Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 64

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 60 Archive 62 Archive 63 Archive 64 Archive 65 Archive 66 Archive 70

"ARMs" VS "Arms"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
User:Akari Kanzaki has been indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet of User:Fragments of Jade (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/67.163.193.239). Now go drama-monger edit somewhere else. MuZemike 14:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No idea if this page should be used for this, but it's a video game dispute. I admit, I'm hesitant to get involved with this one, since I'm already involved in another game dispute, and everyone who argues this point in this specific dispute so far has apparently gotten banned. I know two individuals with admin friends have made it a habit to attack anyone who argues this point, despite having never played the series in question.

This issue is with the Wild ARMs series of video games. Quite some time ago, the users in question successfully tried to start a fight by visiting every single page in relation to this series and changing the title capitalization from "ARMs" to "Arms". Many have argued the case. The former spelling makes sense to have played the game. XSEED Games, publisher of post of the games in the series, has confirmed this spelling, explaining that the title is an acronym in each game, which is true. They even pointed out where this was explained on the official site for Wild ARMs 5 official site, in the "History of Wild ARMs" section. "Wild ARMs" are even featured in many of the games. Avid fans like myself are upset, but due to how they gang up and use their connections to attack everyone who argues this point, no one is willing to get involved anymore. I'm hoping that posting here will somehow end with the matter being resolved without any victims. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 05:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

See WP:NC and MOS:TM - even if it is trademarked all caps, unless it is an abbreviation, use standard capitalization for naming of articles. --MASEM 05:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
It IS an abbreviation/acronym. For example, in the case of the first game, it is an abbreviation of "Ancient Relic Machine". The abbreviation meaning changes in each game, but it is always "ARMs". This is explained on the official site. It's not just a trademark. The title only makes sense with the proper capitalization in this case. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 06:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Not the entire name ("Wild", best I can tell, is not). MOS:ABBR stated to only use acronyms with all caps when that is the obvious name, but this case doesn't fall into that, instead into the MOS:TM. --MASEM 06:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
The entire name is not the issue. "Wild" is fine as-is. But "Arms" is inaccurate and makes no sense. The "ARMs" part IS an abbreviation. And your statement that that is not valid because it's only part of the title is not valid in itself. What about stuff like the game series "RPG Maker"? By your logic, changing it to "Rpg Maker" is fine? And it should be an issue regardless of abbreviations or not. Take the CGI tv series "ReBoot". You saying it's fine to change that to "Reboot"? It just doesn't work. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 06:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Since ARM is an abbreviation it should be in allcaps. I don't think this case is quite like radar or sonar which hardly anyone knows is an acronym. Looking at the sources in the article, nearly all of them use the correct capitalization. SharkD (talk) 07:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Remember to link so people can better follow the discussion, Wild Arms. You could probably use WALL-E (example [1]) as an example which came to an agreement to use capitals due to it being an abbreviation. Although saying that XSEED doesnt capitalize Wild Arms 4 on the web page title Salavat (talk) 07:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Salavat, what are you saying at the end there? You don't finish the sentence properly, so I'm unsure what you're trying to say. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 11:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
sorry forgot the "," after "that". Salavat (talk) 13:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
It is capitalized, however, in the copyright notice at the bottom of the page. SharkD (talk) 11:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
The correct capitalization of it is "ARMs". "ARMS" is just used by the logo, which is not uncommon in video games. Take "Kingdom Hearts", for example, which capitalizes the whole title in the logo, or ".hack//INFECTION" which has a whole part capitalized for no real reason. As for the copyright, XSEED actually explained this. According to them, "Wild Arms" is sometimes used in legal lines for the sake of simplicity. Similiar to how one might just say WA5, instead of going through the trouble of typing out Wild ARMs 5 or the much longer Japanese title. Would it be acceptable to change the title back to Wild ARMs? I want to get it officially confirmed by someone, since those two users will revert it, start an edit war, and try to get me banned. Also fixing this in every article relating to the game takes a LOT of work, and it becomes harder if they revert it. You can undo it, but once someone else makes a valid edit after their revert, you can't do an undo without deleting info that's actually valid. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 11:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
This is about project (Wikipedia project) consistency here, so I've opened a comment on the MOS:TM page to get additional input. I'm not denying the official name is "Wild ARMs" but the general policy on name suggest we follow normal capitalization procedures save in certain cases, so I'm seeing if this is one of those certain cases. --MASEM 14:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
What's the difference? There, it's still just various people voicing their opinions. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Here's my view on it. Although Wikipedia allows the use of CamelCase, it doesn't allow capitalized trademarks. Although ARMs may be an acronym, it's a FICTIONAL acronym. The actual, real-world trademark is "ARMs", which appears in Wikipedia as "Arms". Therefore, it should be kept as "Arms" rather than "ARMs".--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 20:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
A similar example is The Man from U.N.C.L.E. in which part of the title is an acronym for a fictional organization and the rest isn't. I'll try and think of some more. SharkD (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
So do you suggest we change the title to "Wild A.R.M.s?" The ARM part is just a stylistic choice and is secondarily explained by an acronym for armaments (Ancient Relic Machine). However, the main purpose of the title is a pun on the common use of "arms", e.g. weapons.--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 22:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Likewise, "U.N.C.L.E." reflects (I haven't seen the show so I can't say whether it's an intentional pun) the paternalistic role people feel government plays in their lives, kind of like "Big Brother". And no, I don't think the periods are necessary. SharkD (talk)
But the way it's different is that, in the case of the show, the title was designed not by making a related word into an acronym, but by making an unrelated, yet humorously similar word into an acronym. Now, if the show was called "The S.P.Y." it would be similar to "Wild ARMs", with the title being made into an acronym that otherwise didn't have to be.--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 23:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Just because it doesn't have to be, doesn't mean anything. It depends upon what other verifiable sources, other than the company, call it first. If they acknowledge it as S.P.Y., then that's what we use, as long as it doesn't have any non-standard characters.じんない 00:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
"Yes, "ARMs" is best. However, to the person who said it, "A.R.M.S" is incorrect and has never been used. The ARMs play an important part in each of the games, and the story generally revolves around them. Their "going wild" is also a big part of many of the games, whether it be because of living ARM monsters or the Resistance Impulse that happens when an ARM syncs with it's new user. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 03:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
The Secret of NIMH is another example. SharkD (talk) 01:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Another potential issue that hasn't been brought up yet is the fact that the acronym stands for different things in different games. In an old revision of Wild Arms series (preserved here), it is said, "ARMs are a recurring feature in the Wild Arms series, though the acronym A.R.M. has a different expansion for each story." The article then goes on to list the various meanings per each game. I am of the opinion, however, that the importance of ARM as an acronym is strengthened by this as opposed to being weakened. I think it's a lot like how the name "Sid" is important in the Final Fantasy series since it recurs so often. I.e. it engenders anticipation among players for what the acronym will stand for in the next iteration of the series, kind of like how Final Fantasy players wonder which character "Sid" will be in the next Final Fantasy game, or what the Moogles or Chocobos will be doing next. SharkD (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Or the Fire Emblem in FE games. That still doesn't change the fact that it's a superflous abbreviation. However, if the title refers to "ARMs" in the game story sense, rather than "arms" in the weaponry sense, then I guess it's better as ARMs.--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 03:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

So, should we change it to "Wild ARMs"? We're not really going to get an official word on this, but the rules state it should be that way, since it's an abbreviation, and a fair amount of people seem to agree... Of couse, normal editors can't seem to change the actual page titles... Akari Kanzaki (talk) 11:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Remember that the nameing guidelines are just that -- guidelines. Sometimes they can be bent if it really makes a lot more sense, and I think in this case, it does. This isn't really a case of some stylish logo, the 'ARMs' spelling is an inherent part of the identity of the brand, as much as iPod is. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

So, are we in relative agreement then? Because I can't fix the articles alone, and it will do no good if those two users-or others,-revert the changes and try to start and edit war. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, all the articles refer to the title as "Arms". By changing the title, you'd also have to change all instances of the title in the encyclopedia (and change them to a more confusing version, IMO).--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 21:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Or, a bot could be made to do it. See Wikipedia:Bot requests. SharkD (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you should make absolutely sure first. Do the people at the related Wikipedia guidelines page know about it? How about the people at each respective Wild Arms page?--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 22:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
EDIT: Not that I'm saying you're wrong or anything. It's just that people might fight back if they aren't all properly informed. I agree that the "ARMs" refers to a specific plot device rather than merely "arms" in the general sense, therefore it should be changed.--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 22:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Changing all instanses of ARMs will take a while, I know, but I can do it. I had to do it before. I can't change the page titles though. The issue with posting about it on the talk pages for the WA games was mentioned in my first post on this topic. There are two editors circling over those pages, and they will attack anyone who defends this point of view. It's better to reach a decision here, then make a post about it there informing people of this only if absolutely neccessary. No more innocent people need to get banned. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 04:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You can go to Wikipedia:Requested moves when you need help moving pages. Better wait until consensus has been reached first. SharkD (talk) 05:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hasn't one been reached? Akari Kanzaki (talk) 05:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but only on THIS page. It should be reached elsewhere as well. It is feasible but I'm concerned that other people like those WP:OWNing editors will try to start a revert war.--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 21:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. We should only try to reach an agreement here. Starting a bunch of discussions is pointless. Someone tried that in the abbreviations area, and it just ended up with the same people voicing the same opinions. Only one new person joined in, and he really wasn't very nice and seemed to have no actual interest in a discussion on the matter. I've also mentioned that those two editors will attack if they are given an option to join any discussion on this. This is the official discussion page for the video games project, so this is the best place to reach an overall decision. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 04:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

How about leaving a message on their talk pages for them to join the discussion here? It's better than leaving them in the dark and then making them start an edit war when they find out that the pages were moved/changed.--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 04:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I still must disagree. These users have been around a long time, and neither one of them honestly care about the articles in question. Both have admitted to playing barely five minutes of one of the games. Their sole reason for becoming involved with the articles was to harass someone, and even after they got that person unfairly banned, they moved on to attack anyone and everyone who tried to support "ARMs". I have no desire to get banned, and I'm sure you or anyone else here wants to get banned. Discussion is for people who actually care about the articles. I think we should just reach a decision, then if they revert the edits, we leave a message on their talk pages informing them of this decision. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 05:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I have posted on the page. After looking at that discussion, I feel if they can't abide by a decision we make here because the level of conduct has become quite uncivil, I will call for a formal mediation as it is clearly causing disruption and bad blood. I hope we don't have to do so, though I doubt either side will listen to someone who doesn't agree with them. If they won't agree to that, then and they won't stop the name edit warring, I'll have to think of other alternatives like a RfC.じんない 06:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Permission to add this to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars? =)--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 06:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Permission granted so long as you can make a pun out of it.じんない 06:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to be rude. I don't think it's something to be made light of or called lame. A lot of good editors got banned because of a pair of trolls who still edit Wikipedia to this day. Jinnai, I read you post on the Wild ARMs series talke page, but I have no clue what it's supposed to mean. Also, reading the page, you can see that many others have also suggested and defended Wild ARMs. I don't see why there needs to be more discussion when so many people and even the Wiki guidelines support it. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 06:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the people who start lame edit wars usually don't think they're lame - otherwise they wouldn't start them. But getting people banned over capitalization is still a lame edit war. I can't say whether the "trolls" should be kicked out, but you're free to take that up yourself by requesting a user block. As for Jinnai's message, he wants to get an official decision - e.g. one that cannot be overruled, so that this can be settled once and for all. If you're not familiar with it, maybe you should read up on Wikipedia policies, you seem to be starting a whole bunch of issues in a short amount of time.--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 07:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't "started" anything. It feels you are trying to label me as some kind of troublemaker... And from what I've heard, there is no way to get an official decision. Someone posted in the abbreviation section for that purpose, but it was a failure. We already know what the rules are, and the rules, along with most of us, support "Wild ARMs". Akari Kanzaki (talk) 07:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to stir the pot, here; but consider that the project's policy page on not being rude to newcomers (which you are) manages to fit in a joke based on cultural stereotypes (LOL!) to make its point. Try and remain civil and you will enjoy your time here much more. SharkD (talk) 08:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC) [Edit conflict. Sorry!]

I'm getting tired of people ganging up on me. I'm the newcomer here, and I haven't been rude to anyone. We are trying to have a discussion here. If all you want to do is insult people, please go elsewhere and let us talk. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 08:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You're accusing everyone of being uncivil towards you, but you're also being confrontational. By saying that people are "ganging up on you" you are clearly missing the point. This isn't some kind of internet forum where you get banned because people dislike you, there has to be a specific reason why. Asking someone to "leave" isn't conducive to discussion.--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 17:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Also, WP:RFM is the way of reaching a reliable decision. I don't really want to start one, though, since you guys know more about the issue in question.--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 17:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
What I said wasn't meant to be interpreted as an insult. I'll stop right here however so people don't get insulted further. SharkD (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Save my last post, I was not being confrontational with anyone. And I only got angry, because he insulted me first. And thanks to Jinnai, who I'm sure didn't mean any harm, what I said would happen is. One of those two users flamed me on my talk page, attacked me on another talk page, and is now trying to get me banned as an alleged sockpuppet. It's a complete lie, of course, but tell that to the other forty or so people she's gotten banned. Most of them are friends of mine from the WA community. There's little point in continuing this discussion if we can't reach a decision firmly now. That user will turn it into a flame war, all the while just stating that we're wrong without any actual interest in the articles for a game series she's never played. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

After seeing the rude remark and accused of being a sockpuppet myself, I have posted an RfC for everyone involved as well as what the naming scheme should be.じんない 03:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Somebody accused you of sockpuppetry? Erigu (talk) 08:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Please link to the RfC as I'm still not sure where everything is happening. SharkD (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Civilization vote

Maybe we should take a vote? Users DP76764 and Ducio1234 have already voiced their support on the articles' Talk pages. SharkD (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  • The only one I support is the first one for disambig reasons and because some reviewers refer to it as that.じんない 02:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • That's one vote for No. SharkD (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I moved the section down here because it was getting lost among the other sub-sections. SharkD (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I also vote no. The full titles are rarely used IMO and no one is ever going to search for "Sid Meir's (sp?) Civilization 4" over civilization 4. bridies (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I vote No as well. Sid Meier's this, Sid Meier's that....it doesn't make sense to add his name to all the articles.--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 23:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I Oppose too. Gary King (talk) 02:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose the change to include "Sid Meyer", though redirects should exist, and the lead should be "Sid Meyer's Civilization 4, simply called Civilization 4, is a strategy game..." to make sure that its full title is addressed at least once. --MASEM 15:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a democracy. But if my vote mattered, I'd say no. More helpful would be for people to explain why. Me personally, I think it just makes the titles unnecessarily long. Randomran (talk) 16:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Milestone Announcements

Announcements
  • All WikiProjects are invited to have their "milestone-reached" announcements automatically placed onto Wikipedia's announcements page.
  • Milestones could include the number of FAs, GAs or articles covered by the project.
  • No work need be done by the project themselves; they just need to provide some details when they sign up. A bot will do all of the hard work.

I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 (t, c) 10:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Categorize collections?

That is, in an effort to remove lists of games available in game compilation articles, should we categorize these lists? So for example, instead of having a big old list of 30+ games uglifying the article, we could have a category, ie Category:Sega Genesis Collection games. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Disagree, the resultant category is essentially a list article anyway. And for some popular old games, which have appeared in various compilations, you would get several categories appended to the game. I don't think it's important to categorise Ecco: The Tides of Time as having been a constituent of Sega Genesis Collection, but I think that it should be listed in the Sega Genesis Collection article. - hahnchen 01:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Further to that, you can not categorise red links. That's a fairly heavy penalty. - hahnchen 01:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Free use images being removed from VG articles

User:Tempest115 is insistent on removing free use images from VG articles with no good reason ([2], [3], [4], [5]). The matter is being discussed here. Some additional input would be appreciated. The Prince (talk) 13:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Perhaps a centralized discussion should take place here as a similar discussion has popped up at Talk:Super Mario Bros. 3#The Miyamoto photo. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC))
  • To clarify the matter being brought up on the talk pages, there appears to be a small group that has begun adding images of tangential importance to a particular game to that game's wikipedia article. For example, the SMB3 page now has an image of Shigeru Miyamoto and the KHII page has the image of the singer who performed several songs in the Kingdom Hearts series. In my view, these images do not belong because they serve no purpose in illuminating the subject of said articles, which is the games themselves. If we have an image of an individual either creating or promoting the work in question, it may be illustrative of the process of designing or marketing the game, but a generic image does not give any insight into the subject and therefore serves as unnecessary bloat and clutter. As near as I can tell, the main argument of the other side is that screenshots for games appear under the fair use doctrine and in order to reduce reliance on fair use content it is necessary to add freely licensed images to bring the articles further in line with wikipedia policy. This argument is, in my mind, ludicrous. Information should first and foremost be valuable to the article and on topic. Once these criteria are met, then we can worry about copyright status. Indrian (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I've commented on at the talk pages of Kingdom Hearts II and Super Mario Bros. 3 already, but for those two examples, I believe that the respective free use images should not appear. Those images are obviously not integral to the article, they are there for decorative purposes, and of tangential use. Free use images are fine for decoration, and it is right to use them in some cases, for example if you need to break up a block of text.

But in the two examples above, I do not think they are suitable, and they distract from the article. In Kingdom Hearts II for example, the blurry image of Hikaru Utada dominates the audio section. - hahnchen 00:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we have a difference in what we consider "tangential". While I can see the argument against the Utada picture in KHII (it's not a good quality image and KHII's main composer would more suitable), I have to disagree with the removal of the Miyamoto picture in SMB3. I do not consider the game's director and lead designer a tangent. I also believe having developer pictures helps give more real-world perspective to the articles—something many of our articles struggle with.
Though this has been a more recent trend, such images have been used in previous FAs.
While "other stuff exists" is a very weak argument to do something, I mainly bring this up to illustrate that some of Wikipedia's more stringent reviewers have not taken issue with such images in our articles. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC))
I agree with Guyinblack25 on Super Mario Bros 3. Developers are the ones who make the games; how can they be of tangential importance?? The photo in Super Mario Bros 3 helps provide a real-world perspective. If it has to distract from anything, it's from the in-universe perspective. An article about a video game should not inform the reader about the game only but also about real-world circumstances like development history, critical and commercial reception, merchandise, etc. That includes the designers. Saying a photo of the lead designer of a game is unnecessary is like saying writing plots in out-of-universe perspective is unnecessary. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Respecfully, your analogy does not make sense. The article text has plenty of out-of-universe perspective and includes information on Miyamoto, creating that real-world perspective you want. A better analogy would be that using a generic picture of Miyamoto in the article is akin to giving Miaymoto's full biography in the article on the game. This information is relevent to explaining how Miyamoto got to the point where he could create SMB3 but is not included because it is tangential to the actual game itself and is better covered elsewhere in wikipedia. Same goes for this image, which appears on Miyamoto's own page if readers of the article are curious as to what he looks like. How does the picture enhance our understanding of the game in any way? What do Miyamoto's physical features tell us about SMB3? Not much, I think. I can certainly see the merit in using these kind of images in a standalone magazine or journal article on the game, but why should the same image be spammed across multiple hyperlinked articles in an online encyclopedia when Shigeru Miyamoto's bio and his picture are just one click away? Indrian (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, as this is an encyclopedia, not a magazine article. Pictures need to be relevant to the subject directly, not just tangentially so. We don't put a picture of a mushroom or a brick in the article either. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but I still have to disagree. Perhaps this is more rooted in a difference of definitions. For example, I'd consider an image of a frog to demonstrate the frog suit in SMB3 a tangent. But I see something like a developer image as more of a supplement or enhancement to the topic because I consider the development staff very relevant to the game.
Regardless, I think the above rationales are based on a very stringent standard. Most every long-time editor would not argue with it in regard to non-free images, but free images do not require such strictness for inclusion. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC))
I find it appalling that I was not informed of this discussion, considering how the opening line is a rather outlandish statement involving myself. I'm not insistent on removing free use images w/out a good reason. For crying out loud it was two pictures. As mentioned many times above, these images bring nothing to the articles, nor has there been any logical justification to keep them in the articles. The articles were fine without them and would continue to remain so with their exclusion. Further more, your argument involving the World Ends with You and Final Fantasy severs to further undermine your reasoning. The image of Shibuya is relevant to the game as it provides context for the game itself. Though admittedly extreme, one might say that the picture in fact demonstrates game play. And with regards to the picture of Nobuo Uematsu in the Final Fantasy article, it's appropriately placed in the Music section, and given that the article encompasses the entire series rather than a singular entry in said series, as well as his contribution to the page through his music, I argue that his picture is in fact warranted. Tempest115 (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry you were not informed on your talk page. But I believe it was assumed you were aware of it because you were already involved in the discussion on the KHII talk page. Hope there is no ill will.
In regard to the examples, I believe showing the developer also helps provide context and real-world perspective. And as far as the Uematsu example, the SMB3 article outlines Miyamoto's contributions to the game in a similar manner. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC))
Given the apology, I guess I can't really hold any animosity. Showing the developer of the game doesn't add anything to the article, though. It would be a different thing if this image was included in the article for the Mario series, in fact, I believe it's already there. But an individual game doesn't need to showcase its developer. Nor does the simple inclusion of the image provide either context or real-world perspective. Tempest115 (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I guess I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the idea that images of development staff are fine for a series but not an individual article. I guess my question is how can it be suitable for a group of games if it doesn't provide any context or perspective for the individual games? Personally, I think it gives context and perspective to the single game, as well as the series. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC))
I'm not saying it's fine, rather that the series' articles with images of people often have more justification than articles for individual games. I in turn fail to see how adding an image of anybody, development staff or not, adds context or perspective. Tempest115 (talk) 23:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Mushrooms and bricks are not comparable with developers at all. Video games are made by people (not mushrooms and whatnot...). Photos can add context and perspective because they can help identifying the developers, who designed the games. That's what names do too, and photos also do it, providing a broader perspective on the topic. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 23:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
That's not "what names do too," that's what names straight up do. You have skirted around the issue of context and perspective, and thus said nothing. Tempest115 (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Frankly I think you made my point for me. A picture of Miyamoto doesn't give any info about SMB3 than his name does. Now, if there were something in the game resembling him, then yes I could see it. But do you honestly believe that saying "Shigeru Miyamoto" provides less info than a picture of Shigeru Miyamoto does as it relates to Super Mario 3? I just don't see how. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
←The only guideline I could find that relates to this Wikipedia:Images#Pertinence and encyclopedic nature, which states that an image must be relevant to the article.
So to reiterate, I believe this is rooted in a difference of our subjective opinions. One side believes a picture of a developer does not add anything relevant, while the other side believes it does.
We can go in circles like this, or we can get some more input from others either here or at a forum outside the VG project. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC))
Well, as far as outside influence goes, I've not seen any opposition to such images in recent FACs with them, and there's been quite a few FACs in the last two months with free images in use like that. -- Sabre (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is subjective. The game designed may be relevant to the article, but an image of them isn't. You wouldn't stick a non-free image of a game designer into the article, because it doesn't contribute enough - so the image is of tangential importance, it's essentially used for decorative purposes. A blurry distracted image of Miyamoto holding a Wii controller doesn't exactly further my understanding of the article's subject, and doesn't act as a particularly good decoration either.
An image of Shibuya to compare it to the screenshots and box art is obviously more useful and complements the paragraph on Shibuya. If say an image was of less use than that example, it might still be helpful in a purely decorative sense to break up a wall of text, I do not think Kingdom Hearts II or Super Mario Bros. 3 needs this. - hahnchen 16:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Hahnchen- As I said before, that is purely your opinion. While you are completely entitled to have one, let's please give a few others a chance to chime in first. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

I think at the end of the day the only decision point I would use is based on how many other images are already on the page against the relative weight of adding a new free-use image. Most game articles only have 2 images to start, box cover and one screenshot. If one can expand the article more than the basics (gameplay, plot, dev, reception) as to have a lot of "white margins" and a free picture can be added, then it should be added. The World Ends With You is an example of such, same with Ico. On the other hand, Kingdom Hearts II has 4 game shots already and the amount of "white margins" is pretty small. While there's no IP issue with adding another picture, it does start to weigh down the page, and given the image is someone that is not as strongly tied to the game's development, I'd opt to not include it. SMB3 is borderline - there are two game images already, but a longer article, and the picture to be included is someone intimate with the game's development. Inclusion's not necessary but neither is it necessary and should be left to author's discretion.

Basically, I don't believe we can set any hard fast rule than to remember that WP is aimed as a textual medium and while adding free images can sometimes be a good thing, the addition may overload the visual portion of the article to the detriment of those that lack the ability to see such images (by choice or not). --MASEM 16:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Something wrong with citation templates

Recent changes to the citation templates don't seem to have caused this, but I'm getting errors turn up in the citations? For instance, Sam & Max: Freelance Police is ignoring italic formatting, causing names to appear as ''Sam & Max'' rather than Sam & Max, and has created "''Sam & Max 2''<span style="padding-left:0.1em;">'</span>s cancellation" instead of "Sam & Max 2's cancellation". Similar things are happening in other articles where italics are used in the references. Sam & Max is even more bizarre, I'm getting non-sensical code and random words from the main prose appearing, this is reference 15:

Day, Ashley (March 2006). "The Making of: Sam & Max Hit the Road" (in English). machinima (webcomic?UNIQ4569a8aa19252d9-nowiki-00000122-QINU?anthropomorphic) (22)?UNIQ4569a8aa19252d9-nowiki-00000123-QINU? pp. 32-35

And this is the template for reference 15:

{{cite journal | date = | title = The Making of: ''Sam & Max Hit the Road'' | journal = [[Retro Gamer]] | first = Ashley | last = Day | month = March | year = 2006 | issue = 22 | pages = pp. 32-35 | publisher = [[Imagine Publishing]]| location = [[United Kingdom]] | language = English }}

Is anyone else getting this? -- Sabre (talk) 10:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, there was a caching glitch. See WP:VPT#Am I going crazy?. Try purging the article. — TKD::Talk 10:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

A category to link descendant LucasArts adventure games

I was thinking that perhaps there is some way we could help link together the games that are the ancestors of the old LucasArts adventure games - those that are developed by the same people, but not the same company. Titles such as (but not limited to) Psychonauts, Sam & Max: Season One, SBCG4AP, A Vampyre Story and Insecticide would fall into this. These titles should and are, to an extent, be referred to in the main LucasArts adventure games article as some form of "legacy", but I was thinking of a more precise means of linking the articles. A template wouldn't work, but a category might. I just can't come up with a decent name for such a category. Anyone got any ideas? -- Sabre (talk) 12:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

There's also the problem of how much overlap or association you need to describe a game as part of LucasArts' "legacy." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, games that would fall into that category would be ones with significant members of the LucasArts team driving development (Ron Gilbert, Tim Schafer, Dave Grossman, Michael Stemmle, etc etc). Usually, such games have critical commentary in reviews on their heritage to LucasArts, and are sometimes marketed on the strength of previous work by team members. They are all either graphic adventure games or action-adventures. The current contents of such a category at present would be rather small, although I might have missed a few:
-- Sabre (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
My suggestion: include this as a section of Lucasarts adventure games and make the list in Template:LucasArts adventure games. It's just a matter of firming the list up; anything by DoubleFine or Telltale should be automatically included since both were founded after LA's departure, but not sure about any others. --MASEM 21:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Image size in infobox

According to Template:Infobox VG's syntax guide, the image size in infoboxes should be 252px, but I've noticed that most users prefer/use 256px. Lately, I've been reducing box arts in favour of WP:NFCC to 256px since that's the most commonly used size. Just to be sure: should I start reducing to 252px instead? The Prince (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

252px is the maximum size that will fit without making the infobox wider. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I have been using 256px because I remember that it was the recommend size at one point. Apparently it has been changed. --Mika1h (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I've been using 256px, as I think 90% of everyone is doing. Someone should change the template so that it fits 256px, because it's the de facto standard (and as the Prince brought up, most people end up reducing box art to 256px horizontally to meet NFCC.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm kind of torn. Scaling the image to fit the template seems kind of silly compared to doing it the other way around. However, if there are other templates in the article whose sizes you want to match the infobox it can become a hassle (though this may be futile anyway due to browser differences). SharkD (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I remember a time when 250 was the standard. Is there some reason that 28 is better suited than 252 or 250? Pagrashtak 15:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Multiples of 2 for image sizes have been used for some time. Take a look at the image sizes used for the .ICO image file format, for instance. Gary King (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I assume you mean powers of two, as 256, 252, and 250 are all multiples of two. Pagrashtak 20:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I like powers of two, too. :) SharkD (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with SharkD, this is the wrong way of doing things. You can't just state that just because the infobox allows 256px, that the maximum width of all uploaded images must be 256px to match WP:NFCC - that's not how it works. Low resolution is not predetermined by an infobox, it depends on the size, resolution and aspect ratio of the original.
There's a difference between a four foot tall movie poster and a CD jewel case. If you are uploading covers for SNES and N64 games using the 256px width rule, then because of their original size and aspect ratio, you are uploading those at a lower resolution than DVD cases at 256px width. I do not think it is productive to resample and reupload images such as File:LoV-KeyVis.jpg, when the original at 300px wide was already low resolution. - hahnchen 17:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
WP:NFCC specifies the lowest possible resolution. Box art is only defensible under NFCC (in most cases) in that it is used to help readers identify that they've reached the proper place and aids identification. It should be no larger than the infobox because there's no defensible reason otherwise, unless it meets WP:NFCC some other way. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
NFCC specifies low resolution, not whatever width the infobox comes in. Template:Infobox film has a default image width of 200px, yet if all posters were to be uploaded at this width, identifying details would be lost. Take a look at Dirty Harry for example. Another example is File:The Wild Bunch.JPG, an image reduction that I reversed, it's of obviously low quality anyway given the artifacts, but in its reduced state, the tagline was rendered unreadable. - hahnchen 17:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
But as you stated before, there's a difference between a four foot tall movie poster and a DVD or CD-sized cover. There's less necessary text, and what's there is much easier to read scaled down than a movie poster; thus, we can have a lower resolution. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The point is that low resolution is subjective and isn't defined by what size your infobox is. If you're going to use infobox width as your bible, then each N64 cover you upload is going to be significantly lower res than the PSP covers you upload. It's not inconceivable with the growing popularity of widescreen displays that at some point in the future, the infobox will get wider. Then what? Redo your images? Non free images should be uploaded at a low resolution, this does not mean at whatever width the infobox currently is, is a 300px wide cover low-res? In most cases, yes. - hahnchen 19:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I thought I remember seeing somewhere that .1MP is considered low resolution. Has anyone else seen that? MrKIA11 (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
That is User:Elcobbola's general rule of thumb; that translates to roughly 333x333 square, or 256x433. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Or whatever the pixels translate to so that the image keeps the same aspect ratio. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Of course. But if the image is longer than it is wide like old NES/N64, it can just be flipped. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
What I meant was that choosing a width of 252px instead of 256px within the infobox was potentially dubious. I wasn't referring to the size of the uploaded file. SharkD (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
It's better to have the same width in the infobox image as in the actual image file. If the image is made smaller in the infobox, the wiki server will actually create a resized copy of the image and this will make the page load time slightly longer. Not to mention the resizing done by the wiki is not topnotch and makes the image more blurry than it should be. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 10:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Aye. That's why I use PNG when possible, as the scaling artifacts aren't an issue, but it still makes more sense to keep it the infobox size in most cases. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I think you're confusing PNG with SVG. Scaling is as big an issue with PNG images as for any other raster format. It's only with vector images such as SVG where this becomes a non-issue. SharkD (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I use 256px in both cases as well, simply because doing so involves less arithmetic. SharkD (talk) 01:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Bumping so this doesn't get archived. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 09:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If it's standard practice to make images at 256 and they are still low-resolution, then we should conform to that; Wikipedia standards and practices evolve over time. As for N64 box-covers, the image might be appropriate to extend the box if an important detail, such as the subtitle, would be unreadable. Otherwise a larger version can be seen by clicking on the thumbnail.じんない 08:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Bandit Kings of Ancient China

We got another notability-related revert-war going on at Bandit Kings of Ancient China (also see Talk:Bandit Kings of Ancient China). I thought it minimally established notability for its own article, IMO. Any thoughts? MuZemike 14:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeh i thought a redirect to the publisher was a bit harsh, seems like the game could hold its own. Salavat (talk) 15:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't see any sources cited in the old version, the best way to deal with it is to establish notability and then everyone's happy. It appeared in Compute! magazine, and there's reviews available from Zzap magazine and Amiga Action magazine available on the amiga magazine rack. Problem, what problem? Say it with sources. And cuddles. Someoneanother 15:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The .info and Amiga World reviews on the rack look perfectly usable as well, so that's 5 printed sources with the text and citation details available online to cite with, and that's a cursory glance for sources. Someoneanother 15:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, Bandit Kings was also reviewed in the March, 1990 issue of Compute!. I can't find the review online, but if anyone has access to print issues, the full citation details are: Kawamoto, Wayne. Compute. Greensboro: Mar 1990. Vol. 12, Iss. 3; pg. 105. I'll have a look around some archives and see what else I can turn up, but my impression is that this is a minor but notable release that certainly warrants an article per WP's notability guidelines. --Muchness (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Crusio wishes to establish the game's notability and I'm sure that this will satisfy his request. Good to see so many sources within the span of a single conversation. The Cake is a Lie T / C 16:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Here are some more references for Bandit Kings of Ancient China from reliable sources; I believe that combined with the above refs they're sufficient to satisfy notability per WP:N:

  • Warner, Jack (1990-05-14). "You can save the planet from decay, people from evil". Austin American-Statesman.  The reviewer "believe[s] this the richest, most complex role-playing game ever published; perhaps a little too much of a good thing."
  • Brenesal, Barry (1990-09-11). "Fight for control of ancient China in Koei's latest role playing game". PC Magazine. Ziff Davis Publishing Company.  An in-depth review of the DOS version of the game. Reviewer concludes, "BKAC is an addictive game, brought alive by a mixture of computer-driven personalities, the romance of a departed culture, a large battery of options, and the unpredictability of game play."
  • "The 15 most memorable game villains". Computer Gaming World. Golden Empire Publications Inc. 1996-11-01. This news brief names the BKAC character Gau Qiu as the twelfth most memorable game villain.
  • Awarded an honorable mention by COMPUTE! magazine in the War/Strategy category, The 1991 Compute Choice Awards.

--Muchness (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

  • The article looks much better now and is appropriately sourced. Thanks to all for the effort! --Crusio (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, Kudos to MuzeMike and Muchness for their efforts, a much-improved article that looks delicious. Someoneanother 19:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Genghis Khan II: Clan of the Gray Wolf

In the same vein this article and Genghis Khan (video game) have also been redirected to Koei. Salavat (talk) 05:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Genghis Khan was widely reviewed in Amiga magazines (ref), and I've found reviews in news archives from reliable sources for both titles. I'll try and write referenced reception sections for the articles sometime this week. --Muchness (talk) 11:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Revert and stubify. Redirecting articles is even less of an incentive to improve them and may confuse readers. That it was developed and published by a major publisher such as Koei should give it the benefit of the doubt. If it is still contested, then force it to AFD. - hahnchen 15:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Help! Reliable sources at FAC

I have absolutely no experience with justifying reliable sources at FAC level, and I've run into a few problems with this at the FAC for Sam & Max: Freelance Police. I'd greatly appreciate help from people who know how this sort of thing works to justify three sources: International House of Mojo, Adventure Gamers, and Spong. I really don't know how to go about checking reliability in this way, I thought I was perhaps going about it in the right way but apparently I'm not.

  • This Mojo article is key to the Freelance Police article, its mostly made up of information from the media and individual game developers. If this source goes, I might as well throw the whole FAC out the window, there's too much information cited to it and I doubt that there's this amount of information available elsewhere online, and getting hold of print versions would be very difficult. That the site has conducted interviews with big names in the LucasArts adventure games area both in their interview section and within some of their game features to me would indicate that these people regard the site as reputable, so we should too; but that doesn't seem to hold up with the FAC reviewers. I can ditched this editorial, but the article needs that Freelance Police feature.
  • Adventure Gamers is listed at WP:VG/S, but with no information on it listed there. Its used for this interview with Michael Stemmle and this statement by Purcell (which is actually originally from Mojo, and could be used to justify Mojo if this can be shown to be reliable). The site's listed on Game Rankings and Metacritic, surely that is sufficient?
  • Spong may be replaceable, although I've not found a suitable replacement just yet. Until then, I still need to try to justify this one. The site is used in the Grim Fandango FA but it hasn't been justified the FAC, so I can't borrow from that.I'd really appreciate help here, this is the first FAC done by me alone, and it most likely go down the drain quickly if I can't get somewhere with these reliability issues. -- Sabre (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Adventure Gamers has an editor-in-chief [6], but no specific mention of fact checking, et al. I suggest contact the site authors and inquiring about their oversight and fact checking. Some of the site's content has been referenced in other publications;[7][8]. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
In regard to Adventure Gamers, GameRankings and Metacritic have different standards for reliability than Wikipedia. So those two sites by themselves is not enough. I don't know if this really strengthens the rationale, but the Adventure Gamers article gave links to several game box images on MobyGames with quotes from them: [9],[10], [11], [12], [13], and [14] along with some notable review sites. Of course, what publisher wouldn't want praise on their game box. But they wouldn't pick just any random review site either. Hope it helps some. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC))
Don't worry about Spong anymore, I've found replacements with GameSpot and Edge. -- Sabre (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I've tried to provide new rationalisations for MixnMojo and Adventure Gamers, but since its probably a good idea to contact them, how should I go about that? Sending them an email essentially saying "Hi! How do you do your fact-checking?" would probably cause confusion, its not really clear what I'm after (I'm not really clear what I'm after). What specific things should I enquire after in the email? -- Sabre (talk)
Here's a comment on the accuracy of a different feature on the Mojo site. The link is to a blog done by Ron Gilbert, a former designer at Lucas Arts. Not much, but it helps the site's reliability some. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC))

Xenosaga characters mk. 2

Jinnai (talk · contribs) has restored MOMO (Xenosaga), from a userspace version. I've contended that the sourcing is insufficient. Input would be appreciated. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the sourcing is fine, but the character is not notable enough, nor has enough real-world information, to merit their own article. I would recommend merging all the characters except KOS-MOS, as well as List of characters in the Xenosaga series into Characters of Xenosaga.--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 20:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I think MOMO should be given a chance for now. That is, give Jinnai some time to work on it, and if it doesn't pass after a determinate amount of time, we can merge. Everything else I agree with on ZXCVBNM. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
We came to a resolution for the moment.じんない 03:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
There are actually two lists of characters, one list of "characters" and one of "antagonists", not to mention many crufty articles. IMO, they should be deleted since they're unreferenced and already in the Xenosaga Wikia. The two lists should be merged into "recurring characters" and if necessary, one for each game.--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 03:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there really is no need for multiple characters lists as size guidelines do not apply to lists especially.じんない 22:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Zwei!!

Was randomly searching Gundams and found this article. Since I don't know how, can someone take this to AFD/find the right speedy delete tag? --Numyht (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Prodded. However, I was incorrect in my perception that the article is a hoax; it definitely exists here, which came up two seconds after doing the prod. However, there is nothing past what I could find there, so I could not find anything providing significant coverage to establish notability (if I missed something, feel free to contest, or endorse if I was right). MuZemike 21:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
...and contested (I knew the mention of possible hoaxery would screw that whole prod up!). I'll leave it as-is and see what develops. MuZemike 05:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, it had a few platform releases; there's probably some reception of it. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, there probably is, just maybe not online. The prod was IMO a tad hasty on my part. MuZemike 17:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Have you tried searching the Japanese video game sites? I don't see how the game could possibly have been neglected there. SharkD (talk) 23:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Here's the game's homepage. There's a link to a preview at Dengeki, as well as 18 news items and 1 review at 4Gamer. Note that there are also an online game as well as a sequel in development. SharkD (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I added the links to the article. SharkD (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Rinoa Heartilly

It seems that Rinoa Heartilly lost its Good Article class days ago. It is also part of Final Fantasy VIII's FT, so a suggest that it should be removed from the Topic. Any else agree? GamerPro64 (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Why not just improve the article to make it GA worthy? Getting an article about a single character to GA status isn't that hard - it just needs some referencing on the development information, expansion of the development section, possibly some more "Reception" info, and more references overall. References should be easy to find considering it's Final Fantasy.--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 01:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
The article can't just be removed from the topic. A reason needs to be given as to why the article does not belong in the topic; by the looks of it, though, it does belong. Therefore, the article will have to be brought back to GA status, otherwise the topic will be demoted. Gary King (talk) 02:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Dispute over interpretation of sources

There's a dispute regarding how sources should be interpreted going on over here. I'd appreciate any input you might provide. Thanks. SharkD (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Collab?

It looks like the collaboration has died out again, nobody seems to be participating. Is there any way for more people to know about it?--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 05:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I've got action-adventure on my list. But I'm not sure where to start or how to help. I think it's a bad idea to randomize the collaborations. In general, we get a better turn out when we edit things that people are actually interested in. But for this particular article, I'm into it. I'm just not sure where to start. Randomran (talk) 05:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
We could begin by citing some of those statements that look like WP:OR. FE: the claim that action-adventure has been used more liberally to the dismay of purists. Went ahead and posted a few scholarly sources and page cites when possible. I think a statement about the gender preference should be noted.じんない 05:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
This isn't just a collaboration, it's an important article improvement drive. The point is to focus on high-priority articles rather than just cherry picking the easiest. Those sources are a good start since there are barely any in the entire article. Action adventure games are a highly important genre, heck, it even encompasses Metroid! (shameless plug)--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 07:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
While I agree the important articles need clean up and improvement, I think that weekly randomness may not be the best approach to improving them. I'm not trying to bad mouth the process, but the setup is not necessarily for everyone. Someone like myself for example, a slow reader and typer with less and less free time that can take a month or longer to work on an article. Some of these articles would require a good deal of research that not everyone can do in a week. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC))
I agree a week isn't really enough time to make much of a dent in the genre articles. I quite like the randomised format, I just haven't had the time to contribute much so far. bridies (talk) 16:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd extend it to at least two weeks, if not a month. I know it's slow, but that will prevent burnout, and give people time to strategize and discuss before they jump in and edit. Randomran (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Two weeks does sound better.
On a bit of a tangent- My main issue with the randomness is not that it doesn't work, is its inefficiency. I think article development is best done like building a pyramid. The less important detail articles, like individual games and companies, need to be done before the higher level articles can be properly written. For instance, getting Kingdom Hearts (series) to FA was not too hard after getting the individual games to FA first. And writing about video game genres would have been a lot easier if other specific genre articles were GA and FA.
Anyway, just my ramblings and grievances about how I wish I had more time to research and edit. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC))
However Kingdom Hearts (series) is not nearly as important as action-adventure really and it then really focuses on articles that may need it more. There are thousands of low-priority articles and they'll just keep spouting more and more therefore if we work that way, we'll never reach these importance-classed articles. Finally KH already has a dedicated fan-base for it to fill in a lot of the details. Action-adventure, well, doesn't.じんない 19:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Focusing on the middle might be the best bet, the High and Mid priority articles. Top sounds dandy to work on on paper because it's the most important, but the kicker is that most top-priority articles are in turn defined by the related High-priority sub-parts (try describing to someone what defined action adventure games without mentioning a video game). If you went more with the middle for the collaborations, you'll still have more to work with and have more of a foundation to work on the higher quality articles using the references you've already found.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree that only focusing the low priority articles would be a waste of time and effort. I mentioned KH more as an example that I learned something from. What I was saying in my rambling manner was that working on a few of the lower-level (not really low importance) articles would make the higher level ones less difficult—improving a couple "key" subtopics first makes improving the main topic easier.
For example, I've learned a great deal of info about Atari, Inc from working on Pong. I image working on the company's article would be very easy if I focused on a few more key Atari products from 1975–1983. The research for Atari would already be done, it would just need to be reorganized and tweaked. The same could be done for any important topic.
That's not to say my idea is the only way to accomplish improving the Atari article or anything else; Randomran was able to get 4X to FA without getting any of the individual games there first. This is just how my brain works; seeing and understanding the details helps me describe and organize the bigger picture. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC))
Back on point- should the collaboration be extended to 2 weeks? (Guyinblack25 talk 15:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC))
I think it's a waste of time, because nobody really paid attention to the last collab for a few days before it ended. If you "need more time" then why wasn't it edited at all during those days? I'd rather send out some sort of messages alerting people to the GCOTW's revival.--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 17:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking of writing a feature on it for the next newsletter, but that won't be until next month; I already had the feature written and ready to go for this past one by the time the collab started up again. It did get a mention in the news section though. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC))
As i said before, I think it's best to have 2 collabs at a time for 2 weeks at a time.じんない 22:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I like how it is now. Let's stick with it for perhaps a month and see how things are going. So far, both collaborations have been more successful than I imagined. Gary King (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I should also point out that just because one collab fizzles isn't too much of a worry. I mean, we want to see improvement, but any extra eyes and single edits are most likely still going to be helpful. There's always the next selection. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd strongly prefer a longer timeline. Even on the prior article that stalled in the last few days, it was the kind of thing that could have been helped by a two day conversation about "what's next"? But it's hard to have that conversation when the timeline is so tight, and it's easy to say "oh well, we can't do much more than this in the time allotted". ... but if people really strongly like the one week timeline, I'm willing to give it a few more collabs. I'm also worried about burnout. Randomran (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

potentially non-notable character pages for Command & Conquer

A few articles have been tagged for merging for a while.

I personally don't think they're notable at all, because I haven't been able to find any reliable third-party sources. I wouldn't have any problem with deleting them. But someone also proposed a compromise at the Command and Conquer talk page, in the form of a merger. But there are opinions across the spectrum there. No consensus.

As per Wikipedia:DR#Ask_about_the_subject, I'm coming here to try to get some closure on the issue. Randomran (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The last 3 I think could be merged. The first one I don't think really needs to be. A simple phrase saying their are other factions should suffice.じんない 00:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree - merge the last 3 to their respective game pages/series article, and delete the "factions" page, possibly moving some of its content elsewhere. Apparently some people argued for a separate "Factions of Command and Conquer", but I think even that would be too crufty depending on the references (I'm guessing, not that many).--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 01:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I was the one who tagged the articles, after being so sick of how they are now. I believed there was enough information out there to warrant something similar to Species of Starcaft, so created a subpage where I along with ThunderForge started to draft a "Factions of Command & Conquer" article. It can be found here: User:Caissa's DeathAngel/Factions of Command & Conquer. I also proposed doing similar for the character articles, but I didn't actually tag them yet, I just started a discussion over at the C&C page. The character pages are in an even worse state, and there will be even less information about most of the character than there is on the factions. I'm in favour of keeping Kane's article, and perhaps spinning Tanya into a separate one, but beyond that we need to apply a baconslicer because there's a whole lot of cruft and none of it is sourced, or next to none.
With the potential merged page, although offline affairs have kept me away from Wiki for a couple of months, I'm starting to think that there's not even enough information for that, if you get past Gameplay and Plot details and huge amounts of cruft. The C&C Wikia exists for precisely those purposes, as do sites like GameFAQs. If we can't get a serviceable singular factions page then we need to just have a section with what information we can get in the main C&C page and redirect the faction articles to it. We're an encyclopedia, and just because we love the games (and I'm a diehard fan) doesn't mean we can justify keeping articles with zero real world information in them. I'd really like to get some kind of closure here, it's the only way we can properly start the clean up of all the other C&C articles. If a separate discussion of the characters would be best I'm fine with that, or we can include them in this one. With the characters, I'm talking about the following:
Thoughts? Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
That is a heck of a lot of character articles. I'm sure that they can be explained fully in the Command and Conquer wiki rather than being so long and crufty on Wikipedia. I would suggest making a page Recurring characters of the Command & Conquer series, move all the minor characters and factions to their relative game pages or transwiki if necessary, and move all the major characters to that article. The factions can tie into the game's "plot" section, or something of that nature.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I've always said that I can live with a merge. In the long run, I support anything that reduces the number of articles without reliable third-party sources. Randomran (talk) 00:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

List of Ace Combat characters question

I've noticed that the aforementioned page was split off into each game's individual article. IMO it just makes the game pages crufty rather than helping them in any way. Maybe the page should be re-formed (albeit with less plot summary)? I mean, other games have lists of characters, so I don't see why this one has to be removed.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:Popotan

After discussing the issue of this template with Dinoguy1000, we decided to bring it here. The purpose those articles notable for Popotan together; however those listed in the Popotan article are the only product by Petit Ferret, unlike many other games which have multiple games. To make it more complext, several of the staff and the band Under17 derive a good amount their notability in part to this game as well as being synonomous to the point that you can almost not mention one without mentioning or implying the other. Normally when we make templates for a game I know we just link the spinoff articles, but this isn't quite ordinary case. Furthermore, many of the products are from licensed franchises as well, almost more notable than the original company. Should I move this to Template:Petit Ferret or what? (Note i have stalled placing it on the staff pages till the issue is resolved).じんない 03:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably not helpful, but man, that template is UGLY. A collapsible template that has four more collapsible subtemplates? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
A built-in ability of Navbox, but I think I can tweak it to not be so ugly. --Izno (talk) 04:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
As in, the navbox is aesthetically less ugly. The code, on the other hand... --Izno (talk) 04:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I tweaked it a little bit. Hopefully it's not so ugly. SharkD (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
While I don't have a serious problem with it currently, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. -_^じんない 23:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Any thoughts on generalizing the template or anything? Is there a navbox "go-to guy" for your project we can ask? ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 23:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
The current state is OK, IMO. One thing that could be done to it is to have an Anime (Japanese) and an Anime (English) header instead of the branching that currently exists. SharkD (talk) 06:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the reason why the voice actors are in the template when WP:ANIME and WP:VG don't do that.-- 07:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I originally removed them, but Jinnai added them back in in his partial rv. I didn't know if VG did that, so I left it alone from there, preferring to get outside views. ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 18:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I removed the VAs. I have seen other templates with notable staff though, so I did remove those.じんない 11:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be OK to include the voice actors. As it stands now, the template only has three links which is a very tiny amount. SharkD (talk) 00:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I still disagree adding the VAs; they're not directly related to the notability of the series, and have very little to do with Popotan as a whole, and there has been no precedent to warrant their inclusion. However, I also agree that a template probably wasn't warranted to begin with, and the category would probably suffice in the navigation of articles. I remember when there used to be a {{Kanon}}, which was later merged into {{Key}} even, though it doesn't seem like a template for Petit Ferret makes sense either.-- 01:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
What about one for Shaft as they were in charge of the anime production?じんない 03:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Spoiler removal at Umineko no Naku Koro ni

The user User:WhiteKnightLeo has repeatedly removed content from the characters section on this article because they believe said content is spoiling the plot. I have tried to explain that spoilers should not merely be removed simply because one thinks they may spoil the plot for others, as is set out at WP:SPOILER on the article's talk page, but they are not listening. Anyone care to settle the dispute?-- 03:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Offered some input, more or less pointing out spoilers on wikipedia are a necessity. Not sure if he'll get the subtly of the last sentence though.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been trying to discuss this on the article talk page, but certain parties opt to keep messing with the article while the discussion is going on. The spoilers are only from select games in the series, and they are really not necessary, as well as inconsistent. The plot overview and most of the character profiles contain no spoilers at all. Then, suddenly, there are a few characters at the bottom that are massive spoilers and really don't need to be included. Four of them are alter-egos of characters who already have perfectly fine summaries up. Another is a familiar created by one of said alter-egos. There is really no need for these details. The article is fine without them. I tried to point this out, but was accused of trying to "own" the page and ganged up on. Also, the responses over on the anime board support what I've been saying. WhiteKnightLeo (talk) 06:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is meant to be comprehensive. Informing users of what happens is part of being comprehensive. Ergo, Wikipedia informs users of what happens. i.e., spoilers are appropriate. --Izno (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Duck Hunt

I have nominated Duck Hunt for a Good Article reassessment. Basically, this was promoted over two years ago in the midst of lower GA standards than we have now. Anyways, please discuss at Talk:Duck Hunt/GA1. MuZemike 23:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Slew of suggested renames

Here's a whole slew of articles I suggest renaming. SharkD (talk) 02:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

And your reasoning? The whole "Sid Meier's" bit seems completely unnecessary, as no game but Alpha Centauri is generally known by that save in promotional materials. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
"Sid Meier's" is shouldn't happen. Those with sub-subtiles probably should be renamed if that is what how they are usually dealt with. Classic Empire should be renamed if it that's the official title, unless it is communally referred to as Classic Empire by reliable sources. Rest are fine.じんない 02:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
The reasoning is that "Sid Meier's" is part of the actual game title, as is printed on the box and in official promotional material[33], as well as sites such as MobyGames[34]. IIRC, it's standard procedure to use a game's full title in articles as opposed to acronyms or other "popular" (i.e. fan-made) titles or shortenings. SharkD (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
It's used on the box and in promotional material and nowhere else. (In the case of Mobygames - a user-edited encyclopedia in any event - it uses "Civiliation" all through the text.) Titles reflect common usage, not promotional tics, and don't include strictly promotional or little-used prefixes or suffixes unless they are necessary for disambiguation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
If they are the only one that uses it, then we shouldn't. Wikipedia isn't beholden to cooperation naming schemes.じんない 03:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
You seriously doubt it's used elsewhere besides promotional material?? There's 750k hits on Google, 50k on GameSpot, 150 on GameSpy, etc., etc.. Maybe a third of them are false hits. Of course, I knew you were pulling my leg. SharkD (talk) 04:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm really not seeing where these name changes come into play. Some are just plain wrong (on the official site it's Worms Armageddon, no colon.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 04:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
You link Gamespot's replication of press releases, but ignore its review, which calls it "Civilization IV". Gamespy calls it "Civilization IV" in its overview and review. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Meh, these don't look necessary. It's better to KISS (Keep it simple stupid). And the colon renames remind me of when Metroid Prime: Hunters was renamed Metroid Prime Hunters, you have to be careful because some titles don't include the colons.--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 04:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I took a look at the references in Metroid Prime Hunters, and a good half of them use the colon, including one whose title was mis-typed in the actual article. If your point is that it's the game's "official" name given by Nintendo, then this goes directly against A Man In Bl♟ck's point. SharkD (talk) 04:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
The name's interchangeable, but why do a bulk rename just to include a colon? As I said, the simpler the better - people aren't going to search for "Sid Meier's Civilization II", they will look for "Civilization II".--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 04:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd just prefer it if articles all used the games' full titles. The redirects will always still be there. SharkD (talk) 04:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
You would prefer, and that's the problem I see here, you're aggressively trying to brute force your opinions of what the page names should be. Not having completely unnecessary (or incorrect) words or punctuation marks in the titles is not going to hurt anyone or detract from the "encyclopedic value". If someone is familiar with the Civilization series, they are not going to be confused if you say "Civilization III" or "Civ3". Adding the completely unnecessary colon to the Worms games contradicts switching colons to dashes in a few of the other games you listed. Making the titles extremely long and with complex punctuation will just force us to create far more redirects and will be a nuisance to everyone and an unnecessary load on the servers. I see no point in doing this except stubbornness. Some guy (talk) 04:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
First of all, the title of the GameSpot article uses the game's full name as does its URL. Secondly, the body of the IGN overview you linked to also uses the game's full name. Thirdly, I had to go to the *third* page of the Google results to find any blurbs containing material copied from press releases. SharkD (talk) 04:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Further, listing the full titles may actually have some "encyclopedic" value. SharkD (talk) 05:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
And that value is? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
The value is that readers learn what the full titles of the games are from the standpoint of ludography. SharkD (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
According to WP:NAME "...article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." So if there is no clear indication that "Sid Meier's" is placed all the time by such sources then it should remain. If they are all, or almost all on the same page, it might still not be preferable if more people would more easily recognize it without the title.じんない 06:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I also think it's sloppy to have one title in the page name and another in the article lead and infobox. Most of the Civilization articles feature the full title in one or both. The gain in "ease of understandability" may be offset by confusion arising from this inconsistency, the reasoning being that a sloppy encyclopedia is one that is difficult to understand. If it's important to clarify the distinction between the shortened name and the long name in the page title, then it should be even more important to do so in the article lead—which is currently not being done. SharkD (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Long and short versions of titles are part of everyday life and I have never met anyone who is even remotely confused by them. Does anybody normally refer to Dr. Strangelove by its full title? Did it cause a terrible confusion when people called Revenge of the Sith "Episode 3"? If someone says "Return of the King" will you run to the internet to find out what series that might possibly belong to? If I said I saw the movie "Nick and Norah" last year, would that be completely ambiguous? God forbid people start creating acronyms and nicknames, or shortening chemical formulas, then everyone would be so utterly confused by concise language they would go mad! Some guy (talk) 07:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Worms games shouldn't be moved since I've never seen colons used with them and a Google search seems to support this. --Mika1h (talk) 10:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, the only ones that use the colon are the more recent titles in the series, such as Worms 4: Mayhem, Worms: Open Warfare and Worms: A Space Oddity. I suggested the rename more for consistency's sake. SharkD (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
"Consistency" is not a compelling reason; the most common name should be used. –xeno (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Also, the colon is used at least occasionally, such as by IGN, AVault and InsideMacGames. SharkD (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
The Star Trek one and other similar Star Trek video games with a series name should be renamed like that, their official documentation (ie readmes and the like) tends to list them like that. I've already done that for Star Trek: Voyager – Elite Force a while back. However, be sure to use the – rather than the -. The Worms ones are all correct in official documentation, they shouldn't be changed. I'll look into the Total War ones. -- Sabre (talk) 12:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the Civilization ones should be moved. Gary King (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Sidenote, I'm pretty sure Civilization II is not related to Sid Meier, and it was never called that. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 19:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
The cover art has his name on it. SharkD (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Pokémon Red is labeled Pokemon: Red Version, they all are I think, though nobody calls them that. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 19:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
In the case of Pokémon, I'll speculate and say it might be due to translation issues and the fact that "Version" doesn't appear on the Japanese version's box. SharkD (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Another issue that that the renaming fixes is that in at least one instance it eliminates a disambiguation. As I understand it, using full titles is preferred over disambiguations. SharkD (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, Sid Meier hasn't been the lead designer on a Civ title since the original game. Of course, that has nothing to do with how the title is actually marketed. (And you guys are welcome to debate whether Wikipedia reflects the official corporate trademark or box art or what.) Randomran (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to change Civilization to Sid Meier's Civilization and only that one for disambig reasons, that's fine. That one I have actually heard at times being used to distinquish it from just saving "civilization." However, newer titles don't have that since the numbering scheme makes it clear we are not talking about civilization.じんない 20:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

One could draw a parallel with all the "Tom Clancy's" video games, in which we have included the title in full; Tom Clancy#Video games. If we're going to be consistant, there's going to be a bulk renaming one way or another. Marasmusine (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

There's also Clive Barker games which are similarly named. --Mika1h (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
There's also the American McGee games and Buzz Aldrin's Race Into Space. SharkD (talk) 02:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
We don't need to be consistent. That's not the goal of our naming guidelines. The goal is to reflect common usage. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know... That kind of attitude makes us look like a typical fan site. Maybe the goal should be changed? SharkD (talk) 02:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Considering it's the overriding philosophy behind naming of articles for every single thing in the entire encyclopedia, you're welcome to change it but I don't think you'll have a lot of luck. Copying the entire text on the front of the box often both defies logical placement of articles but also leads to some fairly ridiculous situations like Kojima Production's Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots - Tactical Espionage Action. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't FORCE you to state the entire game name. It's based on the good judgment of the article writers whether to include subtitles if they are necessary. In most cases, they aren't. Speaking of subtitles, it seems that my move of Race 07 has to wait a bit, since they're not supposed to be copypasta. I still think it's warranted, since there's no disambiguation for "Race 07".--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 07:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, you're only partially correct in this case, as Race 07 - Official WTCC Game is the game's tagline—not subtitle. SharkD (talk) 07:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
With regards to the Metal Gear example; It's not a matter of what's printed on the box. It's the possesive "'s" that's indicating inclusion in the title, which isn't the case with MGS. Just to confuse matters, I've took a look at some commercial sites to see how they print the titles. Amazon and GAME for example mostly include the possessive but not always - but always with "Clive Barker's" and "Tom Clancy's". I'm still undecided but my gut instinct is to rename for consistancy. Marasmusine (talk) 11:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Er, where does Kojima Production's appear on the box? I've looked at all the cover art at MobyGames and can't see it anywhere. SharkD (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
After some consideration, I support the proposed rename of the Civilization articles. I got my computer's opinion for the ones I own. It calls them Sid Meier's Civilization IV, Sid Meier's Civilization IV: Beyond the Sword and Sid Meier's Civilization IV Colonization (that last one curiously without a colon.) Marasmusine (talk) 12:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
My Civ2 Gold disc doesn't even have Sid Meire's name on it. Look at the Civilization II article, the picture doesn't have his name. This one doesn't either. The usage of his name is inconsistent and wholly unnecessary. Some guy (talk) 04:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
The first edition does, however. SharkD (talk) 01:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
As I said, it's inconsistent, which seems like a good reason not to bother including it, along with what others have already said that he had no part in the development of Civ2. Some guy (talk) 09:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
The Worms games definitely shouldn't be renamed, the company that makes them doesn't include colons and there's no reason to do so here. The titles are not confusing or ambiguous. Adding "Sid Meier's" to the civ games is fawning and makes the titles unnecessarily long, we don't need to do that either. Some guy (talk) 02:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
The articles' lead sections mainly use the long titles. Are these more cases of "fawning"? SharkD (talk) 03:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Obviously it is appropriate to include the full title in the lead section of the article. That does not mean the full title is necessary in the article name, and it is why we don't have an article called "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb" Some guy (talk) 03:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Also, VG:Article_guidelines/Naming says, "Always use the original official title of the game; English titles are preferred over foreign ones except in cases where an official English title does not exist. Unofficial titles (e.g. "Command & Conquer: Tiberian Dawn") are not acceptable. Subtitles and pre-titles are allowed if deemed appropriate but are not necessary. Usage of taglines in titles is not permitted." "Sid Meier's" is part of the official name, except for the Call to Power series. SharkD (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

As for consistency, it is a compelling reason: there's a whole policy on it, though WP:NAME may trump it. SharkD (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You say we should ignore WP:NAME but follow the VG guideline? So we should only follow the rules that affirm whatever you want? I would think Sid Meire's is much more of a pretitle, which it says are not necessary. I don't even understand your point about consistency. We have consistency right now, all of the Civ games do not have Sid Meire's name in the article title, all of the Pokemon games don't have "versions" in the title, the Rogue Squadron games are formatted consistently and correctly. What isn't consistent is the usage of Sid Meire's name in official settings. Once again, my copy of Civ 2 Gold does not include his name in or around the title on the disc or the manual. You aren't consistent either, citing some rules and ignoring others, swapping colons for dashes in some article names and swapping dashes for colons in others. Some guy (talk) 06:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I completely missed the "pre-title" bit in the text I quoted. Drat! SharkD (talk) 08:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Pokemon

I'll suggest some more here.

In these cases I'm not sure whether "versions" should be capitalized. SharkD (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

versions should not since it's not a proper noun in this case.じんない 23:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
These seem to make sense, since the games refer to themselves as "Red Version" or "Blue Version", not just "Red" and "Blue". But since it's part of the subtitle, is it correct to use "Red and Blue Versions" or "Red Version and Blue Version"?--ZXCVBNM [TALK] 23:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Neither - they may have "Versions" at the end, but it's commonly accepted without the "Versions" at the end. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
No. Names are common usage. This is not common usage. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
This is tricky - it looks to me like if you want to be technical, the games are all simply called Pokemon, and that new editions get released as versions - so the game is the Red version of Pokemon, not Pokemon Red Version. That said, the clear popular convention is to call them Pokemon Red, Pokemon Silver, etc. I would be inclined to maintain that approach. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
[40] - Nintendo refers to the originals simply as "Pokemon"... But they should stay at common usage. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 00:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Per WP:NAME when there is a dispute like this, the most common usage is to be used.じんない 00:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
These are ridiculous, counter-intuitive name suggestions. Who would ever search for those games with "versions" in the search? You are trying to make the encyclopedia more difficult to navigate without any benefit to anyone except yourself. Some guy (talk) 04:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
The more common usage when naming the Pokémon games does not include "version(s)" in the title. To add them would only complicate things on the Wiki. TheChrisD RantsEdits 17:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with ChrisD and think that adding "version" would not be helpful in any way and should be avoided. Salavat (talk) 03:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep it as it is. Tempest115 (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Total War

What about Rome-Total War: Alexander? - unsigned

Rogue Squadron

Some more. SharkD (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been really paying attention to this thread, but why would we ever move these articles to those names? They are NEVER formatted like that. If anything, they should be moved to Star Wars: Rogue Squadron II: Rogue Leader and Star Wars: Rogue Squadron III: Rebel Strike, as they are formatted like that in the manuals. --TorsodogTalk 17:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Why are you persisting with these inane suggestions? Lucasarts formats the names of those games exactly as the articles are titled, as can be seen here. You are trying to run around renaming everything based on your own personal preferences, even though the majority of people responding here disagree with you, and you are trying to format the names differently than the publishers for indiscernable reasons. Some guy (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
There's no way I can know whether people agree with me unless I canvass people's opinions beforehand. As for "consensus" I've received more support on the talk pages for the articles themselves than appears here, so the barrier isn't so steep as you claim. SharkD (talk) 01:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Since you're arguing with everyone and completely insisting on these changes, I think it goes beyond finding out other's opinions. What support? The two people you mentioned below? I looked at the talk pages for more than half of the articles you listed and none of the ones I looked at except Civilization (1 for) and Worms Armageddon (me against) had any discussion whatsoever. What seems clear to me from reading the discussion here is that the majority of people commenting disagree with you, but you seem to be completely ignoring that... Some guy (talk) 09:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Would you have preferred I not ask at all and make the changes without getting people's opinions? It's not like I didn't see any precedents first before suggesting the changes. For instance, most of the suggested renames exist on MobyGames. Please WP:Don't be a dick. SharkD (talk) 21:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Asking is fine, but you're not just asking, you're battling with everyone and don't seem to actually respect or take into account anyone's opinion. Many people have responded that they don't agree with your suggestions, but I haven't seen any responses from you saying "okay, thanks for your opinion, I guess we shouldn't make the changes" or anything like that. MobyGames is not the ultimate end-all resource for gaming information. I have noticed several games with incorrect release dates, for one thing. Again, you are holding up MobyGames as an example of how you are right, and ignoring all the other resources which contradict what you want to do. Some guy (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
If I see flawed arguments, I'll argue against them. So far, none of the arguments levied against renaming the Civilization series have been particularly good ones, except for WP:NAME; and in this case I think WP:NAME should be ignored. And if you say the resistance against renaming the other articles has been very strong, you're blowing things out of proportion. SharkD (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I see plenty of satisfactory responses to your ideas. You're trying to use "I want it this way" as your main basis for all of this, but when other people say "I don't want it this way" you treat that as invalid. Both sides have cited rules and guidelines about naming. You say we should ignore WP:NAME, a policy, but up above you cited a VG naming guideline about using official names. So we should ignore the policies that you don't like but follow the guidelines you do like? You continue to contradict yourself. Some guy (talk) 06:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Master of Atlantis

Another oddly titled series. SharkD (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeh i think they should be changed per normal use of the ":". Salavat (talk) 01:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
So now you're changing dashes to colons instead of colons to dashes? I could agree with this more, since I don't think dashes look good when used in that fashion. You continue to contradict yourself. Some guy (talk) 06:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Get a grip and quit being a baby! SharkD (talk) 08:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
A very deep and mature response. Whatever, I'm done here, I hope you put an end to all this nonsense and stop suggesting new changes. Some guy (talk) 09:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be a disparity on what these games are titled. On my set, "Master of Atlantis" does not appear, and "Zeus" precedes "Master of Olympus". (See the images here and here.) This review titles it "Zeus: Master of Olympus", and the Amazon link above does too. Poseidon isn't labeled in a similar vein; perhaps because the Amazon link and the Gamespot review show the set I have, which lacks the "Master of Atlantis" notation. They mostly just call it "expansion" or somesuch. I think moving them to "Zeus: Master of Olympus" and "Poseidon: Master of Atlantis" seems like the best course of action, since we have two sources using "Zeus: Master of Olympus". Poseidon is a bit trickier, since the sources give it a name something to do with "expansion". My suggestion would be to name it "Poseidon: Master of Atlantis", since we have evidence of the "Master of Atlantis" appendage (the image on the article now), and we'll use that order to be consistent with Zeus. seresin ( ¡? )  02:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Thats the title style used for the North American editions the current style on the articles is the European style. Salavat (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed this too when doing some research. You can compare the various versions of the boxart at MobyGames, here and here. I would support the rename unless the games were released first or sold more in the UK. SharkD (talk) 02:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I've moved them to the titles I suggested. seresin ( ¡? )  05:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
You might want to update the article prose and navbox as well. SharkD (talk) 04:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Some more

I'm not sure about the Sim- ones. They sound kind of funny. SharkD (talk) 03:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The Sim ones just look like tag lines and not part of the title? Salavat (talk) 04:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I suspected, too, though with some of the games (SimAnt, SimLife) it's harder to tell. SharkD (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I prefer to keep the names simple, unless they are moved for disambiguation reasons. At least for the Sim ones, I don't think they should be moved. Gary King (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Release Date vs Ship Date vs In-Store Date

Okay, we need resolution here at Major League Baseball 2K9. Basically every gaming (like IGN, GameSpot, 1UP, 2KSports) all claim March 2nd is the release date. Now obviously this is the date it ships out to retailers. My understanding is this is what we should use per WP:VG/DATE. Another user, who claims expertise in the video game industry, argues we should list the date after cause that is when it will be in stores. Those who know what the guidelines are should really help us out here.

Here is what WP:VG states: Usually, but not always, the "release date" is the date on which the publisher ships the game to retailers, resulting in an in-store date of between one and three days later. In general, a video game article should use the official release date and not the in-store date, if two separate dates are announced. (WP:VG/DATE)

The other user argues "big whoop" to that and its wrong and should be removed. Someone set us straight. JeremyWJ (talk) 04:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

We've been here before (I think it was Super Smash Bros Brawl last I saw it) but we always use the sourceable release date and ignore any store/ship date, only mentioning a broken street date if it is found to have a significant impact. --MASEM 04:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Could you please clarify more, or have a look at Major League Baseball 2K9 and determine what it should be? This debate has really got out of hand so we need a clear cut answer. Thanks. JeremyWJ (talk) 04:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
If we have to continually go through this all the time, why can't we just change "release date" to "shipping date" since it's clear to the average user. In fact the way i see it described in the forum article would violate WP:JARGON since we have to go and specifically qualify something that means one thing to one group and another to another group.じんない 05:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, it's time to stop the nonsense - this goes for the entire retail world, not just video games: release date = date the product is in the stores. Not ship date. Ever. This is the way it's been since the 1920's. Ask any manufacturer, retailer, industry magazine, etc. That's the way it's been, is, and always will be. Ship dates are not release dates. Why? You can't buy an item in the store if it's not at the store yet. JAF1970 (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Most major urban centres have the game on their shelves on the release date. However, in some areas, there are delays. "In store date" would be a nightmare because mileage varies. Shipping date is impossible to determine (companies don't usually issue press releases saying "zOmg Fedex just leaft wit our gamez!!!11") conclusively. The official release date is what should be used, no matter what people want to call it. –xeno (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
That's just not true for video games. They, in the US at least, are almost always referenced by ship date. Sometimes really highly promoted games will have a "don't sell until this date" date, but it's NOT the common thing with games. Why? No idea. But almost always a game will show up a day or two earlier at Gamestop than it will at Best Buy or Walmart. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
There was also a really long and heated discussion on this in Talk:Metroid Prime 3: Corruption because of the fact that Nintendo had announced both a 'release' and an 'in stores' date, which were one day apart. The consensus finally arrived at using the release date, since it was the date on which the publisher releases the game to be sold in stores. As I recall, part of the reasoning that finally settled that debate was the argument (given above as well) that not all stores will get the game on the same date due to geography and such.
There's a sticky point about this, though: What about games that are shipped to stores early but are meant to be held until an official date and time (like a midnight release)? In that case, the official release date is still the same: Midnight on the day the game starts selling. In those cases, the stores are specifically told not to hand the game to customers until that time, no matter how far in advance they got it in stock. So, in my opinion, this is still unambiguous. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

So like I thought, and like WP:VG/DATE says, we should use the official release date even if that is not the "in-store" date. JeremyWJ (talk) 04:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Weighing in as an observer not involved with the project, as it stands Template:Infobox VG asks for a release date, and should include what any reliable source lists as a release date, regardless of anyone's interpretation of what that source or date "really" means, be it arrival in stores or availability to the public.

As for whether or not to change the template, I don't believe that "in-stores" or "available" are terms which are as universally used by sources. Some games advertise using these terms, but not all. I can say that, as far as I'm aware, every video game publisher or review website uses the term "release date", so I believe that is what Wikipedia should also use. It's really the only standard available that can easily be referenced, and it eliminates the discrepencies when, as noted above, some stores have different dates than others, and it'd be nearly impossible to not only reliably reference multiple dates, but also to get everyone to agree on which date should be listed. Release date is a release date, there's only 1 listed by reliable sources. Even if people have it in their hands three days early, that's not what Wikipedia should be listing. The359 (talk) 04:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh huh. Then why are items shipped early and asked to be held til a certain date before release? Product is shipped to stores April 2, but are supposed to be held til a release date of June 3. Is April 2 the "release date"? JAF1970 (talk) 06:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
If the sources say April 2nd in that case, then absolutely. We follow what WP:VG/DATE states. In the case of MLB 2K9 per WP:VG/DATE since most sources (that are creditable) are saying the release date is the probable "ship date" we go by that date even if other sites can be sourced for the day after. JeremyWJ (talk) 06:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
The release date in this case is June 3. No question. –xeno (talk) 15:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't matter when it ships or what date the video game company wants it held until. It matters what sources state the release date is. Wikipedia puts what is verifiable through reliable reference, not what might be correct. The359 (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Non-sequitur, the dev/publisher only ever wants it held until the official release date. –xeno (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the release date is when the game is released to the public to purchase. I didn't see a wiktionary page, buy dictionary.com agrees. As xeno said, this example would be June 3. Ship dates are largely irrelevant to the consumer unless they hope to find a store breaking the release date and selling the game earlier. — Ost (talkcontribs) 19:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Both Ost316 and Xeno are forgetting that we use what can be referenced. If June 3rd and April 2nd could both be referenced we go by the official release date given by the sources (which is the ship date) per WP:VG/DATE. You are both going by what you "feel" is right which is not how Wikipedia works. Please read all the other posts here by actual WP:VG members who are backing what I say. JeremyWJ (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Where did I say we should use something unreferenced? The release date we should use is the one the company sets as the release date as reported by reliable source. Let's take Grand Theft Auto IV, for example. We aren't sure what the ship date is, but we know it is at least April 28th or prior because stores had it in for the midnight launch. So in this case, the ship date is definitely not the release date. Of course, maybe a store or two broke the street date (i.e. 7-11), so we can't say that an "in store" date is the release date either. T2's press release says the release date is April 29th, and that is what we use. "Ship" and "In store" dates are totally irrelevant. –xeno (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
If you read WP:VG/DATE in the case that JAF1970 suggested, if we could reference both April 2nd and June 3rd as the release date we use the actual "ship date". So if the sources say April 2nd that is what we use. Anything else would be wrong. We need to stop worrying about this fake situation though and only focus on the real one. I don't believe any company has ever sent out a video game a month early to have it held. (may be wrong, but I don't think so) JeremyWJ (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, if no release date besides the actual in-store date can be referenced, you go by the "in-store" date. However, per WP:VG/DATE if both in-store and release (ship) dates can be referenced, you go by ship date (the actual release date). I'm getting this word for word from WP:VG/DATE. Never did I say in store and ship dates were the same. The issue is which is release date. Per WP:VG/DATE in the case of MLB 2K9 since both can be referenced with absolute verifiability, the ship date is the release date. JeremyWJ (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
We should just use the release date as set by the developer/publisher. I can't think of a situation where this has ever been ambiguous. They set the release date. We report it. I'm pretty sure we're in agreeance, and you're just reading me wrong. –xeno (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree. The publishers release date is also the same date listed on very good (reliable) video games sites such as IGN, 1UP, and others. Most of the time, these are the "ship date". However, if in a rare case it is the "in store" date then that would be a time the release date should be listed as the "in store" date. 19:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Usually, but not always, the "release date" is the date on which the publisher ships the game to retailers, resulting in an in-store date of between one and three days later. In general, a video game article should use the official release date and not the in-store date, if two separate dates are announced. WP:VG/DATE JeremyWJ (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm ok with this guideline because it says usually and I'm with you for using the release date on MLB 2K9. With the above hyperbolic example still in my mind, I'd like some clarity on the guideline's view of the term ship date. I don't agree that sources listing a game's ship date as April 2nd means that its release date is April 2nd if there are other sources specifically stating a release date of June 3rd. Does the guideline mean that ship date is the same as release date unless sources verify the unusual cases where game is shipped early to stores and later released to be sold? —Ost (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I think we just need to forget about that made up scenario. One, like I said, it would never happen like that 2 months apart. Most video games don't even go gold a week before they are in stores. It depends on the situation and what can be sourced. According to WP:VG/DATE in the case of MLB 2K9 it should be March 2nd. In that made up case, it depends on different factors. JeremyWJ (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
In addition, WP:VG/DATE pretty much makes it clear that the release date should always be the ship date (unless in a rare occasion that isn't what any good source states and there is no other good sources stating otherwise). I find that IGN, 1UP, and all other good gaming sites use what the publishers announce. I also find 99% of them announce their ship date as the release date. It would be stupid, and incorrect, for Wikipedia to be listing a release date that is different than all the major gaming sites on the internet. Therefor, it should be avoided using "in store" dates in all video game articles unless there is a really, and I mean really, good reason not to. The idea that "release date" means when its available to the customers is not a good reason. I think a general consensus needs to be reached, maybe even WP:VG/DATE made more clear, and Wikipedia video game articles from now on made to reflect the consensus of the WP:VG project. Looking at many articles on Wikipedia about video games, it appears the release date varies widely from article to article on rather it is the "ship date" that was officially announced as the release date (the real release date) or the in-store date. To no surprise to me, many of these articles falsely listing the day after the release date as the release date were changed by JAF1970. JeremyWJ (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Let me make it clear what I'm trying to say in the last paragraph real quick. The Video Game Project needs to come to a consensus and get this settled now. Strict guidelines for the release date need to be adopted and put in WP:VG/DATE. There are too many vague terms in it right now allowing for issues like these to arise. It a major problem when Wikipedia articles have a different view of this matter from article to article. I'm not a member of the Video Game project, but I highly recommend something be done. JeremyWJ (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
There shouldn't even be any debate most of the time -- we use reliable sources for a reason. The release date is whatever the most reliable sources say it is. Usually this is a ship date (which means a store may not get it for a couple days), occasionally for highly promoted games like Spore it's the street date. You can't even say "the day the store has it", as games like FFVII were available earlier than the official release date. But it doesn't really matter inherently which it is, so long as it's backed up by our sources. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
We also do not want terms that can mean one thing to those "in the know" and those who aren't. Furthermore, it violates the goal of consistency within Wikiepdia's articles when a release date for one game means "shipping date" and release date on another article of a similar nature means "released in stores" date.じんない 21:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
My point exactly Jinnai. JeremyWJ (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Nitpick: the policy you linked to deals with consistency within articles, not across articles (this distinction is explained here). SharkD (talk) 06:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
You are wrong, it is a guideline page for Video Game articles ACROSS Wikipedia. Obviously you need to take another look. You will see at the top of the Release section this "Release dates for video game should be included as follows:". If you also look, it is describing the Infobox template that is USED ACROSS WIKIPEDIA VIDEO GAME ARTICLES. That entire page (WP:VG/GL) is describing policies/guidelines to be used in every video game article. JeremyWJ (talk) 07:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes there should be consitancy in the article though. The guideline I stated earlier though says (for each game individually) if you can source a release date and an in-store date you should use the "official release date" and not the in-store date. JeremyWJ (talk) 07:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Calm down, will you? There's no need to brandish the ALMIGHTY ALLCAPS. Secondly, I was talking about the second policy page he linked to. You know, the one that comes after the first. :) SharkD (talk) 08:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought you were talking to me. JeremyWJ (talk) 09:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I am in complete agreement that the official release date should be the date reported. I just have qualms about calling the "ship date" the official release date if ship date is always the day the product is shipped to retailers. I may be wrong, but I think that's what Jinnai is saying about WP:Jargon. Although game sites seem to use ship date as a synonym for release date, this is not necessarily how everyone views a ship date. If ship date is to be viewed as the official release date, I think the guideline should explicitly state this and explain that this is the common usage of ship date in the gaming industry. —Ost (talk) 17:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me make this clear - it's gotten to Monty Python silliness, and people are escaping the bounds of common sense. For instance, on MLB Front Office Manager, even though there are ads by 2K Sports that it has a January 27 release date, and even though the game wasn't available in stores on January 26, but were available January 27, people insist on stating that January 26 is the release date. Release date means date people can actually buy the product. Always has meant it, always will, and to list the ship date as the release date is dissemination of wrong information - and when 2K Sports lists the ship date as its release date, you have to use common sense. It's called bureaucracy when you accept wrong information, especially when the source conflicts itself (ads stating something is available.

It is extremely rare for a video game to be released on a Monday. When you see a "release date" that falls on a Monday, you can bet it is the ship date and someone bureaucratically just repeated the same wrong information - because, using MLB Front Office Manager as proof, someone got it wrong - and you don't know who got it wrong. If some intern screws up something, are you going to take their screwup as the Holy Bible? It's assuming Buttle is Tuttle, especially when 2K starts issuing ads stating the correct release date.

The worst part is the continued insistence that the wrong information is correct despite reality. Again, let's use MLB Front Office Manager again. It wasn't in stores on Monday. But people keep insisting that 2 + 2 must equal 5 because the wrong information says so. Again, this is a Monty Python sketch writ large. ("It came out Monday." "It wasn't out Monday, it came out on Tuesday." "Look, I have a paper here saying it came out Monday." "But I was there!" "Prove it!" "Here's an ad" "That must be fake, because this paper says otherwise" "Who gave you that paper?" "I don't know" "How do you know it's correct" "Because it has a logo on it" "So does the ad" "But I just told you it's fake" "How do you know it's fake?" "I can tell" etc etc) What bothers me more is that I've been published in the VG industry for 15 years (and dealing with VGs since 1978) and I have people who haven't been alive nearly that long insisting I'm wrong because they say so.

Oh, and the fact that people in the industry (like myself) got press releases from 2K stating March 3 as the release - but when they report March 3 as the release date, they're accused of being a "blog" (like PastaPadre.com, which everyone in the sports sim community knows as a valuable game site. But it must be a blog according to some people because it tells them they're wrong and they have never heard of it, so it must be unimportant.) JAF1970 (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

See, I'm not sure I follow your line of reasoning, JAF. You said: Release date means date people can actually buy the product. Does that then mean that the release date is different for people in a major city close to the publisher's geographic center, where they physically receive the game on January 27th, than it is for people in more remote areas where the shipper takes an extra day or two to get the game out there? People in Seattle got it on the 27th, while people in central Kansas got it on the 29th - does that mean Kansas's release date was different? This sort of thing happens all the time, but I never see multiple release dates for a single release of a game.
What I've seen is that the majority of games are announced as being released on, say, January 26th, and usually (again, not always) that's the day they ship the game out to stores. And I hear this from GameStop and Game Crazy all the time: "Yeah, it was released today, but it'll be here tomorrow." The exceptions seem to be the big-ticket games where the publisher ships the game out early and says "Don't sell this until X date". Then the release date corresponds to the "in-store" date.
It's also worth noting that there are some notable exceptions to this: I received my copy of Rock Band 2 via Amazon one day before its official release date, and when I started it up, the developers had apparently anticipated this. I got a message on the main menu that said "Oooo, those 'normal' people are getting their copies tomorrow!" I thought that was cute. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it boils down to this, it appears all online gaming sites and game publishers (at least the majority of them) refer to the release date as the date it typically "ships out". There is no reason whatsoever (no matter what your thoughts or opinions are) that Wikipedia should not follow this. Really, this is not up for Wikipedia to decide, it has already been decided by the gaming industry and the gaming industry decided the ship date will typically be the official "release date" NOT THE DAY IT IS IN-STORES. Not that this matters, but who says "release" in any way means to make available to customers? It could just mean "being released to the world (stores)", or "being released from the factory". Its a very broad term, but it appears to be very well defined in the gaming industry as not when its available to customers, but when its shipped out to stores. JeremyWJ (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Pretty much what I said above a couple times, but JeremyWJ nailed it. It's been that way for as long as I can remember online (so at least 11 years). For whatever reason, the gaming industry does this, and it's NOT the same as the music and movie industry, who have universal Tuesday release dates. Again, this means that, unlike CDs or DVDs, one may very easily be able to buy a game from Gamestop a day earlier than it's available at Best Buy. Why? Doesn't matter. But we have to go by the rules of the world, not make up our own. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
It's pretty simple. Template asks for Release date, sources say Release date, so that's the date you use. Shipping date and In Stores date could be the release date, but they're not what the template asks for.
And on Wikipedia, if references say 2+2=5, then that's what we have to use. This is not an video gaming article rule, this is not a WikiProject Video Gaming rule, this is a Wikipedia rule. You use what the references state, not what you think they mean. The359 (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
And to correct your confusion once more, PastaPadre.com is not deemed an unreliable source because it does not agree with a date that other sources use, it's an unreliable source because it's written by a sole person as a blog. It has no accountability, no fact checking, no stature as a reliable source. It has nothing to do with importance, it has to do with reliability. Just because you say it's "used in the sim gaming industry" doesn't make it so. Even if you are yourself involved in the gaming industry, your opinion of the importance of PastaPadre.com as a source is moot.
Wikipedia is not the video gaming industry. We are an encyclopedia, with our own guidelines and rules. We cannot ignore these rules just because you think you're right, or because you think people are trying to work against you. Regardless of the age of the people here, they are working within the confines of the rules of Wikipedia. At the moment, you are not. Hence, the people here are doing absolutely nothing wrong to disagree with you on your views on interpretations to the term "release date". You seem to want to sell us on your opinion. It's just not going to happen, though. The359 (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
" We are an encyclopedia, with our own guidelines and rules." What kind of encyclopedia disseminates wrong information? JAF1970 (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
We're publishing the exact same thing that numerous video gaming review websites publish and the same thing the video game producers publish, the release date. I fail to see how we are disseminating wrong information. The359 (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Wrong information by whose standards? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Its only wrong by his standards. In reality its correct. Its pretty obvious to me at this point that we are not going to get through to this guy. JeremyWJ (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
As someone who's done dispute resolution stuff on Wikipedia for a couple of years now, I feel obligated to say that this is the sort of comment we should try to avoid in a conversation like this. But I also say that knowing that there's been a long history of long and contentious arguments with this particular user, often on seemingly insignificant issues. I'd say, keep it as non-inflammatory as possible, but IMO, I haven't seen any compelling arguments with sourced information that would cause us to seriously consider changing the current guidelines. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Just stating a fact dude. There has been probably 20+ people now attempt to tell him and he still comes back and says everyone is wrong. Also, I have noticed by looking over JAF1970's contribs that he has aggressively changed the release date of many games to the "in-store" date. I've only been defending one article here but here is what I want to know: Should we, or me, start correcting other video game articles not conforming to the current policies and general consensus of the WP:VG project? I know if I start doing this its going to cause bigger issues particularly between him and me. However, by not correcting them we are doing a disservice to Wikipedia and its readers. Thoughts on this anyone? JeremyWJ (talk) 03:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Also, I'd be willing to compile a list of articles I feel are in violation of the release date guidelines and post them here for WP:VG project members to review and change themselves. JeremyWJ (talk) 03:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Why list the day at all if the day of release is so unreliable? SharkD (talk) 20:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
That's the point: It's almost always completely reliable. For the vast majority of games, the date is announced and stays that way. In some cases it changes due to the game being pushed back or (more rarely) being released ahead of time. What *are* unreliable are the "ship date" and the "in-store" date, because in most cases games don't always arrive in stores on the same date, but rather on different dates in different regions, and the ship date doesn't always correspond to the release date. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, we almost always get a reliable release date. Typically that release date is the day it ships out from the publisher. As the last guy said, just because its available in stores the next day doesn't mean everyone has it. I know Walmart in my area never puts out new games until Thursday for example. The only issue we have here SharkD is a guy (JAF1970) who can not understand that "release date" does not necessarily mean available to customers. If it did all gaming sites would always list that date as the release date. JeremyWJ (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
And in a more general sense, if there's a problem with the correctness and verifiability of the information, as JAF has stated (he said further up that we are incorrect in stating the release dates as we are because, for some reason, that's not how the industry works - yet, he has not offered any sources to back up that claim), the issue really isn't here in the VGProj but with the verifiability and reliable sources policies, which are wiki-wide. Our guidelines here are based on those policies and tend to follow them closely. So if there's really a problem with the information itself, then the discussion really has to take place in the core policies that shape what information we put into our articles. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
But it's not accurate because the average non-serious gamer is going to think "release date=day I can buy it at the stores" not "day it ships". That is clearly a case of Jargon. Wikipedia is made to include as broad an audience as possible and changing release date to shipping date does this without harming the content of the article to gamers who know better.じんない 06:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Understand though that the day its available in stores varies not only from store to store, but market to market. For example: most stores around me NEVER have any new video game until the end of the week. Plus, there are people who get the game the day before any store is suppose to have it cause some put it out regardless. You can verify this by looking at people's Xbox Live profiles and see they have played games that are not suppose to even be in stores yet (yes most are lying, but you can prove it in those cases). In other words, there is no release date that could even possibly begin to tell readers when they can purchase it in stores, because this varies so greatly from location to location. It really varies by 3-5 days. JeremyWJ (talk) 06:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
WP:VG/DATE explains what I just said above also. JeremyWJ (talk) 06:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
My point though is it's jargon and confuses people who don't know or don't bother reading that page (which face it most users looking for a date won't). It causes confusion among non-gamers when a simpler term, "shipping date" or in the few rare cases "in-store-date" could clarify it to the average non-gamer far more clearly than a buried guideline.じんない 07:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." From what I can see, "the day after the release" is not a verifiable release. What about the stores that release them two days after? Or three? The only one we can use is the official one. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)WP:JARGON states "Like slang, jargon develops as a kind of shorthand among members of a group. Some articles may never become accessible to a wide readership, but most articles using academic or professional terms should contain more explanation at a more basic level than would be available in the typical academic paper or textbook...." The term "release date" to mean shipping date is a "professional term". Sadly we cannot "...wikilink terms not obvious to most readers;..." because the navbox isn't suppose, as far as I know, bring people to guideline pages. Therfore, we need to make a cleared, "non-proffessional term" that doesn't confuse a good segment of the population.じんない 07:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I could not disagree more on "release date" being jargon. It is an industry term in broad use, and (in my opinion) only people who have no knowledge whatsoever of how any part of the software industry (or in fact, any industry in which products are released on a schedule) would find this term difficult to grasp. It is not in the same category of term as, say, "specification document", "control library", "chain/combo move", etc., where one usually needs to have some in-depth knowledge to understand what it means. "Release date" (which, as has been stated multiple times, is not ALWAYS the ship date) is very easy to understand to most readers: The date on which the publisher releases the product for purchase. Since industry practice varies as to exactly what that date is in relation to shipping and in-store date, there's no single rule we can apply to any one of those dates EXCEPT Verifiability, which states that our best information comes from reliable, published sources.
I assert that "Release Date" is not slang or shorthand for some more complicated term needing a lot of explanation to the common reader. (Frankly, Wikipedia is the only place I've ever seen such a lengthy discussion and so much confusion over such a simple concept.) Also, I'd like to point out that WP:JARGON is a guideline that we're encouraged to follow, whereas WP:V is a policy that we must follow. There is always room for an occasional exception, but I don't see this as being one of those cases. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)