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

How do I create a new Wikiproject for Strategy Computer games? | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 21:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there a real need for another separate WikiProject? jaco♫plane 08:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, you have one for Role-playing, as well as many others for individual games. I know several people who like only strategy, including myself, and I would like a portal/wikiproject for strategy only. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 09:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

See if people are interested (go here).--Clyde Miller 23:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, there isn't a wikiproject for CVG Role playing games, that project is for tabletop RPGs and such. --PresN 04:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, thank you; I'll try there. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 02:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Arguments for / against its reliability? My use of it in Mystical Ninja Starring Goemon is part of an oppose vote. I like to bring things to the consensus of the WikiProject to encourage discussion and elaboration, so if anyone feels strongly on whether Chudah's corner is okay to use or not okay (in the same vein as VGCharts), please speak. If we decide it isn't, then as a matter of principle I will remove every instance of it being cited in CVG articles.

Also, can someone please help copyedit that article. I had four people from my site help, but they aren't hardened Wikipedians with predisposition to encyclopedic writing. Other than that, the entire thing's is 95% my effort, and for a month now I've had no success in finding someone here to help copyedit it. There's one last objection in the FAC, so please help WP:CVG get one more featured article. --Zeality 22:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a nice site....but it's a fansite. I believe in general fansites are usually not considered to be acceptable sources, especially when there's no official endorsement (contrast it to something like VGMWorld, which has official endorsement from a number of composers). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 23:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I've moved my draft CVG navbox guidelines here, incorporating the results of the previous discussion and the creation of Dispenser's ((CVG Navigation)). Further input would be appreciated. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 00:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

FYI: A well sourced article on this unusual game is available under de:Painstation in German. It features several sources in English (including external 3D animations, Videos, mp3s and blogs).Since I myself don't have the time (RL takes its toll ;-) to transfer it, maybe some of you guys are interested. I really believe its worth the effort. --Nemissimo II 10:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, I had an issue with an article I have just written about a relatively new MMORPG game (Regnum Online). In fact the game has been in development for more than 4 year, and has been available to the public for more than a year now. But a couple of hours after I wrote the article, User:Pan Dan requested it's speedy deletion, asserting it is about "web content", which is not true. He also says the article is not "notable" and is inappropriate. If you could help us settle this matter I will be most grateful.

I am now adding more sources that talk about the game.

Thanks in advance Jcpetruzza 15:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I added my delete opinion to the AfD. I'll post up the link in the deletion list now. The Kinslayer 15:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Should this article not be written more in a fictional biography style? It seems to contain information the games themselves such as them being remade or "The NES port of Metal Gear was an unexpected million-seller when it was released in North America.[1] The sequel, Snake's Revenge, was developed without the involvement of the first game's director, Hideo Kojima. It only saw release in North America and Europe". Maybe I'm wrong but it seems like if it is the Solid Snake article it should act more as a history of the character like the comic character articles currently do.Darkwarriorblake 20:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• No, I think the article is fine. It's describing him in real world terms, which is how fictional game items should be handled in my opinion. It ties his story into the dates of the games so that people can see what real world material the information has come from. Just my two cents of course :) Also, just look on the discussion page. Wikipedia freakin' loves it!The Kinslayer 23:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Short answer: No, it should not be written as a fictional biography. Long answer: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). Nifboy 02:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Seeing how it was written, I don't think a change is nessessary. That and the fact that it is a WP:CVG Featured article helps. guitarhero777777 05:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Believe it or not, that's actually a very close approximation of the proper method for writing those biographies. We operate under the faulty assumption that people actually are looking at fictional character articles to find out what their real world significance is rather than their favorite breed of dog, in depth information about their abilities, and plot details about that obscure canceled game from 1994 that they had a cameo role in.
    Thanks for pointing that out though, I've been looking for good example pages of fictional character bios for ages. --tjstrf talk 05:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I put a cleanup tag on it before, but no changes seem to have been made. A better table needs to be put into the article for the characters. As of now... it's just huge lists for characters and series' that are represented in the game. In my opinion, the whole "original appearance" section of the current table doesn't need to be listed. It's a video game article, not an anime guide. RobJ1981 22:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I attempted to clean up the article. I hope I made it better instead of worse. I would check to see if I made errors because I was just trying to categorize based on what I felt the statement meant. guitarhero777777 05:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what edits you did to the article, since I forgot about this post. From the looks of it: the article is still a huge mess. It's one huge list of characters, with some other information. RobJ1981 07:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have set up new part of Wikipedia Project which is right here --> Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computer_and_video_games/Konami. I would like to use this to unite not only Konami-based games like Metal Gears and Castlevania, I think it's also interesting to put these games deserve its own sections because they are big part of the Video game industry. Any comment and opinions? Dooly00000 (talk · contribs · count) (Whatever time it is; UTC)

I'm wondering if we could get some editors over to the Medieval II: Total War article and provide assistance with a minor dispute.

Short story: one editor put in a paragraph in the Criticisms section about a review of the game from a noted Swedish historian; another editor (myself) condensed it into a single sentence (with links). Editor 1 insists that the historian deserves a full paragraph; Editor 2 thinks the shorter version is better. More can be read in the talk page for Medieval II.

Thanks in advance --DarthBinky 15:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The early history of Game Producer is wrong.

The first company to use "game producers" was Activision. This took place in 1981 when Activision realized they were in the entertainment business and that the term "project manager" just didn't fit the reality of the job. Brad Fregger was chosen to be the first "game producer," making him the first game producer in the world. The entire story is told in his book, Lucky That Way. Electronic Arts made the same decision after finding out that Activision had created the title of "Producer" for computer and video games. Remember, at that time, Electronic Arts (San Mateo) and Activision (Mountain View) were both San Franciso Bay Area companies, very competitive and closely related. The source for this information is Kenneth L. Coleman--bio: here -- Bradfregger 17:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Bradfregger first brought this up on the Game producer Talk page, and I responded to him there. Discuss any further there, please.-- Talk 16:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Seriously. The editors here actually know how to tell cruft from useful information. Look at Template:Cosmic_Era_mobile_weapons. 80 pages on a bunch of useless robots. I put it on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CAT1-X_Hyperion_Gundam_series and CLEARLY pointed out the policy violations. It wasn't going bad, until the anime project kiddies came over and took a steaming s*** on it, voting "Keep all" for no good reason. This is why I hate Wikipedia. People voting to keep absolute crap for no relevant reason - and you know what? It'll be consensus to "keep all" or "no consensus" because those children just have to vote to keep them. Yeah, let's forget about the clear policy violations and listen to the 12 year olds just because there's a lot of them. Man, am I glad I hate anime, otherwise there'd be no way I'd ever edit Wikipedia. --TheEmulatorGuy 00:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Although pretty irrelevant to CVG, those articles have come up for deletion before at exactly the same location [1] ((You should have started a new page instead). The outcome is going to be exactly the same, no consensus. I made a comment in the original AFD, but someone posted a really shitty counterargument to it after which I couldn't be bothered to rectify. - hahnchen 00:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Now now, not all of the editors at WP:ANIME are like that :) Many of us are trying to delete, merge, cut, etc a lot of those kinds of articles. Just because us as fans like this kinda stuff doesn't mean we should include it. It just takes some people a little more time to realize that :) -- Ned Scott 04:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

And don't worry, even if the AfD goes for keep or no consensus, we can continue the debate and outlast the initial fan-keep reaction, and then re-list it with the results of that discussion. -- Ned Scott 04:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

One of the reasons the CVG project does well is that there are compendiums that allow unverifiable, opinionated information; as such we can simplify our wiki articles and move game related info elsewhere. If only there were Anime wiki's, etc. --Notmyhandle 09:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Massive AFDs never work. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warcraft character articles, which dissolved into a fistfight of personal attacks. This massive AFD will also be ruled no consensus simply because there are too many opinions on all the different articles; some will say delete on this article, keep others, it's all very confusing. I tried prodding a bunch of Power Rangers episodes articles, but this failed, so I simply redireced them all into a "list of Power Rangers: xxx episodes" article. If the AFD results in a no consensus, I'd suggest merging them all. Hbdragon88 22:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I propose a standard for article titles of computer and video games in a series e.g. Final Fantasy, Mario Kart, The Legend of Zelda, Animal Crossing, Metal Gear, etc. Article names like these should all be handled consistantly, for example, they should all either link to the disambiguation page (e.g. Metal Gear), the series page (e.g. Mario Kart), or the page of the game of that name (e.g. The Legend of Zelda). Does anyone have any opinions on this? Jecowa 03:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that all series pages should be located at "Name (series)", and video games that share the series' name should be at "Name (video game)". And then "Name" can be a disambig (like Metal Gear.) Thunderbrand 18:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Poll: "Disambiguation page exists at ambiguous name"

Proposal — For computer and video games that are a series use the ambiguous form of the title, "Title," of a video game series for the disambiguation page while using "Title (series)" for the article over the series and "Title (video game)" for the article over the video game with the same name as the series, such as is currently done with Metal Gear, Metal Gear (series), and Metal Gear (video game). This poll is intended to create a consistant naming convention for computer and video game sharing a title due to existing in a series.

• A "support" vote suggests an addition to the Computer and video games style guideline adding the above proposal.
• An "oppose" vote suggests to not include the above proposal in the Computer and video games style guideline.

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

• Suppport — I would like to see consistancy in these article titles. Consistancy makes Wikipedia easier for users and makes it look more professional. Jecowa 20:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support — I echo Jecowa's statement, and mine above. Thunderbrand 00:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Forgive me if I'm wrong, but this is the current practice anyways Wikipedia-wide. We don't really need to "vote" to include something we're already doing.. Just update our guidelines with a note to WP:D :) -- Ned Scott 01:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I wouldn't want to edit the Wikiproject's style guideline without discussing it first. Discussing it makes it more official. This way if someone challenges it, no one can say that this is something that I unilaterally decided. It has the backing of several users this way, if it passes. It's good that this proposal conforms to Wikipedia:Disambiguation. That's nice to know. Thanks for mentioning that. It would be embarrassing to propose something that opposed a major guideline. Hopefully this will ensure that there will be no opposition. Jecowa 03:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support — It's common sense so it gets my vote. - X201 11:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Consistency is good. Niroht likes consistency. --Niroht 03:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support consistency Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 04:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The previous user is correct, this is the current practice Wikidpedia-wide. The fact that many video games have foregone disamg pages and have redirect links at the top in case someone was in fact looking for a different version of the game, or for the movie or the action figure or whatnot, doesn't mean that we need to vote to decide whether or not to use what is already the Wikipedia standard. These pages should already be using the Wikipedia standard--we don't use articles as articles and disambig pages. TStein 05:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you please specifically point out the statement for this global policy on the WP:D page for me? From what I saw, it seemed that it could be done different ways depending on the circumstance. I've also noticed different styles of disambiguation used throughout Wikipedia. Jecowa 05:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll try and find the statement on disambig policy, but in the meantime, let me respond to the rest of your comment. Yes, there are most definitely different styles of disambiguation used on Wikipedia. When disambig pages get particularly long, they are often turned into article style pages, where there is no additional information provided--it still is a disambig page, but it's an organized one. For example, you can look at AC. And when there are very few pages, all on the same general topic (like a video game)--two or three at the most really, sometimes a disambig page is forgone altogether. I've generally only seen this when there is one page that ties the others together--in videogames it's often the series page.

Why do I think that this is a problem? Well, look at this version of the Animal Crossing Series page. Now look at the Disambiguation page.

The first problem is that is that you're requiring a series page, or any page doing this to play two roles. It has to be both an article and a directional page. This often ends up being too much for people and things slip through the cracks. Why? Because when a major change (title name, new page, etc) is made to a page, editors of that page go to the disambig page to update or add the information there. When there is no disambig page, that job often goes undone.

The second problem is the user-end problem. It's confusing for users. There should never be a multi-step process to finding a page. If the user knows the page name, or knows what it's about, they should be able to search for it and find it. Not search for it and find a different article that links to it. Maybe they'll read the article name and say to themselves "no, this is the wrong article, this isn't what I want" and assume that the article they want doesn't exist. Having an article link to the other relevant search results is like typing a search term into google and if there are only three pages and they link to one another, one of the pages would come up instead of a result list. It just doesn't work. TStein 11:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

So, you're saying the way it's done with Animal Crossing good then? Someone searches for Animal Crossing, and they get the disambig page with clearly lets them choose which they actually want. But...it sounds like you're saying that everything that has multiple uses should have a disambig page? Most of the time, the "as is" article has either a link to the disambig page, or to the similar page (or even both, like at Yes). I don't see how that's confusing...or am I missing something? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose The general wikipedia policy is that a dismbiguation page is not needed where there are only two items - that can be covered by dab sentances at the top. I see no reason to impose dab pages where they are not required. -- Beardo 04:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Beardo. Wiki policy already states that disambig pages are not needed when dealing with two articles. --- RockMFR 18:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Logical and consistent. --VPeric 21:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose I feel that this makes things more complicated than it needs to be. Why not just link to the page of the main game, then put a link at the top for the series? Age of Empires already does this and the system works just fine. Age of Empires goes to the page for the game called "Age of Empires". Age of Empires series goes to a page about the "Age of Empires series". Why do we need to make a disambiguation page for the two? Thunderforge 01:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with Beardo and RockMFR. If there two articles exist with the same name, like the series page and the first game, put in a dablink. If there are three or more articles, go ahead and put in a disambig page. Metal Gear fits this because there is another article other than than the one about the first game and the one about the series. Just my two cents.--Clyde (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per Thunderforge. TJ Spyke 03:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The template should have an image caption field. Especially if a cover has been tagged as replaceable or for deletion. -- ReyBrujo 12:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

:It does, you'll find |caption= just below |image=. Oh, I sort of overlooked the header and thought this was about ((Infobox VG)), nevermind. Combination 19:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm planning a series of pages on video gaming attitudes and production in individual countries, and would like to send out a request for assistance in this. I've already started on the Video gaming in Germany article - use this to express opinions or as a template for future articles on other countries. Particularly interesting I think would be articles on the US, Japan, UK, South Korea, China, France and Arabic countries. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 14:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I might be able to help with the U.S. (where I'm from) and maybe the U.K. (I read a British gaming magazine) or Japan. However, those are so broad (especially the U.S and Japan) that I would be a ble to contribute a very small amount. guitarhero777777 18:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd noticed that there are no articles at all in said category. Looking around, I discovered that games like Postal 3 and The World Online are not there because someone (whom I'll not name since I'm not sure if it's proper) got the idea that since the games already have the Upcoming Games template that they and a few other games should not be in the category. And whenever I tried to add the category, this person took it away again. Any ideas on what to do about this? N. Harmonik 16:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Most likely explanation? Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and 2008 is over a year away -- not soon enough to count as worth while for things such as video games, which can and do change very easily. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably the reason above is why the action was done. However, if it was up to me, I would've kept it as the companies did announce those release dates and if they are delayed closer to release, we can change them. 2009, however, would be a complete crystal ball and I cannot be for that. guitarhero777777 18:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not the point. The Wikipedian who edited them thinks that because those articles have the template for Upcoming Games that they can't be in the category for 2008 computer and video games. If that's true then why we might as well do the same to articles that are in the category for 2007 computer and video games. N. Harmonik 22:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I missed the point. Of course you can have games in a category even if they have a certain template. Templates and categories don't have anything to do with each other. At least that's my understanding. guitarhero777777 22:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I say it's fine to add the year category back in. Refer the editor to this discussion (on the article's Talk page) if they give you grief again. — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Mystical Ninja Starring Goemon's FAC has been restarted as too confusing, so if you participated in the previous one, or even if you didn't, come on by! --PresN 16:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I realize this template is part of the ongoing attempt to reduce talk headers' sizes, but it doesn't have bot functionality. Could, by chance, someone who knows what's going on do something about it? It's presently on the PS3 talk page. Nifboy 21:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I say we delete this template. As far as I can tell there is no consensus whatsoever to replace the ((cvgproj)) with this new template. It also undoes all the work we've done on prioritizing & rating articles. jaco♫plane 00:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, does anyone know why ((cvgproj)) is set to "hide" by default even though the todo box isn't showing? jaco♫plane 02:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Calm down. Yes, it was simply an effort to reduce the header size, it was getting quite out of proportion. I don't think it's so important to say that one article is more important than another. I think the peer reviewing was much more important. Discussing the faults of the article, instead of providing a "rating" (which, in my opinion, due to its numerical aspects, gives a false impression of accuracy and non-subjectiveness) is much more relevant. --gatoatigrado 05:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not asking for anyone to replace the current template on other talk pages. --gatoatigrado 05:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The cvgproj header can already be made small, infobox-size. Just add a small=yes paramater to it. Hbdragon88 05:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I should hope not, there are 10,000+ articles with that template on them! --PresN 07:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

10,431 to be exact, as of last night. --PresN 07:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

These stubs are really bare and they need some assistance immediately! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Murphyg001 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

Hi, could a couple of people please take a look at List of Call of Duty mods and List of Battlefield 1942 mods? I've marked the pair of them as Unencyclopedic per WP:NOT, and want to put them up for AfD, but the Battlefield list has had a No Consensus twice, whilst still remaining an awful to look at article full of indiscriminate information, and I'm not 100% about the Call of Duty list, which is why I would welcome a second opinion. The Kinslayer 15:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Mod lists are not unencyclopedic. I don't like how User:Proto used a different AFD to hammer on List of Half-Life 2 mods, although I don't care too much. Like list of webcomics, they'd work as lists if someone kept them in check, and would serve as a better starting point for someone looking for information on mods then the contextless Categories. Still, for List of Call of Duty mods, there's barely any worth making a list, and for List_of_Battlefield_1942_mods it's really long and meaningless. I don't think we'd be losing anything too important. - hahnchen 05:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I put the List of Call of Duty mods up for deletion, but I'm can't nominate List of Battlefield 1942 mods properly for some reason. It insists on linking it to one of it's previous AfDs. Could someone do me a favor and nominate it for AfD properly please? The Kinslayer 09:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Use ((afdx)) instead of ((afd)). Something like ((subst:afdx|2nd)). - hahnchen 15:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks, I could not figure out what I was doing wrong! Sorted it now. The Kinslayer 15:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Linking to an online script of a game may improve game citation verifiability for the VGCite tag, but would this be precluded by scripts possibly being copyright violations? --Zeality 00:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, does linking to game scripts fall under the same rules for linking to song lyrics which I believe is a copyright violation? Timkovski 18:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

All the games for the RPG maker series are either too short, just clutter or sloppy, and unsourced as well. All the Tony Hawk games are in need of cleanup as well: they are basically just bulleted lists and clutter. The full lists are here in these templates:

Anyone have good knowledge with either of these series? I haven't played any of them, so I have no idea where to start. RobJ1981 18:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

One of the RPG Maker games might make a good GCOTW. jaco♫plane 18:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Add the games of Mario Party series to the list of series needing cleanup. I've looked at most of the articles: the mini-game lists need some kind of formatting, so they aren't just bulleted lists. RobJ1981 19:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

They don't need formatting: they need to be killed altogether. I think Mario Party is a pretty good example of how the aricle should look: no lists of mini-games, some description of the modes. Hbdragon88 21:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Another series to add to the cleanup list:

.

Most of the earlier games in the series are unsourced stubs with incorrect categories. RobJ1981 20:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

If there are a lot of templates in need of cleanup, would it be good to add a category for them to the CVG box?--Clyde (talk) 20:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not the templates that are the problem, it's the game articles they link to that need cleanup. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well perhaps series of games then, if there are so many.--Clyde (talk) 21:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Could we develop a template for developers? Currently we are just using businness ones.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oscar86 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

We have a MobyGames developer template, is that what you mean? Use it like so:

((moby developer|id=41629|name=Chris Nash's profile))

To produce this:

Chris Nash's profile at MobyGames

You can find it at Template:Moby developer. HTH. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe he's referring to an infobox template, which might be a good idea. The infobox could mention the company the developer has worked for, and the games they worked on. jaco♫plane 19:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for not elaborating, but yes an infobox. Don't include the games they've made as you'll have a really long list, perhaps their best known work.

I would like to know how to become a member of a wikiproject, particularly this one, I'm assumming that you just say you are a member, but I'm just making sure.--Granpire Viking Man 22:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

you got it right. Just add the userbox of the wikiproject to your userpage. Some other wikiprojects have rosters, but this particular one doesn't.--Clyde Miller 22:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't seem to find the discussion where it says every game should be linked to MobyGames? Can someone help me out? Bgold4 02:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe such a discussion ever occurred. There was this mess that didn't get anywhere, and so I'm happy to leave it at "Do what you want". Nifboy 02:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

perhaps we can simply organize a vote for it? I think we need some closure on this issue Bgold4 03:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There's no reason they should have to, but there's no reason they can't (as by the same token, most Star Trek articles link to Memory Alpha, etc.). Still, I think the argument that if a more relevent link (like the official website) provides as much or more info, the MG link is redundant, as per WP:EL. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 03:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe the consensus of the previous debate was strong argue in circles. Link to them if you feel they are relevant, otherwise don't. Whatever. --tjstrf talk 03:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Link to it if you care to, but don't get upset if someone links to it and you didn't want to. And, in many cases, I think MobyGames is a better link than "the official website." For example, MobyGames lists full credits, while the official website usually won't. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No single website should have a link placed on every game article. Links (and for that matter, any content) should only be added when it is actually useful. Links should not be added just for completion's sake. Content on ALL gaming websites should be taken with a grain of salt, especially sites like MobyGames/IGN/GameSpot/GameFAQs which often care less about accuracy and more about just building huge databases of (sometimes inaccurate) information. --- RockMFR 23:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Input from members of this group may be helpful at Talk:Tekken#Requested move. If this is the wrong place to announce this, I apologize and please move it; I didn't see a listing for requests for comments or the like. -- nae'blis 22:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

No, this is a good place to come when you're looking for some more opinions on a cvg-related topic. --PresN 21:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Besides List of King of Fighters: Maximum Impact characters (10 subsections, 59 items), I just found out that Sonic Riders has 6 subsections with 41 trivia items, plus 8 hidden in the Notes section. I believe the trivia in the WikiProject should be reworded to Trivia: Notable bugs, cameos, rumors, fan activity, and alike can be included as long as a reliable citation is given. Trivia items without citation are to be removed without discussion. This way we would be able to clean dozens of game articles with trivia that originates from message boards and forums. -- ReyBrujo 14:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think trivia should be small in the first place. In alot of cases: trivia can be put into the article in other ways. But for the sake of huge trivia lists: much of it is (from what I've seen at least) are obvious notes that aren't trivia in anyway. Notable bugs? I don't know about that section. Many games have bugs, what's the difference between "notable" and non-notable in that case? As for rumors: don't belong on Wikipedia at all. Wikipedia isn't a rumor mill, if it's unconfirmed and just a rumor.. it shouldn't be listed. If a reliable source is found for it, then it belongs, but only after the source is found. I'm not too sure if fan activity and cameos are that notable either. If notable enough, I suppose it could remain. RobJ1981 19:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Mario's up for WP:GA/R - concern seems to be about the citations - criteria 2a and 2d have been named specifically. - Malkinann 23:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The article was requested by a not logged in user, so I've started it. Now, one month later it hasn't seen any change. Please take over or leave an AfD tag there. --32X 16:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This article shouldn't even exist; it should be integrated into one of the existing Sega genesis related system articles; since the "Sega CD 32x" is 1) not an official name and 2) not a real product, but rather a combination of parts. --Notmyhandle 23:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

1) see the image

2) feel free to start an AfD --32X 00:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, can anybody help me out with cleaning up the King of Fighters article? I recently removed a bunch of fan site links from the article's external links section, but a user revert my edit, calling it vandalism and claiming that the links had "important information" and were "more than just fansites". Considering most of the sites are basically fansites with primary research about the games, I'm pretty sure that they don't belong in the article. I'm however too busy to continue in this conflict, so could somebody help out on this article.

On a related note, there really needs to be a group of users who are interested in improving the quality of the King of Fighters articles to Wiki standards, and not just adding fan observations, trivia and original research to them. Almost all of the KoF articles are in horrible shape, and KoF has a rabid enough fanbase that they'd revert any changes that take away the cruft they'd find important. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 01:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Really, can someone at least help resolve the external links problem on King of Fighters? The user reverted my edits again and I'm not looking to violate 3RR over somebody who thinks all these excessive links are useful, so I've just marked the section as needing external link clean up. There really needs to be at least one other person who could help out in (at least) mediating this issue. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 17:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

While Template:Move to gaming wiki lists Encyclopedia Gamia, StrategyWiki, and GameInfo as places for more in-depth information, GameInfo has a policy against taking content from Wikipedia; for this reason, it seems inappropriate to keep their site in the existing template. Perhaps it can be modified to read something like :

Any thoughts? Join me at Template talk:Move to gaming wiki. Tzaquiel 16:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to bring it to the attention of other users, but Resident Evil 4 has been getting a guns/weapon section inserted frequently in the last couple of days. In particular, one main user may be using one-off names such as Gdsfhws (talk · contribs), Leon318 (talk · contribs) and Someguy32 (talk · contribs) as well as the IP 64.180.145.75 (talk · contribs) to do this. These sections/edits have been summarily removed by myself and others under WP:NOT. Like I said, just wanted to bring this to attention. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 21:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you have enough evidence... request a check user on the names (if there isn't one already in place). I can't remember the page for that though. RobJ1981 22:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Central processing unit has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Sandy (Talk) 23:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Obvious question maybe, but I've just tidied up this article. It was previously rated stub class, so how do I get it re-assessed? Thanks for the help! Tbone762 23:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can assess an article. This explains the grading scale. Thunderbrand 00:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this is really a very valid question. A large number of articles in WP:CVG are marked "Stub" or "Start", when actually they've been substantially improved since initial rating. In many cases, these articles should be able to move up to a "B". However, I suspect that it's probably poor form to rate articles for which you've provided a majority of the content; is this correct? --Slordak 00:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is a rule to re-assessing an article you have done most of the work. If it follows the guidelines presented in the Editorial Team page, then I see no problem. I imagine in some cases people don't re-assess them because they either forgot or didn't notice them on the talk page. Thunderbrand 01:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

While it might be considered bad form to rate an article that you contribute to heavily, in practice you might as well do it. Not many people rate articles, so unless you ask, it's unlikely that someone will do it. I'll do it if you ask, but I see no problem with doing it yourself. --PresN 06:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the further elaboration, Thunderbird and PresN. A good example of the situation in my mind is Viva Piñata, which is currently marked "Stub". This article certainly seem to have a lot of pretty solid content which should move it beyond this rating. I don't think every article needs to work it's way up to "Good Article" status, but things which have been moved beyond "Stub" or "Start" should probably reflect this. --Slordak 14:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I rerated it as a start, but I'd say it's a couple refs or a removal of the trivia section from a B. --PresN 15:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of, I noticed WP:FILM has a future rating in its assessments (which is rather well-populated). Perhaps we ought to use it? I've often held off on rating articles on games that aren't going to be released for a while simply by virtue of the lack of information available. Nifboy 17:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's unncessary and requrires double the work - to rerate it as future and then to remove that once it the game is released. Hbdragon88 21:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

How would people feel about a merchandise section in articles? The information can normally be referenced, it is a real-world impact, and it aides in comprehensiveness. I was thinking about creating a section like this in Final Fantasy VIII. It would contain information on things like demo discs (and other pre-release materials), limited edition box sets, art books, jewelery and (probably most importantly) action figures. Some editors seem to have the mindset of "YOU WILL DO THIS AND THIS ONLY" when it comes to video game articles, so I thought to ask. --TheEmulatorGuy 05:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It IS good that you brought it up, as major additions do best to be discussed first, but noone has any athority over how articles are done, outside of what's in the policies (see WP:OWN for more).

I don't see why adding a merch section woudl be a bad thing either, as it helps show the popularity and/or company push that games get. Any such section should be well written and paragraphed nicely instead of some bullited list, of course. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫

If it's notable mechandise, it should be listed in the article. But things such as Jump Superstars manga: Special Edition (a comic book that was free when people bought the game), certainly shouldn't be articles. Good examples of merchandise: all the happy meal toys that have featured video games. I know there was a bunch when Mario 3 (I think) came out, and there's been a few others in the past as well. RobJ1981 15:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

A lot of the merchandising is done with preorders, and I usually reference that stuff in the lead or development sections. I guess a separate thing all depends on whether it's notable. Most good articles have music sections, which basically revolve around the OSTs. --Zeality 22:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I just updated Lemonade Tycoon's page. While I don't believe, with the additions I made, that it is a stub anymore. I removed the stub note at the bottom, but there is one on the discussion page refering to this WikiProject. Can someone who knows what they're doing change this for me? Holosoth 03:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to leave it as stub because a lot of the info is like a game guide, and the article is set in past tense. to change that, though, edit the talk page and change the "class=" thing. EX: "class=stub" can be changed to "class=A". Scepia 04:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

To be precise, it can be class=Stub, Start, B, GA, A, and FA (in that order). --PresN 05:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like the guidelines for the nav boxes to be somewhat tweaked. Their purpose is there for one reason and one reason ONLY and that it to ease navigation. So if I'm on the Final Fantasy VII page and then easily wanna slip over to XIII I should, without a doubt, be able to. As things are now, this is not the case. And this is just bonkers.

Whether or not a game is released in English or not is completely irrelevant. The same goes for if the game is unreleased, that too is irrelevant. The only thing that matter is whether or not the game, or just article in general is noteworthy, which generally can be determined through the fact whether or not the subject has or hasn't a wikipedia entry. (Djungelurban 12:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC))

There's been much warring about future released games, such as including Battle Revolution on the Pokemon template, or MGS3 on the MGS template. Apparently the FF one doesn't, I don't know why. Hbdragon88 19:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Check out the archives of this page -- there was a discussion on this not too long ago. Basically, most people seemed to agree that if the game has more than trivial coverage, it's worth adding, but there was no across the board agreement. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 21:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the "style" section needs a significant audit to uphold current schools of thought. Here are some examples

• "Make sure to use the [spoiler tags] when appropriate" should be reworded to mention that they should be omitted if the section is already called "plot" and whatnot...
• Emphasis on copyediting, prose enhancement, and discrimination against flowery prose.

— Deckiller 05:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

About spoiler tags, I'm not sure if I agree that they should be omitted from plot sections. I don't think they're as vital in a plot section, because, hell, it's the plot section. However, if someone has reason to believe (a rational reason) that a reader will read an unexpected spoiler, then I don't see the harm. I'd just say that they're generally unneeded in such sections. -- Ned Scott 06:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Before another spoiler tag discussion explodes here again, it should be noted that this was discussed at length here. jaco♫plane 06:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I was apart of the 1 or 2 MB discussion that resulted from that initial discussion. (Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/Guideline status2, Wikipedia:Spoiler warning/RfC - Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/RfC) We never really got a strong consensus one way or the other. It is fair to say that the tags should generally be avoided in plot sections, as they're not really needed, but there's no strong consensus to forbid them there. -- Ned Scott 06:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

can't expect users to look at the headers, let alone know what plot or a synopsis is. and on pages with long plot sections, it would be easy to stumble across the game's ending when scrolling up from another section. Scepia 06:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Okay then, how about we change the wording to "case by case basis" so that users and sub projects can have flexibility? — Deckiller 07:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• No objections? — Deckiller 11:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Sounds fine to me. -- Ned Scott 11:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've proposed a change so that titles are italicized by default but non-italicized text can also be added. Since there are more links without italicized text than with it, editors shouldn't be forced to have to manually italicize every title. Any thoughts? OriginalJunglist 05:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how it's a problem for editors to include the italics tags in the template call. Most would be copying and pasting it from the usage explanation, or something similar. I've been trying to maintain the articles that use this template and watch out for people who use it improperly (which is usually the case). And as I (and other editors) have already stated, having italics within the template itself makes it impossible to handle titles that should not be italicized, and makes another parameter required to include extra information about the game's system. --- RockMFR 06:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not really a problem, more of an inconvenience. The proposed change would make it so that titles are italicized by the template (like before) but now the editor could also add non-italicised text through an extra paramater. Since non-italicized text is rarerly used in these templates the proposed change would speed up the editing process by only having the editor have to add extra markup when non-italicized text was being used (as opposed to having to add extra markup to common italicized-only titles).OriginalJunglist 07:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, adding markup in the template call is not a problem. You seem to be going under the assumption that these links are added frequently - they aren't, and shouldn't be. Only when they are actually useful should they be added, which is not usually the case. And then there's the point of making approximately 500 pointless edits to fix all the existing calls for no reason. --- RockMFR 17:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so the current events page isn't such a success. However, the "In the news" template is linked to from the CVG Portal. It would be great if more active users kept an eye on that page and would be willing to add major events to the list. The CVG portal is linked to from thousands of talk pages and as such has a high visibility. I guess this is my last attempt to make this work... I'm tempted to delete the whole thing so I don't have to worry about it being unmaintained. jaco♫plane 18:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Currently, a slew of redirects to Link were made...all are under R3. Look at CAT:CSD right now. «TTV»(talk|contribs|email) 04:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I have a problem over at RPG Maker (series), and I'm hoping you CVG folks could help me with some issues regarding it. The article currently has a section taking about the illegal translations of the PC RPG Makers, but it was recently removed by anon for the reason that we shouldn't be promoting the illegal downloading of coprighted works. However, one user, Dynamo ace (talk · contribs) put back the paragraph, claiming it was "POV" and "biased" to remove the paragraph. I agree with the anon, since Wikipedia should not be linking to illegal content, but Dynamo is pretty set in his view that removing the section is somehow "POV". So I ask you, CVG users - what should be done about this section? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)\

/Talking/ about illegal things are fine, especially if there's verifyable refs. Providing links to go around copyright isn't, of course. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 21:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Melodia is correct, we can have the section, just don't link it to anything breaking copyright. This website has articles about assassinations and terrorism, but doesn't link to websites suppoting terrorism. guitarhero777777 23:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Can I get some mediation and/or help in a dispute over at the aforementioned article? The discussion may need to be moved here for more community input at the very least. - ZakuSage 00:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The headers should just be "first generation", "second generation", etc. This has been argued to death in other places, hasn't it? --- RockMFR 04:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it has been argued in plenty of other places, with a general consensus that basing the labellings on "how many bits" only ends up entirely confusing. - ZakuSage

I requested (and got) a full page protection to stop the edit warring. I also filed 3RR reports against both warring parties. Also, I agree with Rock - the history pages are also named like so (first and second gen) instead of 8-bit, 16-bit, so forth. Hbdragon88 04:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

So, what's the upshot on Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games/Navboxes? I've revised the advice on unreleased games to give better guidance (generally no if it doesn't have a definite release date, definitely no if it doesn't have a release title or has never been shown in playable form), and done some other tweaks.

Does it have consensus? The only protests lately have been over when to include or exclude upcoming games, or the color (which can be tweaked by changing Template:CVG navigation anyway). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Since for some reason The Internet Movie Database has entries on video games, should links to the IMDb be included in articles? --May the Edit be with you, always. T-borg ^{(drop me a line)} 15:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

No real reason, unless the page has actual, helpful, extra info. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

IMDB has rich content on films, so any film article on wikipedia invariably has a link to IMDB. However, the entries for video games are usually a little sketchy, and other sites such as MobyGames have content far more detailed. So as Melodia points out, suggest only linking video game articles to IMDB when IMDB has particularly good coverage. --Oscarthecat 16:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. --May the Edit be with you, always. T-borg ^{(drop me a line)} 11:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Centrx recently removed a lot of the functionality from the talk page template, like the ability to show a GCOTW nomination, whether an article is selected, etc. I doubt that there is consensus for this change, so I've reinstated the old version. jaco♫plane 16:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

(Shameless self-promotion) Why not just move the additional tags into a show/hide bar, as in ((WPMILHIST))? Kirill Lokshin 17:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

That would be an acceptable solution for me if someone wants to implement that, but removing this functionality altogether is not. jaco♫plane 18:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Given the (often) dodgy code of the hide/show script I would advise against that, and it also requires Javascript enabled functionality at the end user, which isn't always the case. We're better off being as accessible as possible. Combination 19:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

That may be a valid point in article-space; but I suspect that the number of people who want access to the WikiProject tagging system but don't have JS enabled is so small that it's not an issue. It's not like there's some critical problem that would arise from not seeing the little collaboration tag, in any case. Kirill Lokshin 19:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess i'm personally in this as well, as my original proposal for inttergrating the WikiProject banners led to the merger of these templates. These need to be kept. It's how we were able to get rid of ((Selected CVG)) and other templates, which were cluttering the top of the talk page. Anyway, ((WPBiography)) uses these quite a bit, especially considering the number of work groups that fall under that WikiProject. If these paramaters are a problem, they should all be removed, which would require a discussion that's far beyond the scope of this CVG project. Hbdragon88 22:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Should main characters be included in navboxes? Though I personally think they should, there seems to be some dispute over this.--TBCΦtalk? 16:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Why? Nifboy 20:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

A couple of users have been removing characters from the CVG navboxes.--TBCΦtalk? 06:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

No, because generally they aren't part of a tightly linked series of related articles. Navboxes are for a series of articles, such as a series of video games. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Not true. Navboxes are simply for "several related articles" as defined on Wikipedia:Navigational templates. They don't necessarily have to be "tightly linked" to each other.--TBCΦtalk? 06:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

You might want to read Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games/Navboxes. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games/Navboxes is a proposed guideline.--TBCΦtalk? 07:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

So? It explains a reasonable way of doing things (a way we're already using in the bulk of the CVG navboxes), with ample reasoning why. The only reason it's still proposed is because there's still some disagreement about where to draw the line on upcoming games and what color to make templates, neither of which is at issue here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, main characters have a very significant role in the series that they are featured in, and are topics that most readers would most likely be interested in, thus there's no reason for them not to be included in the template.--TBCΦtalk? 07:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

They are in relevant lists, relevant categories, and linked where appropriate. There's no need to cram them into a fourth place. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

As I've mentioned before, templates are made to help readers navigate through pages without having to go through numerous lists, categories, and links. This especially applies to new users unfamiliar with Wikipedia who don't understand where everything is.--TBCΦtalk? 07:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

In what circumstances are readers going to need to read the article for a character who has less than a dozen lines anywhere but not be able to find the links in the body of the article or on the list of characters or in the article's category? It's already linked in a ton of places and these characters just aren't that important. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Responding to your first comment, new readers most likely won't know where the links are or what a category is. As for your second comment, see my response below.--TBCΦtalk? 07:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I urge everyone to consider the kinds of articles we're talking about here. They're like this or even this. These are not crucial reading. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

"Rash is a character from the Battletoads Series by Rare. He was once a human computer technician named Dave Shar before he was transformed into a Battletoad. Rash is the "class clown" of the 'Toads. He is an extrovert and a show-off and loves to crack jokes."

"All information comes from events witnessed in the Battletoads games and from the Battletoads manuals." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the quality, these characters are still representative of the game series that they are featured in, such as Cloud of the Final Fantasy series or Sonic of the Sonic the Hedgehog series. --TBCΦtalk? 07:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Three of the characters are palette swaps of each other. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

So are Mario and Luigi.--TBCΦtalk? 07:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Not anytime in the last 22 years. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Then what about the comics, animated television show, trading card game, and action figures based on the Battletoads series?--TBCΦtalk? 07:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

There's an episode, an advertised card game that was never released, and a three-page comic published in Nintendo Power. Do you really not understand the difference between these characters and long-running, successful franchise characters? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The card game and action figures were eventually released. Either way, it's debatable whether or not the series is considered successful.--TBCΦtalk? 08:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to propose that more work is done on the main X-COM article. As I'm sure some of you are aware, X-COM was a highly influential series, and I don't think that the article does it justice. More needs to be mentioned of the critical acclaim of both the series as a whole and especially X-COM: UFO Defense. I'll contribute a bit, but I'd appreciate some help.
--Mouse Nightshirt 00:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Now that Metal Gear Solid is a Good Article, I'm trying to get it to Featured Article. Sadly, references have been pretty much dried up. The Audio and Development section needs some work, but I don't have any references to expand it on. If you'll click my profile, you'll see the references that I used in the article (some of them I didn't use). If you can pick out some additional information from them, that'd be just as helpful as finding new references. You don't need to edit the article, I'll be happy with you posting some links or information here. Cheers. --TheEmulatorGuy 05:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone like to help expand/cleanup List of computer and video gaming topics and List of game topics? --- RockMFR 21:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I'll help out. --DurinsBane87 23:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Shadow of the Colossus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Apparently the fact that SotC is set in a fantasy world is too obvious to include. Perhaps, if you've played the game, but we can't assume readers have. I'd appreciate some external opinions here, it's becoming me vs. a sock army. -- Steel 21:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but from what it looks like, you've got it in the wrong place and using the wrong wording. It would be fine if you mentioned it in the lead or worked it into a sentence, but plotting it conveniently at the end of the section isn't a good idea. It needs to flow. --TheEmulatorGuy 03:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Check my latest edit to the article [2]. --- RockMFR 22:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. You obviously seem incapable of consensus, as you'll just continue reverting as normal. --- RockMFR 22:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe, and many others probably agree, that the main page for this project is becoming very long and cluttered. I am proposing that we take out the full guidelines section and simply give a link to a guidelines sub-page. Anyone agree? Greeves 22:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I do, it's way too long, just make the link to it very clear and obvious. --PresN 05:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to propose moving back to using flag icons instead of superscripted abbreviations for release dates in the infobox. The flags are more clean and simple than the superscript. It seems that there are only three slight reasons to use the superscript:

1. A person may not know what country a certain flag stands for. However, if a person can't figure out those three flags (very rarely anything but Japan, USA, Euro) then they're probably just as likely to not be able to understand the abbreviations.
2. The superscript is linkable. But honestly, this isn't so useful is it? Besides, if you really need to figure a flag out, you can click the image and it'll have a link to the country.
3. Ability to say "North America" instead of just "USA".

To me, the biggest hassle about the superscript is that it's impossible for me to memorize and type it. I have to copy and paste it every time, as the amount of text to enter is over twice as long. Just look at it:

<small>^{'''[[Japan|JPN]]'''}</small>

vs.

((flagicon|Japan))

Another reason to go back to flags is that we seem to be the only Wikiproject supporting this format. Both WikiProject Films and WikiProject Anime and Manga use flags for release dates in their infoboxes.

So anyways, this is a proposal to change the project's official policy to reflect using flags in infoboxes. Do I have support? --SeizureDog 11:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Support

• Strong support I'm going to go against the grain below and give my support for this. For me the reason is aesthetic and visually helpful. Sup looks ugly, and is not even explanatory to as which country it's from, flags are very representative of this. Look at World of Warcraft for how this works, and I think it works very well in this article. Havok (T/C/e/c) 21:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • This is actually quite incorrect - the current codes are official ISO standards for each country, therefore they are representative of the country it's from. Flags are worse at doing the job because they are WRONG - games are not released in USA, they are released in North America. Games are not released in Europe, they are released in the PAL region. Games are not released in Australia, they are released in Australasia. To remain with the flag standard is to say "incorrect information is alright because it's easier to read". Is it right to sacrifice truth for design? --TheEmulatorGuy 05:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • As an addition to that, the flags in World of Warcraft look overbalanced and messy, so I'm not sure why you called that an article supporting your opinion. --TheEmulatorGuy 05:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support per Havok. TJ Spyke 03:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support, primarily for consistency with other projects and because I believe they are more convenient for the majority of our readership. --tjstrf talk 21:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose for a few things-

Apparently you can use ((vgrelease|NA|September 7, 1997)), which gives

• NA: September 7, 1997

. I hadn't been doing that, but I think I'll start. The main reasons, though, are the same ones that there was when the swatch happened- there is no North America flag, the EU flag looks horrible that small, and any worldwide release is a mess, as the little globe picture is unpossible to figure out what it is. Also, you can't link pictures, so you can't click on the little EU or World flag to get taken to an article saying what it is, a major problem for articles that have, say, a really late Poland release or something, as most people don't know the Polish flag. I really like the flags, but the letters work better. --PresN 15:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

If the release date is universal, then there's no need to narrow it down. --SeizureDog 16:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I believe it's quite rare for a game to have a universal release date. --ADeveria 17:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• I have to oppose too. PresN lists the points I agree with. And we shouldn't make up flags for regions without ones (the NA one). Thunderbrand 15:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not so sure how accurate using 'NA' all the time is though. It implies a region wider than it may have possibly been released. For instance, the USA and Canada release dates could easily be different. Besides, we still have the country specific region of Japan instead of saying Asia in general. Most of the sources we're using to get these release dates are specifying USA; I think we should as well.--SeizureDog 16:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose While I tend to be a supporter of icons for identification purposes, the flag icons just have too many drawbacks including (as mentioned) inflexibility, potential bad visibility, and inaccurate links. On the other hand, abbreviations still allow for some quick recognition effect. If release dates are different per country, why not just use ^USA and ^CAN, for example? And thanks for that template, PresN, I think I'll start using it too. Oh, and finally, regarding memorizing the abbreviations, you could always use my CVG infobox maker (needs updating) which was made for the purpose of not having to remember such details. :) --ADeveria 17:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Inconvenience is not a particularly convincing argument. Combination 19:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm gonna have to say oppose here as well, for the reasons mentioned above, and I think we discussed this a while ago and one of the less obvious reasons mentioned was talking word processors mess up when they reach the flags.--Clyde (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose for many reasons. First off, we have the country problem. Games are not released in USA, they are released in North America. Using the USA flag would be wrong and the NA map is undecipherable. This applies for the PAL region (instead of Europe), Australasia (instead of Australia), Asia-Pacific and etcetera. They are never released solely in USA, or solely in Europe. I think the reason they aren't used in other projects is because they are ignorant of the world around them, or don't mind giving misinformation. Making extra flags for PAL and North America would be a waste of time, they'd be less recognizable than the subscript text. Secondly, they are in fact NOT hard to use. You can use Template:vgrelease which is easy to remember. With this in use, it is just as easy as flags. Thirdly, I invented them, why the hell would I want to give them up? ;) --TheEmulatorGuy 20:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Combination, TEG. --- RockMFR 22:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Not official policy, please. Leave it to article by article. Hbdragon88 22:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per TEG. Scepia 09:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong oppose mainly becuase tiny icons are not a good idea for the visually impaired, especially for the colour blind. --Frodet 15:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Everything I wanted to add has already been covered by TheEmulatorGuy. - X201 12:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

• Neutral; When the only known regions are NA, PAL, and JPN, there isn't much sense in using flags. WoW does okay with flags, and for something like Wii it makes more sense to simply extract the info into a table and list only the first date in the box, + "see table". Nifboy 05:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Nuetral Technically this could probably go under oppose, but I don't mind too much if they'd go back to flags -- just, the argument for keeping sups is a lot better IMO, and in addition, I for one find them (the sups) more aesthetically appealing. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 22:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, all! I've gotten dragged into editing the Devil May Cry 2 article and I think it's coming along well, though it still has quite a way to go. If anybody is willing to help me wikify the crap out of this thing I'd appreciate it. I've got a to-do list sitting in the DMC2 talk page if anybody's interested. Every bit helps!

Cheers, Lankybugger 21:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there any reason that every PS3 game i've looked at does not have the CVG banner? Also, the PS3 article doesn't have it either. I've added it to a couple of new future games because I thought that no one had seen it yet, but to miss the PS3?? I dunno.Andrew 18:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, can anyone give me some assistance at Trainer (games)? A little while ago I removed the external links as they all seemed be self-promotions that failed WP:EL, but today I had an angry message from a new user who represents one of those linked sites. Can I ask someone to review those external links and double-check to see if they pass WP:EL? Thanks. Marasmusine 18:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You're in the right. I removed them all as well.--SeizureDog 21:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support SD. Marasmusine 21:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm still having problems here from several people who don't seem to want to read WP:EL. Marasmusine 13:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I read the discussion (on your part) and frothy-mouthed ranting from a would-be self-promoter (Apache), and to be honest, it doesn't look anything anyone from here says is going to help. He wants a link to his site on the page (He claims his site and group make 90% of the trainers on the net. Yeah. Right.) He's not gonna back down unless he's forced down. have you take it to arbitration? I don't think anything less then admin intervention will help here. Anything anyone says is likely to enflame the situation. Just my thoughts as someone having a look from the outside of course! Hope they help. The Kinslayer 13:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to further clarify matters, anyone wishing to involve themselves with this should look here to see Apaches- edit history. It speaks for itself. The Kinslayer 14:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just reported him under 3RR. He admits to being high up with the website for the link he keeps insisting on putting back in, and refuses to listen to anyones explanations about why he can't. The Kinslayer 15:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy new year everyone! It's been a privilege.. JACOPLANE • 2007-01-1 00:40

I created the article Ultimate Air Combat and it was stubbed, now I have since edited it, couldone of you kind people tell me what need doing and/or change its status? Many thanks (Fethroesforia 11:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC))

It's probably not a stub, but you have other problems. For one, there's no lead whatsoever. There doesn't seem to be a "no lead" tag, so I put the "too short" tag instead. Also, there are too many lists. They should probably get the ax.--SeizureDog 12:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks:) (Fethroesforia 12:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC))

Actually SeizureDog, seeing as i usually make small edits (this being my only first main article..so to speak, I dont fully understand what I can do with the lists, do i just delete them, stylize them etc..though im working on the intro now:) (Fethroesforia 12:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC))

Ideally, what you do for a list is convert it into prose. Which is to say, normal article text in sentences. --tjstrf talk 13:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

True, but I'd say that the missions and the weapons lists should just be removed completely. Perfect Dark for example, used to have both types of lists but no longer does. The 3 fighters that can be used easily works in prose form however.--SeizureDog 13:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both:) working on it now (Fethroesforia 13:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC))

It isn't automatically classed - only uses classify the articles. If it's no longer a stub, feel free to change it. Hbdragon88 23:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)