Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 56

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 50 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 Archive 58 Archive 60

Contents

Lego Batman List of Characters - Part 2

Same general discussion to the previous one - there seems to be a bit of resistance to removing the character list again, so I thought I'd bring it up. Just wondering what the thoughts are (whether to keep a long list of characters that appear in Lego Batman). Thanks! Fin© 00:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

And I say yeah put up the list becuase it is official now and there are no more rumors, and if you disagree because it is "policy" you should go do the same to Super Smash Bros. (series) or some other page, where you know you will not be able to do it. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 00:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
And your example of WP:GAMETRIVIA considers small stuff like character's abilities, not playable characters. Andd also the reason you gave for not removing the ssb list contradicts what you say and the only reason you won't try it is because youdnow it wdill be put back within 20 seconds of your edit. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 00:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Please don't assswhy I do some things, but not others. Thanks! Fin©™d 00:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
What does that even mean? --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 00:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Interjection: Notability (justification for an article's zxistence osWikipedia) follows WP:GNG, which states topic of article must be comprehensively covered by reliable secondary sources. The games themselves (and the game guides) cannot back up notability. These primary sources are only usable for verification of data. Do not confuse the ways in which reliable sources are used. In other words, a verified item is not necessarily notable, especially when it is only backed by a primary source. Now in this case, are the characters in theagame (not the comic characters) notable? Jappalang (talk) 08:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I would argue: nope! Fin© 08:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
You would argue nope, but youfgive no reasons why or how. What makes a character notable? How is lego dtman any less notable then a new character in Tekken 6? And you stil havn't answered my question from before. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 13:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)dd
Notability does not apply to an article's content, but rather its topic — in this case, the name of the article, Lego Batman. The content falls to what is verifiable, which is usually what is covered by reliable sources. That all said, I agree with Masem below me — scratch the fst. --Izno (talk) 16:42, 1 October 20d08 (UTC)

There are other ways to provide a list of characters in the fgame which the article already does: it describes them out in the plot/story section. The last column of the list (the minor/henchmen column) is completely game-guide material and given that the major characters are all pretty much named, there's no need for any listified list. --MfASEM 13:43, 1 Octobder 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Masem. We're dealing with unnecessary detail which should be folded back into the parent article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay, i kind of agree with that, however, I'm not done with Falcon. He has so many double standards, he edits and cleans up the charcatre list on Mortal Kombat vs. DC Universe, even though that has DC characters just like lego btaman based off comic books. And I'm not trying to act like a whiney B****, I'm just saying that he contradicts himself like crazy, and only want want he wants, which really is not fair. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Other stuff exists, EveryDay. What goes for one article may not apply for another, so long as both are within the policies and guidelines. --Izno (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
One additional point here is that while some games do include lists of characters, these typically are only in the cases where the characters are unique to the game. Since pretty much every friend and foe in that list is a blue-link to the general Batman franchise character, a separate character list is not needed. --MASEM 16:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Resident Evil -> Resident Evil (series)

This seemed like a pretty big move proposal so I figured I'd bring it up here for discussion. The idea is to move the one article to the series disambig, and recreate the original Resident Evil link as a disambig to point at the game, soundtrack, film, and series articles, since at the moment it can be rather confusing for someone looking up say the film only to be tossed at the series page instead. The downside of doing this though means that links would need to be checked to point articles at their correct destination rather than the new disambig hub. Thoughts?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. A series article would definitely be notable, and would be a good place to organize information about characters/gameplay/locations that are common to the whole series. Randomran (talk) 01:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Wait, what Randomran? That's how it currently is. It looks to me like Kung Fu is proposing that the current page of RE be moved to RE (series), and then RE be a straight disambig instead of the current and somewhat jumbled page at the moment.
That said, I think I disagree with this, but it's not a large disagreement. I'm also pretty sure this type of thing has come up before, though I don't want to go hunting it down. --Izno (talk) 01:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I think I misunderstood what was being proposed, my bad. I don't really have an opinion on a simple rename. Maybe it would be best for "Resident Evil" to be a disambig for the series, the first game, the movie, and so on. But I'm interested to hear what others have to say. Randomran (talk) 02:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Relevant and related discussion at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 48#Ninja Gaiden .E2.80.93 Article_Naming. Jappalang (talk) 08:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I think that someone should take that article to GAR, it doesn't seem to be up to GA standards. --Mika1h (talk) 09:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

A few of my article projects - anyone interested in helping?

I'm trying to fix a few articles up for the 0.7 thing, so I was wondering if anyone would like to work on any of the following:

  1. Mario Bros.
  2. Ice Hockey (video game)
  3. Kirby's Dream Land
  4. Kirby Super Star
  5. Nintendogs - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Trying to get Mario Bros. to B-Class after a peer review. MuZemike (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for deletion and/or removal from articles: Template:VG Reviews

User:A Man In Black has proposed that the following template be removed from the Sonic Chronicles: The Dark Brotherhood article and, by logical extension, every video game article (obviously it makes no sense to have one set of guidelines or rules for one article, but not for others). Featured game articles, such as Wipeout 3, Final Fantasy XII and Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games also have this template, so clearly this is a proposal with implications for a wide range of game articles. I would appreciate it if Wikipedia editors and members of the project could have a discussion regarding this, so that in reaching a consensus, we can apply the same rules to all articles, rather than just this one. Thanks. SynergyBlades (talk) 03:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Or perhaps it would be more appropriate to use the template for deletion tag on the template itself to propose deletion, so the discussion could be made more prominent; if anyone thinks it more appropriate, please do so and redirect the discussion there. SynergyBlades (talk) 03:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
TfD is overkill. My general feeling on the topic is that Prose > All. Nifboy (talk) 04:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say keep it, but use it wisely. It's helpful in cases where you have mixed reception to an article and want to emphasize that to a reader, where someone will more casually read the scores and skim over the bulk of the text, or in other cases see the score and read the related commentary for it within the prose of the article (which should always be there for each related score).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This is about the 34535324th discussion we've had of this, and my position is still the same. Review numbers are the least important part of a review, the tables are ugly, and they're pretty redundant. Plus, they're POV magnets. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Coming from left field, but how about initiating a request for comment on the usage of the template in regards to our MoS as I believe this discussion has already occurred with no consensus, result, or change?

With that said, discussing the template in general in a Sonic article is not the appropriate venue, but rather either the template's talk page or here. MuZemike (talk) 05:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The template's a decent compromise (yes, compromise, the seemingly hated word on policy and process on Wikipedia) between those who don't want review scores mentioned in the reception section, arguing that it lessens the quality of the prose and those who want to put all the numbers into the prose, because they believe that it is a key part of reception. This is the middle-ground - have a small selection of representative numbers (to avoid POV, basing the selection on ranges given by aggregate review score places, such as Metacritic. When I use the template, I only tend to put in the scores of the reviews I've cited in the prose anyway), but have it disconnected from the prose by putting it in template form. -- Sabre (talk) 11:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem, as discussed before, is that the template does nothing to make sure the numbers are representative or that the selection is small. In addition, it visually dominates the reception section with the least-important info. If we want a compromise, why not do it like the book and music templates do, and put small links to metacritic and gamerankings in the infobox? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 18:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that this template has much project consensus, and I agree that it should be removed. It is horrible in appearance and greatly bloats articles, particularly stubs. Such as its use here[1]. There also seem to be no controls over what scores are being put in, with from seemingly unnotable sites. It is also encouraging the lack of a real reception section in favor of this table, which was declared "crucial to the section" and "not to be removed under any circumstances" by an editor after I pulled it from that article. No other project uses things like this, not films, TV, etc, so I can't really see any precedence to justify it either. I really thing this project needs to come to clear consensus on whether this is an acceptable template, and if it is, really lock down what is and isn't included, police it better, etc. If it isn't, TfD it and be done with it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Why not chop it down to accept the aggregates such as Metacritic and Game Rankings, as suggested by AMIB, with the additional caveat that %s and individual rankings aren't to be placed in the text at all? This sounds like a suitable compromise for the people who say that %s ruin the text and thus like the box, but also a compromise for the people who think the box needs to go. Anyone who can write a decent looking reception section shouldn't need the individual rankings anyway, I think, but I could be wrong. --Izno (talk) 06:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for quick copyedit

Can I ask someone to do a quick copyedit look at Crush (video game) (it's 1500 words short, so shouldn't take long)? There's no much else I can add to the article, but do want a ce before trying to advance it further. --MASEM 20:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Sega is now Wikipedia:WikiProject Sega & Nintendo

After a long time of thinking we have decided to bring up a Nintendo area to stop our project for dieing out, this should help us get enough members to keep going, if we get enough members of each side of the divided project the project will split into two separate projects how it should be.

The project is divided into two sections Sega Section & Nintendo Section, the duel section idea should make it easier for Nintendo Lovers and Sega Fans to stay to their side while still keeping the project active.

The Nintendo Scope and the Sega Scope will be Assessed separately and will not be placed together, everything will be kept as separate at possible making it almost like two different Wikiprojects operating under one name.

I hope everyone understands and our members and new members will Keep Contributing or Join the project so we can stay active.

Thank you.

This Has Been An Official S&N Project Notice By Gaogier How can I help? 21:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sega and Nintendo... that's no small undertaking... -- Sabre (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Explain as i don't understand what your talking about? Gaogier How can I help? 22:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

No, just let the project die out if it hasn't got the members. Because now you're treading on the toes of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Nintendo. Keep sub-projects distinct and focused. - hahnchen 22:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Why not just have a sega and nintendo taskforce under WP:VG? Randomran (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
If they can work together, and all agree to it, and get alot of work done, I'm all for it! If not...then...Taskforce it is...I think that we should just give it some time to see how it works. Wait a month, or two, see what happens. Sound any good? Skeletal SLJCOAAATR Soulsor 22:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I have to say right now, up front, that I think this is going to be a terrible idea. The Sega Project by just covering Sega hasn't done a very good job with their own articles, and there was too much kicking and screaming over the past cleanup to really make this teamup desirable. There's not so much a case of "Nintendo articles need your help" as there is "you really should fix your own messes first."--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

So that means the Nintendo task force is now out of business? I thought six wasn't bad for a task force, given trying to still rebuild. MuZemike (talk) 01:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I will add that there is a big difference between being bold and boldly leaping into an empty swimming pool, which I truly believe the latter has been done. At least one of the task force members should have had some opinion on it, but I suppose they're obviously irrelevant. Not meaning to be incivil, but I am very disappointed in the former WikiProject Sega to do this behind Nintendo's backs as well as in WPVG as a whole in being complicit in this. MuZemike (talk) 06:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Now now, don't jump to conclusions :P As far as it seems at the moment it was the actions solely of one fellow, and judging from his contributions he's scrambling to make sure he did the right thing. So this may very well far apart as fast as it popped up.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Those are my thoughts as well. This whole situation looks to be rash decisions intended to keep the Sega Project as a Project. What our merge suggestion did was put a time table on them that made them feel they needed to act fast. But, we did offer them time to work on their project. I say we give it to them and see what develops.
However, if another drastic action like this happens again, it would be best to take this to a Wikipedia-wide forum for discussion. Like Wikipedia:Requests for comment or Wikipedia:WikiProject Council. (Guyinblack25 talk 13:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC))

Am I understanding this correctly? A WikiProject that has a low number of members has now expanded it's scope to cover the area of another Wikiproject that closed because there weren't enough members to support a Wikiproject for that area? - X201 (talk) 10:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. Why Sega and Nintendo? Why not Sega and Blizzard, or Sega and Brøderbund, or Sega and tasty cheeses? We already have a Nintendo task force—now we've got a confusing overlap. It's especially confusing since you say everything will be separate—since we have a Nintendo task force, why do we need to create this separate Nintendo section in the Sega project? I say undo this and discuss if it's actually a good idea first. Pagrashtak 16:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Where was the consensus for this? If anything, there seems to be a consensus against it. Randomran (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
This doesn't seem right to me. A Sega task force would've been just fine, as a Nintendo task force exists already (which I guess he didn't even care to check for). There is nothing wrong with being a taskforce (even if some members of the Sega project think it's wrong for the project to be turned into one). Or just wait a few months, and see if anyone even cares to join Sega project: if not, then turn it into a taskforce. I want to comment about these comments: The project is divided into two sections Sega Section & Nintendo Section, the duel section idea should make it easier for Nintendo Lovers and Sega Fans to stay to their side while still keeping the project active. The Nintendo Scope and the Sega Scope will be Assessed separately and will not be placed together, everything will be kept as separate at possible making it almost like two different Wikiprojects operating under one name.
WikiProjects shouldn't need two "sides" to discuss things on. This project is a bad idea, and I don't think there was any consensus to even make it. I think the merge should be undone, and just move Sega to a taskforce. Lastly if you have a chance: read some of Gaogier's comments at the old Sega project talk page, he has shown numerous ownership issues over the project. So instead of just admitting the project is dead, he decided to do this wrongful merge. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
See: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sega_&_Nintendo#This_Wikiproject_Is_Dying and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sega_&_Nintendo#Recent_move_to_Sega_and_Nintendo for more information. This whole thing seems to be just a matter of a few Sega project members just claiming ownership. They refuse to be taskforce, so they are rude to people trying to help, and they will do anything it takes to keep the project alive. RobJ1981 (talk) 17:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
This is quite entertaining, discussions like those are not usually that lengthy and the unnecessary last-ditch effort to expand the scope of the Sega Project to include something that already exists elsewhere is just priceless. I do not recall this being discussed, but does the Sega Project even meet the definition of a wikiproject more than a taskforce? In general, it seems whenever a couple a few editors come together they are automatically startout as a "wikiproject". « ₣M₣ » 00:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed that this dual WikiProject has been compartmentalized into two sections: Sega and Nintendo. Is a "WikiProject section" anything like a taskforce? Randomran (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Simon the Sorcerer 4: Chaos Happens

It's red :( --Yakiv Gluck (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Then write it! Savour the chance to write an article from scratch.-- Sabre (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Nipped in there myself and created the basics, no longer red. --Oscarthecat (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Another quick copyedit required

Could some kind soul give Relentless Software the once over for me? Thanks. - X201 (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Player versus player

Player versus player is listed as a "high-priorority" for this project, but it has serious problems. It's had a {{POV}} tag since April 2007. There is only one properly sourced paragraph in the whole article. Though it is listed as being important, it hasn't gotten the attention it deserves. If it isn't fixed soon I'll stub it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

That's hardly a stub-class article. Also many articles on wikipedia have high priority but are in similar condition.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I might clean it up when I can be bothered, it's pretty messy. I've tagged it as so. Haipa Doragon • (contributions) 23:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I actually might bump it down in importance because the article's scope is the really narrow "Competitive gaming in computer RPGs" with one paragraph of lip-service to other genres in the lead. It just happens to have a name that's used in other contexts. To me, it's more like Deathmatch (gaming), a mid-class article. Nifboy (talk) 01:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The Sega/Nintendo WikiProject

I've started a thread here which I hope can take some of the irrational shouting out of this debate and allow us to move forward to find a practical resolution. JACOPLANE • 2008-10-4 23:53

Minor OT correction: Capcom owns Devil May Cry, not Konami. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 00:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Fixed :) JACOPLANE • 2008-10-5 00:32
Yeah. A lot of companies tend to copy content from Wikipedia and other use-submitted websites such as IMDB and KLOV, which is actually a shame since it usually leads to recursive referencing.Jonny2x4 (talk) 01:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

15kb-long plot summary for a mobile phone game

The plot "summary" for Final Fantasy IV The After: Tsuki no Kikan is very long (15kb), while that of Final Fantasy VIII, a featured article about an arguably more complicated game than FFIV The After, takes only 6kb. The FFIV The After plot summary is actually so long that it has to be displayed in a collapsible table. What's more, instead of being a short summary, the individual chapters are described one by one. I say it should be cleaned up (not to mention nothing is sourced at all currently). I had put a {{plot}} tag in the section but an FF Wikia editor reverted my change pretending to ignore what the problem is. Thoughts? Pauca sed bona (talk) 18:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Be bold and cut it down yourself, though you did act correctly in seeking advice, I would say. Or we can wait around for someone else to come help. :) --Izno (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The user who undid it started a discussion on the talk page. Why not explain your objections there and try to work something out with the user instead of giving up after one revert? NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 22:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
This is resolved. Extended plot reduced, details moved elsewhere (gaming wiki?) --Oscarthecat (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Street Fighter and other Capcom fighting game related articles.

I want to improve the quality of many Capcom fighting game related articles. Particularly Street Fighter II and Darkstalkers.

  • First of all, I want to improve the overall prose of Street Fighter II and cover all the major versions in one article. I see little point in covering Super Street Fighter II and Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix in separate articles. The former simply reiterates differences Super and Super Turbo has over the original three versions, while the latter feels more like an advertisement for a minor pay-to-download remake of Super Turbo. At the very least, I think HD Remix needs to be merged to the Super article. Some of the other articles need improvement too (particularly Street Fighter EX2 and Street Fighter III, the former has too much gamecruft and the latter is too opinionated), but Street Fighter II should be top priority.
  • Secondly, I think Darkstalkers needs a good cleanup and could be split up. The game's sequels, Night Warriors and Vampire Savior are different enough from the original to warrant their own articles. On a related note, Darkstalkers Chronicle could easily be merge into a Vampire Savior, since its basically just a variant of Vampire Savior 2 with some added game mode.

There are others that need improvement too (especially character articles like Ryu, Ken and List of Street Fighter EX characters to name some), but the games are top priority first. Any suggestions. Jonny2x4 (talk) 04:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems like deja vu, a similar discussion was taking place during the HD Remix AFD and nothing's changed IMO - folding multiple articles into one doesn't improve any of them and doesn't solve the problems with the SF2 article, which is lack of adequate reception and total lack of development information for the most important fighting game there is. That information does exist, there's a 12-page interview/feature about SF2 in Game Plan, it's in the Guinness Book of Records Gamers edition (already noted in the article) and there's a wealth of reception information lying around in magazines. Super Street Fighter II took as big a step as any fighting game in terms of new characters, the fact that it's called Super Street Fighter II as opposed to Street Fighter III shouldn't make it a merge candidate. The current state of the articles does not dictate how relevant they would be if worked on. At least give them a chance and try to repair the main article first rather than folding them all into an even bigger mess. Someoneanother 21:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I found some scans from an interview with former designer Noritaka Funamizu that was published in Play magazine too. Sadly, the uploader of the scans forgot to establish from which issue of the magazine he took them from, so they're rather worthless for sourcing. I also added Capcom's sales numbers for the SNES and Genesis ports of the games. However, I do have access to an interview with Funamizu and Nishitani from All About Capcom.
My issue with having Super Street Fighter II separately is that it simply just reiterates info already summarized in the main Street Fighter II article. The game themselves aren't really that different aside for the four additional characters in Super and the addition of Super Combos in Super Turbo. Jonny2x4 (talk) 21:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Well there's definitely material in Game Plan: the amount of staff are discussed, according to the interviewee the decision to put the button combinations to perform special moves was implemented in order to make the player move with the game - likened to players interacting with crane games and whack-a-mole machines. Players apparently spliced the arcade boards between two monitors so they didn't have to look at each other when playing, stretching the board's ability to cope. It's full of that kind of info. The main problem with merging is that it necessitates running a knife through each game's information - you can't have a full reception section for at least three different games, it has to be watered down, and considering how important SF2 is I don't think that should be the case. HD Remix still isn't released, but if it was and the subsequent sources were used (as well as what's already out there now) then it wouldn't fit very well with another article either. Someoneanother 22:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Some development information are covered in All About Capcom too actually, such as the double screen cabinets that were sold in Japan, the switch from CPS to CPS II and other hardware changes for later games. But the Street Fighter II series section itself is rather thin (even though five arcade games are all counted as individual games). They list the game features from each game, along with ports, secret features, characters' techniques and endings, which don't vary much between games since they all build upon the same template. Jonny2x4 (talk) 00:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Midtown Madness is October 6's Featured Article

Heads up to those interested in vandal-fighting: Midtown Madness is scheduled to be Today's Featured Article on October 6. Jappalang (talk) 09:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

And thanks to everyone who helped get it there :) Giggy (talk) 10:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I thought we were holding off on TFA's for the moment to allow for some influencial titles like Myst to appear there, but never mind. -- Sabre (talk) 10:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Most of the time Raul chooses them randomly; this was the case here (ie. I didn't request it). Sorry... Giggy (talk) 10:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Regardless congrats Giggy and those that also worked on it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Vandal fighting? Pft, it's all about knocking down the comments about how horrible we all all for daring to work on video games instead of the "important" things like tulips or something. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 11:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
(And boy, did I call it, or what?) ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 11:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Myst got shot down a while ago (15th anniversary wasnt enough to get featured, unfortunately). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
But a low-importance game only nine years old is, in place of a 15 year old game of astronomically large importance to the industry? What sort of logic do these people work on? -- Sabre (talk) 23:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, you get points on multiples of ten, so 15th year anniversary only gets us one point. Another point if the nominator hasn't had a TFA (someone nom'd Chicxulub Crater a while back, so that's not available.) It's not an old FA and it's not in a vital topic, so it doesn't get points there. So it only had a point, and would have been in the negatives if another video game article had appeared within the last three months. Really, the only way we can get a video game to the main page is if Raul randomly picks it (he did that to the elder scrolls article, I believe, as well as Rock Band.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
(Nit, that was Guitar Hero, as well as BioShock. :) --MASEM 00:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The article is now up on the Main Page. One clear-cut case of vandalism so far... Jappalang (talk) 01:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

How did it get shot down; was it at the request page? Yeah, it's a special hell there when you try to nominate a video game article. 68.185.203.134 (talk) 05:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Myst appeared on the requsts page, but Midtown Madness didn't (it was chosen randomly; Sabre, talk to Raul654 if you object to his mechanism for choosing articles). Giggy (talk) 07:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

How would one write a GA on a developer?

I want to rewrite Blizzard Entertainment sometime in the future, but I don't know how best to structure it. The current structure isn't that great, and I'm sure a lot more can be said in prose than is already there. To my knowledge, the only FA/GA article on a developer we have is the GA on Bungie, but I'm reluctant to immediately jump in and use that as an exemplar as Bungie is relatively small time compared to Blizzard from a business perspective—although both were founded in 1991, Blizzard is a giant of a company (nearly 3,000 employees) compared to Bungie (with only 120 employees), plus is home to more than one highly successful, profitable and influencial franchise. So, how should one go about structuring an article on one of the big companies in the industry, or would the approach to small and medium size companies as displayed in the Bungie article be appropriate? I imagine that the Bungie approach would work well for the Valve Corporation though—another article I want to get around to redoing—as its of a similar size and nature, less having been owned by someone else (ie Microsoft) in the past -- Sabre (talk) 23:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize Blizzard itself was that large (as a subsidiary of Viacom or whoever owns it now). I don't see what the real issue with using Bungie as a model is (admittedly, since I'm the guy who wrote it I have a sort of vested interest, but hear me out.) The history section is applicable to all articles, although it will no doubt be subdivided more in Blizzard's case. The 'Culture' section is applicable to bungie because information has been written about it; I don't know if this is the case with Blizzard. Bungie.net is in the article because it is such an integral part of the company's games, and the offshoot companies because as you said, it's had relatively few employees over its lifespan. So none of the above may be applicable, so what other sections you have depends on the sources you can find. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Like so many other things, you need to explain what it is, and how it came to be. It's a company that's really made its name with strategy and RPG games. Historically, it took them a while to get there. You need to add a section to summarize what the company is, how it's structured, what their approach is, and so on. But otherwise the structure is pretty good. The content itself? Needs some work. Randomran (talk) 02:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Also, I think it's better to have controversies in the articles they are about. Having them in the developer's article seems like a troll magnet. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 12:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm certainly going to ditch the entirely unreferenced stuff. Looks like POV stuff to me. The Warden bits can be put into the Warden article. -- Sabre (talk) 13:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, a basic structure is at User:S@bre/Blizzard Entertainment. I borrowed the Corporate affairs stuff from the Microsoft article, if necessary I'll add extra sub-headings and the like: Blizzard does seem to like to get into the thick of that sort of stuff. -- Sabre (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
In terms of company stuff; if there are the references for it, you could have a section about how Blizzard has a reputation for releasing games "when they're done." as that's a fairly signficant aspect of the company. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I think that's a pretty good TOC. History, but also looking at the internal affairs and internal structure of the company. The content is another story, of course. But it would be useful to find any information you can find about their marketing strategy, or design processes. Stuff about the reputation of the company is valuable too, so long as it can be referenced. Randomran (talk) 18:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

GA removal of Super Mario Land

Talk:Super Mario Land - Does anyone oppose removing its GA-class? The only well-sourced section is the Reception, and it lacks any sources for Gameplay, and no Development section. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I see no problem tossing that article to WP:GAR, it likely should be removed. --MASEM 20:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The problem with many of these Good Articles nominated two or more years ago is that the standards have gotten higher during that time. Same thing for Featured Articles. If the article is left unattended for a very long time, it falls behind with the times and the better articles. MuZemike 00:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Harvest Moon problems

HM articles are in bad shape, and this time I'm not asking for participation (unless you want to), but an opinion. I've been trying to decide if we should have lists of marriage candidates. While lists are frowned upon, I also think that the marriage candidates are fairly notable and useful, and on top of this, it helps to show varying personalities. As a fan, I'm also wrestling if I'm prepared to break it down to examples of differing personalities, interests, and tastes. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually, now that I think about it, there is a list of HM characters, so I could just link to that. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Take into account that the List of characters in the Harvest Moon series character list is in pretty bad shape at the moment. Salavat (talk) 17:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, I noticed that. I think the character list might need to be fixed by... I dunno, separating by character, instead of "character by role". - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeh seperating by role is a bit-in gameish. Or maybe by game (although i think dont quote me though some characters may appear in multiple game). So seperating simply by character maybe would be the only way. Or maybe like List of characters in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow where they have "recurring characters", then the rest classed under respected video games. Salavat (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I'll pitch in some agreement on that. From what I've seen, the characters themselves may be significant enough to the game to warrant mention (though I don't really see anything that says that there are specific characters that stand out more than others in most of the games in the series), but trying to make it more specific with a list of marriage candidates would be too specific, IMO. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I cleaned it up a bit, but it's definitely a long way's to go. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Working on tidying up Ico

I'm grabbing a subject by the horns (ha ha) and going to work Ico through to FA. I was surprised to hit on as much development info as I have, and thus the article is shaping up well; I basically need to write out a review reception section (I'm going to try to avoid a ratings table, as I did on Crush (video game) and go for the esoteric "Person X at Site Y said..." approach that I think reads better. If you want to lend a hand, please let me know. --MASEM 16:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The reception table and the "person X at Site Y said.." approaches aren't mutually exclusive you know. -- Sabre (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
True, though I think I still want avoiding mentioning specific review scores to see how it flows. --MASEM 17:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I've got my hands full with the Version 0.7 articles, but I'd certainly like to see this game get to FA. I'd be happy to give the article an copy edit and some reference checks. Just drop me a note. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC))

Template:VGtitle and FFspinoff

I've been working on and off on Template:VGtitle, trying to improve it and make it easier to use. The last wall I hit was trying to integrate Template:FFspinoff with it. I think I've come up with a solution and have posted it at Template talk:VGtitle#Spin off titles. Before changing the template code, I'd really appreciated it if someone with more template experience could check it out to see if there are some possible errors I'm not seeing. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC))

Update- I was bold and updated the template. It looks to be working fine and I've redirected Template:FFspinoff to Template:VGtitle. There do not seem to be any issues, but if there are please let me know, or be bold and fix them. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

Non-violent first person shooters

We could use some more thoughts and opinions at Talk:Portal (video game)#Non-violent & Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 6#Category:Non-violent first-person shooters. cheers –xeno (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games problems once again!

Hahnchen is at it again. He wont drop the list issue, and now one other person is re-adding the list. They act as if two people are the consensus, which is far from the truth. See Talk:Mario_&_Sonic_at_the_Olympic_Games#Events. I think perhaps admin action might be needed soon, I see Hahnchen's actions as disruptive, as he refuses to drop the matter. He is now claiming people have an "irrational fear of lists" in his post at the talk page. RobJ1981 (talk) 17:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The "irrational fear of lists" is actually quite an old line of mine I used in the first discussion or so. There has been no change in my position, I was merely collating the discussions in one place for future reference. I didn't envisage yet another discussion appearing on WT:VG, but I'll add it to the list. - hahnchen 00:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
So, the contentious list can be seen in this edit. I'd class thie information as great for a gaming wiki, but not so crucial for wikipedia's level of detail for a game. It's similar to listing all the levels in a game, or all the cars available in a racing game. FA class article such as Wii Sports handles this well, by incorporating information of note regarding each sport into the article's text rather than a list. I'm all for discussing it but right now I agree with you RobJ1981, the list isn't suitable. --Oscarthecat (talk) 19:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I likened it to lists such as List of songs in Guitar Hero II. Knowing the list of events covered shows you the scope of the game, and furthers your understanding of the subject. - hahnchen 00:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
If Hahnchen wants to take it to requests for comment, he can. I don't have any need to do it. I just know the RFC will be the same thing: people saying the list doesn't belong with justified reasons, and him just ignoring them and refusing to drop the matter. There has been more than enough views on this matter, but nothing gets through to him. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
If you feel that Hahnchen's behavior is out of line and isn't respecting consensus, you can start up a Request for Comment on User Conduct as part of the dispute resolution process. That can lead to hopefully a better understanding between everyone involved, and opens up the door for administrative action if/where necessary. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd actually suggest a quicker avenue of filing a complaint at WP:ANI, if Hahn is going against consensus. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
You might want to read the admittedly partisan summary I wrote at Talk:Mario_&_Sonic_at_the_Olympic_Games#Events on consensus. Take a look at the closing statements at the FAC, and if you have time, flick through some of the discussions. - hahnchen 00:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
How many people need to be against the list before you finally drop this? Many people have explained why the list doesn't belong, yet you refuse to drop this. As for the FAC: I've explained this already, and it's very clear by this: [2] (the final comment in the discussion), that the list doesn't effect being featured at all. Perhaps I will use ANI sometime soon, because consensus is clear: the list isn't needed. Hahnchen isn't dealing with being wrong in a mature manner. RobJ1981 (talk) 02:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I complied a list of comments left by people throughout this whole discussion on the game's talk page. Personally, I think it shows a consensus in favor of removal and don't think I took them out of context, but that's my perception. I would appreciate it if others looked it over and weighed in on my interpretation. Hopefully it will put an end to this matter. (Guyinblack25 talk 04:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

Initiated a request for comment on the dispute (not for user conduct). MuZemike (talk) 07:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

video game locations, part two

In this older discussion, we identified and dealt with the most obvious cruft, while also trying to improve what could logically be saved. Everything else is a little harder to know for sure:

Final Fantasy series

Grand Theft Auto series

Pokemon:

Others:

The most helpful thing editors can do? Identify articles that have no hope of meeting our policies and guidelines, or articles that can meet our guidelines with a little bit of work. You could also check in at Talk:Pokémon regions to discuss the best way to deal with the individual regions articles (Johto, Sinnoh and so on...) Even if you're only stating the obvious, you help show that the obvious has WP:consensus. Randomran (talk) 02:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirect Pokémon Center to Pokémon game mechanics' section on it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Add San Andreas (Grand Theft Auto) (expand it away from the game redirect it is now) to the list of GTA locations like was done with HL. --MASEM 20:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
As previously stated, I believe there's some hope for World of Monkey Island. At the moment though, it looks more like an inefficient merge of all other Monkey Island fiction articles. -- Sabre (talk) 23:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the list. We could really use a few more people to check in and recommend a reasonable course of action for the Pokemon regions. Even just a quick yay or nay would be better than nothing. Randomran (talk) 02:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The GTA locations can probably be merged fairly easily, although from my (limited) observations of GTA fans on WP they probably won't take kindly to it: a merge would probably need to be conducted in sandbox and brought out at near GA quality to quickly consolidate it from the fans objections; its certainly not a fire-and-forget issue. The Pokemon stuff definitely should be merged, no question on that from me - a few paragraphs in that gameplay article should do it nicely. One of the Final Fantasy locations used to be a good article, which leads me to believe that they only need a thorough clean-through and a purge of all unnecessary in-universe stuff, along with expansion of the real-world stuff. The fact one got to GA suggests to me that the sources are probably there, somewhere, but need to be dug up. -- Sabre (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Good point on the FF article. I'll have to ponder the GTA stuff for a bit. Care to check in at the Pokemon merge discussion, just for the sake of building a consensus? I'm sure you know how tough it is to deal with some of this material without evidence of real support. Randomran (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Liberty City could probably remain as there's at least one third party source in the article that's about Liberty City (as opposed to GTA in general) and a quick google search finds more ([3], [4]). It does need some OR and cruft removal though. Vice City is not so lucky. Bill (talk|contribs) 17:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Good points everyone, and thanks for continuing to help out. For any of the items not crossed out (including the XFD for the pokemon regions template), please do check in or help out in whatever way you feel is appropriate. We should try to build WP:CONSENSUS, but feel free to be WP:BOLD. Randomran (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave a note on the GTA Taskforce page to see if we can get some work done on Liberty City. Bill (talk|contribs) 18:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to be honest, but Randomran...I'm actually slightly irked over how you're going about Gaia (Final Fantasy VII). While it's not the best FF region article it does have potential and some sourcing to show active discussion in third party material exists. But you went to the FF project page (and it's been a busy project, we've been aiming at 50 GA or FA articles by year's end and almost there) with kinda a do-or-die tone...I don't really see why that's necessary if I'm pretty sure everyone here, even TTN, can agree that's one article with currently the least of our worries and most potential. So I'm unsure why the rush to rescue it and why it's part of this discussion.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean it that way, and I apologize if I came across as inducing a "do or die" panic. It really just needs a couple of reliable third party sources. I know GA status takes a lot of effort. I'm leaving another comment at the FF task force. Randomran (talk) 03:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

StarCraft: Ghost FAC

Gary King reckons its worth letting the project know here that StarCraft: Ghost has gone into FAC. Currently, Gary King and a couple of others are heavily copyeditting the article, and in the process showing me a thing or two about how to meet the "brilliant prose" requirement. This FAC's something of unexplored territory: its (to our knowledge) the first FAC on an unreleased game, on top of that one that's "not quite cancelled but certainly not coming out any time soon, if ever". We've been assured us that its ok to try over at the main FAC talk page, so we're giving it a go. The FAC page is over at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/StarCraft: Ghost, feel free to leave your comments.-- Sabre (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Can I request a little more participation from project members here? Please don't take this at canvassing, I'm not trying to get a ton of unconditional support votes, just more participation to prevent the FAC from stalling and being failed due to lack of participation. I realise that FAC is a slow process, but its almost been three days, and so far only one editor has put in a comment either for support or opposition, and three others have left neutral comments that don't really lend support or opposition. So please, can some people from here inject their comments and reviews to support or opposition; hopefully non-project members will be spurred to participate if they see activity. -- Sabre (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Responded, but probably not in the manner that you hoped for, sorry. JACOPLANE • 2008-10-8 23:26

I checked in to help things along. Maybe some of the editors of StarCraft: Ghost could return the favor by making a few other comments about the location articles (particularly where there are discussions for merging)? :) Just to help our WikiProject move along. Randomran (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my experience with featured article nominations is that they take a long time to go through -- almost a month. And you're probably better off waiting for random editors to chime in rather than soliciting feedback from a WikiProject. A while back, I think someone raised concerns that the WikiProjects were biased towards to their own content, and was invested in promoting their content to featured status. Randomran (talk) 16:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Aye, thats probably true, and I'm sure there will be those out there that will take comments like mine at the top as a straight attempt to canvass people into adding unconditional supports, even though I was careful to try to phrase the request to show I was after participation and discussion, not blind support. I'll avoid making these requests in the future, just to prevent any such accusations—not that I've had any made against me. I think Gary King and I snapped up the non-project participants who were interested for the extensive copyeditting the article was put through in the early days of the FAC. However, due to the nature of the FAC, its something of new ground as far as VG FAC's go, so I think that in this case a comment of some sort here was prudent. -- Sabre (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, you were very fair. For a VG article that kind of defies a lot of conventions, it's important to get a little extra feedback. I didn't take it to be canvassing, and I definitely gave an honest and critical opinion. Randomran (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Assessments need help

Really, it's gotten to be just me and Someone another doing the assessments for the most part.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to help out when I can. MuZemike (talk) 22:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, for most of the history of the assessment process most assessments have been done by one person. At some point it was me (spring 07), then it as UnaLaguna for a moment, and then I stopped checking my watchlist every day :P , so cheers to Someone another for stepping up and doing it :) . I'll try to do some over the weekend myself, but I'm pretty inactive atm. User:Krator (t c) 00:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
It's a team effort, happy to be able to help. Someoneanother 12:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Over the Hedge (handheld game)#Title

There's some talk there concerning the name of the article. User:A Link to the Past insinuates that "(handheld game)" or "(handheld video game)" would be the preferred layout and not "(Nintendo DS)". I would like to know what the guidelines say about video game-related page titles. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 21:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no guideline for "handheld video game" because it's not addressed in naming guidelines. As it stands, there's no good reason why handheld video game is inappropriate, but computer game and arcade game are not, especially since arcade game can also refer to non-video games. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
There's a similar discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_53#Move_warring:_Donkey_Kong_.28Game_Boy.29_vs._Donkey_Kong_.28handheld_game.29 regarding Donkey Kong (Game Boy). In that case though, there were two possible handheld games. My thoughts on the subject remain the same as in the previous discussion. - hahnchen 23:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I had been aware of that particular discussion, however, the issue here is this: what does the manual of style currently say? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 23:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The manual of style does not address handheld games because they're grouped as video games, instead of a separate type of game like computer and arcade game. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
While i dont really like the handheld disambiguation, as i stated in the previous discussion, i think if we are going to use it we should use "handheld video game" rather then "handheld game". Using just game is to broad and not specific to video games. Salavat (talk) 02:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
So it's settled then? I trust that we'll use (handheld video game) from here on? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 02:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
In what context? Even in the context original to this discussion, the basis in choosing one ('handheld [video] game') over the other ('Nintendo DS') appears to be because it can be, not because it should or must, given the lack of explicit policy. There only appears to be a weak claim that the former might be "more helpful" than the latter, though it doesn't strike me as thoroughly constructed or terribly persuasive. The thread referenced earlier by hahnchen seems to favor use of platform for disambiguation rather than 'handheld [video] game' with respect to article subjects such as Over the Hedge here. D. Brodale (talk) 03:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I chose it because it doesn't necessarily NEED to be Nintendo DS. There's really no notable handheld OtH games, and the use of handheld video game should be encouraged, since handhelds are a unique medium just like computers and arcades. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm unable to follow the logic of that final statement within the context of selecting a phrase to disambiguate an article title. Could you perhaps expand on it, as it's not clear to me that such phrases are intended for use to further perceptions of a given medium, particularly one where prior discussion highlighted concerns about the efficacy of applying 'handheld [video] game' in brief to games for cartridge-based systems, such as the one under consideration here. D. Brodale (talk) 06:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
It's a question of how people will disambiguate by arcade game and computer game, but not handheld video game. Calling it Nintendo DS is a less helpful disambig, since not everyone knows what a DS is. We should only use such terms if necessary, and I don't think we HAVE to call it Over the Hedge (Nintendo DS). Handheld video game works just fine - it's clearly understood by anyone, because what a handheld is and what a video game is is obvious even to those who've never played a video game, but Nintendo DS is not. I don't think that just because it's common practice TO use (Nintendo DS), that we should use it whenever applicable. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps, but as I believe was pointed out elsewhere, not everyone "clearly understands" handheld video game to mean the same thing, leading to ambiguity, contrary to the purpose of phrase insertion. My perception may be colored. I understand your choice to construct a common class for disambiguation, but cannot accept outright the assumption that handheld video game possesses the cut-and-dried usage pattern presented. Others have expressed this concern in the past. What is clear to me from general Wikipedia disambiguation guidelines is that effort should be made to maintain simplicity and uniformity, the latter within a shared context. Whichever way things lean, I don't think it's in anyone's interest to go one way and the other within a similar set of articles. Given the guidelines call for uniformity of practice, disrupting an inherited pattern through introduction of a new disambiguating phrase should follow discussion rather than precede it, I should think. D. Brodale (talk) 06:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It's time for some dispute resolution from outside the community. Given that this discussion has occurred more than once, I am initiating a request for comment on the matter. MuZemike (talk) 06:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

To me, this is clear cut. "Handheld game" or 'Handheld video game" is inappropriate, because there does exist the other version of the game for the GBA; calling the DS version by disamb (handheld game) is mis-categorizing it. The disambg. needs to be the platform name: "(Nintendo DS game)". --MASEM 12:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, clear cut to me also. There's more than one handheld version, so just like we had with the Donkey Kong issue earlier, this needs to have the (Nintendo DS game) suffix. --Oscarthecat (talk) 13:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  1. Inherited pattern? How can there be an inherited pattern? We use video game, computer game, and arcade game, but we magically don't use handheld video game for absolutely no reason. There's no disruption in changing an unclear disambig to a clear one.
  2. There also happens to be no ARTICLE for the GBA game, since its only notable aspect is that it was really below average. You're disambiguating between something and nothing. And I am flabbergasted about the second issue, too. The only DK game is an old, obscure G&W remake of the original and a GBA port of the NES game that was unsuccessful. (handheld video game) makes more sense than (Game Boy) because it's a clearer name to more people. That there's an issue with disambig does not equal that there's a PROBLEM with disambig. The GBA game didn't win any awards, didn't sell well, didn't rate well, but also didn't do so bad that people felt compelled to point this out, while Over the Hedge sold more than 200k in the US, a very respectable number, was developed by Vicarious Visions, was well-received, won an award from IGN.com, etc. The two "other" handheld DKs are minor while the current handheld DK is fairly major, and the GBA OtH has nothing significant about it at all, while the DS game has multiple notable aspects about it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Let's start with what NC states, (from WP:NCDAB):
  • A disambiguating word or phrase can be added in parentheses. The word or phrase in parentheses should be:
    • the generic class that includes the topic, as in Mercury (element), Seal (mammal); or
    • the subject or context to which the topic applies, as in Union (set theory), Inflation (economics).
We're not doing anything in the second qualifier (subject or context) so let's ignore that. Obviously we have to disambig to separate from the comic and film, so we need something. The DS game cannot just do "video game" because there are 5 other games out there that are fundamentally different, and because that's the larger group, the non-DS games get the "video game" disambig title. So we have to define the most generic class that the "Over the Hedge" DS game qualifies under without leading to any other confusion. If there was only one handheld game named "Over the Hedge", then I agree that (handheld video game) would be the better title, but that is not the case; we have a GBA game as well, already described on the previously discussed page. A reader, going by title alone, may come to expect that information on the GBA game can be found at "Over the Hedge (handheld video game)", which is incorrect. The most generic name scheme that includes this topic but excludes topics covered elsewhere (the entire purpose of disambiguation) is "(Nintendo DS game)", as it is perfectly clear it is only about the game for the DS, and the hatnote appropriate redirects to the other video game or other OtH disambig topics including the GBA version (which does have an article, in the same discussion as four other games with exactly the same story and gameplay released on consoles). Again, the point of the disambig naming is to provide the most generic class that describes the element but that does not include elements covered elsewhere, even if a small section of another article. --MASEM 18:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Then let's discuss the GBA game in the article. I was going to do this anyway, to expand it further. It would have to be called (handheld video games), however. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Uh. Just curious, but how does this discussion, which at no point suggests the usage of (handheld game) over (handheld video game), become a dispute over these two versions? The RfC is completely wrong, which is why either involved people or people who have done their research should be the ones to open such dispute resolutions. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
But if it's to be called "... (handheld game)" then surely it needs to reference the GBA game in the infobox and so on, regardless of how good the GBA game was? If suffix "(Nintendo DS game)" was used, it wouldn't need to reference the GBA game, except for a brief link at the start? --Oscarthecat (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Why isn't this logic used for (video game)? Many articles use the (video game) disambig, and I'm sure there are a lot of Ice Hockey video games without Wikipedia articles. The GBA game is not relevant to the article, and just because both are handheld video games does not equal that it has to be about all handheld video games to use the disambig. We also disambiguate based on notability - the GBA game has nothing special about it, no notability, but the DS game definitely has notability - the gap between the two handheld video games called Over the Hedge is too great to argue confusion. There are constantly multiple versions of games. TMNT has a console game, DS game, and a GBA game, all of which run on different engines, and two of which have their own articles, and arguably, the TMNT handheld game is the most famous of them - was considered the last great GBA game, and got good ratings. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I thought this logic was used. (video game) suffix and article then references all the ports of the game. Sure, keep the (handheld game) suffix,but mention all the handheld versions that exist, whether notable or not. For example, N (video game) references the Windows, Mac and Linux versions. Now, the Linux version isn't that notable, but it gets a mention in the list of ports, because the list needs be comprehensive and the port exists. --Oscarthecat (talk) 19:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
It's not used for Ice Hockey (video game) - it only discusses the NES game, not other games with the same title. The articles you reference don't mention unrelated games with the same title, I'm not setting precedence that the most miniscule handheld game existing means that we can't use (handheld video game) for a far more significant game. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, Ice Hockey (video game) is a good example of why we need platform details suffixed. Having Ice Hockey (video game) covering just a NES game while Ice Hockey (Atari 2600) covers a 2600 game shows what a pain it is having a generalised suffix where multiple games on multiple platforms exist. Why should NES inherit the generic (video game) suffix? Because the NES is more notable than the 2600? Because the NES game is more notable? In this case I'd say Ice Hockey (video game) gets renamed to Ice Hockey (NES video game). This seems to have parallels with the handheld games issue, don't you think? The WP:VG guidelines for naming article aren't very good, so if we can get to the bottom of this now, and update the guidelines, great. --Oscarthecat (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines/Naming provides specific details how this should work (which Ice Hockey breaks, so yes, it needs to be fixed). If the title needs disambig due to other video games of the same name (or other topics) we use the year; I believe both Ice Hockey games should be done in this manner (by year instead of platform) When there is need for a platform port, we then add the specific platform to the title; this is exactly the case with Over the Hedge. (There was a similar discussion with Spore (the 2008 one) some wanting it at (video game), despite two older, less-notable titles; Spore is now at Spore (2008 video game) appropriately.) This helps to also avoid issues of which is the "most notable" game of the same name (like the TMNT case) as each is exactly disambig. I cannot see any confusion in calling the DS OtH at (Nintendo DS) or (Nintendo DS game) sitting along side "OtH (video game)"; while there is possible confusion with (handheld video game). Spot checking what games are disambig by (handheld game), most of these are inappropriate (they only have one platform (GB and GBC are effectively the same in my eyes considering Tetris (handheld game).) so there are a number of game titles we need to clean up titles with. --MASEM 22:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Note — cross-listing the RfC with Art, architecture, literature and media as video gaming falls in-between the two RfC subjects. MuZemike (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Now moved to Ice Hockey (1988 video game) and Ice Hockey (1981 video game). Haven't touched the OtH namings yet, although I agree with your suggested names. --Oscarthecat (talk) 07:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

EarthBound characters

Can I get some comments on merging the separate character lists of the series to their main articles here? TTN (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I checked in with my honest opinion. If you could help out by commenting on some of the Category:Video game locations articles (there's a thread from earlier this week just up this talk page), you'd be helping consensus move forward. Randomran (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Requesting input in prose versus list discussion

An anonymous IP has started a discussion as to whether the game modes section in Team Fortress 2 should be in a list format, which he believes is clearer to read. I personally disagree with that, I think the prose version is a better approach, and I've generally been given the impression that such lists get shot to pieces at FACs. Basically, we have a little bold, revert, discuss situation, but needing a bit more of the discuss part to form a consensus. Can I request a few members here inject their opinions into the discussion? Currently its just me, the IP and a user who just registered. -- Sabre (talk) 00:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Ace Combat

Does anyone here know enough about the Ace Combat series to appropriately spread out the important information from List of Ace Combat characters and List of nations of Ace Combat? I don't really know much about it, so most of the information will probably end up trashed if I do anything with it. TTN (talk) 13:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

You could always leave it instead of going in and trashing information in an area you don't know much about. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I was tempted to make a reference to WP:CIVIL here, but am now aware that Phil and TTC are engaged in a dispute see Request for arbitration, so will rightly leave this for Ace Combat experts to consider. --Oscarthecat (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I guess I'll take a crack at making it work, despite not having played any of the games. Almost all of 'em are one-game people/orgs, anyway. Edit: I did a rather ham-handed copy-paste merge of the character list with very little editing. Next is a second go-round to cut out most of the blatant OR, etc. Nifboy (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • List of nations was previously deleted. Then it was recreated, and closed as a no consensus keep when people said it had notability regardless of actual evidence. It's had a chance to be improved, but it hasn't. I'd support taking it to AFD, where we might be able to find a consensus once again. But maybe there would be more luck with a simple upmerge. Randomran (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge Discussion That Could Use Some Extra Voices

Talk:Viruses in the Resident Evil series#Merge in Las Plagas

The proposed merge is to seperate Las Plagas from Resident Evil 4 (where a previous AfD consesnus had originally said to merge it to) and join it with Viruses in the Resident Evil series. Third opinions would be helpful.--KojiDude (C) 18:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Copy edit needed on Aether (video game)

GaryColemanFan's kindly reviewed the article for me, and the prose is lacking, would someone with better writing skills give the article a once-over? It's a pretty short one. Someoneanother 12:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

  • I am still working on the article though, so it might be worth holding off until I've corrected the other issues (it's a Good Article candidate BTW). Someoneanother 13:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's ready to be copyedited now, would you kindly take a look for me, someone? ;) Someoneanother 18:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh, please? :S Someoneanother 21:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm taking a look. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much David, a bit overwhelmed ATM and I'd like it off my plate. Someoneanother 01:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Xenogears help

After failing GA, I was hoping someone might be able to help out with the Xenogears article a bit. All the info is there for the most part, it just needs reworking. Any help would be so appreciated. Evaunit♥666♥ 16:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Tales of Symphonia: Dawn of the New World

If some editors could help keep an eye on the Tales of Symphonia: Dawn of the New World page, that would be good. There's been a recent upsurge in anon IP edits, some okay but most not very good, mainly over the voice actors (along with associated pages like Scott Menville, Brian Beacock, Tara Platt and so on). I've been reverting but I'm doing quite a bit of it and it's been pointed out it could be/could look like a 3RR violation. Any help appreciated. Page has just been semi-protected I think, but I don't know if that will stop it entirely. Thanks.Mr T (Based) (talk) 00:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Pokémon Red and Blue

I am trying to get Pokémon Red and Blue, currently a good article, to featured article status. It has already gotten a peer review, which received minimal participation, so I brought it here in hopes that someone could do a good copy-edit or help me fix some flaws in the article. Any help is appreciated. Thanks, Artichoker[talk] 20:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The first thing that pops out is the lack of screenshots. There needs to be at least two I think, one for battle, and one for the overworld. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Where did you get this requirement from? Especially since all of the images are non-free. Artichoker[talk] 22:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
There's no requirement, it's just logic. People want to see what the game looks like, not how many box art the game has. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I am not experienced enough in images to know how to upload and tag one correctly, so can someone help me? Artichoker[talk] 00:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Gimme some links to a couple of screenshots you want uploaded, and ill go about it. Salavat (talk) 14:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Screenshots need to show important parts of the game to better help the reader's understanding. I suggest using screenshots of a battle and another of the normal bird's eye view screen when walking around. Gary King (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
There were some images I had from Pokemon Yellow back when it was an article you could use, otherwise I can get some other shots. To cut down on nonfree use I would remove all the box art save one, and note that each of the games had a pokemon on it in the infobox. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
(ec) References need some inspecting. Be on the look out for personal websites like http://home.comcast.net/~eichler2/gameboy/GameLink.htm which are not Reliable sources, and sites like http://www.123exp-biographies.com/t/00034233474/ that say "Some descriptions may have been derived in part from Princeton University WordNet or Wikipedia." You'll probably be asked why four box arts meets the Non-free content criteria. Pagrashtak 15:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Addition: The article says that the cartridge is 8 megabits. Where did that come from? Nintendo Power volume 113, page 112 says 4 megabits. I'd change it unless you have another source. Pagrashtak 16:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(←) I fixed the problems with the unreliable sites and changed the megabits from 8 to 4. Pagrashtak, if you could write out reference for that in the article it would be much appreciated. (never mind, I got it) As for the images, can I just find an image from anywhere or does it have to be from a reliable site? Or David, if you could find some images, that would be awesome. Thanks for the help everyone. Artichoker[talk] 21:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Images can be from any place, but just make sure you link to the place where the image is used, instead of deeplinking to the image file alone. My suggestion is to clear out the images and work on the prose first, then see where one or two images can be used to maximum effect. You also need to decide how you're going to address development and reception, considering there are multiple games you are talking about; I would think some foreign language sources would be necessary given its initial release in Japan long before it migrated to english territories. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Then if someone could take the time to copy-edit this article, I would appreciate it. Also I'm not sure how to get foreign sources, since I can't speak Japanese. Artichoker[talk] 21:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Some thoughts. Numbered for easy reference.

  1. Three box arts and no screenshots of gameplay? What's up with that?
    Yeah, I'm working on that. I replaced the Yellow box art with a screenshot of the overworld. I would still like another image depicting a battle in Red and Blue. Images for the article should now be adequate.
  2. The article does a poor job of placing this game into context in the franchise. The games didn't "jump-start" the franchise; that means that they revived a flagging franchise. They started the franchise.
    Fixed.
  3. Who the hell is Just RPG and why do I care what they think, particularly given that their review was at least four years after the fact?
    That has been removed.
  4. Development jumps all over the place. The same paragraph talks about the NA release and Tajiri's worries that Nintendo wouldn't be interested in publishing his game. Wha-huh?
    Fixed that part. I think everything else flows pretty well, unless you would like to point out another example.
  5. If Sugimori "single-handedly" designed all of the Pokémon, why does the source for this claim list two character designers and six monster designers?
    Fixed.
  6. KILL REVIEW TABLES WITH FIRE.
    That is your preference, but not mine.
  7. I note a lack of non-North American critical reception. Japanese sources are one thing, but the game has been released in Europe and Australia and elsewhere.
    I will try looking for some of those sources.
  8. As long as FireRed and LeafGreen have their own articles with Japanese and transliterated names, we don't need to duplicate that here.
    Fixed.

Okay, that's all I got for now.- A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I have fixed some of the issues, still working on others. Artichoker[talk] 15:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Just noticed in the infobox platforms part it has "Game Boy Advance" as a platform. This article is really about the game boy version. So is it really necessary to list a remakes platform in the infobox. Salavat (talk) 03:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, I hadn't noticed that. It has been removed. Artichoker[talk] 20:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Opinions on article section rquired

This stems from an IP addition that I reverted but after re-reading the section in question I think it is in need of a major rewrite or editing.
The Glenn Beck section of the Grand_Theft_Auto_IV_controversies article (Grand_Theft_Auto_IV_controversies#Glenn_Beck) whilst being correct in reporting what Beck said, the section is basically his rant without any form of rebuttal or NPOV. I was going to balance the article up using this [5] and other sources, but was wondering if his comments were worth reporting in such detail anyway as per WP:UNDUE. In short, opinions please: Edit or Try to balance? - X201 (talk) 09:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks like it needs a bit of both. If there have been notable responses and published counter arguments to some of the statements, they should included as well. At the very least, I would paraphrase the numerous direct quotes in the entire article.
One more suggestion. You may want to try looking at this whole thing like you would a reception section in a game article. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC))
Thanks for comments. I've removed and summarised quite a bit of the section. Just need to trawl the internet to find notable responses and counter-claims. - X201 (talk) 11:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Robot Master

What should be done with this article? I really don't see it establishing notability, and even if it could, the entire list system may be too crufty anyways. The main topic itself should be covered within Mega Man (original series). The separate sections should either be split out to the games or removed. Are they important enough to deserve coverage within the games? Maybe just the ones from the first game, which have had a slightly more prominent role in the series, should be moved to the character list. TTN (talk) 18:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Oooohh, WP:GAMEGUIDE material. Oh wait, this is not StrategyWiki! Go get the guillotine. MuZemike (talk) 07:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

New article announcement

I split content from the Resistance: Fall of Man article and created the Controversy over the usage of Manchester Cathedral in Resistance: Fall of Man. Anyone who's interested, feel free to edit! - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


Peer review is open for Metroid Prime 3: Corruption

I've been working on this article on and off for the past few months. I've started working on it again, and I've opened up a peer review here. If you've got time, please take a look at it, or better yet, just get your hands dirty and copyedit it. ;) Thanks in advance! Gary King (talk) 22:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Version 0.7 update

Currently, 48 old ids of the selected articles have been submitted (35 FA, 1 A-class, 10 GA, 2 B-class). If you have worked on a Featured, Good, or A-class article, your assistance in providing clean up and identifying a vandalism free id of the article would be greatly appreciated. If you have not worked on one of the selected articles, your assistance would still be appreciated as the deadline for submissions is next Monday, October 20th. Please ask any questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Wikipedia 0.7 workshop. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC))

Since we might as well prioritize, how many FAs does that leave still requiring oldids? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
40 FAs (technically 41; Final Fantasy is all but done, just need to add a source and submit the id). (Guyinblack25 talk 19:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC))

It's starting to get down to the wire now and I think focus should shift to removing poor quality articles of low importance. Please feel free comment at the workshop talk page on articles you think should be removed from the list. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

Pikachu GA reassessment

Pikachu is up for GA reassessment - please comment. -Malkinann (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Pikachu/2 for discussion. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

Dealing with Total War factions

I'd like some advice on how to deal with the factions in the Total War series. The key difference from other cases of lists is that these aren't fiction, these are real kingdoms and states, so many people believe that full lists are prudent, as evidenced by the very very large amount of article space taken up by them. However, the level of detail in Rome: Total War is clearly unsustainable, while I decided to dump a similar approach as done in Age of Empires III into Medieval II: Total War, it doesn't look that great either (although I do like being able to use free-use flags). I'm looking for a way to properly approach these factions for a cleanup rewrite of Empire: Total War, which you can see here. I can't imagine the approach of so concisely summarising the factions in the game as:

"Empire: Total War will feature approximately fifty 18th century factions, such as Great Britain, Prussia and Spain. The emergence of key nations during the era, such as Revolutionary France and the Thirteen Colonies, and the fall of native states to the larger empires will be reflected in the game. Players will be able to access twelve factions at the start of the game, and unlock others later in the game."

rather than a full list of the fifty is going to sit too well with the fans (and the bulk of writers of the Total War articles, judging by the presence of lists throughout the series). So, what would be the best way to approach these factions and maintain article quality? -- Sabre (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you need to list the factions at all? I'm WP:GAMEGUIDE wary. I don't think the AoE3 article is the best example (shameless self-plug follows) and I think Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings deals with civilizations better (though one could argue more information in that article wouldn't go astray... I'm open to ideas). I think your proposed phrasing is fine; if the fans dislike it, show them Wikipedia policy/guidlines/etc. and explain to them how things are done around here (and more importantly, why). Giggy (talk) 02:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC) I've never played a Total War game for the record, so I may be way off.
Kill it. The factions are not "historical" but a game adaptation; the virtual and real versions are separate. Unless sourced material is gotten on how the game-entity relates to the real-world-entity (development information), I fail to see why such a full-blown list should exist. Even when such information exist, they can be written in prose. Giggy's suggestion of lumping them into clearly recognised groups (take heed the need to avoid OR) is a good one. Jappalang (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Jappa. Generally I'm against factions being discussed in length unless there is lots of information on development, et al. For historical factions, you would need information on how they stack up to their real counterparts, et al. It's unlikely, though not impossible, that these sources exist. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Excellent. That's pretty much confirmed what I already thought, ditch lists and concisely summarise in prose, as has already been done in the sandbox article I quoted from. I can't imagine the fans are going to be happy, but they'll just have to put up with it under WP:IINFO and WP:VGSCOPE. -- Sabre (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Reliability of Game Revolution

A recent dispute at Super Mario 64 raised the question whether Game Revolution satisfies WP:Reliable sources. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 12:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC))

I always considered it reliable. Where's the dispute you mention? Some background to the debate would be useful. Giggy (talk) 12:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Nothing worthwhile on reliable web-sites that can help Game Revolution's case. Like I said at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#A few sources for your consideration, the site's staff and their grading system do not inspire confidence in their reliability.
Book-wise,
  • Playing Video Games: Motives, Responses, and Consequences by Peter Vorderer, and Jennings Bryant — used as a source for an investigation into the failings of Sims Online.
  • Alice's Adventures by Will Brooker — used as a source for reviews on games based on Alice
  • Screenplay by Geoff King, and Tanya Krzywinska — used the site's review for Half-Life as a reference on the role of technology in digital narration and pleasure
  • Asian America.Net by Rachel C. Lee, and Sau-ling Cynthia Wong — used the site's Duke Nuken 64 review as a source material for a discussion on the failure of Shadow Warrior
That is about all the substantial uses of the site among books; the rest are insubstantial, like part of a list of recommended sites, references to hosted press releases or product description, etc. (Remember: notability does not equate to reliability; mentions on reliable sources of the subject need to be scrutinized on what the subject is used for.) Personally, I would hesitate to call the site even close to 90% reliable; it is debatable (on one hand, a smattering of published materials references it; on another hand, it seems unprofessional and unrecognised by the media and professional gaming sites). Jappalang (talk) 14:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
This first started at Talk:Super Mario 64#Wikipedia is not a fanboy website. when User:Handsome elite added review content sourced from Game Revolution and Nintendorks. It looked like they were using an IP address and the account User:Dr90s to edit war. After some discussion, it ended up with Sephiroth BCR taking some admin actions.
It popped up again recently. I'm trying to assume good faith by explaining editorial oversight, and am looking into GR again. Like last time, the site just doesn't feel right, and I couldn't find a page about their editorial process. But I noticed the site has been sourced on various other pages, so figured I'd get more input this time.
Unfortunately, they look to be acting up again, which is really bad timing since I'm trying to get the article cleaned up by Monday. :-\ (Guyinblack25 talk 17:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC))
Let's clarify that Ealdgyth isn't going to complain (and hasn't) about Game Revolution and Gaming Age as long as they are used for reviews, the reviewer's personal opinion, and are sourced as such. Using them for controversial statements and facts, should be considered differently. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
To add to that I share a similar opinion on that subject, that such a source is valid for published opinions and not so much controversial facts, as there is an editorial team in place to keep things "in check".--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable enough. I'll add the GR content back to Super Mario 64. Though personally, I don't see myself using them as a source for articles I plan on working on.
Should WP:VG/S be updated with Game Revolution and Gaming Age along with their limitations? (Guyinblack25 talk 20:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC))
The problem, IMO, with allowing sites we wouldn't use as sources for reviews is the slippery slope it creates; "if this site, which you agree isn't an RS, is allowed, why not the website I started last night?". If we stick to the same requirements for reviews as we do for, say, development information, it avoids having to answer these sorts of questions. Thus if we say GR isn't reliable as a source, we should apply this to reviews as well. IMHO. Giggy (talk) 13:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Giggy. GA and GR arent exactly horrible sources, but we shouldn't endorse them and should scrutinize their use in articles. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Scrutinized certainly, just not excluded. It becomes troublesome when we're allowed for using scores such as GameRankings for a subject (at least, I'm fairly sure we are, it's on the table just fine) and sites such as GA and GR both are possible contributors to a score. So it boils down to "is there a reliable editorial process on the site that we are citing for an opinion on a subject" compared to "is the site reliable and trustworthy enough with an editorial process for this factual statement to be cited".--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Videogame articles needing geographical coordinates

I've found a couple of videogame-related articles that, quite remarkably for video game articles, could usefully have geographical coordinates added.

The articles in question are:

You can find out how to add geographical coordinates at the Wikipedia:Geocoding how-to for WikiProject members. Please let me know if this is useful! -- The Anome (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Coordinates have been added to Joypolis. SpencerT♦C 20:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
There are multiple Joypolis locations, only the Odaiba one has been marked. - hahnchen 23:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
So is it worth adding such co-ords to all location-specific games? Some randomly-chosen examples below.
--Oscarthecat (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
That's a nice idea, but please, no! Unless they are real physical places, they shouldn't have geographic coordinates. -- The Anome (talk) 21:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Update: both articles have now been geocoded. -- The Anome (talk) 17:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (NES)

Should this be moved to Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (video game)? I havent found any other Temple of Doom video game, so I see no reason why NES must be in the title. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

There was one, but it was merged to the film article: [6] --Mika1h (talk) 18:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
If the lead of that old version is to be believed, they are the same game. So the NES one should be renamed and all ports covered. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, was release on many formats, see some here so the (NES) suffix title is completely bogus, and the article needs an overhaul to reflect this. --Oscarthecat (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

in-universe odds and ends

I want to say, we've done a good job of cleaning up and re-organizing low-quality in-universe content. Some of the merges have even resulted in some pretty good articles. Let's keep pushing forward.

  1. Vice City
  2. Elsweyr - (no consensus to keep/delete in 2007)
  3. Tamriel - (no consensus to keep/delete in 2007)
  4. Gaia (Final Fantasy VII) - Kung Fu Man says it has potential, and I believe him.
  5. Twinsun - (AFD now)
  6. Nosgoth - (AFD now)
  7. see prior discussion...
  1. ACME and V.I.L.E.
  2. Guardian Units of Nations - (no consensus to keep/delete in 2008)
  3. Organization XIII - (the only GA in a category of 3 articles)
  1. Common elements of Final Fantasy
  2. Poké Ball
  3. Pokédex
  1. BFG 9000 - most agree it's important and has real potential
  2. Gravity Gun (Half-Life) - most agree it has potential, and could even be expanded in scope
  3. Halo (megastructure) - Kung Fu Man says it has potential, which is probably true.
  4. Master Sword - (merge discussion now)
  5. Metal Gear (fictional mecha weapon)

I have a few ideas. (I think all the video game weapons are decent, and could be merged at worst.) But I wanted to get some other feedback here first. Ideally, I'd like to reduce down a category or two. Category:Organizations in video games is a category of 3 that can really just be merged in with Category:Video game characters. And I'm contemplating a merge of Category:Video game items and Category:Video game weapons into Category:Video game weapons and items, since there's only 10 articles between them max. Let's discuss. Randomran (talk) 17:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I've seen a few people suggest that Gravity Gun (Half-Life) be moved to Gravity gun and changed to represent the concept of a tool that manipulates the physics in the game world. Doom 3: Resurrection of Evil also includes a gravity gun, being the second game to do so, and I'm sure that other games have as well, although the Half-Life 2 one remains the most influencial. There's certainly plenty of real-world information on both the HL2 and Doom 3 ones, it just needs to be rewritten. In regards to the BFG 9000 article, I'd be surprised if there weren't sources out there, its been spoofed enough throughout the industry for one. You certainly have my support for the "items" and "weapons" categories to be merged. I've added a few additional articles (UAC, Combine and Covenant) to the "organisations" one though, I think its probably not used just because its not known. It shouldn't be too hard to populate. -- Sabre (talk) 23:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Agreed with Sabre on the BFG 9000: it's a significant bit of gaming history as a stand-alone item, with nods to it including spins on just "BFG" (saw that in Halo 3 even just the other day) and "Big Fucking Gun". I think it's safe to say that article is an approachable subject. Will look at the rest in a bit.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Halo (megastructure) is being worked on by the Halo project and looks salvageable. Gaia (Final Fantasy VII) is salvageable as well and has potential like I said before, and Organization XIII is pretty much only hear because it has the misfortune of being an organization. With the Gravity Gun and BFG discussions above I think these articles can be safely ruled as kept just fine, just re-categorize when the dust settles.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I've crossed a few items off the list as being keepers for stand-alone articles. For the others, try to check in at AFDs and merge discussions. Let's keep talking this out. Randomran (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Gave my input on the AfD's. Metal Gear (fictional mecha weapon) looks like it can be chopped down and either made into a suitable list of the different series Metal Gear-types or worst case combined somewhere. The info it presents is mostly plot material though. Rather than an AfD in this case, a hard redirect to the Metal Gear series articles may be a better bet and allow salvageable information to be gathered from the article's history as needed. From the looks of things there wouldn't be too much objection to such a move.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I created a category merge discussion for video game weapons/items. Check in when you get a chance. Randomran (talk) 00:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Aye. By the way, I'm starting work on Halo (megastructure)--I'm pretty sure there's plenty for a lengthy discourse on development, but it's never really going to be a featureable item because you can't really have an 'impact' or reception-type section on it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Arcade cabinet images

Quick question- I'm looking for an image of the Marble Madness arcade cabinet. I found one on the KLOV page, but am not sure if it would be permissible to snag and what licensing tag to use if it is. (Guyinblack25 talk 03:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC))

Isn't the whole point of fair use that anything is permissible to 'snag' so long as it falls within the guidelines and used correctly? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Looking at http://www.klov.com/legal.php, it's fairly clear, "We also ask that you don't post any of our site's content onto Wikipedia. ". --Oscarthecat (talk) 07:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Well that clears that up. :-p Thanks for the info. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC))
Looks great with the new cabinet image you got from arcade flyers, Marble Madness. --Oscarthecat (talk) 07:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Outside opinions needed about future releases

See: Talk:List_of_Virtual_Console_games_(North_America)#Question_about_future_releases_section for the discussion. Some editors are claiming any game rated by the ESRB will be on the Virtual Console. However, many of the games in the future releases section have been there for a while. Who knows, maybe Nintendo decided not to put them on the Virtual Console? There needs to be better sourcing. If not: I strongly feel the section needs condensing. I'm not going to argue back and forth in that discussion anymore, as I've dealt with those editors before. They refuse to compromise or listen to reason most of the time, which is very frustrating. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Need better screenshot for Half-Life: Decay

I'm currently in the process of overhauling Half-Life: Decay, the lesser known third expansion to Half-Life that was packaged with the PS2 version. However, I need some help from other people on this project, who may have access to better resources than I do. I'm after a better screenshot of the split-screen gameplay in Decay, as the current image we have is of really low quality, almost to the point of misrepresenting the game with its coarse and blurred nature. However, I am really struggling to turn up a replacement image. I've found only one, of similar poor quality, on GameSpot. While the current image may have to suffice if no alternatives can be found, I was hoping that someone here might have better luck than I, or possibly may be able to create a new image from scratch. Any help here would be appreciated. -- Sabre (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If you sharpened it, did some shadow/highlight adjustment and lowered the resolution, it wouldn't be *that* horrible. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Far Cry 2

This article need a rewrite. Anyone is willing to help?. Here is few of my Points.--SkyWalker (talk) 06:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Zoo Games, need help

Ok im not sure how to go about doing this so let me explain whats happening, note watch out for the many Zoo words (i mention it 11 times in this short space):

Destination Software (based Sewell, New Jersey) and Zoo Digital Publishing (based Sheffield, UK) were two idenpendent game publishers who in 2008 were bought by GreenScreen Interactive Software (based New York City). After they were acquired it was announced that future games would be released under the Zoo Games label.

Destination Software got renamed Zoo Publishing which is along with Zoo Digital Publishing a subisadairy of Zoo Games. Zoo Games is a subsidary of GreenScreen Interactive Software.

So i went to my sandbox to start drafting up a page and got stuck by some questions that i couldnt answer so i thought id come here:

  1. Now that both companies publish under the Zoo Games label should i make a new article for GreenScreen or Zoo Games?
  2. Should Destination Software be moved to Zoo Publishing even though all its new games are published under Zoo Games?

Thanks, Salavat (talk) 02:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Never mind i managed to work it through in my mind in a way that made sense, so its all good now Salavat (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Dragon Ball Z: Legendary Super Warriors

This game really doesn't have anything going for it, and it only has one review according to Game Rankings. It's better to merge it to List of Dragon Ball video games instead of leaving it as a permanent stub, correct? TTN (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. GameSpot and IGN did not even review it (only giving it an overview page). Unless some other reliable media reviews are brought up (or the game's development is prominently talked about in some game developer's journal), I think even for a game, it is pretty much unnotable according to the notability guideline. Jappalang (talk) 01:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

WorthPlaying

I need to why Jzg or whatever his nick is removing WorthPlaying on all gaming articles. --SkyWalker (talk) 14:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well he claims it's an unreliable source. I have no idea if this is true, but I for one have never heard of the site (which granted doesn't mean much...), and never seen it brought up in source discussions here before. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I suggest the question be taken to an appropriate venue, either the blanket noticeboard at WP:RSN or the /Sources subpage for this project. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
See JzG's opinion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Worth_Playing and User:JzG/unreliable sources. - hahnchen 19:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
JzG's seems more concerned that the site hosts copyrighted material without permission; the website falls foul of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (see Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works and WP:ELNEVER. Jappalang (talk) 22:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

MMOG Task Force

I think that a task force for MMO games could be really useful. Because of the differences between them and other games I think that a task force should be set up to make some decisions about how about how it should be formatted. There don't seem any examples of GA or FA MMOG articles. If anyone else is interested in starting the task force pleace comment. Danie Tei (talk) 10:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Anarchy Online and Massively multiplayer online role-playing game are GAs. --Mika1h (talk) 11:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
MMOG is more or less synonymous with the genre of computer gaming in general at this point, unless of course you're referring specifically to the genre of MMORPGs. There was recently a WikiProject based on MMOGs that was cleaned up. It doesn't make sense to start another task force based on it when it was so recently redirected here. --Izno (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
You're right I was more thinking of MMORPGs. I do think a task force(not a whole wikiproject) specifically for MMORPGs would be useful if anyone else is interested in it. Danie Tei (talk) 13:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Final Fantasy XI is FA. 82.66.36.11 (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Test Drive

Has this project been noticed since it isn't listed on the main page? --Mika1h (talk) 20:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as it's basically the one or two-day solo project of a single user, anyone mind is we frag the lot of it? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I contacted the main contributor about the project, who did not respond at the inactive project cleanup talk page. That was at least two weeks ago. Feel free to MfD the project and all related templates and subpages. --Izno (talk) 22:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
MfD started. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC))

NeoAxis Engine

I was reverting some additions to the "Top 10 commercial game engines" list at Game engine. Additions not supported by the referenced source list. But I noticed that one of the top ten was a red link. NeoAxis Engine. Looking into it's history, it was deleted by AFD in February as non-notable (unreleased at the time). It was re-added several more times after that, being speedied each time, and eventually WP:SALTed after a spammy version was deleted. But I come back to the top ten listing at Game engine, based on rankings at DevMaster.net. If this is indeed a top ten engine now, and sources can be found for it, I would think that it deserves another try at an article. I do not have the knowledge-set myself to build such an article, so I'm posting here hoping someone here can take up the challenge. Given the AFD and salting, this likely should be built in user-space and then run through WP:DRV to officially overturn the original AFD, but I suspect it's a worty effort, and would assist as much as I could, including userfying the old deleted versions to whoever takes up the challenge. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Side note: I support Marasmusine's actions in the Game engine article (removal of "Top 10 lists"). The "Top 10" was a misnomer; DevMaster.net does not have such a list on the address mentioned (10 "Most reviewed", "Latest", "Updated": yes; "Top 10": no). Note also that DevMaster acknowledges and warns of the member reviews, "The reviews are not moderated and some are completely inaccurate." Jappalang (talk) 22:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Tidy up the to do list

Currently, our To do list has a section for article clean up. With the Cleanup department dead, should the listing of articles be removed and replaced with a generic line like: Help clean up articles in Category:Video game cleanup. or something like that? Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 21:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC))

We should remove the articles that aren't severely in need of clean-up. If none of them are that far out, yeah, I say do away with it and sub-in the generic line.--Koji 21:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I think the generic line will do fine. Jappalang (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Section has been changed. (Guyinblack25 talk 02:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC))

This may be useful

Sorry, since when are printed sources inappropriate? The Free Shit Wagon (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Unauthorized magazine scans should not be linked, it's copyright violation. –xeno (talk) 16:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
At least please use these sources in the relevant articles. The Free Shit Wagon (talk) 16:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
No. Scans of magazine articles, or links to pages hosting scanned magazine articles are copyright violation. --Oscarthecat (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
(Not expecting a reply as your username's just been blocked) --Oscarthecat (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
  • If you have these articles in hand, you could add some relevant facts to the talk pages of the articles, providing the source for us... Or implement the facts into the articles themselves. cheers, –xeno (talk) 16:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
    The problem with magazine scans is the necessary information to cite it does not always accompany it. Info like the issue number and publication date. I've forgotten the number of times I've been told "the latest issue of X magazine says this."
    Magazine citations need at the very least the publication name, article title, and the issue number or publication date. Stuff like the publisher, author name, and page numbers would also be nice. If you can find out that info, then using it as a source is perfectly fine. Without it, then it's hard to include the the information since it doesn't comply with Wikipedia's guidelines. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC))
    • That always bothers me too. Especially whenever some anon editor cites "the (insert month) issue of Famitsu". For starters, there are like four or five magazines with "Famitsu" in its name (Weekly, PS3, Wii+DS, Xbox360 and Wave). Obviously people usually mean Weekly Famitsu, which (if it isn't obvious by the title) is published weekly (or four times a month at least) and not monthly. Most people don't even bother doing either and simply just give a link of a freehosted page scan obviously lifted from NeoGAF. Jonny2x4 (talk) 21:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I understood that, Oscarthecat. My second question was about using these sources as citations, which is precisely what Xenocidic and Guyinblack25 are describing. It would be a shame to ignore these sources totally just because I made a mistake by posting scans. Anyway, thanks for the heads up. The Free Gift Wagon (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

No prejudice whatsoever to the magazines being used as sources, if you need help preparing the {{cite magazine}} template when adding the relevant facts to the article, just let me know. –xeno (talk) 16:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You know, we do have a magazines listing. If you have any issues you should put yourself on the list(s). Nifboy (talk) 00:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

What about scans of instruction manuals? I recall ReyBrujo removing links to Replacementdocs sometime ago. « ₣M₣ » 23:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

That's also copyvio and unless there was some particular reason why a scan of an instruction manual could lend to the understanding of the article (thus allowing us to construct a fair use rational) manual scans, and the linking thereof, is prohibited. –xeno (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
As Xeno said, it needs to help the reader understand something that is difficult or impossible to understand through reading alone. An example of some thingsuitable would be Image:Super Mario 64 jumping.jpg in Super Mario 64, though given today's standards it's probably borderline now. The article describes the revolutionary control system and the image illustrates different maneuvers Mario can do. A better example would be a Wii game that uses motion controls, some of which are difficult to explain. Something like Image:WS-WiiRemote Example.jpg in Wii Sports, though this is technically a magazine scan but you get the idea. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC))
I should point out that not all Replacementdocs manuals are copyright vios- Blizzard, for example, has allowed their use, so in some cases it is valid. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

New article: Early history of video games

I decided to merge the video game year articles before 1971, as they all seem to be too small to support themselves. If anyone wants to work on them, feel free. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Link is here Early history of video games --Oscarthecat (talk) 14:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Alerts

Based upon your notification system, I think you may be rather interested in the above system.

I have requested that the deletion notifications be able to be separated from the rest of the notifications (featured article, etc.), so that they can be posted to separate sections or even pages if we wish. This would seem to be in your best interests as well.

BW said that he will add such implementation if at least 2 other WikiProjects support it.

You're welcome to comment there. - jc37 06:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this tool would be useful for our Wikiproject, if we can find a sensible place to put it. I also think that pulling out the deletion stuff from the other stuff might be helpful. I may even go so far as to request that we can see what articles have a merge discussion pending. Randomran (talk) 16:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I might also request that our Wikiproject make use of this tool (which was pointed in my direction):

It's a lot of information... but there are a few things I know that I would find useful, such as all Video Game articles that are proposed for merging. Randomran (talk) 16:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I use WP:AWB for making lists and so forth (like this list of VG merge candidates) but an automated bot would be kinda neat. Nifboy (talk) 03:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

in-universe odds and ends: take two

See the old discussion for additional context... We've set aside some articles with potential, deleted or redirected others, and merged/cleaned up everything in between. Thanks to everyone participating so far. Here are some lingering articles that have not had any real discussion yet:

That's really only a few non-character articles that still need some evaluation. I hope people will check in and discuss, or be WP:BOLD and try to improve Wikipedia on your own. What are your thoughts? Randomran (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Add Stilwater to the list - the user (now an anon that's let me know through my talk page) that created it has recreated it different (so no speedy) but since there's Saints Row (series), there's a perfectly acceptable place for it now. --MASEM 18:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Good call. I added it to the list. Randomran (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Stilwater has been merged after a quick discussion. I invite people to discuss, or be WP:BOLD. There's only a few other articles that need addressing! Randomran (talk) 05:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Guardian Units of Nations is up for deletion again. I am not going to even attempt to argue with the Sonic fans again. TTN (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Please don't assume bad-faith, TTN. After all, you DID merge it without notice. Skeletal SLJCOAAATR Soulsor 20:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Let's try to focus on the merits of the content. If people are legitimately frustrated with discussion, the best thing to do is to bow out quietly. Otherwise, a reasonable discussion is required in order for an AFD to reach a consensus. Hopefully we can figure out whether G.U.N. can actually meet our policies or not. Randomran (talk) 23:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Wii Wi-Fi Connection games merger proposal

I am seeking broader input for a proposal to merge List of WiiConnect24 games into List of Wii Wi-Fi Connection games due to Nintendo's re-branding of WiiConnect24 as part of the Wii Wi-Fi Connection (see WP:NIN#Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection / WiiConnect24). The discussion (in which no one has yet to chime in) is at Talk:List of Wii Wi-Fi Connection games#Merger proposal. Thank you, MuZemike (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Steam titles

I'd quite like to create a List of Steam titles, in a similar vein to List of Games for Windows titles, but I thought I'd enquire here first as pass efforts with categories have been deleted. I know that some of the anti-comments in the past have been based on the fact its a digital distribution platform on the same lines as GameTap and D2D. However, Steam has grown in recent yeears to something much more through the Steamworks programme, on par with Games for Windows, Xbox Live, Battle.net, etc, offering more than a simple delivery and update service. -- Sabre (talk) 19:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

My initial thoughts: because Steam is more than just valve games, a list of Steam games would effectively be a catalog; now there are games that Steam-only so there's something reasonable to this, but I think this is better served by a category. --MASEM 19:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
A list approach helps explain the extent to which Steam is integrated into each individual game, and briefly its history with the game whereas a category cannot. I'd argue that as a category cannot elaborate on these, it could be seen far more as a catalog and would be at MfD again fairly sharpishly. -- Sabre (talk) 19:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
This list should exist, I've thought about it before, especially after the category was deleted at CFD. How is this proposed list any more a "catalog" than List of WiiWare games? The list should elaborate on Steamworks integration, and the title's availability worldwide. - hahnchen 21:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
It seems kind of odd that categories of this type are more likely to get deleted ("trivial intersection") than articles. Maybe because fewer people have categories on their watchlists? SharkD (talk) 02:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Emergency Heroes. More info needed.

Hi. Some time ago, I have created an article about an Ubisoft game called Emergency Heroes. However there aren't too much things about it, so I need some help to expand that article and put more info and screenshots. I just hope that someone helps me. ShifterBr (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: originally posted at Portal talk:Video games. Posted here for more exposure. (Guyinblack25 talk 00:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC))'

Article proposal: "Nintendo of America's treatment of the EarthBound series"

Nintendo of America's treatment of the EarthBound series - I've begun work on this article idea, and I've made a half-finished rough draft. Would anyone care to comment? Most importantly, I think that there may be too much POV in the concept of the article, as there's not much that can be said about Nintendo's positive treatment of the series (not to say it doesn't exist, but it's far less reported than the negative stuff). I wouldn't be opposed to merging into the series if deemed appropriate, either. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced of the merits of treating this separately from the article ont he series in general. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I never asserted this - trust me, if I was convinced of the merits, I would have skipped past the User page version. This is just a test to find its validity. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Nope, I don't think it could be a decent well sourced article. Not to mention: I expect many Earthbound fanboys would edit the article with their point-of-view on a daily basis. Things such as "Nintendo, release Earthbound for Virtual Console now!" would be typical things inserted into the article. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
That would obviously be a problem, but I don't think it would be that detrimental to its quality. Do you think it would be worth merging into the series article, or their respective sections into the articles?
Also, I'm working on other articles in my userspace: Gameplay of The Legend of Zelda, Pokémon controversy, Discography of the EarthBound series, Discography of Final Fantasy X and X-2, List of songs in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
"Onos it might get vandalized" is not a valid reason for objecting to an article. But I do agree that a secondary source for this is really necessary. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I think that the Earthbound series article is sufficiently short to allow the concept of NoA's treatment to be included in it without a separate article (and helps to remove redudancies of release information). But as stated, good reliable sources are going to be needed here. --MASEM 15:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Please note that Development history of the Final Fantasy series is currently up for deletion. There are similarities between the points brought up in both discussions, so you might want to watch for the result of this AFD to see what should be done with this EarthBound article draft. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 16:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but it does seem like that AfD is going to be cut and dry. However I can imagine why it would be nominated for deletion. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
And would Starmen.net be reliable for establishing some facts? For example, the price of the Mother cartridge originated from there, I believe.
And I'm working on other proposals (sorry for spamming so many here): Gameplay of Dragon Quest, Universe of Mario, Gameplay of Mario, Discography of the Mario series. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Starmen.net is a fansite at best, I don't think we can get facts about the treatment from there. Most of what they seem to be saying is "Nintendo of America is horrible for not putting releasing Earthbound or the other Mother games in America since the Super NES". You can go to any video game site, and find people complaining about some game not being released in a certain country. Starmen gets more hits than some video game sites, but that's the only thing that makes them different. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
They've got more than that - for example, there was a two-page Nintendo Power article about them. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Either way: the site was in AFD not too long ago, and deleted. I believe it was the second nomination as well. Earthbound fanboys can argue the site is notable all the want (which they have been doing on the Earthbound talk page), but it's still a glorified fansite that has gotten some attention from a few notable things. A mention in a magazine doesn't determine notability. If that was the case, anything mentioned in any popular/well known magazine would be deemed notable for this site. Let's not add game cruft/speculation/point of view about Earthbound to Wikipedia. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I hardly think it can be so easily classified as cruft/speculation. For example, how do we determine the price of the Mother cartridge without Starmen.net, since the only interview we know of with the buyer only exists on this web site? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
A two page article is considerable coverage. If there is additinal coverage elsewhere, then there's no reason why an article about the site (fansite or not) could not exist. Coverage in reliable sources is about the only criteria for an article (on any topic) to exist. "Cruftiness" applies to the content of the articles themselves—not the subject matter; otherwise the article on Webster's Dictionary could be deleted because of it possibly being too "crufty". SharkD (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Why are you making a Discography of Final Fantasy X and X-2? There's already a Discography of Final Fantasy X and a Discography of Final Fantasy X-2... and both are GA's. They were different games, with different composers and musical themes. I don't see the point in merging them together... --PresN (talk) 06:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
There's really nothing wrong with making a user subpage, it's just throwing shit at the wall to see if it sticks. But on the subject of different games, there is a Discography of the Final Fantasy Tactics series, and a Characters of Final Fantasy X and X-2. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

With the title change to something which doesn't reek of POVforkism (no offense), I don't see why this couldn't stand on its own. The current content looks okay. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not liking the lack of sources. I'm also not seeing how this content wouldn't fit into the game articles or a series article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, this is not me saying I believe it should be an article. I'm not sure it's enough to warrant a separate article, or even if it needs to be separate from the series article. It's jut a test. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with most here. The information is worth including with a source, just not a separate article unless you can find a lot of information on it for all 3 games.Jinnai (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)