Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 26

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 20 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 30

Can provide assistance

If any of you know of Playstation 1 games that need screenshots, please leave me a message so I can see if I own the game. If I do I'll get a screenshot of the game and put it into the article. Xtreme racer 03:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit war on Dreamcast

FYI, there's a mini edit war on Dreamcast between myself and Asim18 over which Dreamcast logo should be used for the article's picture - between the orange swirl logo and the blue one. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I wouldn't say an "edit war" - edit war is when both parties are repeatedly reverting. He switched, you reverted; nothing else has happened yet. hbdragon88 00:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
BOLD, revert, discuss. My understanding is that this is exactly how it should be. Nifboy 01:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The Soul Cali pages

Say is there a task force responsible for the Soul Calibur pages? I have browsed trough some and there is significant a ammount of characters that really don't deserve a page by themselves. To be specific see Night Terror (Soul Calibur) and Abyss (Soul Calibur), these two characters only appear once in the whole series and they have absolutely no background whatsoever, some users tried to compensate this by adding long unrefereced trivia sections and a full section only to descrive the weapons they use wich would be better in the Soul Calibur mystical weapons page. I personally propose that a character list is created and these characters are merged in them, any comments? objections? suggestions? thanks for your time. - 05:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Go right ahead, it's common practice for articles of that nature to be presented in list form with all the fan fluff cut out. Combination 14:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
There is no task force for this series yet. Feel free to go ahead and start one. JACOPLANE • 2007-04-24 22:24
I took the liberty of merging both boss characters with the characters from which they are generated, similar to the Ogre (Tekken) article. After all, Abyss is just Zasalamel mutated and Night Terror, just Nightmare mutated. I've also rewrote Zasalamel's article to remove the story-telling, copy-right infringement and the long trivia section. Peace. 01:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
What about creating a new page titled something along the lines of "List of Characters from the Soul Calibur series" and merging all the pages like Night Terror (Soul Calibur) and Abyss (Soul Calibur) together into one large article. Cabe6403 10:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

    • I will work on creating a page and will post it by weekend. I will start a Task force by the time we are done raising the remaining Devil May Cry pages, that way I can focus on the pages and try to emulate the success that the Devil May Cry tak force has had, cheers. -- 13:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Car lists in game articles

As car lists are so common in racing game articles, I have decided to bring this discussion here to prevent edit wars on series-wide scales. For those who aren't familiar with me, I'm responsible for removing numerous weapon and item lists from first-person shooters, considering that such information is trivia beyond integration and possibly game guide material, as well as being indiscriminate lists at large.

Extending this to racing games, would this not include car lists? Racing games tend to include hundreds of cars, and creating and maintaining these lists would inflate the articles to a massive degree. The article I cleaned up was Live for Speed, though I have helped in trimming Test Drive Unlimited. However, many of the Gran Turismo and Need for Speed articles still have extensive car lists.

For the sake of consistency, should we consider car lists to be fancruft and remove them according to WP:NOT, or should we keep them and reorganise them into manageable lists or separate articles? --Scottie_theNerd 22:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It seams clear to me that for any of these articles about racing games to have any chance of reaching FA status, they would have to lose such lists. So I fully support you if you want to go and remove these lists from articles. JACOPLANE • 2007-04-25 23:12
I'd suggest caution in things like this. Rather than a hack-and-slash approach of just wiping things out, perhaps leave mentions of unique or notable items. For example, the Gran Turismo games might benefit from having a mention that RUF is featured instead of Porsche, for whatever reason (if memory serves, Porsche had an exclusive contract with another software company). Keep encyclopoedic content! But again, GT prides itself as a game on having MANY cars of the 'who cares?' classes (Daihatsu Midget II, anyone?), which likely would be relegated to obscure trivia. The RUF entry, tho, would be worth mentioning, in my opinion.
One other thing to beware of is that some games feature real cars (Gran Turismo), some try to disguise them (Grand Theft Auto and its sequels), and others just make up their own (Simpsons Hit and Run). A list of makes (Toyota, Ford, etc.) I think MAY be worth listing for real-car games; a few sample mentions may be worth citing for the thinly disguised vehicles, and only generic information for the totally fictional ('Cars are taken from the history of the show as well as earlier games' would be sufficient, accurate, and avoid something that belongs on GameFAQs). IL-Kuma 09:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Fully agreed on this. It is important to mention what content the game contains in general without specifically listing out everything. A common argument is that cars are integral to racing games - an argument that is made redundant that a list of cars is not integral for a Wikipedia article. --Scottie_theNerd 16:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Angel Munoz expansion

If there's anyone at all notable within the e-sports community, not for being a player, then it's Angel Munoz, founder of the CPL. This article, that has been around since February 2005 was speedily deleted under the reasoning that it was an advertisement and vanity, it is apparently backed up by an OTRS complaint (see User_talk:Centrx#Angel_Munoz). This is just a note to say it has been undeleted and stubbed for the time being, anyone into competitive gaming should expand the thing. - hahnchen 17:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Is that it? Can't we just redierct the article to the Cyberathelete league article as this person has no notability outside of being the founder? Has he won any prizes from there or anything? hbdragon88 22:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
He is still president/figurehead of the CPL and appears regularly in interviews. If you take a look at an old version of the article, you'll find that there is a decent framework to work with. - hahnchen 00:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Chrono Trigger and Template:Chrono Cross

Template:Chrono Trigger and Template:Chrono Cross have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Chrono Trigger and Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Chrono Cross. Thank you. — Kariteh 14:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Listing retail prices

Should retail prices of particular games and even the conversion of such amounts (from one currency to another) be listed in articles? These are quite unencyclopedic and unable to help improve the article overall, which I've never seen in good or featured articles, but that does not spare a few articles from citing such statistics. ···巌流? · Talk to Ganryuu 22:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I would have to say that the inclusion is warrented. I first saw it in the Shuffle! GA article which I then adapted to other soon-to-be (at the time) GA articles Kanon and Air (visual novel) and not once was the issue ever brought up during the GA process or during numerous peer reviews for each of those articles (along with a class A assessment for the latter two and an FA candidacy for Kanon). I believe it should be up to the editor's choice to include the information or not and should not be completely removed from all articles. One good thing it does is tells the reader of an article a difference between limited and regular editions, which visual novels usually put out with the limited edition being more expensive; thus, the $US conversion is there to tell the reader how much it is in a currency they are probably familiar with or can make an easier conversion then say Japanese yen.-- 22:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Retail prices are wholly unencyclopedic and are such statistics that can be easily derived from other sources, say or other shopping sites, rather than an encyclopedia (see WP:NOT, where it clearly states: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information of statistics). I don't see how a conversion rate to US$ would even be relevant, let alone encyclopedic, for a game released exclusively in Japan or another country, and not released in the United States (which would account for all the games you have mentioned, I believe). For the sake of argument, why not use say another currency, such as the GBP£? Even then, it would not be even close to being relevant to the article's subject. Listing these prices is therefore not encyclopedic and as stated in WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. ···巌流? · Talk to Ganryuu 22:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
You're just interpreting that WP:NOT clause to follow your agrument; I could easily say that from my point of view this information is not an indiscriminant colletion of information and is not wholly unencylcopedic as I believe if it was blatently so as you suggest, then it would have come up in the numerous peer reviews that each of those aricles had, but it never did, so it would seem your opinion is rather localized. As I said, if just the prices are taken into account, a conversion is warrented to give the reader and idea of how much it costs; $US are many more times common than Japanse yen or British pounds, even when on the English Wikipedia it encompasses all English-speaking countries. And as I brought up, these games are almost always sold many times over years and prices change due to different versions; the price changes are the easiest change to be seen with the different versions and can be just one of many aspects that can be listed between the different versions.-- 23:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Given that most games of the same platform cost the same upon release, only a notable exception to this rule of thumb should be listed. --User:Krator (t c) 23:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Per that suggestion, I believe it to be a notable exception that prices change even for visual novels released on the same platform, such as with the first released of Kanon and later the all-ages versions and Standard Editions released also for the PC but the prices had lowered for those versions.-- 23:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Stating the retail price at time of release seems fine to me. We are talking about things that where created to be sold. It might not be the most important bit of information on the surface, but for someone researching these games it's more than trivial information. -- Ned Scott 01:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Why should we report on price data? Anybody who wants to buy the game can look that up on or something. I'm open to being convinced otherwise however. hbdragon88 23:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Price data is a part of the product's history, just as much as make and model or color. The whole reason these games are made is to make a profit. Lets say you want to research the success of a video game that sold a few years back, and you want to compare it's debut price compared to whatever the norm was for that time. There's a lot that can be said with this information. -- Ned Scott 03:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, retail prices shouldn't be listed. It's bad enough that people wont accept that Wii Points aren't encyclopedic. On the lists for Virtual Console games: all the games have the amount of points (needed to buy the game) listed. Wikipedia shouldn't become a price guide, period. RobJ1981 05:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Wii Points ARE encyclopedic, you are just bitter because you were the only one who thought otherwise (the vote was 10-1 just a few weeks ago). TJ Spyke 21:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the key is that prices shouldn't be listed, i.e. without any further explanation. If it's relevant, it'll be mentioned in prose, alongside whatever other information is necessary to justify mentioning the price. Nifboy 05:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that prices should not be included unless it is notable in some way, such as being substantially cheaper or more expensive than other releases. As most games sell for similar prices, that can be mentioned on the console pages. --Scottie_theNerd 06:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think price should be included either. So far the only argument I could see for including prices is that someone wants to. I'd need a much more compelling reason as to why we need to include prices before I'd accept this. DarkSaber2k 08:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
What about Wii Points (and other point systems for downloads)? People argued in the past that it's encyclopedic because the point system remains the same for each game. But the fact of the matter: Wii Points are a price, and Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a price guide. I think this is a matter of people liking the points listed, so it remains on the articles. RobJ1981 20:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, by that argument, should we list score values enemies give you in old coin-op arcade games? They are still the same. I don't see how that's any different to this really. (Excuse my analogy, I'm tired). I agree that the only argument we seems to be getting is WP:ILIKEIT. DarkSaber2k 22:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
By retail price, do you mean the MSRP? A game will have 1 MSRP, but stores can vary on the actual price (Circuit City had the new Pokemon games for $28 instead of $35, for example). Also, retail prices and Wii Points are two different things, and a there was a vote 10-1 to KEEP Wii Points (although Rob is still complaining since he was the only one against them and he is pissed off that nobody agreed with him). TJ Spyke 21:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the discussion here is proving that your 10 man 'consensus' is not the be all and end all of this debate. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Wii points are a currency, you have to trade real world currency into virtual currenct, just as you would change a dollar to a pound. You then exchange that currency for a product (I.E. You give your Wii points in exchange for a game, just as you exchange your dollars for a game in a high street retailer, the only difference is the medium through which this is conducted.) DarkSaber2k 22:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This issue here, and the Wii Points issue are not closely intertwined. Please keep the discussions to their relative positions. I think including pricing information in articles is an absolutely ridiculous idea, not only do I not think they are entirely encyclopedic, but mostly because there will be different retail prices for each region unlike online point schemes, and that unlike points schemes, prices will not be consistent throughout the market during a product's life cycle. - hahnchen 23:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

New Video RPG template

I have been bold, I was tired of getting list in video Role playing games article, so i created a new nav box at template:Video RPG. It has no categories yet. I also suggest that the article Role-playing game (video games) is turned into an article instead of a disambig. Best regards and happy editing. Mads Angelbo Talk / Contribs 08:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Subprojects and talk page templates

Recently I've noticed that Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual novels removes the general WP:VG template from talk pages that they put their own on, under the justification that as a subproject of WP:VG, having both templates is redundant. As far as I know, they are the only subproject which does this. I've never actually seen a formal rule about this, so what are everyone else's thoughts? --PresN 15:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST (which has a bajillion task forces and keeps tally of individual workforce totals) uses both (for example, check out the catlist on Talk:World_War_II). It also removes article counts both from us and WP:ANIME. I'd rather use {{WikiProjectBanners}} or something similar. Nifboy 16:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Why would removing article count be a bad thing? The point of sub-projects and task forces is to divide up focused chunks of work, reducing the burden on the parent project. Even then, we can easily have the count updated to show sub-project counts as well. -- Ned Scott 18:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd rather not see any project's purview become "what hasn't already been taken"; it seems to make parent projects lose whatever focus they had. WP:COUNCIL is probably a better place to ask this question anyway. Nifboy 20:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
WP:TV and WP:ANIME have done this before, and it seems to work out fine. As long as the child project is linking back to the parent project when they can, then it should work out. -- Ned Scott 18:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Moving Template:Future game

I've started a discussion about moving Template:Future game to Template:Future video game. If you're interested, please have your say at Template talk:Future game#Requested move. Percy Snoodle 11:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Games that have multiple years for categories

Is this really needed? A good example is: Castlevania (video game). The game has been re-released quite a lot, so categories for each year it came out are listed. In my opinion, this is overcategorization and just making the bottom look like a cluttered mess. It's not helpful when the categories at the bottom gets so large and things seem un-important as there is so many cats overall. With the Virtual Console for the Wii re-releasing games, this problem is growing worse. I think the first year the game came out should be the only thing listed. So if it came out in 1986 originally, then that's all that should be listed for a year category. People can see in the infobox re-release years and so on, why clutter the cats at the bottom with it? RobJ1981 20:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

(continued as I didn't want just a large wall of text). This also includes release dates for USA, Europe and so on. If a game came out in 2 different years, then both years are listed. While this is fine, as it's 2 years... I think this should be discussed as well. I think it could be fine, if the original release year was the only thing listed for the category. RobJ1981 20:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, the original date should be used. It doesn't matter if it was released a year later in the US, or was released 10 years later for another console, the date the game was first released anywhere for any system is it's release date. Membership in a single release date category is sufficient. -- Slordak 20:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The response I give pretty much every time the topic comes up is "I'd rather not see Lemmings (video game) go back up to the top ten on Special:Mostcategories." Although I don't feel quite so strongly about it now, I still think that, unless we've got multiple, different games (not mere ports) in the same article (e.g. Shadow of the Beast), there's no need for more than one year. Nifboy 21:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Well we have a lot of work to do then. Not counting the Virtual Console re-releases: there is plenty of games that have at least 2 release dates, due to country. I'm tempted to start today, but I will wait to see what a few others think first. RobJ1981 00:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
You guys are right, this is something I absolutely hate. There should be one dated category per article, the year of when the game was released anywhere in the world. Any further release data (ports, re-releases etc) should be expressed in the article, whether in the infobox or table. - hahnchen 19:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm starting today to go through articles. If anyone wants to help: a good start is games listed in these articles- List of Virtual Console games (North America), List of Virtual Console games (Europe), List of Virtual Console games (Australia) and List of Virtual Console games (Japan). Besides those: it's a good percent of articles, as years differ by country a lot of the time. Also: I suppose it could be fine if 2 years are on sometimes for video game/arcade. In the case of Donkey Kong (video game), I left 1981 arcade and 1982 video game cat on it when I removed the others. RobJ1981 21:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • COMMENT - Can we get more input into this issue? There are others who don't seem to agree with this, as can be seen at the edit history The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past. I personally think that the reader should be able to look through a category and see all the games that were born in that year. If I see Donkey Kong (video game) in a category, it should be the 1981 arcade or 1982 video game category, there shouldn't be one for every port/localisation/remake of the game. It really has no place in the 2006 video games category (Virtual Console release). - hahnchen 22:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Has this been revolved? I want to archive up to the Wii points convo, but I won't if people want more input here. — Deckiller 17:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

My two pen'th. As far as categories go I think it should be one year and one year only. The year it was born regardless of where. It doesn't sit right with me that a game can be in multiple years and seems even odder that one of those years can now be 20 years + after the others. - X201 18:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

A Link to the Past is a game released in 1991 and 1992. Under the logic presented, we could remove all year categories because all years are presented in the Infobox. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Lots of games were released in several years for various reasons (ports, re-releases, country, etc). I don't think we need to overcategorize just to show this. The infobox clearly has the correct information, the original release year category is all that is needed. RobJ1981 04:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Why does that argument not apply to the original release? If the following releases being in the infobox means that they don't need categories, then why isn't this true for the original release? Categories are for categorizing games based on what kind of games they are. If the 1992 video games category is about games released in 1992, then why not add LttP? Is it not a game released in 1992?
You may either answer that LttP was released in 1991 and 1992. If you say that it wasn't, then you are incorrect. If you say that it is, then that means that it falls under the 1992 category. It's not like it's redundant information. It's in the Zelda category, even though it's painfully obvious that it's a Zelda game by its title. It's in the SNES category, even though the infobox says so. There's no such thing as a category being redundant to the content of the article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, look at Tetris. That seems pretty cluttered, category-wise - but to remove any of the system categories would be incorrect to do so. Even worse on Pac-Man. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Er..? I think you're missing the point of what Rob was suggesting. Rob was talking about removing the Year X in Video Games tags, not the system tags. Look at this version of the Castlevania article [1] It has eight 'Year X in Video Games categories attached to it. Rob was suggesting that articles with multiple year categories should only have one Year in Video Games category and that should be the original year of release. - X201 09:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
He may have been suggesting only for the removal of the year categories. Even though the logic to remove console templates is about the same as the logic to remove year templates. Are you saying that even though A Link to the Past never came out in Europe in 1991, that is the only original release date? I don't think excess of categories is a good reason to arbitrarily decide what should stay. I'm sure we won't decide that Tetris and Pac-Man will only have a category for its original system, but then again, I was sure we wouldn't decide that we shouldn't include valid categories. I just hope we don't decide to remove information on the gameplay mechanics for the sake of making it one paragraph shorter. - A Link to the Past (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Look at it from another angle. Music. Are you saying that Sgt. Pepper should have years listed for the original vinyl release and the CD release and the Minidisc release and the iTunes release not to mention all of the other re-mastered releases? Wikiproject Music list it once in it's year of release, and that's all. Or Biographies. It's like listing multiple birth years for a person each time they enter a new country. Imagine my dad's Wikipedia biography, he would have both People Born in 1932 and People born in 2003 at the bottom of his page because it took him 71 years to go on holiday in another country. - X201 15:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

For every other aspect of the arts, be it film/music/literature, we do not categorise it by every republishing date. That Shaolin Soccer took 3 years to reach Western audiences doesn't mean it is categorised for every different release date. The reader should look through the year category to see a list of games which first saw the light of day in that particular year. Categorising every re-release just clogs up the categories and the articles themselves for no benefit. - hahnchen 17:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't matter. Like I said:
  1. Categories cannot be redundant to content
  2. ALttP verifiably was released in those years, and the categories do not say "games which were first released in this year"
  3. Years are just as important as consoles, and yet Pac-Man is so unbelievably cluttered with them. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
It does matter. What the categories "say" can be changed, although it is largely irrelevant. The Film categories do state that it is when it was originally released, the Print and Music ones don't, but the same rule applies. Games should fall under similar categorisation rules as the rest of the arts. I don't think that dates of republication are as important as the systems they appeared on. When one visits the console games category, they expect to see the entire software library available to it, not just the exclusives. This is unlike when a reader visits the date category, in which the expect to see the list of games originally published in that year. - hahnchen 19:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
A European gamer will look for the 1992 cat. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with what Hahnchen said especially the last point. When I go to a year category I expect to see games that are contemporary with one another. But what has happened in the 2007 category is that as well as games from 2007 it has had Virtual Console games that are up to a quarter of a century older in there as well. - X201 22:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I reiterate - a European gamer will look for a 1992 cat. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
That's too bloody bad, and yes, I am a "European" gamer. More accurately, I am a New Zealand gamer. Would I go for the 1993 category? Would an Indian gamer go for the 1994 category? You can call it a straw man argument, but the dilemma is clear. Perhaps it would be a better idea to rename the category to imply the video game was INTRODUCED at the date. --Teggles 03:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm all for renaming the category but it needs clear language 'Original year of release'. Introduced is almost a synonym for published. - X201 10:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no need to rename the categories at all, let's keep it as with the other arts, though we could change the text on the category page itself to specify that. A European (such as myself) is not likely to search the 1992 category for a specific game, but more likely to find all the games introduced in that year. - hahnchen 10:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Didn't mean rename category. Was talking about the text on the category page. Although I still think something like "Introduced" is open to interpretation. "it was introduced in Japan in 2005 and Europe in 2007" - X201 11:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Re-iterating doesn't address the points of the discussion, it's not just about LttP it's about Virtual Console re-releases, mobile phone re-releases and all other changes of format. What if the encyclopaedia user isn't a gamer and doesn't know the year? What if they were looking at a year category via a 2007 game, are we being fair to them that they get a list of 20 year old games in the 2007 category? The video game year category should fall into line with Film/TV and all other Wikipedia arts categories, one category entry per article (with exceptions for re-releases with major alterations/additions) and that entry is the original year of release in one location only. - X201 10:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I have put an explanation and a link to this debate on Wikipedia talk:Categorization so that we can hopefully get some non-video game fan viewpoints. - X201 11:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you remember, or are aware of, how Category:Arcade games by year got deleted after no one objected to it? The discussion here linked from there is now at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/archive23#The arcade categories. (I just noticed that its subcategories were not deleted, merely categorized under the respective category of video games by year like in this edit, so the delete and merge wasn't completed at all. While I ask the closing admin about it, does anyone oppose the delete and merge?)
Anyway, the point is that "by year" categories shouldn't be so specific that it overlaps with type of video game, platform, or nationality. It'd be overdoing it to have "video games released in 2001", "video games released in Europe in 2001", "video games released in Europe on PlayStation 2 in 2001", etc. This doesn't look like the contested format, but it's essentially the same because every year categorized has some region/platform associated with it, just without those extra words. If categories were really powerful tools, then people can search as specific as they like, but for now they shouldn't be able to because these create clutter and confusion at the bottom of articles. Having both "2001 video games" and "2002 video games" at the bottom is unclear, and expanding the category names would create problems and debates about the level of detail they should dwell into). –Pomte 01:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Update: To see this through, I'm going to have to nominate a merge for Category:1971 arcade games to Category:1971 video games and so on, for all the years. Now, before I go ahead and tag 32 categories, are there any serious objections? –Pomte 19:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I have no objection. Arcade is basically a platform, a specialised platform granted, but in the end it's just a way of playing a video game and as such doesn't deserve to have it's own year category. - X201 10:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Extra Column

I've put an extra column on the project page in the Task Forces section to stop the second column of the task force crashing into the category box on the right hand side of the screen. I know peoples screens are set to various resolutions and changes like this have various effects, if this change has an massively adverse affect then drop a line here and we'll try and find a solution that suits everyone. - X201 09:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it fixes the problem I was having on my widescreen monitor with the boxes, thank you! --PresN 16:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Wii Points: to list or to not list?

In case people don't know: Wii Points are bought with money to download Virtual Console games for the Nintendo Wii console. The prices of games stay the same (but who is to say they will never change?). Due to this fact of "constant never-changing price", people refuse to have it be deleted from article. I'm still against it, and it's certainly not encyclopedic. List of Virtual Console games (North America) is just one of several pages that lists the Wii Points cost for each game. Why should Wikipedia be a price guide? Here is the past discussion: Talk:List of Virtual Console games (North America)#Wii Points doesn't need to be listed. A survey follows it with a 10 to 0 vote to keep the cruft. Considering the vote happened for 2 days and people assumed it was done, nothing was done with the points and they remained on the article. RobJ1981 22:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Just let it go Rob. You don't want them listed, you made that clear. The vote however showed that you are alone on this. It is encyclopedic and important to the article. Nothing has change since last month when you requested it. TJ Spyke 22:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to let it go. 10 people don't decide what is in an article. Read the above retail price section on this talk page: others are against prices. Wii Points prices isn't much different than retail (except for the fact it's a constant price... for now at least). It's fancruft, and not encyclopedic. Put it on a Nintendo Wiki, leave it off this one. RobJ1981 22:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
No one but you were against it. Complaining over and over until you get your way is very imature, and not something I expected from you. TJ Spyke 20:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
List -- the Xbox Live Arcade article shows how many points those games cost as well. The points cost for these games is a way to gauge their relative popularity and value compared to other games ported from the same console. For example, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles costs more than any other game for the same console. I don't see how this information violates any Wikipedia guidelines. -- MisterHand 22:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Are you saying that Xbox Live points should be included, or Wii points should be included because Xbox Live ones are? DarkSaber2k 08:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, both should be included. But if the Wii points are removed, the Xbox ones should be as well. -- MisterHand 14:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I absolutely agree both should be removed. DarkSaber2k 14:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
List-- For the same reasons given LAST time this was put to a vote. Why are we even bothering to do this a second time? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thores (talkcontribs) 09:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
Don't List As I said in the retail price discussion, no compelling argument has been presented for inclusion. Wikipedia is not a price guide of any aort or for any currency, and WP:ILIKEIT is the only reason I'm seeing for inclusing it. The reason we are going through thisagain is becuase it is readily apparant that despite a 10-0 vote on the Wii page, the issue doesn't seem to have been thrown to a wider group and consensus is clearly not there as numerous are objecting to the inclusion of any prices or points totals.DarkSaber2k 09:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
List - Same arguments as last time (e.g. useful information, does not vary over time unlike retail prices, is currency independent, etc.). Please see the archive for details. -- Slordak 12:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
So by that logic, we can add patently unencyclopedic information like scores different enemies in arcade games give you? That's also useful, doesn't vary over time and is currency/country independent. DarkSaber2k 13:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Eh? You're saying you don't think the price of a game (in points) is useful information? It's certainly verifiable and able to be cited from sources. It's something people care about, it's not "crufty" or only of interest to those who are deeply involved with the game, and helps define that a game is a "value" title (rather than a full-priced retail title). -- Slordak 14:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's crufty and it's only going to be of interest to people who already own a Wii, and are therefore able to look up the prices themselves. Why would someone who doesn't own a Wii be interested in how much it costs to download a game they can't play for a system they don't own? As for the price of a game being useful information, please remember that Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. Your arguing we should include because it's useful and interesting, and still can't provide a more solid reason for inclusion. DarkSaber2k 14:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
When a site such as IGN reviews an Xbox Live Arcade game, they list the price within the review. In contrast, when they review a retail game, they don't mention the price unless it's notable in some way, e.g. MSRP is $20 when games for that platform are usually $60. They do this because it helps to provide perspective for their review, "It's a good game... For $10", rather than "It's a good game, completely independent of price". Wikipedia isn't in the business of reviewing games, but Wikipedia is here to provide details about various subjects. If a game sells for the standard retail price, then there's obviously nothing to mention, but if a game is a value priced title, this bears mentioning. If one can only say "is targeted at the value segment" or "is positioned as a value title" but is not allowed to state that price, it makes the article less informative. By logical extension of your argument above, the majority of video game topics are "crufty" because they're only interesting to gamers, so most of WP:CVG should be deleted. -- Slordak 14:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

(resetting indent) So your moving from WP:ILIKEIT to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS? Stick to arguing about Wii points and there encyclopedic value please. We are not reviewing the whole of CVG project, just Wii points. If you have a problem with other articles, I suggest you go deal with them. You have also argued yourself into a corner. A casual glance at the list reveals that 500 points is a NORMAL retail price for the games. Practically every game is priced at 500 points, so what's so notable about that? You've already said regular shop prices for games are not included because they are usually the same. The same applies here. VC points are in 99% of the time exactly the same. DarkSaber2k 14:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see that we're not going to change each other's minds through this discussion. My point was that game articles have lots of information in them, not all of which is of interest to all viewers. The fact that every GameCube article states that the game comes on a GameCube disc (over in the infobox) is redundant, and yet I don't lobby to have it deleted. Your stance is what I term that of a deletionist, someone who would delete all content on Wikipedia that can't be "proven" to be encyclopedic to all viewers. Since this is a subjective standard, the intersection of topics from all deletionists, if allowed to have their way, eventually will yield an empty encyclopedia. -- Slordak 14:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
If we can stick to remaining on topic, and not devolve into name-calling and issue dodging (again, we are discussing Wii points, not Gamecube game formats, and besides, the various Lists of console games don't list the media format that's game on, e.g. It doesn't say 'DVD' after each and every entry on List of PlayStation 2 games) that would be great. The only time the price changes is with desired console. So at best all that's needed is a sentence that say 'N64 games cost 1000 points each'. There certainly isn't a need to actually list that value 4 times one after the other. (or more times in the case of the other consoles.) Now, do you have reply in response to what I have said, or is it still pretty much based on ILIKEIT arguments, and my editing personality? Remember, your supposed to comment on content, not editors. DarkSaber2k 14:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Are we talking only about the list, or about the individual game articles? If every Wii virtual console game had the same pricing, then yes, I can reasonably see removing this information from the list. The problem is that we start to wind up with exceptions, e.g. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, which have to be noted separately. After some time passes, we have multiple exceptions, and thus we're better served by having the price of each captured separately (rather than have a long paragraph about what costs more or less). In the individual game articles, this is a key distinguishing feature and worth a sentence. I don't know how else to "prove" notability other than to say that other users find it useful (based on previous votes), review sites regularly contain this information, and that folks make their decision whether to purchase an Xbox Live Arcade game based in part on price vs. perceived value (see Lumines Live!). -- Slordak 15:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I count two games that are different from the standard price. At this time, to say there ARE going to more is just predicting the future. I agree that if a game is differently priced from the norm, then a sentence noting as such in the games individual article is perfectly acceptable. But to list the price '500' 25 times just because the 26th price differs is ridiculous, becuase by the logic of not listing standardised pricing, ONLY the 26th price shuld be mentioned because it is different from the norm. You said yourself that shop prices aren't listed because they are nearly always the same. So why should a virtual shops prices be held to a different criteria? DarkSaber2k 15:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't List per DarkSaber2k's arguments. Kariteh 14:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • List This was already decided on the talkpage, so this who section is moot. Why do I think that if the request fails, Rob is just gonna be complaining again in the future? Rob, take a look at WP:IDONTLIKEIT. My opinions were already expressed in the discussion where everyone (except Rob) agreed that the prices are a very important part of the service and should be included. TJ Spyke 20:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how prices [in this context] are encyclopedic. Whether they are currency independant (It's really more like a separate currency that most people are unfamilar with) or "useful" is not really important. Prices are borderline directory-style information. Prices are or should be easily accessible from one or more external links. If they are not accessible from an external link, they should probably not be included then as they would fail WP:V and WP:RS. Also "This was already decided on the talkpage, so this who section is moot" is very poor reasoning as the only "decision" on the talk page was a couple days of indecisive discussion and a 9 hour poll of 10 users, with most users giving a WP:ILIKEIT or WP:USEFUL reasoning. Polling is not a substitute for discussion. The information is much better put into a gaming wiki or left on other external sites. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC) edited to make less of a blanket statement 22:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It was not a "9 hour poll", people just stopped voting after a day. The poll was never closed, someone just posted what the current consenus was, not the final consensus (people could continue to vote). So, the poll has actually been open for over a month. TJ Spyke 23:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I keep seeing the phrase "prices aren't encyclopedic". So I did a quick search on a random, but established product: the Ford Model T. Both the online article at Wikipedia and Britannica included information about the price. -- MisterHand 21:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The Model T is famous partially for being one of the first affordable passenger cars. The price, which hasn't changed recently (except for the inflation adjusted one which needs to be updated or removed) is quite relevant there. Note that Chevrolet Nova does not include a price. Neither does Buick LaCrosse which is currently in production. This is also a variation on the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Not at all. I'm just pointing out that the blanket statement "prices aren't encyclopedic" isn't true. Prices CAN be encyclopedic. Of course, it doesn't follow that Wii points are encyclopedic -- although I think they are, for reasons stated above. -- MisterHand 22:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
        • The reason you stated above was that they should be listed because Xbox Live marketplace points are listed wasn't it? DarkSaber2k 22:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Z-man, you do realize that one of the reasons those cars don't have it is because none of them have set prices? Car prices vary by dealership (and even individual cardealers). Virtual Consoles don't fluctuate like that (except for Genesis games starting at 600 in Japan and 800 everywhere else). TJ Spyke 23:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
            • Cars still have an MSRP, which is usually the advertised price. Some very expensive cars (see Lamborghini Murciélago) do include base prices on their articles as these are known for their high cost. And as I said before, the reason Ford Model T does include prices is not because they don't change but because the cost is, like the Lamborghini, part of the fame of the car. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
          • All I was stating above is that we should be consistent, one way or the other. I do find it curious, however, that Wii points are being attacked again and again whereas Xbox Live points are getting a free ride. Perhaps this debate shouldn't be about Wii points, but all video game points listings? -- MisterHand 12:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
            • Lets not confuse the issue by introducing new elements this late. The discussion is already well under way for Wii points. Either starting a new but seperate debate, or waiting until the conclusion of this one would be better than trying to introduce it to this. If Wii points are kept then there isn't an issue with Xbox points, and if the decision is to remove them the we have a precedent that can be applied to XBox points. DarkSaber2k 13:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
What do you think, should I find some admins to rule on this? Because at this rate: it's just going to be a constant arguement with no end in sight. Also this section isn't moot (as TJ Spyke claimed): the talk page discussion in the past doesn't control and determine that "forever we will list Wii Points" in the article. I don't think ANY discussion can do that, so using that as an excuse to end this, isn't going to work. RobJ1981 22:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
If that happens, I would like any admin to note that no reason has been presented to really delete it (other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT and that a poll started over a month ago on the talkpage resulted in only 1 person (Rob) opposing including them. I want to assume good faith, but Rob, you have admitted you are not going to give up on this (even though it looks like once again the general opinion will be to include them). If this is an issue, then why has no one objected to Xbox Live Arcade prices being included for the past few years? TJ Spyke 23:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
That's funny, I could have sworn I agreed with MisterHand that XBox live points should be removed earlier in this debate. And once again the only thing your saying is if x is on wiki, then y should remain also. And I think an admin should preside over this, not some straw poll kangaroo court. And TJ, pretty sure WP:NOT indiscriminate information, price guide and shopping directory is fairly valid reason for removal. And has been stated numerous times. DarkSaber2k 23:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
"a poll started over a month ago on the talkpage resulted in only 1 person (Rob) opposing including them." - Consensus can change. As of now, there are 4 users favoring inclusion and 4 users (including myself) that are advocating removal. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't List - As many have stated above having the amount of Wii points needed to purchase a game is silly and unencyclopedic. The prices for the games would be around the same and provide no important information to an encyclopedia as people who own Wii's already know and people who don't own them don't need to know and the point Xbox Live Arcade has the same thing is no excuse as we have the same debate over it as well. Xtreme racer 23:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't List The points are the same for all games on the same system, its pointless listing them for each individual game when theyr'e the same. If the price varied, I could understand it, but it doesnt. Mattyatty 17:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Check the list again. The price does vary. -- MisterHand 18:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Never heard of the furor over the price of Lumines Live!? (the first XBLA360 game to cost 1200 points) Yes, they definitely vary. --Interiot 19:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Games do vary in price, but so what? Regular console games vary all the time: and I've seen no one trying to mass add prices to the regular console game articles. Download games shouldn't be an exception, period. Prices varying, doesn't mean we need a price guide to show it. Lots of things vary in price, that doesn't mean it should be listed. Examples: CDs, DVDs, etc. Walmart is known to sell for less, as are other stores. Does that mean we need a list of DVD prices for stores to show Walmart has the cheapest? I don't think so. There is websites on the internet that do that already, an encyclopedia shouldn't be used for that. Both the Wii Points and Xbox Live points are certainly showing games vary in price, and is a comparision and price guide. I'm sure there is video game sites that list it: put it in the external links and that should solve things. I get tired of people thinking Wikipedia must have everything they want, even if it clearly violates guidelines and policies. RobJ1981 19:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Which guidelines and policies does this violate, exactly? -- MisterHand 19:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Alot of the people wanting it (due to just liking it, and thinking it's "useful"), violates: WP:ILIKEIT. Also as DarkSaber stated above: WP:NOT indiscriminate information, price guide and shopping directory is fairly valid reason for removal. That's certainly enough to have this information removed. Aren't articles supposed to appeal to everyone? I highly doubt anyone cares about the points, except for people that want to download the games. It's much better suited for a personal website, video game website or a fan wiki possibly. RobJ1981 20:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
It's not a price guide, and there is nowhere on WP:NOT that says that anyways (unless you are talking about the travel guide, but that says not to list the price of something at a cafe an article about Paris). How is this any different than the article on the Whopper listing the ingredients (which makes up half the article)? Rob, since this isn't indiscriminate information (the prices are a large part of the service), it doesn't violate WP:NOT. TJ Spyke 21:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:ILIKEIT is an essay, not a guideline or policy. And there is nothing in WP:NOT that explicitly mentions prices. So I fail to see how this column "clearly violates guidelines and policies". What I do see is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- MisterHand 21:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Are there any external sources to verify all the prices? If not, they fail WP:V and WP:RS. If there are, then we don't need to include them here as people can easily look them up on a video game website that is more suited for things like that. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Nice try, but you are trying to make it so the points go no matter what. If there are no sources, they get deleted for no sources. If there are, they get removed because someone else has them. You do realize your logic could be applied to every single thing on Wikipedia? TJ Spyke 21:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. If that argument is followed to its logical conclusion, we should delete ALL information in Wikipedia. -- MisterHand 21:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Did I say to apply this to everything? No, I meant that only for this debate, not as a blanket statement for everthing. This is dodging the question; do sources exist? Wikipedia is a collection of encyclopedic information, not a collection of all information. I never said that just because anything is listed on an external source it should not be here, what I meant is that trivial, repeated information that only people with a Wii would care about should be left to specialized sites, not a general knowledge website. Note the "more suited for things like that" part of my comment above. What I meant is that if people want to see prices in Wii points, and there is a website that gives them, a link appearing as Wii point prices or something like that is much better than filling up articles with them. Would I suggest since the infomation in Wii is avaiable on external sources, the information here should be deleted, no, the article is a collection of info from various sources and the article provides context to other articles (as do most 1 source articles). Wii point prices should all be available on 1 source but the prices do not complement anything else here (1 or 2 examples might be appropriate on Wii points). The more I think about it, the more I think they are indiscriminate information. Wii points are basically the price of a game at one particular "store" but they have no meaning to people that don't own a Wii. Currency values can be easily converted(48 USD in ILS) but Wii points are a little harder as different areas seem to have different values of Wii points (They cost more in Europe than in the US). Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 22:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the key is that prices shouldn't be listed, i.e. without any further explanation. If it's relevant, it'll be mentioned in prose, alongside whatever other information is necessary to justify mentioning the price. Nifboy 05:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC) (Yes, that's the correct date; it's a duplicate of a comment I made about listing prices in general above. Nifboy 21:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC))

I suppose some of the info on the Virtual Console and Wii Points pages can be copied and added. TJ Spyke 21:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
This also seems like an "all or nothing" situation. Why are Wii Points being targeted when both List of PlayStation Network games and Xbox Live Arcade list prices? Either they all should or none should (in which case you should invite the contributors to those articles to participate here). Also, there is a much greater variety in Virtual Console prices in Japan (see List of Virtual Console games (Japan). TJ Spyke 21:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't List: It looks like every system has a specific price: NES 500, SNES 800, N64 1000 etc. I have found two games that don't follow this pattern. It is more logical, less redundant and tidier just to say "Nintendo Entertain System games are priced 500 Wii Points, although Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is sold for 600 Wii Points". This could even be changed just to say there are some not sold for 500. I think it is encyclopedic to discuss prices, but it is unnecessary to list every price when most are identical. --Teggles 04:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't disagree with this approach (listing the base prices and noting the exceptions), but to me it seems a little more clumsy, since it would require some extra prose in the article, whereas the current format only requires an extra column on an already-existing table. -- MisterHand 20:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

not sure:(closer to list)(see below) I've read through this discussion and seen Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions being citied more than several times. The idea is you outline your arguments in a clear and concise manner. We all did that; we disagreed. When that failed, people began discussing, and citing this began. This essay was meant to help introduce your point, but it seems all the valid points have already been raised, so things "to avoid" started on both sides. I've also seen that this has been called unencyclopedic based on WP:NOT#IINFO. Possibly the closest thing is statistics, which point out that lots of statistics are confusing. I don't really see this; perhaps it is not a game guide, but this is prices for games, not how to complete level four without losing any damage. I've seen people citing reliable sources policy. If reliable sources can be found (with something like this they probably could), then we should add them and not be sloths.

I also see a valid point in simply adding a line of text that says "all the x's cost this amount except for this." I've seen people saying it might change. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball (do I need to cite this?), so copy the text of the points amount and keep them on your computer until a time comes (if it ever does) when there are so many different priced games that a paragraph becomes impractical and confusing. I think it really boils down to what each person feels and decides which side has more compelling answers, and I'm not thrilled with either one. Another argument is that there already was a poll about consensus. Since (citing again? Oh the irony) WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY we can always re-open the discussion (which we did). To say "a consensus was reached before the end" doesn't do justice to the fact that there are people disagreeing with certain aspects of the problem. I've really worked myself up onto a soapbox, so I'll back down and see if a valid point changes my mind and swings me one way or the other. Sorry for the long vote that doesn't even commit.--Clyde (talk) 05:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why you are "closer to list" when you haven't brought up any points to keeping them, but have brought up points to removing them. --Teggles 06:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I am closer to list because I really have no extreme feelings one way or the other, I am simply looking at the arguments. Many of the arguments of don't list are citing that essay or the WP:NOT guideline. I am frustrated by the "don't list" supporters who are citing that; their arguments seem just as thin as the list people (as I mentioned in the first paragraph). There is no clear cut answer, no guideline, and no previous discussion. I also have considered the possibility of a casual reader wanting this. Possibly looking at the different point values across the globe, comparing point values, or maybe wants to get a Wii and see what they can buy once they get one; we don't know. We can hypothesize all day long about what the "casual reader" would want, since they're not here. The problem is I haven't found a good argument to glom onto (yet) and say "this makes sense", so I really don't know.--Clyde (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I think this needs an arbitrary section break. Maybe more.
I'm changing to don't list as long as points are removed from every console article. I know that may not be being discussed, but it is certainly next (as long as the other consoles are in a similar situation). Does anyone disagree? Really the listers are citing "XBox point charts exist" "we already voted" and "I like it". The delisters are saying "no one proved otherwise" "per someone" and "unnecessary" (in their opinion). It's hard to find a solid reason, but I'll go with listcruft, no reliable sources, unencyclopedic, and the information can be simplified to one paragraph. At least until there are more exceptions to the pricing where a chart becomes necessary, I'm sticking with my vote.--Clyde (talk) 22:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, if you want reliable sources, Nintendo's press releases on could be cited for every single release that's been put out. It's true that the information could be simplified to one paragraph, though. It just seems like it'd be more annoying to list the exceptions, especially as time goes on and there inevitably ends up being some more. But I suppose "it's annoying" isn't really a powerful argument not to do something around here. --Bishop2 15:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

List - Unlike most video game prices, Wii points are consistent nationwide. While your average store can change the SRP of a game, the Wii Shop Channel will always be standardized. And when games actually DO deviate from established pricing... such as in the case of R-Type for TG-16 or TMNT for NES... that's useful and informative in how it implies the differences in those titles. Granted, we could just mention this oddity in the Wiki entries for those specific games... but if we don't list the prices for every game, we're going to have to at least mention the standarized prices anyway (in order to best explain how Nintendo has set up their online shopping system and differentiated between console titles) followed by a list of exceptions. At that point, cripes, we damn well SHOULD be listing, obviously. So just keep it for all of these reasons. --Bishop2 09:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)'s just easier to mention the outliers on the page. No need for a list, or to place it on the respective article. --Teggles 10:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
They're consistent worldwide (I hope) but they are in a currency that most people (except those who own a Wii) are unfamiliar with. Wii points don't follow standard exchange rates either, making them cost more in some countries than others. 100 points is 1 USD and 1 EUR. But, 1 USD is not 1 EUR. As far as I know, there is no easy way to convert them into real currency except using a chart like on Wii points which only lists 11 currencies. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 04:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
They're actually not consistent worldwide. Go ahead and check the list of virtual console games in Japan, too. Point totals there are pretty wildly different from North America's - many games are arbritarily given a higher point cost simply because they're more popular, apparently. --Bishop2 13:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
If they are not consistent worldwide that's even more reason not to list them. Giving USA only prices is a tad US-centric. Mr.Z-man
Only U.S. prices are listed because this is the NORTH AMERICAN Virtual Console list. if you want to see the prices for other regions, you'll notice that their point cost is mentioned on all of their specific pages - there's a page for Australian releases, European release and also one for Japanese releases. So don't worry. It's consistent across the board. --Bishop2 14:21, 9 May 2007
List - just like the Microsoft Points are listed on Xbox Live Arcade list of games. No brainer. --Oscarthecat 10:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Also, the prices vastly differ for Xbox Live Arcade, but Wii Points are almost all the same. I'm guessing "no brainer" refers to the fact you didn't think about it at all. --Teggles 11:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
The prices need sources, otherwise it's unsourced (yet another reason they should be deleted). Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ongoing_issue_that_needs_to_be_resolved has a few responses on this matter. As mentioned before by Teggles: This could even be changed just to say there are some not sold for 500. I think it is encyclopedic to discuss prices, but it is unnecessary to list every price when most are identical. I think that's a possible route this could go, as every identical price is both redundant and makes the article a price guide. Wikipedia (encyclopedia) shouldn't be used as a price guide (constant price or not), why is that hard to understand? RobJ1981 17:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
The article is not a price guide. The Wii Point cost is simply one more fact in a collection of factual information about the Shop Channel. It's more of a list of available titles than a price guide. If it's a price guide, than it's just as equally an "ESRB ratings guide," which it still isn't. --Bishop2 13:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
You could call it an "ESRB ratings guide", but that's not against policy. Furthermore, that is not the base of the argument. It doesn't matter if it's a price guide or not. The key point is that the prices are near all the same. It much more logical simply to mention their price in text at the start, and bring up the outliers. --Teggles 04:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with the above statement by Teggles; as I mentioned in the discussion for the article in question, prices don't need to be listed for each game, but special exceptions to that normal price should be noted. --PeanutCheeseBar 22:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I already mentioned: that method would be fine. A general price per system (on the Virtual Console) is fine, with the exceptions noted. But I simply think people would be against that, TJ Spyke is clearly for just leaving the article alone, as are others. RobJ1981 22:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I also agree Rob, I'd also stated that I'd be happy with the general prices being mentioned in actual words in a general overview, with the 2 actual variations in pricing being mentioned in the individual product articles. But I think that we should put this discussion on hold until the debate over at WP:NOT has reached some sort of conclusion, since the outcome of it will most definitly be relevent here. It'd be pointless for us reach a consensus here, only to have the Policy discussion go the other way and render this whole discussion pointless! DarkSaber2k 22:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The North American VC games list is usually in the list of the most viewed pages on the English Wikipedia (top 400 this month, if my memory serves me correctly). I'd imagine that many people are looking up what games are being released, how much they cost, etc. Undoubtedly it is useful information - I don't think anyone's going to argue on that point. However, is it encyclopedic? (wiktionary def: "having a comprehensive scope, especially of information or knowledge") Well, that's rather subjective. My two cents - sourcing is not a problem, it's not against policy to include such information, and it seems like an important piece of information in order to provide a comprehensive overview of the subject matter. I'd err on the side of inclusion here. --- RockMFR 05:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Do not list. The fact that a Wii Point is equal to one dollar (or however many number of another kind of currency) pretty much puts it side-by-side with it. You're buying the VC games, you're spending Wii Points. Just because they don't call it currency doesn't mean that it's on a different level. That'd be like saying that how many "fun bucks" something costs at a notable amusement park can be stated on its article. Just because outside of the amusement park/Wii it has no relevance at all doesn't mean that it's not currency. - A Link to the Past (talk) 09:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Not list Same reason as ALttP above. Just because it has a "price" doesn't mean it has to be listed. Wikipedia doesn't list the price of Baked Beans or Car Tyres (or Car Tires for or NA friends). It doesn't list how many ride tokens the Dodgems at the theme park take. Wii points are a, on the whole, useless little fact and a pointless addition. - X201 10:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Related discussion at WP:NOT

Please see Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Not a sales catalogue or price guide, and add your opinions there. Thanks. Carcharoth 12:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The Tekken articles

The Tekken articles is not what I'm editing currently, but i'm noticing that nearly all of them have trivia sections. Since the Tekken series article is high priority, I'm was assuming there would be something done with the trivia sections in all articles. Someone needs to intergrate the trivia sections. I would do them myself, but I have too much to do. THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED! 16:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Ikegami developed Donkey Kong?

User:Dolnk-jp keeps adding Ikegami as a developer to the infobox on the Donkey Kong (video game) article. He or she has only cited this webpage as a source (and I'm not sure why we should trust it as reliable). None of the sources used to write the article mentions Ikegami at all, let alone as the game's developer. However, I'm hesitant to revert Dolnk-jp again unilaterally. Can anyone shed any light on this subject? If Dolnk-jp is out of line, can folks keep an eye on the article and revert his or her changes? Thanks, — Brian (talk) 12:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

According to this[2] page. There is the following text actually in the ROM chips of one of the Japanese versions. "CONGRATULATION !IF YOU ANALYSE DIFFICULT THIS PROGRAM,WE WOULD TEACH YOU.*****TEL.TOKYO-JAPAN 044(244)2151 EXTENTION 304 SYSTEM DESIGN IKEGAMI CO. LIM." So if they have their name in the ROM chips I'd say that puts them at the scene of the crime, although it doesn't make clear how much of the crime they committed. - X201 12:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
That Ikegami provided some code for Donkey Kong doesn't give them a slot into the Developer section in the infobox. Nintendo could have subcontracted out some work or used a codebase to build upon from Ikegami, that doesn't make them a developer. Many games use an iteration of the Unreal engine, but that doesn't mean we list epic as a developer do we. Unless we get some source explaining how much or little Ikegami input, then leave it out, the hidden ROM message is meaningless. - hahnchen 14:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

In 1980,Ikegami developed(also designed) arcade game called "Radar Scope",it sold by Nintendo.But the game almost remained unsold. Minoru Arakawa,President of NOA,wanted to the game sold-out.Hiroshi Yamauchi,President of Nintendo,orderd Shigeru Miyamoto to design a new game with "Rader Scope circuit board".Miyamoto designed stories,characters,and name of the game "Donkey Kong." Nintendo had owned the programming technology only a little,so Nintendo decided to make the game in cooperation with Ikegami who had the program technology.Ikegami wrote all codes of DK,and Ikegami sold 8000-20000 PCBs of DK to Nintendo.(but Nintendo copied 80000 DKs without permission)
There was no contract to offer "source code and program chart" of DK between Ikegami and Nintendo,so Nintendo had no souece code of DK.But Nintendo wanted to make sequel of DK.Nintendo decided Reverse engineering for binary of DK,so they made a game called "Donkey Kong Jr."
In 1983,Ikegami got angry at the violation of Nintendo of the copyright that we had,appealed for Nintendo, and claimed compensation for damages of 580000000 yen.
In 1990,they were reconciled outside court. However, the content was not open to the public.
On the other hand, Nintendo was admitted not to own the copyright of the program of DK in another trial(at Osaka district court,1990-3-29).

This article is sourced from 2005"Sore wa 'PONG' kara hajimatta (それは『ポン』から始まった)"(translation:This,the arcade game, is from 'PONG')by Masumi Akagi,President of Amusment Press corp.ISBN 4-9902512-0-2

Finally,this is COMMON SENSE of Japanese game geek--Dolnk-jp 12:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

If the above is true (that Ikegami actually did the entire of the coding) then I think that the article's developoment should be expanded to include that. It could really do with someone else who is fluent in Japanese and English looking through the sources though. - hahnchen 14:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree; it would have to rely on the Japanese-language sources, since, as I said, none of the English-language sources mention Ikegami. If I could get my hands on a copy of the article Dolnk-jp has mentioned, I could set about getting a translation. Any pointers on how to track it down would be appreciated, though (I am in Japan). — Brian (talk) 05:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
[3] this] is the book that contains the article Dolnk-jp mentions, by the way. — Brian (talk) 06:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Separate article for Nintendo DS remake of theme park?

Do you think it's a good idea for us to have a separate article for the Nintendo DS of Theme Park, separate from the main article?

Please contribute to the discussion at Talk:Theme Park (video game). (I believe this probably follows the same principle as other computer games, but would appreciate input). Thanks! Fourohfour 20:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Video game peer reviews needed

If someone has the time, Wild Arms (series) and Mana (series) have been listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review since late March with no comments. Pagrashtak 00:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Linking to StrategyWiki from game articles

As there is nothing in the VG guidelines regarding linking to external sites, I wish to raise an issue covered in this brief discussion. I would be interested in hearing comments from other project members and possibly include a clause in the guidelines that addresses this point. --Scottie_theNerd 14:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Read over the guidelines at WP:EL. Do these links meet those guidelines? -- MisterHand 14:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Under WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, linking to open wikis is not advised unless it contains a large number of contributors and is proven to be stable. Whether or not SW is stable is up to debate. I have little experience with SW, but my understanding is that there is no authoritative source on what SW puts up. --Scottie_theNerd 14:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • We NEED to link to other Wikis. It gives fans a clear place to go to dump their cruft. — Deckiller 14:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
That is not the purpose of External links. We link to StrategyWiki and other game Wikis from WP:VG. Should be link to every article on SW, considering that SW lacks the coverage that other sites have? --Scottie_theNerd 14:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I know the purpose of external links. One such purpose is "information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail". My comment was not necessarily geared toward StrategyWiki, but Wikias in general. For instance, an article on Star Wars vehicles can have an external link to the Vehicles category at Wookieepedia; Wikipedia should not have individual entires for each vehicle, so an external link to the place that covers such information in greater detail should be provided. As for StrategyWiki, I think it should only be used if it is has a database larger than any Wikia on the topic. — Deckiller 16:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Star Command: Revolution

I wasn't sure whether or not to put this under "New Articles," since it's not a new article, although if you check the history, it wasn't much of an article before I edited it today. So I won't put it there for now. Also, I'd appreciate any help I could get on this article, especially as the game has essentially been forgotten... --Temporarily Insane (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


I have been working on disambiguating links pointing to PC and was wondering how it should be handled on video games. Should they point to Personal_computer, IBM_PC_compatible or Windows. I think Windows is the best option, but wanted get some feedback. -- pb30<c.t> 16:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Depends on the game. Some games described as running on PCs run on MS-DOS, for example. Nifboy 18:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT Game Guide

I've been citing the game guide part of WP:NOT as an argument in various assessments and discussions for a long time now, and I know a lot of others do.

The sentence "Wikipedia is not a game guide" is explained only by two words in a list in WP:NOT - "Game guide". This seems a bit light for something very important to WikiProject Video Games. Has anyone written an essay explaining the ambiguity of "not a game guide" a bit? If not, is there interest in writing such an essay, whether in WP:VG space or elsewhere? (List of names!)

I just googled it, and I found Wikipedia:Game guide, which attempted to explain it. hbdragon88 19:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Also WP:CVG/GL#Scope of information. JACOPLANE • 2007-05-10 19:51

Zelda Oracle merge discussion

Should The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Ages be merged? Discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages. Pagrashtak 19:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems they have already been merged. Kariteh 19:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I was about to bring this up here as well, but until this is sorted out the FAC process is probably going to be on hold. I'll just summarise the arguments here:
Merge - The development history is the same. The plots are interlinked. Gameplay mechanics are largely the same. Reception is very similar. Merging would reduce redundant sections yet still present all the relevant information. The differences that would justify a merge are possibly cruft that should not be included. The merged article can contrast the games by presenting information on both side-by-side.
Don't Merge - While the plots are interlinked, they can also standalone. Unlike Pokemon Red/Blue/Yellow, the locations, characters, items are completely different. One game focuses more on action, the other on puzzles. Some assert that merging would obfuscate information on the separate games.
- hahnchen 19:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Merging doesn't obfuscate anything. If anything, if facilitates contrasting the two games. Pagrashtak 19:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not championing any particular argument, just stating the arguments that have been made. - hahnchen 20:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, it was stated as a fact. Changed the wording. Pagrashtak 20:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's the background for those who don't know: I started working on these articles because I hadn't done any work for a featured article in quite a while, and these two were in poor shape. I started with the Development section first, since these two have a very interesting history. As I was writing, I realized that since the two games were developed simultaneously, their development histories would be identical. I considered merging, but the articles were in such an early stage that it was hard to say for sure if it would be the best option. I worked everything in parallel; the plot section was the only section with significant differences. I submitted to GA and peer review; the articles passed GA, reviewed by two different editors at two different times, but the peer review got little to no response. I decided to proceed with FAC. I received objections based on the redundancy between the two articles. I left the comments alone for a little while, then proceeded to merge. The merged article got several supports, then A Link to the Past reverted the merge and we're discussing it now. Pagrashtak 20:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching the FAC discussion and the developments to the article(s). At first I thought that a merge wouldn't be a good idea (due to the differences between the games), but the result seems to have been a good one. --- RockMFR 20:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought the same thing. Together, the content is much stronger, succinct, and even more comprehensive in some ways. Just because technically the articles "deserve" seperate articles doesn't mean we have to give it to them. After all, we aren't a shrine to notability and things "deserving an article"; Wikipedia is meant to provide a succinct and general overview of topics. — Deckiller 20:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Oracle of Ages/Seasons appears to be just like the regular Pokémon games, and those articles are always been togther; i.e. Pokémon Red and Blue, Diamond and Pearl. I see that Kicking222 feels the same way. hbdragon88 22:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

They're not like the Pokemon games, in the sense that they have different (but connected) storylines, whereas the plot in Pokemon games is the same. The argument for merging the two articles together though, is presented at the FAC or above. - hahnchen 23:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge - The plots may not be identical, but they are incredibly similar. We have plenty of articles on Wikipedia that include games and their multiple sequels in lieu of separate articles when there's not enough unique information about each one, and I think that applies for two games with identical or very similar developments, plot, gameplay, and reception. The merged article is excellent, and in no way is confusing about having 2 games in one article. --PresN 02:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Merging seems the most sensible solution. Why have two articles that say practically the same thing simply because Nintendo wanted to make an extra buck? Let's not make things any more complicated for ourselves than they need to be. The arguments above and on the FAC page for merging are far more convincing than those for keeping the articles separate. — Brian (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Extra buck? They made two original games using the same gameplay mechanics. Also, don't merge. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
You seem to have missed the point. The gameplay is the same, they were developed alongside, were released alongside, and were received similarly. Because of these things, it is very easy to discuss them alongside. Having them separate creates great redundancy - gameplay, development and reception sections would be repeated twice over. --Teggles 05:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

On a slight tangent Alttp, those sentences about assigning items to buttons is fine. On the FAC, I thought you were going to include item lists like "The Switch Hook, Magnetic Gloves etc." - hahnchen 10:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge. While I don't agree with comparing this to Pokémon—which only alters the exclusive Pokémon and the name of Team Whatever—the merged article has come out very nicely. The problem is that since the games were developed as a pair separate articles would inevitably be repeating each other as far as information on development and password linking goes. While I agree the games are popular enough to earn separate articles, the high level of redundancy is a strong point against this unless those sections were to be transcluded (which generally isn't used for non-template purposes). GarrettTalk 08:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it looks like the discussion favors the merge. If anyone else has anything to add, please speak up. Pagrashtak 22:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Since the discussion here has been strongly in favor of merging, I've resubmitted to FAC. Thanks, everyone. Pagrashtak 12:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Donkey Kong infobox image

What is the appropriate infobox image for an article on a game that began life as an arcade game? Specifically, I'm asking about Doney Kong. User:Salavat seems to prefer the NES box art, but that seems misleading to me, since the game was originally an arcade title and has been ported all over the place since. I've replaced the box art there with the arcade title screen a couple of times already (since that's what's been in the article for a very long time), offering my explanations in the edit summaries, but I'm wary about doing so again without some outside input. What's the best practice in this situation? Thanks, — Brian (talk) 03:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Since the game is primarily an arcade game, the title screen is appropriate. Pagrashtak 04:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Arcade game so title screen is the norm. - X201 13:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Expand, please.

I have no knowledge of the games. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you not think it would be more intuitive to move the DS titles to Ultimate Card Games DS and Ultimate Brain Games DS respectively? And place the GBA games in Ultimate Card Games and Ultimate Brain Games? Note that I know absolutely nothing about the games. - hahnchen 14:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe that those are the titles, though. There's also a PlayStation version, so we couldn't give the GBA games the main articles. Anyway, I know about as much as you about how they play. I only know little details, like that the DS games are supposedly online and that they've been delayed time after time after time. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Could be some scope for merging articles here, so I've placed merge tags on the respective articles. --Oscarthecat 21:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

We should do it Namco Museum style - merge all versions into one article. I'd keep the "Brain" and "Card" ones separate for now. hbdragon88 02:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Update - Ultimate Brain Games article now contains merged articles, covering DS+GBA. --Oscarthecat 07:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Update - Ultimate Card Games article now contains merged articles, covering DS+GBA. --Oscarthecat 07:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

STATION Magazine

I'm looking for some info on a UK PlayStation magazine called STATION. I can't find any info about it anywhere (except for the editors own web page - and I want an unbiased source). Did anyone here buy it? In actual fact has anyone here EVEN seen a copy of it? Did it really exist? For a magazine that the editor claims had the highest ABC figures of any PlayStation magazine it's presence is conspicuous by it's absence. - X201 22:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of it, the only source I can find is at Dave Perry's site which I'm guess you're alluding to above. But the Playstation era is 10 years back, and people have very short memories in regards to the magazine industry. A google found that it did exist, here's one on eBay[4]. - hahnchen 22:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It is the Dave Perry article I'm referring to. Just trying to get some cast iron facts into an article that is looking like a self-PR piece. Could someone do me a favour and go over the most recent page of edit histories and just tell me what opinion (if any) they form about those edits. Thanks. - X201 09:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

A couple of issues are for sale on RetroTrader, see issues here and here. --Oscarthecat 09:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
For more magazine editor/former games show personality self-aggrandising, see Martin Mathers. - hahnchen 19:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the ebay link, I actually owned several Station magazines at some point in time. Can't remember what happened to them... --Mika1h 20:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings up for deletion

Should we have spoiler warnings in articles or not? Discussion on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning. -- Ned Scott 04:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Further discussion at the provided link, but... I don't understand why anyone would want to delete a tag whose only purpose is to try and prevent the user from inadvertently ruining their experience of a given fictional work. Of course, I never cease to be surprised by how lame Wikipedia policy can be. -- Slordak 14:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The rationale is that since Wikipedia is not censored (see autofellatio for a very NSFW example, although it now has partial censorship in the form of the photograph being collapsed) it does not make sense for less contentious information (i.e. spoilers) to be "censored" via the large warnings. GarrettTalk 23:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Egad, MFD is not the correct forum for policy pages (WP:SK). The censorship argument is nonsense, as it isn't removing the data from view, just warning people what's up ahead. "Not censored" is usually for debates on whether to show graphic pictures of nudity or not, in which total removal would be censorhip.hbdragon88 00:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

First off, good news, it has been moved to WP:RfC. Secondly - "The censorship argument is nonsense, as it isn't removing the data from view, just warning people what's up ahead" - it's not nonsense. It's the primary argument as to why users are not warned about nudity, profanity, violence, and anything else people might find objectionable (except plot details and magic tricks... heh). --Teggles 04:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah. Well, in that context (no warning for nudity and such), that makes sense. hbdragon88 06:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


Category:Speedruns and it's only article: Quake done Quick. How exactly is an article talking about speedruns of Quake notable? I can understand the Speedrun article being kept, but articles talking about/listing speedruns for a certain game, don't seem worthy for a Wikipedia article. As for the category: as I read the speedrun article, there is a few other related speedrun articles, but not alot. So I'm not sure if the category is worth keeping for a few things. There is Category:Competitive video gaming, which the speedrun articles could go into I guess. RobJ1981 05:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure you could put that into competitive gaming, but I do feel that both the "Speedrun" category and "Quake done Quick" should be deleted. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 05:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quake done Quick. Go for it. I find such coverage to be problematic, espeically in the main Speedrun article; some information of which only has a primary source (the site itself) rather than third-party sources. hbdragon88 06:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

List of computer and video game collector and limited editions

This was recently kept: and I was never even informed that my nomination was done in error. I think that's wrong. It was listed at several deletion lists: but not everyone always checks those (or should have to). People from the original vote should've been notified about a new one. So a new vote happened: and everyone almost voted to keep this garbage. This is proof the AFD process fails at times here on Wikipedia. In June or July this needs to be re-nominated with everyone actually knowing about the debate this time. Listcruft (much of which is unsourced, and I see no attempts by anyone to source it) articles don't belong: imagine if a DVD collector/limited edition list happened; it would be even worse I bet. RobJ1981 18:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It was listed on WP:CVG/D, which is good reading for any member of the CVG project. hbdragon88 00:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey Rob, yeah you WERE informed. Directly. By me. On your own talk page! So you had your chance to have your say and YOU failed your own cause, not Wikipedia process. And stop being so idiotic with comparisons to other imaginary lists that this one is not. "IMAGINE THIS IS A LIST OF ANTS LIVING IN MY BACKYARD IT WOULD BE WORSE" - Great Rob, but that does not matter because this ISNT a list of that! Your arguments are terrible and full of fallacies, and between them and your failure to tag the AfD, makes me wonder if you even understand the AfD "process" much less value it. Both times the article was tagged properly (and process was in check) the article was voted overwhelmingly to be kept. The only time it failed was when YOU disregarded process. It should be clear that users feel it should stay so leave it alone and find some other article to crusade against. Deusfaux 04:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I just saw it now, so I missed it before. Telling me to "stop being idiotic" is just rude, and not needed. All the other editors that voted keep before: should've been notified about the new afd (and I somehow bet they weren't). I don't have to "leave it alone" as you put it. In a month's time or so, I have every right to nominate it, and actually notify people that a new vote is going to take place. RobJ1981 04:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I retract "stop being so idiotic with..." and replace it with "stop providing illogical and invalid arguments with..." And I removed your tag from the article. Seriously, find something productive to do if you are capable. Deusfaux 08:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Stop being uncivil, Seriously, find something productive to do if you are capable wasn't needed. I have every right to my own opinion, just because you don't agree with it, doesn't give you the right to attack me and/or be rude about it. RobJ1981 17:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Deusfaux, can you read WP:CIVIL please, thanks. Marasmusine 16:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It's all been noted by now, I learned things there like how Rob shouldnt have opened things by insulting the work of other editors! yippee! Deusfaux 17:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

High Scores : Fancruft?

Hi - am having a discussion on Talk:Space Invaders#deleting space invaders high scores about whether the Space Invaders article ought to have high scores on there, and if so to what degree of detail. Eager to involve other folk on the project, to get a range of views. If we can get some consensus on this, updating the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines with what is and isn't fancruft may be worth doing. Thanks, --Oscarthecat 21:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, high scores and speedruns are forms of cruft that have no place in a general-purpose encyclopedia. At the very most, I think an article on a game can report the highest score and the fastest speedrun, provided both facts can be attributed to reliable, verifiable sources (i.e., not a blog or a fanpage). — Brian (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd say its importance is just as relevant as including who the record holder for high jumping, or drinking records or other world records that are common to include in encyclopedic article entries. The job of an encyclopedic entry is to inform the reader, who may not be aware of the entire spectrum of facts (i.e. not useless tidbits of trivia) surrounding an entry. And as someone who writes and works in the video game industry, I can honestly say that such records are not trivialized. --Marty Goldberg 22:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
It's a matter of scope; I hardly think the "beer drinking record" belongs on the beer page. But, like I said, such records can have a place in an article so long as they are sourced to reliable, verifiable sources. And I don't think 30-year-old records (as are being added to the Space Invaders page) are pertinent, nor are detailed histories of who held the record when over time. Report the current record and drop it. — Brian (talk) 22:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to be bold in updating the guidelines page... If people disagree with your changes I can assure you that all hell will break loose :) This is a good thing on a wiki!! JACOPLANE • 2007-05-21 01:04