Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 50

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 45 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 55

Contents

Admin needed

Would one of our Admins be kind enough to sort out the page move problem at List of Sega Mega Drive games ? The article page was moved but the discussion page from the old location (Talk:List of Sega Mega Drive and Sega Genesis games) wasn't - due to one already existing. Thanks - X201 (talk) 10:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - X201 (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Sigh Kariteh (talk) 17:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank (insert your favourite God here) for Global branding at least we won't have aggro like this with PS3 or Xbox. David, can you keep an eye on these two pages in case anything gets broken again, they've been flip-flopping location over night :( - X201 (talk) 08:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I could use some help from an admin. You see, on another Wiki; I'm making a navbox, by copying this, Template:Sonic characters, but it won't work because there isn't a navbox template. And I can't get access to it because I'm not an admin. So I need an admin to copy the needed information to here. [1] Here's the template I'm going for. User:Fairfieldfencer/Sandbox 3.Fairfieldfencer FFF 13:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.Fairfieldfencer FFF 08:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but now I need the details for Template:Tnavbar. [2]Fairfieldfencer FFF 08:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you just copy-paste the code? Kariteh (talk) 10:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Because I'm not an Admin, so I can't get access to the details.Fairfieldfencer FFF 11:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Really? I'm not one either but the View source link still gives me the template code. Kariteh (talk) 11:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Well I didn't know that. Still not working. [3] Any idea what's wrong with it?Fairfieldfencer FFF 11:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how to fix it but it seems this wikia has HTML tags disabled. Kariteh (talk) 11:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. But since that method wasn't working I had to compromise.Fairfieldfencer FFF 13:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

TFA heads-up

Guitar Hero (video game) will be Today's Featured Article on July 16th. Particularly after the rather weak announcements at E3 about Guitar Hero compared to Rock Band's spiel, I'm expecting a bit of heavy vandalism. Help definitely appreciated to keep this down to a minimum. --MASEM 20:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Watchlisted. By the way, can everyone not nominate any video game articles for TFA for the next month or so? Under the new points system, Myst would get hammered by a video game TFA later than Guitar Hero. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
What?! I want Call of Duty 4 up there. Gary King (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I strongly recommend not putting forward VG articles to TFA until it is a significant anniversary. Myst would be 15 this year in September (Which should help it), and I'm trying to make sure Grim Fandango is ready for a October 30 or November 2 TFA on its 10 year anniversary. The Guitar Hero article was only randomly picked from all FAs for this day coming up, and I would recommend just waiting to see if COD4 gets a random slot. --MASEM 21:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
CoD4 is for November 6, its one year anniversary, if possible. Gary King (talk) 21:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at the point system used to substitute in queues. Basically, a video game article is likely going to get the -2 points to start with just as the run of the mill aspect. Thus, it's necessary to offset that with important anniversaries, which both Myst and Grim Fandango will get, while COD4 will not (just 1 point). In other words, it's going to start with negative points and thus be easily removed by a second request. --MASEM 21:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I know; I've got Noble gas lined up for next month. Gary King (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to get The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time up on 21 November—it's the ten-year anniversary of its original release. It's heavily influential, but there's unfortunately no weighting for that under the point system. Pagrashtak 21:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
For GR, October 30 would be more than a month from Myst, so that wouldn't result in a deduction of points (unless Raul picks a video game in the meantime.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
If GR goes October 30 for 10yr, OoT will get a -2 pts for being within a month (but more than 2 weeks). +2 for 10 yr anniversary, so the question is, to Pagrashtak, would this be your first FAC, as that will give it another point... --MASEM 19:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
First one I've nominated, yes. Although I don't think one point will cut it. Pagrashtak 05:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

(←) Ok, given that OoT is "Top" importance, and GF is only "Mid", I've no problem holding off on GF; as long as no other VG article is put up after Myst, OoT should be getting 3 pts then sufficient to keep it on the nom list. --MASEM 21:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Raccoon city Merger Proposal

There is a proposed merge of Raccoon City to Resident Evil. The WP:PLOT content from Raccoon City has mostly been removed and the article has been brought in line with WP:WAF. However, some concern remains as to the notability of this article by itself--most of the references refer to Raccoon City only briefly when discussing portions of the Resident Evil franchise. The most recent AfD can provide some added justification for or against such a merger. This notice has been placed on the project talk page in order to bring more eyes to this proposal and find a wider consensus on the merger itself. Thank you. Protonk (talk) 02:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The first step is probably to merge in The Hive (Resident Evil). Then we'll see if there's enough information that complies with WP:NOT in order to form a notable article. This article by itself should definitely be merged. But combined with The Hive, it might make the overall Racoon City a higher quality article. Randomran (talk) 02:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes. That would be a good idea. Fire away. ZeroGiga (talk) 04:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
It was a crazy mess when I got there, but The Hive (Resident Evil) needs to be cleaned up before a merge is appropriate. We'll need someone who is good at distinguishing excessive in-universe information from a concise summary of the location's significance to the plot and the series. Randomran (talk) 05:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Would this suffice? Jappalang (talk) 06:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Good work! Protonk took it a step further. Do you think he goes too far? I'm willing to go with whatever you guys decide. We'll complete the merge in a day, just to leave room for reverts and complaints. Randomran (talk) 07:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I took the bold step to re-insert my changes and edited the article further. There was a problem with taking only the lead; it had trivial information (a connection between in-universe locations and mentions of AI), unreliable sources (IMdB), and information that did not appear in the references. In any event, when merging, the mergist has to look through the article further and use relevant information in the target, leaving out any redundant or repetitive information. Jappalang (talk) 08:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  • This is another stubbing attempt. Sorry about chopping out too much of the wrong stuff last time. Either way, a merger doesn't specifically require merging only the content on the last revision of the article page, so we can still grab detail that wouldn't be on a live page on a standalone article to merge into the main article. Protonk (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
No problems here as I understand your intentions, and your subsequent summary was a better job. Jappalang (talk) 01:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I finished a merge of the hive to Raccoon City, and I erred on the side of more information before the full-out stubbing. Take a look at the article. Is a clean-up still necessary? Is a merge still necessary? I think this article is decently written, and it might be possible to reference it with reliable secondary sources. But I'll go with the flow on this. Randomran (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Clean-up is still necessary as there some repetitions (regarding the filming location). I will give it a copyedit and let us move on from there. Jappalang (talk) 01:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I have cleaned up the article. Take a look and discuss. Jappalang (talk) 02:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Good job. Let's take this discussion to the resident evil pages. Randomran (talk) 03:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

History fix please?

In a move of Rhythm Tengoku Gold to Rhythm Heaven, an editor created the latter article and redirected the former to it, without moving, causing split histories. Could an admin merge them together? - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I don't have this right, but it looks like this isn't a copy and paste move. As far as I can tell, the pages were created independently, and both existed with different content before Yottamol redirected one to the other. This should be handled like a page merge and doesn't require a history merge if I understand this correctly. Side note: by coincidence, I moved one of these pages back in 2006! Pagrashtak 04:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
A merger of content does require a history merge, according to GFDL. It is necessary to see the edits of every editor that contributed, legally. JohnnyMrNinja 06:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but you're mistaken. See Help:Merging and moving pages. You can see all edits without merging histories. Pagrashtak 14:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  • It appears this is  Done but in the future feel free to drop by my talk page for any VG related admin-help you need. –xeno (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Mario Power Tennis

This is really a hopeless plea since I've already checked Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Magazines, but if anyone has any material regarding Mario Power Tennis by a published source, please let me know. Cheers. Ashnard Talk Contribs 09:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Building better plot summaries

I've worked up a potential guideline on how to write plot summaries at Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary. I welcome input from members of this project as I try to move the page to guideline status. Thanks. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I had a glance through the article, and my thought was "This is very good, but a bit wordy in some parts." Some summarizing might be needed. A bit of an irony, perhaps? Jappalang (talk) 00:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd definitely prefer bulleted points. WP:MOS does this pretty well. Gary King (talk) 00:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I considered the bulleted approach, but decided that we have plenty of bulleted lists about what we expect from plot summaries. I wanted less a style guide than a short lesson on how to go about the process. Which required a different approach. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I would like to add that the case study is a brilliant idea. Illustrating the ideas is usually more useful than trying to explain them in detail. I wonder if another case study can be added. Jappalang (talk) 02:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Nothing makes a point like an excellent example, so perhaps links to examples could be provided on the page. Gary King (talk) 02:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
That might work. It might also work to create case studies for individual WikiProjects that deal with some of the particulars of the medium - video games, for instance, have some very particular issues of summaries. Whether this is best handled through exemplary examples (i.e. "for a good video game summary, see...") or via creating pages that can be linked to from the main page I don't know. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

iPhone games

Shouldn't we have a list of games - or at the very least a category for iPhone/iPod Touch games? A huge amount of games (160+) have already launched with the iTunes App Store including notable ones like Super Monkeyball, Ms. Pac-Man, Crash Bandicoot, Bomberman, Bejeweled, etc. It seems wrong to completely ignore this especially when there's iPod games and Category:iPod games. SeanMooney (talk) 07:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Very true, I think {{Category:App Store Games}} or {{Category:Apple App Store Games}} would be the way to go, as it avoids the duplicate entries that would exist if an iPhone and iTouch categories were used. Fin© 10:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what is meant by duplicate entries -- you mean that there would be a category for both iPhone and iPod? I'm not familiar with the platforms, but if you're saying that games for them can be run on either/or, the category can simply be called Category:iPhone and iPod games. Game categories based on the vendor are generally seen as product catalogs and those have historically been deleted (e.g. Steam, Gametap). Ham Pastrami (talk) 23:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
How about Category:iPhone OS games? Both the iPhone and iPod Touch share the same OS and that seems like a good way to list things and would avoid duplicates or a long category name. SeanMooney (talk) 23:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Apple has official dubbed the OS on the iPhone and iPod touch "OS X Mobile". So either {{Category:Apple App Store games}} as suggested above or {{Category:OS X Mobile games}} would be appropriate. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 00:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
If you can verify the "OS X Mobile" moniker that would be fine, but otherwise I'd go with "iPhone OS" as suggested by Sean. Ham Pastrami (talk) 10:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, they called it "OS X iPhone" according a banner flown by Apple during WWDC 2008. On their website Apple only refers to the OS as "iPhone software". So perhaps {{Category:OS X iPhone games}}, {{Category:iPhone games}}, or (going by how the apps are distributed), {{Category:iTunes Store games}} ...which could include the previous iPod classic/3G nano/iPod with video games as well. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 10:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay - it's not a guarantee that games will work on both iPhone and iTouch, due to the differing capabilities (camera, GPS, GSM of iPhone), which is why I suggested the App Store category - this would cover scenarios where the game would run on one but not the other. Fin© 23:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
That's why I changed one of my suggestions to {{Category:iTunes Store games}}, to be inclusive to pre-App Store games for the classic/nano/video iPods. Seeing as many iPod game articles exist but are somewhat scattered. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 06:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Excellent point, I think that's our winner. Fin© 10:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
So would the existing iPod games category be included inside Category:iTunes Store games or would the two be merged? Kariteh (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If needed, {{Category:iPod games}} and {{Category:App Store games}} could be sub-categories. For now, there probably aren't enough articles to justify that though. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 06:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Arcade games

I have requested that Wikipedia:WikiProject Arcade games be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Arcade as a task force under WP:VG. It is a mostly inactive WikiProject, and it was initially created because WP:CVG covered computer and video games, not arcade games. WP:CVG has been restructured as WP:VG, which now covers arcade games, and is likely where interested editors are heading. Moving this project to a task force of WP:VG will cut down the overlap, and possibly revitalize interest. It will also allow use of the well-developed WP:VG features, such as the assessment scale and peer reviews. Please comment here. - JohnnyMrNinja 16:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't cover all arcade games, do we? Isn't pinball an arcade game, but not a video game? Pagrashtak 05:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
That would go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pinball. JohnnyMrNinja 05:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
So the arcade game task force would not cover all arcade games, then? Pagrashtak 14:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Pinball isn't often referred to as an "arcade game", its a game found in arcades, just as skeeball and air hockey. To be clear, the task force would cover arcade video games (as it has). Similarly, the task force would not cover children, stoners, or crap plastic figurines of Powerpuff Girls that fall apart two days later, which can also be found in arcades. JohnnyMrNinja 04:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, it's not an arcade game, just a game in an arcade. Did you type that with a straight face? Right in the lead at arcade game we have "Most arcade games are redemption games, merchandisers, video games or pinball machines." Maybe you should recast it as a video arcade task force. Pagrashtak 06:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Also in arcade game, the first thing it says is "This article needs additional citations for verification." Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. As it would be called WikiProject Video Games Arcade Task Force, I don't know that further specification is needed. In any case, if it is felt that moving this project to a task force would be in any way counter-productive, or for any further comment about this move, please join the discussion there. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 04:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to be awkward - Where does this leave video pinball? - X201 (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

What's that? Someoneanother 21:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
As a compromise, nobody is allowed to cover video pinball articles. They would all be deleted. JohnnyMrNinja 04:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
A forthright but fair policy. :) - X201 (talk) 08:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Chronology?

Hey everyone, I haven't checked into this group before, so I don't know if this has been brought up, but would it at all be possible to add chronology sections in a game's infobox? I'm thinking something very much like what albums have now. Or even better, some articles could have two, like some singles; One for in-world chronology, and another for real-life chronology. (For instance, Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater would come before Metal Gear Solid: Portable Ops in the in-game chronology, but would come after Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty in the real-life chronology). Again, this is just an idea, and I don't know if it's been brought up before, but it's just something that I thought would add an extra degree of depth and usability to several game pages. Thanks! Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 22:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Too in-universe for the infobox. It will also cause problems when games in a series have overlapping timelines. Much better off conveying this information in prose IMO. For the real-world chronology, I think between the series article and navboxes, we already have a better solution. People who want to see a list of games in the series can skip to any game they want via the navbox, and those interested in the actual chronology get the whole thing in one article instead of having to follow a chain of articles. Ham Pastrami (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I can see what you mean concerning the in-universe timelines, but I'm still not convinced that real-life chronology wouldn't be a useful addition. A lot of smaller series don't have navboxes, and even with the larger series it wouldn't be detrimental to the article, and could only help. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 01:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Agree that the in-universe timeline doesn't belong. As for "real-life chronology", you mean the games released immediately before and after? That's been shot down several times. The infobox is already very large, series with few games probably wouldn't benefit too much from it, those with many games will already have the information in a navbox in greater context and scope, and the order isn't always clear. For example, do spin-offs count? Pagrashtak 05:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't see that as much of a problem. For one, the "chronology" portion is incredibly small, and would hardly add any space to the infobox, while adding quite a bit of usability. Also, spin-offs would count, as they are still a part of that series. I can also see it helping quite a bit for series with differently named games, such as the Castle Shikigami series. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 23:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Pokemon Cruft?

Hey, i know theres been abit of cruft talk floating around, so on the same subject ive come across these articles (there may be more could only find these 3):

Now i dont know how to go about dealing with these articles but if someone can jump in and sort it out that would be kool. Salavat (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

  • I think you're right that this is cruft. All three are of questionable notability. And the first two -- listing pokemon by stage and by move -- verges on WP:GAMEGUIDE material. All of them potentially violate points 3 through 6 of the VG guidelines on appropriate content. And those guidelines are backed by important policy like WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:NOT#GUIDE, and weight based on importance. By most guidelines and policies, it looks to be cruft. I guess we should find out in an AFD. I recommend taking on the items first, and then we'll look at the list of moves and pokemon by stage later. Randomran (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
    • The moves article is a textbook example of strategy guide material that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Prodded. Pagrashtak 17:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I just went to list List of Pokemon items for deletion and it turns out that there already was a discussion previously (previous discussion), what should i do now Salavat (talk) 02:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Looks like there was no consensus. The article hasn't improved to address the concerns, so nominating it for a second time would not be out of the question. But it might help you to read the previous deletion discussion to see both sides of the argument and decide if it's truly worth nominating it again. Keep in mind: Insert the {{afd}} tag at the top of the article if it's the article's first AfD nomination, if the article has been nominated for deletion before use {{afdx}} instead. Randomran (talk) 03:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

List of Items is now up for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pokémon items (2nd nomination). Also A Man In Black redirected "List of Pokémon by stage" should the talk page be redirected to? Salavat (talk) 04:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

At least remove the assessment templates so the redirect no longer shows up in the 1.0 lists as an article. I've done this already, but I'm just saying for future reference. Nifboy (talk) 05:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

How's this for a category? Category:Pokémon video game mechanics Pagrashtak 06:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The article Pokémon types looks a bit suss, dont no about the other ones though. Salavat (talk) 07:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Nominated "Pokémon types" for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokémon types (3rd nomination). Salavat (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit request

Can I get someone fresh to take a look at The World Ends with You to address some of the problems addressed here for its featured article review? --MASEM 05:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I have reorganized the lead, but do not wish to read the rest as I have not played the game. Could someone else help copy-edit further? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Database format

I've been working with several lists lately and have found the work to be rather tiresome. I was wondering if the basic information about a game, of which the infoboxes are mostly comprised of, could be stored as database items in subpages to each article. This information could then be fed into templates when needed. As an example, the article "Tetris" might have a subpage "Tetris/Release date", and the contents of this subpage could then be automatically fed into a template or table. This would add a lot of flexibility to how we display information in lists/tables/etc. SharkD (talk) 07:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked in too much detail, but maybe it could be modeled after templates such as this: Template:Country data France. In this case, the template AFAIK is only used for flag images, but could be extended in our case to include other details as well. SharkD (talk) 02:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Naming conventions for CVGs

Quite a few editors contend that articles on CVGs buck the trend of WP:NAME - for example, they contend that Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots should be in Metal Gear Solid 4 instead (following existing convention on books). We're having an WT:NAME#RFC: Subtitles in naming on it, and it would be nice to give the project's viewpoints to this matter. kelvSYC (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ugh...where is the discussion? I only see a fight. Kariteh (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
My preferred naming conventions are "STOP MOVING IT" and "redirects are cheap, and also your friends." Nifboy (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. However, from personal experience I believe that subtitles are in the title more often than not. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is one that I've worked on heavily and never understand why we need the subtitle in the title, but then again it doesn't bother me at all – as long as typing in Call of Duty 4 or CoD4 gets me to the same place, then it doesn't matter to me. Gary King (talk) 05:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

WALL-E (video game)#Reception

Hello, I'm about to go deeper into my vacation and will become alot less active. I want to write the reception section on WALL-E (video game) but I wont have time. Can someone with experience of writing reception please write the section. I would really apreciate it. Thanks. King Rock (Gears of War) 18:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed the under construction tag because the article hadn't been edited in a while. Feel free to re-add again if necessary though. Gary King (talk) 08:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Street Fighter IV

Just a shout, but at this point it could use a copyedit from anyone unfamiliar to the subject to tidy it up. For anyone else just interested in fixing the articles, I've posted a list of things that need fixing or citing here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been through it, although I'm unsure about how some of the terms (like "Super" and "Ultra") should be capitalised. Haipa Doragon (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

List of NES games split/merger discussions

I just want to let everyone know that I have proposed two splits — one for unlicensed NES titles and another one for Europe–only titles — as well as a proposal that all titles on the Famicom list that were released outside of Japan be merged into the NES list. The main purpose of all this is to eliminate any redundancies in the Famicom and NES lists as well as to help reduce the size of the two big lists. Input would be greatly appreciated. If you would like to comment on the discussions, please go to the talk page here. MuZemike (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

What's with the obsession with splitting lists into millions of smaller ones? I see "Europe-only list"? I counted, what, about 16 games that are Europe-only? Anyway, if you look at the list, there's a LOT that can be dropped. # of players? Japanese titles? Developer AND publisher? Seriously? - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreed with Link. The list needs better maintenance, and the Famicom merger suggestion is silly if you know the hardware.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I've been following what was used for the List of Nintendo 64 games, which was an FA/FL. If we drop everything, we might as well just delete the article, because it would be nothing more than a category list. Then we would be at that discussion again about whether or not to have lists when we already have categories. MuZemike (talk) 01:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
In addition, surely the List of Virtual Boy games, List of Nintendo DS games (which have even more info than what I now have in the NES list), List of Game Boy Advance games, List of Nintendo GameCube games, List of Playstation 2 games, and even the List of Sega Master System games all have this information (that's only a few such lists, there are more with just that information). Why cannot NES have the same thing, or are all these mentioned lists wrong?
I may concede with the number of players bit, however, but I argue that some know some of these games only by other titles according to region. MuZemike (talk) 01:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  1. When the articles get too big, we reduce the size before proposing a split. The information is extremely excessive, and just because other lists seem to need to list every detail about the game doesn't mean this should.
  2. The list only needs other English titles, and doesn't need its own column for that. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd argue further, but you might be right. I got rid of the "Number of Players" and "Alternate Titles" and got rid of the wikilinks in the region codes, and was able to reduce the size of the list from 115KB to 80KB. MuZemike (talk) 04:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yumi's Odd Odyssey (Umihara Kawase Portable)

Ok, so at E3 it was announced that Umihara Kawase for PSP would be ported to the US (under the title of Yumi's Odd Odyssey). Natually, this should garner more eyes to its article -- which has for a while been a real small blurb. I added a quick and dirty info (and redirect), but a bit earlier today an IP added a paragraph about the "many bug" and such, written in a bit less than NPOV and slightly weasily manner, but what's worse is that the 'source' for it is a Japanese Wiki. I assume that's not an RS, but I thought I'd give a shout out to other VGers who might be able to help with this much more than I. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Gameplay terminology cruft

Anyone want to try salvaging these articles? Some might have a chance if someone can find sources and perform cleanup.

Game guides:

Dicdefs:

That's A-G. More to follow. Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I can expand Ghost (video games), but it'll involve citing my own academic research on the matter. Unpublished, but presented at a conference for which there are online proceedings... thoughts? Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Mm. Might as well. It's better than nothing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Section added. Please have a look and check for COI and the like. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sold on the idea of an unpublished academic paper in the article, the idea of player-epsilon is not widespread. There is a pretty good article on the ghost car and software patents at Gamasutra.[4] - hahnchen 12:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Few academic ideas about video games are "widespread." The question of whether a conference paper collected in proceedings ought to go into an article is an open one - generally speaking, I think it's not ideal, but on the other hand think that academic criticism sections are worth including whenever possible Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Desync doesn't appear to be solely video game-related; rather it's a networking-related term. The hijacking of the term for video games is probably due to the fact that it is encountered there more often by the average teenager than in other applications. "Ganking" and "Gimp" are also rather common. I've never encountered the others, though. SharkD (talk) 04:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of ghost, I am reminded me of this PopSci article which is probably completely irrelevant but still awesome. Nifboy (talk) 05:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
There is a subtle difference between ganking and griefer which I don't care to go into here, so I think a merge to griefer might be appropriate... Other than that, those already redirected were probably appropriate. I would suggest redirecting "Defense" to the disambig and defining it briefly there. "Cooldown" is different than DpS similarly; that's one I'd probably define briefly in a different "damage" type article, rather than at DPS, as it also applies in real time strategy as well as RPGs (I'd even say it applies in FPSes as well, as each weapon has recoil). Fall damage can probably be cited, as that's applicable to many genres as well. Never heard of the term "gibs", though I have heard of "instagibbing"... probably a redirect to a remains-of-body-parts article, which I'm sure there is one. Conquest is an almost capture the flag situation, except there are usually several flags and the flags don't move, so possibly a redirect to CtF.
Bombing Run could use a redirect to it's real life connotation (an aircraft bombing mission), and the text transwikied, as that's one I've not heard of before. The others I haven't commented on I'm fine with previous discussion on them. --Izno (talk) 05:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Bombing Run is one of Unreal Tournament's less popular game modes. Some of this is mildly interesting to an Unreal player, but I really don't think it's worthy of its own article. Redirect to the aircraft alternative. Miremare 14:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Looking through this, Fall Damage could probably be outright deleted, since it equates to "sometimes you fall and get hurt, sometimes you don't". It's really a term that doesn't need explanation since if a game article is done right, it'll explain that aspect in its own article anyway.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I took a look through Category:Video game gameplay, and a lot of the terms in there are simply dictionary definitions and buzzwords, which will disappear from fad usage with time. A fair number are indiscriminate splitting of content (Spawn camping and Spawn point can be merged into Spawning (computer gaming)). Jappalang (talk) 06:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

How would one go about working on an article for individuals in the industry?

I'm going out on a tangent from my tangent to the Doom series, from several other tangents (I really need to stop doing this, ah well, after this one I'll stop), to try and improve the article on Chris Metzen, one of Blizzard's chief developers. However, I frankly have no idea how to go about it. The best article I can find off-hand is Martin O'Donnell, and although its somewhat helpful, he's a composer more than a game designer. I'd appreciate any clues as to how to put together the article and more importantly, where to look for sources. I'm struggling to find his date of birth.

This interview is as good as I've found so far, giving some background information, inspirations, a few hobbies, how he ended up at Blizzard, but one source isn't sufficient. Unfortunately, Blizzard don't seem to have a part of their site dedicated to brief profiles for their key employees, unlike companies such as Valve and Bungie. -- Sabre (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I have found this interview. Birthdates are difficult to find on the Web; have you tried searching within Google Books, maybe? Weirdo with a Beardo (talk) 21:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
That source should hopefully help, thanks. Unfortunately as an author, Metzen's results on Google Books are his own novels and writings. The few secondary sources only mention him in fleeting in an interview with Mike Morraine on Morraine's role as lead designer with Warcraft III and interaction with Metzen for the story side of things. I've got a question about acquiring free images: I've got site where I may be able to get a free, user created photo of Mr. Metzen from, do I just mail the site operator and ask if I can use it under the GNU license and upload it to Wikipedia with that license template? Is it that easy, or is there something else I'm missing? -- Sabre (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, you have to correspond with the owner and send proof of his or her agreement (via email or snail-mail) to release the photos as public domain or the appropriate Creative Commons license to the relevant authorities at Wikimedia. Jappalang (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Bah humbug. I hate bureaucracy. It isn't necessary to do it at the Commons is it? I thought free images could happily be uploaded here, and then later migrated over to the Commons if necessary. -- Sabre (talk) 22:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC). -- Sabre (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I doubt it. You are claiming that someone agreed to release the photo's copyright, and Wikipedia would need that as a proof. This page would be the page for uploading files belonging to others (accessed through the simpler interface); it specifically states:
If the copyright holder agrees to release the image under a free license such as the GFDL, please forward that letter to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org" if it is not apparent from the source URL of the image. This ensures that the Wikipedia Foundation has a record of the license in case questions should arise at a later time.
Unless the page the photo exists at specifically states "public domain" or CC, you would have to supply a letter. Jappalang (talk) 22:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Proof's not an issue, I can forward emails easily to whereever they need to go. I just want to see if there's a way I can do this without registering at the Commons. -- Sabre (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
There is, if registering for commons is such a big issue for you :) Send the email to OTRS, and then I'll deal with the ticket on OTRS for you and upload the image. Read commons:Commons:OTRSJACOPLANE • 2008-07-20 23:45
There's also Frank Klepacki, who is also a composer. JACOPLANE • 2008-07-20 23:05

Gizmondo

I have split Tiger Telematics company page away from the Gizmondo console page. I just need some people who knows more about it to check the right things are on the right article, and in the correct order. Wongm (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent rash of AfDs, biting newcomers

There has been two recent articles that I have noticed that has been extremely quickly nominated for deletion right after its creation — including one of them about 45 minutes after its creation. In addition, one of those editors has apparently been scared off as a result.

I know there are certain guidelines to follow for all users, but we need to relax on those first-timers and not feriociously breathe down their necks before biting them. I have gone through hundreds and hundreds of substandard video game articles alone, and I certainly know I cannot cleanup all of the mess (nor can any of us) myself. We cannot scare away newcomers from editing when they have the potential to do some good to the community. In other words, we need as many new people as we can to better improve the thousands of video game articles that can be described as train wrecks at best. Scaring them away and biting them does not help this cause at all. MuZemike (talk) 03:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I've seen so vicious things in those AFDs said to newcomers. I think we should at least give an article(thats not vandalism)3 days to develope before deleting. King Rock (Gears of War) 04:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Was this newcomer driven away by the speed of the AFD nomination (assuming this is AFD), or the treatment received at the AFD? Pagrashtak 04:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Does he have to be. Wether he was or not, it's wrong to make a AFD a hour after an article is created. Thats a big bite on the butt. King Rock (Gears of War) 04:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
No, leaving a rude message on a new user's talk page or joking about how awful or stupid he is (or appears to be) in an AFD/prod is biting. Prodding/AFDing/marking for speedy a new article that will obviously not stand and leaving a polite message informing the user why the article was not appropriate for Wikipedia and suggestions for how he might contribute in a manner more harmonized with Wikipedia policy is certainly not biting. It's clearing bad content from Wikipedia and helping someone become a valued editor. I have no idea what happened in this particular situation, but there's no need to postpone article deletion if you can go about it in a constructive manner. Pagrashtak 04:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay. King Rock (Gears of War) 04:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it does. It discourages that editor from doing anything again, which this AfD nomination has accomplished. It's almost like we're treating vandals better than we do good-faith newcomers. MuZemike (talk) 06:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I have to disagree with this characterization of the 45-min debate. Both the nomination and the talk page messages were perfectly civil and courteous; the article's author attacked the nom for his expediency, apparently unaware that new pages are regularly patrolled, and basically inferring that the article was being victimized by prejudicial targeting. I don't know the other debate you are referring to, but I don't consider this case to be an example of biting. We can't refrain from nominating untenable articles just to spare the feelings of the author. Ham Pastrami (talk) 05:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not questioning the civility or courteousness of the nomination; I'm sure the bot did its job, and the user employed the bot in good faith. However, I do not blame the article's author for lashing back at the nominator because of the such short notice. MuZemike (talk) 06:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

You can be civil about everything and still be biting a newcomer. This discourages new editors and prevents them the opportunity to improve themselves. I have already seen many unreferenced articles that say nothing else but XYZ is a Nintendo game that have been kept, but yet someone who puts out over a page's worth of information is lashed at less than an hour after the person created the page. I see a double-standard with how articles are kept or are deleted here. MuZemike (talk) 06:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there, like, some context to go with this? 'Cause I see a bunch of sweeping and largely empty statements. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Deletion, most likely Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mana World, where I've already stated my opinion (informing the newbie immediately is the most preferable option). Nifboy (talk) 06:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry that I did not put it up earlier. On the other side of the token, we have articles such as Best of the Best Championship Karate, Conan: The Mysteries of Time, and Race America that are kept for lower reasons that I am unaware of (the former which I nominated for AfD and was immediately shot down as well as being lashed at myself). That's why I claim a double-standard. Certain newcomers get away with the most minimal of non-notable stubs, while others are chastised for articles that may say more than that. MuZemike (talk) 07:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I think Gears of War is right, we should let articles develop for 3 days or so before prodding them or nominating them for deletion (unless they're obvious non-sense or something). The articles can be tagged with notability and Articleissues templates before that, but there is no WP:DEADLINE, and who would have thought that something like Final Fantasy VII (Famicom) would have become a Good Article? Kariteh (talk) 08:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry -- nobody is going to institute any kind of limitation on this topic. Articles about fan-created projects are rarely notable. Andre (talk) 08:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
The fact that the user was informed about Wikpedia's notability and sourcing policies just 4 minutes before the article was nominated for deletion (less than an hour after creation) seems very harsh and extreme to me. That seems to be the main concern here. --.:Alex:. 09:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I've no problem with the AfD coming less than an hour after its creation - the fact is, the article is not notable. AfDs aren't like speedys either, the user has ample time to correct source and reference the article, to establish notability. If that isn't done, then the article should be deleted. Saying a specified amount of time should be waited before AfDing a worthless article is basically saying you can create a useless article, but don't worry, we won't police it for three days. Fin© 11:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
An article at AFD has a minimum of five days to find just one source to show notability. In unclear cases, it will have longer. If someone notices a new article on a non-notable subject, I see no reason why the five-day countdown needs to be delayed. Pagrashtak 13:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that we should not always jump on making AfD nominations prematurely per User:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy, Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built, Wikipedia:Give an article a chance, and Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state. Many an article has taken longer than a mere five days to adequately improve. --Happy Bastille Day! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I think you can stop citing those essays here, per WP:WEVEALLALREADYREADTHEM, Le Roi. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
That's okay, as while you may have, newer members of the project have not necessarily done so. The key is to encourage more efforts to improve the articles in question first as AfD need to be used as a last resort, i.e. when efforts to expand, then merge, then redirect, then transwiki, etc. have been tried and exhausted. --Happy Bastille Day! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Do you cite these for Eggman Nega, which has not been improved in any substantial way since the first AfD a while back? And may I ask how the work on the article is going? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I can't speak for everyone, but I would never delete an article simply because it is short. I will, however, argue to delete an article on a non-notable subject, whether short or long. When an article is sent to AFD, editors have a minimum of five days to find one reliable independent source to demonstrate notability. I don't think that's asking too much. You don't have to flesh out the article, you don't have to properly cite the source in the article, heck—you don't even have to put the source in the article at all! Just show the source to me and the AFD and the article will stay. Those essays never really address this point. Is there a counter-essay along the lines of Wikipedia:Do demolish the house while it's still being built if the house is non-notable and no one can find any reliable lumber (sources) to which I can point? Pagrashtak 18:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Five days in insufficient time on a volunteer project. Not everyone who works on articles edit every single week; and not all valuable sources are found on Google. --Happy Bastille Day! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Erm, just to point out, you also have never edited the Crash of the Titans article. It seems that if an article gets deleted, you don't bother to change it. No coincidence that you haven't edited Eggman Nega since it was kept. Just curious, is there any case where you actually cleaned up an article to the point that its notability was establish, thusly helping it survive AfD? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Odd comment given User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Archive 26#Slappy the Dummy and User talk:Keeper76/Archive 9#User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles.2FCassie Keller among many, many others... --Happy Festival of Castor and Pollux! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
That's exactly it; the time spent arguing to delete the articles creating discussions even longer than the articles themselves is time lost on actually improving the articles in question. Thus, instead of having articles that obviously some members of our community find appropriate, we instead have all sorts of deletion discussions. --Happy Bastille Day! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Le Grand here. Even the guidelines for AfD spell out the need to exhaust all other possibilities before deletion (see WP:BEFORE). I have seen many AfDs end with the articles being merged or redirected. That stuff can be done without even nominating the article for AfD in the first place. I think we (I'm also guilty of not doing the same thing.) need to do the necessary homework and determine all other venues (i.e. Merge, redirect, cleanup, or even proposed/speedy deletion) before we go right to AfD. MuZemike (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

While I don't think anyone has technically done anything wrong, I do have some mixed feelings on this topic. There are two main issues: destroying the house while it's being built, and biting newcomers.

  • You shouldn't destroy the house while it's being built, and I believe that very few articles should be AFD'd right away: they always deserve a shot at being improved. And yet, it's obvious that the people who nominated this AFD actually did the legwork and drew a reasonably safe conclusion that this game is simply not notable, and isn't worthy of inclusion in wikipedia (although as the game becomes more notable, maybe one day it will).
  • Nobody has actually "bitten" a newcomer. Nobody has taken a dump on their user page, or kicked them in the lower spine and said "don't come back", or called them a blubbering vulva. An AFD is just an AFD, and people need to accept that a criticism of their edits is not a personal attack. But in an ideal world, we'd all make a greater effort to teach newbies about policy and guidelines and integrate them into the wikipedia community. As wikipedia has become more and more dependent on guidelines and policy (it used to be that a well-written article was enough for FA-status, and now research is king), it has become harder and harder for people to just join up and fit in. There's no more "shallow end" in wikipedia, and if we want this project to grow there has to be editors willing to guide newbies through the deep. I just don't have the time to do that. I wish I did. I just don't. But we need to at least think about this problem in the long run.

So while an AFD can always be justified by evidence, we still need to understand that this is the minimum standard. We don't just want to justify. Ideally, we need to grow and make this a generally fun place to be. If wikipedia stops being fun, what quality of volunteer are we going to keep? Randomran (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, you don't have to do any "dumping" on their page et al to be biting a newcomer — the point I have made earlier. Additionally, we're not being as accepting to newcomers than we should be if we refer to them as "newbies," just as we shouldn't be dismissing every other extraneous article in this project as "cruft." On the other hand, you are right; we do have to hold some sort of standard for newcomers and give them some sort of expectancy in article quality. We cannot just let newcomers walk through creating skeletal articles consisting of XYZ is a video game and leave it be. (Look what happened with Sonic.) I just think we set that bar way too high to the point where we're not welcoming them. That ultimately does us as well as future editors a disservice.
P.S. I'm not as concerned about the article in question being deleted or not anymore; it's the principle that has caused me much concern. MuZemike (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
"And yet, it's obvious that the people who nominated this AFD actually did the legwork and drew a reasonably safe conclusion that this game is simply not notable," They did it in 60 seconds. Impressive. Kariteh (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, the nominee might have been rash, but in a way their nomination was justified by the other participants who actually did some of the searching. I would never nominate something that had just been created unless it were speedy delete quality. But I have mixed feelings, because it turns out that this actually isn't notable -- the nominee was a little lucky. Randomran (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I can definitely agree with that; it was certainly rather unfortunate circumstances and timing behind the nomination. As far as the 60-second thing is concerned, it's so much easier and faster when the nomination is bot-assisted. MuZemike (talk) 22:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Ugh, it's terrible the way this has turned out though. I can only sincerely hope that something like this does not happen again. --.:Alex:. 10:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure it's the AFD that's running people off and not comments like "Nah, let him go" and "[he] doesn't belong here"? Why did you even start this discussion? As I said before, it's not the adherence to policies and guidelines that is the problem, it's rude behavior. Next time you think a good-faith editor shouldn't be here, kindly keep it to yourself instead of starting a discussion about your faux concern. Pagrashtak 22:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed said comment; I stepped over the line. Wish I could take it back, but the damage has already been done. This discussion is closed as I apparently no longer know what I'm talking about. MuZemike (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The biting continues

See this link. The guy redirected the article without explaining the new user anything at all. Seriously, what's up with the general bad atmosphere? Kariteh (talk) 10:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I notified the user. But yes, the madness must stop. I know people forget that new editors aren't at all familiar with most of Wikipedia's policies from time to time, but this atmosphere must improve. --.:Alex:. 18:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Help my edits are being reverted

Please help me, my edits are being reverted on the basis that my sources are not in English. Just because a site is not in Englis hdoesn't mean it's not reliable. I come from the Spanish Wikipedia and people are much more friendly there, please be friendly too. Weirdo with a Beardo (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Umm, actually, refs that are in another language that are clearly translated are welcome. King Rock (Gears of War) 17:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
It's not the fact that it's in another language that makes it unreliable. But, what reliability per WP:RS does it have? Gary King (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
That too is correct. King Rock (Gears of War) 17:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Why do you delete first and ask the question after? Anyway, the site is reliable, just look at the staff page[5] there is even a postal address if you want to send letters, queries, etc. As you can see there are a lot of redactors and collaborators. And my edit was based on an interview with Yoshinori Kitase, there are even photographs of him taken during the interview and I don't think it was photoshopped. In the end the site is much more reliable than this site, this wiki, [6], this personal page, this personal page, and this shock site(?), which despite not being reliable are all used in the article and no one is removing them. The work on the articles would be much easier if people would discuss things friendly. Weirdo with a Beardo (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
A ref is determined to work under WP:RS using its own merits. Other refs do not matter at the time, only the one in question. You may put the others under review later, but please don't try and move things off topic. What article are you talking about, anyway? --haha169 (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Can we just close this already? The ref and added content is in the article. Gary King (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
And what article is the gay porn site link in? --.:Alex:. 18:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm talking about Final Fantasy VII, and I'm definitely not moving things off topic. I'm just trying to understand why people are removing stuff fisrt and asking question after. This isn't how Wikipedia is upposed to work. Weirdo with a Beardo (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Everything I said was about FFVII, the refs too. Weirdo with a Beardo (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Gary King, we won't close this until you explain what your point was, please. Weirdo with a Beardo (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Sigh. Okay, please show me one of the sites listed at Wikipedia:VG/RS#List that considers the reference you added reliable, then I will consider it reliable. Gary King (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Huh? A site is determined reliable through Wikipedia:Reliable sources, not (necessarily) through a list. A list would never manage to cover all possible scenarios. And the list you linked to is geared toward English sources, it won't be useful for non-English reliable sources (such as Japanese ones, or in this case Spanish). Weirdo with a Beardo (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
If I could step in, here are some things that can help demonstrate reliability: you could show news articles saying the source is reliable; point us to a description of the page's fact-checking process, or how content is submitted; show that the site is backed by a respected company or university; or show that the author is considered an expert in the field. That should get you started. Since you've expressed concern about other sources you've seen used, if you find unreliable sources, please bring that to the attention of the editors on the talk page of the article, or you can mark the source with {{Verify credibility}}. Obviously bad sources, such as user-written FAQs on GameFAQs, open wikis, or Wikipedia itself should be removed on sight. Pagrashtak 18:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I will try, thanks. (Have to go for now.) In the meantime, I'd like to note that the mere fact that Square Enix and Yoshinori Kitase granted them an interview in the first place is a good start for credibility (again, I doubt the photos of Kitase sitting with the site staff were photoshopped). Weirdo with a Beardo (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, if you find bad sources, then add {{rs}} to them. I have used this source to supplement the Spanish one you added. Gary King (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that if a company like SquareEnix gave an interview with an unreliable source, then we could use that particular article as a reliable source, since SquareEnix is considered a reliable source, even though any other articles from the source should be discounted. JACOPLANE • 2008-07-16 18:32

Not as a blanket case. If I created a website right now with a supposed interview between me and Square Enix, would you have a problem with me adding it as a source to an article? Pagrashtak 18:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, a lot of FAs have no problem with it. The FFVIII articles cites tripod pages for instance. Kariteh (talk) 21:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Hm well if that happens several times in that article then perhaps it's a good reason to bring it to WP:FAR. Gary King (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
That's a slightly different case, it's a user-translated Famitsu interview. Still, that should be changed to reference the issue of Famitsu, if someone has access and can verify. Pagrashtak 22:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Can I just ask if the shock site has been removed? That was why I inquired, so it can be removed (why would someone not remove it?) --.:Alex:. 18:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

If you are talking about the IP address, then yes, I removed it. I didn't bother to look at it for fear of what I might see. Also, IP addresses are rarely reliable sources from my experience. Gary King (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, there really was some legit information at that URL, but apparently it changed at some point. Kariteh (talk) 21:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, so:

  • Show news articles saying the source is reliable: the website is regularly cited on the Yahoo! Games Spanish edition (18,500 results for "vandal online," 23,600 times for "vandal.net" and 35,600 times for "vandal" according to Google searches within Yahoo! Games). It is also cited 108 times by GameProTV.com, a site owned by IDG Entertainment and related to GamePro.
    Being cited by one reliable source is not a sure gauge to proving the site's reliability (it is only a small step towards that). A surer way is to prove a variety of its articles are cited by various reliable sites. Jappalang (talk) 01:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Point us to a description of the page's fact-checking process: I don't know any site that explains its inner workings in deep details, but Vandal Online does describes itself a bit at this page (scroll down to the bottom of the page for the English version).
    That does not describe any fact-checking process. Jappalang (talk) 01:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Or how content is submitted: The site has a staff of 8 writers and 15 collaborators, and lots of former ones too as the site has been in existence since 1997.
    That does not show reliability or exepertise of the editors in question. Jappalang (talk) 01:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Additionally, the site fully displays its e-mail, its physical address and fax number, its telephone number, and the personal physical address of the site owner/director (verified to be true by WHOIS checking: [7] [8]), so we know it's not a shady fansite run by people hiding their identities.
    That does not really contribute anything to its reliability. The National Inquirer states its corporation details, but it is an unreliable news source. Jappalang (talk) 01:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Show that the site is backed by a respected company or university: None that I know of apart from the referrals of Yahoo! Games and GameProTV mentioned above. However GameStats gathers reviews from "all major publications," and Vandal Online appears to be one of them as it is present on the site; Google shows 47 hits for "Vandal Online" within GameStats.
    Being gathered as part of a "major publication" is no guarantee of the site being reliable. It goes with the fallacy of assuming that being part of Metacritics' and Game Rankings' pool of reviewers would mean the site is reliable. Jappalang (talk) 01:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

So, while obviously the website has less global visibility than major American and English multimedia websites, I believe it does constitute a reliable source. Weirdo with a Beardo (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone? Weirdo with a Beardo (talk) 23:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Guitar Hero as featured topic - nearly there

We are very close to having the requirements to get all (released) Guitar Hero game articles as a featured topic. Guitar Hero: On Tour and its setlist are in GA/FL respectively, I have peer reviews out for Guitar Hero III Mobile and Guitar Hero Carabiner (neither I except to get to GA quality due to limited info), and I'm holding off on the list of songs for GHIII until the On Tour list is completed in FL (hate having two at the same time). I want this done "now" as with more GH games on the horizon, those can be added a few months after their release if the topic is passed now.

I'm looking for someone uninvolved with the series to help PR the two articles listed above, and then if anyone is a good SVG artists, I need a free image ideally of one of the GH guitar controllers to use as the image for the topic. --MASEM 15:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could merge Guitar Hero III Mobile into Guitar Hero III, and the Carabiner article into the main series article. I would strongly suggest that, because the check mark status in Featured Topics is usually reserved for articles on, say, games that haven't been released yet, but both of these games are already released, so I don't think that the limited info exemption applies here. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
The Carabiner article could be merged no problem (and the song list is short enough to not be an issue). Mobile can be moved to GH3 but the song list is a bit hefty. The list could stand by itself, and it would be rather weird to merge it to the GH3 song list. That's the only thing I would worry about. --MASEM 17:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
That is probably the smart thing to do, merge the article, keep the soundtrack list and feature it as it is too big to merge. Do that, and your Featured topic is really close. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, you could even merge the soundtrack list of the mobile Guitar Hero III game into the list of Guitar Hero III songs article, which isn't featured yet. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Let me try that. That might work out best (and that would leave the FLC of On Tour and GH3, and the current GA of On Tour, as the only blocks to a FT) --MASEM 19:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Do we really need an On Tour setlist article? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, this featured topic doesn't include unreleased games, right? - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but we would have about 2-3 months to get any newly released games to speed after they are released to be added to the FT. --MASEM 02:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Steam Release Date

I posted this on the Company Of Heroes talk page: What is the purpose of listing the steam release date in the introductory paragraph? It is just another video game store and certainly isn't essential for the introductory paragraph.

I've seen this appear on several video game pages so perhaps a clearer guideline is needed. In this specific case I edited it out but my edit was reverted stating "there is no harm in having such information". I agree that their is no harm in it but it opens a hole where every video game store or service fan might think that it is appropriate to add the date of availability on his particular store. I believe that this kind of very specific information has no place in the intro paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Almogo (talkcontribs) 21:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree with that—unless the game debuted on Steam, it should probably not be mentioned in the introduction. Steam is just another way of selling stuff after all: as great a platform as it is, referring to it when the game isn't initially or soley released on Steam is not necessary. I've also found that Steam is better placed in the "distributor" field of the infobox as opposed to the "media" field where it is currently. Steam is not a media type, its a distribution platform. -- Sabre (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Steam release dates are extraneous. Even if the game was first sold on Steam, the release date marker would be "PC" -- we would not have a second marker for "retail box", or at least I am not aware of any such practice. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Articles such as Half-Life 2 and The Orange Box list both "retail box" and Steam release dates in the infobox. --Silver Edge (talk) 04:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
No, they don't list "retail box", they just list it as "Windows", which is ambiguous because Steam is on Windows too. In HL2's case, it's the same day, which is definitely extraneous. For TOB, the principle release date is listed as Oct 10, which (when expanded) is the retail date, but the Steam date is the 9th, which should be the principle date since it was the debut. This is exactly the kind of confusion that we can expect to see if it should become widespread practice. Ham Pastrami (talk) 05:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

According to the VG MOS Steam and similar platforms like Gametap should be listed as Download and not by their trade name - X201 (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes that's right. Steam should not be specifically stated, as it's simply a particular distribution platform, not a seperate gaming platform (like Virtual Console or XBLA, for example). We can mention that particular distribution method though. That's the accepted practice anyway, I believe. --.:Alex:. 18:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
That's why I put them in the "distributor" field, as that is their function. -- Sabre (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I kind of don't see the need to list the actual distributor (unless there's a highly notable reason for doing so). It's like listing all the stores or market chains that sell the game. That's just me though. --.:Alex:. 18:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
It's wrong to compare Steam to a standard high street store. Steam is intrinsically linked with the developers and publishers involved in ways that high street stores are not. It offers more from the developers' point of view than merely selling the games. Steam, more than other ones like GameTap, is almost an independent system unto itself (not a games platform, but a whole new way of development, publication, support and feedback). If a game is released on Steam, or other another digital distribution platform, it should be mentioned somewhere - these places aren't equivalents to Amazon or Gamestation. It just shouldn't be mentioned in the introduction prose unless its release on Steam is notable, but the infobox allows for the brief, one word mention that Steam (or whatever other digital distribution system) is involved with the developer and the game. -- Sabre (talk) 18:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Conan (2007 video game) at FAC

By Crom, working to get the article to a good standard, the help of Ashnard, Ruhrfisch, and AnnaFrance was immeasurable to me. Conan now moves near the doorway to the hall of the Featured Articles, and hopes to get through it. Please take a look at the article and drop comments at its FAC. Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 01:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Midtown Madness' FAC is languishing somewhat if anyone is interested. —Giggy 01:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Mine is languishing, too. Gary King (talk) 02:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Wrong project, Gary ;-) —Giggy 02:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, uh, whoopsie! Gary King (talk) 02:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't usually revisit articles that I've already reviewed, which is the case with Crash of the Titans and The World Ends With You, but good luck with that one, Jappalang. As Giggy's said, it's disappointing to see the VG FACs languishing at the moment. Ashnard Talk Contribs 09:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
On the talk pages, they were commenting that less reviewers are leaving comments on the candidates. Thus, all nominations are languishing except for those with reviewers dedicated to the subject concerned. Jappalang (talk) 12:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Disappointing? I rarely see VG FACs languish. They usually get the most attention, but unfortunately that's usually from VG members so there isn't much criticism. Gary King (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Well I like to think that I'm critical enough at FAC. I meant "languish" relative to the usual activity at VG FACs, and not relative to non-VG FACs, which I don't comment on or pay attention to. Ashnard Talk Contribs 17:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Help at Malcolm Betruger

I'd like to ask for some assistance with Malcolm Betruger. This is a character in Doom 3 who lacks third-party sources and hence fails notability. He's covered quite sufficiently in the standard Doom 3 article. However, my attempts to redirect the article to Doom 3 result in a single user who comes in every week or so and undoes it. I've tried laying out my reasonings to the user (unreferenced article of a non-notable topic, consisting entirely of original research and speculation written from an in-universe persective with nothing more than plot reiteration, and the whole thing's covered better in the parent article), but have never received a response or even an edit summary as to why he keeps reverting. Its rather irritating, but the article's name is a perfectly valid search term for a redirect so I'd like to avoid the mess that is an AfD these days. Note that the article was originally redirected by Pagrashtak last December, but this same user reverted with no explanation. -- Sabre (talk) 14:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I added it to my walk page and redirected it. If he revives it I'll just remove it again. In the meanwhile you may be best off filing a complaint through the admin noticeboard against the user for his actions. Means some messy paperwork, but best results tend to spawn from the most direct actions.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Clarifying gaming jargon in the Video games guidelines

I am proposing to rewrite the guideline for Gaming jargon. The proposal is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Rewrite for Gaming jargon. Comments, critiques, supports, and opposes are welcome. Jappalang (talk) 02:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yu-Gi-Oh Millenium Items

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

There is a discussion ongoing about what do do with the Millennium Items page. The AfD resulted in no consensus because about 6 different options were presented. It was clear, however, that neither the status quo nor any of the suggestions were strictly superior. I'm looking for some support from the project to see what to do with this page. Thanks Protonk (talk) 23:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

BURN IT WITH FIRE
I can think of one idea. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any encyclopedic value in this article, but is this the place to discuss it? Yu-Gi-Oh is more of an anime series than something else, perhaps WP:MANGA is a better place to establish consensus. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh I'm just looking to send people to the article talk page. Like I said, I don't know anything about it. Also. AMiB, that image is awesome. Protonk (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Like Caribbean HQ said, this is not really an issue for WPVG. JuJube (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Thirded that motion, while there have been games on the series, this is not game related.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok. I was just looking for whatever project would own a piece of this. The same request for input exists at WP:MANGA. I'll close this discussion. Also, for those cruising by later, if this doesn't get fixed in a reasonable time, my recommendation will be to kill it with fire. Protonk (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Video game people, category organization

In regards to Category:Video game people. The name of this category is very general, and implies a top-level game-bio category. However, the category page states that it is only for people involved in the "creation" of video games, which apparently means developers. The name and criteria should match. There are also a number of existing subcats such as Video game programmers, Video game artists, etc. so it's unnecessary to have an intermediary umbrella just for developers (unless the list of subcats becomes unwiedly). I propose that this category's scope simply be expanded to serve as a top-level category for VG related bios. All existing bio categories should be included under it (e.g. video game voice actors, video game journalists, electronic sports players). Any comments? Ham Pastrami (talk) 05:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Support, in short. --Izno (talk) 05:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like an excellent idea. -- Sabre (talk) 09:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Specifics

What are the criteria for inclusion? i.e. Are Starship Titanic and The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (computer game) enough to warrant the inclusion of Douglas Adams? - X201 (talk) 14:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure about Hitchhiker's Guide, but Douglas Adams created and outlined the concept, wrote the story and scripts, composed the music and created the sound effects for Starship Titanic, as well as portraying one of the characters in the game. I think he meets inclusion criteria in general for some place in the "video game people" category and sub-categories. -- Sabre (talk) 14:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
He is already listed as an IF writer, which these games are classified as. To be categorized elsewhere, he would have to be notable for those categories, e.g. there must be significant mentions of his composing the game's score if he is to be listed as a VG musician. Ham Pastrami (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject notification bot

There is currently a proposal for a bot that would notify WikiProjects when their articles have entered certain workflows, e.g. when they are nominated for deletion or for Good article reassessment.

The question is whether a relevant number of wikiprojects would be interested in using such a bot. You can find details of the functionality, and leave your comments, at the bot request page.

I am posting this message to the 20 largest WikiProjects (by number of articles), since they would be the most likely users. Thanks, --B. Wolterding (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Star Wars video games

There is discussion happening currently at Talk:List of Star Wars video games#new categories about the organization of the list. There haven't been many editors involved - if anyone would like to comment, please do so there. – jaksmata 13:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Needing some help trimming down the Yoshimitsu plots

Wanting to combine Yoshimitsu (Soul Calibur) and Yoshimitsu (Tekken), but unsure the best way to reword the plot bits to trim them down to a few paragraphs...Namco tends to be extremely detailed with their character backgrounds for both fighting games. Anyone interested in lending a hand?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I see a rather large Stages section, which isn't really about the character at all. Those would be merged into the game articles, although they look too detailed even for that. Anyone else think those need to go? Pagrashtak 17:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
The stages section can probably go, with a mention of where his "home stages" are (in the real world) in a sentence, maybe two. Certainly not 3 paragraphs. --Izno (talk) 18:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually it's just the plot part I need help trimming down. Stuff like stages, weapons and whatnot I can cleave away when both articles are merged into Yoshimitsu (Namco).
I'll try and help. I loved Yoshimitsu in Tekken 2... once you knocked down your opponent you could spam knee bash to win :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

non-notable game mods: part 2

The following look to be almost certainly non-notable:

The following are much less clear. They may or may not be notable, and I could use some help probing further:

  • Weapons Factory - questionable notability (one good reference, but a lot of other unreliable coverage)
  • Malice (video game mod) - questionable notability (nothing online, but mod is old, and the article alleges it was covered in a 1997 copy of PC Gamer UK)
  • Europa Barbarorum - questionable notability: nothing online, but article claims there are magazine reviews
  • Rome: Total Realism - questionable notability: found a potentially reliable source, and article also claims magazine coverage (with nothing to back that up)
  • FinnWars - Notability established, thanks to Mika1h!
  • SilentHeroes - good chance it is notable, but uncertain due to translation issues
  • Orange Smoothie Productions - Found two RSSs, but might be trivial coverage.
  • Cold War Crisis - looks like there might be some international magazine coverage, but unclear if these are reliable magazines or just newsletters or what.

I spent a lot of time looking for sources on all these games and have gotten my searching methods down to something pretty rigorous. But I'm not infallible, and there might be magazines that cover some of these. I'd appreciate it a little help. Also, if someone wants to double-check the other mods that I raised to "notable" status, be my guest. Just offering an update, and to see if anyone wants to help take this on. Randomran (talk) 16:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

FinnWars had a two page article on Pelit magazine, 9/2005. I have the issue but is that notable enough, since it's a Finnish mod covered by a Finnish magazine? --Mika1h (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
If its a reliable source and there is more than one, it can stand on its own (although if that's all the coverage there is, it would best be covered in a parent article.) Random, can you shunt these off to a subpage so they don't get archived? I'd like to tackle this but I don't have the time to right now. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean by a subpage? Let me know how/where to put it, and I'll gladly take care of it. Randomran (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
To Mika1h, Re: FinnWars -- I had a suspicion from my searches that there were international sources that I didn't have access to or couldn't read. I'd really appreciate it if you could add a reference to the article. It could also use a clean-up. Randomran (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Randomran (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
@random: what I mean by subpages is list the mods at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Possible mod cruft or something of the sort so we can take care of the pages at our leisure and won't have to hunt through archives. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Good point. I'll create that page if this floats to the top with no active work on it for a while. Randomran (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
What is wrong with this place? If that game itself existed, isn't it notable? Seriously, if the game went through development, was produced, had media, had a license,was endorsed and on store shelves, isn't it "notable"? Have any of you ever had a game in a store, or even software in a store before? If you haven't, don't you find it strange that people with no legitimate experience are making judgment calls on what is and is not notable when they don't even know the first thing about the industry? If you have, then please put down your keyboard, and help me get my foot out of my mouth. Cached Entity (talk) 07:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The standard for notability on Wikipedia is noted over at Wikipedia:Notability. That tells us what is needed for a subject to get an article on the site. If you've got a problem with the fact that this site is not a documentation of everything that has ever existed, you can discuss it on the talk page of the Notability guideline or other proper platforms. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 09:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
That's the problem. These are mods, not game. Many were developed and produced, but they've had no media, no licence, no sale on store shelves. There's no coverage. No third party evaluation. The only opinion we have on their creation is either the creator themselves, or their most diehard fans. You can write a fansite or blog entry about that, but not a wikipedia article. This isn't about my opinion or your opinion. Read the WP:GNG. That's pretty much the main test we're applying here. Notability isn't subjective. Randomran (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Are there any Europeans who might be able to do a quick search of the second list? I have a feeling one or two of those might be notable, but I can't read German/Swedish/Finnish so I can't find out. Thanks in advance. Randomran (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Announcing WikiProject Video Games Arcade Task Force

It was decided to move WP:WikiProject Arcade games to a task force under WP:VG. The move has already rounded up a few new members, but we'd like a few more. If you would like to help in the improvement of arcade video game articles across Wikipedia then join up! And if anybody wants to aid in a nip/tuck to the project page, then also feel free. It's on like Donkey Kong! ~ JohnnyMrNinja 03:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. I'm still active in this arcade game effort. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 16:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Standardizing VG templates

We have three table-like templates:

(any others that I missed?) Should we try to standardardize the look of these and any other future table-oriented templates? And if so, how? --MASEM 14:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps synching the {{VG Requirements}} and {{VG Reviews}} colors and look, but I don't see any reason to change the infobox (after getting rid of the borders, I was happy a looong time ago :P ) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Is the hiding button really necessary in {{VG Reviews}}? It's a bit problematic IMO because it makes navboxes collapse even when there's only one; see Front Mission 5: Scars of the War for instance. Kariteh (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Just add state=plain to it to make it go away. -- Sabre (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Removing the hiding button and just making the thing a normal infobox would allow the code to be much simpler. Is there anywhere where this is really necessary? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
If it's meant to complement the article text then I don't think there should be a hide button. If it were a stand-alone type of thing like the info/navboxes, I could see why it would be desired. SharkD (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Can we not match up the colours and style of non-infobox templates (ie, VG Reviews) to that of the infoboxes? These are tables, and they look absolutely detestable, bland and very hard to follow when put into the same sort of lineless and colourless style as the infobox with nothing but grey. There is no need at all to have all templates in this grey form, but there should be consistency between different categories of templates - make the infoboxes the grey ones and match the optional insert tables like VG Reviews up to the scheme in VG Reviews. By all means match up VG Reviews to VG Requirements, but keep them in some form with lines so that the infobox still presents its information in clear form and with clear divide between reviews and the overall categories of reviews, compilations and awards. The tombstone grey approach works for infoboxes, it does not work for VG Reviews, and I doubt it will work for VG Requirements. -- Sabre (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm alright with that, yeah. It's the completely arbitrary colour scheme which gets me. Truth be told I didn't think the de-bordering would stick, which was why I made it a discrete editing after fixing the syntax. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I believe the colour scheme was chosen by Mr. Fuchs in a moment of hatred against the use of purply-blue on tables. -- Sabre (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I would just like to say that I like the spatial formatting of {{VG Requirements}}, especially the floating title. If you want to mess with the colors, that would be OK. However, I don't particularly like the look of the Infobox VG in its current state (though some facets of the template have improved in recent times). The borders are a bit on the thin side, making it look like a typical HTML table from 1997. SharkD (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, I think borders are kind of necessary for the requirements table as there are multiple rows of information, and I just think it would be difficult to seperate it otherwise. I would quite like to see the purply-blue replaced, because currently it looks a lot like the (what I now find quite hideous) old templates. --.:Alex:. 19:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
The color scheme was indeed chosen because i hated the purple of the old infobox :P That said, I don't really care what color it goes as (besides that fugly purple!), I don't think we particularly need it to be like the infoboxes. After all, they are discretely different in function. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment on Talk: Lan gaming center

Request for comment on lan gaming center talk page. The discussion at the bottom. The user(s)/ip addresses commenting keep adding an additional link, and more review is needed. A link to igames has been on the article for a long time, but an anon kept replacing it with a link to 'lanatomic' instead. Lanatomic seems like a personal website, even by the looks of it, while igames seems to be more of an industry-website. The user has even gone so far as to purposefully move lanatomic's link ontop of igames without reason. I'm not affiliated with either site, but this seems like the new person could potentially be from lanatomic. Would someone else care to review all this? Last item on the talk page. Kopf1988 (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Merger of Ace Combat universe articles into List of nations of Ace Combat

A merger proposal is underway to merge the various "X of Ace combat" articles into the List of nations of Ace Combat, per the issues raised at various AfD's. Please direct comments, support or opposition to the merger discussion. Protonk (talk) 16:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

VG Infobox Platforms

From what I understand from others is that only the main platform in which a game has been released belongs in the infobox, and that any mentioning of ports are to be explained outside of the article. If this is correct, then we need to make it more clear in the {{Infobox VG}} template documentation, where this is not even mentioned. MuZemike (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The article guidelines (WP:VG/GL) state "Should the number of consoles or remakes become excessively large, consider stating only the first release or primary console within the infobox and summarizing the other release dates within the article body." looks like a quick copy and paste might be needed. - X201 (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Derivative work or not

I thought this was derivative work but i have been told different so i just want to make sure, is this derivative work or not?
Image:User_Unknown_the_Hedgehog.png
Unknown The Hedgehog Everyone??, cool image is it not. Gaogier Chat! 01:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think so, but Wikipedia:Possibly Unfree Images will give you a better answer. WP:NOT an image hosting service is probably equally applicable. Nifboy (talk) 03:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Clearly derived from the appearance of Shadow...and webspace provider doesn't count because it's being used on the user page. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
User pages fall under WP's WP:NOT "not your personal webspace" provision. Particular that this is a derivative work and thus non-free, it cannot go on user pages. --MASEM 04:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Users are given significnat leeway in what kind of images they can use. Many, many users have uploaded images of themselves to use to decorate their user pages. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but a user's picture of themselves doesn't have questionable copyright status. Nifboy (talk) 06:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Skeleton closet

After a little searching, I found some interesting pages that might need attention. Some of them are obsolete, some have been forgotten completely. Some are here simply as a matter of interest. I'll let y'all mull over them. Some of them could and should be deleted/moved to help consolidate resources.

And as a matter of interest...

Most of them should be deleted. Destroy all humans articles serious needs lot of work it is plagued with game guides and more of it. Articles need a writeup and taskforce is best way to deal with it. --SkyWalker (talk) 13:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
But the scope of it is far too small even for a taskforce. Topic Coordination would be far more appropriate. We don't want to create taskforces that focus on only 4 or 5 pages. They simply do not work from experience. My main concern is that this will soon become another inactive task force. That is what I just don't want to happen.
Anyway, does anyone have any idea what the Hitman page was for? Anyone at all? --.:Alex:. 15:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
If I had to guess, I'd say someone spent 30 seconds creating a Hitman task force page that never got off the ground. If someone deleted it under G6 I wouldn't complain. Pagrashtak 01:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Hitman and Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Hitman/header for speedy deletion due to meeting criterion A3 for speedy deletion (no content). MuZemike (talk) 02:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Also nominated Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Animal Crossing/to do for speedy deletion, as it also meets criterion A3, just as in the two Hitman pages I just nominated. MuZemike (talk) 02:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Nominated Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Noticeboard for MfD. (Deletionist mode turn off, now.) MuZemike (talk) 03:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
A3 applies to articles, which these are not. The Noticeboard is tagged as historical, there's nothing more we to do with it. We don't get rid of our history for no reason. 72.198.75.18 (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
You do have a point; I felt it fit better under A3 than G1. Nevertheless, the fact remains that there is absolutely no content in any of these two articles still remaining for speedy deletion.
I'll defer to the users as to the MfD should be kept or not; looks like it will. MuZemike (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone oppose to nominating Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Template/ for MfD? (I'll ask here first since I'm batting 2 for 2 on hastily AfDing/MfDing articles this month.) MuZemike (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No opposition from me. It's obsolete, out-of-date and I can see no valid reason to retain the page. It appears to be for "backups" of all project template as well as a mixture of information already covered on the current project Template page. I know it's sometimes good to keep pages for the history, but I see nothing essential to keep here. The page seems completely superfluous. --.:Alex:. 18:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I still feel that Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Workshop was a good idea. Too bad it never got off the ground. If we're going to delete all historical pages, then we should also delete Wikipedia:Gaming Collaboration of the week as well, I guess. Although I'd like to see some of these kept for historical purposed.JACOPLANE • 2008-07-24 21:46

Well some I only listed because they're just interesting and have gotten lost within the depths of WP:VG. GCOTW has potential to make a return as people are showing interesting. The workshop was a great idea, but again it depends on whether people will be interesting in bringing back such a thing. --.:Alex:. 08:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: standardizing genre field in infobox

I would like to suggest that we consider standardizing the genre field in the info-box for purposes of making classification of games easier.

The idea would be based on creating a template called "vggenre" or the like. This would basically be {{vggenre|fps}}, the list in the second parameter being a fixed list defined in the template so that only recognized genres expand to something useful (red text warning if it doesn't). Multiple of these templates can be used for crossover games. The key is that template would add the game automatically to the correct category. (the above would drop said game in Category:First-person shooters.)

Genres that lack an official recognition in the template's accepted list can still be added the normal way, but if they are categorized, they need to be done manually. Further categorization (a more specific sub-category) can be added normally at the bottom of the page, if needed. A recognized genre that is a mix of two can easily be put into both through one template call.

The only stipulation I would have is that this means the genre field should be either patently obviously ("Doom is an FPS, dur") or that if there is any doubt, the genre should be sourced (likely from a review). Also, this should only be applied to games themselves. Series articles or any related article that is associated with the game should not be tagged with this - in the case of series articles, these categories usually have a "series" subcategory. We also would need to agree on the list of accepted genres and what variations in parameter spellings could be accepted for them. Following this, we would likely need to manaully work through articles to change this, but for those that already exist in the right categories, a bot could be useful (eg, any game in the FPS category can be pulled up via AWB, the genre field saught, and "first-person shooter" replaced with the template call, also removing the category at the bottom of the page).

(We can also apply the same idea to platforms for release; there, I think I can also take advantage of templates to popular "(console)-only" categories -- maybe.) --MASEM 12:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

List of Leaders in Panzer General II

This looks like game guide content to me. What does everyone else think? On a side note: the article was in AFD last year (with a no consensus result). RobJ1981 (talk) 01:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Definitely, I've never played the game and I'm not getting the slightest bit of useful information out of it, regardless of whether I'm interested in the game. Anti-Tank is Yes to Bridging? What the hell does that mean? Haipa Doragon (talkcontributions) 02:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and put it on AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Leaders in Panzer General II (2nd nomination). Nifboy (talk) 04:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

List of characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (games)

Can some people chime in on the discussion occurring in Talk:List of characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (games)#Dispute resolution (or a new section)? There is a dispute about whether or not to include a list of every character that appears in only one game. Index of Sonic the Hedgehog characters has a also been split off or something, but I don't really understand the purpose of it. TTN (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that we're allowed to ask for help. TTN, when defeat comes, face it, or it'll come later, but harder. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 14:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been trying to broker a compromise on this article but failed. The two sides of the debate were to include detailed information on every character, or leave one-off single-game characters out of the article completely. I figured a decent compromise would be to mention the one-off characters, and provide readers with links to the game articles where those characters appear. But there is not complete support for that compromise. I'm ready to step aside and let someone else try to mediate between the parties, because I haven't had much success. Just be prepared for a lot of different parties with a lot of different perspectives, and a breakdown in civility. Randomran (talk) 14:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

And TTN, do you remember when Triple F's sister used his accoun to ask for my help, and everyone was yelling at him? Why should YOU be allowed to ask for help? Therefore, I'm removing this! Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 14:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I forget the specific term, but going around to gather up people that you know will back you is different than asking a neutral group to look over a discussion. TTN (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
No, it's NOT fine. It's the EXACT same thing. Why you, and AMIB think that the rules don't apply to you? Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 14:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Read WP:CANVAS - it can be either ok or not Cigraphix (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
There's a difference between WP:CANVASSING and simply requesting comment from other users. While TTN has an opinion on the article, he isn't pushing it here. He's merely asking for other WP:VG editors' honest opinion. Since the discussion has stalled, it looks like we could use a fresh perspective, whatever that perspective is. He's not selectively picking people who agree with him. Randomran (talk) 14:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Again, see how the rules are suddenly different for TTN, and AMIB? They seem to be able to do whatever they want! UNACCEPTABLE! Triple F's sister simply asked for other people to join in here. If I didn't want to, I could've ignored her, or gone along with you guys. But, seriously, the mergists have recieved failure. Stop crying for help whenever someone proves you wrong. It's very tiring... Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 14:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) From WP:CANVAS "Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion.[1] Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and are generally considered disruptive." *ahem* anyway back to topic Cigraphix (talk) 14:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
And if other people had an opinion, they'd go there, and state it. No need to whine for help here, when failure has approached. The whole huge merge only lead to shere failure, and has only caused more problems. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 14:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I've got to agree with him there. This merge idea has been made 4 or 5 times now, and it's either ended up in edit wars, or disaster.Fairfieldfencer FFF 14:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, there's huge consensus for a merge, and huge consensus for the guidelines that make it impossible for those articles to stand alone without being deleted or merged. The problem is one of enforcement: after the consensus is reached, many editors move on and leave the article. At that point, the consensus is ignored by a few editors, and the reversions of the merges start to happen. Randomran (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Just as a further caution, editors have openly declared that they will not compromise and have begun accusing the other side of acting in bad faith. This has been an ongoing problem, and I haven't warned anyone in order to cultivate cooperation. That was my mistake. The situation has gotten out of hand. Randomran (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

AS I KEEP SAYING: I came up with a few good compromises that worked for us all, then, AMIB took it upon himself to destroy them. AMIB seems to think that Wiki belongs to him... Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 15:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it's important for everyone to keep their individuality here. I'll vouch for S.L.J. and say that he's shown a willingness to compromise. It would be unfair to group good behavior in with bad behavior just because two people share similar opinions. Randomran (talk) 15:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, this has gone beyond ridiculous into childish and immature. I'd highly recommend opening some sort of dispute resolution or formal process to deal with this, as this is just going around in circles everytime it turns up on this talk page. All these editors need to back off, cool down and stop hurling baseless accusations at each other. Constant edit wars, reversions, assumptions of bad faith and accusations of attempts to "destroy" Wikipedia are not going to help with anything, so give it a rest and act like adults. -- Sabre (talk) 15:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, getting feedback from WP:VG was my suggestion for dispute resolution. Would you recommend an RFC or a request for mediation? Randomran (talk) 15:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Protonk (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes to which one? Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 16:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes to bringing in some formal process on the subject. An RFC would probably be fine. I haven't edited the article in question so I'm an uninvolved user but I also am of the "kill it with fire" opinion about it so I'm not going to make a strong suggestion for the project to treat it a certain way. Protonk (talk) 16:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
K. Though, I just wanted a quick answer but, whatever... Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 16:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Skeletal needs to calm down about the situation, instead of attacking editors (comments such as "AMIB seems to think that Wiki belongs to him" aren't needed). It should be noted Skeletal was blocked earlier this week for edit warring/personal attacks/incivility, it seems like his attitude hasn't changed much since the block ended. Also, this section isn't canvassing, it's just a request for people to add to the discussion if they want. RobJ1981 (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
But whatever what? "An RFC would probably be fine" isn't a quick answer? Protonk (talk) 16:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
K. Though, I just wanted a quick answer but, whatever... Protonk wrote a few sentences, that's certainly quick enough. RobJ1981 (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey, Rob, guess what, look at AMIB's posts. You keep proving my point Rob. Thank you. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 01:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

1) no personal attacks please, skel. 2) Please take this back to the List of Sonic page, we don't need a third massive fight over the articles here. --PresN (talk) 03:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Dammit, I've had enough edit conflicts today! Anyways, why is AMIB allowed to get away with this shit? Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 03:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Get my point? Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 03:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Should I dig up the MANY others? Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 03:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Some input from the project would be helpful. I don't know what to recommend as a jumping-in point. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Skeletal, calm down already. It's clear you don't get along with AMIB, but that doesn't mean you need to be so rude about it. Uncivility and personal attacks aren't necessary. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Stop bringing personal arguments over articles to this talk page, everyone- a request for other editors to look at the article has been made, and that's all that needs to be said here. --PresN (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think a List of Major Characters and a seperate list of Minor Characters would be suitable. Content for the Major list should be fairly strightforward and easy to resolve, with content for the Minor List being debateable on a character by character basis. I'm aware that this approach has been taken elsewhere and should be quite promising an being able to porduce at least one stable article. As an aside, I think that trying to get a resolution from WP:VG is probably not going to be fruitful. I know that frequently issues relating to the Sonic universe have come up here, with no real progress being made. There have also been a number of accusations hanging in the air and a fairly extensive history of trouble in this area. Since there seems to be a real struggle to get any meaningful content resolution without any solid guidelines (I notice that WP:FICT is being discussed again), I think RfC might be the way to go on this one. I'd state upfront that you're after content guidelines and a framework that you can all work towards, that can be carried over not just from this but applied to other articles in this area. Gazimoff(mentor/review) 11:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I was sort of hoping that people could just comment on whether or not this is an acceptable section per general editing practices. Seeing as most people have probably just overlooked this as "Just another Sonic related shitstorm" with all of the unrelated discussion above, does anyone mind if I try restarting this without it? TTN (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I think "tertiary characters" is a bit too fine-grained for our purposes. It's indistinguishable from a list of characters for the sake of a list of characters, and should be treated as such: The characters' impact upon the plot and/or gameplay should be contained within those sections and pretty much nowhere else. Many of the earlier examples are inane ("Small Animals", cameos from the TV show, etc) and some of the later examples are packaged part-and-parcel with the setting (the two Wii games), and as such I don't think exactly qualify as "Sonic characters". Nifboy (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I, too, sincerely doubt we need exhaustive lists of characters for Wikipedia, regardless of the topic being movies, television, novels, or games. Listing these characters simply because they appeared in the game is simply entering indiscriminate information. Jappalang (talk) 03:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone heard of Jason Dobson?

For Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/4X, is anyone aware of the reliability of the author of this interview? The other sources are all fine so it'd be good to get this one sorted too. —Giggy 01:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC) (Jappalang, I'm looking at you ;-))

Given that it's an interview, and that this is from Joystiq, is there necessarily a problem with the author? --MASEM 01:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
There has been disagreement as to the claim that "interviews = doesn't really matter who wrote it". Better safe than sorry. —Giggy 01:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Joystiq bloggers are paid by their parent company, if that helps any. I want to say there's some established editorial procedures too, but I can't explicitly confirm that. Nifboy (talk) 03:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
He's a professional blogger/writer for a number of gaming websites, according to this. Gazimoff(mentor/review) 11:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

SOCOM II

Hello, I have been trying to delete unsourced information and OR from the article, but each time I have had users revert it back. I request aid in cleaning up the article.

Thank you! - Shane — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.131.221.143 (talkcontribs) 09:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That article is really short. I think references should be looked for before removing information from an article of such short length. Gary King (talk) 08:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


The information in question, which accounted for about half of the article, was removed on the 17th. That may be what you're looking at now. Before, it was really, really, really bad. But a few guys came in and got rid of an entire section that was OR, so it is far better now.

Thank you! - Shane —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.131.221.143 (talk) 17:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


Seeing how many turned up after your request it made me realise...

WP:GCOTW may be dead, but the spirit lingers on.

- X201 (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Project members, This "Shane" guy has been bouncing around from moderator to moderator to get his way. The first few that came in sided with me on my added content alone. I cannot speak for other content. The only content I can speak for is for the "Code Majic" section. It has been brought to my attention that he tries to use several tactics to get rid of the content. His reason for removing the content is simple jealousy. He is a part of a wave of people that in 2006, got source code that allowed them to make their own cheat devices. Everyone fought over getting "Credit". However, The aforementioned "Code Majic" was made in 2003, WAY before any other. It is well known in the industry. "Shane" tries all kinds of tactics to get information about it removed. He tries to claim it is an "Advertisement". Well, "Code Majic" is not for sale and only works on PS1 and PS2 platforms When "Code Majic" was out and making an impact, it was FREE! Anyway, using that tactic is not that intelligent, as "Socom II" is actually still for sale, so the entire article can be seen as an advertisement for Socom 2 and/or Sony/Playstation. He also argues that my material is not sourced. He calls it "unsourced"(not actually a word to begin with). This is actually fraud on his part. He is aware that when I posted it, I posted it with a source, the source was deleted. I then placed the source in the main article. He then claims, it leads to no-where. Let me ask you a question. Have you ever tried to look up a Wall Street Journal article online without signing up for an account? Not that easy to do, is it?

The guy(Shane) makes nothing but invalid arguments that have no foundation. I thought this place was professional, not based on "buddy favors". Either way, the information posted in the Socom II article about "Code Majic" is informative, non-opinionated(I took out all of the opinion based claims from the original source), and is VERY important to Socom II and online gaming in general.

Lets do the right thing here. Thanks, Cached Entity (talk) 07:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The article was awful, CE has a weird grudge, it's been all but stubbed. Story's pretty much over. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


"His reason for removing the content is simple jealousy. He is a part of a wave of people that in 2006, got source code that allowed them to make their own cheat devices"

Just wanted to point out that I can't even edit files in Rome: Total War to get the Greeks to use Urban Cohorts before crashing my game or make MIDI files, so this sentence is just conspiracy trash. Funny though. Oh, and if so many admins agreed with you, why isn't even ONE of them helping you? Maybe, you know, you're lying? And for VGP members, should I post here what was deleted so you may have a look at it?

- Shane —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.131.221.143 (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


Regardless, My information is fact and you're are trying to suppress that information. People that have a habit of suppressing information, have an agenda. What is your Agenda? My information has sources and is WELL known, even within the programmers at Zipper, the company that made Socom. I have had conversations with the Zipper CEO about this myself. We were trying to create an ANTI cheating system for future games. Look up "Code Majic" on YouTube. Search for it yourself. LEARN about the history of the game. STOP being information Nazis. Cached Entity (talk) 21:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Our agenda is writing a well-sourced encyclopedia. Yours is promoting...something, I don't know. The former is based in the core policies of this project, the latter isn't. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sir, your agenda is controlling information you do not like, period. Again, this borders on legal issues. Cached Entity (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:V and WP:R. Wikipedia is a resource of "verified" and "reliably sourced" information, not "true" information. Without sources showing why this matters, the only thing you're trying to put into the article is that... the game has lag (in three paragraphs) and that this guy made a hacker program for the game (in breathless prose). Why does it matter that someone made a program to hack online play for this game? Has any reliable media source noted it? Angrily claiming that anyone who does not agree with you has an "agenda" and is an "information nazi" isn't exactly a great way to prove your point. --PresN (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You can spout off rules and regulations ALL day in order to make yourself look authoritative and important. However, in this case, it makes you look like a jackass. I have, in fact, read the rules. I am attempting to follow them, but people keep deleting and defacing my contributions.

Let me help you brush up on the rules. Yes, it is true, that just because something is fact, does not say that it is post-able. The information must be sourced somewhere in the world, where it can be documented. Now there are many different levels of sources, however, ALL are acceptable, and as clarified in the rules, as long as something is sourced, members and/or staff my not remove material on the basis of sources, if it is indeed sourced. It IS sourced.

Now you might have issues with the "Code 9" section, or other sections, as I did not write them. However they were removed BECAUSE of my post and I do not want to have anyone's work removed because of me or my actions. So I re-post it how it was. The Code Majic section I did write. I took the text from the SOURCE that is DOCUMENTED in the POST, and I pasted it. When I pasted it, I followed ALL US law. I sourced it, I gave credit, I also EDITED the sourced information to remove any claims or boasting about the product and I just left in the facts. On top of that, I emailed the owners and received permission to use whatever I would like about the product. Cached Entity (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No, you have not read the rules and abided by them. Despite several people telling you the Wikipedian rules and guidelines for information needed to be veriable by a reliable source, you have shown no verifiable information nor a source that is reliable at all. Jappalang (talk) 20:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
He's been making legal threats, so I blocked him for 48 hours; if he does it again, I'd move for an indef. block as per WP:THREAT. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


Why in the living hell would you guys delete my SOURCE information from the TALK page? WTF kind of information Nazi shit is that? I am trying to prove my point, and people DELETE my information! How am I supposed to follow the rules, when it is being deleted? Cached Entity (talk) 08:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

As has been pointed out several times, thecyndicate.com is not a reliable source. Jappalang (talk) 08:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)