dustbins which collect signatures. The processes undergone here take time to do properly, providing feedback on assessments for instance means actually reading the article and comparing it with others. The project's remit has also increased vastly within the lifetime of WP - casual games have been turned into a large industry and are now released almost daily, with several sites dedicated to reviewing them. Christ, Jeff Vogel's work results in several articles being needed, that's one guy aided by his wife and their office manager.

Streamlining some of the processes here would help, as well as a rock-solid 'how to write videogame articles guide', well spaced, jargon free and in a fucking big box on the project's main page. What sections are expected, where are they expected to be, what should they contain. A section emphasizing the importance of referencing, templates for referencing, a link to the list of references etc. would be good. It goes for the entire encyclopedia that encouraging contributors to actually reference properly would go a long way towards improving articles on the whole. Too many times you can flick through random game articles and find no references, yet a google search spits out several on the first page of results.

The progress which has been going on is having some beneficial effect, but we need to get our heads together and keep streamlining. Peer review, requested articles and the front page could do with some more tinkering.

Collaboration (sp>?) of the week could work, as could the other idea (I think Masem suggested it) about having another area where 'almost X grade' articles could be pushed over the top, but only if they're streamlined and realistic in the way they're implemented. A week is a very short time for a handful of volunteers to make improvements to an important article whilst balancing their own needs, interests and the health of this project. A month is a far more workable period of time to get Important game article from start/stub to whatever class. That's 12 important articles dragged up by the scruff per year, a way of getting most of the genuinely important articles up to snuff in the forseeable future. Having it done every week encourages contributors to run around like blue arsed flies "nobody bothered to improve the article", only to slap down the next piece of work. It's like being charged to wash someone else's clothes. Until we've got the kind of participation which can turn over articles in a week, attempting to do so will just cause frustration.

For helping articles up and over hurdles, I'd suggest a separate section for getting B grade articles to GA. Unlike collaboration of the X, I'd suggest this one had no time limit whatsoever. Unless it's found that there are insurmountable problems in elevating the article, it should stay there until it's done. GA's a more feasible hurdle than FA - it takes all the patently unsuitable material out, points the article in the right direction for further improvement and deals with referencing. Having several hundred GAs would provide examples for newer contributors, this is what you should be aiming for, and hopefully games of a similar nature to the one they're writing about. It also means there's something that contributors can hammer at together without someone standing there pointing at the clock, we get to be 'community' whilst adding another green + to the pile. Someoneanother 05:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

These are all great ideas on the collaboration of the week/month. I hope we remember all these so we can easily implement it when the time is right. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC))

A list of 700 articles to clean up

For the automated-suicidal among you, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Cleanup/Automated. User:Krator (t c) 17:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

As a note: several articles on that page are redlinks. RobJ1981 (talk) 17:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I went through and corrected some of the links. I couldn't find three though: "I_Have_No_Mouth", "Microïds", "Recycle_It". If anyone recognizes what games those might be, please correct them on the list above. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC))
I'm not positive, but I think I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream (computer game) is one of those games you're looking for. Evaunit♥666♥ 00:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks like a fit, thanks a lot. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC))

Not a game, but VG related Recycle It, Don't Trash It! - X201 (talk) 16:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

And the other one is Microïds - X201 (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks X201, I believe that takes care of all of the red links. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC))

When working through these, what's the best process? Adding a post on the talk page with reccomendations, editing the article or copying it to a sandbox for rework? Also, is progress through the 700 worth tracking somewhere?Gazimoff (talk) 19:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

These articles are generally not watched by anyone; boldly editing is what's required, usually. On tracking progress, I recommended signing the things, once there's a lot of them done, something commonsensical would work, like removing items that are done. User:Krator (t c) 20:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

List of characters in Bully needs some opinions

A discussion here: Talk:List_of_characters_in_Bully#Things_that_need_to_be_cut.2FThings_you_don.27t_like_or_agree_with_etc_etc_discussion. shows that several editors to claim ownership on the article (due to them working on it longer than everyone else). The list needs massive cleanup. It shouldn't just be a "catch-all" for every character in the game. However not much cleanup can happen, due to these editors refusing to understand the list has problems. Also this section: Talk:List_of_characters_in_Bully#New_People_stopping_by_to_edit_.28February_2008.29 was done in bad faith. The two editors (that claim ownership) are attacking new editors to the article. Does anyone think this should be brought up at an admin board yet? These two editors simply control the article in my view, and it needs to be stopped. Removing vandalism is one thing, but they've taken it way beyond that. Also if you look through the talk archive, their ownership attitudes are in some of the most recent archives at least (I havent had time to look through all archives yet). RobJ1981 (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The thing that bothers me about this is that RobJ1981 has lunged into the page, condescending and swinging WP:NOT around without actually putting a single bit of constructive criticism into the article.
Now, I've tried twice to explain myself on this page, and both times the post got wiped by someone else posting something while I was working on it.
However, I'll make this real short.
The article is suitable as per WP:FICT, WP:N and WP:SAL. McJeff (talk) 18:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
And there has been no bad faith unless saying "help instead of criticise" is bad faith. McJeff (talk) 18:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Stating that the list needs to be cut down seems constructive to me as it's a valid point. Ashnard Talk Contribs 18:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
True, but it's frustrating to have people say that and then offer no suggestions as to what can be done to improve the article. This incidentally is why little has gotten done in the way of improvement. If you check the edit logs, you'll notice that no one complaining about the article has made any edits to it. As per discussion, info that violated WP:NOT#GUIDE has already been removed, several weeks ago as I remember. McJeff (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I see your point, but remember that to offer criticism is a courtesy in the first place—users aren't obligated to do it or make editions to the article itself. Frustrations do occur depending on the wording of the critic, and how the major contributor consequently may interpret it as an attack on their editing rather than the article. I'm not talking about this case in particular, just that it does happen. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 19:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow. I'll try to dive into this later. User:Krator (t c) 17:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I've left a brief note on the talk page, and will hang around to see what they say. Ashnard Talk Contribs 17:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure why this article exists. All the cited references are to either the game manual or a fansite. I'm not sure if it stands up to scrutiny when you ask if the content is notable or important enough to warrant being listed. It may be worth culling the list to purely notable characters that are mentioned elsewhere, or something further. Gazimoff (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
A list of characters is appropriate, and does not need to demonstrate notability per WP:FICT or WP:N McJeff (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd disagree with this, as per the debate that occured on the Deletion discussion for Characters of Warcraft ( Gazimoff (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The reason the WoW characters were deleted is that it was non-notable and contained a lot of excess information (aka "cruft") that was not encyclopedic, and after being told to that end that the article needed trimming after the first AfD, it did not happen nor did any editor seem to want to deal with it. Thus, it was deleted. Here, at least, there's a few on the Bully character page that seem to want to help to cut it down, so there's no need to rush and delete it before they get a chance to do something, however, the ownership issues are a factor here. --MASEM 18:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd disagree with that, on the basis that the problems with the Warcraft article seemed to be more along the lines of a poorly written article with no one trying to improve it. Many of the people voting delete in fact voted Delete and start fresh. McJeff (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
True, but many of the statements also included copmments about failing notability and policies on fictional characters. I can understand about the comments on not being updated here, but my point was that I don't see how one list of characters from a videogame can be accepted, while another article with similar citation sources is deleted. It appears to be inconsistent to me. I'm not advocating that the article is nominated for deletion, but that it is condensed heavily to meet notability reqirements. Gazimoff (talk) 19:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Be aware that there is an issue here with taking a non-notable list of characters straight to AfD (this is what has caused many issues with TTN, WP:FICT, the Arbcom case on episodes and characters, and much else); at the time that the WoW article was around, AfD was generally an appropriate place to discuss failure of an article to show notability or to get improvements made, but this is discouraged now; we should work out any issues we have with an article with the page editors before thinking about AfD'ing. If the old WoW character article was being looked at presently, likely it would be undergoing the same discussing we are having (how can it be improved) instead of being sent to AFD. The key is giving those involved time to discuss and edit the article to meet those concerns. The WoW article didn't seem to have any of that, while, despite some issues, there is a general good faith effort for the Bully article to be improved. Thus, there is absolutely no point yet in considering an AFD for this, merely that we need to really help them to condense the information down (and as pointed out, similarly with several other VG character list pages) --MASEM 19:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Completely incorrect. All articles, especially those forked off from the main one, need to establish notability. No notability = shouldn't be on Wikipedia, we aren't an indiscriminate collection of information. -- Sabre (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I have no idea why you think that AFD is "unsuitable" for this article, I've had my finger over the button for half the afternoon but will see how the page progresses over the next couple of days. --Fredrick day (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
You need to familiarize yourself with WP:IDONTLIKEIT before you "press the button". McJeff (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
As one of the editors behind the current rewrite of FICT, notability applies to a topic, which can include an article and any spinout articles from it. Spinout articles (like lists of characters) don't have to display notability though we prefer if they can, but even without demonstrating notability theses articles should be approached as if they were a section of the main notable article. There's no way that the original Bully character list article of about two weeks ago matched that requirement, it was way too detailed. Also, given the recent problems that some editors have had with TTN and others that have been merged/deleting articles on non-notable elements, we strongly urge that AFD is the last place you take issues with notability up. Since at least two editors from that page are active and seeming to be trying to listen to suggestions for improvement, there's no need to rush off and AfD it, though there is some need for dispute resolution. --MASEM 12:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Quick question. I notice that over on the talk page for the article, it's been suggested that Characters of Kingdom Hearts is used as a guide. Do we have a list of high quality articles that could be used as guides or examples for this project? Gazimoff (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:VG/FA. --MASEM 13:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Portal game merge

Quick question to whoever is familiar with Portal (video game). I stumbled across Portal - The Flash Version and it looks like it should be merged into the 360/PC version. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 21:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC))

I'm not sure it needs to be mentioned at all, it's just a random flash game based on portal, no connection to Valve or anything else. Other than ripping elements from the game, it has zero notability that I know of, or rather, no more than any other flash game. --PresN (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Would it be a candidate for deletion then? (Guyinblack25 talk 22:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC))
If it doesn't get deleted, it at least needs to be moved to the version with the colon or a proper dash and not a hyphen. The article name uses a hyphen, yet the bolded name uses a colon. Ashnard Talk Contribs 22:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd suggest a note in the PC/360 version to say that it spawned a flash version, but nothing more. Gazimoff (talk) 22:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Unless it recieves outside coverage, it is not notable and should not be included on its own page or on the 360/PC page. --MASEM 23:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a CSD A7 (Web) to me, and I've dealt with it accordingly. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks hbdragon. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC))

Spore talk page

There is a massive catfight going on over at Talk:Spore (video game), with users accusing each other of sockpuppetry, trolling, and generally unpleasant things. Perhaps people from this WikiProject could intervene and calm the situation down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

JAF1970 needs a 24h block for violation of WP:NPA and general calm. User:Krator (t c) 10:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

FL Category

I know that our banners support the "FL" (Featured List) category -- but, we haven't created a category page, and several lists (such, as, these) are listed as Featured Articles in our banners instead. Is it really important? Or should we create the FL category page and add games into it? -- Nomader (Talk) 00:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think changing the class parameter from FA --> FL will create and populate the category. Not sure about that, someone else may want to chime in. But I think having the category is helpful, as I think there are enough FL to fill it and more will probably pop up in the future. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC))
I've put in a request to add support for FL in the class parameter in the VG Project banner, so hopefully we should be able to start the category sometime soon.
On a similar note, should we be supporting the regular list class? I know it is not an official grade on the quality scale, but it seems to be fairly widespread and it might organize our pages better. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 04:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC))
I'm a strong opponent of list class. For our project, many lists are more article-like and have a lot of content beyond a simple one-column list of things. Especially character lists. User:Krator (t c) 10:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI- The {{vgproj}} template now supports "FL" as the class. The new Category:FL-Class video game articles has been created and populated with our current Featured lists. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC))

What's the difference between an article and a list? It's hard to tell sometimes. FightingStreet (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
An article is your average page. It contains text in prose format and is normally divided into sections and sub-sections to better organize the information. A list, per WP:LIST, is "commonly used in Wikipedia to organize information. Lists may be found within the body of a prosaic article, or as a stand-alone article." The two main types of lists are "stand-alone lists" like List of Virtual Boy games or List of Castlevania titles, and "embedded lists" like in Final Fantasy#Main series.
I assume the ones that are hard to tell sometimes are ones like Characters of Final Fantasy VIII and Characters of Kingdom Hearts. They are set up like articles, but the majority of the pages are large embedded lists. To be honest, Wikipedia doesn't have an exact designation for ones like this. There have been some discussions (1 and 2) about better defining them, but they have yet to come to a consensus. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC))

Go comment on Final Fantasy XIs FA candidacy

Its like a ghost town at its candidacy, I'm pretty surprised. Whether it sucks or is great, please say why so it can be improved for status. Thanks! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd comment, but I'm already tied with the Rise of Nations: Thrones and Patriots FAC and a load of homework. Sorry. Ashnard Talk Contribs 17:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll try to check it out sometime today or tomorrow. It's on my ever-growing list of things to do.
For newer or even long time members, if you've never participated in an Featured article candidacy (FAC), now would be a good time to at least peek in. It can provide insight into what is necessary to improve your articles. And if you've never done so before, be bold and leave some comments. You don't always have to support or oppose either. So long as you have a valid reason, commenting and a neutral stance are acceptable responses as well. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC))
I've added it to my watch list, as it is a nice solid article. I'm not sure how I would comment for now, so I'll have a look at how things develop first.Gazimoff (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
FYI- If Final Fantasy XI is not your cup of tea, there are currently four FACs related to video games.
For those that did not know, candidates for Featured content related to video games can be found at WP:VG/FA along with a listing of our current and former FAs. A similar page for Good Articles can be found at WP:VG/GA. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC))
FACs are also on top of this page on the "to-do" list. --Mika1h (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, okay, point taken, I'll go looksie and comment :) Gazimoff (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... is this the hive-like mentality I was talking about, where all the CVG editors go make a comment and then support the nomination? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Not at all- he made the request for editors to look at the 4 articles at 20:46, 3 March 2008. Since then- Melee: 3 supports with real comments, all by the editors manning the other three FACs, not random editors. FF11: 1 support with comment, and one comment w/o support. RoN: nothing. DotA: 2 supports added to a 3-support FAC who's only oppose has been a confusing statement from an editor who barely speaks any English. This does not add up to a hive-mind pile-on support team of VG editors. --PresN (talk) 02:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: I've actually left extensive commentary on RoN, even though I eventually opposed. I am working with the editor to get the things fixed. I'd have to disagree with ReyBrujo, though. Ashnard Talk Contribs 07:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Also going to have to disagree with Rey. I've gotten plenty of comments by CVG folks that were constructive, and others who liked opposing since it wasn't their favorite game :) I'm sure that's not a big issue (although we have the top FAC list so we don't have to post them here.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 12:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, Rey brings up a good point, it can lead to hive mentality. But so long as everybody remembers to give the articles a thorough read and give their honest opinions, we should be ok. Besides, the FAC process is not a vote. There have been cases where articles with the majority of comments were support, but were not promoted. And as Ashnard points out, anyone here can oppose the articles if they don't think it's FA material.
I posted my comment above as an announcement/reminder to members that we have articles up for FA pretty regularly. It's main purpose is to try to get members more involved and hopefully learn the ropes here. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC))

NOTICE: Updated VG Infobox

Per here, I have updated the VG Infobox to use the alternating colors approach described. This is a significant backend change but should be a complete drop-in replacement for the current VG infobox (no changes in how any parameter is handled). If you find that there is a problem with this, please reply here so that it can be fixed. Thank you. (I'll be doing the hidden version in a section here as well to match) --MASEM 16:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Draft Revamp of 24: The Game

I've just finished giving 24: The Game a complete overhaul. I haven't put the new version in place yet, so it's currently in a sandbox at Draft of 24: The Game. I'd like to invite people to take a look and let me know if it's worth swapping over the old article for the new one, or if I've made any ommisions. Also, if you have any reccomendations, I'd be happy to hear them. This is my first attempt on doing something on this large a scale, so any input would be greatly appreciated.

Many thanks for any time you can spare! Gazimoff (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

After being encouraged to be bold, I have now updated the article with the revised version.Gazimoff (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


can you/I add openarena to the todo list for review and cleanup thanks -- Cyger (talk) 14:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a question about The Godfather: The Game article.

I just read this article for the first time in ages. Now seriously does the article really need the gameplay section? Dan the Man1983 (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Link The Godfather: The Game. --Oscarthecat (talk) 11:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, though it could use improvement, specifically, a complete rewrite. User:Krator (t c) 12:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
If it's a video game article, it does need a gameplay section to be comprehensive. However, the current version should be trimmed. Also, the character information is too long. It's salvageable, but like Krator said, it could use a complete rewrite. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC))

Category:Angry Video Game Nerd

Is this category necessary? It seems to categorize video games and consoles that were reviewed by The Angry Video Game Nerd. --Silver Edge (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I would think not. At the best, the category is misappropriately titled for the bulk of its entries (i.e., it seems to be missing the word "review", which is an overly generous description, given primary usage as springboards for humor). D. Brodale (talk) 17:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Candidate for category deletion in my opinion - I don't see why we would need a category for a proper reviewer, e.g. Edge or GameSpot, let alone this Nerd chap. --Oscarthecat (talk) 17:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Would anyone object a MFD?? БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 17:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Given that WP:CFD exists, WP:MFD would not be a viable venue. D. Brodale (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
My bad. 04:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BonesBrigade (talkcontribs)
I agree. Surplus to requirements. Gazimoff (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

History of video games category

Should we have a little "project" among people to decide which games/consoles/characters are so historical that they should be categorized under this category? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

We kind of have something like that already at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Essential articles. JACOPLANE • 2008-03-9 00:58

Even more assessment!!

Posted this above, but probably best to post here again, I'm repopulating Category:Unassessed video game articles (once again :) So get assessing! We now have over 20,000 articles tagged! Metadatatest.js is a nice tool which makes assessing articles a lot quicker. JACOPLANE • 22:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

For those that missed it: ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion hit the Main Page

Just yesterday, ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion appeared on the main page. If you would have asked me before Raul scheduled it a couple days before, I would have nominated it "video game article most likely to NEVER get on the main page". Hit the talk page to see the ensuing crapstorm, which includes a couple very nice, honest comments from people who are relieved Wikipedia is open enough to feature wonderful articles on more obscure topics that would be laughed out of the Britannica building. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 22:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think all the useless bitching going on there is pretty entertaining. Everything is back to normal now anyway, there's a military history article on the main page. Bridies (talk) 03:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The real shit storm happened on Village Pump (policy) with calls for Raul's head and the total re-arrangment/abolition of his job. And people actually proposing the creation of a guideline to keep this sort of article off the front page! - X201 (talk) 10:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I saw that too, all very (over)dramatic. Bridies (talk) 11:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Heh, I hope the totally irony of the situation isn't lost on people here either. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I am trying not to be outraged, as we have a much higher ratio of FA's to articles than most any other large wikiproject and we get treated like this, unbelievable. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The guy who proposed Raul be stripped of his position as director for showing the Elder Scrolls article entered his opposition against Chrono Trigger, so I stepped in to deliver my closing remarks.
These responses make it sound as if video games are dominating the main page, and it seems that only video games produce this kind of bile and resistance in Wikipedia. Look at the comments at Talk:ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. The article is well-sourced, well-written, well-formatted, well-presented, and well-established concerning notability thanks to third-party press coverage. But according to User:Koalorka, "I agree, this is a joke." Nevermind that Koalorka's articles are all about a bunch of obscure weapons and that he looks like some kind of paramilitary freak, much as video game editors must look like narrow-focused nerds. User:Zidel333, a very active bureaucrat type who oversees AfDs and arbitrations, notes that "This article simply does not make the cut" despite the fact that it meets all the criteria. What is it about video games that inspires such blind hatred and dismissal by otherwise normal Wikipedians? Why don't they share the same for all those goddamn football clubs, or the ludicrous request to make American football "gridiron" so a few people in Australia could find the Pele article faster by searching "football"? What about WP:Military history?
Some people were so happy to see the Elder Scrolls page on the front page of Wikipedia that they stopped in to write about it. User:Resolute said, "Thirded. One of the greatest attributes of Wikipedia is that you can find high quality articles on topics not covered by traditional encyclopedias. Why shouldn't such topics be on the main page?". User:BreathingMeat said, "Congratulations to the editors of this page who should be very proud to have seen it on the front page of Wiki, despite the tone of many of the comments here." User:DrunkCat was more harsh:
Congrats Wikipedians! You've managed to justify and assert that Wikipedia is indeed subjective and contradicting! Condescending and trolling an obviously well written article just because of it's topic matter? Despite the fact that it isn't even the subject matter? Bravo! Lets go and follow that same logic and ignore content on other wikipedia articles and just make the entire Front Page FA system work by selecting the best title'd article. Who cares what it contains? Obviously though if one of the top articles on wikipedia was a stereotypically negative topic, such as Games in this example, we'll never select it. We're far too pish posh for that.
Oh but wait, if this is about how obscure the topic matter is (ignoring the obvious fact that it isn't really much about the video game at all but the over-gloating power a company has to be illogical) then why don't we put something really 'intelligent' sounding and obscure, that maybe only 3 people in the entire continent of America cared about? Yeah, obviously that idea of you guys is fabulous; there's absolutely nothing wrong with the logistics of that train of thought.
But best of all, User:R. Baley put up some hard numbers at Talk:ESRB_re-rating_of_The_Elder_Scrolls_IV:_Oblivion#My_Observations:. He demonstrated that there was much more interest and activity at the Elder Scrolls article than a few others by comparison (it was less popular than Ronald Reagan. What's that? People had a genuine interest in this obscure subject matter? Yes, people were interested in the Elder Scrolls article. It had 81.7 thousand hits. The event mixed censorship standards, entertainment, and legal problems in an interesting way well presented by the article. Check out the ones before that: The Philadelphia Inquirer had 3.8k hits. Crusaders (Rugby had 6.9k hits. Josquin des Prez had 12.5k hits. Joseph Priestley had 15.6k hits. Hamilton, Ohio had 33k hits. M62 Motorway had 33.9k hits. Axis naval activity in Australian waters had 55k hits. Europa (moon) had 50k hits. Kinetoscope had 28k hits. Ban Ki-moon had 21.5k hits. East End of London had 37.9k hits. Rachel Carson had 30.8k hits. Bengali Language Movement had 14k hits. I'm already on February 20, and nothing has come close to 81.7 thousand hits.
The only argument left is that video game articles somehow fail to uphold some noble encyclopedic aim to inform humanity. Well if you want informed humanity, there it stands in the numbers. Chrono Trigger is a classic game well alive in the genre's consciousness (it ranked 8th best game of all time by a poll of gamers in Japan that came out two days ago) and the Elder Scrolls article also had notability and sparked interest concerning American censorship. The problem that pop culture dominates the main page is not somehow exclusive to video games, and neither is it really as bad as the traditional topic purists think it is. If Wikipedia can break out a bunch of readership on something like that, it's a strength. Encyclopedia Britannica would envy our diverse range of topics and community-driven appeal. I considered threatening to leave Wikipedia at one point, but the entire Elder Scrolls ordeal and the experience of nominating Chrono Trigger has demonstrated that the appearance on the main pages of these articles is most likely a net positive. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 23:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I might go ahead and try to turn all the thoughtful comments posted about the Trigger TFA and the Elder Scrolls into a WP:ESSAY. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 23:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit: Well, he replied, and it seems we're all a bunch of worthless, second-class nerds again. Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#March 11. Please, go out there and fight. The numbers are indisputable. The 20 FAs before the Elder Scrolls came nowhere close to that article's 87 thousand hits.

Personally, I'm mainly opposed to the articles of actual videogames being featured on the main page; however, articles that are relevant to video games as a whole should have every right to be there, as do articles which touch upon other more "valid" topics. When I look at articles detailing specific lawsuits for example, I can't help but feel that they are equally valid as encyclopaedic topics for the same reasons. Ong elvin (talk) 07:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The revenge of "bring back the no priority category back"!

It's been said it's unnecessary, because any articles in said category would be deleted for being, as expected, no priority. However, an article can be of no priority to video games and, at the same time, top priority to another legitimate portal, such as television or films. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Haven't we been over this? Any article which deserves to get tagged with {{WikiProject Video Games}} should have at least a "low" priority for this project. Articles which have "no" priority should not be tagged as being within the scope of this project, or should not exist in the first place. I don't see what new arguments you're raising. JACOPLANE • 2008-03-9 00:34
If they have relevance to video games, they should be categorized under the project. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the argument is that if they have relevance, they should be at least Low priority. If they have no relevance, they would have no priority. Just my opinion though. Gazimoff (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, just because something is of no PRIORITY, doesn't matter. If it were importance, then yes. If it's of no importance, it means it's of no importance. But the word priority exists for ranking - top priority basically means top rank, while no priority basically means no rank. However, that does not mean that it is of no relevance to editors of WP:VG. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I always approached this issue by saying that if an article has "no" priority, then that is the same as being of "no" importance, and as such should not be tagged at all. This is a very subjective issue in any case. Who is to decide whether an article is of "low" or "no" priority?. I would think that 96% of all articles should be "low" priority, 2% "mid" priority, 1.5% "high" priority, and 0.5% "top" priority. JACOPLANE • 2008-03-9 01:05
I guess that Link just wants an extra layer, a five step grading instead of a four step grading. I don't really think it's necessary, the only thing No-importance should be used for is things like category pages, or disambigs. - hahnchen 02:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Categories and templates can be tagged with NA-rating. --Mika1h (talk) 09:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Link, can you provide an example of an article that you would consider "no priority"? Maybe that will help give some perspective. (Guyinblack25 talk 04:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC))
Well, it's simply easier to explain an article type that would fit properly - let's say Shaq. He has a game based on him, but other than that, his article is of no priority.
And besides, I've always had the thought of "I want to AfD this article" (or something to that effect), but I just don't feel like going through the crap involved. If there was a No priority tag, people would be able to look in there and decide what's to be AfDed and what's to not be. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
That's a bit much though don't you think? Given all it takes is one user to label an article as "no importance" and use their own opinion vs any relevances to video game articles. And the opinion of one person generally isn't enough to warrant an article's deletion unless they're an admin, no?
I agree with the Shaq example, but really really don't see how Shaq himself counts period compared to his game to even list. i.e. We have Evil Dead video games, but Ash Williams is not under this project's scope.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Call of duty Taskforce????

Would anyone be interested in creating one? БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 18:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Not worth it. There aren't that many games in the series, and some are already of good quality. Call of Duty 2 is a GA so you can use that as precedent if you want (although there are much better VG articles out there). You're more than welcome to work on the articles yourself, without a task force, and I'll be happy to help if you want. Keep in mind I don't own any CoD games and only play them occasionally with mates. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 02:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion

ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. JMcC (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. User:Krator (t c) 16:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Not too surprised. Similar reaction when GameFAQs was featured on the front page. And only three people chimed in on the original FAC. I have a number of personal thoughts on the issue but will not post them because they are not directly related to helping retain the gold star. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

And it was marked kept already. Wow, that was quick. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
How terribly rude. I wish they'd explain why they closed it prematurely instead of letting Gimmiebot do it without comment. The detractors of the article's FA status deserve at least that. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
"Closing ESRB re-rating...issues brought to FAR are minor and should be resolved in the article's talk page....also articles should be given more time after being on main page before FAR" Joelr31. [11] Geuiwogbil (Talk) 04:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, gotcha. Howeve,r I still think that the reason should be included in the "This article was kept" line on the FAR itself. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Do note that the history section of the main FAR page is the LAST place I'd check for any comment on why it was closed early. I'd check the history of the FAR page itself, which I did for both GameFAQs, A Tale of a Tub, and this FAR, which has nothing. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah. Perhaps you should talk to Joelr31, then. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 04:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't it have something to do with how the system is automated now? The FA and FAR directors just move transcluded templates. GimmeBot does the rest of the work, either "promoting" or "not promoting" depending on where the articles end up. Take Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive, for example: There's a "Kept" section and a "Removed" section. It's so the directors don't get their fingers dirty, I guess. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 04:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The offer that I made at FAR still stands. If you'd like me to help out with a copyedit, just ask. Gazimoff (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I know Joel, and I know he is objective, if he kept the article chances are the issues at hand are indeed minor. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I definately agree on them being minor. Just trying to be helpful, that's all.Gazimoff (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Anything to help, Gazimoff. Anything you can do to tighten up, clarify, or otherwise improve the text, would be well-appreciated. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 01:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)