Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 38

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 45


Article reviews

FYI- There are couple of articles that are undergoing review along with the Elder Scrolls article above.

To anybody familiar with the content of the articles, feel free to chime in at the discussions, and/or help address concerns brought up.
Also, Final Fantasy III just lost its GA status and will cause the Final Fantasy topic to be delisted in three months if the article is not brought back up to at least GA. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC))

Perhaps you could put these in the general VG To-Do list, beneath the Featured Article candidates. It might bring more eyeballs to these reviews. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Added, thanks for the suggestion. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC))
I've added comments on most of the pages. Fortunately, most of them fall in the realm of being able to identify simple problems that can easily be resolved. On almost every single review I've stated what I think is pretty obvious - where the shortcomings are but also what can be done to address them. If I get some time in the next week, I'll see what I can do, but I'm hoping that if I identify how to fix something, that people will :) Gazimoff (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC) - RS?

I remember seeing this discussion before, but I just can't remember the outcome of it. Is a reliable source for sales? The issue has been raised by SandyGeorgia in this FAC (03:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC) comment). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 06:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe is just compiling figures from the NPD (for USA) and Famitsu/Media Create (for Japan) reports. NPD reports are commercial. Media Create reports are posted weekly online (the Wayback Machine does not archive them all). Famitsu... is a Japanese publication. They would be the primary sources for sales figures and should be reliable. I have no idea if perform some "processing" of these primary data, and come up with their own (reliability). Jappalang (talk) 06:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean this discussion? --Silver Edge (talk) 06:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
That's it, thanks. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Input on new VG Infobox template w/ alternating color rows:

The Orange Box
Discgolf Hole 4.JPG
The Orange Box in a golf hole
Developer(s) Valve Corporation
EA London (PS3 version)
Publisher(s) Valve Corporation
Distributor(s)' Electronic Arts (retail)
Steam (online)
Engine Source engine
Platform(s) Windows, PlayStation 3, Xbox 360
Release date Microsoft Windows
& Xbox 360

Microsoft Windows (online):

PlayStation 3 (retail):


Genre(s) First-person shooter, compilation
Mode(s) Single player, Multiplayer
Rating(s) ESRB: T-M
PEGI: 16+
BBFC: 15
Media Steam, DVD-ROM, Blu-ray Disc
System requirements 1.7 GHz processor, 512 MB RAM, DirectX 8 compatible video card, Windows 2000/XP/Vista[3]
Input methods Keyboard, Mouse, Xbox 360 Controller, SIXAXIS controller, DualShock 3 controller

Per a suggestion on the {{Infobox VG}}, I created the example template as a drop in replacement for the current one as to add alternating row colors with the removal of the line frames. Anyone have any input on it (the picture is to avoid nfc content on talk pages, and no, I can't get rid of the white line down the rows) --MASEM 03:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I was able to get rid of the border (technically, spacing) between cells. I kind of like it with the border, though. SharkD (talk) 12:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I much prefer the unified line meself. I'd be happy with this as an alternative to ungainly cell borders. David Fuchs (talk) 12:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks a lot better, I salute thee! --AeronPrometheus (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Suits me, go for it. -- Sabre (talk) 13:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Is it intended for the caption to be bolded? It is normal text in the current infobox. Jappalang (talk) 14:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Fixed. --MASEM 18:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
The alternating colours add nothing. - hahnchen 18:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Why do they add nothing? Elaborate. Simply stating they "add nothing" isn't exactly helpful feedback. -- Sabre (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Any idea when the changes will be implemented? I have a list of articles that I want to overhaul the infoboxen on and I don't want there to be a last minute change I have to account for. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

On that note, is the template/doc keeping up with recent changes? --AeronPrometheus (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The new version is (should be) a complete drop-in replacement; no parameters to the Infobox VG will change. (I do expect maybe one or two bugs, but minor.) --MASEM 22:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, the only thing that would sweeten the deal would be to add the additional functionality of Template:Infobox VG Hidden with Boxart to the main template as an optional argument that can be added to the articles' code. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the hidden infobox template, it should be straightforward to make a hidden version of this one. --MASEM 22:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I like it. Makes it easier to see where the fields end, especially when they run multiple lines like the example xenocidic (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Nice idea. The only thing I'd suggest would be a little more contrast between the two colours. It may just be my monitor and/or eyesight, but they are barely distinguishable to me. Miremare 01:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The color is the same used for alternating colors on {{Navbox}}, which is very subtle but meant to be a visual cue for seeing rows, not so much a strong distinction. (However, I would consider adding a CSS class name for that so that an end user can customize it). --MASEM 06:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Anyone else think this is redundant, and might need changing? Specifically, does our infobox really need a title? I can see the need for this for other infoboxes (e.g. persons), because their picture is different. For video games, the picture always contains the title. User:Krator (t c) 14:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
It may seem redundant, but remember that some people are visually impaired, or may not wish to see images; furthermore due to improper non-free fair use, images on unwatched articles may disappear. Also, it helps with making it clear what the name of the game is when the title may include a disambg statement or the like. --MASEM 14:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree, the title can still be useful. -- Sabre (talk) 11:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Like it! Much easier to read, thanks Masem :) Someoneanother 01:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's the hidden version (note that I've had to force it due to how collapsable sections work). --MASEM 06:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

So... can someone go ahead and implement it? Das Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Unless anyone has any major objections to this, I will plan on replacing it later today, with another announcement here so that any bugs that are found after the drop-in replacement can be fixed. --MASEM 14:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good Masem. People have had plenty of time to voice their opinions, and most have been very positive. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC))
Good work Masem. I like the new look much better! Keep it up! Ctolson talk contribs  23:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker

Half of this article is unsourced; how come it passed both GA and FA nominations?? FightingStreet (talk) 10:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Because it was two years ago and Wikipedia's standards have changed since then. --Mika1h (talk) 10:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I've not properly read through it, but the unsourced parts (plot and gameplay), can be easily sourced from the game itself and or strategy guides. - hahnchen 13:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I've had my eye on it for a possible candidate for WP:FAR, but I've been busy otherwise; still, as you point out, it prolly doesn't even pass GA standards as of writing. They really need at FA or GA sub cat for the years of promotion so we can check these articles out and cleanup the old FAs and bring them up to spec. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is probably up to FA standard still, save for the prose in the Plot section which needs a rewrite. User:Krator (t c) 16:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If you think it's bad now, you should check out the version from the original FAC. I wrote a plot section that was way too long—I would never write a plot section like that these days. If you want, you can add {{Cite video game}} to every sentence in the plot, but I didn't do that, as I thought it was fairly obvious where one could go to verify the plot. I've always found it a little silly that we cite plot summaries, personally. (Foo says he hates Bar.<ref>Foo: I hate you, Bar! From ''Super FooBar Xtreme''</ref>—Oh really?) Another user condensed the plot, and rightfully so, but I haven't gone over it, so I can't attest to the prose quality. The gameplay is also supported by the video game, although I wouldn't object to citing it, and try to do so now when I write about gameplay. Pagrashtak 19:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Summarizing looooong lists of awards

After someone recommended Gears of War for FA, which I requested it not be at this time (it's close, but not in the greatest shape and needs cleanup), I started looking it over. I know that of late, we've been pushing for prose descriptions of award lists, but when a game gets a large number of them like this, a prose version can be hefty.

I'm thinking that since {{VG Reviews}} includes an awards section, summarizing those there when the list gets long is helpful, but keeping some prose summary, specifically calling out game of the month/year for magazines and tv shows, and any award from an even like DICE or E3 (since they're not limited to one set of editorial standards). Anyone have any recommendations? --MASEM 17:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I personally like prose, but that maybe because I haven't seen a good way to list them yet. For example, prose worked best for Wii Sports#Awards because like Gears of War, Wii Sports had won multiple categories in a several individual award events. Admittedly though, it can be difficult writing it and not sound repetitive. Is there an FA that has a good award list? (Guyinblack25 talk 21:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC))
How about listing the awards out in the table, and present them in prose grouped by the type of awards. "Many reviewers awarded the title "action game of the year" to GoW, with several claiming it was the game of 2006. GoW's multiplayer received accolades from several reviewers proclaiming it offered the best multiplayer experience for the year. Golden Joystick gave it the "Nuts All-Nighter" award for ..." Jappalang (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason you can't slide them into one of those hidden boxes which can be clicked by the reader? Like the tracklists of soundtracks in some game articles. Prose is good, but not when there's so many it becomes an unwieldy clump. By adding them to a hidey box it means there's not a dirty great list down the side of the article unless the reader wants there to be. Someoneanother 01:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The soundtrack hidden box idea sounds good. It would be preferable over an exasperatedly long set of prose or a giant table. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Soundtracks are one thing - and I've seen and used it a couple times without any problem. However, awards are not as trivial, and hiding them initially I think is a bad idea. (FWIW, I've already working out the Gears article to prose-ify the awards, and taking the right approach , it's not that bad). --MASEM 01:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Something just occurred to me. Why do even have to list so many awards? I mean, we don't list every single review score available for a game, and we certainly don't write out every single detail from reviews either. We simply include enough to convey the overall idea. Yeah, it helps establish how the game was received, but too much information can be just as uninformative as too little. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 01:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC))
My practice is to leave out certain awards. I believe the "xxx of the year" awards are notable enough as long as they are coming from established companies. That includes awards from the entertainment industry (not gaming specific). I discard "Editors' Choice" earned from reviews regardless of reviewer as they are pretty much a dime a dozen these days. Jappalang (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Despite the failings of Baldur's Gate, I am impressed with its presentation of awards in the review/awards table. I believe it could be used for Gears by either categorizing the awards by its type or its awarding entity. Jappalang (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That's something different. I kinda like the idea, but still like prose more. It's certainly better than most other award listings I've seen. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

Help! Too fast deletion, too slow answer...

I create the article High Voltage Software (User:Eloy/High Voltage Software). This is linked at least with 40 articles. The article wasn't complete, but if you see that they develop many relevant games, the company probably is relevant.

I receive a message of the user Realkyhick, who request for me to indicate the relevance. Then, when I was adding the {{hangon}}, six minutes after the warning message (I can read the message and write the contest in 6 minutes), the user Zsinj delete the article.

I post a message to this user, and a message in Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance) but I got no answers. Eloy (talk) 12:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If you don't get a response from the admin in a few days, I will recreate the article; to me, it asserts notability. However, I advise you to be more calm and civil in your dealings with other users. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 12:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that clearly should not have been deleted. Here are some more links: [1], [2], [3], [4] (Last one has a lot of info). I don't like to Wheel war with another admin, so I'll leave it up to them to restore the article. Perhaps you could point them to this discussion done. JACOPLANE • 2008-03-12 12:54
Don't take this bullshit. Move your userspace article into the mainspace, link to this discussion if needed, and force an AFD. - hahnchen 15:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I apologize if I considered an article consisting of a list of software titles insufficient content. I also apologize if my occupation does not provide me with predictable times in which to respond to queries brought to my attention concerning my actions. However, I do not appreciate a single action of mine being considered "bullshit" and I would appreciate if people would not jump to conclusions just because I could not respond to this inquiry as quickly as others would have wanted. The article has been restored and I encourage contributors to it to make it more complete so that it will not be mistaken the same way I mistook it. ZsinjTalk 16:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps if you can not devote the time to responding to a speedy deletion, you should not have done it in the first place. There are many admin responsibilities you can take up. Gung-ho abuses of the speedy deletion process shouldn't be one of them. Obviously you don't understand the concept of a hangon tag as well, HANG ON. Meaning, in other words, hold off, do not act immediately, WAIT. If you can not do that and follow the process, please do not attempt to work within the process. Now that I've gotten that out of my system, allow me to thank you for reversing the decision on your own instead of waiting for another admin to do it. Also, I apologize if what I say comes off in any way as harsh, nasty, bitching, et cetera. I just personally believe that administrators should be held, by both themselves and others, sysop and regular user alike, to a higher set of standards than regular users, ESPECIALLY when using the sysop tools. Things like deletions, especially speedies, will frequently be contested and should be given ample time. The speedy deletion process is perhaps a bit too fast paced and as a result, a number administrators treat it as a fire-and-forget sort of thing. In the future, please take the time to check with users and wait for a response before unilaterally deleting. Taking the extra minute or two to get a second opinion or explanation can be a good investment to avoiding this kind of trouble.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 16:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I just want to point out that Eloy had not had the opportunity to place the {{hangon}} tag on the page before it was deleted (that is, Zsinj never saw it based on what Eloy stated and the edit history I can see), so the issue isn't with misunderstanding {{hangon}}. Six minutes is a bit fast for a CSD deletion, though best I can tell there's no required time limit us admins are supposed to wait for, though we're encouraged to look at histories and other actions before doing so. --MASEM 16:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  1. I advise you to be more calm and civil in your dealings with other users. Ok, I didn't want to be uncalm or what ever, I only wanted to demonstrate my "desconcierto" (it means that their actions left me perplex). Perhaps it is the lack customary to the great difference with the Wikipedia in Spanish. There only we speed-delete on evident vandalisms, incoherences or spam. But we give the opportunity to the editor so that it completes the article or it responds, if it is necessary. In addition, you consider that my sayings are aided by an automatic translator.
  2. I apologize if I considered an article consisting of a list of software titles insufficient content.” It's a stub, it's under construction, and I prioritized to list the games to establish the relevance.
  3. I also apologize if my occupation does not provide me with predictable times in which to respond to queries brought to my attention concerning my actions.” Then, I think, you should not delete articles if you could not respond for your acts. I think that all user must occur a time to be responsible for his acts, or not to make them.
Thanks to all (including Zsinj).Eloy (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

VG Newsletter

FYI- In regard to an above discussion, "Project review/status", Masem has put together a draft of the newsletter to help members be kept up-to-date on the happenings of the VG Project. Discussions on the draft and newsletter in general can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter. Input would be appreciated so we can get this thing off the ground and running in the near future. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

Offer of help

If you have an article on a game about: pro wrestling, football (NFL or NCAA), GTA, NASCAR, or shooter games, and need help, leave a message on my talk page and I'll see what I can do to help. The reason I say those type of games is because, those are really the only games I'm familiar with cuz I don't play much else. Another reason I offer is because I haven't helped with a video game article in awhile and I'd like to get back on it. --Crash Underride 21:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe there are some of those type of games in Category:Video game cleanup that could use some work and in Category:Unassessed video game articles that need to be assessed. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC))
Also, there have been a few issues with WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2008. There was recently an edit war/debate over whether or not a full roster should be included; the result was to exclude it and mention general info in prose. Since then, the editors there have been unhappy about a lack of content. The article could really use some development and reception info along with a good copy edit. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC))

Images backlog

The VG Images Task Force has been tagging articles that don't include screenshots or box art for a while now. At this point, Category:Video game articles requesting identifying art and Category:Video game articles requesting screenshots have a large backlog that could really use a large push from this WikiProject to reduce somewhat. So if anyone is bored, please get to uploading images. JACOPLANE • 2008-03-13 22:44

I plan to personally make sure that Category:Video game articles requesting identifying art gets down to a max of 1 page, hopefully under 100 articles. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow, that's awesome if you actually get that done :) Incidentally, I just added a short paragraph about where to obtain images for use in VG articles, it could use some expansion, so if you have some good ideas please edit Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Video Game Images#Obtaining images. JACOPLANE • 2008-03-14 00:41
I saw that, but unfortunately I don't have any ideas. That's the reason I'm not working on the other category. It is so hard to find images for that. But with cover art, I can get a good rhythm going by downloading, resizing to low resolution, uploading, and posting it to an article page, all which only takes a couple minutes. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I was working on the box art part a couple of months ago, but it doesnt take long to increase in size. At the moment im working on a list i made of images that got deleted for lack of fair use, re-added one by one. Ill get back to the requesting boxarts as soon as possible. Remember boxart width is 256px. Salavat (talk) 03:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Where does it say that? I have been reducing the pics to just under .1 megapixels so that is not considered hi-res. Is there a reason it should be 256px wide? Or are you just referring to the what the size should be in the infobox? MrKIA11 (talk) 03:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, yeh i was referring to the infobox size. Salavat (talk) 05:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Most of the articles in Category:Video game articles requesting identifying art are actually unreleased, upcoming games. Cover arts simply don't exist yet for them. FightingStreet (talk) 08:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to run a bot past that list first? Because there are some false positives in there (Articles that have images but the cover flag hasn't been cleared) Then at least we'd be left with a list that we know is definitely in need of an image. Removal of articles that have got images would shrink the list in one big hit. - X201 (talk) 11:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Have just cleared 11 where the flag was set when cover was present. - X201 (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Project traffic statistics

And now for some extremely useless statistics. Here are the traffic statistics for different pages within this WikiProject:

JACOPLANE • 2008-03-13 23:04

Says something about those task forces... dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
That it's good they're task forces... in contrast, WP:HALO netted 340 views, and Portal:Halo 522. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The Magazines count amazed me, I wasn't expecting anything that high. Zeality, Hahnchen et al will be signing autographs in the foyer at lunchtime ;) - X201 (talk) 09:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Any programmers around? It would be sweet to have a wikibot that posts the traffic stats automatically somewhere on a monthly basis. JACOPLANE • 2008-03-14 00:16

I've put up a bot request. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Also note that the project view statistics are completely dwarfed by article view statistics. A normal video game has 40k-ish views in a month. User:Krator (t c) 16:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Pareto strikes again? Also, this talk page got almost 550 edits in February, suggesting a 8:1 view/edit ratio, which seems abnormally high (especially considering the view/edit/view cycle). Nifboy (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Anyone know how these statistics are generated? Verisimilus T 18:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia uses Squid cache servers, which cache pages when they're requested. For example, if you enter URL and get sent the page, the next time someone goes to to the same page, the servers will remember what the parsed wikitext was and greatly reduce the back-end server work. The servers also count how many times a different page is accessed. These stats are provided in raw form at here, and that's where the numbers in's graphs come from. GracenotesT § 03:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
So is this a "Yes, I'll get the bot to post these regularly"? :) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 06:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Which sites' walkthroughs count as reliable?

I'm looking for a walkthrough for Geneforge in order to nail down the plot section, there's basically one walkthrough by a 'Matt P' on GameFAQs linked-to by GameSpot. Is this usable or no? Someoneanother 23:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've used GameFAQs walkthroughs before, but some find them unreliable. Have you tried IGN etc., or just googling whatever you're looking for (specifically). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper) is quite clear on this and disqualifies sites like GameFAQs as a reliable source. JACOPLANE • 2008-03-13 23:20

Bugger. There's no walkthrough on IGN since GF is a niche-market game distributed via the web. I'll probably have to buy it and play through in order to get that info >.< Thanks anyway. Someoneanother 23:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, since you should be citing the game for plot anyway... you could always get the transcripts from GameFAQs and then cite it to the game... :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The only thing with that is the transcripts aren't actually there, though if they could be obtained from anyone then they certainly could be cited to the game. It's a bit awkward because of the nature of the game, you can skewer most of the NPCs if it suits and the game changes accordingly. Not only that, I'll have to sit in the driver's seat and go through the game in order to highlight exactly what goes where and which parts of it are worth referencing, there's no way around it. It's not the end of the earth, I'd planned on investing in some Spiderweb games anyway, I just hope to god the few scraps I've found concerning development will be enough to get the game to GA after putting all the time in. :| Someoneanother 01:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Tokyo Xtreme Racer: Drift 2 merge

I tagged this a while ago for it to be merged with Kaido Battle: Touge No Densetsu. They are the same game, Kaido Battle: Touge No Densetsu is just the japanese title. I didnt want to merge them myself as i no absoulutly nothing about the game and wasnt sure which bits should be kept and which should be deleted. So if anyone knows anything about this game, can you please merge. Thanks, Salavat (talk) 05:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't these be merged to Kaido Racer 2? That's the name used in Australia and Europe, and the game was released there a whopping 6 months before being released in North America. FightingStreet (talk) 08:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Gah, all those articles in that series need to be consistent and there's multiple pages for what seem to be the same version of the game just in different regions. I'd argue they all should be "whatever Battle" as the main page name, (redirecting the NA name to that), given that that's the representation of the Japanese name and used in non-NA english countries, aka the most common English name for the game. --MASEM 13:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Im Australian and ive heard of Tokyo Xtreme Racer but never Kaido Racer until i did some edits on these articles. also Tokyo Xtreme Racer: Drift wasnt released in Europe, so maybe to keep consistency, Tokyo Xtreme Racer should be used? Salavat (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sony Online Entertainment

If anyone would be interested to join a task force for Sony Online Entertainment if there was one, please go to the WP:TPSP's talk page.--Playstationdude (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You can try Wikipedia:WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games, but I don't know how active they are. According to their homepage, they're going through some reorganisation. - hahnchen 15:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

True Golf: Wicked 18 merger

True Golf: Wicked 18 and Devil's Course is the same game, but has different content, i dont no enough to merge them myself, can someone please help. Thanks, Salavat (talk) 12:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You can either add the {{mergefrom}} and {{mergeto}} templates to the articles (the later goes in the article that will become a redirect to the other), or just copy all the information from one in the other, and add the {{cleanup-combine}} template. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 12:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Ive added the merge templates. but because the pages have different context im not sure which one is right. Salavat (talk) 13:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Rare, Viva Piñata images

Anyone know what this is about? JACOPLANE • 2008-03-15 21:45

Here's the edit in question. Basically a fair-use gallery got removed and Rare's community director is slightly miffed at it. Ideally Rare should submit an Commons OTRS ticket and get those images released under a license we can use (a la Ubisoft) Nifboy (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Get one or two images undeleted, and give them a fair use rationale for the time being. If they want to contribute free use screenshots, and I doubt that they will, let them know about OTRS. - hahnchen 22:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I've dropped a message on the Mundorare site letting them know that if they can contact Rare and make like Ubisoft with images, the gallery can be restored, through OTRS. --MASEM 22:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal: digital pet and pet-raising simulation

digital pet and pet-raising simulation talk about a lot of the same stuff... i see two approaches... one is a merge... the other is to distinguish the two, with pet-raising simulations talking about PC and console games, while digital pets talk about other toys or research... either way, these articles are too close to just carry on the way things are going... comments?

see the talk page... Lifeisrill (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, gee, thanks 1up! has apparently gone and retroactivity changed all their ratings from a numerical scale to a letter grade.


Anyone have any idea how we can make a list of articles that have an IGN review to update said review score? --MASEM 01:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You mean EGM right? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
They announced they were going to do that (contrary to GameSpot which kept the old ratings available). As for the list, try the external link search (almost 1,400 links) and the articles linking to ! Another option is to search the archived review at the Wayback Machine and link it instead. And a fourth one, just delete all 1UP reviews. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Um, I tried the Wayback Machine, it appears 1 Up blocked "robot access" [5], needless to say we should probably contact 1 UP to see if they allow us access to their archived articles. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree that deleting them is the way to go, and I'm sure that most of the GA/FA articles we have include accessdate so the discrepancy is accounted for.
I've been thinking if it would be worthwhile if to wrapp review scores with references in a template specific to each source (if the review table is used, this would be created automagically). Adding it while going back to correct the ratings would be trivial, and it would help then for us in the future to have an easy way to catalog such ratings without resorting to categories (though possibility we can create maybe usable categories from that? I dunno). Regardless, we should consider revising all the articles slowly to correct that. --MASEM 02:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Negative, we all know that someone will eventually remove the links and place {{fact}} templates in parts of text that may not be sourceable with other references (direct interviews come to mind) not all of these links are to reviews. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I am talking about removing reviews when they are only used in a table and not as paragraph, just as I would remove IGN or GameSpot ones that are used only for scoring information (metacritic and gamerankings are better than those). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
If we could convince 1 Up to allow access to the Wayback Machine (not other robots) our problems would be solved, we can then let a bot run and replace the direct links with the latest archived version before March 6. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Quick question; are the article links still intact? The only thing affected was the review score, correct? (Guyinblack25 talk 15:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC))
No, for example this [6] used to be a four-page interview and its currently only displaying one. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Crap. Well if that's the case, then I don't know what else to do but go back an manually change the links. If 1UP set their robots.txt to exclude the Way Back Machine, then it never archived the pages to begin with. Even if 1UP changes it now, it would only start archiving from now and not post the results until 6 months later. I'm only an amateur-intermediate web developer, so someone more experienced correct me if I'm wrong. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC))
Most likely yes. Assuming Wayback obeys robots.txt, it stored nothing of the old 1UP pages and thus there's no old pages to retrieve (1UP/EGM would be the ones that would have to provide that archive.)
So the question now becomes, do we create a short term task force to go through all 1400 1UP links and 1) update ratings to reflect this, and 2) make sure the reference sourced is covering the detail in the article in question, replacing those with {{cn}}'s and making sure the page authors are aware that such references are no longer valid? I am going to make an inquiry on WP:RS to see if there's past experience in this type of situation and what to do with it. --MASEM 16:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. This task force, I assume it would be an unofficial task force, and that priority should be given to all current FAs, then GAs. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC))
Ugh, that just hit me, although we should be able to retrieve the articles if we inform them of the glitches that are happening on them. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
@Guy: Yes, informal, though create a subpage to explain so that when we have to tag an article such, we have a link to point editors to to understand the situation.
@Caribbean: If we can contact 1UP and ask them to help resolve this (mind you, to them, 1400 incoming links from WP may be meaningless to their business case) that would be great - maybe it is just human error that has caused the 4pger to go to 1. Anyone have a inside contact there we can use? --MASEM 16:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The people at RS agree that we need to update our articles to reflect if content has disappeared that sources no longer support, so we need to generate a table of articles and links (Special:Linksearch can help but doesn't make it easy to make it by article), and then have people work through it. Anyone knwo of an easier way to do this? --MASEM 19:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:BOTREQ? User:Krator (t c) 19:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I keep forgetting that AWB is a bot like thing.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/1UP Reference Update Task Force has been created: a little under 700 articles have one or more 1UP links. --MASEM 20:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I added FA stars next to the FAs on the list to hopefully attract more attention to them. I'll try and do the same with GA stars later. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC))
We should try to communicate with the website before doing all the removals, remember that they did the change less than a day ago and are probably working with all of the format messes this brought. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
If we could persuade them to give the score field an unique field id like id="score", a bot could easily update all pages. User:Krator (t c) 19:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
There is no need to rush out and fix these scores. Using their old numeric system is fine, given that our refs have access dates. The retroactive score changes are done by a very simple formula anyway. - hahnchen 21:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Hahnchen has a point, the only articles that probably need immediate attention are the FAs. GAs will need attention afterwards, and then everything else. This isn't the first time 1UP has done this either; I've stumbled across a few dead/redirected source links here and there for a long while now. Out of curiosity, does anybody know this conversion formula? (Guyinblack25 talk 21:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC))
True, but if it is true that content has changed for non-review articles, we need to verify that, based on the comments I got back from WP:RS - without the use of the Wayback, even having the accessdates isn't going to help. But, as suggested, maybe the fact that a 4pg went down to 1pg was a result of an error in their changeover? We've got the WP articles identified, so all we should do is wait a few days (early next week) and see if there is still a problem, and if so, start working through it. We definitely don't need to fix it right now, though it will help to check current and pending FAs so that we don't get caught in a bind just because a snapshot of the 1up article situation looks bad on the articles. --MASEM 22:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
1UP is not alone in altering article paths, IGN and GameSpot did it to re-organize their article naming architecture (though not recently). IGN did one a few years back (I think around 2003–2004), and quite a few of GameSpot's earlier articles have already been deleted or moved into archives. End-result: the old links pop you to a 404 or re-direct you to another page. Jappalang (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not that 1UP is altering the article paths - it's the content they've changed (supposedly), which makes it harder to check (404 or soft moves are much easier, and we have a nice tool for that that FAs should use now to verify that). And FWIW, I tried to fake second page to the example article given above and that doesn't seem to work, so its like they did move stuff around. --MASEM 23:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's been a few days, and I don't see evidence that 1up is correcting anything else. We should probably start working through the list (FA's high priority first) on the task force page, unless someone wants to drop a line to 1up and let them know what the issue is from our side. --MASEM 18:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any harm to try contacting them, though it may get lost in similar emails from other 1UP users that may be dissatisfied with the switch. I wouldn't expect an answer from them though. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

FYI/Update- GA stars have been added to the 1UP Reference Update list to help identify priority articles. Currently, about a quarter of the FAs and a couple GAs have been checked/updated. The list is starting to make some good progress. Fuchs has taken care of the Halo related articles and JFlav has done a sizable chunk of the list by taking care of the first 25 entries. If you see something on the list you can help with, please feel free to Be Bold and go for it. Every little bit helps. :D (Guyinblack25 talk 16:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC))

Category:Unauthorized video games

I saw this category added to Tengen (company) and couldn't quite understand the inclusion, never-the-less trying to understand the list. Plus, do we really need this category? I don't think it makes too much sense and I feel it should be delete. Govvy (talk) 11:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

They're listed due to creating unauthorized, unlicensed versions of games, some of which they had to take down (i.e. Tetris) and the fact the article in question mentions them in it. Basically the category covers any commercially-sold unauthorized, non-hack/-mode (basically, non-pirate) game related item or hardware that infringes on copyrights or patents, including games killed by C&D's (i.e. Munchkin (Videopac game)), and includes the unauthorized hardware clones like Nintendo, Atari and the Dreamcast got hit with.
It's a bit more distinction over unlicensed games, which really should have a category of its own, because unlicensed games don't all infringe on copyrights. Unauthorized video games would pretty much be a sub-cat to the unlicensed one. By making it include only commercial games it prevents fan-games from being shoved in there too.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Basicly the category says unauthorized video games, having the company link in it looks wrong and doesn't seem to be correct to the category title! The category is very small, it would really need to be populated more than that to be a viable category. Govvy (talk) 19:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Why aren't the Chinese console clones (id est the Vii) included in this caregory? - Caribbean~H.Q. 09:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
This is a really ill-defined category, and there could be legal issues if you get this wrong. For one, it should stick with games only, the Vii should not go into this category, what is exactly "unauthorised" about it anyway? Unlike the Game Doctor, it doesn't actually play Nintendo games, it is not a reverse engineered Wii. Why is Great Giana Sisters there? The article suggests that it was voluntarily pulled by the publishers under legal pressure, but at no point did a court establish that it was an infringement. - hahnchen 19:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Its not only about the Vii's hardware (although that is also based on other consoles) its about the fact that all of the console's games are clones of trademarked games, not unlike Munchkin, and we are listing them in the console's article. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking for help to improve Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare to WP:FA status

I'm looking for help to improve Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare to WP:FA status. Please help out if you can! Thanks! Gary King (talk) 14:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit busy with my own pet vg projects, but here's a quick review: dump and condense the plot summary, remove some of the extraneous fair use images, balance out gameplay (nothing about the campaign and only one paragraph about general gameplay?), and flesh out reception. I think using Halo 3 as a template (both FPS, both sequels) should be a useful guide. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll try to help where I can, but I suggest trying to first reaffirm the article as a GA - this will help identify areas that you may have problems with in FA. (Not that I think it's necessarily going to have major problems, but still, you never know what someone will call up.) My other suggestion is that you may want to consider what can be done to cut down the plot - it's a bit lengthy for an FPS. --MASEM 15:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I won't be editing it, but you should trim down the review scores box, and put the major awards into prose form. Right now, the reception section is just a whole list of scores without any real context. Keep the scores in the boxout, and talk about the reception for features such as gameplay, level design, multiplayer, story etc. You'll need sales data for FA status, and you should mention the popularity of its multiplayer.[7] There's an upcoming game of the year edition to be released and some DLC to come too.[8] - hahnchen 18:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject report for the Signpost

I've asked User:Rudget to do a WikiProject report on this WikiProject for the Wikipedia Signpost. Here's this week's report on Professional wrestling. We should have our report in the March 27 edition. JACOPLANE • 2008-03-17 22:56

Is it going to make for interesting reading? The CVG Project is quite light, we just discuss standards and formats across the cvg space. There's no membership list, no newsletters, no collaborations... - hahnchen 23:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I've just seen the Wrestling report, it's no big deal. - hahnchen 23:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
We do have a member list, but there is no roll call. JACOPLANE • 2008-03-17 23:44
I never even knew this existed. I'll take a look when I get a moment. Many thanks! Gazimoff (talk) 00:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

New Article: Social simulation game

this article was long overdue to be created... the sims is a good example, but there's lots of clones that qualify too. there's already a category for this article too... i created it but could use help gathering research and info to describe the games... Lifeisrill (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know much of those type of games, but I would begin with adding a "History" section to explain how the genre emerged and grew. Maybe add a section to describe any sub-genres or types (I don't know if any exist), and a "Reception" section that explains how the genre has been received commercially and critically. Hope that helps some. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC))

GameFAQs a reliable source?

Is GameFAQs a reliable source when looking up relase dates of a video game? It appears Spyro: Enter the Dragonfly was referenced by that source. PrestonH 02:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It is better to use IGN, Gamespot, or other such sites for release dates, or barring that, Amazon for already-released vgs. --MASEM 02:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

GameFAQs and GameSpot use the same data, but there are some irregularities at GameFAQs sometimes. Salavat (talk) 03:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Really in some cases it's best to rely on multiple citable sources if possible, because it'll help verify dates as well as possibly show dates for other releases (i.e. while generally North America is shoved together you'll see the US and Canada mentioned as having different releases). Basically just do as thorough research as you can.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Althought GameFAQs can rely on user submissions for things like release dates, it's normally very reliable for that information. They have a list of the release dates for all the different countries/regions. It has been known that a lot of other gaming sites also take their information from So the site can be fairly reliable for use. Govvy (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Just to be clear on the definition of "reliable source", GameFAQs is absolutely not to be used for citations. It is not a reliable source for such purposes. Release dates can be gotten through press releases, official sites, and "breaking news" on gold and release from gaming sites. As for "It has been known that a lot of other gaming sites also take their information from"[citation needed] Jappalang (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Jappalang, they use code to read and take the information, I have seen a number of sites do that, especially the old AOL Games site, before cnet had AOL remove the infringement. I also think it's sad that you call GameFAQs not a reliable site, when it's 98% reliable information. Govvy (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of its actual accuracy, GameFAQs is a contribution-based website and thus does not qualify as what the Wikipedia guidelines call "a reliable source". FightingStreet (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Govvy, prove (aka show the reliable sources claiming so) it is 98% reliable or "a number of sites do that" (when were established game sites even on AOL?). Regardless, please read up on what constitutes a reliable source as suggested by other editors. On a side note, one wonders what good reason is there to bring up a "I think it is sad" angle. The only thing it smacks of is a condescending attitude. Jappalang (talk) 15:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

GameFAQs release dates are not reliable sources. GameSpot are. If they're taken from GameFAQs, so be it...(you can't prove it!!) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

So is this conversation saying that if i were to reference a release date, IGN would be the best source? But by saying that, GameSpot is also a reliable source and seen as GameSpot and GameFAQs use the same data it wouldnt matter if i referenced GameFAQs or GameSpot. Salavat (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Its not about one source being the best. Any source will do as long as its reliable, so IGN, GameSpot, Eurogamer, Next Generation whoever. I'm surprised that no one has mentioned WP:VG/S. - X201 (talk) 13:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
As from a previous discussion between me and Nomader here on conflicting release dates from reliable sources, I advocate analyzing the reliable sources if conflicting information are encountered. Being considered reliable by policy here does not mean they make no mistakes. Jappalang (talk) 15:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Reliability comes down to fact-checking and accuracy. GameFAQs/GameSpot, IGN/GameStats/GameSpy, and mobygames all probably have the same level of fact-checking and accuracy. Many dates are wrong. Release dates for older games often cannot be checked against the "true" dates because the information has been lost to time. For release dates, you can cite any of these sites. If there is a discrepancy, you'll have to do some extra work, though even that does not help much. If there is an inaccuracy in any of these databases (or on Wikipedia), it can and will find its way into the others. And yes, GameFAQs and GameSpot use the same data. It's all queried from the same database. It doesn't matter which you cite. Although, my personal preference is GameFAQs since it loads faster. --- RockMFR 20:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again, GameFAQs is not a reliable source. It's clear written on every game page on that site: "Information and/or credits for this game contributed by...", "Know Something We Don't?", "You can update or add release data for this game using our Data Submission Form", etc. FightingStreet (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
GameFAQs is a reliable source for release date data. --- RockMFR 22:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
No. FightingStreet (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let me explain this in detail: GameFAQs and GameSpot use the exact same database. They are, for all intents and purposes, the same website. Release date information can come from a variety of sources - publishers/developers, retailers, or contributors on GameFAQs. Release date information contributed by people on GameFAQs is examined and approved by a staff member prior to it being added to the database. GameFAQs/GameSpot is as reliable a source for this information as any other website. Arguably more so. --- RockMFR 22:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

"GameFAQs and GameSpot use the exact same database"[citation needed] GameSpot might have bought over GameFAQs (or it is more accurate to say CNET bought over these organizations), and GameSpot has integrated some of GameFAQ's features (forum access, user profiles, links to contributed content) but that does not mean they are the same in all aspects (user reviews and forum structures differ on immediate inspection). GameSpot must specifically state they print users' (GameFAQs) contributions as their own. The onus outlined in WP:RS is "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Sources are held to the ideal that they take responsibility for their actions and mistakes. Anonymous sources are never accountable. Hence contribution sites such as GameFAQs and Mobygames are immediately unreliable per WP:RS. Jappalang (talk) 01:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Release dates for Overlord (1991 video game)

I could use some help with the release date info. for this game, and consequently the name of this article too. The game's box, which I have, says copyright 1992 Virgin Games. However the release dates are another matter.

  • this site: [9] and this one: [10] state 1992,
  • this one: [11] says Jan. 1993,
  • this one: [12] and this one: [13] both state Jan. 1, 1993,
  • this one: [14] and this one: [15] just say 1993.

Now I understand the date to be 1/24/1993 and that's the one in the infobox, but I may be wrong. Another editer changed the name of the page to include the (1991 video game) to distinguish it from other games with Overlord in the title, but the year used now appears wrong. Perhaps the name should be Overlord (NES game) or something. HELP!!!!!

Kresock (talk) 01:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say Jan 1993 per GameSpot, the most reliable source you have there. Copyright 1992 would thus make some sense (on the game box). I would go with Overlord (NES game), but in any case, the 1991 video game is wrong IMO. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't be so sure about 1993, especially as the sites have January listed, it could fall into Category:Video games with suspected incorrect release dates. You need to find the first and original release. Mobygames claims it was first released in 1990 for the Amiga, Atari ST, Commodore 64 and DOS. - hahnchen 14:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Wait, I've just taken a look at the Overlord dab page, and it turns out that we have a separate article for the DOS et al. versions at Overlord (1990 computer game). Is there any reason why this game has been split into two? It looks like a direct port, and if so, I'd merge them. - Enjoystory (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Old Game Boy game sales, and VG Chartz

Having a bit of a pickle here...tried finding info regarding sales for Alleyway, Tennis (Game Boy), Baseball (Game Boy) and Super Mario Land (the US launch titles for the Game Boy) for the Alleyway article I'm working on, and the only place I can get actual scores for them is (The Magic Box doesn't list them, as none of them except SML managed to get over 1 mil in any particular region). Yet hearing I can't use VGChartz as a source. What can I do then, because I've been looking and havent found anywhere else that has sales info for them :\--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

(merged since the pose the same question) Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it established with some previous discussion that using that site was fine as long as we clearly noted that the sales info came from VG Chartz? I think using it if there is a lack of any other information on the subject is better than nothing... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, this describes the site's methodology. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

"Correct me if I'm wrong" - You are. It is not acceptable to use an unreliable source just because you are unable to find any better information, and this makes it clear that VGCharts is unreliable. There's also this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, etc. Notice a pattern? This may be the most helpful yet, as it directly answers one of your questions: Q: "I thought it to be established that using VGChartz with inline attribution (e.g. "VGChartz writes that the game sold one million copies.[1]" instead of "The game sold one million copies.[1]") was ok." A: "Absolutely not." Dlong (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Way to be a asshole about it, Dlong. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
And yet that guy there wasn't an admin, just someone tossing his opinion out. Whatever the case the methodology page works for me, but still doesn't answer the question of what can be used. As in, is there a better alternative?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem is this - reliable sources, such as Chart Track for Europe, and NPD Group for the states costs money. VGChartz's methodology page is meaningless, they do not cite any sources and are unaccountable. If you're just working on some articles, then use it as a guideline, but if you're trying to take it up to FAC, then its a straight oppose. - hahnchen 20:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Ack, removing it all then. Though the problem is I can see someone opposing it for lacking sales info anyway. We don't have any free alternative at all?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Et tu, Kratos?

During the last month I have been taking some of my free time trying to create a good encyclopedic version of what used to be Kratos (God of War), collecting out of universe information (development from God of War's guide and cultural impact from reviews and so on), the article's previous version was redirected on December [16] for being a "fancrufty piece of lumber" so I decided to build a new version from the ground up. The thing is that I was wondering if someone could lend me a hand and develop a "Role in the God of War series" section, since I still haven't finished God of War: Chains of Olympus and am not familiar with the entire plot of the series (nor do I want to spoil it), this is going to be the only section missing when I post the work so far. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The title of that article is awesome. User:Krator (t c) 18:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Wich one? Kratos' used the common naming format. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Remove the brackets, and replace the first with a semicolon or similar. Then he's like the Jimbo of video games. And no, I don't really have an answer to your question dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 07:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
"Kratos; God of War"? that reads like something a presentation card would say, anyways I will post part of my work in a subpage later tonight, so we can have a idea of what needs to be worked before returning it to the mainspace. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, please take a look at User:Caribbean H.Q./ Athena's lackey, I have worked on the out of universe material, any opinions, recomendations? - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Needs sources for development (it reads like you have sources, so just citing them is neede), but that looks much better and potential for GA/FA. I would say that it's ready to be moved into mainspace to open the floor to other editors to help (don't forget to update the 3 GoW articles to point to that with {{main}}. --MASEM 20:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The entire development section comes from a interview with staff members found in the first game's guide, I will add the relevant pages shortly. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I am moving the article to mainspace, plase note that it is in its raw state, I haven't done spelling checks or other grammatical work, regardless of that the out-of-universe information in it should be sufficient. The Chains of Olympus summary should be in place a few days from now (of course if someone else begins that section then its even better :-) - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Havnt fully read the article yet, however since you wrote it you mite be able to do this quickly. I think your intro is too long, and its looks to contain info as opposed to summerising what the article contains, further reading may prove me wrong however. Also, good work. john.n-irl (talk) 04:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


Is it just me or is putting an ESRB rating of RP in the Ratings section of the infobox pointless? It's not even and official rating and RP isn't a search option on their database. Officially the ESRB say that it designates a game that has been submitted to them and that RP should only be used on advertising literature. There are users who are adding RP to games that are not due to be released until 2009/10. This only appears to be a problem with ESRB others countries seem to work on the principal of a game either has a rating or it doesn't. Do we need a small section in the template docs or the article guildlines to say only add ratings when they are actual ratings (that can be checked on the rating bodies websites) and not to use place holder non-ratings like RP? . - — Preceding unsigned comment added by X201 (talkcontribs)

I have to agree - there is an official meaning of "RP" per ESRB, meaning that they have a copy of the game to test, not vaporware or that it will be tested (eg from ESRB: Product has been submitted to the ESRB and is awaiting final rating).
Speaking of this: anyone thing it may be worthwhile to create a series of templates for the ratings as to be able to have categories: "Video games rated PG-13 by the ESRB"? I went to check what the film side does but they don't seem to do it, basically because there's a lot of different countries with different ratings, and just showing the english-language ones would be biased, but that doesn't necessarily seem to be the same problem with video games? --MASEM 14:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
This was tried at some point before, and rejected. The reasoning being that there are too many countries, and the film guys don't do it. This was discussed here and here. - hahnchen 15:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The "Product has been submitted" part of the operation is being abused and made worthless by advertisers. RP is just slapped on anything as a matter of course. Fallout 3 (to pick a game at random) has RP on its website and adverts but the game isn't finished and so can't have been submitted.

Even the ESRB say RP is not a rating:

"What does the "Rating Pending" symbol mean? The "Rating Pending" symbol is only for use in advertising and marketing materials released prior to the assignment of an ESRB rating."

"prior to a rating", meaning RP is not a rating.

I think the best way forward would be for WP:VG Sources to tell editors to use the online databases that the ratings bodies have, they are primary sources after all, and for a note in the article guildlines pointing out that RP is not a rating. - X201 (talk) 08:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

RP Is Indeed a Rating

Okay, I'm going to have to nip this one in the bud. RP is indeed an official, copyrighted rating of the ESRB. You cannot put an RP rating on anything without explicit permission from the ESRB. In other words, the company must take the trouble to ask permission from the board to put the RP there. This isn't like an X-Rating, which anyone can use because it's not copyrighted by the MPAA (in contrast, no one can use an NC-17 rating without permiission because it IS copyrighted by the MPAA.) If you need me to go directly to the ESRB to have them explain this to you, I can do so, especially since I'm a co-worker of Jerry Bonner.

From ESRB itself:

Here's the thing though - you can only put RP on the product if the publisher lists the RP. If it doesn't, then it's not RP. (An example of this is Spore, which has the RP rating badge on the site.)

Denying this is basically WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, it seems. JAF1970 (talk) 04:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone disagrees that RP is an official ESRB rating, but there seems to be a lot of publishers that put that "badge" on a future-game site to call their game RP when technically, until it is submitted to the ESRB to gain a rating, it shouldn't even have a rating. Eg Fallout 3 is likely nowhere close to being done but its website has an RP badge. Now, from the ESRB site, it states that Titles listed as RP (Rating Pending) have been submitted to the ESRB and are awaiting final rating. (This symbol appears only in advertising prior to a game's release.) -- note the last thing in parens. So maybe the RP symbol is allowed to be used in cases where the publisher fully intends to submit the game to ESRB for review, and thus is granted use of the symbol for advertising. Unfortunately, you can't search RP-rated titles at ESRB, so there's no way to confirm this. I would argue that without a confirmation between ESRB and the publishers of being granted RP status, we should avoid stating any content rating for a game. --MASEM 05:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Masem has covered the points I wanted to so I'll try not to make this a "Me too" reply. I'm not disputing that RP is one of their ratings (me saying that it wasn't an "official rating" came across differently to how I intended) what I'm questioning is how do we source the rating when even the rating body doesn't list it on its own database. The ESRB state that RP is for products that have been submitted, yet RP is displayed on websites and trailers for products that appear to be in no state to be submitted. What I'm trying to understand is what is the criteria for the ESRB allowing use of RP? is it...
A) Publisher sends completed game to ESRB for rating. ESRB replies with "You are now allowed to use RP on your advertising until we issue you with a full rating"
B) Publisher contacts ESRB and says "We've got a game coming out in 2010 we want to register that fact with you" ESRB says "OK we acknowledge your intention to submit in 2010, until then you can use RP in your advertising"
Or is it somewhere between the two? And if either is true, as masem said, how doe we check it?. JAF1970 please remember that I'm coming at this from a country where ratings are black and white, a product is either rated or it isn't, and where there has never been a half-way-house like RP. It may be a cultural difference or my own ignorance, or the fact the ESRB haven't explained the system in enough detail, but the RP system does look odd to a foreigner. It might even be that we don't need the rating section in the infobox at all. WP:FILM manage without it and the rating is not even mentioned in their featured articles. Perhaps we only need to mention it where something exceptional has happened a la Manhunt 2. - X201 (talk) 09:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is the importance of the copyright - no one can use the RP without ESRB's permission. Which means that a company can't just say it's RP - they must submit the game to ESRB before they can use it. They can NOT just tell the ESRB "Hey, we got this game...". Read the procedure on the ESRB site - it MUST BE UNDER REVIEW before an RP badge can be placed there. Keep in mind, the build they submit may not be the final build due to bug testing. But you MUST submit the full game to the ESRB with all the content included. JAF1970 (talk) 05:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, is it possible for a company to use the badge without having been authorized to do so by the ESRB? Certainly whatever site does so would be in violation of copyright, but that doesn't necessarily mean it won't happen. Hence the importance of being able to confirm it somehow. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 07:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
That's what I'm trying to get at. How do we know that the RP rating that is displayed is being used with permission?. How do we know that some game code (be it pre-alpha or RC1) has actually been submitted? We have no way of checking, we have to assume that the game publisher is using it lawfully. - X201 (talk) 12:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Which is arguably speculation. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 14:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
While ESRB may say it's using RP for games awating final review, I don't think this statement is as strong as some are interpretting it. Check out the rating process at the ESRB site; The process begins with a questionaire, a video, and possibly an alpha or a beta play. Once this has happened, the game is submitted to the ESRB and awating a final review. That final review may not be in the near future and the game may not be complete, but the game is awating it's review.
Moreover, the rating process doesn't require a playthrough of the final version of a game. Games are often made gold for printing within weeks of their releases; reviewing only their final copy would prevent publishers from having game boxes printed with the ESRB rating in time for release. Most games seem to have a rating before the final copy of the game is available. I get the impression a final copy is used to validate the rating.
Ost (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Could someone archive some peer reviews please?

I was going to do so, but started reading down the destructions and then came across the transcluded PRs and wasn't sure how to deal with them, it's going to take me longer to faff around trying to do it then someone else just scooping them up and dealing with them. There's a few newer ones to review but most of the older ones are stagnant, since both PR and assessments are picking up it would be good to keep the list down and focus on picking up the slack. Someoneanother 23:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. People are spending more time worrying about templates and formatting than about assessing and giving PRs to folks.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, cleaned up the peer reviews some. A lot of old ones that had been archived were still having links around, a few others did get archived, and a few listed were never added to the to do list. *phew*--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) Just the transcluded ones left now. Someoneanother 03:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me, but what exactly do you mean by transcluded? I'm not familiar all that much with the term in regards to here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The three at the bottom under "The following video-game-related articles are transcluded here from standard peer review.", one of them is labelled as closed and I think the other two are as well. Someoneanother 04:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, all old peer reviews that were still listed as pending in any form related to here are archived and taken care of.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Much obliged KFM. Someoneanother 01:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Help clarifing automated peer review

I put The Orange Box up for peer review, and got the automated message back for general improvements, but two points seem to be contradictory:

On the one hand I'm being recommended to delink dates, and on the other I'm being recommended to link the dates. Maybe I'm simply misreading the points and interpreting them wrong, but can someone help clarify this with reference to the article in question? -- Sabre (talk) 11:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Full dates (January 30 1888) should be linked but only year dates (1955) shouldn't be linked (unless they provide context). --Mika1h (talk) 11:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
And more specifically, for VG related articles, relavent years without full dates should be linked as [[2008 in video gaming|2008]] or more easily {{vgy|2008}}. (Though I thought there was a push to remove this approach, I've never seen it come to implementation). --MASEM 13:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Right, OK thanks. Sorted. -- Sabre (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


I have created {{vgratings}}. I figured that it would be a good template. It is basically the same thing as {{vgrelease}} but for ratings. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing making use of it yet, want to post an example link to where it's been used ? --Oscarthecat (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Sega Rally Revo is a random article I picked. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks good but I think ESRB should be below CERO. FightingStreet (talk) 22:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Here's an example: "{{vgratings| [[Entertainment Software Rating Board|ESRB]]| E}}" yields "{{vgratings| ESRB| E}}"
Also, does it matter which one is listed first in the documentation? (Guyinblack25 talk 22:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC))
Whoops, didn't see that link KIA. :-P Quick question too; is it possible to have it so that we can just type in ESRB or CERO and it'll properly wikilink it? (Guyinblack25 talk 22:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC))
Yes, see this edit on Golden Sun. --Silver Edge (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Whoops again :-p I'm really off the ball today. Thanks for pointing that out Silver. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC))
Listing ESRB first for no obvious reason would give more importance to the US... for no obvious reason. An alphabetical ordering would be better IMO (or chronological order, but this is more difficult considering the template). FightingStreet (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm for either alphabetical or whichever was created first. Both sound reasonable. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC))
Shouldn't all articles use either alphabetical or chronological order for consistency? --Silver Edge (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Alphabetical would provide a visual consistency throughout all articles. Date order of ratings isn't as important (or as verifiable) as date order in the Release Date section. - X201 (talk) 23:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Two possibility I can suggest:
  1. If the "ESRB: E (Everyone)" format is preferred, the template could be modified to understand the rating code (adjusting per the rating service) so that you would not need to add the "(Everyone)" in this example, as it would be added automatically. Bad ratings (those that make no sense) can come out in bright red letters to let the editor know there's an editor.
  2. Alternatively, we could create a series of templates such as {{vgr esrb e}} which preps the call to {{vgratings}} appropriately, making it easier to enter.
In neither case I am postulating adding categories for specific ratings, as has been pointed out above, this was summarily rejected. However, the second route manages to give us a non-intrusive tool to back out games that have a specific rating, so that if people want to maintain tables or lists of games and ratings (if even needed) it's there. --MASEM 23:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that all ratings should be written out, so no E (Everyone) just Everyone. Is there something wrong with this? I will also change the code to put them in alphabetical order. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
You forgot the ELSPA rating system. Salavat (talk) 03:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, shouldn't the USK rating be removed? This is the English-language Wikipedia, and the Japanese rating is interesting since a lot of games are Japanese, but the German rating might not be that pertinent. FightingStreet (talk) 09:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why USK shouldn't be there. I know this is this English wiki, but maybe someone who uses it wants to buy a German game? Maybe I'm completely wrong, but I don't see how it hurts to keep. Anyone know any regulations concerning this for wikipedia? MrKIA11 (talk) 12:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
This is the problem we need to be careful about that the film project already has dealt with - I don't know what the number is for games, but for films there's dozens of country specific content rating groups, and without bias, listing the rating for a movie from each one in the infobox was overkill; they ended up with the decision that unless any specific rating earned notable coverage, there's no need to include that rating, though part of this argument precludes they had links to IMDB and another source that would likely have that information as well. Now, if there's only 5 or 6 gaming ratings boards across the globe, period, we're not in the same problem, but if we are being selective with what ratings we are reporting, we may be in the same boat. --MASEM 13:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
For release dates, aren't we supposed to list only the English-speaking countries and the country in which the game was first released? I think it should be the same for ratings. FightingStreet (talk) 16:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
It should be developed, not released. Otherwise, it'd be pretty silly for no Japanese info for something like Final Fantasy Mystic Quest (yes, I know it's too old for a rating, but a perfect example). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree that the development country should be considered, though I think that the issue is less a issue with modern games. However, I think to FightingStreet's comment in that we only mention English-speaking country release dates (with exceptions) but we are looking to list every country of release, the film WP has the same issue. Compared to the rating, the release date is a critical piece of data for a movie or a video game (or any published work) when you are looking for facts-at-a-glance, but as there's separate release dates for each country, trying to include everyone one in an infobox would be overkill. So we have to limit that to a reasonable subset, and since this is, we limited to that. Ratings, on the other hand, are somewhat less encyclopedic information (they're great for shoppers, but we're not supposed to be a buying guide). Thus, the caution here is that we need to have a bounded, very limited set of ratings. If the 6-7 we're picking is exactly all the world-wide rating organizations, that's fine, but if this is the 6-7 that typically involve english-speaking countries or first distributed/published, then we may want to rethink adding them because, again, ratings are not as key as release dates. --MASEM 17:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

On a related subject, the template {{vgrelease}} needs fixing. Its set to sorting out release dates i think in alphabetical order. I put in order of release "japan, PAL, NA", but a preview shows them in the order of "japan, NA, PAL", see Extermination (video game), can someone please fix this. Salavat (talk) 01:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. --Silver Edge (talk) 03:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but what i was actually referring to was that someone might be able to fixe the template so it doesnt put the release dates in alphabetical order. Thanks, Salavat (talk) 03:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not the functionality of the template - that's whatever order the editor puts those fields into the infobox. --MASEM 13:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Alphabetical Ordering

I know this is a bit of a no-brainer, but I've encountered some resistance when reordering platform and media sections of infoboxes (which I decided to take upon myself after this discussion), accusations of PlayStation 3 fanboyism and such. All the articles I modified had Xbox 360 first, and Blu-Ray last (regardless of other items in the list), which leads me to believe there's some POV-pushing going on on the wiki. It'd be nice if the order could be clarified in the VG syntax guide/infobox doc, whether it is always to be alphabetical, chronological, or whether press releases should be used. Much thanks. Fin© 19:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

imo it should be based on the order of the original cited source, i.e. the press release for the video game. xenocidic (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
In the interests of full disclosure, xenocidic is one of the users who disagreed with the edits I made today, as evidenced by his/her talk page. Fin© 20:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
and not sure how that makes my opinion any more or less relevant. I think this would've gotten more input at WP:VG. xenocidic (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Moved per suggestion. Fin© 20:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Concerning the platform section of the infobox, alphabetical order would be the most neutral option for games that are released on the same day on multiple platforms, and it should go by the name of the Wiki article, so instead of "Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Xbox, Sony PlayStation", it would be "PlayStation, Windows, Xbox". Similar to this edit I made a few days ago --Silver Edge (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
point of order: the full name of the Wiki article is Microsoft Windows. What about for games that are not released on the same day? For example, in my opinion, Xbox 360 should come first on the Mass Effect article, especially seeing as how the Windows version isn't even released yet. xenocidic (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that on articles like Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, the PS2 should be listed first. JACOPLANE • 2008-03-19 20:39
Yes you are correct, it should be Microsoft Windows instead of Windows, my mistake. For games that aren't released on the same day, chronological order should be used, see Half-Life 2 for an example. --Silver Edge (talk) 20:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I also agree with chronological ordering, and that's how I've done it for visual novels, such as with Kanon that has been released on no less than six platforms.-- 21:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Chronological in order of release first, then alphabetical if necessary. Seems the most logical to me. But can you stop reverting until a proper consensus is reached here. -- Sabre (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Sabre, chronologically sounds like the most reasonable as it gives a mini time line of releases. Using alphabetical in the case of a multi-platform release on the same day seems a way fair to avoid POV. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC))
I would need to agree w/ xenocidic here, they should be listed as they were in the original cited source, which I believe is the press release. I don't think they have a favorite platform, so post the order the way they did. Shouldn't be a problem. DJS --DJS24 (talk) 21:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
But then you can just change the source to a more "official" one, there could be at least two since it'll only occur in multi-platform cases, and each platform holder could do a press release. I'd agree with chronological then alphabetical to avoid POV. john.n-irl (talk) 22:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I suppose the chrono, then alphabetic is the best way to keep POV out of it while still making sense. agreed, this is lame, for the record, I didn't start it =) xenocidic (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Chrono and Alphabetic (having seen how petty this is getting I've changed my mind) Alphabetic then Chrono whichever is most sensible and least fanboyish. This is heading towards WP:LAME faster than the speed of light. - X201 (talk) 22:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
How can it be "Alphabetic then Chrono"? There are no platforms that have the same name that I am aware of. It would be Alphabetic period. --Mika1h (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I was thinking of the releases field at the time. Alpha for the Platform field. Aplha or Chrono for Releases whichever is more sensible. - X201 (talk) 09:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, it's gone wayyyy past WP:LAME. I'm thinking chronological if the releases weren't in, say, the same quarter (I think two or three days isn't a reason to put one platform first). Otherwise (eg all future games), alphabetical. Fin© 00:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Chronological order, then alphabetical sorting for the platforms with the same release date. Sorting platform releases after something as dubious as publisher/developer dedication based on exclusive content or even server stability for one platform over another is completely, I'm starting to really like this word, unencyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emil Kastberg (talkcontribs) 01:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Chronological, with alphabetical for releases on the same day. Question though, how would this be adapted fore releases that have different regions released on different days? Would you have the first platform release at the top, followed by later regional releases, then the next platform release, etc? Gazimoff (talk) 10:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a bit of confusion building up here (me included). The original discussion was about the order of the Platform field. The debate now appears to have spread to the Release date field as well. - X201 (talk) 11:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but he had me think about something. A little hypothesis, what if: a game comes out for the PS2 in Asia. Then it comes out for the Xbox in NA and (shortly thereafter) EU, and then, for the PS2 in NA and EU? I think it'd be good, now, to form a firm guideline for this kind of thing to avoid future "hassles". IMO, any game should follow the order of the first release for a given platform, wherever in the world, so that it's "PS2, Xbox" on the English Wikipedia, even though this may seem odd to NA/EU readers. If we limit platfrom ordering to one region (not that this could actually be done with the English Wikipedia), we will have to deal with putting the platforms not released in that region away at the very end of the list or something, or we would fit them in in what would normally be purged for platforms from other regions, which would just be plain confusing...
Or I'm confusing. Awright I know i'm really being hypothetical now, but I just don't see a reason not to make a firm rule for platform ordering, for the sake of consistency.Emil Kastberg (talk) 13:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it should be in order of the first release, regardless of country or region - I think Animal Crossing is an example of this, it was released on N64 in JP originally, and then GCN in NA and EU. Therefore, N64 should be the leading platform, as is in the article. Shouldn't it? Fin© 13:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes. It should. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emil Kastberg (talkcontribs) 13:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Whoops, I thought you were arguing that the first english-language release platform should be the leading platform. My bad! Fin© 13:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, like I said, it was kinda confusing. Anyway I agree with you. Emil Kastberg (talk) 14:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else agree that the handheld versions should come after the console versions? xenocidic (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No. I've changed my position again. Alphabetic by console for both fields, Platform and Release Date - X201 (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Alphabetic for Release Date?? Come on. And I still think it makes the most sense to do chrono->alpha for Platform. Even if it's without a good reason that game comes out a little earlier for one platform, it makes so much more sense in the case of a game that's ported a good while later, like Mass Effect.Emil Kastberg (talk) 14:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, I don't think the Release Date field was really ever under discussion here, except by misunderstanding. In any case, Chrono then Alpha is already the obvious consensus. I'm willing to concede the "press release order" argument in favour of a non-POV but sensical order (being Chrono, then alpha).xenocidic (talk) 14:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's step back for a minute here. Remember the purpose of the infobox is to quickly give straight-up facts about the game in question. I am going to argue that the first date listed under released should be the first release of the game for any console/platform for any region, because that is the most critical date for anyone doing quick information to find that date. That said, that leaves us in a quandry with our current sytsem for release dates, because we're tryng to group by platform and this alpha issue to avoid bias is causing a problem.

What if we flip this around, and instead of presenting the release date info as "by platform, by region" what if we did "by region, by date". In other words, the release date would be listed in the order of country of first release, with subsequent dates for secondary releases, so for a bogus example, the release date field may look like:

Japan: 1998-01-31 (N64)
North America:
1999-01-31 (PS2)
2004-01-31 (DS, GBA, GC)
Europe: 2004-01-31 (DS, GBA, GC)

Now the information is in chrono order for the most part, and you can easily see the country of first release for each region, along with associated platforms. Mind you, this is only a suggestion and would require change throughout, but it may be better approach since it focuses on the "date" moreso than platform. --MASEM 14:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal for the release date field but this whole debate really centres around the order of platforms in the Platform field and the first paragraph of the article. xenocidic (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
If we go with what I suggest above, then I completely agree with full alpha order on the platform field, since the order when games were out on certain platforms will be apparent from release date. --MASEM 14:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I like proposed format by Masem, however I think this will require a wider consensus since it changes more than just platform lists. As for in the article, I think chronological then alphabetical, however what about when the difference is only a few days. I only ask because I can see this becoming an issue. john.n-irl (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Listing the platforms by alpha in the platform field makes sense. I'm probably over-thinking this, but the only problem I see is that the different order creates a visual difference between the information in the two fields and it may confuse a few readers. But I guess if the reader is really reading the information, then it shouldn't matter.
Regarding the difference of a few days, the simplest rule would be whichever was first. Jan 1st happens before Jan 2nd now matter what calendar you look at. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC))
I still think chrono, then alpha, is most appropriate no matter what changes in the release field. as John.n-irl mentions, the release thing separate issue that likely requires its own discussion. xenocidic (talk) 15:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Masem's format. However, it shouldn't be necessary to mention the platforms after the date, if they're all on the same date in the same region. And I changed my mind on the matter of Platform, alphabetical is enough for that because people can see release date order in its field. These two things are interconnected; we must attempt to create consistency in an article.
By the way, don't you think that media for the games should follow the order of the consoles, and that this should be indicated so that people will know which medium is for which console? Most of them are different, I can only think of the X360 that uses the same as PC. Emil Kastberg (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
The media section of the infobox was also part of the original question, that no one else, besides you, has answered. I agree, the media in the media section should follow the order of the platform section, instead of having the media listed in alphabetical order. --Silver Edge (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
What the fuck is all this about? I'm probably going to stick with chronological, but the status quo, whatever that might be, is fine. - hahnchen 15:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
So should we just discuss things here about the format order, or should we open this up to combining the platform/date sections? If so I would suggest a new section so people notice whats going on. john.n-irl (talk) 15:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
definately needs its own section. people have likely begun ignoring this one as a result of it's uber-lameness. xenocidic (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

So now that the infobox issue has moved, should we decide on the order to be used in tha article itself? I only ask because, again, this has been/will be an issue and it would be nice to have some kind of consensus to follow. John.n-irl (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

In the body of the article it should be Chrono then alpha to flow properly. "Xxx was released for the (A) and (B) platforms on Jan 1, 2010. It was later released for (C) on Feb 1, 2011." xenocidic (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
As it is now. Emil Kastberg (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Changing the way "release date" is done in infobox

This is extended from the previous conversation on how to arrange platforms in the infobox to avoid bias but still show importance. It is related to the release date field (as the console/platform of first release is generally important). As it is a separate thought, I am creating a separate discussion section for this.

Again, I am suggesting that because this field is called "release date" that the very first release date listed should be the very first release of the game anywhere for any platform, and furthermore that the first release of the game within any region is more important than the first release date by platform. Thus, I propose something like the following (bogus example):

Japan: 1998-01-31 (N64)
North America:
1999-01-31 (PS2)
2004-01-31 (DS, GBA, GC)
Europe: 2004-01-31 (DS, GBA, GC)

to replace the current system. FWIW, this can be made into a single template (possibly with supporting templates for the regions), but that's a minor issue. This way, regions are listed in order of release date, and then broken out into release dates by consoles (with the stipulation that if, say, a PS3 and 360 game are released 1-3 days apart, that's effectively the same day, for that region). Platforms for a date are listed in alpha order.

This, of course, would require all game articles to be changed, but it avoids the issue of platform bias, yet still showing which platform came first for release. --MASEM 15:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. Combining these two sections, which are sometimes semi-combined anyway, should make it more readable. The only problem I can see if your only looking to get the platforms then its not too user-friendly. John.n-irl (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
The proposal make sense to me. Though I wonder if we should clump release dates that are only a few days apart. For the sake of accuracy I don't think we should do this because if it's 1-3 days, then why not 1-4 days, or 1-5 days. I worry that it'll go down a slippery slope. Perhaps keeping it clean cut would prevent arguments over what days should be clumped together. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC))
No, please no. Can we not propose changes which give very little (if any) pay off, for a shitload of pointless work. Whatever we have right now, and if that means no real consistency over the ordering, then that's fine. I generally stick to chronological for release dates, so if the first is PS2 in Japan, then I'd probably list PS2 dates first, even if it does come out in other markets on different platforms first. I think its better to have the dates sorted by platform, and to be honest, don't give a toss about which platform goes first. Anyone who does, really cares too much about the wrong thing, I agree with the calls of LAME above. - hahnchen 16:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Hahnchen is right, maybe concentrate on increasing article quality, then something trivial like the order of platforms. Salavat (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
That is a good point, but improving article quality is an ongoing process that has no real end. If that's the case, when should we take care of the minor details. Plus cleaning up the info box arguably improves article quality as well. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC))
As I said, I threw it out as an idea - I've seen no edit wars over this so there's no pressing need to decide this right now. --MASEM 17:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Masem's proposal and with dates needing to be fully accurate. I mean, how often does it happen that they fall even a week apart in the same region? Emil Kastberg (talk) 00:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Sega video game franchises

This list was recently salvaged from an article that I merged content from and took apart. While the list is coming along well, I'm the only one working on it and it needs some help in a couple of different ways, and I need some help from the project to finish it. First off, I need editors to help me finish the list who will either turn up more articles that fit the list's criteria and add it to the list. I also need editors to help finish the list by filling in the information into the table that is currently missing. The criteria for games to be put on the list is they have to have been either developed or produced by either Sega or one of its subsidiaries. If this list ever gets finished, I think it could make featured list criteria (with some opening paragraph expansion). I'm begging for help here. Redphoenix526 (Talk) 22:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Pre-FA once over for Grim Fandango?

I've got Grim Fandango promoted to a GA, but feel I need a couple eyes to help copyedit and suggest any improvements before an FA. (likely sourcing the story is one thing). --MASEM 00:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Can't the gameplay section be beefed up? It's very short. Ashnard Talk Contribs 07:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
It's likely...but has my first GA review all been dealt with? If yes, gimme a yell in a few days and I'll copyedit. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I hit all those before putting it in for a second GA, beyond sourcing of the story section; I'm not too worried on that (in that, it will be done, finding the source should not be the problem). --MASEM 13:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't give it a thorough reading, but some of the sources are missing the full publication date, ref 18 needs an access date, and ref 30 needs a publisher. The beginning sentence of the "Story" section looks weird by itself, I would combine it to the rest of the paragraph. The only other thing I would suggest would be to wikilink some of the publishers in the references. Also, if it isn't quite ready for FA, it looks like it would be a good candidate for A-class. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC))
For a game released in 1998, it relies too strongly on websites for its critical reception. 9 years ago, Gamespot, IGN et al had little to no relevance or influence. Things like Gamespot's best of E3 1998 are meaningless, "10th Best PC Ending by their readership"? Winning PC Gamer's Adventure Game of the Year 1998, was a heck of a lot more notable than those two (I'm unsure of whether it was the US or UK version [17]). On too many occasions, articles have been featured which have just been collated Google searches, be it for good or bad. You might want to add how long development took, it started in 1995 straight after Full Throttle according to a PC Gamer preview [18]. - hahnchen 14:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Hahnchen, could you add something that covers the first two sentences of the above to WP:VG/GL? User:Krator (t c) 16:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
We already have Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources but I've added a sources section to include this and a couple other points (use user's manual and FAQs for gameplay and plot sections) to the WP:VG/GL. --MASEM 19:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I was able to find some print (some archived on web) sources to help flesh out the article, including more in the dev section. Anyone willing for another look? --MASEM 17:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Can I ask someone to give the text for Grim Fandango a language copyedit for me? I've addressed most of the other points raised at the FAC for it, but I just want to make sure the language is good. --MASEM 14:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I've given it a read through and made some changes here and there. I hope they're an improvement but feel free to remove them if you don't agree. Gazimoff (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks good, thank you very much. --MASEM 18:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Angry Video Game Nerd

Info talk.png

Category:Angry Video Game Nerd, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 23:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Policy proposal for referencing video game articles

See also: Wikipedia:Synthesis on video games

One reason why WP:video games articles are treated as "second class" articles it is harder for video games to meet the same standards as other articles.

Video game articles do not have the same level of scholarship or research as historical phenomena. The instruction manual and game reviews often give only a superficial treatment of the subject. Often, the only remaining reliable source is the game itself. This limits the number of useful and informative facts one can write about a video game article. Facts that are true, but that can only be assembled as a synthesis of other facts.

This is especially the case with articles about a series or a genre.

Take a hypothetical game series. It might be true and verifiable that the first game in a series has an airship. It might also be true and verifiable that the second game in a series has an airship. But to make an article about the game series that says "all games in the series have an airship" might constitute synthesis and thus original research, because it requires a synthesis of two true facts that has not been made by an outside source.

Take a hypothetical game genre. It might be true and verifiable that one strategy game has a technology tree. It might true and verifiable that another strategy game has a technology tree. But to say "many strategy video games use technology trees" would constitute original research, because there might not be a reliable piece of research that made this synthesis.

I have opened a discussion at the page Wikipedia:Synthesis on video games. This is an opportunity for the WP: video games community to make its voice heard, to influence policy, and allow standards to be more flexible for our unique area of work. Policywonker (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Who are you? User:Krator (t c) 22:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
What kind of question is that? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I think Krator was wondering whether Policywonker is a sock puppet or alternative account of another editor. I was wondering the same thing myself since their first edits were Wikipedia:Synthesis on video games and the way they set up everything and posted here and there implied that this was an editor with experience. That and the name "Policywonker" is obviously related to objective they seem to want to accomplish. I don't think Krator meant any malice in the question. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC))
Spot on. Credentials simply matter for me when I read an essay, as texts that are meant to advance an opinion should always take the author into account. User:Krator (t c) 14:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The Orange Box FA

I'm a little surprised that I've had absolutely no comments over the last four days for the FA candidacy of The Orange Box. Can I request that its given some attention? -- Sabre (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I was going to get it done this morning but I got a little tied up with homework and Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn. I should have a thorough review down there by today or tomorrow. Ashnard Talk Contribs 14:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I now have a lengthy to-do list on the candidacy page. However, I must ask for some help from other editors as I think I'm the only editor left doing substantial work on the page, and there's a lot there for one person to get done (this is what I would have thought a Wikiproject was meant for afterall). I'd very greatly appreciate any help in addressing the points raised at the FA page. -- Sabre (talk) 20:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll try to help a bit later today on that. --MASEM 20:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Video game infoboxes

I have found numerous video game articles that while they might give good coverage as to the company, engine, etc. that developed it, they do not list any of the lead designers in the infobox. As similar forms of media, such as movies, list actors, directors, etc. I believe video game articles should be required to list the lead developers, preferably in an infobox. They do not need to list every Tom, Dick and Jane that worked on it, but I find the lack of any names even for semi-popular series such as Star Ocean disturbing, yet articles for other media of similar note, such as the movie Dragonheart is able to list actors, directors, etc. Jinnai (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe there are three issues with this. The first has to do with the size of the infobox: VG infobox already tend to be long, with multiple release dates in different parts of the world, listing of required graphics and hardware parts, and so forth, compared to most movie infoboxes, without adding additional personnel involved with the project. The second is that in all but a handful of games, the specific lead designers are non-notable people, compared to the development house specifically, and the only place these people are credited with the game are in the game's manual and end credits. The third is that unlike movies, where actors are clearly visible or heard, and direction and production styles can be easily identified, this is not something that is commonly seen in video games; to most people, it's a bunch of ones and zeros that are fun to play (and yes, I'm a believer in games-as-art, but only so many games qualify under that; your average Madden 0X is certainly a far cry from "art" here).
That said, there should be efforts that when a notable designer or developer is tied with a game (eg Tim Schaffer, David Jaffe, Sid Meyer, etc.), efforts should be made to include that name in the infobox with the role involved.) - basically, if one can add the name and not create a redlink, it probably should be added. But this sort of ties in with the MobyGames link discussion above, as we don't usually list out credits to games, but Moby will do this. Providing this link in the infobox as movies do with IMDB will help towards identifying others involved with a game. --MASEM 15:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Another point to consider is that sometimes there are not any third-party sources that state the designers. Most instruction manuals list credits, but not all do, and they are first-party sources. Along with what Masem said above, this can put some games between a rock and a hard place as far as listing designers. Like most every other aspect of writing articles on Wikipedia, you do the best you can with what you got to work with. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC))
If there are no sources, or the names are obviously pseudonyms then we shouldn't worry about it. As for notable or not, that to some extent is subjective unless the name becomes a clear household name. Those who develope the game, when they're names can be readily inditified, if they were important to development of it should be noted. Certainly in some debatable if they took part or if it was a rubber-stamp, but it is certainly debatable whether or not the engine or input method (which is largely the same) for video/computer-games is more important that those who actually put the work into the game.Jinnai (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
There's absolutely nothing wrong in using first party sources as a source for their credits, why would we go anywhere else? What use is a third party? Lead designers can be noted in the infobox, Assassin's Creed, Final Fantasy, Quake all list various designers. Yet compared to film where the director can be considered an auteur, the creation of games is a much more collaborative process and the crediting of one person is not always representative of the devlopment process. But if you feel that its missing from certain games, you should add it in. - hahnchen 18:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
True, there is nothing really wrong with using first-party sources—I've used them plenty myself. I simply brought it up because Wikipedia prefers third-party sources over first-party because they are independent of the topic in question, and therefore more likely to be neutral. I try to always find a third-party source first to help satisfy notability and neutrality. Just something I try to keep in mind when adding in content. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC))
The problem with just listing the lead designer is sometimes, especially with some Japanese companies, they don't always much, if any say in the game beyond giving it a seal of approval. This usually happens with sequels to games. We should have a way of mentioning at least the major divisions of a company since other members, like the scenerio designer, character designer, etc. might have more impact.Jinnai (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The important persons should be mentioned in the Development section anyway. FightingStreet (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
As mentioned, almost no one is ever mentioned in the entire article, except if they are world-reknown or the game is. Most sections don't even have development. And really they shouldn't be listed in those sections when they are more relevant than some of the stuff in the infoboxes.Jinnai (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
As you've pointed out, there are many VG articles that are missing important content. The sad truth is that there are more VG articles than there are editors that are trying to improve them. However, improving them is possible.
There are several examples where developer information is integrated into both the infobox and "Development" section. A few that come to mind are Final Fantasy Fables: Chocobo Tales, Shadow of the Colossus, Kingdom Hearts (series) (though there is no infobox), Golden Sun, 1080° Snowboarding, and Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow.
Of course, it all boils down to if someone has the time and resources to improve the article. Some articles will probably never make it past Start of B-class because the necessary information on development is not available. So to re-iterate, you do the best you can with what you got to work with. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC))
The irony is that it could probably be radically reduced if we could use manuals as legitimate secondary print sources.Jinnai (talk) 09:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
According to WP:PSTS

citing manual from a game company specifically for names should be fine, as long as those names are pseudonyms. If they are another source that verifies that it is would be needed. This should actually be promoted since it's something quite easily done by anyone, as most people have a manual when they buy a new game, unless they tossed it.Jinnai (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

VGChartz re-visited

Since my last query regarding this went to kingdom come, I'm back with it after doing some discussions with their staff. They responded rather nicely and helpfully, and pointed out that for older video game sales, they base it off three main places for information: Nintendo's financial reports they post on their own site, CESA (Computer Entertainment Supplier's Association) and Now with this all covered and references stated as to where their charts are coming from, and because prior a lack of information as to where the info was coming from was the problem, is there opposition to them being counted as a valid source still as long as they're stated?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You're going to need a Japanese speaker to take a look at those. What about American and European sales data? NPD Group? ELSPA? GfK? There's not enough there to go by, Annual reports will only state sales for the biggest software releases. Then again, I have not seen any financial reports dating back that far. The landscape has changed so much since the days of Alleyway, for example, UK charts used to be compiled by Gallup, for ELSPA; now they're done by Chart-Track, who also do European sales in conjunction with GfK. I'd be surprised if their sales data for Alleyway is anything other than a guess. - hahnchen 04:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

My position on VGChartz has always been: use it only if it's the only source, and always do inline attribution as "VGChartz reports the sales to be ...". An alternative I could subscribe to is something akin to Wikipedia:Geographic references where we state 1) the uniqueness and usefulness of the information, and 2) the care that should be taken when reviewing it. Something that would also be handy is to ask the VGChartz staff to give us an estimate of their margin of error. User:Krator (t c) 12:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I realize that this has been discussed to death here, but has it ever been brought up at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard? If not, perhaps getting an outside viewpoint would resolve this issue for good. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC))

Well on closer inspection of the site it reveals they list games sometimes multiple times...and in those listings also show different sale amounts...I've given up trying to count them as a valid source then. Now what the heck am I going to do? -_-;--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Use it as a base, but not as a reference. If they list a game selling a million copies, don't you think the publisher or developer would make a press release with that? So, if VGChartz says some game sold a million, search around for press releases saying so. If none is found, then don't include it. I think a unreliable reference can become reliable if cited by reliable references, however one needs to be pretty careful because a) most around here don't think that way; and b) sometimes reliable sources pick them because of lack of alternatives (for example, for very old games, historical facts, etc). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 04:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Rey brings up a good rule of thumb. "If VGChartz says some game sold a million, search around for press releases saying so. If none is found, then don't include it." The number from VGChartz can help you narrow your searches. But if no one else echoes the same info, then it might not be a reliable number.
If Game Informer or GameSpot cite VGChartz in one of their articles, we can technically use that to cite the information. Because GI and GS have been deemed reliable sources, the content is considered reliable. But even though WP:VERIFY states, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth," we still try to make the article as factually accurate as possible. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC))

List of characters in articles

Would a list of video game characters, not written in prose, in an article, such as the one in Dragon Ball Z: Burst Limit, be considered WP:GAMECRUFT? --Silver Edge (talk) 22:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say so, particularly since this is another DB fighting game (of which there are several) and these are the same old same old characters. A list akin to the one used on Super Smash Bros. (series) would be better in a series article, assuming one doesn't exist. That article has the same problems many other future game articles have. Because relatively few concrete details are available it doesn't resemble a complete article, needs to be constantly rewritten and reverted because it's used like a news article. Someoneanother 22:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There have been several discussion along this line on separate game talk pages. The most recent example that comes to mind is on Talk:WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2008.
It's probably time a full discussion take place here to solidify consensus. I believe the general consensus is that full character lists are frowned upon as they don't really comply with Wikipedia's guidelines, even in a series article. For an example of how I think it should be done, I'd check out Victorious Boxers: Ippo's Road to Glory#Characters; it is also a manga inspired fighting game. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC))
That would be the ideal, but at this minute in time I wonder if it would be possible to convince everyone that it's a good way to go. At one point in time future game articles without serious details would be AFD'd, now they're started the minute anything's announced with folks dropping in all kinds of irrelevant or depressingly trivial details. Talk pages filled with "There, it's blah from blah series in the background of this photo, strangling a baboon, I think"... none of this stuff would even be mentioned once the game was released if the article was actually raised in quality. Having lists in series articles is the next best thing, with pertinent details on main characters and/or characters unique to that game written in prose. It's a separate issue, but some kind of NO! in the future game template might at least discourage contributors from using these articles like gaming blogs. Someoneanother 22:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Those kind of readers/editors will always be around. It can be difficult to keep up with it, but it's possible. We've had an interesting time with the three new KH games, Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days, Kingdom Hearts coded, and Kingdom Hearts Birth by Sleep. The blog-like editing of the articles have thankfully died down some. Normally after politely explaining the reason behind the policies, most people backdown.
Regarding lists in series articles, the way I see it they do the same thing as in regular individual video game articles; give excessive detail that should be summarized. I've always been under the impression that giving just enough to help visual the big picture is the way to go. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC))

Combine pokemon region articles into one?

Something I'm proposing, since this seems a better place to bring it up than the subsequent sub projects given the discussion rate, but we have articles on Hoenn, Johto, and Sinnoh, but actual information within the articles is pretty sparse. What about just combining all the regions into one article, tidying up a lot, and then build in actual information from there?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree, that seems to be a better approach than the present one. --MASEM 01:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good, but what would it be called? "Pokemon regions", "Regions in the Pokemon franchise"? (Guyinblack25 talk 16:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC))
Good point. "Regions in Pokemon" seems like the best title, as franchise would include the Mystery Dungeon titles, and I believe those occur in their own setting. Frankly it'd be easier at this point if Nintendo just called the whole continent Japan given they have Surge from the US, but eh, that's Nintendo for ya.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Aye, at some point I have to make my stand. The articles are already crammed with enough information as it is with information on every region. Collapsing 40+ (my estimate) cities and towns into one big article would make it horrifically huge. Then again, I tend to make a lot of noise. I didn't think that WarioWare characters could be merged into the main Wario characters article, but hey, look at it now. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Well by far not chanting merge-merge-merge (for instance your previous example, I do agree the warioware characters could merit their own article(s in some cases)). But with the pokemon regions, a lot of it is really "you can find so-and-so pokemon here" which doesn't exactly belong in an article here in most cases. And the actual merits of certain areas isn't really covered at all. So I'm not saying make a horribly huge mess, but make something better out of the whole.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

External links vs. references - which comes first?

This is just for my own curiosity, but shouldn't references come last? xenocidic (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The preferred order is given at Wikipedia:Layout#Standard appendices and descriptions, and recommends placing External links last. Pagrashtak 17:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Placing references before external links create both a better format and better readability, external links are supposed to be the last thing that is read, virtually serving as a interactive version of "further reading". - Caribbean~H.Q. 17:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. looks like I have some reverting to do. xenocidic (talk) 17:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Super Smash Bros. Brawl references in Metal Gear Solid articles.

Hi, I was wondering if I could get some comments on this.

With the release of Super Smash Bros. Brawl, several editors (mainly anonymous IP editors) have been adding some bit trivia into various Metal Gear articles about SSBB.

I feel that mentioning SSBB in articles such as Solid Snake is fine since Snake is a main character in SSBB as well as the cameos section in Metal Gear (series)[19] but it has seems now people are trying to add every little bit of information into the other articles where I think it can be construed as just "trivia" e.g. Big Boss (Metal Gear) where there is a whole subsection that really isn't "notable" persay. Also this edit made in List of recurring Metal Gear characters about Gray Fox. Anyone have any comments/opinions on me removing sections that seem to be mostly trivia about the game SSBB. At the very least these points should be removed and somehow added into SSBB because if its not notable enough to be in the SSBB article then I don't see why it should be in Metal Gear articles.

This goes the same with Sonic and Sonic related articles. For example, this paragraph in Sonic the Hedgehog (video game), The Nintendo Wii title Super Smash Bros. Brawl, which features Sonic as an unlockable playable character, has a hidden stage called Green Hill Zone, with scenery based directly on the original game level. This stage becomes available to the player as soon as Sonic is unlocked. It features the shuttle loop structure as part of the background, where occasionally Tails, Knuckles and Silver make brief cameo appearances. seems to be useless trivia about SSBB since no one going to that article is really looking about references to SSBB.

Thanks, Strongsauce (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, technically the appearance of a video game character outside of their series/canon is notable enough to mention. Though it normally only warrants a brief mention. Normally one sentence to explain the appearance covers it (X character appeared in Y game in Z capacity). Any additional info should be limited to out of universe info (B developer included X character because of C reason).
In short, if there is a whole section about a character's inclusion in Smash Bros. trim it down to the essential information and/or integrate it into the rest of the article.
For some more info on trivia on Wikipedia check out WP:TRIVIA. Wikipedia:Handling trivia is an essay that gives a bigger outline of trivia. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC))
Hmmm... the fact that multiple characters from the MGS series appear in Brawl, complete with their most current voice actors reprising the roles, and engage in conversations in which they discuss events of the MGS games to date might warrant a longer-than-typical reference for this bit of information. However, it wouldn't need to be terribly long (hell, three sentences maybe) and might best be placed in the "Solid Snake" article, stopping there. I agree with Guyinblack25 that you should check out WP:Handling trivia for more direction. --Bishop2 (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
This has less to do with merging/integrating the trivia and more about the notability of said trivia. Most of these mentions of SSBB are one-liners. If I follow the recommendations about handling trivia, then I feel some of these bits aren't really notable for inclusion into articles.
For example, the Gray Fox mention says he appears as an "assist trophy" so he is not really a playable character in the game. Also in Metal Gear (weapon), there is this line: Both Metal Gears REX and RAY make an appearance in Super Smash Bros. Brawl as background hazards in the Shadow Moses Island stage. Is the fact that they are in the background of one of the levels enough to be notable for mention in an article?
Would it be easier to just add a section in Metal Gear (series) concerning the connections between SSBB/MGS and keep it out of the rest of the articles (sans Solid Snake, a playable character in Brawl)? Strongsauce (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Localizing it all to the Metal Gear (series) article sounds like the best option. The Metal Gears as part of the background sounds like it's really pushing it. I wouldn't mention it without more prominent appearances in other media. Best to just leave it out completely. The Gray Fox mention is borderline, but should be a one sentence mention if kept in. Anything like the Big Boss (Metal Gear)#Super Smash Bros. Brawl should definitely be removed though. Does that clarify things better? (Guyinblack25 talk 20:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC))

I would say that there shouldn't be more said about any of these subjects in their respective articles than is said about the same subject in the SSBB article itself. So if it doesn't fly there, it probably shouldn't fly in MG or Sonic either. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 21:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It's worth noting these appearances on the characters' own articles, as well as a short note in either games lists, reception or legacy sections of series articles, particularly as these characters were added by popular demand. Characters in the background and the use of the green hill zone are extremely trivial - old gits like me who remember playing the original sonic might make something of it, but a general reader isn't given any indication of why they should give a damn, it's fanservice. The green hill zone is only used because sonic is in the line-up, that's the important aspect. Someoneanother 05:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Crash course for new users

User:Hbdragon88/vgimprove – a really quick way to get into improving video game articles. It's my way of getting into improving articles of games that I have personally not played. Combined with the /Automated cleanup list – a perfect combination. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, should find a home for it. John.n-irl (talk) 03:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts on interwiki links

Weee... I would claim myself a member of WP:Warcraft, but as I haven't touched WP often (in preference for *coughcoicough*), I'd like commentary on using interwiki links in WP articles (as opposed to the E-links section alone).

So far as I know, World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King uses them in one section to link to further information, as the various Warcraft lists and character and such articles have been deleted for notability (usually via Inherit or the fact they were Gamecruft... something I'd like to do to Star Wars, heh).

I'm bringing this to WP:VG (rather than RFC or some other venue... I don't feel that confident yet) as the majority of games have (usually) an offsite wiki, most often at Wikia. It would appear that there is some movement against such doings (from another conversation), but that's why I'm bringing it up here. I'm pretty sure it would fall under WP:EL, which definitely suggests that such linking shouldn't be used, but that is a guideline, rather than a policy, and thus easier to change if this discussion goes anywhere.

This has been discussed (in brief) before at T:WoW#Deleted Wikilinks. Thoughts? --Izno (talk) 02:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

In brief...I don't think interwikis in articles (to WoWiki, from what I saw) are a bad idea, if used with caution. But they aren't reliable sources and shouldn't be treated as thus. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 02:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)q
Of course they aren't RSs, which I wasn't arguing. U:Kirkburn agrees (at the talk page) that such links shouldn't be spammed on any given page (as that gives little-to-no potential for someone to eventually create articles which meet WP:Fict) Hehe. More specifically, I'm fishing for feedback on what is an allowable amount; link as in MOS:Link, or less? How much less? Furthermore, we were also wondering what would happen at WP:FAC if we brought an article with e-wiki-links in it to the table. --Izno (talk) 02:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Interwiki links should never be used in the body of an article, and seldom are usually not valid external links. That World of warcraft article is a spam disaster.2005 (talk) 05:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Hehehe, well, interwikis to Wikimedia wikis (like Wiktionary) are common. I don't like these external links to external, third-party sites, though, because they don't link back to Wikipedia (not that it is a requirement, but courtesy), and because they are hidden spam (since you cannot search for them via Special:Linksearch). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 06:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
yes, I didn't mean Wikitionary. Wikia pages pages though are completely unrelated sites, and since external links should not be in the body of articles (according to the guideline) and such a Wiki can't be a reliable source (according to guideline), so they can never be in the body of an article. External links can have have some wikia links but in general they aren't good links. 2005 (talk) 07:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
More or less, I can't think of a valid reason to link to a wikia site in the body of an article; if the topic isn't notable enough to warrant discussion here, I don't think we need to be linking off-site to it (though I'm open to alternatives). A link to the relevant article on another wiki in the "External links" section is plenty sufficient, in my opinion. EVula // talk // // 06:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
That's just it though; it isn't a spam disaster (unless you mean in the use of the word in that there are a lot). There's a half dozen links in one or two paragraphs which link to further information, rather than just an external link at the bottom. I'm sure the article's better for it (don't quote me on it though), but it makes me wonder about it in general. As to "not linking back to Wikipedia," they often times don't link back to WP because WP has nothing to link back to; if there is a link on WP, they will oftentimes link to WP.
And as for not having anything notable here, read EL's nutshell. EL also states "other meaningful content which is not suitable for encyclopedic content" while summarily contradicting itself with "not too many". Furthermore, WP:ELNO has little to nothing to say on this specific case. EL in general seems inept to deal with this, as it's designed more for the == External links == section at the bottom of the page. The inter-wiki links aren't being used as sources in this case (a la <ref>), which means I honestly don't believe RS(s) factor into this. And, again, EL and RS are guidelines. I'm hesitant to push further in this until we have a few more editors' opinions; those at the linked talk page stated their support of the idea. --Izno (talk) 10:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The point of mentioning sources is simple: links in the body of articles to website addresses other than are not permitted except as sources. The links in the body of this article are not sources so should all be removed, period. External links go in an external links section at the end of an article (or also in an infobox when talking about official sites). 2005 (talk) 03:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
In addition, using in-text interwiki links aids in dealing with possible WEIGHT issues that may arise, specifically that of having an overbearing gameplay section to an article (see WoW for what I mean). Obviously, WoW needs a trimming, but that is, as I see it, a different issue than this. --Izno (talk) 10:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, please don't thread your commentary into mine :/. And as to that rule, where does it explicitly state that there can be no external links within the article? I hunted both WP:EL and WP:VG/EL for it; if not there, where? --Izno (talk) 04:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
(please don't move comments away from the posts they respond to... I replied to your first post, not the second). The EL guideline says: "If an article has external links, the standard format is to place them in a bulleted list under a primary heading at the end of the article." Besides that, the various discussions on the guideline talk page make clear that the end of an article is where external links go, though yes it is hard to wade through all the goo on the talk pages for find the actual discussions that lead to the above wording. 2005 (talk) 04:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The links to WoWWiki in World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King are not external links. They are interwiki links. The mission statement of the Wikimedia Foundation is "to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally", and the interwiki link network is intended to further that goal - to facilitate the easy linking to content which, whilst not appropriate for the general purpose encyclopedia Wikipedia, is useful content under a free license. That's what those links are for. There is clear consensus that topics such a minor Warcraft characters are not appropriate for Wikipedia, hence the interwiki links to a wiki where those topics are covered. Oh, and I find it rather offensive to use a phrase like "spam disaster" to describe links to GFDL content created directly in line with the Wikimedia Foundation's goals. --Stormie (talk) 00:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course they are external links. The mission statement does not say any Wiki anywhere should be linked to. that idea makes no sense. Some wikis are pure spam/adsense garbage. Additionally, external links are NOT a way around policy and guideline, and discussions on the external links guideline page show. So linking to another Wiki for articles that we won't have is both a violation of policy and guideline, and just flat out dumb. If we wanted to have such pages to link to, we would. Those crazy Wowwiki links are link spam in its most pure form, and can be removed immediately. It's no coincidence that this isn't done on other articles in the encyclopedia, even though there are hundreds of possible wikis that could get such links. 2005 (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost report

I finally heard back from the Signpost guys about the report on WP:VG. The questions have been listed here: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-03-24/WikiProject report. I won't have time to take a look for another day, so perhaps people could work on the potential answers here. JACOPLANE • 2008-03-23 20:04

Can anyone make sense of question #6? User:Krator (t c) 11:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe it's a reference to the amount of FA (and possibly GA) articles under the project's belt. There are several of both, and lately there seems to be a surge in the amount of articles which are going for GA. Someoneanother 11:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I got that part, but what about the "distinguish" part of the question? User:Krator (t c) 12:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
To distinguish itself it has to do something differently, why does this project have X GAs/FAs? Knowledgeable article writers? Peer review/assessments? Does the project cooperate to raise articles up? Or is it just number of editors? I think it's an invitation to discuss how we help each other or how contributors are compelled to write about this subject and push articles up through the rankings. Someoneanother 12:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll go for it :) User:Krator (t c) 12:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Just to inform you, I need these answers within the next 12 hours and as soon as, added to the report, linked in Jacoplane's comment above. Rudget. 17:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll get on it tonight. JACOPLANE • 2008-03-24 17:17


"What does the Project cover?" Individual video games as well as series articles; from the original video, computer and arcade games right through to the modern systems and emerging platforms such as mobile phones. All game genres and types; including online, multiplayer, casual and the increasingly growing indie scene. Characters, either within game or series articles, or as separate character articles and lists. Video game culture and terminology. Magazines, podcasts, websites, court cases and events. Developers, leading figures in gaming, publishers and musicians involved in the game industry. The project's remit is wide and continues to widen as videogames and related topics expand in influence and popularity. Someoneanother 07:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

"Was there any particular reason behind the creation of the project's own barnstar? A user perhaps?": Jacoplane made our barnstar—see User talk:Jacoplane/archive4#Current Events Barnstar for a conversation regarding its creation. Pagrashtak 17:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Added. User:Krator (t c) 23:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

4) "How could the project improve? Greater input needed etc." A project is only as good as the editors that comprise it. Improving the writing skills of members and getting everybody on the same page will strengthen the project as a whole. Trying to get all the video game related articles to comply with Wikipedia's various policies, like Wikipedia:Notability and WP:NOT, is a sizable task that not everyone in the project knows how to do. Writing well-written, neutral prose is another area that not all members have experience in. Efforts to better connect projects members and consolidate resources have been in discussion and should be implemented in the near future. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC))

Guyinblack, I'm not sure whether I agree with this answer. It hints at the true problem, but doesn't really discuss it. That problem is, IMHO, a fundamental difference in opinion regarding 'gamecruft'.. perhaps you could rephrase the answer to include it? User:Krator (t c) 18:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I mainly tried to keep things brief and proper. I'm open to suggestions though. Anyone is free to alter my response. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC))
My attempt at #4: "Video games are a tricky beast from an encyclopedic viewpoint in that there are three ways to approach most topics: discussion of the game, development, reception, and sales, discussion of the game's gameplay and how certain tasks in the game are done, and discussion of the game as a work of fiction, describing the plot and characters. Moreso than other topics, all three need a careful balance which is now being realized in our Featured Articles and Topics, but it is a slow learning curve. Video games, being a completely contemporary topic, also tend to lack the academic and paper sources that other topics enjoy, and we are working to try to ensure that the best sources are used to back up key articles." --MASEM 19:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I think both complement each other well, so I took the liberty to add both to the answer page. User:Krator (t c) 23:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

6: How does anyone uninvolved in the project start off? As a newcomer to Wikipedia, I discovered the project through my interest in video game related articles and was quickly welcomed after posting on the project's talk page. I started off by offering to help out with ongoing work, such as processing articles that required cleanup or referencing. Since then I've started to get heavily stuck in to improving the quality of existing articles, as well as creating a couple of new ones. The project members have been really helpful in providing assessment and peer review of the work I've done, as well as helping me learn the ropes through mentoring. Gazimoff (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I copied yours to the answer page :) User:Krator (t c) 23:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Probably we should also point out that people looking into video games they have an interest in eventually end up here as well. My experience may not be typical, but starting from Halo: Combat Evolved I ended up getting sucked into reviewing video games at WP:GAN after clicking on the WP VG link on the talk page :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I added a bit from my own experiences to Q6. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Video games by genre and Category:Video game genres

Unless no one objects I will be moving categories (and perhaps a few articles) from Category:Video game genres to Category:Video games by genre to maintain consistent categorization with the other medium by genre categories. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

eh, sounds fine by me. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a good move. Maybe someone can also update the 20 or so video game genre articles to reflect the change? Randomran (talk) 05:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Removing links is a commercial service. All the info available there should be available at Wikipedia itself and for free. Linking the user to a commercial service for info that should be available here is against the very purpose of Wikipedia. I also noticed that there are links on EVERY article; in a lot of cases these linked entries at MobyGames do not contain any actual information about the game at all, since MobyGames depends on the voluntary contributions of its visitors. These links smell a lot like they are there to generate traffic.

Here's a link to the discussion at WP's MobyGames article:

I think it's time to stop this nonsense and start removing the links from Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't a platform for advertisement. DCEvoCE (talk) 13:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, these links if i believe were mostly added by users going round to every article and tagging.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkSearch/ this is a list of all the pages with a mobygames link on it. There was a discussion on WikiProject Spam back some time about MobyGames, talking about the edits. I say remove them, but take in regard the edit history. Salavat (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there any difference between Moby and IMDB (which is listed in the infobox for every film)? --MASEM 13:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Linking to Mobygames is fine, it provides information that Wikipedia doesn't, screenshots, credits, multiple box arts etc. Occasionally, I'll link to them if they helped out with an article I've worked on. That's not to say linkspamming them is fine which some members were found to be doing. What I don't like is pointless linking to GameFAQs and StrategyWiki. Why is linking to game guides important? - hahnchen 13:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how gameguides are less important than multiple box arts. Using your own words: "provides information that Wikipedia doesn't". --Mika1h (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Multiple box arts is a lesser point. But at least its from the developers and publishers. The main reason why I choose to link to MobyGames is that it provides individual credits. This is a lot more useful and encyclopedic than 100% collection guides written by people overly fond of ASCII art on CNET, or movelists on StrategyWiki. - hahnchen 16:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Mobygames doesn't offer any special information or resources. I mean, the only thing it has usually are a few screenshots. So what? By the same principles, the media sections of games on IGN should be linked. If the average reader wanted that, then they could easily search for it on Google. But it gets credit because the screenshots and staff credits are all collated on the same page. Such information can be attained anywhere in separate form. The worst of it is when the pages are linked indiscriminately at the bottom of every page. Yes, I realise that "it does no harm", but external links are supposed to be kept to a minimum, so why have that page when it's of minimal use? Then to mark it all off, you get these users whose sole purpose on here is to implement these links, and then revert anyone who disagrees. Rant over. Ashnard Talk Contribs 14:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I know exactly what you mean by that last bit, we had that come up with the Street Fighter IV page where one fellow insisted on linking to his StrategyWiki page on it. And he really *really* fought with long winded posts to keep it, even though the simple point was "game isn't done, could change, guide not needed yet." It was a pain in the butt.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Probaby the same person linked StrategyWiki on Super Smash Bros. Melee. I reverted him once, but he replied with some bitter edit summary. I should have reverted him again, but I can't really be bothered with people like that. Doing so would be committing myself to some two-week debate with a person who won't listen to reason or see beyond their personal affiliations. It shouldn't be that way, but sadly it is. Oh damn, I guess I just assumed bad faith. Ashnard Talk Contribs 14:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Truth be told I honestly assumed and still do that he just put the link up for advertising purposes. It served no other means really. The real problem comes in the manner they're handled: the fact MobyGames and StrategyWiki both have templates would imply to folks they have backing from Wikipedia when they don't. Additionally the better WikiKnowledge links ended up nixed in favor of StrategyWiki by some of these guys...yet the results would end up with 5 or 6 links on the same line to subsections, and wouldn't cover all of them. Isn't pretty.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
If the link to StrategyWiki or Moby does not add anything new, remove it. If someone reinserts it, just warn them about linking for promotional purposes, and they will be blocked if they continue to do so. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the StrategyWiki links came about when all gameguide material was banned from WikiBooks, so a lot of it moved across. I'm more fond of the single guide, GFDL, and link backs to Wikipedia that StrategyWiki has over GameFaqs. Still, I find that some people linking to them on Wikipedia seem overly enthusiastic. - hahnchen 16:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
My personal opinion is that links are just there as a link to prove the games exists, but I prefer to link to for that as I feel it's a better site with better information normally. Govvy (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
GameSpot is just a mirror of GameFAQs. FightingStreet (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
And what you pointed out Govvy is something that should be covered more by references within an article. Whether or not MobyGames lists something is not a good indication if the game exists or not.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note on an argument used above, the fact that MobyGames has some more images is probably moot as we link to the game's official website, which probably contains more visual material anyway. For the rest, it is indeed redundant to the Wikipedia article. Symbol thumbs down.svg User:Krator (t c) 20:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It should be redundant, but we link because sometimes it isn't. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
That's not a valid reason to link, per WP:EL "Links normally to be avoided" include "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." JACOPLANE • 2008-03-16 23:33
OK, to rephrase my comments (and thus, to copy paste someone else's :), "it provides information that Wikipedia doesn't, screenshots, credits, multiple box arts etc". That's what WP:EL is trying to imply, I think - it provides useful info that we don't. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I agree with your rephrased argument :) JACOPLANE • 2008-03-16 23:51

This was discussed to death at the CoI/Noticeboard in August 2007. Please familiarize yourselves with the details of that thread (I attempted a summation in the final subthread).

Is there fresh evidence of mass-adding/spamming the links, and if so, have the person/people adding the links been warned/welcomed with details of WP:EL yet? As suggested everywhere (this thread, that thread, policies, wikiquette, etc) each link should be judged on its own merit; if it adds to, or even just confirms any details in an article, it should be retained. There is no justification for an eradication of the links to that site (nor for displaying such hostility to the site, but that's another kettle of fish).

As a specific quote reply: "... in a lot of cases these linked entries at MobyGames do not contain any actual information about the game at all, since MobyGames depends on the voluntary contributions of its visitors." – in a lot of cases, the Wikipedia article information was sourced from Mobygames. Both Wikipedia and Mobygames rely upon voluntary contributions from visitors.

I will move the 2 template's instructions to a /doc subpage, to make it even clearer when to and when not to add them. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The original post is off base because there is no prohibition whatsoever from linking to commercial sites, like CNN or the Washington Post or near infinity other sites linked to. None. However it is also pretty clear that Moby Games is way, WAY overlinked. A few screenshots or credits don't merit an external link, and NEVER would if that info was on an official site. The bottom line is some Moby games links are very good; some are terrible; and a large mass of them are marginal/questionable that should be looked at on a case by case basis. If someone wanted to look through them all and remove low content ones, that would be fine, but just removing them all because the site makes money is not okay. (The COI spamming is sort of off to the side here. The fact it occured means there are bound to be some poor links that could be removed, but at the same time there is obviously support for these links being useful sometimes.) 2005 (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that my post isn't perfectly worded nor are my facts correct: Last time I checked MobyGames a few months ago there didn't seem to be any info at all (at least for the games I looked up). The links I checked today actually contained a few lines of text, credits, a few screenshots, etc. - However, I also didn't know that WP links to MobyGames on 6000 (!) pages. That is absolutely ridiculous. My impression is that WP is responsible for the growth of MG. Why does MG list the artists and programmers for games and not WP ? DCEvoCE (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
See*/http%3A// Mobygames has existed since 1999. I'm not sure why you assume that Wikipedia is responsible for their growth? Similarly, IMDB has existed since 1990, and Rotten Tomatoes since 1998. Wikipedia since 2001. See also, many of the others in Category:External link templates.
Mobygames also often link back to Wikipedia, which is more than most of the others do. -- Quiddity (talk) 06:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The thing I meant is that by linking to MG for developer credits, WP misses the chance to cover that information.DCEvoCE (talk) 02:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Addendum: I have no problem with MG at all. I just think that the info should be available here and that mass linkage such as those to MG should be avoided. DCEvoCE (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
We link to Mobygames precisely because we cannot include that information here. We don't list all the game credits for Final Fantasy X-2 at Final Fantasy X-2, or the film credits for Pulp Fiction at Pulp Fiction.
MG is currently the closest thing to an imdb for games in existence. Allgame is the only other resource that comes close, but it still has terrible retro coverage. If either of them were as consistently-comprehensive as imdb, they would probably be added to the default game infobox. Make sense? -- Quiddity (talk) 06:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Erm, no...!? And why do you assume that we cannot provide that information here, but have to link to MobyGames on 6000 pages instead ? Either way, it's consensus here (and at any other place the MG links are discussed) that we remove the links asap, so let's get it on. DCEvoCE (talk) 23:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
We do not provide complete listings of credits for films or games because of that's not the job of an encyclopedia, but instead the job of a film or game database. Which is why we link to imdb for every single film. (Did you see how long those lists of credits are, at the Final Fantasy/Pulp Fiction links above? more than 8 screens long... You'll get rapidly reverted if you add a list like that to an article...) The template {{Imdb name}} is used in about 45,000 articles. So is {{Imdb title}}. (Imdb is owned by
There is no current consensus to mass-remove all links, please do not do so.
There is consensus (in general, not just for Mobygames, but any link) that every external link should be evaluated, to determine whether it provides either additional or corroborating information for the article. If it provides corroborating information, that isn't available from a more official site, then move the link into the References section, and/or properly ref-tag the relevant paragraph. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Not really true. If somebody came in here and spammed 100 articles with various links from one website, the proper response would be to NOT evaluate each link, but rather mass revert all of them without even looking. In this case we have a mix of good faith additions and COI and mistaken additions, creating a more difficult problem. No current consensus is required to remove these links, as no consensus was needed to add them. However, given the problematic issue, it would be ideal if someone(s) went through all of them and deleted the bad ones. It would not be inappropriate though to mass delete them. The burden is on those who ADD, not those who delete. The inappropriate addition of many of the links trumps the ham-fisted solution of just deleting them all, followed by individual adding of links in an appropriate way. 2005 (talk) 08:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
You cant just remove the links for simply being there, you have to first look at the edit history, not all mobylinks were added by spammers. Salavat (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I haven't deleted one single link yet. However, I also noticed that consensus on removing all the MobyGames links was made in mid-2007 (that's 9 months ago!), yet there are even more (!) MobyGames links now than back then.
I also noticed something else: - That means Wikipedia does cover developers and game credits. Quiddity: Why do you claim that "we cannot include that information here" when we already do ?
"MG is currently the closest thing to an imdb for games in existence." - I am not here to discuss imdb. I am not happy with all these imdb links either, and I don't want the MobyGames links being referenced to in future cases --- exactly like you do use imdb to defend the MobyGames spam attacks. DCEvoCE (talk) 02:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Nintendo Entertainment Analysis and Development is a company article, not a game article.
As for consensus, that 9 month old discussion started out with a lot of agreement between link-removers, but was later balanced out by context. See also WP:CCC (consensus can change).
I'm not defending the poor link additions, I agree they should be removed. But there are enough useful links that it would do more harm than good to delete them all and start over (as agreed 9 months ago).
You said: "I am not happy with all these imdb links either, and I don't want the MobyGames links being referenced to in future cases". Does this mean you want to delete MobyGames links partially as precedent in order to delete imdb links later on? See my reply to 2005 just below. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Those template IMDb links violate the external links guideline and all should be removed (and are stunningly obnoxious anyway). IMDb links in the external links section are often good, but sometimes IMDb pages are nearly blank (like for some obscure 1930s movie). When nearly blank, the IMDb page should never be linked. It is never appropriate to automatically include a non-offical link. The fact that some people and some sections of the encyclopedia violate guidelines doesn't mean others should. The issue going forward here is pretty straightforward, Moby links should only be added when they merit it. The only issue is how to deal with the thousands of inappropriate links. Just killing them all is a valid option, though individual review would be better. The latter though is not as practical. 2005 (talk) 08:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
If your beef is with external link templates in general, then go start a discussion at the Village pump or Category talk:External link templates to change our precedents/policies/guidelines/etc. Arguing about a large issue like that here, is pointless. Try removing imdb and allmovie from the {{Infobox film}}! (I'm joking, don't. You're in a minority. Users like those links. This is the worldwideweb. Please help to build it, rather than trying to dismantle it.) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I said nothing about templates so let's stay on topic. You are of course wrong about the IMDb links. The external links guideline is clear. External links should be in an external links section, not an infobox. Discussion on the external links guideline makes it even more of a clear consensus. Those IMDb links can be in articles (usually) but they should be at the end of an article, not an infobox. I don't know any user who would think putting external links in multiple places is anything but stupid. It's user friendly to have them all in the same place in each article, and all in the same place in all articles in general. And of course the additional point is automatically linking to a near blank IMDB or all movie page is horribly unhelpful to users. The Film Project is violating the external links guideline, but we aren't here to fight that battle. The issue here is abiding by consensus guidelines, and fixing problems. Also again, there is no need to get consensus to add or remove a link -- unless the specific link becomes contentious and a talk page discussion ensues. So removing thousands of Moby links does not require consensus any more than adding them did. 2005 (talk) 23:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Your very first sentence was "Those template IMDb links violate the external links guideline and all should be removed..."! Read your own words! ;-)
Like I suggested, your latest reply should be somewhere relevant, such as the village pump, or WT:EL, or a different project's talkpage.
Just as a tangential addendum, and because I enjoy pointing them out as being an interesting collection of labels/perspectives, our disagreement could be reduced to m:eventualism vs. m:immediatism. But we shouldn't, because shades of gray are good, and most perspectives should be welcomed here; that's why this site still functions, and is so widely embraced.
Is this thread (concerning mobygames) essentially concluded, if we can agree to calmly disagree, and simply slowly remove bad links - as has current consensus? (I can elucidate on the various separate issues raised by DCEvoCE, or ramble on more about wikiphilosophy, if you really wish.. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 01:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't start being silly now. "Those template IMDb links..." was talking about the infobox, not the templates at the end of page! C'mon, you know what we were talking about so let's leave this nonsense out of this. 2005 (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The edit history should be irrelevant. It's the content that is being linked-to that should be analyzed. If it provides or confirms factual information/detail, that is not available from a more official site, then it is useful. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
While true in a way, some moby games links are no good even if they weren't added by spammers. Some good faith editors have added bad quality links because they thought they were supposed to. Practically removing all the Moby Games links, then having good faith editors re-add ones where appropriate, would not be a bad way to go. 6000 links probably should be a couple hundred. Additionally standard practice on the blacklisting side is to remove all links if the COI spamming has been so egregious, so there is a precednet for just removing them all. At the same time, many of the links have been added in good faith and are appropriate so ideally someone will take a look at each one. Removing them all though is far better than leaving them all; fortunately though, that doesn't have to be the choice. 2005 (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
If you remind yourself of the timeline facts, in the COI/N thread, you'll see that none of the "spammers" at fault knew they were doing anything wrong - they hadn't been notified/warned - and in some cases had been encouraged to use the template years beforehand, eg Flipkin.
There are hundreds of 404 links in our game articles. If anyone is going to go through all the Mobygames links, it'd be nice if they checked all the external links (and references) in each article, at the same time. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Fault or mistaken suggestion is irrelevant. COI additions can and should be removed on sight. Removing other dead links is also irrelevant to this discussion. 2005 (talk) 08:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

In defense of StrategyWiki

I suppose I would be the overly enthusiastic person that you all are referring too. I don't think anything that I say is going to change your opinions on this matter, but I will at least attempt to give this a shot. I am actually the original author of the referred-to content that was once contained on WikiKnowledge. That content was moved to WikiKnowledge when WikiBooks decided to forgo the inclusion of any video game content. And the content which was moved from WikiBooks was initially moved there in the first place when it was determined that move lists were not acceptable content on WP, which I had attempted to add at one point, and was refused.

Look, I know that there are more important things in life, but the enjoyment of wikis is the ability to share information with people, especially information that you happen to be knowledgeable about. I had, and continue to have, a desire to share the video game knowledge that I have with the world. The problem is, WP practically makes that a crime if it's not somewhat academic in nature. And I don't think Ryu's fireball motion, or one of the ninth-key patterns in Pac-Man is ever going to fall under that criteria. As much of a shame as that is, at least we can finally say that that information now has an acceptable home, in StrategyWiki.

Now, ironically, I agree completely with you about Moby Games. It is a commercial entity that operates on some kind of business model, and the information isn't freely editable (although you can contribute information to it to some extent). But the purpose of providing the StrategyWiki links is to inform wiki users that there is an acceptable place to contribute video game information that is deemed unacceptable on WP. Which would you prefer, one harmless link to SW, or the need to constantly revert information that is not permitted by WP's rather stringent standards?

Just try to see it from SW users' point of view. We are as passionate about the information that we have to share as you are about WP's articles. SW was designed to work in cooperation and tandem with WP, under the same theoretical principals, only about a different subject. In that sense, I would really like to see members of the Video game WikiProject embrace SW as opposed to fighting it. I guess I'm getting off my soap box. Let the flaming commence... Plotor (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know you you were responding to, but the Wikipedia doesn't care about the "SW users' point of view". We're building an encyclopedia, period. What some other Wiki does is up to that other wiki, and is completely irrelevant here. 2005 (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Gee, you make a valid point, but try not to be such a dick about it. He explained his views quite politely, I don't see why you were so rude. (talk) 01:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
@2005: he's talking to everyone in the main part of the thread above... @Anonymous: he's not being rude, he's being straightforward. Here's my two bits (this got a lot longer than I thought it would): SW is not-for-profit (i.e. traffic only goes to support the community and the site's hosting costs), under the GFDL (like Wikipedia), and open to anonymous edits. As a fellow admin over there, I agree we shouldn't use Wikipedia to link to SW unless the guide in question actually has pertinent (and "unique") information to 1) stick with WP guidelines and 2) get rid of the idea of "spamming" SW links and to actually make that link mean something (a.k.a. be useful). In some cases its definitely unnecessary, but in others there is content available that will never be allowed on WP, even beyond move lists and gameplay specifics (backstories, credits, cameos, etc.). I'm thinking that WP shouldn't allow SW links unless the SW guide is featured on SW (we only have like 5 at the moment), since that would restrict the number of links on WP and filter out the weak and empty guides (although most of the guides being linked to are pretty well done), to make sure they are actually full of stuff additional to WP. I think a lot of the admins at SW wish to work sort of side by side with WP, like we do with WikiBooks, but it can clearly get out of hand too easily. Anyways, it really comes down to a case by case basis, and I think whoever is linking to SW needs to step back and actually look at what it is providing, BEYOND game guide information, since WP doesn't acknowledge such data anyways. --Notmyhandle (talk) 01:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Under the "What Should be Linked" section, it states "4) Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article..." I feel this includes guides for video games or any other type of game. You'll note that Rubik's Cube has external links to solutions. So why SW over other guides? Simply because it is a wiki under the GFDL, editable by anyone.
Under "Links Normally to be Avoided" section, it states "1) Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." StrategyWiki does not fall under this, as long as the guide has material in it (no linking to guides that aren't complete or near complete, level four or five in StrategyWiki).
Under "Links Normally to be Avoided" section, it states "12) Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Wikis that meet this criteria might also be added to Meta:Interwiki map." You'll note that StrategyWiki is on that map.
It seems to me that if StrategyWiki has a completed guide (level 4 or 5), it should be allowed as an external link on Wikipedia. I also think that there should only be a link to the guide's main page and no other subpage. Any thoughts?--Dukeruckley (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Quick and semi reasonable question that maybe someone will answer: whats the difference between linking to SW and Bulbapedia on every Pokemon article? Evaunit♥666♥ 01:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Pokémon is a relatively young franchise and Bulbapedia only does Wikipedia-style coverage, so their pages stand a good chance of being suitable for linking. Game guides aren't so easy: many games need a lot of explanation, and there are tens of thousands of games with many more released every month! As a result only a small percentage of StrategyWiki guides are in a suitable state. GarrettTalk 08:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've only got two problems with StrategyWiki. First are cases when the target subject isn't even *completed* and it's already being linked. SF4 is a shining example of this: the article by far does not yet need any external strategy information. Secondly are cases where WikiKnowledge links got the axe for four or five individual character links linking to movelists depending on the character's version: this happened heavily in the Street Fighter character articles. And in the process, the links that were switched in actually covered *less* even when combined. There was no reason for it. In most cases in all honesty, if someone needs a guide they'll hit up gamefaqs or an easily readable page that gives all the info preferably in one shot. StategyWiki really isn't that.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

WRT SF4, I simply agree to disagree. I think you would have less beef with SW if we removed the link from SF4, which I'm prepared to do if it would generate some good will in the process. As for the SF characters, I agree that having one link is more desireable than having multiple links, but I contend that your statement of the new links containing less information is not true, as I was the primary author of both the WikiKnowledge content and the improved SW content. If anything, the combination of all the links contain more information, and in a far easier format to understand. I would challenge you to show me where information was lost. But that's not the point of this discussion. Those two arguments aside, can you see the benefit that adding SW links has had in other cases? Such as, for example, the link on the Pac-Man article to the SW guide which contains patterns for different levels, something which would never be allowed on WP, or the link on the The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past article that links to SW's very first featured guide which contains complete maps for every section of the game imaginable, or even the links to some of the lesser Street Fighter characters where content on WP has been reduced to scant descriptions of the characters, while I had to dig through the deleted history of their original pages on WP to find and move the content over. People once thought that material was good enough for WP, and then one day it wasn't, but it's still "alive" now thanks to SW. Truthfully, I wish we could do something about the multiple links. It's just that at SW, we don't have a policy for an article name that doesn't correspond to a released video game, so I can simply make a Ryu or Ken portal. We have something similar. If we actually worked together, we could probably solve that one... but I'm not getting the sense that anyone from WP is actually interested in that just yet. Plotor (talk) 03:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The SF4 link was removed awhile back. You basically had three editors all say to you it was out of place there, so your insistence on it being there was unfounded. As for the rest it's silly trying to discuss it with you: there's no need for a portal or any of that other bull, just a simple one shot page of text with minimal images. SW doesn't even do that. Additionally it isn't WP's job or goal to work together with another wiki unless the guys running the joint decide that. Last I checked it was more necessary to fix what we already have first.
As far as StrategyWiki period, if it fits and does offer better information so be it. But there's that and then there's just being overzealous about it :P And really could you go with a shorter response next time?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Links to incomplete StrategyWiki content (usually completion stages 0 to 2, the same stage format as Wikibooks) should be removed, just as with MobyGames and any other site. Such links don't really help either site and tend to detract from the overall image. GarrettTalk 08:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't typically edit WP articles, particularly because of obstinate attitudes of editors like KFM and 2005, who feel the need to piss on their articles to mark their territory. I've looked at the guides contained on StrategyWiki, and while there's a fair amount of crap on there, the articles that have been linked to from WP are of surprisingly good quality, surpassing the best efforts of GameFAQs by miles (although it's mostly for ancient games). I'm reading this thread, and I have to laugh, because you've got the SW staff reaching out and basically saying, "we'd like to help and work with you," and the WP staff sounding like a broken record because it offends you that someone outside of your organization might have something valuable to contribute. You're all just haters. Quiddity said it best: This is the worldwideweb. Please help to build it, rather than trying to dismantle it. (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)