Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 70

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 65 ← Archive 68 Archive 69 Archive 70 Archive 71 Archive 72 → Archive 75

Need some help with citing a Japan game boy game receiving a quick revision after release

Wow that was a mouthful...anyway the problem is with The Final Fantasy Legend. The game received a quick revision after it's first Japanese release to fix bugs, but the only pages I've found to note this are rom sites, the game's own serial number, or websites that wouldn't pass a FAC. Does anyone know of a good source for such information? I'm *really* trying to avoid the "just don't cover it" route but I'd rather have coverage be as thorough as possible. Would citing the game's serial number even work in the worst case?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand your problem though Harvest Moon DS had a revision to fix bugs, including some save corrupting ones. However, they quietly released their revision.
You can use the serial number to show 2 different releases of the same game. That meets WP:V. Commenting further though is WP:OR.陣内Jinnai 23:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Burst Limit merge

I am suggesting the merge of Dragon Ball Z: Burst Limit to Dragon Ball Z: Budokai (series). The discussion can be found here. Please join in the discussion so that concensus on the matter can be reached. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 20:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Dragon Ball Z: Infinite World was merged into the same article but there was some disagreement since Infinite World was well sourced and had both reception and development sections. The discussion was here.Tintor2 (talk) 23:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Cameltry

Theres a mention of the game on PSP in the article , but it doesnt mention an enhanced port of the game which was a bonus in that version as well. Can someone help me integrate this information without sounding like im repeating words such as "another" and "and" etc if you get my drift. JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 00:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Since we're cleaning house

There's really not a provision to tackle three related articles at once, so this seemed a better forum.

Two of these have notes on things to fix in the articles from last year, and none of them even look like they GA worthy but two of them were promoted this year. Can we go ahead and just downgrade them on the grounds they've obviously Start-class or does anyone object?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

First off, I don't wanna be a know-it-all, but the first film reached GA in '07 while the other two got it class rating in '08. But anyways, delist them. And this time, explain why. GamerPro64 (talk) 23:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Might be a good idea to leave a note at WT:FILM too. I'd say it arguably falls more under their scope than ours. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC))

Once again, creation of sequel articles...

With E3 happening this week, (even today), there's a lot of sequel news coming out and people seem eager to want to create a full article based on the minimal information gleaned from the announcement. (see, for example Crackdown 2 or Left 4 Dead 2). Note, these are sequels no one was expected as opposed to titles well described (ala The Beatles: Rock Band). Again, personally, I urge restraint until there's enough to write a good section on plot or gameplay from more than a couple sources, salting a redirect to the appropriate prequel articles until such time is needed. Anyone elses' thoughts on the matter .--MASEM (t) 18:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with you that we need to wait until after E3 before building these articles. They'll be full of rumours and people trying to enter misleading information - to file any useful information we need to wait until the conference is over. So... I propose vigilance! Good call on pointing this out. Greg Tyler (t • c) 19:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll be looking into what I make out for Tales of Monkey Island then! -- Sabre (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
If anyone's interested, I'm currently putting together a sandbox for a sandbox for the new Monkey Island game, though its more a matter of accumulating sources thus-far. -- Sabre (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Agree that such titles are best left as redirects until more substantial sourcing appears. I know sequels are considered separate titles, but I think in Wikipedia terms they are more an off shoot of the original topic, the preceding game in this case. Splitting them without proper sources is like content forking in my opinion.
This is probably something to look out for during the Tokyo Game Show as well. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC))
There's a lot of info already (surprisingly) for the Tales of MI series - they were all ready to go. Similarly, right after L4D2, Rock, Paper, Shotgun had put their exclusive preview, and that was enough for me to expand that article. On the other hand, Crackdown 2 has minimal information (still) so again, no need to have an article. --MASEM (t) 20:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Aye, I've come across quite a few sources already for Monkey Island, including a full "first look" preview by GameSpot. There's been some serious hush-hush around the industry media on a number of these E3 titles. Combined with the info from the primary sources, I'll probably have something reasonably substantive up for Monkey Island later tonight or tomorrow. -- Sabre (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:HAMMER has some relevant advice. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Left 4 Dead 2 doesn't seem to be a good example at all, there's a huge preview of it on IGN, and it's only five and a half months away. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Give it time. E3 has only just started. -- Sabre (talk) 21:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Look at that, a single-purpose account. I'll try to keep updating the New article announcements page. « ₣M₣ » 18:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Let's not confuse an account that has only done a single thing with a single-purpose account, and remember not to bite the newcomers. –xenotalk 18:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I have updated WP:VG/N with quite a bit of new articles from within the past week and a half. MuZemike 21:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Classicgaming sites being shut down

[1] IGN/Gamespy is closing down their Classicgaming sites by Aug 31 (so we have time).

Anyone know of a way to get a bot or AWB-like tool to list pages that have links to these sites to figure out how much work we need to update references and/or check archive.org? (and in cases where these have been determines to be RS, to add new locations as exceptions) --MASEM (t) 23:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Nifboy/list should now be a near-complete list. Note classicgaming.com redirects to classicgaming.gamespy.com Nifboy (talk) 00:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Is there a way to list their quality too? It'd probably help with tackling the more higher priority articles.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Hosted sites are being shut down across all the Planet sites, ClassicGaming.Com itself is not being shut down. IGN is upgrading the servers and simply didn't feel like upgrading the hosted site servers. Hence all hosted sites are going away - PlanetHalfLife's, Classigaming's, etc. etc. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 01:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
According to the Metroid Database (one of said hosted sites), kontek.net is offering space for all the refugee sites, so updating references may end up just requiring changing URL's (in the longrun; shortrun I'm sure we'll still have to deal with an inordinate amount of broken links). Arrowned (talk) 01:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I should also add, a lot of the articles Nifboy has listed are not articles that include references to hosted sites, but rather to subdirectories on classicgaming. Likewise, any sites that don't find hosting elsewhere - i.e. that are being abandoned - I'll be transferring over to a subsite archive at atarihq.com. So as Arrowned mentioned, it should just be a process of updating urls. But please, make sure everyone doesn't go hog wild and start changing links to articles and such on classicgaming itself. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 02:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I wasn't (and am still not really) aware of what precisely was going on; I just assumed everything from *.classicgaming.gamespy.com and classicgaming.com was going away. Nifboy (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
The FAQ on the shutdown is quite clear. Likewise if you look at my profile, I'm the ex site admin of Classicgaming and currently on the staff as a volunteer (I'm also listed on the staff link on the site). I just double checked with the higher-ups as well. IGN Entertainment (which is Gamespy and IGN combined under a single IGN corporate entity) is upgrading servers and decided not to go through the process of upgrading the free hosting servers. Consequently, all the free hosted sites (fansites, etc., simply referred to as "hosted sites") are being shut down the end of August as the faq link states. Hosted sites are part of a long running program amongst the Planet sites, where people (pending an application and review) were given free hosting for their own gaming related sites - they just had to include Gamespy commercial ads in their site. The confusion comes because the free hosted sites are usually affiliated with an appropriate Planet site, with a piggybacked (subdomained) url (such *.classicgaming.gamespy.com for general retro sites). classicgaming.gamespy.com itself is not a hosted site url, that is the url for Classicgaming.com. Classicgaming and the rest of the Planet sites are not hosted sites, they are a regular part of the Gamespy network and not shutting down. If you want a list of the sites shutting down, go to each Planet site and click on the Hosted Sites tag on the left menu. For example, the full list of sites closing down from the *.classicgaming.gamespy.com domain is here (3 pages worth). --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK's on non-stub unreleased game articles with points of general interest?

Do more developed non-stub articles on just announced games with certain interesting traits qualify for DYK even though unreleased? I'm wondering about nominating Tales of Monkey Island now I've got it up, but I've never dealt with a DYK before. The point about Telltale and LucasArts collaborating together despite Telltale being formed by LucasArts employees disillusioned with the company's direction in 2004 could be decent DYK material. -- Sabre (talk) 12:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't like DYK, but I'd certainly recommend trying to get something in there. Make sure it's got a good reference behind it and would be interesting - the one you mention sounds like good stuff. As long as it's factual, interesting and verifiable, I'm pretty sure that's DYK material. Greg Tyler (t • c) 13:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Partner peer review for AHS Centaur now open

The peer review for AHS Centaur, an article within the scope of the Military history WikiProject, is now open. The Military history WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [pf] 13:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Generation Cateogory

I'm not sure where the decision came from to only show systems of the same generation in the bar at the bottom, but I don't like it. It removes the context for the existence of the system, and makes wikipedia articles about video game systems that much less easy to navigate.

I often get the response that I am free to change things about wikipedia, and I am aware of this. I just want to know if the way things are is they way wikipedians want things, so that I'm not making trouble if I do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.43.215 (talk) 03:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? Could you give us some context — an example or something? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
They are sorted by both generation and company. I don't see any other way the bars could be arranged.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
The current use of separate generation templates is a result of the consensus generated by the RFC for the dedicated consoles template that was posted here and discussed there. There's not a need for multiple generations to be listed on a single template, as that's out of context - the context for the existence of the system is in relation to other consoles in that generation. There's already a page (linked to at the top of every generational template) that lists all consoles from every generation anyways. Such a long list in a single template is simply unwarranted per list policy, and not needed. Likewise there are also templates like the Sega template and Atari hardware template that give full multi-generational listings for a specific brand, that are also included on pages. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 05:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Quick copy edit of Qbert

I just finished up Q*bert and was hoping I could get a fresh pair of eyes to look it over. I wrote half of it over a month ago and the rest this past week. I also tried adding some more reception about remakes and sequels, and would like an opinion about how it flows/looks. Because of those reasons, I'm afraid there are more errors in there I'm missing. Any help would be appreciated. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC))

Link (The Legend of Zelda) FAR

Giving a shout about it because it's one of the project's top priority articles, but I nominated Link for featured article review because of it's current quality. If people could take a look and offer input or improve the article that'd help greatly.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion

I have done a GA Reassessment of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion as part of the GA Sweeps project. The article is certainly GA quality except for several dead links in the reference section. I would like to keep this article at GA but not without these links being fixed. My review is here. I am notifying the interested projects and editors in the hopes that someone will address this so that it can remain GA (actually A class now). If you have questions please contact me on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Final Fantasy XI and XIV Online

Should Final Fantasy XI and Final Fantasy XIV be renamed Final Fantasy XI Online and Final Fantasy XIV Online? All these names are official, but I'm not sure which ones are the most commonly-used. Milkedslime (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I would stick with the shorter one, just because it's simpler and that tends to seem like a good idea. Greg Tyler (t • c) 14:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
A quick glance at the refs in Final Fantasy XI suggest that the "Online" part of the name is not used. All the webpage titles just say "Final Fantasy XI". I'd imagine XIV will end up being the same, but only time will tell. I'd say it's best to drop the "Online" portion for that one too for consistency. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC))
There's not going to be an "offline" version, so it's best to name it using solely its title.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Main page heads up for Okami

Random Raul pick (I did not request it, so I hope it doesn't screw up anyone's attempts for a front page VG article), but Okami will be the Main Page article on June 10th. Usual vandal watches requested. --MASEM (t) 03:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Notability

Is there any consensus on how to judge the notability of a video game?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Neon white (talk • contribs) 13:45, 1 June 2009

There's no special additional guidelines - basically it needs to meet WP:N. --MASEM (t) 13:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Is there a particular game you had in mind? Most editors here can give you some good feedback for a specific title. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC))
No specific title, there has been a number of afds where reliable sources have been questioned, particularly in terms of reviews being used as evidence of notability, which sites are reliable and what constitutes as significant coverage. During Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamicrazy, User:OlYeller21 questioned the use of reviews saying 'sources like IGN will review just about any kind of video game that comes out'. Whilst that may be a personal opinion, i tend to agree somewhat that many review sites come across like a directory of games and if indeed every game is reviewed, are they all notable? --neon white talk 16:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
To narrow in on what I think you're asking, notability for video games is established by receiving "significant coverage" from "reliable sources". Significant generally means that articles have been published that focus specifically on the topic; a string of passing mentions doesn't establish much. News sites are considered reliable sources (WP:RS#News organizations), and IGN falls under Fox Interactive Media, Inc's umbrella, just like GameSpot falls under CBS Corporation's. So despite their perceived reliability (the whole Jeff Gerstmann thing did not help), sites like IGN and GameSpot do satisfy WP:RS. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC))
Those were a couple of the major sites that i would consider reliable but it still doesnt address the idea of blanket coverage of all games. --neon white talk 21:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The softening scores bit has been brought up before. I think it might be more to do with companies that are owned by them or heavily advertise with them that the problem exists.陣内Jinnai 17:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Buying good reviews happens at ever publication that reviews anything and has for 50+ years. I'm not sure it that relevant to this particular issue. --neon white talk 21:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Neon, what do mean by "the idea of blanket coverage of all games"? Do you mean that because every game is reviewed, we should be more stringent with notability requirements? I'm not sure I'm following the discussion well enough. Could you clarify please? (Guyinblack25 talk 15:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC))

A new book resource I found

Anyone dealing with games with "meaning" may want to see what they can add from this CC-distributed book: Well Played 1.0. --MASEM (t) 05:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Chapters on Half-Life and Secret of Monkey Island; this could come in handy. However, it tends to read somewhat as a reguritation of gameplay and plot in some areas, without actually attributing any real commentary. -- Sabre (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Didn't expect to see chapters on Super Mario Bros. and Parappa the Rapper. Excellent find Masem. Thanks. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC))

Castlevania Next-Gen

I've just created an AfD for Castlevania Next-Gen, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Castlevania Next-Gen, thinking it's too early for an article. --Oscarthecat (talk) 07:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Microsoft Windows vs. Personal computer

Winooo (talk · contribs) has been changing occurrences of "Microsoft Windows" to "PC". Although pretty sure that this is incorrect, I just want to confirm it with the project. —LOL T/C 16:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that we have a clear consensus on how to denote games for Windows, but these days it CAN be important to distinguish between Windows and Mac platforms, since a number of games are only available for one or the other. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
A personal computer can encompass a whole range of operating systems, the term is too generic for making it interchangeable with Windows. Differentiating between them is important, especially when a game came out on multiple OS's, but all on a PC, at different times. -- Sabre (talk) 16:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I think its a major difference between a console and a PC. A console is designed to play one type of game, and except for some early consoles, they can only play those games without illegal mods/hacks. A PC though, not only has differences with Microsoft/Windows/Linux/other software, but also outdated software like DOS.
If it's just the infobox, it may be arguable that PC is better, but in the prose, it needs to link to the correct article. However, the standard has been for some time to list PCs by their OS and consoles by their console.陣内Jinnai 17:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
PC is a lot more broad. "Microsoft Windows" is used because it's compatible with the specific OS. If someone used Bootcamp and used Mac on their PC, would the game be compatible? No. What about DOS? No. So "Windows" is used to clarify the compatibility.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
If this is just one person, we talk to him and explain. I hate to add something so trivial to our guidelines as instruction creep.陣内Jinnai 17:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Seems Andrewrp took that bullet pretty sweetly for you there, Jinnai. Though perhaps explanations would have been preferable to cautions/warnings. Anyhow, I've invited the editor to this discussion. Greg Tyler (t • c) 18:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
It's pretty obvious that consoles are designed to run only one OS - the one of the console maker. However, PC's are not designed to run any specific operating system, so the operating system needs to be listed.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Depends somewhat on context, but if we are talking about infoboxes and system requirements, it should specify the correct OS, keeping in mind that "Microsoft Windows" is already a generalization (should we specify "Windows XP" for example?). Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Probably not necessary to break down the specific version of Windows in the infobox unless a game is known to only be compatible with one version. Most Windows games are compatible with multiple releases of Windows - there are a smaller number that only work in Vista (and beyond), and an even smaller number that work in earlier OSes (Win98, Win2K, etc) but not in later ones. This would be difficult to convey accurately and concisely in the infobox - any special info on that should be in the prose. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
There are quite a few games that were released for Windows 95 and don't work properly in later versions of Windows. This has more to do with poor (or lack of) DirectX implementation, as it was brand new at the time! There are also games that were designed for Windows 3.x, but these all tended to run OK in Windows 9.x as well, IIRC (not sure about Windows XP/Vista). SharkD (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Macs and Windows are both PCs, but games that work on one don't work on the other unless they're specially designed to. So I'd say that "Windows" is usually preferable over "PC", since PC is a much wider range of operating systems. It would be like listing "Console", rather than "PS3" or "Wii"... it's just not specific enough. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Characters in Devil May Cry

I got a question. Is Characters in Devil May Cry considered a list? Because if it is, it automaticly fails Good Article. GamerPro64 (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks it. Question though, do we complete remove the GA tag in this case? Kinda silly to set it as a list and delist it as GA only to say "please help improve this article to GA status once more".--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Good question. Maybe we should. GamerPro64 (talk) 22:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the policies and guidelines make it very clear where these sorts of articles stand, really. To me, it's just normal encyclopedic prose arranged in a list format, so I'd say it should stick to the normal Stub, Start, C, B, etc. scale. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 22:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
(3x edit conflict) I would say no just because Characters of Final Fantasy VIII and Characters of Kingdom Hearts are considered Featured Articles and not Featured Lists. There is also Characters of Final Fantasy XII and, tangentially-related, CD-i games from the Legend of Zelda series. Unless we delist those GA lists and make those two FAs FLs instead. MuZemike 22:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I dug up a review of it which stated "The article was a list, the header just stayed there, now it's a profile pages for secondary characters. Second the article isn't in-universe, it always refers to the characters as such by addin lines such as "In Devil May Cry mythology..."" So seems it isn't a list. I'm going ahead with a downgrade to C-class for now, there's still some reference issues that's really dragging it down and stuff like IMDB being used liberally.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. And besides, CD-i games from The Legend of Zelda series isn't really a list. And you might be on to changing Characters of Final Fantasy VIII and Characters of Kingdom Hearts to FL. GamerPro64 (talk) 23:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Its an article, related pages are also considered articles through peer reviewed processes such as FA, it should remain classified as an article. Whether the page meets the good article criteria otherwise is another matter. I really can't see any point in going through the necessary reviews to delist FA's and renominate them as FL's on a whim. It would be inefficient, unnecessary and a waste of time. This and this are lists, those character pages are articles; having individual characters contained within one article does not automatically make it a list. -- Sabre (talk) 23:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, List of characters in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow is a FL. So Characters of Final Fantasy VIII and Characters of Kingdom Hearts should be FL also. GamerPro64 (talk) 23:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe, Characters of Final Fantasy VIII is an FA, so List of characters in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow should be FA too, eh? I'm with Sabre on this one- I'm seeing a whole lot of prose and no tables, so that makes it an article. --PresN 00:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm in the same mind - all these examples are "articles" as opposed to "lists" - once we start adding wrapping text like creation, reception, and the like, it's less a supporting article for a game or series, and more standalone. --MASEM (t) 00:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Somewhat related, but since there seems to be a consensus that these are articles and not lists you might take a gander here, where they're apparently trying to pass off an article on Bulbasaur's evolutionary line as a list.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I remember this whole thing causing some ruckus at WP:FAC] when Characters of Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow went there. Per the regulars at the FAC, the nomination was ended early and then nominated at WP:FLC. Raul also brought up that the number of article/list hybrids coming to FAC was increasing; pages that have sizable sections of prose as well as lengthy lists components. I tried pushing the topic further a few times, but nothing ever came of it. I think the unspoken rule is that some of hybrids got grandfathered. To be honest, I wouldn't have much issue with switching Characters of Kingdom Hearts to a list. (Guyinblack25 talk 00:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC))
I would call the article a article/list hybrid. Thus I think the more important question is how much listy-ness can an article have before it is put in the list category? SharkD (talk) 07:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Heads up on out-of-universe source location

Good Game is a national TV show on TV here in oz which discusses video games, and has a website with much old material archived - hopefully useful for some article expansion. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you reckon you could add that to WP:VG/S in the right section? Otherwise it'll get lost in the archives, which would be an awful pity. Greg Tyler (t • c) 07:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, great resource that. Never noticed it before but I don't do vid games much. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 Done Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Artwork of a different flavor

I'm working on an article for the MissingNo. glitch, and a literary source cited a particular piece of fan art when discussing the impact of the glitch and game communities attempting to depict it as a "real" character in the game. My question is what's the best approach to this for FAR? Citing it as a derivative work and noting it's citation in the book seems the best move but I wanted to see if there were any other guidelines involved, as this is a rather unique case for this sort of thing.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

If you tried to add it without a source, it would be totally unencyclopedic, but as it stands, it's a valid citation. I don't think there's a problem with it.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Screenshot galleries?

I know we usually remove them from video game articles, but I'm trying to remember - what's the exact policy and/or guideline against having them? --Marty Goldberg (talk) 14:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Generally most screenshots are non-free content and fall under WP:NFCC, which requires significant and minimal use for non-free content. There are some exceptions - open source games, games from Ubisoft (which have submitted an ORTS request to allow images from their games to be used as free content) - but even when these are possible, we shouldn't spam articles with lots of images more out of a general stylist concern and no hard policy. --MASEM (t) 14:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
^what he said. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Basically it means if they're free we have have full-resolution images and probably a couple more than the 3-5 limit FAC recommends for licensed work.陣内Jinnai 16:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Jumpin jehosaphat photos in limited quantiry are acceptable when used to illustrate a point or provide a limited visual reference to complement the greater work. As for what screen shots can or can't be used please do not allow the Ubisoft statement to confuse the issue. For a photo to be copyright clear for any publishing use (including posting to Wikipedia), you have to have the permission of the photographer and/or publisher of the photograph to reprint the photograph. This is why you just can't go harvesting photos from the web and uploading them here. You didn't take the photos and don't have the right to do that. The photographer/photo publisher retains the copyright for the photograph and the composition of the photograph. Period. The game developer/game publisher has absolutely no say in this matter unless you are looking to use the photo outside of the scope of Fair Use. Then things get tricky.BcRIPster (talk) 23:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
But we're talking about screenshots, not photographs. There's zero artistic skill (and therefore artistic license) in creating a screenshot. "Excellent Screenshot Taker" is not something I would want to put on my resume. ;) SharkD (talk) 07:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Artistic skill isn't really the issue here though, fair use as an illustration is. In this respect a photograph and a screenshot would seem to hold much the same status, being a user's reproduction of non-free copyrighted material, reproduced as an illustration. So long as the images are user created screenshots, used sparingly to illustrate an aspect of the article, and appropriately tagged with a fair-use rationale, surely they can be a valid contribution to an article? Splateagle (talk) 10:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
You answered it your self though when you said "sparingly". A gallery of screenshots is not "sparingly" and in fact is clearly defined at Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Non-free_image_use_in_galleries. There is nothing that differentiates your gallery of shots of the same game running on different systems from the plethora of other such galleries that have been removed from other articles here. Non-free images, which even user created screen shots fall under (look up further on the linked page), are supposed to be sparingly and you already have a bunch on the page. Likewise, galleries of different versions of the same game in no way enhances the article other than to say they existed - which is supposed to be done in prose. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The guidelines you've linked to do not prohibit use of non-free images, they state these are "usually unacceptable, but should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis". I'll continue discussion on the rationale for keeping Elite's gallery on the article's talk own page because that seems the appropriate place. "Sparingly" means moderate and I would contend that a small gallery (this one contained only five images) when used to illustrate something noteworthy about a game (as in this case they were) is "sparing" use and falls entirely within the realms of acceptable use. Splateagle (talk) 09:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm confused. What's the difference between the gallery that has been removed from the Elite page, and the gallery that still exists on the Tempest page? a_man_alone (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Nothing now, I just removed it. Thanks for pointing that out. Likewise, in the spirit of trying to resolve this, since the author of Elite does have a web page, if you can get him to put up a statement allowing free usage of screenshots of his games (some authors will do this), then this gallery all becomes a non-issue and this situation is easily resolved. I'd be happy to even contact him about this if you like, and specifically request him to put it up in his faq regarding free non-commercial usage of screenshots of Elite for places like Wikipedia.--Marty Goldberg (talk) 13:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Task force categories

After this (older) discussion, I think that we should categorize articles by task force... e.g., Category:The Sims task force video game articles. This will: A) Allow the number of articles within a project to be tracked, and B) Let User:Mr.Z-bot create "popularity statisitics" for each project separately. I can't really see any reason not to do this. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Possibly post this on task force pages for those who don't regularly check this main page as it will affect them.陣内Jinnai 17:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
It will only affect them if they want it to... the cats can be ignored completely if wanted. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Speaking for the Nintendo TF (I've also been quietly pushing this for a while since the old WikiProject was taskforcified), we don't have any opposition to it. MuZemike 19:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Do you know of any similar process or precedent used in another project? I'm not convinced, but seeing it in action might help. ~ Amory (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
WP:MILHIST does this... see Category:Military history articles by task force. This allows for both popular pages statistics and article alerts that would otherwise cover the entire project. Popularity statistics for the entire VG project would be kind of pointless since we have so many articles, but having separate stats for different subtopics based on popularity could work. In addition, article alerts would automate the updating of task force pages whenever something is happening in regards to the article's status. Both of these can be done on a task force-by-task force basis, with task forces which don't want to have them not having them. Personally, I feel that both pages should be created for every task force, but its really up to the individual one. These pages can only be made if there is a single category for talk pages within the project's scope, and this would be very simple code to add to {{WikiProject Video games}}. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, that works for me as long as it sticks to the talk pages (obvious, perhaps, but should be said). It's also worth mentioning, I think, that this could have the effect of separating back out the groups that were coalesced into WP:VG, but I think we're all bigger than that. I'd gladly take an active role in helping to implement this across the project. ~ Amory (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm neutral to the idea. I don't really I see the benefits, but I don't really see any harm either. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC))
One benefit would be the ability to track changes to the group of articles using Special:RelatedChanges. –xenotalk 19:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Indeed; I'd forgotten about that. Now there are three reasons why I think this is a good idea. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Except that only tracks changes to the talk pages. :( –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Good point, but with a category it shouldn't be at all hard to convert that to a related changes page (can do this in a matter of seconds wtih AWB). –xenotalk 14:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
True. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Image Fair Use Issue

Someone has tagged for deletion an image on which I put a FUR. The tag reason is "alternative free miages avaialbe". I duspute that. See conversation at my Talk page. I have other things to do (article building, reviewing), but not to do wirth video games. So it doesn't affect any of my surrent activities, and I'm not spending further time on it. However you might want to look at the case in case its the thin end of a wedge. --Philcha (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the issue is that you used a non-free screenshot in an article about the general subject. However, the disputee is saying that you shouldn't use it, and that someone should make an example in Photoshop instead. In my opinion, unless they want to create the new image, they shouldn't take it down, and instead place a request on the talk page for someone to create a replacement.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Freeciv technology tree; you might want to crop it for use in the article.
Why not take a screenshot from Freeciv? GPL license is Commons-friendly. Anomie⚔ 22:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Anomie's solution seems sound to me. I would also argue that any attempt to recreate a fake image in Photoshop would lower the article's quality. When focussing on a real concept, you need to use real examples. A mock-up wouldn't fairly demonstrate such a thing. Greg Tyler (t • c) 23:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Fansub does not use a real image.陣内Jinnai 04:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Man, that's one ugly image! IIRC there are free web-based tools that could be used to create a nicer looking chart. SharkD (talk) 07:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for suggesting File:Freeciv-2.1.8 technology tree.png, Anomie, it makes exactly the right point! And it's from a free, open-source game, so no copyright issues.
I didn't create a new version of the image, have a look at the current version of Tech tree to see how I used {{Annotated image}} to crop and zoom. A buddy devised {{Annotated image}} and I found it so useful it beefed up the documentation - see the docs and "what links to" the template for examples if how useful it can be. --Philcha (talk) 09:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Xbox Live Community Games

I spent some time to expand this article as to provide a home for such games that are on the edge of notability (such as the current Trino that's up for deletion). This is just to let anyone that thinks they know of such games and know they couldn't write a full article, here's a place to put info about it. --MASEM (t) 21:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Cite manual upgrade

For those of you using {{cite manual}} in you articles, a quick shout about it but I've added the missing page parameter to it (it'll work with page or pages, giving p. or pp. accordingly), and made an in-line version on the notes page for it. Should help some.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sweet. I need to go back and switch out the {{cite book}} I used in old articles with this one. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC))
^Along the above lines, what's the practical difference between {{cite book}} and {{cite manual}}? I've been using book myself because of the series= parameter that is useful for providing page headers or section titles, myself. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the series parameter is meant for a series of books, like the Chicken Soup for the Soul series, The Lord of the Rings series, and an encyclopedia series comprised of volumes. Aside from that, not really sure what the difference is. {{Cite manual}} looks to have fewer parameters and might be more user friendly. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC))
It does more readily inform people looking through an article's code too what they're looking at: people seeing a citation for a manual vs a citation for a book won't inquire where the ISBN number is, no?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Video game pricing revisited

Was just reviewing some core policies and was reminded that we're currently giving pricing information about such topics as Virtual Console, Wii Shop Channel, Xbox Live Arcade, etc. I just thought I'd bring this up to see if there's significant notability to the pricing details we're listing for the individual titles and services across the project, given that we have both WP policy and our own guidelines that state that we shouldn't put pricing info in articles unless there's something significant about those prices. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I personally feel we should include the costs of these fixed rate items. –xenotalk 22:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The only notability that comes to mind is when reviewers comment whether or not a specific title is worth its listed price, which I think happens often enough. I don't see much problem with giving generalized information about pricing, like in the lead for Virtual Console, so long as there's some commentary about it later in the article. But I see no reason to point out the price of specific games. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC))
Just seems silly to me to exclude information that I am pretty sure most readers want to see because of some WP:NOT#PRICEGUIDE guideline that was written because the majority of items don't have a fixed price and thus people would constantly be editing articles because "they saw it for $20 cheaper at the local wally-world". For fixed-rate games I don't see a reason to exclude pricing. But that's just my personal opinion. –xenotalk 22:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I see your point, but we exclude information most gamers want to see on a regular basis. I won't argue that the prices aren't helpful, because I find them interesting as a gamer interested in maybe purchasing one such game. But as a general reader, they seem rather irrelevant to my understanding of the topic. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC))
We aren't a directory, which I feel covers prices more often then not. If price is somehow important ('cause the price of Horse Armor in Elder Scrolls IV caused a fuss, and whatnot), then include it. Otherwise it's a garbage number that we can't standardize and contributes zero to encyclopediac coverage. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree, only if the price is somehow notable it and of itself, such as the initial cost of the PS3. For download games, talking on Nintendo's DSi page about the price range is fine. On individual pages, it should not be covered in general. There aren't many games that get comments on their prices and even less with exact quotes.陣内Jinnai 22:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Prices can change based on regions and over time, which makes it a pain to list and not necessary at all. Listing the price the game was released at could be confusing as well.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Though in many cases like the ones I listed, the prices are virtualized and standardized across regions, with only regional differences in the "conversion rate" being potentially unstable. Virtual Console games, for example, have set, non-changing prices expressed in Wii Points. The amount of money someone would need to pay to get a certain number of Wii Points might change (and might possibly stray into the trivial), but the online price in Wii Points is non-changing. So this is in a different class, I think. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I still believe it fails relevancy of the content to the article except in rare cases. Just because you can quote the price and don't need to worry about variances, doesn't make it any more relevant.陣内Jinnai 01:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I guess my main question is whether the price ranges and the prices given in the various tables (see the Virtual Console title lists, for example) are okay under the policies or if they're too much like a price guide. My take is that they're really not necessary; a general statement about price ranges should suffice in the articles about the services. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I actually agree in spirit, but not with the example you provide, Jinnai. If the price was a notable aspect of the product (more likely for a console), such as being wildly unpopular at $500 but a best-seller at $299 perhaps, then I think we should consider it. Otherwise, I say stay away from listing prices, leave that to Amazon and Froogle. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 03:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
As I've stated in the past: I think pricing for downloads (Virtual Console and so on) shouldn't be listed. The number of points or dollars each game isn't notable to the casual reader. It's not important to understanding the downloads at all. It makes Wikipedia look like a price guide. Video game speciality sites are for that information, not an encyclopedia. But as for certain prices for video games, such as an older game going for a high amount at an auction or online.. that's suitable as long as it's sourced. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTDIR: "Wikipedia is not a price guide to be used to compare the prices of competing products" and that's really all there is to it. A lot of budget 8-bit games had fixed pricing here in the UK, budget houses had different ranges at different prices (often printed on the inlay), so why aren't contributors crawling over themselves to stick prices into articles like Skool Daze? Nope, this is about price comparison of current games, which unambiguously breaks policy. As stated by the same policy and repeated above, if pricing has any relevancy to the subject at hand then contributors are free to say as much as is warranted in the article. It's time to stop turning a blind eye and just get on with it. Someoneanother 10:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Amory - As for my point, the reason I cited PS3 was because our guideline talks about it because it had indepdendant reliable source commentary about the price being uncompetative when it was released and it still is struggling in some areas for market share as well. It's not that they commented that the price was X amount, but they commented why X amount was bad and had multiple soruces claiming this. It doesn't need to be a bad seller at one price and a hot deal at another.陣内Jinnai 22:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Resident Evil up for adoption

A while ago I was working on the Resident Evil (video game) article privately in a sandbox on my profile. I have since lost interest and moved onto other projects. Is anybody interested in adopting the article and improving it? I would rather inform project members about this instead of pasting the current work version, having it whittle away into a fan crusted embarrassment, and ultimately have wasted my time. Significant work has been performed on the Development section. Some work has been done on Gameaplay and Story. So, any takers? -- Noj r (talk) 04:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll be happy to add it to my queue. I believe I have some good sources to add to your already good draft. Not sure when I'll get to it though. Of course, if someone else picks it up, let me know and I'll give it priority so we can work together. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC))

Wikipedia:WikiProject Video Games/BioWare

Wikipedia:WikiProject Video Games/BioWare ...so this happened. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 12:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

A task force by any other name...wouldst still smell as sweet? =] –xenotalk 12:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Not trying to comment on the new task force one way or another, but at least such efforts are now being created as task forces instead of full projects that go unnoticed for months. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC))
  • Any objections to adding a BioWare task force param to Template:WPVG? –xenotalk 23:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • As long as they're going to be active, that sounds absolutely fine. Greg Tyler (t • c) 07:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
For those in the BioWare task force, I've added the task force to the WP:VG sidebar, and I created Category:BioWare to cover all things BioWare, since we only had Category:BioWare games before. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, could an admin please add the BioWare task force to Template:WikiProject Video games? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Crytek

Intressting...ust off to make WP:WikiProject Crytek UK a taskforce then. 'The Ninjalemming' 16:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
That project doesn't even appear to have enough articles for a task force to be worthwhile. BioWare has a good number of articles, especially as the "Mass Effect" dynasty flourishes. –xenotalk 16:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
If anything, it should be moved to a Crytek task force, which will about double the scope. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 19:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
How would moving it to a task force increase its scope? SharkD (talk) 06:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
It's the move from Crytek UK to just Crytek that would. --PresN 16:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Reference library

Wanted to throw this out there to see what members think about it. A few WikiProjects have a Reference Library subpage (Anime and manga, Japan, and Scouting), similar to a magazine archive. The difference is that it focuses solely on books. I know some members use google books, but since many on there only provide limited previews, having more access to the books could be very helpful. I also think a listing of books to look for will help guide editors in their research.

Any thoughts about creating such a page? (Guyinblack25 talk 19:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC))

Well, there should be books like The Ultimate History of Video Games and The Making of Doom 3 in the subpage. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I believe a setup like the Magazine archive should work fine for it. If an editor owns the book, they can add it to the page and list themselves as the contact. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC))
How about we just consolidate Magazines and Books, along with access to online databases? It would be a big page, but that would give us the chance to refresh the magazine list at the same time and prune off inactive editors, et al. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
If individual users were listed as contacts for individual magazine issues (as is intended for the book list), then the combined list could end up getting way too long... Having two separate pages for books and magazines seems OK to me. SharkD (talk) 06:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Right now, the magazine page isn't too bad because everything is on subpages; not like before when it was all on a single page. Perhaps a subpage just for books could be linked there. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC))
Sorry for not seeing this sooner, but this page was mysteriously removed from my watchlist. Strange. Anyway, I love the idea, but would strategy guides be included? I think they should. I say this because Nintendo Power's guides often contain additional narrative or clarification of certain elements, and sometimes even provide character's names that aren't mentioned in the game itself. Thoughts? -sesuPRIME talk • contribs 10:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Makes sense. Some, like FFX, contain developer interviews as well.
So just to get the ball rolling, how about renaming the magazine page to "Reference library" or something like that, and add sections and subpages for books and strategy guides? (Guyinblack25 talk 15:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC))
Mm, how about "Print references" or "Print reference library"? And how will we categorize the strategy guides? I suggest each brand (Nintendo Power, Prima, Brady Games, etc.) gets a subpage, then each subpage is divided by system into separate lists. What says you guys? -sesuPRIME talk • contribs 15:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Since we have some online databases there, and a few online free books, I think omitting the "Print" portion would avoid confusion. What about just "Library"?
I'm not sure how to do the strategy guides. By publisher sounds good, but since some games are multiplatform, I don't think the system lists will work as well. Maybe alphabetical? (Guyinblack25 talk 16:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

Ah, I didn't think about the multiplatform issue, so I like the alphabetical idea. And how about the originally suggested title of "Reference library"? -sesuPRIME talk • contribs 02:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'm working on Talk:Organization XIII/GA1 right now, so I won't get to it right away. Of course, I wouldn't mind if someone else moved all the "Magazine" pages to "Reference library". :-D (Guyinblack25 talk 14:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC))
I'm on it. -sesuPRIME talk • contribs 11:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 Done - I moved all the "WP:VG/Magazines" pages to "WP:VG/Reference library", and I added a new shortcut (WP:VG/RL; I think we should keep the WP:VG/M shortcut as well). I also rewrote most of the wording on the main Reference library page to reflect the addition of books (when we add them), but I didn't fool too much with the search feature because I don't fully understand it; could somebody update it? I also updated the userbox, but "Category:WikiProject Video games (Magazines Project) members" still needs to be changed to "Category:WikiProject Video games (Reference library Project) members" (I don't know how to do that). -sesuPRIME talk • contribs 13:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I created the "Strategy guides" section and added the four publishers of guides that I have. Now what should we do about books? Is there even a need to create subpages for them? -sesuPRIME talk • contribs 09:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I went ahead and tweaked it to allow books, since some are very important for articles (added two of mine to the list, as well as a few player's guides...I'll need to go through my shelves to find everything I have).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I updated some of the lists with my guides and books. I'll update more when I can hopefully unpack them soon. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

FYI- Added some free online books to the page as well: the Well Player book Masem found and Halcyon Days. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

Project stats updated

I've updated the project stats shown on the main project page. Here are the individual pages:

I also submitted a newsletter item on the subject:

SharkD (talk) 06:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not a good sign. Might be due to the slump in the economy. People lose internet access and/or can't buy new (relatively speaking sometimes) games.陣内Jinnai 04:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Yup. The current numbers are the lowest recorded so far (since Dec 2007). SharkD (talk) 07:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Anecdotally I came here to determine if Prototype_(video_game) was first or third person, whether it was multiplayer, and what sort of DRM it uses. Only one of these things was listed in the infobox. From what I've been reading on multiple talk pages, this info is seen as low priority. Since I do know that at least some gamers simply won't buy games which are tied to a single perspective, like 3rd person, this seems to be a glaring omission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Trumbull (talk • contribs) 07:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Assessment screwup

The "Unknown-importance video game articles" has become loaded with articles, over 2000 in fact. However when you look at the list, you see some oddballs in there, such as Operation C or Demon's Crest. I took a look and found the assessor had rated them "no" importance instead of Low.

Can we get a quick bot to go through and change them en masse to low? There has to be some faster means than doing it manually.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll just hack the template to accept "no" as a synonym for low. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Scratch that, not possible. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
It should be technically possible. I think this diff to {{WikiProject Video games/sandbox}} should work as an interim measure. If we're sure that we want to temporarily "fix" importance=No this way, then my change could be applied to main the main template. However, I'm not entirely sold that it's the best way to fix things. Given the number of unknown- versus low-importance video game articles, it's going to be much faster for a bot to check only the current unknown-importance articles and fix the importance=No cases than for the template to fold the importance=No cases into importance=Low first and then for a bot to check the low-importance category. And I would really prefer for importance=No to be actually changed to importance=Low, so as not to possibly confuse (newer) editors into thinking that it'd work elsewhere.
(Also, as a side note: importance=No used to be valid before standardization to {{WPBannerMeta}}.) —TKD [talk][c] 09:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm working on a bot that runs through all the articles in Category:Unknown-importance video game articles and replaces any utterance of "importance=no" within one of our templates with "importance=Low". Is this what we want? Greg Tyler (t • c) 10:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Just make sure to deal with both "no" and "No", of course :) —TKD [talk][c] 10:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
It's a simple enough AWB task, no need for a bot. Nifboy (talk) 14:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I've created the bot now, but if someone's willing to do it on AWB, I'll withdraw the nomination before it does anywhere. Greg Tyler (t • c) 14:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm cranking through it right now. If the first 500 is representative of the rest only a fifth or so talk pages need fixed. Nifboy (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'll take the bot apart. I just figured it was a job that needed doing and we couldn't well just say "it's possible through AWB". Thanks for taking it on. Greg Tyler (t • c) 14:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
There are some with importance=none, priority=X (where X can be anything).陣内Jinnai 16:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I haven't seen either in the vgproj template, though I'm running a second pass right now. {{WPBiography}} uses priority and will yell at you if you change it to importance. Either way I've fixed all the importance=no articles. Nifboy (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
So, will the "None" importance level be permanently obsolete from this point onward? SharkD (talk) 04:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)/
Yes. Minimum level is low.陣内Jinnai 04:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
In that case then, the "None" importance level needs to be taken off the table, right? GamerPro64 (talk) 04:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Currently "none" in the table links to unknown-importance, which it should. Nifboy (talk) 06:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Then it should be renamed to "Unknown" or "Unassessed". SharkD (talk) 06:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Then talk to the WP:1.0 team. They're in charge of the bot and tables. Nifboy (talk) 06:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Or rather, it was obsolete when we switched the template to use WP Banner Meta, as it doesn't support "none". --PresN 04:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated Supreme Commander for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Seeking input: List of (notable) flash games

When I created the Xbox Live Indie Games (was Community Games) the goal there was to provide a logical home to list such games that have received some attention but would likely never achieve enough to be a full article (based on the Trino (video game) AFD.) Reasonable solution there.

So I got to thinking about the same for Flash/browser-based games. For example, a recent game "Little Wheel" has a handful of sources that critically comment on it, not enough to encourage me to make a new article but that I feel should have some coverage somewhere. I'm sure there's many more people can list.

I note there is a List of browser games, recently recreated, but only points to games with articles, and mostly fully complete articles. I'm thinking of expanding that to be a list of browser games that have achieved some metric of notability (2 RS, neither being a "game of the day" pick that some sites do). It would still catalog the games listed, but provide 1 to 2 paragraphs and a quick infobox for each game lists. Should this get long, it can be expanded by alpha. This would be in the same manner as List of internet phenomena is maintained, requiring key sources to be included instead of "Oh, I think this should".

Any comments, suggestions? --MASEM (t) 14:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If needed, I dare say we could find a couple of sources on most flash games about on the Internet. If the references in Bloody Fun Day (a Good article) are considered reliable enough for a flash game, I reckon we could add anything we want to your list and argue its worth. With scope that wide, you're stepping on dangerous territory. Greg Tyler (t • c) 14:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
This is why I compared it to the List of Internet Phenomena. That list could balloon forever going off just a couple of sources, but it's managed to stay reasonably trimmed as the sourcing requires something outside of "internet meme space" (ala mention in a major newspaper or magazine). Browser games are a dime a dozen; for every one that gets recognizition, there's dozens that don't. This would also be a way for handling the numerous AFDs that go through for these types of games when its borderline notability. I'd agree that something like Bloody Fun Day is pushing the bounds for what should be in an article (the sourcing leaves a little to be desired), which is why providing at least a starting home for most of these would be one way to avoid conflict in the future. --MASEM (t) 15:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned about this as well, mainly because of the previous flash homebrew clone issues that lead to the addition addressing that in the guidelines. I.E. people adding dime a dozen flash homebew remakes. The main thing, as before, has to be notability. I don't think "game of the day" is a cause for notability, rather the tried and true significant coverage. If I can point to coverage in a gaming magazine and several other notable sources, then that to me demonstrates more notability. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I guess you'd have to add everything in Category:Browser-based games?--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Not quite, a lot of those are multiplayer games which go on a sister list (the one which this single player list sprung from). There are several items there to be put on the new list however, and what with the drip-drip of recognition for flash games there will be more articles to add. Someoneanother 16:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't support merging non-notables to parent or umbrella articles/lists, at all, and because of the nature of these games it seems even less desirable. If readers want a splurge of browser games then they can hit Kongregate, Newgrounds or Armor Games; there's no point trying to swim against the tide when the things are released on a daily basis and readers can get the same info on the hop from game descriptions. Nothing's going to stop non-notable games of all types getting articles created for them so I'm not enthused with the idea of bloating the list to try and stop it. Someoneanother 21:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Requesting comments and input

Initial discussion here. What is the Project's opinion on placing 'fan version numbers' alongside official version information in an infobox? DP76764 (Talk) 15:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, what the devil is a "fan version number" ? --Oscarthecat (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
A fan-made patch's version number, rather than an official one by the developer. QueenCake (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

List of Wii games that use the Nintendo GameCube controller

Is this necessary? I think this leans towards trivial, and just listcruft at best. Alternate controls are a somewhat important feature, but a whole list of them doesn't seem very necessary to me. This seems like content better suited for a video game website/wiki. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This needs to get speedly delisted. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Speedy delist? You mean deleted? --PresN 20:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I mean Delete. Sorry, all the reassesments I've been doing have seem to mess me up between delist and delete. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete or redirect to List of Wii games. Most, if not all Wii games, are programmed for backward compatibility with the GCN. --Izno (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

^The prior statement by Izno is untrue. From my experience, only a small sample of Wii games use the Gamecube controller.

Also, this article has a mandate after the category was deleted Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_8#Category:Wii_games_that_use_the_Gamecube_controller

Deletion of this article is uncalled for. This discussion hasn't even lasted a day, nor were anyone outside of WikiProject Video games consulted and all of a sudden RobJ1981 cleared the article. There wasn't even an AfD template placed on the page.

Really if this article is "trivia" and should be deleted, then shouldn't List of Wii games using Miis, List of Wii games using WiiConnect24, and List of Wii Wi-Fi Connection games be too Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

First off, no one is going to delete the article without an AFD discussion, plain and simple. If it goes to AFD, that is when the community will get a chance to sound off. There is nothing wrong with getting a "feel" from within WPVG itself as to whether or not an article is suitable for inclusion. This helps avoid going to AFD if, from the discussion, there is not a good chance that deletion would be necessary. MuZemike 06:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

^that is not true. User:RobJ1981 used this dicussion as an excuse to convert the page into a redirect [[2]] Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not "Articles for discussion", it's "Articles for deletion". An AFD is not necessary to facilitate a redirect. I am not saying at this time that to redirect right now was a good idea, however. MuZemike 06:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW (just a general question) how is stripping a page of content and turning it into a redirect significantly different from deleting it? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The content can still be retrieved or reverted (as you just did) without administrator help. MuZemike 06:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

OK good point, anyways, I have notified the two other editors who have edited the page (the bulk of the page was built by me and then rest was done by bots and IPs and two editors) and User:Stepheng3 (who proposed the creation of this page when the category was deleted) of this discussion. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

One man's trivia is another's treasure. The list is extensively referenced, and no argument so far presented has shown that it violates any of the five pillars or detracts from the encyclopedia in any way. People who want to delete lists can surely find better candidates than this one. --Stepheng3 (talk) 06:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I am advising on an AFD, as this seems to be what is most desired here. MuZemike 07:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Really there is no necessity for an AfD. No one has present reasonable arguments against the page. Izno's reasoning for opposing the article is dead wrong (most Wii games are programmed for use with the Wii Remote, not with the GameCube controller) and GamePro64 provided absolutely no reasoning for their position. PresN never made a position for or against. There is no consensus to take this to AfD. 3 "for"s + 2 "oppose"s = No consensus

Also, If these game lists should be deleted, so should List of Wii games using Miis, List of Wii games using WiiConnect24, and List of Wii Wi-Fi Connection games. If this goes to AfD, I will personally put (or attempt to put) all these other articles up for AfD to highlight the absurdity of this deletion attempt. Side note: In a few cases, (based on the references from the page) the GameCube controller is NOT an alternate gameplay method but a primary gameplay method Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Then do so if this does get brought to AFD, but be aware that you will be disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. I was hoping that there would be better ways to deal with this (such as merging), but I have failed to show that. Looks like it's an all or nothing case. MuZemike 07:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break 1

To me, all of those aformentioned lists sound kind of trivial (or at least better suited for categories). Putting them all up for deletion might not be a bad idea...at least you'll get some closure.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

There isn't a logical way to merge this article. Merging was not the position of RobJ1981, who was essentially trying to delete this page by turning it into a redirect to List of Wii games. This has been an all or nothing since RobJ1981 put it up and no actually solid arguments have been given by those who want to see the page gone.

Keep in mind RobJ1981 also was the one to try to delete the category that the article evolved out of. The CfD conclusion was what called on the creation of this article (though I didn't get around to creating the article for several months, but that is besides the point). This started as a category, turned into an article, now you want it to go back to a category? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's more likely that they're unencyclopedic. I think they're too specific for any list or category.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Wait, are you talking about the article in question (List of Wii games that use the Nintendo GameCube controller) or the articles I threatened to AfD? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I never made it all or nothing, so DO not make up nonsense that isn't true. Just because one article is talked about being deleted or redirected (which are two different things), doesn't mean related ones should be just lumped in with it. A page isn't deleted by turning it into a redirect, so get your facts straight instead of turning Wikipedia into a battleground. I think you need to settle down a bit, as you are attacking me, assuming bad faith, and just generally assuming things that aren't true. Also note: I've sent it to AFD, as that's the best route I see here. This discussion hasn't gotten far, due to Thegreyanomaly. RobJ1981 (talk) 14:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
So let me get this straight. Rob did something wrong while trying to fly in under the radar, refuses to apologize or discuss the issue and just shows up to claim he is being attacked. In the same breath, he attacks the supposed attacker and tells them to settle down while taking no responsibility for starting the problem in the first place. Sound about right?
And by the way Rob, a page is deleted by turning it into a re-direct because the content isn't there anymore for users to see. Gone, poof, not there anymore. It's like putting the article in the recycle bin, but not emptying the bin. It's a very passive aggressive deletion, whether that's what you call it or not, it's what you did. I'm waiting for the day Rob nominates the Main Page for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.214.1.55 (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: The deletion discussion for this article can be found here. Greg Tyler (t • c) 15:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:VG needs to produce a consistent approach across the board:

I suspect it will take a while to agree a standard approach, and suggest WP:VG should turn up to request a re-list in say 3 month's time, so it can develop a policy - and to support a deletion review if the article is deleted or merged before WP:VG has had time to agree a standard approach. I advise Thegreyanomaly to make a copy of the article at a sub-page of his/her User page as soon as possible.

BTW I think the idea of merging with / redirecting to List of Wii games needs more thought before action is taken. Doing this for multiple platform-related lists or categories of Wii games would probably make List of Wii games very unwieldy. --Philcha (talk) 14:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC) --Philcha (talk) 14:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Italicized titles

A relatively new template, {{italictitle}} is currently being used to change the article titles on various pages that have the scientific name of an organism. There is currently a bot request to mass-update these articles. I just wanted to bring up a discussion here regarding the use of this template in other article titles where it may be useful.

Throughout many articles, including Halo 3, the title is italicized when used within the article, but not in the actual title. All input is welcome to decide whether or not to implement this new feature in films, video games, and book titles.

Discussions on the use of this italicized title feature for use in organism articles can be seen here and here. --Spotty 11222 20:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hm, after a quick test I'm curious, are there provisions for game named used in the disambiguation? Such as Mew (Pokémon), where "Pokémon" should be italicized but not Mew?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Technically, "Pokémon" shouldn't be italicized since it's referring to the franchise. Artichoker[talk] 20:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
We actually still italicize it here though for stuff like Street Fighter and Devil May Cry.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I thought the Pokémon portion was to point out that it was talking the Pokémon named Mew, not because Mew is from the Pokémon series. Any way, the point is still valid for articles such as Link (The Legend of Zelda) —Ost (talk) 20:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
It appears that there are provisions for the opposite case—when the parenthetical should not be italicized—but the title should be. I tried tweaking the code {{User:Ost316/sandbox1}} to produce italics in the parantheses, but I couldn't get it to work. Anyone with more template experience can give it a try. —Ost (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
My main issue is pure aesthetics- large-type san-serif faces look ugly to begin with, but significantly more so when italicized (you can see a demonstration of {{italictitle}} at Halo Wars in this revision.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I guess it's a matter of opinion; I don't think the font looks bad normally or in italics. —Ost (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I think it looks bad too. Also, since technically they are titles of articles (within an encyclopedia) as opposed to the titles themselves, I would think italics in general would be wrong. But I could be wrong. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a hardcover encyclopedia handy, but I just checked Encarta and they seem to do it. I'm not subscribed to Britannica, so I can't check there. SharkD (talk) 22:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I would say avoid it. It is one thing when we are pulling non-english words into our language (such as en masse or in situ), which is what the Latin names for species are, it's another to italize to indicate names of works. Because of the potential difficulty with disambiguations (there's enough potential issues here with video games the same name as other works), I'd rather avoid it. (Melodia's reasoning is a very good call too) --MASEM (t) 22:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I think it's a great idea assuming it can be made to work correctly in 100% of the cases. SharkD (talk) 22:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
There's no need to italicize each and every title of every work of media. When stating them in the article it's fine, but the titles should be left as they are unless they're some kind of latin term.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Is there a point of reference that supports that this is in fact poor use of style, or is it just your opinion? SharkD (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I think it will have a secondary benefit of stressing to editors that titles should be italicized within articles as well. SharkD (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't have any objections to it, but how will you be able to seek out and change every article name (and compel editors to add the template to new articles?) It just seems impractical without changing the MediaWiki software itself.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Going through the categories one by one won't be that hard, if it spans a few days, multiple editors can do it little time. You could also suggest a bot in updating the articles in this way. True, a massive undertaking, but still, not impossible. Patrolling new articles and adding the template would be relatively easy as well. --Spotty 11222 00:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure there would be no problem with disambigs, the template accounts for that. The only problem would be the mass effort to change all the articles in the encyclopedia.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
One word: Bot. That, and it would help if everyone together would pitch in. That is, if there is consensus on this suggestion. --Spotty 11222 00:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Problem with this is there is no real easy way to distinqush elements like song titles, which are not italicized, but come may come under our scope if they relate solely to video games, from the video game itself. Nor are there waves to determine that other elements like Ivalice is actually talking about a world and not a game.陣内Jinnai 03:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact that it tries to do things automatically is a bad thing, IMO. You should be able to (or have to) type things explicitly, just like you do in article text, duh. SharkD (talk) 05:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Would it be simpler just to add it to {{Infobox VG}} rather than adding another line of unintelligable code to twenty thousand articles (assuming we actually want it, and I'm not sure I do)? Nifboy (talk) 13:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like a better approach if they're implemented. I truthfully like them, though I'm pretty aware I'm in the vocal minority here it seems.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that these italic titles look pretty ugly. They don't represent the actual article title, it doesn't show as italicized in edit mode, and (to my knowledge) no print encyclopedia (and very few websites of any kind) do this kind of thing. I'm thinking of starting a full RFC about this, because it seems to have be done without wide consensus beyond the one WikiProject, and would be a major change to Wikipedia if books, games, and movies were all italicized. My feeling is that we should hold off on making any more titles italic until there is a more clear consensus. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

General RFC on italic titles

I've started on RFC on whether or not this template should be used here. All comments are welcome. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Magazine request

There are a few print reviews that I'd really like to use, but they aren't listed at WP:VG/M. I was wondering if anyone might have them, but just not listed there. The game I'm interested in is Neverwinter Nights 2: Mysteries of Westgate, a current GAN, and the magazines that there should be reviews in are: PC Gamer May 2008 and November 2008 issues and Games for Windows April/May 2008 issue. All help with this would be much appreciated. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you looking for PC Gamer UK or PC Gamer US? - X201 (talk) 07:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Hmm... good question. I figured out that reviews were on those magazines from looking at [3], but it doesn't specify whether PC Gamer is UK or US. I'd assume US since that is (I think) the region where the game was made... either the US or Canada. The logo used it also the US one. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Source question

Is the site ztgamedomain.com a reliable source? I checked the source guide and it doesn't say if it is or isn't, unless I missed something.--WillC 02:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't take a particularly conventional sourcing route, so don't trust me until someone with a little more experience of following policy replies. However, I feel that reliable sourcing is judged in the context of the source. For example, if you wanted to prove that "some professional reviewers found Damnation too difficult a game, having to resort to the lowest difficulty setting", the fourth paragraph of this review would serve the purpose. In the context, it's proof that a professional reviewer found the game too difficult and used the lowest setting. Fine (in my eyes) to use.
That said, proving more controversial points, or something less commonly known, you would definitely need a strong reliable source. So what I'm saying really is, what do you plan to use it for? Because I would suspect that certain sources' reliability honestly varies with usage. Greg Tyler (t • c) 08:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
They're apparently part of the N4G network, however, I don't believe we've inspected that group to determine its reliability. N4G's about page doesn't give much info, but they are apparently an affiliate of GamesRadar. I can't find the same info on GamesRadar's website though. Any easy way to determine reliability is to find other reliable sources that have cited the publication as a source.
Greg's recommendation of only using questionable sources for their opinions is a good rule of thumb to follow. Personally, I'd recommend against using it as it's just easier to use sources that have established reliability. Less questions asked during review processes means less hassle. That's just me though. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC))
See their about us page. Anyone can become a contributor / editor, so don't see how this makes for a reliable source. In fact, makes for about the worst sort of source. Glorified press release repository. --Oscarthecat (talk) 17:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Well I wanted to use it in a professional wrestling article to source a tagline. But it looks like I can't.--WillC 04:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit war on Talk:Final Fantasy XIII

Hey. Two editors are going back and forth on the FF13 talk page about the inclusion of an image of the game's main characters, and it seems to have no end in sight. Can someone go over there and help the two editors out? I've issued WP:3RR warnings to both of them, so hopefully that will keep things calm for now, but a great deal of consensus is needed over there, I think. Thanks! — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That would be very helpful. J Milburn and I both have spent two days trying to explain WP:NFCC to this new editor, but by now it's just going in circles; fresh voices would be useful. Thanks, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Wow, it's amazing that someone would expend that much energy on an issue of including pictures that are freely available online. TL;DR, if it's just one editor and his sockupuppets I suggest reporting him to be blocked instead of trying to reason with them.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
No socks, but it is just one editor. He seems more concerned with changing the NFCC (the old "a picture's worth a thousand words, Wikipedia should create rather than destroy!" yada yada) than trying to convince anyone that the image is justified under NFCC. I have put up with it for this long because he occasionally lets out a glimmer of hope that he might learn a little bit and become a good editor, but that hope is rapidly fading. He has not quite done anything blockable yet (he's had general edit-warring behavior, but no explicit 3rr violation); I'm thinking the best thing to do, now that someone other than just me and J Milburn has weighed in, is try to ignore further rants. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
He can still be blocked for edit warring, even if he has not reached 3rr. That said, it may be advisable to seek WP:DR instead, if you think (or thought) there was some chance for him. --Izno (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
That's how I got involved in this - I saw a listing on WP:3O. Rather than directly give a third opinion (I actually issued a 3RR message and told one of them to stop messing with the 3O page itself, to which I received a nasty response) I listed the page here so a bunch of you could get involved. This has to be one of the most active projects on Wikipedia, so getting as many people to create consensus seemed like the best move. An RFC of sorts, if you will. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for listing it here; it's refreshing to see a WikiProject where people actually watch the project talk page :)
@ Izno: I don't think he's really been doing blockable edit warring either, in most cases he has had the good sense to spend most of his time at the talk page. The only real "offense" he has committed is being too dense to realize when no one agrees with him, but of course that's not blockable. That's why I'm hoping if we try ignoring the talk page for a while then maybe this will fizzle out. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Unlikely, because if you ignore the talk page, he'll move to the article thinking it's alright if he makes his changes. That is blockable, because then a real edit war would begin, but I think that would be a little gamey of you. Keep pulling in additional help. --Izno (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
That's not the impression I'm getting, whether or not an image from E3 would be necessary has not been resolved as the conversation has now been shut down. A lot of it comes down to timing and a false sense of urgency - whether or not images are required will be dictated by the coverage given to the different aspects, which won't be clear until the game is actually released. It kills nobody to be patient with these things. Someoneanother 18:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Game & Watch

Came across this template earlier: {{Game & Watch games}}. Now I understand the importance of the G&W as much as the next guy but...do many of these need individual articles? Were any of the stand-alone games even reviewed? It just seems like a group better suited for a list.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Mario might be the only one that I'd say has potential ATM. Even if they were reviewed from a historic perspective its likely on Mario ones that'll get separate treatment.陣内Jinnai 04:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, the games are...simple. I think an expanded "list of Game & Watch games" article would suffice for most of them.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion: episodes of an episodic video game

I'd appreciate a few extra eyes from this project over at this merge discussion concerning the episode articles for Sam & Max Save the World. While the parent article is a GA, the episode articles currently consist of little other than plot details and trivia. There's been some concerns raised over the eligibility and actual usefulness of these episode articles, but they have sources available (if not in the articles) that can be used either to enhance the parent article or assist in rewriting the episode articles, so it will be handy if we can knock out a decent consensus for how to proceed with them. -- Sabre (talk) 10:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Were the articles originally spun out or were they created first? If its the former and its been a while, they should probably be remerged, but carefully so there isn't a good chance to lose its status. I'd do it one at a time. If its the former, I'd see about how likely indivisual reviews and creation notes are for those.陣内Jinnai 20:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
The parent article was created first, these episode articles were first spun out about five months later. There's no content in the current episode articles worth actually keeping, so in the immediate moment, they'd just be redirected. Then some additional paragraphs (possibly a new subsection in the reception section) to deal with specific episode review content will need to be created from fresh. I reckon that's a reasonably simple task, there's enough reviews out there for each episode on metacritic for those purposes. Where the episodes really fall down is with development information, I'm struggling to find solid development material specific to individual episodes beyond commentary tracks (primary sources) of limited use. Its not like say the Half-Life episodes with their abundance of development history, these are properly done episodic games that came out so close to each other that not much has really changed between them other than plot. -- 22:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
How much unique reception info is there, ie they are commenting on something like the storyline which could not be applied to another episode? That might well determine if there is enough.陣内Jinnai 01:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
They should not be merged. They are notable in their own right, and there is significant coverage of each episode. Merging and redirecting generally disuades against article creation, even of notable subjects. Take the Final Fantasy XI expansion packs for example - each has been previewed, reviewed, and the additions dissected - yet Rise of the Zilart has been a redirect since 2005. Had it not been merged, the article would have matured naturally. Sure, it may not be that good, but for notable topics a crufty article is better than none. - hahnchen 17:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Even expansion packs should be considered as possible merges. Some are automatically notable - the GTAIV ones for sure - simply because of the impact of the game. However, for lesser games, which I would consider both FF11 and the Sam & Max episodes - where they get routine notable coverage from the gaming press, but otherwise lack significant changes in gameplay or plot, and do not have significant development sections, these should be considered as part of the main article unless more information can be shown. Yes, reception of these packs should be added (and in the case of S&M's episodes, a table or sectioned prose would do that nicely). --MASEM (t) 18:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
If someone wants to add development info to the merged article, they are free to. Saying that merges prevent articles from growing is assuming that people are being dissuaded from adding to the section, which I doubt.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Masem. The expansion itself is not a seperate game and often the reception given is not wholely unique or substanial. I would err on the side of merging and keeping the content in one place unless a lot of independant reception on the expansion itslef - not on the expansion + the original as well as unique development or impact information comes from it.陣内Jinnai 04:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

In this case these really are shards of a whole rather than separates that are linked. With the parent article so sparkly-clean and no development info turning up for individual episodes, I'd say go for it but ensure that each episode is given its due in the reception section of the parent. The individual episodes are reviewed in terms of their individual plots and characters. Good work on these, they're an important part of adventure gaming's return to the mainstream. Someoneanother 11:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Partner peer review for 45th Infantry Division (United States) now open

The peer review for 45th Infantry Division (United States), an article within the scope of the Military history WikiProject, is now open. The Military history WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [pf] 13:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Templates?

Should templates on video game series be included in their own series category, or just in the Category:Video game templates by series category? Either way, someone should get a bot to categorize or uncategorize all of them.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

They should be in Category:Video game templates by series. A series category is part of the actual encyclopedia, and will be seen by end-user readers. Templates by themselves aren't part of what the end-user is meant to see alone unless they mean to edit something, so they belong in the maintenance categories only. -- Sabre (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
In that case, someone should have a bot go through and remove any other categories from the templates in that category previously mentioned. It might not be that simple, though, since other maintenance categories might be included.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

FL reliable source

A user recently placed lots of Satellaview games into the List of Kirby media featured list. I've searched for all of the games on Google, and the only other site that lists them as we do is this place (ignoring sites that run a copy of our page). Cited as a source for the games in the article itself however, is this text page. Kirby Pinball uses a different source, which is this blog post.

I'm pretty sure they existed, but I have no reliable sources to show their significance and or their existence. The only game that has any reliable sources is BS Kirby no Omotya Bako Baseball which was previously listed and correctly cited. Should I remove the other Satellaview games that are sourced with blogs or a text file? -- Nomader (Talk) 03:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes. Blogs and and text file sources aren't really reliable. However, if you find a source that isn't like the blogs and and text file, you should oblivously put them back with the reference. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for copyedit

Anyone feel like casting an eye over ToeJam & Earl? It's at FAC at the moment and the main sticking point is the quality of the prose. bridies (talk) 08:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

...Halo Wars, too, needs a new eye to look things over (@bridies, I plan on running through it myself, just not sure when I'll get around to it.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Space Invaders game list

I started this draft for a "List of Space Invaders games" about a year ago and am very close to finishing it. Given the amount of info and the fact I wrote large chunks at very different times, I was hoping someone could take a look at it. Not really concerned about the lead, I'll rewrite once I'm done with the list. I'm concerned about style consistency, but also about where the line should be drawn for what to include. Specifically:

Would these be better in Space Invaders' Legacy section? I think it would make a good DYK? candidate and easily pass FLC once the lead is fleshed out. So any comments, suggestions would be appreciated as I'd really like to cross this year-long project off my list. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC))

Any video game derivations of the Space Invaders franchise should be mentioned in the article, no matter how seemingly minor. Just be sure to give these minor titles less exposure than the rest. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Just to clarify, do you mean the article (Space Invaders) or the soon to be list (List of Space Invaders games) in article space? And if you do mean the list, what still counts as video game. The LCD games I know is a grey area, but what about the pinball? (Guyinblack25 talk 21:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC))
I was referring to your list. If you intend on moving it to "List of Space Invaders games" then there is no problem with including the pinball game. It would be more of a problem if you wanted to name the article "List of Space Invaders video games". — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I see your reasoning. I picked "list of ... games" because that's what most of our other FLs are named. I'm not opposed to naming it "list of ... video games". Should we be more specific? (Guyinblack25 talk 21:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC))
I don't know... but if it's just "List of X games", other variations (board games, card games, etc.) would be in the scope of the article, too. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm... I guess I'll name it "List of Space Invaders video games" per your comments. All the extras I'll mention in Space Invaders. That should define the list's scope better. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC))
Still include the LCD games, and probably the Color FX Virtual Reality 3D (I don't know what this is, but it sounds like a video game medium). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
My concern with the LCD games is that they are handheld electronic games rather than handheld video games. I know the difference is a grey area; that's why I asked here for some input. Just clarifying, if you still think they should be on the list. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC))
(outdent) Apparently a video game is "an electronic game that involves interaction with a user interface to generate visual feedback on a video device". If those LCD games fit that description, then keep them on. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the issue is whether they fall under the definition of a video game (which is a grey area), but whether you're looking to create a list of all platforms the game has been ported to. I think it serves Wikipedia's purpose better to have all the various platforms if you're going to generate a list, such as what you currently have now. Space Invaders is one of those classic game properties that have seen a lot of ports and platforms, much like Pac-Man and others. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I never thought this list would be as difficult as it has been. Darn Taito for whoring out its intellectual property for 30 years. >:-(
Sounds like the LCD games should stay. I'll try to add the other LCD games this week. Thanks guys. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC))
I would be interested to know how they managed to create an accurate adaptation of the game to the pinball format. I imagine it would involve a lot of moving parts. SharkD (talk) 04:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
It was apparently not even close to the original game, like most other pinball adaptations of video games. Bally even got sued because the aliens resembled H. R. Giger's designs. One of the only pinball games I've read about that came close to the original game was Q*bert. (Guyinblack25 talk 03:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC))

Quick question- I've never started a new article from a sandbox before. Is it common practice to do a cut and paste or a move? (Guyinblack25 talk 17:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

I think you should move it. I think Kung Fu Man did that with MissingNo. GamerPro64 (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Another Code/Trace Memory

Few years ago, there was a debate about what article name should be used for the game that is known as Trace Memory in North America (the last region where it was released) and as Another Code: Two Memories/Futatsu no Kioku in Japan, Europe and Australasia. Users moved the page around so often that they caused a move protection. Currently, the North American title is used.

I'm not that much into this naming issue, but wasn't the name Mega Drive preferred over Genesis because Mega Drive is both the original name and a name used in parts of the English-speaking world? The same would go for Another Code. Well, I'm not sure about that, but I guess articles such as Yoshi's Universal Gravitation, Dark Chronicle and Picopict prefer the European/PAL region titles for similar reasons.

Independent of that, it is confusing that one article uses the American name of the Another Code/Trace Memory franchise and the article on the sequel (Another Code R: A Journey Into Lost Memories, has yet to be confirmed for North America) uses the name from other English-speaking regions and Japan.

Is there a policy for such special cases? --Grandy02 (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest moving it for two reasons. Firstly, the idea that it would fit with the sequel, as you say. Secondly, and more importantly, the game was released in Japan and PAL first so their name should be used. Besides the fact that the page has to be moved, there's no real reason (as far as I, an outsider to the game, can see) to use the North American title. What were the previous arguments for moving it to the current title? Greg Tyler (t • c) 21:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Having looked through Talk:Trace Memory and Talk:Dark Chronicle, two games which have been moved and have fought about their movement consistently, we feel as WP:VG need to define the rule of thumb to use for such disputes and put it here. Personally, I feel the original name should be used, rather than the NA counterpart and am yet to see compelling evidence otherwise. Either way, it would be nice to stop the bickering and have a defined guideline. Greg Tyler (t • c) 22:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
The rule of thumb that I stick by is stop moving it. Nifboy (talk) 01:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Without knowing anything, the "Another Code" title appears better. However, sales and reception from RSes should be used to help determine this. If it looks like more reception and better sales are for the NA release, it would be considered the most widely accepted name per WP:COMMONNAME. If its the opposite, or even if its unclear how much more widely known one is after some research, then the first English naming scheme should be used.陣内Jinnai 01:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers. Since the article is still move-protected, is there any option to solve this problem? --Grandy02 (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Assistance requested to prevent sockpuppetry

This is a somewhat delicate matter, but one that would probably require the full support of the VG project. An editor, User:Dr90s, has been found to have used numerous sockpuppets when editing a number of video game related articles. I'm not entirely sure what Dr90s' agenda is, but after dealing with him a bit myself I can say he can be aggressive and unresponsive in discussions.

User:Thibbs has had a number of run ins with Dr90s, and identified many of the sock puppets. Thibbs has requested an admin (User:Tanthalas39) act as a point person in reporting further sock puppets. (See Admin noticeboard for details.) To make Thibbs' life a bit easier, I suggested posting here so editors can help identify suspicious activity. I've asked him to post details of what to look for and on what type of articles.

I know we all try to be mature editors, but I think it's better safe than sorry to stress that we need to be careful how we approach this. Flat out accusing other editors of sock puppetry is generally frowned upon and does not assume good faith. If you are engaged in a heated discussion with someone that matches Thibbs' description of Dr90s (should be posted here later), please do not jump to conclusions. Calmly inform Thibbs of your suspicions for him to investigate further. If the editor confronts you about your action to inform Thibbs, simply tell them it is nothing personal and you were asked to do so; go ahead and point them to this thread for good measure. It probably wouldn't hurt to apologize to help diffuse the situation.

It's possible this could be a long term issue, so please keep this in the back of your minds as you do your normal editing. Again, this is a delicate matter that could easily be blown out of proportion in handled without good judgment. Help would be appreciated in keeping this under control. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

Considering I glazed over the ANI discussion of this in the first place, mayhaps informing us of what targets the sockfarm are frequenting might be in order? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I asked Thibbs to post details here, but I believe he was already offline. We should get a response in the near future though. (Guyinblack25 talk 01:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC))
FYI to anyone who's new to this situation: Dr90s' focus is on downplaying the contributions of or outright removing references to Shigeru Miyamoto in various articles (nobody knows why it targets Miyamoto). The article I'm aware of is The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time; the socks keep reverting to edits like this. I believe there are other pages it frequents, but I don't know specifically what they are. -sesuPRIME talk • contribs 01:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Is he mainly targeting Nintendo-related articles? GamerPro64 (talk) 01:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but it looks like Miyamoto-related articles specifically. I figured it would be best for Thibbs to give all the details as they've had a lot of contact with the different sock puppets. I'm sure others here have encountered Dr90s before, but didn't realize it was a sock. (Guyinblack25 talk 01:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC))
That edit says a lot, Sesu, thanks for it. It looks like we should be watching out for one of the worst kinds of vandalism, sneaky vandalism. If, indeed, there are plenty of socks deliberately trying to undermine Miyamoto, then we'll need to watch for edits hidden. He/she added some significant content which, if the above is all correct, could theoretically be an attempt to cover the targeted edits. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 03:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Thank you, Guyinblack25, Sesu Prime and everyone else who are trying to help here. I first ran into this guy last December and I found him to be quite sneaky in his editing patterns and very hard to get rid of. He's very frustrating to deal with and for many people this is enough to simply drive them away in frustration from the articles they're working on. The important thing to keep in mind is that there are several of us now that have seen this guy in action and there is a small support network that can be called on (Tanthalas39, me, and probably a few others who have also become annoyed by Dr90s). So as far as I can see he has two major interests/obsessions:
1 - Obsession: removal/downplay of Shigeru Miyamoto - Dr90s' most destructive edits are those in which he removes the name "Shigeru Miyamoto" from articles where he is credited with something (usually acting in a directorial capacity for the development of a game), and/or downgrading his role (e.g. changing his role from director to producer or from designer to fund-raiser or something like that). This extends to editing articles on other developers to give them credit for the achievements Miyamoto had been credited for and voting in AfDs to delete Miyamoto-related articles. While we should keep an open mind with edits like this, Dr90s employs several techniques that are simply unacceptable at Wikipedia. He often removes sourced statements describing Miyamoto's accomplishments with an edit summary like "overly detailed", "reducing clutter", or even "rvv". He also likes to make edits such as this (in which it can be noticed that aside from "adding designers", he also rearranged them to position Miyamoto dead last). These are very petty edits, but they add up and over the months he slowly makes gains for his skewed POV by attrition. Because he uses many socks, it's hard to notice that it's just one puppetmaster, and because he mixes his vandalism with useful or semi-useful edits, it is hard to know what to revert at times.
  • In relation to Miyamoto I have noticed that he particularly likes editing the most recent Zelda games (Ocarina of Time, Wind Waker, Twilight Princess, etc.) and the most recent Mario games (Mario64, Mario Sunshine, Mario Galaxy, etc.) although he has edited a huge number of other articles on Miyamoto-linked topics like Pikmin, Wii Music, etc.
2 - Obsession: Game ranks and review scores - This is something of a new discovery for me. I have noticed that by far the majority of the time he is not making edits about Miyamoto he is making edits that concern game rankings and game-reviewers' scores. As yet I haven't discovered what exactly he is trying to do (if anything) with his edits on these topics, but it is a pretty characteristic kind of edit that he makes and is a good tip-off that you're dealing with Dr90s.
(3) - Apart from this, the main thing that characterizes him is his extreme rudeness, his use of pretty obvious sockpuppets (easy to get rid of individually, but he usually has 4 or 5 more waiting in the wings to take their place), and his inability to use BRD editing. He likes to cite wiki-policy to protect his edits, and he frequently cites policy that he himself is violating. The most cycle of Dr90s edits is as follows: (1)Dr90s/sock comes into a page and Boldly edits it. (2)Someone Reverts it for some reason. (3)Dr90s Reverts again citing WP:BRD. (4)If he chooses to post in talk, he'll use the argument that the editor who reverted him in step 2 had been "Boldly reverting" and now he has "Reverted the boldness" and so it's the Reverter's turn to Discuss. This is clearly a corruption of BRD into BRRD and this usually leads to huge edit wars.
Finally, he has admitted to being from Japan and he often uses Japanese sources as references. Indeed, the two IPs he has used are from Japan (one from a Tokyo highschool), and his English is a little poor (it's actually quite good, but you can sometimes tell he's a non-native English speaker). Although I think Non-English sources are acceptable as sources, he always self-translates, and at any rate that's not the point even if he tries to make that the point. The point is that he's no longer welcome to edit Wikipedia due to his previous (and continuing) behavior and not because of the content he adds/subtracts.
So those are his most common attributes. It's easy as an editor to lose sight of the problem when dealing with this guy and to get sucked into spurious arguments about which of two sources is better or whether or not references to Miyamoto are just "clutter," but the important thing to remember is that the content itself is not really the problem. The problem is that he himself is impossible to work collaboratively with, and he is a known and unrepentant sockpuppet with an agenda. My rule of thumb has been to remove his edits in regard to Miyamoto since I think it's defamation (and anyway any editor can re-add it later if it's actually true), but otherwise just to report him and get rid of him before he causes any more of his problems. His rudely argumentative talk-page posts cover pages and pages with the same tired arguments, and he will always edit war by hitting "revert" before he discusses matters. Sorry to have been so long-winded. Any questions, I'll be happy to answer. If you are certain you have a positive hit, Tanthalas39 has been a great help already. Good luck. -Thibbs (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the info Thibbs. No need to be sorry for the "long-winded" post as it provides details that paint a good picture of what to look for. The edit difs provided by Thibbs and Sesu above are good examples of what to look for.
Quick question, are the edits to game rankings and scores in line with the defamation of Miyamoto? Are they scores that are worse or more negative than what's already there, and are they mainly in Miyamoto's games? I remember he tried adding content about criticism towards Super Mario 64.[4] Or is he just updating/adding review scores? (Guyinblack25 talk 20:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC))

Bump (Guyinblack25 talk 19:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC))

Cats

This discussion was never resolved. Should I go ahead and implement it? I can't see any possible harm as coming from it. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I was personally neutral on it, but the discussion seemed to favor doing so so I see no reason not to. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 19:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I was neutral as well. But if some editors can get some use out of it, then I see no reason to stand in the way either. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC))
On some other page (talk page of the template?) there was an agreement that only task force categories would be provided, and not the cross categorization categories typical of a lot (A-class Foo force articles & Low-priority foo force articles). I was personally an advocate of not categorizing so deep, but that didn't really come up in this discussion. Is there an option to opt out of that behavior in MetaBanner? --Izno (talk) 00:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
It would only add the task force categories, not things like A-Class Warcraft articles of Low-priority type things, which aren't very useful. Since there seems to be no real opposition to this, I'll implement it sometime this week. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Metacritic, GameRankings, MobyGames, TopTenReviews, GameTab, GameStats & Game Ratio

For those unaware, those are the review aggregators as defined by Template:VG Reviews. Defcon (video game)'s review table uses Metacritic, GameRankings, GameStats and Game Ration. Grand Theft Auto IV has MobyGames and TopTenReviews in its lead (although that was added by User:Dr90s).

By having them predefined in the VG Reviews table, we are legitimizing their use. Regardless of the impartiality of Game Ratio or any others, they clearly do not have the reach, audience, or influence of Metacritic. There are many articles on Metacritic, studios may pay bonuses based on it, and when review aggregators are discussed (for video games at least) - it is always Metacritic at the forefront.

Why is it that we bother listing more than one aggregator in reception sections anyway? What does GameRankings add to current FAC Halo Wars, or FA Halo 3 other than redundancy? I can understand why users would choose GameRankings for older games, but when does anyone ever need to link to MobyGames, TopTenReviews et al?

Aggregator listings should be considered and limited on all VG articles. The use of aggregator links on Template:VG Reviews should be reviewed - I would personally like to see all, bar Metacritic and GameRankings removed. But because of the way the template is constructed, this may break hundreds of articles. Your thoughts are welcome. - hahnchen 17:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I like having them. Having multiple aggregators allows readers to find different reviews, since often there will be some reviews in some aggregator sites and some on others, but not on multiple. The scores calculated are also slightly different, and they do provide more information to the reader (and for editors looking for other reviews to use as sources), at a minimum cost... another two or three lines in a review box and a few minutes of research and citing. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
MC and GR pretty much capture all of the most likely review sources that one would need for a game though neither captures that alone. But the others are all excessive to these two. --MASEM (t) 18:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You're overlooking quite possibly the most obvious reason for having more than just two aggregate tags for the record: the fact that in some cases one is a better source than the others. Take Alleyway for example: Metacritic doesn't list it (in fact it doesn't cover many older games at all), GameRankings uses *one* review, and MobyGames uses 5. For all intents and purposes to illustrate the aggregate reception of a title variety is a better option. For this argument I can't say much for TopTenReviews, GameTab, GameStats or Game Ratio though, so someone else will need to argue in their defense.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
DO people really use TopTenReviews, GameTab, GameStats or Game Ratio? GamerPro64 (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
It's not whether they use them or not, some people obviously do. The important point is that in the VG space, they clearly hold no kind of reach or influence as Metacritic. And we should reflect that, not challenge it. - hahnchen 18:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh shit, it turns out that GameStats lists iPhone games such as Zenonia, and other don't. Still the other points apply, take a look at Resident Evil 4 for redundant aggregator usage. If you see too many aggregators, remove them. - hahnchen 18:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
GameTap and GameStats are basically UGO and News Corporation's answer to CNET's Game Rankings. If we allow 1UP.com, IGN, and GameSpot, it makes sense we should allow GameTap and GameStats in addition to Game Rankings.
TopTenReviews on the other hand, I have no idea about. I'm inclined to exclude it until more info about its reliability turns up.
As far as MobyGames Rankings are concerned, it's come up before, and believe we were going to give it some more time to see if the industry and other reliable resources started using it. That being the case, I think it should be excluded from the template.
Regardless of how many are available in the template, not every one should be used. On a side note, would it be good to protect the template so others can't add questionable and unknown sources to the list. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC))
We use 1UP because it is a popular and influential source for video games coverage. This doesn't mean that GameTab is. There are multiple articles discussing Metacritic and its influence on the games industry. There are CEOs commenting on its importance (or lack of, in certain markets) of Metacritic scores. No one has ever mentioned GameStats, Game Ratio et al. - hahnchen 11:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
If they're reliable, then we should use as many sites as possible. We shouldn't be reinforcing the economic dominance of one source over another. MobyGames is particularly useful because it includes sources that the others never would (edit: out of print magazines, etc.). SharkD (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Well said. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Shark- I agree, but we still have to take into account WP:RS. Because of that I'm hesitant to support MobyRanks (unless we can establish it's usage by the industry and other reliable sources). GameTap and GameStats seem fine to me though. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC))
I'm still going to disagree with that per above, not like my opinion will matter much but if someone's reviewing something pre-PlayStation MobyGames is going to be a lot more reliable for an aggregate score.
While we're on this subject I'm going to voice something again: stating we can use GameRankings for an aggregate score in an article then stating we can't use some of the individual reviews in that very same article or related offshoots of it is hypocritical. A little history: take a case such as Final Fantasy Legend II. GameRankings lists only two reviews for it, IGN and RPGFan. But a previous debate on WP:VG/S stated that RPGFan didn't prove WP:RS. But...it's 50% of a score being argued to be used. The argument that "GameRankings uses different standards than Wikipedia" should bring up red flags for any thinking person that if their score is counting in the article, the opinions behind it should be just as valid.
(And diverting back to the previous note I'll be quick to point out again in this instance compared to MG these two don't show any reviews from the game's actual release which readily exist nor any international opinions on the title).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
"If they're reliable, then we should use as many sites as possible." - I totally disagree. Reliability /= influence, importance, reach or quality. We don't quote sources just because they're reliable, because they conform to fact using. Just as the Reviews table does not include every reliable source, the aggregator table shouldn't either.
"We shouldn't be reinforcing the economic dominance of one source over another." - This is not what we're doing. Wikipedia is there to give an accurate reflection of the real world. We should be presenting the most influential, authoritative views - not trying to start a revolution.
I accept that there are cases where a lesser aggregator should be used - old games, cell phone games etc. But these are special cases, and Template:VG Reviews should reflect this, either with a comment in the documentation, or by requiring users to enter them into custom fields such as the custom review fields. - hahnchen 11:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree - the VG Reviews template should not be a dumping ground for reviews or compilation of reviews. The inclusion of MC or GR is to help readers seek out other reviews beyond those that we include - and those that we include should be included in the main body of the text. --MASEM (t) 12:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
The "reality" is that there are multiple reliable sources, many of which never get used. We shouldn't give one source additional weight simply because its parent company owns a number vertically entrenched subsidiaries. I don't see how "reach" or "influence" has any bearing on a aggregator's quality, since all they do is recycle other sources' content. How are Wikipedia article readers supposed to do research if they are limited to only the most popular articles? The aggregators section provides them with the most broad and complete survey of reviews possible. In the article text, or in the reviews section of the template, we can still reflect the "going opinion" of all the video gamers and magazine readers that are out there. SharkD (talk) 03:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
It's not about "quality" though is it. If it were about quality, we would ditch the pointless minutiae and consistent 8/10 IGN drivel and we would castigate GameTrailer's idiot score separation. But we don't, we use IGN because it is the most popular website available, because hordes of gamers follow it, because its opinion shapes the public consciousness towards a game. The best insight, and perceptive analysis may be found in more niche sites and blogs (I can definitely name some), but we don't use them, nor should we, because in the real world - those opinions carry no weight. Wikipedia is not the place to challenge that, and that does not even take into account that definitions of quality will differ.
Of all the aggregators out there, Metacritic is the one that gets quoted by CEOs, analysts and writers. It is the aggregator on which jobs and bonuses may hinge upon. You mention that we should list as many aggregators as possible to ensure a complete survey. Since when did quality = quantity? - hahnchen 03:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
IGN is not an aggregator last time I checked. Also, if reach and influence were the only criteria, then we could use Wikipedia as a source. SharkD (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Whether IGN is an aggregator or not has no bearing on the quality argument you put forward. Reach and influence aren't the only criteria, but Metacritic passes the others too. - hahnchen 17:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_70&oldid=1144131562"