Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 22

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Console generation names

In the talk of the article console wars, a discussion has been brewing over re-naming the generation names. In it's current state, they are simply numbered. What was proposed to be changed in this article specifically was changing certain generations to be related to processor word size, or "Bittage" because it has been suggested the current format is original research (despite there being other instances where generations have been listed in books and online). The problem with the proposed system, as it was nearly a year ago when it was originally in place, is that it is confusing and there are several notable cases where systems do not fit (TurboGrafx, N64 for starters), as well as multiple generations having the same "bittage" (both Atari 2600 and NES have 8-bit processors, and both PlayStation and Wii have 32-bit processors).

Since we should have consistency between articles when naming such things, any changes to the Console wars would result in changes being made to many other articles (including the History of video game consoles series of articles). As such I wanted to move the discussion here for any more input, or alternative solutions so that a consensus and/or compromise can be reached, the aforementioned article Console wars can be un-protected, and everyone can be happy and have a nice day. - ZakuSage 02:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

A few thoughts: "first generation" and "second generation" have pretty much never been used. When referring to the console wars, an outsider would call them the "8-bit wars". Everything doesn't have to be strict and numbered. In reality, the history of video games was never divided up so definitely. Think of it this way: You can't go find a dividing line between countrys, even though there is a line on maps. This whole "first-gen" and "second-gen" is not how life works. Good names might be early 8-bit era, late 8-bit era, early 16-bit era, late 16-bit era, early 3D gaming, recent gaming, and current gaming. The whole point is that 1st gen, etc. implies that things are black and white, and that nothing has changed except for the number. In reality, things had gone from 8 to 16 bit, to 3D, which one would never know from the naming now. Scepia 03:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If possible, see if you can some verifiable name, otherwise it is just taste of the users. -- ReyBrujo 03:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the only verifiable naming scheme is 8-bit and 16-bit. That's exactly what I am proposing, just divided up I would hope, since gaming is divided up by different "wars". Multiple "wars" may happen in a given era, so dividing the era is needed. As far as 3D gaming goes, there's no official name, so "3D era" and the like is the least original research name we can use. Scepia 03:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the immediate task at hand is to figure out how to divide up the section on the console wars page. Perhaps the dispute can be resolved without dealing with the meta-discussion over how to divide up video game history. One way would be to name the different wars after their participants. For instance, instead of "Third Generation," it could be called "Nintendo Entertainment System vs. Sega Master System." This might get unwieldy if you keep using the full names, but perhaps you could use the common abbreviations. If you divided it up by year, it would be good to have some independent source on picking exactly which years. If there's no outside source, perhaps you can pick the years as being those years in which one of the combatants had the highest sales volume of all consoles. For instance, even though the Xbox/PS2/Nintendo GameCube war might arguably have been going on through the release of the Xbox 360, once the 360 got the highest sales volume, the Xbox/PS2/GC war's dates would be through and the 360/PS3/Wii war's dates would begin. Scorchus 17:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This is stupid. If we are going to rename the "generations", it should be based on time periods, not bits. How can the Game Boy Color be considered part of the "32-bit / 64-bit era"? We'd be better off renaming them like History of video game consoles (1993 to 1998).--SeizureDog 06:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

That might work, but some consoles have abnormally long lifespans, or have hardware revisions released outside of what might be considered their generation. Still, it's a hell of a lot better then basing the naming on "bits". - ZakuSage 07:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If we do a year system, only consoles released during those years would be included, not the games for them. Of course, that still is a bit confusing.--SeizureDog 08:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that using time period might be a good idea here e.g. 1993-1998, 1999-2003. The question which might raised that some 15-year old console is still being sold today even though the new console platform such as PS3 and Wii are already launched seems to be trivia since when we talk about console war I think it is better to focus on the console that mainly promoted by the manufacturer at that time. For example, in my opinion, if we talk about the console war today it should be considered as the war between PS3 and Wii etc. not between the PS1 and Wii. Muham 14:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it is currently OR, bits wouldn't work for handhelds, years wouldn't work for every console, so... how about a more "general" naming system? Like early video game consoles, current computer and video gaming, recent computer and video gaming, etc. I'm not sure how everything would fit together, but simply put, things are not so black and white as other naming schemes would make it seem. Scepia 07:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not exactly OR though either, it's more of a list in order by chronology. Such things have been used in other places, including at least one book released before these articles used this system.[1] Additionally, gaming is pretty timeless. Saying what gaming is current may also be confusing; I could "currently" be playing a NES despite it being 20 years old. - ZakuSage 07:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The Ultimate History of Video Games also uses something very similar to our own. However, I only checked the book out, so I can't say for sure how close it is.--SeizureDog 08:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

There seem to be objections to using time periods, bits and the first generation, second generation naming scheme. Are there any objections to using the "Nintendo Entertainment Systems vs. Sega Master System suggested by Scorchus? It is not as elegant and streamlined as some of the other naming schemes, but everyone would know from the headings where to find the infromation they are looking for. LFAS 03:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it's way too combersome, and also would be inevitably leaving out some fairly notable consoles. Are we actually going to consider renaming the Sixth Generation to "Sega Dreamcast vs PlayStation 2 vs Nintendo GameCube vs Microsoft Xbox"? Seems too much, even without Dreamcast. - ZakuSage 14:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If the cumbersome naming problem were solved, what would you think then? For instance, I suggested using common acronyms or shortened versions of names (like leaving off the manufacturer). "Dreamcast/PS2/Nintendo GameCube/Xbox" is the worst we'd have under that system, which I don't think is a patently absurd section name. - Scorchus 18:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Just remember that someone will have to check every article linked to the article to update the wikilinks... -- ReyBrujo 04:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the next step should be to offer some proposed names for each "generation" and/or time period and see if we have consensus on what to use. Once we get some agreement, it should be a simple matter to get the Console Wars page unlocked. --Finious 18:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

One additional thing: we have to remember that Wikipedia is supposed to a general purpose encyclopedia; whatever naming we use has to be clear not only to video game fans, but also those that have never touched a video game in their life. That being said, I think the current standard of "first/second/etc. generation" is fine; it's short (unlike the proposed list-all-systems-in-a-generation idea) and it's not technically confusing (unlike the suggestion to use the bittage of each system). Additional, almost all people would understand the current naming; how many people that aren't video gaming fans understand or care how many bits a system's processor has (or if they even know what that means) or the systems in a given generation? The current naming is fine as it is. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 19:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with NeoChaosX 100%. --VPeric 19:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur. --Frodet 19:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Following on from "whatever naming we use has to be clear not only to video game fans, but also those that have never touched a video game in their life." . I've been a video game fan all of my life and Wikipedia is the only place I can remember hardware being pigeon holed in to specific generations, is it a U.S. thing? I can't recall any article I've read in the U.K. ever referring to Console X being first generation or Console Y being 5th generation, the only time I can remember the word generation being used was as a tag for either next generation or last generation. As for as what the answer should be - I think it should be calendar based. If I said to a total novice on the subject that there were great advances in science and exploration during the Elizabethan era, it means nothing unless you know what dates the Elizabethan era relates to. I feel the same about hardware generations and they haven't got a hard cold fact like a birth or death of a monarch to provide a definite start and end date. The best answer though already exists, it's the time line on the Video game console article. It conveys all the information about which console was launched at the same time as which other console and which handhelds were contemporary to them. It conveys information in one image that would take hundreds of words. - X201 19:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Generally, the specific generations aren't used. You just look back through history to see where the lines are drawn. When SNES was around, N64 was called next-gen. When N64 was around, NGC was called next gen. When NGC was around, Wii was called next gen. Really, the generation gaps are pretty clear cut, especially for the main companies' systems (Nintendo, Sega, Song, Microsoft). It only really get vague before the NES.--SeizureDog 21:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The bigger problem is, where do you define the starting point. Just by nature of saying 8-bit, you are implying NES/SegaMaster System and beyond. Yes it's easy to use Nintendo as a benchark since there systems are released in measured five year increments to compare against... Technically though there was a good three generations of home consoles prior to that at the minimum. Implying x-gen on any series of systems starting anywhere leaves a potential of bias by the person(s) developing the definition. Even the use of x-bit, while still a commonly used gauge, is now becoming an irrelevant benchmark... Arguably, that benchmark wasn't very effective ever as has always been misapplied by marketing staff to make their product sound superior. At best, we could maybe come up with some form of measurable benchmark in gaming or interactions that can be quantified akin to what we have in processors, such as Mhz, and Cores (although that's a whole other can of worms in and of itself). I would there has to be some amount of distinction between Skeet Shooters, Pong, 2600, NES, MasterSystem, etc..., etc... Hmmm... BcRIPster 01:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Processors = no. Handhelds are far from consoles in power. The Game boy was nothing like the SNES, so it wouldn't be fair to group an entire "generation" as a certain amount of RAM or whatever. Scepia 03:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with NeoChaosX's sentiment. We can all agree bit # doesn't mean anything; that's why marketers stop using to sell consoles. If we're going to break video game history into eras (e.g. 1993 to 1997) then we have to find defining points as well as give it a name for the sake of making referencing easy. If the whole point of this discussion is to avoid original research, defined as creating new ideas from existing knowledge, I'd say that any name you give an era is going to fall into original research, unless you borrow all era names from authoritative sources. Even if you do that you're going to run into problems of inconsistencies because I doubt every source has the exact same name and date for video game history eras. From a historical perspective, a number series of generations is neutral, functional, and, best of all, simple. Mitaphane _talk 22:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Truth is, this "1st gen" and "2nd gen" is original research. I have never seen it anywhere else. That one book that orders the generations is that - one book. The name should not be defined by one person's ideas - it should be defined by it's parts. The "current" era would be Wii, 360, PS3. No one, not IGN, not GameSpot, not Joystiq or any other source is calling this the [x] generation. It's the current/next gen, but the important thing is what consoles are out. As far as updating wikilinks go... it doesn't matter. Lazyness should never stop us from building an encyclopedia. Scepia 23:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

In a strict sense, it's not original research. According to the official policy page,

[...] any [...] definitions [...] published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article.

The book and article show that it's been used in this sense, ergo it's not OR. - ZakuSage 14:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

As an example, there is History of computing hardware and History of computing hardware (1960s-present). I don't mind the current "generation" format (since "Generation" is the most commonly used word for it), but listing ranges of years works too. Nifboy 03:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think using first generation, second generation, etc. would be misleading if that is not the way they are generally identified. If I was doing research on this topic and I saw the heading "first generation", I think I would assume that it was the authoritative way to refer to the consoles in that section, which would not be true. I don't know if I would go as far as to say that it would be original research, but it seems better to list the ranges of years or the acronyms suggested by Scorchus. LFAS 03:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Scorchus's idea as well, it may be slightly less elegant than 3rd Generation but it has a massive advantage in giving the reader the facts straight away. It also works in reverse, if you were researching the Sega Mega Drive a quick look at the headings and you would instantly know that it's main rival was the SNES, as opposed to searching the generations and then finding the rival consoles. - X201 09:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but do you say Sega Mega Drive, or Sega Genesis? :p BcRIPster 18:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Famicom, Mega Drive and, most definitely Mega-CD. I see your point though and perhaps it's a problem that will only ever be truly solved by having an American English Wikipedia and an International English Wikipedia... but that's a different debate. I don't like the generation thing, I'm puzzled why they need to exist to be honest, the afore mentioned time line does the job just fine. - X201 21:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

They exist for people to know where to piss their territorial markers for defining their fanaticism, and to help them make their declarations of "who's side won" :)

BcRIPster 21:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I wish the Wiki policy on article names for games hardware and software was along the lines of The name it was given in the country of origin by it's manufacturer, any other names should be redirects'. It would make life easier and people would learn new things. But I suspect we've still got years of "Google's got more hits for this version of the name" ahead of us.:( - X201 09:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That would result in the Super Nintendo Entertainment System article moving to Super Famicom or worse to スーパーファミコン. I think the most common usage in English guideline for article names makes a lot of sense. Jecowa 10:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

So then...

As far as I can tell, it's generally come down to this: leaving the system as it is, or moving to a date based system. Both are quite neutral, both can be constituted as not being OR, and both aren't nearly as confusing as some of the alternatives mentioned. If we can't come to a consensus, then perhaps it would be best to just stick with the current system as it would mean less work. - ZakuSage 16:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for the date system myself, but the question is where to make the year breaks. Would it just be console specific and leave handhelds/arcade to fall into each slot accordingly? Using Nintendo as a metric for spans gives us the closest level of constancy dating back to 1977, but what about anything prior to that? (I have an extensive timeline break out of Nintendo's platforms here). Nintendo has had a major console release/upgrade every 5 years pretty much like clockwork for the last 30 years. Although we could use the Atari platform dates for pre-NES years in order to account for them being a significant player early on. BcRIPster 17:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Shall we start a poll for leaving it as is or switching to dates? We can leave it open for a week, and if people don't respond then we should leave it as is since it is less work. LFAS 23:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, but before we go that far, we should atleast establish what the options are so that we are sure we get all of the ideas voted on. BcRIPster 01:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Creating a poll seems to be a good idea. At least it might resolve the dispute at some level. I agree with BcRIPster that before the pool could be established, first we have to know what choices people have for the vote. The following options seem to be possible categorizing methods (please feel free to add/change before the vote begins):

1. Generation grouping (e.g. 1st Generation, 2nd Generation, etc.)

2. Bit grouping (e.g. 8-bits, 16-bits, etc.)

3. The Hybrid: Generation and Years (e.g. 1st Generation (Year 1990-1995), 2nd Generation (Year 1995-2000))

I also suggest that first we should vote for the method we would like to categorize the information and once we have an idea which method might be used then we move to the next question of “how” to do it in detail (for example, the question of how the year under the Hybrid method will be divided might be waited until we decide to use this one). Muham 01:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I would not have a problem with a date based system, but the other question is what we would title each header. Putting all the major consoles' names/abbreviations seems to be the least biased, but also the terms "8-bit" and "16-bit" are considered de facto for those two generations. However, if those are considered to be too biased, I would consider them optional. So for example, I would title the first wars Atari/Intellivision/Colecovision (1977-1983), then I would leave the next as Personal Computer Wars except adding dates, then for example I would call the "3rd Gen War" NES(Famicom)/Master System ("The 8-bit War"), with dates of course, and so on. And yes, years will overlap if used, but I don't consider that a problem. I would also support opening a poll on this, with comments on whether or not to use "8-bit" and "16-bit" with partial consideration in the headers.--Crossman33 19:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

That's still pretty complicated, and if the style of title is going to change with each generation it's going to get pretty confusing. - ZakuSage 15:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

What are your examples of the headers? I actually don't mind the current system as it is, but it kinda caused the whole revert edit problem in the first place. I now think we should not use the terms 8-bit and 16-bit in the headers due to the technicality of 8-bit. Besides, it is explained in the actual section already. So I would make the titles like above, but without "8-bit" or "16-bit," but I'd like to see some alternative examples before I endorse my version.--Crossman33 17:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's start a new index/title list

Ok, in line with the "Computer and Video Game" moniker, I've started a list of chapter titles, please help fill this out before we move to a concensus. This list needs to include markers for handheld systems and arcade I belive. Also we need to make sure that all catagories are inclusive of top platforms outside of the U.S.!

Mainframe gaming (????-198?) -- covers Digital (Adventure), MIT (Zork, SpaceWars), etc... as many of the early arcade and PC games originated and/or were developed from these platforms

Pong Era (196?-197?) -- covers the first home game systems

2600 / Colecovision / Intellivision / Odyssey (1977-1983) -- covers 2600, Colecovision, intelivision, etc...

Apple II / Atari / Commodore / IBM / MSX (197?-1986) -- covers PC 1st gen pc gaming - Apple // series, C64 series, Sinclair, RadioShack CoCo, IBM-PC, etc...

Master System / NES

Amiga / Apple IIgs & Mac / Atari ST / DOS / Sinclair / X68000 (1986-1992?) -- covers PC 2nd gen

Genesis / SNES / PC-Engine

Macintosh / PC gaming (1992-1996)

Jaguar / N64 / PlayStation / Saturn / 3DO

Macintosh / Windows (1996-current)

Dreamcast / Nintendo GameCube / PlayStation 2 / XBOX

PlayStation 3 / Wii / XBOX360

(title list started by: BcRIPster 18:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC))

For computer and video games as a whole category, this seems pretty appropriate, except I would make sure to include handhelds:

Game Boy (and Pocket) / Lynx / TurboExpress / Game Gear (1988-1998)

Game Boy Color / Neo-Geo Pocket Color / WonderSwan Color (1998-2001)

GBA / GamePark 32 / N-Gage / Zodiac (2001- )

PSP / DS / Gizmondo / GP2X (2004- )

But for the console wars article, where a lot of this debate comes from, I wouldn't necessarily include Mac/PC or Mac/Win as really right now I don't know of many significant games being released on Mac OS X. Also, the PC Vs Mac war was never about gaming, nor are these systems considered "consoles" by gamers today.--Crossman33 22:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Suddenly, I'm overwhelmingly in favour of a date based system. This is just way, way too complicated... - ZakuSage 23:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it is kinda complicated, but either it's this, or staying with the current system, changing back to the awful "bittage/generation name" system, or going date-based. I would throw out the bittage/generation name system because it's too arbitrary. Besides, we can explain the names in the actual article itself. The current system isn't too bad, but is also somewhat arbitrary, although it could be acceptable with some minor changes. I think we should hold a poll over what to use. Our options:

1. Current system as it is

2. Group all names in title w/ years

3. Date-based, years only

Please state any other options if you have any in mind, and then we should hold a poll.--Crossman33 02:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Poll

I vote for 2. Gepstein 18:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I also vote for 2. LFAS 18:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to have to go with 1, leave as is. There's really nothing wrong with the current system anyway, I was just hoping to have some sort of resolute consensus. This would not require any extra effort, while both other options would need quite a bit. - ZakuSage 02:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Going with 1. Current system is fine, and listing the systems in groups is really long and clunky, as seen above. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll go with 1. Number 2 doesn't cover all the gaming in a given era. What handhelds were made in the SNES/GEN era? Number 3 is overly arbitrary. Did the gen start in 2003 or 2004 or 2005? I prefer 8-bit and 16-bit... but that's not an option. Scepia 06:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
1: Too much work and not enough pay off to justify changing the current system. Until there are numerous video game historians out there who come to a consensus on labeling different video game system eras (if ever), there's no real motivation to change the current system. —Mitaphane _talk 06:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Number 1... nothing wrong with it. --VPeric 14:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to say 1 is the best right now. Again, I've never personally had a problem with it, but it caused the revert edit war, but if 1 becomes the general consensus, that's another story. To respond to you, Scepia, I would rather give consideration to the terms "8-bit" and "16-bit" for those generations in the article itself, rather than in the title, because of the technicality of 8-bit being before that generation as well. I'll also agree that we should not have to do needless effort. I'll use the KISS acronym for this one.--Crossman33 01:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so the page has been unprotected and it looks like we should just keep things as they are. The headers appear to be untouched as of right now and it's time to clean up the article. The general consensus is to use the current system; this poll is closed; thank you for your input. --Crossman33 02:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Help wanted: List of Nintendo GameCube games

Seeing how there are an impressive amount of bluelinks, I move that we work to bring List of Nintendo GameCube games up to Featured List status. This is an article everyone can help on, as all that's needed atm is busywork. If each member could try to table one letter of a section, we could get this up to snuff in no time. For reference, the finished product should look like List of Nintendo 64 games.--SeizureDog 00:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This is just one more example of why this project needs some kind of "collaboration" that is not restricted to stubs like the GCOTW is. JACO PLANE • 2007-01-24 01:06

Hate to open up this can of worms again, but...wouldn't the same arguments that people in opposition to using Flags vs. Superscript had apply to the game lists as well? As nice as it would be to have three clear-cut regions in which games are released, this is rather inaccurate in many cases, missing out some regions (like Australia), and having flags incorrectly representing others (like US implying North America). I apologize if I sound persnickety about this, since I have a lot respect for the work SeizureDog, Timkovski and others are doing here, just want whatever's most appropriate for an accurate Wikipedia list. --ADeveria 18:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

They might apply, but... All 3 of our current featured lists that involve regions (L.O. Virtual Boy Games, N64 Games, and Final Fantasy games) use the flags, so if we change one, we need to change them all. --PresN 18:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's the main problem though: other regions don't have consistant enough information. Can we know for sure exactly which games were released in Australia, Korea, China, etc? You look at pretty much any site we'll be using for sources (IGN, GameFaqs, GameSpot, etc.) and they'll say USA, Europe, and Japan. Just like that. Very few sites will even mention specific releases in other countries. Also, I suspect those releases are reallly no different in terms of what's on the disc. I've got a Korean Metal Slug 6, but the Korean is just on the packaging, the game itself uses Japanese. Since those are the 3 main regions, I think we should focus on them in the lists, and not try to list every single one (it could get a bit out of hand). Individual articles can get more specific. Also, flags are infinitely better for lists, it makes browsing for region specific games a lot easier. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SeizureDog (talk • contribs) 22:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

You make a pretty good point SeizureDog, and that's a good enough reason for me to keep it the way it is. Thanks for that explanation. --ADeveria 19:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Very well, your request is being answered! -- Slordak 18:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

And now, I believe it's done... For the time being, at least. -- Slordak 21:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Now we just have to be able to source the list.--SeizureDog 08:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Category question

Should some Wii games be in both of these cats: Category:Wii games, Category:Wii-only games? I was wondering, because of the note on the top of the Wii-only cat that says all the articles in that cat belong in Wii games as well. My opinion is: I don't think so, it's a form of overcategorization (to me at least). What does everyone else think? RobJ1981 18:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think they should be in "Wii-only games" - it's logical that they are also Wii games if they're Wii-only. --VPeric 18:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the need for Wii-only. Just put em all in Wii-games. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 18:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Assessment update

It's almost complete... finally! As of now: 290 are left in the main section (the table says 353, because the total is only updated once a day). There is some in Halo and Mortal Kombat sub-cats as well. If more people can pitch in, it should be done by the end of the week. Then assessment will be done (with the exception of articles missing the CVG project tag, which I've been searching for). Category:Unassessed computer and video game articles is where you can find the articles still needing assessment (I know it's listed above already, but not everyone checks that). RobJ1981 23:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, not many people have commented on the new assessment proposal. I have been waiting for more feedback before implementing the more exotic features of the proposal, such as a mechanism for certifying A-Class articles. JACO PLANE • 2007-01-25 00:02

Ohh, also I tagged some more articles, so the count will have gone up again ;) JACO PLANE • 2007-01-25 11:56

Haha... good one, "some". I checked and it seemed to double the amount of unasssessed. I've encountered a problem with this page: Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time Master Quest. Apparently it's already assessed, but the redundant CVG project tag doesn't show up when I clicked to edit it. Also: the Nintendo Project tag doesn't show up when I went to edit as well. Anyone know how to fix this? RobJ1981 18:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

{{zeldaproj}} combines the three project templates. Just append it with the rating like you would {{cvgproj}}. Nifboy 18:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Now it's listed in the unassessed category for the Nintendo project. RobJ1981 23:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The Nintendo Project uses their own assesment catagories, for some reason, even though they just mirror the CVG cats the article's allready in. Since the zeldaproj template calls the (unassessed) Nintendo project template, it gets put in unassessed. The zeldaproj template needs to be completely rewritten to fix it, there's no way to do anything about it the way it is. --PresN 23:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I've been tagging a lot of articles, so we won't finish the assessment anytime soon. Still, better tag them now so we know the full scope of the task. JACO PLANE • 2007-01-26 19:56

Jacoplane, do you have time to assess articles? I'm getting a little tired of assessing right now, so I won't be doing it as much as I have in the past. Also: is it correct to put list articles as NA class? That's what I've been doing, since it's pretty hard to assess lists usually: since it's just a list. The only exception I've seen is: a new list that is small. RobJ1981 20:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll work on assessing articles too once I've finished tagging pages. I also use AWB for assessing, since the "manually assess" feature greatly speeds it up. Regarding lists, I don't think that's the way to go really, since lists can become featured lists, so rating them should be done too. JACO PLANE • 2007-01-26 20:28

Ok, I will go through the NA class category sometime and attempt to assess lists. Is there some sort of guide to assessing lists I can use as an example? RobJ1981 20:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

One way to speed up the assessment is to use AWB and autotag articles as stubs. For example, I just tagged articles in Category:Computer and video game musicians, so when I start assessing I'll automatically tag all articles in Category:Computer and video game musician stubs as stubs so that only other ratings have to be done manually. This can be done for any category in Category:Computer and video game stubs. JACO PLANE • 2007-01-26 21:41

Template help

I need some help with {{WP MMOG}}. I fixed it so that the start-class spiel goes inside the box, but now the thing has "Runscape" outside of the box. I copied from the cvgproj template to try to fix it, but I can't... Hbdragon88 09:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I had a go and got close see this version[2]. It looked OK on the Template page but didn't quite work on the discussion page. I've restored it to how it was before I had a go at it. Will try again later, in non-work time - X201 12:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Credit where credit is due, Gimmetrow has fixed it - X201 16:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. Parser functions was making my mind go screwy...also, lol at misspelling runescape and runscape. I didn't catch that. Hbdragon88 21:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Requesting input/help on PlayStation Portable talk page

First I would like to note that I'm asking for input on whether or not to add bulky, redundant, and a needless list of PSP firmwares and all the features involved with them to the article PlayStation Portable. The discussion is currently going on #firmware here.

Second I would help dealing with a user that seems to be using this very topic as means of making me out to be a supposed WP:OWN violator, among other things. The user RunedChozo is really getting out of hand and line... he has used a sockpuppet to make personal attacks against me (I've already posted a notice on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, and this is the second time he's been going way out of his way to harass me. I just don't know what to do about him at this point. - ZakuSage 20:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Please? Anyone? I'm getting desperate here... his abuse, lies, and vandalism continues and I just don't know what to do anymore. - ZakuSage 21:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Zaku, the next time you call him anything, including a liar, you will be blocked. --InShaneee 21:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

1-How about making a link to a sub article that goes into detail about PSP firmware? That seems to be a good compromise between a short, concise firmware section and a informative, detailed firmware section.

2-Stick to the project. The CVG project talk page isn't the appropriate venue for dealing with conflicts between other editors. —Mitaphane _talk 22:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I think all information about versions, excluding the current one, is usually unnecessary. --InShaneee 23:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

List of Characters/Weapons/Vehicles/Landmarks in Game X/Y/Z

I've started noticing a lot more of these article popping up lately. I'm wondering if it's worthwhile trying to set up some sort of guidelines on what is and is not generally appropriate? I generally frown upon these articles because games are not just collections of parts. Comments? --Alan Au 21:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

And because a lot of that crap is completely non-notable? Yes, it's a problem. -- Slordak 21:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a problem; the best thing to do is to not take these to AfD; instead, merge and redirect. This is the best way to keep everyone happy and keep things on a professional level. If it can't be merged, just redirect. — Deckill er 22:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Weapons, vehicles, and landmarks are a bit leaning towards WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of info. However, I think lists of characters have some bearing - to a point. Major characters and villains, especially those who appear in more than one game, surely aren't indiscriminate. Hbdragon88 22:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Character lists are the only ones that should remain. But not all character lists: if there is several lists for one game (minor, major, secondary characters, etc), it needs to be put into one article. One character list is good enough in my opinion. Also, character lists should be for a major game and/or series only. Any random list for a game that some people think is popular, probably shouldn't be here. RobJ1981 22:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

What about this? List of multiplayer features in Xbox 360 games. In my opinion, it should be on a video game wiki. I'm very tempted to put it in AFD. Lots of systems have multiplayer features: why should Xbox 360 be the exception and get a list article? RobJ1981 00:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The best thing to do is merge any relevent information into the Xbox 360 article (such as multiplayer features and examples of games instead of a list), and redirect. AfD is (and should always be stressed to be) last resort. — Deckill er 00:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Why should Wikipedia be full of many redirects? If someone remakes the article: there is a speedy tag for that. RobJ1981 00:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If even the slightest examples are used elsewhere, the edit history is extremely important to chronicle things. The reason I'm against casual deletion is because it destroys edit contributions. — Deckill er 00:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about editing: not bragging that you have "100455445" number of edits. What's the purpose of saying you have a certain number of edits, when they belong to things that aren't even being used anymore (from redirect articles)? If people come here just to brag about edit counts for glory or whatever (which I have seen on their user pages), they are editing for the wrong reasons. It should be about editing, not how many you have... end of story. Decent people don't just volunteer at a soup kitchen or wherever, just to get credit by saying "I've worked this many days, now praise me". They do it because it's a good deed. Wikipedia editors are volunteers as well, they don't need to be bragging about edit counts. -End rant- RobJ1981 00:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That actually has nothing to do with what I was saying; the edit history is excellent in showing the growth of an artcle and where information began and how (and what) was merged. If all aspects of the article are impossible to be included in any others in any way, then deletion is the solution. Also, not all people place edit counts to brag (in many cases, it's because of the current way WP:RFA works); it is a good gauge of experience for people visitng a userpage and may just plainly show that people are proud of their contributions. It's like saying "I've been working at the soup kitchen for five years" in a way, but not so that people can boost self esteem. I provide a link to my edit count, and I display my edits to the page, because from what I've seen, people like seeing someone's experience. Do I care when I made my 20,000th edit, or my 10,000th? Not anymore; I grew past that. So, I understand the point, I just feel that it's not that black and white. Besides, a lot of edits in histories in articles are completely whiped clean (reverts, previous incarnations, etc), but I'm an advocate of keeping the history for people to read. But again, the issue at hand isn't edit count, it's edit history. Let's keep the discussion on that. — Deckill er 00:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Without the edit histories, keeping track of article changes, including vandalism, would be impractical or nonexistent. In fact, vandalism on Wikipedia would probably increase tenfold. In my opinion, edit histories for every piece of media that can be edited are essential for those reasons. Not that I condone editcountitis, which is a completely different matter. Darth griz⁹⁸ 01:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The idea is not about vandalism, it's about keeping the evolution of the information present when it's being used for other articles. If no information is used on any other articles, that's where the edit history is obsolete. — Deckill er 01:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well either way: redirects just to save the history isn't needed in my opinion. The relevant information is kept on articles, there is no need for a complete log of every article ever in Wikipedia history (with the exception of deleted things obviously). A real encyclopedia doesn't have a section for removed content or what not, why should an online encyclopedia have it? It doesn't serve much purpose. I doubt many people come here and think "now I should look at what the redirect page used to be". If an article doesn't belong: it should be in AFD alot of the time.. compared to a redirect. Especially if it's a broad topic: people could argue over what it should be redirected to. AFD is much easier. RobJ1981 04:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Another issue is the concept of the GDFL; previous authors must be credited (the creditation on Wiki is edit history). For instance, when we transwiki articles, we have to copy and paste the edit histories over. This is a good reason why merges are often followed by redirects. — Deckill er 04:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you have some good points, even though I don't agree with them completely. Anyway: back to the list topic at hand. Here is a good example of lists that should be looked at, and considered for moving to a video game wiki: Xenosaga lists. 7 lists for one game series? It's a popular series, but there is too many lists in my opinion. RobJ1981 04:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there are too many lists. Which is why I've begun drafting a way to describe the Xenosaga universe and its creation/influences in a better way. A subarticle describing the plot of Xenosaga as a whole will help eliminate a lot of the listcruft (namely "others" and "organizations", and most of "planets", the character lists can be compressed and cleaned up (although I'm no longer a fan of character lists unless there are plenty of significant characters, and someone wants to find out character specific information), and so on. The ideal format is to get rid of lists entirely (unless one considers character articles "lists", as it is often titled). Creatures of Final Fantasy is a good example; we took the listcruft and turned it into a general article. That is a major solution, because it presents the material in an encyclopedic manner and eliminates the trivia. But I could ramble on and on about this idea; the basic thing is yes, lists are an issue, and they need to be rewritten and/or merged together (or into the main article) and hacksawed to form real encyclopedia articles.

I think the main problem is that editors (including myself) have so much stuff on the list that it will take some time to get to these issues, unless we get additional editors interested. Right now, the info is fine for a transwiki (like most lists), but it is in need of a reorganization and a rewrite for Wikipedia. — Deckill er 04:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Project name

Now that the computer and video games article redirects to video game, shouldn't we also rename this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games? JACO PLANE • 2007-01-26 13:08

I say yes. It's either going to be all one way or back to the way it's been. I know this is gonna be heaps of fun. Don't worry though, I'll take care of the "VGIBmaker". :) --ADeveria 16:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

We'll probably have to do Category:Computer and video games and all the subcategories too. JACO PLANE • 2007-01-26 16:42

And change all occurrences of CVG to VG in Template names and short cuts etc. I think a list and a plan of action might be needed. - X201 22:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that is a good idea. We should probably do that on a subpage rather than on this talk page. So is everyone in agreement with the transition? JACO PLANE • 2007-01-26 23:07

I always liked the "CVG" moniker, but I guess its for the best. Thunderbrand 23:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Who said anything about dropping the CVG moniker? I have a feeling that will stick :) JACO PLANE • 2007-01-26 23:57

Golly! Why is everyone in support of it now, but heatedly opposed it when I proposed it? I'm in favor of it, of course, but I sure don't understand the change in attitude... — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Frecklefoot, don't worry about it we've got the ball rolling. Let's go with it. As I mentioned on the [Video game] talk page, I've started moving catagories. I'm starting from the top down but it's a huge effort, any want to help, let's get to it. BcRIPster 18:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I will help out with categories. Marasmusine 20:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank goodness for AutoWikiBrowser. Marasmusine 20:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand; why do folk support changing the project name? What's wrong with the current name? And is this just a name change, or also an effort to address "computer games" separately from "video games"? I personally think they belong together. --Slordak 18:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's an effort to adress "computer games" as a TYPE of "video game". ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 18:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Award sections

I've been considering adding Awards sections to several of the older classic games articles from the NES and SNES eras. However, there is the issue of whether certain awards are of merit. I was thinking about criteria that might qualify an award (or conversely, disqualify).

Meritable qualifications: Is awarded from a verifiable printed/published source and should be preferably cited. Can include publications that can be considered under first-party control (i.e. Nintendo Power, Official PS Magazine, etc.), but only limited to console games. Includes awards that based on popular vote, sales, and/or usage statistics.

Disqualifications: Is awarded by a single person/entity, particularly including editorials. Is awarded by a publisher or developer of games, if not a console game. Award is immaterial, non-sequitor (sic) to the intrinsic or monetary value of the game (i.e. the Milk Farmers' Association of America Award goes to Burgertime!)

Awards might definitely fit under trivia, but I wanted to know other gamers' feelings on the issue.

Sanjiyan 21:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Number of screenshots allowed

I was thinking of creating screenshot galleries for several productions (primarily adventure games), with most, if not all, of the images being self-made. Now, I created a basic version of such a gallery over a year ago for Mixed-Up Mother Goose and didn't have a problem with it, but I'm tempted to add more pictures in other articles, especially if they illustrate an important event in a given game. Wikipedia:Screenshots doesn't give any conclusive statement on whether a large number of screenshots is allowed (I'm taking into account both Wikipedia policy and copyright issues), which brings me to the obvious question: Assuming they're organized into a gallery similar to the one in the MUMG article, how many screenshots can there be?

I don't want to go creating enormous galleries for stubs or short articles, but once pages like The Legend of Kyrandia and The X-Files: The Game are expanded, I think several images in addition to those present throughout the article would be useful. Can anyone give any suggestions on this? Thanks, Cromag 00:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Good question, and your Mixed-Up Mother Goose makes a good example for discussion. I believe from the standpoint of fair use, you can use as many photos as necessary to illustrate your point or to highlight elements of the information the page is providing. There has to be a level of self restraint though where typically an Editor would intervene and say "Is this photo absolutely critical for someone to understand this article". If the answer is no, then don't include it.

So if you were doing an article about the evolution of the Kings Quest series, then it would be valid to include a screen shot from each game showing the graphical evolution of the franchise... If you were doing an article about the variations in a game from platform to platform, then a set of photos representing the game on each platform would be appropriate. Moderation is the key :)

Reviews typically have a greater quantity of screen shots than what one would think is necessary because of the nature of a review. This applies to all products. Look at a car review. If you're buying something visually appealing, you're going to want to know what it looks like. Since Wikipedia is not a review site, it would probably be fair to say that excessive screen shots are out of scope for most entries.... Just IMHO of course. BcRIPster 00:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy on fair use is fairly clear on this matter. You are not permitted to include fair use images in galleries. In general screenshots are only permitted when they illustrate an important aspect that is reflected in the article text. Also (I know BcRIPster will disagree with me on this point :), the fact that your screenshots are "self made" has absolutely no meaning whatsoever since the copyright of all screenshots of proprietary software belongs to the developer of said software. The person who takes the screenshot has no rights whatsoever beyond what is permitted by fair use. JACO PLANE • 2007-01-27 00:40

I think we said the same thing, but your clarification on use with galleries was good, and is generally applicable even outside of Wikipedia. I will disagree with you on the screenshot thing though (surprise =D ) but only on your one point... The copyright of the screenshot (not the contents) is with the photographer. The owner only has copyright to their copyrighted matrials shown in the photo. Cromag, please use your own photos, it's great that you're taking the effort to make them yourself. Contrary to what Jacoplane says, if you use screenshots from another website or magazine you need to get permission from that publisher to reprint their photos. (I'm done now, see here for the long version of this) 8D BcRIPster 02:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Your argument is one that goes contrary to my understanding of fair use. Of course, IANAL, so it might be best to ask User:BradPatrick what he thinks is in the best interest of the foundation. Certainly I have no wish for us to be liable for copyright infringement, but Wikipedia is full of copyrighted fair use screenshots of games, films and other media that were not uploaded by the person who took the screenshot, and if you are correct then this is an issue that would certainly make us liable. If you really want to resolve this, my advice would be to get Brad involved in this discussion, since he's the person who has the last say in any legal matters the foundation might face. JACO PLANE • 2007-01-27 02:53

That's great advice. Thank-you, I will contact him directly. FWIW, my knowledge on the matter comes from my experience in commercial publishing over the years and even recent interactions with the attorney where I work who is responsible for dealing with these types of issues regarding web content. BcRIPster 04:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses and help; I've looked through the previous discussion on screenshots BcRIPster mentioned and I understand this issue is not always easy to resolve. As I mentioned, I do not plan to create galleries with an overabundance of screenshots, as that would be both unnecessary and illegal; this is also why I selected specific screenshots for Mixed-Up Mother Goose, screenshots which would help illustrate basic differences between the versions of the game, with one or two for each. As you, BcRIPster, pointed out, moderation is vital.

I commented on the screenshots being self-made as, to me, it's a safer alternative to snatching pictures from all around the Web and just smacking a Screenshot tag onto them. Simply possessing the game and creating two or three screenshots is also quicker and more efficient than contacting the individuals who originally published the images, unless a given scene in a game is only accessible through hours of poring over said game.

I have one more question regarding the images used for the MUMG article and it, too, is quite simple: since Jacoplane mentioned that fair use images cannot be used in galleries, I presume the gallery in the article mentioned should be removed? In terms of appearance, I think it adds to the page, but I suppose that argument pales in comparison to those set out by the law. In MUMG's case, it may be difficult to integrate the screenshots into the article text, but perhaps this can be resolved by removing an image or two or expanding the article. Cromag 14:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally I would clean up the use of the images on that page, and determine just what is really needed. I didn't read the page all the way through, so I'm not sure how all of them relate to the article though. As for the fair-use issue, I have written User:BradPatrick (I sent an e-mail to him per his user page instructions) as Jacoplane suggested, and we will hopefully be able to have a correction made to the poor wording of the template.BcRIPster 15:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say that a photo to illustrate a concept, character or mechanic. If the item being illustrated is something new to gaming or the game popularizes it, I'd say more photos of that element would be appropriate. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 13:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Stubs are getting big, anyone want to help?

As of now: there is 6370 computer and video game stubs! This is the biggest class of articles currently for the CVG project (start class is second with 4541 currently). Since I'm bored with just assessing, I'm going to go through stubs: improve them, change them to the proper class (when needed) and so on. There is many articles that are very borderline and just need a little bit of work to be at least a start, while there is others that need alot of work. Anyone want to help out? See Category:Computer and video game stubs and Category:Stub-Class computer and video game articles for full listings. RobJ1981 15:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably a good time to kill some unencyclopedic articles, as well. I just proded Abandoned ship as it described a generic feature in many games. This is really indiscriminate. But some of them just can't be helped unless they are deleted. For instnace, how would you expand Nintendo Puzzle Collection? Hbdragon88 05:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The games in it should be described : plus a link to the game article as well. So a Dr. Mario section: with a link to the full article, and a small description. Repeat for the other games, and that's the article (in my opinion). RobJ1981 20:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Original Research?

I was doing some assessing when I came across this article: Architecture of The Elder Scrolls. That title, to me, screams original research. The page lists many references, but upon inspection they are all from the same site, http://til.gamingsource.net/, not exactly something I would call a reliable source. I'm not very familiar with The Elder Scrolls series so I wanted to get a 2nd opinion before I prod or AFD it. —Mitaphane _?|! 23:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It freely mixes fan-guides and primary sources (which are reposted at the fansite) in its sources, so yeah, I think it ought to go. Nifboy 01:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I second (or third) that. I forgot it even existed. I would have done something about it a long time ago if I did. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit me § Contributions} ♣ 01:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, about that site, yes, most of the information is OR and fan fiction, though some info about the story and events is true. Anything that comes from that site that is not about the story is total fan fiction. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit me § Contributions} ♣ 01:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've prodded the article. Curiously, it's a year and a half old. Strange. Nifboy 01:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Not only is it OR, it is gamecruft. I've actually played the games (well, Morrowind and Oblivion) and not only do I not care about the "architecture" of the series (some people may, I don't), almost anything relating to that would be breaking Or and gamecruft rules. guitarhero777777 06:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You know, I would have thought it uncontroversial. Oh well. Nifboy 15:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions - English language vs Japanese romanization (sp?)

Hi, I've tried to find something for definite on this subject but come up empty handed, could someone take a look at the Zombie Zone page for me?

The game is part of a pretty large and ongoing series known in Japan as The Oneechanbara, but this particular game has been released in PAL territories as Zombie Zone. I recently changed the article name to reflect this, but the article creator has changed it back and labelled this as "tampering". I thought that it was strange to have the Japanese title when an English-language one was available.

The English-language version was released by a small Italian publisher, 505 GameStreet, with an advertising budget of about £0.37, hence the lack of reviews to cite. Another of the series, which is the same game but with two additional characters, is being released in Europe by another firm (a trading-arm of the Japanese publisher) as Zombie Hunters, making no reference to either the original Japanese name or Zombie Zone.

Whilst I've always taken it as read that it's preferable to have the English-language name, some guidance on this matter from the CVG project would be appreciated for future reference. Cheers QuagmireDog 23:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Might want to go look at the WP:ANIME talk page, as there's been plenty of discussion over there about this issue. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 00:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The only "real" naming convention is "Use whatever's most well known in English". If whatever passes for an "official" English name is neither well-known nor consistent (as seems to be the case based solely upon the above information), then it's fine to stick with the Japanese. "Official"-ness isn't much of a consideration: I still prefer Doukutsu Monogatari over Cave Story, but that's how it is. Nifboy 00:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. QuagmireDog 23:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

2 Zelda list pages that seem like cruft

Songs from The Legend of Zelda series and Animals in The Legend of Zelda series. Both seem like listcruft/fancruft, and articles better suited for a Zelda and/or video game wiki. What does everyone else think? In my opinion: popular series doesn't mean people need to go list crazy with things such as animals and music. The animals page is simply a joke: the text at the top reads In The Legend of Zelda series, animals often play a large role, providing a fast means of transportation, or helping Link to reach areas he can't access by himself. Lots of games feature animals as transportation and so on, it doesn't mean there should be a list about it here. And let's not forget: Weapons and items from The Legend of Zelda series. It was in AFD recently: no consensus was the result. So that cruft survived, for now at least. There needs to be some kind of better guidelines to discourage these kind of articles that are cruft and just made because 1: it's a popular series, and 2: people think it's useful to everyone. RobJ1981 04:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even have to look at the articles to tell they are cruft. These do seem better suited for a gaming wiki from the titles alone.guitarhero777777 05:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The /title/ of the "song" article is wrong, cruft or not. Regardless of what the game calls them, most of the music on that list aren't songs...a better term would be "Source music in the Legend of Zelda series" -- unfortunetly, most game article editors would be baffled by that, I imagine.

And I have to agree, the articles kinda have no real need to exist, but I think any AFD will result in no consensus in cases like this...♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, there is no need to have these articles on Wikipedia. The ones on the Zelda fansites (the names of which I've completely forgotten, but they're the large well-known ones, so you probably know which ones I'm talking about) are just as good, if not better. Wolf ODonnell 12:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

'Another place does it better' is NOT a reason to remove something from Wikipedia. Otherwise, many well written and needed articles would be gone. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

How about "we are not a fansite to catalog every detail regarding the series?" Nifboy 16:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Which compounded with the fact that other sites do it better, mean that there is no need for these articles to exist. Wolf ODonnell 14:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I've put the animal list in AFD. Feel free to comment here about it: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animals in The Legend of Zelda series. I also came across this (which I think should be in AFD as well): Musical instruments from The Legend of Zelda series. RobJ1981 15:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

CVG Assessment

Since not a lot of people seem to be aware of it, I'd like to give a shout out about the newish Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games/Assessment. Currently it's used for people to request for someone to look at an article and assess it, aka give it a rating and possibly a short list of pointers. If interest grows, it is planned to include a formalized A-class assessment, similar to the MilHist's A class subgroup. So, come on by! Nominate an article! Assess one! I'll at least look at any nominated articles, so you'll get more feedback than you get at Peer Review these days. --PresN 06:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

List of gangs in Grand Theft Auto series fiasco

I come, again, about the same article; this article has experienced much strife, mainly edit warring. The current issues with said article are: lack of sources and content disputes. I bring this up again because I feel that this page needs to be assessed now. It's experienced a low (or no) amount of attention, recently, yet this is, possibly, one of the most warred-over video game pages. Frankly, at this point, I don't really care what happens to the article, as long as it's reasonable and thought-out. I just feel this article needs to be assessed. Just look at the archives of past discussions and you'll know exactly what I'm talkin about. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit me § Contributions} ♣ 06:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You might not want to hear this, but I think this is a sign the article should be deleted. The problem with this article is the same with many of wikipedia articles about minor fictional groups/characters; the sources, outside of the game's story, don't exist (WP:V). Edit warring will continue because there is no definite sources that will tell you every single detail of a fictional gang in the GTA series. All this article could ever hope to be is an interpretation taken from all the game stories (WP:OR).—Mitaphane _?|! 03:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with Mitaphane here. The fact that the info's unsourced to begin with already made it a prime target for AfD; the edit-warring you're describing means that this article needs to be put out of it's misery soon, and the namespace salted. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 03:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as far as sourcing is concerned, I'm quite confident that this info can be sourced by the Brady Games' strategy guides; plus, as for edit warring, as of now, it's only been a select number of people, and, I can personally say that, even with sourcing, they might still try to get their incorrect viewpoint across on the article. It's not even really large amounts of info; It's really just the names of the gangs people war over because of said incorrect viewpoints. Plus, the gangs can be classified as characters under WP:FICT. The only major problem is, once again, people's incorrect viewpoints. Go check the respective talk page archives to see what i mean. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit me § Contributions} ♣ 03:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The Witcher – BioWare

Why a "Computer games developed by BioWare" frame on a page about a non-BioWare game? The Witcher uses BioWare's Aurora engine, but is developed by CD Projekt, not BioWare. 87.250.174.76 23:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Computer and video game companies

I'd like to request some help in sorting articles in Category:Computer and video game companies into the appropriate subcategories, namely Category:Computer and video game developers and Category:Computer and video game publishers if applicable for that company (or other applicable categories). Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 13:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Magnetica

Magnetica has been moved to Shunkan Puzzloop, despite the former being more appropriate. And the moving user edited Magnetica, preventing it from being moved back. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible category hijack?

I've come across what looks like an attempt to hijack Category:Computer and video games and move it to Category:Video games. This name change and its effects on it child categories would be massive and I couldn't find any discussion of it on WP:CFD or here, so I started to revert it. However, as I started doing reverts, I noticed more than one person doing the edits, so I have to wonder did I miss the conversation, or was my first impression correct? Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Up there, under 'Project name'. Marasmusine 23:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Still needs to go through CFD for teh categories though, even with the redirects you've been putting in place. Not everyone who might be interested will have been watching here or the talk page on the Computer and video games (now Video game). As it is now, this change has the appearance of an attempt to make a change by stealth. I don't care which name is used, but considering the large number of articles and categories this affects, it needs to be widely discussed not cabalized. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Serves me right for trying to be helpful, s'pose. I'll not touch anything more until a concensus has been reached. Perhaps BcRIPster will be up for organizing the CfD. Marasmusine 00:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't blame you, now that I'm able to see where this is coming from, I doubt if this will generate any controversy, but the lack of a CFD caused me to wonder if someone was trying to vandalize things, especially when the the redirecting of Category:Computer and video games to Category:Video games was done by an anonymous IP. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This was not a blind effort, the change of the master articles name from "Computer and video games" to "Video game" did go through both discussion and a vote. The idea to change catagories came as a result of that change. After reading the CfD page I'm concerned about the burden of adding this tag to the hundreds of CVG catagory pages, unless I'm missing something here. BcRIPster 01:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

WPJ name is a completely separate issue from category name, and the latter should definitely get wider consensus. Personally I find it's odd that computer game, the most natural and usual term in my ideolect, is now just an "anonymous redirect" (i.e., not even mentioned, much less bolded, in the intro of the target). Will this involve moves to a different convention for stub templates? "CVG-stub" has been one of our more mystical abbreviations for a while, video-game-stub and/or compu-game-stub would be more logical and self-explanatory. Alai 03:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the idea was to sweep this across all usages to correct the mixed use of terminology... hence the revision of the Video game page itself. I have changed the CfD from speedy to regular though and added the qualifier regarding a possible super-catagory of "electronic games". BcRIPster 03:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Standardising in the body text is OK, but the main article should at least cover the different terminology before doing so. Alai 05:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Then please feel free to help us do this in the main article. There is a discussion of the revisions to be made going on, on the video game talk page.BcRIPster 03:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Game-cover category messed up

I dunno what happened, but the Category:Game covers is messed up. Everything is kind of lumped together now. User:ONUnicorn did something to it ([3]), but I dunno what to do. Thunderbrand 02:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed it and marked Category:Game covers for speedy deletion as it is redundant to Category:Computer and video game covers. As soon as the backlog catches up the categories will be taken care of. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 13:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It was worrying me a bit. Thunderbrand 16:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Brain Age v. Brain Training

Would anyone want to comment on moving Brain Age to the European title, under the logic of that it was more successful in Europe? - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Since when have sales been an indicator of what the game should be named? Using that logic we ought to rename Pokémon Diamond and Pearl to Poketto Monsutā Daiyamondo and Pāru, as millions of sales clearly outnumber zero sales in the international area. Hbdragon88 07:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sales are a indicator of popularity, needed to determine WP:COMMONNAME cases. However, we're only concerned about English-speaking countries. What ALttP needs to prove is UK sales being greater than US and Canada sales. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 07:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Except that I'm arguing that Brain Training is more known than Brain Age. Brain Training in Europe has sold more than 2 million copies by the beginning of December, versus Brain Age's >1 million copies at the end of it. The UK accounts for 1/3 of the video game industry in Europe, and if we examined how well the DS sold in North America in contrast to the population of it and examined how well the DS sold in the UK in constrast to the population of it, we see that the DS is exceptionally popular in comparison in the UK vs. NA. And if we look at the fact that the DS was probably the most successful Nintendo system in the UK, with its second best-selling game being Brain Training, that it is a lot more popular in the UK. In NA? Nintendogs, New Super Mario Bros., Mario Kart DS, and Super Mario 64 DS. Let's say Brain Age sold 1.4 million (about what it did sell) in NA, and 2.1 in Europe. If the UK is 1/3 of the industry in Europe, and the DS' popularity is highest in France, Germany and the UK in Europe, then it'd be a fair statement to say that something like 1/4 of its sales in Europe come from the UK. And considering NA is significantly larger than the UK, it'd be 500,000 versus 1.3 million, great considering the population differences. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

So, by your calculations (assumptions, assumptions, and assumptions) the European name is less popular overall in the English-speaking populace. We're kinda looking at total numbers, not percentage in whatever country. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 07:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the Nintendo DS' sales are comparatively high in the UK does say something. There's a reason why we discuss. Consider the attach ratio. Brain Training sold 2.1 million to >11 million, Brain Age sold 1.4 million to barely over 10 million. That's a significantly different attach ratio. The problem is verification - to say that Trace Memory is more popular is original research, and Google results are not an adequate source. - A Link to the Past (talk) 09:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

We're not talking about Trace Memory here. WP:COMMONNAME bluntly says to use the common name. As in, the name known to the most people. Not highest ratio in whatever country. No, this doesn't "count for something", despite your constant insistence. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 09:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Switch it with Brain Age, then. WP:COMMONNAME, does it say "use the common name, period, without considering anything BUT which is more common"? Doubt it. We have to look at attach ratios.

And just to make a point, the English Wiki exists outside of North America and the UK. Not only have we not equated Australia and New Zealand into this - both of which call it Brain Training - but every country in the world with the exceptions of Canada and the United States use the name Brain Training (that is, in the countries that have released this game). And English is often the second language of many countries, especially in Europe. It wouldn't be a stretch to say that many people in Europe can edit the en.wiki properly. Hell, English Training has been selling well in many countries which do not speak English, likely to the same people who may be enticed by Brain Training. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That is true; Wikipedia does have a tendency to be ethnocentric in regards to the North American user base. This is no one's fault in particular, but traditionally all game articles go by their North American names (see: Lunar: Dragon Song, even when it was only called this in the US; Europe, New Zealand, and Australia instead named it Lunar: Genesis). If we're naming the it on a basis of consistency, the article should keep its North American name, but maybe there could be some kind of compromise, like calling the article "Brain Age / Brain Training" or something that would be instantly recognizable by the entire English user base at once? Nall 01:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong, Wikipeia tends to be anti-American (since almost every article name use's queen's English). TJ Spyke 03:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Super Mario Bros./Duck Hunt is why not. The best reason I can think of for US-centricism is that most major gaming sites are also US-centric. So the rest of the world is probably more aware of the US than the US is aware of the rest of the world (as sad as that is). Practically speaking, I think redirects and lead sentences clear up the vast majority of confusion, so I'm not sure why we keep having this discussion. Nifboy 02:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly! That's the kind of precedence I need. Sega Genesis is probably more known in English countries, but we went for the Mega Drive. And I realize that redirects help, but some people don't feel that we should compromise on one region's naming conventions, you know? - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Except that it was originally known as "Mega Drive" in Japan; that's what gave it the extra edge. Genesis/Mega Drive does not serve as precedence in this case.--SeizureDog 15:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Huh? It was known as Brain Training in Japan. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

My stance is that if it is sold in more territories (all territories regardless of language) under the name it was given in it's country of origin, then that name should take precedences. If it was renamed for just one or two territories then that/those names should be redirects. What's the worst that could happen? Someone might learn something from being redirected to a different article?. The redirect is a wonderful tool, let's use it. Just because one region of the World decides to rename something, why should that one regions' decision count more than all other regions who use a different name? If more regions know it as Brain Training then Brain Training it should be. It's a bit like Autumn really. - X201 22:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Just stop the original research and put facts: How are the articles used as references calling it? Fetch the most used, and choose it. The article was originally at "Brain Age" if I recall correctly, before it was moved around. -- ReyBrujo 05:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You can always just Googlefight it out... --PresN 04:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

ALTTP has gone and moved the article without any support and edited the previous name (so now only an admin can move it back). A simple Google test shows that Brain Age is the far more common name:

Dr. Kawashima's Brain Training: How Old is Your Brain? (the EU name, which ALTTP moved it to) nets just 33,800 Google hits.
Brain Age: Train Your Brain in Minutes a Day! (the NA name) nets 463,000 Google hits.

ALTTP has also not provided a source for EU sales numbers, while sales info for it in NA is available. I will request a move back, and hope you folks support it. TJ Spyke 03:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Does that surprise you? WP:BOLD and WP:IAR are his favorite pages ;-) I suggest moving it to Brain Age or Brain Training, as a casual user is more likely to type either instead of "Dr. Kawashima's Brain Training: How Old is Your Brain?" or "Brain Age: Train Your Brain in Minutes a Day!". -- ReyBrujo 03:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I wish I could, but he's edited both of those as well, so the article can't seem to be moved without filing a request at WP:RM. TJ Spyke 03:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[4] [5] Happy that I provided a source that I already provided on the BT page? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Moderation on the PSP article needed

Hi everyone. It seems we need some moderation in the PSP article, as we have one user accusing the other of owning the article, another one accusing one of being an idiot, and it's generally taking up far too much bandwidth (precious...). If someone would like to step in to arbitrate, it would be much appreciated. Arkhiver 10:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Listcruft discussion

Final Fantasy weapons is another good example of listcruft that should be put on a fan wiki. Why should it be an exception, just because it's a popular series? Weapon lists, item lists, vehicle lists and so on are still the same: cruft that belongs elsewhere. Anyone want to comment about this? Wikipedia isn't a collection of information (which is a guideline that seems to be ignored quite alot when these lists get made). Can some sort of guideline be agreed on about lists? In a section above, there is several Zelda listcruft articles as well. This problem doesn't seem to be improving much. RobJ1981 21:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Go here. We're working on it. The Gameplay of Final Fantasy article they're talking about in the Cruft Removal section was started in user space just a couple of days ago, and stuff is getting merged in right now. --PresN 23:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, remember that there are numerous other issues on Wikipedia other than listcruft. Things take time. — Deckill er 00:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Should the main article be for the series or the first game?

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Metal Slug is for the first game, Final Fantasy is for the series, Mortal Kombat is a redirect to Mortal Kombat (series) (shouldn't it drop the '(series)'?), and Resident Evil is a disambig page. There doesn't seem to be consistany here, and I think that perhaps we should make a policy for it.

Survey

Add # '''Support''' on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Game

Support If someone was to say "I like Mortal Kombat", I would think they were talking about the game, and not the series as a whole. Generally, I think people tend to add the word 'series' when they are talking of such. I think people would be more likely to say "I like the Final Fantasy series" rather than just "I like Final Fantasy". As such, I expect the article on the series to include the word 'series' in it.--SeizureDog 17:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support If a game series also has one of its games called that (like Metal Gear), then the article about the series should have (series) at the end. So the article about the first game in the Metal Gear series would be at Metal Gear and the article about the series in general would be Metal Gear (series). TJ Spyke 03:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Support This seems like the most logical way to do it. Make sure that the article on the original game contains a {{dablink}} tag up top that points to the appropriate article on the entire series, and I think you've got all the bases covered. SubSeven 00:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Support per TJ Spyke -- Exitmoose 01:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm in favor of putting "(series)" or "series" in the title of the series article, it seems to me most of the game articles are like that. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Support, I guess everyone above already explained my opinion for me. ^^DreamingLady 03:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Support I don't know if there is a manual of style entry for this, but the standard seems to name the article whatever the game's box identifies itself as (e.g. The Legend of Zelda is what was placed on the box of the original NES Zelda game). That being a pretty clear way to identify what the article should be called with hardly a chance for confusion (games in big series like MG, FF, etc. rarely use the exact same title again), I put my support behind this standard. —Mitaphane _?|! 01:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Series

Oppose [game], sort of not sure. There are some cases where the entire series is obviously more notable than the games they originated from. I'm also sort of concerned about something else: in the case of, say, Final Fantasy, what is the proper name for the series? If the series is actually called Final Fantasy, why should it be moved to Final Fantasy (series)? With a parenthetical disambiguator in a title, we would still be acknowledging that the series was just Final Fantasy, and the franchise is obviously (I hope) more notable as a series than as a single NES game. This argument could be applied to other cases, too. Voretus 21:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Oppose mass change. It's possible that I could be convinced on specific cases, but I don't see consistency as particularly offering anything here. Notably, random people refer to liking sequels as liking (game name) often; someone saying that they liked the Zelda game is likely referring to the latest one, not the original. This may not be as true among more hardcore games, but I think it's definitely true among casual and younger gamers. Anyway, the longer a series is, the more likely a passing reference to it is really referring to a later game. Even for short series, some still want to have the series be the "main" article; for exmaple, Star Ocean is a much less notable game than SO2 or SO3, since it never received a US release. For only 2 or 3 game series, I can see the benefit of having the first game at the base article, but again, I'd want to judge that on a case-by-case basis. SnowFire 23:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

I disagree with SeizureDog's assesment. I've found "I like Final Fantasy" is usually talk about the series, if not a specific game in the series that isn't the first (VII for instance). Frankly I don't care much which way this goes, as long as there is a standard. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 17:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

There isn't any consistency because the game titles haven't been consistent either. For instance, there hasn't been a "Mario Kart" game; it's been "Super" "64" "DS" "Super Circuit" and "Double Dash!!" Therefore, having the page at Mario Kart would be just fine IMO, as anybody discussing MK would be talking about the series as a whole, while a specific game will have the full game title. The Final Fantasy/Final Fantasy (video game) stems from an old proposed naming convention that ultimately didn't gain enough traction to become a guideline or policy. Other ones show differenst standareds. For instnace, because there was both a console and handheld, Mario Golf (Nintendo 64)/Mario Golf (Game Boy Color) both exist, with Mario Golf as the main series page. Resident Evil has transcended the video game world, and thus it's appropriate for a dab page, as some people might only know about the film. I suppose the same might apply to Mortal Kombat as well... Hbdragon88 23:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

As I recall, the debate was here. That might shed some light on what people think. I personally think (it's in the survey) that we should have the name go to a disambig page if there is more than two articles with the same name, and use dablink otherwise, redirecting the series. Because of my thoughts, I'm not sure where to support. It is a complicated issue though...--Clyde (talk) 23:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

That debate doesn't seem to be very helpful. It's confusing, and I'm not quite sure what was decided. However, I feel that disambig pages should be handled on a case by case basis, and only when there are three or more links to include. However, most of these really only have the game then the series. I'm not entirely against disambig pages with just two links, but that doesn't seem to be Wikipolicy unless the two articles are equally well known. Arrested Development is one of the very few two link disambigs I've seen.--SeizureDog 02:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and checked a random assortment of game series to see where they lead, and here were my results.

Game: The Legend of Zelda, Metroid, Myst, Phantasy Star, Super Mario Bros., Super Smash Bros., Super Monkey Ball, Tekken, Wild Arms.
Series: Bomberman, Breath of Fire, Castlevania, Command & Conquer, Dance Dance Revolution, Dynasty Warriors, Gradius, Onimusha, Star Ocean.
Redirects to (game): TimeSplitters
Redirects to (series): Street Fighter
Disambig: Mega Man, Metal Gear, Sonic the Hedgehog

Straight 50/50. Can't get any more inconsistant than that.--SeizureDog 02:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I always though the naming policy for games was to give it the name that is listed on its cover. For example: Red Alert is Command & Conquer: Red Alert and not Red Alert (game). In that light, the answer would seem to be redirect to the game when if it was specifically named that at one point (e.g. Final Fantasy, Metal Gear, The Legend of Zelda, etc. ). —Mitaphane _?|! 06:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I just took it upon myself to start making disambig pages, previously. I gave up...well, I forgot why, but it seemed like a good idea at the time. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think some series articles like TimeSplitters (series) and Streets of Rage (series) are unneccesary. It's understandable with large franchises like Mega Man (series), Metal Gear (series) and Final Fantasy to name a few, but If a game only had like two sequels, then it isn't really much of a series. Jonny2x4 23:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I would agree there. The (series) articles are best used when every game (or most) in the series follows a similar format, so you don't have to repeat the same information every time for the gameplay section.--SeizureDog 01:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

With 4 supports for game and none for series, I'm going to start implementing it as policy. I ask that this conversation not be archived for a couple of days though and am not going to fully close it, just in case people get interested in the debate after the moves are made. I am going to make a personal exception for Dance Dance Revolution though, since the series is far more notable than the first game in that case. --SeizureDog 19:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The notability is not the issue here. Articles are given the main namespace if other articles are derived from the original. Jurassic Park is more well known as a film now, but the article is on the book. Since every game is the series is derived from the first, the game takes priority over the series. However this is all moot, as I've suggested that Final Fantasy be used for the Disambig page anyways. Speaking of which, view my my proposal at requested moves.--SeizureDog 23:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Final Fantasy should be for the first game. TJ Spyke 07:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Pages to be moved taken from the WP:RM request

Multiple page swaps requested per discussion here in which it has been determined that the main article space should be for the first game and not the series. While not as fully clear, it was also mostly determined by the conversation that articles with multiple (3+) pages of the same title should have the main space for disambiguation. Also, it's entirely possible that I'm missing a bunch of articles that also need to be moved, as, quite unhelpfully, there is no category for video game series.

Game to main

Bomberman (1983 game) → Bomberman — See above. —SeizureDog 20:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Breath of Fire (video game) → Breath of Fire — See above. —SeizureDog 20:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Breath of Fire → Breath of Fire (series) — See above. —SeizureDog 20:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Castlevania (video game) → Castlevania — See above. —SeizureDog 20:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Castlevania → Castlevania (series) — See above. —SeizureDog 20:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Dynasty Warriors (video game) → Dynasty Warriors — See above. —SeizureDog 20:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Dynasty Warriors → Dynasty Warriors (series) — See above. —SeizureDog 20:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Gradius (arcade game) → Gradius — See above. —SeizureDog 20:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Gradius → Gradius (series) — See above. —SeizureDog 20:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Star Ocean (video game) → Star Ocean — See above. —SeizureDog 20:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Star Ocean → Star Ocean (series) — See above. —SeizureDog 20:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Street Fighter (video game) → Street Fighter — See above. —SeizureDog 20:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Mortal Kombat (video game) → Mortal Kombat — See above. —SeizureDog 20:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Shadow Hearts (video game) → Shadow Hearts — See above. —SeizureDog 20:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Shadow Hearts → Shadow Hearts (series) — See above. —SeizureDog 20:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Armored Core (game) → Armored Core — See above. —SeizureDog 20:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Armored Core → Armored Core (series) — See above. —SeizureDog 20:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Disambig to main

Final Fantasy → Final Fantasy (series) — Likely the most controversial of any of these moves. —SeizureDog 20:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Final Fantasy (disambiguation) → Final Fantasy — See above. —SeizureDog 20:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Silent Hill → Silent Hill (series) — See above. —SeizureDog 20:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Silent Hill (disambiguation) → Silent Hill — See above. —SeizureDog 20:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

SeizureDog I am not going to move them you can do it. If there are any which you can not move for technical reasons then please leave a message on my Talk page and I'll lend a hand--Philip Baird Shearer 14:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Games for a system list: List vs Titles name discussion

I posted on the talk page of List of Wii titles days ago, and got no response. Maybe some people here can help clear this up. Should it be titles or games? It was moved to titles by another editor, because Wii Music isn't a game. I read about it, and it's indeed a game. Should the article be back as games in the article name? What about List of Virtual Console titles (and it's related pages)? I see no proof there is any non-games for the Virtual Console at all. As per other system/console lists: all are listed as games. What does everyone else think about this? I was going to just change the article back to games, but I decided to ask her first. RobJ1981 20:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It should be changed to games, as per "List of (N64, Nintendo GameCube, Virtual Boy...) Games". They're all titled that. --PresN 22:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

What of entries that are not games? This same issue occurs in a few spots, the List of Dreamcast games page for instance. Should it include things like the Dreamcast VCD player, or it's internet browsers? Might a global rename of these pages to the more inclusive "List of XXX Titles" make sense, with redirects from the existing Games pages to avoid breaking anything.

New logo ideas

I noticed that the Nuvola image that is a universal CVG symbol is PNG and needs to be SVGized. At the same time, it is not polished and modern. Some ideas:

Take the Mega Drive 3-button controller and make it into a new CVG logo, but make it silver and not black.
Create an outline of the iconic Nintendo 64 controller.
Stylize the outline of the Dreamcast controller.
Re-design the existing Nuvola image to a dog-bone SNES design.
Create an outline of the PlayStation controller.

Just throwing around an idea. TRKtv (da aaa ah!) 05:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm utterly against the use of the N64, Dreamcast, and Sega Mega Drive controllers. I think what best represents gaming as a whole would be a joystick, even though it is not in use. The next best alternative would be the Dual Shock design (best selling, I think) and after that the NES controller; just because of its d-pad invention. --Teggles 03:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Absoulutey No for the DualShock. I think the SNES controller is the best pic, either that or the NES. N64 would be acceptable. TJ Spyke 04:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

As Teggles says, the Atari 2600 joystick controller is clearly the most iconic to video games as a whole in my opinion.--SeizureDog 19:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I like the existing pad and wouldn't swop it for another pad. The only thing that I would agree to it being swapped for is an original Atari 2600 joystick. But before we throw the pad away, have a read about it. The icon is based on the Gravis PC GamePad - X201 20:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

W00t! Commander Keen :D Fond memories there. Funny though, I never knew about that controller. I notice the image has the "bumps" reversed though. --SeizureDog 20:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Nintendo Wars

I believe that we can call Wikipedia:WikiProject Nintendo Wars officially dead. I've orphaned the {{NWSeriesProject}} project header as a result. Should this be outright deleted, merged with Nintendo, or merged wtih the parent CVG project? Hbdragon88 07:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Wikiproject Strategy Games. That should cover the NW series and Nectaris anyway. --Juigi Kario (Charge! * My crusades) 11:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Either that or Wikipedia:WikiProject Nintendo. In my opinion all these separate wikiprojects should be task forces of this wikiproject, like Capcom taskforce, but whatever... people seem to like the extra bureaucracy on Wikipedia. JACO PLANE • 2007-02-4 22:33

Although I do not believe in all of WIkiProject CVG's child projects becoming it's task forces (WP:MMO has over 500 articles under its scope as an example), I think that WP:NW should be a task force of WikiProject Nintendo. Besides, it only has about 10 articles under it's scope (WikiProject RuneScape became a task force of WP:MMO due to its limited scope). According to the WikiProject Council's guide "Obviously, we could create separate projects for every article should we wish to; but, just as obviously, we don't, as it would be much easier to simply collaborate on the talk page. In general, if there are fewer than a few dozen articles within the projected scope of the project, it would probably be more efficient to simply work within a larger project which includes them." In short, I might be bold and just do it if there no objections soon. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs • reviews)} 01:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

First Person Shooters

I want to join forces with you to make some good first person shooter articles. Games include:

America's Army
Battlefield 1942
and many more.

If you are interested please tell me. --Destructo 087 22:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course! Just join and go. That's CVG! TRKtv (da aaa ah!) 22:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

These articles of course, already exist, but if you'd like to work with us on improving them, that's good! If you want any help with something, let us know. SubSeven 08:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Referencing with footnotes: changing from one format to another

I want to build and start referencing the article Oasis (computer game), but after checking WP:FOOT and getting ready to start using the "<ref>" tags, I've noticed there's another method being used for the article's single citation, using a "{{FN}}" tag. I dunno if it's because I'm blind but I didn't see that in the footnote how-to - will it cause a problem if I re-align that citation in a "<ref>" style and continue in that vein? I'm aware that changing from one form of referencing to another without consensus is a no-no, but I'm waiting to start work on this article and not sure what to do. Any suggestions appreciated. (I'm unfamiliar with referencing, this will be my first attempt). - 07:42, 6 February 2007 QuagmireDog

I say go ahead and convert it to <ref> tags. I don't think it's a problem, since there's only one "ref" there right now. --PresN 16:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it would be either, my only motivation for doing so is "I can figure out how to work this version", rather than "my way is better" or some other arrogant thought. Thanks, I'll see if anyone else has an opinion and if not start in a couple of days. QuagmireDog 12:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Done :) Hopefully I'll be able to pick up speed and get the hang of referencing - it's one of those jobs with CVG articles that could be done repeatedly for an overall benefit. In the meantime I'll try to build this article up more and get the hang of images too. QuagmireDog 02:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Second Opinion requested on Soul Unison

I'm considering sending this to AfD as original research and fancruft, but just wanted to get someone elses opinion on it first. Thanks very much, The Kinslayer 11:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't strike me as original research. It's not as well cited as perhaps it could be, but articles on items and abilities are not uncommon. Compare Items in the Metroid series which was also nominated for deletion, but kept after consensus was reached as to its significance in the Metroid series. -- Exitmoose 00:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep watch in Hudson-related articles

Hudson Soft has posted a note asking readers to help improve Hudson related articles. Check here. While I see nothing wrong here, note that such public calls usually bring as many helpful as vandals, so if you can, keep watch in the articles they have listed there. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 01:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Wii game articles are turning into guides

As I looked at both Wii Play and Wii Sports, the games sections seem like a "how to play the game" guide. Wikipedia isn't a guide, shouldn't all this information be removed? The Wii has unique controls: but that doesn't mean each game article for Wii games should list the controls. Gaming sites are how people learn how to play the game, as are instruction booklets. In my opinion: Wikipedia shouldn't be an online instruction booklet/how to play guide. What does everyone else think about this? RobJ1981 05:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Katamari Damacy has a section on controls. Ultimately it's a matter of how significant the controls are to the game. In the case of Wii games, the controls are much more significant than mere button mappings (Pretty much ALL the reviews cover how the controls work and "feel"). Nifboy 06:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

They definitely should be trimmed, but don't burn yourself out over it. A lot of times with articles about TV shows I'll wait to make major edits after a popular season is done or during an episode break, when all the fanboys have gone home, since sometimes if you do it in the middle your efforts are wasted. Not to say we shouldn't do anything at all, but just saying it's a bit expected for the short term. Also, you get a much easier picture after a little bit of time for what is notable and what isn't. -- Ned Scott 06:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose, but it still seems like a how-to guide, that's not the point of Wikipedia. The Wii has been popular since it came out, and shows no signs of slowing down (yet at least), so it will be a while before fanboys go home or whatever the case maybe. Isn't it better to eliminate the problem before there is many Wii games with it? If it's settled now: then we don't have to clean them up later (when it's very out of hand). RobJ1981 06:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you're not quite getting what a "game guide" is (a lot of people have trouble with it). I looked at the Wii Play page, and yes it's a bit instructionish, but most of what's there seems fine. It just needs a bit of cleanup, not the full-fledged cutting your first post seems to imply. Remember, these are GAMES after all, and an article about a game should talk about its gameplay. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Guide/FAQ issue...

Why not have a standard link to the game's entry on GameFAQs as a method to discourage people populating an article with guide like data? Just a thought... BcRIPster 14:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Because A- links are for useful information, so a standard link wouldn't be appropriate, since sometimes there's nothing there, and B- that wouldn't discourage people from putting in game-guide info in the slightest. --PresN 16:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking for Responsible Gran Turismo Moderators

Sorry if it's not appropriate to post this here, but there don't seem to be a whole lot of editors, let alone adminstrators/moderators keeping an eye on the Gran Turismo (series) set of articles. Gran Turismo 4, in particular, is repeating history wrt to criticisms, and I seem to be the only editor there who remembers the previous history and so I risk getting into a two-person edit war. Plus it's nice to have second or more opinions. Hayter, who handled the previous round, appears to be inactive now, and another possible candidate I contacted has not responded.--SportWagon 19:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use template

Back in December I proposed a merger for three fair use templates, Template:Game-cover, Template:Boardgamecover, and Template:RPG-artwork. I made an effort to publicise the merge on the villiage pump and various places that deal with fair use templates. After a lot of support on tfd and a lack of opposition elsewhere I attempted the merge on January 15. Post-merge I've had two objections, one of which said that I "should have brought up the merge with the various projects that manage those covers" (which I thought I was doing when I informed WikiProject Fair use). The merge has been reverted by the person who said I should have brought up the merge in more places. So here we go... IF ANYONE FROM THIS PROJECT CARES ABOUT THIS MERGE PLEASE VISIT Template_talk:Game-cover#Merge AND JOIN IN DISCUSSION THERE. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

CVGInfobox Template Locked

Does anyone know why the Infobox template has been Protected and Admin only since October? No reason for it was placed on the talk page and no maintenance template added to the template page? There's a discussion[6] on the Template discussion page if anyone has anything to add. Thanks - X201 23:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a high risk template used on nearly every video game article. It's protected against collatoral damage, simlar to {{Infobox Biography}} or whatever. If you want to edit it, add {{Editprotected}} and outline what you want. Hbdragon88 00:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on that template means vandalism on ~~over 15000 talk~~ thousands of pages. Kind of a problem waiting to happen. --PresN 05:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I already understood all of the above but seeing as there was no mention of why on the template itself or on the talk page it looked like a temporary protection that had been forgotten about - X201 08:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Number of screenshots allowed (revisited)

In the most recent discussion over the issue of fair use and screen shots, it was suggested that I contact BradPatrick for any legal guidance for Wikipedia on the issue. This morning, much to my dismay he has indicated (and I am paraphrasing) that he does not feel that this is a discussion for him to become involved in, and that the editors should continue to work towards a consensus.

Let that sink in... Ok, so I will take this over to the ~~village pump~~ Wikipedia talk:Fair use page to have a bigger discussion as I believe after looking at a number of templates, this is a bigger issue than just video game screenshots, and copyright of photos on Wikipedia. See you there.BcRIPster 18:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I think it's time for the Foundation to come in and start establishing some really solid rules here. This is far, far beyond the scope of what editors should do. This is a legal issue. The "Elimination of Fair Use Rationel on Promotional Photographs" - where a majority voted against outright removal of all promo photos - shows how much we clash with the Foundation in this sticky issue. They want totally free, and most of us don't swing that far. Hbdragon88 22:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Merging the bit Generation games into one article

Man, it feels like ages since I've logged into my Wikipedia account. Anyways, I was on so I went to see what the article for the bit Generations looked like. Basically this is a seven-game series Nintendo has put out in Japan on the GBA. The games are all very simple in design, graphics, and controls. A couple of the games have articles, but I think they might be better off all in the same article, as the games can be described in just a paragraph or two each. This would also give the main series article itself more substance. Thoughts? -- gakon5 02:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It seems that all of the relevent game articles are currently stubs, anyway. -- Exitmoose 03:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm on it. It's midnight anyway, so there's not much else to do. -- gakon5 04:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Everybody Votes Channel

The creator of this article keeps insisting that it deserves an article, even though it's only 1 small paragraph and is already covered in its entirety at Wii Channels. I redirected the page, but he keeps acting like i'm deleting it and won't listen to reason (I even explained that redirecting is not deleting, and that the page offers nothing different than the Wii Channels page). He doesn't seem to want to discuss it on his talk page or at the Wii Channels talk page (where I told him to discuss it). If anybody could help (advice on how to deal with him, some of you maybe talking to him). TJ Spyke 04:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I say... put the article in AFD. If it gets deleted: not a big deal. A new channel doesn't need an article just yet. If the channel becomes alot more notable later, then it can get re-added. As of now: it's discussed just fine on the Channels article. RobJ1981 04:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Pinball

I just recently started Wikipedia:WikiProject Pinball, and am in the process of adding an appropriate banner for it to the existing set of pinball pages. At least in pages dealing with specific machines my plan was to replace the existing CVG banner with this new one. I don't know yet if WPB will ultimately become a task force or child project of an existing one, but for now it seems less confusing to anyone editing the page to only have one project to look to for information, and at least right now it seems that the new project is in a better position to provide the kind of topic-specific assistance an editor would need. So I'm going to move forward with it, but please discuss it with me as soon as possible if I'm somehow stepping one someone's toes. Thanks, Fractalchez 04:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don't replace the banner. A lot of articles fall in multiple projects- anime games in WP:ANIME and WP:CVG, game developers in WP:BIO and CVG, and so forth. As Pinball does not fall entirely within CVG, but instead overlaps it in places, consensus has been that both should be left there. --PresN 06:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Wait, unless you mean just on articles that are about actual pinball machines, not pinball video games? If that's the case, go right ahead, those aren't really video games, in my opinion. Just leave the template if it's a pinball game that you play on a computer or console. --PresN 06:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry, that is what I meant: pinball machines and anything that is pretty much exclusive to the physical pinball world (tournaments, terminology, etc.). For anything else dual banners, I agree with consensus, seems optimal. While we're at it, can you direct me to any past discussion on this? I attempted to find it but wasn't successful. Much thanks for your help. Fractalchez 15:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Atari 2600 images

I have a collection of about 100 Atari 2600 games. Drop me a note on my talk page if you want a picture taken of one of them. Royalbroil^T : C 16:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Cover Art question - Wii Play

The Wii Play article is now protected due to edit warring over the cover art. Since when was it dictated that all cover art, be it albums, books or games should be the American version? The PAL (Australia/Europe) cover art (Image:Wii Play Europe.jpg) was uploaded in October and used in the article infobox, the American version (Image:Wii Play.jpg) was uploaded in December and instantly tried to displace the original. Every time a user tagged the image was Orphaned, it was quickly reinserted into the article. With Wii Play's latest release, America is going insane over the pile of mediocrity which it inevitably is, but it's also led to the escalation of the edit war and a subsequent page protection because of it.

I'm generally relaxed with my cover art, I'm usually OK with the art uploaded. For example, Yoshi's Universal Gravitation is back in its original place, yet the game art is American. I've left it like that because I didn't see an overriding reason to get rid of it. The GTA cover art is British, the GTA3 cover art is American. To me, there's never been an overriding "all cover art must be American" rule on Wikipedia, across any of its projects and scope. I hope it hasn't started applying here to CVG space.

On the Wii Play article, we've seen some generally pissy behaviour from both sides. User:Timkovski has thrown the word vandal around quite a bit and User:TJ Spyke shifted very easily from his "Don't change until dispute over" to "Don't revert until dispute over" when it suits him.

For me, there are no overwhelming arguments on either side, and I'm quite open to foreign box art as mentioned above. But what I don't take kindly at, is that cover art images are being removed just because they aren't American. In the end, protracted arguments with no overwhelming arguments such as article naming, Wikipedia just uses the original/first article name, such as gasoline. In the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, it states for spelling, "If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoke conflict by changing to another". This is the kind of attitude I take towards cover art issues.--SeizureDog 01:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

But I'd like more input here, on general CVG cover art guidelines (if in fact we need any), and maybe some uninvolved parties to come across to Talk:Wii Play. - hahnch e n 22:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that as long as the image is properly sourced, has a fair use rationale, and isn't too big, then whatever version is fine. Thunderbrand 22:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the issue at hand here, is that should we have a high level, "Use only Region-X artwork" rule, or the current laissez-faire attitude. Should cover art be replaced because it is not from America? Which is what had happened, and might still happen at Wii Play and Kororinpa. Switch it around the other way, should I start replacing American art with European art? I personally wouldn't, given my stance outlined above, I'm OK with gasoline and aluminium, but others want to. - hahnch e n 00:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The current rules are, basically:

Most recognizable version, if you can make a good case. (Metal Gear Solid 2 has the American cover, because the EU version was muchly, muchly delayed.)
Failing that, the country of origin if it's an English-language cover.
Failing that, defer to the usual rules for regional variations: basically, don't change it without a damned good reason.

I think this attitude is probably best, and both edit warriors need to be beaten with a wiffle ball bat. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that if a game is popular in both Europe and America, then we should just have little votes and use the prettier image. For instance, I personally like the cover art for the Euro version of Wii Play bettter than the American release. I do think that if the cover art is the same we should generally use the American version's though, simply because ESRB ratings are so less distracting than PEGI, OFLC, and others'.--SeizureDog 01:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

If it can be decided in a civil manner then great, otherwise I think a No one wins approach may be better. Something along the lines of a cropped version of the game logo (assuming that that's common to the disputing regions) with the actual different covers in the article. Or smaller versions of both/all covers instead of a single cover. - X201 12:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Additional Ladies and gentlemen, I present the compromise candidate User:X201/sandbox I like it and you never know, it might stop the squabbles. - X201 12:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It breaks for me. See screenshot.--SeizureDog 12:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

How about now? Two images side by side was what I was aiming at and can be fixed by combining the pack shots into a single image. - X201 13:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not just stick to the original european cover? If we're going to have a split cover approach, do the project's guidelines want amending to reflect this preferred approach? I guess I'm concerned that we're going start having this on other titles like Wii Sports too. --Oscarthecat 14:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I personally can't stand having images that don't fill up their infobox space. I don't mind it as much with the alternate sizes I gave (200px), but I'd still rather just have one game in the infobox and alternates elsewhere.--SeizureDog 15:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Oscarthecat,SeizureDog I agree with you both, but there doesn't seem like there's much chance of a civil accepted conclusion to it on that discussion page at the moment. - X201 15:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

~~:OK people, let's see where you stand on this. European / Americas / Combined cover art needed on Wii Play article. State your preference and one-line reasoning below.~~ ~~European - it's a game written in Japan, American cover adds no improvement over original European cover, unclear to me why needs changing.~~ - removed, proper place is article's talk page, as suggested. --Oscarthecat 17:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't see any good reason to have two fair-use images. A good compromise might be none. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This discussion should be continued at Talk:Wii Play, not here. Separating the discussions is pointless. --- RockMFR 05:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I started this thread here to get a wider view on the issue. And to attract a different audience to those who may have just driven by to the Wii Play article due to its current unrepresentative American popularity in the wake of its release. - hahnch e n 10:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

how do i

how do i request for this new game

Inuyasha: Secret of the Divine Jewel

to be added to the project? just came out not too long ago and well it hasnt been claimed yet. if anyone else can request it then that would be great. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maverick423 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Any video game is pretty much automatically in the project. Just add {{cvgproj}} to the top of the article's talk page. Thunderbrand 22:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Done thanks much Maverick423 23:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)