Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 40

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 35

←

Archive 38

→

68.49.98.46

Suddenly this guy has gone on a vandalism tip, we need to keep an eye on him. King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 00:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

In the future, report IP vandals to admins on this page Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism‎. They will handle vandals accordingly. Please remember to also warn the IP vandals before reporting them to that page. Strongsauce (talk) 12:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Date Standard

I don't know if this has been brought up before, but as I've been moving through the video game pages I've noticed a severe lack of a date standard when dealing with upcoming release dates. Many pages use seasons as a time of reference which is easily confused when contributions are happening from both hemispheres. Why isn't there a a quarterly standard (eg: 1st Qtr, 2008), it makes more sense internationally.--Libbaz (talk) 10:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed that this is your first post, so on behalf of everyone here, Welcome. - X201 (talk) 10:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:SEASON does suggest that neutral wording is used and I try to change seasons to Q2 where possible, although you have to be careful to avoid confusion with calendar year quarters and financial year quarters (financial years can start in any month eg May 07 - Apr08). Another alternative is a month range i.e. Apr-May 2008. And there's also the additional Autumn/Fall naming difference to get around. - X201 (talk) 10:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure most of the time when people put those in, they are just using the same date the press releases or news sites use, and most likely don't even think about the problem. Actually this was kind of amusing on Eternal Sonata where people kept not understanding the fact that Australia has opposite seasons from what they were familiar with... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 11:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

StarCraft: a big clean-up on one of our top-importance featured articles

Ashnard has at my request produced a nice extensive list of everything wrong with StarCraft as though it were a featured article candidate. The article was promoted back in 2005, somewhat miraculously judging by how it only had five references at the time and was horribly written. The general idea is to improve the article to de facto featured article status before someone actually notices how un-FA it really is and takes it through the hassle of a featured article review. The review Ashnard has compiled is rather long and will take me a very long time to get through on my own (there doesn't seem to be anyone else contributing significantly to the StarCraft articles any more), so I'd appreciate any help any of you guys can give me with sorting out its many problems. -- Sabre (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ashnard once again delivers with the win.

Remember, FAs used to be called "brillant prose" and at most was reuqired was just a list of references at the bottom. Then m:Cite.php was developed to make it easier to cite and somewhere along the way in-line citations were required of the 1c criteria. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've decided to rewrite the article instead, as its easier to rewrite the article to avoid the problems in the first place than to try to take them on in the existing prose. If anyone wants to help, the sandbox is over at User:S@bre/StarCraft. -- Sabre (talk) 10:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Nitpicking video game article suffix naming conventions

Through link-diving I found myself looking at the list of video game articles and I have a question. The text in parentheses is not very consistent throughout the list of articles. Such as {video game) vs video game vs (videogame) vs (Video Game) vs (game), etc...

Is there a unified way of indicating an article is a video game? I know that most articles don't need this due to there being nothing to confuse it with, and that multiple games might have the same name making it necessary to add the year or platform to the title, but say for instance the articles I'm working on; Dance Dance Revolution links to the series article and Dance Dance Revolution (video game) links to the first game in that series. Should all articles needing to say it say "(video game)" with parentheses and all lower case (which is the way the majority of articles have it) or is there a better naming convention in use or has it just not been dealt with yet?

On a similar note, should it be "(video game series)" or just "(series)"? And I've seen variations of these too. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 22:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This is what you're looking for. General rule- don't do anything in parentheses unless you have to, then it's (video game). If a game article conflicts with a series article, they either both get stuff; (video game), (series); or one wins, if a specific wikiproject has a rule for it. The only one that I know about that does is WP:FF, and that doesn't cover a whole heck of a lot of conflicting names. --PresN (talk) 23:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that's perfect. Does this mean I would get flak for trying to iron out the article names or would I have the blessings of the WP:VG members... Including the ones that babysit articles? --AeronPrometheus (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why anyone would have a problem with it. --PresN (talk) 01:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is Wikipedia after all. But at least this time I can cite this conversation to anyone stonewalling me and go "Where were you when I asked?". --AeronPrometheus (talk) 01:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be (franchise) when a "series" spans different media, such as video games, manga, anime, etc.? Kariteh (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)It depends on what the primary medium is. Series would cover the same members of a series, such as a series of books, movies, games or so on. Related media might feature as a section in the series article, under Legacy or similar. There's no particular convention from what I can find though, so gathering a consensus on the topic in question might be advisable. The root term, e.g. Sonic the Hedgehog would probably benefit from a disamiguation page to clear up confusion.Gazimoff (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Gazimoff. For most of the video game series, the primary medium is video games. Something like Final Fantasy is most well known for its video games and most any other type of media is a spin-off or continuation of one of those games. Something like Sonic the Hedgehog though, has a couple comic book series that have been published for years and several syndicated cartoons all with story lines that are loosely based on the video games. I'd say a rule of thumb would be to use "series", but there are obviously some exceptions that should be examined on a case by case basis. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC))

WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2008 needs some outside opinions

The list of characters was in prose, but was reverted back to a list without consensus and there's been very little discussion about it (except the few regular editors of the article). See the talk page for discussion. RobJ1981 (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually the consensus was always in favor of a full list. Rob is insisting that the list violates some wiki policy or other, even though he won't explain exactly which one. McJeff (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop stalking me McJeff. RobJ1981 (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not taking a position just yet, but as far as precedents go, WWE SmackDown! vs. Raw 2006 was promoted to Good Article on 7 September 2006, based on this version and it included the roster. This suggests that the list format is acceptable for at least a Good Article. Having said that, this was a year and a half ago. Standards may have changed and the article hasn't been checked by the Quality Sweep. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a side. McJeff, consensus is not determined by the number of people that want something a certain way. Consensus is determined by valid and reasonable arguments. Though there was a sizable number of people on that article's talk page that were in favor of a full roster, there was no reasonable argument that supported the inclusion. There are several arguments explaining how a full list does not fall within Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion on Talk:WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2008. As far as the 2006 version of the game, perhaps it is time for it to go up for review. Especially if it is helping promote a standard which is not practiced within this project. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC))

Guyinblack25, can you please cite the actual policies that you believe say a roster list is inappropriate? If you'll turn your attention to the talk page in question, there is actually a very extensive and well sourced argument in favor of including the roster list. As far as not inclusion, there have been no sustained arguments that I have seen - only references to WP:NOT#DIR and WP:GAMECRUFT. I addressed both of these policies and why they do not conflict with the roster list on the talk page - perhaps you'd like to join in again? McJeff (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Plus good article assessment in general says very little about VG standards. It's more of a general thing. Because "no bad lists" is not in the list of criteria, it passed. It won't pass FA or VG A. This page has been causing so many headaches it may actually be worth it to edit war and get it protected in a semi-nice state. (What's incorrect in the previous statement?) User:Krator (t c) 20:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing any actual policies cited, although I am seeing an eagerness to disrupt wikipedia to enforce your POV. Do I even have to name all the policies that's against? McJeff (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the relevant policy in question is WP:EMBED. It cites the manual of style, where straight embedded lists are discouraged. It may be more useful to right this prosaically or in bullet style with relevant content, as per the examples cited. Additionally, as per WP:LIST (particularly the section on List Content) it is noted that lists are subject to verifiability and must be properly cited. Hope this helps. Gazimoff (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on the material covered, couldnt the example that prefers use of a list apply here? bottom of [Wikipedia:EMBED#Lists_within_articles] section. It seems like trying to enforce prose for what is essentailly data (list of characters) might be less natural.

Wageslave (talk) 00:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

As a completely secondary approach, might I suggest that all the "cast" lists for the various WWE/RAW games be compiled into a single table (as per the characters of the Super Smash Bros. series), which then allows one to see which wrestlers are carried across the various series and the like? Then 1) a table format is most appropriate, and 2) the individual articles, including this one, can seealso to that table, and get rid of the edit warring? --MASEM 00:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I kind of like Masem's idea of solving this. Though I'm not a big fan of the SSB character table. But this worth exploring.

Regarding the issues McJeff has stated- The three guidelines and policies you addressed on the talk page—WP:NOT#DIR, WP:GAMEGUIDE, and WP:GAMECRUFT—are the same ones that we are citing, and have been citing, for the removal of a full character list.

WP:NOT#DIR states, "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed." There is no need to list a full roster simply because they are in the game. It also states, "Wikipedia articles are not non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations". In this case it would be a list of real-life wrestlers employed by the World Wrestling Entertainment that appear in this game.
WP:GAMEGUIDE states, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook or textbook." It also states articles should not read like an instruction manuals: "a Wikipedia article should not read like a how-to style manual of instructions, advice (legal, medical, or otherwise) or suggestions, or contain 'how-to's. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes." In this case, a full roster or character list is something you'd expect to find in a strategy/game guide and/or the instruction manual of the game itself.
WP:GAMECRUFT states "a general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it is unsuitable." And while you believe that anybody inquiring about the game is going to want to know every character in it, I disagree. I can see someone who is interested in purchasing the game, or someone who plays the game regularly wanting to know who is in the roster. Mentioning a couple notable wrestlers is all that is need to give a general idea of the type of characters.

A common statement has been used in the argument to include the list, "I don't see anything that says 'no character lists' in the policies." The reason for that is WP:NOT#STUPID, which states, "Wikipedia does not try to anticipate every possible breach of policy and guideline." The policies and guidelines are meant to be interpreted to maintain a level of encyclopedic quality. Several editors have stated this before, but this seems to get drowned out. It does not explicitly state "no character lists" because it can't list every possible exclusion. If it did, the list would be too long to read. Plus, it is impossible to predict every type of policy violation.

Though you may feel a "playable roster is a, perhaps the most, core tenant of the game", I think you'll find that most editors here believe general gameplay and story are the core of video games. In this case, since there is very little story designed into the game, general gameplay is core of the game and should also be for the article. Playable characters are a subset of that, but do not override it.

And as a gentle reminder, Masem's idea is a good course of action to look into that I hope won't get overlooked because of my lengthy response here. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 00:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC))

Actually I think Masem's idea would be an excellent compromise. Guyinblack I'd like to thank you for the effort you put into your response as well, but unless you'd like me to respond I'd prefer to focus my efforts on helping build the roster list page rather than debating wiki policy. Besides, based on what you've said vs what I said on the SDvsRaw08 talk page, it's more a simple difference of opinion than anything else. McJeff (talk) 01:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree on a full cast for the Smackdown series. However, the Smash series has a tiny amount of people, compared to the Smackdown series. Smackdown games have featured 100's of people over the years, plus there is the wrestlers that have appeared under different names. I'm sure the table can be done, but can it be done neatly? RobJ1981 (talk) 05:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

To put things into perspective, I think we need to remember sometimes that a "compromise" that will make both sides partially content is not always the best answer. Yes, it will end an edit war, but we need to remember that such things will set a precedent for future events. I'm not really supporting one way or the other, but I think we need to remember that, even though the table will be a convenience, will it be an actual requirement? As in, does the table really negate the aforementioned policies and guidelines, and whether we are letting a convenient solution obscure this? I'll also add that any reliable WWE wikis—if there are any—should have that information. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 12:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

McJeff, I appreciate your willingness to compromise; that is more than other editors are willing to do at times. However, I feel this is part of a greater issue that has been present in video game articles for some time now and will probably continue to do so. If you don't mind, I think this should be discussed to come to some kind of consensus.

Though a lot of policy has been flung back and worth, there's another reason why I've taken this stance. Most of the regulars here on the VG talk page have a good deal of experience improving articles to earn Good article and Featured article status. It is from that experience that most of us try to prevent content like character lists from popping up in articles. Although, I'm sure if you look far back enough in our edit histories, you'd find that we have added such content into articles before. Heck, when I first worked on Victorious Boxers: Ippo's Road to Glory, it looked like this when I created it. There's also this edit were I formatted things into a table.

However, after learning the ropes here at the VG Project and participating in Good article nominations and Featured article candidacies, I picked up how to an encyclopedic video game article should be written and how it should not be written. I learned that edits like my early ones to Victorious Boxers wouldn't cut it at a GAN and FAC.

At the risk of sounding arrogant, we know what it takes to get a video game article up Wikipedia's quality scale and crafting a high-quality resource is one of the main goals of Wikipedia. Which is why we go to various talk pages to help maintain that level of quality. Anyway, the point of this rant is to maybe put policies aside for moment and explain that even though we may bump heads over which policy means what, we don't do it with malicious intent. We do it improve the articles and in turn the image and reliability of the Wikipedia and the VG Project. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC))

Well, the compromise settles the immediate issue of the Smackdown vs Raw 2008 article. I made a sandbox page in my user subspace for working on the list/table. As far as the greater issue of when is a list appropriate for a videogame, I would suggest it should be taken to the Village Pump, or another page devoted to talking policy. Lists of cars in racing games and teams in sports games have already been brought up, and the subject of lists is a huge can of worms. McJeff (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

What you should do with big lists like these is create a list or series article for them. You could, in fact, move rosters for all of the games to such an article, which also gives them context since readers can compare the rosters of each game. See Marvel vs. Capcom (series) as an example. I don't consider this to be cruft because the characters are actually notable in their own right (in the case of WWE, they're real people, even). Crufty lists are things like lists of powerups that have no context outside the game itself. If you believe that this list interferes with the article's prose, then move the list to another article, and don't delete it. Ham Pastrami (talk) 06:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thought on how to promote the newsletter

Just thought I'd throw this out and see what everyone thought about it. Prior to the first edition of the VG newsletter, there was a lot of talk about how to spread the word particularly to members using the {{User WPVG}}. However, one of the main concerns was to avoid spamming.

Anway, I was thinking one solution would be to temporarily tweak the user template to include a link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter for a month or two. Something to the effect of, "Click here to sign up for the new VG Newsletter." It kinda borders on spamming, but I think it's within boundaries. Any thoughts?

Also, the next distribution date is about 2½ weeks away. Suggestions for the next feature can be posted on the newsletter talk page. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC))

So I take that as a "no"? :-p (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC))

I'm happy for a tweak to the article talk page banner for a while to capture the eye, if concensus agrees.Gazimoff (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not spamming though, is it really? The effort's gone into creating the newsletter, currently most of the score who have signed up are the same contributors who frequent this talk page - if there's not more uptake I'd seriously question whether it's worth the time investment. That being the case, I'd say do whatever it takes to at least make members aware it's there. If they're not interested then so be it, better than not trying and letting it peter out. Someone another 02:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with above. Not really much else to say, it's not really spamming. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Doing this wouldn't really do much unless people watchlist userboxes. And people don't do that, I think. I'm still in favour of a one off bot message to *everyone* saying "yo, we have a newsletter, click here". Just once. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The message has been added to the userbox. I agree that a message to everyone would be the most effective, but I'd like to try something less aggressive first. Hopefully it'll help advertise it. If not, we'll remove it and try to get a bot message sent out. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC))

List of things in articles

Are video game article suppose to contain like the list of cars available in the game, doesnt it violate WP:GAMEGUIDE, as it does in Street Racing Syndicate?--~S R S~ 03:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It's my opinion that if the items are themselves notable (i.e. they are real cars with wiki articles), then it doesn't violate any guidelines. Cruft is stuff like a list of fictional weapons or powerups, which have no context outside of their in-game effects. For the specific article you mention, it's a tough call because the in-game car names are fictional, but they're based on real-world models. For this, I would suggest that you request or find a source that actually makes the link between each fictional car and its real-world equivalent; otherwise remove it as OR. Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It should be removed as it violates WP:GAMECRUFT. --Silver Edge (talk) 04:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Given the WP:VG project considers List of songs in Guitar Hero II a featured article candidate, I'd say this list of cars within a game is perfectly valid. --Oscarthecat (talk) 06:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

A list of songs is a lot more important than a list of cars. Soundtrack lists are featured all over Wikipedia, car lists are certainly not important. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying Link, but I have a bit of trouble understanding why soundtracks are more important. For example, would a Gran Turismo Soundtrack article be justified, while Gran Turismo Vehicles be not important, even though the car driven is central to the game while the music played is largely irrelevant to the game? I'm just wanting to be clear on this and have some arguments to quote, as this argument does seem to rear its head now and again... --Oscarthecat (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

A soundtrack isn't there to serve people who have played the game, but a car list is. There are two types of soundtrack lists:

A soundtrack that exists on the game, and the soundtrack is absolutely necessary for understanding of the game. It's very useful for people who have not played the game.
A soundtrack released separately. A list of songs on the soundtrack is the only content that can exist, and the contents of it are useful to people who do not own it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

List of cars in video game articles has been discussed before, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 30#Lists of cars. --Silver Edge (talk) 06:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I was reading WP:CVG#Scope of information, and it stated that if we were to list, it should be content relevant to the reader and to the game player, IMO, so I'm guessing that the list of cars should remain? But in the game, SRS, I think the list of girlfriends should be removed. On another note, is a roster list in professional wrestling articles violate WP:GAMECRUFT, or is is relevant to the reader?~S R S~ 12:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Truco, I can't find the statement at "WP:CVG#Scope of information" you mentioned. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC))

Im sorry, its at WP:CVG/GL#Scope of information.--~S R S~ 17:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The list of girlfriends actually just needs to be re-titled, as it's not listing characters, but the voice actors who play them. Though, I'm not sure about the guidelines regarding cast credits. Ham Pastrami (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Car lists, item lists, level lists (in most cases, I believe there might be some exceptions) and so on is certainly gamecruft. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here is the actual guideline from WP:GAMECRUFT (which is a synonym for Scope of information; they're the same thing): A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it is unsuitable. I think anything having a real-world context "has value" to people not necessarily playing the game. For example, if you're a Ferrari buff and you're researching popular media that contains Ferraris, you would want to be able to find articles by searching for "Ferrari". I interpret the guideline as saying that lists of meaningful things should remain, especially if they are central features (such as cars in a racing game). On the other hand, if a model of a Ferrari can be found as a toy in a first-person shooter, that would count as trivia or cruft. Ham Pastrami (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's what the spirit of the rule is meant to accomplish. Yeah, I guess everything has value to somebody in some circumstance. But let's apply a little common sense. Someone who wants a list of every car/item/character/setting in a game should go buy a WP:GAMEGUIDE. That kind of info isn't what wikipedia is for. Randomran (talk) 22:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think some editors are getting a bit mixed up here. Lists of items in articles are not recommended and are discouraged by policies and guidelines. However, Wikipedia allows articles which are lists of items (provided they fulfill certain policies and guidelines too). Hence putting a list of cars, songs, or actors in a game or movie article is likely to get them deleted. However, putting up a "List of cars appearing in Need for Speed series" would be much better appreciated and such lists can likely become Featured Lists if they are presented in a clear and concise manner with accompanying verifiable real-world information. In summary:

Lists in articles are "no, no".
Lists as articles are "possible".

Jappalang (talk) 01:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

A Subproject page for Professional wrestling video games?

Does anyone support a subproject for WWE SmackDown! series, and other wrestling video game articles?--~S R S~ 22:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean a task force? JACO PLANE • 2008-04-20 16:03

Yeah.--~S R S~ 16:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Metal Gear Solid 4 online multiplayer and Kojima Criticism

Recently, two groups of Criticism has arise about Metal Gear Solid 4.

One, from Kojima (the game producer) who said amoungst other things: "But the graphic, side things like motion-blending and the size of the map, totally was not accomplished to my original vision - to my satisfaction...we had so many ideas. But when we actually started developing the game, we realized there were a lot of restrictions and so it turned out how you see it today...three years ago that we wanted to create something revolutionary, but in reality we couldn't really do that because of the CPU. We're using the Cell engine to its limit., actually"[1]

I believe it should be included in metal gear solid 4: guns of the patriots in a criticism section.

I added the comments, and they have been removed to a "development section" (it is Kojima being critical of the finished game). I also believe they have been added in a positive-POV manner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Metal_Gear_Solid_4:_Guns_of_the_Patriots#New_criticism_section_and_Kojima.27s_comments

With the launch of the multiplayer online beta, 4 issues have arisen; A) Konami distributed broken keys. B) Konami's Beta Key server crashed. C) Konami has angered users by requiring a unique online account beta play. D) Konami has angered users by requiring a unique online account (post beta) for online play.

I have added ample citations of these issues and believe they should be included in a Criticism section of the the multiplayer online section.

I would like to invite some users from this project to review the discussion taking place here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Metal_Gear_Online#Criticism_section

I would welcome some members of WikiProject Video Games to review and comment on these two Discussions. Thanks!

Wageslave (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that you were right in wanting to include the creator's own comments about the game (in Halo 2 Bungie's dissatisfaction with how the game's polish turned out is duly noted) however criticism sections are in a word, very bad. Integration into development would be okay for now, but it should prolly go at the end of the critical reception section when it comes out. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The Kojima criticism should go into the development section, although it can be referenced again in the reception section when critics comment on it. Incidentally, the Edge interview had been out for over a week before blogs decried "OMG KOJIMA HATERZ THE PS3" in their stupid sensationalistic tone. - hahnch e n 12:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Journalists covering the story include people other than bloggers. Also, Kojima's words speak for themselves.

His comments are more relevant than just to the development of the game, they are a commentary on his opinion of finished game and the PS3 itself.

Wageslave (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that these are all beta phase stuff and the product has not yet been released. Things change before the final product. Kojima might later come out and state "We got it all to work as planned in the final version". (This is why I discourage creating articles on unreleased products. Supporting point: WP:NOT#NEWS) If Kojima's concerns are not addressed by the time the game is released, these information would likely be only one short paragraph (or a few sentences), which can be summed up as "Kojima had expected more of the PS3 and was unable to fulfill his initial desires for MGS4". I sincerely advise editors to stay away from articles of products under development until they are released. Those products who have gained notability as vaporware are, however, fair game. Jappalang (talk) 02:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The edits I recommend are not soly related to Beta. Points A,B and C are, but they the information on beta is worthwhile - at least to say "the beta was troubled by A, B, C.". Point D has been said is not a beta issue, but going to remain in the finished version.

Wageslave (talk) 06:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Shoot 'em up: Merger Proposals

See the talk page for shoot em up for more information. Run and gun and top-down shooter have emerged as their own separate articles, but they're badly referenced with almost the same information as already seen in the shoot 'em up article. My impression is that these articles are totally redundant. (And if you need another reason for a merger, look at the mess in the Template:Video_game_genre around shooter games.)

Once again, please check in at the talk page for shoot em up. Randomran (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Problem accessing magazines page

Does anyone else have a problem accessing Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Magazines? The page doesn't load at all for me. JACO PLANE • 2008-04-20 19:14

Same problem here. Cannot access page. Wageslave (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I cant access it either, there must be some content that is preventing it from loading.--~S R S~ 19:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It has something to do with size I think. I deleted the Archives section, which I'm not sure what was for, since I've never seen that page before, and now it is fine, for me at least. I tried deleting individual translusions, but no single one was creating the problem. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Now its better. Thanks MrKIA11.--~S R S~ 20:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup, it was simply too large. It was transcluding all those subpages that MrKIA11 temporarily deleted (thanks :). I've left a related comment at Wikipedia talk:Special:LongPages#Longest Article talk page. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Prototype

I was going through my watchlist and then I noticed that there are two articles for Prototype. At first I was like 'Ok, what the hell' and I was going to delete one of the versions. But then I realized that this may be wrong thing to do. I thought that maybe I should consult the project. The game is under the name of two article names of: Prototype (game) and Prototype (video game). Should we delete one or what King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 21:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems that either someone was bold and redirected it, or you had the previous title watchlisted, before it was moved to its current title. --Izno (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

"Redirects are cheap". See Wikipedia:Redirects and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#The guiding principles of RfD. Every article should have a handful of incoming redirects (primarily because our search engine is still terrible). Spelling or capitalization errors, acronyms, plurals, etc. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Improving our image... killing some cruft

This has been bothering me for some time, and I guess now is as good a time as any to talk about it- cruft. I'm not talking about questionably notable list of mods for whatever game, I'm talking pure, unadulterated cruft. Like 20KB of weapons lists, 21KB of text on a nonexistent facilities in the middle of who knows where (not to mention excessive fair use images), etc. Not to pick on Half-Life, but there's a massive amount on locations with absolutely nothing that would justify its existence in the eyes of WP:FICT, and even if FICT isn't the benchmark of perfect policy, I think we can all agree that Black Mesa will never be a featured or good article. I know there are plenty of editors like me who would like to merge, condense, source, and occasionally, delete such info- I've had plenty of success dealing with Halo topics, for example merging United Nations Space Command, which was 24KB readable prose on plot and minutae, into Factions of Halo which now features just one paragraph of introduction and three times that on development (and I haven't even finished fleshing out the article.) But the vast majority of this cruft- and I think, this is endemic to all fictional topics- is that a large base is stopping consolidation and cleanup dead in its tracks. I start a Prod for a crufty article with no hope, it gets contested. I take it to AfD, it either snowballs "KEEP I luvs it" or I'm told "discuss a merge, don't delete". Merge discussions don't get any input, but when I merge IPs come to my talk page and protest, and a week later I find all my changes have been reverted. From my experience, I've had next to 0 success in dislodging any of these because of people who don't give a damn what policies say, they like their video games. So I say that either we settle down, sack up and hew out (and follow) an exacting line for dealing with video game subjects, or we just give Wikipedia to the fanboys and wait for the hardliners to storm through. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Just noting that FICT right now is still under debate, though I would argue the trend is towards reduction and merging of material to avoid OR/POV-type favoritism writing (i've been trying to get it there for a year now, almost). However, I would strongly urge that we can move forward in VG alone to help cut down the fluffy; not with the vigor that TTN was doing it, but still merging to at least cut down on articles like Black Mesa and City 17. --MASEM 20:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's definitely a regular occurrence on Wikipedia that needs to be dealt with. The best solution I've found is to find some like-minded editors willing to endure the rigor of discussing the issue with virtually everyone that wants to voice their opinion on the matter. I know that sounds like a big conspiracy theory that only strengthens most of their negative comments about us, but I'm honestly not sure what else to do but wikilawyer them into submission. The problem is that this is time consuming and draining. I know I don't have the time to edit like I use to and because of it there's a sizable backlog at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Cleanup. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC))

I'm with you 100% and next time you decide to take on an article like that you can come find me. There are far, far too many video game pages that resemble lousy fan sites and opinion pieces. I'm all for making WP:FICT just a bit more stricter to hold things together. And if they don't deal with this endemic problem for all of wikipedia, then the WP:video games project should take it upon ourselves to promote a higher standard. Randomran (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

@Masem - I definitely agree TTN was off the rocker, but it's been my experience that unilateral action actually provokes the least response. I'm not saying that's good, it's just that currently there's too many admins closing for 'consensus' when actual arguments against deletion are invalid, and this is crippling the trimming of bad articles. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... what a mess. Its troubling because some articles organize the fictional aspects fairly well ( Final Fantasy VIII). Not that organizing the cruft would make us look better. People complain about pop culture articles being on the front page (here), and then nobody complains about an extremely one-sided article on the front page about a pop culture author! Perhaps there should be a standard about how many fictional world articles to one video game article can be made? Otherwise you have articles like Black Mesa taking up an entire article when one World of Half-Life article would suffice. I dunno. -- Noj r (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to echo that. I've seen a lot of deletion discussions closed with consensus, but with most people saying "hey I know what this is" as being the threshold test for wikipedia. Wikipedia is bad in that there's lots of policy on how to add information, but very little policy on how to take information away. This isn't just a cleanup issue. It's straight-up noise. Randomran (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

We should never limit the number of articles on fictional subjects, but the problem is people confuse that with the fact that if there isn't any real world info and reception, et al, it shouldn't be an article about a fictional subject. WP:HALO had at least 69 article in its scope assessed at one time, but I can say with certainty that there were closer to 100 back in 2006 or so; since then there has been lots of merging of stubs, et al, and integration, to the point where more than 35% of the articles are GA or FA. I think having small wikiprojects/task forces helps combat the fanboyism ("The Z series has a list of X, why not Y?") but I think a clear demarkation and policy is the best tool we can do. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The policies are there to take out information. The problem is they aren't well-known and leave room for interpretation. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC))

I agreed with TTN that cruft was really rampant, but I didn't like his "This article gets redirected because I said so." TTN was running rampant, enforcing some nonexistent privilege, almost as bad as the cruft was. I just hope this discussion doesn't mutate into "TTN2". The bad that he did far outweighed the good. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You do have a point. Well, if we want to combat this now, we need to be closely monitoring new article additions. Its a no brainer to see "Call of Duty 5" and "ammunition types of Call of Duty 5" and have a taskforce quickly wipe out the latter article. A task force might be the solution and then its a matter of cleaning up the pre-existing articles. Maybe two taskforces can be created, a monitoring one and a clean-up one. I dunno, I think its better to think solution and not problem. So we really need to find one. -- Noj r (talk) 22:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind being on such a taskforce. I'd try to keep TTNs in line, you know? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think a taskforce is a good compromise. Afterall, some creep in the fictional stuff is acceptable if its notability is established by reliable research that focuses on an aspect of the fiction. We want to keep things clean, but we don't want to be heavy handed either. So long as there's a diverse set of views on the taskforce, the filter will be intelligent. Randomran (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd be interested in joining a taskforce like this. However, my motivations would be more on the transwiki side of things (I've mostly moved over to StrategyWiki). This would hopefully minimize the "you deleted all my content" complaints where people would re-add the non-notable information (which has actually worked quite well on some of the articles I've worked on). -- Prod (Talk) 01:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Transwikiing is also a good option, and to help offset the "but it's no longer at wikipedia where am I gonna find it" types, I usually include a "(Halo article) at (Halo Wikia)" external link to Halo articles so if the readers really want the whole messy shebang, it's just a click away -> {{Halopedia}}. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the other wikis is that they can be painfully inaccurate. There used to be links on every StarCraft article to the StarCraft wikia, but I had to remove them due to how off the mark they were. I don't want to mislead other readers by pointing them to information that is wrong and judging from the negative reaction I got over there when I tried to change just a few incorrect points it will always be wrong. However, we really do need to tackle this cruft here. I personally was hoping to hit the Half-Life series myself (regardless of picking on Half-Life, it is mostly a complete mess. We were lucky enough just to recently get rid of all the articles for monsters without going through a painful AfD, although that is evidence that painful en-masse AfD's can get the job done) after I'd finished with the StarCraft series, but there was more to the StarCraft series than I had thought. In any case, it looks like if it doesn't happen by the wikiproject it isn't going to happen. I tagged Vortigaunt up a few months back, and I've seen very little in improvement but plenty of the aforementioned "I've heard of it, its notable" accompanied by removal of the tags. -- Sabre (talk) 09:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think a lot of us are on the same page. How about that task force? Randomran (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm hearing a lot of talk about creating a new task force, but we already have Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Cleanup, which has languished after a good start. If more contributors worked on that cleanup page and the articles that have been tagged by it then I think we don't need to set up another task force. There has also been some talk on the newsletter talk page of reviving the WP:GCOTW. Anyone interested? JACO PLANE • 2008-04-12 15:00

(1) I'd definitely be up for the GCOTW project, and would appreciate regular reminders to join in. (2) I thought the cleanup taskforce was for improving existing articles? If the mandate were to cut crappy WP:NOT articles then I'd be all over it like a fat kid on a smartie. (note: fat kids love smarties. I've seen them.) Randomran (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm also definitely up for reviving the GCOTW, but someone would have to step up to the plate and commit themselves to pruning the nominations and updating the various templates. The main reason the GCOTW was retired in the first place is because User:Thunderbrand left wikipedia ( /me cries ). If someone would take up the task that Thunderbrand left behind then I'm sure a weekly collaboration could be a great success once again. It's also good as a rallying effort that unifies and focuses the attention of this community. JACO PLANE • 2008-04-12 18:22

I was kinda hoping Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Inactive project cleanup would be the next thing we tackle, because it would probably be best to consolidate our resources before expanding. But it seems like everyone really wants the collaboration project up and running.

Anyway, I believe what I'm about to say has been said before by another editor, but I think it would be good to reiterate it. Though, we already have a GCOTW, I think it would make more sense to extend the time frame to a month. That way the same group of editors can watch over the article while it goes through GAN and possibly FAC; which can normally take about a month from starting on an article to finishing up a GAN and/or FAC. This way, addressing the more common issues of copy editing, adhering to the Manual of Style, and making sure it's comprehensive will be easier. It will also cut done on the amount of work needed to handle nominations and updates for templates. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC))

I agree. Especially if we're going to be tackling more essential, top and high importance articles, they're gonna need more time. A week is good for expanding a stub that just needs more information. But you need a month to get proper references, resolve conflicts, re-think the layout once or twice, get a variety of opinions... So I'd be all for switch to GCOTM. Any thoughts on a clean up (especially pruning prod-worthy articles) task force? Randomran (talk) 14:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

As Jaco already pointed out, there is already a department for that; Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Cleanup. It is set up similar to the Assessment department, but just serves a different function. There is a section for requests that is currently backlogged. I was trying to clean up World of Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars, but got too busy with real life to finish it up, and others were busy with merging most of the separate King of Fighters character pages into List of characters in The King of Fighters series. There is plenty there that could use some clean up for those interested. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC))

Luckily, it sounds as though everyone is on the same page. I'd much rather not tack on another department, so I guess we could use /Cleanup for the purpose of finding cruft, submitting it for perusal (are there third party sources for notability, before we merge/delete?) and then dealing with it. I myself wouldn't do GCOTW, I'm more of a lone wolf editor anyhow, but I think from previous discussions about it the main issue was the lack of a coordinator ever since t-brand left? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

David has the right idea, we have the department set up, we only need to start using it. And as far as needing a coordinator for the monthly collaboration, I think if 2-3 editors maintained the flow of requests and archiving, then it should be a fairly easy workload. That way if one gets busy in real life for while, there are others to pick up the lack.

Honestly, I think most of the things here should work the same way, like the Portal, Newsletter, etc. Doing something like that by yourself is a big commitment, especially when we all have real lives to take care of too. Having some redundancy worked into the system adds extra support and will ensure the contributors don't get burned out. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC))

Perhaps we should create a content guideline within this project, that way we would avoid the arguments about the validity of FICT. This would prove particulary useful when maintaining the character GAs, those always get filled up with fancruft and speculation, mostly consisting of weapon/abilities lists and canon/non-canon "facts". - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree with cleaning up some of the articles - I was crunching my way through the 700 before I got distracted with pushing 24: The Game. I've also been moving through the unclear notability articles, although this should probably be moved from Assesment to Cleanup. Most of the notability issues though result in prodding, although there have been a handful of articles that we've managed to source and clean up to a reasonable standard. Is this what's needed though? As an editor, should I be focusing my time on generating new articles or cleaning up, prodding and possibly AfDing others? I'm concerned that I may end up with a reputation as a deletionist as a result. Having said all that, I'd agree about the inactive project cleanup - I was interested in joining WP:Warcraft, but it seems to be inactive, with most editors there moving to wowwiki. For cases like that, where a series of articles need work, is it worth bringing the discussion to WP:VG instead?--Gazimoff (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Any comments on old/inactive projects should of course go here... perhaps what we should do is note that while the project is inactive, discussion goes on at WT:VG? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you pointed that out. There are actually loads of inactive sub-WikiProjects that are confusing to new contributors and probably harm meaningful collaboration greatly. After we sort out the whole cleanup department/task force mess, we desperately need to focus some attention on consolidating some of these projects back into WP:VG as task forces or just getting rid of them altogether. It happens all too often that someone gets all excited and spends two days setting up a slick-looking WikiProject, only to never look at it again. Inactive WikiProjects just add to the bureaucracy and complicate matters unnecessarily. Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Inactive project cleanup is where this is being worked on. JACO PLANE • 2008-04-15 21:42

Creating additional taskforces etc. makes me twitch. All of these things are organs which need grinding, or they start making horrific noises. New articles wasn't being kept up to date, now they are but what happens if MrKIA needs a break? The project's AFD page had completely ground to a halt - I had to kick start it again, and I'm a complete gump. You can only spend your time once. The more extra 'things' we bring online the more likely they're going to fall into disuse. Using clean-up to address the concerns raised here would help kick-start it again and might (hopefully) result in some clarification, I've read the page several times and I'm still not clear on what it's actually for.

GCOTM would be a great thing, but from the outset I'd suggest it's used for top-priority articles and for genre articles etc. which desparately need experienced editor attention. A week (or even fortnight) is a very short period of time for a small group to do something in addition to the work they've already taken on board. What if a couple of key editors need a break for a week or two? Individual game articles and series are not our weak point, it's the core articles. The suggestion process should be very simple and involve locating a suitable victim and putting it in the 'next month's project' box, after a short discussion. If it isn't done that way then more time will be wasted clawing through "this game was the first to introduce Nissan Micras into racing games, and is therefore important" and "Mai Shiranui's got MASSIVE hooters". Such suggestions are made in good faith but that doesn't mean it's necessary or desirable. We've got the video games article which needs a good kicking, we've got the genre article/list which absolutely needs the project's attention as opposed to the handful of editors who are struggling to keep it on track ATM. Then we've got Top and High priority articles. There's the work - edit and source. If it takes a panel of editors weeks to pick one of a handful of our most important articles to shore up then there's something badly wrong with the process. Someone another 03:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone another brings up a good point about participation. A lot of departments/subprojects rely on one or two editors which puts an excessive amount of responsibility and stress on them; not to mention takes away time they probably wanted to edit their favorite articles. I still think we need some redundancy built into things like having 3-5 people handle things like assessment, GCOTM, new articles, etc. Knowing you don't need to spend your whole time on Wikipedia doing the same thing over and over again can really relieve stress associated with the work load.

And to answer your question about the Cleanup department, it was meant to help keep gamecruft in check by trimming large plot summaries, switching lists over to prose, assist with mergers if necessary, and other tasks related to keeping articles tidy. It could really use a kick start because it's gone into disrepair after its first two months (I'm partly to blame because real life got a little busy and the other editors got caught in the beast which is List of characters in The King of Fighters series).

Anyway, once we get the various subprojects consolidated, should we look to try and get some editors like MrKIA some help? Like divvy up the tasks or get some recruits to help out with the various subpages and departments. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC))

Sorry I should have clarified the point RE existing project functions and maintainence of them. New files, deletions and assessment seem to be fine, but if someone who has taken the responsibility for keeping them maintained needs a break then someone else will have to take up the slack - they don't run themselves. So in terms of adding more responsibilities, not only do we need project members to run them but also back-up members to step in should the usual organ-grinder need a breather, get thoroughly bored or decide to leave WP altogether. The problem with assessments for instance was that it was mainly (from what I can see, apologies if I missed anyone) run by Krator, PresN and Una Laguna. Una isn't active and declared himself as such, PresN was busy IRL, leaving Krator to sort out what are in effect one-man peer reviews. It's now dealt with because @ 5 or 6 members share the workload. It might be slow at times but some of the requests require a lot of attention, if it's worth having it's worth waiting for. Thanks for clarification of the clean-up, I'll take another look at some point. Someone another 23:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to second everything that someoneanother said in every single way. Top priority is focusing GCOTM on top priorities. That means essential articles, genre articles, top importance and high importance articles. And the time span needs to be longer, since people need time off, or may find themselves busy with other wikipedia articles. No task force should be a full time job. That said, I'd be willing to help out with the AFDs to clean up some cruft -- but it would need to be under the direction of a more watchful eye. If anyone does decide to pick this up, feel free to solicit my help on my talk page. Randomran (talk) 03:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Rebooting the Inactive project cleanup work

David Fuchs has gone ahead and merged WikProject Warcraft into a taskforce of this WikiProject (per inactive project cleanup), which can be found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Warcraft. I've cleared the participants list since the project was inactive, so if you would like to participate please (re)add your name. JACO PLANE • 2008-04-20 12:32

Following from the inspiration of the Warcraft task force merge, I've merged the old incomplete StarCraft Wikiproject into a task force at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/StarCraft. Participants list is only me for the moment, so if you want to participate, add your name - as I seem to be the only editor significantly contributing to the cleanup of StarCraft articles at the moment (I've no clue where the others have all disappeared to, they just stopped editting), other like-minded editors are always appreciated. -- Sabre (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks great, good job! JACO PLANE • 2008-04-20 16:29

So, what projects are next? Anyone got a suggestion? JACO PLANE • 2008-04-20 19:00

I'd suggest Wikipedia:WikiProject TimeSplitters. It's been tagged as inactive for over a year. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC))

I don't think it's even worth having a TF for that series. I say MFD it. JACO PLANE • 2008-04-20 21:10

Agreed—five articles (by my count) is too small for even a task force. Pagra shtak 12:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. I'll raise the MfD this evening if everyone's in agreement, although it might be an idea to redirect the main project page to WP:VG just in case we've missed anything.Gazimoff (talk) 12:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hope you don't Gazimoff, but I just took care of it. See MfD page for Wikipedia:WikiProject TimeSplitters to leave comments.

Also, I wouldn't worry about a redirect, the pages that link to it are few and negligible. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC))

Carmack, Newell and Kojima commentary on PS3

I have added material to the PS3 discussion that I believe should be included in the Playstation 3 article.

Please read the discussion that is taking place at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:PlayStation_3#Criticism_Section

I have refrained from changing the article in order to achieve consensus before editing. I have suggested what are notable additions with citations. To this point, objection to including this matieral has been mostly violations of WP:AGF and WP:PA.

I am reluctant to try to edit the article because I believe that adding this material will simply be undone without justification.

The material should be added to comply with neutral-pov. Please goto the discussion page and review the discussion and include your input. Thanks!

Wageslave (talk) 06:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I just gave a rather nasty reply on the talk page. User:Krator (t c) 07:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Complete rewrite of StarCraft

I've just completed a full rewrite of the FA-in-name-but-not-in-quality StarCraft. That's my third big rewrite of StarCraft articles this month, I feel like collapsing. I'd appreciate any feedback. -- Sabre (talk) 12:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources for game novel reviews?

I'm struggling to find any reviews for the novels in the StarCraft series. Does anyone know where I should be looking for them, because putting "[book title here] reviews" into Google isn't getting me anywhere. -- Sabre (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you try putting the book title in quotes with a +reviews tacked afterward? That might yield better search results. I'm pretty sure too Amazon's customer reviews could count towards casual reader reaction to them.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure customer reviews count? People are not professional reviewers; amateur reviews are typically avoided in game article. Kariteh (talk) 14:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

From what I've been told by admins on the subject if some form of "quality control" exists they can be counted, and I'm relatively sure Amazon would try to maintain that. It wouldn't be enough for a bulk, but more something to cite regarding what general readers thinks towards the material.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what to tell ya Sabre. I couldn't find anything either. I wouldn't use a customer review unless it was included in a special section in a printed magazine or some kind. That means the publisher thought it was either a good enough review or good representation of the overall consumer view. Maybe see if the WikiProject Books has any suggestions or a list of resources they use. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC))

Also you could try finding the sales figures instead. It's just a suggestion, I don't know if it's more difficult than finding reviews. Kariteh (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I can sympathize, even the bestselling Halo novels have next to nothing in terms of mainstream reviews. Perhaps some sci-fi mag archives would be a place to look? I think the limits of online searching are pretty constricting in this case. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Amazon user reviews do not count. Their "quality control" are the same standards used by GameFAQs, GameSpot, Mobygames, and other submission sites. In other words, they check only that a content has some form of substance and no profanities nor slanderous material. (ref: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 36#GameFaqs ) Jappalang (talk) 02:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Notable?

Alright, TTN's back as a lot of folks related to this have noticed and started posting a lot of Notability tags left and right. However many of these seem kinda unfounded, and I called him out on two of them (albeit pretty harshly I must admit): Poison (Final Fight) and Mike Haggar. While I'll argue as much as the next guy that Haggar's article needs an overhaul by far, it seems more a reference issue that's lacking there. As for Poison's article that I've been pretty steadily working on, it has several third party sources cited. TTN immediately popped back up, reverting both and stating on the latter article that while third party sources were cited, in a nutshell they "didn't count."

Now given I really don't want it to turn into an issue very far from here, I'm posting this to ask is there enough in the Poison article to merit notability? (The Haggar article isn't an issue atm: I talked with another member to have it changed to a reference request tag).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the Poison article establishes notability. According to Wikipedia:Notability, the topic must have received "significant coverage" in sources "independent of the subject". For the video game projects it often amounts to finding information about creation and critical reception. The current sources used in the article really aren't enough to justify the long fictional history, gameplay, design and personality sections. I'd say Mike Haggar has the same problem of notability. His history section should be about how the developers designed him and how the character evolved throughout the real world years, it shouldn't be such a long fictional in-universe biography. Kariteh (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is in definite need of fixing, but between the three independently printed sources (All About Capcom, Game Over, and EGM issue) and the classicgaming.gamespy.com sources, I'd say there is barely enough there. The sources don't really justify the amount of the content but I'd say they justify the article. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC))

Unless there is a lot more than that available, that whole part can easily be condensed into a paragraph. It definitely warrants mention, but it doesn't come close to needing an entire article. I also think we're forgetting that third party sources don't establish notability. They are used to establish notability. Just because an article uses a variety of sources does not mean that it is its own valid topic (especially in this case where this is all creation info instead of reception). TTN (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I just trimmed it quickly. It can certainly use some more work, but that's pretty much the max that part will achieve. Unless someone can find another paragraph for that and two paragraphs of reception, there is no reason that it couldn't fit on a list. TTN (talk) 15:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is rediculous...the article was *fine* a year ago with everyone and given a B-class assessment. Now it needs an overhaul? What's the point of wikipedia if anything that can be covered in detail gets shoved on some list that has the informative quality of lint?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Relax Kung Fu Man, though many don't agree with TTN's style of editing, I'm sure he is only trying to maintain a level of quality. We just have different ideas as to what that is. The trim looks much better now, and in all honesty the history and design section should probably be combined in some fashion.

Regarding the combining into a list, I think there's enough there to stand on its own. It's certainly no Good article, but I believe the sources establish notability. And though a reception section is one of the best ways to establish notability, reception is not the definition of notability. Wikipedia defines being notable as being "worthy of notice". And the various sources have demonstrated that parties independent from Capcom have found Poison worthy of notice. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC))

Well fixed it up a bit hopefully, but a reception section just isn't going to happen: all the reception I could cite off a web search is mostly on sites WP does not count as valid references (though oddly they are still points of reception with people either arguing the whole gender issue or stating a liking of the character). I can recall two magazine bits that either had her amongst "sexiest women" and "hottest moments in games" (being the boob-reveal in her hit anim)...I think it was Game Informer that had one or the other, and I'm pretty sure it was even before I started up that article. Hey, I just have a head for trivial rubbish :P There is something I want to add in here though: TTN's edits actually modified things in one spot so that they were incorrect: Billy and Sid were only Poison and Roxy's replacements on Nintendo consoles, and I'm not sure if this applies to the Virtual Console or not. But the original section had stated it was just a Nintendo choice to get them replaced. Just saying be carefull with the trimming there TTN.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Team Fortress 2 classes

I'd like some opinions on Team Fortress 2, namely the class section. It's going to need an overhaul if its going to pass through GA, but I'm not sure how to go about it. What we have already strikes me as too much, and in the wrong format, but something describing the characters should be included due to the amount of reception on the characters themselves. Any ideas how to do it? -- Sabre (talk) 20:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

My first thought when I read the above is "of course the characters are notable"... then I thought about it some more, realizing some are more than others (medic, spy particularly), and then further, that why I thought those characters are notable are strictly only through pop culture reference (like Penny Arcade). Particularly with the way they are written, it's almost better to lose them all then to keep them... but that's a bit excessive. As ten elements is a bit too hefty for prose, I think a bulleted list with exactly one sentence to convey the class is sufficient. Eg: "The scout moves the fastest and can jump a second time while in mid-air, but has limited firepower." Basically, any more detail on each class heads into weapon list roads, but not naming and describing the classes briefly would miss the point of what makes TF2 what it is. --MASEM 23:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Listing TfDs

Quick question, how are templates up for deletion handled? Template:Events in video gaming by month links is up for deletion, but I don't see an easy way to add it to WP:VG/D. Mika1h asked a similar question on the VG Deletion talk page, but didn't get a response, so I figured I'd ask here. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC))

There are many other CfDs, MfDs, and TfDs that could also be added, but it is not possible to translude them as those are not subpages. I have posted a question asking why this is so. At this point the only thing to do would be to have a link to the TfD page, but that's not very appealing. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Kingdom Hearts Task Force

As a very inexperienced user I don't exactly know how to maintain a task force let-alone a whole project, I just thought that maybe it would be a good a idea to start a KH task force. King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 01:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

There's already Wikipedia:WikiProject Square Enix--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info nevermind. King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 01:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

A question about a certain user's edits

Greetings fellow editors. I'm sure some of you have heard of a user named Wageslave. Myself and other editors feel that he is not editing for the purposes of creating a well documented, accurate and neutral encyclopaedia, but he is editing for purposes of POV pushing and so on. Some of us feel that an RFC may be in order, so I have written a draft report here. Could some of the better established editors of this Wikiproject please read over it and give me your opinion on whether or not I should make an official complaint. Thanks. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 06:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Task Force Proposal

After much reflection, I believe we urgently need to create a taskforce dedicated to the improvement of the "people" of video games articles; the designers, composers, developers, creators, actors, companies, studios, etc. They get almost no love in most video game wikiprojects as all the focus goes to the games themselves. That way, they will get the attention they need. I know that this may complicate the synergy of this project that is going on lately, but if this taskforce, or even a separate wikiproject would take them up they would probably take a qualitative leap. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea. I certainly have a few developers in mind that I'd like to work on, but lack the time and resources. If there are enough people to make it happen and keep it going, I don't see why it shouldn't be made. Something to keep in mind though, the project has a lot going on right now. The newsletter just started and we need to keep that going, we're trying to consolidate inactive projects and task forces, and hopefully we'll get a monthly gaming collaboration going too. I'm sure some developer type articles could easily be improved that as well. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC))

Wouldn't this also fall under Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography? Maybe you could get some help from them. --Eruhildo (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be better here, since WP:BIO is incredibly big and 99.9% of people who participate in that project couldn't care less about video games. In the event that this is set up, we should just add a link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Sports and games. JACO PLANE • 2008-04-17 20:13

BTW, a good place for such a task force to start work on is the "People" section of the Essential articles page. In fact, instead of working on just biographies, how about (after we do the inactive project cleanup and making sure the newsletter keeps going) we combine the talk of reviving the GCOTW with a real push to work on the Essential articles, and maybe even start talk of releasing a proper Wikipedia:WikiReader containing all the essential articles? JACO PLANE • 2008-04-17 20:19

One good thing, they are certainly real world enough. But be aware that articles on technical people connected with movies have met with considerable (and in my opinion often unjustified) skepticism unless they've won Academy awards or similarly major prizes. DGG (talk) 21:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Really? That's kind of funny, since our single biography FA is Frank Klepacki (thanks Zeality), who isn't that notable. I think that we have a lot more slack in the WP:VG community since although mainstream publications don't cover our medium and the people involved with it very much, we have an extremely lively industry press and websites, so we won't have any problem finding third party sources to establish notability. JACO PLANE • 2008-04-17 22:41

In line with my FA, I encourage editors (after researching and writing the articles) to try and contact the people in question if there's a deficiency in sources or cloudy details (excepting controversy of course). Frank Klepacki cleared up a few things for me, like the nature of Tiberian Sun's scoring process. Of course, contact will be virtually impossible with Japanese game figures... ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 23:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Halo's only 'permanent' stubs are people- Michael Salvatori, Jason Jones (programmer), Joseph Staten and the like. Establishing notability hasn't been my issue, but finding sources has- on Martin O'Donnell, I was able to find very little that dealt with him instead of just his work on Halo. That said, I echo above user's concerns about another project; my suggestion is draft the plan out, but hold off on any sort of push until we consolidate all the inactive projects. We've got plenty on our plate. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOR is a major issue in what you say. If people from this WikiProject do interact directly with subjects from the articles they're working on, make sure that the subjects publish their opinions on their personal websites/blogs. Writing a great biographical article and sourcing "Person X wrote this to me personally by email" will not suffice. JACO PLANE • 2008-04-17 23:29

I know. I gladly steamroll over the rules to write better articles. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 06:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Besides the few and far between exceptions of reliable fan site where you could publish such conversations and source it, what about OTRS tickets for your comments? -Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Something else that just came to mind, several of the more popular Japanese gaming companies do have offices in North America. Though it may be infeasible to talk to the Japanese developers themselves, perhaps some information can be obtained this way. Don't know how likely it would be to get something useful, but it might be worth a shot. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 00:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC))

Yes, OTRS will work as well. I have OTRS access, so if someone needs to get a statement verified, don't hesitate to ask me. JACO PLANE • 2008-04-18 00:30

If some articles are too small and are stuck as permanent stubs, is it possible to merge them in some "List of... developers" like we do with fictional content, or is it not possible to do this with living persons? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 07:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The BAFTA video game awards are major enough to help with the notability requirements and the likes of Edge and Games TM etc are major enough publications in their industry to help meet the demands of WP:BIO Creative professionals. - X201 (talk) 08:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a really interesting proposal. I would definitely support it. Kariteh (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Sonic info

I am from the Sega project and the in-universe info from the Sonic character articles around the character images, (such as the age weight and height of the character) isn't being displayed. The info was there previously and I took a look through one of the articles history sections and the info never appeared at all. Any ideas on what I should do to get it back?Fairfieldfencer FFF 12:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you got a specific example?. They look OK from where I am. - X201 (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

There's why, basically. User:A Man In Black has always had an issue with measurement information put in the in-universe infoboxes so it's not surprising he'd go after it. Frankly while they can be regarded trivial such information has merits too depending on the character and application, but you'd play heck arguing it with him. Effectively your best bet is to try and work the information into the article where it's pertinent to it (height would be, weight and age not so much given that's something more variable) and cite as need be.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, (and the info was already sited).Fairfieldfencer FFF 13:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I've got to agree with A Man In Black's edits here, I can't see how knowing how much a character weighs is even remotely useful to an encyclopedia reader. As he says, we don't have this stuff for living people, we don't really need it for fictional ones. It's just overkill on the in-universe information, and while appropriate to a fansite or guide book character profile, it is't appropriate here.-- Sabre (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

A Man In Black's deletions comply with WP:GAMECRUFT and WP:NOT#STATS. The general reader is to be informed of Sonic's appearance and impact on the gaming industry, not his exact height or imaginary statistics. Jappalang (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You say you don't put info like that in for real people but can anyone here name the exact weight of George W. Bush? It's not exactly common information is it?Fairfieldfencer FFF 09:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not common information, it's trivia. Kariteh (talk) 09:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Star Control races merge

Last Decemeber, I proposed merging the various races of Star Control (Category:Star Control races) into List of Star Control races. Some of the articles are stubs and seem unlikely to ever expand beyond a stub. Many also repeat the plot of the Star Control games and are largely unsourced and without real-world information. The merge discussion has been stalled for a while. I'd like to get new input at Talk:List of Star Control races#Merge again, as well as ideas for how the merge should be performed if you support. Pagra shtak 18:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

How to write a video game article-part 2

Following up on a previous discussion, the draft of "How to write a good video game article" is almost done. I'd first like to thank Krator, Masem, and Jappalang for helping to expand and copy edit it, and the user pages (User:Zeality/GuideWIP, User:Hbdragon88/vgimprove, User:Krator/VG tips) that provided a basis/guide for the writing the draft.

Anyway, I was hoping to get some feedback and suggestions on it thus far. Currently, I think the weakest section is the "Writing style" section, mainly because of organizational and flow issues. The draft is pretty lengthy. In fact, I worry it might be too lengthy. Any ideas you guys may have to condense the information are more than welcome. I tried to include "good examples" and "not so good" examples along with a brief explanation of why it is good or not good to get the point across better. All examples are taken from WP:VG/FA. The not so good examples are taken from prior versions in the article history of our FAs, mainly to show that things can be cleaned up.

Down the road, I'd like to also take this to WT:GAN and WT:FAC to get their feedback; see if they feel it will be helpful to editors. But before that, I hope we can get a finalized version we can all agree one. So please, any comments, criticism, and suggestions would be appreciate; anything from a little tweak to something I got completely and utterly wrong. If you think it can help an editor improve a video game article, or if you learned something new from it, we'd like to know. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC))

I made some additions and edits. User:Krator (t c) 19:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent job guys, I read it a couple of hours back and I've got to say its a good piece of work. Picked up a few bits I've overlooked in writing articles before (namely properly establishing the setting in which a game takes place). This should pair up well with WP:VG/GL. -- Sabre (talk) 19:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I'm not an expert editor, so take my comments with a grain of salt.

IMHO, you should put some more focus on the writing tips section, especially the parts on eliminating redundancy and writing concisely, as such issues are often brought up on FAC (the famous 1a criterion, I believe). Also, perhaps you should write more about development/reception section, as those two are usually lacking compared to gameplay/plot (in general, the VG paradigm is "write less" for gameplay/"write more" for development/reception). As an occasional editor, I'd also really appreciate a quick reference on the templates used - an explanation of the infobox ("check other articles!" isn't a useful explanation), plus a better "Proper citations" section would go a long way towards this (please mention the "cite web" template too, as it is by far the most used, and provide an (as detailed as possible) explanation for each field - you might think it all obvious, but trust me, new editors don't think so!). --VPeric (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look either today or tomorrow and give some feedback. It's looking good from what I can see though. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 19:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

VPeric, those are exactly the type of comments we're looking for. Thanks for the input. There have been some tweaks since it was first posted with hopefully more to come. What did you have in mind about the development, reception, and citation sections?

Krator, regarding the "Having a biased point of view", I've seen content like this before, it isn't that prevalent, but it can be a problem. Mainly in the use of weasel words and putting in too much positive comments. Though the section can probably be rewritten to better convey this.

Anybody else have comments? Good or bad, we want this thing to be useful. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC))

I know what Guy means about the neutrality issue. When I've been looking at FACs I've seen an over-emphasis on positivity when it's redundant in its context. I've also seen instances where the article explicitly states that a publication or reviewer is usually harsh after stating that that reviewer gave the game a positive comment, high score. Like saying, "Reviewer X, who usually scores games harshly, game game Y a high score". Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 22:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

One question I had, which is especially pertinent to MMOs (and VGs in general), are the use of forum posts as citations. Per WP:RS, forum posts are discouraged, however, developers and community managers will respond directly to the community using forums. Sometimes their thoughts are echoed on what WP:VG/Sources considers to be reliable, sometimes not. Perhaps a blurb on the direct use of forum posts as citations would be helpful. I don't care either way, but WoW is ramping up to be rewritten, and knowing whether we can use forum posts by officials or not would be good, and I'm sure it would be good to have clarification on this point for future MMO / VG articles. Alternatively, this information could be placed in WP:VG/Sources, and I note that it was most recently briefly touched on at WT:VG/Sources#SPS, but not clearly resolved. =) --Izno (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

A few of us have agreed in "forum sources" that developer postings are only acceptable if:

the posters can be verified as the developers themselves and
their postings are pertinent to the article.

Jappalang (talk) 01:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

What does it take to be verified? A citation earlier in the article?...
of course. :P --Izno (talk) 22:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

As raised in the discussion pointed out above, it must be readily visible (or easily verifiable) the poster is truly who he claims. For example, Blizzard's forums have thier employees clearly marked with tags and their nicks are usually shortened versions of their names (note: forumers appointed as MVP or moderators do not count). There are companies who state in their employee bios what nicks they go under when they are in the official forums. Posters on public forums are generally unreliable as there is no gaurantee they are who they claim to be. Any Tom, Dick, or Harry there can claim to be Nick Pardo, John Romero, or Hideo Kojima. Postings on such forums needs evidence of the poster's identity. The poster could link to the discussion on his personal blog or company site. Take note that blogs would also need the burden of proof on the blogger's identity before they can be used as a reliable WP:SPS. Jappalang (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The guide has been edited/updated again—thanks again to those editors that edited it and provided feedback. Hopefully it makes more sense now. I think the only issue still up in the air the "Having a biased point of view". Again, any comments and suggestions are welcome and wanted. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC))

If there aren't any more comments, I'll take it to WT:GAN to see what they think and get an outside view on it. After that, get feedback at WT:FAC, and then I guess put it in a subpage here. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC))

Edit War over Spam / Ads: need help

I've gotten into an edit war with an anonymous IP at escape the room. The anonymous IP keeps re-adding external links to advertise specific escape the room games. I'd appreciate it if someone could quickly step in and deal with this. Randomran (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've watchlisted the article. hbdragon88 (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Peer review backlog

There is currently a backlog at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review; some of which are transcluded from Wikipedia:Peer review. Most of the ones needing review are further down the page. Recently, there has been a good response from editors in providing comments and suggestions for the games listed there (which has probably led to more people using it :-p ), and it'd be a shame to let that great momentum die down.

If you've never provided a peer review before, now is as good as time as any to be bold. If you've been interested in participating in the Video Game Project, but have been unsure about what to do, Peer review is a good way to get involved. It is less formal than a Good article nomination or Featured article candidacy, a good way to get exposure to several types of articles, and can help sharpen up your editing skills.

Of course, if there are any questions about how to give a peer review, feel free to ask here or ask another editor for assistance. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC))

You can close the one for 24: The Game for now. I don't think I'll make the push for FA with it at the mo.Gazimoff ^Write _Read 09:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I posted the 4X request for a peer review. Fortunately, I've gotten the help from User talk:AndonicO, an editor from outside the video games wikiproject. I'd really like a second opinion though. Not because AndonicO's review was bad or controversial. Quite the contrary, it was a really helpful review and I would like someone else to reinforce his suggestions. It's hard to push an article out of its current consensus. Randomran (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well earned

barnstar posted here in error - X201 (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You're giving the VG project a barnstar? --PresN (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I'm having brain fade and losing my way to Pheonix's page. I blame Wii Fit, I ache all over. - X201 (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was a nice gesture to the project; the project needs love too :-p (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC))

Hoax?

Hello gamers, I came across a video game article (Club Wrestling) that was created today, and it might be a hoax. I can't find anything about it on GameFAQs. Anybody heard of this game? Should I just have the article deleted? ~EdGl (talk) 00:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Club Wrestling. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Glad it wasn't just me... ~EdGl (talk) 00:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

List-class category

I just noticed browsing the above list that we don't have category for list-class articles, they go to the unassessed category. I created category page for it (Category:List-Class video game articles, but it doesn't seem to work. Anyone know how to fix it? --Mika1h (talk) 16:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean it doesn't work? What doesn't work? MrKIA11 (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

There are no articles in it, although there articles rated as List-class. --Mika1h (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The VG banner isn't set up to accept the "list" parameter. See previous discussion. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC))

If anyone's interested, I'll make an editprotected request for an addition to the template (IIRC it's full protected), but yeah, at the moment it doesn't support list class. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

List support would be nice, I second the motion to have it added. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 00:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you request that the template be converted into one that uses the {{WPBannerMeta}} format? This way you have support for basically everything, lists, categories, redirects, etc, as well as the usual "start", "stub", "GA", etc classes. --Craw-daddy | T | 02:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm strongly opposed to the addition of list-class. Most lists in this project's scope, like character lists, can be rated and assessed, as well as noted for inclusion in WP:1.0, like any other article. User:Krator (t c) 08:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, having done a lot of assessment for the WikiProject Sega Assessment Department, where we have a List-Class parameter, I have found the class to be quite helpful. Usually it's much more difficult, at least with those lists, to rate and assess them, beyond the featured-list class (which the project has none as of yet). While some users like Krator above are very sharp with these lists and have assessed them in the normal fashion, others might have more difficulty and might or would prefer a List-Class. Of course, the importance ratings should stay as they are, however. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 23:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Myst task force

I just wanted to let the group know that I have just entered a proposal on the WikiProject proposals page to get together some editors for a Myst task force. Please read the proposal and discuss it on that page so that the community can see if there is any interest or disagreement in starting this task force. Thanks! — OranL (talk) 06:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Categories for Nintendo's online games

First there is this: Category:Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection games, which seems to be just a place to dump all Wii and DS games that have Wi-Fi. Then there is this: Category:Wii Wi-Fi games, which is smaller (and shares some of the contents of the first category I listed). I think a DS category would be necessary, then just delete the general Wi-Fi connection category. What does everyone else think? RobJ1981 (talk) 06:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd support this proposal. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd definately encourage this. Nintendo see it as one mechanism, using one logo for both Wii and DS games. We should too. Gazimoff ^Write _Read 09:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, on seconds thoughts, and based on what Gaz said, I think we should just go with Category:Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection games, and dump the Wii one. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Rereading it, that's what I meant. One category for all. I need more coffee... Gazimoff ^Write _Read 09:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Soul Caliber

All titles, I noticed, are titled Soulcaliber, without the space. But on GameFAQs, they're all spelled Soul Caliber, with the space, and only the fourth installment starts the Soulcaliber naming convention. I'd move them all myself but I want to get some consensus, some yeses, that this is the right course of action. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I dunno if this helps or not, but if you load the official websites of the series and soulcalibur III, they write the title of the page as SOULCALIBUR, without any spaces. Hope that helps a bit, i wouldnt be able to say yes or no as i no nothing about these games. Salavat (talk) 02:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The spelling you've proposed above, with the "e", is not the spelling for the game title. Regarding the one word vs. two word issue... IGN and Gamespot both have all the titles listed without a space, e.g. Soulcalibur. The original Dreamcast jewel case cover shows "SoulCalibur", which looks to be just one word, despite the capitalization. Thus, it would seem that GameFAQs is in the minority. --Slordak (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I remember when the first one came out the press used almost exclusively "Soul Calibur" but when the sequel was released "Soulcalibur" was beginning to pop up and eventually replaced the previous spelling. --Mika1h (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, typo there. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've been scanning (Japanese) official material about the series for quite a while now, and I've seen both "SOUL CALIBUR" and "SOULCALIBUR" being used. 'Not sure how to decide between the two, except maybe by checking the registered trademarks? 88.161.129.43 (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

enforcing WP:GAMECRUFT and WP:GAMEGUIDE - what are we gonna do about it?

There's an AFD going on for Characters in Call of Duty that's clearly just an effort to include trivia about a game. I don't deny that it's useful to somebody playing the game, and I don't deny that the Call of Duty series is itself notable. But the characters themselves are not. Which is why this article should be deleted or merged into Call of Duty (series), which is notable in of itself.

Whatever happened to the plan to assemble a taskforce to kill some non-notable game guide trivia? Randomran (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There is Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Cleanup. Dealing with trivia was one of the purposes behind its inception. I'd be happy to try to revive it and get through the backlog with couple of editors.

Though, my personal findings are that there are a lot more people adding in cruft than there are to monitor and correct it. Most corrective efforts take a long time to fight against "fan consensus" and will eventually be undone if not regularly monitored.

That's why I hope the how-to-write guide and newsletters will educate more editors out there, so we turn the very editors we're bumping heads against into allies. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC))

I think you'd be surprised what a small group of highly committed, highly engaged editors can accomplish in an AFD. Simply having a group of 5 people committed to killing trivia would be enough, with one "leader" who takes the time to identify AFD nominations that potentially concern gameguide-type articles. Randomran (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This is true with AfD. It has been a good tool in keeping cruft in check. But trying to clean up a standard video game article that doesn't need or shouldn't go to AfD, then it gets to be an endurance match. Either way, I'd rather have more editors with the knowledge to properly edit than spend my time fighting with seemingly countless people trying to include a character list, fansite link, or other trivial details. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC))

We need to eliminate WP:GAMECRUFT per WP:ITSCRUFT, Wikipedia:Cruftcruft, DGG, and Verdatum. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd certainly like to comment that AfD should not be a "tool" used to clean-up articles. --Craw-daddy | T | 18:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:GAMECRUFT is part of the VG Project's article guidelines about what not to put into video game articles. While WP:ITSCRUFT is a flimsy argument to remove content, I do not think it applies to WP:GAMERCRUFT. That particular section is based on the knowledge and experience of multiple editors that have contributed significantly to the VG related articles and have pushed numerous article to Good article and Featured article status. It is intended to assist editors trying to improve the encyclopedic quality of an article.

And while AfD should not be used as a dedicated tool to "clean up" articles, the removal of unencyclopedic content is its purpose; which overlaps with cleaning up articles. Of course, AfD should be reserved for extreme cases of unencyclopedic articles and as a last resort in clean up disputes. It's inevitable that the result of some AfDs will be the needed clean up of an article. Though I agree it should not primarily serve that purpose. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC))

The links above demonstrate that a large number of users find the word "cruft" unhelpful and for a variety of reasons. We can say in a more academic and polite manner what we do not find suitable for our project without using a word that obviously bothers a sizable number of our contributors and only makes discussions less productive. Perhaps we should just take it to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:VG/GL is the main guideline for video game articles. We're not getting rid of it on the basis of what is essentally the synthesis of two essays and the opinions of two editors. The guideline does not once even mention the word "cruft", it is only used as a shortcut to a section. Please read the guideline more carefully, you clearly haven't if you think its using the word "cruft". -- Sabre (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

A few people against the word cruft isn't a "sizable number" at all. In any case, many video game articles are full of clutter and trivial things (much of which isn't suitable for Wikipedia). I want to point out this AFD as a good example of game guide material: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brawl Characters' Final Smashes. Final smashes are moves for Super Smash Bros Brawl (a fighting game). Wikipedia isn't meant to advise people how to play a video game. There is numerous video game sites (as well as gaming wikis) out there for this type of content. All of which most likely have it, as Brawl is very popular. As for character lists: I don't see a major problem with them usually, as long as decent sourcing happens, and it doesn't include any guide material. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm referring to the redirect that does have "cruft" in its name, not the guideline itself. The Arguments to Avoid essay has had "ITSCRUFT" listed as a bad argument for quite some time and thus does reflect a sizable number of opposition to that word among our community. Part of the problem is that there is no agreement among us as to what would and would not fall under such a characterization. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

A rename of the WP:GAMECRUFT policy probably makes a lot of sense. It's confusing with WP:ITSCRUFT. I might suggest WP:GAMETRIVIA instead. Randomran (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to a rename and it may be worthwhile to brainstorm ideas. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

GAMETRIVIA sounds fine to me.
FYI- See other discussion as well. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC))

Would that already be covered by Wikipedia:Trivia? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. The name implies it deals with games and not just a general trivia. Another alternative could be WP:GAMESCOPE. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC))

Just as a note, if I'm slow to reply to anyone here who directly responded to me, I'm not just ignoring you, but as you can see on my talk page, I'm having some pet issues that are taking up a good deal of time and resources (nearly $900 to have all the tumors removed). Anyway, though, I think it good if we come up with multiple ideas and because a sizeable segment of our community does not approve of the "cruft" word, the more we can do to eliminate it, the better. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a handful of things to consider here, partly looking at why these articles are created in the first place, what purpose it is felt they serve and how to react when discovering them. I think that the articles are created out of a genuine desire to share information by editors who are enthusiastic and passionate about the topics they write about. It is possible that in this surge of enthusiasm, they behave boldy, dive in and start writing without reading the policies and guidelines that exist. And who can blame them? There's often a perceived gap of information on a topic which the editor senses as an opportunity to help the project and sets to work. They spend some time generating a new article, save it and smile with pride at their accomplishments. Sometimes I become concerned by the way we react to new articles of this nature, particularly to new users. It's common to see something listed as a Twinkle'd speedy delete, or AfD'd as non-notable cruft. While I can understand that approach to an established editor who understands the processes here, it can cause confusion and upset to a newcomer. I'd like to suggest a more lenient approach to these new editors, welcoming them, inviting them to the projecr and suggesting some reading material to them to help them shape the article. Tag the article with {{gamecleanup}}, {{fact}} or whatever else you feel is appropriate but help them build a better article from it. Harness their enthusiasm to source and reference articles properly and at the same time teach them about what WP is and is not. The project gains a valuable, enthusiastic and above all guided editor, while the article and others get shaped to a higher standard. With this approach, everyone wins. Of course, if the editor creates then abandons the article despite the tags and welcome message, you are always welcome to prod or speedy after a couple of weeks have elapsed, keeping the housekeeping going. As far as XfD is concerned, I'd like to set a little challenge. For every XfD that you comment on, try to respond without citing gamecruft or gameguide and see if it is possible. Is the content notable? Has it gone into too much technical detail? Is it unsourced or uncited? Does it lend undue weight on a topic? There are other ways, as has been suggested, of raising comments about an item at XfD. Lets see if it's possible to get away from calling something cruft and being more precise about what our concerns are. Gazimoff ^Write _Read 21:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It's at this point that I'm bailing out of this and related discussions. Its doing my head in, among other reasons. I've said my piece in related discussions, and now I'm steering clear of them. -- Sabre (talk) 21:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Gazimoff's view on the whole subject. AfD is the easy way out, and is used more times than it should be. It also alienates newcomers instead of taking them under our wing. In all honesty, I doubt we'd be having this discussion about "cruft" at all if more editors tried to guide newcomers.

While I have to concede that such an outcome—helping a new editor become an experienced one—is optimistic and sometimes unlikely, it is still the better and more desirable outcome. And because of that, it is certainly worth pursuing. Like I said before, I'd rather have more editors with the knowledge to properly edit than spend my time fighting with seemingly countless newcomers who may not be aware of Wikipedia's numerous policies and guidelines. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC))

It's not like there aren't several people turning full articles into redirects (w/o merging anything) and enforcing the guideline at every twist and turn. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

AFD exists for a reason and some stuff really is just deletion fodder. I admit that it's a thin line between notability and WP:GAMECRUFT (whether we like that name or not). It only takes a few articles that focus on how important the fatalities in Mortal Kombat are in gaming history to justify its existence. The truth is that we need (1) a better, clearer policy on what constitutes game trivia worthy of deletion and (2) a warning template of some kind that can be posted as a substitution for an AFD. Right now, simple templates like "provide more references" or "prove this is notable" exist but are too abstract to explain the exact problem -- especially to the newcomers who say "of course it's notable: i've heard of it!" Randomran (talk) 16:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

We currently have {{gamecleanup}}, {{gameguide}} and {{In-universe/Video game}} which should probably cater for most issues. Gazimoff ^Write _Read 07:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Really useful templates that I didn't know about. Thanks for bringing them to my attention. I'll definitely be making use of these. Randomran (talk) 21:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of creating a WP:GAMETRIVIA redirect. It's the policy and its spirit that I like. I'm willing to throw a bone to people hung up on the naming of it. Whatever happens to WP:GAMECRUFT I don't really care. I don't see a need to delete it. But it's not the end of the world. Like I said, it's just a name. Randomran (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

While Gaz brings up good arguments, my own conflicting experience is that many new (VG) editors don't care to read and find out that what they've worked on isn't fit for Wikipedia. On an unrelated note, my own issue is that closing admins for deletion discussions accept the fact that twenty-five editors showed up to snowball an AfD on an obviously non-notable article, and then the article continues to never meet notability requirements. It makes me want to go all TTN on articles when my merges are shot down by people with no grasp of guidelines or policies, AfDs are closed as "not cleanup hurr hurr", and back on the talk page the fanboys will not budge. We aren't supposed to act unilaterally, but trying to forge a consensus with many of these editors has been utterly pointless. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100%. Some stuff really is AFD, if not PROD worthy... but then they get voted up by people with no grasp of policy. Then admins close it as keep, or at best no consensus. I don't think we should push AFDs lightly, and I think articles should be given time, and all the tags and warnings in the world. But when push comes to shove, we need people who are ready to get their hands dirty and kill the articles that shouldn't be here in the first place. Randomran (talk) 01:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I can see your point, David. Maybe I am being optimistic in the hope that people will understand our angle and take on things. Perhaps I should get involved in AfD more, although it feels as if the items I tag for deletion get hardly any attention. At the end of the day, we're trying to build an encyclopaedia, not a Strategy Wiki or a Wikia-a-like. I'd hope people can understand that. Gazimoff ^Write _Read 09:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with being optimistic. We all could probably stand to be a bit more optimistic about things. Besides, if everyone here didn't think we could improve things, we'd all be working on our favorite game articles instead of posting here.

I guess a suggestion to all other editors. Posting here for help is always an option if an AfD is being overrun by fans with little to no grasp of policies. I don't have our deletion page watched, but would be willing to get my hands dirty if need be. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC))

Usefulness of task forces with highly limited # of articles

Someone just created Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Gears of War. At the present, there are exactly 3 articles for this, and I can't see it growing. Is this really necessary? --MASEM 06:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I see 6. Imo, give it a day or two to possibly fill out, then go after it with fire and brimstone, as I would agree that such a low # count of articles doesn't need its own TF. --Izno (talk) 06:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the scope seems too small to sustain itself. I guess leave a note on the talk page informing them of this and suggesting to collaborate on the separate talk pages. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC))

Inconsistent Priority Rankings for List Articles

I've been working on the SNES and SFC lists lately and already started to see something that bugged me. The project seems to be inconsistent in its priority rankings of List articles, even for major game systems. I can understand if the *quality* is ranked different, but the *priority* for major system game lists should be the same, I would think.

Current Priority Rankings --
Major fourth generation systems:
List of Super Nintendo Entertainment System games -- High
List of Super Famicom games -- Low
List of Sega Mega Drive and Sega Genesis games -- Mid

Major third generation systems:
List of Nintendo Entertainment System games -- High
List of Famicom games -- Low
List of Sega Master System games -- Low

I don't have a personal opinion on what the priority should be, but I would think that each of these groupings should have identical priorities across the group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawynn (talk • contribs) 12:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree on that...I went through and made them a bit uniform (WP Japan should cover the Sega systems as well). Looks a little better.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I know this isn't really related to the discussion, but why do we have a "List of Super Nintendo Entertainment System games & List of Super Famicom games" and "List of Nintendo Entertainment System games & List of Famicom games"? Shouldn't they all be on one list to reduce overlap and redundancy? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC))

The SNES discussion page has a topic on this. Feel free to contribute there. 216.188.204.52 (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I do know it's important for the NES vs Famicom systems given one cart can't run on the other, correct? Not sure about the super famicom...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I know there are differences, but they are essentially the same system. And the SNES list talk page only lists a "difficult merger" as the main obstacle. There was a similar merger for the N64 lists and it worked out well enough (although with some disappointed fans). (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC))

Master System isn't as important as NES to VG project so I don't see why the list should be ranked on the same level. --Mika1h (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Project page design

I was just going through my sandboxes, when I found this. It was created during a dicussion about the changing the previous page design. I have thought that the current design, which was really just trialled and stuck because discussion quickly became stale, is unfinished and looks a bit strange in places. I want to know if it's worth hanging on to this and perhaps even use it? Because otherwise I can clear it out of my sandbox for something useful instead of hanging onto old stuff that isn't being used. You can see a much reduced version of it in action on this task force page if you are curious. It's based loosely on the portal design. .:Alex :. 16:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I like your version a bit better than the one we have now, I guess you should just go ahead with moving it out of your sandbox. JACO PLANE • 2008-05-5 12:13

Ribbon alternative for our barnstar

I noticed we don't have a ribbon alternative for our barnstar, so I had a quick go at whipping one up.

I tried to base it on the same colour scheme: the blue barnstar as the dominant colour, with the colours of the four buttons on the white controller on the right. A few graphical glitches, I'll sort them out later. Any opinions? -- Sabre (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Why a ribbon? Just curious, but what's it for? Gazimoff ^Write _Read 16:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

'Tis explained in the provided wikilink. Basically, a compact version that can be used to replace the full one (for people who have way too many barnstars). Looks good to me, Sabre. Nice work. xenocidic (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Though I don't think it may get much usage (sorry, just trying to be honest), it looks good. I like how the color scheme matches the barnstar. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC))

Looks good. Although maybe the colours could be slightly paler (just out of curiousity)? .:Alex :. 17:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with making the colors paler. It would help differentiate the ribbon from

. Kariteh (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've reduced the saturation a bit. Any better? -- Sabre (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. .:Alex :. 17:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

We've got a mini barnstar as well.

The Kombatant's Barnstar

This user has been awarded a VG Barnstar.

- X201 (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, we certainly aren't lost for choice of how we want to display the award. Regardless of whether people use the ribbons or not (generally not, looking down the list of uses on various other ribbons), its nice to have the option available. Otherwise, the only other ribbon that could be used is the placeholder one, (

) and that's a bit dull. I've added this new one to the ribbons page, and added a smaller version below the barnstar on the project page, along with a note for anyone who may want to use it. -- Sabre (talk) 22:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Linearity (video games)

I just did a big clean-up of the Linearity (video games) article. It was a good topic, and an important one related to a lot of concepts. But it was badly written. It was becoming a hotbed of stupid examples (e.g.: this game is non-linear, no, this game is MORE non-linear, this game fails at being non-linear, this game is the best non-linear game). I tried to offer some references and organization.

If anyone else wants to copy edit or add more referenced information, I would encourage you to do so. If nothing else, I would appreciate help from someone who has the patience to clean up the references I've made into the proper wikipedia style. Randomran (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Viewcount on talk page banner

At Talk:Halo Original Soundtrack, there is a part of the VG infobox which states

Medium traffic— This article was viewed 4391 times last month.

Where exactly does this come from, and why have I only seen it on this page? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Weird, it's on Talk:Final Fantasy too, but not on Talk:Wii Sports. Must be something new, I kinda like it, but also think it's kinda superfluous. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC))

I do not see it on Talk:Wii Sports but I do see it on Talk:Final Fantasy. Jappalang (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. The template's code shows nothing of this. Perhaps somebody made a hack? Try raising this issue at Template talk:WikiProject Video games. Jappalang (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed on the GTAIV page. Talk:Grand_Theft_Auto_IV] Strongsauce (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

<queue xfiles music> I like it. Somewhat related, is there any way we can get a report of how many people followed the dab link to end up at Gears of War 2 when GOW2 sent them to God of War II? xenocidic (talk) 22:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Template_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Pageview_counting Strongsauce (talk) 22:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It was added on April 8 on the template[2] as requested on Template talk:WikiProject Video games#Pageview counting. The bot probably needs some time to update everything. Kariteh (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That's kinda cool. I guess it'll find the high traffic pages to help keep vandalism in check. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC))

Indeed, very cool, it's just that I never see any of these changes until they're implemented (like the Wikipedia search bar, too!) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

What's the Wikipedia search bar? JACO PLANE • 2008-04-23 15:28

The normal search box on the left. It now shortlists articles as you type your search in. - X201 (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia stats date back to December 2007. Relatively cool to see how many people see your articles. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for link hbdragon. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 03:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC))

Ohh right, I see this has finally started going live. Anyone have any major issues with this new feature? JACO PLANE • 2008-04-23 06:34

Maybe one. The bot creates a userpage for every single article it needs to do the edit count of. Though I know WP:DWAP, yet 10.000 usersubpages for the VG project alone seems... awful. I'd rather have it edit the talk pages itself. User:Krator (t c) 07:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about that, you'll have to raise that with Verisimilus, who created the Pageview bot that is being used (through the {{viewcount}} template). So what you would be suggesting is a "viewcount=X" parameter or something? Personally I prefer the current implementation, but if it is really a problem in terms of performance I guess we could go the other way. One thing that has been bugging me slightly about the current implementation is that I don't quite like the current colours. JACO PLANE • 2008-04-23 15:06

Quick question, does it only display the count for medium-high traffic pages? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC))

No, look at Special:Contributions/Pageview_bot, anything with a large number has high-traffic (click on "what links here" from the userspace page to get to the talk page). JACO PLANE • 2008-04-23 15:06

Response

Hi,

Just found this page. A few responses.

1) Number of pages created: The pages are only ~5 bytes large. To edit a talk page you have to read its entire contents, then post them back again as your write request. Resource intensive. Also, the absence of code on talk pages makes it less prone to accidental vandalism, and means the stats disappear when out of date.

2) Colour. Easy to edit at {{viewcount}}.

3) The bot is only allowed to do 10 edits a minute, so is working its way slowly from a to z. An increased rate may be possible once the bot has gained approval.

4) The list of pages (accessible via the traffic page of this wikiproject) only goes up to 5000 because the page becomes too large after that.

5) You can't view how many people follow specific links, but you can tag the disambig page with {{viewcount}} to add it to the next bot run.

Worth prodding my talk page if any more queries arise.

Verisimilus T 17:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you think about creating traffic-categories similar to class/importance ones? --Mika1h (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing, having Category:High-traffic video game articles, similar to Category:Top-priority video game articles would be a good thing. Also, I was wondering what the specific ranges are for negligent/low/medium/high traffic. JACO PLANE • 2008-04-23 19:20

It would also be cool if we could link to the graphical stats page, so for Final Fantasy, we would have "This article was viewed 202817 times last month." instead of "This article was viewed 202817 times last month.". JACO PLANE • 2008-04-23 19:39

- - - - The above two posts should be easily implemented by editing/viewing the source of {{viewcount}}, a template which has, unfortunately, just been editprotected. Do pop an {{editprotected}} request on its talk page and I'm sure an admin will eventually get round to implementing it. You may need to add a parameter to the call for viewcount to tell it to put the pages in "high traffic video games articles". The high/medium/low values were set (I forget what to, view source) by selecting appropriate numbers from the list at WikiProject Geology. Verisimilus T 20:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't this tend to change over the course of a game's popularity? As a game nears release, interest in the topic would build, then tail off to a flat level afterwards. If possible, would we be able to have the category auto-populate as articles rise and fall in popularity? Gazimoff ^Write _Read 19:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The bot will run monthly, which should (?) be frequent enough. Verisimilus T 20:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Update: The bot has been withdrawn indefinitely. Verisimilus T 20:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- :( What happened? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, what went wrong? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 11:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

cf. User_talk:Verisimilus#Block_of_User:Pagecount_bot... xenocidic (talk) 13:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Reference Errors

I've been working with a few articles lately and I've noticed that references that formerly worked fine aren't being coded correctly anymore. No one has changed these references. All of these references are named references using the {{cite web}} template in an infobox. In a couple of cases where the reference was used both inside and outside of the infobox, I was able to move the cite web template outside of the infobox, and the reference fix worked like a charm. In other cases, I can't do that, at least not yet. There aren't any of the same references outside of the infobox in these cases. So what exactly is being incorrectly linked here, and how can I fix it for the moment? Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 16:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

These all occur for the same ref, Sonic Channel.Fairfieldfencer FFF 16:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is a list of all those affected:

Here's your fix. The original reference was found in a parameter with an incorrect name. Fixing the parameter name makes the reference available. By the way, never put format=html in cite web (Not sure if it was you or not). HTML is the assumed default. Pagra shtak 05:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

What about the Blaze article there is no HTML and it still isn't working.Fairfieldfencer FFF 10:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The weight parameter doesn't exist, so the reference doesn't show up on the page. Kariteh (talk) 10:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the HTML was a separate issue from the ref not displaying. Pagra shtak 13:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)