Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 78

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 75 Archive 76 Archive 77 Archive 78 Archive 79 Archive 80 Archive 85

Contents

Help requested (main page VG)

As usual, Raul has decided to throw one of my articles up, and I had no clue until GimmeBot rolled by. Any more eyes would be great (Spyro: Year of the Dragon) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, well I guess that kind of messes up any chances that Planescape: Torment had on Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests. It was due to be on the main page December 12. JACOPLANE • 2009-12-10 09:53
Sorry, I never try to put these up :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Well it seems Raul will do the highly unusual thing and put up two video games in the same week. Expect fallout people. JACOPLANE • 2009-12-10 16:48
I'm sure we can avoid a TFA for a couple of months in reparation. Though no doubt they'll be out to block any future VG TFA or crucify Raul. I don't envy that man's job. -- Sabre (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Why would there be fallout? --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 16:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
See e.g. Talk:Main Page/Archive 146#Not another video game!. I couldn't tell you why people complain about it, but that's just how it is. Nifboy (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
And we were listening to an IP because...? Seriously, if they're featured articles, who cares what they're about? (grumbles about the lack of common sense in the world) --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 17:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
This isn't "a lack of common sense". Some people think that video game articles are over represented on the main page and would like to see more diversity. Honestly, I think it is kind of hard to argue with them. --TorsodogTalk 19:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
4 VG FAs in 3 months (an extreme outlier) is still only around 4% representation on the main page. That's hardly overrepresentation (especially considering the relative number of FAs for each area of knowledge on the wiki.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
That's just one such example of a discussion or complaint, there's more in the archives. It just happens, dies down, then someone complains about the next one, and so on. -- Sabre (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Let's use up all our FAs then. Then people will forget for a time until we can make a new one. :P --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 17:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
That's a great idea, except, we keep writing new ones. :P --Nifboy (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like two VG TFAs in the same week! Spyro today, and then I get my birthday wish. ;) BOZ (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Nathan Drake

Just a heads up, I've created an article on Nathan Drake from the Uncharted series and nominated it for both DYK and GA. Nathan Drake (character). Cheers! Scapler (talk) 09:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Neat. Very well put together. -- Sabre (talk) 12:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Passed GAN. I wonder if we can pull off 50 character GAs by New Year's Eve...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Just a thought: shouldn't the article disambiguation be "(Uncharted)" rather than "(character)"? -- Sabre (talk) 14:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking that too, since it is viable to have more than one character named "Nathan Drake" pop up in fictional material (i.e. Toad (character))--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Even though it was created so recently, I have put up the article for peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Nathan Drake (character)/archive1. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 19:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

If there's another Nathan Drake, we can always move the page..--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Request copyedit

I've recently cut back the sheer amount of plot in our article on LeChuckit was nearly 7,000 words of blow-by-blow regurgitation before I had my way with it—but I'd really appreciate it if someone could run a copyedit on the Appearances section, while I go off on a sourcing search for development and reception stuff (Why is it that the older things are with video games, the harder it is to write about the real-world aspects of them? Its quite irritating). Fine-tuning plot sections isn't my forte, but I'd really quite like to try to get it down to one paragraph per game if possible, as in Elaine Marley. -- Sabre (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Video game writer

Would the article Video game writer be appropriate for Wikipedia? Or was there a concious decision that such an article shouldn't exist? Category:Video game writers exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.250.200.70 (talk) 12:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

What could be said about it that would be notable though? --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 12:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Possibly best to redirect it to Writer, and simply acknowledge that writers do write storylines for games and such. I can't really see any unique content to warrant its own article, or even its own section in Writer. --Taelus (talk) 13:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
There's an article for Script (comics) and Screenwriter, so either we merge those or create a separate one for Script (video games).
Oh, writer as in script writer. I was thinking writer as in Video game journalism (which is hardly "journalism" anyway). If it got its own page, I think the term would need to be more specific, like Video game script writer. Although, I suppose not everything you write in a video game is its script, as in what people say. --gakon5 (talk / contribs) 16:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
The screenwriter writes camera directions as well as dialogue. The game writer does pretty much the same thing.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Or perhaps something like Video game writing à la Video game music that documents the history of writing in video games from simple beginnings like Mario saves Princess, to something like Myst, to a more developed stage like in The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. I think it could be an interesting article if the right sources could be found. --77.250.200.70 (talk) 13:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Another interesting aspect could be how writing in video games relates to other media, and whether games like Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic & The Lord of the Rings Online: Shadows of Angmar should be considered as canon (fiction). I also noticed that List of video games based on movies doesn't exist, which probably should since it's a common phenomenon. See: Category:Lists of video games based on media. 77.250.200.70 (talk) 14:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Light side, male Revan and Light side, female Exile are considered Canon. However, with LotRO, I believe I read in PC Gamer UK that what Tolkien said, they stick to. What he didn't say, however, is fair play. So I seriously doubt that LotRO is considered Canon. Not that anybody has the right to decide anymore since Tolkien's dead. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 14:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Dispute on Tatsunoko vs. Capcom: Ultimate All-Stars

An anonymous user and I are having a dispute on the spelling of the name of a character that appears in this game. The main character of Neo-Human Casshern appears in this game, and the anon insists that the name should be spelled "Casshern" since that is how it is spelled in the anime series he's from. I say it should be spelled "Casshan" since that's how it is spelled in the game itself (see: [1], [2], [3]) and the article about the game should be consistent with the game itself. The anon user, however, insists that the name from the original series should be used even thought it's not used at all in the video game itself, and the translated name in the game is wrong. I don't want to get into a revert war with this anon, so I'd like a wiser user here step in and help out here. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 21:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

In name disputes like this, where there are clearly multiple official translations, then 2 options are open: use the name from the original work or the most commonly recognized name (by independent WP:RSes. Either way it should be consistent across the board. If its used in 1 article, it should be used in all articles about the character. However, the anime and video game should note both spellings at least once.Jinnai 21:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Yoshi image

I've opened up a discussion about which image to use on the Yoshi article here. Please feel free to comment. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes to naming/content of Role-Playing Game and Tabletop Role-Playing Game

The article Role-playing game currently describes tabletop role-playing games (i.e. traditional role-playing games like Dungeons and Dragons played with pen and paper, not computers), with other forms such as video RPGs and LARP described as varieties of tabletop game. This does not meet the WP:NAME policy, which requires the content of an article to unambigiously match the name and meet visitor expectations. Many users are surprised to find that Role-playing game specifically describes tabletop roleplaying, as can be seen from the recurring comments to this effect on the talk page

Please see my proposal at Talk:Role-playing game to change Role-playing game to describe roleplaying as a class of activity with varieties that include tabletop RPGs, video RPGs and LARP as varieties of that class of activity, and to create a new Tabletop role-playing game article to specifically describe the tabletop RPG variety. This naming structure will remove the current ambiguity that exists in regards to the role-playing game article, so that the new articles will be more likely to meet the expectations of visitors based on the names of the articles.

Please make your opinion heard either way on at Talk:Role-playing game so we can put this long-running point of contention to rest. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we need an overarching article to describe it in general as many concepts are similar and video game rpgs are based on tabletop. I'd prefer to move that to there but also combine info from tabletop and video game article to do a general page.Jinnai 01:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
The change I'm proposing will achieve what you've described. Role-playing game will become an overarching article that describes tabletop RPGs, live action RPGs, and all forms of video RPGs. It will describe the history of how the varieties developed. Also, a separate article will be created for Tabletop role-playing game that will describe that variety of role-playing game in more detail. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I would be OK with the change as long as each of the three articles contains suitable content. SharkD  Talk  03:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Beyond Good & Evil bounty

That very, very, very... prominent donation banner keeps sticking in my head every time I log in. Anybody feel up to tackling the Beyond Good & Evil (video game) bounty before its March 28, 2010 deadline? The articles is far from FA, it's not in terrible shape.

While I was going through my magazines for Lara Croft, I noticed a number of articles about Beyond Good & Evil. I don't think I could get it to FA, but I could provide some print sources to one of our FA producing machines and help with research. Any takers? (Guyinblack25 talk 17:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC))

Hmm, I wish I could do it, but usually, I never even get to the FA-making process; I just kinda get a buzz and start working on it - but often I'll just up and stop in the middle. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Getting it to FA would be great. I think a collaboration is in order. I personally expanded the soundtrack section and other stuff based on an interview.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
You could probably pull off Jade as a stand-alone article too: she received a *ton* of reception over the years beyond the scope of just the game.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Any takers at all? If I'm going to dedicate time to this, I'd like get started now because it may take me a while to get them together. Just ask Kung Fu Man. :-P If not then I'm going to focus on other things. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC))
What exactly do you mean by "taker"?--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Anybody willing to dedicate time to clean up the article and push it towards FA before March 28th for the bounty. I'll help that person by researching and copy editing. (Guyinblack25 talk 13:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC))
I've never played the game and have no real interest, but if others are even marginally interested I'll help out. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I've had half an eye on the bounty for a while, so I can help out as much as time permits. bridies (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Bridies and David- Do you want me to send you whatever sources I can find then? (Guyinblack25 talk 21:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC))
Sure. Probably best not to count on me too much though... bridies (talk) 04:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject Guitar Hero?

Hey. I've just returned from a two month 'retirment', and decided to go looking for a Guitar Hero Wikiproject. However, none could be found. Thus, I propose a subproject of this project is created for Guitar Hero (and possibly including DJ Hero and Band Hero. Leaving this open for discussion -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 06:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Task force rather than Wikiproject, if anything. --MASEM (t) 06:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I was actually in doubt to if it should be a project or a taskforce, or if it was even too small for anything. Thus why I brought it here. -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 06:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Music video game project? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
That might even be a idea. DDR's almost would have the same number as articles as Guitar Hero. I honestly don't know why that didn't pop into my head. -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 06:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I could see that, as there are many music games. As it is, I would question the need for a Guitar Hero task force, as collaboration and improvement to those articles seem to be getting along fine without one. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 06:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Should I just be bold and create Wikipedia:Wikiproject Music Video Games as a subproject of this project? Or would more discussion be needed? -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 06:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, I do admit that such a project falling through is possible, but we won't know until we try. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
We have way too many dead projects already. Not to mention the ever-increasing number of project tags on article talk pages. Gary King (talk) 08:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Music games task force then? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I created WP:WPMVG earier. I'm going to (unless a concensus forms) let it run and see how it goes. If it flops, then a taskforce may be in order. -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 08:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to go out on a limb with this but expanding its scope to include music *from* video games might work to its benefit too, especially since we do have quite a few soundtracks and musicians out there and PresN's been an almost one man army at improving them.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
While I appreciate the compliment, I'm not sure if including music of video games in with "music video games" makes sense, as it seems a little disjointed- half of the project would be about games like DDR and Guitar Hero, while the other half of the project would be about music from games that aren't in the project, i.e. Music of Final Fantasy, while Final Fantasy itself wouldn't be in the project. I'm not super-opposed, but since it doesn't seem like anyone else would be working on the music articles, it would just me my stuff tacked on to some other group's project. --PresN 00:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I still don't believe this needs to be a new WP, but instead a task force under VGs. This is because most of the same guidelines on writing and sourcing and the like will remain the same, the only difference will be how content is organized and written towards. Even if it dies, it is easier to deal with a idle task force than an idle WP. --MASEM (t) 13:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed WP Music Video Games templates popping up on the Beatmania and Dance Dance Revolution articles but I can't find anywhere that says this WikiProject is even sanctioned. It has three members in total. With seven potential members my proposal for a mere task force was turned down due to lack of involvement. So I'm hesitant to back this horse if it's not going to stick around. I would love to see an organized effort to work on the music video games especially with Guitar Hero and Rock Band causing these games' popularity and density to explode over and over again. But every attempt of mine to start such organization has failed which is why most all music video game articles outside of Guitar Hero are in terrible shape or non-existent.  æronphonehome  13:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

When individual songs have articles should these always be included under this project/task force, or should they be left to the appropriate sub-project of Project Music? AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 13:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather have a Music Gaming task force in general rather than having a bias towards other franchises. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I've added/going to start a discussion at the project's talk about if songs should be in the scope. As for the format of the articles, I don't believe they would quite be the same, as there's all the track lists to deal with. Albleit they would otherwise be the same. As far as the taskforce goes, I don't see this as biased towards GH (I intend to start tagging DDR soon, if anyone wants to help the templates at WP:WPMVG), or any other franchice. -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this project would be especially useful for User:AeronPeryton because I've noticed this user patrols all DDR articles and has their own set of guidelines that are not written anywhere but seem very consistent (splitting regional releases of a single video game into multiple articles, using different abbreviations in infoboxes than this project like "U/C" instead of "NA", etc.). It would be nice to have a place to discuss these guidelines. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 10:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Echoing some comments above, I think a task force would be the best route. Not to talk down to people but WikiProjects don't run on their own. The back office maintenance involved with them can often be too much for a small group to handle or execute with the desired effectiveness. Our own project doesn't even operate at an optimal level. So the enthusiasm looks to warrant some kind of collaboration, but the full scope of it should be taken into account. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC))
Agreed, a task force would be better suited. –xenotalk 15:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Featured pictures

Question. Where does this project stand on Featured Pictures and Valued pictures? I ask because here, a picture of the Dreamcast nominated for VP. Thoughts? GamerPro64 (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I'm going to throw a shot in the dark and say that >95% of the video game pictures fail on the criteria item number 4 (for both categories) that says "Has a free license."  :) NeoGenPT (talk) 05:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm really not sure about the Dreamcast image, the nominator has claimed that the logo does not have copyright on it but I somehow doubt that, I have questioned the fact that there are also logos for SEGA and Windows CE and am awaiting response. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 13:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Anyone know if some of the Ubisoft images have been tried for FP? User:Krator (t c) 12:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
BTW, Ubisoft images are likely to be deleted soon (cf. Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Attribution-Ubisoft 3). Jean-Fred (talk) 13:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Ugh, so much long winded crap (and yeah it is long winded, that's not a variant "tl:dr" response). It amazes me to what lengths people online will go to shoot themselves in the foot.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I am very unsure of what you mean (probably as I am not a native speaker), so I'd rather not try and misinterpret. I guess my answer would be, well, you know, free content, stuff... Jean-Fred (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Also, File:Circlestrafing.svg is a featured picture and I found it in the Portal:Video games/Picture list. Should this have a {WikiProject Video games} to it? GamerPro64 (talk) 15:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
That image is incorrect and needs to be fixed. The bullet is actually going backwards - the farthest shot takes place at the earliest point in time while the shot is fired at the latest point in time. Not only that, but you fire multiple bullets when you circle strafe...the difference being that the enemy, firing from the center, can't keep up with you. This would probably work better as an animation - the center dude should be turning too.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
There is an animated version: File:Circlestrafing animation.gif. Nifboy (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe that my point is being understood. Where does this project stand on Featured Pictures and Valued pictures??? GamerPro64 (talk) 01:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't really understand what you are asking. What do you mean by "stand"? Obviously we would like to have FP and VP if possible. As stated earlier, however, the problem is that most of our images are non-free screen shots so it makes it hard. --TorsodogTalk 01:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Torsodog summed it up. Because we deal with media that is primarily non-free, such things are an afterthought. Meaning most of us are very unfamiliar with the process of getting a free video game image to VP or FP status. Of course as Torso dog said, we would welcome the recognition pictures related to our project's scope. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC))

Bayonetta soundtrack list

Hello. How should I deal with track lists in video game articles, particularly those with lots of tracks like that of Bayonetta? An anonymous user added the game's track list (150-ish tracks!) to the article, which roughly doubles the article height (on a visual browser).

I'm not too keen on removing info and would not mind splitting it off, but the soundtrack itself doesn't seem very notable, so it'd probably get deleted anyway; the soundtrack doesn't mean that much to take so much weight in the article itself; and I'm not eager to hide it with an expand/collapse script (for access reasons). The user has made three edits, all to the list, and no other edits outside of the article.

I'm guessing WP:VGSCOPE point 1 and WP:WEIGHT make both splitting and inclusion unlikely, but I want another opinion. --an odd name 07:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Most game soundtracks use a collapsible table for the track lists. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Ditto to Melodia, and in general we don't split off soundtrack sections unless there's multiple albums or a bunch of critical commentary. I have a script to whip up a collapsible collapsed table, I'll make you one to save the article's appearance for a bit while you decide what to do. --PresN 15:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Commons notes

Just a heads up about a couple deletions discussions at Commons that I think will effect this project.

"The text and illustrations of US patents are in the public domain unless the patent text contains a specific notice that portions are copyrighted. The original patent contains no such notice, so its contents are in the public domain."

The nominator, when nominating this template for deletion, specifically brought up examples of Mario and Link so I thought it should be brought to the project's attention. I ran across it when I was looking for a free image for List of Wario video games and stumbled across a Wario image which had the tag. I'm not a patent expert by any means so I have no idea if he's right or not on this one-- there's been no discussion, so anyone who's well versed with patents should probably take a look over the nominator's rationale.

This template has been brought up before for deletion (#1 #2), and has been brought up quite often in WP:VG discussions (see the search results). Unlike the previous deletion requests this one seems to be gaining steam-- I'd recommend that we begin to attach FUR to Ubisoft images and migrate them out of Commons unless compelling evidence is brought up showing that the free licensing was given for all screenshots.

Sorry if I haven't been around lately, and I hope I get to use that Wario image... -- Nomader (Talk) 10:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Arc the Lad articles

I'm working the the Arc the Lad articles and I heard that there was a feature article about Arc the Lad Collection in an early 2003 issue of Play Magazine. If anyone has that issue, please contact me : ] thanks!  ?EVAUNIT神になった人間 17:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Goomba

Well, I got a little bored and tried to recreate what I think is one of the earliest "big" character articles merged. User:New Age Retro Hippie/Goomba - I think it's come quite a bit of way, but due to it being protected, I decided I should seek advice, help, and comments. So do that stuff kay! - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 11:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The original (and decidedly bad) featured article from 2004 had a bit of info that claimed that the goombas were in fact named after goombah. Is there anything that states where their English names originated from?--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll check around, but I think that's one of those "urban legends" that tend to float around.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, no one seems to be objecting, and the response seems positive. Can I get an admin to unprotect the article? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Looks like a decent start on a reliably-sourced version of the article. I'd be for spinning back out. MuZemike 21:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

another task force?

Hi

I've been browsing the video games articles in wikipedia, in particular the older ones (1980's), and come to the conclusion that most of them are in bad shape, mostly they are just stubs except for a small bunch of them. I myself am still actively developing an article on a 1985 video game Formula One, and with alot of dedication I've already managed to get it to a C-Level. :) I'm aiming at B-Level but it's going to be tough, with the lack of references about it.

But the question I wanted to ask is... would it be possible to have a task force created that was dedicated to these old games? I don't have a clue of what to call it, maybe "1980's task force", or "8-bit task force", or "oldies task force", but the point being in trying to get the articles on the older classics up in shape. The 1980's were a great decade for gaming, with all the classic titles and different home computer systems that marked the generation now called "old school gamers", we shouldn't let it fade away into forgetfulness (not sure if that last word is correct).

I myself am an "old school gamer", I enjoy much more revisiting the old days of the simple ZX Spectrum games through emulators than to play the overly complicated 21'st century next gen video games, that come with more features, actions, combos, cameras views, and assigned keys than you can shake a stick at.

What say you? :)

NeoGenPT (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The Nostalgia Task Force? That way it can covers all games when they reach the age that it's hard to find a copy of them. I'd say... any games before 1997, right now. That's thirteen years, so those would be bloody old now. If you just want the PacMan era stuff, though, a Retro Task Force would be best. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 20:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
The thirteen years limit sounds cool, it would include the master system/genesis/nes/snes generations. But would we have to do every year a sweep for games that are of "year <current> minus 13"? I took a look at the existing task forces (and WikiProjects under this one) and they all seem to be very strict to a company, platform or game series, which makes their goals almost immutable. (Is this in the guidelines or was it a choice of the creators?)
Anyways, I really can't tell what would be best, I'm really a newbie wikipedian yet (but evolving!), I am conscious that my level of knowledge is nowhere near enough yet to say what is best or not. I'm hoping the more experienced wikipedians around here could analyze the pros and cons of the idea and say if it would be good or not. :) NeoGenPT (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
It's personal choice to my knowledge. I'm the owner of the BioWare task force (someone prod me to fix that crud up when New Year is over), but if you look at other Wikiprojects, you've got things like the Science fiction task force, which covers an awful lot. As for searching for things, that's very simple. There are categories such as Category:2009 video games. We'd just need to search through those for the release date (in case of false positives) and then add them in. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 22:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps a few small task forces should be created e.g. Pre-1980, 1980-1989, 1990-1999, 2000-present? This would save needing to check through the lists each year as the year a game was made will never change. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 09:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
True, but I've noticed quite a few inactive task forces lately and maybe I'm a bit paranoid, but I think it best to have as many people in it as possible. With my suggestion, we'd gain more every year. With the date-based one, we might only end up with four or five people in, say, the Pre-1980 task force. I certainly wouldn't join it. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 13:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I just think there should be a definite cut off date for the "retro games" task force. Perhaps 1995 as this was when the PS1 came out, a moment in console gaming which changed how games were made with the move to polygons and CD sound becoming the norm. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 14:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Also, everything from the SNES/Mega Drive backwards is already considered "retro" so it would possibly fit in nicely. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 14:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
As I suggested, possibly have two task forces? Retro and Nostalgia? Retro would definitely need a cut-off point, at least until gaming evolves dramatically once more. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 14:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't really see the difference between "nostalgia games" and "retro games". The word nostalgia to me pretty much means looking at something from the past through rose tinted spectacles, which isn't really what we're about, more relating the facts. If we are to have a universal task force then I would suggest only a Retro games one. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 14:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

← Nostalgia would include all old games (though it may be best to ignore the ones covered by Retro). And maybe the name could be changed, but it was the only thing I could think of. I'm aware of the connotations, but I can still look at something through rose-tinted spectacles and still achieve NPOV and I can feel like something is the modern Black plague and still achieve NPOV (which I have proven before). But take, say, Star Wars: Dark Forces. In no way would that ever be covered by Retro games (at least, not until we're all playing on holodecks). But it's incredibly hard to find a copy of it nowadays (at least, it was. Then LucasArts had to go and make a shoddy re-release). That's what the Nostalgia Task Force would cover. The games that aren't old enough to be considered retro, but too old to be easily findable. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 14:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Can we pretty much agree then that the Retro task force has everything from the 16-bit console, i.e. SNES and Mega Drive and before, under its scope?
Then we just need to find a name and properly hammer out the scope of the "nostalgia" task force. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
That doesn't even need debating. :) I agree. If anyone can think of a reason to disagree, then speak up. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 16:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Could even work as a sub-project as discussed earlier, considering that the Dynasty Warriors games have their own WikiProject comprised of three people. But probably best to stick with the task force for now, and if it gets too big then consider a WikiProject. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll apply to join the Retro task force if it is created. I have a small number of articles already in sight that I would like to expand some more when I have some free time for research. One extra question only... does "retro" only include consoles (NES, SNES, Mega Drive, etc) and home computers (ZX Spectrum, Amiga, C64, etc), or will it also cover the early days of the IBM PC DOS games? (like this old classic, Digger NeoGenPT (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Such a task force has bounced around in my head before, but we've had such mixed success with task forces that it didn't seem worth mentioning. Older games typically need different sources and formatting than more current games. Plus they are a underdeveloped area, quality-wise, of our project.
Even with a large number of members, I think a task force would be the best format. Assessing, peer review and project maintenance is very time consuming. It's really best to piggy back on the VG project and assist the project with those functions.
Anyway count me in. I think a simple name like "retro games" will suffice. Since the term "retro" is loosely defined by the video gaming community, I think we can have generalized guidelines for the scope as well. Anything pre-1999 would count in my book. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC))
I will certainly join this task force, older games article are seriously under developed, with many games simply missing even though there are reliable sources to be found if you know where to look. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Sadly, I don't know enough about retro games, but I'd certainly join any form of nostalgia task force. Anyone want to be bold and create them? --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 15:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI- Created at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Retro games. Those interested please sign up so we can get the ball rolling. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC))

listas field

Since it seems at least one person was unfamiliar with the fact that our talk page template supports it, I am going to mention it here. I do not know why it was never documented before, but I added documentation for it at {{WikiProject Video games}}. Please use it as appropriate. I have started adding it to several templates so don't remove them without checking if its placed appropriately first.Jinnai 16:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Japanese baseball video games

Category:Japanese baseball video games was nominated for renaming to Category:Video games about Japanese baseball, at CfD November 29.

However, the discussion fizzled out, so I have relisted it at CfD December 18, where your input would be appreciated.

Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

RPGFan information

Figured that this would be useful to some people- the article RPGFan just got deleted, but at the AfD, Patrick Gann, one of the staff members, wrote up a lengthy summary of why, while it doesn't meet the criteria to have an article, it still should count as an RS. Since there are never enough sources for the soundtrack sections of articles or VGMusic articles, I figured it could help some people defend the site at GAN or FAC. --PresN 03:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Plot copyedit request

Can I request someone good with plot sections take a look over the plot section of Tales of Monkey Island? Its around 800-900 words now, having been brought down from some 1,300 words. Although its a plot section covering five releases, thanks to episodic gaming, I'd quite like to lose at least another 100 or so words in the cause of conciseness. However, I'm rather naff at properly crafting word-efficient plot sections, so I'd really appreciate a third party giving it a check over. -- Sabre (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look tomorrow. If I forget, ping or troutslap me. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Question regarding WarioWare: Snapped!

My question is, is it appropriate for cover/logo to be switched with a screenshot of the game because the user feels that the "Cover does little to demonstrate the article". This to me sounds similar to the arcade discussion on screenshot vs flyer and so on. Any oppinions. Salavat (talk) 15:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

In the case of screenshot versus flyer, the flyer actually demonstrates quite a bit, while the image used in WarioWare Snapped! demonstrates so little. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think a logo is supposed to "demonstrate" any gameplay aspect, just what the logo looks like.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Zxcvbnm; the cover/logo is there for identity purpose. Just because the cover does little to demonstrate the article it doesn't mean it should be replaced with a gameplay image. The same goes for Pong Toss, which was also done by the same user. The Prince (talk) 02:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Logo should definitely be used here. That screenshot is out of place and honestly pretty confusing in that context. --TorsodogTalk 15:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing

Over at Vagrant Story, Shaunomacx insists on citing OneLastContinue.com for the statement on the game being released for the PSN PAL. I found Kotaku mentioning this and used it as source since Kotaku's mentioned as a somewhat reliable source per WP:VG/RS. But Shaunomacx reverted it, saying that OneLastContinue mentioned it hours before Kotaku, and is the original source for the statement. I noted that the author for the article in OneLastContinue.com is Shaun McIlroy, who I think is the very same user. I don't want this to become a 3RR, so what to do? — Blue 15:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

We, frankly, don't care if some other blog posted the same information hours or years beforehand: We'd rather have the most reliable sources available. Another alternative would be to link to a copy of the press release as hosted by e.g. gamershell. Nifboy (talk) 16:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
It looks like most of this user's editing in the last month involves working One Last Continue into articles, either via sourcing or actually inserting the site's name into the article. --TorsodogTalk 16:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The normal drill I use is to revert twice with explanations in the edit summary. The second time I revert, I try to mention starting a discussion on the talk page and start a thread for them to respond to. If they don't respond, I post a note on their talk page about the discussion and ask them to participate. If they still continue to revert, I ask for admin assistance.
A bit troubling and out of the way, but it assumes good faith and gives them plenty of chances to discuss it. Either they try to discuss it with you or the admin will probably block them for disruptive editing. I've found that both outcomes generally bring the matter to an end. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC))

Undue Weight argument in Talk:Virtual Console

Figured I'd mention this here in case anyone was interested in weighing in on the discussion. There is an argument going on in Talk:Virtual Console (right now mainly between User:RetroRalph and myself) about whether we're giving undue weight to Virtual Console by listing release dates for emulated games on that service. Ralph asserts that VC is just an emulator, in the same class as "other emulators" (though he's failed to give me any concrete examples - just referring generically to PC-based emulators), and that these other emulators are in fact more notable than Virtual Console. He's gone on to accuse "us" (editors in general, probably myself included) as having an "alliance" with Nintendo such that we give Nintendo free advertising for the service.

I've been arguing back that Virtual Console is both a set of emulators AND a distribution service, and as such we credit official release dates on the service (treating it like a platform) the same way we do for things like Xbox Live Arcade, Namco Museum, etc. I've pointed out that the fact that you can dump just about any ROM from any system and play it on a freeware emulator is not a notable fact of any particular game, but the fact that a game has been specifically released for something like Virtual Console IS a notable event in that game's history. This doesn't seem to be satisfactory for the guy I'm arguing with.

I have an open question out to him right now, asking for examples of other emulators we're not paying enough attention to and on what basis he asserts their notability. If anyone wants to contribute to the discussion after that, I'd welcome it, and meanwhile, I'd welcome discussion here as well. Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, an SPA too... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
In the interest of good faith, I'm not willing to say quite yet that he's ONLY ever going to just argue this one point. I think he has some valid points in his arguments, but that he's misinterpreting the nature of that service or misdirecting his efforts. S'why I'm trying to explain it to him. But he is proving to be pretty stubborn, and I'm only going to give him a little more time before I'll call him out on it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I've had a quick look and yes, RetroRalph does make a few valid points. It stems back to the debate before on whether to state in the infobox that a game has been released on Wii, Xbox 360 etc, Virtual Console, XBLA etc, or to just mention it is available for download with details about the release in the article (see archived discussion). It may pan out to be a completely different arguement but there are a few points in there that may be useful in this situation. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 22:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Jewel Box (video game)

OK, I know that when I created Jewel Box (video game), it was of dubious notability. I figured, what the hell, start it and we'll see what happens. It's been PRODded, so no real surprise there, but I figured I might as well do some due diligence and try to save my little creation. ;) First of all, I went back and re-read the original review on which I based the article, to get some clues. I'll post it here since the review is very short:

"I’m the Mac aficionado of the household, so my next recommendation is another Mac game, though I’m certain there’s an IBM version as well. It’s called Jewel Box (by Varcon Systems) and it comes as part of a three-game package of arcade challenges. It’s so good that I have yet to tire of it, and still haven’t looked at the other two games that came with the package. Gameplay is vaguely similar to that of Tetris from Spectrum Holobyte, in that colored gems fall from the top of the screen and you must manipulate them to form patterns that erase themselves. When the playing area fills up with gems, the round is over. But Jewel Box is not just a clone—it has intriguing rules all its own, including special gems that cause amazing things to happen, and beautiful sound and graphics. Dee’s rating: * * * ½"

There is one immediate clue which stands out that I hadn't really spent a lot of time on before: it was part of a "package of arcade challenges". Ah, that might explain why Google doesn't come up with anything, especially if the reviewer got the name wrong. Possibly, they also got the number of games in the package wrong. The closest thing I could come up with on Google was the Mac Arcade Pak, which has the publication info matching well, but to use that we must assume that either the reviewer got the name and number of games in the package wrong, or that the package he was looking at was a slightly different variant release or something. In this case, BrickLayer as described there, sounds awfully similar to the description we have of "Jewel Box" from Dragon mag.

So, what does this do for notability? Ah, I will tell you! It looks like Hasbro sued the hell out of the developer Varcon for producing so many knockoffs, so that's something isn't it? So the question becomes, for anyone who might want to help me out, can we find out if "Jewel Box" was really a misnamed or renamed "BrickLayer", and if so then what do we do about the article in question, if there is anything that can be done? Any takers? :) BOZ (talk) 04:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Man, I imagine it'd be a bitch to even come up with a good search term for that name. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Through Google books "preview mode" that only shows 4 or 5 lines of text in a very non-readable way, I managed to scrape a bit of text about this game.
"The best of the bunch, Jewelbox, is now a commercial game published by Varcon Systems. It deserves special praise, not only for its nice graphics and music, but also for its packaging. Instead of the shelf-hogging cardboard boxes most games come packed in, Jewelbox (like Varcon's other games) comes in a re-useable suede bag."
The book: "Everything you wanted to know about the Mac" By Larry Hanson - Edition 2 (December 1993) - 1232 pages - ISBN-10: 1568300581 - ISBN-13: 978-1568300580
PS: They spell the game name as "Jewelbox" all in one word. NeoGenPT (talk) 07:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Found a small reference to it on another book also on Google books.
"In addition, there are games such as Jewelbox (Varcon Systems) that pay homage to Tetris while extending the concept in new directions."
The book: "Managing infotech in school library media centers" By Laurel Clyde - 1999 - 290 pages (text is in page 158) - ISBN-10: 1563087243 - ISBN-13: 978-1563087240 NeoGenPT (talk) 07:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
And to finalize a couple of websites that have small references to it
http://www.idbcg.com/Games/J/Jewel_Box.php (Jewel Box in two words again... what is the correct spelling after all?)
http://crydee.sai.msu.ru/ftproot/pub/rec/games/unsorted/faqs/Mac.arcade.game.faq (Shows the minimum requirements of the game on the second list)
Can anyone can get hold and check out Mac magazines of the time to see if it shows up on a review or something about it? NeoGenPT (talk) 07:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Nice digging NeoGen. Unfortunately though, I don't think the two web sites meet WP:RS. :-\
Macworld may have been the only major Mac magazine from back then, which would make searching enough more difficult. I'm not a Mac guy though, so I'm not really sure. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC))
Yea, I figured those websites would be shady, but I posted them anyway for you guys here to see. That review that BOZ found for the game mentions it's in a pack of three, it must have been a compilation of games from Varcon, but I couldn't find anywhere mentioning it. NeoGenPT (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Wow, thanks! I didn't think this one was going to be even remotely salvagable... who would have thunk that it was just an alternate name or misspelling that was the problem. Do the books help with the notability factor? I don't think the websites will be useful, other than to confirm that other people had heard of the game as well. Well, I added a bit to the article to strengthen it a bit. BOZ (talk) 03:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewelbox (video game) - there were no sources in that article though, so nothing worth merging in. BOZ (talk) 20:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Citing on screen text

What is the best way to cite text on a screen, such as credits, for a game. The template {{Cite video game}} seems to be more for dialogue so I was wondering if there is a more appropriate template to use. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 15:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

For credits at least, cite the game manual rather than the game, or check credit sections on websites such as Allgame for a web-based reference. -- Sabre (talk) 15:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
MobyGames is reliable for game credits also. They don't do arcade games though. GameSpot is another option, but I've found them to be hit and miss when it comes to finding the desired credit. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC))
Always a problem with older games, I have no access to a manual, and there is no listing for it on either allgame or Moby Games. The only screen I have seen is a title screen with the writer's name on it. This is for Grand Prix Manager (1984 video game) AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 18:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I have the same problem with Formula One (1985 video game), the guy who made the port to amstrad CPC left his name as credits in-game but I can't find any references of it anywhere. For the time being I left a reference saying "appears in game" but that won't be valid I'm sure.
I don't think it will be, it's just a shame that there isn't always quite enough information freely available on retro games, sometimes only just enough to establish notability. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to throw a shot in the dark here but... does anyone think we could invoke WP:IAR? in cases like this were there is no other source to get the info except the primary source that we are not allowed to? NeoGenPT (talk) 13:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Aye, I'd say that would be acceptable. Its for instances such as this that IAR exists. Its encyclopedic information that adds to the article, but if there's no other source, then that should be fine. -- Sabre (talk) 13:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the rationale above for using {{cite video game}} for citing credits. Though I don't think ignore all rules is necessary because per WP:PRIMARY, primary resources are within the rules. "Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." (Guyinblack25 talk 01:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC))
That's great then! :) I figure this is one of those things we should have enlisted in a FAQ on the video games project page, as it will probably be asked over and over again as new users (like myself) come around. I confess I have only grasped the basic concepts and rules of wikipedia yet, there are so many different rules and policies for so many situations that it gets hard to understand at times. NeoGenPT (talk) 02:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
No worries. Even the long-time editors here can't keep up with all the policies. I wasn't even sure of my answer until I double checked the policy page. And I check WP:RS first before it pointed me to WP:NOR :-p
To be honest, I don't think this particular issue has come up before. So like you said, it's good to sort something like it out here for other and future members. Mentioning it on WP:VG/RS wouldn't be a bad idea. (Guyinblack25 talk 02:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC))

List of characters standards

I think this issue is reaching the breaking point; there are about 30 Lists of characters needing cleanup and large disputes on whether or not to delete them. Not to mention that there is basically no distinction between a "list of characters" and a "characters article" (such as Characters of Final Fantasy VIII), because both types feature more than one character in a specific title, but one type can only become Featured lists while the other can become Featured articles. We should decide on a standardized name for all articles about characters, when such articles merit creation, and if the huge amount of List articles needing cleanup (probably because they have long been forgotten) should be merged or deleted due to non-notability. If there isn't consensus, the preservationists will argue with the deletionists for every single article - they tread the line between cruft and notability for being solely about plot content. I suggest setting some kind of system up where you have to demonstrate the characters are notable before creating an article of this type.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree we ought to puzzle out the List of Pokémon (1–20) problem (i.e. it is nigh-impossible to write good content in any format, wtf do we do?) but a bureaucracy is not the way to go. Nifboy (talk) 06:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Well some standard would be dandy, because as of now the lists have become a dumping ground of dead character articles to appease people that feel "everything and everyone should be covered" from a series, despite plausibility of real-world reception or anything even possibly tying the series characters together. We do have some great character articles such as List of characters in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow, but for every one we have serveal that list every minor character because someone insists they must be listed and quality be damned, such as List of Paper Mario series characters. Some guideline of some sort to at least exercise would go miles here for sure.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree a standard should be put in place. There is way too many character list dumping grounds for any minor/brief character in games. People attempt to clean this up, merge them or just delete them: but the inclusionists refuse to listen to reason. Then the article gets kept (Paper Mario as one example), and it just sits in bad condition until the next AFD where the process of fighting back and forth resumes. RobJ1981 (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Personally I think all articles on groups of characters should be classified as articles and not lists. WP:LISTPURP states that lists are for informational, navigational, or developmental purposes. Based on the descriptions of these things on WP:LIST, characters articles don't fit the bill. I understand there is some flexibility in what you can classify as a list, but I don't think these "List of characters in"/"Characters of" articles can be considered lists. There's too much prose and not enough... list-ness too them.
And with regards to notability, I completely agree that a crackdown is needed. I watch a few characters articles, and they are indeed more or less dumping grounds for the occasional nonsensical babbling. Every once and a while a gem like this finds its way in: With Main Character's soul become the barrier between Nyx and humanity, his body will most likely to fall in eternal slumber. I'm pretty sure this doesn't mean anything at all.
"Characters of" articles need some threshold of notability that at least includes development information and reception. For a game like Persona 3, such development information does not exist. The best you get is a few anecdotes in the Persona 3 art book, about a paragraph of information on seven or eight characters when combined. That article may or may not need to exist, I don't know. I'm sure there's reception to be found, but not a lot of development. In contrast, Characters of Final Fantasy VIII has five paragraphs of development info, other assorted character development info in sections for each character, and two paragraphs of reception. --gakon5 (talk / contribs) 21:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
All right, now we're getting somewhere. I didn't think that character articles fell into the "List" classification either - not only does it give free reign to a lack of sources and citations (List type character articles are the most in need of cleanup/merge/deletion), but it's also confusing. If an article about characters is notable enough to be included, it must follow the article guidelines on notability rather than the list guidelines. I think that all "List of" articles should be either name changed or deleted depending on the possibility of achieving a full article (Characters of FFVIII-style), and afterwards handled on a case-by-case basis to avoid the "plot creep" that happens so often and leads to these kinds of pages. One thing is for certain; there needs to be a crackdown before every. single. video game in Wikipedia has its own crappy character page.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Any more suggestions? I don't want this to go unanswered as it's very important.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Paper Mario slipped through with no consensus again. There are a number of people who want these sort of twisting-in-the-wind articles to persist, although many of them aren't actually invested in improving them. I don't see why these articles don't go away based on the most basic premise of notability alone: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. None of the characters of any Paper Mario game have received such suitable coverage.
Perhaps we can draw up a list of every "Characters of"/"List of characters in" article and "assess" them to see if they're notable. The problem is that some may be potentially notable (development/reception info exists but is not in the article), while others will never pass notability. Also, something should be written for lists of characters and added to WP:VG/GL. In my mind, a character list is probably notable if development and reception information exists. It's just like single character articles in that regard. --gakon5 (talk / contribs) 02:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
A no consensus does not preclude a merge and redirect, however. There was little reason given against a merge, to which even one of the keepers acceded would be a better choice than deletion. --Izno (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
This is really bothersome. I don't see how it actually survived besides the reviewer focusing on the number of people wanting it kept and not the strength of their arguments. I guess we either try to merge content, or wait five months to reopen the discussion since it'll be ignored for the entire time. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going to suggest a comprehensive assessment but you beat me to it. I'll get it going at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Character lists, starting with Category:Lists of video game characters. Nifboy (talk) 02:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of having an incredibly large page, perhaps instead of a table we can give each article a subsection and allow editors to discuss each one. That at least makes it easier for multiple people to chime in on a contentious article. --gakon5 (talk / contribs) 03:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Let that be for the talk page, imo. People can bring up contentious lists there. --Izno (talk) 03:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I used a table primarily because I'm hoping assessment won't be contentious, and I explicitly don't want to run the usual five-page AfD discussion on all 300 articles. Nifboy (talk) 03:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Assessment, in the sense of the assessment scale, sure. I'm more interested in assessing notability, though, not the quality of the article. This is because the former is a rationale for the deletion, not the latter. Of course, that section of arguments to avoid also notes that "an article which may currently be poorly written, poorly formatted, lack sufficient sources, or not be a comprehensive overview of the subject, can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws...the remedy for such an article is cleanup, not deletion." --gakon5 (talk / contribs) 01:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
What I wonder is how we are to determine which of these articles, most of which lack any secondary sources, are notable for inclusion. Are we allowed to say "this article does not assert notability, delete; come back when you have sources"? You'd think an AfD discussion would prompt people to seek out third-party information (in this scenario, development/reception info, once again). That's how it works everywhere else on this website, and yet Paper Mario slipped through without anyone asserting notability. --gakon5 (talk / contribs) 01:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, the reason I wanted to do just assessment right now is to get a birds-eye view of the problem, before we start getting ourselves tangled up in the never-ending argument that is WP:FICT. Once that's done, what I was planning was treating it like a backlog, where the objective was to get every one of them up to at least C-class; Only once that's attempted would I start looking to cut out the worst of the worst. Nifboy (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm wondering if I should set the table up for B-class criteria and assess them that way? Or should we just do "needs cleanup Y/N" and leave space for comments? Nifboy (talk) 04:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Decided to use normal assessment cats for now. Nifboy (talk) 05:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Done assessing for tonight. Will continue sometime tomorrow. Nifboy (talk) 05:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
If they are not lists then why is the category "List of video game characters"? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 14:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Because they're not really lists in the sense that WP:LIST provides, even if there isn't a better English word to use for character lists, which are basically articles about multiple related things. Like the word "notable", our internal usage of the word is mangled and is currently accepting applications for a better alternative. Nifboy (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

While WP:V covers these articles, WP:N doesn't. Even the WP:FICT proposal does not seek to cover character lists. That said, certain things can be used to help ween these lists one of which is to use FLC's suggested guideline of 10 in most cases (this is a general rule, not an absolute). If a game only has 9 characters of note, maybe it needs to be merged if most don't have much info and (almost) no sources.Jinnai 01:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

There's really no problem with deleting the articles and moving the information to a gaming wiki or Wikia page. I don't see how information preservation comes into the picture when the info can be moved somewhere else where contributors are free to add as much specific info as they want. But otherwise, they should be judged not as list articles, but as regular ones.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
They still fall under the criteria of list articles. We can't just decide that here because we have overlapping wikiprojects who many of these articles will conflict with and who do not use them as such.Jinnai 02:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Pound for pound, the character lists under this project are solely related to this project, so we should be able to set a standard for them without (too much) incident. Something at the very least could and should be done given we have 90+ articles that really are just extreme plot analysis.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
If you're talking about MoS organization and clariffying a bottom threshold for what constitutes a "trivial" character that's probably fine. However, getting pages with a bunch of plot-important characters merged back into the main article will almost certainly be met with stiff resistance on talk pages and AfDs because character lists, for better or worse, are "dumping grounds" for characters that fail the WP:GNG, but need some amount of explanation as they are still nessasary to understanding the work as a whole and whose article would be too large if they were all merged back in.Jinnai 03:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't planning on doing any BOLD work on these lists, but a batch of articles on GTA gangs was just so flat-out bad and unsalvageable that I couldn't hold off on redirecting them. Old versions for posterity: [4], [5], [6], [7]. Nifboy (talk) 22:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Pokemon

One thing that's always bothered me was the Pokémon lists. They may or may not fall under it; while one list may have enough notable characters on said list, another may have none. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we can agree that Pokemon is notable enough that we shouldn't start deleting non-notable Pokemon. And really, either we remove non-notable Pokemon (not a very good idea) or we just list them by name and link them to the corresponding Bulbapedia article (but Wiki doesn't allow that, so...)--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I think the Pokemon lists are fine how they are. If we removed some, then people would argue that certain ones are notable, and there would be no real way to do it. For sanity, we should leave it alone. Blake (Talk·Edits) 16:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
As plot-heavy as those lists are I like how they cross-reference a lot of the various Pokemon media. We're in agreement those lists aren't where cleanup effort is due anyway. Nifboy (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting anything be done. I am, however, suggesting that someone else would from these new guidelines. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
We can cross that bridge when we get to it, but right now, the Pokemon lists are actually comparatively well organized compared to most of the other lists out there. The large majority of them are Start-class and their prospects aren't looking too good. We should figure out what do do with all this stuff. Maybe a comprehensive transwiki program?--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
That might be an idea. The only other idea I've had was organizing by type, which could provide a means to organize them together by reception [ie, a fire Pokémon would be covered by the reception of said type]. Just an idea. ~.~ - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that organization by type would work, since some Pokemon have multiple types. But what I meant was, we should focus on the miscellaneous lists before trying to do anything Pokemon related. After all, the Pokemon lists were created for a reason.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the general size of those indivisual lists, I think we could merge 2-4 (ie anywhere from 40, 60 or 80) in a list and still not be close to violating WP:SIZERULE. In fact, currently the opposite is true as most of those are below the 40k mark. Furthermore, baring Wikipedia technical limitations, lists are completely exempt from WP:SIZE.Jinnai 02:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The biggest problem the Pokemon lists face is that, well...after a certain point almost none of them have reception. Those that had the most impact were clearly and hands down the original 151152. Once you go beyond those the reception quickly dies off and you have a harder time able to say "these are notable enough to even mention" beyond the obvious fact they should be covered to understand the thing as a whole.
In other words it eventually just gets to one big mess nobody's sure of how to properly deal with, we just all know it should be.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Cleaning up list of character articles

So, now that we're more than halfway done assessing the articles, what are everyones' opinions on what should be done with them? It looks like there are far too many start-class articles to simply clean up and many of them don't have any references. There are a relatively small number that are C ranked and only a few B ranks as well as a couple of FA's.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

A good number just need the effort put in, as with the Half-Life, Brothers in Arms, Splinter Cell character articles, etc, they've simply lacked someone with experience coming in and building up the article properly. There are ones that should be disposed of entirely, others that should be merged together rather than having them for individual games in a series, but there's no such thing as "too many to clean up": no deadline remember? -- Sabre (talk) 10:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
The problem is basically twofold: When a list is split out from a game/series article it never takes any WP:WAFFLES (otherwise known as out-of-universe information) with it. Likewise, when a character earns enough waffles to level up to "separate article" status, it takes all its waffles with it, usually leaving the list back at zero. So, especially in cases like Nathan Drake (character) (GA) -> List of characters in the Uncharted series (Start), it should be a relatively easy task to extend the character's summary to include some reception and development information, and if the main article has any relevant info, that should also carry over. That would get more than a few of them up to just-barely-passing-class. As for where I would start cutting, I'd start with lists where the main article and references give little or no emphasis on characters at all. Nifboy (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't deal in deletion often, and I poked around WP:DEL, but since I'm not sure, I'll ask here. If a character list is presumed to not be notable (such as List of characters in AdventureQuest, which has zero OOU information), is it our job to seek out sources and test notability, or can we prod the article to try and motivate other people to do it? It seems like, with such a large group of people who want these articles around (or at least, large enough that a fiction article can pass AfD without any claims to notability), it should be their job to maintain the quality of these articles. Cleanup should come after its established that OOU info exists for a given article. --gakon5 (talk / contribs) 18:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I guess I keep forgetting a lot of these articles will end up as a merge and redirect, but really, with most of these articles, there isn't much to merge. It's all overly-detailed fiction stuff that doesn't necessarily have a place in a game article. So it's more or less deleting the article. --gakon5 (talk / contribs) 18:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
It's technically not your job to do so, but would certainly be appreciated by those involved. A common comment in AfDs for character lists is that the nominators don't "help save" it. If you did even a basic search for sources before taking something to AfD and outlined your search in the nomination, I sure that would make the whole process much easier. Basically, you'd preemptively address the most common objective before the opposition says it. The more thorough the search, the stronger the rationale. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC))
Most admins at AfD won't touch merge discussions with a ten-foot pole anymore, so I wouldn't bother with that route. Use your own discretion on how much due diligence/research is necessary, and how much of it should be merged before redirecting. Nifboy (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
If it's possible and you can "get away with it" (I use that phrase tentatively), merge and redirect preemptively rather than through AfD. There are too many people hanging around that want lists simply because they want lists. And, if that would have been the outcome at AfD, as Nifboy points out, [most] admins won't touch it beyond closing the AfD as a no consensus (which is not the ideal target). --Izno (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
If a list hasn't been greatly edited in a good while, I think you should redirect it, then if someone objects, then AfD. No reason to AfD a dead article. AfD is just for settling disputes somewhat and if you think something is bad, but you aren't sure. If somebody cares about an article, then give them a deadline. Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Some quick stats:

  • 2 FAs
  • 1 A
  • 3 GAs
  • 3 Bs (including one FL)
  • 25 Cs
  • 185 Start
  • 3 Stub
  • 5 Redirected during assessment
  • 6 Lists

= 233 total, about 80% of which are badly in need of a cleaning. If you also count C-class, Sturgeon's Law applies. Nifboy (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You can always PROD a dead article instead. I don't think there is a need to redirect these pages as most people don't actively search for "list of XX characters", not to mention that someone could always reverse the merge and re-create a crufty page.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Most of the ones I was thinking of prodding have already been prodded by TTN and deprodded by DGG. Nifboy (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
So, is a mass deletion in order? I really don't know if it's possible to individually reference each one.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I've been busy but I was going to start drafting a "short list" of lists where the surrounding articles don't give any indication that characters are at all worth discussing. I'd take them individually after that: Mass deletion of anything never goes well. Nifboy (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Short list is up: 30-some articles that, essentially, I think WP:SIZE doesn't justify a split out. Nifboy (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
While we're here, I have a side question that's related-ish. Should character summaries be written assuming the reader is already familiar with the plot of the game? --gakon5 (talk / contribs) 02:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I would assume no, considering character summaries usually come before the plot info. That's just me, though.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I would assume yes, because I assume someone clicked to the character article from the main article. Also, because character articles are subsets of game articles, they're meant to be more detailed, in this case with plot. It's supplementary information that helps the reader understand the main plot, outlined in the main game article. I dunno, though. Maybe WP:SUMMARY contains the answer. --gakon5 (talk / contribs) 04:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I would assume no, because maybe the reader is looking for context (e.g. GameFAQs character contest: who the heck is that dude in the tv?) or maybe they've only played partway through one game in a series. On the other hand, I'd stress that retelling the plot of the game is not what character articles/lists are for. Nifboy (talk) 06:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Character summaries in lists should be written from a plot-agnostic point-of-view - we should be providing the general character traits, any necessary backstory to understand those traits if they are not already explained through a plot, and when necessary mentioned an event in a game plot that drastically alters the character (eg the character suddenly gains superpowers midway through game X of a series that says with the characters indefinitely). We should avoid stating "this character appears in games X, Y, and Z" or "in game X, the character appears as ...", instead going for the very general appearance and only outlined exclusion game appearances or extraordinary differences from other games. --MASEM (t) 06:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Alright, that makes sense. In my case I'm working on Characters of Persona 3 and found that, when writing the "biography" of the main character, at some point I started retelling the plot of the game. For this character only though, because the major events leading up to the end of the game more or less revolve around him. With this game in particular, there are several events (deaths of characters) not covered in the Persona 3 article, because ultimately they only impact characters and not the outcome of the story. --gakon5 (talk / contribs) 18:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, I say just write as much biography as you think is necessary, and it can be trimmed later. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Several of the 30 short-lists have already been dealt with. Some of them have more complex issues like having a lot of crossover character like List of .hack characters (which i readily admit needs work and i'm doing so) and thus may fall under WP:AVOIDSPLIT as well as running into problems with duplicating plot information if they are merged all back together. Not saying that such pages can go without sourcing, but some care may be needed for merging series pages with multiple crossover characters that play important roles in many of the games and other media.Jinnai 20:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I've read most of the discussion, but I didn't see anything about: Characters in The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time mentioned. I think a merge or just sending it to AFD might be the best route. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
No references... it's probably best to merge.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Importance of creation info?

While I think that creation info is important, am I wrong in saying that an article with a lot of substance and a strong reception section could get away with light creation info? Honestly, if strong critical reception exists for a subject, I don't think strong creation info NEEDS to be there. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

If such information is nonexistent the article should still have a shot at FA, which IMO is all that matters. Looking through our current FAs I'd say Empires: Dawn of the Modern World is currently the lightest on dev info at two relatively lean paragraphs. Nifboy (talk) 06:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Lack of creation information maybe, but you'd have to probably show that there is a very unlikely possibility from print sources.Jinnai 08:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I just think that a lot of people really "target" articles for a lack of creation info in regard to character articles especially, even though development info has nothing to do with notability. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
The Undue weight section of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view touches on this a little, an article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. NPOV is meant to apply to competing viewpoints on controversial subjects, but this part sounds like it applies to comprehensiveness. That's the only mention I know about of comprehensiveness in a Wikipedia policy. It mainly came about from the Featured article criteria, and a looser version was created for the Good article criteria.
So no, an article doesn't technically need a lot creation and development info, but it would need a decent sized section for a quality rating. The exception would be as Jinnai said above: you'd have to prove that such content just doesn't exist either online or offline. Typically though, FA reviewers are very reluctant to do that.
In regard to splitting off character articles, Wikipedia:Summary style would apply, which relies on the general notability criterion as the deciding point. We started pushing the creation requirement to trim down the number of "bad" character articles, because almost all of them were breeding grounds for trivia and lengthy plot summaries. Now that we have good character articles to use as a gauge, we probably don't have to be as strict. Terry Bogard for example lacks good creation info, but I'd say it has enough to stand on its own. So some of these could probably stand on their own, but I don't see them getting GA or FA without more development content.
Our resident character article expert may have a different viewpoint though. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC))
Actually, Kung Fu's Kefka Palazzo article was one of the things that made me bring this up. Well, that and a list of The World Ends with You characters which I haven't been able to find much creation info except for Neku Sakuraba's creation info and general info on who drew/wrote for the characters, but I'm finding a lot of reception for them. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

MTV Multiplayer blog

I am guessing that this source isn't reliable?

Just making sure. It would be nice to add something to Epona and Rapidash. Blake (Talk·Edits) 16:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

MTV Multiplayer Blog is generally reliable. I would through caution, however, for using the specific above post as a means of supporting notability without additional sources for those articles, but if they already are considered notable, then adding that seems ok, but be aware there's a very tongue-in-cheek approach for it. --MASEM (t) 16:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
As the two characters I mentioned have no reception at the moment, I highly doubt that this would be enough to split out an article. It will just help make the list articles look better. Thanks though. Blake (Talk·Edits) 16:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if that even adds much to Rapidash to be honest, It definitely gives some pep to Epona though.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Sephiroth (Final Fantasy)

Despite wanting to clean up the article, Fleet Command has been exessively trimming the Sephiroth article leaving only three sentences to his role in FF VII. Even more, his origins and methods get to Lifestream are not mentioned in the article leaving it confusing. He says that such info is fancruft and it does not pass notability even though the notability guidelines refers to what deserves an article. Also, even if notability also applies to these events, third party sources have talked about that. Could you take a look? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah he's overshooting the mark by about a mile there. While you can condense Sephiroth's role a lot to try and avoid major stuff, ShinRa, SOLDIER and Jenova are too integral to the character to be omitted entirely. His statements about some fan hubbub on which is which is irrelevant: we have the Ultimania's confirming Jenova's whole background and relation and so forth. I will say what he left is a good place to build upon though, just flesh out the details that need to be and go from there, I'll do what I can to help when I get home, probably a little on Christmas too since I have it off.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I tried to expand the article, but he has been reverting my edits.Tintor2 (talk) 14:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I got an idea. You should report him to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and see if they can help you. GamerPro64 (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Help/Guidance needed on new browser game article

Note: Reposted from Portal talk:Video games to get more responses. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC))

Hi! The other day, the Facebook game Fish Wrangler was voted the best Facebook Game and best Facebook Application at the Open Web Awards by Mashable. As (I think) that makes it notable, I decided to start up an article.

Only problem is that I am useless at writing articles!

I have put a request on the Fish Wrangler forum boards for help, and I have also asked the game's developer to upload a few images to Wikipedia for us to use in the article. Knowing how passionate the players of the game are about Fish Wrangler (well, I am one of the Wrangler addicts!), it could far too easily become an advert for the game, or an instruction Wiki (we already have one of those).

So, would it be possible for someone to help write the article, or (at the very least) pop over and guive some guidance on good things to include in the article? Having an impartial third party to look over the article from time to time to keep us on the straight and narrow would be very helpful. Thanks! Stephen! Coming... 08:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Issue over console role-playing games

Talk:Console role-playing game#merge and rename with Crmatell about usage of the term. Much of his evidence he is trying to use to support is based on synthesis of GameFAQs data pages which he is claiming because those pages are reliable sources that combing info from them to come up with a statement is not original research. He uses much of similar type listing evidence to support the content forking of this article and Computer role-playing games from the main article. IMO there is not enough evidence to support this as anything more than a POV forking. What evidence from RSes that isn't synthesis that is given focuses more on the east/west divide not the console/pc divide.

As to the issue of the usage, I am not disputing that console-rpgs are used as by the media, but rather that their usage is not consistent. Furthermore, every citations he uses are just examples basically "This game is listed as a console rpg. Therefore based on this we can define what a console rpg is."Jinnai 21:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

IMHO there should only be something like a general "RPG" article (probably already exists but I'm too lazy to search), and inside that subsections describing differences between console RPG/PC RPG/Action RPG/MMORPG/whatever-else-RPG.
"Role Playing Game" is a genre of game, and as such it is independent of the medium in which it is played, it may be on consoles, PCs, or even board games or pen and paper possibly. But again reminding, this is just my $0.02 on the subject. I am not an expert on the subject whatsoever. NeoGenPT (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with NeoGenPT on classification of RPGs in general: All of the subgenres of RPGs (MMOs, Action, turn-based, board-based, etc.) are just that: Subgenres - they're based on the generic RPG concept and have different means of execution, but many common elements. So it makes sense to have a general RPG article that talks about the common points of the genre as a whole, then breaks down the common subgenres and discusses what (in general) makes them stand out from one another. If you do that, you remove a lot of the terminology contention and give equal weight to everything. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
There is probably enough to create 3 sub-genre articles: tabletop; live-action & video game, but this is best done after some serious cleanup.Jinnai 08:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Sounds OK to me after reconsideration. SharkD  Talk  17:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Retro video game references

A bunch of 1980's magazines have been scanned here that you can cite: [8] --ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Good find, although they are big files. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
We can cite the magazine material themselves, but can not reference Digital Press or provide direct links to said magazines. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discussion for video games by designer categories

I have nominated for deletion a series of recently-created video games categories, which group games by the designer. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 28#Video_games_by_designer, where your contributions would be welcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Purging members

The membership list has been around long enough that there are no more people moving their names to Active on any type of regular basis. Should we now send out some type of message to those still Unknown, asking if they would like to continue to be in the WikiProject? I think a month would be long enough to respond, so by the new year, we can remove all those who still have not responded. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I know we have a lot going on in the project right now, but I don't think we should let this get archived without some feedback. Any takers? (Guyinblack25 talk 22:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC))
There's no harm in sending out a "last warning" before being cut from the list.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Looks like that's as close to consensus as we're going to get.
MrKIA11- can you send out the message or put in a request for Xenobot? Whichever you think is best. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC))
Sorry, I just noticed your response. I'm not really one for words. So if someone else can come up with a good notice, that might be better. I could send out the message, but I think it would be a lot easier for Xenobot. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been busy with other things. How about this:

Dear {{BASEPAGENAME}},

You are receiving this message because either [[Category:WikiProject Video games members]] or {{User WPVG}} is somewhere in your userspace, and you are currently listed in the "Unknown" section on the project's member list.

The member list is meant to provide a clearer picture of active membership. It is recommended that you update your status if you plan to regularly:

Members listed in the "Unknown" section will be removed from the membership list and category at the end of January 2010. You may re-add yourself to the active list at any time. Thank you for your help, and we look forward to working with you.

Sincerely, the Video Games WikiProject ~~~~~


Feel free to copy edit it as you or others may see fit. (Guyinblack25 talk 02:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC))
What about "Dear {{BASEPAGENAME}}" to make it more personalised? --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 02:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I like it. Using {{BASEPAGENAME}} is a good idea. And I think it should be signed from the project. Otherwise looks good. Should ask Xeno to send it out? (assuming he hasn't read this already...) MrKIA11 (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah. Go for it. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC))
Ok. I asked him to send out his bot. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

() There should be something about removing them from the category as well. --Izno (talk) 23:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Should we just make it "...removed from the membership list and category at the end..."? MrKIA11 (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The purge warning has been  Delivered except to 168 users whose talk pages had not changed since the last time we warned them that they would be removed. –xenotalk 22:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Task forces without open tasks

I noticed that there are a number of task forces that don't have a list of open tasks listed in a todo template. I've added such a template to the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Retro games task force, but it needs to be filled out. What is the use of a task force if there are no tasks listed? If I'm a new user these task forces should point me towards tasks that need to be done. Otherwise they're completely useless. 92.105.250.202 (talk) 14:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

There is an implied open task at every task force: Get all articles up to Featured Article status. Does that help give you a direction? Nifboy (talk) 15:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Likewise, the Retro games project was literally just started. It's still being defined in fact. Hold your horses. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
We have a todo list (which is sorely in need of an update, which I'll get to tomorrow) at WT:NIN if you wish to look at that. –MuZemike 04:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Echoing Marty's comments, the Retro task force just started this month, a holiday month when most editors are not on Wikipedia.
Either way, I think 92.105.250.202 brings up a valid point, and one that might explain why we've had mixed success with our task forces. The Nintendo task force is (in my opinion) one of our more active task forces. I suspect it's use of a to do list and regular updating by MuZemike have contributed to that.
A defined set of goals can do a lot for a group of people. I hope that our task forces and project as a whole adopt a similar "plan of action". Something as simple as a short list of articles to get to GA or FA would be good. (Guyinblack25 talk 04:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC))

Like game covers?

I know I've said this before but I thought it important to reiterate: you know how Template: Non-free game cover is made so that you put this (|) then the console's name to have the image put in a sub-section specific to the type of game system? Maybe the same thing could be done to this template. If the screenshots were put into console-specific sub-sections, it would make navigating them much easier. Just add the text between the 'nowiki's: <includeonly>{{{category|[[Category:Screenshots of {{{1|Video}}} games|{{PAGENAME}}]] {{#if:{{{2|}}}|[[Category:Screenshots of {{{2}}} games|{{PAGENAME}}]]|}} {{#if:{{{3|}}}|[[Category:Screenshots of {{{3}}} games|{{PAGENAME}}]]|}} }}}</includeonly> To make it easier, maybe Category: Screenshots of video games should be moved to Category: Video game screenshots. By the way, I'd change the template myself but it's completely locked. N. Harmonik (talk) 22:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Categories like Category:Nintendo Entertainment System screenshots and Category:Atari 2600 game screenshots already exist, so making it easier to categorize them wouldn't be a bad idea. (Guyinblack25 talk 04:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC))

Zeebo in 7th-gen consoles again

Just an FYI: The Admin Noticeboard recommended I drop a line in here regarding an ongoing edit war in Template:Seventh generation game consoles where one or two users have been removing Zeebo from the list of 7th-gen consoles without adequate explanation. I referred the matter to ANI, but one member there feels that this should be discussed here, at least for the content dispute portion of the matter. (3RR is a separate issue, apparently.)

I've asked User:Guinea pig warrior, the current user who's been removing that console from the template, to provide a source that clearly explains why it doesn't belong, but all he's given us so far is just "It's not a 7th-gen console" and "People are saying so in discussions", without saying where those discussions are taking place or what not. (The earliest discussions on this issue between Marty, myself and a couple of anonymous IPs had more content in them - at least then, people were arguing based on the console's tech specs.)

Getting kinda tired of the edit war, personally. If anyone's got any great ideas on how to deal with this, I'm all ears. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the question to be answered here is "What makes a 7th generation console, a 7th generation console?" That is: Is it just the time frame in which it is released? Does it need to be an international product? Does it need to be comparable to the "big 3"? etc. –xenotalk 18:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, as I pointed out in Template talk:Seventh generation game consoles, "I don't like it", "It sucks" and "It's only for people in Brazil" are not valid reasons to remove sourced content. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
As for what DOES constitute a console generation: Wikipedia is not in the business of making judgment calls as to a console's generation on its own. That's the job of our sources. Marty gave numerous sources in the template discussion that classify the console as 7th-gen, so as far as I'm concerned, going by those sources (and lacking any other sources that say otherwise), that's what we should do if we want to stay in line with WP's policies. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Creating a template for "Aggregate review scores" in series articles

It seems to me that enough series articles are using a consistent code to create an aggregate review table that a dedicated template for that code would come in handy. For those who aren't familiar with this table, take a look at the reception sections on these articles, a selection of those which use the code in question:

Now, template coding really isn't my forte, which is why I haven't just gone ahead and done it, but I think that such a template could be useful. A template would allow us to match it up nicely in visual style and colour to {{VG Reviews}} as well. Such a template would need to accomodate quite a few game titles, just for those franchises that chuck out more titles than average, and the "as of this date" stuff found in some incarnations could be made as an optional field. Any thoughts on the matter, or takers for coding such a template? -- Sabre (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like one already exists: {{VG series reviews}}. It's currently used in F-Zero, Kingdom Hearts, and Rune Factory, but should probably be added to the other series articles.
The template supports Game Rankings and Metacritic scores for up to 16 games. The template is straight forward enough for me to add more if needed. Just say the word. (Guyinblack25 talk 04:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC))

Master Sword

An article for the Master Sword in The Legend of Zelda series has been un-merged a month ago. It looks well written, but has no references. Should it be merged since there is no notability? Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Discuss it per Help:Merge. –MuZemike 20:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
What are you saying? Discuss it on the talkpage of the article? I highly doubt anybody has this page on their watchlist. I don't see why a general consensus can't be gathered here. Or are you saying to put the template on the page? I suppose I could do that. Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Normally, discussion would occur on the receiving article's talk page (in this case Talk:Universe of The Legend of Zelda) so that more people are brought to the table. –MuZemike 21:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Mortal Kombat Kollection listed for AfD

Hello, I've listed Mortal Kombat Kollection for AfD, the discussion is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mortal Kombat Kollection. Thanks. Maccy69 (talk) 05:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

In the future, you don't have to report AFD nominations here. We have WP:VG/D that keeps track of all the VG-related deletion discussions (except CFDs which aren't transcludible). –MuZemike 05:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Review tables nominated for deletion

In an entirely unhelpful move, Collectonian has unilaterally nominated {{VG reviews}}, {{VG series reviews}} and the unused {{VG series and remake reviews}} for deletion. Given how {{VG reviews}} is used on hundreds, if not thousands of articles, and the discussion a few up from this one pertaining to multiple articles using the same code that generates {{VG series reviews}}, it is vitally important that these nominations are actually discussed regardless of whether they are kept or not, as opposed receiving the usual TfD treatment of about five people. The nominations are all over at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 January 2. -- Sabre (talk) 12:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Character reception

User:New Age Retro Hippie/Character reception - I've created a little list of reception. Anyone who wants to use anything from here feel free, or if you want to add, be my guest! - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Alphabetical order would be nice. :) --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 22:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I have been working on something similar at User:A_Nobody/Inclusion_guidelines#Most_culturally_important_fictional_characters that can also be expanded accordingly. Best and Happy New Year! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

A Boy and His Blob GA review 2nd opinion

f I reviewed the GA nomination for A Boy and His Blob (2009 video game), but the original nominator seems to be AWOL and no one else has stepped up to address the issues in the review, with one small exception. So, I took the liberty of addressing the issues with the article myself, but now I don't feel comfortable passing it. Could another editor review the article now and decide if it fits the GA criteria? — Mr. Van Tine (tc) 09:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

After casting a glance at the article there's a couple of things which would give me pause. The first is the bare-bones lead, the second is the massive chunk of quote in gameplay (there's nothing in there that couldn't be written in the submitter's own words). The reception section duplicates the review scores from the review table and also is in 'he-said she-said' format rather than isolating aspects of the game and comparing how different reviewers rated them. There's not a massive amount of reception information either, considering how much chatter the game caused. The image in gameplay shouldn't be left-aligned directly underneath the section header either. It's not a bad article (and I upped the rating to B), but I wouldn't pass it as a GA. Someoneanother 11:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Characters in The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time

There's a discussion opened whether it should be kept or redirected here. Please give any input you can on the matter. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that it would be good enough to either leave it as is or move the list to The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. GameSlayerGS (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
The only notable character on that list is Navi, who could probably have her own article if anybody tried. Redirect, and if you really need to, then make a small list on the game's page. Blake (Talk·Edits) 21:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

"Best Game Ever" lists

I think it would be a good idea to create a project page listing (and linking to) all the various "Best Game Ever" lists published in mags out there. Would anyone else add their support for this? The page should also include pre-made reference tags so that editors can simply copy and paste them into the articles they're working on. SharkD  Talk  03:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Err... why? What would this accomplish? --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 03:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I misread it as asking for an article about the "best games ever". But anyway, there would be no point, as there are far to many "best game ever" lists to list all of them on one project page.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there is any particular need for such a page. Whenever these lists are published there is more than likely to be somebody who adds the information the specific article pages anyway. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 12:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
While I don't really think there should be a project page for it, most likely due to what AirRaidPatrol said. It would be a semi-useful thing to have access to somewhere on the internet. Seeing as the information tends to get added to articles and is generally something nice to go the reception section, wouldn't be bad to have access to the lists easily. Crimsonfox (talk) 14:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
It WOULD be nice to have this info available. It's fairly common to find many articles that don't mention their entries in top games lists. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps we can collect and store that data ourselves on the backend? A subpage of the project, not an actual article. --gakon5 (talk / contribs) 20:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, I don't think anyone proposed an article, but a subpage sounds good. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh... duh. "I think it would be a good idea to create a project page" Apparently I didn't catch that. --gakon5 (talk / contribs) 20:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I've already started collecting data. It would be nice to have a project page so that other people don't gather data about the same articles (I've got several dozen already). SharkD  Talk  00:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Maybe put it under a user page instead and make people aware of it. A couple of discussions up User:New Age Retro Hippie has created a list of character reception articles from the web, and that's nice and accessible without having to make a project page or anything. Just saying because the general mood doesn't seem to want a project page. Crimsonfox (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, will do. SharkD  Talk  06:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I added what I have so far to a user page: User:SharkD/Top video games lists. You can see the actual lists by clicking on the numbers in the ID column. Some lists aren't complete and have only the top 10. Generally, if I've filled out the 'Title' column, then the list is complete. I haven't added the pre-made REF tags yet. SharkD  Talk  07:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I filled in the missing data where I could and added several more lists. I also linked to the page from Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library. SharkD  Talk  07:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Nathan Drake

Just a heads up: I have nominated Nathan Drake (character) for FA; the nomination can be found here. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 05:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Article for Toad's Tool 64

Can we have an article created for the level edito Toad's Tool 64? The program has gained enough popularity with many people using it. Here's the official site of the mod: [9] so can we please have an article about it? --VitasV (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Why not just incorporate it into the "Impact and Legacy" section of the Super Mario 64 article? The way it looks, not having been updated for 2 years and based on a 14 year old game, it can't be as popular as something like Garry's Mod.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Alright that can work. Can anyone do it? --VitasV (talk) 09:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
This discussion is not reason enough to circumvent established guideline and policy, WP:IAR does not apply here, and a suggestion by another user does not give you warrant to do whatever the hell you want. Removed, per WP:N.— dαlus Contribs 04:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The only one applying IAR here is you with the civility rule. Your tone is completely unacceptable, you did not need to swear nor did you need to act like he did something horrible. Stop talking down to people. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay so added as said here but user Dæ took it down and gave me the same kinda message on my talk page. Can we find some reasonable way so that it gets added to the article? --VitasV (talk) 04:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I am not applying IAR, and there is no civility issue. You speak down to me on the above user's talk page, and you even say that I swear at them. What a blatant lie, I did no such thing. I have made no bad-faith accusations, but I can tell you who has, look in the mirror.— dαlus Contribs 10:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm kind of wondering what you consider your usage of the word "hell" to be. Explain to me how any use of that word could be considered civil? What reason in the world did you have to accuse him of "doing whatever the hell he wants"? And what did you mean when you called his edit an advertisement in your edit summary? I am legitimately curious as to how you can think your tone has been even reasonably appropriate considering the very civil and calm discussion that you decided to make into a federal case. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 11:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I haven't been assuming bad faith, that would be you. But here, I'll give you a clue: Did you notice that I only spoke to V after several minutes of reverting the edit? Did you perchance gleam that I might not have known they were the ones who inserted it? It looked like advertising to me, there were no links establishing notability.— dαlus Contribs 11:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)As to my usage of hell, I certainly do not consider it to be a swear word, with what we have out there, and I really do not want to name what we have out there. I was using it to describe a situation, I was not saying fuck off to them. Now that would be swearing at a user. Please, explain to me how it is uncivil.. In hindsight, I do see that it will be taken as such, and will try to be more careful in the future. That aside, however, I don't like it when the facts are blurred.— dαlus Contribs 11:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
You were assuming the content was in violation of WP:NOT. Did you have any reason to call it advertising? No, you had a hunch. And explain to me why a referenced sentence in Profanity, ie the one identifying "hell" as a curse word, is not sufficient to say that you cursed at him. But hey, throw out the curse word and we see someone who was, for absolutely no reason, rude to another user. If you can't play nice, go elsewhere please. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 11:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Do not put words in my mouth. Nowhere have I referenced WP:NOT. You want to talk about uncivility? How about yours then, where you put words in others' mouths, assume bad-faith, and don't read up on the situation before commenting. If you can't play nice, go somewhere else.— dαlus Contribs 11:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
As for my reasons for calling it advertising, I had plenty reason. No sources to establish notability, no hints of notability, and no cons of the program presented, only the positive side. Ads are typically written as such. Stop pointing out my uncivility and acting as you're innocent yourself. Stop assuming things about me, putting words in my mouth, and attacking my edit summaries. Lastly, about Profanity, no, it isn't. The way I used it could not be interpreted as cussing at another user. Telling a user they can't do whatever the hell they want, and telling a user to fuck off, are two completely different things.— dαlus Contribs 11:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
To call something an advertisement suggests that someone added an advertisement, which is a violation of WP:NOT. And I'm sorry that I have a negative reaction to someone who for no reason had a bad tone to another Wikipedian who was just doing what he thought was appropriate. Lemme rewrite your statement to show how you're SUPPOSED to respond to people with civility.
"While I appreciate your attempt to improve Wikipedia, the content must be sourced by reliable secondary sources, and as such, I have removed it. Happy New Year!" Instead of being courteous and explaining yourself clearly, you came in swinging, accusing the user of attempting to circumvent policies and guidelines, as well as accusing him of attempting to "ignore all rules", even though this policy was first brought up by you and you alone. I'm confounded as to how you can think for a moment that you didn't make accusations, nor did you speak to him in the exact wrong tone.
Really? So you can tell them that they can't do whatever the fuck they want and it isn't swearing? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 11:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Let me try again, fuck is on a different level than hell, or at least, that is how I consider things to be. That aside, I apologize for the accusations I made above, but you are not innocent here yourself, although you did jump to another's aid, which was the right thing to do, you took an uncivil tone with myself. As I was saying, I am sorry for the tone I took, and I admit I could have said things better, instead of gettting riled up that a user claimed a discussion took place when no-such-thing ever actually happened. Now, I have to wonder if you'll apologize for your tone as well.— dαlus Contribs 11:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Yes, I was overreacting, and if you gleamed that enough from my posts, surely, you should have tried to deescalate the situation, instead of just adding to it.— dαlus Contribs 11:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

What on Earth does that have to do with video games? Archived. Take it to your talk pages and work it out peacefully. Daedalus, take a deep breath, step away from the computer and go for a walk. Calm down, before this escalates like last time. You need any help, e-mail me. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 14:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay now back on topic. Toad's Tool 64 has gained popularity and has been used by many for Super Mario 64. Now is there any way we can work this in into the Impact and Legacy section of the Super Mario 64 article? --VitasV (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
That would depend entirely on what sources are available to use. Nifboy (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I added a sentence at the end of the section mentioning it. Feel free to expand it with references if you find any. But sheesh, talk about making a mountain out of a molehill toadstool.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Meta Knight (Character)

Hello there. I've redirected a new article about a video game character to the existing List of characters in the Kirby series#Meta Knight. However, User:Mr. Anon515 insists on creating of the stand alone article. I'm copying his question here, as I think this is relevant and better informed forum to resolve this problem. See also the discussion at my talk page. Thank you. --Vejvančický (talk) 07:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Despite his protest, it still comes down to a simple rule: independent references and outside world information are needed. He claims he is not very good at referencing, which indicates that he needs to be pointed to the notability and verifiability policies so that he knows how essential they are to the project. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 08:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
The fact that he's not good at referencing is not why he should have the article unmerged, but why it should be re-merged.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Just making fun of the fact that I don't know how to place external links is a bad reason. The fact is, Zelda and link have their own articles, so does every single pokemon. I can find refrences for the article, just I don't know how to place them. Mr. Anon515 (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
As a side note, his section on List of Characters from the Kirby Series has several refrences on it, so we could use those as a stand alone article. Mr. Anon515 (talk) 02:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
No one's making fun of you. Zelda and Link have their own articles because they have references now. What Meta Knight needs is out-of-universe referencing - reception, creation, etc. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
What New Age Retro Hippie I think is getting at is the following: is there anything else beyond what is already mentioned in List of characters in the Kirby series#Meta Knight? More specifically, are there more verifiable information (i.e. backed by reliable secondary sources) out there that could make what there is currently in that article too large to necessitate a split? As far as citations are concerned, going to WP:CITE is a good place to start. If it's a reliable web page or something (not a forum or blog or anything), then just doing [www.website.com/page.html] is OK for the time being. I would recommend trying to verify the information that is currently at List of characters in the Kirby series#Meta Knight. Hope that helps, –MuZemike 02:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Uh, almost every single Pokemon haven't had articles to themselves in years. I dunno how many do, but I can't imagine it's more than 10. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
You'd be wrong. :p - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Still, fourteen plus one big list broken into two dozen pages is a far cry from the almost five hundred articles we used to have. Nifboy (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. The list of Kirby guys page is way too long and needs to be split into various articles. The fact that individual Pokemon have their own pages at all means that Kirby, one of nintendo's biggest series, should have it's own pages. If Kirby himself has a page, so should MK and King Dedede. Mr. Anon515 (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I can find the refrences, just not place them. I'm trying to get your support to help me. Mr. Anon515 (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Try something like [10] Just fill in the appropriate fields and it generates reference code for you, all ready for copy/paste. Hope that helps. Crimsonfox (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
At 32 Kb, List of Kirby characters isn't that long, especially for a character list. Heck, Characters of Kingdom Hearts, a featured article, is over 120 Kb in size. Size really isn't an issue here, and if anything, some of the character descriptions could be cut down. Besides that, as others have said, for a character to have an article of its own it needs two key things:
  • Character design: Who designed this character? What went into the design process? Has the design changed at all over the years?
  • Critical reception: What do critics think of this character?
The article needs to do more than just detail the character's role in the games (see WP:NOTPLOT). There are a number of featured and good articles on single characters you can find at WP:VG/FA and WP:VG/GA under "Characters". --gakon5 (talk / contribs) 20:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  1. That's a reason to trim a list, not split it out.
  2. "Other stuff exists" is so far from a good reason. Those items exist because they have proper reception and development info. They do not exist because their list grew too large, nor do they exist because they're major characters in their series.
  3. That the star of a game has an article is not reason for the secondary main characters to have articles. If that logic were true, once Meta Knight and Dedede had articles, we'd have to give articles for the next tier down, supporting characters. Then we'd have to give articles to secondary supporting characters. Then minor characters, then bosses, then enemies, then locations, then items, then abilities, etc. etc. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Instead of complaining that my article didn't have very good references, help me build a better one. Meta Knight is notable enough to dererve an article. Mr. Anon515 (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  1. Meta Knight is a notable character. He deserves a page
  2. I can find refrences, as stated above, such as nintendo's website, or a video of certain games.
  3. According to wikepedia policy, a page's size is not a valid reason for its deletion.
There, that's enough reason's for the page's unmerge. Mr. Anon515 (talk) 02:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

← Why does every single thing have to have a separate page, notability aside? Why can't we keep everything in one location instead of scattered all over the place like a bunch of matryoshka dolls? –MuZemike 02:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

According to the most basic definition of notability, as outlined at WP:NOTE, a topic is presumed to be notable if it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Nintendo, the creators of the Kirby characters, don't count, and the games themselves certainly don't count for establishing notability. Also, I don't see where page size and deletion came into this. --gakon5 (talk / contribs) 03:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
There's also a matter of how we write articles on fiction, which emphasizes real-world information such as reception and development over creating a fictional profile. Nifboy (talk) 07:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, we can probably do that too. There are several reviewers and other third party sources we can use. And why can't nintendo and HAL be used as sources in things like character conception? I would re-create it myself, but there's this stupid redirect that prevents me. Mr. Anon515 (talk) 01:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
For something like this it's probably better to expand the list entry, or work on a draft in your own userspace, rather than insist on a separate article based on sources that "probably" exist. Nifboy (talk) 06:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  1. They can be used for creation and concept, but that's far less important than reception. Reviews also do not necessarily cover the character. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Reviews and sales numbers are pretty much all that matter in reception. Mr. Anon515 (talk) 04:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
For games, yes, but Meta Knight isn't a game, is he? He needs reception or criticism on his character. Find him mentioned in lists like "Top 10 blah blah characters" on sites that are reliable like IGN or GamesRadar. Blake (Talk·Edits) 04:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, i'll try. What if I find him mentioned in a review of a game? Like, if the review says something like "this game is awsome because meta knight is such a good character". Mr. Anon515 05:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Just found: he's mentioned on IGN's top videogame swordsmen[1]. Is that a good ref? Mr. Anon515 05:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ Schedeen, Jesse. "Top Videogame Sword Masters". IGN. Retrieved 2010-01-07. 
A good ref, yes, but there needs to be some more. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Anon515: A couple of things. First, several times, you used arguments that fall under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The mere presence of other, similar articles is not a good indication of how things should work here on Wikipedia - it is quite possible that some of the other articles you mentioned should not be there (though more likely, there are specific reasons why those specific articles SHOULD be here). Second, articles on fictional characters need to establish and cite notability in the real world. For example, Samus Aran is particularly notable for being the first female protagonist in a video game, as well as being the star of one of Nintendo's most notable game series. Kirby has a significant development history that has been well-documented. Mario, of course, is Nintendo's mascot, as Sonic the Hedgehog is for Sega. All three of these characters have scads of coverage that are independent of their creators AND their games. While Meta Knight is a popular character among gamers, there isn't all that much information about him that doesn't require an in-depth understanding of the game series he appears in. Generally, user polls and popularity contests aren't sufficient to establish notability, especially since nearly every significant video game has one or more characters that might appear in such a poll.

What we're looking for is specific coverage about the character, independent of game reviews (including those that state that the game is made better by having the character in question). Critical analysis about what the developers wanted to accomplish when they created the character, what the character itself is doing for the company's image or reputation, etc. For example, there's been lots of coverage on Mario being one of the most recognized fictional characters in the world. It's much less likely that any such coverage has been done on Meta Knight to a great extent.

That said, I'm just conjecturing at this point. If you can find real coverage of Meta Knight that shows he is a truly notable character in his own right, then by all means, let's get those references incorporated into an article about him. That's how the policies work. :) As it is right now, though, I haven't seen a great deal of information that warrants more than an in-universe description of the character and his motives, something that can be described in at most three paragraphs on the character list page. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

In reply to New Age Hippy, that was just a tiny part of the load of reviews about him I found. To KieferSkunk, what kind of coverage. If I find that kind of reference, can he have his own article? Mr. Anon515 00:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
There's no need to ask for permission to make an article, but if you look at other character articles, you'll need about around 20 reliable references to have a viable separate article. It's not a statement on how good or bad the character is, but the relative real-world importance of the character along with the information available about their development.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Can we have a bit of a push at WP:VG/RS? I'm coming across a lot of citations to sites I'm not sure about, so it would be great to develop this resource a little further. There are few sites awaiting discussion on the talk page. Marasmusine (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

RfC for software notability

Wikipedia talk:Essay on the notability of software - there is a proposal to move this from an essay to policy. As all video games are a subgroup of software I am posting this for those who feel scrutiny before it would be upgraded.Jinnai 22:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Ocarina of Time Edit War

Hey everyone I'm having trouble with a particular statement on the Ocarina of Time article. As many people here know Ocarina of Time is considered by many to be one of the greatest games of all time, as you can see by its performance on this collection of top ten lists (see near the bottom of the page): http://www.filibustercartoons.com/games.htm. By its performance here it could even be argued that it's considered by many to be the best, but I digress. The statement on the article originally read: "Ocarina of Time is considered by many to be one of the greatest games of all time", and then was backed up by six sources containing Top 100 Greatest Games lists, including the list collection source above. This was actually done by me after seeing a virtually identical statement in the lead section of the Mario 64 featured article.

An editor has since deleted the statement and started an edit war on the grounds that the statement is formed from multiple sources and is thus "synthesis of published material to advance a position", per this policy. I repeatedly disagreed however since every one of the six sources is reliable and states explicitly "greatest games of all time". I then caved in and offered an alternative statement backed up by a single reliable source, namely: "Ocarina of Time is often cited as the greatest game of all time.", backed up by this source (http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3157459). I actually prefer the first statement as it seems more reasonable, but this one gets the point across and is backed up by one source so can't be considered "synthesis of published material."

The other editor has now edited this statement to "According to the 1UP.com editor Mark Whiting, the title is often cited as the best video game ever made." I find this statement misrepresentative as it appears to the uninformed reader that the title's high acclaim is a narrow opinion. I don't see what the problem is with the original statement, "considered by many to be one of the greatest video games of all time." It's seen in other FAs such as Mario 64 and Halo:Combat Evolved, and is true whichever way you look at it. The argument that it's original research because it's from multiple sources seems completely illogical to me. Doesn't this game deserve the statement just as much as other great game articles? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Autonova (talk) 14:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The other editor is referring to the weasel word "often", which if not used in the context of an article, e.g. "according to IGN, the game is often cited as the best game of all time", suggests the use of original research. I suggest changing it from the opinion of a single author to the site as a whole.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I think any of the 'Readers Polls' done by IGN and other pubs[11][12][13][14][15][16][17] would sufficiently support the qualifier 'often'. SharkD  Talk  18:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyone get the Retrogamer magazine?

As far as I understand it, Retro Gamer did a cover story on Monkey Island recently. I've found Retrogamer articles rather good in the past, and anything they've done on Monkey Island could come in useful for me with my current work amongst that series. I believe it is issue number 70, does anyone have it? -- Sabre (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I do, but I have no way of scanning it to you, sorry. Someoneanother 20:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, you could write down everything said in the magazine. :B - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Stop being evil or it's back to your cupboard for you. Someoneanother 17:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
You could just look through it and edit the article yourself with the information from that piece.Jinnai 18:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Sabre- shoot me an email. I'll scan it at work tomorrow (if I can remember to bring it that is). (Guyinblack25 talk 04:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC))

User:New Age Retro Hippie/Jade (Beyond Good & Evil)

Could anyone here who has beaten BG&E write the Appearances section for this, please? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I wrote an appearance section. The article already has most of the relevant info, though.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

New template

I know I made an ass of myself earlier, and I'm sorry about that. But that isn't what I want to discuss; what I want to discuss is {{Progress meter}}, something that I've been working on for about maybe 4-5 days, and I've lost sleep over, staying up until about 6am at the latest.. that aside, I just want to find a purpose for it, somewhere where it will be useful.— dαlus Contribs 07:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, I am always trying to make it better and more adaptable. Currently it has about 16 ways to customize it.— dαlus Contribs 07:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems useful but I'm not exactly sure where it could be used. Most things that have progress around here are not the easiest to translate to a %, but if I see something that's appropriate, I'll be sure to inform you. Not sure if making something then finding a use for it is the ideal way to solve a problem. =P Unless it was a personal project or something to begin with. CrimsonFox 16:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crimsonfox (talkcontribs)
Eh.. Also, in case it at all matters, % is already figured out. All you need is the current value, and, if larger than exactly 100, the goal value(which of course defaults to 100 if not supplied).— dαlus Contribs 06:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This Japanese online game

Apparently there's this popular free online game that's out in Japan. I'm not sure what it's called but in Japanese it's 萌しむファンディスク. Here's a link I found about it: http://sylph.ws/moe/moe_fd.htm --121.213.168.82 (talk) 09:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a hentai lollie mahjong WWII game. I try to find some links to see how popular it is. --VitasV (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Playable Character Lists for the popular wrestling games (Smackdown!)

Heya, i was wondering why many Videogamearticles feature full casts of playable and even non playable characters but the WWE Smackdown Games dont have such rosters. The wrestlers could simply be named + linked since it seems every wrestler has his own wikiarticle. it could simply look like this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvel_vs_capcom_2#Playable_characters the wrestlers wouldnt need any additional infos. its just to show the readers which wrestlers are in the game. Greets GBK2010 (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I think there was at one point, but it contained a lot of repeat info. A list of the names and games they appear on probably would be fine with the names linking to their real-life profiles. However, there needs to be something beyond linking to the consoles themselves to show some real-world info to pass WP:V (it doesn't have to pass WP:N though). This should probably be limited to 1 list though unless it hits a wall for the maximum size the template can handle.Jinnai 18:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Heya thanks for the fast reply ^^ thats why i added the link to the characterlist of Marvel Vs Capcom 2 which has 56 characters The average number of playable wrestlers ranges from 40 to 65 so it should be possible or? 1 list for one game is what i thought of since it changes from year to year. i believe its interesting to know which wrestler was in which game GBK2010 (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd say 1 list per wrestling franchise max. Pref 1 list total otherwise it will likely get deleted as being redundant info as most of what would be in there would be considered "cruft".
On that note I'd say the same thing for the marvel v. campcom games.
EDIT: Basically what the list would consist of would be the characters name and the status of their appearance in the game (playable, playable after unlocking, playable via download/expansion, non-playable, did not appear) and the name of the game in a table format.Jinnai 19:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Have a look at the list I created at List of characters in Legends of Wrestling video game series, if this kind of this can be repeated for the SmackDown! games then it would be good if you ask me. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

the list for the legends of wrestling games looks good but remember that the smackdown series has over 10 games now and the legends game are more like " game 1 with 30 wrestlers, game 2 with 50" while the roster of a smackdown game changes a lot more with each year. i ll talk here again when i found the time to make a roster list for one of the games and ask here again how it looks, good new week everyone ^^ GBK2010 (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter really. If the templates are wider than the page this is one of the times WP:IAR comes into play that a page can be wider than typically should be. That said, there are ways you can shrink it.
  1. Shrink the size any particular game gets for each collum. Since you can make a key to explain coloring for the character's status, the issue of being too thin doesn't really come into play
  2. For Ie (firefox has yet to natively support this) you can have the top collum display text sideways.
  3. You can, if you really need to, put all the text in smaller fonts.
See Comparison of Linux distributions#Architecture support for an example of a template that needs to more than 10 types.Jinnai 22:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Jinnai, that template looks good ^^ i would use it but i see another problem with this , the smackdown series gets one sequel with each new year...each new game has around 20+ new characters at least, wouldnt a list for all smackdown games together mean that the list would be needed to be updated each year? i mean one list for each game = no updates needed for those. GBK2010 (talk) 07:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yea, but there's not much you can do about that. At least its just 1 subject matter. I'm still in the process of transmigrating all the info from various places for List of Dragon Quest media and there is something usually released every year with that franchise, usually more.Jinnai 09:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


ouch ^^ :-) GBK2010 (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Murloc

I am not a videogame editor, but for recreationw as looking for the WoW's Murlocs and could not find it only a list voting for keep and the history saying it was deleted regardless. Despite the current effort to reduce the vast quantity of gamer's knowledge, i think it should be reinstated, considering that it is the mascot of the game and 11 million people play it and other forms of entertainment have more in depth coverage (say articles about soccer players in english second division football team, e.g Cambridge United F.C.).

This does indeed seem a bit odd. There should be enough to create its own article in my opinion, as Blizzard Entertainment do indeed use the Murloc as a sort of mascot, even using them to advertise their products outside the Warcraft genre. Regarding deletion, I cannot comment in full knowledge, and you may do well to contact the relevant administrator. The page was deleted as housekeeping, CSD R1, as its redirect target vanished, and then a subsequent version was deleted as G4 as recreated deleted material, which seems odd. If there is not enough for it's own article, then we can at least restore the redirect to the location where the relevant information was moved to. I will perform this shortly... Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I have now created a section for them at Races_and_factions_of_Warcraft#Murloc, feel free to expand and add any references you missed. If any project members know of any Blizzard press release archives, could they drop me a note on my talk page? Alot of sources from 2007 and 2008 that I wanted to use have gone linkdead, redirecting to Blizzard's latest press releases instead. Thanks, --Taelus (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit notices for other project pages

Just throwing this out there. What does everyone think about edit notices for some of our other project pages, similar to the one used for this talk page. The ones I had in mind are:

Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 23:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC))

Rescoping of role-playing game

The article role-playing game has been rescoped. It now covers all forms of role-playing game as a broad family, from tabletop to larp to all types of digital RPG (single player and multi-player, offline and online). Feel free to help out with the coverage of video RPGs in the article. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Should this be under our wikiproject's scope as well?Jinnai 07:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

How to improve

I hope this is the right place to ask ^^

How can i improve this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADK_Tamashii article?

It is a gamecompilation so...i guess the gameplay part doesnt need to be made since the games are explained in their own articles or? Its japanese only which makes it quite difficult for me to get infos about the reception as well.

what else could be added to this article?

greets gbk again GBK2010 (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Normally I'd suggest linking to the MobyGames article as a starter, but since it doesn't have any screenshots or credits, there's not any point in that. So I guess you could start with some references. But normally there's not a lot that can be said about compilations. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 13:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

yup, seems quite hard to get this article over stub level ..how is it with screenshots btw, its requested but isnt only a cover allowed? and since its a compilation of 5 games, from which game should the screenshot be? or would i be allowed to create a picture with screenshots of the 5 games ? GBK2010 (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Final Fantasy Chronicles is a good compilation article. Perhaps you could emulate that in style. JACOPLANE • 2010-01-11 21:29
Does it really need an article at all? Each of the games contained in the compilation has a link to its own article, and the compilation should get a mention there. There was a similar article deleted at the AfD for Mortal Kombat Kollection. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

MK Collection was just a Bundle of 3 previously released Games for the same Console. GBK2010 (talk) 08:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

ADK Tamashii was just a Bundle of 5 previously released Games for the same Console. --193.210.88.251 (talk) 10:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Bullshit, they were released as Arcade/NeoGeo Games before ^^ GBK2010 (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but that doesn't mean that the compilation needs its own article, since, being a compilation, it isn't a remake. There is really no information to put in it. Just delete it and create sections in each of the 5 games discussing their inclusion in the compilation and the date/publisher details.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Surely I'm not the only one who feels uncomfortable with someone coming here and saying "Hey, how can I improve this article?" and we reply "by getting rid of it". -- Sabre (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmm maybe we could suggest searching for reception on the games on all the major reliable sources on the net and then also maybe a paragraph for each game for gameplay. While looking to for reception there also could be some developement information, maybe?. Salavat (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

MySpace as a source

I have a question - in the event that I could prove that a MySpace page was operated by a reliable source, could it be cited as a source? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I... I would say yes, though it would be wise to leave a hidden note directly after the reference to say that it's not spam and that it's reliable. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 19:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
IF it is provable (linked from their site or an interview, etc.), then I see no difference in using it than using an official website of the company/subject. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The page in question is [18], which I'm kinda bugged by since it has some info I want but I can't really see a way to verify whether this is a real interview. I believe it definitely is, but I can't show that if it's ever brought up at GAN/FAC. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The interview seems copied from a magazine. If you can find out which magazine, then you can just use the article as a source. SharkD  Talk  04:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay's FAC

Hey, Escape from Butcher Bay is on FAC here and I hope I can get some reviewers. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Task force for character lists?

After the discussion about Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Character lists fell off the page, I'm wondering if there's interest in making it into a task force to give it some semi-permanence. Nifboy (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Flicking through, that sounds like a good idea. I'd join it to help out with the fandoms I know about. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 19:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I can offer my knowledge bout many characters and videogame series, especially fighting games, but i m quite new here..but if i can do anything. i have many of the previously mentioned wwe smackdown games so i can check them as source too if there will ever be a discussion about what character is in it or not GBK2010 (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

If you are making a full taskforce, then I would suggest doing all character articles. Not just lists. They are essentially the same things. Full articles are just more developed characters. Blake (Talk·Edits) 22:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
That would be good. So a "Characters" Task Force? I'm up for it. --gakon5 (talk / contribs) 22:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmm... not a bad idea, as it seems a good amount of maintenance goes into these areas. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Characters has been created, if for no other reason than to point to list of lists. Nifboy (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Pinball cleanup

The massive mess that has been made (by someone from this project) of the Category:Pinball articles needs to be cleaned up. Stuff that needs to be done:

  • Because someone was new to templates, apparently, many if not most instances of this tag, when present at all, were incorrectly done as {{Template:WikiProject Pinball|...}} and need the namespace "dead code" removed.
  • Exception 1: in a handful of cases, like hybrid games, they should have both the arcade tag and the PB tag). Zero other PB machines should have an arcade tag. Hybrid games are those that, like Baby Pac-Man are both an upright or tabletop arcade video game and a pinball machine. Don't treat pinball machines with some video components, like Revenge from Mars as "hybrid games" for this purpose, only as pinball machines. If it doesn't have both a videogame joystick/buttons and pinball flippers, it's not a hybrid.
  • Exception 2: Video games (usually console, but there are actually some arcade models) that have a pinball theme should have a {{simulation-videogame-stub}} tag only (note: virtually none yet do, and have {{arcade-stub}} which is wrong or {{videogame-stub}} which is too vague). This will keep from cluttering up Category:Pinball stubs with only marginally-relevant articles, yet leave them in Category:Stub-Class Pinball articles because of the talk page's pinball project tag. This differential categorization is the only way to tell real pinball stubs from video pinball simulator stubs!
  • All video games with a pinball theme should have their talk pages tagged first with the VG project banner, then the PB project banner, both wrapped in {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} to reduce clutter.
  • All pinball machine articles should have the VG project banner removed form their talk pages (with the rare exception of hybrid machines)
  • All pinball machine and pinball-simulator video game articles should have titles in their leads in the form '''''Title Here''''' (bolded as the subject, and italicized as a game title, just like a video or roleplaying game). Videogame hardware, such as controller boards, should only be bolded, not italicized.
  • Categories like Category:Williams games, Category:Midway Games (note capital "G"), Category:Data East games and Category:Sega games have to be split and properly recategorized themselves. Each should have a company category, categorized as a company, and a video game and pinball machine subcategory (machine, not game; see recent CfR on the matter), each properly categorized under VG and PB parent categories.
  • The video game subcats of these may need further splitting, into console, PC, arcade, etc. I don't care, as long as the pinball stuff's separate.
  • Gottlieb has none of these categories but needs them, being one of the most prolific pinball manufacturers.
  • VG templates and categories must be removed from pinball machine articles, except for video game pinball simulators, as noted, and hybrid games.
  • PB project tag should remain on video game pinball simulators (so they show up in Category:Stub-Class Pinball articles), but as noted above not be stub tagged on the article itself.
  • Year video game categories like Category:1995 video games have to be removed from pinball machine articles, as they are blatantly incorrect and user-misleading. If someone cares to, they are welcome to create a similar category structure for pinball machines, but it is very likely to be CfDed as overcategorization due to the small number of pinball machine articles compared to video games, films, rock albums, and other media products sorted by year.
  • The talk pages of all pinball machine articles should be done with {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}, including {{WikiProject Pinball|...}} (or for VG simulators, {{WikiProject Video games|...}} then {{WikiProject Pinball}}) and followed by a banner for whatever project the genre/theme of the game is, if there is one (James Bond, science fiction, horror, whatever) with |importance=Low. But don't add topical stub tags on the articles. Putting them within topical project scopes is likely to get them noticed and edited by more people. See Talk:Alien Crush for example. Don't over-tag - if it's a Star Wars game use the Star Wars project tag but not the sci fi one, which would be redundant.
  • A bunch of series/franchises (not all of them named obviously) are in both Category:Pinball machines and Category:Pinball video games and should be broken out into their own categories like Category:Crush Pinball franchise, to cut down on the confusing clutter in the parent categories and help readers find related games. Some of these include Pin*Bot, Pokémon Pinball (which of course should be subcategorized under that broader franchise), Sonic the Hedgehog pinball (ditto), Pac-Man pinball (ditto), Terminator pinball (ditto; only 1 of the at least 3 games in this franchise has an article yet), From Mars pinball, Pro Pinball, and Pinball Hall of Fame collections,

I have done the beginnings of some of this work, starting with Category:Stub-Class Pinball articles, and have worked through numerical entries, A's and B's, and stopped there. I did this just to show how to do this cleanup. I've also tagged the four (there are probably more) company/game categories mentioned above for splitting and renaming as needed (no CfRs have been filed), to point the way. I have no interest in either of these topical projects, only in cleaning up reader-unhelpful messes in categoryspace, so the rest is in y'all's hands. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 02:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't there talk of us adopting the orphaned Pinball project and integrating it into the Arcade Task Force? This is the first time I've so much as heard a peep out of the project. Nifboy (talk) 03:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
There is a problem, though: the Arcade Task Force says it deals with "arcade video games", but pinball games are not video games at all, but manual or electronic games. That means that the pinball task force could not fall under the entire purview of WikiProject Video Games.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Right. Such a merger was proposed at WT:PINBALL and met with complete disinterest. The facts of the matter are that WP:PINBALL has always been small, and it is now pretty moribund, but someone from this project was hot to "adopt" the articles and went around tagging them with VG-related stub tags, talk page VG project tags, VG categories, and so on, and wanted to make WP:PINBALL a task force of WP:VG. While well-meaning, all of this has made one heck of a confusing mess. The one or two people in this project (presumably in the Arcade TF) with an interest in pinball, need to please clean that up, and then keep the pinball project going, separately. The idea of merging them makes about as much sense as WikiProject Cue sports taking over the scope of the field hockey, golf, croquet and bowling articles just because the games are all ancestrally related. I've done all the cleanup, at CfR and manually in articles, that I'm willing to do, since neither pinball nor video games are even interests of mine. I only ended up in there because of pinball's tenuous connections, through bagatelle, bar billiards and the like, to pool, snooker and carom billiards, and noticed what a morass the pinball categories and tagging were. Anyway, the only difference between the old idea of absorbing the PB project under VG and the less cognitively dissonant one of leaving them separate is that whoever here cares about pinball would just have to watch list two project pages instead of one, and would not need to do a bunch of template re-tooling, e.g. to absorb the PB project's banner into VG task force code in the VG banner, and so forth and so on. It's just more sensible and easier to have them separate. PS: Even the arcade game article itself needs an overhaul, because it is a mismash of information about modern arcade video games, the history of arcade video games, and the history of pinball and even earlier mechanical arcade games; that's really two cross-referenced articles, logically speaking (if not three - the history of arcade video games might be rich enough to split off of an article about arcade video games more generally). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 07:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Two of the editors from here who have been involved in the abortive merger appear to be Vantine84 (talk · contribs) and MrKIA11 (talk · contribs), judging from their posts at WT:PINBALL. Anyway, if this does get taskforcified, which arguably it should, it should be under WP:GAMES, not WP:VG. I would suggest trying to gather active editors from all three projects to decide how to go about this. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 07:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that there is barely anyone at WP:GAMES because WP:VG takes up such a large part of the articles in it. I think it would be better have a video game and non-video-game wikiproject than have WP:VG under the blanket category of WP:GAMES.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
A few things.
  • While I'm sure the state of the pinball articles is not optimal, I don't believe it is entirely the fault of this project or its members.
    • Though I did not do a comprehensive search, I did not find instances of VG members removing {{pinball-stub}} in favor of replacing it with {{videogame-stub}} or removing formatting to the article title in the lead.
    • Following up on that, {{pinball-stub}} looks to have been created only a few days ago. In light of its creation, however, it is a more appropriate categorization.
  • The third and ninth major bullet point are the same thing.
  • I suspect that the lack of participation within the Pinball project is at least partly responsible for some of this disarray. Couple that with incremental edits from well-meaning but inexperienced editor and IPs, then you'll certainly have a mess. Heck look at our articles, we have a large amount of quality articles maintained by experienced editors, but we have an even larger amount of poor articles cared for by editors that either lack our experience or disagree with our methods of improvement.
Aside from those points, you bring up some helpful suggestions. However, I can't help but feel some hostility in your posts. Let me start by saying that the merger was not brought up to step on any toes. It was done more to consolidate members and resources in the hopes of better synergy. Though the lack response certainly showed disinterest, it also did not show opposition. By the time you came around and started working on the Pinball project, I assume prep for the merge was underway.
In regard to the different scopes, video games and pinball have a sizable history together. Pinball's supposed mob ties were projected onto early video games, many of the big names in development (like Atari and Williams) had pinball divisions, several pinball machines are based on video games and vice versa. Though that is not a complete umbrella, the overlap is enough to take notice and offer our help. Which in my opinion, are the purpose of WikiProjects: foster collaboration to improve Wikipedia.
All that being said, if you and others have interest in working as a Pinball project or a task force under a project, collaboration would be very much welcome. Whether that be under WP:Games or WP:Video games, the overlap of video games and pinball is large enough to warrant collaborative efforts on editing, guidelines, and other WikiProject-related tasks. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC))
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Games appears to be totally inactive, so I doubt there would be a lot of help from that WikiProject forthcoming. JACOPLANE • 2010-01-14 21:41

Help improve

Just going through some articles that needs some improving. Needing references and images. They are: Alone in the Dark (series) and Edward Carnby. Could anyone please help improving them? --VitasV (talk) 05:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking over it, I would suggest merging Edward Carnby into the Alone in the Dark (series) article, and also splitting off the list into a List of Alone in the Dark media page, but keeping the captions on the series page. The series page could also use an infobox.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Another page which I found is this: Vigilante 8 (series) which also needs improving. --VitasV (talk) 07:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, really, there are tons of pages that need improving, such as those in the vg-cleanup category. It's not like any individual series is particularly important; it's the editor's decision on whether to improve an article. A problem in media is that the more popular it is, the more attention it gets, and vice-versa.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, I guess I can add one more to the mix. I asked an assessment for B-Class for Formula_One_(1985_video_game) (see bottom of Talk:Formula_One_(1985_video_game) and apparently it's close to it. I don't know if any 1980's ZX Spectrum video game article ever got so far, but I wanna get it to B-Class if possible. If anyone could chip in, please do! NeoGenPT (talk) 05:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Charizard for GA?

Is Charizard ready for a GAN? It might need some expansion/referencing in the video games section, but I think thats it. Thoughts? Blake (Talk·Edits) 17:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not bad at all. I suggest submitting a peer review to iron out anything else before going to GAN. I think it's pretty close, though. –MuZemike 18:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Archives header and size

I'm not sure if anyone else noticed the change in the archive header and size, but I thought it should be noted in case anyone has a problem with it. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it. What does it mean? GamerPro64 (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Description of the changes:
  • The first change ({{talkarchivenav}} → {{aan}}) just changed the archive notice that will be at the top of our archived discussions. The main difference is that we can navigation through the talk pages via links at the top of the page. See Talk:Legal status of Hawaii/Archive 8 for an example of what it will look like.
  • The second change (150K → 250K) increased the storage limit of the archives so they can hold more discussions before a new is started.
It looks like the editor that made the change, Oneiros, has been doing that to other project pages too. I don't see any real problem with it, but a notification beforehand would have been nice.
It may be more difficult to find a single thread on the larger pages through the search function, but the indexed page will still point to the proper place. The older archives may need to have their archive notice changed for consistency and easier navigation. Anybody with AWB care to give that a go? (Guyinblack25 talk 17:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC))

Video game category for discussion

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 28#Video games by designer has been open for some time now and looks like the discussion is going back and forth between a handful of editors. Could a few people chime in to help guide the discussion to a resolution? (Guyinblack25 talk 17:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC))

Game console pictures

This site has a ton of properly isolated and stylin' game console pictures, including some rare ones. Maybe there's some way that we could get in contact and persuade him to release the photos for use in Wikipedia?--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Since I've found throwing around my admin bit in emails happens to help, I'll send him an email :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I've gotten a reply from him... I'll see if I can steer him where we want (he was asking about payment :P) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, we would benefit from small sized images similar to the ones displayed on his site already. Not to mention that they would not be used anywhere but Wiki (via Wikipedia Commons). Good job, hopefully you can work something out.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Reminder: Well-Played essays

There's a great work for those looking for secondary information (more than reception) for about 20-odd games, in Well-Played 1.0 (its a book but all text is online per CC-type licensing). There is also due out a 2.0 and 3.0 version "soon" that will feature similar essays from reputed experts. --MASEM (t) 13:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone mind explaining to me why the web-hosted version of this is blacklisted by Wikipedia? You can't add a direct URL to it into citations. -- Sabre (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I just added two this morning in cite templates and they're still there. Are you sure they're blacklisted? --MASEM (t) 15:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Yup. Just tried copying this onto this page (fully wikified) and got a spam protection filter message: -- Sabre (talk) 15:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

{{cite journal|first=Clara|last=Fernández-Vara|date=2009-07-12|editor-first=Drew|editor-last=Davidson|title=''The Secret of Monkey Island'': Playing Between Cultures|url=http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_65/7150000/7150597/3/print/wellPlayedMSTR_E-dl.pdf|journal=Well Played 1.0: Video Games, Value and Meaning|publisher=ETC Press|pages=pp.147–156|isbn=978-0-557-06975-0}}

Heres a recent discussion which was proposing removing Lulu.com from the blacklist, [19]. Salavat (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Please note the domain I link in from above (an .edu) which still contains the full text of the article. I think that's the direct publisher site, even, so... -MASEM (t) 16:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hyper

If anyone has Hyper magazines, please list all of its content at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Magazines/Hyper. Also list which issue you have at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Magazines#Hyper. Thanks. 211.30.12.191 (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC) as User:Extremepro

Just throwing this out there. Perhaps we should add some of the Anime and manga project's magazine links to our reference library, and check out if we have any sources that they would want to linked on their reference library. I know Play had dedicated sections for manga and anime reviews. Does anybody know of others? (Guyinblack25 talk 18:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC))

Wikiproject Playstation and Xbox becoming Task Forces?

I've been seeing banners attached to the talk pages of articles, but these Wikiprojects seem to be low on manpower. The last post to Wikiproject Xbox was more than a month ago. I think they (along with any other console specific Wikiprojects) should become task forces and their boilerplates integrated into the main WP:VG template.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm a member of the PlayStation Project, but I also think that both projects would be better suited as task forces. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. Can someone start discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Xbox and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject PlayStation so we do our due diligence? (Guyinblack25 talk 17:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC))
If they do become task forces, make sure the scope doesn't expand - i.e. game articles are only tagged if they are console exclusive (Halo for Xbox, Uncharted for PS3, etc). Otherwise it will get out of hand. –xenotalk 17:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I can't speak to the activity of the projects, but just because there aren't any posts on the talk page doesn't necessarily mean it's inactive. WP:HALO, for example, has had its work long cut out for it, so since deciding what topics to shoot for and what needs to be improved (everything else) there hasn't been much need to keep up. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
It's not being proposed to scrap the project, just make them task forces, because there is stuff that really is not needed for such little activity, such as it's own talk page project banner or it's own assessment department. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
They'd still have a talk page dedicated to collaborating on their scope. But yeah, they could easily piggy back onto the VG project's resources and still go about business as usual. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC))

Which is preferred for downloadable games? The so called "boxart" or the just logo by itself? For example, would this boxart or this logo be better suited for Alien Breed Evolution? MrKIA11 (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

If artwork has been released by the developer to exemplify a game in the same way as traditional box art, then go with the artwork. The logo is part of the artwork anyway. -- Sabre (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Sabre. As far as fair use is concerned, the more information an image conveys, the stronger the fair use claim is. That in turn means the less likely it will be deleted from Wikipedia. The boxart normally features an important or prominent aspect of the game. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC))

You could chop the Arcade bit off the top to make it platform neutral. - X201 (talk) 13:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I think that would make sense once it actually is released on another platform. Right now it is technically XBLA exclusive. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding a dozen people in the infobox of a video game

User:EAD Ninja has been adding lists of about a dozen people involved with several Metroid video games to the articles' infoboxes. I undid them the first time, believing that the list of several people who's notabilities are questioned and without any reliable sources should not be in the infobox. Also, these video game articles commonly have people adding crufty information, so I also passed it off as simply that. However, the user edited the articles again, so I'm bringing this to here for further discussion. The articles in question are the following, with the first edit made by the user to the article as well: Super Metroid ([20]), Metroid II: Return of Samus [21], Metroid ([22]). The user, or someone closely related to them (check the edit history), also edited another Metroid article via an IP: Metroid Fusion ([23]). Thoughts on these lists of people? Gary King (talk) 02:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Those lists are obviously very unnecessary. The infobox isn't there to serve as a credits sheet. --TorsodogTalk 03:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I think we can all agree that this isn't how those fields are meant to be used. They're for one or two key people with an overriding role, such as lead designer, not for every subdivided job position underneath.-- Sabre (talk) 07:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree, stuffing the infobox with too many names might not be too good. But if it is verifiable that those people participated in the game development I would say they should be mentioned in the article, maybe in a development section of the article. NeoGenPT (talk) 07:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
We need to avoid going into the weeds on these lists. Unlike, say, movie directors or actors, most game developers aren't individually notable. It is an infobox - the game at a glance. We should be identifying the one or two people at the top of the development chain, and then in cases where the art or music director is notable, likely include them as well. Including a random "John Smith" as anything less than executive producer or the like serves no benefit to the end reader for this topic. --MASEM (t) 13:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Taskforce: Progaming

Progaming is a field of its' own. Would a taskforce in this area be beneficial? Thanks, NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 22:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It exists, but is currently inactive: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Pro gaming. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Slow moving edit war at Niko Bellic

I'm involved in a slow-moving edit war primarily with anonymous users at Niko Bellic (the one described at Wikipedia:LAME#Grand Theft Auto IV), I would appreciate some additional eyes on this and advice on how to proceed. –xenotalk 22:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

There is really no discussion here, just a bunch of trolling anons adding original research and speculation. I suggest semi protecting the page and blocking the users attempting to instigate the edit war.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I won't take any administrative action as I've involved myself, but I agree that's probably a good way forward. The LAME listing purports to list reliable sources for the nationality as Serbian, but are they really reliable? (Mirror, Guardian, etc.?) If there is a reliable source that called him Serbian, I would say a compromise would be something along the lines of "While Dan Houser states the character was meant to be from an "unspecified Eastern European country", (these individuals) reported he was from Serbia". (needs work, but something like that). –xenotalk 23:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
The brady games game manual for one the Serbian Reference in Archive is [24]. Additionally the point isn't that he's Serbian, it's that a reliable source actually exists saying so. That doesn't mean that there aren't reliable sources that say things to the contrary. Which is why I reverted the hall of lame edit. There is at least one good ref saying he is. Not to mention carrying over a conflict into an entry's wording in the Hall of Lame is well... Lame? Nefariousski (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
The entry itself doesn't seem sufficiently neutral, but I can't be arsed to worry about it. –xenotalk 23:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like a good route to go; it would comply with WP:V and WP:NPOV. Semi-protected still would be a good idea though. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC))
I still don't think it's that big of an issue to bother looking for obscure mentions. Rockstar clearly didn't intend for the locations to even match up to those in the real world.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

ESRB conflict at Talk:List of Virtual Console games (North America)

User TJ Spyke has been consistently readding ESRB release dates as reliable sources despite consensus against it, arguing that they are reliable. Can I get additional opinions on this? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Multiple release years

Should games that have already been released in one region, but have yet to be released in another be tagged with both the year they came out (e.g., Category:2009 video games) and also Category:Upcoming video games? Also, if a game is released on different platforms or in different regions in different years, should it be tagged with both years? I'm not sure if this has been discussed before, but I couldn't find it. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I think its the first year that it comes out anywhere. Although it might be 2005 in America, if it is 2004 in Japan, then I think it should be 2004. Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm. An awkward proposition. I think that, if the 2009 release is Japanese, I think that the change from this version could be significant enough to say that it would change significantly once it has an English release.
And on your second thing, it depends. For example, the release year that should be used in Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney is clearly 2005 - to readers of Wikipedia, it would not make sense to list a Game Boy Advance Japanese release date for an English Nintendo DS video game that was set as far apart as it was. In that case though, I think multiple release dates are necessary because they were two significant releases - the original release, and the first English release. Same with Dragon Quest V: Hand of the Heavenly Bride. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Well the game I came across that made me question it is Calling (video game). It was released in Japan in November 2009, but is being released in North America in March 2010. So should Category:Upcoming video games be on there as it is; or not, since it has already been released in Japan? And it is funny that you bring up Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney, as it does have Category:2001 video games listed also, not just Category:2005 video games for the main release. And since it does, that brings up the question, should it also have Category:2009 video games and/or Category:2010 video games for the WiiWare release? MrKIA11 (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
In Calling's case, the two release years are close enough. And with PWAA, I'm not sure. I think that the 2005 release is an appropriate exception because 2001 makes no sense to most English-speaking people, while 2009 is just listing another English release. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Other media articles (movies, books, music albums) seem to be categorized only by original year so I don't see why video games should be any different. --Mika1h (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Because the original year, in PWAA's case, is confusing to anyone who isn't already well-versed in the game. Categories should exist to alleviate confusion. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello,i believe its different with Games as with Books and Movies. Those get just translated or subtitled. But Videogames are to a percentage of around 20% changed if they made the jump from Asia to USA or from the USA to PAL Regions...and so on. Greets, GBK2010 (talk) 07:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
My two pen'th is that categories should be the year of original release and the year of the first English language translation release. - X201 (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

So it seems the majority agree with having the page placed in the categories for the original release date and first English release date, as is done with the release dates in the infobox. Anyone have a problem with that (Mika1h or Bws2cool)? MrKIA11 (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Huh, I thought you WERE Mika1a. >.> Anyway, I do agree with that, I think. The only reason that multiple reasons were banned, I think, was because of stuff like Pac-Man where it listed every release across every platform under the sun. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Animations are messed up in IE8

I have a question to the community... I have been creating short animated gifs (see my user page) for several older videogame articles but there is a problem. Internet Explorer 8 is probably the most widespread browser out there, and it has a bug in drawing resized gif animations where the movement in the frames leave a trail and messes the image. I believe it's not a problem of my graphic hardware because I've seen it happen in at least three computers. And running the same animations in Firefox, or image editors, shows no problem at all. So... seeing that Internet Explorer is the most widespread and used browser out there, my animations are all appearing buggy to the millions of people using it, even though I know it's not my fault but Microsoft's. It would sadden me but for the sake of the articles and the people, should I remove my animations and replace them by normal static images? NeoGenPT (talk) 08:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother, I don't think it's worth the trouble versus the number of people affected by the problem, which might be fixed later.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Just curious, but what image program did you use to create the animations? I remember I had a few problems in the past with some programs properly creating transparency. Maybe the issue stems from the creation and IE8 simply exposes it for whatever reason. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC))
I export the avi files from the emulators and then use a free and pretty simple application that I found here: http://www.evanolds.com/movtogifsimple.html
It has very few features but I think its pretty good and does the trick well, converts the whole file or a section with up to 10 frames per second of animation speed. I tried other apps that did more detailed animation up to 50 frames per second but the end result wasnt so good because even though the frames were set to 1/50th of a second the real speed displayed on browsers was no further than 10fps. NeoGenPT (talk) 06:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I opened two of your GIFs in ImageReady and saw a few sprite glitches: some frames repeating or a sprite disappearing for a frame. Those are probably from how the emulator generated the video. However, I don't see why that would cause the problem in IE8. A google search for "ie8 animated gif problem" turned up similar complaints. It's probably how IE8 renders the different frames of a resized GIF.
As far as what to do, adjusting the image's width in the article to its actual width fixes the problem. However, this may not be ideal for all articles. I agree with Zxcvbnm that MS will eventually get around to fixing it and not too many people will be affected. If you do set the image widths, you should check up on the images periodically to see if the problem goes away. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC))

Tomb Raider Characters, two pages to be merged possibly.

Just wanted to bring this to the projects attention, as I know a few Tomb Raider articles were improved recently.

These pages seem to duplicate each other somewhat, and both are in need of clean-up as one is at AfD, and I contested a prod on the other which suggested a page merge/redirect. Should we merge the two pages to Characters of Tomb Raider, as this is how many of our other character articles are titled, or is there nothing worth saving?

Hope this helps, I will tag both pages as a possible merge and link them to here. --Taelus (talk) 11:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Also a note that Tomb Raider characters was ineligible for proposed deletion anyway, as it was contested in the past before I removed the second proposed deletion, so it needs to go to AfD anyway. --Taelus (talk) 11:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, both articles are entirely plot summary. If they're going to be merged, they need a full rewrite. The Characters of Tomb Raider article should really only mention the major recurring characters, though.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

GAN review of Warcraft: Orcs & Humans

WP:GAN#VGAMES/ Warcraft: Orcs & Humans -- reviewer's last edit was December 31, 2009; nominator is still active. Suggesting a secondary reviewer come in and complete the review, as the game has been under review since November 23, 2009. I would do so myself, but I failed it last time and want to stay neutral. --Teancum (talk) 13:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

We need a bit more participation with GAN reviews anyway, we're starting to develop a bit of a backlog. -- Sabre (talk) 13:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

G.I. Joe (Commodore 64)

Is anyone up for a challenge, and/or looking for something to do? :) How about seeing what you can do for G.I. Joe (Commodore 64) - that article has been languishing in its own crapitude for long enough and could use some love! BOZ (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Characters summary in Synopsis?

As a newcomer to the project: what is the stance on including a character summary list under Synopsis? The article in question is Iji, and I'm wondering whether it would be appreciated, accepted or discouraged. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Discouraged, generally. If the game's plot is heavily character-based, you can create a "Characters" section just before the plot section, in which (using prose, not lists) you describe all of the characters. This is generally useful only if describing the characters as you come across them in the plot section would make it too unwieldy. In the article as it is, I would say no to both a list or a section, but having never played the game I'm not an authority. --PresN 19:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
What PresN said. If there are a number of characters that are integral to how the plot unfolds, then a character section helps the reader understand a story section more easily. Final Fantasy X for example, has a lot of characters woven into the story. As a result the article has separate character and story subsections under plot. Ico on the otherhand, has a plot that's just as intricate, but very few characters. Their descriptions are integrated into a single plot section.
Generally, try to get by with as little in-universe and fictional information as you can. Articles should focus on real-world content while presenting everything in an easy to follow format for a general reader. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC))

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced VG BLPs

TL:DR: Stub biographies at User:Nifboy/list need sources badly

Just so nobody gets caught off guard by this, ArbComm lit a fire under the community recently regarding the unsourced BLP problem. Ensuing drama aside, there are about a hundred articles under our scope without even external link sections, much less reference sections; I've compiled a list and put it up on my temporary list page which, if there's interest, I'll move into project space and expand to include articles in Category:All unreferenced BLPs. For the most part, they're stubs on composers, designers, and other staff members that, for the most part, look like IMDB entries and little else. Three articles, Toshiyuki Kakuta, Osamu Kubota and Shin Kanaoya are up for PROD already, and most of the rest would qualify under similar criteria. Nifboy (talk) 05:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll get on it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Let's try to see if they meet the relative notability guidelines (WP:GNG or WP:BIO) or see if they can be merged or redirected before nuking them or proposing to nuke them. That's all I ask. It's not a terribly big list, by the way. –MuZemike 00:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, the reason I brought it up is to get some eyeballs on them before something like WP:DUB gets underway. As statistics go, we've got about 1200 BLPs, of which about half have an explicit references section, and about 200 are tagged as {{BLP unsourced}}, which is consistent with the rest of the Wiki (50k/400k). Nifboy (talk) 03:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Redirects relevant to Halo at Redirects for Discussion

Just thought I would notify that I nominated a whole bunch of "List of Halo Weapons" type articles which redirect to Halo 3, Halo 2, Halo (series) etc for discussion, as I feel that they are misleading redirects as we will never hold information relevant to them. However, I would like to gather a general consensus on what we want to do with these sort of redirects before I go nominating hundreds of them. You may find the discussion here: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_22#List_of_Halo_weapons. We have a large amount of such redirects as there was a phase where gamecruft articles were redirected to their game article rather than being deleted, whether or not any relevant information was in the target. Thanks in advance, --Taelus (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC). I didn't list this at WP:VG/D, because the template there only works for AfDs, TfDs, CfDs and MfDs. --Taelus (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Added support for redirecting all articles. They're plausible search terms, and eliminating the articles might invite Wikia copy/paste articles to be created. Redirecting such items is an easy way to tell the user that everything you can find about a particularly crufty item such as the plasma rifle, will be found in the Halo (series) article. If the user wants more, they can go elsewhere. --Teancum (talk) 15:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
    • My concern is that there isn't actually any relevant information in the series article, and thus it seems sort of odd to have a navigational aid to find it when it doesn't exist. --Taelus (talk) 15:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
  • True, but the bigger concern for me is that someone sees that article doesn't exist, so they copy/paste it from a Wikia, then we have a PROD, then a contested PROD, then an AfD on our hands for each instance. I see the point, but workload-wise I would prefer redirects. --Teancum (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I find that sometimes these redirects themselves give the required information. Someone hears the term plasma rifle in conversation, does not know what the folks are talking about, looks it up and sees "Oh! The plasma rifle is a weapon from Halo". Many times, these base level of information is the most useful we can get without cruft. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, this discussion takes me back... what? Two or even three years? I understand your point, Taelus, but I also agree with Teancum. It's already hard enough checking for those articles (I've already got around 300 items on my watchlist, and can't add anything else without compromising my ability to see bad changes to existing articles. While it is unfortunate that we have all these redirects that even if they once led to a proper location no longer do (for instance all the UNSC ships such as In Amber Clad redirect to UNSC (Halo) which is now folded into Factions of Halo), it's somewhat necessary as a stopgap measure. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Having these redirects is pointless when any new, crufty article can quickly be shot down. Not to mention that they are misleading and give the impression that game guide information is encyclopedic.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking for feedback on free image in Chao (Sonic the Hedgehog)

The image I speak of is File:ChaoLifeCycle.JPG. As one can probably tell, I made it. MS Paint, to be precise. However, I am wondering whether I shouldn't use a non-free image (which it is based on) instead. I request opinions on this, since I am planning to take the article to GAN before too long. Tezero (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The usual stance on user-made replacements like that are that they are either a) so totally derivative as to be non-free or b) so totally removed from the subject matter as to not be useful as a representation, without any "neutral" in-between state that is both non-free and useful. That said, I wouldn't use either image, since the text is quite adequate in explaining it. Nifboy (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Not to rag on your artistic skills, but I think it would look a lot better vectorized since it's all aliased and artifacted. In any case, the depictions of the chao are probably non-free and I don't think the diagram is necessary since the concept is simple enough to understand.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, I was trying to keep it vague so it wouldn't be considered non-free. Whatever, I guess it is adequate without it. Tezero (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, while I'm here, can you give me some suggestions on whether the article as a whole is ready for GAN? I don't think a full-fledged peer review is necessary. Tezero (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Off the top of my head, the "generally considered" in "They are generally considered to be cute," is a weasel word and should be attributed more specifically in the text. Other than that, no specific problems jump out at me. Nifboy (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
It is attributed to an official source (Super Smash Bros. Brawl), which calls them cute. Maybe I'll look for some more official sources to back it up. Thanks. Tezero (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Progaming Taskforce

I'm putting forth an effort to get the taskforce started again. I want to assess how feasible it is, so if you are interested in working with it put down your username here. Best Regards, NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 18:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

FIFA 10

Fifa 10 is a fairly significant game, but the article is pretty crap and sounds more like the rant on the back of game boxes rather than an encyclopedic article. Is this the place to request it be rewritten? CipherPixel (talk) 09:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, you can ask. But your best chances are to try to rewrite it yourself; many of us here will be already engaged in articles and business elsewhere, and it takes a lot of time and effort to redirect resources to a full and comprehensive article rewrite. Though someone might like the challenge.-- Sabre (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The mysterious death of a video game template...

Can anyone unravel the deletion history of Template:Future video game and Template:Future game? It looks like someone was trying to help out, and we got left with the wrong one, which got deleted. Was there a discussion or something or is this a mistake? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 19:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

As I recall, all future disclaimers were deprecated. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
The discussion witch led to to the the deprecation is here Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates. Also, yes, all of the future event templates were deleted.--76.69.165.160 (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Format for "List of games developed by x"

Looking around, I'm interested in working on articles that list games developed/published by x company. Right now I'm looking at List of games developed by Valve, which is a fairly short list. Because that's the case, would it be better to use {{VGtitle}} as opposed to a regular table? Should the article separate games by series or just include everything in a sortable list? I suppose there are no set-in-stone rules for this stuff, but the only FL-quality example there is to go on is List of video games developed by Key, which separates games by series and uses small tables as opposed to giving each game its own box. Thoughts? --gakon5 (talk / contribs) 21:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

VGtitle was designed for titles in a single franchise like List of Space Invaders video games and List of The Legend of Zelda media. I thought of creating something similar for lengthy lists of developers and consoles. But we've never agreed on what format and information should be included in such tables.
It looks like the Key list was divided that way because the individual titles have been re-released so often. I'd say by series would be fine for the Value list. If you need any help with the VGtitle template or creating something new just drop back here. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC))

"Universal" acclaim

I just don't feel that "universal" is an appropriate term to use when describing video game reception. While aggregated scores on Metacritic may indicate that a game has garnered "universal" acclaim, I feel that this is not in formal tone. In my opinion, this type of acclaim could be indicated as being "overwhelmingly positive" or "strongly positive". "Universal" is implying that the entire Universe as we know it has had a positive reaction towards the game, which sounds ridiculous. Please discuss. CR4ZE (talk) 11:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that simply "acclaim" is good enough. Universal acclaim can be reserved for ultra-important things like Citizen Kane.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
If it can be used for movies, it can be used for video games (though I'd say more it shouldn't be used for either). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
"...and according to Metacritic, falls into the category of games that garnered 'Universal acclaim'..."xenotalk 15:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the problem is proper content. Generally, "universal acclaim" means that all people in a certain group agree it is acclaimed. (See definitions of universal.[25][26]) I agree we should not throw the term around lightly, but perhaps the instances it is used should clarify where the acclaim comes from: "The game has received universal acclaim from video game journalist/publications/reviews/whatever." (Guyinblack25 talk 17:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC))

Request for comment on Biographies of living people

Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, nearly all wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

  1. supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
  2. opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced article if they are not sourced, so your project may want to pursue the projects below.

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people

List of cleanup articles for your project

If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here

Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages"

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip

Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip

Ikip 02:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Help! Help!!

Can someone tell me why is this editor reverting my edits? :( [27] Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 10:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea why; besides his reason for reverting being wrong, he seems pretty non-responsive and difficult to work with. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 10:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I left the guy a message, too. If an admin could check on it later, that'd be appreciated. User:Krator (t c) 14:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Probably because it's a Featured Article and the references aren't in the right format. Just cite it correctly and he should leave you alone. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
See, that's what I don't like about Featured Articles. It seems people always assume that Featured Articles are "complete" and don't need any more work, but as a huge fan of Final Fantasy I think most of the FF FAs are not comprehensive. Thanks for the input and advice, in any case. :) Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
It's not just because it was featured, small edits that contain only brief text and an external link are almost always spam. As external links do not belong in the text of an article, there is no reason that a recent-changes-patroller who might know nothing of FF should assume otherwise. Obviously this was not spam, but vandal-fighting is often shoot first and shoot again later, as there are always hundreds of other changes waiting to be checked. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 19:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Laziness ain't an excuse for someone assuming bad faith and calling a user a vandal twice and accusing a user of spam. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I would wager that it was because the text was improperly cited but the editor reverted instead of trying to fix it. Not very good Wikiquette in any case.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm simply trying to point out that putting more effort and actually reading the section before editing would prevent other editors from having to clean this up afterwards. A small blurb of text with improper formatting thrown to the top of a section with no context and an external link isn't 100% useful. There could have been less of a WP:BITE, but if you have information that you don't really want to bother integrating, then perhaps it should be placed on the talk page, instead of being re-inserted over and over. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 20:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
That kind of attitude right there is the epitome of WP:BITE; instead of blaming the editor who just assumed that someone linking to a reputable web site with reputable information is vandalising the article by adding this content solely because it's unformatted, and then accused him of vandalism again when he asks why he was reverted twice without ever giving an explanation, we're supposed to blame the new person for being WP:BOLD? Jonathan did nothing wrong besides not being well-versed in properly citing things. At what point is the best thing not to encourage users to add content from a reliable secondary source? There's no reason why he should be criticised. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Can an administrator please take a look at User talk:Baseball1015, the history of that page, and the user's contributions? An incivility block wouldn't be outside of the realm of the possible. User:Krator (t c) 00:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it looks like he reverts pretty much every edit he comes across as "trolling" or "vandalism".--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Looking through his history, he's perhaps not the politest guy around, but he's still on the right side of the line. A few questionable reverts, plus the business with Jonathan Hardin', but I'm not seeing anything that would require administrative action. Most of his reverts as vandalism are actually reverting vandalism. There's not been any repeat behaviour since the Jonathan Hardin' stuff; even if he hasn't appeared receptive to talk page messages, he may still have understood. Its worth giving the benefit of the doubt for the moment. -- Sabre (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
We have been trying to communicate with him saying that he should be more careful, and he just says "whatever" and removes the section. I would say that is worthy of a block. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
He removes all talk page messages after he replies, regardless of the nature of his reply. As I said, he's not been the politest with the recent concerns, but its not a level of incivility that warrants handing out blocks. That would be overkill at present. He's read the comments, he's hopefully got the message. How he acts on that in his editing practices from now on is what he should be judged on. -- Sabre (talk) 15:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The user has been blocked as a sockpuppet for a banned user. User:Krator (t c) 05:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)