Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 85

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 80 Archive 83 Archive 84 Archive 85 Archive 86 Archive 87 Archive 90

A NPC, or An NPC?

When abbreviating, do you say "A NPC" as in "A non-player character", or "An NPC" as in "An in-pee-see"? Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The best thing may be to just avoid using the indefinite article with the abbreviation whenever possible. Personally, I'd say "An NPC" because I would say it "en-pee-see". It could be worse, look at the situation with NES: "A ness" or "An en-ee-es", or "A Nintendo [Entertainment System]"? Anomie 20:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
If it's spelled phonetically and comes out with a vowel sound, the general rule of thumb is treat it as such (i.e., "an NPC", "a non-player character".) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Since you would write articles the way you would pronounce then, then "an NPC" and "a non-player...". So ditto above.—  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I've always used the rule that you consider the abbreviation article as if the abbreviation was spelled out in a non-abbreviated manner, unless it is commonplace to treat the abbreviate as a single word (like NORAD or GUI or HUD). As NPC is not read as a word, it would be "a (non-player character)". But if you can avoid the formation all together, that's best. --MASEM (t) 22:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
If you're still in doubt go to WT:MOS.Jinnai 01:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Class listing on Final Fantasy XIV

We need further input on listing classes here. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

FA review of Devil May Cry 2 (or not)

Just to inform the entire project that I have nominated Devil May Cry 2 for an FA review due to multiple issues the article has. Please see Wikipedia:Featured article review/Devil May Cry 2/archive1 for details and comment there when you can. Thank you, –MuZemike 21:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Or perhaps not, as I was unaware that you are now required to try and resolve issues on the talk page first. If anybody wants to help out and address the issues brought foward at Talk:Devil May Cry 2, feel free. –MuZemike 23:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

New VG list templates

Following a previous discussion over accessibility concerns, I created new templates to emulate {{VGtitle}}.

  • {{Video game titles}} is a simple table frame that accepts one parameter, which is basically whatever is put in it.
  • {{Video game titles/item}} is a set of table rows that mimics {{VGtitle}} in appearance and function. Every parameter used in the original will work with

The templates are used like:

{{Video game titles|
{{Video game titles/item}}
{{Video game titles/item}}
{{Video game titles/item}}
}}

I'd primarily like some help implementing the new templates in current articles, but comments/suggestions would be appreciated before that occurs. If there are no concerns, then I'll make the documentation. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC))

Awesome, thanks a lot for doing this! --PresN 22:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Seems to work fine, I replaced vgtitle with this implementation in a section of List of Final Fantasy video games and there was no visual difference in the output. Hopefully this solves the screen reader issue. --PresN 22:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Scratch that, found a bug. The second item breaks, and further testing shows that it breaks if the title parameter is "|title= Running Stadium / [[Stadium Events]] / World Class Track Meet", but not if it is "|title= Running Stadium / Stadium Events / World Class Track Meet". No clue why a wikilink would break it. --PresN 22:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Figured out what it is. You're not supposed to wikilink the title parameter; that's what the article parameter is for. Even says so in the documentation for VGtitle. Apparently it would still work sometimes, though, and now it doesn't. So, not a bug, just something we have to watch out for when replacing the templates. --PresN 22:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
My guess is that when the wikicode is changed to html, the hyperlink tags created by the wikilink brackets screws with the table tags it's nested in. Since both sets of tags use quotation marks for the "id" and "href" attributes, then the content of the attribute is prematurely ended and the remaining portion might break the nesting. I added a mention to explicitly avoid linking the title within the parameter in the documentation. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC))

FYI- I created documentation for the two templates (Template:Video game titles/doc and Template:Video game titles/item/doc) based on the previous template's documenation. Let me know if anything else needs to be done. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC))

We're down to <100 pages, including links as well as transclusions. Dunno if anyone else is working on it, but if you are keep it up. --PresN 19:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Many games on List of Pokémon video games used the code for the old template instead of using the actual template. I have been updating it. I think I will do the final conversion right now. Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
After two edit conflicts I stopped trying to update and left it to those that can work much faster than me. The actual article count is below 40, so the progress is great.
Something of note, List of Saw media uses the template despite primarily being a film franchise and only having two video games on the list. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC))
Something else to keep in mind, we can also just add the {{Video game titles}} around the remaining instances of {{VGtitle}} and redirect the latter to {{Video game titles/item}}. The two use the exact same parameters. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC))
I thought about that, but eventually decided against it for 3 reasons- 1, that I had already done so many of them; 2, that I felt that most people find these templates through articles that use them and I don't want to leave around bad hints about which templates to use; and 3, that about 1/3 of the articles used the title/article incorrectly. When the template gets redirected those articles will be completely broken and it won't be immediately obvious what happened- especially since those articles are more likely to be unmaintained. In any case its a moot point- I'm ignoring archives and talk pages, so it's almost done anyways. --PresN 00:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Alright, done. The only uses of the VGtitle template are in user sandboxes or talk pages- all of the articles have been replaced. The template can be redirected whenever. --PresN 00:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Awesome. Thanks for the help guys. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC))

unofficial translations

How do we deal with these? The hidden info was removed by an IP editor in Dragon Quest VI. I re-added it for the time being per WP:PRESERVE until we can clarify this. Should we only mention it for titles like Front Mission 1 where it has been talked about by other reliable sources, or should we try to include them so long as they do not violate NFCC (ie linking to a rom? The item isn't under WP:GAMECRUFT.Jinnai 00:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe unofficial translations are unimportant unless it comes from the reliable source itself. Like maybe the game hasn't released in English territories and the reliable source translates it directly. But if an unofficial translation made it, and it's only mentioned in the reliable source, i think that would be unnecesary to add in. but thats just me, i have no idea what others may thinkBread Ninja (talk) 03:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I think an unofficial translation becomes important the moment it is actually released complete and gets a lot of attention, among others in reliable sources. Final Fantasy V and – to a much greater extent – Mother 3 are typical examples of when mentioning a fan translation makes sense. I'm not familiar with Dragon Quest VI, but looking only at the paragraph detailing the translation, I would say it is not important to mention it. Just look for some independent reliable sources: if they deem it important enough to report it, it probably is noteworthy. Prime Blue (talk) 04:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Unless the translation gets notoriety in reliable sources, or is officially endorsed by the holders of the copyright (such as with Umineko no Naku Koro ni ([1]), or Ef: A Fairy Tale of the Two. ([2])), then there shouldn't be any mention of it.-- 05:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Point here - A RS can include the place that released it per WP:PRIMARY. By Wikipedian standards they are all RSes for their fan translation.Jinnai 16:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Even still, third-party sourcing has always been preferred over first-party. Regardless, I would feel more comfortable that a third-party reliable source be required to establish some notability. Otherwise any fan translation could be included. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC))
It would not be WP:PRIMARY since the unofficial translation is a different work. It would only be WP:PRIMARY within an article about the unofficial translation, and that article would need to meet WP:NOTABILITY. It's like saying the author of a fan sequel to LotR could be cited for his comments about the original. SharkD  Talk  19:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Primary is not about the article. Primary source differs for each context. In this instance, it would clearly pass as the primary source for the fan translation as they were the one who published it. Doesn't matter that the entire article isn't about that - primary doesn't require an entire article to be about it to be primary as Yuji Horii can be the primary source on the development of Dragon Quest even if there isn't an article Development of Dragon Quest.

As for your example, no he could not be, but this isn't about commentary - its about a publication. A Fan translation isn't commentary last I checked.Jinnai 19:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, if he's making a claim regarding similarity between his work and someone else's... SharkD  Talk  19:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The claim being made is that its an unofficial translation - that's something that is what PRIMARY is for. It's not commentary on the game. They are saying they're the translators for an unofficial translation - not commenting on the Japanese grammar or game's content.Jinnai 20:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── So before I add to WP:GAMECRUFT I want to make certain everyone is on the same page.

We don't want unofficial translations being added unless they are mentioned by an independant reliable source. Linking to a rom is forbidden, but if an independant RS mentions it, you can link to the website if you need further info verified.

Sound about right?Jinnai 01:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. The only thing I would add is that linking to the primary source is not required and should be avoided if possible. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC))
Saying to avoid it would violate WP:PRIMARY unless it violates WP:COPYLINK, it hosts/links to a commercial image file of the game. Saying its not required is fine and saying to use them with caution is fine.Jinnaiit]. 18:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I've updated it.Jinnai 18:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
The majority, if not all, translation projects specifically don't host ROMs or ISOs, and usually don't tell people where to get them. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
The guideline update looks good and conveys the intended message. Thanks. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC))

Steam promoting?

In May 2010 user:Lthornsb went through a lot of games, noting at the top of each article that the game is available on Steam (content delivery). This seems to be nothing but advertising for Steam, and wikipedia is not a place for free advertising. I cannot see why this information is important for the articles, especially not so important as to be at the top of each article. As far as I can tell, this is the only contribution that Lthornsb ever made to wikipedia. I am not an expert on video games, so I wanted to check here before undoing it all. Any opinions? ComputScientist (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

  • What he's doing is fine. That a game is available through Steam is a notable fact that should be included in all relevant articles. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Right at the lead section? Why? --Conti| 23:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
VG/GL says:
  • Lead section: The name of the game in bold italics, release date, platform, and other identifying information go first.
For VG articles, all release platforms are usually included in the first paragraph. Also, please don't edit other users' posts without their permission. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Just to note, there is an exception for games with so many platforms that it becomes cumbersome to list them all. However, there are few to no Steam games that actually fit that bill. Additionally, I can assure you that adding Steam to Wikipedia could never be construed as advertisement, even if by an employee of Valve - the service is indisputably notable. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Steam should not be listed unless it is an exclusive to the service (outside of retail sales) - otherwise it is just another distribution channel. So Steam should be listed for most Valve games, but not something like Civ V. --MASEM (t) 04:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. Steam is a very significant method of video game delivery, considered by many to be both destroying the retail industry for PC games (what little existed) and revitalizing the industry as well. Using Modern Warfare 2 as an example, it was particularly notable that it required the use of Steam for the PC version. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I think you're over-blowing things. There are a lot of digital distribution services out there. It may be fairly popular, but it alone is no threat to retail stores. Remarks like these seem more like promotional material that gets repeated as fact. SharkD  Talk  08:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
As a Steam enthusiast (not advertiser; difference), I follow Steam's effect on the industry. I've seen plenty of retailers and competing digital distribution services discuss how Steam is either too powerful for other services to compete, or how it is consuming retail sales for PC games. One store in particular complains about Steam - not digital distribution, Steam - doing just that. In fact, they even threatened to not sell any games that require Steam for them to be used.[3] Direct2Drive, Games for Windows Live, Great Old Games, all may have decent sales, but Steam is - not in opinion, but in absolute fact - the by-far strongest digital distribution service for the PC. And also a fact that not one digital distribution service is comparable enough to Steam to be called competitive with them. Again, I must remind you that the fastest-selling video game ever created (MW2) would likely not require users to use Steam if Steam wasn't that much more significant than other similar services. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
And I must point out that in the link provided, it attributes 80% of the digital distribution industry on PC to Steam, meaning that the many competitors to Steam are fighting over only a fifth of the industry. Steam is only 10% away from having as strong of a hold on the market as Nintendo had with the NES. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Saying a game is on Steam is like saying a song is on iTunes, its not a big deal. However, it should be noted for games with Steam integration, which goes beyond being a mere distribution channel. Masem is incorrect in this regard, Civ V is a Steamworks game, it requires Steam, all updates are delivered through Steam and it includes Steam achievements, so it should be noted. - hahnchen 11:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
There is a huge difference in requiring Steamworks and being distributed by Steam - the two are not mutually exclusive. The former is more important as it implies a set of features/etc., the latter is who put the price tag on the item. A game using Steamworks should be noted as a such, but a game distributed on Steam and other means does not need special attention. This is basically akin to saying that we should highlight a game being sold at Gamestop even though other stores like Best Buy and Target may sell it, and it's putting too much emphasis on the commercial side, when we need to focus on the technical side. --MASEM (t) 13:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Do you suggest, then, that we stop mentioning a game's availability on PSN, XBLA or WiiWare, in favor of "PS3, Xbox 360 and Wii"? At Hippie's stated 80%, Steam's market share is nearly as large as those other services' (100%). The competition is almost non-existent. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
No, because if you tell me that a game is only digitally available for the PS3, I know that you mean its on PSN, the only service that exists there. But if you tell me a PC game is digitally available, I would have to ask "do you mean, Steam, D2D, GOG, GFWL, EA Store, or what?" There is legitimate competition for Steam even if Steam is 80% or more of the digital marketplace; we should not be making the leap that they are the most important distributors and thus need mention in the field. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
For once I strongly disagree. Stating a PC release date could mean anything, particularly if there are multiple media platforms. It's important to note whether it's physical media, Steam, D2D, etc as they all quite often have different dates. Given such it should be treated similar to a regional release. On the flipside I don't think it needs much more than a mention of the platform/media outlet and date unless it makes use of more advanced Steam functions such as achievements. --Teancum (talk) 15:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Release dates should only be for when the title is first available on that platform in that region regardless of distribution; if there is a significant issue on the timing of distribution within the same platform, that's an issue to be brought up in the text of the body of the article. For example, Red Dead Redemption should only have one North American release date (may 2010) for the 360 even though the 360 Games on Demand version just came out last week.
Steam is just a storefront - the most popular, but just a storefront among at least 5-6 on the Windows side. Steamworks is important, on the other hand, and I fully support making sure this support is noted, but just being on Steam is not assurance that Steamworks is in place. --MASEM (t) 16:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Well we'll have to agree to disagree there. Unless there is a policy in place preventing such I see alternate forms of distribution as something the reader looks for in an article, particularly when we're talking physical vs digital, as such will continue to be a major turning point in gaming history for the next several years. I suppose there's an argument for having generic dates for "physical" and "digital" media, but I don't see this being something fesable to maintain. I find the one-sentence inclusion of adding, say in your example "was released via Microsoft's Games on Demand service on December XX, 2010" very worthy of inclusion. What sort of policy is there that says it isn't? If there is one I'd honestly like to know; I'm willing to put it to bed if this has already been decided, but if this is still up for consensus then let's continue discussion. --Teancum (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I think I see where people are talking about here. I don't see a problem to enumerate what digital services a game is available on in the text of the article's body; it's likely not lede-worthy mention unless only one service (per platform) is distributing it. What I don't see necessary is assigning dates when a game appears each service. One of the problems I see here is that when a game appears on multiple services within the same week, it is completely unnecessary to iterate each date outside of the technicality of the infobox; for all practical purposes, a game that is released on different services on Dec 1st, 4th, 6th, and 7th is better stated as coming out "the first week of December". Even if there's a large gap of say a month or so, it is only the first release that is important. There can be exceptions: maybe a game with time exclusivity from one storefront for a few months, where there are sources that discuss this "injustice" (a possible example is the first ep of BTTF: The Game where the free episode isn't going to be available until Feb while those that bought it have it now).
So summary: as long as all storefronts are mentioned, I don't see the problem in mentioning steam, but Steam is only highlighted (despite other stores it is sold at) and the integration with Steamworks is trivial or non-existent, that's advertising and should be resolved (either by adding all storefronts or removing Steam - I can tell that the latter is the easier option because there may be storefronts that one is unaware of, and generally how physical media is dealt with). --MASEM (t) 17:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Agreed, though typically I'd prefer the former option of adding the other services, I'd agree that there are probably several situations where articles we as individuals don't follow will require quick cleanup, resulting in the latter solution. I'm also very much ok with the idea of lumping the release dates in the lead (and possibly the infobox) into a date range of some sort when there are multiple distribution services which provide the game. I guess in the end my complaint generally is that readers are going to hit an article to know the basics of a game - how many players, what platforms, how was it received, can I get a digital copy or do I have to go to the store - and I just feel like not providing that information doesn't follow the spirit of Wikipedia. --Teancum (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

There's also the issue that Steam may not *be* the dominant digital distribution channel 5 years from now. Are we going to go back through and edit all those articles that mentioned Steam to change what they say if this is the case? What about the next time after that? SharkD  Talk  20:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
That's a very crystal ball situation, one that implies a significant difference between digital distribution platforms and consoles. We mention the Virtual Console in the lead, why not Steam? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Masem here actually, even though his Civ V remark threw me off. Steam should be mentioned if the game (the PC version anyway) is a Steam exclusive, in that it contains Steamworks integration. This means all players must install Steam, all updates come through Steam, and can also take advantage of Steam Cloud etc. (this also applies to other services) If it the game just treats Steam as any other distributor, such as Direct2Drive or GamersGate, then its not particularly important - it'd be the same as listing the shops you can buy it from. - hahnchen 22:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Steam is as much a place to buy things as XBLA is, but we consider the XBLA to be a platform rather than a store. Steam is nothing less than a video game platform. What if a developer attributes a game's success to its Steam release? Fact of the matter is that just because it has competing services and that it allows players to buy games off of it does not mean that it is a store first and foremost. You cannot use the shops you buy retail games from to play the games. And I will continue to reiterate that we are not listing *just any* service, we're listing the service that is 4/5 of its entire respective industry. The way Steam is treated, it would be wrong to list it as a platform released for. Steam being so much more powerful than its competitors tells us that it is that much more notable than them, and as such, it serves as an exception to the rule of "not just listing any old platform it may have appeared on," because it's one of the most significant platforms that it has been released on. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
When you use Steam as a platform (ie Steamworks or exclusive) then mention it. If a Steam release has a significant referenced impact on a developers fortune, for example - saving Introversion's ass, then mention it. If it's a shop front, then don't. We wouldn't mention the Kindle publication of The Great Gatsby, Justin Bieber's iTunes availability, or appearance of The Hurt Locker on Netflix. If it's notable, mention it, but it isn't inherently notable. - hahnchen 23:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
But that's still not the same. If a retail release is December 29, 2010, it's December 29, 2010 at GameStop, Wal-Mart, Target, wherever. Individual digital distributors all have different release dates. People don't look at a release date to see what store to buy it at, however they will look to see whether they can buy it digitally opposed to on a disc. And this isn't a 1:1 comparison to iTunes - digitial distribution often comes either far after or far before the on-disc versions. --Teancum (talk) 23:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
We are not here as a sales catalog to promote when peopel can buy certain titles. Dates are used to establish release dates for those that need to compare and contrast, but not to plan out one's purchases. Unless there is sourced commentary about the difference between the digital and retail release of a game, only the first release for that platform should be noted. --MASEM (t) 16:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • At the very least, I think we can agree that there's no reason to assume User:Lthornsb's actions were in bad faith. By extension, User:ComputScientist will not be required to revert his changes (which occurred in May 2010, I might add). Should WPVG come to a decision about Steam's inclusion in articles, it will be dealt with at that time. The issue at hand has been addressed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I must say that the mentioning of a game being available on Steam in the lead paragraph has bothered me for some time now. It's seems out of place and unprofessional. Imagine how a lead paragraph would look like if it has to mention several other digital distribution services like D2D, impulse etc... . While Steam is a leading distribution service the availability of a game on it doesn't have a place at the leading paragraph at least not more than a game being available at Wal-Mart is. I think guidelines about this issue should be added to the project. Almogo (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Wal Mart is a store. Steam HAS a store. Being able to purchase something on Steam does not make it the same thing as Wal Mart. Steam has individual release dates that do not necessarily follow any other release date for the same game, while Wal Mart's release date is K Mart's release date is Target's release date is Best Buy's release date is GameStop's release date. In all intents and purposes, if Steam was a home console and acted in the exact same fashion, it would be considered appropriate for use. It seems a little silly to say that Steam is only lesser than, say, PS3, all because it is not its own physical platform. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
But Steam isn't a console. The PC (or Mac) is the equivalent of the console. Steam is the equivalent of XBLM or PSN: you pay it money to get software. It is a storefront. It also integrates with Steamworks, which is a set of networking and engine tools, which can be useful to note, but that has nothing to do with sales. --MASEM (t) 01:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


The problem comes down to whether you consider Steam to be a "platform" or a "distribution mechanism". IMHO, it's the latter - it doesn't provide any significant support for the game once it's installed and running. If you can get the game by other means - then I don't think we need to mention Steam at all - after all, we don't mention that WalMart sells the game - and we don't say whether a particular piece of classical music happens to be available from the iTunes store or that a movie may be seen on Netflicks. The delivery mechanism simply isn't a particularly notable fact about the product.


However, if you can't get the game any other way than Steam - then, arguably, we should mention it deeper in the article - perhaps in the info-box. Just like we'd say that a music track is an "iTunes-only release" or a "Best Buy exclusive". Even so, I don't think this information ever belongs in the lede - that's just too intrusive.


SteveBaker (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
The analogy is not apt. Wal Mart is, without any argument, a distribution mechanism. With Steam, it is clearly up to debate as to what to define it as. There are many games with Steam integration, while all games on the service are played "through" it in some way. Games are patched through Steam, games are installed through Steam, games are purchased through Steam, and games are played through Steam. If you buy a game on Steam, it is always ON Steam. If you buy a game at Wal Mart, Wal Mart is irrelevant once you leave the store. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


Steam is mainly a distribution platform and generally speaking does not have any feature that makes it unique compared to other digital distribution services. As things currently stand Steam receives a privileged treatment and placement on Wikipedia Video Game articles, a privileged treatment which I do not think it deserves. As I see it what needs to be determined is if it is appropriate for the main paragraph to include digital distribution release information. Almogo (talk) 05:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Wait, so where does the privilege exists? Why doesn't it deserve this so-called privilege? Are you implying that its competitors, which likely don't even hold 1/5 of the respective industry it competes in, warrant mention exactly as much as Steam? When I use Steam, I rarely use it for purchasing games. The vast majority of my time, and I guarantee you anyone else's time, is spent playing games through Steam. Games that, I might add, are either played with Steam or not played at all. Steam is a required component. If Steam being required to play a game does not make it a games service, then what makes the PS3 a games service? You can purchase games on it like a store, games for PS3 are played on PS3 or not at all, and it has its own XMB. What is privileged about Steam's treatment in Wikipedia articles that could not be pointed at games that give preference to, say, the NES version of it? In multi-console cases for the NES, you are likely not going to see the MSX version given any attention because the NES controlled almost every single bit of the console industry. Why is it wrong that Steam is mentioned over the less popular, less significant alternatives? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


The preferential treatment is demonstrable is that the availability of a game on Steam is often times mentioned in the lead paragraph of an article. Steam doesn't deserve that treatment because the vast majority of the games available on the service - and thus the vast majority of articles on which Steam is mentioned in the lead paragraph - use it only as a distribution service or in plain words, an online video game store. Of the thousands of games available on Steam I would imagine that only a few (less than 5%) actually *require* Steam in order to be played. Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines mentions "'In the article lead, release dates should be summarized to be as general as possible, avoiding specific mention of platform and region releases unless significant'" in my opinion the release date on Steam is not something that belongs there except on extreme circumstances. I think a new section needs to be added to that page that addresses online distribution services and their mentioning, or not, in the video game articles. Almogo (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


As long as you are aware that there are competitors to Steam for the selling of games via digital delivery, any preferential treatment of the storefront is a bias that can be corrected. Mind, this is specifically for games that can be gotten other ways either due to being released before Steam or other situations (such as Telltale Games where you can buy and dl from their store). Steam-exclusivity is not in question - that should be mentioned, just like if there was other storefront exclusivity (eg Elemental through Impulse). The requirement of using Steam is also not in question - that should be mentioned too. But if neither case applies, and Steam is just one of the many ways to get and play the game, the availability of game through Steam just should not be needed. --MASEM (t) 14:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


I will also agree with the sentiments expressed by Masem, hahnchen, Almogo and others in that if we are talking about a point of sale, Steam is not deserving of special mention beyond any other store. Steam is notable insofar as Steam-specific features that are designed into the game, but merely being sold on Steam does not warrant special mention and is undue weight if we talk about Steam and not about any other store. I think Steam is one of those subjects on Wikipedia that receive favorable systemic bias due to its popularity and the nature of the wiki medium. Ham Pastrami (talk) 06:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. The fact that Wikipedia is a digital distribution channel itself - and trends being what they are these days - probably leads to significant overlap in editors' interests, which is also reflected in the substance of their edits. SharkD  Talk  01:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really getting the difference between Steam and Steamworks. Steam (software) doesn't clarify very well at all. Does Steamworks add achievements, DLC and the like? The article says what Steamworks requires and gives some examples of applications that use it, but never clearly says what it does. --Teancum (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

We probably could have a separate article on Steamworks, as it is like a game engine akin to Havok or Unreal. It includes support for networking, matchmaking, interfacing with Steam friends lists, achievements, voice communications, Steam Cloud (save across multiple computers) support, and so forth. It's probably better to think of Steam of being part XBox Live's service, and then a marketplace on top of it. --MASEM (t) 02:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Well in that case I'd agree that Steamworks support would be the only need to place Steam in an article, as at that point it's more than a distributor. Steam's article was so unclear that I didn't know there was any difference, but it seems that Steamworks is what powers all the features that would make a Steam-based title individually notable. If anyone with better knowledge of Steam has some time to at least update the Steamworks section with more of its capabilities that'd probably help with confusion in the future - sorry, here I was getting on the defensive since I was confused. --Teancum (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Steam is a distribution method, not a platform. You can't run your games from Steam alone; its actually listed as Steam (software). When is the last time a piece of software was a platform? I'll tell you - never.Jinnai 18:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to wake up this discussion before it is archived.... Does anyone else support an article guideline addition that will address where and when should a lead section contain release date information for a game on a specific content distribution platform (such as Steam)? Almogo (talk) 01:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The Last Blade (Neo Geo)

While I know trivia is heavily discouraged on here and such information should be integrated into relevant parts of the articles there is something notable about Last Blade 1 over Last Blade 2. On The Last Blade 1 , when the opening starts up in the USA version, the whole text is in Japanese. In Last Blade 2, things are almost fully translated. Since SNK was going through some tough times financially back then do you think the half assed translation of Last Blade was to blame on the stability of the company or what? I need some opinions on this here JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 06:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Without a citation from a reliable source, I think any speculation (no matter how accurate it might actually be) we make is original research. Best to stick to what our sources says for article content. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC))

Requesting commentary on new potential reliable sources.

There's a bit of a backlog at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources in regards to getting Support/Oppose opinions on a few sources, and I was hoping the community could take a minute to chime in on a few. A list of ones needing commentary are below:

  • ZTGameDomain (proposed reliable source) - one Support, one Oppose. Would like input so that this falls one way or the other.
  • XBLAfans (proposed situational source) - some commentary, but no Support/Oppose opinions yet.
  • The Video Game Critic (proposed reliable source) - no official Support/Oppose, but the conversation seems to be leaning towards Oppose.
  • Coming Soon Magazine (proposed reliable source) - one Oppose. Would like additional commentary.
  • Strategy Informer (proposed situational source) - some commentary, no Support/Oppose.
  • The Electric Playground and Reviews on the Run - two Supports. Would like additional commentary/opinion as if everyone's going to support these we can close them early.
  • Brazilian fan/blogsite (see section for more info) - seems to be a dispute on sales numbers and where they come from.
  • VG247 (proposed reliable source) - two supports. Recently listed, but more input never hurts
  • RunDLC (proposed reliable source, barring that a situational source) - newly added

Also, if you feel you support or oppose a site, please indicate it in bold. It helps when closing these out and listing them as reliable, situational, and unreliable. --Teancum (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Need image

Could someone reproduce this image using their own property? I'm want to use something like it for History of role-playing video games to demonstrate how RPGs are increasingly being produced for multiple platforms these days. SharkD  Talk  00:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that would be legally considered a "derivative work", since the copyrighted cover image would still be displayed. It's not like taking a picture of a console or console controller. Basically, it would still be a fair use image. That's my impression, anyway; I'm hardly a copyright expert. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it would still fall under fair use. However, it would not have been copied directly from IGN. SharkD  Talk  02:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Would it necessarily be of the same game, or just many RPGs on various media, which could include carts, disks, UMDs, etc. --MASEM (t) 02:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I would like a pic of the same game since the point is regarding multi-platform releases of individual titles. It can be of any game, it doesn't have to be Fallout. I would prefer a modern title for Xbox/Xbox 360/PS3/Windows though. SharkD  Talk  14:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I think you're still going to have a problem with the art issue. Yes, if it's angled right to reduce the commercial value of the art, that's one thing, but you're trying to show the game exists for multiple platforms, and that's going to raise a few flags. You may want to ask at WP:MCQ. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
This would not fall under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines. You do not need a fair use image to show that a game was released across platforms - I'm not sure how an image is better than text. You're not using it as identifying art for the subject, and you're not showing gameplay or graphical style (which you really cannot do without images). - hahnchen 22:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Tales of Monkey Island FAC

Hey guys, Tales of Monkey Island is up for FAC at the moment, but I can't help but feel that the proceedings have got a bit sluggish. I can see it failing simply for not having had enough people participate in the reviewing process, which is always the worst way for an FAC to go. Its a bit of a hefty article to get through, but any additional comments or reviews—either negative or positive, I'm not trying to canvass here—would be appreciated to help keep the process going. -- Sabre (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I felt like the same thing happened to Lara Croft. Though I didn't have the time to follow up with the reviewers that did comment. :-\
Monkey Island is on my radar, but I just haven't found the time to read the article. I'll see how things go today. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC))

Replacing copyrighted images in our genre articles

Given the recent row over covers and reading Role-playing video game I noticed we have some images depecting common elements that violate WP:NFCC as they are replaceable with free alternatives in many cases since these articles don't talk about specific games, but general concepts. I could do some myself later on, but if something already exists that's CC licensed or public domain, I'd prefer that.

As a bonus side effect, we could probably with that also include many more pictures for those articles than they currently have.Jinnai 18:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably not jsut that article, but any gameplay element-based article as well. Even simple images or animations that show the element created without the use of a game can be sufficient. --MASEM (t) 22:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Indeed; when we don't have a free game to use, it's not that hard to whip up cutscene/dialogue demos. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Are there any articles that are in need of such images? I noticed some interesting French versions of generic gameplay concepts on Commons. English equivalents or even brand new ones shouldn't be too hard to make. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC))
I would start with Video game genres and work downward. Pretty much any non-stub genre article could use them.Jinnai 18:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This image seems good for the RPG article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It's better than a non-free image, but it would better still if we could get a CC RPG and take a screenshot from that (ditto for other game genres).Jinnai 16:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:TOChidden

A large part of the articles at [4] currently transcluding Template:TOChidden are video games. It appears many of them were added by User:GVnayR 5 December 2010. TOChidden seemed ugly and unneeded in all the articles I examined, for example the current version [5] of Cyber Spin. Has this been discussed? Would anybody object to removal of TOChidden from these video games? PrimeHunter (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree they're unnecessary and should be reverted. --MASEM (t) 03:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Ditto. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC))
I have removed all of them. I think they were all added by GVnayR. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Shin Megami Tensei: Devil Survivor

Anyone who has any experience with the plot (significant amount preferred), I was hoping I could get some opinions on what to do with the Characters and Plot section, since the game is very character/plot-driven. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It's really really difficult as there's like a gazillion endings. And you don't get the full story unless you play through many of the endings. Unfortunately, I don't know enough of the full picture to do it right, but I suggest pulling from Heavy Rain (a game also with a zillion endings) as an example as to describe the general setup of the plot (which remains the same regardless of ending) and indicate multiple conclusions are possible. Let me see what I can do to start. --MASEM (t) 17:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Adventures of Lolo

I was working on this article a while back as well as its two sequels; however, I've noted far less reception for the other two. This leads me to wonder whether they should be merged into the legacy section of the first game's article to both make it stronger and make it less redundant, since the gameplay is largely the same between all of the games. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't played any of the Lolo games in a while (and can't remember which I have played), but a merge seems reasonable given the similar gameplay. It seems that there are also Game Boy games, which should also be mentioned —Ost (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I think you answered yourself.Jinnai 23:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Hear ye! Hear ye!

Sacrifice (video game) will be January 19th's TFA. Its great article to read, escpecially if you're a fan of Tim Curry. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Fast inverse square root — remove "F-bomb" expletive from quoted source code?

Please go to Talk:Fast inverse square root#Take out the F-bomb comment for a discussion of whether a vulgar expletive contained as a comment in a quoted piece of source code should be kept or not. Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Starkiller image

Could anyone determine the fair use of this image? I believe it would be useful for demonstrating Starkiller, as the current image does not show the front half of his body, only his back. Harry Blue5 (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It should be a {{non-free character}}. Salavat (talk) 15:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I mean could someone do a detailed fair use rational for it? I have no idea what to do, m'self. Harry Blue5 (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's the table as I'd usually do for a character image. If you do upload it, I'd recommend making the background transparent and uploading it as a PNG rather than the JPG you've linked to. -- Sabre (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Non-free media information and use rationale for Starkiller
Description

Promotional render of Starkiller

Source

The Force Unleashed character renders

Article

Starkiller

Portion used

All

Low resolution?

Yes — it is a low resolution image that is inferior to the quality of the original image; the potential use of this image for illegal purposes is greatly reduced.

Purpose of use

The image is used to identify the character Starkiller, a subject of public interest. The significance of the image is to help the reader identify the character, assure the reader they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the character, and illustrate the nature of the character in a way that words alone could not convey.

Replaceable?

No — there are no free versions of this image since the entire work is copyrighted and cannot be duplicated for free.

Other information

© 2008 LucasArts. Use of the image in the article complies with Wikipedia's non-free content policy and fair use under United States copyright law as described above.

Fair useFair use of copyrighted material in the context of Starkiller//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_85

Wired article

[6]

Man, its weird not only remembering that but being part of it. --MASEM (t) 15:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I don't recall being around for this at all. Are there still pages here of all the brewhaha? I wouldn't mind reading those... --Dorsal Axe 18:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Considering how big this became and has been covered by the media, it should probably be added to Criticism of Wikipedia.Jinnai 18:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Here's the one that started it, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Threshold (online game) (2nd nomination). --MASEM (t) 18:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Not sure if that was the one since the first nom doesn't have anything on it.Jinnai 19:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I was just talking to some user about the great MUD conflict of yesteryear, but didn't remember much of it myself; it was hard trying to dig up an article about it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
The article does bring up a good point, and that's one of the things that I think we're looking at in the Indie game project, in that there is a history here, but we have to balance what we include with what's actually in sources; we cannot considers ourselves above the "law" just to track what some may feel is an important history (possibly a starting flaw in the Wired article, that the history of MUDs is significant compared to everything else we're covering). --MASEM (t) 18:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
This was covered at the time, in a deeper fashion by Edge.[7] Discussion at the time can be found in Archive 66 - hahnchen 22:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


It was the first AFD nomination which created huge amounts of controversy; sadly, that was courtesy-blanked and oversighted due to privacy concerns.

Personally, the article makes a valid point which I agree with – mainly that Wikipedia is inherently (just as any other information-aggregating website) a complement, not a substitute, for the rest of the Internet, with some degree of overlap existing. I would also argue the inability of one to start one's own site and, instead, piggybacking off Wikipedia, but on the other hand, keep in mind that this WikiProject alone has over 30,000 articles. I would be a fool to say that, in the process of building and maintaining high-quality video game-related articles, we are not/do not/should not be preserving video game history, (For instance, my focus is primarily on retrogaming, in which is it impossible to avoid that due to the genre's inherent retrospective nature.) but that should not be the primary focus. –MuZemike 18:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, it depends. I've been going around archiving as many references as I can because even in recent history links tend to disappear. In that way the articles are an encapsulation of development or reception details that are often no longer easily found elsewhere. We ideally would be a complement, but in some cases we've turned into a substitute as well. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Archiving references is such a tedious task that should be automated. David, use your new found arbcom ear-of-jimbo status to push for Wikimedia Foundation adoption of User:WebCiteBOT. It's been down for over a year, it's fucking ridiculous that the WMF can't use some of their $16mil in donations to get something so useful up and running. Take a look at this VP thread and this strategy thread for some background. - hahnchen 22:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Dispute on The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past & Four Swords

There has been dispute and edit warring at this article, with editors, after a consensus formed against merging, merging regardless. This is also in light of the fact that the article has expanded significantly, including the only section that was in dispute about its possible expansion, the Development section. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

There wasn't a consensus to not merge or to keep it seperate.Jinnai 03:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
That is irrelevant. If there was no consensus to merge, then my point still stands that it should be taken seriously and a merge should not be done until consensus is sought. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The two users involved in the edit war, Prime Blue and New Age Retro Hippie, are both blocked for 6 hours for edit warring. Should we open a merge discussion at Talk:The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past while tagging the ALTTP article and the ALTTP&FS article if it is necessary to gain a clear consensus or not? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I think it probably needs to happen sooner rather than later.Jinnai 04:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, then. I am going to place a merge tag on both articles and start discussion there. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Discussion is here if anyone is interested. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Last month, this article had the Four Swords merged into this article without gaining consensus. Today, two editors have edit warred and both have been blocked for 6 hours. I am proposing that we should merge the article with the four swords article. Does anyone have comments or objections over this proposal? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The only one I can think of is that the Game Boy Advance copy includes Four Swords, which is a seperate game that may have unique development and gameplay information. I'll let you decide if it's unique enough to warant a merge. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 05:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
This whole argument strikes me as a pointless waste of time, but, for what it's worth, the article really doesn't establish itself as a different-enough entity to warrant a separate article. It should probably be merged, just to end the controversy. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 08:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. Different people were involved in its creation, and it has an entirely new mode of play that is independent of anything found in A Link to the Past. Another fact is that the reception added to the article is not even near half of what exists for the game. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 10:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── A different entity? i think if there are enough to show the difference and rather independent from each other, than they could. But if there isn't, then i guess we can't do anything about it. I think if the gameplay was refed and development expanded it could.Bread Ninja (talk) 11:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

While development is important, it is not the end-all be-all. Super Mario 64 DS relies largely on impressions and updated information to fill its development section, which this article does as well. Both articles can be noted as relying on reception, as any new content can be summed up pretty easily, which includes mini-games, new characters (something that takes somewhat more to help readers understand, mind you), new abilities, and new levels. One thing to demonstrate the difference is how several video game journalists, before and after the release, noted Four Swords as "as important" or even more so than the single player portion. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 12:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

*Oppose merge - Lack of Development coverage alone is no basis whatsoever for a merge. If a subject is notable, it's notable. If the development of Four Swords didn't receive much coverage, but it has plenty of other coverage to cover other sections there's no reason whatsoever to merge. --Teancum (talk) 13:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Opinion struck. I whole-heartedly disagree with the past consensus in regards to guidelines, but as I don't have much interest in the matter I'm bowing out. --Teancum (talk) 14:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I will say one final thing here. The creator/main editor of the article has given us a textbook case of when to ignore all rules. The article clearly has the significant coverage to stand on its own - following the core principles of WP:N and WP:RS, which trump any WikiProject Video Games consensus. Again, I find it completely backwards that the project's specific guidelines state what they do. I see the general idea behind it in that not every port deserves an article, but clearly this game has received significant coverage to pass WP:GNG, which once again trumps our guidelines. --Teancum (talk) 14:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I have moved the discussion and pointed the tags to this place as it will get more attention from the project this way. Hope that's okay (I copied and pasted your post over the current one, Teancum, please change it back if you like the other version). Prime Blue (talk) 13:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Support merge – As has been mentioned in the previous discussion, WikiProject Video games has specific guidelines that prohibit article splits of this kind: If you can verify enough information to write a non-stub section about the distinct reception of a video game remake, as well as a non-stub section about its distinct game development or design, then the remake will qualify for its own article. No detailed sources exist that would detail development to expand this section beyond stub status. Adding to that is the fact that the entirety of Four Swords can be explained in one paragraph (taking into consideration that the gameplay section of the separate article relies a lot on WP:GAMEGUIDE-like facts) and that reception of the port has to be addressed in the A Link to the Past article anyway to fulfill the broad coverage criterion for a good article. A split would be a lot easier to justify here if there was enough unique content beyond reception. Prime Blue (talk) 13:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

If an article has enough content to be spun off as a notable unit, then it's a candidate for a merge, but that doesn't mean we have to split them off. Right now I see the current article as being good enough as a basis for a good article; I think we're better off having one good article compared to two mediocre ones. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

That's somewhat true, if an article is too big, then it can be spun off. But argument of having to, isn't really necessary. Also did you look carefully to link to the past? that article is already GA, so no, it's not 1 GA > 2 mediocre. merging could possibly do some harm, i suggest we keep the current one, and expand on it.Bread Ninja (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying to mesh ALttP with ALttP/FS I'm just saying that we don't have to force an artificial divide. I'm not a fan of pages that smash unrelated reception info into another article, but I'm saying we're better with the title article containing aspects of one more than repeating content across pages. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge - While I think the article could survive either way, there should be enough sources found to establish notability. I don't get why Development info has to be a requirement. Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge - per the comments of Blake. Vaste reception section should be enough to indicate that this article is notable. Small development section shouldnt be used as a reason to merge. Salavat (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support merge Ports and re-releases are never, ever notable enough to have their own article, unless there is extensive original information (and I do mean original) regarding development, major and significant changes to gameplay, and reception, or it is part of a seperate compilation release. The particular re-releases that would fit this criteria are rare, and this port is definitely not one of them. If an article has to regurgitate most of the information from another article, then there is something seriously wrong. The only time we should consider a seperate article, beyond that, is for remakes that have been created from scratch. In these cases, the remake is inherently a completely seperate and independent game from the original that has simply been made to be similar to the original work (e.g. Pokemon FireRed and LeafGreen is not the same actual game as Pokemon Red and Blue). And even then, it's not worth it unless there's enough significant information to fill out a comprehensive and detailed article. There are a fair few articles of a similar situation that I think should be merged as well (Pokemon Platinum, for example, is by far the worst offender, the topic of which simply being a third variation of the exact same game). I'm certainly dreading the inevitable Ocarina of Time 3D article. I really would like to see a more strict guideline established on this though. As has been said above, we should not be forcibly splitting articles like this. The merged article covers the information perfectly well, and is a much stronger article than the two seperate ones. --Dorsal Axe 16:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm curious as to your objection to Pokémon Platinum. Are you arguing that the development section is weak and lacks anything separating it from its predecessors'? Are you arguing that the reception is weak, or redundant to its predecessors'? Are you arguing that it doesn't have enough features to discuss to the point where the Gameplay section is particularly dominated by content not unique to it? Or are you merely arguing that it being a remake with similar visuals and mechanics makes it not worthy of an article on video game remake bias rather than whether it is big enough to warrant an article? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
      • First of all, I completely dispute calling that game an "enhanced remake". Nothing about the game has even remotely been "remade", and it's a completely inaccurate term that should be changed to something along the lines of "enhanced re-release". It's the same base, same code, with minor additions and changes.
Secondly, yes I do think the development section is weak. Very weak at that. I think most of the info in the article is wholly redundant and what is actually unique to the Platinum article could easily be merged into Pokemon Diamond and Pearl. The reception section would be much stronger in the other article, as commentary could be provided comparing the critical reaction to the changes and improvements in Platinum compared to the reaction to the original releases. It would make for a much stronger article, having comparisons made between both, and avoid having two articles that are mostly very much the same in the process.
Thirdly, don't even dare start accusing people of bias. I simply think that articles based on "remakes" are not automatically notable enough for a seperate article, and only oppose them simply because they usually end up being largely the same as the original article, bar a few unique paragraphs on additional features. I feel this kind of split only weakens the original article, and devoids us of the chance to create a strong, unique article. If a split is to be made, there should be a very good reason for it, and enough good original content there to ensure that the article can and will develop to the highest standard of Wikipedia. I don't feel that both that Platinum and Four Swords are one of these instances. --Dorsal Axe 16:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Let's go down the development section. First paragraph discusses the designer attempting to change the "most important things," and that since he considered Diamond and Pearl to be the ultimate games in the series, he had to surpass that. Unique development info in first paragraph. Second paragraph we see an entire paragraph dealing with the design of the cover Pokémon, as well as incorporations of concepts such as anti-matter and the theory of relativity, as well as the myth of Reverse Mt. Fuji. It also deals with their attempts at improving communication. Not one sentence in this paragraph is redundant to anything in the original games' article. The third paragraph deals with the name origin, as well as making the story more approachable. And finally, it discusses the modification of Gym Leaders' Pokémon to make more sense to the game. And in the release section, we see a pretty decent coverage of how Nintendo promoted this game. The entire Development section is well-referenced and has nothing redundant about it. I would wager that in the case of most remakes, merging would help the parent article as well. In the case of Super Mario 64 DS, would Super Mario 64 not benefit from it being merged? Wouldn't a comparison of each game's reception help people better understand? It would, but clearly not to the point where the good of merging outweighs the bad of losing a quality article. And going outside of reception, sales, release, and development, we see clearly that the amount of content that is even remotely redundant to Diamond and Pearl are the story and setting section and part of the gameplay section. But even then, the story section has unique information on the enhancements and changes to the plot and overworld, while the gameplay section has a paragraph detailing all of the new gameplay. Even if you removed all of the redundant information, the content has asserted notability and is demonstratively very large, too large to comfortably fit in the original games' article. Diamond and Pearl is so far beyond weak that it blows my mind. The notion that Diamond and Pearl's development and reception requires Platinum information is insane. You look at the two articles and you see one thing - that Platinum uses far more widespread sources. The fact of the matter is that currently, the Diamond and Pearl article is not even close to having all the reception that one could find from the Reliable Source Search, Google Books, and Google News. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment and question: In regard to some of the comments above, development info is needed for comprehensiveness of the topic. While other games can exist as a stand-alone article, not every game is a derivative topic of another topic. Taking that into account, we have to keep content forking in mind when writing about remakes.
    Retro Hippie- do you think you could further expand the article? The article is a good start, and I think very close to meeting the threshold. But the development info is still rather sparse; it has maybe half of the content that SM64DS has. Could you expand the development section and clean up the structure in about a week? If so, then I think we can put this matter on hold until then. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC))
  • Comment - Maybe I'm misunderstanding Wikipedia:Content forking, but it states "Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork." To me that says to separate and distinct games are not forks. Rather, a fork would be a totally separate article on X-Men (arcade game) based on the Xbox Live/PSN releases, which do nothing more than add online play and enhanced menus. --Teancum (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
    • The guideline doesn't forbid such splitting, but urges editors to keep unnecessary redundancy in mind. The example given in the guideline was for two different individuals that shared a life together. Remakes are different and because of that, we came up with our own guideline to deal with them. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC))
      • If its a complaint about the content forking link it can be changed to something like WP:AVOIDSPLIT
  • (Jumping back in the conversation) That's not going to do any good. It's essentially the same essence as content forking. No, the issue lies in the fact that the article already has 23 independent sources - pulling out the "most anticipated" links and any links related to sequels still yields ~18 links or so, most related to IGN, which tells me that if one site has covered it that well that there should be plenty of coverage. --Teancum (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Anyway as before, I strong support merge because reception alone is not enough to note something as district otherwise we begin to spin out tons of articles whose on significant difference is how people "perceive" it. I am tempted to overhaul WP:Notability (video games) for proposal and submit it for revierw because people seem to think just about any port, remake or expansion that gets 2 separate sources talking about it is notable and that release dates and new team members are good enough to qualify for decent development listing.Jinnai 18:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
        • WEll i also think that reception alone isn't enough, (unless mention significance between the new version). This isn't just a port, it's a remake, and it's not just a remake, it's an expanded version. that along of course isn't enough for notability, but considering it's a ported expanded version of the original that was made while back, i would say that there must be some other coverage on it out there to make it more notable than it already is. But if anything, i suggest clean up the article first before anything or if those willing to, look up some sources.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
          • That would be nice, but often for remakes is much harder, if not impossible. Most of the commentary that usually occurs is just about how they added stuff or updated graphics, etc, which is basically handled by adding a bit more to the gameplay. Of course there's always the few that have a lot more detail, but in general budgets for remakes are lower so their isn't as much to talk about for development and the media usually doesn't walk to interview someone about a remake when they can ask about the newest thing.Jinnai 18:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
          • It is definitely possible, and hard depends on how hard you look. Explaining the new features is what makes it independent, the only thing is if one is willing to merge it and remove that content. I say clean up the article first, such as sourcing what is unsourced, and removing stuff that can't be sourced. the simple things. From there we decide to merge or not merge.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
            • If they say "We added X" and then go on to describe how X works and not how they came about it, then other than "We added X" there is nothing to add to a development section. The rest is gameplay. Trying to do otherwise is WP:OR.Jinnai 15:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment There is the fact that this isn't just some port or remake, but is a port with a new multi-player game added which makes it a completely different game. This wasn't packaged like "The Legend of Zelda" or "Adventure of Link" were when they were re-released for GBA. The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords was a new game. Maybe if enough information is found, it should just get its own article instead of the port. The official website says This Game Pak is really two games in one: A Link to the Past and Four Swords.... The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past is a massive adventure game which challenges a young boy named Link to save his native land of Hyrule.... The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords is a unique multiplayer game for two to four players. [8] Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I think that's getting into semantics. At it's heart, I think most would agree that the game is a remake, albeit with great new features. Regardless, I think we should see what can be done about the small development section. If that can be expanded, then that would end the discussion. If time is needed to accomplish this, then I think it'll best serve every one to see what else can be done and put things on hold. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC))

On that note, I'd like to say that trade show appearances of a game except for the first one do not necessarily help the development section (that same problem also plagues Super Mario 64 DS) since they have little to do with development: we need information on the creation of the story, characters, gameplay etc. Prime Blue (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:VG/GL#Essential content: Specifically for articles about games, it is essential to explain how the game was made. Prime Blue (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
You aren't saying it is "bad" information, but that it really isn't "Development", but more "Release"/"Promotion", right? I put that there cause usually Release/Promotion sections are a part of the Development section in some way. Blake (Talk·Edits) 00:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think every public or trade show appearance is notable (for example the TV Kumamoto's TKU 15th Day one that just tells us "it was there"), but basically, yes, it would fit a promotion section better if it doesn't detail the actual development. The problem, though, is that there is not even enough to create such a section... Prime Blue (talk) 05:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge, I was looking and found an interview by Game Informer where Eiji Anouma (or however you spell his name) regards ALTTP/Four Swords GBA as a different game from the original LttP and FSA. [9] The interview was done by Billy Berghammer (who has a history in video gaming journalism), the only issue I see is that people will probably ad hominem the interview to death considering it's on an iffy site. If the games were linked like Oracle of Seasons and Ages, sure i'd see a reason to merge but Eiji said it himself, ALttP/FS GBA was done by an entirely different person than himself. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 04:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The interview itself is fine. It's just that it isn't contested that it is a separate game, it is the lack of unique content beyond reception, most notably development, that makes a split hard due to the above-mentioned guidelines. And I think they make a lot of sense: If it wasn't for that guideline, we would have articles on every enhanced port of a game because each one normally has received substantial critical reception. Think about Link's Awakening DX, for example: Easily enough reception, but next to no information about development – splitting that off would just result in one incomplete and one very lackluster article. Prime Blue (talk) 05:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The difference between LA and LADX is one dungeon - which warrants no discussion outside of its dungeon - and colour enhancements. The difference between the Super NES ALttP and ALttP/FS is an entirely new mode that doesn't even run on the same engine as ALttP. There is clearly unique content - the plot summary and gameplay descriptions of FS are unique to this article and this article alone. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Releases/promotion is not a part of development. What they say in there can be about its development, but the act of promoting something is not part of its development.
That "new mode" can also be summed up in 1 paragraph. It would be similar to if we split The Answer from Persona 3 because the remake added a whole new story that didn't use the same gameplay mechanics and whatnot as the original, but was still a part of the game's experience. Instead its not because even though FES got a lot of unique critism and there was some development info on it, The Answer was still just a part of the same game experience like 4 swords is. Both The Answer and 4 Swords are seperate games, but they are meant to played together with the main game on each as both compliment the respective main game in different ways.Jinnai 15:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Just because it doesn't deal specifically with the creation of the game, I don't think promotion material should be discounted. Promotion is not development, but it has traditionally been included in development sections because it outlines part of the topic's history. If it gets too large, then another section is created. If not, it stays in the most relevant section. Development and reception sections were added to our articles to present some history of the game; otherwise, they read like game guides. That being said, I believe that promotion content serves that history aspect. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC))
Promotional material had been lumped with development info for the same reason impact and legacy is lumped with reception. They aren't the same, but there usually isn't enough of one to justify its own seperate section.Jinnai 19:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok. I expanded it some more. Is this version sufficient? (Guyinblack25 talk 16:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC))
Over half that seems to be release info, the kind of thing we were saying doesn't count. If you remove that you just have a stub section.Jinnai 19:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
As I stated above, I disagree that promotion info is irrelevant to the development of a game as it is marketing history. Many of our quality articles include marketing information in development sections.
Regardless, dividing at the game's first appearance at E3 2002, both portions are 8 sentences with around the same word count. I do not consider an 8 sentence paragraph a stub section. Granted, I would love to see more content there, but I'd say the current version meets the threshold established by our past consensus. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC))
I agree on both counts - promotion is very much a part of development, and two eight-sentence paragraphs do not equal a stub. --Teancum (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Explain then how does a promotion help the "development" (not the exposure) of a game? They are 2 seperate things. Most of that info goes in a "Release" section. I would also say that many of the FA articles we have are pre-2007 when standards were much lower and even those that aren't, a lot of those are a combination because the release info is too short. Beyond the initial release for each region and maybe any major delays you don't even need to list anything and indeed listing too many re-release dates put undue weight on those later re-releases.Jinnai 20:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the two are different. However, I don't think that is any reason to discount the historical aspect of the information. We include development info because we need a history section about the topic. There is nothing wrong with combining sections when one or more is too small. We do this with reception and legacy (both post-release history) and plot and gameplay (both description content) in many of our articles. I would categorize this issue more as an improper section label rather than inappropriate content.
I also agree that we should avoid undue weight. However, I don't think we've created undue weight in this article.
Regardless, the article now has 8 sentences of "regular" development content. I would not categorize that as a stub section. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC))
I would still disagree that the split -as it stands- is justified. The info is largely about Four Swords, not LttP. There is nothing new with that game; indeed they just say that one is a port. The whole argument by NARH is that Four Swords is a seperate game not really connected to LttP and as such we should treat it like that - A seperate article for that, but not the LttP port.Jinnai 00:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not following - LttP is part of the cartridge. It will only confuse the reader to omit that, and reviewers and critics would treat it as one game, not two. --Teancum (talk) 00:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Break

I would have to say, that this gone far enough. what exactly would you say would be enough to keep these two split?Bread Ninja (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - for those supporting a merge, please be extremely definitive as to what the Development section needs to remain. "Significant coverage" doesn't seem to be good enough to make a consensus here, as clearly everyone disagrees. --Teancum (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I've already said my piece and right now I'd support only a partial merge.
In order for me to not even support that, I'd need to see a well developed pragraph that talks about non-release/non-promotional info about LttP aspect.
And yes, just because they are on the same cart doesn't mean we treat them as one. We don't treat compliations that way even if they get reviewed as such (and the few we still have are just holdovers that need to be merged into their respective articles), FE Final Fantasy Chronicles should eventually be merged into Final Fantasy IV and Chrono Trigger and made into a disambig page.Jinnai 03:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
As for merging the Final Fantasy Chronicles article, should we discuss a merger there if there is any possible way we can split this? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
In response to an above comment, I've never argued that FS is not connected to ALttP. Accomplishing specific things in both games enhances each other. And as demonstrated, the FS series has strong links to ALttP - its sequel reuses sprites and background elements from ALttP, but enhanced visually (another example is how Ganon in FSA uses the same design as ALttP Ganon). While the latter content is not usable as evidence but merely there to demonstrate the SERIES link, the gameplay link is good enough. The reviews are not about Four Swords, they are about a game that contains it. Four Swords was created especially for this package - it would be like considering Professor Layton and the Specter's Flute a compilation game; or Super Mario Advance 4: Super Mario Bros. 3 a compilation game; or Metroid Prime a compilation game; having two games that are very unique from each other does not make them a compilation of games. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't understand why this is such a hugely controversial issue. Why does it matter so much whether it's merged or left the way it is? The readers surely wouldn't care if, due to redundancy issues, material about the original Four Swords is moved entirely to the Four Swords Adventures article. But then, they don't care that they're currently separated, either. It seems ridiculous to argue so much about this when more pressing matters are at hand, like how the project's FTs have been dropping like flies over the last year and a half—including one on The Legend of Zelda series. If we were arguing about that, then I could understand this excess. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 09:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Not to compare the two things - obviously different issues - but that argument is as legitimate as "why debate homosexual rights when we could debate minority rights?". I'm sorry that this discussion is bad because you have not raised these more important issues outside of deriding other discussions because they exist and not the ones you want to exist (but are apparently not proactive enough to form them). - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Again, you're making a mountain out of a mole hill. In what way is the article status of an expanded re-release of a Zelda game equivalent to the fight for homosexual rights? That typifies this entire argument: an irrelevant, minor dispute made out to be an epic struggle, on par with the Odyssey. In response to your statement, however, I'd like to say that I was illustrating the distorted priorities of the project; I was not demanding that such discussions as I mentioned be made, but giving an example of how the project has more-or-less ignored other, more critical problems as damage was being done, while deciding that this matter is of the utmost importance. Also, I'd recommend avoiding direct character judgments in the future. You're angry, sure, but we're criticizing ideas; not people. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 10:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Because it's the exact same argument. I responded to the point you just made before you made it - by saying that this matter is clearly not the equivalent to homosexual rights. Your argument is. You are basically telling us that discussing this topic is bad because there are more important things to discuss. The fact of the matter is that this discussion could very well change the guideline on video game remakes. The dispute is clearly about remakes with ALttP/FS as a focal point of the discussion. Also, there's a difference between "angry" and "annoyed by trolling." - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 10:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
          • DO we have a consensus or not? because it's getting us no where to aargue like this. Regardless, i think the article should be kept at least for the pure reason of content forking.Bread Ninja (talk) 11:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
            • No, NARH, you did not respond to my argument before I made it. The point is that "homosexual rights vs. minority rights" is a major issue vs. a major issue, while "Zelda article status vs. crumbling WikiProject foundations" is a tiny, tiny issue vs. a major issue. I am trying to illustrate, and, hopefully, to end this pointless argument that has been taking up all of the project's time. Accusing me of trolling—when, in fact, I am attempting to help—is a blatant disregard for AGF that I really, truly do not appreciate. We're all here to improve the project, and that "us against the rest" mentality is completely unhelpful to anyone. And, honestly, I highly doubt that this discussion will reform any of our guidelines; it's too specific a case to apply to other games. How many remakes contain a new, influential game tacked on to them? That's the only reason this has lasted as long as it has, and it's just about the only case of this ever happening. The point is, we're wasting our time. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
              • There is one thing I think that has come out of this. I think we may want to develope a layout formula that defines what is what. People are confusing release and promotion with development. I think developing that into a MOS with some kind of structure (we already have a basic one of what goes where) and how to combine them there isn't enough.Jinnai 22:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
                • Well, at least there's some good coming out of this, even if only as a side-effect. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd definitely like to see something along these lines, with a more strict focus on actual developer comments for the development section rather than relying on reviewers of the game or general articles with assertions, or the staff credits alone (it is true that one could write even two entire, verbose paragraphs based on the staff credits of a game, but the people involved mostly still tell us little about the development). These kinds of sources are possibly appropriate to add some material, but I don't think a development section should rely too heavily on them, let alone be based on them. Prime Blue (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Development is starting to look better now, but there is still some pretty wishy-washy stuff in there: For example "The company designed the multi-player portion to force cooperation between players in order to progress", taken from a comparison article to Four Swords Adventures without developer comments, over a year after the release. Same with "The developers designed the levels to adjust the puzzles to the number of players participating; if two or four players are connected, then a puzzle will require two and four characters, respectively, to complete it", which would fit the gameplay section better. Or "Four Swords differs graphically from the other portion and features a style similar to The Wind Waker, which was released around the same time", another assertion as part of a review. Overall, more direct developer comments would be needed here, with a bigger focus on the actual creation of the game: how was it decided to make a port of A Link to the Past in conjunction with a multiplayer game, how was the team assembled, why were specific design choices made? Information on the game design, creation of characters/art style/story/etc. There are three Japanese guide books and Nintendo Dream issue 124 (year 2004) has an interview with Hidemaro Fujibayashi. That would be the first place to look for some solid information. Prime Blue (talk) 13:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

A few things
  • In regards to Four Swords:
    • The whole "these are two separate games" thing strikes me more as a marketing phrase that was mentioned more by the developers. As Retro Hippie mentioned above, the games are very much linked as actions in one effects content in the other. Also, the Four Swords portion is only four dungeons. It is not like Castlevania Double Pack, which literally contained two separate games.
    • While I agree that the development content is not where it should be for FA standards, I'd say it meets the standards we've allowed for GAs. Also, developer interviews are not required to write a development section. Per WP:PRIMARY, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources."
      • Playing Devil's advocate (albeit in my favor), how do you know the writers didn't speak with the developers at one point to obtain those comments? Also, how do you know that they are not knowledgeable enough to reverse engineer the gameplay mechanics? The site is a reliable source for a reason. If IGN and GameSpot is only allowed for opinions, then a number of our articles are incorrectly using the sites' content.
    • Regardless, I believe the article, while not perfect, meets the criteria previously established by past consensus. If this thread has shifted to the validity of that consensus, then perhaps a new, separate discussion is necessary below.
  • A number of comments have been made regarding the content of development sections. If Wikipedia:VG/GL#Essential content is going to be held to such a stringent level, then a project-wide sweep of our GAs and FAs (mine and others') is needed because I know that a great number of them do not meet that level. Again, perhaps a new, separate discussion is necessary below.
  • I do not think FF Chronicles should be merged as the content there meets some of the more stringent criteria mentioned above as an argument to merge Four Swords.
(Guyinblack25 talk 15:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC))
Well TBH, considering how many old FAs we have, reviewing them for Wikipedia:VG/GL#Essential content and other issues that have changed is probably a good thing.
As for the development section, I did a quick overview assuming those in this project would know better than to try and use review sources as development info, or info from other games to validate this one and the like, but if that is the case I'd have to retract my support for even a partial split.Jinnai 16:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree that developer interviews are among the best source for development sections. I find them to be invaluable for many of my articles. However, Wikipedia's guidelines allow for other reliable sources beside straight from the horse's mouth. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC))
It depends on the context. What the 3rd party ones are being used for is comparison, not development info. That goes in the reception area. Otherwise using it here as fact for development is point-of-view issue.Jinnai 21:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. I think that to assume everything written in a review or editorial is opinion is a generalization. For the most part it's true, but there are exceptions. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to use reviews to source gameplay sections either. Granted one should be careful when selecting what to use where, but that just takes experience and good judgment.
The content I took from the IGN articles explicitly talked about developer decisions.
  • From Legend of Zelda: Sword-to-Sword
    • Wiki: "The company designed the multi-player portion to force cooperation between players in order to progress."
    • IGN: "Capcom took the time to specifically design a multiplayer game that required you to cooperate with your teammates"
  • From Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past
    • Wiki: "The developers designed the levels to adjust the puzzles to the number of players participating."
    • IGN: "What's more, the game design is intelligent enough to only offer dungeon designs with the amount of players in the network in mind. So, even though the game allows for up to four players to cooperate and compete in the dungeons, the designers realized that this wouldn't always be the case."
I was careful to evaluate the source and take verifiable information that fit into a specific section of an article. Is it scrapping together bits of similar content together to write a section? I would certainly say yes. Is it misrepresenting the topic or misusing sources? I don't believe so. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC))
It's important that you do not state this information as fact, however; frame it with a line like, "IGN believed that the company...". Whenever there's doubt about whether a source is stating a fact (the developers did this) or an impression (the developers seem to have done this), always frame it as an impression. Otherwise, articles become prone to misinformation. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
That's a valid concern. I took the statements at face value and I can now see where that might be of concern when citing a review. However, what about the comparison article which is a feature rather than a review? Should the same scrutiny be applied there too? What about something like a retrospective feature? I know such sources are used in many articles. (Guyinblack25 talk 08:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC))
I generally think that even reliable sources need to be examined closely to assess legitimacy of development information. The less input an article has received from the actual developers, the more assertions and errors it contains. For example, the Four Swords developer is given as "Capcom Studios 1" in the feature, when in fact, the studio is called "Production Studio 1" and was never officially confirmed to have participated in development (and IGN's list of games developed Production Studio 1 still continues to include recent games long after the studio was dissolved and merged into one big development department...). IGN is one of the worst offenders regarding this issue, I mistrust their articles if they don't have any developer statements to back up their information...which they usually are quick to point out if they do. Prime Blue (talk) 09:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I'll have to echo Prime Blue's first sentence. In the past, I've been guilty of submitting false information gleaned from incorrect reliable sources. For example, a Gamasutra (Game Developer Magazine) piece about game history declared that System Shock used an updated version of the Ultima Underworld engine. I put that in UU's article, and got it featured. I later discovered from two separate developer comments that SS's engine was written completely from scratch. And that was from the highly reliable Gamasutra; IGN rarely, if ever, bothers with fact checking. Basically, like I said before, it's best to state where the information is from if it even remotely seems like an impression. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 11:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Remember that WP's credo is verifability, not so much truth. Even if you know for certain (through some non-standard means like intuition, hacking the source code, having a dev friend) that a fact is wrong that every other reliable print source says, and that fact (or the correct fact) should be in the article, you're still going to have to point to the incorrect fact as the sourced one, because that is what can be verified. There's way to word things to make it less fact-y and more of an inferred assumption that the publication(s) made, such as naming the source in the text, but that's not always possible. WP recognizes reliable sources make mistakes. --MASEM (t) 14:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
The verifiability policy is often misinterpreted: inclusion has to be based on verifiability, not truth – that does not mean that wrong information should be included as long as it is verifiable, but rather that right information has to be verifiable to be included. Prime Blue (talk) 15:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Even if you know personally the fact is wrong, but every reliable source reports the contrary, you can't report the correct fact without a source. Usually this means you just don't include the wrong information. But like with the Mega Drive sales above, where we have no idea what is the most reliable number and yet this is a critical piece of information, we have to work around that, usually stating who is claiming the figure. Written this way, the fact that work X says fact Y can be verifiable, but we're not claiming fact Y being necessarily correct. --MASEM (t) 20:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The point is that the information from those two IGN articles should be phrased differently, just to be on the safe side, as there's no evidence that it came from anything but assumptions. This has nothing to do with whether the existence of the ALttP/FS article is justified; it's just common sense. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

That's what I meant, Masem. ;-) Prime Blue (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge These were two separate games. The fact that one game was used as source material for the second, isn't relevant. The article has valid content, listing differences in them, how they were marketed, how they came about, and whatnot. There is never a reason to eliminate valid content. There are enough reliable sources covering this game, for it to have its own article. And the rules of WP:MERGE clearly state not to merge without proper consensus. Don't just ignore what others say and decide to do it on your own either. Do a proper discussion and if there is no clear consensus to merge, then don't do it. Dream Focus 10:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
You'll have to keep in mind that the initial split was against the project's guidelines and had no consensus either. Prime Blue (talk) 15:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Except for that small - albeit existing - consensus on the ALttP talk formed in a discussion about this exact same notion that we are discussing right now. However, there was demonstratably not much controversy to be found on this matter, since it didn't get any notice for months after such a split had happened. The fact of the matter is that the only consensus to merge it in the first place had only three people - the same amount of people who formed the consensus to split - and I was a part of the consensus in both cases. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support merge though I understand the reasons for opposing such a merge. Plot and gameplay are identical to ALttP; the only difference is the Four Swords addition and additional reception coverage. I would think one could easily include all relevant information in the original ALttP article with virtually no problems regarding size or undue weight. More specifically, specific gameplay differences between the ALttP versions can be included in the gameplay section, while placing gameplay and development information about Four Swords in its own section; reception information could also go into this section, or it could be placed in the general reception section of the article. Overall, I think a merge is possible here. –MuZemike 18:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
What about giving four swords its own article instead? AKA all the LTTP stuff is in the same article, and then four swords has its own article, with a link to such article in the GBA section of LTTP article.--SexyKick 18:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, I don't know if that would make much sense, splitting off a part of an article like that by sub-game. I mean, it seems counter-intuitive. –MuZemike 18:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think anyone here thinks that it's impossible to merge - the disagreement lies in whether it needs to be merged. The original article has much more room for growth aside from this merge; the reception is definitely lacking. If one did some serious searching, I'm sure we would be able to make a massive reception section, as big as what this merge could ever contribute to the article. I quantify it by this: If Four Swords was JUST Four Swords, there would be little controversy over it having a separate article. However, by the fact that it has more content than FS, it becomes a merge candidate. The Four Swords mode is notable enough if, in the event of it having its own game separate from the ALttP port, it could sustain as its own article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Even disregarding the lacking development section, I'll have to echo my sentiments from the last discussion: Is Four Swords really that expansive a game to warrant several sections? I was able to sum up its plot in two sentences and even the gameplay is one short paragraph at most, mentioning the main objective, the fact that it is a two to four player cooperative game with randomly-generated dungeons, and only one item at a time can be used. Much of the current information of the section goes into WP:GAMEGUIDE-like specifics, such as "The player with the most rupees at the end of a level wins a special prize, though all rupees are shared together in the long run. All players are given respective colours - player one is green, player two is red, player three is blue, and player four is purple. Once all players are connected, player one chooses one of the four stages available to play on.", or "The third level is not a traditional dungeon, but rather a boss battle. Once defeated, they will return to the hub area." Or the trivia-esque "An original item called the Gnat Hat appears, causing Link to shrink and be able to access areas he could not normally reach. This was featured in a later game The Legend of Zelda: The Minish Cap, though it was in the form of a talking hat named Ezlo." Prime Blue (talk) 03:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I would argue that, discounting the plot section, The Minish Cap has just as many problems with article size as Four Swords. You must also note that in the first line of the Four Swords section, we call the gameplay "similar to A Link to the Past", which is described in the ALttP paragraph. If we didn't have the ALttP content, we would simply have to explain how the traditional overhead gameplay operates. As it stands, The Minish Cap, when you cut out all of the content that is roughly as gameguidey or as trivial as what's in the FS article, it would probably come out to the same size. And going further than that, the Development section is less fleshed-out. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
The point is that, for Four Swords, we do have the same gameplay mechanics as in A Link to the Past with the above-mentioned slight alterations. The Minish Cap was subject to a very short GA review in 2007 and I would not give it a pass with that development section, but there are more interview sources that can actually be used to expand it – and the gameplay section, while easily cut down to two more focused paragraphs, does not suffer nearly as much from the problems Four Swords does. But this is not about the GA status of The Minish Cap, it is about Four Swords. Prime Blue (talk) 04:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Second break

Not sure if a separate section or a sub-section is more appropriate, but I'd like to go over some of the thoughts expressed about the development content. I made a sub-section because this topic provides a good example, but this can be moved out if others think it's a good idea.

There is obviously a difference of opinion in how Wikipedia's policies and guidelines should be interpreted. Not in a broad sense, but rather in the finer details. Because of that I think we should further discuss that difference as I think the conclusions we draw will benefit some of the other active threads going on. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but some of the thoughts I saw expressed here include:

  • Release information should not be in a development section and by extension does not count as development information for our purposes of quality assessment, merging, splitting, etc.
  • Development sections should focus primarily on how the game was creatively designed and functionally executed.
  • Source for development content should be scrutinized to ensure a level of accuracy.
  • Certain sources do not qualify as adequate for development content.

The above sounds very reasonable and I think should always be kept in mind in our article writing. However, the execution sounds very difficult to balance. One of my concerns is how WP:PRIMARY applies to these. My take is that the page is intended to avoid original research on our part as editors. The section states that "articles should be based on ... secondary sources", which I believe is intended to establish notability, as well as avoid OR. It also states, however, that second sources can make analytic or evaluative claims. That being said, where does the line exist? Should we question every aspect of a source when we're writing content outside the reception sections? Or can we use a reasonable statement made by a secondary source so long as it complies with WP:VERIFY? Thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 17:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC))

I have general disagreement on the Development section needing to be a non-stub in general. I agree with Gameplay and Reception (particularly Reception) needing to be non-stub, but not Development. Why? Because the same standard should apply to any article. If there's enough content for non-stub (referenced) Gameplay and Reception sections the article likely passes guidelines, however I can think of several games where it's extremely hard to find much Development info on. I'm sure I'm talking to a wall though as several people will say "the sources are out there, you just have to find them". To that I reply that I've been here long enough to know you have to really dig to find things sometimes. I also know sometimes there's nothing to find. XBLA/PSN games pushed by a major publisher often fall into this trap. When it's a more "indie" publisher (Microsoft Game Studios, Sony Computer Entertainment) more is put on the devs to get the word out, so there's lots to find. That's not always the case with, say Electronic Arts or Ubisoft digital titles. --Teancum (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree that development sections for older games will be difficult if not impossible to find; before the Internet media era, most publications would give little thought to explaining the rational that a game was developed with and instead hit on the big new features and their review. Even today, if you don't have a reputable studio or an AAA title, dev information can be extremely tricky to track down through what we call reliable sources. Reception is the critical section as to establish notability for any game - without that, it's Yet Another Game, and probably shouldn't have an article or be merged elsewhere. --MASEM (t) 18:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Not entirely what I was questioning, but I do see your point. I believe the intent with the non-stub development section is to purposely raise the bar for a topic having its own page. It does make writing about remakes more difficult. But I don't see that as a bad thing. What makes remakes and ports special cases is that they are derivative of another topic. Some remakes are not that notable, while others are.
Ultimately, I agree with the remake guideline because (most times) consolidating frames information better. It avoids redundant content and provides a historical overview of a topic. What I'm more concerned with is how we determine what is an acceptable development section, in articles about original games as well as remakes. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC))
(Edit conclict): also think "promotion" does not apply to development. As for release info, I think its vague. I mean a delay in development with an expatiation related to the development is both release info and development info. On the other hand, release dates for repackagings & compliations, info on the update status of a release dates without development context aren't really part of the development.
For secondary source info, I would say it depends on how it is used.
  • For statements like "John worked as the head of development." if the primary source doesn't contradict that, I'd say its fine.
  • For making descriptive claims in the plot section like "The main character is a shy, enegmatic, nice guy." are also appropriate. That is allowed by WP:WAF since most people who read it would probably see it the same; we just can't say that as it would be WP:OR
I do not think that we can use them for making assumptions on development, production, or anything else that usually goes on behind closed doors. As for gameplay, I'm not sure because what is "fun" or "Easy" for one person is "boring" or "frustrating" for another.
@Teancum - There needs to be some threshold beyond reception to justify a split because its easy to get reception and a bit of gameplay change with remakes, ports and expansions to meet the GNG. We shouldn't be making people surf 5 articles when 1 can suffice just to find out all the detail on the different versions of a game. Development is the best way to do this because it shows that there is something important and distinctive to the game that makes it unique from its original.
EDIT:As to your indie/mainstream comment, that just helps support my reason because indie games tend to have less reception in general. It helps balance things out well imo.Jinnai 18:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with most of what you said, particularly the two bullet points. I agree with the principle of your first statement, but I worry that the execution of it in our articles is difficult to define. "Development context" is a good phrase to include in guidelines, and something I think we should keep in mind your guideline discussion.
One conflict I have in my mind about all this is the assumptions part. How do we know the secondary source made an assumption? If it is a reliable source, then why are we questioning every aspect of the source? If we're questioning the reliability of a publication's content, then it shouldn't be considered a reliable source any more? Just to reiterate, I do agree that some content shouldn't be used, like a game review. But I would think that anything outside a review should be covered by the publication's general reliability. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC))

Maybe If I give a case-in-point as to why I don't agree with the non-stub Development section: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Turtles in Time Re-Shelled. I wrote the article from scratch, and although Ubisoft gave no Development information on the game (the engine, scripting, etc) it features several Gameplay elements with differentiate it from it's parent game, has been reviewed extensively by critics, and is one of the top selling XBLA games. In my opinion these things would have cluttered Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Turtles in Time, so I split the article, providing an in-line link to Re-Shelled in the appropriate section. --Teancum (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

To the point of secondary sources making assumptions, I say that because that info is generally behind closed doors and bound by NDAs. If they know something like that and release it, I think its best to treat it like any other rumor or commentary by a RS.
@Teancum - there will always be exceptions to the guidelines. However, those changes, while notable, can be easily described in a a subsection or two (depending how its organized). It is a substanital updating to the game I'll admit, but really what kind of real-world value is added beyond the reception? That's what Wikipedia is more concerned about which is why we list development as one of the criteria.Jinnai 19:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I would argue the opposite. In instances (specific instances I'll admit) we do a disservice by trying to cram content from a remake into the parent article. There are instances when simply placing an abridged version in the parent article does not provide an accurate description of the remake's gameplay, development, and reception. It seems most would argue that the content (in my example) of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Turtles in Time#Remake covers all necessary information. --Teancum (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
It just kind of feels like we're treating Reception as irrelevant, when really, reception is the absolute most important aspect of demonstrating notability. As for an earlier comment, the game in question is not one that has a "little bit" of content - it has a whole new mode with a whole new engine, and a lot of redundancies in the article to ALttP actually serve to explain this new mode just as that information is used to explain the gameplay in all other Zelda titles. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
We aren't treatiing it as irrelivent. We are saying that there is more to meeting the GNG when it comes to ports/remakes because its SO easy to meet for many games and the content is really basically the same it needs a higher threshold because the subject matter is basically the same. The GNG is worded to make it clear that meeting it is only a "presumtion" of notability and uses "multiple" sources; commonly that is seen as two, but that doesn't mean it must be.Jinnai 19:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
To reiterate a point that I've made many times on this matter, the fact that ALttP/FS is clearly not just a remake means that we cannot blindly apply remake guidelines to it. If we consider that all Zelda games discuss their recurring elements, only a portion of the gameplay section and the story section are actually redundant to the parent article, whereas everything else deals with the quality of the adaptation, additions to the game, subtractions to the game, and the new mode of play. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree there are exceptions (that is what WP:IAR is for. However, for your example, I do not believe LttP+FS meets that because the amount of changes can be summed up in a couple of paragraphs and the development info is mostly comprised of release dates.Jinnai 19:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
As an example of what I'd consider an exception, Final Fantasy VII (Famicom) even without the development info would probably might qualify. It is also a good example of how to use secondary sources for development info.Jinnai 19:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think new additions to a remake are cause for a new article. It's a cause to dig deeper for more sources. However, how those sources can be applied is what I think should be the focus here. Currently, I'd say the Four Swords article meets the criteria for a stand-alone article. But if the content and sourcing issue I brought up concludes that the sources are improperly used, then the article should be merged as the development section is not quite there.
Regardless, this sub-section is getting side-tracked from the original point, which was not to re-discuss the merge/split of Four Swords. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC))

Jinnai- I understand that NDAs limit how and when development information flows, but that does not automatically discredit a secondary source's claim. It simply means that they broke an agreement between two parties. Also, we're assuming that an agreement was in place between the author and the developer. I worry that a lot of assumptions are being made that don't need to or shouldn't be made. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC))

The point is we can't know. If a RS said "Final Fantasy 15 was coming out in January 2012" we'd not really take that at face value without some other source, usually the publisher or developer, backing it up. It's the same thing if they start claiming stuff about development. Unless they say "i believe..." or "according to (person of X's staff), it's a rumor because we have no way of determing if its their opinion or its a fact.Jinnai 19:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Again, my problem with that is if we take that route, we have to treat everything on virtually every gaming website we now consider reliable as opinion pieces unless otherwise stated. In short, the editorial over-sight of the publication is overlooked and it is no longer a completely reliable source. We'd have to treat IGN and GameSpot like Kotaku and Joystiq. If that's the consensus, then so be it. It will make writing much more difficult, while ensuring higher quality. But that's something we need to be very sure about as it effects the majority of our articles. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC))
Per WP:RS (bolding is not my emphasis)
"The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made."
The point here is that video game RSes, while they have editorial oversight, don't get a blanket pass on everything they say. The part bolded is there for a reason-for development info they are claiming something and if they don't back it up, its not "direct support".Jinnai 20:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't see why we cannot trust IGN, which is probably the most used reference for video games on Wikipedia, for development info when they clearly have reason to be privvy to such information. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I believe that statement refers to source content directly supporting Wikipedia article content. Not a source directly supporting its own content. I also believe that policy was intended to prevent reliable sources on one topic being used for an unrelated one, i.e. do not use a source known for reliability in military history for a biology article. A perfect example would be Retro Gamer's "Back to the Eighties" feature, which includes a side-bar for current events and the top songs from the featured month. Other sources would be appropriate for citations in music and event articles.
I think I understand what you're getting at, as some statements would be out of line regardless who reports them, like the FF15 example you gave above. But I think some statements are not contentious at all and do not require such scrutiny. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC))
I guess give me an example of something you think would be okay then.Jinnai 21:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Other than the recent Zelda ones I don't have a good example off the top of my head. If I think of one, I'll post it, but those are all that come to mind right now.
  • From Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past
    • Wiki: "The developers designed the levels to adjust the puzzles to the number of players participating."
    • IGN: "What's more, the game design is intelligent enough to only offer dungeon designs with the amount of players in the network in mind. So, even though the game allows for up to four players to cooperate and compete in the dungeons, the designers realized that this wouldn't always be the case."
Just to be up front about things, I'm perfectly fine with discounting this example given that it's from a review. But I think this example is fine for discussion purposes because I would consider it is acceptable if it was found in a feature article on the website. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC))
Depending on the site, I'd be a little more willing to accept it, so long as it as clear what was a feature article and not just a featured review. FE:Gamasutra I'd be more willing to do that because they are considered a more reliable site than IGN or Gamespot.

Also for that example, I can see what you're saying there, but I would want a quote in the citation so its clear that we aren't doing any OR.

The other thing is, that info could just as easily go into a Gameplay section. While the developers probably did think this, it isn't clear its really development or gamplay.Jinnai 22:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

"Gamasutra I'd be more willing to do that because they are considered a more reliable site than IGN or Gamespot." Where do we consider that more reliable? --Teancum (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Because it focuses on video game development itself. IGN and Gamepro and the like are more generalized sites. It was founded by developers for developers.Jinnai 23:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Gamasutra covers more than game development. The intended audience are developers and those interested in development. But the site posts press releases, sales figures, and other announcements like IGN, Game Informer, etc. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC))
True, but its like the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times talking about business news. Both of them do it. One of them specializes in it and thus one of them is considered a bit more credible because they do. Not that the other is not credible and not that the more credible one can't make mistakes, but its a more reputable source when it comes to that stuff.Jinnai 07:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I guess that poses the question: why can't it go in development? The whole article is about the game and some details can go anywhere so long as it's appropriately framed and the article as a whole flows. For example, I described the enemies in Robotron: 2084 in the development section, and the wells in E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (video game) in the gameplay, development, and reception sections. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC))
Normally I wouldn't question where something was placed with regard to gameplay, plot, development (unless it was about describing beta-version gameplay in gameplay section for a game that's changed in its final release), but that source raises a red flag because it is trying to assert the developers did this without any actual backing (just common sense). Therefore, I think some might want it moved. At the very least, as I mentioned, it should contain the text where that came from as its making a claim that can be viewed, not just by me, as controversial based on the sourcing, ie non-developer site/non-interview.Jinnai 23:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
That may be true, but we don't know one way or the other. That's why we use a source deemed to be reliable. And I don't think it's an issue because such a statement is not contentious. We have someone in the video game industry saying that the developers developed a game mechanic to be what it is.
Are you saying you'd rather error on the side of caution? (Guyinblack25 talk 23:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC))
Well they are reviewers, not developers. It's like a movie critic talking about what goes on behind the scenes. They are making an educated guess and we are using it as a statement of fact. In addition, with few exceptions, we have no idea if they have any real experience or knowledge of video game development. You don't have to have this to do a review - although it is a plus. Yes there is editorial oversight at these places, but that only goes so far. It's not the most reliable type site out there and there are those who would say that the reviews should only be used as opinion pieces.

And yea, I'm probably cautious here because I've been on the recieving end of trying to assert a source is valid when the other editor does not believe so when brining stuff up for feature candicates. It is never fun when they can take down the way your sourcing is done and you have to start over looking elsewhere, sometimes from scratch. Therefore, imo its better to be a bit more cautious than a bit more open when you're talking about using reviews for anything other than opinion pieces or statements of fact that are easily checked.Jinnai 07:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

That's certainly understandable and a valid concern for FAC. But editorial staff often visit development studios and conduct interviews with developers to learn about the activities. Much like I'm sure movie critics have visited movie sets and interviewed cast and crew about behind the scene activities. Granted, not every one does, but I can't imagine IGN or GI's supervising editors not having that experience given how long they've been in the industry. And those supervising editors are part of the oversight.
Regardless, I agree that reviews should primarily be used for opinion unless development info is properly attributed in the review itself. What I'm more concerned with, however, are the IGN, GI, GameSpot, etc. feature articles; like the Sword-to-Sword IGN feature. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC))
I think that might require an RfC if we want to say for certain, or atleast ask for a third opinion at WP:RS. Personally I'm unsure. They are definatly better quality than reviews and there is research there, but its unclear to me whether there is behind-the-scenes research.Jinnai 16:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I think Pokémon Black and White is a perfect example of what information is what. It has Development, Promotion, and Release sections. Blake (Talk·Edits) 22:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I just made Jak 3's development section because it was lacking one, and used all IGN sources. They generally are easier to find release information. Should these types of sections not be called "Development", or is release part of development? I think that is one of the main questions here. Blake (Talk·Edits) 21:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I think Jinnai brought up a good point. Release and promotion information is not really development information unless the context applies to the game's actual development. Some examples I would consider as relevant to development are:
  • First announcement
  • Delays
  • Name changes or announcing the official name.
Most everything else should probably go into a separate section. The other option is to rename the "Development" section to something more appropriate and encompassing. Regardless, some actual development information should be required for our GAs and FAs. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC))
Well I tihnk it's fine to leave Promotion and Release. Gameplay seriously needs some refs. And expand so it could be notable on its own...well...notable enough so this kind of problem won't rise again.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Seeking a third opinion

Brought the issue over to them for clarification. You can chime in at WT:RS#Feature articles and what they can be used for.Jinnai 23:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Super Mario Bros. Deluxe

This is another split article that also suffers from contradicting the guidelines of WPVG, only to a far greater extent than A Link to the Past & Four Swords as, there, we do not have a development section at all and the amount of unique and non-trivial content beyond reception is infinitesimal. Prime Blue (talk) 04:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

You could probably just merge it. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed update to our guideline

Due to the recent discussion about LttP+FS, the continued attempt to move wikiproject guidelines to MOS and that our guideline was in need of some overhaul anyway since it was created at different times and is inconsitant formatting and advice, I have made a proposal version at User:Jinnai/VGGL. Feel free to ammed this if you find something wrong or improper but take the following in mind:

  • The guideline does need an overhaul, even if you disagree with mine.
  • Some of our advice directly violats policy and higher ranking guidelines (most notably the In popular culture section links to a guideline that directly contradicts the advice given.
  • A lot of the information was redundant being mentioned elsewhere in the guideline.
  • Some of the info, such as what file formats to use, is far to WP:CREEPy for what a general "guideline" should be doing (let image guidelines handle that).
  • This one was based on a combination of the WP:MOS-AM and our existing guideline, which is why there is a detailed page layout. I did this as it was the only other wikiproject media-specifc MOS
  • Our usage of English-language privatization shouldn't be made to be exclusive of non-English when it is relevant (such as excluding them from ELs) as it is expected information.
  • This wikiproject, among all the wikiprojects I have dealt with, stands alone in not understanding that just because certain sections are usually combined because of the lack of information, doesn't make that combined info a natural part of that section (FE: promotional info combined with production).Jinnai 23:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
My thoughts- You're correct that the guideline needs an overhaul; there are redundant bits, too-specific bits, and incorrect bits (I cringed at the pop culture section). That said... I completely disagree with your version of the page layout. You've transformed a general set of non-binding suggestions into a rigid mandate, for one thing, and even skimming the strident bits where you try to rigidly enforce your point of view on the devel/promotion/legacy section leaped out at me. The vast majority of video game articles do not need a promotion section or a release section, and to mandate that they all drop this information instead of putting a sentence or two in the development section isn't smart, in my opinion. While, again, the guideline needs overhauling I would oppose adopting this new version as-is. --PresN 00:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Obviously you didn't read the proposal or you would not be assuming i say all those need a release and promotion section. I am saying though that releases (at least after initial one) and promotion are NOT part of the development, production or whatever you want to call that section. That doesn't ment they shouldn't always be mnetioned in that section if there isn't enough to form their own section but we should not equate promotion=development. That was, with a few exceptions, not supported as part of development. Release information was similarly not supported.Jinnai 00:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I didn't say that you said that there must be a promo section. I said that you said that if you can't make a good promo section you should just drop it, since it's not part of devel. I fail to see how that says that it's okay to sometimes combine them if you only have a little promo information.
Regardless, let me restate my point. The old guideline was not too precise in exactly how one should construct the sections of an article. I would agree that perhaps we should be giving more guidance in that. However, I feel that your version is far too specific and rigid in that respect, and also, in what it emphasizes, reflects your personal style in writing articles that doesn't match up with not only how other editors write but also with the information possible in many cases. I don't feel that the guideline should be telling people that promotion is not part of development. Not because it is or isn't true, but because it doesn't matter in most cases. Telling them that gameplay (generally) comes before plot, that you need a reception section, and not to spin out a character article without devel/reception on those characters are much more important, and get lost if the guideline focuses on philosophical minutia with the same or more emphasis. The guideline should be to inform editors on how to write a solid C/B-class article, not on writing an FA. --PresN 00:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm extremely hesitant to do a complete overhaul on the current criteria. Why? Because the next step would be this crusade to change up every article under the guidelines, to reformat and reassess every GA and FA, and ultimately to alienate folks who can't handle such a workload. I 100% agree with PresN's statement - "The guideline should be to inform editors on how to write a solid C/B-class article, not on writing an FA." Good and Featured article criteria should be determined by higher-level criteria and not limited by our specific criteria. This isn't an attack on anyone, but I really, really hate that the criteria currently focus on GA/FA, and that any change we make is to that focus. Most articles will barely make it to B-Class, and Wikipedia's main criteria will cover GA/FA quality while our guidelines will help articles to B/C class by establishing content. --Teancum (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Well-as an aside-I do think our pre-2008 FAs do need to be reviewed. I think many might not be up to stuff.Jinnai 02:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
@Teancum - Actually, this guideline shouldn't be about writing C-B class articles. These guidelines - by their nature- are meant to be for GA/FA/FL articles because they are cited by such. Well at least they are cited in FA/FL candiate/reviews. That tells me if they are being cited there, they should be brought up to a level that is good for that.
An essay or a specific guideline solely for the purpose of quality assement is better place for dealing with writing to C-B class. Wikipedia quality control doesn't say "B-class is good enough and you can just drop the ball never caring to do better."Jinnai 02:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I never implied that "B-class is good enough and you can just drop the ball never caring to do better." What I was trying to say was that C/B class articles need the structure defined by the guidelines in order to fall into place with the way the project has things set up. GA/FA/FL should be governed by overall Wikipedia guidelines as our guidelines are not what pass or fail articles. In fact, we've had problems with that in the past - our guidelines were viewed as conflicting WP:WIAGA. We should not have so dense of criteria at this level, Wikipedia's main criteria should cover these things since our criteria would have set up the article structure prior to it's GAN nomination. Bottom line is that the guideline should set up the structure of the article and deem appropriate/inappropriate content and leave it at that. The main Wikipedia guidelines are there to handle all else. --Teancum (talk) 15:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
"We should not have so dense of criteria at this level,..." I agree with that, but the problem is that the lack of such advice has given rise to ignorance about what is what since we commonly, especially in VG articles combine things because there isn't enough and it has become thought of that X is Y when X is still X, just that per standard Wikipedia procedures X is often grouped with Y when there isn't enough of it.
As for the actual layout, if you feel it could be redone, I did say you are free to go an edit it if you have a better way to organize things without being so strict, but we really do need to tell VG people that X is not Y in some cases.
Finally, it is not better to just work with the existing model and tweak it as there is tons of redundancy, inconsistant formatting, and in many ways more WP:CREEP than mine has.Jinnai 16:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Here, lets pull back a bit. Right now we're debating over the "Page layout" section, and specifically over the "Video game (series)" section. Is this the only part we're concerned about? Looking it over, the rest seems pretty good- the style guide got dropped in favor of the overall MOS, as did some specific/specifically wrong bits about images and pop culture sections, but the majority of the information is still there/added to, and I agree with the way it was reorganized. It looks alright overall, and with a copy-edit I'd be fine adopting those sections. Are we in agreement about that? --PresN 22:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I personally think this is a lil too specific. Such as inappropriate content, and various others. if it tone down a bit and re-mention other guidelines that already exist, i think it would be good. I just think parts where "people should not do, is a lil too specific.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Well we do need some of those "People should not do" because history has born some of those out. If you think the wording is a bit strong, well, be bold and rephase it. If someone diagrees they'll change it.Jinnai 16:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I haven't finished reading all of it, but I agree that there are too many areas of what not to do, or maybe there is too much bolded text emphasizing it. Not sure. But overall, I think this is a step in the right direction. As already stated though, some flexibility needs to be woven into the wording. I'll post some thoughts later. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC))
So far I'm agreeing with Guy, although I'm not done reading it (thoroughly). Where exactly do you want comments to go? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
If we're going to start doing serious discussions on it, it would probably best go on that talk page so it doesn't clutter this page up. It'll also make transfer of the discussions, should any version of it be adopted, easier to archive.Jinnai 17:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand and appreciate that you put a lot of work into this, Jinnai, but I wouldn't endorse the current proposal if only because it seems to be almost a complete rewrite. I think discussion on individual aspects that need to be updated would help establish a clearer consensus on a guidelines overhaul. Prime Blue (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Time to get the ball rolling. I started a discussion about the first section at User talk:Jinnai/VGGL. As Prime suggests, I also think it would be easier to discuss the sections separately. (Guyinblack25 talk 00:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC))
What I meant was describing any proposed changes to the guidelines in subsections of this discussion page (since it has the most visitors), then drafting the changes one by one. Prime Blue (talk) 12:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I would agree that things need to be addressed on a per-case basis. I would definitely say doing a 'blanket update' will not go over well with several members, as nobody will ever agree on everything. --Teancum (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I've got to add a "Me too" to that. It must be on a per-case/per-section basis. If only to avoid cases of Throwing the baby out with the bath water. - X201 (talk) 13:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Something similar to what we did for the infoboxes a few months ago would be good, I think. That was a pretty orderly discussion and gathered much attention from the project. Prime Blue (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
In that manner, but not the whole Guideline at once. That would be too much. - X201 (talk) 14:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

On splitting games up by SKU

This sortof goes along with my opinions on the #Dispute on The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past & Four Swords and #Proposed update to our guideline, but I wanted to further a more general discussion on splitting out versions by SKU on a case-by-case basis. There are two examples that come to mind Spider-Man: Web of Shadows and X-Men Origins: Wolverine (video game). Both games are VASTLY different based on platform, with the PS3/360/PC versions having one specific type of gameplay, and other versions having up to two other totally different types of gameplay. For example, Web of Shadows is a 3D, free roam game on the next-gen machines, a 2.5D platformer on the PS2, and a 2D, totally different platformer on the DS, each with different plots to boot. I gave up on these articles long ago since I knew I'd be stirring the pot splitting them, but I felt they would be overgrown and difficult to read with three plots, three gameplay sections, and three "sections" in the Reception. Traditionally the Transformers DS games have been split (see Transformers: The Game, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (video game), and Transformers: War for Cybertron leads) as Vicarious Visions have ensured that their versions (DS) of the game are well covered during development. Thus far no one has stepped up to work on the DS versions, but the coverage is most definitely there.

Anyway, I want to get some feedback on this. I know there are some strong opinions here, but I'm about to put War for Cybertron up for GAN and want to see what the criteria is for splitting it by SKU, since these are not exactly about Dealing with remakes. --Teancum (talk) 14:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it depends on the level of coverage given to the different SKUs. A good example is Over the Hedge (DS game) vs Over the Hedge (video game), where the former has vastly different gameplay, and thus gains more reception for being the better game. A counter example, is that for Rock Band 3, there actually is a DS version, but I've seen maybe 2, 3 reviews on it, and since it's duplicative of previous games, there's no much to go in on it. --MASEM (t) 14:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
New Age Retro Hippie was wanting to split Sonic Colors because of the differences, but he got tired of arguing with the other editors there. See here.
I think that if you can write two quality articles with good sources and at least 50% of the information isn't duplicated, then they should be ok to split. But if you have multiple start-class articles about the same game that are largely unsourced(*cough* transformers*cough*), then they should not be split. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
There's a big difference in being able to expand an article and choosing to. If I'm well aware that the coverage is there for the split I'll split it, but I'm not going to do anything but a splash improvement on the split articles. I have no interest in the DS versions of the game. If the coverage is out there, merely not provided, why should I be obligated to do those articles as well? ---Teancum (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
WP:AVOIDSPLIT - while they could meet the GNG "If information can be trimmed, merged, or removed, these steps should be undertaken first before the new article is created." In many of the cases that could be done. Basically just because you can meet the GNG isn't a good enough reason to split something. As I mentioned in another talk page recently I could create an article for Packaging of School Rumble as there are 2 sources that talk in depth about the packaging and a 1-2 more that mention it, plus I can use the packaging itself, but that doesn't mean I should.Jinnai 16:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Figures - apparently Wikipedia and I don't agree much anymore. That's rather disheartening. --Teancum (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Nothing would be stopping you from just updating the info you wanted on one page while not contributing to the DS section.Jinnai 17:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I suppose. I mean I won't go back and re-merge the Transformers articles, but the policy basically says not to split out articles unless the core article cannot handle all of the content. That means I'd have to expand the Spider-Man and Wolverine game articles before splitting, which is what I was trying to avoid. --Teancum (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
WP:AVOIDSPLIT is for articles which would not meet notability criteria. DS games are independently notable, and can be better covered separately, the Cybertron games is actually a good example. Ask yourself, if both articles were of featured quality, and you were to merge them together - would it place undue weight on the less notable version? Could the prose still flow or would it just be two articles crammed into one place? If so, keep them separate. - hahnchen 20:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
AVOIDSPLIT also applies to those that do pass the GNG as the GNG wording was made to say the article is only "presumed". Furthermore, that last line I quoted applies to every article. The question isn't "should they be merged?" it is "should they be/have been split in the first place?" If it was about merging 2 good articles, it would talk about that.Jinnai 00:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Given that the Zelda case is a rather interesting and unique situation, if they're similar enough, and it makes sense to keep the information in one article, then we do a better service to readers by keeping everything in one place as opposed to fragging everything across several separate pages, making it harder to look up stuff. –MuZemike 17:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, while the ALttP portion of ALttP/FS could be summed up in the main article, the multi-player component is different enough to warrant a split. I would not suggest a split in the first place, if not for it. If the FS multi-player mode were its own game, like I said, it would have its own article; why shouldn't the multi-player mode plus a port be even more notable? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Please don't let's start that all over again. This is a discussion about the general issues that have been brought up recently; it doesn't need to be turned into a third titanic argument about that one game. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Please don't respond to my example of a point made with nothing worth responding to. The game was already mentioned in the discussion, and as such, I retorted by using the same game for an opposing point because it is relevant. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm just calling it like I see it. MuZemike and the others above only mentioned it in passing; your comment struck me as a return to the Zelda bickering that we've been doing up until now. We need to solve the problem at its root, which has nothing to do with that game. Once the issue with our guidelines has been fixed, everything else with fall into place. But, again, I don't appreciate your hostility. In a previous argument, you accused me of being a troll; now, you've repeated my comment's structure as a way of mocking it. If you have something against me, perhaps from the Masocore discussion, then I'd like for it to be settled. We're all working toward the same goal of encyclopedic improvement, and emotional attachment needs to be left at the door; I treat these matters dispassionately—as business—and have nothing against any of the participating editors. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Anything I have "against you" stems from you, on two occasions, deriding the discussion in the first place. You clearly had nothing to contribute to the discussion, and as such, I viewed it as inappropriate discussion for the subject. Any hostility stems from you hounding editors for not discussing what you want. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I see where the multiple genres for one game problem come from-- I made the article Over the Hedge: Hammy Goes Nuts! but there really wasn't enough coverage to split any of the articles out. This whole Zelda business (sorry I haven't written about this before) from what I've read though could really just be summed up in the main article-- the port could be mentioned in a separate section giving extensive coverage to the multiplayer portion. There's no need to make readers go to two different places to read the same material, although I sympathize with Retro's arguments. Nomader (Talk) 02:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Basically that. Yes, I admit Four Swords has some unique gameplay and some unique development, but the LttP part doesn't. Other than the different system, a link through Four Swords and some other minor changes that can be summed up in 1-2 sentences there is nothing different.Jinnai 05:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
But again, it really does not make sense that it should hurt the article's chances of being an article by having more content that may be perceived as redundant. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, when a page is spun-out there is some redundancy. That is what WP:SS also affirms (spinning out an article like character ones are often without summarizing is not appropriate). However, there needs to be enough new information to make the spinout article worthy; meeting the GNG is just the absolute minimum - if you can't meet that or WP:NOT, then it shouldn't be made at all. However, just meeting that (as I mentioned with Packaging for School Rumble) doesn't mean an article should be spun out.Jinnai 16:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
You're comparing a situation that has a few references versus a situation that has dozens, and still has dozens more to be added from Google News, Google Books, and most reviews/previews. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. By comparison, what about .hack (video game series). Each of those games has "dozens, and still has dozens more to be added from Google News, Google Books, and most reviews/previews." There is alo unique development info, especially if we add release dates to them, in addition to some new gameplay elements in some and unlike Four Swords, an ongoing plot.

My point here is those games have more differences between them than the remake does and yet it can be summarized in 1 page. Therefore, LttP+FS, which has less unique differences, should be able to be. It's the same for anything else that's quite similar. That doesn't mean there should never be a spinout article, but I think many here are to trigger happy when it comes to splitting out because they find they can meet the GNG.Jinnai 20:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, I must reiterate that FS is really no less different than, say, TMC. It uses a unique engine, unique style of gameplay (both in how you have no overworld but rather levels, as well as how you can only have one item at a time), it uses several items that have no connection to ALttP, a visual style that is only loosely connected to ALttP, and a plot that has no connection to ALttP. If we were discussing FS by itself, the unique content would seem that much more significant. Heck, half of the information in the ALttP gameplay paragraph can be used to describe FS. Without the ALttP content, Four Swords would have enough content to stand on its own. Most of the Development information deals with the FS portion of the game, so in that sense, there's unique content to every section. When you take out the ALttP content (as can be seen in the edit summary "Creating an example of what the article would look like without ALttP content."), it still is a fairly solid article (though the Reception needs expanding in the example, the inevitability of finding sources to cite it is pretty high considering how many are yet to be added). ALttP/FS is clearly not JUST a port/remake, and as such, strictly applying the guideline created for ports/remakes is a bad idea. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the article LttP+FS is more of an exception considering, FS isn't known without the remake of LttP.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

My point is that it isn't that much of an exception. Yes, FS isn't known without the remake of LttP, but that is the same for most games out there that aren't the oginial. Persona 3:FES's The Answer fits exactly the FS mold in every major way New Age Retro Hippie has described and more since it has a storyline with it. It's not really the "exception" that's is trying to carve out.Jinnai 21:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
It may not be the best exception, but it still serves as one. Like I said above, it's not just a port/remake, and as such, we should not apply a rule that applies for ports/remakes. A lot of the content in ALttP/FS that appears to be redundant to ALttP's article, is used in all traditional Zelda articles (such as heart containers, overhead view [or 3D view], item equipment, and dungeon/overworld differences). - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
What I am saying is neither is my example and simple port/remake and its why we should be applying it still.Jinnai 22:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
How's about this. What if, in improving the ALttP article, it became quite large and as such, able to sustain a split while maintaining its quality and depth? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
That would be better. I can't say for certain (i cannot predict the future) if it should be split in such as case, but I would defiantly say there would be a much stronger argument so long as attempts were made at trimming it first.Jinnai 04:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't see such a game-y "overexpansion" being even possible. As I said above, the entirety of Four Swords can be described in a single paragraph in the A Link to the Past article as we do not have to duplicate the gameplay description and are not allowed to add WP:GAMEGUIDE-like specifics to it anyway, and the plot is summed up sufficiently in a mere two sentences. What stays is a "massive reception section" New Age Retro Hippie is planning, though this would be overkill anyway: A reception section should not include every single reviewer's viewpoint, but should use a number of specific reviews to determine those aspects of a game that were received well and not so well by critics. There is no need to artificially expand a reception section so it accounts to half of an article. ;-) Prime Blue (talk) 05:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
just referencing on the gameplay section and it's good to go. Anyways, what do we need to update to the guide? Does everyone think there is a specific problem that should be addressed?Bread Ninja (talk) 05:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Video gaming or Video game for disambiguating

What is the correct wording in disambiguation parenthesis of video game related topics and terminology – "video gaming" or "video game(s)"? For example, Boss (video gaming) or Continue (video gaming) versus Boosting (video game) or Spawning (video game). I always assumed it was "video gaming", but this may not have actually been established. Some references examples: Category:Video game terminology and Category:Video game gameplay. It seems that the majority is dabed with "video gaming" and I propose to add this as the preferred wording in the naming convention. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I would use "video gaming" for the disamb. term of art for topics generic to the field, leaving "video game" specifically to disamb. titles of games. --MASEM (t) 23:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Masem; use "video game" only if the title itself is referring to a video game. You can use "video gaming" as a catch-all, but otherwise try to be more specific about what the subject is discussing. Most of the subjects you listed are aspects of gameplay (per the category), which would be an acceptable disambiguation phrase. I would not use "terminology" as a disambiguator however, as that implies the article is about the word, rather than the topic that the word describes, and in turn suggests that they might be dicdefs. Ham Pastrami (talk) 05:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
On a similar note, what about "computer game" and "computer gaming"? Should they be made to be moved to video game and video gaming? There are a few articles out there with those disambigs.Jinnai 06:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I would imagine that all computer games are video games and, as such, the disambig should stay consistent.LedRush (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
If "computer gaming" refers to computers (PCs) only, then it would be fine. If it however refers to a broader scope than just PCs, then it should be "video gaming". —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
We've long dropped "Computer game" in favor of just "video game" regardless if its PC or the like. I realize there can be a fine distinction between "computer game" and "video game" but in the larger scope, it can be a hairy and biased mess that it's best to stay consistent within WP. --MASEM (t) 14:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
If there is a substantive debate over the title (not just a question of following guidelines), or where there is clearly an overlap, then I would follow the guideline. Otherwise, for titles pertaining to PC-centric games (especially ones that lack graphics), I would leave them alone (one way or the other). There are gray areas like text adventures that many people don't ordinarily consider "video" (i.e. graphical) games. There are also computers and games that don't use video output -- as a trivial example, braille-based games, where the user interfaces with the computer using a braille device. Computer games and video games are 95% overlapping, and we treat them the same out of mutual convenience, but one is not a subset of the other (they are independent), and we should not confuse the stipulated treatment of articles with what the subjects actually are, in cases where the difference warrants consideration. Ham Pastrami (talk) 05:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I think "video game" as a general encompassing term is fine. The industry and academics use it as such. The problem is that a good definition of the term has ever been made. There are either too loose and can apply to something it probably shouldn't (like Furby) or too strict and omit something it should probably include (like a braille-based computer game). (Guyinblack25 talk 15:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC))
Which is precisely why, 4 years ago, we changed the name of the project from the "Computer and Video Games" project to just "Video Games" and tried to adjust every article title out there as well. This discussion is giving me a lot of nostalgia/deja vu. Anyways, yes, all "Computer game(ing)" disambigs should be changed to "video game(ing) for consistency. --PresN 21:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Is Virtonomics in scope?

I noticed that Virtonomics has your banner on it, although it is certainly not a video game. Shall I just take it off? Arlen22 (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I've not played it but reading the article it seems like a video game to me. Business simulation game which is also a browser game. --Mika1h (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Then let me explain. It is an economics game where you basically manage a virtual corporation. Each real day is a new week in the game, and it updates around Midnight UTC. It is almost like a game of public chess, where everyone votes on the best move, and the move with the most votes is the one that is played when midnight roles around (never heard of it, but it probably exists). The difference here is that each person makes his own moves (building farms, stores, mills, factories, etc, etc, etc. Then the game is updated and everyone's orders are filled, politics and taxes are set, consumer demand is updated. In short, the world is updated at midnight. Here is a link if you want to try it for yourself: Virtonomics. Arlen22 (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
It is technically a video game, as it uses video output. This is the sticky part of changing all instances of "computer game" to "video game". Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
It is remotely similar to chess.com. Each player plays it in his browser, so it doesn't really qualify for a computer game either. I think that it could be played without video output (using audio). Arlen22 (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Good news for those working on '90s-'00s computer game articles

The CGW Museum originally hosted only the first 100 issues of the magazine. However, due to a recent fundraiser, the owner has decided to scan the rest. Meaning that, this year, we'll have free access to an incredible information resource, which is largely unavailable through stuff like LexisNexis. It should be a good year for '90s computer game editing; I can't wait to expand the articles I've worked on with this new coverage. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 10:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

To do question

Resolved

I was looking through the project's to-do list and I noticed that this link is messed up. Does anyone know why? GamerPro64 (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Because the sidebar is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sidebar. I changed the link. --PresN 17:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
and User:WOSlinker deleted the redirect (Template:WPVG Sidebar) as an unused redirect. Salavat (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah. That makes sense now. Thanks. GamerPro64 (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Clickteam

Clickteam is in the scope of WP:VG and was PRODded two days ago. --Pnm (talk) 06:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Sega Mega Drive / Genesis sales figures dispute - input needed!

In several discussions we haven't got anywhere with the Mega Drive/Genesis sales figures original research/synthesis dispute mentioned somewhere above, mainly because of a lack of new people commenting, so could I ask that anyone who sees this section please read it and comment!

The issue in a nutshell is whether the Mega Drive article (and by extension others such as History of video game consoles (fourth generation), Console wars, and List of best-selling game consoles) should use the widely accepted and citable total sales figure of 29-30 million units worldwide, or a new figure of 40-42 million, that some editors have arrived at by adding a variety of sources together.

Sources used in support of the new figure of 40-42 million sales:
North American sales

Note: this article also states at the beginning that the Mega Drive sold "just under 30 million copies in 10 years" (translated from French with Google Translate).
Note: Gamepro, in an article about the Mega Drive/Genesis itself, by the same author the following year, states sales of "29 million units worldwide".
Note: Possibly unreliable source, see discussion at WT:VG/RS#Brazilian fan/blogsite?. Also note that Tec Toy sells its products in Brazil, not North America.
Note: the next sentence says "Total world sales: 29 million".
A passing mention of the Genesis in an article about the Saturn being withdrawn from sale in the US. It is also vague ("some 20 million", "early 1990s"), and fails to substantiate or source this unprecedented claim, despite sourcing pratically everything else in the article. The NY TImes is a reliable source, but not everything is says is necessarily true, and exceptional claims require exceptional sources.
Note: a virtual reproduction of the NY Times source above (or vice-versa), that lifts sentences practically verbatim.

Rest of world sales

  • "15 million", "Chronology of Sega Video Games" by Ken Polsson. Used to support a figure of 15 million for "rest of the worlds first party numbers".
Note: this is the same source as mentioned in support of North American sales above. Bizarrely, this "rest of world" total (in support of 40-42 million worldwide sales) comes from subtracting its figure of 14m North American sales, from its worldwide figure of 29 million(!).

Sources that directly support 29-30 million sales

In conclusion, there are no sources that directly support a total of 40-42 million, but plenty that do directly support 29-30 million, a figure that is widely accepted by the gaming and technology media. I don't believe we have any right to ignore that in favour of a number we've come up with ourselves.

The editors who support adding sources together to arrive at total sales of 40-42 million argue that this is "routine calculation" allowed per WP:CALC, and that sources saying 29-30 million are outdated and should be "updated" by the "newer" (i.e. larger) figures, despite all of the 29-30 million sources listed above having been published more recently. There is also the issue of selected parts of sources that directly support 29m being used to support 40-42m.

I've been against this for as long as it has been discussed, but since looking even closer at the sources in order to write this, I'm more convinced than ever that this figure of 40-42m isn't just synthesis of sources, it's downright abuse of sources. I'm a Mega Drive fan, despite the inevitable accusions of being "biased" against it because of my opposition to this whole thing. It's gotten pretty frustrating and tiresome and it really is time this was settled once and for all, so whatever side of the argument you're on, please comment. Thanks, Miremare 22:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Definitely a misuse of sources to arrive at a conclusion; if it were only two or three, I could see it, but so many , we have no idea where overlap is if there is any. --MASEM (t) 22:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Note that team-aaa.com site seems to be no more reliable than gamehall.uol.com.br, as far as I can tell from a Google translation of [12] it seems to be another site of a bunch of gamers calling themselves "editor" and such. The other so-called source (emunova.net) mentioned in the minimal discussion at WT:VG/RS#Brazilian fan/blogsite? seems to be yet another iteration of the same theme.
I would guess both the NYT and Electronic Times are quoting that "some 20 million" from a Sega press release. Anomie 01:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
It was established here that adding the sources together was allowed per wiki policy, [13] and that's where they would know for certain if we're allowed to tally these numbers.
If exceptional claims (20 million in the US in this case) require exceptional sources, NYT's easily meets that criteria. You also forgot to list that 29 million had already been reached by 1995 [14]
It's not abuse of sources to update a total number, and nothing here is synthesis. How many places do we need to take this to before it's enough? The No Original Research board was the best place since the topic of our discussion is synthesis, and it was deemed to not be, before coming here. It's not a number we come up with ourselves to use WP:Calc, and we note in the article that "Most sources agree 29 million, however" so what is the problem??
Here, the overlap is very very clear. [15] 29 million, noting 14 million sold in North America, this is and was deemed a reliable source, simple arithmetic per [[WP:Calc] lets us update the 14 million to NYTs 20 million (do note that NYT's is the most reliable source out of all listed.) This is the original source for wikipedias 29 million, and since it was posted on wikipedia, the rest of the 29 million numbers creep up years after (2007-2009, note pre 2005 how things say 30 million or higher.) Wikipedia is probably where those places got their numbers. Then, [16] notes 29 million, with 14 million sold in the US, and 3.5 million sold in Japan (a number also used by Gamespy today) and the date of the article is May 1995, stating sales up to the end of fiscal year 1994. Sega sold the Genesis for three more years in North America, before letting Majesco take over, and the numbers added together in this very thread (all from reliable sources) gives us an estimated 21.5 million units sold in North America, while NYT's as well as Electronic Times, state "20 million in the US alone." The date on the articles is March 3rd of 1998, later in the same month, Majesco takes over selling the Genesis in North America. We have a reliable source saying Majesco projects over 1.5 million sales, from 1998 alone (and leaves 1999 open,) and we have three sources saying Majesco sells over 2 million, one of the three simply saying 2 million, and even stating how many copies of software Majesco sold as well.
This is clearly just updating of numbers, not contradiction, just updates.
IslandNet's 15 million for "the rest of the world" is probably extremely accurate, is from two reliable sources (including Man!ac's may 1995 issue) and all makes 100% logical sense, if we are to believe that Sega discontinued the Mega Drive everywhere apart from North America during 1995, as is currently stated in the article (sourced to Kent.)
The way I see it, we have 38-40 million. The "nearly 18 million Genesis owners" is too vague, contradicts another 16.8 million source for North America, and involves even more [[WP:calc] than the NYT's number. Majesco sold 2 million to end out the Genesis in America, and TecToy (which still sells the Mega Drive to this day) sold 2 million as of August 31st, 2005. There is possible overlap between TecToy's number and the "rest of the world" number, so stating 38-40 million;with a content note explaining, is the most honest, fair way to do things.--SexyKick 03:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
We allow some basic addition when it is clear and obvious to the causal reader how the math was done. There is no way looking at the sources allow can one arrive at the same answer without using your additional explanations. Thus it is OR to say any more than 29 million. It is certainly possible to identify some smaller numbers (like 2 or 3 m) after the 29M year but that's not the same as adding them together in this mish-mash of calculations. --MASEM (t) 03:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
But two editors (three if you count me, but I'm bias since I want to add them) both of which were completely uninvolved said since the NYT's source is reliable, and the IslandNet source is reliable, we can add the numbers together.--SexyKick 04:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I applaud SexyKick for his excellent research into Gensis numbers presented here. I believe he has clearly shown that the 29 million number that all of these sites adore so much was derived from the same sales info used for the 1995 Maniac article and is therefore outdated. Other sources clearly show a US install base of around 20 million, not counting Majesco sales, which corroborates what is stated by the New York Times. In the face of this evidence, any source using a 29 million figure is unreliable on its face and cannot be used. However, while the US sales picture is clear past 1994, the international picture is not, as I remain unconvinced that no international sales were recorded outside of Brazil following the Maniac sales charts. Therefore, I believe providing a total sales figure is a ridiculous proposition since any number presented will, in fact, be inaccurate. What can be done is the writing of a nice, fully sourced paragraph in the sales section that states worldwide sales for the system through 1994 and then provides total US sales by citing to the other sources and using the principle of WP:CALC, which clearly applies when only US and not worldwide sales are being considered. This seems a fair compromise that will make the article as accurate as our incomplete sources allow. Indrian (talk) 04:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Why in the world are you assuming that every major English-language publication is getting their numbers from some obscure German-language magazine article from 1995? Anomie 05:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Edited for clarity, as that is not what I meant, but that is sure how it read. Thanks. Indrian (talk) 06:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
To me, a couple of things are clear. Firstly, the 29 million units number is incorrect. Secondly, if we are talking about worldwide sales, the 29-31 million number is the one most cited. Because this is Wikipedia, any article we have must include the 29-31 million number (I would say approximately 30 million) and state that most sources confirm this. However, I don't see why we can't include more information similar to the content note and the paragraph described above by Indrian. Wikipedia is supposed to inform. In this case, we don't have a clear answer, so let's present the information in a NPOV way for the readers to digest themselves.LedRush (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
It is completely fine to include the other sources notable as reliable and the data they provide; it is simply not proper to infer a total sales figure from them, however. EG you can report 14 M in 1995 and 20 M in 1999 for NA sales, but that's all you should say about that. --MASEM (t) 16:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Note it's not quite so simple, there does exist a reliable source (EGM's 1999 Video Game Buyer's Guide) from 1999 for 14 M. I think about all we can say is that we have a wide range of numbers reported. Anomie 17:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
From what it looks like the sources are coming from the 1995 sales data and info beyond that isn't as centralized. Yes it should be used, but we are not in the business of misinforming people either by ignoring dates on sources and assuming the world is static. Just because 5 years from now someone uses that same figure doesn't make that figure anymore timely.Jinnai 18:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
OTOH, it also doesn't mean the larger figure is necessarily more correct. Who knows, maybe the 1995 figures are actually "units manufactured" (the Maniac article does credit its figures to "Sega" among others), manufacturing stopped in mid-1995 when Sega of Japan decided to discontinue the console to focus on Saturn, and the later figures really are "units sold" from NPD or the like after the inventory was sold out. Or maybe it really is the case that every major gaming news source hasn't bothered to get new numbers since 1995. We just don't know. Anomie 20:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Only Mega Drives stopped manufacturing, because according to Television Digest Sega Genesis was manufactured until 1997, and 1997 sales were so low because of that. Remember the Business Wire source for North America numbers is nearly 18 million "Genesis owners" not manufactured units. (Man!ac is still 14 million US only) The EGM 14 million is simply the outdated data everyone had been using. I'm with Indrian, we shouldn't be using the 29 million number any longer.--SexyKick 00:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
It is not outdated, it is just the last best number that I think you have. That is, it is completely appropriate to say "By 199x, about YY million units of the console has been sold." and then follow up with other facts. You don't need a total number in this case. --MASEM (t) 00:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
How interesting, it seems that your Business Wire source from 1994 just further proves the point that none of these numbers are necessarily accurate. Now we have "nearly 18 million" in 1994 with "14 million" shortly after. Not sure how you get "Genesis was manufactured until 1997" from a source that just says "They weren't manufacturing any more" as an explanation of declining sales in 1997. They could easily have not been making any more since 1995 and finally ran out of inventory in 1997. Anomie 01:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
18 million North America vs. 14 million US only (Canada and Mexico anyone?) But do please note how I've been saying it contradicts other North America sources, is clearly noted as "nearly" and how it's proof no cherry picking was happening with numbers etc.--SexyKick 02:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I suppose you have a point that it doesn't explicitly state the 18 million is in the US. OTOH, it doesn't explicitly state "North America" either, and the remainder of the article is clearly about the US only. Yet another case where it's too vague to be able to say anything useful about it. Anomie 20:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, a comment further above stated that both the NYT and Islandnet sources are considered reliable. That's fine, but the question remains whether there's any overlap between the two. If we have two reliable sources but no indication of whether they represent the same or overlapping statistics, we cannot reliably add their numbers together - that is still considered synthesis. Just thought I'd point that out. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

When this was discussed on the original research board, there was no consensus regarding your view (or the opposing view).LedRush (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Kiefer, the IslandNet source specifically states 14 million North American sales (15 left over for the rest of the world.) The New York Times says 20 million US, so there is no overlap at all there. The only overlap that comes into play, is how much of that 15 million is part of TecToy's 2 million (as of 2005, and they're still on sale from TecToy btw)--SexyKick 03:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Can we try and deal with concrete proposals, or are we too far away in theory for that? Arguing in the abstract can be helpful, but I don't know that this is getting us anywhere.LedRush (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Report the number that was sold and is quoted for purposes of 1994 data. If the RSes say its sales data, we can't assume its not and its only "units manufacturered". After that give data from sales and only using CALC when it can be clear to the average reader that there is no overlap.Jinnai 15:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Wording

I'll give it a try.

Sega has not released sales figures for the Mega Drive. Mainstream publications report total worldwide sales of 29–35 million as recently as 2009,[1][2][3] with sales in the United States of 14–20 million as recently as 1999,[4][5] although one source reports 29 million worldwide and 14 million US at the end of 1994.[6] These numbers may or may not include some or all sales by third parties licensed by Sega (e.g. Tectoy in Brazil) or sales of compatible devices such as the Sega Nomad.

Sources 1-3 I would pick IGN, GameTunnel, and Retro Gamer; 4 and 5 are EGM's 1999 buyer's guide and the NYT article; and 6 is the Man!ac magazine reference. This takes figures from the reliable sources and also includes mention of the dating issue. I've excluded any sales figures for Tectoy or Majesco since we have no WP:RS, and for the Nomad because it's not really relevant and makes little difference anyway. If we have to include calculated numbers at all, let's just go whole hog and state what is really going on here: "Fans assuming best-case figures have claimed totals as high as 40 million.[17]", or 42 million if we don't mind referencing Wikipedia itself.[18] Anomie 17:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Miremare 18:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
This seems like an excellent start. I have three questions:
  • Why are we including the following phrase: although one source reports 29 million worldwide and 14 million US at the end of 1994
  • Do we have an indication that any of the sources have or have not included third party systems? Even if not, I would want that sentence tightened: It is unclear whether these numbers include sales by third parties licensed by Sega (e.g. Tectoy in Brazil) or sales of compatible devices such as the Sega Nomad.
  • If we found reliable sources for the sale of third party licensed machines, would you oppose their inclusion at the end of the last sentence?
Thank you for taking a first stab at this.LedRush (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I find the current note to be much more informative, and much more reflective of the sources than this suggestion. I suggest we stick to the current content note, add a part to state possible overlap between Tec Toy and the 29 million number, and use WP:calc to state the 38-40 million that SexyKick has suggested. I see an update to 1994/1995 numbers from NYT's as a clear, reliable update that Wikipedia would typically write in as 35 million total, and never look back (based on my experience from other editors adding numbers in other articles, such as box office movie sales totals.) It gets harder with the 3rd party sales, particularly TecToy, as it possibly has overlap. I see a potential 36-40 million as a compromise, even though there are more Majesco sales sources than Tec Toy's. This is wikipedia, and it is meant to inform.--BeastSystem (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, the thing Anomie wrote is total crap from my point of view. He makes it sound like Majesco sales are included in the 20 million, and that it's a 14-20 million estimate for the US, when it's not. It's a 20 million estimate. And they're all estimates besides. It's an estimated 15 (29) million, 20 million, 2 million, 2 million, and well, they probably only made 1 million Nomads, so that could be the exception. I would prefer to stick to 38-40 million, as we know Majesco isn't included in any 29 million worldwide, or 20 million estimate, and it can be presented in a clear way readers can understand. The math is very basic right now, and anyone who reads the article comes to a 40 million conclusion, and has the option to chose whether their personal view includes third parties or not. I don't think it's honest to write "Units Sold: 29-40 million," instead I think it's honest to write "Units Sold: Estimated 38-40 million," in the infobox with a sales note, and content note saying
Sales note
1. Worldwide Sales
1st party: 35 million[cn 1]
3rd party: 4 million[cn 2]
Sega Nomad: 1 million[4]
Content notes
1. While Sega has never released a total sales figure for the Mega Drive, most sources agree that 29 million units were sold worldwide,
with 14 million of those in North America.[8] Other sources claim this total was already reached by 1995,[9] and there are sales figures for North America from the New York Times stating 20 million by 1998.[10]
2. Some estimate Majesco has sold 2 Million units of their Sega Genesis 3.[3] Some users also estimate TecToy has sold 2 million units of their own Mega Drives (as of August 31, 2005)[3],
although they are still being sold by TecToy, this number may partially overlap with the 29 million number that most sources agree on.
--SexyKick 01:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the 29m is probably inaccurate, but we can't just pretend it doiesn't exist since there is a more reputable source that disputes that. The best we can do to include 40m would be 29-40m and cite the problems with getting a more accurate number.Jinnai 03:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
@Jinnai: The only way we can get 40 million is to add in unreliable sources that may overlap the other sources. We can get to 35 million from Retro Gamer (even though it's the high end of a very wide estimate and no other reliable source goes over 30.75 million) and by taking 15 million non-US from Man!ac (29 million total minus 14 million US) plus the 20 million US from NYT. Personally, I suspect that 20 million number comes from a Sega press release and is well on the high side, possibly includes sale of their remaining inventory to Majesco, and (in light of the 1995 "14 million US versus 18 million maybe-North America" issue raised above) maybe includes all sales by Sega of America (with "America" assumed to be "US"). Anomie 18:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
@SexyKick: You might want to check your reading comprehension. I didn't mention Majesco at all in my proposed wording here. I personally find it completely dishonest to report a figure that does not exist in any reliable source except if prominently noting that it's calculated by assuming best-case numbers. Anomie 18:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
@LedRush: "although one source reports 29 million worldwide and 14 million US at the end of 1994" is mainly to satisfy the fans who insist that all mainstream reliable sources must be inaccurate because that one source exists. We have no indication either way whether those sales are or are not included. If reliable sources really do turn up for third-party sales, I wouldn't be opposed to inclusion in the footnote. But I would oppose trying to WP:CALC a higher number unless it's 100% clear from the sources that the numbers do not include "compatible" devices and it is 100% clear there is no overlap. I see no need to mention sales of compatible non-Mega Drive/Genesis devices outside of the Mega Drive article itself. Anomie 18:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
SexyKick, from your point of view I'm sure it is "crap", but from the point of view of someone who isn't trying to push an uncitable figure it's a compromise. It is citing a 14-20 million estimate for the US, as the sources after that line show. One for 14m and one for 20m, therefore estimating 14-20m. As for Majesco, it doesn't make it sound as if they're included, it specifically says that "these numbers may or may not include some or all sales by third parties licensed by Sega". So Majesco's may or may not be included. That's pretty clear isn't it?
Your version unacceptably presents sales of 40m as the accepted fact displayed in the infobox, while relegating the widely accepted and citable figure to a footnote. It should be the other way around, because we report what reliable sources say, and not one of the sources that states a total agrees with you. Anomie's version says all that needs to be said, and gives each position the weight it deserves. We don't need to overcomplicate things and we certainly don't need to push a figure that no reliable sources state ahead of one that they do. Miremare 18:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
This is what WP:Calc is here for though, unless everyone has been using this policy wrong throughout the existence of Wikipedia. Old numbers can be updated to become new numbers whether a source has the total number or not. So we can actually state 36 million because three reliable sources add up straight to that, ending with 36-40 million, with footnotes explaining. We also have a reliable source stating the 14/29 million came from 1994, so we have a timeline as well. Are Indrian and I the only ones that are thinking clearly? SexyKick, please accept this.--BeastSystem (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't some of the references to the 29 million post-date some of the other references that add up to the larger numbers?LedRush (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. If they quote a date from 1994 for 2010, it doesn't make that date any more timely when sales were known to be continuing after 1994. It's still a 1994 figure. It would be different if sales stopped in 1994 or shortly into 1995, but we cannot assume there have been no sales since then since other sites seem to say otherwise.Jinnai 21:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
But they don't quote a 1994 figure (at least not explicitly). We have no way of knowing whether they have come up with this number through intense research or by merely checking Wikipedia or VGChartz or the 1994 source. I am not saying that the number is sacrosanct, but I don't think we can argue that they are wrong on their face and therefore do not deserve mention in the article. In my mind, even if wrong (which I believe it is), the 29-31 million number must be mentioned because of how heavily it is used by reliable sources. Just to be clear, this is not an indictment or vote of confidence for any one proposal currently on the board...merely my opinion.LedRush (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
It does matter, because none of these numbers really have a strong claim to accuracy. Consensus in reliable sources is 29 million, maybe they really are using 1994 figures or maybe Man!ac magazine got inflated figures from Sega. We just don't know, so we should present all the reliable sources. As I mentioned somewhere before, for all we know the Man!ac number includes shipped-but-not-sold units which were sold over the next 3 years after Sega of Japan ended production in mid-1995. Anomie 00:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Firstly lets stop this "Mainstream reliable sources" BS, The New York Times is a mainstream reliable source, Man!ac magazine is the longest running videogame magazine in Germany and is a reliable source, that Man!ac scan is a hell of a lot more reliable than the off hand mention of "over 14 million" in EGM, its properly dated, its sources are properly cited, its an article specifically about sales figure's (as opposed to a 1 page overview on the system as a whole), and its a similarly well respected publication.

there is no agreement between "mainstream reliable sources", so cut out this cynical attempt at weighting opinion towards IGN/Gamepro, IGN/Gamepro should be referred to simply as sources, no better of worse than NYT and Man!ac

Retrogamer stating 29-35 million does not "directly support" a figure of 29 million, Game Tunnel's figure does not directly back up IGN/Gamepro either as it states 30.7 million, neither does it state whether its counting 3rd party hardware sales.

There is not only "one" source in disagreement with the 14/29 million figure ALL sources prior to 1999 contradict it, there is literally not any sources that back it up from the time at all, all sources back up a US figure of somewhere in the region of 19-20 million excluding variations, the recent proliferation of the 14/29 million figure all took place within the last 5 years, prior to that the earliest figure's I run into stating that "total" is EGM, and Linux Format.

I've already posted these in the previous thread -

Man!ac Magazine (attributed to GFK, Robertson Stephens and Co, Computer Trade Weekly, and Sega stated 14 million and 29 million were both reached at the end of 1994

Newsday, Video Business, and Pittsburgh Post Gazzette all state that Genesis sales reached 15 million in the US early on in 1995

Note, unfortunately The Pittsburgh post is pay-per-view, it states "both consoles have sold 15 million apiece" the Video Business source can be read if you input your zip code and local library (type in "98362" chose the option which appears and make up an email address, it doesn't need a comfirmation email) video business states "Sega VP of marketing Bill White explains: "One is a peripheral, and one is the ultimate in gaming. The 32X offers the 15 million-plus Genesis owners a way to get affordably into 32-bit. From an economic standpoint for the consumer, it makes a lot of sense."

Obviously 1995 was still a strong year for 16-bit in the US, so sales are going to be much higher than 15 million, as posted before -

1. Over (unfortunately it doesn't give a precise figure) 2 million were sold in the US during 1995 in total - Business Wire

2. 1.1 million were sold during 1996 in total - Business Wire

By my counting that's at least 18.1 million US sales up till 1997 right? well, the March 1997 issue of EMEDIA states "the company still remains committed to the more than 18 million owners of the Genesis 16-bit cartridge system in the US" EMEDIA March 1997

3. 400,000 sold in 1997 - Business Wire

What's missing? well firstly these figures are rounded, so we have lost units both up till early 1995 (it was rounded down to 15 million) and for 1995 total (rounded to 2 million) we also have possible 1998 figures missing up until the New York Times article which was written in March.

So the separate sources add up to ~19 million, possibly more, possibly less depending on how much was rounded off and what early 1998 sales were like.

We also have the second total written on Islandnet (yes that source gives a completely different figure a few pages after the 14/29 million "total") the second figure states a total of 19 million in North America.

and of course there's the The New York Times and Electronic Times article's both stating 20 million excluding Majesco (who took over after these articles were published)

In regards to IGN/Gamepro "but they don't quote a 1994 figure" the problem is they don't quote anything at all, they just state a figure with no mentioning of where they found the information, look at the sources we've posted, Man!ac stating Sega as a source, from early 1995 "Sega VP of marketing.....15 million", and there's the European figure of 8 million in CVG attributed to Sega of Europe.

You guys say that the most recent figures should automatically take precedent, I'd like to know what exactly do you think IGN learned in 2009 about Mega Drive sales that Sega themselves didn't know in 1995?

Anomie, your theory about Sega manufacturing 14 million US/29 million World Genesis in 1994 telling Man!ac, and then taking the next few years to sell them through to consumers is flawed, had this been the case the sales wouldn't have carried on their logical climb (15 million in 1995, 20 million by 1998) now would they? the fact of the matter is that the Man!ac scan's US figure is backed up by both sources directly predating it which state 13 million Business Wire and directly after it which state 15 million (See above).

In regards to the addition of separate figures to reach a total, I'm not really sure how I feel about this tbh, i'd rather we had at least a total NA + Total Europe + total Japan + Total Others calculation. At the moment, correct me if I'm wrong but we're adding the US total, to the rest of the world as of 1994? Man!ac states 29 million world, 14 million US, subtract the US total and you have 15 million, re-add updated 22 million US (which includes Majesco), and add the Tec Toy 2 million, and Nomad 1 million numbers (which may of may not be already included in the Man!ac figures) to make 40 million.

Either way the "Routine Calculations" rule seems to state that editors have to be in agreement on the way that we perform the calculations, which many don't seem to be. Jesus.arnold (talk) 03:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow. An amazing post.
I think more of us are in agreement than not in regards to adding to 36 million. Certainly at least four of us (Arnold, Beast, DreamFocus, myself...) support it, while only two directly oppose. Past that when it comes to third parties we're more splintered. Personally I want to add to 38 million no problem, which may be possible given the new reliable source below (at least 37-40 million.)
In more clarity for 20 million...
1989-1990: 1.2 million
1991: 1.6 million (if you can't read this article, taking the 1.5 million from the previous article is virtually the same anyway)
1992: 4.5 million
1993: 5.5 million
1994: over 4+ million
1995: over 2+ million
1996: 1.1 million
1997: 400,000 (20.3 million for those counting)
1998: Majesco Projects 1.5 million
1998: Majesco sells between 1 and 2 million (closest to a reliable source for support of 2 million)
Genesis 3 was still being sold in 1999, so it is very possible they hit the 2 million mark sourced from the Brazilian gaming news site (which happens to be the only source for TecToy, and which we can still note something like "Some journalists have claimed") I also think it is extremely likely the 30.75 million number takes Majesco's sales and adds them onto the 29 million number, giving Majesco 1.75 million exactly, but this is theory speak.
I think we could write in regional sales as well in the sales note, in addition to the way it was, like this.
Sales note
1. Worldwide Sales
   1st party: 35 million[cn 1]
   3rd party: 3-4.5 million[cn 2]
   Sega Nomad: 1 million[4]
     
   Regional Sales
   North America: 22.3-23.8+ million[cn1][Genesis: A New Beginning][4]
   Brazil: 2 million[3]
   Europe: 8 million[CVG]
   Japan: 3.58 million[GameSpy]
   Other: 3.42 million (possibly includes some portion of Brazil)
Content notes
1. While Sega has never released a total sales figure for the Mega Drive, most sources agree that 29 million units were sold worldwide, with 14 million of those in North America.[8][IGN][GamePro]
Other sources show this total was already reached by 1995,[9] and there is a detailed history of North American sales totaling 20.3+ million.[show/hide function with sources and info]
2. Majesco sold between 1 and 2 Million units of their Sega Genesis 3 by the end of 1998,[Genesis: A New Beginning] some fans claim as many as 2.5 million units were sold by the time of its discontinuation.[AAA]
Some journalists in Brazil claim Tec Toy has sold 2 million units of their own Mega Drives in Brazil (as of August 31, 2005.)[3] However, it is unknown if some of Tec Toy's sales are included in the initial figure of 29 million or not.
The system is still produced and sold by Tec Toy to this day.
We may or may not have to source to all of those sources I posted and just write in 20.3+ million instead, giving North America 22.3-23.3+ million, either way we still get 37.3-40.3 million.--SexyKick 05:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Instead of adding to the existing discussion, a new one was started elsewhere. Why not just post a link to it instead? No one is going to read that much text anyway. Some newer sources still use outdated figures, they not looking too hard for a number, just seeing what others have published. That doesn't mean stats in places like the New York Times aren't valid, and since they seem to have actually done actual research, they are more reliable than any newer published article elsewhere. I agree with SexyKick, as I have stated before. There is no reason to doubt the New York Times, and adding in what they say for American sales, to what it says are known international sales, simple arithmetic is not original research. And these other systems were the same as the Mega Drive and should be included in the total, they just cheaper versions, but officially licensed by Sega, and running the same games. If there is any doubt then simply list the sales as 30-42 million, or whatever the lowest and the highest estimates are, and let people sort it out on their own, linked to the various sources in the reference section of the article. Do not however put a CN link in articles, instead of an actual number, that looking absolutely ridiculous. Dream Focus 09:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree almost entirely with what you say, but I do believe we should hold some accuracy and knowledge to the estimate. We know 42 million is extremely doubtful for instance, as the source for "nearly 18 million" is just being overly positive, inaccurate, and we have the detailed data that lets us accurately, reliably hit 20.3 million (instead of the 21.5 needed for 42 million.) So 42 million is out, and 40.3+ million is the highest we should write. According to WP:Calc we're sure we can add in reliable data, I do believe that if we write out the detailed North American history sales (which are all from reliable sources,) we can safely write in "Units Sold: Estimated 37.3-40.8+ million" (3.5 million difference is actually a true estimate, unlike 29-40.8+ which would more accurately be written as 29 or 37.3-40.8+ million, an 11.8 million difference, which is just ridiculous) with a footnote explaining the calculations, first party, 3rd party, regional sales, etc. making the proper note for TecToy's source stating it is possible overlap, and just "some journalists claim" rather than state it as simple fact. For Majesco's 2.5 million note that "some fans claim" since the Majesco numbers do not account for 1999's sales (they explicitly note "by the end of 1998") Then the explanations for every number, and the 3.5 million difference in the estimate is as detailed and truthfully accurate as possible. I have tweaked the content note proposal to reflect this.--SexyKick 22:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Personally, i think a higher number than 29m is definatly more accurate, however, we cannot just simply "ignore" those sources since it'll continue to be an issue. We have to use the 29m somewhere, even if its a footnote.Jinnai 23:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I certainly do not mind using it in a footnote, that's what I mean to address when the content note says "most sources agree 29 million." Can you post your version of my content note so I can understand what you mean?--SexyKick 23:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Summary?

Does someone with a decent claim to objectivity want to try to summarize the above and see if we have anything approaching consensus? It seems to me personally that, besides the "diehard Sega fan" faction, there is no support for WP:CALCulating any specific number higher than 35 million. I also note that SexyKick has already declared victory (apparently ignoring the input of many above) and edited the Mega Drive article to prominently claim 38-40 million, and IMO violating WP:OR and/or WP:SYN in an attempt to explain away the 29 million figure. Anomie 16:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems him and Jin had a talk here, I count 7 to 2 for consensus. WP:Calc clearly states this is not Syn, or OR. I think if you read what is written with a clear mind you'll see all is right.
It also seems you have quite a large deal of bias in your writing, it doesn't state 38-40 million at all, it specifically says estimate from 37.3-40.8, and clearly states "estimates range from 29 million to over 40.8 million" in the introduction, before explaining all in the citations. 37.3 is all from reliable sources, I clearly see you have no intention of being neutral here.--BeastSystem (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately SexyKick has been claiming consensus while ignoring or blankly contradicting anyone who disagrees with him for as long as this has been an issue, making it pretty much impossible to actually discuss. This approach makes a compromise like the one you suggested earlier pretty much impossible, and I think his recent edits to the Mega Drive page confirm he has no interest in either compromise or neutrality. And I note with amusement the comment regarding neutrality above. Could always RFC I suppose, but I'm pretty sick of the whole thing. I reckon just let the fanboys and SPAs sweep the inconvenient sources away into a content note and have their synthetic 40m, or whatever number they're claiming at the moment, in the infobox. Miremare 20:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
My stance is just that I do not believe we should be quoting the 29m when there is enough evidence to question that. As for what figure, I'm remaining neutral with regard to what figure above 29m to quote.Jinnai 22:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm insulted honestly. "Diehard Sega fan faction" I am not. When did I fall into a faction? Aren't I just another Wikipedia editor?? My user name itself is based on a move from Super Smash Bros. Melee, and I recently reverted a "pro Sega" edit on the SNES article. BeastSystem may be (and sounds like) a Sega fan, but what does that have to do with the situation really? Is DreamFocus a "Diehard Sega fan" ? No. Is Arnold? No. Is Indrian? No.
You both ignore everything that the other editors state, and then another editor or myself needs to restate the entire situation explaining it again to either of you, only for you to further ignore, or ambiguously state sources as possibly maybe not making sense to yourselves.
Neither of you have to believe the sources, or timeline presented from such sources, that's why there's a footnote explaining and separating all the numbers, sources, and information. You're both obviously bias against believing the 1995 29 million data, both against the North American timeline as far as I can tell, and you're the only two who think WP:CALC is original research.
Either way, Anomie, your first paragraph here chooses to ignore sources, and states false information. I find it dishonest and manipulative, and I am very disappointed in you.--SexyKick 23:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay. There is enough bad blood going around here that its becoming hard for some to assume good faith. Maybe we should step back and get a 3rd opinion]] on what sources can be used specifically (we already asked about calc in general).Jinnai 23:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Do we really need a 3rd opinion when consensus is already so lopsided? I'm sorry it's getting hard for me to assume good faith here, but Jin, are you a diehard Sega fan? LedRush didn't edit the Genesis article until he saw the discussion at the No Original Research board, Indrian came from nowhere, DreamFocus started the whole thing after he saw the Fourth Generation article and used WP:Calc to write in 40 million. That's four of you that are completely non-bias. I claim to have no strong preference of one system over the other, I love the 16-bit generation as a whole, and I just want both systems to get fair nuetral treatment. The Super NES already does, but the moment anyone comes to the Genesis article with reliable sources of contradicting data from that which is in the article (usually unsourced or a source no one can read on the internet) it's almost always reverted. Miremare and Anomie are simply not going to believe this is anything except for Synthesis, and Original Research, and it's completely OK for them to believe that, because it isn't Synthesis according to policy.
Anomie and Miremare have taken the topic here in order to get a 3rd opinion already. Before it was 2 to 2, Anomie+Miremare against Arnold and I. The more places they take it, the more anti-29 million stances they find. It's just like running around in court in the USA. Appeal to another judge, appeal to another judge, appeal to another judge.
No facts change based on this new data. The Genesis still came in second, there is simply more numbers to go off of now, and they further cement the Genesis as being the second place runner of the fourth generation. Why have an issue with WP:CALC unless you're trying to keep the numbers down for some unknown reason? No statements need to be changed anywhere, just numbers.--SexyKick 23:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Maybe it's better if I just address this from another perspective.
"IMO violating WP:OR and/or WP:SYN in an attempt to explain away the 29 million figure."--Anomie
The sources (all sales number sources) have "explained" 29 million away through simple arithmetic. Addition specifically. Per WP:CALC simple arithmetic is allowed.
We easily get "more than" 37.3-38.3 by adding all the reliable sources through that simple arithmetic, and then we just have Tec Toy's questionable source (noted as "Some journalists in Brazil claim" as well as possible overlap being noted) and Majesco's fan source (noted as "Some fans claim as many as 2.5 million units were sold by the time of (Genesis 3's) discontinuation.") Together these make the estimate "Estimated from 37.3 to over 40.8 million"--SexyKick 23:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I haven't participated in this debate and now it's a a bit long, so I'm reyling on what I have read and my memory form last week. My apologies in advance if my questions have been addressed and I forgot or didn't see them. That being said, I had trouble seeing how how this is a simple case WP:CALC was supposed to work and "Some fans estimate" does not sound like WP:RS to me. Can the calculation be explained instead of implied in the text? The fact that an estimated range is calculated implies that it's more complicated than just adding one set of numbers. If enough editors are questioning the calculation, it is almost certainly not simple enough for an unexplained calculation. Even above, I can't figure which specific what numbers are being added. Why does it matter if a figure is out of date if it is the best source we have; we're in the business of reporting sources, not interpreting them. I agree data should be the best available and that it almost certainly is more than 29 million, but this sounds like it should be the job of a third party source to verify and compute the numbers. I could understand adding reliable figures with clear boundaries on what is being counted, but fan guesses and numbers with hazy bounding parameters make this difficult to understand. Can we just put that x units were sold/made by Sega, x units by Majesco, etc.? —Ost (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)