Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 90

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 85 Archive 88 Archive 89 Archive 90 Archive 91 Archive 92 Archive 95


Fix some thing in Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask?

I was wondering if anyone knew where to find more direct sources of gameplay regarding these two. I don't really want to have the articles get reviewed, but the way it's currently explained sounds a li too specific with examples and explanations. I'd do it myself, but i rather not hurt it's chances of keeping it's status.Bread Ninja (talk) 09:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Indie references needed

I tagged Honor in Vengeance II earlier today. Its a decent enough stub/start article but I feel the references let it down. In the reviews section there are self published blogs, and another site that is sort of a half review site and half "buy this" recommendation site. I just wondered if any of our Indie Task Force or our search ninjas knew of any reliable sites that we could add in, to give it some backbone. - X201 (talk) 12:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I looked around, but no joy. I see an AfD in that article's future. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 11:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Concur, not a sausage. Someoneanother 16:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Def Jam Vendetta and Fight For NY.

Those two articles could use some improvements despite the best efforts I've been putting in. It should be no trouble at all since those articles have some potential. It just needs to be proof read and such to keep it at a Wikipedia standard. Thanks. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 04:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion - Mega Drive / Sega Genesis

For those who didn't know. There's a move discussion at Talk:Mega Drive#Requested move - X201 (talk) 08:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Please Help! Korean review

Hi! I need some help looking for korean reviews or maybe korean sites that have interviews for video games that haven't been release outside of Korea. I'm not so sure if there are any. but your efforts would be greatly appreciated if anything is found. and if not, still appreciate you for trying.Bread Ninja (talk) 11:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Zynga candidates for deletion

I noticed a new editor has recently proposed a number of prominent Zynga for deletion. I have asked them to explain their reasoning on their talk page.Leutha (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Zynga_AFD_binge_-_incomplete_and_not_guud above. Since the editor created the sub-pages with a rationale, I fixed and completed the nominations. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
All have now been closed as (speedy) keep. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Free use image of Shinji Mikami

Hey guys, I'm trying to get an image for a DYK for Capcom Five. Specifically, I'm looking for a free use image of Shinji Mikami since he was heavily involved in the project. Also, just a quick plug, the article is up for GA as well, if you want to take a look at it. Does anyone happen to know any good "See alsos" I could add to the bottom? Thanks, Axem Titanium (talk) 17:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I found File:CAPCOM本社.jpg on Commons, and I sent an email to a Flickr user and got permission for File:Capcom Building.jpg (still pending OTRS). I also sent an email off to Tango Gameworks requesting an image of Mr. Mikami, but have not heard back yet. --Odie5533 (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Wow, that was fast. Let me know any updates on that Tango email. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Dab Contest

I don't know if there're any game theorists, but we're attempting to run a disambiguating contest. You can now disambiguate by topics like the 615 video games articles. Top thee places get barn stars. — Dispenser 05:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

A Game of Thrones (role-playing video game)

They created this page, then they deleted it. Now the game is confirmed by Cyanide: [1]. Please create the page :-) -- (talk) 07:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Not to be confused with this: A Game of Thrones: Genesis. -- (talk) 07:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

If there is only initial announcement info, it would be best to just add the information to a section on the Game of Thrones article or on A Song of Ice and Fire instead. --Odie5533 (talk) 12:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

EGM issue 150 Halo review quotation - similarity to Edge phrase

I asked this over at the Halo CE Talk page a while ago, but never got a response. Perhaps if I ask here someone's more likely to have the original EGM issue.

Halo:_Combat_Evolved#Reception gives a couple of quotes from EGM's review of the game in issue #150, including this one:

  • "GoldenEye was the multiplayer standard for console first-person shooters... It has been surpassed"

Edge's review (available online here) contains a very similar quotation. (Written by Ste Curran, according to this)

  • "GoldenEye was the standard for multiplayer console combat. It has been surpassed."

Because the phrases are so similar, this brings up the possibility that at some point during the course of the Halo article's editing, someone mixed up the Edge and EGM quotes.

So could someone with issue #150 of EGM confirm that the quoted phrase is correct?

(I was reminded of it because I'd like to add the quote to the GoldenEye article to support claims about the reputation of the N64 game's multiplayer mode.) --Nick RTalk 14:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Nope, don't have it. Just use the Edge quote. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
This [2] was when it changed. - X201 (talk) 16:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Considering the users didn't even substantiate the quote itself (instead just claiming the source WAS EGM), I think it's safe to say he lied for some reception fluff. Since you already have the source in question, you can just change it so that it attributes to Edge (and we can substantiate that quote with an Edge source). Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I think it's a bit much to assume the guy lied; his other contribs look fine. --Odie5533 (talk) 21:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I ordered the issue through my library's inter-library loan system. I should have it in about week. --Odie5533 (talk) 21:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Question about Unsuccessful Fan Petitions

This is a discussion that originated on Operation Moonfall, Operation Rainfall, and 100,000 Strong for Bringing Back Mega Man Legends 3. What are the criteria for making a standalone article about a fan petition? Online gaming news sites crank out enough information 24/7 to establish noteworthiness of dozens of unsuccessful petitions, is volume of coverage the sole qualifier? Some examples:

Should diversity of sources (e.g. something other than a gaming website), success of the petition, or any other factor play a role? 100,000 Strong for Bringing Back Mega Man Legends 3 has already been merged but I believe there is sufficient material to expand a standalone article if no other factors apply. On the other hand, I also believe the basic gist of any of these petitions could easily be covered on the related game article if that made more sense. Suggestions? - Crabbattler (talk) 18:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me to be the case that articles on fan petitions are particularly encyclopedic (though they may be notable!). Without having assessed the articles or news articles, it would seem to me that such petitions would be best covered in the related game article in a paragraph or two, at most. Less, if it's not particularly important to the game's content. --Izno (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I think they could be mentioned if they have garnered sufficient coverage to be relevant in a given article (our notability guidelines are probably good in determining this). I mean, what we don't want is to mention some unknown online petition from some Joe Schmoe Forumite from some back-in-the-wood fan forum that nobody knows about and has only 20 or so signatures. –MuZemike 18:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I would think one thing that would be important would be if there has been coverage over a period of time. For example if the the coverage of the campaign was a one or two day story it would be different than if the campaign was covered months later. Operation Rainfall in particular was still being covered about a month and a half later.-- (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I really don't think any of those campaigns are particularly notable, given that the chances of having a longterm impact are fairly limited. If "Rainfall" factored in to Nintendo's decision to release a game, a mention of the petition might be worth a sentence to a paragraph in that article, but I don't see much reason for such a limited-scope article otherwise. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Given the fact that (unless they actually proof successful) that MML3 is not coming, it makes sense to use the otherwise empty void of a notable unreleased game to talk about the fan petitions that have been noted in sources, using redirects to point to them. If MML3 does suddenly arrive, then these can be broken out into an article (if needed) to discuss the announcement, cancellation, petitions, and subsequent reannouncement. --MASEM (t) 00:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
So the consensus here is that none of the articles mentioned warrant being standalone topics? - Crabbattler (talk) 19:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that yet, no. Only a handful of people responded, and atleast one said that it would be acceptable if there is enough coverage, which is what I feel as well. Some of them, like the Megaman one, deserved to be redirected because majority of the article was merely info about the game series itself. I think it all depends on third party coverage, AND if there's enough things to be said, like continuous developments, or if it's merely "Party X has a petition, Party Y says it's still not happening, the end." Sergecross73 msg me 19:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Based on a discussion at the Majora's Mask article it looks likely that Moonfall will be merged so the real question is about Operation Rainfall which IMO has the best coverage of the three petitions.-- (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, there's not that much there at the Moonfall article. I'd be fine if that was merged. But I feel like there's enough coverage and content at the Operation Rainfall article to keep it. Sergecross73 msg me 20:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Some of them, like the Megaman one, deserved to be redirected because majority of the article was merely info about the game series itself. - There is ongoing coverage about the campaign and a wealth of information about it. Pretty much everything that exists in the Operation Rainfall article (company response, response to the company response, and in this case even company response to the response to the company response) has a parallel. If that wasn't all included in the redirected article then this conversation is partly about whether that article should be revived and expanded to the same point as Operation Rainfall if possible (and I'm pretty sure it is). Some entire paragraphs of the Operation Rainfall article are totally incidental to the campaign and more about the games than anything else, as well.
If this is what we want to agree petition articles should be like, let's examine the composition of the Operation Rainfall article. The first two paragraphs are a summary of the rest of the article and the games it's about. The next half paragraph is incidental information about Nintendo of France wanting to exhibit Xenoblade (there's a parallel with CyberConnect2 wanting to continue Megaman Legends 3), with no reliable source provided showing a direct link between it and the formation of Operation Rainfall. The next half paragraph is a foundation of the campaign (which all stories we're talking about have a parallel for). The next paragraph, "concept", describes the structure of the campaign. Most campaigns have a coordinated write-in effort, the main difference here is that there is an Amazon purchase campaign for Operation Rainfall. But is exactly one more detail, not covered by sources who weren't talking about the campaigns anyway, enough to render this article-worthy? The final two sections are about coverage, company responses (both again with Megaman Legends parallel) and other petitions. I think I'm missing what makes that topic so much stronger vs. the others. - Crabbattler (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone else have any feedback about this? Is Operation Rainfall a special case? - Crabbattler (talk) 18:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Between here and it's discussion page, it's been discussed to death. It's boiling down to "there's enough content/sources" or "there isn't". By now, If you think it doesn't deserve an article, nominate it for AFD. If you think it's fine...then no action is needed. Sergecross73 msg me 13:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I was really hoping to get more feedback from WikiProject Video games editors because, outside of people who've already commented on the article's talk page, the response here has been precisely not the debate you're describing of "enough content/sources = standalone article." Of the 4 new opinions we got here, we got one doubting whether it's encyclopedic, two doubting it should even be included in the game articles, and one focusing on the Megaman article. But I can certainly go ahead and propose deletion. - Crabbattler (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Notability isn't the only reason articles are brought to AFD.Jinnai 22:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Munch Man

At AFD, Can somebody save it?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to defend in it's current state, without any reliable sources at all, and with it being written like a gameguide. Sergecross73 msg me 13:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
It can probably be cleaned up, but someone found some print sources, so it likely passes for notability in that regard. –MuZemike 15:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Fallout 3 Featured Article Candidate

I recently put Fallout 3 up as an FAC, and I was willing to do everything to make it to become an FA, but it was not promoted with no reason given why; there was only one oppose, but that was "unless" if I address the issues (which I did); I addressed the latest issues, but the discussion got closed, and I am very annoyed about this; why didn't the discussion go on longer like many other articles that get nominated for FAC in the past? why didn't it get promoted?-SCB '92 (talk) 14:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

There was very few comments on that FAC, which probably caused it to fail after no activity for a month. It has happened to a couple of mine, as well. It sucks, but I would make double-check on the sources and prose quality, and then give it another run in about, say, a little bit of time. –MuZemike 15:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I noted in my comments at FAC that the article likely fails 1c and may fail 1b. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
FAC can be a beast of a process. We've all had candidates fail (or rather not pass yet) unexpectedly.
After a quick glance, organization issues stood out to me; some subsections could be combined and better named. Some sources in the gameplay section look questionable too. I recommend leaving the article alone for a while to come back with fresh eyes. I do that frequently with articles I work on. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC))
Believe me it can be frustrating to fail because of the lack of comments, especially when it happens twice in a row.Jinnai 19:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
The fact is the candidate discussion got closed just exactly a week (not a month) after putting it up for FAC, and it received plenty of comments, and I was expecting more comments to come-SCB '92 (talk) 12:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
It's up to the FAC delegates what closes and how. If it's not promoted, typically it's because the delegate believes that for one reason or another the article is does not meet the FA criteria or is not making enough progress towards it. FAC is an imperfect process, and this is not the first time something like this has happened. Everyone has sent up an article that they believe will do well, but actually gets shot down. Lara Croft is probably the best article I've worked on here (with special copy editing help from several editors, of course), but it's unsuccessfully gone through two FACs.
Here are some general tips for navigating FAC:
  • Have as many people as possible review your article.
    • We get dinged a lot on the 1a criteria, so having others copy edit is a big help.
    • Reviews also pick up on common mistakes we may miss: formatting, sourcing, FUR, etc.
  • Follow up with editors that leave comments on their talk pages.
    • Even if you address the issues they brought up, the delegate will look for acknowledgement from the editor that the issue is addressed. Lack of that acknowledgement can hurt the article's chances.
    • Sometimes we don't address the issue to the editor's satisfaction or they notice more issues on a second sweep.
  • Just keep trying and take whatever criticism to heart. The goal of everyone involved in the process is to highlight the best of Wikipedia.
Good luck next time. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC))

Team Ico Collection

While right now the upcoming Team Ico Collection - containing both Ico and Shadow of the Colossus - is discussed in the Team Ico article, there is a growing amount of coverage (history, graphic comparisons, etc.) to the point of reviews even, suggesting that this should actually have its own article. I am normally hesitant to create articles for ports, leaving the port info on the main game page, or in the case of these other updates, on the series page, but that doesn't apply here. And it is feeling really out of place on the Team Ico page now particularly if it has reviews.

Would others agree this would be an exception to create the article on the collection ? --MASEM (t) 21:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Not having seen the sources, if the scale is on par with Metroid Prime: Trilogy, then go for it. The only thing to keep in mind is if there's enough for a reasonable development section. That's been the main hurdle for articles about ports. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC))
I've seen a good bit of information on various video game sites about the collection; I'd say it could be its own article. –Drilnoth (T/C) 23:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I'd go for a new article. Be sure to follow WP:SPLIT and please nominate a WP:DYK for the article as well. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. There's been a lot of buzz about these packs, in particular this one and the Silent Hill pack, there should be ample sourcing for separate articles. Someoneanother 15:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Development =/= release or promotion. I'm not saying that's what's those sites have as I haven't checked them, but just a word of caution.
If it is mostly that, you can also do like Halo 3 and you might be able to spinout a page for marketing, if you have some interdependent secondary soruces talking about the marketing/promotion. Otherwise, you'll just have to summarize it and take on the key points.Jinnai 14:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I disagree - in that how a game is promoted and marketed would fall into its development history. If there's a lot of details, I will call out a separate marketing/release section, and it could be argued that for Halo 3 there's enough to do that. (Heck, Potato Sack is effectively a big marketing push for Portal 2...) The point here for the Ico collection is that there are more than enough reviews and commentary on the technical improvements to make it notable via the GNG. --MASEM (t) 14:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Marketing has nothing to do with development. Release info has very little to do. That propoganda, not development. The only release info which might qualify would be the release date of the product, any documented delays or cancelations due to development issues (not delays for marketing reasons), and patch releases.Jinnai 15:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
But when you are both the developer and publisher, like Valve is, or in the case where the property is highly valued by the publisher to invest a lot in it, like Microsoft with Halo, publication and marketing can influence the actual development, and vice-versa. On the other hand, there are developers that have little say in how their games are marketed, and there's more a strong distinction between the two. Yes, I try to gather all the marketing nad promotion detailed into a single paragraph or section, but whether that's broken out as a separate section or part of development really depends on a case-by-case basis. --MASEM (t) 16:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
If there is verifiable evidence, that marketing affected the development or vise-versa, I'd say that would be a justifiable reason to include it. If not its pure speculation and synthesis to believe otherwise have others believe that by linking the two together.Jinnai 18:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Capcom Five topic

With Capcom Five and Resident Evil 4 at GAN, it looks like we have a potential Good Topic. Viewtiful Joe and Killer7 are currently GA and FA, respectively, and Dead Phoenix does not have an article. The only one left of the Capcom Five is P.N.03, which is currently B-Class. Anyone up for giving it that last push to GA? Regardless, it'd be nice to whittle down our list of Delisted GAs. (Guyinblack25 talk 05:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC))

  • That sounds really interesting. I'm definitely up for it. I should be able to dig up some good material from the online print archive, as well. My only concern is whether the article on the "Capcom Five" is notable enough. I've never seen the games grouped together before now. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
    • The article has been around since 2006 and is now well-sourced. The individual articles also mention that they are part of a group of five games.
      Anybody else up for the collaboration? This will go by very quickly with more than two editors. (Guyinblack25 talk 06:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC))
Not trying to ruin this topic but if it goes up for GTC, some editors might complain about four out of the five games having articles. Would it be possible for Dead Phoenix to have an article of its own? GamerPro64 16:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
It use to before Axem redirected it recently. The version prior to that was just a stub. We typically don't allow articles on canceled titles unless there is a substantial amount of sources to support it. Axem can probably verify if there's any more content out there, but I imagine that the game didn't progress enough for that level of coverage. (Guyinblack25 talk 02:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC))

Update- Capcom Five just passed its GAN. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC))

Ha, you read my mind, Guy. I was actually hoping to get a good/featured topic out of this. Thanks, Jimmy, for working on P.N.03. I haven't played it so it would have been a bit difficult to improve that article on my own. That said, if you find anything useful, feel free to expand the paragraph on it at Capcom Five, since it's so much shorter than the others. As for Dead Phoenix, I really couldn't find anything on it outside of what's there. Most Capcom people have been pretty tight-lipped about what it was before cancellation. I suspect that there was some politics going on but that's purely speculation on my part. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry. I didn't mean to jump the gun. I assumed that because different editors had worked on the separate articles that there was no topic goal.
Three people should make the work go by quickly. I started on the development and Jimmy is researching for the reception. He also started a discussion at Talk:P.N.03#Collaboration. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC))
No problem. I had the idea on the backburner for a while since FA'ing killer7 and seeing that VJ was already GA (I think RE4 was messy but full of usable content at that point too). I only revived it when I was possessed by the need to improve Capcom Five. It was only coincidence that someone else cleaned up RE4 just recently. Anyway, if anyone would like to help, continue at P.N.03. :) Axem Titanium (talk) 00:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Articles that need reviewing

August is about over but there's still articles that need to be reviewed.

So it would be very appreciated if some editors can review these articles and give their opinions on them. GamerPro64 20:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

  • I was considering posting about this as well. I could really use more reviews of Flight Unlimited, and the articles at GAN, in particular, have gone unattended for quite awhile. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm willing to take on two or three GA reviews if someone's willing to review my VG one. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 22:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I'll assess E.V.O., I like to take my time though so don't worry about checking the assessment page for a few days. Someoneanother 16:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks; I don't mind waiting. I went ahead and tagged two for review as I promised. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Really need more reviews for Flight Unlimited. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I tried to do some reviews (most of my reviews of all GAs, I think nearly 90%, were in a small frame of time), but I found that it didn't really lead to my stuff getting reviewed. Selfish perhaps, but it killed my buzz. :v I'll help with the FACs if I can. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 04:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Also, Jet Force Gemini should be removed. The nominator, around that time, began mass-nominating articles without even editing them at times. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 04:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I'd really appreciate it if you could offer your opinion. I'm starting to get concerned. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I've been busy with school recently but I'll see if I have time to review it. GamerPro64 22:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I look forward to your review. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Flight Unlimited has had 2 reviews since the 25th. Would love some more input. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

TFA coming up - MissingNo.

Just to give everyone a heads up, MissingNo. will be Today's Featured Article on September 14. –MuZemike 01:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I absolutely expect a lot of "why the Hell is there an article about a glitch?!". - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 01:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I will try and be prepared for the slew of fans/haters/random vandals/trolls. Blake (Talk·Edits) 03:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Glad this article is getting recognized; Kung Fu Man's work on it was excellent. It was one of (if not) the shortest article(s) our project had ever successfully taken through FAC, but the information it contains is fascinating. I still get a kick out of the fact that it was our only Pokemon FA at the time--it might be still, actually. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
It is- 18 GAs, 1 FA. --PresN 07:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

dormant wikiproject

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Ultima project is basically dormant. Talk page activity has been limited to notifying editors of articles that have been deleted, particularly in the past year, and is mainly dominated by one or two editors who have little interest outside of that. How do we go about winding this project up, or putting that to the community to decide? Shooterwalker (talk) 03:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

In general, when a project falls dormant we make it a task force, and only archive everything if it's completely dead. In this case, it's already a task force, which means it's no bother to anyone other than one more talk page out there, and since clearly at least Dream Focus continues to use it to centralize discussion on Ultima-related topics, I see no reason to swoop in and delete things. It's not hurting anything to have a link in the sidebar to it, and it seems to be useful to at least a couple editors. --PresN 04:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Commas vs. line breaks in infoboxes

Phrix89 (talk · contribs) seems to be going around to many articles replacing commas with line breaks in the "platform" field of {{Infobox video game}}. I reverted him on Aliens vs. Predator (video game) and he came back with statements that "platforms sections are easier to navigate when using brackets" and "new game articles are using linebreaks and old articles are being updated". The first claim is obviously a matter of personal preference; I have no problem navigating the text either way. As for the second claim, as far as I can tell there is nothing in the template documentation nor the project guidelines that favors one delimiter (commas or line breaks) over another, and when I did a random sampling of 6 FAs I saw no consistency. Most of the other infobox fields (distributor/genre/mode/media) seem to favor commas, and IMO this is preferrable to stretching the infobox vertically, as it already takes up enough room. I'm not a project member, but I wanted to post a note here as Phrix89 appears to be making this change on a mass scale. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Relevant: Template_talk:Infobox_video_game/Archive_9#How_to_separate_developers.2Fpublishers.2Fgenres.2Fplatforms. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Look at games that have been released on many platforms such as Resident Evil 4 and Need for Speed Shift and you'll see how awkward is it to navigate when using commas, not to mention looking incredibly messy. I've seen many, many articles (both old ones being updated and new ones) using line breaks in the platforms section and nobody has had a problem with it before. It makes complete sense for the platforms section to use line breaks as the release dates section does and the template should be updated to allow it. Phrix89 (talk) 00:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

List of Sega 32X games' at FLRC

I have nominated List of Sega 32X games for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro64 23:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Feature and Featured Editor still needed for the upcoming newsletter

With only a few weeks to go, we still need a "feature" and "featured editor" for the upcoming WP:VG newsletter, set to go out in early October. –MuZemike 13:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I added my 2 DYKs to the draft. Hope you don't mind. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I'll see if I can whip up a case study feature on one my FAs. Given my track record of activity, a back up wouldn't be a bad idea.
Odie- Please feel free to update the newsletter content. The help is always appreciated. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC))
The feature is done unless anyone has something else the can whip up in its place. All that's left is the editor interview. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC))
I can answer some questions this time unless someone wants the spotlight more.Jinnai 22:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Finished.Jinnai 19:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


I think that {{THQ-asset-stub}} should be moved to {{THQ-stub}} and then THQ-asset-stub should redirect to THQ-stub. No one seems to use the template correctly, and I don't think we need two. --Odie5533 (talk) 10:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the former should just be merged into the latter. The wording there seems to be splitting hairs.Jinnai 19:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

FLC desperately needs reviews

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs in Green Day: Rock Band/archive1 is about to fall down to the "Older nominations" list and it hasn't had any substantial reviews. It shouldn't be too tough an article to review, and it would be much appreciated if someone here could take a look at it and provide some feedback. Otherwise, I'm concerned the FLC may get failed due to lack of reviews. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T/C) 16:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I've gotten one review from Guyinblack25 (a support), and the list is getting pretty close to the bottom of the nominations pile. Could a couple more people comment on it? There isn't too much prose, so it shouldn't take long to review. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T/C) 17:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
NapHit has kindly provided a second review and support. In my experience, FLCs need at least three supports to get promoted. The nomination is just the fourth from the bottom, so I'm getting a bit concerned that it will be failed due to lack of reviews. Please, could someone take fifteen–thirty minutes to review it? If you have an article needing FL/FA/GA review, I'd be glad to review it in turn. –Drilnoth (T/C) 23:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Unintented interwiki redirect

Not sure if it's kosher for me to post this here, but there's a problem on this page: The entries "DK: King of Swing" and "DK: Jungle Climber" are being interpreted as some non-English interwiki link. There's prob. some simple fix but I don't know what it is. Using the HTML entity code (:) doesn't fix the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spacedog7 (talkcontribs) 19:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Fixed- the articles themselves are at DK King of Swing (no colon) to get around that issue, there's no good way to make the link point correctly. I've adjusted the wikilinks accordingly. --PresN 20:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Retro games task force membership

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Retro games#Membership userbox. Trevj (talk) 07:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Help with notability

I'm attempting to help a newbie with their first article, on a new video game, and need some help myself with notability assessment.

Have a look at User talk:Saman in the machine if willing to help. The contributor is doing all the right things and assuming that the game is worthy of an article it's only justice that their draft should go "live" IMO. But I don't feel competent to assess that.

And of course as well as the article, you stand to gain an enthusiastic and valuable member for this project either way if we handle this properly. TIA. Andrewa (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The subject easily passes notability, and I've in fact been meaning to create an article on it as there are several sources to draw from. I've just been busy. --Teancum (talk) 13:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


I noticed that the category Category:PlayStation was being used for PS1, and PlayStation generally. As a result I created Category:PlayStation (brand) to contain (generally subcategories) relating to all PlayStation products. I am still in the process of tidying categories.

I think it may be a good idea to rename the category about PS1 to "Category:PlayStation 1", and use the old category, as the main Playstation category. Or there may be other better ways to name the categories. If anyone feels this is needed please discuss and then action this yourself. Thanks.Imgaril (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Idol Minds

Someone has nominated the developer Idol Minds for deletion - I can't understand this at all given the level of coverage - there appear to be many more far less obviously notable articles about developers... Nevertheless - if anyone can understand the problem and fix the article, or whatever that would be appreciated.Imgaril (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

New Cite video game template proposal

The current proposal is up. It is being done to bring the template in line with core as much as possible. There is a lot of missing info and relevant fields in core, but there were some missing ones, most notably a developer field. Gadget850 has graciciously designed a template design up at Template:Cite video game/sandbox2. There are some things to note about it:

  1. Since we want to follow existing citation guidelines as much as possible, "Developed by" and "Published by" will be displayed before each.
  2. Since many video games are non-linear, there are a number of fields to deal with this as a way of lowering the burden on a generic catch-all "description" which could range all over the place.

Anyway, please go there and give some feedback. An update for this template has been needed for some time.Jinnai 04:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Help Needed with IP-user false-editing

See Mario Party 3's talk, I am unsure how to proceed to stop the user from repeatedly editing (and getting reverted). Thanks. Salvidrim (talk) 01:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This person appears to be using a cellular data service, frequently gets assigned to new proxies, and might not be seeing any messages. You can try putting an invisible comment at the appropriate place to make sure you're getting this person's attention. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 05:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Hm. User:McDoobAU93 also instructed me on warnings and related stuff, so thanks too. I'm thinking a comment might actually be helpful, as long it is indeed good faith and he just doesn't check previous IPs talk pages. Salvidrim (talk) 05:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:VG/A

I'm seeking feedback on a proposal and have gotten little feedback over the week, I'm hoping that by posting here a couple more are going to see it. :) Salvidrim (talk) 06:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Last week in the September Dab Challenge

Video Games Dab Challenge (Sept. 2011)
User Fixes In project
X201 225 100% 183 93%
Odie5533 116 64%
Someoneanother 29 100%
Ost316 22 49%
Squids'n'Chips 16 1%
Dispenser 16 84%
neko-chan :3 (talk) 15 54%
Logan Talk Contributions 13 11%
Jinnai 13 42%
R'n'B (call me Russ) 12 0%
Bte99 11 3%

We're now in the final stretch of the Dab challenge. So far editors have tackled links on 527 of the nearly 700 pages (about 75%). This leaves us with 158 pages left in the challenge, 51 of which carry {{disambiguation needed}} which usually requires expert attention (full list). This project is the closest of all to completion, so why not join in and help us finish it! — Dispenser 04:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I've just had the "Whoops, out of pages" message, so it looks like we've done it. WP:VG the first to finish. Yay for us! \o/ . - X201 (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Very cool. Congratulations are in order to those that chipped in. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC))
I've update the chart at right with the final results. The pages in the contest fluctuate due to various factors, so it ended up at 663 page. — Dispenser 15:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

High-importance nom

Before sending Nintendo DSi back to FAC, I thought it would be appropriate to invite you guys to comment on it. Hardware noms are rare after all! Criteria 1a is the hardest to achieve. « ₣M₣ » 03:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Animated gameplay screenshots

I was wondering what the consensus is (or if we could form one) on including animated gameplay screenshots in articles, whether this violates fair use at all, and whether gifs or actual video footage would be appropriate. I believe that it should be acceptable if integrated with critical commentary to help readers visualize information that would be difficult to convey in text. A perfect example is File:Wonder boy platform.gif. I'd also like to note that File:Ani RF1-Gameplay.gif is probably misuse of the idea since the information could be conveyed just as easy with a single or a few screenshots rather than an animated reel. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

That first one could be replaced with text linking to side scroller and a single screenshot... The second one might actually be the better, but we can prove that that one is a composite of several images, which definitely fails WP:NFCC for the modified criterion. --Izno (talk) 00:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
For the Wonder Boy (video game) article, I think the file adds a significant amount of information: the general game mechanic of the platformer, depiction of the main character and an enemy, depiction of the main interface, typical progression through the game, power-up depictions and how to capture them, etc. If you believe the image should be removed, you should nominate it for deletion. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Sometimes its also a matter of length. so the afore mentioned Wonder Boy clip could probably use 1/2 the footage and give the same impression. For anything animated, there is also a need to justify not only the resolution, but the length and why a shorter clip (or screenshot) could not suffice.
EDIT: Also, there seems to be an increased burdern on anything animated that commentary from a secondary source directly address the relevant clip in some way.Jinnai 00:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I've been seeing more and more of these around. They usually strike me as blatant copyright violations, but I can imagine one being justifiable if the related game's animation receives an extreme amount of discussion in the prose. It couldn't be something that could ever be replaced, though. For example, discussion of an innovative side-scrolling camera could be demonstrated with one of our many free images on the subject. My most recent FA was on the aerobatic simulator Flight Unlimited, but I used a free animation to demonstrate aerobatic maneuvers. It couldn't have been adequately summarized by a still image, but I didn't need an animation from the game itself to get the point across. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I think it's a stretch to say that you couldn't create some diagrams that showed what goes on if there is some kind of unique thing going on in the game-play of most games. File:Wonder boy platform.gif seems like an entirely inappropriate animation for WP:FAIRUSE:
  • What does it show that couldn't be adequately be described in words? eg "During gameplay, the players' avatar jumps from cloud to cloud. Some clouds move up and down. There are also regions of solid land to walk on."
  • You can convey "the general game mechanic of the platformer" by saying "This game exhibits the general game mechanic of a side scrolling platform game." - that style of game mechanic can be depicted on that generic page with a much longer, higher resolution movie from some OpenSourced game that allows free use of the image.
  • The "depiction of the main character, an enemy and the user-interface" can be adequately shown with a still-image screenshot - we can't justify a movie just for that.
The principle of fair use more or less says that you can only make a fair use claim if there is absolutely NO other way to convey the information - and that if you must make this claim then you must use the minimum possible amount of fair use material.
Certainly in this case, I don't see how animation could be justified. A still frame screenshot and a text description of the action is less material and conveys the information adequately. That said, I'll grant that there may be games where that is not the case. There may be on-off cases where (for a sufficiently unique gameplay style) a short movie is appropriate because of the difficulty in adequately conveying this information in words or abstract diagrams. I could imagine (for example) needing a short movie clip to show some of the possibilities for unusual and unique gameplay in Portal (video game). We have to take this on a case-by-case basis, but come down hard on cases where this is a clear copyvio. :: SteveBaker (talk) 14:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
First, our short clips would not be copyvio. They would likely fall under fair use law. The issue is that any non-free work falls under WP:NFC, while our mission is free content. If we can replace a non-free work with a free equivalent (which can include stills and text) then we do so. In the case of Portal, for example, while we could use a gif/mov of the game itself, the concept of portals can also be shown by a simple schematic built on free images, animated or not. I would expect this to be the case of many other gameplay concepts (per game or genre specific). I do have an animated gif over at Lemmings (video games) only because the change in the walk cycle to make the little guys more fluid-looking is the subject of discussion in the article and thus reasonable to include, but note that that's based on a graphics idea, and not gameplay. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

People seem to be overestimating the "weight" of animated gifs on the burden of fair use here, which is marginally to none more than static images. A more relevant issue with animated gifs is compatibility. For instance, gifs remain static when viewing articles on the Wapedia app on my smartphone (though not when viewed through the normal web browser) and they conflict with the goals of Wikipedia 1.0 (especially concerning printed articles). There's also the aesthetic issue of simply having too much distracting motion within an article. Animated gifs should be kept to a minimum even when free.--Remurmur (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed primarily in that it seems incredibly distracting when reading an article, especially on a website where movement, animation, etc. is kept to a minimum. Gary King (talk · scripts) 19:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Acorn Archimedes/RISC OS games

Top Banana is a notable game and is currently tagged under WP:RISCOS. This also puts it in WP:COMP. In connection with previous category discussion, a more appropriate solution may be desirable.

  1. Would it be acceptable to establish RISC OS coverage within {{WikiProject Video games}}?
  2. If so, would that require the (technical) existence of an appropriate Task Force to WP:VG?
  3. The existence of such a Task Force would be a duplication within the scope of WP:RISCOS, so perhaps could simply link there for further info.
  4. Can WikiProjects share categories? It could be useful to tag RISC OS game articles via WP:VG in order to have them listed under WP:RISCOS.
  5. Are there more practical and/or elegant solutions?

All adivce gratefully received. Thanks for reading. --Trevj (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

From a very pragmatic point-of-view, I think the tagging of as currently done on Top Banana (WP:WG + WP:COMP/RISCOS) is fine. One could make WP:RISCOS a taskforce of both WP:COMP and WP:VG and tag it only with WP:VG/RISCOS, but I suspect the number of RISC OS games is not large enough to justify the effort. On the other hand, if you think this is useful, I (or any guideline/policy) won't oppose you either. —Ruud 16:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
The problem with using RISCOS as a parameter for the template, as is done with WP:COMP, is the number of similar parameters that can be used. Imagine what the template would look like on Dragon's Lair or Doom. The situation would only get worse over time. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting here. I'm not setting out to create an unnecessary group/task force/project - so if it's not needed then that's great. If WP:COMP members are OK with computer games being tagged (and TBH, there aren't really that many RISC OS ones) then fine. Perhaps this can be taken back there in the near future for confirmation. Cheers. And that's a very good point about popular games available on multiple platforms! --Trevj (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I may have misunderstood what was going on with WP:COMP's template. Maybe somebody more knowledgeable should chime in about the difference between having a task force and setting up the template to work with multiple projects. If there's no difference, then I'd be all for it so long as the template doesn't render as "WikiProject Video games / RISC OS" like it does on Talk:Top Banana (video game). ButOnMethItIs (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Fix this category - Category:Video game controversies

Take a look at the category for TV controversies, take a look at the category for medical controversies. What do those categories contain? They contain articles on controversies. Now take a look at VG controversies, what does that contain? A list of ~150 games, most of them aren't remotely controversial. Whereas every other controversy category covers specific controversies which have generated significant third party coverage, and can stand alone, the VG space has labelled any game with even the most trivial of drama as controversy.

I think we should move away tagging individual games, and to using it as a category for articles relating to specific controversies and video game controversy in general. So articles like Daikatana, Dante's Inferno (video game) and Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball would be out. Whereas articles such as Video game controversy, Controversy over the use of Manchester Cathedral in Resistance: Fall of Man, ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion and List of controversial video games would be left in. I think the list article is a lot more useful than the category for noting down VG controversies. There are grey areas, obviously, when some games are made purely to be controversial such as V-Tech Rampage. But on the whole, I think culling this category would make it a lot easier for people researching this topic. There are similar issues at Category:Video game censorship. - hahnchen 20:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I support the proposed change. If a controversy is so important and notable, it should have its own article and can then be tagged. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Agree. I was surprised to find Ayane (Dead or Alive) in the category when it only has one paragraph dedicated to controversy. I think the category name creates an expectation that articles directly related to a controversy would be in there. It either needs to be renamed (which I don't think is the appropriate treatment here) or trimmed of unnecessary articles. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC))
Support. I really don't think we should be making all these controversy articles in the first place as most end up getting a flurry of coverage but have no lasting significance... but either way it should be limited to standalone. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Would anyone be opposed to starting List of video game controversies? It would work as a fork from video game controversy#publicized incidents and would let us organize all of the controversy that doesn't warrant individual articles. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Aren't List of controversial video games and video game controversy#publicized incidents already enough? - hahnchen 18:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Valkyria Chronicles

There is currently a requested move on Talk:Valkyria Chronicles III to move the article to Senjō no Valkyria 3: Unrecorded Chronicles. I am not that fussed over the outcome, however it involves moving the page from the English language title for the series to the Japanese one (unsure what policy says here) and it's a bit of a backwater page that nobody has on their watchlist. Probably could use more eyes. Thanks – Steel 23:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Notability of video game companies

I've recently seen a few video game developers and publishers at AfD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laughing Jackal comes to mind. I was wondering what criteria we should use to determine the notability of such companies. I would personally suggest WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:PRODUCT. I saw a new article, Subdued Software, and when I was going to look it up on Google to determine if it was notable, I thought to myself what I could find that would show that it was notable. Should the subject be required to have articles about the subject, or are articles about products (games) the subject has created enough to pass notability? --Odie5533 (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The difference between game publishers/developers and PRODUCT is that if a game is notable, we generally have an article about it/the series. There are very few non-notable games we would have an actual publisher article for. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
The question is when the publisher/developer is notable, not the games. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
They're notable when there's significant coverage in reliable sources. Notability from a company's games is not inherited, but coverage of a game can also be coverage of the company. Use your best judgment. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 22:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
At what point does coverage of the video game spill over to the company? Would saying something like "Ubisoft strikes it big again with Tom Clancy's Stealth Fighting Game #81" Support the notability of Ubisoft since it is praising their accomplishment? What if that was all the article said about the company and the rest just discussed the gameplay? My judgement would be that it does not support notability unless there are multiple paragraphs focusing on the company itself. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
A passing mention is not significant coverage, so no, that example does not help establish notability. A good example of coverage of both game and company is pretty much any article discussing the closure of 3D Realms. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 03:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I would argue that it establishes notability when the article's subject is the company, and not a game. Or at least a page/paragraph/clearly defined section of the article. Salvidrim (talk) 03:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Argue it all you want, but there's no basis for that in the notability guidelines. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 03:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I think he is giving a rule of thumb based on WP:N's concept of significant coverage. I'm not sure it hits it on the head though. --Odie5533 (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
This discussion has mostly confirmed what I already understood of notability. One of the articles brought up at AfD as supporting the notability of Laughing Jackal is this article on Eurogamer. I guess I have to argue harder at AfD in the future. --Odie5533 (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Moby Games

What's the latest consensus for Moby Games from a reliability standpoint for verifiability, not notability. In their Wikipedia article I read

"Anonymous contributions are not allowed, each item is tracked to a user account for auditing purposes. Furthermore, all information submitted to MobyGames is individually verified by users with Approver access before it goes into the database."

So, does this verification of submitted information by an "Approver" act as a sort of acceptable oversight? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Depends on what the approvers role is, if it's fact checking then that would be a step forward, if it just to filter out obvious hoaxes and words like 'poop' then no. - X201 (talk) 08:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
It's ultimately a user and that wouldn't really fly at RS/N because its users determing what goes in similar to Wikipedia.Jinnai 13:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, unlike Wikipedia, anons and registered users cannot directly add information, in that nothing enters the database without being vetted. I think that User:X201 has it correct in that we need know the "Approvers" role in verifying game credits, as my question is not about reviews or opinion. Only about facts verifiable to the game itself. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 14:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
The latest consensus has not changed and will likely not change. Everything there is user submitted content: game descriptions, magazine scores, release dates, screenshots, box scans, etc. We do not know who these "Approvers" are and we can not trust their reliability. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Note This discussion really should have been posted to WT:VG/S. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
He was directed here by someone else at WP:RSN, who probably didn't know about that page. I pointed out the page in that discussion, but the question had already been re-posted here by that point. Reach Out to the Truth 04:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Expert attention needed at an AfD

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Machine design in game engines. - Voceditenore (talk) 08:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Articles to be rated Top Importance

I think the following articles of video game consoles of the project should be rated Top Importance:

sure, the home console's listed weren't the best selling home console of its generation, where they're rated Top Importance, but they're still best selling and important consoles that should be Top Importance-SCB '92 (talk) 11:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it could be argued that the main consoles of every generation could be Top-importance, as they're pretty much the whole basis of VideoGames as we know them. Salvidrim (talk) 11:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
PC games, anyone? --Odie5533 (talk) 14:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
What, then, would quality as mid and high importance consoles? ButOnMethItIs (talk) 12:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Hm, I thought it was Low-Med-Top, hadn't considered "High". Out of the above, I consider Xbox & GBA might qualify for Top, PSP/NGC/N64 as High, and Genesis/Mega Drive somewhere between High and Mid. For very different reasons which should probably be taken as separate discussions. Salvidrim (talk) 12:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
GBA and PSP each sold over 70 million units. None of the other consoles listed come close. I'd say they qualify as Top, but the rest I don't really know.--Odie5533 (talk) 14:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Stuff like the NES and Sega Genesis and Mega Drive would be top. Xbox should also be top, Playstation (console) should be top, Game Boy top, etc. There are a few others that could be top that brought forth major innovations, like the Wii. Sales imo isn't enough. Those I'd list as high, like Gamecube, PlayStation 2, etc. Mid importance would be something like Game Boy Advance SP, a remake of an existing system in a totally new format. DS Lite and maybe the DSi would be other good examples. [[3DS would be high (its too early to say if its innovations will have any major impact).Jinnai 14:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
The Game Boy Color sold more than either. The NES sold less than all three. Sales are neither necessary nor sufficient for determining importance. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 14:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. Sales show a raw impact and penetration of the console. I think this information is important in determining the importance of a console. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
The appeal of using sales as an inclusion criteria is obvious, but how does that actually work? Is there some kind of cut off point? As the market for video games increases, is that cut off point moved to compensate for the increased sales volume? How would sales be considered in a historical context? Will consoles become less important if their sales become less impressive? ButOnMethItIs (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
You are taking the argument elsewhere and I will not follow. I find sales data useful and I don't require that you find them useful. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Useful is fine. But when you argue that unit sales should be used as criteria, you have apply it consistently and systematically. Criteria needs to be carefully thought out and requires consensus. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Leading consoles of the generation should be top (2600, NES, SNES/MD, PS1, PS2), consoles that didn't sell as well but still a significant number and had some notable games, should be high (Master System, T16, N64, Saturn, GCN, Xbox), the rest are mid-class (CDi, Jaguar, 3DO) or even low (Super A'Can, Vii). --Mika1h (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
  1. This discussion should probably be held on WT:VG/A.
  2. Do the articles being discussed fit the parameters listed at WP:VG/A? The classification scheme there was implemented by consensus; rather than individually rate each article, we decided to come to a classification hierarchy for each type of potential article. Arbitrarily rankings don't work. What are your arguments that these articles should be reclassified? --Izno (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Other Top articles

Top articles are defined as "This article forms the basis of all information."

Thoughts? --Odie5533 (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

For video games to be rated Top Importance, I'd agree with Super Mario Bros. (driving sales of the NES) and probably Pokémon (killer app for all Nintendo handheld consoles); not sure about WoW though; I myself nominate Pong (first successful video game), Space Invaders, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (arguably the greatest video game ever), Pac-Man, Donkey Kong (video game), Super Mario 64 (revolutionary game), and Tetris (driving sales of Game Boy); I'm not sure about PC games though, but I could nominate StarCraft; I wouldn't put the Master System, Saturn and Dreamcast (all by Sega) as Top Importance, as, in my opinion, are all failures in each of its generation; I mean Dreamcast did start off online multiplayer capabilities, but I don't know; I should've probably discussed this at WT:VG/A (sorry about that, didn't really know about that page); I also think the cut off point would be any console that sells less than 20 million units-SCB '92 (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

20 million, huh? I can't wait to see Tamagotchi and iPhone 3G listed next to Shigeru Miyamoto on a scale of importance. See my comments above about the use of unit sales as criteria. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so for Top Importance, we basically got 3 votes for Mega Drive, 3 votes for Xbox, and 2 votes for Game Boy Advance; putting sales out of it, I think Nintendo 64 is a very important console; it evolved 2d games to 3d in design, compared to the early 3d games of the PS1, console based shooters, the thumb-controlled joystick that the PS lacked until it later got its analog sticks, etc; and Tamagotchi is not a console, it's a virtual pet, and iPhone is phone first, music second, camera third, videos fourth, social networking fifth, and games sixth; consoles have to be games first-SCB '92 (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Why do I get the distinct impression that you haven't read WP:VG/A#Importance scale? ButOnMethItIs (talk) 19:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

We should not broaden our importance criteria for Top level subjects. These should be for concepts which define the entirety of gaming. MMORPG is top level, individual games within the genre aren't. I don't agree with the top level classification of individuals such as Gabe Newell, John Carmack or Satoru Iwata. I'm not even sure if we should have individual consoles in that classification, given that we already have the entire "History of video game consoles (nth generation)" in there. The constituent consoles should be have a high level classification. - hahnchen 19:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more that Top should be very minimal and restrictive. But community consensus has been that individual people and things belong there. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I took a quick look back at the archives and found the original discussion in Archive 60. The topics suggested for inclusion above, nothing has changed since their original classification and now, it looks like we're lowering standards for inclusion. I'm not even sure why articles such as Wii and Xbox 360 are included, given that they already have high level coverage in History of video game consoles (seventh generation). - hahnchen 20:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I believe this is the discussion that opened the door for Wii and Xbox 360. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 21:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

There are about 65 video game articles that are rated top importance, so it doesn't look that restrictive; how about the Mario (series) and The Legend of Zelda series, mascots Mario and Sonic the Hedgehog, Atari, Ubisoft, Cheating in video games, Multiplayer video game, Video game controversy as top importance articles-SCB '92 (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

If they were rated top, they should have been approved, otherwise they should be demoted to high. As far as I know, there has been no consensus on any video game or series as top because of the argument of historic and exclopedic relevance vs. (current) popularity. Not that I don't think some of those listed wouldn't deserve top, but it seems a hodgepodge of top for video game series and games.Jinnai 05:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thinking about it more, perhaps we should restrict Top level classification to articles like History of video game consoles (seventh generation) and push the consoles into High importance. --Odie5533 (talk) 06:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The NES I could see as top because that console single-handedly revitalized the video game market. Without the NES (or Famicom) there likely would not have been a video game market for years to come. In that sense, where there is a single turning point in video game history, then those items could be raised to the top. There aren't many.Jinnai 06:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I would demote all single systems to high (I'd also make the high importance more restrictive than it is now, but that might be impossible to police - Daikatana is not highly important, My Brute clearly isn't). The NES may have changed the video game market, but the top importance parts of how it did it, should be covered in History of video game consoles (third generation). The Wii may have popularised motion control, but the top importance parts of how it did it should be covered in History of video game consoles (seventh generation). I would restrict top-importance to high level history articles, core game concepts/genres, and possibly companies which have had an impact across multiple hardware generations. - hahnchen 11:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

So it'd be any console or video game that's had a huge impact in video gaming history, and popularized a video game genre? So would Wolfenstein 3D qualify to become Top Importance because it popularized the first-person shooter genre? would GoldenEye 007 (1997 video game) qualify because it popularized first person shooters to be on video game consoles? didn't Dragon Warrior popularize JRPGs? didn't Grand Theft Auto III popularize open world gaming (though starting out in Body Harvest)? would they qualify as Top importance? Pong popularized video gaming as a whole, that should be Top Importance; for consoles, I think Dreamcast started out online multiplayer capabilities in consoles, should that be Top Importance? and should'nt the Action-adventure and Vehicle simulation genres be Top Importance?-SCB '92 (talk) 10:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Why the heck does all this importance thing matter so much there's always huge discussions about it? It never made sense to me. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
If we set specific restrictions, discussions would dry up. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
SCB: I would say, no games at all and only articles like History of video game consoles (seventh generation) should be Top. I believe Hanchen/E agrees with me, perhaps others support this change? --Odie5533 (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I find it rather ironic that when a WikiProject that calls itself "WikiProject Video games", that video games cannot be considered as Top Importance, nor consoles; so it's only going to be restricted to articles of "History of video game consoles (first generation to seventh generation; and soon eighth generation)"; core game genres, which should include the Action-adventure and Vehicle simulation articles as Top Importance (which currently aren't); and companies which have had an impact across multiple hardware generations, so that'd include Atari and Ubisoft right? so it's both video game developers and publishers? any developer/publisher that has developed/published games in more than one generation of consoles? so this should include almost all well-known video game developers and publishers, right? like Bungie (Xbox and Xbox 360), Naughty Dog (PS1, PS2, PSP), Insomniac Games (PS1, PS2, PS3), etc to be Top Importance? or is it for video game publishers/developers that have been around before 1994, and still active, and no later? so Atari should qualify?-SCB '92 (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Our top articles should be selected as to provide a complete broad picture of video games if they were assembled into book form. Therefore, the "History of" and genre articles clearly top ones. For video game developes and publishers, it should be those that have had a large impact across the industry across several generations: Nintendo, Sony, Atari, Sega, Activision all come to mind, while I would not be able to identify any individual developers that would fit within that. There should be a handful of the most core and defining games of the entire industry, things like Pong, Pac-Mac (arcade), Space Invaders, Super Mario Bros.. --MASEM (t) 16:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Bungie's impact on the video game space is across two generations and consists of developing games, Nintendo's is significantly longer and consists of a lot more. I do think that Atari should be top importance, as opposed to Atari, Inc. - the Atari parent article should cover all the top level importance points of the lower ranked subarticles. Games such as Super Mario are already covered in Platform game and Nintendo articles. - hahnchen 18:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Pong, Pac-Mac (arcade), Space Invaders, Super Mario Bros. should be Top Importance, as well as Super Mario 64 for being revolutionary; but others are saying that games should be left out of Top Importance; seriously, it should be consistent on what kind of things should be Top Importance, and have accordance to the Wikipedia:VG/A#Importance scale; it is currently inconsistent; apparently, for "video games and series" & "in-game elements: characters, settings etc" for Top Importance, that "Exceptional games and series/elements, to be discussed at WT:VG", which we're doing right now; so games shouldn't be ruled out of being Top Importance; so I'd say the Mario (series) and The Legend of Zelda should be an exception for series, and Mario and Sonic the Hedgehog to be exceptions; I also think that the PS3 shouldn't be Top either, it's not that special of a console, it was a rip off when it first launched, and the online features, like downloading, were already in the Xbox 360 when that launched a year before the PS3; are the 360, PS3, Wii and Nintendo DS Top Importance because they're current generation? so when consoles of the next generation launch, they're going to become Top Importance (as they'd become current gen) and the 360, PS3 and Wii are going to be demoted to High Importance? Why is Sony Top Importance and Microsoft isn't, when video gaming isn't really their main specialty? do we only leave the console that was the best selling of its generation as Top Importance? why should Atari, Inc be Top, but not Atari? why should John D. Carmack be Top Importance? doesn't Square Enix, Namco or Rare Ltd. qualify? some of these things don't sound like they'd be in a book; either that, or we should have looser standards on what should be Top-SCB '92 (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
There are a number I could see being top: Super Mario Bros., Dragon Warrior, The Legend of Zelda (video game), Pokemon Red and Blue. The problem comes with titles like Wizardry: Proving Grounds of the Mad Overlord which are early PC games. I note that there is an unintential bias in the lists of titles previously all being console or handheld games and characters, not one PC game mentioned until mine. That's why I think there is some problems. Also for characters is that it is far more difficult to say what character/element is "exceptional". Mario maybe, but I'm not so sure about Sonic. What about Link or Pikachu or Cloud? The problem is people tend to think popular=excellent and bypass something like the slime which has created a cultural phenomena in Japan?Jinnai 20:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I'm going to put Action-adventure game and Vehicle simulation game as Top Importance articles; everyone should agree on this because they're the only 2 main video game genres that aren't Top Importance yet; and even though they're video games, I really want Pong and Super Mario Bros. as Top Importance articles, I really can imagine them being mentioned if it was assembled into book form, but we'll see; and everybody remember that PC games and Video games are, apparently, 2 different things-SCB '92 (talk) 22:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
This project's scope includes both PC games and video games so as far as importance rating there should be no distinction otherwise it purposeful bias since in some regions "computer game" is used in the same vein as "video game" is to represent both types of games.Jinnai 23:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
A good point mentioned earlier was that if we were to include a game article, should Super Mario Bros. or Mario (series) be the one to include? I think Mario (series) is superior because it is able to include the game from a strong historical perspective, which I think is the importance of Top articles. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Then again, one's a video game and the other is a video game seriesl but yeah I agree, the Mario (series) as a whole does sound very important to video gaming history, because of games like Super Mario Bros. and Super Mario 64-SCB '92 (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Just want to clarify one thing. The importance rating is not so much a rating of how important a topic is to the video games industry/community. It is how important it is to the layman understanding our project's main topic: video games. Hahnchen brought this up earlier, but I think we should keep it in mind as this discussion moves forward. Most major industry impact should be covered in the higher-level articles like the history articles, eliminating the need for the layman to read the whole topic of a single game. We should ask two questions:
  1. What will help the layman gain a basic understanding of video games?
  2. What topics will provide the most supporting information to our most important article (video game)?
I mention all this to help guide the discussion, not end it. We've typically avoided making games, series, and characters top for the above reason. However, that doesn't mean that one such article doesn't qualify for top. If those in this discussion believe that an article deserves top designation, I suggest you discuss them one at a time. Otherwise, this discussion is going to flow like a forum about what video games we think are the best. I.e. nothing will really be accomplished. The Mario series seems like an appropriate one to start with. If others agree, then I suggest creating a sub section that focuses strictly on that topic. (Guyinblack25 talk 13:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC))
By making the top importance category more restrictive, we simplify things going forward, and we focus on the top level definitions of video games as a whole. Instead of arguing over how influential GTA/Tomb Raider/Mario is, we would ask, what has changed since top level was defined? What has x done to now warrant top level inclusion? We should also be asking ourselves, are the top level importance parts already covered in a parent article? If a series redefines a genre, then that evolution should already be covered in the genre article. If that console redefines a generation, then that should be covered in the history article. - hahnchen 18:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


I'd say the character Mario is definitely exceptional, because he definitely is the most recogisable video game character in the world; Sonic, maybe too; Link, not so much, because apart from Link's Crossbow Training, his name is never on the titles of the official Zelda games, people can choose what to name Link in every Zelda game, and he had pink hair and different attire in The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past instead of the now official green tunic; Pikachu is probably the first thing that comes to mind when people think about Pokemon, but in the game Pokemon Red and Blue, it was just one of the 151 Pokemon, and it is just recognisable in the Pokemon anime than in the games; and who the Sam Hill is Cloud? what, you mean Cloud Strife from Final Fantasy VII? only that one game and its spin-offs? well I've never heard of him, probably because I'm not into RPGs, let alone Final Fantasy; not really sure about the Japanese perpective in video games for the English/Western Wikipedia (it could be Top Importance in the Japanese Wikipedia); I changed my mind about putting Vehicle simulation game as a top article because it actually is a sub-genre of Simulation game-SCB '92 (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

My one question is how has Mario impacted video games to the point that the layman needs to know about him to understand video games. Outside being one of the world's most recognizable characters, there isn't much else. and that can be mentioned in the other top articles. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC))
No individual characters should be top-importance. Game series maybe, but not individual characters. There are no single characters which have affected gaming so much that they are "top" importance. "High" importance, sure. –Drilnoth (T/C) 18:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
As I mentioned Slime (Dragon Quest) has had a more significant impact of the culture of a country than Mario has and I'd be hard pressed to list that character as top importance. I can't think of any other video game character that would have that kind of impact. Face recognition isn't enough.Jinnai 18:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose promotion to Top. Individual game characters, while exceptionally notable and recognizable, are not required for an understanding of the topic of video games and if their mention is deemed to be so important then it can be included in a higher level article. Having an entire article devoted to a single game character in the Top level is not necessary. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Mario (series)

Until Angry Birds overtook it (it was just one game anyway), it was the best-selling video game series of all time; the games Super Mario Bros. and Super Mario 64 in the Mario series are very important-SCB '92 (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

This is something that I could see being an exception. The series has been a major seller to the Nintendo consoles. The first Super Mario titles established the gold standard for the platform genre. SM64 was a milestone for functional 3D games. Mario Kart basically started its own sub-genre. It was the first video game series to have a movie adaptation. I'm sure there's more, but it has had a lot of impact to the video game history. While much of this would probably be covered in top articles, it would be piecemeal. Having this article as top would better consolidate all the information.
I'm not completely sold that we need anything like this in the top category. So I'll be receptive to opposition and will defer to consensus. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC))
The evolution of the platform game is adequately covered in the Platform game article already. - hahnchen 18:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes it has. Just as the other impacts would be adequately covered in other top level articles. My question is if presenting all aspects of the impact in a single topic is important enough to significantly further the layman's understanding of video games? (Guyinblack25 talk)


I want to have Pong as Top Importance; the first successful video game-SCB '92 (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

As much as I'd like to see this top, I don't think its necessary. Outside, a glut of clones and starting the industry, there isn't much else to Pong's impact. And that will be adequately mentioned in the history articles. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC))
Meh. I can see the argument for it, but I think its impact was more on personal computers than video game consoles.Jinnai 21:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Pong didn't have much impact "outside of starting the industry"? What could be more impactful? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Granted that's a very big impact, but we've all been able to say it one sentence. And further explanation can be summarized in 2–3 sentences, which will be in several of top articles.
"Publications attributed the start of the video game industry to Pong. Following the success of the arcade and home console versions, numerous manufacturers produced clones to capitalize on the trend. In response to the clones, Atari and other developers produced new games to maintain their success."
Now while that is a very important impact, is the whole topic of Pong important for the layman to understand video games? Personally, I don't think so. (Guyinblack25 talk 13:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC))

Xbox 360 and PS3 demoted to High Importance

The Wii is the best selling console of this generation; there's no reason to keep them as Top-SCB '92 (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Demoting PS3 sounds reasonable as it has had little impact on the landscape. I'm not sure about the 360 though. I haven't kept up with the consoles as much as I use to. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC))
(PS3 fan here, so my comment is probably biased for obvious reasons). I don't really think any single console should be top-importance.
Sure, the Wii was the best-selling console of the generation, but then we'd also need to include the best-selling console of every other generation, which isn't practical. Not to mention, the Wii isn't exactly a technical marvel as far as the evolution of gaming goes. Sure, it sparked the motion-control fad, but otherwise the system itself is really not representative of the technological standard of the seventh generation of consoles.
The Xbox 360 "started" the generation by being the first released, but I don't really see that as a reason to keep it at top-importance. Although technologically superior to the Wii, and more popular (sales-wise) than the PS3, it still doesn't seem "top" importance to me. If it would be top just because of Xbox Live innovations, didn't the original Xbox really pioneer online? Maybe, maybe, the original Xbox should be, but not the direct successor to it.
The PS3 is <biased>the best of the three consoles from a hardware standpoint</biased>, but I'd agree it hasn't changed the gaming landscape too much on its own. It is pioneering 3D in consoles and has the best graphical power of the three (1080p HD. IIRC, the 360 only goes up to 720p or 1080i, but I may be mistaken), but the online capabilities aren't anything special, since the original Xbox started that. Here again, I could see the original PlayStation being top-importance, but having any consoles top-importance seems wrong to me. –Drilnoth (T/C) 18:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Why stop at those two consoles? Demote them all. History of video game consoles (seventh generation) has several paragraphs dedicated to the Wii, sales figures and tech specs. Everything that is top level importance about any of the consoles, is covered there already. - hahnchen 18:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I second that they should all be demoted. They are adequately covered in the higher level article. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

any exceptions? no? even domoting the NES, Atari 2600 and Magnavox Odyssey; are you are sure? I guess I support all of them to demoted if they're covered in the "History of video game consoles"-SCB '92 (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't make any exceptions. The NES should have adequate coverage in Nintendo and History of video game consoles (third generation). - hahnchen 20:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Dragon Warrior

I believe this one actually fits Guyinblack25's requirement of "significantly further the layman's understanding of video games". Notably because this game set the template for role-playing video games and several other items of note, such as the importance of scenario writers. There is a lot of info there as to the reasons why certain things were done that wouldn't be explained in a more comprehensive article. The game itself has also been noted as a single turning point in video game history, something that is quite rare.Jinnai

Why does the prototypical JRPG deserve to stand alone when the prototypical x-genre game not? Why can't that be covered in the RPG article? That turning point quote is from number 20 in a list of 50 most influential games. - hahnchen 20:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Read the article. There is a lot of historical info that is relevant to that game, the decision making for what something was done in Dragon Warrior, ie X instead of Y. You would not have that minutia of detail in a broader article and where X was done had (and in many cases continues to have) a huge impact on the role-playing video game and even role-playing games in general. DW has impacted western RPGs, not just JRPGs, so placing it there and solely there would be inappropriate.Jinnai 20:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I did read parts of the article. We shouldn't be covering minutiae in top level. [insert generic early MUD here] has had a huge impact on RPGs and even JRPGs in general - that argument is unconvincing. The birth and evolution of a genre should be covered in the genre article. - hahnchen 21:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Indeed it should, but it gives addition info that wouldn't be brought there. That meets the criteria of a top-level article as defined by GuyinBlack. I would like to know what you would consider a top level game or series article (not necessarily specific article, but what it would contain). If you can't, its hard to see you arguing in good faith here since we have yet to come to a consensus that no video game can ever be top importance.Jinnai 21:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
No, you've tried to convince me that Dragon Warrior is undoubtedly the most influential game of all time, and stands above the rest. You've failed to do that. What additional info is so important that it isn't covered in the genre article? I don't believe any game should be top rated, just as I do no believe any single console to be top rated, because all the top level rated information should be adequately covered in a parent article. If it isn't covered in a parent article, then you should improve the parent article. - hahnchen 22:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Promotion to Top. I have carefully analyzed the entire article in the previous FAC and I do not believe it contains any information that could not be more succinctly explained in a higher-level article. The article is very well-written and definitely worth reading, but I do not believe it is an exceptional case that would warrant Top importance. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Have you read it since then? There's a lot more info and I'm still looking at the Japanese page for translation of a couple of sources for further info.Jinnai 01:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose promotion to Top; like I mentioned earlier, yes it popularized JRPGs, but compared to the importance of Pong, Super Mario Bros., Space Invaders and Pac-Man, it's not in level and didn't exactly make an impact in the West like Final Fantasy (video game) did-SCB '92 (talk) 10:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Again you are equating popularity = importance. That is not what the scale is. Never has been, never will be. The video game industry since 1981 up until even this day is heavily reliant on Japan except in a few areas like sports.Jinnai 17:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. High importance maybe, but not top. Consider Dragon Quest (the article on the whole series) for Top, but not just the first game. –Drilnoth (T/C) 13:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Promoting Microsoft to Top Importance vs Demoting Sony to High Importance

Why is Sony currently Top Importance and Microsoft isn't? Like I mentioned early that, unlike Nintendo, video games aren't their one and only area of expertise; should Microsoft get promoted or should Sony get demoted? and while at it, why is Sony Computer Entertainment Top Importance and Microsoft Studios isn't?

I'd probably have each of the current manufacturers in top - not sure whether it should be the main corporate article or their subsidiary/division though. Might even be worth having PlayStation as the Sony entrant. - hahnchen 21:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep as is. MS has produced 2 consoles neither of which has made a signifigant world-wide sales. Yes its dominated the US, but Wikipedia isn't the US.Jinnai 21:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep it as-is. Hahnchen, we certainly can't show favoritism towards the current console generation alone by making the current three systems' manufacturers top-importance, neglecting previous generations. These need to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. –Drilnoth (T/C) 13:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Promoting PlayStation brand to Top Importance

If to demote all video game consoles to High; this outlines all the PlayStation consoles

  • If the Nintendo and Sega ones are, I'd be fine with this.Jinnai 21:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Sure. –Drilnoth (T/C) 13:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Why is Nintendo video game consoles article Low Importance?

If to demote all video game consoles to High; this article is the equivalent of the PlayStation brand; why is it Low Importance? it summarises all the Nintendo consoles, just like the PlayStation brand article; and while at it, will there soon be an article that summarises all (two) Xbox series of consoles? at least when the next Xbox (720) is unveiled in E3 2012? naming the article Xbox video game consoles?-SCB '92 (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It reads like a list article. This is best covered in the main Nintendo article, whereas the PlayStation article might be more useful as top level, given the conglomerate nature of Sony (which would be lower - there are swathes in the Sony article unconnected to gaming) - hahnchen 21:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
All list articles (a list article does not need to be denoted by "list of") are low because the info is covered better in higher level articles in all instances.Jinnai 21:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Jinnai is right because lists are designed to offer more detailed information than articles. Such information naturally lends itself to lower importance ratings. That's not to say that all lists must be low. List of acquisitions by Electronic Arts is one that I think would qualify as mid because of the nature of the information it presents as well as how well it presents it. But exceptions for lists are very few and far between.
If this Nintendo article was better organized as an actual article, then I think it would deserve a higher importance rating. (Guyinblack25 talk 13:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC))

Okay, it's time for some action

We all agree that all consoles that are Top be demoted to High, right? anyone oppose? permission to change scale of importance to these articles: Magnavox Odyssey, Atari 2600, NES, SNES, PlayStation, PlayStation 2, PlayStation 3, Xbox 360, Wii; from Top to High?-SCB '92 (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC) also to demote Game Boy and Nintendo DS as well?-SCB '92 (talk) 09:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you're reading too much to say they could all be demoted yet. Consensus isn't quite there yet as many have tried to state some consoles are more important than others and some should be demoted, but not others.Jinnai 22:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support demoting all consoles, including the ones listed above. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I oppose demoting the Odyssey, Atari 2600 and NES. No coverage of video games would be complete without in-depth analysis of these systems. I have yet to read a book on video game history that didn't offer lengthy digressions on the conception, development, reception and impact of at least one of those consoles. Same goes for Pong, Spacewar! and Super Mario Bros., for that matter. If Wikipedia released a book that did not contain these articles, it would be extremely incomplete. In fact, it could hardly pass as an amateur overview of video games. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
    • A Wikipedia book would include more than just top-importance articles... –Drilnoth (T/C) 13:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Also, the topics would be discussed in many of the top level articles. They would not be excluded in anyway, only covered to the extent that they need to be. Something else to consider is that most books about video games aren't as comprehensive about topics as we are. Very few cover gameplay, development, reception, and impact like we do because our articles have to be self-contained papers about a topic. (Guyinblack25 talk 13:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC))
        • As I said, the VG history books I've read have, in great detail, covered the "conception, development, reception and impact" of those systems and games. That would not be possible to do in one of our high-level history articles. And to Drilnoth: while that's true, the "Top" importance rating is designed to identify the topics that would most critically need to appear in a book/CD release. I believe that the articles I mentioned fall into this category. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
          • Perhaps it would be better to think of it like this: Top-importance articles would be essential for a general print or CD version of Wikipedia (that is, one designed to cover as many topics as possible). Some High-importance articles would also be included in that release depending on space, but most High-importance articles would appear in a video gaming-specific print or CD release. –Drilnoth (T/C) 22:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
            • I think that's a good way of looking at it. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC))
          • Those VG history books you've read go into a lot more depth then our encyclopedic overview - that's why they're books. I agree with Drilnoth that if we were to publish a book, it would not solely consist of top level articles. What top level should offer is the fundamental narrative of video game evolution - its hardware and software. The NES is one of the most important consoles of all time, but the reason it is, should be covered in History of video game consoles (third generation) and Nintendo. The level of detail covered in the NES article itself is not top importance, details such as NES#Regional_differences, NES#Hardware_design_flaws etc. would be out of place in a top level article. Our history series, should detail why these consoles are important and how they moved the industry - everything in those articles should be critical, whereas everything in a console article may not be. - hahnchen 18:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - There's been hardly any thoughtful discussion about what the criteria for top importance should be and how that should be determined, either practically or philosophically, much less why the previous consensus needs to be overturned. Compare this discussion with the previous one. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - As I suggested previously. No console should be top, any console should be covered by its relevant generational article. - hahnchen 18:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Reassessing this assessment discussion

After reading through much of the above, I've come to the conclusion that our Top importance articles should be the ones with the broadest and highest-level coverage of video games: the history of console series, the various game genres, general concepts of video game hardware and software, and should not contain any specific game, series, character, person, company, console unit, or the like. As Drilnoth points out above, a "book" for VG would not be limited to Top articles, and instead, per the WP CD project, would include Top and High importance articles, but in such cases, we should assure that our Top articles are in the best possible shape (hence their top importance).

If there is a specific contribution from game, character, person, etc. that should be known to someone reading only Top level articles, then that importance should be in the context of the broad coverage. EG: I don't disagree on the importance of the Atari 2600, but this should be outlined in the appropriate History/generation article, and/or at "video game console" units. Similarly, everyone agrees the Mario series is highly influential but this should be outlined at the platform game genre article. Such specific articles can be High importance and included in the VG "book", but because we'd otherwise end up fighting this forever, I think its best we be as non-specific

And to that end, that also likely highlights the need for articles I'm not aware of. I would say most would agree Nintendo a key hardware and software company, but while we have List of video game publishers and List of video game developers I'm not seeing the equivalent for hardware makers. (And yes, I am arguing that these lists should be Top priority per this scheme). There's probably similar lists or the like for video game releases by console, overall timelines, etc.

Effectively, our top articles should be prose and high level indices that all other VG articles can be accessed through. That gives the reader a broad coverage and points of reference to look for more information, and yet still be useful if the blue-links weren't there. --MASEM (t) 14:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that video game articles that are either GA or FA that is about the history of console series, the various game genres, general concepts of video game hardware and software qualify for Top Importance?-SCB '92 (talk) 14:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
The current class (GA, FA, A, B, etc.) doesn't matter for importance; it is possible to have a stub, Top importance article. But what importance does say is that those assessed as Top are the articles we should prioritized to bring to Featured content before others, though recognizing we are a volunteer project with no deadline and thus can't force ourselves to do this.
In assessing what should be Top, we need to look at what the intended topic or purpose is of the article, not its current status. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Masem--this contentious rating business is really just a distraction. Looking at it objectively we can all agree that big genres and gaming history are very important, lets leave out the "X game should" business. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I could go along with Masem except for lists. It looks like he is trying to carve out a way to say here that more specific topics should be lower priority, except lists when all lists do is point people in a direction. Lists, unlike broad topics and other specific people, games, etc of note generally would not be included in a paper encylopedia without good reason. This is mostly because they don't add much new info that ins't already summarized in higher level articles. Except for stuff like character lists and the like, they are all groupings of info from those higher-level articles that are distilled in a different manner. It amounts to a backdoor way of saying only the broadest topics should be top, plust there not so broad topics. Lists aren't essential topics in an encylopedia.Jinnai 17:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
You may be right on the generalized, broad inclusion lists that I suggested. I'm trying to see what other well-developed projects use at Top level and I'm not seeing a lot of lists. (I would argue these should be High, however). But I wouldn't exclude, for example, Video game genres, effective a large list (but already marked as Top) that encompasses the generalized concepts I believe should be at Top as well. --MASEM (t) 17:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
List articles are a very specific type of article and Video game genres would completely fail that criteria. Lists are primairly made up of non-prose material such as charts, tables and in rare cases images. None of that kind of info really rises to the level of top or even high or mid.Jinnai 18:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Video game genres, for all purposes, is a list article. List articles do not need to have bullets or table format, only that if they simply enumerate elements of a set, which it does, just in a friendlier prose form. And even for more normal lists (eg, List of Xbox 360 Games) we can designate those as High importance since they act as master indexes for the rest of our content and thus should be considered a high priority to keep in order. I would certainly think that if there was a WP book that took all Top and High level importance articles and content for inclusion, that these lists are High, being effectively useful appendices in the book. --MASEM (t) 18:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Something that makes our importance assessments so hard is that we're blind to the full story of every topic in our scope. At face value, the article is a list. But ideally, it should concisely describe the different genres as well as a history of how the different genres evolved. Because it is not in ideal shape, like so many of our top and high articles, we're forced to make some assumptions as to what those will look like in their best form. What this is is probably going to be different for each of us.
Just something to keep in mind as we pass judgement on our unfinished product. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC))
Actually they do need to be primarly made from prose. WP:LIST would not define Video game genres as a list article, but a general article. Therefore it does not fall on the criteria of lists. Furthermore, WP:FLC would not accept that as a list article and tell you to go to WP:FAC.Jinnai 00:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
There are pages that are in between the standard definition of a list and article. A few years ago, Wikipedia did not find a way to consistently handle those. Which resulted in a few pages getting bumped back and forth between FAC and FLC.
That being said, I don't think debating this particular article will be fruitful because I believe that the cleaned up version would be different from it's current form. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC))
I do not believe that video game genres should be top level importance, because I do not believe it should exist in its current form. Our genre articles, such as racing video game and platform game are top level, and provide a narrative of video game evolution. The video game genres article, should be trimmed down and act as a list, and be used primarily as a navigation aid. Trimming it down to one paragraph per article, which essentially provides a dictionary definition and little else. I think the article as it currently is, is just a poor quality duplication of what is already covered elsewhere. - hahnchen 18:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the Importance Scale needs to be changed a bit, because according to this discussion, there are no exceptional games & series or in-game elements that'd qualify for Top Importance; and changing that "General hardware articles (definitions) and important historical video game consoles, e.g. Video game console, Atari 2600" because there are people in this discussion that think Video game consoles shouldn't be Top Importance as they're covered in the "History of video game consoles (nth generation)"-SCB '92 (talk) 16:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I was partially responsible for that scale about 4-5 years ago, and only through this discussion realize that the in-fighting on the project between "top" and "high" for individual games and hardware is crazy. Surprisingly, I cannot see much the same argument between "high" and "mid" importance happening, likely because we're not trying to get the absolute top importance. That table should be updated to basically null out all the Top importance examples except for the generalized articles, and work from there. --MASEM (t) 16:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I suppose if we did this we'd just combine top/high for those we are bumping from top?Jinnai 16:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Merge and trim if we went that way. --MASEM (t) 16:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I think we should just retire the Top importance rating. The redefinition proposed in this discussion is so exclusive as to be meaningless, and it is not any more—in fact, it is possibly less—helpful for identifying the articles most needed in a print/CD release. I don't think our project would be damaged by a three-rating importance system: Low importance for inclusion, Mid importance for inclusion, and High importance for inclusion. It would not require anymore picking-and-choosing than the proposed Top rating, which would exclude critical articles that would then be included in the released versions anyway. Also, we already have set guidelines for what makes an article Low/Mid/High importance, while such a definition for the Top rating has for years remained elusive and controversial. Why bother? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
No, I disagree. We clearly have articles that no one is questioning as top level - the broad coverage history/genre type articles; we want editors, new and old, to try to focus on getting these to high quality articles. Simply by removing the inclusion of any specific game, series, company, person, or the like, we avoid any excessively long debate about whether any one is better than another. --MASEM (t) 12:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I tend to agree. My whole argument throughout this has been for a cleaner, more restrictive definition of what top level entails - a definition which negates fanboy importance inflation of their own favourite subjects. I would favour a definition which only covered high level articles - such as the history series and core game genres/concepts. That means no games, no series, no personnel. I do believe that some companies do warrant top level inclusion, as these provide an alternate lens onto video games history - but that can be discussed. In the future, instead of users saying "X is top importance because of...", the question that is asked instead, is "What has X done since top level was defined?" If it has done nothing, or if it has been business as usual, then it is not promoted and we do not drop our standards. - hahnchen 18:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Retiring the Top Importance rating

Anybody else agree with JimmyBlackwing about this?-SCB '92 (talk) 12:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Top is an important organizational tool. A few things, mostly ideas, really are that important. Maybe if it were renamed Core then it wouldn't be so contentious. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 12:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Definitely keep it, but what is in need needs to be very limited. –Drilnoth (T/C) 13:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Removing the top rating wouldn't change the issue of "some things are more important for the encyclopedia to cover", we'd just be shifting it downwards instead. As Dril says, what should be considered top are fairly unambigiously important top level things, few in number. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. It'll just push the dicussion into high/mid. Better to keep a very narrow top section.Jinnai 15:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
But, since we're planning on downgrading important articles (like Shigeru Miyamoto and Pong) that will be included in a print/CD version anyway, I don't see how removing Top altogether would create more difficulty. We're going to be wrangling over which articles are included, either way; and the high-level history articles would be obvious choices for inclusion even if they were rated Low. I just can't see the need for a Top importance rating. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
It'll create more difficulty because it'll just shift things from top/high to high/mid except now there are more articles to battle over. Unless you remove importance altogether from the scale, people will battle for what is on the highest level. Having a narrow, but present, top tier reduces the chances of fights over high/mid.Jinnai 01:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Top importance is a part of the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria. As a WikiProject, I don't think we're allowed to retire it much like how we're required to use a quality assessment scale. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC))
Looking there it looks like only "bottom" and "no" are optional, neither of which we use.Jinnai 16:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Demoting Gabe Newell and Video card

This was mentioned by Odie5533 to demote these articles, which are currently top-importance, but barely received a response: Gabe Newell to be demoted to mid-importance; Video card to be demoted to low-importance; we need a consensus: Support or Oppose? I personally Support this to be demoted because a Video card is the equivalent of the ROM cartridge (which is Mid-Importance), the DVDs and the CDs being used as game storages for video game systems; and Gabe Newell is as important as Cliff Bleszinski; so what if he's co-founder of Valve? he used to detest the PS3 and called Xbox Live service "a train wreck"-SCB '92 (talk) 18:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Demote both. –Drilnoth (T/C) 18:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Abstain, but why should his opinion on Xbox Live and the PS3 be considered in his importance? The reason why he called Xbox Live a train wreck is because, in part, he was not allowed to offer free download content, which ended up making Team Fortress 2 terrible on 360. As for the PlayStation 3, he disliked it because it was difficult to develop for. More important than his dislike of things, is the fact that he has made what is probably the most significant digital distribution service the industry has ever seen, which is absolutely beyond anything Bleszinski has ever done. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 19:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Demote both. I would redefine and exclude all individuals from the top category as per suggestions above. - hahnchen 20:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Demote both per existing importance criteria. There needs to be an article that provides an overview of video game hardware that would include some coverage of video cards. I don't think History of video games is suitable for this purpose. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 20:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Demote both. I personally don't think any individuals should be Top importance, and even if we accept some I don't like Newell would make the cut. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Opppose video card. On an indivisual basis, it meets our defition of a general hardware article. You cannot get more general for that kind of hardware. Talking about a graphics card is an essential part of understand computer games which are a part of this wikiproject and hold equal weight. This isn't the same as some specific brand of video card, this is a general concept the likes of joystick and gamepad. It is NOT of very little importance to the video game history. Maybe its not top, but it certainly isn't low or even mid.Jinnai 16:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Excluding ALL individuals from top category, including John Carmack and Satoru Iwata

There's some talk about demoting all the individuals that are Top Importance; anyone you want to keep as Top Importance? eg. Shigeru Miyamoto?-SCB '92 (talk) 11:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Remove all - Tighten the top level classification to include only top level concepts and historical overviews. - hahnchen 17:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd say that's reasonable. We definitely know that the historical importance of first-person shooters, but the legacy of still-living game creators is harder to fuss out. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Instread of defining what's "not" top, let's define what would be top

We have a bunch of discussions here about moving something from top or demoting it. We have a few offhanded comments about narrowing the field, but they are scattered all over the article. Let's consolidate it. To start with, it seems that the consensus is generally not to expand the defition therefore its either to maintain the status quo or shrink it. The ones we have now are:

  • Video Games and series - currently none have passed muster here at WP:VG and I doubt they will. We could remove this entirely. There's also been a few who might contend a few series (not games themselves) deserve top. Might be targets for favoritism, but probably far less than individual games.
    • If there would be an exception here, I'd say First video game should be top. Of course it could be seen as top for general game concept.
  • In-game elements - if video games aren't allowed, and as of yet no discussions have at this talk page have granted a top importance rating, its hard to see how specific elements would be, but feel free to make a case.
  • individuals - there are currently top-ranked people. Right now this is somewhat a "favorite" one imo similar to video games. there's been dicussions to not have any indivisuals as top importance as you don't have one central person. Even Miyamoto isn't that important compared to other types of media.
  • Organizations/Companies/websites - right now this one is seen similar to indivisuals. It's basically a mganet for favoritism, but not as much as specific people. There has been a bit less support for demoting everything.
  • Genres and concepts - there seems to be general consensus to keep this as is perhaps with further fleshing out what distinguishes top/high/mid/low. First video game could fall under this as top imo.
  • Hardware - there has been mixed discussion on this. There are some who want this all demoted while others who think a very narrow top section for stuff like video game console, personal computer, etc. might be acceptable.
  • History - generally this is keep as is, but not much as been had on specific events such as North American video game crash of 1983.
  • Other topics - we could just remove any from being high. If they are that central they'll likely fall under one of the other categories.

Discuss.Jinnai 20:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments at E.T.

Another editor and I are discussing the removal of a sentence in E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (video game). The discussion is at Talk:E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (video game)#Warshaw's comment on cartridge burial. So far it is only the two of us, and additional comments would be appreciated. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC))

Final call for comments on {{Cite video game}} revamp

For those who haven't yet sandbox proposal hasn't had any recent comments. Assuming no one has any issues I'd like to Gadget850 to impliment soon as current the templates citation has caused several issues at FAC and FLC with people complaining about it, especially that it needs to be updated to comply with core.Jinnai 22:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Mega Drive ==> Sega Genesis and Mega Drive

This recent move has gone through despite naming policy not supporting multiple names for the same subject in article titles. The notion that this is allowed by WP:AND (which is for articles covering multiple subjects, rather than for subjects with multiple names) was given as justification for the move. Pointing this out fairly late in the discussion, after which no new people commented, this was moved anyway despite a (reasonable, I thought) request to keep the discussion open. It's a problem because it serves as precedent for multiple names in titles whenever there's dispute about which to use, so we could end up with articles such as Sonic 3D Blast and Sonic 3D: Flickies' Island, or FIFA Football 2004 and FIFA Soccer 2004, or Bully and Canis Canem Edit, or The Settlers and Surf City, or any of a multitude of others I'm sure we could all think of. This is of course, not supported in any way by naming policy or precendent, and has never been how Wikipedia handles naming disputes. Thoughts please! Miremare 15:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

*face palm*
The discussion is at Talk:Sega Genesis and Mega Drive#Requested move. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC))
When I first went to the article I did a double take of the article's name; it is confusing when compared to the name of any other article on Wikipedia. I agree that the 'and' should not be used here, and perhaps should not be used ever when there are multiple names for the same subject. This is a more unique case since there were two physical consoles with different names and different histories. This is also unique because the naming is based on regional markets. Someone in the discussion, perhaps hastily, cited Pokemon Red and Blue as an example of use of 'and'. But this is an example of the non-use of 'and' since Pokemon was also sold under different names depending on the regional market. According to the argument put forth, Pokémon Red and Blue and Pocket Monsters: Red & Green would be the proper name for the games. I think picking one would be better. Maybe the one which sold more units, if we have that figure, or just go with Mega Drive since dozens of countries called it that and only one country called it the Sega Genesis. Note: I grew up with a Sega Genesis, not a Mega Drive, but if more people knew it as Mega Drive than that seems the more proper name. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
We haven't got reliable figures. We have patchy North American figures and nothing as regards official (or reliable) European and/or The Rest of the World figures. - X201 (talk) 17:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Also, Pokemon Red and Blue (or whatever Pokemon pairing you like) are a different kettle of fish - they are closely related, but still individual products (you could buy either, or both, in all regions, and they have gameplay differences) in their own right - companion pieces, but crucially not one and the same (AFAIK Pokemon Yellow (correct me if I'm wrong) later combined the two games into one). By contrast the Genesis/Mega Drive thing is a simple matter of different names in different places. Miremare 18:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually we do have reliable sales information to go off of. North America reliably reaches over 22.3 million, while Europe reliably hits 8 million, while Japan reliably hits 3.58 million.--SexyKick 18:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
In that case, I'd go with Sega Genesis. We have a sample of 34 million people that bought the console, and 22 million of them called it the Sega Genesis. --Odie5533 (talk) 04:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
It's more complicated than that, but it's easy to see the Sega Genesis was the best selling brand for certain. With as small of a margin as 58% Sega Genesis over the Mega Drive. Also more sources use the term Sega Genesis, and more Google search results etc. However we were unable to establish the consensus. 7 to 7 after an extended two weeks of time. They wrote off all three points TBH. The sales difference not significant enough, the google difference not significant enough, and the idea that we can probably replace most of the sources in the article with Mega Drive centric print sources.--SexyKick 04:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually, if we exclude non-English speakers then it's 73%. And technically Japanese knew it by its Katakana (メガドライブ) anyways. --Odie5533 (talk) 05:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Then people will argue that English Wikipedia is also the international Wiki, and that we need to consider all the non English speakers, like Brazil, India, and Australia. We can reliably say that the Mega Drive sold 15 million, and we have no idea if that overlaps with Brazil's 2 million sold or not.--SexyKick 05:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
It is international: an international English encyclopedia. No matter how you slice it, more people in the world know what a Sega Genesis is than a Mega Drive. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
X201 is absolutely correct. What SexyKick neglects to mention is that, despite his claims of these things being "for certain", his 40m+ total/s are his own research, formed from adding up individual sources of widely varying age, providence, and relevance, to arrive at a figure vastly in excess of total sales published by all reliable print and web sources. Around 30m is the accepted total in RS's, with MD and Genesis at about 50% each. Unfortunately this original research mess remains in the article. Take a look at the sales section there for a rather slanted explanation of how 40m+ was arrived at. But either way, sales makes no difference to the title being what it currently is, which is the problem we have right now. Miremare 16:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
<rant>I know one asked, but I feel that I should clarify the face palm. The amount of effort gone into the article title should have instead gone to improve a high-importance delisted GA from C-class to something better. If this topic is really so important to those involved, then the research and discussions should be geared towards article improvement. I know not everyone involved is being a fan boy and that a number of editors are being sincere, but such squabbles are counter to what we're trying to do here.</rant> (Guyinblack25 talk 19:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC))
I addressed everything the GA delister specified. I just didn't notice the GA reassessment in time for it to matter, if I had the wiki clout I have now, I would have challenged the delisting once I had fixed everything (since it was just two days after delisting). I weeded through all the 100+ citations, and corrected so many mistakes that my head hurt. No one else even seemed to care the article was going to be delisted, since they had a month to see - but then again a month wasn't enough for me to see either.--SexyKick 20:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
SexyKick- All I can say is more power to you for taking up the gauntlet to fix such an important article. Regardless, such a discussion (one that has been so strongly back and forth for so long) is a distraction from your and any other editor's efforts to improve it. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC))
TBH when things like this come up, I usually pay more attention to the article and fix even more stuff. I still agree with your point, and your facepalm. I believe it's time to lay this issue to rest and see how the name rides for a while.--SexyKick 23:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Guyinblack: I just thought it was because I'd forgotten to supply the link you posted. :) I do sympathise with what you say, and yes discussion on the name of the article has been (and is being) drawn out, but in this case it's a move that was made not only on a faulty premise, but one that could have wide ranging repercussions for WP as a whole if accepted by the community. I brought it here as nobody on the talk page other than SexyKick and Jinnai (to give them their dues) even acknowledged the point had been made. Miremare 22:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the article move was a pretty crappy decision - and I think we should re-open the discussion to a wider audience. We don't name articles according to multiple names for the same object. For example the Ford Pinto car was called the "Mercury Bobcat" in Canada. We don't have an article called "Ford Pinto and Mercury Bobcat" - we picked the most common name (Pinto) for the article and made the less common name (Bobcat) be a redirect. This is a long-standing practice and it happens in every article of this nature that I can think of. To consider doing otherwise would be madness, there are products out there that are marketed under dozens of names - some varieties of Opel cars have been badge-engineered by six other companies. Do you really think we should rename the Opel Kadett article to Opel Kadett, Daewoo LeMans, Daewoo Cielo, Pontiac LeMans, Passport Optima and Vauhall Astra?! The Pokemon counter-example is flawed because (as others have pointed out) they aren't the same product but rather two somewhat distinct products that are similar enough to warrant sharing an article. Products are given different names in different markets all the time - we don't name our articles accordingly. SteveBaker (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Not just a wider audience. I propose that we leave the issue to people who have never edited the article and have never argued one way or the other for the naming convention. Dispassionate, uninvolved people is what's needed. While they're at it, these people can set a standard for all Genesis/MS articles unless there's a good reason to consider them on a case by case basis. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 05:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Will those people consider sales numbers, google results, the terms coming from the reliable sources, as well as the amount of countries it was called Mega Drive in? It's really a very confusing debate, and isn't even consistent. Sega "Mega Drive" turns up 6.12 million results compared to Sega Genesis which turns up 10.2 million. BUT, Sega "Genesis" turns up 11 million, and Sega "Mega Drive" -megadrive turns up 9.67 million. How does eliminating a term from results create more results? How did searching for Sega+Genesis compared to Sega+"Genesis" turn up different results at all? Sega "Genesis" -mega -drive turns up 12 million...the highest I've been able to hack out using these weird subtract words to somehow get more results kind of bs. Oh, check out this one...Sega "Genesis" -mega -drive -jesus = 12.1 million results. Wow. Using Google tools like search only english pages makes the numbers change in even weirder ways. No wonder someone like Miremare was easily able to confuse everyone during the first debate. It even says on [WP:Titlechanges] "If it has never been stable, or unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub." The articles name has never been stable, so even this would indicate going to Sega Genesis, since that was the original article. TBH the way it is now makes all the fighting players (apart from Miremare) content. Right? So let's see if this new name is stable.--SexyKick 07:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I neither know nor care how these people would reach their decision. But I have every confidence that they would reach a decision that reflects both policy and the expectations of readers. As it is, the title is a train wreck and I think a lot of us take issue with it. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 07:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
If you really think going back to "Mega Drive" and having half the community constantly bitching at you that "No, it should be Sega Genesis!" for the foreseeable future is really the better option, then on your heads be it. I am seriously done with this bullshit and will not take part in any more discussions on the topic either way. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 08:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I'd much rather have you help us take the article to GA or FA like you were able to do with the Super NES article way back when than have to worry about this stuff.--SexyKick 08:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
What I really think is that a group of impartial observers would not conclude that the current title is best, good, or even acceptable. Good editing should not be allowed to be held hostage by politics. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 00:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Not to be a "guy on the soapbox" here but I agree with Guyinblack: can we seriously just let the bloomin' name be and fix the damn article? One singular name would have been nice, but the problem is there is no clear consensus on which name should take precedence. There hasn't been for years, and every other option to acknowledge both has been worse. Being an exception to the rule does not set a precedence. Nobody is sitting around arguing "No, it should be the Pinto!"/"Heck with you, should be the Bobcat!" Here, we've had every argument from "which came first" to "sale numbers matter" to "google search numbers" to (really bad faith mind you) accusations of "pushing a US-centric view". People are not going to have one massive consensus on one name or the other: one side won't be happy unless Genesis is up there, and the other won't be happy without Mega Drive. So do you have a better option than to slap each other silly with whatever facts you can dredge up until you get your way?

No, you don't. It's been this back and forth argument, again, for years. Right now at least both sides get part of what they want. Now how about fixing it up, like those short one-paragraph sections or one-sentence paragraphs?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Hell, if anything I think we can all argee on regarding the current title, it should be swapped around. If one preceded the other by a year and the article constantly calls it that, let it ride on that name first. It hurts nothing. Otherwise it's confusing in the body of the text.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
TBH random IPers always come in and switch the order around in the text of the article, or worse replace all the instances of one name with the other. Even happens on the 32X and Mega-CD articles.--SexyKick 23:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
As for Pokemon, the proper name would not be Pokémon Red and Blue and Pocket Monsters: Red & Green anymore than we would use Nintendo Entertainment System and Family Computer because English names trump foreign names except in a very rare cases. A better comparison would be if the article was called Red and Blue article Pokemon Blue or Pokemon Red.Jinnai 23:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

As a general response to this issue, I'm just going to paraphrase something I said toward the end of the move discussion: Would you rather compromise and get on with things, using WP:IAR as a tiebreaker if necessary, or would you rather we continue bitching, bickering and frankly wasting our time on this issue for several MORE years? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Kiefer, I really don't mean to be rude, but if this had been looked at properly before making the proposal, we wouldn't be here now. I don't think it's fair to blame me, or a perceived liking for continued conflict among editors in general, for this. I brought this up on the talk page a couple of days before the discussion closed, and suddenly everybody fell quiet. Only Jinnai and SexyKick even replied, and nobody addressed the point. A sudden flurry of activity on the talk page within minutes of the move would suggest this wasn't for lack of watchers, so if people are going to bury their heads in the sand like that is it any wonder the discussion gets taken elsewhere? Miremare 16:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Kind of like the GA reassessment we all missed, right? Like, what if I hadn't been the only editor to try to fix those things? What if someone with more clout and understanding of the GA/FA delistment process had been there to help me undo the decision? (Which I now understand was possible at the time.)--SexyKick 16:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

On the Talk page for the article I have just put my reply to a question asking how we take the article forward. I was full of beans as I wrote it. Then I came here and read this, and, to be honest, it makes me just want to say bollocks to the console - by both names - its not a rage quit, its a "thoroughly depressed with it all" quit. I won't quit though. Even though I know that at some point in the future someone is going to try to use the compromise name that I voted for, as a stepping stone to change the name to Genesis. And even though there will be numerous others all waving their nationalistic flags, wanting it moved to "The correct name". I've looked at the stats regarding actual contributions to the article versus Talk page comments. At least I know that if the time comes, I can wave it goodbye knowing that I've done my bit for the article. I voted for the compromise to put and end to the name issue once and for all, I now feel that that day will never come. (Apologies for the ramble, and the language) - X201 (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I know how you feel X. You're one of the editors I respect the most.--SexyKick 23:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

So this comes about because of disagreement amongst editors between which of two entirely reasonable names should be used. The result of that dispute is to produce an entirely unreasonable name? That's really a pretty lame way to proceed. There are numerous third party review and arbitration services on Wikipedia that can resolve such conflicts. Obviously some part of the editing community would be upset by whatever came out of that - but that's life. Suck it up and move on. Having a bad outcome because two groups can't agree between two much better options is lunacy. Once an arbitrated name choice were made, then an admin could protect the article from page moves to prevent it from being changed again without a full consensus to do so. I really think it's worth doing that - this "compromise" is a terrible one. SteveBaker (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Steve is right- a single name that is protected is appropriate here. While I appreciate the time and good faith effort put into the discussions, it really has become a distraction from article improvement. Not the first time it's happened here and won't be the last. Regardless, it's time to move forward. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC))
It really isn't a distraction at all. If anything, it's making article improvements actually happen. Proof being that, that's what's happening.--SexyKick 21:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm probably late to the party but I think the "and" title is incorrect. The specific differences between the two names can and should be discussed in the lead but it's impossible that one name is not more common than the other. Pick one and sit the article title there. There's no reason one party should feel slighted compared to the other since both are discussed critically in the article. Any feelings of butthurt are due to WP:OWN. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree, the current title is frankly a terrible choice. I wish I'd seen the move request earlier so I could have participated in the discussion. I don't particularly care if the title is Genesis or Mega Drive (the latter is what it's known as where I'm from) as long as the current mistake is fixed. If this is reopened for discussion, someone let me know. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
There are times when a compromise is the wrong answer - and (sadly) this is one of them. I strongly believe that this discussion should be re-opened to a wider audience. The people who !voted on this decision are people who are invested in the content of the article and in the game console itself - and are perhaps not the right people to take a wider Wikipedian view of how the encyclopedia as a whole chooses to name articles. I've been here myself (my article on the "MINI" car had to be renamed "Mini (BMW)" in the face of the fact that every single reference to the car uses the capitalized version of the name to distinguish it from the original "Mini" car). Why? Because Wikipedia doesn't accept capitalisations that are for style only. Nobody who knew the car and had worked on the article agreed with the name change - but it was a necessary change in the teeth of near-unanimous opposition from the articles' editors.) SteveBaker (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

For God's sake, just go with Mega Drive. You really don't need much more than "that was the worldwide name, not just the name for one or two countries".

Why do so many cry for the so-called "unbiased" people to decide things like this? Have they never noticed how completely random those results are? We need reason for all this editing, not Russian roulette for the sake of "compromise". It's IAR taken to the extreme and causes more problems than it solves. Despatche (talk) 07:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this should be left in the hands of the same group of editors that argued about a name for half a decade before resigning themselves to the current abomination. A group of completely uninvolved editors would probably end up picking one of the two perfectly acceptable names using tarot cards or something. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 10:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
The problem here is that the choice between "Sega Genesis" and "Mega Drive" is quite utterly unimportant to everyone outside the small circle of enthusiastic editors who wrote this article. From an outsiders' perspective, if you want information about this console, you type either of those two names into the search box and the article pops up. In the very first six words of the first sentence, it's going to say "The Mega Drive or Sega Genesis is..." and then describe what this machine is. So the people who typed the title 'X' and discover that the article is actually called 'Y' won't be surprised, confused or otherwise upset. We see this all over the encyclopedia - it's how Wikipedia functions. We choose one out of many possible names for the object and name the article accordingly - with redirects from the other names. You can see it in thousands - probably tens of thousands of articles. For example: The lede of the article Agaricus bisporus starts off by saying: "Agaricus bisporus—known variously as the common mushroom, button mushroom, white mushroom, table mushroom, champignon mushroom, crimini mushroom, Swiss brown mushroom, Roman brown mushroom, Italian brown, Italian mushroom, cultivated mushroom, or when mature, the Portobello mushroom"...and there are redirects from all thirteen of those names to Agaricus bisporus. I can give you many, many examples where those kinds of decision have been made. Honestly, the protagonists in this dispute need to come to some agreement - flip a coin or something. But the present title is clearly, ridiculously, unambiguously **WRONG**. Nobody outside of your little circle of editors gives a damn whether the article is called "Sega Genesis" or "Mega Drive" - it totally doesn't matter which you choose - only that you do actually choose and agree to stick by that decision in perpetuity.
IMHO, if the protagonists on that page cannot do this themselves in short order then Wikipedia:Article titles suggests that some parent project (in this case, WikiProject Video games) should come up with a policy for naming this kind of article - and then impose that on the Sega Genesis/Mega Drive article under the Wikipedia:TITLE#Explicit_conventions rule. Wikipedia:WikiProject Fungi decided that all fungi articles should have the latin name as the title with the common names as redirects...dispute solved. Here at WikiProject Video games - we should come up with a similar ruling. SteveBaker (talk) 13:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


I propose that WikiProject Video games adopt the following rule for naming articles:

In the event that an article has more than one reasonably applicable title, the guidelines under WP:TITLE for recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness, and consistency should be followed. In the event that two titles are equally placed under those criteria and no consensus can be reached based on those criteria, then whichever of the appropriate names was first used for the article should stand.

The rationale for that is that it is generally the rule within Wikipedia that to change something requires consensus and to leave it alone does not. Hence the first applicable name should be the one that remains if there is no clear consensus to change it. Note that "consensus" doesn't mean "majority vote".

In the interests of neutrality, I have deliberately not looked to see which of the two titles for Sega Genesis and Mega Drive was first, but I propose that this rule be applied in that case.

SteveBaker (talk) 13:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: In the event that a naming dispute arises from the merging of two or more articles, the name given to the oldest of the merged articles should apply. SteveBaker (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

They were both created as separate articles, under different names. The Genesis article pre-dates Mega Drive (probably due to the regional awareness of WP at the time). I agree with your sentiment, but the 'use the first' aspect of it will throw up biased results as well. - X201 (talk) 14:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
And when they were merged it was into Genesis. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
The title that was used for the original would have even more violations, Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis.Jinnai 19:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Steve's argument about consensus is probably the most logical I've heard in this whole debate. I don't think picking the first used name would be biased. The main people offended by one regional name over the other are biased fans. If someone read past the title of article, the prose should dispel any biased notions. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC))
I don't think that its "biased fans". It seems to me more a case of two groups of people who both think they're right, and they probably both are. There have been times in the rename debate where I've thought a Judgement of Solomon arrangement may be the best solution. Put the article at an acceptable vanilla name e.g. Sega Console 1990 (or some such) and then use the redirects, so that neither faction has the article at their preferred name. - X201 (talk) 08:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
That's an interesting proposal - but I'm not sure it would help because it just introduces a third name for them to argue about. What is needed to resolve this conflict in the longer term is to provide a firm, solid, reason why one name should absolutely be chosen over the other. That would end debate and provide a reason to stick with that final choice. However, there doesn't seem to be such a killer argument based in the WP:TITLE guidelines. The only useful guideline there is that in an article that is identified as a member of a WikiProject, they should abide by the WikiProjects' conventions. That provides scope for this project group to come up with a guideline for this kind of naming issue - and then to impose that decision in perpetuity on the authors of this article, per WP:TITLE.
My proposal to stick with the first name used (and I created an Addendum to clarify the situation with merged articles) is not without precedent. Wikipedia already uses this rule to resolve equally arbitrary disputes over whether an article should be written in British English or American English ('colour' versus 'color', etc) when there is no particular reason to pick one over the other from the content of the article. We also have the general Wikipedia rule that to make a controversial change requires consensus - so in the absence of a widespread agreement, we stick with the status quo...which should have been the first name used for the article because there has clearly never been a consensus to change from that. SteveBaker (talk) 16:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
X201: I think the distinction is negligible. In either case, it's silly that any editors are acting like this, much less the presumably adult or nearly adult editors which are doing so. (It might deserve an entry in WP:Lamest edit wars....)
The answer to this problem is to default to WP:ENGVAR, quite honestly (per Steve). If it's the case that there is no strong preference for either one, then the oldest version of the article should be the default article with a redirect from the other, and a local consensus should really observe that particular rule. Since this is the case, it seems that Sega Genesis is the elder of the two. The alternative rule which ENGVAR uses is "the first substantial contributor" rule, which might swing it the other way (I haven't checked). If in doubt though, the first article should probably be the name, to me.
//unbiased Nintendo-fanboi. I don't really care what it's called. :^) --Izno (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
X201/Steve: A descriptive title like that would be nice and neutral - an advantage that one title or even both titles at once can not have - and such solutions have policy support and plenty of precedent in other articles. I mentioned something along the lines of "Sega 16-bit games console" as a descriptive title in the move request but all the attention then was obviously on the names at hand. It may be worth giving proper consideration IMO. Also, there wasn't an edit-war, just talk page talking.
Izno: Generally speaking I think that ENGVAR-style solution could be a reasonable tie-breaker if used as a last resort, but there should be other criteria to consider before going for that. For example I've always said the worldwide name (of any subject, I'd like to stress) should trump a regional one, unless there are (per ENGVAR again) national ties to the place in question. I know there are people who don't agree with that for whatever reason, but it's always seemed reasonable to me. I would also suggest that the "descriptive title" route be explored before defaulting to an article's first name, first variety of English, or other arbitrary factors. Miremare 18:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Project's edit notice

Should we update Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games with a notice that recommends editors to check the discussion archives? I think that some answers are already there. And if some disagree with past consensus they will have done their homework when challenging it.

"The project recommends searching the discussion archives to see if your questions has been already asked and answered. A complete index of discussions is available here and the archive box provides a search option."

Thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 14:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC))

Can only help. Go for it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Citing VG ratings

Just wondering if there is consensus as to whether VG ratings (ESRB, ACB, etc.) should be sourced (I'm guessing first party from the rating entity's website, as it's simply fact-checking) pretty much always. I see a lot of unsourced ratings, which kind of bugs me, as I consider them to be the same kind of info as release dates, which pretty much require a source every single time. Salvidrim (talk) 22:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, they should probably be cited. For some games it's a big deal when they get rated, and in that case you could cite it in the text of the article. Otherwise, I think they should be cited in the infobox. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, unless the ratings have enough relevance to be mentioned in the article's body, it should just stay in the infobox. I would extend that argument also to reviewer ratings (i.e. if reviewer ratings are already given in the Template:Video game reviews box in an article, they don't need to be re-mentioned in the article's body. –MuZemike 23:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Personally for any rating that I add I cite it in the infobox, just like release dates, but noticed that wasn't a very common occurence, so was wondering if there was a reason. For games where the rating itself is notable, rather than just a piece of information, it should indeed be also in prose and cited, but the infobox could cite the first-party fact-check, while the prose cite to assess notability and why it should be discussed. I just don't really see a reason not to cite it in the Infobox I guess... (just like reviewer ratings, in fact.) Salvidrim (talk) 23:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
To clarify, the question was "is there a reason not to cite a VG rating in the infibox with an in-line first-party ref". Salvidrim (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC).
The reason is per WP:V: "... policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material". A good example is in Halo 3; the BBFC rating of 15 seems somewhat low in comparison to other ratings and it is more likely to be challenged, and therefore it is cited. Nomader (talk) 01:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I'd be curious as to the rationale behind the fact the release dates are "likely to be challenged" and VG ratings not. I think they're both purely factual informations of the same importance... Salvidrim (talk) 01:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Hrm, I'm not particularly disagreeing with you; I actually think that you have a valid point. That's really the only explanation I can find for not citing them. Nomader (talk) 01:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
The ratings appear on every unit of the game so is generally easy for anyone to find out. Release dates can often be hard to track down in reliable sources, especially for older games. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Ah, good point. VG Ratings also often appear on the covers of the videogames, so it is indeed, by some margin, easier to verify. But wouldn't their inclusion on the sole basis of "I saw it on the game itself" constitue OR? And citing a videogame box is certainly less... "convenient" than citing an actual source of info. Salvidrim (talk) 02:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
My point in saying that it is easy to find means it's easy to verify and unlikely to be challenged. The release dates are hard to verify and in many cases can be easily challenged. Dates often differ by days or even years depending on the source. I don't think citing a box is a good idea, so if possible definitely try to site a website or magazine for the VG ratings. --Odie5533 (talk) 02:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Easily observable facts aren't considered OR. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
"Easily observable" if you have the game, which is not common enough to be "common knowledge" IMO. I'm going by the assumption that most major reviewing entities (ESRB, ACB, etc.) that are likely to be mentionned in an Infobox have the info on their website, thus an easily available fact-checking source. And I see your point about the unlikeliness of a challenge, it indeed makes sense not to have compulsory sourcing of VG ratings, and if they are ever put into question, then they can be sourced. Thanks for the clarification. :) Salvidrim (talk) 02:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Something else to consider is that I'm confident most every one of our GAs and FAs will have that information in the references; reviews typically include ratings. So even if the information is not cited, it is probably available in the sources we provide. (Guyinblack25 talk 13:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC))
Common sense applies here. WP:V only requires facts that are likely to be disputed to be referenced. We do not need a reference to say that the sky is blue or that 2+2=4. That said, to get an article up to the standard of an FA, you'd probably need a decent cite for these ratings just because FA reviewers are extremely picky about such things. However, for a more typical Wikipedia article, nobody should be considering removing such non-controversial information on the grounds of a lack of citation. It's printed right there on every copy of the game to be sold after all - so it's hardly a contentious fact! In the case of Halo, the rating itself was controversial - but the fact that that rating was actually awarded is not. We don't really need a reference for the actual rating - but we surely do need good references for any discussion of the controversy. Just use common sense. SteveBaker (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to note that I've never once seen or heard of an FA reviewer asking for a source for ratings, or anything in the infobox, really. --PresN 05:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I've not and in general is shouldn't need citing without something noteworthy like a rating change or radical differences in ratings between countries (notably Japan and US) or versions (one getting a lower ESRB rating than another). In pretty much all of those cases there will almost certainly be sources to verify and likely commentary on them to varying extents.
Also, if the rating is on the cover art posted on the infobox, it would seem redundant to change that. If someone tries to fake a rating for some reason on such an image, it'll be reverted.Jinnai 05:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


Anyone know the source of this box art image? A user uploaded it over an existing logo image and didn't update the rationale. I've not yet updated as I don't know the actual source. Tineye found some similar images, but not this image. So does anyone know the source? Do we even need to be that specific, or can I just add in the URL for any Mario Kart 7 box art image? Reach Out to the Truth 21:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

"The box/cover art can or could be obtained from Nintendo" Right, forgot the template could do that. That works! :) Thanks Mika1h. Reach Out to the Truth 22:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
As far as I can see it is from (1) Salvidrim (talk) 22:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I can't view anything bigger than a thumbnail on that site. But no matter. The current rationale should be fine now. Reach Out to the Truth 22:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
GamesPress has a 1000x889 resolution one added Sept. 12 for download. I went ahead an added some free website to the File so regular users can verify. --Odie5533 (talk) 06:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I reduced the size of the image to best comply with WP:NFCC#3b. Just as a protip to those who are uploading non-free images to provide a source (i.e. the URL or scan if you scanned the boxart) for the images. Also, keep in mind to minimize the sizes of said images to their most practical usages on WP pages; 300px is normally the most ideal, as that is the maximum size which can be displayed for thumbnails per Special:Preferences. –MuZemike 08:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Good tips to know, MuZemike. --Odie5533 (talk) 08:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Sales figures for Playstation Network titles

Hi there. I'm a bit new at working on video game articles, and I've hit a snag editing Joe Danger - there doesn't seem to be anywhere at all that publishes sales figures for PSN games. The only place I can find is FADE llc. which already seems to be a bit of a non-starter. However, they have had their figures published by MCV UK, but I'm not sure if that means I can then use them and pass them off as reliable. The other chart site (I forget its name) only seems to deal with console/PC games, rather than XBLA/PSN games. Any advice? — Joseph Fox 12:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Sony don't publish the figures (although they have just started publishing a PSN Chart). And if FADE haven't got access to the real figures because Sony don't release them, then you have to ask how reliable FADE's figures are. I too am in the "treat them the same as VGChartz" group at the moment. - X201 (talk) 13:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Additional: Good work on Joe Danger BTW. - X201 (talk) 13:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Ah, that's a good point, thanks for that. I've found (you may have seen) Gamasutra's "leaderboard analysis" which should be a decent workaround, if you'd like to see. Thanks for the nice words, as well! — Joseph Fox 14:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Ditto on X201's comment on the article. It looks to be in good shape. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC))
You can look on Gamasutra for sales numbers here, but I don't guarantee you'll get that particular game. PSN sales analyses seem to show less games. --Teancum (talk) 13:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Yup, that's what I've used, with the caveat in the text regarding the leaderboard analysis. Thanks for the tip, though, and for the compliments above. :) — Joseph Fox 13:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Pro gamers

At new article patrol, I have noticed in recent days that editor Redefining history has been creating several articles/templates on professional "DotA" players. I assume that it falls within the purview of this project. Knowing next to nothing of this stuff, I find these articles completely incomprehensible (which is not what an encyclopedia is for, I think). I also ignore completely whether these people are notable or whether the sources used are reliable. Perhaps somebody in this project would care to take a look at these articles and clean them up or propose them for deletion, as the case may be. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 12:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Good god. Its like stepping back in time, haven't seen that many flagicons in a VG infobox since 2008. Sources all look like blogs and other SPS. - X201 (talk) 12:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Jacob 'Maelk' Toft-Andersen was the illustrious captain of the legendary MeetYourMakers: Defense of the Ancients team and renown as one of the best strategists of all time. -- Helloooooo neutrality!! Salvidrim (talk) 18:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The Secret of Monkey Island

Hi there! I am going to nominate the article to GA status and I need several sources which could describe the gameplay and the game's reception. Thank you. Electroguv (talk) 13:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Specifically, we're looking for some print sources. I know some of you guys out have access to old magazines and more modern ones such as Retrogamer. If any of you happen to know of any good print sources that cover the development of the game, or have access to reviews that aren't available online, it would be great to get ahold of them! -- Sabre (talk) 10:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing help with Star Trek: Voyager – The Arcade Game

I stumbled across Star Trek: Voyager – The Arcade Game and have made it a sort of pet project. I'm having a lot of trouble finding even moderately reliable sources for it, though. I'm not looking for even a B class out of this one, but I thought I'd ask the community since there are often print and obscure sources that I miss. --Teancum (talk) 13:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I was able to dig up that the game was actually developed by a place called Game Refuge, along with a list of programmers and designers and some development history. [3] [4]. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
From [5] it notes that there is apparently an offline source for the game in the Jan. 2003 issue of TIPS&TRICKS Magazine. It also has a quote from the magazine. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Here's a profile of a person that worked on the game: [6]. The game is mentioned in passing here. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

A discussion about character notability

This is something that's come up on the Pokemon project talk page, regarding Zubat, Golbat, and Crobat. While there is significant coverage in third-party sources, the context of said coverage is also extremely limited, saying primarily the following: how good the character's gameplay was, how annoying their frequent appearances were, and that later Pokemon Woobat effectively did the same. The concern is that all of this relates not to the trio as fictional characters or even how people reacted to them as characters; effectively, at this volume it comes across as a game guide critique more so. Other articles do the same, such as Lili (Tekken). To someone not familiar with the subject at all, or not familiar with the subject as a gameplay element, this seems to tell them nothing about how they were received independent of being that gameplay element.

Any thoughts here regarding the subject?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

My thoughts are that while they may meet the WP:GNG, they probably don't meet other inclusion criteria for that level of detail, specifically WP:DUE with regard to spinout articles. I look at that page and its almost entirely plot info (appearances are all plot info). There is some decent reception.
Alough, upon closer inspection I'm not sure if all of those would qualify as good indicators of notability. FE: #29 & 32 says "Each and every day we'll be taking a close and personal look at one of these unique creatures called Pokémon." which tells me they weren't picking notable pokemon, they were just going through them all. Looks like #30 & 31 are also that way. #32, being a walkthrough isn't going to be disciminate. #33 doesn't have "signifigant" coverage (at a minimum this would generally be defined as a decent sized paragraph solely devoted to one of the characters or the trio as a whole...although if it were the latter, it would likely need to be longer to give them all adequete coverage).
That's just going through the 1st paragraph.Jinnai 16:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I looked through every reference on that page and not a single one supports notability (both reliable and providing significant coverage). In addition, some of the sources appear unreliable. I see no evidence that the postings of the anonymous "Pokemon of the Day Chick" are fact-checked by IGN or anything but a glorified self-published blog poster. The Michael Vreeland is also a glorified self-published blog post and is not reliable. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the PotDC is an anonymous IGN staff member for what it's worth, as stated here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I had already read that posting. Again, I see no evidence that the person works for IGN or that IGN fact-checks their postings. It appears as though IGN has simply glorified a blogger. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Their features are certainly fact-checked. Although, even with that the fact they say they'll be going over "Each and every" shows theirs no notability to those characters. It helps support notability of the games (not that they need that) because they get such coverage, but indivisual characters? no.Jinnai 19:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
This is kind of turning into a tangent, but the guidelines don't make a distinction whether or not everything of a certain genre is covered by a source (and even then in this case, they weren't, and not all of those covered actually had anything of significance said about them).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Well they don't because its generally considered obvious. If you ask that at WT:N and say they cover them all (in multiple releases even) then I'm fairly say you'll get a universal no for being notable. Maybe that can be clarified, but similar arguments have been brought up for TV episodes and shot down when a guide covers every episode. Anyway, how many were covered? If its still almost every that's still not at a level that one would generally call discriminatory enough to be noting only a few select pokemon. If zubat, FE, is only of say 10 then that's different. The amount of coverage here I'd say matters only tertiary; if they deemed to cover it at all, it would count.Jinnai 04:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I have asked for clarrification on how to use the sources at WT:N#Pokemon and discrimination by sources when they cover so many pokemon from a single title.Jinnai 04:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to be honest with you, you're nitpicking at this point. The WP:GNG describes significant coverage as sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. If a source falls under the other 4 criteria and the content is in regards to the subject in detail then it passes WP:GNG. With a Pokemon, essentially you're gonna have Pokemon use, gameplay and design spoken about. Beyond that, it would be a lot to ask for real-world impact, guys like Pikachu are mascots and guys like Missingno. are known for being outside of the norm, the general Pokemon won't have mascot notability or general video game fame to push them up. If it falls under the minimum, then it's acceptable, that is if we're following WP:N as a guideline. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 04:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
And I'll have to respectfully disagree. We don't cut slack because someone can't live up to the reputation of another.Jinnai 04:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
We're supposed to take WP:N with a grain of salt, noting of the exceptions especially when presented with many sources that fall under the WP:GNG criteria that so many editors follow closely. You are the editors who follow WP:N to a T and even then you are looking for a way to make it more exclusive even when the requirements are fulfilled. Even an article that isn't in the shadow of another, i'll go with an article I have worked on Eddy Gordo, all the information in the reception section A. Falls under the GNG criteria, and B. was actual real-world impact. Yet, under the consensus the Kung Fu Man has proposed, it is looking to make that all the more exclusive. I have it drilled into my brain the Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate list of information but at some point, this exclusion criteria seems to be abused. Especially since it's only a guideline. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 04:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

That is your interpreation. I'll also note that there are a few exceptions to GNG and N in general, but characters do not fall under those. In fact, for them, heavier scrutiny is usually followed lest we end up with every pokemon being its its own (or a group) article.Jinnai 04:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry for being blunt, but "heavier scrutiny"? WP:N is already a large enough filter as is, to have an article fall under the minimum of WP:N with so many vigilant editors, especially for a guideline (if you haven't noticed the multiple mentions), it's astonishing that we have the Pokemon articles that we have. I know you're being sarcastic, but let's be real not every Pokemon will have an article considering the WP:N filter as is. I can think of Pokemon I like off the top of my head which would never fall under WP:N's guideline. As far as my interpretation, could you clarify why it needs to be as followed as closely as a policy rather than taking it as a grain of salt, when clearly it says in the template, is to use common sense or if all else, WP:IAR. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 05:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I still don't think the IGN thing is reliable. The articles are posted in the same section as user-submitted content, and in the ugly pre-formatted style of user submitted content. By all appearances, it is just a glorified blog writer and is not fact-checked. It looks to me like IGN either saw or asked a person to pose as the Pokemon Week anonymous user and post user-submitted content to the site under the pseudonym. Why else would IGN not post them like it's regular features? They've done rolling features before and posted them to the main news sections. I highly doubt that these articles were fact-checked. Also, even if somehow we accept that the Pokemon of the Week articles are reliable (I do not accept their reliability), we still only have the one source offering significant coverage (all the Pokemon of the Week articles count as only a single source for determining Notability). All the other sources provide only trivial coverage. I do not believe this subject passes the WP:GNG. --Odie5533 (talk) 07:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Why don't we just, y'know, ask 'em? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 08:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I've been having a short discussion with Kung Fu Man about this on Lili's talk page and as I asked on there, "Who says gameplay can't make up good reception on the character? Nothing explicitly says that, now does it?". I can easily see what Subzerosmokerain is saying here. People are expecting too much. I revived the Lili article several months back and worked hard to make sure it's notable enough. As long as they pass WP:GNG, then what's the problem? Kokoro20 (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Our policies and guidelines say they cannot unless it is commentary or impact of the gameplay elements. Just talking about gameplay and using it as "reception" violates WP:PLOT and WP:GAMEGUIDE.Jinnai 15:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Based on the examples provided, I have to agree with colleagues above that the amount of reception found doesn't justify a spinout article. GNG is not a suicide pact, but that cuts both ways--we don't have to have an article on it, and I think in this case it's much better combined than in its own spinoff. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with that. I'm not against the info on gameplay, appearances, etc with some reception (although I'd question the walkthrough comments as reception). Most of that however can be covered in a list of pokemon.Jinnai 16:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The "Reception" sections in fictional character articles status as the main argument for an article's notability and defense against deletion has been an unfortunate development. Since characters are rarely "reviewed" in any traditional manner, they end up being weakly cobbled together from "best/worst" lists and casual references drawn from reviews and game guides. I feel sympathy for the Pokémon project though, as going from having an article on every single species to figuring out just where to draw the line for 646 characters that range from a cultural icons to utterly forgettable in a franchise where even a minor species can be identified by millions of people and appear in a dozen games is a tough task. A firmer idea of how we determine notability for video game characters needs to be established here.--Remurmur (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Any serious change would likely require colaboration. The most we could do is clarify what is "signifigant" coverage.Jinnai 21:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I think we should end up having that discussion and try to hammer something out. It's too easily read as "you must have this many talking heads mentioning you to pass".--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
The guy does have a point. Characters are rarely reviewed in a traditional sense and they are of course going to have more reception on their gameplay than anything. So, why there's all these high expectations for character reception is way beyond me. Lately, I've became interested in reviving character articles with reception and adding reception for ones that are still around and it's such a hassle with the expectations people seem to have. I say we should have some kind of proposal for character articles to work out something better here. Like lower expectations for character reception. Kokoro20 (talk) 21:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
That likely won't pass the GNG. WP:FICT, which tried to lower that threshold is a failed proposal because of hawks who want no alternative to the GNG that could make things easier. It would be a very hard uphill battle.Jinnai 21:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
The biggest part reception should show is why is so-and-so-character significant in a global sense. What are the thoughts on the character design, how does it compare as a fictional character to others, and why is it important to know about. Comments about gameplay offer nothing to a reader that's only seen a character in a non-video game format he/she/it has appeared in, and is so terribly subjective to that particular game it's relevance is even less diminished. Imagine if we propped Mario's article up on commentary regarding his gameplay in various games. Where does that tell anyone Mario is a notable fictional character?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Defense of the Ancients

Hello All I would like to say that since Valve is developing Dota 2 and the recognition DotA players are getting all over the world. I would like to invite the DotA community to create articles introducing DotA players to the world in Wikipedia. Thank you for your attention. Articles requested : Jacob Toft-Anderson (Maelk) Jonathan Berg (Loda) and more.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redefining history (talkcontribs)

Just because DOTA2 is expected to be a huge title, notability of its players does not inherit from the game. Not only do we need to assure they are notable, being covered in reliable sources (DOTA league/clans/whatever pages are not reliable for this purpose) they must also meet biographies of living persons stricter sourcing requirements. I suspect most of these people fail these requirements. --MASEM (t) 13:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I suppose if the problem are the sources, we always have gosugamers (, mymym (, the chinese sGamer ( and the russian ( to offer us reliable sources. And i really think that these players are notable. (will find a reason for it) Redefining history (talk) 22:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, a reliable source is one that is "third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Do the sources listed above meet that definition? One metric we've used to gauge that is how often sources that we've already established reliability for cite their content. For example, has Game Informer cited gosugamers in its magazine or online article? (Guyinblack25 talk 14:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC))
If you are arguing like that, how is Game Informer reliable in the first place? Redefining history (talk) 01:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
If you haven't already, you should look at WP:VG/S and WP:RS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ButOnMethItIs (talkcontribs) 13:04, October 20, 2011‎ (UTC)

Ape Escape 3 and Ape Escape P UK versions

Hi! For those of you in the UK, which character name set does the UK version of Ape Escape P (PSP) use?

If the UK version does NOT use "Buzz" or "Katie" it could be a reason for changing the name set (currently the WP article uses the names from the original UK Playstation release)

Also in Ape Escape 3, the US versions of two monkeys are "Spork and Shimmy" (after "Spike" and Jimmy") but the UK names will be different (as the original characters are "Kakeru" and "Hikaru" there) so I would like to know what they are

WhisperToMe (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

  • One Gamefaqs review of "Ape Escape:On the Loose" (PSP version) uses "Buzz" and "Katie" too, so I wonder if the British names are the same in the PSP version as they were in the PS version WhisperToMe (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Professional eSports Players

OKAY, now im confused. does Professional eSports Players fall under this category, or the category of athletes? If it falls in any, what are the guidelines of them being notable? Redefining history (talk) 03:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I feel like your insistance is bordering heavily on spamming behaviour. The creation of (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8) pages and a number of redirects to those about a single topic, which were all sent to AfD and argued there by you; Posts on RS Noticeboard, Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports), Wikipedia talk:Notability (people), WT:VG; Sections on User Talk pages (here, here, here, here, here and here). I am unsure as to why you would persist so strongly and intensely. I assume you mean well, but I cannot help but to hope you will understand these articles do not have their place in an encyclopedia and be able to move on, and contribute positively to Wikipedia. Perhaps you may be able to channel your interest and knowledge into improving existing articles about these topics, such as DotA, MOGs, etc. Salvidrim (talk) 03:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
nope, nope, nope, nope and nope. the meetyourmakers page has existed since february 2007. i am posting here to get the attention of the video game project. if you are not helping dont interfere with it. Redefining history (talk) 12:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
i do not object to my articles being deleted, but i have to say the discussion here (and on other project pages) should go on. Redefining history (talk) 12:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Notability for eSports players would have to come from the general notability guideline which says that they need coverage in secondary sources; this would further require them meeting our policies on biographies of living persons to avoid false claims and the like. Most likely, eSports players would be classified under our project, but we have no special notability guidelines beyond the default GNG. Unlike athletes, who have a large volume of coverage due to the popularity of physical sport, eSports players rarely get coverage, and thus there's no way to assume special notability for this. --MASEM (t) 12:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I had a look at one or two pages which are classed under video games and not sports or athletes. bridies (talk) 13:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I think the notability of eSports players is also currently covered under WP:ATHLETE, which states, "Sports figures are presumed notable (except as noted within a specific section) if they have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics." Many major competitions in eSports are international, even when participants are physically at the competition. I guess that's just how eSports is. I believe this makes many eSports players notable. I know some sports have special pages to list the professional leagues of the game, like football has Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. Perhaps we should create such lists for eSports games as well, so it is clear which competitions have notable participants. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
    • There is no way that eSport competitions are compareable to something like the Olympics or professional sports. These sports events are covered broadly in a large number of different types of sources. The various eSport leagues are religated to a few small bits of coverage here and there. We cannot assume that these events grant notability to their players, because there just isn't a large body of material that covers these. --MASEM (t) 13:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Criteria 1 on WP:ATHLETE would thus say, "And participants in the Olympics are notable" if that is how it was meant to be used. No, I think that it means other major competitions as well. It even includes amateur competitions. You said that eSports competitions are not comparable to professional sports. But eSports is a professional sport, so that isn't really an argument. People living in South Korea routinely watch eSports on television, much like more physical sports are shown in other countries on television. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I found a great article on VG247 that should help to determine which competition's participants are notable: [7]. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that other physical sport ameteur events are given much deeper coverage compared to the various eSports leagues. This is not to the that eSports or certain leagues of that aren't notable themselves, but the coverage of them is so weak in traditional sources that we cannot make the same presumption that players in those leagues are notable. It is a matter of the disparity of coverage of physical sporting events to the gaming sporting events that is the issue, and you can't just make the analogy that esports players should be notable due to the "level" of play; without the backing of wide coverage, its apples to oranges. --MASEM (t) 13:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
You seem to be singling out a specific type of sport. If you think the WP:ATHLETE general criteria should be modified to fit these views then I'm sure a case could be made as such. But as it currently stands, I think my reading of the guideline is correct and it does in fact apply in these cases. I am also not convinced such a significant disparity of coverage exists as you claim. As I said before, South Korea shows Brood Wars tournaments on television. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm looking at the phrase "major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics". A major competition is one that is widely covered by a variety of sources. eSports, unfortunately, are not. They are the "highest level of competition" in the video game field, but their coverage is very poor. --MASEM (t) 14:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
You are adding more criteria to what has been established. I don't think it's necessary to add it. And in addition, many eSports competitions are widely covered. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Let me put it this way: a notable topic is one that is going to already have significant coverage in secondary sources, or due to its association with another topic, will likely have that type of coverage in the future. When we talk about participants at the Olympics or other major international competitions, because those events are covered to a great degree in newspapers and magazines, it is reasonably save to assume that competitors will be covered in depth, and thus reasonable we can write articles about them. When we talk about participants in eSports, that coverage of the actual happenings of the competition simply do not exist to the same degree as with the above physical sports. To that end, just competition in the eSports is not an assurance that there will be coverage in secondary sources at a later time. If eSports were more popular and covered in a wider fashion across video game news sites (They aren't, at least with Western sources) that might be something, but it isn't. Ergo, we cannot presume an eSport player is notable just because they compete. They may gain notability through their play but just not due to simple association. --MASEM (t) 14:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
It seems you are making a case to delete general criteria #1 in WP:ATHLETE. I'd have to think about that, but I don't think this discussion is the right place to consider such a change. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Events like the Olympics and other "major international amateur or professional competition"s are fully covered internationally in a large number of newspapers and magazines. Events like eSports competitions are not covered in anywhere close to the same depth. I would have a very difficult time qualifying eSports under this category for purposes of player notability.
Now be aware, a list article summarizing major players in the various league is completely legit, since the leagues themselves are notable and there are winners and the like from it. But I cannot see how winning or participating in an eSports event to be any sign of notability for that person. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
No more or less than winning or participating in a physical sports event. You keep qualifying the events with "fully covered internationally in a large number of newspapers and magazines." Do you believe we should apply WP:GNG or WP:ATHLETE to sports players? --Odie5533 (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
You're missing Masem's point. He's saying that the top level competitions of eSports aren't at a high enough level to be considered to fit what's implied by "major international amateur or professional competition". Imagine if, for instance, there were no Major League Baseball, and the top level events got as much coverage as current AAA level does. Or maybe even AA. Or something. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, to counter, I do believe that major international amateur or professional competitions of eSports are "major international amateur or professional competition", by simple definition in fact. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but eSports players are not notable simply by playing in major tournaments. I watch Starcraft2, not LoL, so I'll use those numbers: MLG Orlando got 181,000 simultaneous viewers last weekend- worldwide. Hockey games in Canada alone get 5-700,000 for every single game (hundreds/year), and millions for big games. Football/baseball numbers in America are 10x that. eSports is rapidly expanding- but playing at, even winning one of the tournaments is the notability equivalent of winning a regional meet. It does not convey instant notability. You need to find 3rd-party sources to prove notability for each competitor- not pro-gamer profiles on an eSports website, but actual external observers. For example, this Forbes article on Starcraft could be used to support articles on HuK and Idra, as well as some of the casters. But it doesn't mean that MarineKingPrime gets an automatic pass just because he played at the same tournament. --PresN 19:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The Super Bowl averages a crowd of around 70,000 each year. The crowd at the 2006 Proleague finals for StarCraft exceeded 50,000 [8]. I'll chip in another source for HuK: --Odie5533 (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
But when you include the full broadcast of either event -- well, the numbers for the Starcraft league don't change much. I think last years' SB averaged around 40-50 million? And that's in the US alone. And we're not even talking about World Cup games either. --MASEM (t) 20:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
For every Super Bowl match there are a thousand less popular sports tournaments many of which are not even broadcast. --Odie5533 (talk) 20:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
And most of those aren't "major international competitions". There's a reason why NSPORTS tends to limit what they will claim qualifies under that. --MASEM (t) 20:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Quoting the number of live attendees of a Super Bowl match is completely irrelevant. They can't exactly hold more than that because of stadium size. If they COULD hold 200,000 people, you better bet there'd be 200,000 people attending. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we should stick to applying the GNG to pro gamers; at least until anyone wanting to apply WP:ATHLETE can build a consensus to do so. I don't see anything in WP:ATHLETE about say, chess players, or anything comparable. The wording is vague: is it the highest level of sport in general (which I'm inclined to agree that "such as the Olympics" suggests) or the highest level within a sport? In any case, I agree any comparison of a gaming competition to the Olympics is pretty tenuous. Furthermore, significant coverage in secondary sources would still be needed to actually write an acceptable article; these are just guidelines for presumption. bridies (talk) 05:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I think e-sports actually has more coverage than some of the sports listed in WP:ATHLETES, and as i discussed on the talk page there, i would consider e-sports as a sport ahead of those like poker and chess, and hence e-sports - "generally popular games played competitively" should get a generally accepted criteria in which it should be included in the SNG. and as i saw on the WP:ATHLETES page, "The reality though is that if an article meets the SNG it is very unlikely to be deleted." Redefining history (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

How many different places are we going to have the same exact conversation and the same two editors are going to be told the same exact thing over and over and over again. Ridernyc (talk) 00:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I would like to call any arguments on this to continue here Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Professional eSports Redefining history (talk) 01:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

How about you just drop the argument and not take it back to another page. You have been told overwhelmingly the same thing in over a dozen place by dozens of editors. It's time to move on. Ridernyc (talk) 02:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
There isnt a consensus reached yet, you are not arguing. Redefining history (talk) 04:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes there is very clearly a consensus. Seriously in 8 years of editing I have never seen something that has had more clearly established consensus on more talk pages then this issue. I'm not sure you understand what consensus means. Ridernyc (talk) 04:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Apparently, after looking through Video Games/Sources, it states that "Many video games have sites devoted to them that are not affiliated with the developers or publishers. These fansites enable fans to read about and discuss the game." It is true if you would like to consider sites that published rumours about the games itself as fansites, but sites that publishes/reports about games that are played competitively, info on the players/teams itself and written by journalists about the players/teams (in case you haven't noticed, the esports scene is bigger than you think, the managers of teams/esports players does not write articles about themselves and all) there isnt much stuff about competitive e-sports in wikipedia, which is different from the game itself. DotA and DotA as an esport is as different as football and competitive football. Under my argument in Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports), it is apparent that a consensus haven't been reached whether e-sports should be included in wikipedia as a sub-section of sports. I really think you should read up on Wikipedia:Consensus, im just simply trying to be bold here, and you should drop your insistence for me to end the argument whatsoever. Redefining history (talk) 05:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Is chess a sport? Chess players, are they athletes? The same should applies to gamers & eSports. Salvidrim (talk) 05:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
This shows even more that you haven't been reading on the arguments going on Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports).
Quoted from "The Interior, 19:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)" : There is a strong element of physicality in gaming that isn't present in chess, cards, or spelling bees. Gamers talk about "actions per minute", a metric that measures how many moves they can process, and input properly through the interface. It is a physical hand-eye coordination that makes people successful in these activities. There are similarities to motorsports - reaction time, operating a machine at a skilled level. I don't think e-sports can be written off as non-physical." Redefining history (talk) 05:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Seriously not getting into it with you again in yet another place where you are going to take bits of out of context argument from one of your other dozen arguments, and argue about it here. Also please do not throw policies at me and tell me to read them. I have actually taken part in writting many of the policies you keep trying to twist and warp to fit your arguments. Ridernyc (talk) 05:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, I haven't been following the 3 or 4 discussions you've been maintaining, and I've been distancing myself fromyour whole argument, which I feel is not an attempt to reach consensus but rather you trying to make a point to prevent your articles from being deleted despite other editors' concerns. I should've stuck to that decision and avoided being dragged into this again. Salvidrim (talk) 05:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Thats why you shouldn't continue your insistence. I have told you that i don't mind those articles being deleted, what i want here is to reach a consensus. The articles can wait, after a generally accepted guideline has been drafted, proposed and accepted it could be recreated or whatsoever. Redefining history (talk) 05:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

End of argument on this page

I see no point continuing the argument on this page. The arguments are continued here:

Blue's News as a reliable source

Hi there. Blue's News is listed on WP:VG/RS as a reliable source but doesn't actually seem to indicate why - does anyone have anything to prove that it is in fact reliable? Here's a link. Stephen Heaslip appears to be the primary author, so perhaps he's notable in some way? — Joseph Fox 14:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

As a caution, just being mentioned by other RS's doesn't necessarily mean its always a RS. It helps however, and certainly for BN's case, there's no question about it. --MASEM (t) 16:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Blue's News is unquestionably reliable, but the site hasn't really been on the cutting edge of news in years. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Nihongo template updated

For those that remember the mediation for video games developed in Japan, part of the mediation's outcome was that {{Nihongo}} be updated to provide better context for the layman. The template was recently updated with a new parameter: lead. Setting the parameter to yes or 1 will activate it. When activated, the parameter will display the languages (Japanese and Hepburn) of the script displayed.

Because this new parameter is optional, it will need to be added to many of our articles. Typically, only the first instance of the language is required, which often occurs in the lead. Help adding this would be greatly appreciated. If everyone gave the articles in your watchlist a sweep, this whole process would make great headway. Thanks. (Guyinblack25 talk 13:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC))


Now, I know some of these points could be put in more specialized areas of WP:VG, but since there's a variety of concerns, I figured I'd lump them all here.

The website in question is (formally supposedly.)

  1. I've seen it used in a few reception areas for video game reviews. Is it a reliable source? I didn't think it was, but rather some random blog, but I wanted to check before I started removing them.
  2. There is an article for both names w/ zero sources on either. (Bordersdown and NTSC-uk). Since one became the other, seems like at least a merge is in order, though between the lack of sources, and the way in which both are clearly written to lead people to the site with multiple links to it, made me wonder if they should be deleted.
  3. See: Judging by the way he is the one who created the "bordersdown" article, and virtually every one of his edits is linking or involving "bordersdown", I thought it looked like a conflict of interest.

So yeah, there's a lot going on here. Wondered if anyone had any thoughts on this, and/or wanted to take action if needed. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 19:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Just AfD both articles. Looks like they pretty clearly fail WP:GNG. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
He's also a staff member for the site link. That's not as much of a problem. I write for a site and there are plenty of other potential COI users, but the key is whether they contribute outside of the realm of their COI. --Teancum (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it's much of a factor here one way or the other. Non-notable is non-notable. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Copy-and-paste move. Ew. Should be hist-merged, at least. Reach Out to the Truth 21:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Creating an article for Grand Theft Auto V

The GTA website has announced the game, with the trailer to be released next Wednesday; should an article be created for this game soon?-SCB '92 (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Soon, but I don't see any rush. If nothing else an IP will create it and start filling in info, which is easier because we can go in and clean up (my personal opinion). --Teancum (talk) 22:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't see the rush either. What it boils down to is if there are enough third-party sources that provide enough detail for something more than a stub. Typically, an announcement and trailer do not suffice because they are first-party sources. Announcements of new games should be placed in a parent article, like the game's series or first installment if a series article is absent. Wikipedia is not a news site, so we do not have to provide breaking news for new games. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC))
It's far too soon. We know Rockstar will have more in a week (Nov 2, IIRC). If it will be like the Bioshock Infinite reveal (Which, suddenly, had a huge amount of details on the game and its world immediately afterward), or going to be a simple teaser movie with cuts to black and nothing else, we can't tell. That said, the article has been recreated (or at least, the former redirect expanded to article) but I believe its mostly all fluff ("leaked websites! woo!") and probably can be reverted back to a redirect until more news is coming. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it's too soon. There is now a section on NOT that deals with this.Jinnai 21:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Number five at WP:FUTURE, for those that would like the link to use in future discussions. (Guyinblack25 talk 13:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC))