Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 84

 Archive 80 ← Archive 82 Archive 83 Archive 84 Archive 85 Archive 86 → Archive 90

GAN reviewers needed

Wikipedia:Good article nominations#Video games is starting to stack up again. This is a public call asking for reviewers. Also, if you have any GANs up now, it's the courteous thing to review someone else's. I have two up (a bit unorthodox, yes), so I reviewed two. I'm willing to review another, but we could really use a few more reviewers to catch up on the lag. Again, if you've got an article at GAN and haven't reviewed one lately, it's time to do so please. --Teancum (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Already on my list to do. I've been busy this past week, but should have some time this Friday or next week. I started reading Crash Bandicoot 3: Warped last week, but will take the next available article when I have the time. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC))
I saw that one of them, Pokemon Black & White, isn't even out in the US yet. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Some crazy editor with less then 500 edits keeps nominating it. The first time I told him that the article was missing sections, and the review was closed. Now the article probably needs a gameplay trim because so much was added. Also, the reception section is empty since, like you said, it isn't out in US yet. Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't say the reception section is "empty", but yeah, it does need more expansion.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I just reviewed it as a quick-fail. Several uncited paragraphs and a review section that just can't be fleshed out yet. The major aggregates have zero scores for it. --Teancum (talk) 20:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
If no one else is interested in reviewing Joust, I'll do it. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I fully intend to review some GA's, but not video game ones, we get off lightly compared to films/TV and music. The exception being Crash Bandicoot 3 which could do with someone's attention. Someoneanother 16:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I will try to help out when I can, but I'm stuck between a bunch of real-world and on-wiki projects. If the backlog sits... it's unfortunate, but that's GAN for you. I encourage interested parties to read the new dispatch in the Signpost about reviewing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
For those that are unfamiliar with the Signpost, here's the direct link to the dispatch: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-11-15/Dispatches.
The sign post has a number of informative dispatches for those interested in improving their reviewing skills, and by extension their content writing skills. Some other good ones to read:
(Guyinblack25 talk 20:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC))

IGN re-using URLs

This URL used to lead to IGN's "Top 25 PC Games of All Time" article written in 2009, as can be seen here and here. Now it leads to their "Top 25 Modern PC Games" article written in 2010. How exactly am I supposed to cite the original article?! 05:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Try the Wayback machine - X201 (talk) 12:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
We need to try to inform IGN of the dangers and unintended consequeneces of URL reuse - not just for WP but other historical situations. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
It's not in the Wayback machine yet, but the new article does have a link to 2009's list. I don't know if there were more details in the earlier version. —Ost (talk) 18:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
The list itself is there, but all the written content that went along with it is gone. 00:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Problems with date sourcing

While improving Looking Glass Studios game articles, I have come upon very serious problems concerning date sourcing. To begin my explanation, I will present the release dates of the games in question:

The first and last are fairly cut-and-dried. Numerous sources agree on the release date of Underworld I, and a PR Newswire article from March 1996 confirms the Terra Nova date. However, major problems have arisen with the middle two.

Through reasonably extensive research, I have gathered that Ultima Underworld II ended development in December 1992. However, the source most important to this assessment is this feature with Doug Church—one of the best date sources I've found for LGS games. Unfortunately, the one place where it slips up is with Underworld II; the editor incorrectly "corrected" Doug Church. The game did not complete in December 1993; this is impossible. Doug Church said in the 00s that the game was made in nine months, and when discussing System Shock in early 1994, said that it had been almost 18 months since their last game. As far as I can gather, Church actually meant that it was intended to be released in February 1993, but was then moved up to November 1992—hence the editor's confusion. It was released soon after completion, in either December 1992 or January 1993. The question, however, is what to do about the faulty source. I've never had to deal with a situation like this, and would appreciate any feedback.

System Shock's problem, on the other hand, is very different. I can easily confirm the game's release date: September 1994. However, this date was gleaned from an Origin Systems internal newsletter, dated October 7, 1994. To make it worse, it was never published outside Origin Systems; during the 00s, scans of it were leaked to Origin fan communities by EA. While the information is reliable, the strict source requirements of Wikipedia confuse the decision. Normally, I would caution against using such a source; however, in all of the extensive research I've done on this game, it's the only one that confirms its September 1994 release beyond a shadow of doubt. The common release date passed around by current game websites is March 1994, which, after much reading, is obviously false. As with the Underworld II problem, advice on how to proceed would be much appreciated. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

For the second one if you have conflicting sources like that you should note both, but note the discrepancy. Adding your own supposition would be WP:OR, however if you can date the report and backtrack from there, its possible you could use a date and add how that conclusion is come by in a notation. It cannot include any OR though.
For the second, i would ask that on RS/N. It is as you say a very unique situation.Jinnai 07:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the response; I'll ask for help at RS/N soon. As for the first one, I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean. Could you elaborate? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 08:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

One more problem that I need help with. This interview (before an issue is raised over its reliability, it has been cited by Eludamos., a scholarly journal) contains information about the game Flight Unlimited, whose article I am planning to improve. While Doug Church gives roundabout descriptions that identify the game and its designer perfectly, he never explicitly mentions their names. Seamus Blackley, as covered by an article in an issue of PC Gamer in my possession, is hard to mistake:

Excerpt: "Seamus Blackley's business card reads "Mad Scientist." He paces before a white drawing board as he tries to explain how a man who studied high-energy particle physics at the Fermilab supercollider in Chicago wound up working on PC games. [...] Holder of a Tufts masters degree in physics, Blackley stopped short of his Ph.D by choosing not to do his thesis. [...] Blackley is the guy responsible for the real-world physics models in System Shock, where thrown objects arc gracefully according to their weight and velocity, and the weapons all pack just the right recoil. He's also the designer behind Looking Glass' next release, Flight Unlimited.

Here is what Doug Church says about him while discussing System Shock and future LGS games, without mentioning his name:

"We have an outrageously good physics system. For another LookingGlass game, the project leader is a guy who punted working on his PhD in high-energy physics to come write games, and damn, does he know his physics! So he wrote a physics system for that game which is far more sophisticated than what you would normally use for an indoor game, but since we had this cool modeling system we decided to put it in our other games as well."

About Flight Unlimited, here's what PC Gamer said:

"The first thing you'll notice about Flight is the stunningly photorealistic terrain that humbles the competition. The terrain isn't generated on the fly — it is the actual landscape of scenic places like Sedona, Arizona. Two sets of aerial photographs are taken of a particular piece of real estate, from carefully controlled positions; special software then mathematically interpolates the two sets into a true 3D landscape. [...] But perhaps the most impressive aspect of Flight isn't the graphics, but rather the flight model. [...] [Blackley says,] "Our approach here is to model the fluid dynamics — the air-flow over the surface of the wings and flaps of actual aircraft. Once you have that model, you could drop the physical dimensions of a Piper into Flight and it would behave precisely the way a Piper should; if you used a lawnchair, it would fly like a lawnchair would." [...] Seamus Blackley has a poster of one of the pilots on the United States Aerobatic Team on his office wall. "Mike Goulian, the president of the U.S. Aerobatic Team, hasn't found a PC flight simulation he's liked yet — in fact, he hates 'em. When he flew Flight Unlimited, he just said 'pretty cool.' I was so psyched."

And here's what Doug Church said:

"The absolutely perfect aerobatic flight simulator -- [...] It focuses completely on the experience of flying, the feel of being in a real plane. This is where our new physics system comes from, and the model is incredibly good. People who come in who've never flown make the exact mistakes that first-time pilots do. Pilots who come in find the planes work just the way they expect them to. We had one of the best aerobatic pilots in the world here and she could recognize her plane just by the airflow diagram over the wing. The game also has fully textured, 3-D, continuous terrain, with height changes everywhere -- [...] We've got a huge map of Aspen in memory that you fly over with tons of real data rendered. [...] We plan to self-publish it late this year, and if it does as well as we think it will, we'll be quite happy."

As to that last part, the PC Gamer article is about LGS' upcoming self-published games, and Flight Unlimited was indeed self-published by the company in 1995.

The similarities make it obvious to anyone that they're talking about the same things, but I thought I'd get everyone's assessment of the possible OR before proceeding. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Assistance would be greatly appreciated. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• It's important to avoid original research, but regarding Seamus Blackley I'd say it's blatantly obvious that he's the one being talked about, just how many physics experts are supposed to have walked away from their PHDs to work for Looking Glass? The Doug Church quote is less so, it wouldn't stop me from using it but it would be something I'd try my damndest to confirm 100%. Someoneanother 23:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Thanks. I'm not sure I can confirm it 100%, as you said, but I think it's probably clear enough. I'll just go with it; if something comes up, I'll take care of it then. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding release date, my first choice for a reliable source of US releases is the US Copyright Database. All filings include a Date of Publication, which is defined by them as the date when said material was first made available to the public. System Shock has a Date of Publication of 9-22-1994, which means it was first made available to the public at that time. The CD-ROM package has a publication date of 12-12-1994 which shows the CD-ROM version was released later. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Hey, thanks! I had no idea publication dates were provided with the copyright. One question, though: how do I cite these? I've never done it before. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 12:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Pushing VGChartz

Just thought I'd bring this to everyone's attention - there seems to been a concerted effort (possible by as few as just one actual user) to establish VGChartz (and a few subsidiaries) as reliable sources for both sales and reviews, along with general VGChartz promotion. I'm not commenting either way on their reliability, but just thought I'd make people aware of what's going on, in case more WP:SPAs are spotted. The users involved (that I've noticed) include

There's a COI notice up too. Thanks! Fin© 10:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

There's a related discussion at WT:VG/RS with most of the players above. I've only been reading, but Havokclix for one has come out as a managing editor on VGChartz and has agreed not to post links until the reliability has been established. —Ost (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Dota as a genre

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Dota (genre) about whether Dota should be considered a genre, and what name should be used to refer to it. I feel some additional input from the project may be useful. Reach Out to the Truth 14:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

UGH. Between original research, unreliable sources and synthesis the whole lot wants to go in the bin until the game industry can decide what the hell it is, genre or no, and what it's called. The sourcing vaccuum is what causes the problems in the first place. Someoneanother 16:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
It looks like there is some bias between DotA and MOBA to the point of POV-pushing, from a quick glance at the talk page. There are a couple of sources [1] and [2], but it still looks ambiguous as to whether or not that would be called its own separate genre. The big thing is that it is not our job to determine what is and what is not a genre, the same argument we had with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of video game consoles (eighth generation) (5th nomination). –MuZemike 16:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, excuse my grouchy post above. Yes, this comes down to sourcing like the console generation article. The problem with this DOTA-like/MOBA is that there is at the very least a loose grouping, with Defense of the Ancients being an inspiration for other games. The problem is that there is that the press at large has not nailed this down to give a solid base for an article, so editors are splicing together tidbits and trying to bridge that gap with enthusiasm.. it doesn't work. Someoneanother 16:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd definitely say that it should NOT be a genre. If anything, it all points back to Tower defense, which was around long before DotA was. --Teancum (talk) 17:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
• Glancing over the article, it appears that this "genre" is discussed only in passing by the actual sources. Genre articles exist because the genres they cover have been analysed, in heavy detail, by a large number of reliable publications. If such sources do not exist, the genre should not have an article; creating one without the proper material is pure original synthesis. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 10:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
• Agreed. As for what genre DotA and its clones actually fall under, it's more of a hybrid of RPG and RTS elements, not Tower Defense as was mentioned earlier. Still does not make it unique in the world of gaming. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 13:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Also see Chronology of Dota-based video games. –MuZemike 19:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Dang, I didn't realize DotA game stuff had proliferated so. I would say merge anything at DotA, then AfD the genre page and the chronology. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I second this. Someday, there may be enough coverage to warrant a separate genre article. Right now, though, it just isn't there. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 08:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

This is the first I've heard of DotA. Haven't looked at the sources used in the article yet. Going by the article's description alone, I'm also having trouble distinguishing this gametype from tower defense. If its status as a genre is problematic, the article could be renamed to Dota (gametype). 10:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

There's no clear definition of what it is, genre or subset or whatever, which is the problem. That may very well change, but between this and Multiplayer online battle arena contributors have had months to come up with the goods and it hasn't happened. This should be redirected to DOTA and MOBA should be redirected to League of Legends, at least until a definite genre or whatever is recognized properly by the relevant press. The merge discussion has fallen quiet so I think it's time to put this one to bed, if we can form a consensus, and move on to the next thing. Someoneanother 13:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
On DotA vs Tower Defense: Tower defense is defined by the placement, maintenance, and upgrading of towers along a path that enemy units walk along. Often, towers are not ever attacked. In DotA-like games, the towers are just there to force the players to gain some power before attacking the other team's base; in fact, the presence of two teams makes it unlike any tower-defense game I've played, at least.
I would like to work on a thorough evaluation of the sources for the two articles, and see what that comes up with (right now, I'm guessing that it'll only be good enough for a small section in Defense of the Ancients). I've been very busy the last week or so, hence my lack of activity in the discussion. 00:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Let's do this FAQ style to keep Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games editors up to date. Straight up facts. No BS.

• Is Dota a genre?

Yes. Heroes of Newerth, Demigod, Starcraft 2's Blizzard DOTA, etc. are all classified under the Dota genre. They are commonly referred to as Dota based games, Dota games or simply DOTAs.

• Do the people involved in those games refer to Dota as a genre?

Both the community and the developers refer to Dota as a genre / classification of games/maps/mods. After Matt Gotcher's presentation of Blizzard DOTA at Blizzcon 2010, Chris Sigaty - Lead Producer of Starcraft 2 stated that: Blizzard DOTA is a take on the DOTA genre if you will. It gives you the opportunity to see some of the heroes we've made, we've made some heroes that are cross genre. Not just SC2 heroes, we've got some Diablo characters in the works, we've some Warcraft characters and Starcraft characters and they're fighting together. Read the whole interview here.

Nigma (S2 Games' Heroes of Newerth Community Manager) detailing on how he got into the Dota genre: I got into the DotA genre by playing DotA :) I started out as a Starcraft 1 UMS junkie. I'm a huge Blizzard fan. Of course, years later, I got Warcraft III and my love for UMS was born again. Aeon of Strife and DotA were among the first WC3 UMS games I played and I played DotA for years and years before I heard about HoN.

The same thing that differentiates Flash Element Tower Defense and Desktop Tower Defense from Tower Defense, Rogue (computer game) from Roguelike, you get the idea...

Try asking that here, here and here - you'll get the same answer. NO. Compare Dota (genre)#Gameplay and Tower Defense#Gameplay.

Bonus round:

• Is the increasing popularity of Dota games a worldwide phenomenon?

Would you be interested in a Chinese Dota like these gamers? --Dotaveteran (talk) 11:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You cite forums in differentiating it from Tower Defense. Forums are never reliable sources. Nor is YouTube (unless the channel belongs to a reliable source) nor blogs. mmorpg.com has not been deemed reliable, and though it has an about us page that looks promising, the community would need consensus on its reliability. I'm not going to take a side anymore as to whether it is or it isn't a genre as some arguments could be made, but I would recommend reading up on what makes a reliable source to better formulate your argument as reliable, significant coverage is what it will take to pass Wikipedia's guidelines. (also, I did a copy edit on your post, it was difficult to follow so spread out) --Teancum (talk) 18:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
You aren't providing sources which are reliable and non-trivial Dotaveteran. Any topic on Wikipedia needs to be the subject of non-trivial coverage, and it so happens that your interest is a lot harder to cite than many topics because it is an idea, a grouping, rather than something more tangible like an individual video game. Developers name-dropping during press conferences etc. are not going to be enough, it has to be covered properly, otherwise Defence of the Ancients should contain the details of the games it has influenced. Someoneanother 09:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Here are a couple of sample sources used in the article. Please refer to WP:WikiProject Video games/Sources to double check their reliability.
Mike Sharkey of Gamespy: DotA was so popular, it spawned its own genre. In fact, popular RTS League of Legends is often referred to as a DotA game. Verify that statement here.
From Kieron Gillen: Okay – the main reason I posted this, bar it being a PC game we haven’t mentioned yet, was that I wanted to take a quick straw poll. While DOTA is an enormous sub-genre, in terms of the response from the RPS readers… well, you don’t seem fans. Read the source here. --Dotaveteran (talk) 17:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• They are reliable, which is great, though in truth a source being reliable just means that it could theoretically be used as a source to cite something, not that it will be of any practical use. In both cases they state there is a genre/sub-genre but neither give any actual details of what that genre is - in order for there to be a separate article on the genre it needs to be the subject of multiple non-trivial and reliable sources. If you were going to write about Vanquish, for instance, you'd need sources like this, not just a news snippet that said "Robots and guns abound, Vanquish is released today, in other news..." That's all that those sources are doing. That base of coverage is needed, which is what I'm trying to say, and currently only that Gamasutra article is of any use, and even then it's part-interview which somewhat dampens the neutrality of it. There is no shame in incorporating relevant details into the Defence of the Ancients article until the sourcing improves enough to support an article of its own, assuming that it ever does. That's if sources aren't up to scratch, it would be helpful if you could show sources closer to that Gamasutra one rather than just passing mentions which are of scant use. Someoneanother 00:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Sourcing regarding this Real-time strategy sub-genre isn't actually the problem here. The question is... Was the recent version of the Dota genre article even read? For the editors interested in the discussion but are not too familiar with the subject matter at hand, let me present to you Brian Leahy's insights on Dota games.--Dotaveteran (talk) 04:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I suggested it would be a good idea to highlight which sources would be used to build the article 10 days ago on the talk page, something which nobody has done yet, so don't act like sourcing hasn't been an issue. The Shacknews source is another decent one but the article needs looking over and each one examining. Someoneanother 09:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I guess that's your way of answering "No" to my prior question. Anyways... for your convenience, a sub-section for the base sources shall be provided via the talk page. If you really want to help improve the article, I suggest you start reading the cited articles thoroughly since your prior statement suggests that you have not done this. --Dotaveteran (talk) 11:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
It's my way of answering that ignoring a valid question for days on end then pretending it wasn't asked is neither polite nor helpful, neither is reverting every single edit I have made to the article. No, I hadn't checked the article for a couple of days, I've been busy editing elsewhere. If you want to discuss sources further then fine, but you do not own the article and nobody should have to run edits past you. Someoneanother 14:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually that was an inclement remark and I should know better. The question about in-depth source was a good-faith attempt to discuss the major sources and find a way forward. The fact that I hadn't been through each source for a couple of days is irrelevant - I explained above what I would have liked to have discussed and why, in a vain attempt to be productive. Instead of providing them in good faith you made a snide remark about me not reading the article. You've since reverted every single change I made to the article, regardless of whether or not they involve sources or not, and have followed it up with "If you really want to help improve the article..". There were improvements totally unrelated to sources, though there's no point in making them if you're just going to revert them. You seem to want to own that article, and I am not spending my free time trying to collaborate with someone treating WP as a battlefield, you're not playing DotA now Dotaveteran. Someoneanother 21:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I rolled back majority of your edits since you were moving whole sections and removing numerous references that were still being discussed about in the Several issues with sourcing in this article section of the Talk page. Please do not take it personally. As for me asking if you were reading the most recent version of the article... it was a legitimate question. It was not meant to be misinterpreted. --Dotaveteran (talk) 22:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
You rolled back all the edits I made, not most. The sources were not actively being discussed, that sub-section was opened on the 5th and no comments were made after that date, almost 2 weeks ago now. The only 2 sources which other editors suggested were reliable were not removed by me, for that reason. You were free to disagree and discuss them on the talk page, something which you had elected not to do before then, and reverting back so they were all included would also not a problem, Bold Revert Discuss. That would not be ideal though since potentially unreliable sources should be left out rather than in while they're being discussed. Instead you binned the lot and intimate here that my editing was unhelpful. There was no misinterpretation, you wanted to 'win' and have done so. Someoneanother 23:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a competition. If you cared to actually double check the article before posting that statement above, you may have noticed that the lead looked familiar for it was your contribution. Let's stop with all these frivolous technicalities and just continue editing. --Dotaveteran (talk) 05:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
The contributions history of the page shows you mass-reverting at 11.06 yesterday and not restoring anything until 21.48, which is just over a quarter of an hour after my post above stating that WP is not a battlefield and hours after the struck post at 14.46 which again points out that you removed every edit. Rather than hold your hand up and admit that you made a mistake you'd sooner try and cover that up and make out that I am the author of "frivolous technicalities". You haven't even tried to make out that you were aware that you'd wiped unobjectionable edits and had intended to restore some edits later. Instead you try to make out that it didn't happen at all and again suggest that I've done something wrong by not checking something I should have, and again it's not relevant.
That is exactly the kind of battlefield mentality I was referring to, I am not 'an enemy' of you or your area of interest, though any interest I had in learning more about it and editing the article to improve it for readers has gone out the window. I won't, however, stay silent while you make out that you did not stop my contributions dead on that article when that's exactly what you did. Justifying that with a 13-day stale thread you hadn't participated in and calling it active isn't exactly good form either. I'm quite happy editing elsewhere and would gladly refrain from participating in this conversation or editing the article further, and I'm not stopping you from editing. I'm just not going to stay silent while you make out that up is down in order to avoid admitting a mistake, that's a nasty habit which will negatively impact on anybody trying to work with you. Someoneanother 22:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
A perfect example of blowing things out of proportion. I do not see you as 'an enemy' or anything of that sort. If you only read the article, article history and talk page beforehand, I don't think you would have wasted your time ranting. Plain and simple. --Dotaveteran (talk) 03:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
A complete reversion doesn't happen 10 hours after it did. A talk page thread becomes active 13 days after the last post. Pointing out these facts becomes ranting. The timestamps don't lie Dotaveteran, it's a shame you feel compelled to. Someoneanother 08:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

LOL. 10:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

There's only one way to stop him. Someoneanother 13:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Neon Genesis Evangelion video games

None of the video game articles relating to Neon Genesis Evangelion are notable. almost all of them dont have reliable sources. the list of videogames are Ayanami Raising Project, Shinji Ikari Raising Project, Girlfriend of Steel (2nd), Neon Genesis Evangelion (2), Shinji and Good Friends, Battle Orchestra, and Misato Katsuragi's Reporting Plan. If anyone wants to take a lok at them and attempt to make them notable, it would be greatly appreciated. IF not, then i suppose we would have no choice but to AfD them.Bread Ninja (talk) 08:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

If nothing can be done with the articles, I suggest redirecting them to List of Neon Genesis Evangelion media? Even if they go to AfD, that's probably what I would !vote for. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC))
same here, but a redirect is practically a deleted article anyways.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Mmm, but it always leaves the door open for someone to restore them and get them up to scratch, like at List of Alien and Predator games. I'd say redirect as well, if possible make sure the list covers any details you can verify from decent English-language sources. I would be very surprised if any of them are actually non-notable, the problem is though when highly specialized articles like these are brought into being and not cited at the same time, the average 'pedian interested in games isn't going to know where to start with them. Someoneanother 22:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I find it kind of unlikely that a series of games released for platforms like the PS2, Dreamcast and DS don't have at least some reliable coverage out there. 10:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
there have been various games in those platforms that don't meet the criteria. Plus these games never released outside japan.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Girlfriend of Steel might have some as their is an unoffiical English translation. I'd also ask the Evangelion task force to see if they know of any other sources.Jinnai 21:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Fallout (video game)‎‎

Because of a recent IP edit war, I think we could use some extra eyeballs on that article for a quick discussion (and I'm entirely too new to the video game MOS to feel confident in my own interpretation). The IP felt the character development section was in violation of the gameguide guideline but wasn't engaging in any discussion past noting that in edit summaries. The article has been semi-ed for a week so that discussion can go on (we're hoping he'll join in). But I personally would like to have a nice clear consensus visible on the talk page so that either way the issue goes, we can refer back to it should the topic come up again. I'd recommend checking the history of the article to see what the IP was removing. The relevant discussion is currently under a heading starting with "to IP editor." THanks in advance for any extra help. Millahnna (talk) 11:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

lolwat. Sales figures are not notable anymore?

I thought sales figures were recommended in video game articles. Can someone explain this edit: [3]? Thanks. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 18:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the edit. I've never heard of any policy like that. If they undo my edit revert it one last time and take it to the talk page. --Teancum (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Agree. Sales figures are notable, real-world impact, and in most cases information on sales is required for a high-quality comprehensive article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages by size

Please see the new page Wikipedia:Database reports/Talk pages by size (to be updated weekly). This talk page ranks ninth, with 17990 kilobytes. Perhaps this will motivate greater efficiency in the use of kilobytes.
Wavelength (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Er, why? WP is not paper, and driven by consensus. There is never a limit on bytes used if it is all towards building the work. --MASEM (t) 21:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Seems an superfluous point when a talk page furthers the work of the general project. --Teancum (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking of the cost of maintaining the servers.—Wavelength (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I entirely agree with Masem. Discussion is how we have gotten this far. Nolelover It's football season! 22:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
The strain on servers is insignificant. Viewing is done on squids and writing is much rarer. Discussion is what furthers this encyclopaedia. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance - X201 (talk) 22:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Template style

I would like to change the style of {{Video game reviews}} to this and need more feedback. Thanks! 15:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It's definitely a solid improvement. I'm still not a fan of all the gray, though. If an approach to the section headings could be found that doesn't involve a gray background, IMO that would be an additional benefit. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Looks good to me too. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I think the current style is great. This new thing doesn't look half as good. Blake (Talk·Edits) 16:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Blake and prefer the old look; it's more condensed and it has lines to separate the rows, making it look sharper. I'm fine with alternating colors for rows, but I also don't like that the sub-headings are grouped with the data rows. I don't consider this an infobox, if the concern is conformity with infoboxes. —Ost (talk) 19:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I think there is some effort with the beta skin to update Wikipedia's "look". This hasn't matriculated down to templates and so forth yet. 02:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not really sure the new template is that much of an improvement. It takes up more space and merely changes the method of differentiating lines from actual borders to alternating rows. (Full disclosure, I was the one who started the redesign way back in '07, so I might have some lingering possessiveness if it gets changed :P) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, many of us have edited the template over the years, as well as made suggestions to other templates. 06:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Is there really an effort to convert all templates to look like the Vector interface? I use Vector, but wouldn't converting templates directly—instead of altering CSS—provide an inconsistent look for users of other skins? —Ost (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Style is controlled through via "infobox vevent" class, which is defined on a per-skin basis presumably, not inside the template. 02:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
That would be my point; why are you changing the template code to make it match a certain style? —Ost (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm still not sure what you mean... Er, because it's not possible without modifying the template code? Take a look at the source for the existing template. There's plenty of inline style there. 10:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I think the current one is just fine. The suggested template takes up too much space (in terms of width).--Dotaveteran (talk) 04:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I prefer the old look because of the gridlines, I would not be against a new look with lighter lines, though. Also, it has indeed become slightly bigger/wider, which is probably not what we need in clutter reduction terms. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
They should be roughly the same width now. 22:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey all, I just got Admin'd, so that's one more of us in the video game area. Feel free to pester me if you have any admin-related concerns or requests. --PresN 07:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• Congratulations. Having never been involved with RfA prior to a week ago, I wasn't sure if you were going to pass. I'm glad you did, though, as you definitely deserve the tools. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 12:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
• Well done, that's good news. Someoneanother 21:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
• Just out of curiosity, how many admins are VG members? (Guyinblack25 talk 21:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC))

(shameless spam) Also, David has chosen to run in the 2010 Arbitration Committee election (nomination). –MuZemike 21:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm an admin as well. --MASEM (t) 21:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Oops, I knew out of the 300+ WPVG members I was going to forget one or two :) –MuZemike 22:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Aach, spam, send in the vikings. Someoneanother 22:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Nah, send the spammers to Spamalot! Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 00:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I decided to take this section as a reason to formally join the project as well. ;-) Regards SoWhy 18:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Grats. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations, PresN! — Blue 09:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Redirect/merge proposal

Rather than take this through AfD, I thought it'd be easier to bring it up here. I've been improving Looking Glass Studios-related articles, and have noticed that Flight Unlimited series really has no purpose. It cannot be improved, beyond basic information copy-pasting from the four related articles. Like with the old Ultima Underworld series article, I propose that it be redirected to Flight Unlimited, and the information about Flight Combat be merged to Jane's Attack Squadron. Any objections? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Not really any objection from me. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Ditto—seems fine to me. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 18:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay. I'll go ahead and do it, as I doubt any opposition will suddenly appear here. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

How many awards are enough?

I've been adding awards to the reviews template of Fallout (video game), Deus Ex (video game), UFO: Enemy Unknown and Star Wars: TIE Fighter. I was wondering though, how many awards should we be adding to these articles? 23:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

IMO, only enough to complement the text. If the side charts are longer than the text, then there probably isn't enough encyclopedic information for each award to justify an infobox listing. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 23:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Additionally you can always list just a few major awards in the infobox, and mention more in the prose, which will balance then length added to the infobox. --Teancum (talk) 23:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
How do I select the ones that do appear in the infobox, however? Top 10 rankings only? The newest? Oldest? 23:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Well it depends. As you get more awards WP:WEIGHT comes into play.
IMO as awards are used and notability and its been explicitly mentioned many times that "Top X" lists are not "awards" so maybe those should be removed.Jinnai 23:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Somewhat agreed - if you feel a need to mention a "top [x]" ranking I would do so in the prose of the article. The infobox is better suited for actual awards won, or possibly being #1 on a "top [x]" list. --Teancum (talk) 00:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Expanding on and reiterating what's already been said. Keep the awards in the table short and avoid ones like "3rd or 7th top game". The prose can and should include more such honors than the table. Conversely though, the article doesn't have to include every award and honor out there. Like critical commentary, pick and choose the ones you think are representative of the whole. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC))
A good example of this would be for such lists to have its highest ranking and year and possibly the last year if it wasn't the best (and maybe the first year). Thus 2 for each group at most.Jinnai 19:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Starkiller

As Starkiller was primarily a video game character, I listed him under this project as low importance, despite his appearance in a tie-in novel and comic book. If it helps, these were adaptions of the game, rather than fully fledged new items. Would that be right? Also if someone could decide what class (Stub, Start, C, etc.) the article is, that'd be great. Harry Blue5 (talk) 19:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Assessed as stub; and yes, due to his appearance in video games in a major role, he qualifies under this project. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Good to know. Thanks for assessing it. I'll give the WP Star Wars template the stub assessment as well. Harry Blue5 (talk) 19:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Somewhat experimental AfD on Husky (commentator)

With the growing number of starcraft commentators etc, I figured that I should AfD this relatively close on as a litmus test for what community thoughts are on notability of these individuals. The AfD is located here, and thanks for your time. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 08:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Add an edit notice to Template:Video game reviews

Just throwing this out there- given that we prefer to have a consensus here for the parameters used in {{Video game reviews}}, should we place an editnotice on the template and its talk page? Something like:

Parameters used in this template are determined by consensus reached by the Video games WikiProject. If you would like to make changes, please take the following steps:
1. Start a discussion on the project talk page
2. Provide a rational explanation for the change in the discussion
3. Reach a consensus
4. Start a discussion on this template's talk page
5. Place {{Edit protected}} in the discussion along with a description of the change
6. Link to the project discussion as proof to the administrator that will update the template

Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 15:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC))

Sounds decent enough. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Do edit notices show on protected pages? Reach Out to the Truth 21:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't know, but I did not see anything in the documentation that says they don't. If it is a problem, we can put it just on the talk page, which isn't protected. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC))
Any other comments? If not, then I'm going to assume the silence is implicit agreement and move forward with this. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC))

Attract mode

Hello, my friends: A group of us are working on clearing the backlog at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_lacking_sources_from_October_2006. The article in the above header has been without sources for the past four years and may be removed if none are added. I wonder if you can help do so. Sincerely, and all the best to you, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Something like this might best be merged with demo mode. Thoughts?
I don't recall ever coming across much information about attract modes other than that they exist. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC))
Merging with demo mode makes sense without helping sourcing, and aligns the article with the equally unsourced wiktionary page. The only link I was able to find specifically defining attract mode is for the Atari (with two others that mention it [4] & [5]), but its function is more commonly defined as a screensaver now. A store also has an arcade glossary which describes three reasons for attract modes, but I don't expect that they are reliable. —Ost (talk) 20:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Merging sounds OK. 02:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Since the attract mode is just a different case of input recording and playback, I think a better merge target is game replay, which is essentially the same technology. It would give that article some historical context as well, as the connection isn't obvious to the layman. (But then, maybe both articles have the same problem.) Ham Pastrami (talk) 05:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Is the connection that replays were sometimes used as attract screens? I noticed a mention of them being related, but I couldn't understand the connection, perhaps because I'm used to pre-rendered attract modes as opposed to gameplay; my experience is mostly with attract modes demoing the game. I can understand attract screens being used as a screensaver, but it seems bold to suggest that replays descend from attract modes when video recording devices existed prior, but I admittedly haven't followed the history of the technology closely. —Ost (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
"Sometimes" is probably an understatement, I am referring to nearly every attract sequence ever seen in an arcade or console, more or less since the invention of the video game and up to the point where mass storage and encoding technology made digital video practical. Using encoded video footage of gameplay is a relatively new (and lazy) way to implement attract mode, and because the video content is often arbitrary (e.g. not real-time gameplay, cut-and-paste editing, often set to some chosen background music), it's not really a proper attract mode either, it's more of a teaser video. And I would agree at least, that these videos would belong in demo mode since they're meant to be shown as an in-store advertisement rather than demonstrate the actual qualities of gameplay. But now we are getting into semantics, and this is probably why someone wanted to write up attract mode as its own article. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Ham is right that early attract modes are simply pre-programmed game sessions. Instead of player-controlled, the player characters are computer-controlled. Even early intro movies and cut-scenes in video games used sprites in a similar way to portray the action. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC))
I get that most early modes were pre-programmed sessions of a game, but I don't consider that the same of a game replay. The game replay page specifies user-generated, which is generally what I think of for a replay. I don't think of pre-programmed circumstances as replays since no one actually played them, but maybe that's just me. —Ost (talk) 18:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
They were not necessarily pre-programmed (i.e. scripted) or played by the computer; this is a false assumption because the layman sees the game playing itself, so the logic there is that it must be the AI controlling the player (and yet, it does the same thing every time). That implementation would involve a lot of detailed work in either scripting the sequence or coding an AI to play the game. Hence, what I originally said about input recording, which is how these things usually work. It's relatively simple to code and takes very little effort to generate a decent gameplay sample. At some point, there was a person playing the game as you saw it in the attract mode, and it is a replay in every sense of the word, only that the gameplay is deliberately contrived in order to be short and sweet. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for bearing with me and providing the history lesson. I never quite thought that it had AI, more that the sequence of moves was programmed in, but I can see where capturing the game would be easier. It's a shame we don't have more readily available sources since the topic seems to have potential. —Ost (talk) 14:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

So, no sources? What should be done? Posing two questions in a row, I am your obdt. servnt, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm for merging to demo mode, but that probably only sweeps the problem under the rug.
I hate to say it, but no sources for that long... I don't think anybody could really stop you from taking the article to AfD. Unless some white knight comes riding up with enough sources to establish notability. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC))
It is possible to source a very basic definition of the term, see this and this (search for "attract mode" under google books and go back a page or two and there are more examples which are not publically viewable). This is something to merge and redirect, it's a question of where. Someoneanother 16:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
In addition, this book apparently has a guide definition of what an attract mode is too. So if anyone owns the book, that could provide some useful info. plus the references needed for the article. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 03:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Now I feel quite stupid. :-p I have Arcade Fever but only ever skimmed through the definition guide in the back. I'll take a look when I get home. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC))
The book doesn't really talk about attract mode that much. It mainly just mentions the word while describe the attract modes of specific games. Some what useful, but not exactly what we were looking for. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC))

Really terrific ideas! No sense in moving on deletion until it shows that these sources don't pan out! Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, according to this court proceeding, it differentiates the attract mode and play mode. In this paragraph: ""Attract mode" refers to the audiovisual display seen and heard by a prospective customer contemplating playing the game; the video screen displays some of the essential visual and sound characteristics of the game. "Play mode" refers to the audiovisual display seen and heard by a person playing the game." So there's another basic definition for you. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Additionally, this page has examples for attract modes on slot machines, if that's helpful any. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Upon further viewing, I really don't think we'll have enough references for attract mode to remain its own article. Like-wise the demo mode. I believe Attract mode shuold become a subsection in the Arcade game article. And the demo mode should go under the Video game article as it goes exclusively for video games. Thoughts? Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 17:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I think no for both. The more informed can correct me, but I think that normal video games can have attract modes; I found many videos of attract modes of non-arcade games when I was looking for references and Atari has a feature for the mode. More certainly, demo modes are not only for video game; as the article points out, they are used in consumer electronics and many more electronic devices can have a demonstration mode (such as a music keyboard or a DVD player). It's unfortunate that there aren't sources that talk more directly about the topic, but I have trouble concluding that there is no notability when so many reliable sources mention attract modes and post videos. The topic actually seems to have significant presence for being mentioned, but not in-depth coverage. I know that we try to be good about sources here, but remember that references are technically only needed for statements that are challenged or are likely to be challenged; we already have a book that describes the mode and a magazine that describes the Atari's use of the mode. I admittedly have trouble editing away unsourced material that I know to be true, but I'd be more apt to WP:IAR and merge attract mode, demo mode, and perhaps game replay into one poorly sourced article than try to pigeonhole them into particular types of games. —Ost (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I can see the merging of demo mode and attract mode together, but game replay would be a stretch because it can be game replay, but it can also just be a cutscene sort of thing. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 22:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Do we not have a video game glossary somewhere? It'd be good to have somewhere to slot these things where they can be kept in short verified versions, available to be linked to, without having to worry about merging the wrong things together. Someoneanother 03:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I've never encountered a dedicated dictionary to video game terms. I've seen a few short lists of common terms here and there. I remember Game Informer use to have one at the start of their review section. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC))

Attract mode in coin-ops is purely for what the term describes - attracting the player to the machine with the hopes of enticing them to put in money and play it. This is different than the demo mode seen in consoles and computers, which have no need for that purpose. As for sources on attract mode, just about every coin-op manual has a description on attract mode, it's purpose, and available settings. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The reason that I brought up consoles is that googling "attract mode" with a next gen console name gives a bunch of results like this BloodRayne 2 video. While consoles may not have reasons to attract players, it seems that the term is carried over for games on them. —Ost (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Someone with a camera and a Classic Controller Pro needed

The Classic Controller Pro has gone too long without having a picture of it. Can someone who has one please just take a picture of it and upload it, so we can put up a picture?

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

here you go File:Wii-classic-controller-pro.jpg --MASEM (t) 23:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Any way to retake it with a white background and the cables organized a little more nicely? 22:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I think the black background is better for such a light colored item. Though I do agree with the cable statement.
Also, should this go to commons? (Guyinblack25 talk 15:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC))

Thanks, next on the list is to find a picture of a Wii Remote Plus. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

There's a comparison photo over on WikiMedia File:Wiiremoteplus.JPG - X201 (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I put that photo up on the Wii MotionPlus page. The only problem is that pictured WRP is very smudged with fingerprints. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

How about a DSi XL? The one I posted here needs work. If someone can take a better picture, please replace it « ₣M₣ » 22:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

FullMetal- For the touch ups to your original, do you want a PNG with a transparent background, or a JPG with a white background? If it's a JPG, I can upload over the original, but I don't believe you can upload a PNG over a JPG. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC))
You're correct GB. You can't upload PNG over JPG, I accidentally tried it last week. - X201 (talk) 16:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Something just occurred to me. Since the image is on Commons, is it preferred to upload derivatives as separate files to preserve the original? (Guyinblack25 talk 16:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC))
You'll want to upload derivatives as separate files. Someone from the Graphic Lab fixed up my image, but if anyone can find a User:Evan-Amos-like image in terms of quality, please know that it is needed. Thanks -« ₣M₣ » 06:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Music from The Legend of Zelda series

I was wondering if anyone wanted to help in the formation of this article. The concept's been made stronger recently due to Scott Pilgrim's heavy usage of songs from it - including an orchestral rendition of one song that required an okay from Miyamoto. Anyone got any good info for such an article? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone got OPM June 2007?

Has anyone got a copy of Official Playstation Magazine, June 2007? One particular user is trying to claim that GTA IV is a reboot of the series - despite no evidence to the contrary. In their latest edit they attached it to already existing citations. I'm certain that the OPM issue in question won't contain the word reboot in its GTA feature, but if someone with a copy could check for me I'd be grateful. - X201 (talk) 09:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Didn't OPM cease publication before June 2007? I have some issues of it, including the last one, and will check if I have a Jun 2007 one. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC))
According to the article for the magazine it ended in January 2010 so barring a major error it would be physically impossible for a June 2010 issue to make that claim.--76.66.180.54 (talk) 23:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps its referring to the UK edition PlayStation Official Magazine. Has anyone got a copy of that? - X201 (talk) 09:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
You can challenge the sourcing if you believe it is fraudulent. Just because he's attached a citation doesn't give the content immunity, especially if the edit history gives reason to suspect fraud. At minimum, you can ask for a full quotation from the supposed source. His reasoning (that no previous characters returned, therefore reboot) sounds more like synthesis than anything. Even if one source says "reboot", that's not sufficient when all the other sources don't. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I did remove it and I asked for a full quote. The reason I wanted to find it for myself is that the this is the second time that the user has added the text. I just wanted to be forearmed if it reappears a third time. - X201 (talk) 14:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedrun and time attack in racing games

Please join this discussion. --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 4

Would anyone be interested to help evaluate and elevate Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 4 to Good Article status? The article has been given the needed review, but my effort to make it a GA fell short because of time constraints. Would anyone volunteer to help, please? — Blue 08:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm interested. GamerPro64 (talk) 15:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Looks like there's still a question of Siliconera's reliability. Found a bit of discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 2#Insert credit, and that's about it. I tried to find another source for the sales numbers, but unfortunately I couldn't come up with anything reliable. Reach Out to the Truth 15:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
If you'd like another set of eyes to give it a copy edit after you're done, drop me a note on my talk page. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC))

Someone with a camera and a Wii Remote Plus needed

We currently only have this picture File:Wiiremoteplus.JPG, and it is very smudged with fingerprints. Can someone take a cleaner picture. Any color WRP is fine. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

My 2 cents, I don't see any remarkbly visible fingerprints and I don't think the average reader will note it either. If anyone wants to though, don't think i'm against it. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Look next to the A button on the red controller, there is a big smudge. There are lesser smudges near the +/-/home buttons too. Also, notice how much glare there is on the white one. The picture serves its purpose, but it can definitely be improved upon. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Featured Article Review of Perfect Dark

I have nominated Perfect Dark for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --Teancum (talk) 02:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto (series)' GAR

The review is here. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thief II collaboration

Would anyone be interested in collaborating on Thief II: The Metal Age, in order to take it up to Good status? User:Rehevkor and I recently did a little work on it, and shaped it into something that could be built upon; it was useless cruft before this. Finding sources should not be a problem; I've already used the online print archive, and the Wayback Machine in general, to dig up quite a few. I'm sure I could find more, if necessary.

Previously successful Looking Glass Studios-related collaborations include Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss (Collaboration of the Week drive heavily improved the article, which I then worked up to FA) and Thief: The Dark Project (User:Noj r and I, with assistance from User:GamerPro64, brought it to GA). If 2-3 others were interested in working on Thief II, I'm sure it could reach GA in no time at all. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time to really help out with it. But drop me a note on my talk page if you'd like another set of eyes to give it a copy edit after you're done. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC))
Thanks. Hopefully enough people are interested that it reaches that point. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
A comment: I think the "Characters" section is a bit crufty. 22:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that'll be one of the first things to go if a collaboration happens. It's a leftover of what the article was previously; you should have seen the Plot section. Unfortunately, it really isn't looking like anyone's interested in working on the article, so it's probably going to have to wait until I'm finished with my other LGS projects. I was hoping to do some rapid improvement on this one with a group of people, and continue working solo on Terra Nova: Strike Force Centauri on the side. As I said, though, it doesn't look like it's going to happen. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Project page renames

Given the scope of our quality content pages, should they be moved?

Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 21:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC))

I'm not exactly why we need to do this...there's not much change in the name, just change "articles" to "content".Bread Ninja (talk) 21:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't see much benefit myself. I wouldn't be opposed to changing "Featured articles" but "Good articles" should remain the same seeing as it consists of pretty much only articles. Does seem like a pretty superfluous change though. --Dorsal Axe 22:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The project pages have expanded to include more than just Good and Featured articles: candidates, delisted content, topics, and for Featured, lists.
This project maintenance certainly is a minor change, but one that I think nets a positive as it brings the names in line with the content. Plus, our to-do list already uses this wording. Of course, the current shortcuts can and should remain as they are quite useful. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC))
I fully support the move being executed by anybody who feels like doing the maintenance to cohere the rest of the project with it. :) —chaos5023 (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Same feeling as Chaos5023, if it is done efficiently then I have no issue with it. Although personally, I really don't see the necessity as we only have a few "good and featured" topics as well as "good and featured" lists to support this move. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
It seems fine to me. It'll make it slightly simpler, clearer and more professional, and I can't think of a reason not to do it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Need help with a list

In my ongoing quest to improve Looking Glass Studios coverage, I've decided to create a "List of video games developed by Looking Glass Studios" article. However, I have no experience with such things, and the only real model I have is List of video games developed by Key, which is only vaguely similar. I've hacked together something on my userpage, but I'm not too sure what I'm doing. Ignoring the list's obvious incompleteness and the lead's rough writing quality, does anyone have feedback on it? Anything to point me in the right direction would be helpful, as I honestly don't know anything about list formatting, lead style, proper content, etc. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, that list format isn't my favorite. Let's try a couple others... For example, you could make it with {{Video game table item}} as:
Title Original release date

Japan

North America

PAL region

Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss - March 1992 -
Notes:

Or with {{VGtitle}} as:

{{{1}}}
Title Details

I'd go with VGtitle, personally, as your games don't have a lot of release dates in Japan or Europe, though I may be biased as I used that one in List of Final Fantasy video games, which I FL'd. List of Harvest Moon video games also uses it, slightly differently. Video game table item is used in List of Final Fantasy media, if you want to look at that. The template is taller than your table rows, but with only 19 games I think that's alright. You would lose the ability to sort by different columns, though you're not using that right now, so you'll have to decide how important that is. --PresN 04:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the help! I really had no idea that list templates varied so much. I think I'll use VGtitle; I like how it looks, and its functionality appears to suit the subject best. One more question, though: what kind of content should the lead contain? I tried to copy that Key list pretty closely, but I don't understand what limitations, or requirements, are placed on list leads. My ultimate goal with this is to achieve FL, and use it as the main article in a possible (very distant) future "Looking Glass Studios games" good topic, so any advice you might have would be greatly appreciated. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• There's also Template:VGmedia. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 82#Standardization of media lists and List of Xenosaga media. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 11:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• Something to consider, User:RexxS brought up accessibility issues with {{VGtitle}} at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of X-Men video games/archive1. I asked him to provide further comments on my talk page. I think the simplest solution would be to alter VGtitle to use a second template similar to {{Video game table item}} and {{VGmedia}}. But with the template used in over 100 pages, I'm not sure how to quickly implement this. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC))
• My first thought is don't do it quickly. Leave VGtitle where it is, and make new templates- VGtitle table and VGtitle item (or whatever). Then, go in and replace the 100 VGtitles with those, and finally redirect VGtitle to VGtitle item. That said, if you wanted to just rip it off quickly and make it VGtitle start and VGtitle, and break all 100 pages, let me know, I don't think it would take that long to fix, and I'd be willing to help. --PresN 18:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• Does this mean that I should hold off on implementing VGtitle until after the overhaul is complete? Also, I hate to be a pest, but, again, I could really use some advice on the lead from anyone willing to give it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• Yes, I understand now. I didn't realize how different the requirements were for list leads; I'll begin rewriting and reformatting the page shortly. Huge thanks for all of your help. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request on StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty

Can someone from this project please take a look at the Edit semi-protected request that is on Talk:StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty? The editor made the request on 26 November, and no one has responded to it yet. The editor is stating that the reviews listed are too positive and don't accurately portray that many reviewers have been negative about the game. However, I don't know enough about video games or video game reviews to tell if the reviews xe wants to include are notable enough to include per WP:DUE. If you don't know how to respond to the request, go ahead and just leave a comment in the final section, and then I can "formalize" the decision later (or, instructions can be found at Template:Edit semi-protected. Thanks for your help. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Help with an AfD

We could use some extra input at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dead Frontier (2nd nomination) as the creator of the article feels that the article and its sources are within policy. Since a consensus is the way to go, please comment to one side or the other to help reach consensus. --Teancum (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Killzone 2 Cleanup

If anybody's interested in helping me cleanup the Killzone 2 article, eventually to GA or even FA status, I've copied it into my project space (minus the images of course), which can be found here. Thanks,--The Taerkasten (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

If somebody could take a look at it, I'd really aprreciate it. I cleaned up the references, consolidated some of the headers, structuring. I think the intro could use some expansion, into like, 3 paragrahps. If anybody can help, it'd be great.--The Taerkasten (talk) 15:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Is there anybody available to take a look at it and make changes where they see fit? I do think it's better than the mainspace article.--The Taerkasten (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Help with Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex (video game)

Having some trouble with ghost in the shell video game article. the article is about two games with the same name, but the PSP version is actually a sequel to the ps2 one. The japanese name is also different which i added in the PSP section. What I'm basically trying to do is find references to their gameplay, reception and plot to separate the two into different articles. the two are already different, but both don't meet the general notability guideline (not even if we left them merged). So yeah, just asking for some help on here, because i'm not the best with video games, and finding reviews is pretty hard. especially for these games.Bread Ninja (talk) 05:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

You should split the infobox into two, articles on two different but related subjects can work on one page, see PC Gamer for an example. You can find reviews pretty easily, there are dozens on Metacritic.[6][7] - hahnchen 17:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
i personally don't know how where exactly the online reliable source list is on here so i look at other articles with the most reviews and Google them. but i couldn't find some, but i think i was mainly focusing on gameplay refs for these two.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Try WP:VG/RS. I think it's this one.--The Taerkasten (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Ah thanks, this would be very useful though some of the text is really smallBread Ninja (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
No problem. The text is quite small, sometimes I have to squint to see some of the stuff. But it's not too bad most of the time.--The Taerkasten (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri Images

Guyinblack25, Nolelover, Dream Focus and I have been having a discussion at Talk:Sid_Meier's_Alpha_Centauri#Images regarding the use of a second cover art image. The game Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri had a sequel that is something between an expansion pack and a new game, Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire. 6 months ago, there was a separate WP article for the sequel, Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire, and possibly in the future a different set of editors might decide to split Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri into two articles, since the length of the article is now at or slightly beyond the recommended maximum length. The question is whether the second cover art should be in the article. I refer you to the article talk page for Guyinblack25's concerns about a second cover art. Thank you for looking at this issue. Vyeh (talk) 11:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

And while we're at it, could someone who's good with fair-use templates take a look at the images listed on the talk page (Vyeh's first link). I fixed/added templates to two pics, but I've never done that before and I'd appreciate someone make sure I did it right. Nolelover It's football season! 14:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Well TBH, I'd ask what that second image really adds. It's very similar to the main game in art and its basically the same media (FE: I'd have less problem if there was a novel about it and that was used as another image). The second one just doesn't seem to add much.
As for the fair-use reasonings, there okay, but clearly could be strengthened. If you want some ideas, just look at the ones I have done.Jinnai 16:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Reminder: last 15 hours of voting in the ArbCom elections

Dear editors,

Now is your final chance to vote in the December 2010 elections for new members of ArbCom. Voting will close just before midnight UTC tonight, Sunday 5 December (earlier for North America: just before 4 pm west coast, 7 pm east coast). Eligible voters (check your eligibility) are encouraged to vote well before the closing time due to the risk of server lag.

Arbitrators occupy high-profile positions and perform essential and demanding roles in handling some of the most difficult and sensitive issues on the project. The following pages may be of assistance to voters: candidate statements, questions for the candidates, discussion of the candidates and personal voter guides.

For the election coordinators, Tony (talk) 09:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking Glass Studios manuals

In my continuing quest to improve LGS coverage, I have stumbled upon yet another problem: the manuals for Flight Unlimited and British Open Championship Golf do not exist on the Internet, as far as I can see. I do not happen to have them in physical form, either. Does anyone know of a way to obtain these, or does anyone have them in PDF? Any help would be greatly appreciated; it would be nearly impossible to work on either article without them. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter/draft still needs a feature and a featured editor

Just wanted to remind everyone that we still need a "feature" section and to interview a "featured editor" for this quarter's WPVG newsletter, which I plan to get out in early January. A "feature" is just simply a description and overview of one of the aspects within the project, and "featured editor" is self-explanatory. Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter/draft is right there to get started if anyone wants to contribute one. –MuZemike 18:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I might write a feature if no one else steps to the plate tonight or tomorrow. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind subjecting myself to an interview, if no one else is interested. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
If anyone is looking for feature ideas, might I suggest how to create new articles for DYK or write a FL? (Guyinblack25 talk 20:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC))
An FL feature would be useful. Despite my time here, I'm still not sure how to achieve one. I didn't even know how to write or format a list until PresN kindly explained it to me in one of the topics above. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I've started one at the draftspace. It's somewhat inhibited by the fact that I don't spend nearly as much time at FLs compared to FAs, so pile-ons might be nice :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 23:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I'll see what I can add next week. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC))

Anachronox music

I've been working on Anachronox over the last four days, as I realized the game's name is ridiculously easy to search for finding great sources. The reception/development sections are still a mess, as I need to integrate a couple gaming site reviews to finish them at this point. I noticed that none of the ~55 sources I have so far mentions the music of the game, and I don't have much to go off for finding some good sources. If you're an Anachronox fan and know some good leads or sources for the music, it'd be much appreciated. (Feel free to help out at the article, too, though it will look much, much better once I finish adding stuff to the reception section and copyedit/restructure it.) ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 20:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Holy smokes, thats a lot of sourced text. If you could fix that up, and integrate some of the sources into the rest of the article, you have a Great Article on your hands. About your question, does the music really need to be covered? Is there something special about it? Blake (Talk·Edits) 21:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Glad to see this article is being worked on. I hope the sources I provided on the talk page come in handy—there are a ton of developer quotes in them. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh yeah, haven't even started chewing on those yet; I can't wait to crack those developer quotes. Yeah Blake, I think once I get all those interviews on board, I'll start restructuring and kind of condense like-items until it's a tightly-packed explosion of critical review. Anachronox seems to have been really fortunate to get so many newspaper reviews and attention. The music, well, it was kind of a unique situation (as far as I know) because all the music was outsourced to another company that had no game to write the score to, yet was allegedly well-received and won an award. Not sure how much of a section can be mustered in present form, but I did plan on throwing in a 30-second clip of a song as one of four planned fair use files for the article. I just realized I was erroneously italicizing newspaper names in the cite template, so back to work for me, haha. ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 03:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Just chiming in to say I've finished the reception section, and am inviting any copyedits or anything (of course I'll send it through peer review and everything later on). Just, damn, though. That is a beast of a reception section. I guess that's what happens when good sources are plentiful. ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 03:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources

Just to ensure that any current discussions are decided on before they're archived, can ya'll stop by and chime in on some discussions? Some particular topics that need comments:

• Approval of the Hungarian 576 Konzol magazine
• Onrpg
• ZTGameDomain
• XBLAfans
• The Video Game Critic
• XBLAfans
• GamerBytes
• GamerTell

Please stop in and give opinions and such so these can be decided one way or the other. Thanks! --Teancum (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

"Masocore gaming"

I was wondering if anyone wanted to help make a genre article on "Masocore gaming." This type of gaming includes games based on an incredibly high "hardcore challenge," such as Super Meat Boy, Mighty Jill Off, and others. Of course, it would require extensive research to determine what qualifies as this kind of game (as well as what to call it). If there is already such a genre article, disregard. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

You're going to need to start with reliable sources. Do you have any which actually state that this is a genre? I think it would be difficult to justify why it shouldn't just form a footnote in Difficulty level or Platform game. - hahnchen 23:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
In the Mighty Jill Off article, the interviewer credits its developer with creating the "masocore" genre. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
The interviewer is just trying to coin a phrase—I've never seen the term, despite my constant reading about game genre and theory. In fact, I've never seen the concept, with or without that name, analyzed in any significant way. Unless it becomes widespread, there's no way an article can or should be written about it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

This forum post from January 2008 is the earliest use of the term I could find, and Anna Anthropy seems to have helped popularize it. I've seen the term used quite a few times on forums, but I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources. Is there another term commonly used to refer to this type of game? Reach Out to the Truth 04:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm just using it as the only term I know of that is used to refer to these kind of games. I guess we could look around, see if anyone uses any other phrases. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Just use the common English description, like masochistic gameplay for example. There's no need to promote neologisms, and it's more or less prohibited to do so. Ham Pastrami (talk) 06:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
That sounds good. Is anyone else in favour of that? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
It also seems to be something primarily aimed at indie games, like I Wanna Be the Guy and Super Meat Boy. I think that, if we can decide on a name for the genre, it would be fairly simple to limit the games included - we'd just need to be hyper-strict on what games are listed as such, as well as what content to use to discuss these games in the genre article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
If you're deciding on the name of a genre, and then deciding what goes in it, that's pretty much original research. Like Blackwing above, I'd never heard of this term, and would not consider it for Wikipedia other than sections in Difficulty level or Platform game. - hahnchen 17:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia without editors making decisions on what content is included would probably not be half as big as it is. We make decisions based on our own perception every single day. What you have heard of is irrelevant in light of the people who have heard of it. It's clearly not an issue of whether or not this kind of gaming exists, but rather, what to call it and what to include. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
A genre article cannot be written without numerous, highly detailed sources that cover its every facet. The alleged genre in this case does not have them, and therefore should not have an article. If the time comes that such sources exist, an article can and should be written. That time is not now; as hahnchen said, it would constitute original research. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I think the point that needs hammering in is, first of all, "duh." Every single thing you just explained to me is something I've already said in this very discussion. "Of course, it would require extensive research to determine what qualifies as this kind of game (as well as what to call it)." I have no idea why you are attempting to waste time explaining to someone something that they have already demonstrated knowledge of. If you want to discuss the actual topic at hand, be my guest. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay, cool down a bit, no need to be defensive. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your intent. What the other editors said about genres is true, but I don't think that "masocore" would really be a distinct genre in itself, but rather a general gameplay topic. A genre exists independently of its difficulty level, e.g. there is nothing about Super Meat Boy's gameplay that makes difficulty intrinsic to its design. It was just a choice by the developers to make it a hard game. The genre is still a platformer. With sources, I think it's fine to have an article about games that are designed to be extremely difficult (if there is sufficient content to warrant a distinction from difficulty level). But I would avoid calling that a genre, as it's likely to be misunderstood. Ham Pastrami (talk) 10:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think you could use "extensive research to determine what qualifies as this kind of game" without violating WP:SYNTH, but would instead need a reliable source to call each game that on a case-by-case basis. bridies (talk) 10:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I think you could write a decent paragraph on platform games at Difficulty_level#Difficulty_level_by_genre. - hahnchen 11:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Hippie, it's nothing personal. I'm against the idea, not anyone involved in the debate. As bridies said, your proposal, in those words, is synthesis. And as I stated above, the genre as a whole cannot be covered on Wikipedia without proper third-party coverage of the genre—consistently named, consistently described coverage. That the term "masocore" has been used on forums, or by reliable sources in passing, is not enough to warrant naming an article that. And that several sites talk about masochistically-difficult gameplay, or even call it a genre, is not enough to warrant its inclusion as an article on Wikipedia. On these same grounds, I and many others believe that Dota (genre) shouldn't exist, either. (There was a big argument here recently, regarding that article.) However, in my opinion, even Dota has more arguable notability than this proposal. I just don't see how, at this time, it can be done within policy. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 11:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

^What he said. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 23:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I want to ask you a favor, Wiki friends!

As the main contributing writer of these articles, I will very very appreciate YOUR knowledge and ratings!

Big thanks for your helps!†hinhin_of_you / buzzworthy / βoy Ünder Ғlowers – 05:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Please look at this. GamerPro64 (talk) 02:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
They all have tons of information, but are largely unsourced. I would say C on all of them. Blake (Talk·Edits) 03:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, that's why I'm "asking you a favor" to correct me! :) – †hinhin_of_you / buzzworthy / βoy Ünder Ғlowers – 05:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

View changes of all pages in Wikiproject?

I thought I had stumbled on a way to view all of the recent changes to articles across the entire Wikiproject, but I can't find it anymore. Can any one help? --Teancum (talk) 14:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean this? Or even this? --Dorsal Axe 14:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
The latter was the one I was looking for, thanks. Is there a Wikilink version? --Teancum (talk) 15:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Nevermind - its Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games. Thanks! --Teancum (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
The link is on the To-Do list at the top of the page. Just letting you know. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh, nevermind. That is just project pages. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I've added a link to the watchlist in the navigation box, for ease of access. --Dorsal Axe 15:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
This? Special:RecentChangesLinked/Template:WPVG_Sidebar JACOPLANE • 2010-12-13 15:44
Yes, Dorsal Axe just posted it up there recently - however I recommend hanging onto the other link too, as for some reason they show different articles. --Teancum (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Source hunting

In preparation for my upcoming project, Flight Unlimited, I've been amassing reference material on the game. I've managed to find a fair amount, but reviews have been scarce. I know for a fact that some appeared in the following magazine issues:

• PC Zone April 1995 - one quote I found was, "Arguably the best flight simulation ever produced"
• Computer Gaming World issue 131, June 1995, with this cover - found the quote, "you should at least take a look at this product, because you'll be looking at the future of simulations"

If anyone has access to these, I'd be really grateful. Getting them would bring the review tally up to 8, which should be plenty for a comprehensive section. Once I have these and the manual (which I'll be acquiring soon), I should be well on my way to a solid GA. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 09:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to move Alternative character back to Alternate character

Alternate character was recently moved to Alternative character; proposal to move it back is at Talk:Alternative character#Move back to Alternate character. —chaos5023 (talk) 14:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest on Zeno Clash

The developer of the game has e-mailed User:Teancum to request that the cover art in the article be changed to another because the one currently used is "horrid looking". This is at odds with Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest policy as well as the video game project's image guidelines, so I would like to know what should be done. Thanks! Megata Sanshiro (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't consider this a COI, just a request by the dev to improve the article. What could be done is to encourage the developer to allow the image they want of the cover to be used in a free license and/or to possibly submit the image through WP:OTRS as to be a "better" image than the non-free cover we have now. --MASEM (t) 18:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
What is the other image? Or didn't he/she specify? - X201 (talk) 18:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how this is a conflict of interest. WP:COI clearly states "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged—but not actually required—to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of the related article they are editing, particularly if those edits may be contested." Acting at the request of the developer (who communicated via email instead of the talk page) I changed the image - he suggested, I agreed with that suggestion, it was changed. File:Zeno Clash.jpg (the original image) is not a bad image, but it was also a JPG and did not use {{Vgboxart fur}} in its rationale. That combined with the request prompted me to upload File:ZenoClash cover.png, which is a preferred PNG image (I would have replaced the original with a PNG anyway), uses {{Vgboxart fur}} and (though I'll admit doesn't have as much weight) uses the American boxart, which I presume is what is used in Chile, the developer's home country, since that's what they submitted for replacement. --Teancum (talk) 18:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Use the new image. Both images are suitable, and we'd quite like developers on our side if we want them to donate more free images like at commons:Zeno Clash. - hahnchen 21:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Use the new image. They're right, the old one is horrid looking, and it's not COI unless they change it themselves without letting people know that they were the devs. --PresN 23:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Video game engines

Template:Video game engines has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. 134.253.26.11 (talk) 19:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:VGtitle

Hey everyone, long time no see. I'm here because of notes that have been raised at one of my recent FLCs, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of X-Men video games/archive1. Objections have been risen to the accessibility of Template:VGtitle and though they haven't brought any "Oppose" votes, I feel that they will in the future. A comprehensive redesign of the template is needed as soon as possible.

I understand that this has been brought up here on the talk page, but I want to emphasize the importance of this re-design. We may need to scrap VGtitle altogether if we can't meet WP:ACCESS with it. Is there any way that we could edit the template so we don't have to restart all of our FLs? Nomader (Talk) 04:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it can be done. The main problem is that each instance is a separate template. It should be possible to merge it all together, and have it function more like a table that can be extended as and when required. --Dorsal Axe 11:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering if something like that would be possible-- the templates are stuck together usually in lists like List of X-Men video games so if we could modify the template to work like that, it would be fantastic. Unfortunately I'm pretty terrible with that kind of wiki-mark-up so someone has to step up to the plate. Nomader (Talk) 16:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
PresN provided a suggestion above in the Need help with a list section.
1. Create a new template that acts as the top or bottom of a table.
2. Then create another that mimics VGtitle, but is only the code for table rows instead of a whole table.
3. This way we can go through each list at our leisure adding the table tops and bottoms and swapping out the old template name for the new one.
4. VGtitle can then be redirected to the new template.
I can handle the template code, but we need a naming scheme for the new templates.
Another issue raised at the FLC is that unreleased games should use "Proposed system release:" instead of "Release years by system:". I think this can be fixed with a new parameter "unreleased". This could also change the "Original release date(s)" text as well. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 16:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC))
There should already be a "Proposed system release:" bit in the VGtitle template. I've used it before in List of Kirby media-- you should add the parameter "|canceled=" to add a cancellation date instead of the release dates on the left, and then it changes to "Proposed system release:" instead of release years by system. Nomader (Talk) 07:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, but cancelled also changes the release date to "Cancellation date". He wants a switch that instead makes it "Proposed release date". I say go for it, sounds useful. --PresN 18:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
As for the name, well... how about Video game title/Video game title item, just an expansion of VGtitle? --PresN 21:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd have no objection to that, as long as we keep the redirect from VGtitle for the template. So, just to clarify-- it's possible to meet WP:ACCESS with improvements to the template? Nomader (Talk) 03:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
My understanding was that the fact that repeated uses of the template made it look like a table, but was in fact a series of separate tables, played havoc with screen readers. Changing it so each VGtitle (or Video game title item) was itself a row in a regular table fixes this problem. As per above, once all uses of VGtitle are replaced with Video game title item, VGtitle will be redirected- redirecting it straight off without have the wrapper Video game title template would result in a broken page. Until all uses are replaced, existing uses of VGtitle would continue to work just fine. --PresN 04:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
"Video game title" sounds good to me. I have two ideas for the new format:
• Video game title has a single undefined parameter that can hold multiple instances of "Video game title item". For example:
{{Video game title|
{{Video game title item}}
{{Video game title item}}
{{Video game title item}}
}}
• Video game title accepts two parameters: {{Video game title|start}} and {{Video game title|end}}. They would still wrap around multiple items, but as two separate templates. For example:{{Video game title|start}}{{Video game title item}}{{Video game title item}}{{Video game title item}}{{Video game title|end}}
 Also, two other items: How about "futuregame" for the new parameter name instead of "unreleased"? Should the item template be a sub-page of Video game title, like "Video game title\item"? Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 16:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)) I like the first way better; futuregame sounds fine and more obvious; and why not, that way they're obviously linked together since there's multiple templates with similar names. --PresN 23:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC) I think I like the first a lot more, makes it simple and one table. And I support futuregame over unreleased, and, like PresN, I'm down with making it a sub-page. Nomader (Talk) 01:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC) I added support for the futuregame parameter to {{VGtitle}}. I'll try to get to the new template sometime next week. I'll use Template:Video game titles and Template:Video game titles/item as the names and will just stack the items in the main template as a single parameter. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC))
Shadow Master cover artCan we get comments at Talk:Shadow Master? I replaced North American cover with European one because it's an European developed game and WP:VGIMAGES states that "Where different cover designs are available for different regions, the one from the region in which the game has been developed should be used." but it also states that "Cover art should appear in the infobox (see below for more info on the infobox), and ideally, the most recognizable English-language cover should be used to illustrate the subject.". And apparently NA cover is the most recognizable. So which cover should be used? --Mika1h (talk) 13:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC) Bit puzzled why the "Most Recognizable" bit is still there - I thought the whole reason behind the preceding part was to avoid all the " There are more X so that makes version Y the correct one" arguments. As regards this cover, I'd say leave the NA one there for the time being and try to build a concensus for using the one from the developers country. - X201 (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC) You're skipping the last sentence there- "unless another English language version has been uploaded first in which case don't change it". X201 is right- if you can get consensus to change it, you can, but in general the first English-language cover that gets stuck on the article wins, as its a silly thing to argue about. --PresN 17:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC) But that bit is for if the game is not released first in English (and this game is). --Mika1h (talk) 17:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC) It's true, at Mortal Kombat vs. DC Universe, there is a European box art on the article. It was the first there so it hasn't been touched. I would like to replace it with an American one because it was developed by an American company, but as said above the first one stays. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC) VGIMAGES says if there is already an English language box art there, don't change it. Don't change it, because it's generally petty, nationalistic, and does nothing to improve the article. Half the world are going to be more familiar with the American artwork, half the world more familiar with the PAL artwork - it doesn't matter. The whole "region of release" thing really has no bearing on how appropriate a cover art is for in terms of identification. We should just remove that preference from VGIMAGES. - hahnchen 21:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC) Why? Without trying to sound elitist, I think it'd be appropriate to add the region of origin's boxart to help the reader identify the developer's origins, instead of simply making it a race to put the boxart when it's first released, that's just promoting WP:BADFAITH when regional elitist editors DO get involved. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC) It's not bad faith, we've just all seen this a dozen times. About once a month a discussion identical to this pops up here. It's almost always the same- one person(s) says that the NA/PAL box art is more widely known/the dev is from there, then the other side says that the other region is more widely known/the dev is from there. Both sides start out sounding reasonable, but the discussion within 3 comments turns into some sort of trench warfare, with neither side willing to give in. What's worse, in every case the article itself has massive problems/work that needs to be done, but the editors who would be doing the work are bickering over the image instead. The dispute (on this page anyways) then generally ends when three or more uninvolved editors start citing WP:STOPCHANGINGIT, which is why that sentence got tacked onto the end of the boxart guidelines. I mean, really. There's no development section, the reception section is too short, gameplay and story are in the wrong order, and half the references aren't properly formatted. Any one of these issues is about 50 times more important than which boxart image is used. It really doesn't matter. --PresN 23:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC) If this is a recurring issue, then it would be sensible to find a guideline that doesn't conflict with anything else in the article. I don't think anyone meant for there to be a conflict like this, and it does seem useless to do so, but if a consensus is reached them I'm sure it would at least help prevent this 'monthly issue'. As for the actual Shadow Master article, there are many important parts to an article, and the box art and images just happens to be one of them. What we are focusing on here, in this discussion, is the image issue, so I wouldn't discount this as completely unimportant. When it's been resolved we won't need to worry about it anymore anyways. As I have said on the talk page, I do still believe that as far as where finding information on the game is concerned (what is listed now and what will be found in the future), the North American box art does seem to come up a lot more often. In the end, as long as some cover art is used is fine, but before anything is changed it would be good to remember this. (NuHalo (talk) 01:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)) I agree, if it's a monthly issue then why hasn't consensus solved it? (I also agree with the sentiment if any art is used, it's fine.) But recognizability is not found by any source, it is entirely subjective according to who lives where. Developer origin would be the most objective way to put this issue to rest and setting it as a guideline would put it into stone, there are more important things in an article to deal with as you've said so if we can come to a consensus to kill this issue, then progress can finally commence. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ It's only a monthly issue because no consensus can be found, which is why the only consistent response is "don't change it". Here are some random discussions that have taken place already,[8][9][10] there are certainly more. The box art is used to identify the subject. Half the world are going to find one more recognizable than the other, regardless of which regional iteration of the artwork you choose. Using the region of the developer of origin isn't objective, it's arbitrary. We should remove the developer-country criteria in the guideline, its not one that has ever generated consensus at WT:VG, and encourages users to replace "incorrect" box arts regardless of the "don't change it" statement. I'm not saying cover arts can't be changed, just below I'm stating that it can under certain circumstances, but in general, arguing about what is more recognizable or whether the country of development matters, is nonconstructive. In this particular case, I would choose the North American art, because I think its a lot better aesthetically, and I'd defer to User:NuHalo the decision. But this is my personal view, and I'm not going to cite WP:RANDOMPAGES and pretend that this is something we have codified. - hahnchen 21:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC) D'oh!Just to let the project know that The Simpsons Game is scheduled to be on the Main Page as Today's Featured Article on December 17. –MuZemike 04:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC) I'll tell you what is D'oh, D'oh is a featured article without a single gameplay screenshot. D'oh is when a you fold at FAC without making the case for non-free images, when you should have just ignored them. - hahnchen 22:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC) Looks like its up. Also, it would be helpful to revert edits from vandals and such. GamerPro64 (talk) 00:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Article alerts updateAfter a lengthy downtime, a new article alert bot (User:AAlertBot) is in a trial period. As such, Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article alerts is one of a few projects that will see updates for a two week period. For those unfamiliar with our article alerts page, it provides information about recent edits to select project matters. Typically, if you're looking for an area to help out in, this is the place to check. The bot was developed by VG project member User:H3llkn0wz, who also operates the helpful citation bot User:H3llBot. Here's hoping the trial goes well, as the article alerts made keeping up with project matters very easy. H3llkn0wz- if there's anything we can do to assist, please don't hesitate to ask. We'll do what we can. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)) Thanks! Reporting bugs and giving feedback on presentation/features is probably the most useful at the moment. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC) I think the information on the page looks good. It is concise but displays most everything anyone would need to know. The only suggestion that comes to mind is maybe include the article's importance rating. I don't know if this would be favorable though, but it might draw more attention to articles that should be getting them. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)) Agree with Guy for the most part. I don't think there's any harm to including the rating, although space issues might be a valid reason to omit it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 23:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Thief 2 Collaboration ReduxIn light of the ridiculous amount of reference material I've recently found—with more coming in all the time—I thought I'd restate my proposal for a Thief II: The Metal Age collaboration. With that much material, it'd be a pretty simple matter to get it to GA. A previous collaboration successfully brought Thief: The Dark Project to that status, and the resulting article, with a little more polish, could probably be taken through FAC. And for that collab, there were not nearly this many readily available sources. With even one other person besides myself, Thief 2 could be finished in two weeks at most. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 08:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC) Recent splits of Nintendo remakes and portsI have noticed that some time ago, quite a few remakes and ports of Nintendo games were split from the main articles. While some of these splits are certainly reasonable, others are simply lacking enough information to warrant its own article. I have marked those with a merge tag. There are also three which I personally find should be kept, though if someone thinks they should be merged, feel free to add one and create a subsection here. Prime Blue (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC) Super Mario All-Stars: keep – containing the information in the four articles of the remade games seems unreasonable; with the "Iwata Asks" interviews mentioned on the talk page, a development section can be created; reception section should be easy to expand given the Wii release Super Mario Advance 4: Super Mario Bros. 3: keep – seems like a lot of work went into that one; intricate reception section; others look okay as well Pokémon Yellow: Special Pikachu Edition: keep – same here The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past & Four Swords mergerMerge to The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past – little was done to improve this article since the last redirect; if you take away the general A Link to the Past stuff already explained in the other article, this one is left at three paragraphs at most which is pretty weak for its own article; the old solution was okay, though I'd move up the enhanced port section and split off its reception into the main reception section, along with preserving a separate infobox Prime Blue (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC) As the person who split the article, I request that it not be merged. I just haven't had the time to establish notability. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC) I understand your sentiment, but it's been 4 years since the article was created. If it were notable, certain sources would have come up by now.陣内Jinnai 21:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC) It was split mere months ago (I was, in fact, the one who merged it). The sources exist - however, due to the shared name with the Super NES version as stated below, it is a significant task to sift through the articles that deal with the Game Boy Advance version, and the articles that deal with the other versions. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC) I also feel that by virtue of having an entirely original multi-player component attached to the Super NES port, there is huge potential for reception, and the knowledge that the gameplay and plot will not be entirely based on the port. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC) Sorry for the third response, but according to Metacritic, there are 30 critic reviews for the game; according to Game Rankings, there are 38. Clearly, the reception is nowhere near complete. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC) Well TBH, I wonder how many of those reviews comment on anything new that would make it notably different from the original. I remember reading a few back in the day that didn't have much addititional to comment beycond comparison to the original - which would seem to indicate it should be with it. The few that did mention 4 swords also mentioned the console version which allows for single-player and compared those 2 games together. Thus I'm not sure it would violate our guidelines on remakes as it seems to be a mere port, ie I don't think it meets the Super Mario 64 DS threshold. The 4 swords game is treated seperatly and that could have its own page I'll grant.陣内Jinnai 01:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC) If we were to make an original article for the Four Swords multi-player mode, it would make much more sense to simply keep it as it is, so that it can cover the varying aspects - the release, development, reception, etc. Super Mario Advance 4, for example, is in a similar boat to this article, where it features a slightly enhanced port combined with a deep secondary mode. Additionally, FS and ALttP have some linking, completion-wise; for example, when Four Swords is completed, a dungeon is unlocked. The ALttP port, when beaten, adds onto FS. Completing FS 10 times will lead to unlocking a new technique, as well. For convenience sake, it'd be best to keep them combined. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC) I would agree with Hippie, especially considering that he was the one who originally pushed for the merger. There is no deadline and the sources exist. I see no reason or hurry to re-merge. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC) I think another question here is if the other sections can be expanded appropriately to warrant its own article, mostly: Gameplay: Does Four Swords have substantially different gameplay from A Link to the Past as long as one does not go into WP:GAMEGUIDE-like specifics? Plot: Same here: Is one paragraph the most the game needs without going into trivial details? Development: For me, this one would actually the most important factor in keeping the separate article. Do you have sources on the porting process of A Link to the Past and the creation of Four Swords? Who was involved? How did it come about? Technology, difficulties, and so on. These are basically what I would have in mind. Personally, I don't think one or two paragraphs on the plot and gameplay need an article, no matter how substantial the reception section can become. Prime Blue (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC) Uh, if the reception is substantial enough, it will be a huge eyesore and take up way too much space in the Super NES article. Four Swords is built as a multi-player game; the only similarities would be those that would warrant merging Majora's Mask to Ocarina. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC) That is why I am asking. Majora's Mask, while using the same basic system, differs quite heavily from Ocarina of Time because of the introduction of masks and the three-day-system. I never played Four Swords, so I can't judge whether its changes from A Link to the Past are just as substantial (I just know that it's a multiplayer game and has randomly created dungeons). Prime Blue (talk) 19:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC) Four Swords is a completely new game added onto A Link to the Past. I support keeping the article split. There is no reason to merge this, especially when he is saying that the article is not complete and he just needs more time. Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC) I disagree. 4 swords, when it is reviewed, has been treated as its own game similar to other compliation game releases. That's why I'm okay with a 4 swords article, but not the one currently here. There is no way I could see it passing WP:VG/GL for a remake. Reception is not enough; that is what we came up with when we came to that concensus. You need also good development section because release dates and such. The GBA remake can't do that for the main game and the reception is not distinct enough for LttP either.Also no time limit is not a free pass to violate policy.陣内Jinnai 19:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC) As Jinnai said, Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Dealing with remakes seems to be required for a split (largely the criteria which I listed in the edit above). I would support a separate article if it gets a comprehensive development section in addition to the reception (same goes for Super Mario Bros. Deluxe). Also, keep in mind that this is not an AfD: The work already done is not lost and can always be restored and expanded to a full article. Prime Blue (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC) I've read several reviews, and a decent number of them cover them together. It's obviously not a compilation - Four Swords is offered as a multi-player mode with some links to the single player game. Development content does not establish notability - it establishes how open a developer is to speaking on their game. But I am curious, why would the ALttP port have no development information? It was developed, correct? They didn't have the exact same development team to port it, nor did they design the new dungeon, the new boss, the new mechanics, side quests, the links to Four Swords, the different screen ratio (which does make a noticeable difference), etc. The "policy" is an ignorant one that leads to lower-quality articles because we slap content onto the end of these articles. Regardless of it all, there is no point in keeping Four Swords split from ALttP, but without significant mention of the port. The fact of the matter is that being that there is a new game included with the port, it is not strictly a port - applying the "policy" on remakes on this game so blindly is silly. If we split it to just Four Swords, we would inevitably have to discuss A Link to the Past significantly, seeing as how the gameplay is linked with ALttP's, and how any discussion of it outside of the game would have to discuss the package rather than the multi-player mode. Fact of the matter is that we would be going to insane ends to get around a "policy." As it stands, giving the Four Swords article more content by discussing the whole package is actually making it less worthy of an article, somehow. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)I have never seen Four Swords reviewed as a separate game. From what I've seen, the whole package is reviewed. Can you point me toward some of the reviews you're referring to? Keep in mind that this is not the same game as Four Swords Adventures. Reach Out to the Truth 00:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ i am talking about the GC one - which is also the same game as the GBA one save the single-player mode. @New Age Retro Hippie - that guideline was developed by consensus of here - on this page - by the community to keep articles from being infinitatly spun out simply because a port, remake (with no substantial changes) and compilations (which are often one of those two) comes out and someone reviews that remake or port. The question isn't "why shouldn't it get another article" it is "why should it". Reception alone isn't enough. Minor development info like who the team was also isn't enough. You need substantial info on both. Reguardless of how it came into being and how the reception is done, the GBA title is a compilation of 2 different games. Compilations are always reviewed as a whole because they have to be. You have to at some point tell the reader whether the purchase of the item is worth it overall. However, in those reviews they do make clear distinctions between the two games.陣内Jinnai 04:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC) How many reviews of BioShock 2 review its multiplayer component alongside its single player component? If being reviewed in a different part of the ALttP/FS review is enough to warrant FS having its own article, then that is enough for BioShock 2 multiplayer to have its own article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC) Four Swords is not a "component", its an entirely separate game. How many compilations review all the games at the same time without distinguishing between them?陣内Jinnai 03:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC) I am pretty sure that Four Swords Adventures is a completely different game then the Four Swords, and acts more like a sequel. I am speaking from experience, because I own both. Although I have only barely played the Four Swords mode of ALttP:FS a few times, since you need more then one person to play. Blake (Talk·Edits) 04:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC) Even if that is the case, you still need a decent amount of development info in addition to reception info otherwise its the same as Chrono Trigger DS which adds extra content, was reviewed and even commented on and compared to the original, but ultimately not really much was different from the original. This remake adds even less then that, has about the same or less reception, and less development info.陣内Jinnai 06:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC) Nothing in CTDS, aside from plot, warrants mention besides a minor aside. The multi-player component alone is enough to warrant a separate article for the port. In this case, the ALttP article is quite large, and could even go for further enlargement in several areas aside from its port. Because of the size, a split is in order. And if the split port article has enough reception, it would be unsuitably large for the article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC) That isn't enough. You can't just ignore guidelines because its inconvenient in this case. I see nothing in the split article that deserves a seperate article. Even per WP:SS, before you split an article, you try to edit and condense what you have. I can see lots of places to easily do that.陣内Jinnai 06:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC) The reason that there is not much to warrant a separate article is because it is an incomplete article that barely discusses the new content. You cannot just wave guidelines in my face (ones that do not supersede the guidelines on splitting articles) when you cannot argue against something. Super Mario Advance 4, in all intents and purposes, is in the same boat as ALttP/FS, but is not considered for merging. This is because it is simply too big to fit into the SMB3 article, and it has worthwhile content to it. The only problem that ALttP/FS has is a lack of content, due not to it not existing, but it not being placed in the article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC) A Link to the Past is still way below the limits for article sizes (pretty small, even, as it's not 37 KB of prose text but instead has a long infobox, correctly formatted and detailed references, and a two-disc soundtrack list). I see no reason not to split the article at a later point in time when those sections were expanded enough to establish the notability of the port. Prime Blue (talk) 14:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC) If at some point in the future a lot more development info is learned about this port, then I'd support a split. Right now, it is clearly premature.陣内Jinnai 16:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Multiplayer components can stand alone in an article. I think there is enough source material for Four Swords multiplayer to stand alone, however, that material is not currently in the article. I would cut out all the ALttP stuff from the article, and just concentrate on the multiplayer side - linking to ALttP with section hatnotes. - hahnchen 21:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC) It would still need non-stub development and non-stub reception/impact/legacy. An article focused just on the mutltiplayer gameplay would violate WP:GAMEGUIDE.陣内Jinnai 22:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC) When I say there's enough source material, I mean it, writing a reception section would be easy. - hahnchen 00:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC) An article on just the multi-player component would merely have less to write about on the subject. It would be best to cover both as a product rather than a video game - for example, in Pokémon Yellow and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Turtles in Time Re-Shelled, they both discuss the gameplay, in spite of the fact that they both use the same game mechanics as their source material. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Keep - I don't believe this article warrants a merge. Yes I think it might need a little bit improvement but the game it self had a lot of reception at the time than say most remakes/releases of games. However Four Swords is a completely original story and is part of the main universe continuity (although not specified where or when it's still part of the main canon) which was a lot of it's focus by the public and media. --Victory93 (talk) 23:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)As has been said before, the section criteria for the article split have to be fulfilled. So far, the keep side has failed to point out sources to expand the development section, and there still have been no clarifications on the plot and gameplay sections for Four Swords as was asked above. Prime Blue (talk) 03:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)Super Mario Bros. Deluxe mergerMerge to Super Mario Bros. – description of game modes borders on WP:GAMEGUIDE; very short reception section; rest is trivia-esque information; Prime Blue (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC) Redirect. There is not enough information for the article to stand on its own, and virtually no information that is worth merging to Super Mario Bros.. In fact, the section of Super Mario Bros. looks to be more appropriate for an encyclopaedia article. The Gameplay and Differences sections are both completely inappropriate, and the Reception section is more or less copied from Super Mario Bros.. I suggest that the Super Mario Bros. Deluxe redirect be protected, as it is clear by now that there cannot be an article written about this game that satisfies all relevant guidelines. Xenon54 (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Keep. The unique nature of the subject - the first handheld port of a Mario platform game - would help to create reception. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Super Mario Advance mergerMerge to Super Mario Bros. 2 – release info and reception section only Prime Blue (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC) Super Mario World: Super Mario Advance 2 mergerMerge to Super Mario World – only release info and very short reception section; rest is trivia Prime Blue (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC) Super Mario 64 2 mergerMerge to Super Mario 64 – not enough information for individual sections Prime Blue (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC) Merge to Super Mario 128. Reach Out to the Truth 17:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Mother 1 + 2 mergerMerge to EarthBound (series) – mostly trivia-esque information with a very short reception section Prime Blue (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC) Merge Super Mario Advance, Super Mario World: Super Mario Advance 2, Super Mario 64 2, Mother 1 + 2 -- Keep the rest - I'm not opposed to a separate article for remakes and expansions when there is sufficient coverage to fill a spinout article with appropriate content. I recently did this with Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Turtles in Time Re-Shelled. But some of these either aren't fleshed out enough or can't be. The history will be there in the merge, so if someone actually is able to flesh one of these out it's possible, but until such time Merge em. --Teancum (talk) 17:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC) You'll have to excuse the low quality of the ALttP article; due to it being a game whose title is shared with its original release, it is a pain-staking task to sift through all of the Super NES references. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)AlleywayThe usage of alleyway is under discussion, see Talk:Alleyway#Requested_move -- 65.95.14.34 (talk) 08:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Distribution field in Template:Infobox video gameCurrently, in our VG infobox, we have a "distribution" field in which we specify whether a game is available retail, download, or via cloud. More input is needed in discussion - Template_talk:Infobox_video_game#Distribution_field. - hahnchen 20:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC) Can someone please comment on this, because right now, it's just a back and forth between myself and the guy who proposed it. - hahnchen 21:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Is Amazon a valid source in this instance “ The Classic Controller has been discontinued due to the release of the Classic Controller Pro ” For this quote (from Classic Controller), would Amazon be fair to cite? [11] They list it as discontinued, and from outside sources not suitable for citation (and from their disappearances from stores) it seems that Amazon states is very much true. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC) I'd say no. I've seen items on Amazon listed as discontinued and as available at the exact same time. It seems that a slight change in the item can result in it having a different part number and then the old model is listed as discontinued. Also, Amazon.co.uk still have the classic controller for sale with no mention of discontinuation. - X201 (talk) 09:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Amazon UK [12] also lists it as discontinued. "Discontinued by manufacturer: Yes" I think Amazon UK is just selling their residual stock. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Definitely no. Though if the old controller really has been discontinued (meaning no longer produced?), it should soon be explained on one of Nintendo's websites or in reliable sources. Prime Blue (talk) 20:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Nintendo no longer lists it as buyable [13], but no abundantly clear explanation found yet. [14] CNet apparently has declared it discontinued as well. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia is not WikiNews; there's no rush. It's only necessary to report it when a proper source becomes available. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Would the CNet claim it is discontinued be a suitable citation? CNet is a reliable source. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC) CNET is listed in the accepted sources without any restriction, so it should be okay. Prime Blue (talk) 15:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC) Oh, only for the fact it is discontinued, though – the reason remains original research. Prime Blue (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Resolution “ The Classic Controller has been discontinued.[1] ” this is what it says now. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC) ref ^ http://reviews.cnet.com/game-accessories/nintendo-wii-classic-controller/1707-10110_7-32434396.html Video game composer AfDsI recently put up some video game composer articles on articles for deletion as they lack references to establish their notability. If you can, expand the articles using multiple reliable indepedent sources with non-trivial coverage, and engage in the deletion discussions: Hajime Hirasawa Shinobu Tanaka Hajime Wakai Minako Hamano Kenta NagataPrime Blue (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC) Problems at Phantasy Star Portable 2's talk pagean IP claims if i report him for incivility, he will find another way, I've looked into the protection guide, and doesn't really help me. Can someone please put semi protection on the talk page?Bread Ninja (talk) 12:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Seems to be sorted out now. --PresN 18:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)yeah it happened right after i posted this. oh well, problem solved.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Possible formation of a Adobe Flash task force?As anyone that goes on the internet knows, flash games have exploded into popularity quite a long time ago. Wikipedia also has some articles on Flash games as well (I can even recall one being a good article), and I was wondering if this is enough to justify the formation of a Flash task force. SixthAtom (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC) If anything, a task force on indie games in general (covering flash, iOS, Android, XBLIG, PS Minis, WiiWare, and more) would be the better scope. Most of these aren't notable but their are a few that are. --MASEM (t) 23:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC) I'd join that group. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC) An indie game task force would be interesting. Unfortunately, due to the short lifespan of our task forces, I don't know how much good it would do. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 08:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC) That's pretty true. Is there anyone in VG project who specifically focuses on indie games? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC) I'd join Indie taskforce but not specifically Flash game taskforce, which is too narrow in scope. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC) I'd join Indie; I've done Aquaria and Flower, and I'm working slowly on Minecraft and plan to get to Super Meat Boy. What would be the scope of the project? Or would we just not bother with the red tape, call it "Indie Games", and let people decide for themselves? --PresN 17:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC) I'd join indie if it covered XBLA/PSN/WiiWare. I've done several XBLA articles to B-Class, and (per PresN above) just did a major splash improvement on Super Meat Boy. --Teancum (talk) 17:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC) So you did, good job there! Didn't have it watchlisted yet. --PresN 18:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC) I present to you, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Indie. SixthAtom (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Adding the Indie=yes parameter does nothing. See Talk:Super Meat Boy. Also, let's throw XBLA and PSN titles in the mix as well. Most of those are indie, just held to a higher standard. --Teancum (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Is this task force going to cover the work of people along the lines of Cactus and Nifflas? As in, people who work in the PC indie field, but not necessarily with PSN, WiiWare, iOS, and the like. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC) I suppose that it should. SixthAtom (talk) 02:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC) I'm a big fan of indie games, but I'm wary of what a task force will actually do, echoing Blackwing's point above. What can't be done here? - hahnchen 10:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Centralized discussion, encouragement for editors to edit indie game articles, and more room. When discussed here, I fear that it would be easier for a discussion to go unnoticed. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 10:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Category:Vii CFDSince our deletion subpage doesn't accept CFDs I list it here: Deletion discussion for Category:Vii. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mika1h (talk • contribs) 22:03, 29 October 2010 Hmm, i wonder if this discussion is ever going to be achived? Salavat (talk) 09:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC) Either Mizabot has a problem with the unsigned template and a single entry or it has a problem archiving (red)linked headings. Will unlink heading to see what happens after our comments pass the expiration timer. - X201 (talk) 09:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC) The unsigned template isn't substituted, so there wasn't a username in the wikitext until Salavat commented. Maybe that's why the bot didn't do anything, it couldn't be sure the date was part of a signature. Substituting the unsigned template probably would have solved the problem, but now it doesn't really matter. Reach Out to the Truth 03:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC) Order of the Griffon (TurboGrafx-16)Order of the Griffon was recently expanded significantly, however without improving its already-thin sourcing. Is there anything anyone can do to improve this one a bit more? 108.69.80.49 (talk) 00:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC) The only thing I can find in my old magazine collection is a mention in short-lived TG-16 magazine Turbo Force that the game was set to be released in September 1992 ("Coming Attractions". Turbo Force. Lombard, IL: Sendai Publishing Group (2): 28. September 1992.). –MuZemike 01:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC) If you also need the game's manual to verify gameplay elements and plot stuff, if listed, there is a copy at replacementdocs.com. –MuZemike 01:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Here is a full review from TurboPlay issue 14, August / September 1992, page 17. ~ Hibana (talk) 01:50, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Cool, the user who expanded the article has been working to integrate these sources. Thanks!  :) 108.69.80.49 (talk) 04:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC) The only thing I would recommend is making all those bulleted lists into actual prose (of paragraphs, that is). I think that would be better to read, and you don't have to have all those inline citations in there. –MuZemike 07:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC) Mission based racing gamesIn the Racing Games wiki article Racing_video_game this sub-genre isnt mentioned it seems. I was writing on a article about this genre on another site, but would like to add my "research" results to this article now as well but wasnt sure if its okay. Under Mission based racer i understand any racing game where it isnt the/or not only the goal to be the first of a race but to accomplish any missions. As example in 007 Racing to shoot a tank with a rocket, than trying to escape hunting motorbikes with machineguns, that all while driving on a highway. Another example would be spyhunter 2 for the ps2 etc. greets, gbk — Preceding unsigned comment added by GBK2011 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC) When is "a game, its sequels, and its spinoff media" become "a series"Yesterday, SCEA announced a DC comic to span the period between Infamous and its sequel. That gives the set of games called "Infamous" 2 VG titles and a comic. With that, KiasuKiasiMan went ahead and expanded a series article, template, and a few other things. My initial problem with that is that doesn't feel like a series to me. I did search further and found that there are recent sources to support the idea that Infamous is a series, so it is not so much a problem of this particular instance anymore, but it does point to a larger problem: what exactly should be using as a threshold for when a game and its set of sequels become a series? I am not particularly thrilled on the idea that it is based on the "series" having X games and Y spinoff elements (and the immediate creating of articles/templates to support that) I'd rather see some type of sourcing aspect come into play where significant sources are calling it out. Yes, this could (but unlikely) lead to a case where 4-5 related games in title and content aren't considered a series, but I'd feel more comfortable about that. --MASEM (t) 15:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC) Personally, I think this is part of bigger issue: we're frequently trying to create articles to keep up with the ever expanding video game market. We really need to slow down on article creation and focus on improving the ones we currently have. To answer your question, I think it needs to be questioned whether a series article is even needed. The separate title articles should be evaluated to see if they omit information or if consolidation into a single article doesn't just rehash what is already present. For example, Final Fantasy covers details that the separate titles do not. As such, the available sources should reflect this and be somewhat diversified. Three articles from the same author wouldn't cut it in my mind. In short, any topic created should have proper sourcing that adequately covers the topic (WP:V and WP:N) and the article should not be a content fork (WP:CONTENTFORK). Regardless of what we decide, we do need something as media franchises have been the trend the past six or so years. Many evolved into that (Halo and Kingdom Hearts), but others (Compilation of FFVII and Dead Space) were planned that way from the start and I don't see that going away any time soon. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)) If a series article can be created with good information that can't belong in the main game articles, then it could be split. Many times, the first game in the series is treated as the series article. Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC) Ideally, I think a franchise becomes a proper series when a source specifically discusses the series as a whole, rather than having to stitch sources together for each game. This generally happens the first time a retrospective is written, as opposed to a review for the latest game. Strictly speaking, this might be the only proper way to do it anyhow since otherwise the series article would essentially be synthesis of related, but independent coverage of separate topics. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC) This is exactly what I was thinking. I agree completely. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 08:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC) So far it sounds like we're all on the same page: proper coverage from reliable sources dictates the article creation. Should we add something to WP:VG/GL? (Guyinblack25 talk 16:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)) I'm not sure it would be necessary, as the requirement of proper coverage from reliable sources applies to all of Wikipedia. It seems like it would be redundant to specifically cover it in VG/GL. However, it has been a rising problem here lately, what with the Masocore suggestion and the previous fight over Dota (genre). Perhaps something could be done, one way or another, to make it clear that articles shouldn't be written without comprehensive, reliable and specific coverage of the topic. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC) I think it would help because while most of our guidelines just rehash Wikipedia's they do so in less-generalize language that is specific to our scope. It also allows us to give examples that probably illustrate the point better to those wanting to work on video game articles. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)) That's a good point. If you have an idea of what to say, just go ahead and insert it; I don't think you'll get any objections. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC) Mario Galaxy games at GANAn IP (86.141.186.21) added the GAN tags to Talk:Super Mario Galaxy(see dif) and Talk:Super Mario Galaxy 2(see dif). A quick glance leads me to believe that while the articles aren't in bad shape, they don't quite look GA ready. Did a user nominate them in earnest while logged out, or is this just an eager IP new to Wikipedia? (Guyinblack25 talk 19:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)) I agree. They could easily be GAs in the near future. Maybe a peer review is more appropriate? Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC) I also noticed this. I had the same question—about whether it's an IP or a logged out user—but couldn't decide. Perhaps a query should be made on the IP's talk page. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC) I think that its an eager IP who thinks the articles are Good Article material. However, since its up for GAN, and the IP isn't returning to editing soon, anyone interested in working on them? GamerPro64 (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC) I thought IPs couldn't nominate good articles, or is that just reviewing? Regardless, if no one steps up I recommend we leave a note at WT:GAN about withdrawing the articles. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)) GANIt'd be great if I could get a review of Terra Nova: Strike Force Centauri, which has been up at GAN since the 7th. While I'm at it, I should note that a few articles have been needing reviews longer than mine: VVVVVV (December 2), X-Men: Legends (October 26) and Development of Spore (October 25). If anyone has time, it would really help. Thanks. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC) On my list. Once I get some free time (probably next week), I hope to review at least one. It looks like David was going to review the Spore article, but suggested a merger. Perhaps once that issue is resolved the review can be addressed. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)) I'll do Terra Nova now, if no one else is interested. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC) By the way, can someone point me to the GA Review template that sets up each section on the review page? I've been doing it manually and seen others do so with a template. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC) {{GAList}}? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC) Yep, thanks. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC) Thanks, everyone. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC) I'm glad someone brought this up - I've reviewed four GANs lately hoping someone else would return the favor, but nobody has. --Teancum (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC) You weren't forgotten Teancum. I read through half of X-Men Legends last week. The holidays just don't allot much free time. It'll get reviewed by next week. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC))┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Awesome. Thanks much! --Teancum (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC) Proposed deletion of Monster Player Kill
 The article Monster Player Kill has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: A search for reference found a single published (gBooks) WP:RS mention in Geektionary: From Anime to Zettabyte, an A to Z Guide to All Things Geek, Adams Media, 2011 . Given the 2011 publication date it could well be sourced from this long unreferenced article. Fails WP:N and WP:V While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons. You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeepday (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC) Opinions needed regarding Mega Drive/Genesis sales figuresI finally got sick of the probable WP:SYN violations relating to the sales of the Mega Drive/Genesis, and started discussions at WP:ORN#Mega Drive/Genesis sales and WT:VG/RS#Brazilian fan/blogsite?. Please comment there if you have any views on the matter. Thanks. Anomie⚔ 18:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC) Clean picture of a White or Black Classic Controller Pro needed.File:Wii-classic-controller-pro.jpg is thought to be too messy of a picture. Can someone replace this with a cleaner picture. People have noted that the background is not good and that they don' like the wire positioning. (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 84#Someone with a camera and a Classic Controller Pro needed) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC) R-Type Tactics II: Operation Bitter ChocolateJust to let you guys know, I'm working on a text file of this and expanding it with whatever I could find online and trying to play the game. Help much appreciated, like translating the text at the Irem website. I couldn't crack some of the gameplay sections there using Google Translate. thanks. --Eaglestorm (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC) Newsletter about ready to goAnything else that needs to be added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter/draft, particularly the "announcements" section? All I could think of that was of any major note were the new administrator/arbitrators and the recent re-launch of WP:VG/AA. If there aren't anything else, I can load it into a new Newsletter page and send it out with my bot. –MuZemike 09:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC) May be add mention of Indie taskforce? It's not very fleshed out though. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC) I added it in there. –MuZemike 00:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Hey, can you give a shoutout to WP:HORROR and their discussion that's happening. The project needs more members and some video game articles are part of the horror genre too. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Web citation formattingA previous point of discussion was the use of the publisher= and work= parameters in {{Cite web}}. For example, when citing a page on GameSpot, is the website the publisher or the work? And if the website is the work, would the publisher be the parent company? The template's documentation previously left room for debate as to which parameter should be used. But the current version provides a clear description as to which parameters to use and how. However, the relevant discussion at Template talk:Cite web doesn't seem as clear cut to me. Any thoughts as to how we should proceed? Does the change warrant questioning or should we follow the current documentation? (Guyinblack25 talk 15:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)) I generally use the website name as the work and the company that owns the website as the publisher (at least that's what the template doc implies). It gets more tricky when you have to decide which field to use if there is no parent company that owns the website. I usually go with the website name as the publisher then (though I honestly don't know if that's how it should be done). Looking at some recently promoted featured articles might help. Prime Blue (talk) 17:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC) I have used that if it is an online source online (IGN, Gamespot, etc.), I will put them as the publisher. If it is a website of a printed work, like Wired or Game Informer, I will put that in the work field (which automatically italizes them). --MASEM (t) 17:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC) Same here. The work field applies italics automatically, so I only use it for sites where we would normally italicize their names. That's what I've assumed the field was for. Reach Out to the Truth 21:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC) Same as Masem and Reach Out. Documentation only applies if you read it, so I try not to, and no one's ever complained at FAC/FLC. --PresN 21:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC) According to the template's usage guidelines, work should be the website, publisher should be the legal owner of the website. Never mind. I see you are asking whether the template guidelines are correct. I think this is probably beyond the scope of VG. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC) I'm more or less on the same page as Masem, as I don't bother filling out the publisher field for parent companies in the case of websites (it's not as critical as in the case of {{cite book}}.) Just use work for Wired, Game Informer, et al and publisher for 1UP, GameSpot, IGN, etc. As long as you're consistent throughout the article you're unlikely to get much flak from anyone. (That's what I've done for all my FAs, for what it's worth.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Well now that you and PresN mention it, I'm bringing this up because of a comment at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of X-Men video games/archive1. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)) From what I remember, work is suppose to be for something like "Reviews" under 1UP. I mostly use this now only for pages with Flash when I need to describe where on the page it goes, FE The "Iwata Asks" on Dragon's Quest IX's website which is accessable on in flash and contains multiple videos on the same url.陣内Jinnai 21:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC) Ack! I never use "work". I always use "publisher". Is that not OK? SharkD  Talk  11:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC) That is how it should be. I think only this project uses it differently. If you are in doubt of the company name for the website, you can always default publisher to the .com name, but its generally better to have the actual publisher's name.陣内Jinnai 18:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)Conflict of interest-ed editorRecently I ran across some contributions by a user that seems single-purpose (see Special:Contributions/SteinlageT). After digging, I found that that my suspicious feelings on only adding content in relation to GameZone was correct; they were a member of staff (at least forum staff). I've given a warning on WP:COI, but the single purpose edits have continued. Thoughts? --Teancum (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC) Maybe open a discussion at WP:COIN the noticeboard for conflicts of interest, and see if they can help. Short of that, it seems the next action would be to see about blocking the editor, as COI edits are considered disruptive. --MASEM (t) 18:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC) Well, since the site is an accepted source, the edits are actually helpful. While the adding can be seen as spam and a conflict of interest, I would personally assume good faith in this case and think this is just a good-willing Wikipedia editor who takes the time to add reviews from the site he is working for. Prime Blue (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC) Normally I'd agree, but you can see that his additions are near-paragraph length in and of themselves, and that's a little concerning. Not as big of a deal for articles that are stubs, as at least that's some coverage, but other articles tend to tip the scales in GameZone's favor. --Teancum (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC) Then notify them to only write a sentence or two. If they don't do it, then editors who regularly patrol those pages may trim them up. They are doing good. It's just too much good, which is WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC) Looks to me like it's mostly copy and paste from their articles with not much self-authored information about what the reviews actually found good or bad. A WP:CV notice might be in order here. Prime Blue (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC) I honestly don't see any problem here, either with COI or CV. He's putting reliable reviews into articles that have none—or, at most, very few. When he creates Reception sections for articles with no other reviews, he adds a single paragraph that discusses the review, with quotations in line with other VG articles. In the cases where there are other reviews, he only includes a small mention of the site's opinion—again, in line with other VG articles. That he is employed by the site is irrelevant in this case. He's helping the VG project, regardless of how one construes his intentions, and there's no reason to prevent him from doing that. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC) COI is really only a problem when it leads to a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, or other policies; I think this is often forgotten, probably because many COI cases people actually notice are because they do violate these other policies. If as JimmyBlackwing says all the relevant policies are being followed, then there is no problem here and WP:AGF is in order. OTOH, if as Teancum says the edits are violating WP:NPOV or WP:WEIGHT, then there is a problem but WP:AGF shouldn't necessarily be thrown out the window. Either way, closer than normal scrutiny of this user's edits wouldn't be amiss if someone wants to volunteer, as long as it doesn't get to the level of Wikihounding. Anomie⚔ 04:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Well, some of the passages he copied and pasted are on the brink of the fair use policy for copyrighted text as it's literally entire paragraphs from their reviews instead of just a sentence or two (or the core statement). I'm all for his edits, but the direct quotations should be kept to a minimum. Prime Blue (talk) 14:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC) I'm afraid I must disagree. The text copying he's done is no worse than what may be seen in our own featured articles. He writes an introductory sentence or two, followed by a brief quoted section. If that's a problem, then it's a problem with the entire system; not just him. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC) I've looked at a few of his edits and don't see anything wrong with them. SharkD  Talk  16:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC) But now it seems that the COI message may have scared him off since he only made one edit following the note. Salavat (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC) As I recall, we've had other problems with GameZone COI issues before in the past. You can see the previous discussion here. Honestly, if GameZone continues to throw people at Wikipedia to copy and paste their review quotes in here, it's a problem, even if they're considered a reliable source. I do think that it violates WP:WEIGHT. Looks like this issue's dead but I figured I'd include the link to the previous issue so people know that it isn't the first time. Nomader (Talk) 06:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Looks like the editor is at it again. Given the past issues Nomader brought up, and given GameZone's responses the previous go-round I'd say they're in violation of WP:WEIGHT as well. --Teancum (talk) 12:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC) What he is doing looks fine to me. One or two sentences to small or non-existent reception sections. The problems would arise if he started adding large chunk to a developed reception section, causing GameZone to dominate the reception. Salavat (talk) 14:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC) Last year, User:BOZ went through over 100 game articles and posted clips from Dragon reviews. Most of these articles did not even feature Reception sections, and, to this day, contain only the single review he added. He created many articles, in fact, so that he could include the reviews. Does this violate WP:WEIGHT? Should he have been asked to stop? Obviously, this case is different, but not to the extent that the comparison becomes invalid. If it's such a problem that only one review is present, add a few more to balance it out. Don't persecute someone for doing us a favor. Our time is better spent improving the project's VG coverage than it is preventing other people from doing so. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC) And he's back again...several GZ reviews posted in various articles last night...--MASEM (t) 14:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC) I went and removed a few of his edits. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC) Completely unjustified; I recommend that you undo your changes immediately. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC) Looking again, I see that others have been doing this without consensus. Just leave him alone; this Wikihounding needs to stop right now. The paranoia being exhibited here is ridiculous. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC) I thought we decided that it wasn't so much a "conflict of interest" issue as much as "undue weight". Just tell him to trim it down a bit. Don't just cut him off completely. Blake (Talk·Edits) 21:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC) I did revert one of his edits to Raskulls, but that's because he had a 4-line edit added to a 8 line paragraph, creating a wall of text, plus it wasn't organized by elements of review as I often do when I write my Reception sections, so it didn't flow. I did, however rollback as an AGF edit so he didn't feel it was a poor/COI edit. I do think someone might mention that he could trim down the length of his additions, however. In response to commentary on why his edits would be reverted from this point on I'm simply going to do what's best for the article, regardless of AGF. I'll try to handle it in a tactful way and use what I can from his edits rather than outright removing them, but I'm not guaranteeing that I won't outright remove the edit if it's better for the article. Most times I'll probably remove his edit and replace it with something more in-context to how the Reception section is written. Some of the articles he's adding to I've put multiple hours into, and though I don't own the article, I do have an interest in ensuring that it keeps a certain quality. --Teancum (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC) If he feels that the GZ reviews adds seomthing new that is already in the article, he should post that on the talk page, not add it himself - if that is all the editing that he is doing. Getting us editors to act as his proxy is much much better than to force it himself. --MASEM (t) 21:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC) Whole-heartedly agreed. As anyone else with a potential COI he can suggest improvements and allow someone without that potential COI to make the edit. Non-GameZone related edits by him are welcome, but this seems like a SPA account issue, and good faith or not he needs to follow protocol. --Teancum (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC) This is not a conflict of interest. GameZone is a reliable source; he is following standard editing practices; he is not acting in bad faith; he is not making contentious edits; he is not POV-pushing; he is not breaking any rules. If I worked for The New York Times, would it be a COI for me to add NYT coverage to an article? Of course not; the NYT is a well-known and reliable source. GZ, while less well-known, is nonetheless a reliable source. He's doing us a huge favor by adding their coverage, and you want to chase him away? Would that more redlink editors did so much as to improve Reception sections. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC) If this was the editor's first offense, of course not. But we've had problems with GZ editors adding their reviews to existing articles without considering how well the review fits into the article - adding the GZ review just to add the GZ review and link to it. We're also dealing with an editor who seems to only want to add GZ reviews. That's textbook COI/SPA. While GZ is a reliable source, we don't always need to include every reliable sources' review into the article, particularly if it says nothing new from what others have said, and that's how these GZ additions come across when I've seen them. Again, the proper action for anyone invested in GZ is to suggest that their review be added at talk pages, and if we see their value, we'll add them. --MASEM (t) 23:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC) If we were talking about a controversial subject, where a user including the coverage of his/her employer would unbalance the article, then I'd agree with you. I'd also agree if we were talking about another type of section, where redundant information was not, in fact, helpful. Most of the articles he's improving had poor-to-no reception coverage, and if the review repeats information from other reviews, so what? Seeing that gives the reader a better idea of how a game was received. If we removed repetitive information from Reception sections, they would become incomprehensible. It's unnecessarily insular to demand that he merely suggest the inclusion of the reviews. Wikipedia's bureaucracy exists to deal with threats and problems; we don't need to envoke it to shut out harmless editors. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Then what would you suggest? To say he's acting in good faith is only half-true. He's clearly doing these edits for the sole purpose of advertising GameZone, no matter whether the edits are helpful or not; otherwise we'd at least see some semblance of editing outside the GZ realm. It's absolutely SPA. As far as the "huge favor" goes I beg to differ. When we have to go back and rewrite everything he's placed there to clear obvious or potential WP:ADVERT, WP:COPYVIO and other violation that's hardly helpful. Besides, I made a suggestion already to help steer this user in the right direction, which he blatantly ignored - not even so much as responding. Given past situations I'd say it's time to take this to WP:COIN. If the editor would take a few minutes to listen and actually help rather than just spam a "[editor] from GameZone said" plus a four line quote then I wouldn't have issue. --Teancum (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC) I received this message from the user, and honestly I don't know that I have a civil response that the user will understand given the messages other users have used to explain the potential issues. If any other users have a civil way to say what's already been said, please do so. --Teancum (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)I left a message explaining that he just needs to tone down the size of the reviews and they will be accepted. Hopefully he listens. Blake (Talk·Edits) 03:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC) Hello this is SteinlageT, I am new to wiki, but I would like to announce that I do NOT work for GameZone! I do online help, but I am NOT apart of their staff. I simply am a fan of the site and like to share their reviews to gamers who are looking for reviews on games. I can shorten my contributions, but I would like to see all my old ones put back if possible. Thank you for your time --User:SteinlageT —Preceding undated comment added 04:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC). I also want to apologize for being uncivil to you guys. I didn't mean for that to sound rude, I just wasn't in terms with Wiki's rules. I just want you all to know that I do not work for game zone in any way. I receive no pay from them. I am merely a fan of a reliable site who likes to share their reviews. I will definitely tone down the length of my contributions! I just want to make sure that I will not have my edits deleted anymore if I make them shorter!? Thanks guys.--SteinlageT (talk) 04:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC) Tate, I think it's also important to note that a conflict of interest is not defined by whether you are paid or not. The fact that you contribute to the website in one regard or another outside of being a reader brings you much closer to the conflict of interest policy. The contributing factor that on the website it lists you as part of the "Editorial Staff" and under occupation lists you as a "forum moderator / editor" didn't help your case any. Most people are leery as we've seen it time and time again where people come to Wikipedia to reference their own work / company / bio. Let's face it, even Jimbo Wales got in trouble by the community for editing his own bio. Mkdwtalk 12:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC) Listen, the editorial staff position could be attained by anyone. It means I can just make sure the forums aren't spammed or filled with spelling mistakes. I'm a forum moderator at numerous sites, so its not like I'm just working to get GameZone views! I am a harmless editor here at wiki just trying to help pages out by inserting some passages from GameZone's reviews as they are reliable. I do not mean to be a threat at all! Am I okay to continue posting reception contributions as long as I shorten the inserts? Thanks guys.--SteinlageT (talk) 01:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC) The simple fact is (from my pov) if you work for or with GameZone, you shouldn't be adding GameZone reviews, regardless of whether they're notable, reliable or whatever. The fact you're adding them is promoting them. Thanks! Fin©™ 15:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC) I'd just like to reiterate, as Nomader has mentioned above, this is the third (at least) time there have been GameZone SPA/COI issues. Thanks! Fin©™ 15:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC) All you are doing then is driving people away from wiki who are are just trying to help pages out. GameZone gets enough views as it is, I am merely here to help gamers out by giving them ideas on how games are from a website that I find to review games well. That is, as mentioned above, Wikihounding, and it is ridiculous. I actually work for/with a website called Xbox Resouce, not GameZone. I just want to help pages out, and actually, most of the pages I helped out had little to NO reception/references. I even was going to do what you all asked and cut my contributions down in length, but you guys keep acting like your still going to delete thm like you ALREADY have. I put hours into my work here just to see thm get deleted though they easily help out a page. There are worse people n wiki than a simple editor like myself trying to improve wiki video game pages.--SteinlageT (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC) You're a moderator at GameZone and therefore part of the site. I'm a fan of EuroGamer, and would often add their reviews to articles and review tables, however, if you look at my contributions, that isn't all I do. A quick look at your contributions, the only non-talk-page ones appear to be adding GameZone reviews to articles. If that isn't the definition of a single purpose account, I don't know what is. The writing style for your contributions is near identical to the previous COI contributions too, which makes me suspicious. Thanks! Fin©™ 09:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC) I'd have to agree here. Due to the nature of the edits and the fact that none of the edits have to do with anything but GameZone it feels more promotional towards the site rather than focusing on helping Wikipedia as a whole. If that were the case we'd see other edits that have nothing to do with GameZone. Given previous issues with site members and the single-purpose nature of the edits I agree with Falcon9x5. --Teancum (talk) 12:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)You guys are hypocrites then. All my contributions do is help wiki. How does it not? It gives gamers a little segment of a sites review to see how the game shapes up, and I put GameZone with them to source them and show it is reliable. ALL that does is HELP wiki. Sorry I can't go scouring the Internet to put different site's reviews, but I have a life outside of this so I can't focus all my time on this. I actually write for a website called Xbox Resource, but I usually go to GameZone for reviews. You could email their editor in chief or anyone from there and they will tell you I do not work for them in any way. You guys are pushing away a harmless editor, which is going to make "your," since you guys think wiki video games is yours, pages look bad since many of my contributions went towered pages with little to no reception sections. Try thinking in a GAMERS point of view instead your work mindset and you will see I'm helping gamers make purchasing decisions; he'll Ive had people email me before from wiki thanking me for putting some reception on game pages they were interested in buying, but wanted to see how reviews were. Wiki is in my interest, and all you're doing is hurting wiki, sorry folks, but thanks to those above who sided with me and saw my purpose.--SteinlageT (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Your contributions don't help, given your position in GZ's forums. If you are not "in terms with Wiki's rules," as you say, get up and leave. You say we are driving people off? It happens because they could not even follow the rules and insist on having their way. You're supposedly a forum moderator, well, don't you enforce rules over there and try to keep things tidy? Whether you are part of GZ's editorial staff or not, the fact you are one of their mods is still "working for them," now matter how hard you try to sugarcoat it. About spending hours to work on something then see all of that being deleted, it seems you pay lip service to the editing disclaimer, If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. You didn't consider that when you messaged Teancum, did you? I'm with him and Masem on this. --Eaglestorm (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC) That kind of hostility helps no one. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC) Agreed. He got the point, but being so blunt as sayin' "don't let the door hit you on the way out" goes a bit far. I do appreciate being backed up, but we don't want to burn the bridge if we don't have to. --Teancum (talk) 02:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC) I don't see a problem with the Steinlaget's edits at all (outside of some possible length issues). Normal wikipedia procedures should be able to handle this adequately, and this seems like a witch hunt that makes WP a much worse place.LedRush (talk) 04:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC) Id have to agree, i would understand if he was adding to much weight to the GameZone review or placing the review in top spot to promote GameZone, but all it appears is that he is adding a simple review to a reception section which would probably include the review if the article got included. Yeh maybe he is breaking some policies but not to the extent that its causing damage. Salavat (talk) 03:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)I'm not meaning to be hostile, but it just upsets me that I am not trying to promote GameZone in away, just help pages with reception, and you guys are against it. I understand the COI rules and such, but this isn't a case to be worried about. I'm not out to promote on any page, and you will never see me do so. All I want is a for sure answer that my posts will NOT be deleted if I shorten them!?!? --SteinlageT (talk) 05:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC) Ok, I'll try and explain this as clear as I can: You have a conflict of interest That you're on the GameZone forums as a moderator means you are part of the site. You can keep going on about being a "harmless editor" and "not employed by GameZone" all you like, you're a moderator and that makes you part of the site. You are you using your account for a single purpose Self explanatory - all your (non-talk) edits have been to add GameZone content. Don't add content to Wikipedia and ask for it to be kept. Anything can be deleted at any time. You are promoting GameZone I would argue that all reviews added to Wikipedia are essentially promoting the site the review comes from. Therefore, I think your edits promote GameZone. Your edits introduce undue weight to the articles Again, this is fairly subjective, but I'd consider a quote with a review to be undue weight, if the review isn't one of the "big sites" (which is again subjective). Thanks! Fin©™ 09:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC) I love how people think that make short, declarative statements (usually in an insulting manner like above) somehow helps the discussion. All you've done is give a bunch of barely supported opinions on topics about which there is obvious disagreement. We've discussed the opinions above in much more detail and some of us have not come to the same conclusions as you (in fact, I disagree on every point to some degree). To me, it's amazing the lengths that people will go through to alienate a person who is clearly trying to help Wikipedia.LedRush (talk) 13:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC) I don't understand how there can be any disagreement about the first three points - SteinlageT has repeatedly said he's not employed by GameZone, as if this somehow absolves him of any COI concerns, something I've tried to set straight; similarly, he (and other users) have tried to justify his edits, so I'm presenting how I see things. Perhaps my past experience (two COI incidents involving GameZone in which I was the primary involved editor) is clouding my judgement on this - but when SteinlageT's edits are so similar to the previous accounts' ("Gamezone's [name] said [direct quote]"), and when a users' edits only consist of adding content related to a website they work for, I find it very hard to assume good faith. Thanks! Fin©™ 14:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC) Well, I disagree with you on the first three points. (1)The editor is not an employee of gamezone, and is, at best, a person who is, on a voluntary basis, someone with personal knowledge of the subject. The COI guidelines are fuzzy, but I don't see any COI here. But that's only half the point. Even if there were a COI, that wouldn't prevent him from making these helpful edits. (2)I don't believe the editors is an SPA. He has a preferred focus and "seems to be editing appropriately and collaboratively to add knowledge in a niche area". Again, this is only half the point. SPAs' edits are bad per se. (3)Of course you can add content to Wikipedia and ask for it to be kept. I simply can't understand this point. Of course other editors can change your edits and no one owns an article, but edits have to have good reasons. Reverting his edits merely because they are made by him is not a good reason. You can argue points 1 and 2 (and people have), but point 3 is just ridiculous.LedRush (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC) A conflict of interest is in no way defined by money, its defined by the relationship. Mkdwtalk 20:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC) Agreed. An unpaid intern is an employee and has a COI. Someone who does some volunteer work and who is otherwise unaffiliated would not have a COI.LedRush (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)On nominations for awardsI'd just like to bring this up for discussion - is their any reason why historically we've removed nominations from VG articles on the basis of "not-notable"? Early in my Wiki career I had nominations removed from articles I had worked on with this reasoning, and so I've followed suit ever since. But biographical articles often mention when a person is nominated for an award, as do some movies. I mean, there's definitely cases where it's not really necessary to mention nominations given the sheer number of awards won (see Red Dead Redemption#Awards), but I feel it's important to mention notable nominations in the game's scope, as often times this helps to establish the game's success and popularity as much as an award does. Thoughts? I'd really like to add nominations from reliable sources to a few games, but I don't want to get into a revert war. --Teancum (talk) 13:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC) First, I'd make sure to segregate awards that are from multiple organizations (like the Spike VGAs, the GDC Awards, etc.) and those that are individual web/publisher sites (like the Best of 20xx awards from IGN, etc.). In the case of the more formal award processes, all wins and nominations should be included. This would be more equivalent to the movie case. In case of the single publisher awards, I would avoid listing nominations (but wins are ok), except in the case where the game has not won anything else, in which case listing out the noms should be done, assuming we're talking about non-stupid awards. EG a game nom by IGN for Game of the Year, but getting nothing else, should mention this; A game nom by IGN for "most cleavage shown" but getting nothing else shouldn't mention this. --MASEM (t) 13:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC) You would assume a nomination for a British Academy Video Games Award would be notable. Salavat (talk) 14:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC) Yes, under my scheme. --MASEM (t) 20:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC) I agree with this way. I've done so with Mortal Kombat (2011 video game) with its nomination in the Games Critics Awards, which in itself is notable. But if its a random nom. for an already award winning game, it shouldn't be nessecary. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 03:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC) Couldn't we refocus reception to do extensive sections on plot, gameplay, graphics, sound, etc., and if a reliable source nominates it for having, say, the best of one of those, we could make note of it to better demonstrate the reception for each of those? Overall though, I would definitely figure that nominatons for GotY or even specific console GotY are acceptable, and a game with few awards should allow any nomination mentions within reason. For example, Best Game No One Played should obviously be mentioned for all nominees of the award, considering that it likely didn't receive many other nominations or awards. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC) I normally don't like breaking up the reception section to focus on specific aspects of a video game, because half the time, the reviews really don't focus too much on this. I was able to do this for Limbo, but that was exceptional to other games where it's easy to organize thoughts by paragraph. Also, most other works (non-video game) where awards are given have sections or organization specifically to highlight awards and noms separately from other reception aspects. --MASEM (t) 03:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC) In general, be thoughtful of where the award comes from and what it is. In a film article, the most important awards are the Oscars, Golden Globes, BAFTAs and Festival Awards (like at Cannes). These are awards given by pan-industry groups, and the award itself is notable. Game awards don't have that sort of gravitas yet, but I would give highest precedence to the Game Developers Choice Awards (or the corresponding Independent Games Festival award), Interactive Achievement Awards and the British Academy Video Games Awards. I would be wary of publication specific awards, you might mention Empire's film of the year, or even their Action film of the year. What you wouldn't mention though, is every IGN nomination for their hundreds of categories - nominations for The most addictive PSP game of 2010 are just irrelevant, as are Gamespot's Best Expansion Pack of 2010. They're not particularly notable, from one publication only, and barely qualify as awards. - hahnchen 12:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC) If there is nothing else, those publisher awards, so long as there not "Most boring intro of XXXX" are fine. They are still RSes and used by many people to judge the value of a game. They aren't merely SPSes. Of course, like everything else, if better sources exists, use them instead.陣内Jinnai 18:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC) While we're talking about pan-industry awards, I'd say that the Game Audio Network Guild awards are notable as well, if you have a discussion of the music in the game- it's an association of pretty much all of the video game composers/arrangers (at least in the west), and the awards are decided by a common vote across all members. Just thought I'd mention it, since I don't see that one pop up much in articles and it's one of my go-to places when writing a bio on a composer. --PresN 18:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Two thoughts: Per my approach (that the pan-industry award wins and nominations should always be mentioned), would it be worthwhile to have a project page that lists out what we consider to be "pan-industry awards" so that there's no-infighting on what is what? Should we consider something lie how many highly-nominated film articles do it, creating a table for the pan-industry awards to list out such awards when a game receives, say, more than 5 of them (like RDR and ME2 this year?) Such a table should always be optional, but when you start to list out 10 or more of these, it may weight down the prose. Note that such tables should avoid single-site awards like IGN, etc, though these can be mentioned in the text. I know we have an awards section in the VG reviews table, but I think this might be better for some games. --MASEM (t) 18:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)One thing I'd actually rather not see is how the film project does it. Red Dead Redemption won tons of awards; in the end I took the table, grabbed the notable awards and converted it to prose. The table was big, ugly, and ruined the flow of the article. The prose got the point across just fine. Here's a before and after for comparison. --Teancum (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC) I guess it becomes a question as to, for us in VGs, how important these awards are. For films, those pan-industry awards are extremely critical, but I can argue that for VGs, they're like "Cool, but did it sell a million copies?" So I agree to an extent with summarizing and keeping prose over lists or tables, but that's my opinion on the matter. --MASEM (t) 18:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)Opinion needed at Humble Indie BunldeI've run into a user that insists that the games in the Humble Indie Bundle be split off into lists despite how they are presently listed in the article within prose. A couple additional voices of which style is better is requested at Talk:Humble Indie Bundle. --MASEM (t) 16:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC) Bumping to get more opinions. --MASEM (t) 07:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)RFC on the allowance of cover images per NFCI've opened an RFC to determine what the current consensus is on the use of non-free cover images on articles of copyrighted works per current treated of the non-free content criteria policy. The RFC can be found at WT:NFC#Appropriateness of cover images per NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 17:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC) Personally, I'd hate to see covers—the visual aids that allow readers identify subjects beyond a shadow of doubt—removed en masse, but I don't plan on getting involved in this debate. It's a heavily-disputed issue, with vehement supporters on either side; it's not going to be pretty. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC) Even if you support amending NFCI it doesn't automatically mean you support blanket deletion of covers; my position, for example, wouldn't affect any video game articles as far as I'm aware of. I encourage interested parties to read the background and make your case. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC) I don't mean to be a jerk - but can I get that in layman's terms? I'm just not following. --Teancum (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Long story short. The question is does our non free use image pollicy forbid the use of cover arts in articles (in this case a box are for a video game) unless there is critical commentary or are we allowed to include them without critical commentary.--76.66.180.54 (talk) 02:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC) Or neither. See the discussion regarding the "vegan" argument, which would spill over and impact things like the use of quotes in articles. SharkD  Talk  19:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Edit conflicted Summary: We have both a legal-related policy (WP:NFCC) related to the use of non-free images, and a guideline for when it is appropriate to use them (WP:NFCI). Policy trumps guidelines. NFCI (#1) specifically gives cover art as one of the times that you can use a non-free image, without having to worry about it. The policy, however (NFCC #8) says that you can only use images "if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". A few people have recently stated, notably at FAC, that these two lines contradict each other, in that putting a cover image in an infobox without talking about it in the text does not meet the policy's criteria. The RFC is looking for consensus on whether the two lines contradict each other, and what, if anything, we should do about it. The current main three positions are- #1 that they don't contradict, #2 that they do contradict and we should do some rewriting to fix that, and #3 that they do contradict so we should follow policy and remove/delete all of the cover images in favor of stock free images. David's position is in #2, in that they do contradict each other, but that that means we need to rewrite NFCI#1, not delete all 100,000+ images out of their infoboxes (though it's a bit more nuanced than that). --PresN 02:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC) If you read rule #1 carefully, it says that you can use cover art for some item "X" if you do so in the context of a proper discussion of "X". In our case, "X" is a game. So we should be OK with putting cover art into an article about the game from which it came - because we're discussing the game in the article. What Rule #1 says is that we have to be careful about is using cover art in an article that's not specifically about the game itself (eg an article about a studio or a game designer or a game console or in a "List of..." article). Rule #8 is the more problematic one. It constrains us further in that we can only use fair use images (including cover art) if it "significantly" improves our reader's ability to understand our article and if leaving it out would "detract" from that. That's a much harder sell IMHO. Will our reader understand what we're saying about Mario 64 any better if there is a cover-art picture? In the case of an album, where a part of the experience is the art on the cover - then yes. But in the case of Mario, you'd be better off showing a screen-shot. However, the dispute isn't about "significance". It is in part about the confusion some people have that makes them imagine that you have to write something that discusses the cover art itself - but that's a misreading of Rule #1...and in part people who are just upset that there is so much use of "fair use" images in Wikipedia - which is a reasonable sentiment, but not in any way related to "contradictions" in our policy. For editors of video game articles - we should be OK to use cover art in the actual article about the game, but almost never anywhere else. SteveBaker (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC) Let's keep the opinion statements to the actual RFC, please. That's what its there for. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC) Indeed. Discussing it here won't help impact things in the RfC. If you have an opinion, even if you don't want to stay and discuss it, just post it and your reason. The more people who at least express an opinion, even if they don't say anything, the better we can come to a broad consensus on something that could have lasting ramifications.陣内Jinnai 19:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Organization of characters in templates and listsI think that in order to assure 100% neutrality in organizing fictional information such as this, lists and templates should organize alphabetically. Doing so ensures a minuscule amount of potential disputes that could occur over organization; in doing by importance, we are requiring editors to think too much about what they believe are the most important characters in a game. Alphabetization takes editor POV out of the equation. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC) it's not on what we "believe", the characters listed on the navbox match the one in the Characters article. So it's not entirely based on what we believe, it's based on how the article lists them as such.Bread Ninja (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC) You do realize that this discussion corresponds to templates AND lists, right? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)If you're going to argue whether both list articles and navbox templates should put fictional information in alphabetical order, than i'm afraid, you're arguing against something much bigger than the video game wikiproject can handle alone.Bread Ninja (talk) 09:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC) I'm pretty certain that the Video games project has done more than its fair share of massive list modification. The difficulty of a task is not reason to not do it. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)you're fighting something much bigger than VG in general. Fictional characters are in novels, books, comic books, tv series, films. if you want this to change, bring up to a higher stand point. which i may say, this has no chance.Bread Ninja (talk) 09:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC) What we do has, at no point, any relevance to what they do. We are not responsible for defining what other projects decide for articles. Are you going to actually argue against the merits, or are you going to continue to wall the argument? What is your argument against changing the order to alphabetical? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC) You can't seriously be asking this ONLY for this wikiproject. if so, then you're not wanting this for the good of list articles and navboxes, you're doing this for the sake of wanting to keep the edit you did within the the FFVII template. It doesn't make sense to push alphabetical order ONLY to the WP:VG's scope.Bread Ninja (talk) 10:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Clearly, you have no interest in a discussion that involves two mature adults discussing something. If you're going to make blatantly obvious policy violations, I suggest you go re-read the basic tenants of editing before you waste anymore bandwidth by accusing people of acting in bad faith. Silly me - instead of this being an issue I've held for months - as can be demonstrated in edits from months earlier of me doing this exact same thing - this issue is due to a child's view on something. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 10:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)it's not childish, the facts only lead to one conclusion. Think about it, why would this only affect this wikiproject in particular?Bread Ninja (talk) 10:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Actually, I was referring to your constant accusations that, even though this is hardly the first time I've brought up the issue, my motives are to "win" our little edit war. Can you explain why I should care about the words of someone who required ad hominen attacks to even provide an argument? Your argument requires that we demonstrate that the VG Project will always focus on changes that affect every project if applicable. In our mass-scale assessment of character articles, we focused exclusively on verifying the quality of VG character lists. Why would we focus on improving non-VG articles? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 10:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC) because then wikipedia articles will get seriously inconsistent. If only the video games (which is a one of the many articles that relate to fiction) suddenly change their method, you think things would be good within all articles? seeing a big difference between other list of fictional characters compared to the ones this VG, it just doesn't help. in fact it would make things worst. unless you discuss this about all list and navboxes relating to fictional work, then i don't think this will pass only to WP:VG. if there are different formats in other articles it's because of the given scope of the wikiproject wouldn't allow it. the scope you're talking about is at a larger scale>Bread Ninja (talk) 10:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Again, your argument does not go against the quality of the proposal, merely the difficulty. The fact of the matter is that organizing alphabetically would not be noticeable to the point where, if only applied to video game articles, readers would actually recognize it. Are you seriously arguing that it is such a drastic change that it would make its style too different from other articles? If anyone is violating WP:POINT to get their way, it is you trying to keep the template where it is. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 10:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)I'm saying if you want this to have an affect, it has to affect all articles related to it, not just make it for one wikiproject. We already handle enough vandalism, so why make something that will instinctively cause more vandalism? that's the problem, a larger scale of fictional work is out there, and needless to say the current format also allows list of character articles to be featured aswell List of Naruto characters. So why change it for only one scope? what makes it different? this is a matter of fiction, it affects a lot of other wikiprojects. Articles aren't exclusive to one wikiproject.Bread Ninja (talk) 10:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC) I would love to hear an explanation for what vandalism would result from changing the order from case-by-case editorial POV to neutral alphabetical order. And your argument holds no water. Why is it that your posts always argue this point, but do not demonstrate it to be true? We are not obligated to keep every single article of every single type formatted in the exact same way. Can you demonstrate anywhere that we are responsible for anything that isn't a video game? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 11:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)I'm not talking about exact, but at least similar unless enough reason. Someone who lingers in wikipedia's articles relating to fiction will most likely see the sudden inconsistency between VG and other ficitonal related articles. the obvious response is to "fix it".Bread Ninja (talk) 11:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Break from silly argumentI somewhat agree with NaRH. But maybe this should only be done to things that get an edit war instead of doing it to every single template and list all at once. If there is a problem, then this can be a solution. But if there is no problem, then you don't need to fix it. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Lists of characters should not be arranged alphabetically. Some characters are clearly more notable and important than others. The main protagonist and antagonists for example. You could list the minor characters alphabetically after the major characters first - see pretty much every single film credit sequence ever. - hahnchen 20:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC) In theater and plays characters are usually listed in order of appearance. My 2 cents. SharkD  Talk  20:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Does it matter that they are much more notable, though? The order of characters in a list does not have to be associated with the notability of said characters. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC) I'm go with the Inverted pyramid. - hahnchen 20:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC) The problem with this idea is that it still requires a POV. At what point do characters stop being important and start being minor? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC) That's something that can easily be solved by coverage of the character and plot relevancy.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Or easily solved by taking POV out of the equation and doing a simpler, more streamlined style of organization such as alphabetical. The only people who would be affected by the main character not being first are people who play the game. Readers with no knowledge of the subject will likely not be affected in any way by alphabetical order. Your way of doing the plot order requires extensive work, and would likely get mixed results. Coverage will often vary. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Alphabetical is not more streamlined. It means that upon accessing the article, the reader does not know which sections are most important. Inverted Pyramid style, which we use everywhere, puts the most important information at the top - it's why we have lead sections, it's why we write in a summary style. - hahnchen 21:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)WP:IAR. Do what makes sense. If having them listed by importance is better then alphabetically, then it should be done that way. In some cases, alphabeticly would make no sense. I bet you that before the end of the week an IP editor will change List of Mario series characters back to having Mario, and THEN Luigi. Because it just makes more sense that way. Ratchet and Clank will not list Clank first. Jak and Daxter will not list Daxter first. Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC) I understand the desire for consistency and to prevent edit warring, but this solution seems extreme and unhelpful. Character lists should be in order of importance for the ease of the reader and for common sense (seeing as this is what people would expect to see).LedRush (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC) If there are problems with what characters are worthy of inclusion and at what level you can do what we did for List of Dragonball characters and do a straw poll and invite members to participate. Out of all the characters there were only a few there were significant disagreements with.陣内Jinnai 21:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)I recommend that with fighting game titles which don't have a much directed story (despite having some iconic characters) should go alphabetically. While story driven series (such as the Kirby, Mario, and Final Fantasy franchises) we should go with like said above the inverted pyramid, putting the characters who have articles and with blatant reception should be listed at the top (like on List of Kirby characters). Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)There is one factor that is unique to gaming and that is the playable vs non-playable characters. I would think in any list of characters for a video game, the playable characters are always smack at the top. There are likely some NPCs that partner/are escorted/follow around/etc. 99% of the time that should be listed next, and then after that is just what makes the most sense (Yorda would always be second for Ico, Tails after Sonic, Luigi after Mario, etc.). If lines clearly can be drawn as to who's on what side after that distinction, then so be it but the characters most critical to gameplay should head these lists even if that puts friend next to foe. --MASEM (t) 23:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Playable (with a possible subdivision of unlockable or DLC ones) Non-playable is fine. However, if that is the direction the list goes it should be alphabetical. I would say though story-driven games, notably RPGs and visual novels, should continue to use primary, secondary/supporting or protagonist, antagonist formats as they have more in common with books and movies than other games.陣内Jinnai 01:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)