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.

I noticed that this user has added an external link to the WOS website to very many pages in the past few days. It looks like a spammer to me, but I am not qualified to judge. So I am leaving a message here for the WikiProject to investigate and decide. Cheers! Royalbroil ^T : C 14:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Check out the talk page of the template he's adding: Template talk:WoS game. The site it links to distributes the games in violation of copyright, which is not allowed per WP:COPYRIGHT. The links would have to be removed. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 19:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

In all fairness, the games linked to are not necessarily in violation of copyright. The maintainers of World of Spectrum try very hard to collect the permission to each and every copyright holder and the games in question may also very well be there in agreement with the copyright holder. Games which have been requested removed have been removed and will be so in the future if requested, typically Activision have denied re-distribution of their software. Only reference material is available in such cases (e.g. for R-Type). I have no knowledge of the user in question, but in many of the cases he has just replaced ordinary http links with a template. --Frodet 13:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be similar to post torrent links to full game downloads using the common disclaimer that "if the copyright holder complains, they remove the torrent"? The copyright holder does not need to complain in order for the "copyright violation" to exist, it is there as soon as you breach the EULA, which usually forbids you to redistribute the full version of the game. I haven't checked the site (noticed the user adding templates, though, but sent ((HOL)) to TFD and forgot about this one), but if it does so, the links must be removed and the template deleted. -- ReyBrujo 13:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The torrent analogy is not a fair one. World of Spectrum actively contact publishers and copyright holders to get their permission, and most do give permission for the files to stay on the site. This page [1] shows who they have contacted or tried to contact and whether that person/company have given their permission for the files to stay. I'm sure you'll agree, this puts them far higher up the moral ladder than your average torrent site. - X201 14:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I must admit that I am impressed. I am firmly against the illegal use of emulation, and this site's hard work is a big step in the right direction. After reading through the site, I think that we should support it as well. However, perhaps we should only link to games that have been appoved (and not just not disapproved) and make sure to mention that it is a legal ROM in the link.--SeizureDog 15:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been following this debate, and although I don't have anything new to bring to the table, I do agree that SeizureDogs got the best approach. I mean if they have the permission, then there is no legal issue because it's in a white area, not a grey area like 'not being told they can't do it' is (unless of course we need permission from the website itself before we link to it!) The Kinslayer 16:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no problem linking to the website itself. See here. (Disclaimer: I am one of the secondary maintainers of WoS, and so will take no real part in this discussion). Cheers --Pak21 16:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying. Firstly, my point was that there is a lot of content on WoS which is explicedly NOT in violation, eg. [2]. I am not condoning copyright violations. Secondly, there is nothing wrong with a template, per se. Links can be made to copyright violated material just as easy without a template. If there is a copyright violation, the link should be removed, not the template. With the template it is possible to get a cross-ref of the linkage and remove them on a per-title basis. --Frodet 18:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As you point out, links can be made without the template. A much better way to see what links would be to use Special:Linksearch. Cheers --Pak21 09:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

We've had the Essential articles page for a long time but other than just listing them we haven't really made a concerted effort to push these articles to at least GA status. There was a Workshop that was proposed but that never got off the ground. For the GCOTW only stubs can be nominated and they don't have to be "core" topics. I was thinking we should try to start something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games/Core topic COTF which would be based on Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics/Core topics COTF. I think having a collaboration once every fortnight is better than every week since there is likely to be more work which will go into these articles than in a typical GCOTW. Only articles that are High priority or Top priority would be viable candidates. Good idea or likely to be ignored like the Workshop? JACOPLANE • 2007-01-3 00:18

I'm not sure if it's indicative of anything, but WP:CVG has seemed really quiet lately aside from two throwaway FACs. Anyway, I guess it would depend on the subject. It might be much easier to make star game articles than fix those daunting history articles up. But those are of top importance, so they would be a good place to start. Let's see if anyone else is reading. --Zeality 00:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Me, I've just been working on the last thousand or so articles that still need to be rated. I want to get it out of the way so it can be put in the good old "Done for now" category. Nifboy 02:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

800 left, we're almost there. --PresN 17:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

For the moment I've redesigned the essential articles page. JACOPLANE • 2007-01-5 05:04

I've expanded the Konami workgroup to be more like the Sega one. These workgroups are a good idea for when the whole structure of a new WikiProject with all the bells and whistles attached to it just add too much unnecessary bureaucracy. JACOPLANE • 2007-01-3 05:53

Capcom workgroup. JACOPLANE • 2007-01-5 06:14

Ugh, please choose another color. That one makes me think the talk page has been prodded or sent to AFD :-P Seriously, there are much better colors than _that_ one. -- ReyBrujo 13:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I just reverted the edit. It was made solely on the personal preference of one user, and was very incorrectly tagged as "minor". We should keep the color as is. Any other color clashes with any other templates that may happen to be on the page.--SeizureDog 13:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

What could be more minor than changing two RGB codes? Also, next time you revert, please look what other changes have been made besides the one you decide you don't like. JACOPLANE • 2007-01-3 18:11

Changing a stylistic format that affects the entire project is not "minor" no matter how little code it takes to do. I think the fact that two people were quick to object shows that clearly enough. And I did look, but couldn't be bothered to rework the revert to incorperate what came after the color change. It didn't seem very important anyways; after all, you yourself tagged the edits as minor.--SeizureDog 21:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't be bothered? If you can't be bothered to do something right, then don't do it at all. JACOPLANE • 2007-01-4 01:39

Ditto. Discuss changes first next time.--SeizureDog 01:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

An idea: Perhaps we could attach a specific CSS ID (e.g., id="cvgproj") to the cvgproj tag. That way, those who want the tag to appear in different colors can customize the look in their own CSS files, while the default remains to conform with the other talk page templates. — TKD::Talk 02:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been bold and added the CSS ID "cvgproj" to the template. — TKD::Talk 17:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Moving the article guidelines to a seperate page was definitely a good idea. How about we also split off the all the different template stuff at the bottom into a new page? JACOPLANE • 2007-01-4 05:48

I went ahead and did it. The new page is here. I was thinking that now that space is no longer such a concern we could list other infoboxes like ((General CVG character)) and ((Infobox CVG system)). JACOPLANE • 2007-01-5 02:05

Looking at the discussions going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Album covers and fair use and Wikipedia talk:Fair use#Album covers having to be refered to in album article, it seems that there is a group of editors who feel that album covers can only be used in articles if the cover itself is specifically discussed in an article and should be removed in all other cases. Now, I am currently not aware of a single video game article where the cover is discussed in so we should follow this discussion if we don't want to see a mass deletion of video game covers in the near future. JACOPLANE • 2007-01-4 10:37

I think Geni is just bored, or trying to push through his own personal crusade. It's ridiculous. Here is what I posted onto both the respective pages, what do you guys think? -

I've not yet cycled through the above text and related issues. But straight away this strikes me as an argument such as "There is no critical commentary on Syd Barrett's face. Nowhere is his appearance discussed. Let's delete all images of Syd Barrett." Album covers are as important recognising features to an Album, as a photo is of a person. You don't have to write a commentary on Kurt Cobain's face to be able to use a fair use photograph of him, just as we don't need to comment on Blue Monday (New Order song)'s iconic album art (although we probably should) in order to use it on Wikipedia.

hahnchen 20:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

In this case, his "personal crusade" is one of Wikipedia's five pillars. -- ReyBrujo 20:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You could say getting rid of all Fair Use on Wikipedia is on of Wikipedia's five pillars. Heck IAR is five pillars, sheesh. - hahnchen 21:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is built around those five pillars, like it or not. Check your browser's caption, it says "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia", not "Wikipedia, the encyclopedia with fair use images" or "Wikipedia, the visual encyclopedia". Free images or permission to use images can be obtained, but people are just too lazy to do that, and prefer to use the Fair use blanket everywhere. -- ReyBrujo 21:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

How would you go about obtaining free images of game covers? Would a picture of a box (rather than the simply normal psuedo-scans that are always passed around) be considered free? Otherwise, you pretty much can't. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 21:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No, you contact the copyright holders and request them permission. Besides, contrary to an album, where you can only get an image of the cover, in a game article you can put a screenshot of the game instead of the game cover. -- ReyBrujo 21:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The image would still be fair use ReyBrujo. It would just get the extra Template:Withpermission. The only way the game covers could be free would be if the copyright owners gave up certain parts of their rights to make it GNU or CC compatable, which has no chance in hell of happening.--SeizureDog 09:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

As stated by Jacoplane, Ubisoft gave permission to use screenshots taken by users of their games. No fair use, but full permission, otherwise Image:Lock_On_Cockpit_MiG.jpg would have been deleted from Commons a year ago. -- ReyBrujo 20:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Am I reading this correctly Rey? You're using the five pillars to support the removal of all fair use images from Wikipedia? Is that what you're trying to say? That because Wikipedia values free content, fair use images are an abhorrent aberration, which should be speedied because my browser does not read "Wikipedia, the encyclopedia with fair use images"? - hahnchen 21:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedias like the German one had never used fair use images. Others like the French one have decided to remove all fair use images a couple of months ago. Why are we different? Yes, fair use should be removed from Wikipedia because it goes against the original concept of Wikipedia. Should they be speedied? No, deletion should be selective, starting from the ones that are easier to replace, giving more time to those that are harder to come by. But in the end, the amount of fair use images should be limited, if at all, to very specific points, maybe only logos. Fair use makes us lazy; instead of taking our time to take a picture of a tree, we use one found in some internet page. -- ReyBrujo 21:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

While some may think the removal of all fair use images may be a laudable goal, it is explicit policy on the English Wikipedia (which is where we are) that fair use materials are allowed. --Pak21 22:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Many images are not being used according to the policy. Those images can and must be deleted. Examples are the list of xxx episodes, the album covers used to illustrate artists, screenshot galleries in articles about consoles, etc. I used to think like you, that images made Wikipedia better, but with time, I understood that was not necessarily true, and that one free image was much better than a full gallery of fair use ones. Of course, it takes time until the concept hits; for me it took over a year. So, talk to you in 2008. -- ReyBrujo 01:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You no longer think that "images make Wikipedia better"? If that's the sort of conclusion it takes you a year to form, then try stopping thinking. Fair Use images do make Wikipedia better in many cases, you'd prefer to describe the look/graphics of 3D monster maze in words? Is text alone adequate for The Falling Man? - hahnchen 02:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You're missing my point: I have not stated my views at all, but am simply pointing out that your views are not consistent with policy. You obviously think the policy should be changed; that is your perogative, but here is not the place to debate that. Arguments used here must be based on current policy, not your desire for policy, or even that of the German or French Wikipedias. Cheers --Pak21 08:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Pak21, if the current policy were applied in full force, only 1/10th of the current fair use images would stay. Fair use must be the exception, not the rule, which is something many don't understand. -- ReyBrujo 12:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You're out of your bloody mind, and I don't think making a good argument is worth it. --TheEmulatorGuy 22:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I have mentally filed the entire debate as laaaaame. Make encyclopedia, not FU war. Nifboy 23:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you're going to have a hard time convicing some people of that, it seems. But I was thinking, what COULD apply to free in game articles? I can't think of any image of normal retail games where any possible Free contend would even be available. The cover is fair use. Screen shots of the game are also (supposedly, I don't buy it, honestly, unless it's a title scree or cut scene). So what's left? Hell, how did FFX and Katamari get to be featured articles? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 19:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well it is possible, like in the case of ((Ubisoft-screenshot)). However, 99% of media companies would never allow their content to be used like this. Everyone in the world just uses fair-use, so there is little incentive for them to do this, and for most media companies this simply goes inherently against their philosphy. There are some people who feel that it is better to damage the quality of the encyclopedia so that they can forward their moral crusade. Get used to it, it's as old as the free-software/open-source split. It's basically the same thing as Debian saying they won't ship Firefox because the name is trademarked... Ahhhh... fundamentalists. JACOPLANE • 2007-01-5 19:28

If you don't try, you will never know. As you say, everyone will just use fair use. That is why I am working on a new WikiProject whose task is to contact media outlets to request images for Wikimedia. 99% may turn the request down but, contrary to many, I am willing to fight for that 1% left. -- ReyBrujo 19:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well that's definitely a good idea. It's the first time I've heard of a concerted effort to proactively do something about this by creating an alternative, rather than just saying "delete them all". Now, I spend ages myself going through CC searches on flickr and searching for PD images, so I definitely appreciate what you're doing. I'll keep an eye on your proposal and see if I can help out in some way. We should certainly be promoting more freedom, just not in a way that pisses of half of the community. JACOPLANE • 2007-01-5 20:06

While I agree fair use images should be deleted, I don't agree with the way the massive deletions are being done, and I thought I had made that clear in previous discussions. But it is true as Jimbo said at Wikipedia:Elimination of Fair Use Rationale in Promotional Photos/Vote, that fair use not only keeps us away from our goal of full freedom, but also makes us lazy, especially new users. People prefer to search Google and upload a tree image instead of going out and picturing one. And if such mentality is not changed, it will be even harder to do it as time passes. This discussion about fair use images would have been quite different had it been done four years ago, I am sure. The more we wait, the harder will be for the community to accept that Fair use is the exception, not the rule. That is one of the points of WikiProject Free Images. -- ReyBrujo 20:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Funny how tree is actually full of free-use images. --TheEmulatorGuy 20:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The deletion of all fair use images would (obviously) result in the removal of almost every image in the CVG project. There's no getting around this. No massive contact effort will ever lead to worthwhile results. As I see it, there are two stances that can be taken (we all know that Wikipedia in its current state is incapable of compromise): write a free encyclopedia without fair-use images, or write a good encyclopedia with fair-use images. Guess which stance most of our readers would take? --- RockMFR 05:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Considering the articles about videogames are between those that abuse images the most, I have no doubts. However (and thinking you meant a "good" encyclopedia with fair use images instead of what you said) what our readers "would like" is not what we should do. We don't adjust to what our readers want, we offer information, and they either accept it or not. We have demonstrated that several times: we have prevented creation articles and image upload by anonymous users, we require login to edit semi protected articles, we can full protect articles for only administrators to modify, and even protect them so that not even administrators but only those working at the Office can modify. Now deleting articles is only for administrators, when this started anyone was able to delete articles. These are all modifications that were implemented, and that users accepted it. Those who did not, left. And from what I see, Wikipedia wasn't doomed. Nor it will if someday only a few amount of fair use images survive a general purge. Wikipedia has a clear goal established in the five pillars. That some users cannot comprehend is a different matter. -- ReyBrujo 06:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

I recently discovered that article and was going to put it up for WP:AFD, but I thought I'd ask here first: do you think this article meets WP:N.--Carabinieri 14:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No, delete the sucker.--SeizureDog 09:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as a Nova beta tester (and super-moderator of the Ambrosia boards), practically no plug-in for any of the EVs are notable. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, the article is at AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARPIA2.--Carabinieri 15:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Im about to write a bunch of (hopefully) long articles on a few megadrive games I own and have completed which have not got any articles. Any quick advice before i start the long but enjoyable task of writing articles, though I know theres lots of help pages out there for this, but, some short easy tips to help would be greatly appreciated:) Fethroesforia 00:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games/Article guidelines page is the most important. Also, here are some more tips. Good luck! JACOPLANE • 2007-01-5 00:09

Thanks very much, theres at least 5 articles I am about to write, hopefully to a good standard, I have played them all to death so I know them inside out, thanks for the links:) Fethroesforia 00:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Assuming that they'll be completely new articles, remember to add them to the new pages section of the main project page so we'll know about them. --PresN 16:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The game I am writing an article on, has about twenty different enemies and about 15 different ammo pickups, would I be right in thinking someone would object to each enemy having a (highly cropped) screenshot showing just that enemy? like...next to the paragraph on the enemy is a picture of it from in game? and the pickups also? Fethroesforia 15:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm thinking that may be too much. --PresN 16:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok..so how many do you reccomend throughout the article (wikipedia says 2 screenshots max but even of some featured articles this is exceeded) Fethroesforia

As many as is necessary, but no more. Try to use pictures in making a point, as opposed to merely cataloging and illustrating the game. Nifboy 16:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Turok: Dinosaur Hunter. I recently overhauled it and it was promoted to GA. Screenshots of each enemy would be overkill and look unprofessional. Also, don't try and list each weapon/enemy. Here is the article before I worked on it: [3]. Thunderbrand 16:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, don't do lists of weapons/enemies/levels, they end up going to the laundromat. Also, when images for multiple characters, etc, are needed, try your best to get a group shot. That's usually the best way.--SeizureDog 17:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I used to have a link to a nice little website where you could plug info into some field and the Wikicode for a stub article was put out, but I've since lost it. Does anyone happen to know what I'm talking about? Should be put in an external links section on the project page, it was handy.--SeizureDog 20:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this what you're referring to? JACOPLANE • 2007-01-5 20:30

Indeed it would be, thanks. May be a tad bit out of date now though.--SeizureDog 22:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The whole thing is written in javascript, so you can select "view source" and that is all there is to the program. You can save it to your computer and edit it any way you like. If you do make some improvements you should let User:ADeveria know so he can add them to his server. JACOPLANE • 2007-01-5 22:31

There were a few bugs I've found, you should edit the file on your computer if you want to use it. See here: User talk:ADeveria#Infobox makerJACOPLANE • 2007-01-5 22:41

Which would assume I know Java, and I most certainly don't :/ --SeizureDog 22:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The location code also generates the old North American, Europe etc code and also adds flags if you want. Needs changing to the agreed ISO format. - X201 22:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the generator needs some updating, I'll try to get around to it this Monday. In the mean time, anyone with suggestions, comments, feel free to post here. Thanks! --ADeveria 01:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

For those interested, I've made another update (1.08). Keep this page added to your watchlist to find out future updates, or I guess just be pleasantly surprised when you notice the cvgibmaker.html page has suddenly changed. --ADeveria 00:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Since I spend a lot of time just browsing the Wiki, I find lots of articles that fall under the scope of this project, but don't have the template, so I add the cvgproj thingie and assess the article. However, I was recently thinking... just how much good does this do? Just because I flagged an article with the tag doesn't mean anyone will look at it (at least not anyone who didn't already plan on looking at it). So, is what I'm doing worthwhile at all, or should I just stop... thoughts? --VPeric 11:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the basic point is so that, if there's issues with the article, there's an easy link to here to come mention it to others interested in such articles. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose so... thanks! --VPeric 19:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Cvg-workshop-nomination has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --^demon^{[omg plz]} 05:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

In including of the Category:XXXX computer and video games, should only the year of the first version be added or all of them?

Consider: releases in different countries, re-releases, special editions, ports, enchanced ports (that don't have seperate articles), games of the same name that are functionally different (think any handheld version of a game based off a movie), and others.--SeizureDog 09:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I vastly prefer the first year only. I thought Final Fantasy III would be a significant-enough exception, but its remake has its own article, thereby eliminating the problem. Nifboy 09:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I have only two things to say, Battlezone Before and Battlezone after (look at the platform box in the template). I know which I prefer. - X201 10:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Except that the "released" section is still the same...which is more of what I'm talking about. --SeizureDog 10:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to point out how the Infobox can get very messy very quickly when a lot of repeat information is added to it. The same goes for categories. My view is that on the whole it should be the first year of release. There will be some special cases where special conditions will apply like the long gap between the US and European release of Psychonauts, or the enhanced port of Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney to the DS but on the whole my opinion is that one date will suffice and the extra info can go in the article. - X201 11:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Which of course begs the question: What qualifies as a "special case"? I knew that including every version was probably too extreme, but I do wonder about things such as the mentioned enhanced ports. Another problem: do articles that cover a series of games that don't have individual articles get the categories instead? Currently, Guilty Gear (series) has a bunch of console cats.--SeizureDog 11:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking at album articles, it looks as if they pretty much only use the original release date, no matter how many releases they got (even something like The Dark Side of the Moon which probably has gotten five or six releases), so I don't see any reason to do anything but the original, unless it's a full-on remake that doesn't have its own article. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 13:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought that we did list every year. This was based off of seeing Super Mario Bros. Deluxe listed in the 1999 and 2000 categories, as it came to Europe in 2000. Hbdragon88 05:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to look at consistency, about half our FAs list 2+ years: most of the FF/etc games, Donkey Kong, and MGS3. The rest do not. In the interests of not making more work than we need to, I'm willing to call that "No Consensus" and leave them as-is. Nifboy 06:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's in the CVG's best interest to set a guideline from this moment on. We can fix the other articles later. Hbdragon88 06:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm for first year only. --SeizureDog 07:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I am for each year a significant edition comes out, specifically per: platform release and country release. Patches, mods, million selllers do not count in my opinion. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 13:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I would second this, while it will lead to some exhaustive lists of release dates (Super Mario Bros.!). I think it is important data, especially when the span between releases is significant (eg, Final Fantasy VI. BcRIPster 20:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why such info shouldn't be limited to the article itself (though it SHOULD be in the article). Final Fantasy I is not a 1994 videogame, even though Square released it and FFII on a cart that year. It's signicicant info, sure, but it's not nessesary to have it in the catagories as well. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 20:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've spent the last couple of weeks looking into this and I'm pretty disgusted at the arbitrary application of "linkspam" reversions in video game entries. It seems some of the more zealot wiki-cops pick and choose where to apply this rv, leaving entries to some sites while deleting others when they are added. Is it or is it not appropriate to make external links to review sites to reviews of the games? This could even be qualified by say... the site has to have been live for "x" amount of time in order to help reduce the amount of links to transient sites. Or something to that effect.

This issue came to a head when after seeing the links on some game pages to sites like Moby, and DefunctGames, etc..., etc... I started adding links to reviews to a site that as been live for 12 years now, and all of the reviews are at the same URLs as they were when they went live (as a part of open disclosure I will admit that I am resposible for hosting the said site).

Anyways, a wiki-cop mass rv'd all of my additions as linkspam. When I challenged him about his arbitrary removal I was told "I do not have the time or inclination to go around cleaning up spam everywhere. When I notice blatant spam, I go and clean up as I see necessary, or pass on to higher authorities that can do mass-reverts. The fact a link is left does not necessarily equal approval of that link." This is not acceptable. Either external links to reviews are valid, or they are not. If you're going to strike "linkspam" then you better damn well strike all of it, or leave it alone if you can't be bothered with investigating if it is truly spam or not. Can we get a formal call on this? BcRIPster 22:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, a link to the Open Directory entry for the game should be posted, and all external links put there. If not, a link to a meta review site like Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic or Game Rankings. Since they cover most of the reviews around, it prevents reviews from being used directly in articles. It is not as much spam as it is unnecessary. If there is a big renowned site offering content, there is no need for having smaller ones there. Yes, it sounds like we prioritize IGN, GameSpot, GameSpy, etc, but it is that way. There are few big sites and many small ones, and allowing a small one invites several other small ones to be inserted. And truly speaking, if all reviews of that site are like www.gamezero.com/team-0/final_word/snes/cybernator.html, then it adds very little to the article. I usually leave a small site review link if there is no big one there, but whenever someone begins adding a link to many articles, it raises spam alarms everywhere. -- ReyBrujo 22:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's external links guideline explicitly says "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked." What reason do you have for ignoring this? --Pak21 22:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It was an improper digression and I even acknoldged that to the person doing the rv. My issue was with his indescrimate nature of leaving many other clear linkspams of the exact same nature on the very pages he went out of his way to edit.BcRIPster 00:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me tell you what I usually do: from time to time I catch a spammer, either because he edits an article in my watch list, or through #wikipedia-spam. At that moment, the most important thing is to warn and stop the spammer, and while reverting his edits, I may cross articles that have already many inappropriate external links. However, my first priority is to stop him from continuing adding links, and more often than not, I forget to come back to those articles. If you believe an article has excessive amount of external links, you can add a ((external links)) tag (as in ((external links|January 2007))) so that the section is notified as troublesome. Thus I don't think he was approving those links, but instead he was just reverting your edits. Note that the rollback link administrators have make it unnecessary to check the article, so that (if he was an admin and rolled your edits back) he may have not been aware of those articles being polluted with many external links. -- ReyBrujo 01:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I see. That makes sense as well. So just out of curiosity, what does it take to become an editor in this capacity? I'm curious as I try to gage who is realy an editor around here. Also on your original comment on reviews on that site. They widely vary. The one you specified was one of the shorter ones that had been reprinted to web from the print publication. Alot of the early print reviews were shorter as it was published one review on a page with a number of photos taking up a portion of the page. A good many of the 95' and later reviews were more akin to this in length -- www.gamezero.com/team-0/final_word/playstation/wipeout.html BcRIPster 05:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You're looking at this in the wrong way: the editor who removed the link to your site was doing so in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines and so was improving the site. Criticising him/her for not doing more is highly unfair (and verging on a personal attack): as previously pointed out, everyone here is a volunteer. --Pak21 08:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I believe general consensus is that each article is treated as its own entity. You can't say "but the other article has it!" or anything else of that nature. The admin is right. We're ALL volunteers here, noone HAS to do anything. If someone wants to edits a few articles on topics they enjoy and not even look for others -- why is that bad? Just because someone skips over one one violation and focuses on another does not grant it as a non-violation. Consider the proverbial speeding analody. A cop cannot pull over everyone who is speeding -- complaining you're going the same 15MPH over the limit as ten others will not make him tear up the ticket. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 22:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I was less concerned about "this article is this way, so why not that article?", and more with consistency within each article. There isn't any. This wasn't a question about an editor picking one article over another, it was about discriminating over links. And to the point about meta sites... That's fine, but this is clearly not the majority of links to external gaming sites. If all articles consistently linked to proven metasites, then I think that would be a very useful thing. Although I do also like the Open Directory strategy as well. Also more directly to your analogy about a cop which is farscicle given the nature of the medium we are applying it against. This is more like someone who thinks he is a cop sending in complaints to the police every time he get's a burr up his ass about something he feels is wrong, and selectively issuing a citizen's arrest because "that guy made a u-turn in my neighbor's driveway".BcRIPster 00:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

We need people to act like cops and patrol for link spam and vandalism. Adding links to your website is viewed as link spamming. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise. Please don't take your anger out on the Wikipedian that caught you. Reverting spam is an acceptable way of removing it. This user was not checking each one of those articles for spam, but just clicking the "revert" button to remove your edits of self-promotion from them. Jecowa 15:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think if you read the other portion of this discussion above in an earlier subset of this topic that I do understand what happened, what the error was on my part, and I now understand how the rv was executed technically (a process I was unclear on until this event). My grievance is with the willy-nilly application of the rule. The only reason I made the *small handful* of initial links was because after extensively reading through a very large number of reviews in the Wiki, I saw that it appears to be standard practice on reviews to have external links to outside review sites, and many of those links are to minor sites where the link will likely be broken in a few years when the site goes off line. From that stand point, it seemed that it would be logical to follow form and help out. I see now that it clearly is just a case where editors live with inconsistent application of this rule based on what is convenient to them. I'm not going to be a party to the problem by adding an other links like this. But, just like most everything in Wikipedia, this is all a part of bigger issues that have nothing to do with the video game category, and takes away from the credibility of the service. In my mind, a comprehinsive article would link to *all* coverage no matter the size in an indesciminate manor, and it would likely do so via a tool like Archive.org rather than directly to external sites which will almost always change or fade with the passage of time. Until Wikipedia can consistently have true authorities on any given subject matter to help with articles, it really is just nothing more than the opinions of largely a bunch of high-school and college students who think they know everything running around pretending they have ownership of the site. I have faith that it will work out in the end which is why I'm trying to be involved myself, but the path down this road is a long one without a clear outcome. BcRIPster 18:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

There is so much crap on the net about Executable files, i dont know what to make of many myself. Anyone interested in populating this category? Millions of people whant to know what all these thousands of diffrnt files are that hang around in the Windows Task Manager and WP can tell them without pushing trojan h programs into their faces. frummer 02:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right place to request that. In any case, I have added a ((popcat)) template to it. -- ReyBrujo 03:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Computer and video games based on licensed properties is having a CfD and looks like it will be deleted. However before this happens I'd to do some sorting on it. What happened was that I created a whole bunch of category:foo games and moved items into them. Someone came along and re-added them to the licencesd category and now I don't know what has been sorted or not. So I need some help thinning it out and sorting items appropriately. This category is in fact a rather nice collection of games that should be in their own series categories, so whatever help I can get towards that end would be great. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, most of the stuff was re-added by WOSlinker (talk · contribs). Gonna need some help undoing the "add cat" mods. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi

I want to start a project here for older outdated video games that are somewhat forgotten. How do i go around getting such a project started?? and after its started how do i go around placeing the ad that says im part of the prodject on my profile??

Thanks Maverick423 21:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Maverick423. Out of interest, which games in particular would you want to add to such a project? Many retro games are already part of the CVG wikiproject. --Oscarthecat 22:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Mostly PC games and old SNES games that were unreleased in the US and therefor forgotten. and basicly as a way to add more information to older games that just have; a story line and very crude information on characters and or races. a example of this would be Hegemonia which i just read. The name of the game itself was misspelled and the infromation on it was very basic. the storyline was also way to short even though the game it self was quite long. there are also plenty of games that i have seen that are in need of desprate help since they are old most people dont bother with them, however when someone wants to acctually read about them the information is very vage and almost non exsistant. you stated that there is a project like that already if possable how do i go about joining, and displaying that i am part of that project? Maverick423 22:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

What you propose to do is within the scope of this project. See the project page to see how to indicate you are participant in the project. — Frecklefoot | Talk 23:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well if you are serious about creating a subproject (we already have 12, but that shouldn't stop you) you might want to consider going here to see if anyone is interested in your idea. If nobody is, then you can personally work on improving forgotten games, and come here for dissucsion, instead of a subproject.--Clyde (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I've listed on my User page the archive of gaming articles I presently have from the time I spent as editor at Games Domain. Those searching for reference citations may find what you are looking for in this large archive. The archive is only a small percentage of what Games Domain had in it's databases, however it can help when looking for published resources for reference. All articles were published at one time, although the demise of Games Domain has meant that the database (kept since 1994) is no longer available online. Please contact me via the "Talk" function on my User page for more info. Feel free to browse my User page and ask about the items I have listed. I cannot publish them in their entirety. Please keep requests succinct and precise. Austriancurls 04:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC) Karen Zierler

Have you thought about adding them into a new section at WP:CVG/M? It's where others list the sources they have access to, so you can just do a browser search on the page and find who has the information you need. - hahnchen 18:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I did actually, and looked there, but it looked like one big table which I couldn't make heads of tails of (some entries were all pasted in one or another column of the table without being separated out, etc. Either that, or I just didn't know what I was doing, as that could very well be, I'm new to this Wiki thing. I'll look again. Austriancurls 19:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC) Karen Zierler —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Austriancurls (talk • contribs) 19:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

I believe there should be a consensus on the order of sections in articles. A lot of times I see many similarly-related articles with entirely different section orders. Here's what I propose as the standard. Note that "Gameplay" is first because (as stated in the name), it is a game. The sections are obviously not mandatory.

• Gameplay
  • _{[specific subsections pertaining to the game, eg. Experience levels]}
• Plot
  • Setting
  • Characters
  • Story
• Development
  • Versions and re-releases
• Audio
• Merchandise
• Reception and criticism

Does anyone have any disagreements or suggestions? The only thing I am not sure about myself is the "Merchandise" section, it could be placed after the "Reception" section. --TheEmulatorGuy 04:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It should be the editors' choice :/ --SeizureDog 04:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you thought the same when you nominated the abolishment of subscript release dates in video game infoboxes. Oh, wait. --TheEmulatorGuy 05:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

A personal attack. Lovely. Anyways, #1: The subsections needed vary from game to game, so to try and pin that down is a bit pointless. #2: Most articles end up in the right order anyways. #3: If the information is there, the order doesn't matter too much. #4: The infobox is something that is consistant throughout all vg articles and not a case by case situation. Therefor, there are guidelines for its useage.--SeizureDog 05:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

A personal attack? That's a bit of a sway from the truth, don't you think? I was just pointing out your hypocrisy. #1: Indeed, subsections do vary by game - if you'll see what I was trying to say, you can remove any of the sections and add subsections - it is simply the order I am focusing on. #2: The right order? What is the right order? Are you saying this is the right order? #3: Doesn't this argument simply apply to the infobox argument? The release date information is there, it's just displayed in a different way. #4: The existence of article sections is a case-by-case situation, but their order is not. Video games are at heart, the same. Gameplay. Story. Development. Merchandise. Reception. It is up to the editor to decide the content of these sections and their subsections, but the order needs to be consistent through video game articles because they are all on the same "level". --TheEmulatorGuy 05:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:KETTLE, people. Nifboy 05:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I would rather not wake up tomorrow morning and see Final Fantasy X de-featured for "not following WP:CVG guidelines" just because its sections are in a different order and it's too much work to try and shoehorn it into said order, but I digress. Near as I can tell the only consistency in order is already in WP:WAF: "Of course, out-of-universe information needs context; details of creation, development, etc. are more helpful if the reader understands a fictional element's role in its own milieu." To perhaps put too fine a point on it, it makes sense to talk about the game (plot, gameplay) before talking about the game (reception, merch, development, etc). Nifboy 05:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Considering the way I set out the sections actually complies with Final Fantasy X (even the "Versions and merchandise" section), that won't be happening any time soon. Funnily enough, WP:FF actually has guidelines for the section order. I don't want it as a "YOU MUST HAVE IT THIS WAY" guideline, simply as a basis for section order when in doubt, or when a consensus issue arises. I can easily see right here that this is not an agreeable issue, but I'm not trying to force some nazi-like guideline, just something that can be used when required. --TheEmulatorGuy 05:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Given that the whole project covers articles of significantly more variance than WP:FF, I still object on those grounds even if my example isn't spot on. In the interests of replacing a bad example with a good one, Katamari Damacy puts plot before gameplay due to the near-entirety of the game's plot consisting of why you happen to be rolling stuff up into a ball. The raison d'être, if you will, for the gameplay. Nifboy 05:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I don' think that anyone is saying that this should be a policy that must be enforced in every article. Still, I see no harm in adding something about this to the article guidelines. JACOPLANE • 2007-01-11 06:13

I think the way "consistency" has been bandied about lately is what concerns me. We already have a section on this in the guidelines. Admittingly, it needs an update to drop trivia and galleries, but that isn't a detailed, prescriptive "solution", particularly as regards order. I'd rather stick to merely suggesting what should go in each section, and leaving organization to individual articles' editors. Nifboy 06:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Question: Outside of a preference for consistency, is there a problem that this standard solves? I'm all for standards if it solves a problem, but I see no problem that section layout solves. It seems to me that section layout is more of a per article issue. —Mitaphane _talk 06:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It was intended to be an aide to people whenever there is an argument over what order to have sections in a certain article. Of course it should be a case-by-case basis, but do you not consider the rules in an AfD? --TheEmulatorGuy 06:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Does this actually happen often? Or are we trying to settle conflicts that haven't even happened?--SeizureDog 07:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Christ, this good suggestion turned sour for no damn reason. Anyhow, I agree that guidelines can be drawn but not policy, per se. The order above is the most logical I've seen, and I structured my own articles after it. It flows very well, as it starts with real world, moves to fictional details, and ends with the powerful information on how the game fared commercially. You might add a "Sequel" section under reception and criticism. --Zeality 02:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

A list of items and terms from a game, seems like a game guide article to me. Should an AFD be put on it? Put articles like this one on a video game Wiki, not here. RobJ1981 19:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Eh, it's iffy. It's harder to want to delete lists rather than single articles as at least they group a bunch of topics that couldn't stand on their own together. --SeizureDog 21:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

But is it really that notable to have a list of items and terms? Look at popular series: Zelda and Mario as examples. Neither have term or item lists (that I've seen at least). Enemy and character lists are fine, but when it comes to items... that's a game guide. Wikipedia isn't a game guide. RobJ1981 21:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

LIES! ALL LIES! :P --SeizureDog 21:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that it's actually semi-policy to have a glossary like that when they are needed to help keep the article, yet adding them in mainspace would give it way too much length. Similar to how some articles have daughter arictles of character lists, etc. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 22:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Summary style.--SidiLemine 17:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• The Xenosaga lists were started by me as a way to merge the 60+ xenocruft articles (some written by me in my cruft days a year and a half ago) into a few. I've been planning on revamping that entire section, but it's on the backburner like lots of stuff. Don't put it on AFD yet; I'd rather implement my anticruft plan first so that I can use redirects and keep the edit histories intact. — Deckiller 07:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see the AFD here --Larry laptop 10:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I commented at the AFD. Here is some similar game guide articles: List of Earthworm Jim items, Masks, weapons and items from The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask and Weapons and items from The Legend of Zelda series. All should be in AFD in my opinion. Why do people make articles like those? Item lists are cruft, and should be on video game Wikis only. If these cruft articles exist for Zelda, I wouldn't be surprised if there is Mario and other ones as well. RobJ1981 19:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

1-up Mushroom, Fire Flower, Super Mushroom (none of which should be capitalized?)? Nifboy 23:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Nobody read what I said above, eh? I elaborated on the AfD page. — Deckiller 16:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

with respect - leaving aside how wikipedia should work, it never works - the Special Interest Groups are just ingrated on wikipedia for the clean-up tag approach to work. Take this article. No clean-up will occur, it will get longer and longer and more and more cruft. In theory, I could take it to AFD as well - but what's the point, the SIG around Zelda will defeat it, even thought the article does not match (and will never match) the guidelines set down by the Video games project.

Take a look at this [4] This follows under the remit of two of the Special Interest Groups and has been tagged since sept 2005, this has been tagged since oct 2005. Forgot it - the special interest groups (as a whole, not individual members) are not interested in clean-up.

Larry laptop 17:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The Mario item pages probably should go as well. Wikipedia shouldn't have detailed descriptions of in-game items. The Zelda list pages need to go in AFD, that's for sure. In response to Deckiller: combining articles into one isn't the route to go. Instead of many cruft articles, there is one huge cruft article. Glossary articles (terms and so on) simply shouldn't have a place on Wikipedia. RobJ1981 21:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I said - I said that I had contained the cruft two years ago as a temporary solution, and I've planned on completely redoing the Xenosaga pages for a couple months now. It's not even cleanup, it's starting fresh. The only reaosn I want to keep the article(s) is to preserve edit history and keep the regular editors to those pages interested in helping out; deleting the entries will deter their interest, from my personal experience. And they are editing in good faith; they are just misguided. But, like I said on the AfD page, it's on a lengthy queue. — Deckiller 22:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the point would be - the special interest groups would turn up on mass and defeat any attempt to remove their material. --Larry laptop 22:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Doom should be a Top priority article rather than High. After all, Cvilization and Mario are both Top class priority. Korodzik 17:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I implore anywone who will help me: the above article has experienced much edit warring over the past, and I've done a great deal to resolve the issues surrounding it, but recently, a user, Butterrum, who is a suspected sock puppet, has attempted to contaminate said article with information proven to be incorrect. Butterrum's puppeteer was also involved somewhat in the previous edit warring. I ask the help of any users who will help me resolve this issue. You can contact me for more details on the subject. Klptyzm 20:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It's an impressively detailed (and long, at 76KB!) article, but if the project's guidelines were to be followed, it seems doubtful that this article would warrant inclusion in Wikipedia, as it's more suitable for a gaming wiki. --Oscarthecat 21:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not the issue; it's the page warring that is the issue. Klptyzm 21:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Not if your page gets deleted by a Wikicopy :P BcRIPster 21:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I see this was the wrong place to turn for help. Forgive me. Klptyzm 22:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No, if you're having a problem with a video game article that you cannot resolve on the talk page of that article then this is the right place to turn. Could you perhaps summarise what the core of the problem is, the talk page is rather long and doesn' seem very coherent. What is the information that has "proven to be incorrect"? Have you confirmed by checkuser that Butterrum is using socks abusively? JACOPLANE • 2007-01-12 23:23

I've submitted a request for investigation, but nothing, as of now, has been done. Basically what is happening is that one, and only one, user (as of right now) is disagreeing with some of the issues that have been resolved on the page. I've done much work to try to clear up most of the issues with said page; I even got the page locked down to prevent warring. But, after the page protection came down, the user used his sockpuppet (which I KNOW is a sockpuppet: both have bad grammar and misspell words the exact same way, for one) to make the incorrect edits in the POV of its puppeteer. This incident is very stressful, partially because nothing has been done about it, as of now. I've had to archive the talk page twice because of how I've tried to convince him why he was incorrect; the only reason why I've tried so hard is because I felt, if I didn't convince him, he would cause problems for the article, which he has done. You can contact me later for more information on this subject. Klptyzm 00:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

As for the "incorrect information," what I meant is the information that the puppet was adding was proven to be erroneous in the earlier stated discussions, yet he persisted to add it. Klptyzm 01:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Lately I've been seeing a lot of linkspam popping up all over the place, and I didn't know if I should get rid of this one. Yes or No?--Clyde (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's got content relevant to the article. How does it hold up against the WP:EL guidelines? --Oscarthecat 21:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove it, links to cheat pages are linkspam and non-notable. --PresN 22:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Better said, they don't contribute to the article itself. Don't forget the other links from this site. -- ReyBrujo 22:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey I was looking around and I found something else that concerned me. What's the call with having tiny pics of every character in a game? The reason I bring this up is a new editor has been doing this to Crystalis. I don't think this is okay, but I don't want to scare away a new editor who looks like he wants to help. What's the call? The last place I saw this was XEvil when it was being AFDed before I rewrote it to it's current version.--Clyde (talk) 02:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove them, tag them with a deletion tag (usually orphaned fair use), and tell the user don't upload images for the sake of decoration, as it contradicts our 8th fair use criteria policy point. -- ReyBrujo 02:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

List of Final Fantasy VI characters and its ilk are also quite image-heavy. There are a couple other articles I have in mind (Gain Ground, Shining Force (warning: anigifs)) and probably ought to clean out. Nifboy 02:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I took care of the of Crystalis, but it what is the temp tag for deleting images? Also, if I see this again, is it sort of group consensus to get rid most of them, if not all?--Clyde (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe if you simply remove them from the page a bot will come along and tag it ((orfud)), and it will be deleted in a week. Nifboy 03:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough (is a truth production)--Clyde (talk) 03:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

That bot is defunct. Just add ((subst:orfud)) to the image's description and an admin will happily delete it for you in a week. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops)

OrphanBot? -- ReyBrujo 03:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

OrphanBot orphans images with other tags. It doesn't tag orphan images. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I suggest you install up User:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js to make it easier to tag orfud. Automatic notification - win. Hbdragon88 03:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I tried to, but I think something went wrong. When it's working where does it show up?--Clyde (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

There are two other scripts that you have to copy over. You can copy the contents of my monobook file. It shows up in the "toolbox" which is right underneath teh "search" bar. Hbdragon88 00:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the use of images to illustrate the subject of a section or article was encouraged. Why aren't images like those in List of Final Fantasy VI characters allowed? --Sopoforic 19:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well if you look down a little bit there's a heated discussion about the use of fair use images, but it boils down to the fact that companies own the copyright of the game, in some cases the photographer owns certain aspects of the photo, and since we are using these photos without permission, the law says to keep the images to a minimum. BcRIPster, SeizureDog and ReyBrujo could probably tell you more.--Clyde (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I get that, but as I understood it, the use of an image to illustrate the subject, when a free alternative cannot be created, falls squarely under fair use--even Wikipedia's very narrow definition of it. It specifically says that a limited number may be used to illustrate "the character in question." That doesn't mean that if we have an article with several characters in it we can only illustrate one of them, it just means that we can't have a dozen pics of every character. One picture of each character should be fine--after all, it would be fine if the characters had their own articles, and there's not any significant difference between having their own articles and having their own sections in an aggregate article. At least, that's what I think. --Sopoforic 00:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The character pics I were referring to where in a game article, and not on their own character list, so I don't really know what your particular situation is with that. I don't suppose it says anywhere says that many pics aren't allowed, except in the list of licenses that says you’re only allowed one screenshot of a game under fair use. That may be outdated and never recognized anymore, but the roots or such a rule seems to lie in the fact that lots of game screenshots (the license used for the Final Fantasy Pics) are bad. You could probably have a detailed fair use for each one saying we need this picture to show what this dude looks like, so we're bending the rules, but it looks like you didn't do that either. I dunno man, what's your say?--Clyde (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would say that if there is a specific section containing at least a paragraph of several sentences of text about the character, that would be okay. I do not think that it would be appropriate to do something like: "The characters are Bob the Sorcerer, Julie the Archer, Billy the Warrior, and Jimbo the Level 30 Arch-Mage" and then show pictures of them without further comment. Or so is my understanding of the fair use guidelines.

What is important here, I think, is to remember that we have been told repeatedly not to try to anticipate legal trouble. The foundation has lawyers to deal with legal situations, and all we are meant to do is follow the guidelines as they are written. --Sopoforic 03:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I know I read just such a thing either on-wiki or on the ml, but I can't find it, so ignore it. --Sopoforic 04:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a bit of a mismatch between the guidelines presented by this project and what's happening on the ground. Do we need to rethink how we are doing articles? or adjust the guidelines? or maybe everything's just fine and it's all in my head.

Here's an example of where I see a mismatch. --Larry laptop 19:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a game guide, yet people make cruft articles for items and so on. Item lists, term lists (including glossaries.. in my opinion), vehicle lists, weapon lists, etc... are all perfect examples of articles that don't belong here. They belong on video game wikis and fan sites only. There is no reason Wikipedia needs these cruft articles. Encyclopedia, not a fan's guide to every little detail on a game. A popular series doesn't justify the cruft articles at all either. Nothing's in your head, the guidelines shouldn't be changed just because people love to do these cruft articles. RobJ1981 23:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The List of PlayStation Portable websites seems pretty vain and non-notable. Anyone else think it should be put up for deletion? - ZakuSage 15:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Tagged for AfD as of about two minutes ago (not by me, FWIW). Cheers --Pak21 15:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

By me - it's a pretty clear breach of WP:NOT in three ways - it's purely a list of external links, it's a directory, and it's exists solely to describe the nature of those sites (that they are suitable for the playstation portable). --Larry laptop 15:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I've gone one step further and tagged it as CSD A3: "Any article consisting only of links elsewhere". Edit: and it's been deleted. That was nice and quick :-) Cheers --Pak21 15:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

That was nice and quick. Thanks guys! - ZakuSage 21:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I note that you've gone ahead and added the Your Sinclair article to this project, which is a great thing. However, I'm concerned about it being rated as merely 'start' class, one step up from a stub. Myself and a few other editors have worked hard on that article, and I personally feel that it's worthy of B-class status. It includes a lot of information, much of which has footnotes and references - there are no 'citation needed' tags, and no need for any. It clearly sets out what the magazine was about, the kind of content it included, and what happened after it folded.

I think it needs to be reassessed. If it still feels like a 'start class' article to whoever else looks at it, I would like to know why and what needs to be done to upgrade it. While I would never claim ownership of an article (WP:OWN, and such), I was the person who created it and I have a large number of edits, including an almost complete rewrite during the summer, and I feel it's better than just a 'start'.

Thanks --Stevefarrell 17:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, it's definately much further along than start. It's probably actually 'Good' class if you ask me. But it needs to go through the process for that. And for future reference, the difference between stub, start, and B is so petty that most people don't really care if you go ahead and just rate it yourself.--SeizureDog 18:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it alright to snatch a screenshot from a review site or such, and upload it (provided there are no watermarks and such)? I've found a couple that show exactly what I need, and I'd rather not install the game just to take a couple of screenshots... --VPeric 19:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No, any photos published on another website will likely be copyrighted to the publisher even if they have not been watermarked. If you would like to first get a written release from the publisher of the website for the photo (or photos) and that site is the original source of the photos... Then you need to post that notice with the photos showing they have been turned over to the public domain. At that point they are fair game. BcRIPster 19:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

To give an example to help clarify this, there is a website named 3DOToday (it's moved a few times). At the top of each page it had a pair of screen shots from various 3DO games. All of these photos were taken from Game Zero magazine website without permission. When I challenged the author of the site about it his response was that he personally did not steal the photos, he had picked them up from around the web so he didn't know where they came from. It doesn't matter, it's still a copyright violation and he would not legaly be able to give consent to use those images. BcRIPster 19:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I had a feeling that's how it is. Thanks! (For the record, I was thinking of getting a couple of screenies from here) --VPeric 19:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No actually that is not correct. The copyright of the screenshot is not owned by the person who took the screenshot, but by the developer of the game, as ((Game-screenshot)) states (so Game Zero magazine is using the images under fair use from the game developer just like the guy who "stole" the screenshots). We can use these screenshots on Wikipedia as fair use. JACOPLANE • 2007-01-15 21:09

A photograph taken by a photographer is copyrighted by the photographer. The contents of the photograph are not however and they remain copyright to the creator of the content. You are wrong. BcRIPster 21:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong BcRIPster. The review sites don't own any copyrights to the screenshots they are taking. They are all under copyright of the developers/publishers of the games themselves, as screenshots count as derivative works. So, since all screenshots, taken ourselves or taken from others, end up having to be used as fair use anyways, it really doesn't where you get them. So yes, you are allowed to use other sites' screenshots (unless they're watermarked, as that's against our policy even for free images). You still have to link to the source too though. Final technical note, the screenshot owner has some copyright, but since that copyright will only matter once the game maker's is finished, it doesn't really matter.--SeizureDog 21:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sceenshots count as derivative works from the standpoint of the photographer!BcRIPster 22:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I argued that myself at WP:FAIR USE, but had no support.--SeizureDog 23:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright, great, even better! I was also wondering, would one of you be kind enough to walk me through uploading an image? For example, this one? Or, failing that, a link explaining in detail all the steps needed. Must appreciated. :) --VPeric 21:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Uploading images. Also, provide a detailed fair use rationale; otherwise the uploaded material will be deleted. JACOPLANE • 2007-01-15 21:59

Go here, select image, name image, and copy/paste the following into the summary box:

[Description of image.]

==Source==

link

==Fair use rationale==

• This image is needed to illustrate [what needs showing]
• A free use image is impossible

==Licensing==

((game-screenshot))

Ignore the licensing drop down menu (as you've already included the ((game-screenshot)) tag) and upload the image. Also, you can have more rationale than this, but those are really the only two things you have to mention.--SeizureDog 22:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

SeisureDog, you are wrong and I strongly suggest you consult an attorney. The owner of copyright has been clearly defined in court cases. The ONLY exception to reuse of a copyrighted photograph without the consent of the photographer is when the photograph has significant historical value and the image can no longer be recreated by a new source. For instance a photo of a famous individual or a location that no longer exists. Please read: 1, 2. BcRIPster 22:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The scarcity argument is only valid (questionably) in regards to screen shots of games that can no longer ever be played to get a screen shot. For instance, X-Band menus, Sega Channel exclusive games, eventually some XBOX360 Live Arcade games, etc... If you can go buy the game and the system and take a photo then it is not impossible to generate a new photo. Learn your facts. BcRIPster 22:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Originally, most of the computer industry assumed that only the program's underlying instructions were protected under copyright law but, beginning in the early 1980s, a series of lawsuits involving the video screens of game programs extended protections to the appearance of programs.Source Your example is flawed though, as people and locations aren't copyrightable. The issue changes completely when you're talking about taking images of copyrighted works. By your logic, I could scan a comic book and claim copyright just because I took the pictures of it. --SeizureDog 22:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

These lawsuits related to Photographers taking photos of games. Not people copying their photos. My example is not flawed, you don't understand this issue clearly. And taking your example. IF, you scanned a limited portion of a comic and reproduced it as part of a larger work, then you have copyright to the new work, including the photograph! BUT NOT the content of the photograph. Copying the whole comic book would be like making a reproduction of a video game and that is theft. AND! People and locations are not copyrightable, BUT a photograph taken of a person or location IS copyrightable. With the exception of a location that has been altered to be a standalone piece of art such as the recent addition of lights to the Eiffel Tower. You now can not legally take a photo of the tower at night and publish it commercially because someone owns a copyright to the artistic representation of the structure... that's the gist, if you need more read here. BcRIPster 22:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine. Let's use your logic. I'll take a screenshot of a screenshot of a videogame. I get new copyright, yay! Counterpoint that please.--SeizureDog 22:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If you take a partial photograph of a screenshot or you take a photo of a larger work that contains the screenshot to reuse in a new work, then you are in a very grey area of copyright law, and could try to claim a new derivative work. For instance a thumbnail, or cropped reproduction of a copyrighted photo can be made fair use in regards to something like an index (this is how Google's image search is protected). Most opinion says stay away from this space unless you feel you have really good reason to be going there. A direct photo of a photo is a copyright violation as it is a direct copy of the original copyrighted material ala photocopies. BcRIPster 22:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thumb of rule, to put it extremely simple: if your version has the same "dimension" of the original, no. If the original is 2D (a magazine, a picture, a game even if using "3D"), a picture continues to be 2D, thus you don't have copyright claims over it. If you create a 3D clay figure out of a 2D character, then you have claims over the artistic element, but not the design. Since a screenshot keeps the same dimension as the original game, no, you don't own anything. If you take a picture, you are still at 2D, so you can claim nothing. You may claim artistic elements (light, camera angle, etc), but insignificant for our definition of freedom. You can get more information at Wikipedia:Fair use. Note that we can only use Ubisoft images in a free context. -- ReyBrujo 22:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Please ReyBrujo, you are mudding the issue here and I think you have alot of this very confused. If you take a photograph of ANYTHING, you own the copyright to that photograph. BUT, you may not be able to use it any capacity depending on any restrictions bound to the content. The photographer does not own copyright to the content of the photo. You own the photograph, NOT the content. I know this is a very confusing subject for nearly everyone, and I appologize that this has had to become such a dwawn out discussion.BcRIPster 23:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no discussion that you own copyright of the object but not the content. The thumb of rule is used to prevent someone from uploading home-made pictures of album or book covers with a free license. As I said, if you take a picture, you can claim copyright in the artistic elements surrounding it, but not the content. Since we are talking about screenshots here, and knowing the full game is copyrighted, a picture of the screen will always be copyrighted by the company, unless the company has released all rights, just what Ubisoft did. I guess you did not understood me correctly. -- ReyBrujo 23:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this UbiSoft declaration has confused alot of people. The "expanded rights" that UbiSoft has alotted to the Wiki are legally providing to photographers the ability to use screenshots outside of fair use. Technically, this allowance would allow you to photograph any UbiSoft game, and if you credited it correctly, you could print out the photograph as a poster and sell it without risk of legal repercussions. This has absolutely no barring on our what we are talking about and the usages we are discussing. BcRIPster 23:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth... Background into the whole screenshot/lawsuit situation. This dates back to the early 1990's in the U.S. In the early days of 2-D SNES and Genesis games, several publishers (chiefly Brady Games) began publishing full stand-alone strategy guides for games. These guides usually featured extensive photos of every screen in a game as well as a full story run through and comprehensive strategies. Magazines had published strategy guides before this, but they were usually a limited feature within the greater whole of the magazine, and did not feature 100% of the game content. Publishers sued these new guide publishers under copyright, claiming that the complete reproduction of the contents of the game in book form was a copyright violation that both reproduced the content of the game but also damaged the value of the game in the market as they gave away all of the story elements, surprises, added value elements of a game, etc... The end result was Brady in an effort to protect their business model and avoid litigation approached publishers with the offer to pay them for exclusive rights, and to allow publishers to have input on the content. This pretty much put all of the competition out of business overnight and secured Brady's position also by giving them earlier access to games so that their guides could be developed in tandem with a game being printed nearly simultaneously to release. The lawsuits were not about using photographs of the games. The lawsuits were about photographing the ENTIRE game. ... I sure hope all of this has helped someone.BcRIPster 00:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

What's actually legal and what just gets sued over are entirely different things. We could use copyrighted material from all over the place and not hear very many complaints if we wanted to, but Wikipedia wants to be all noble and be as free and legal as they can possibly be. Silly internets.--SeizureDog 01:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the template, I'm talking about the games in the template. Mario Party 2 all the way through Mario Party 8. I noticed some cleanup did happen, but an editor changed it back (with no discussion). It's not notable to list all the mini-games in each game, that's the issue here. MP 2 through 8 have mass lists of games. RobJ1981 20:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You are in the right. I'm deleting those lists right now. If the editor reverts again, you'll want to find an admin to help out. Those articles certainly shouldn't have lists. Have you left a message on the user's talk page or anything? Scepia 03:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The same editor has re-added the lists. Now I'm going to leave a message on his talk page, and if he continues this blatant cruft re-adding, I will go to an admin. It's not notable to list each and every mini-game. RobJ1981 20:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure if this would violate any gamecruft rules, but maybe to settle this, we can create seperate articles for lists of mini-games. (i.e."List of MArio Party 2 Minigames", "List of Mario Party 3 minigames", etc.) guitarhero777777 02:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

That would violate cruft rules. Simply put, massive lists like that don't belong here. Scepia 02:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No. Please no lists. WP:NOT an indiscrimnate collection of information. Cruft isn't a reason for deletion or removal, but indisriminate information is. Hbdragon88 07:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey well i was trying to start a new prodject to help out with Older and more forgotten games however i dont even know how to start the project. Yes i have read all the guidelines and everything however one of the pages lead me to the spot were i can start the project they just give instructions on what to do after you start your project but not instructions on how to acctually start one. can any one help me out?Maverick423 17:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Didn't you post your idea before? What you want to do is covered under this WikiProject, a new one isn't needed. I doubt creating a new WikiProject will inspire people to find out more info on classic computer and video games. What is your WikiProject going to do that this one doesn't? Answer that and I might be able to give you some help. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Frecklefoot, a new project isn't needed. Just post what games you want to help improve, and others will help out. Projects of broad scopes don't need to exist. RobJ1981 21:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok dont worry bout Haegemonia i will add as much as i can to it as for the other games that need info well go and check the List of games and all the games in red i want to have a article for each and every last one of them. like i was saying they were once games and they should be improved and added Maverick423 22:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

So when can i see the names on the list to be present on the to do list?? please dont tell me I am going to have to do it by my self that is the reason i proposed that new prodject for such games that were forgottenMaverick423 17:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

From the first days of October, articles of old games have received identical spamlinks that lead to the same warez paysite posing as free abandonware, at a rate that I would guess to be once or twice a day. The spam comes from anon IPs used only once each and tracked all over the globe, which I'm told indicates an open proxy. The URL varies, but the format has so far not. So far, at least 138 links have been removed, seven URLs blacklisted and an eighth submitted.

Please report all sightings, search for other instances and have the addresses blocked. --20:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kizor (talk • contribs)

Another URL [5] found. Will be dealt with. --Kizor 12:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Just deleted 11 more links to that site. The Kinslayer 12:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Since I haven't seen one yet, is there a template to notify readers that a game is being translated? If not, I created a test-template in my userspace (User:Tetsuya-san/Localization) regarding a possible acceptance. - Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 13:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• I think the 'in development' tag is acceptable enough. The tag is used to notify readers that the content might be speculative and will change drastically, something that makes your tag redundant. Readers don't need a giant tag informing them the game is being localized. --TheEmulatorGuy 19:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Articles rarely get very big before they're translated anyways. And even if they did, most characters keep the same names. The impact of localization on an article isn't big enough to warrent a template.--SeizureDog 06:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You folks are in danger of having a hole in at least half a dozen articles as on WP:TFD (here) Template:16-32bit(edit talk links history) is loosing the vote badly. You might think of putting some kind of project tagging on it ASAP. Best wishes. // FrankB 01:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The template doesn't look that notable anyway, seeing as how the things in it aren't very related to each other. Useless templates should be removed from Wikipedia. RobJ1981 01:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

On top of that, only 2 of the 5 items are in the domain of WPCVG. No tear will be shed over the loss of this template at WPCVG. —Mitaphane _talk 05:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The AFD is being reviewed due to its bad faith implications on the part of the nom. Commentary of the members of this WikiProject is requested. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 14:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like an unanimous "endorse deletion" is coming out of this. Hbdragon88 07:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

When I can, I help this project by sorting the CVG stubs into categories. Some are not easy... for example, Alien Crush describes a pinball videogame for the Turbografix-16. There is neither a pinball stub category, nor a Turbografix-16 stub category, so in which category would a stub such as this be placed? New User 15:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

StubSense suggests ((sports-cvg-stub)) as not a bad possibility. Cheers --Pak21 15:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think a pinball stub could be created, since there is many pinball articles that are stubs. If I knew how to make the stub (or suggest it somewhere), I would. RobJ1981 19:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I have also seen several pinball stubs. I would consider them more of simulation games than sports games. After reviewing Category:Stub categories, I didn't see a stub category for pinball games at all, regardless whether for computer and video games or traditional pinball tables. If no one objects, I will just place the pinball computer and video game stubs in the simulation games category. The only other option is to create a pinball stub category. New User 20:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

BcRIPster has made a great, bold move in recommending moving Computer and video games to video game. Then "computer game" would have a separate article. He wants to correct the use of the term "video game" to "a game that uses a video device as its primary form of feedback," which includes computer games, console games, arcade games, etc. I, for one, support this move, and hope others of you will too. Hop on over to the computer and video games talk page and cast your vote on the survey. Whether you're opposed to or in support of the move, please discuss it there in the sections provided. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I came across this today and it has a huge story and huge "historical accuracy" sections. Hardly anything on gameplay and so on. If anyone has played the game (or knows enough about it), could you condense the sections and add more about gameplay? RobJ1981 20:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to propose a guideline for image file types: For systems that use indexed color pallets I would like to recommend that PNG be used for the screenshots. It's lossless and works well with pallets. We would be able to keep the screenshots at the original size with no loss of information or fuzziness of JPEG. Platforms this would cover would be things like Game Boy, Nintendo Entertainment System, Sega Genesis, Nintendo DS and other 8 & 16 bit systems. For 32bit and beyond home consoles I recommend JPEG and JPEG-2000 (whenever the wikimedia software will support it). Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CyberSkull (talk • contribs) 02:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Sounds great to me. Should probably be put on the project page or somewhere for those less aware of the advantages of each type of image file format. --ADeveria 13:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Almost all the articles in that template are sloppy cluttered and cruft lists. I've done some cleanup on them, but they need alot of work still. I posted on this page about Tony Hawk a bit ago, but it seems like no one has fixed the articles much. I've never played any Tony Hawk game, so I wouldn't know what else to do. Some lists should stay I suppose, but they need some kind of format... not just a long list. RobJ1981 19:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Shame on you for never playing a Tony Hawk game. Go pick one of the older ones up. They sell quite cheaply. But yeah, they do need to be cleaned up. I might work on the Tony Hawk's Pro Skater one someday since it's such an important game.--SeizureDog 08:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The article above is currently being considered for deletion. Please feel free to take part in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buyo (Inuyasha). Thank you. Badbilltucker 18:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you meant to post this in WT:ANIME. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 18:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

So I'm stupid. Belive me, that really isn't news. Thanks for the correction, though. :) Badbilltucker 19:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Does this need to exist? Imagine if we had timeline pages for every popular game: Wikipedia would be flooded. I certainly wont post on the talk page of it (since I know from past experience: most people will post that they want it left alone). In my opinion, it's better suited for a video game wiki. Feel free to put it in AFD if needed. RobJ1981 23:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Not every popular game's sequels take place in, almost, random different periods of time like the GTA games do, but, if it should be AfD'd, I feel it should be on lack of sources, rather than content. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit me § Contributions} ♣ 23:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It was in AFD before, I don't know how to do nominate it for a second time. Usually when I try it, it messes up... and someone fixes it (yet doesn't tell me the correct way to do it). So if anyone could put it in AFD for me, it would be appreciated. RobJ1981 06:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You should add this this AfD helper tool to your monobook.js, it makes putting articles up for AfD less of a hassle. JACOPLANE • 2007-01-22 09:13

Jump Super Stars is in need of help. I posted on the anime project talk page in the past about this: and they didn't even seem to care. People in the project should care about the articles, but whatever. The article has a mass of character and location lists that are just cluttered. A proper format is needed: but not new pages. That was tried in the past, and the regular editors of the article just re-added the content anyway. RobJ1981 23:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"People in the project should care about the articles" <--- Remember we're all volunteers, and certainly noone can monitor every page, nor have interest in everything the project encompasses. Bringing it up here is a good idea, but, if you think about it, why should we do it and not you? (not meant as an insult, just something to think about). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 23:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know much about the game, and I'm certainly no expert on making tables to format lists. The regular editors of the article (I'm assuming at least): should know about the game more and help, but they haven't. The second best place to try would be the anime project, but that failed before. Hopefully some editors seeing this section will help out. RobJ1981 20:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

If by "didn't seem to care" you mean "didn't seem to want to have to redo things that were reverted", then sure, nobody cared. I put the lists into their own article and they were just merged back in. I tried.--SeizureDog 21:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot you did make those list pages. Moving the problem isn't the complete solution though. Regular editors of the article don't seem to want change either, which is also an issue in this case. The page can't be fixed, if people don't want to accept there is a problem. RobJ1981 22:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

So, I have been messing with this article lately. You can compare how the article looked like before and after I cleaned it up. I would like to hear opinions about which one is better, because there are a bunch of people (me included) that think the old version was abusive and others who think the old version was perfect. Thank you. -- ReyBrujo 05:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Much better. Put simply, the new version conforms to the non-negotiable policy of verifiability while the old one didn't. The image caption could do with some sorting out though! Cheers --Pak21 10:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Any comments in the Animal Crossing series RFC would be greatly appreciated.

The editors are currently deadlocked about whether the game Animal Crossing should be listed on the Animal Crossing series template as "Animal Crossing" (e.g.,here) or as "Animal Crossing (GameCube) (e.g., here).

I know it sounds trivial, but the involved editors are deadlocked after extended discussion, and we have not been able to identify a policy or guideline that clearly applies. Please comment here with any thoughts.

Thanks! TheronJ 14:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've recently put Mega Man Zero (video game) up for peer review, but progress on its review has been very slow as of late. So I thought I'd just advertise it here. This is of importance to those working on the Mega Man articles, specifically the Mega Man Zero articles. Anyway, thanks in advance. Wolf ODonnell 14:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)