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.

If any of you know of Playstation 1 games that need screenshots, please leave me a message so I can see if I own the game. If I do I'll get a screenshot of the game and put it into the article. Xtreme racer 03:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI, there's a mini edit war on Dreamcast between myself and Asim18 over which Dreamcast logo should be used for the article's picture - between the orange swirl logo and the blue one. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I wouldn't say an "edit war" - edit war is when both parties are repeatedly reverting. He switched, you reverted; nothing else has happened yet. hbdragon88 00:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

BOLD, revert, discuss. My understanding is that this is exactly how it should be. Nifboy 01:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Say is there a task force responsible for the Soul Calibur pages? I have browsed trough some and there is significant a ammount of characters that really don't deserve a page by themselves. To be specific see Night Terror (Soul Calibur) and Abyss (Soul Calibur), these two characters only appear once in the whole series and they have absolutely no background whatsoever, some users tried to compensate this by adding long unrefereced trivia sections and a full section only to descrive the weapons they use wich would be better in the Soul Calibur mystical weapons page. I personally propose that a character list is created and these characters are merged in them, any comments? objections? suggestions? thanks for your time. -凶 05:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Go right ahead, it's common practice for articles of that nature to be presented in list form with all the fan fluff cut out. Combination 14:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no task force for this series yet. Feel free to go ahead and start one. JACOPLANE • 2007-04-24 22:24

I took the liberty of merging both boss characters with the characters from which they are generated, similar to the Ogre (Tekken) article. After all, Abyss is just Zasalamel mutated and Night Terror, just Nightmare mutated. I've also rewrote Zasalamel's article to remove the story-telling, copy-right infringement and the long trivia section. Peace. 201.255.25.103 01:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

What about creating a new page titled something along the lines of "List of Characters from the Soul Calibur series" and merging all the pages like Night Terror (Soul Calibur) and Abyss (Soul Calibur) together into one large article. Cabe6403 10:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• • I will work on creating a page and will post it by weekend. I will start a Task force by the time we are done raising the remaining Devil May Cry pages, that way I can focus on the pages and try to emulate the success that the Devil May Cry tak force has had, cheers. --凶 13:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

As car lists are so common in racing game articles, I have decided to bring this discussion here to prevent edit wars on series-wide scales. For those who aren't familiar with me, I'm responsible for removing numerous weapon and item lists from first-person shooters, considering that such information is trivia beyond integration and possibly game guide material, as well as being indiscriminate lists at large.

Extending this to racing games, would this not include car lists? Racing games tend to include hundreds of cars, and creating and maintaining these lists would inflate the articles to a massive degree. The article I cleaned up was Live for Speed, though I have helped in trimming Test Drive Unlimited. However, many of the Gran Turismo and Need for Speed articles still have extensive car lists.

For the sake of consistency, should we consider car lists to be fancruft and remove them according to WP:NOT, or should we keep them and reorganise them into manageable lists or separate articles? --Scottie_theNerd 22:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It seams clear to me that for any of these articles about racing games to have any chance of reaching FA status, they would have to lose such lists. So I fully support you if you want to go and remove these lists from articles. JACOPLANE • 2007-04-25 23:12

I'd suggest caution in things like this. Rather than a hack-and-slash approach of just wiping things out, perhaps leave mentions of unique or notable items. For example, the Gran Turismo games might benefit from having a mention that RUF is featured instead of Porsche, for whatever reason (if memory serves, Porsche had an exclusive contract with another software company). Keep encyclopoedic content! But again, GT prides itself as a game on having MANY cars of the 'who cares?' classes (Daihatsu Midget II, anyone?), which likely would be relegated to obscure trivia. The RUF entry, tho, would be worth mentioning, in my opinion.

One other thing to beware of is that some games feature real cars (Gran Turismo), some try to disguise them (Grand Theft Auto and its sequels), and others just make up their own (Simpsons Hit and Run). A list of makes (Toyota, Ford, etc.) I think MAY be worth listing for real-car games; a few sample mentions may be worth citing for the thinly disguised vehicles, and only generic information for the totally fictional ('Cars are taken from the history of the show as well as earlier games' would be sufficient, accurate, and avoid something that belongs on GameFAQs). IL-Kuma 09:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Fully agreed on this. It is important to mention what content the game contains in general without specifically listing out everything. A common argument is that cars are integral to racing games - an argument that is made redundant that a list of cars is not integral for a Wikipedia article. --Scottie_theNerd 16:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If there's anyone at all notable within the e-sports community, not for being a player, then it's Angel Munoz, founder of the CPL. This article, that has been around since February 2005 was speedily deleted under the reasoning that it was an advertisement and vanity, it is apparently backed up by an OTRS complaint (see User_talk:Centrx#Angel_Munoz). This is just a note to say it has been undeleted and stubbed for the time being, anyone into competitive gaming should expand the thing. - hahnchen 17:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Is that it? Can't we just redierct the article to the Cyberathelete league article as this person has no notability outside of being the founder? Has he won any prizes from there or anything? hbdragon88 22:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

He is still president/figurehead of the CPL and appears regularly in interviews. If you take a look at an old version of the article, you'll find that there is a decent framework to work with. - hahnchen 00:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Chrono Trigger and Template:Chrono Cross have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Chrono Trigger and Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Chrono Cross. Thank you. — Kariteh 14:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Should retail prices of particular games and even the conversion of such amounts (from one currency to another) be listed in articles? These are quite unencyclopedic and unable to help improve the article overall, which I've never seen in good or featured articles, but that does not spare a few articles from citing such statistics. ···巌流^{? · Talk to Ganryuu} 22:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I would have to say that the inclusion is warrented. I first saw it in the Shuffle! GA article which I then adapted to other soon-to-be (at the time) GA articles Kanon and Air (visual novel) and not once was the issue ever brought up during the GA process or during numerous peer reviews for each of those articles (along with a class A assessment for the latter two and an FA candidacy for Kanon). I believe it should be up to the editor's choice to include the information or not and should not be completely removed from all articles. One good thing it does is tells the reader of an article a difference between limited and regular editions, which visual novels usually put out with the limited edition being more expensive; thus, the $US conversion is there to tell the reader how much it is in a currency they are probably familiar with or can make an easier conversion then say Japanese yen.--十八 22:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Retail prices are wholly unencyclopedic and are such statistics that can be easily derived from other sources, say Amazon.com or other shopping sites, rather than an encyclopedia (see WP:NOT, where it clearly states: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information of statistics). I don't see how a conversion rate to US$ would even be relevant, let alone encyclopedic, for a game released exclusively in Japan or another country, and not released in the United States (which would account for all the games you have mentioned, I believe). For the sake of argument, why not use say another currency, such as the GBP£? Even then, it would not be even close to being relevant to the article's subject. Listing these prices is therefore not encyclopedic and as stated in WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. ···巌流^{? · Talk to Ganryuu} 22:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You're just interpreting that WP:NOT clause to follow your agrument; I could easily say that from my point of view this information is not an indiscriminant colletion of information and is not wholly unencylcopedic as I believe if it was blatently so as you suggest, then it would have come up in the numerous peer reviews that each of those aricles had, but it never did, so it would seem your opinion is rather localized. As I said, if just the prices are taken into account, a conversion is warrented to give the reader and idea of how much it costs; $US are many more times common than Japanse yen or British pounds, even when on the English Wikipedia it encompasses all English-speaking countries. And as I brought up, these games are almost always sold many times over years and prices change due to different versions; the price changes are the easiest change to be seen with the different versions and can be just one of many aspects that can be listed between the different versions.--十八 23:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Given that most games of the same platform cost the same upon release, only a notable exception to this rule of thumb should be listed. --User:Krator (t c) 23:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Per that suggestion, I believe it to be a notable exception that prices change even for visual novels released on the same platform, such as with the first released of Kanon and later the all-ages versions and Standard Editions released also for the PC but the prices had lowered for those versions.--十八 23:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Stating the retail price at time of release seems fine to me. We are talking about things that where created to be sold. It might not be the most important bit of information on the surface, but for someone researching these games it's more than trivial information. -- Ned Scott 01:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Why should we report on price data? Anybody who wants to buy the game can look that up on Amazon.com or something. I'm open to being convinced otherwise however. hbdragon88 23:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Price data is a part of the product's history, just as much as make and model or color. The whole reason these games are made is to make a profit. Lets say you want to research the success of a video game that sold a few years back, and you want to compare it's debut price compared to whatever the norm was for that time. There's a lot that can be said with this information. -- Ned Scott 03:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, retail prices shouldn't be listed. It's bad enough that people wont accept that Wii Points aren't encyclopedic. On the lists for Virtual Console games: all the games have the amount of points (needed to buy the game) listed. Wikipedia shouldn't become a price guide, period. RobJ1981 05:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Wii Points ARE encyclopedic, you are just bitter because you were the only one who thought otherwise (the vote was 10-1 just a few weeks ago). TJ Spyke 21:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the key is that prices shouldn't be listed, i.e. without any further explanation. If it's relevant, it'll be mentioned in prose, alongside whatever other information is necessary to justify mentioning the price. Nifboy 05:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that prices should not be included unless it is notable in some way, such as being substantially cheaper or more expensive than other releases. As most games sell for similar prices, that can be mentioned on the console pages. --Scottie_theNerd 06:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think price should be included either. So far the only argument I could see for including prices is that someone wants to. I'd need a much more compelling reason as to why we need to include prices before I'd accept this. DarkSaber2k 08:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

What about Wii Points (and other point systems for downloads)? People argued in the past that it's encyclopedic because the point system remains the same for each game. But the fact of the matter: Wii Points are a price, and Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a price guide. I think this is a matter of people liking the points listed, so it remains on the articles. RobJ1981 20:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, by that argument, should we list score values enemies give you in old coin-op arcade games? They are still the same. I don't see how that's any different to this really. (Excuse my analogy, I'm tired). I agree that the only argument we seems to be getting is WP:ILIKEIT. DarkSaber2k 22:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

By retail price, do you mean the MSRP? A game will have 1 MSRP, but stores can vary on the actual price (Circuit City had the new Pokemon games for $28 instead of $35, for example). Also, retail prices and Wii Points are two different things, and a there was a vote 10-1 to KEEP Wii Points (although Rob is still complaining since he was the only one against them and he is pissed off that nobody agreed with him). TJ Spyke 21:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the discussion here is proving that your 10 man 'consensus' is not the be all and end all of this debate. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Wii points are a currency, you have to trade real world currency into virtual currenct, just as you would change a dollar to a pound. You then exchange that currency for a product (I.E. You give your Wii points in exchange for a game, just as you exchange your dollars for a game in a high street retailer, the only difference is the medium through which this is conducted.) DarkSaber2k 22:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This issue here, and the Wii Points issue are not closely intertwined. Please keep the discussions to their relative positions. I think including pricing information in articles is an absolutely ridiculous idea, not only do I not think they are entirely encyclopedic, but mostly because there will be different retail prices for each region unlike online point schemes, and that unlike points schemes, prices will not be consistent throughout the market during a product's life cycle. - hahnchen 23:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I have been bold, I was tired of getting list in video Role playing games article, so i created a new nav box at template:Video RPG. It has no categories yet. I also suggest that the article Role-playing game (video games) is turned into an article instead of a disambig. Best regards and happy editing. Mads Angelbo ^{Talk / Contribs} 08:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Recently I've noticed that Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual novels removes the general WP:VG template from talk pages that they put their own on, under the justification that as a subproject of WP:VG, having both templates is redundant. As far as I know, they are the only subproject which does this. I've never actually seen a formal rule about this, so what are everyone else's thoughts? --PresN 15:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST (which has a bajillion task forces and keeps tally of individual workforce totals) uses both (for example, check out the catlist on Talk:World_War_II). It also removes article counts both from us and WP:ANIME. I'd rather use ((WikiProjectBanners)) or something similar. Nifboy 16:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Why would removing article count be a bad thing? The point of sub-projects and task forces is to divide up focused chunks of work, reducing the burden on the parent project. Even then, we can easily have the count updated to show sub-project counts as well. -- Ned Scott 18:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not see any project's purview become "what hasn't already been taken"; it seems to make parent projects lose whatever focus they had. WP:COUNCIL is probably a better place to ask this question anyway. Nifboy 20:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:TV and WP:ANIME have done this before, and it seems to work out fine. As long as the child project is linking back to the parent project when they can, then it should work out. -- Ned Scott 18:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've started a discussion about moving Template:Future game to Template:Future video game. If you're interested, please have your say at Template talk:Future game#Requested move. Percy Snoodle 11:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this really needed? A good example is: Castlevania (video game). The game has been re-released quite a lot, so categories for each year it came out are listed. In my opinion, this is overcategorization and just making the bottom look like a cluttered mess. It's not helpful when the categories at the bottom gets so large and things seem un-important as there is so many cats overall. With the Virtual Console for the Wii re-releasing games, this problem is growing worse. I think the first year the game came out should be the only thing listed. So if it came out in 1986 originally, then that's all that should be listed for a year category. People can see in the infobox re-release years and so on, why clutter the cats at the bottom with it? RobJ1981 20:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

(continued as I didn't want just a large wall of text). This also includes release dates for USA, Europe and so on. If a game came out in 2 different years, then both years are listed. While this is fine, as it's 2 years... I think this should be discussed as well. I think it could be fine, if the original release year was the only thing listed for the category. RobJ1981 20:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the original date should be used. It doesn't matter if it was released a year later in the US, or was released 10 years later for another console, the date the game was first released anywhere for any system is it's release date. Membership in a single release date category is sufficient. -- Slordak 20:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The response I give pretty much every time the topic comes up is "I'd rather not see Lemmings (video game) go back up to the top ten on Special:Mostcategories." Although I don't feel quite so strongly about it now, I still think that, unless we've got multiple, different games (not mere ports) in the same article (e.g. Shadow of the Beast), there's no need for more than one year. Nifboy 21:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well we have a lot of work to do then. Not counting the Virtual Console re-releases: there is plenty of games that have at least 2 release dates, due to country. I'm tempted to start today, but I will wait to see what a few others think first. RobJ1981 00:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You guys are right, this is something I absolutely hate. There should be one dated category per article, the year of when the game was released anywhere in the world. Any further release data (ports, re-releases etc) should be expressed in the article, whether in the infobox or table. - hahnchen 19:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm starting today to go through articles. If anyone wants to help: a good start is games listed in these articles- List of Virtual Console games (North America), List of Virtual Console games (Europe), List of Virtual Console games (Australia) and List of Virtual Console games (Japan). Besides those: it's a good percent of articles, as years differ by country a lot of the time. Also: I suppose it could be fine if 2 years are on sometimes for video game/arcade. In the case of Donkey Kong (video game), I left 1981 arcade and 1982 video game cat on it when I removed the others. RobJ1981 21:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• COMMENT - Can we get more input into this issue? There are others who don't seem to agree with this, as can be seen at the edit history The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past. I personally think that the reader should be able to look through a category and see all the games that were born in that year. If I see Donkey Kong (video game) in a category, it should be the 1981 arcade or 1982 video game category, there shouldn't be one for every port/localisation/remake of the game. It really has no place in the 2006 video games category (Virtual Console release). - hahnchen 22:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Has this been revolved? I want to archive up to the Wii points convo, but I won't if people want more input here. — Deckiller 17:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

My two pen'th. As far as categories go I think it should be one year and one year only. The year it was born regardless of where. It doesn't sit right with me that a game can be in multiple years and seems even odder that one of those years can now be 20 years + after the others. - X201 18:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

A Link to the Past is a game released in 1991 and 1992. Under the logic presented, we could remove all year categories because all years are presented in the Infobox. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Lots of games were released in several years for various reasons (ports, re-releases, country, etc). I don't think we need to overcategorize just to show this. The infobox clearly has the correct information, the original release year category is all that is needed. RobJ1981 04:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Why does that argument not apply to the original release? If the following releases being in the infobox means that they don't need categories, then why isn't this true for the original release? Categories are for categorizing games based on what kind of games they are. If the 1992 video games category is about games released in 1992, then why not add LttP? Is it not a game released in 1992?

You may either answer that LttP was released in 1991 and 1992. If you say that it wasn't, then you are incorrect. If you say that it is, then that means that it falls under the 1992 category. It's not like it's redundant information. It's in the Zelda category, even though it's painfully obvious that it's a Zelda game by its title. It's in the SNES category, even though the infobox says so. There's no such thing as a category being redundant to the content of the article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, look at Tetris. That seems pretty cluttered, category-wise - but to remove any of the system categories would be incorrect to do so. Even worse on Pac-Man. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Er..? I think you're missing the point of what Rob was suggesting. Rob was talking about removing the Year X in Video Games tags, not the system tags. Look at this version of the Castlevania article [1] It has eight 'Year X in Video Games categories attached to it. Rob was suggesting that articles with multiple year categories should only have one Year in Video Games category and that should be the original year of release. - X201 09:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

He may have been suggesting only for the removal of the year categories. Even though the logic to remove console templates is about the same as the logic to remove year templates. Are you saying that even though A Link to the Past never came out in Europe in 1991, that is the only original release date? I don't think excess of categories is a good reason to arbitrarily decide what should stay. I'm sure we won't decide that Tetris and Pac-Man will only have a category for its original system, but then again, I was sure we wouldn't decide that we shouldn't include valid categories. I just hope we don't decide to remove information on the gameplay mechanics for the sake of making it one paragraph shorter. - A Link to the Past (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Look at it from another angle. Music. Are you saying that Sgt. Pepper should have years listed for the original vinyl release and the CD release and the Minidisc release and the iTunes release not to mention all of the other re-mastered releases? Wikiproject Music list it once in it's year of release, and that's all. Or Biographies. It's like listing multiple birth years for a person each time they enter a new country. Imagine my dad's Wikipedia biography, he would have both People Born in 1932 and People born in 2003 at the bottom of his page because it took him 71 years to go on holiday in another country. - X201 15:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

For every other aspect of the arts, be it film/music/literature, we do not categorise it by every republishing date. That Shaolin Soccer took 3 years to reach Western audiences doesn't mean it is categorised for every different release date. The reader should look through the year category to see a list of games which first saw the light of day in that particular year. Categorising every re-release just clogs up the categories and the articles themselves for no benefit. - hahnchen 17:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Like I said:

1. Categories cannot be redundant to content
2. ALttP verifiably was released in those years, and the categories do not say "games which were first released in this year"
3. Years are just as important as consoles, and yet Pac-Man is so unbelievably cluttered with them. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It does matter. What the categories "say" can be changed, although it is largely irrelevant. The Film categories do state that it is when it was originally released, the Print and Music ones don't, but the same rule applies. Games should fall under similar categorisation rules as the rest of the arts. I don't think that dates of republication are as important as the systems they appeared on. When one visits the console games category, they expect to see the entire software library available to it, not just the exclusives. This is unlike when a reader visits the date category, in which the expect to see the list of games originally published in that year. - hahnchen 19:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

A European gamer will look for the 1992 cat. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what Hahnchen said especially the last point. When I go to a year category I expect to see games that are contemporary with one another. But what has happened in the 2007 category is that as well as games from 2007 it has had Virtual Console games that are up to a quarter of a century older in there as well. - X201 22:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I reiterate - a European gamer will look for a 1992 cat. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

That's too bloody bad, and yes, I am a "European" gamer. More accurately, I am a New Zealand gamer. Would I go for the 1993 category? Would an Indian gamer go for the 1994 category? You can call it a straw man argument, but the dilemma is clear. Perhaps it would be a better idea to rename the category to imply the video game was INTRODUCED at the date. --Teggles 03:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for renaming the category but it needs clear language 'Original year of release'. Introduced is almost a synonym for published. - X201 10:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to rename the categories at all, let's keep it as with the other arts, though we could change the text on the category page itself to specify that. A European (such as myself) is not likely to search the 1992 category for a specific game, but more likely to find all the games introduced in that year. - hahnchen 10:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Didn't mean rename category. Was talking about the text on the category page. Although I still think something like "Introduced" is open to interpretation. "it was introduced in Japan in 2005 and Europe in 2007" - X201 11:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Re-iterating doesn't address the points of the discussion, it's not just about LttP it's about Virtual Console re-releases, mobile phone re-releases and all other changes of format. What if the encyclopaedia user isn't a gamer and doesn't know the year? What if they were looking at a year category via a 2007 game, are we being fair to them that they get a list of 20 year old games in the 2007 category? The video game year category should fall into line with Film/TV and all other Wikipedia arts categories, one category entry per article (with exceptions for re-releases with major alterations/additions) and that entry is the original year of release in one location only. - X201 10:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I have put an explanation and a link to this debate on Wikipedia talk:Categorization so that we can hopefully get some non-video game fan viewpoints. - X201 11:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you remember, or are aware of, how Category:Arcade games by year got deleted after no one objected to it? The discussion here linked from there is now at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/archive23#The arcade categories. (I just noticed that its subcategories were not deleted, merely categorized under the respective category of video games by year like in this edit, so the delete and merge wasn't completed at all. While I ask the closing admin about it, does anyone oppose the delete and merge?)

Anyway, the point is that "by year" categories shouldn't be so specific that it overlaps with type of video game, platform, or nationality. It'd be overdoing it to have "video games released in 2001", "video games released in Europe in 2001", "video games released in Europe on PlayStation 2 in 2001", etc. This doesn't look like the contested format, but it's essentially the same because every year categorized has some region/platform associated with it, just without those extra words. If categories were really powerful tools, then people can search as specific as they like, but for now they shouldn't be able to because these create clutter and confusion at the bottom of articles. Having both "2001 video games" and "2002 video games" at the bottom is unclear, and expanding the category names would create problems and debates about the level of detail they should dwell into). –Pomte 01:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: To see this through, I'm going to have to nominate a merge for Category:1971 arcade games to Category:1971 video games and so on, for all the years. Now, before I go ahead and tag 32 categories, are there any serious objections? –Pomte 19:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection. Arcade is basically a platform, a specialised platform granted, but in the end it's just a way of playing a video game and as such doesn't deserve to have it's own year category. - X201 10:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I've put an extra column on the project page in the Task Forces section to stop the second column of the task force crashing into the category box on the right hand side of the screen. I know peoples screens are set to various resolutions and changes like this have various effects, if this change has an massively adverse affect then drop a line here and we'll try and find a solution that suits everyone. - X201 09:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it fixes the problem I was having on my widescreen monitor with the boxes, thank you! --PresN 16:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

In case people don't know: Wii Points are bought with money to download Virtual Console games for the Nintendo Wii console. The prices of games stay the same (but who is to say they will never change?). Due to this fact of "constant never-changing price", people refuse to have it be deleted from article. I'm still against it, and it's certainly not encyclopedic. List of Virtual Console games (North America) is just one of several pages that lists the Wii Points cost for each game. Why should Wikipedia be a price guide? Here is the past discussion: Talk:List of Virtual Console games (North America)#Wii Points doesn't need to be listed. A survey follows it with a 10 to 0 vote to keep the cruft. Considering the vote happened for 2 days and people assumed it was done, nothing was done with the points and they remained on the article. RobJ1981 22:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Just let it go Rob. You don't want them listed, you made that clear. The vote however showed that you are alone on this. It is encyclopedic and important to the article. Nothing has change since last month when you requested it. TJ Spyke 22:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to let it go. 10 people don't decide what is in an article. Read the above retail price section on this talk page: others are against prices. Wii Points prices isn't much different than retail (except for the fact it's a constant price... for now at least). It's fancruft, and not encyclopedic. Put it on a Nintendo Wiki, leave it off this one. RobJ1981 22:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No one but you were against it. Complaining over and over until you get your way is very imature, and not something I expected from you. TJ Spyke 20:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

List -- the Xbox Live Arcade article shows how many points those games cost as well. The points cost for these games is a way to gauge their relative popularity and value compared to other games ported from the same console. For example, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles costs more than any other game for the same console. I don't see how this information violates any Wikipedia guidelines. -- MisterHand 22:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that Xbox Live points should be included, or Wii points should be included because Xbox Live ones are? DarkSaber2k 08:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, both should be included. But if the Wii points are removed, the Xbox ones should be as well. -- MisterHand 14:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree both should be removed. DarkSaber2k 14:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

List-- For the same reasons given LAST time this was put to a vote. Why are we even bothering to do this a second time? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thores (talk • contribs) 09:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Don't List As I said in the retail price discussion, no compelling argument has been presented for inclusion. Wikipedia is not a price guide of any aort or for any currency, and WP:ILIKEIT is the only reason I'm seeing for inclusing it. The reason we are going through thisagain is becuase it is readily apparant that despite a 10-0 vote on the Wii page, the issue doesn't seem to have been thrown to a wider group and consensus is clearly not there as numerous are objecting to the inclusion of any prices or points totals.DarkSaber2k 09:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

List - Same arguments as last time (e.g. useful information, does not vary over time unlike retail prices, is currency independent, etc.). Please see the archive for details. -- Slordak 12:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

So by that logic, we can add patently unencyclopedic information like scores different enemies in arcade games give you? That's also useful, doesn't vary over time and is currency/country independent. DarkSaber2k 13:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Eh? You're saying you don't think the price of a game (in points) is useful information? It's certainly verifiable and able to be cited from sources. It's something people care about, it's not "crufty" or only of interest to those who are deeply involved with the game, and helps define that a game is a "value" title (rather than a full-priced retail title). -- Slordak 14:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's crufty and it's only going to be of interest to people who already own a Wii, and are therefore able to look up the prices themselves. Why would someone who doesn't own a Wii be interested in how much it costs to download a game they can't play for a system they don't own? As for the price of a game being useful information, please remember that Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. Your arguing we should include because it's useful and interesting, and still can't provide a more solid reason for inclusion. DarkSaber2k 14:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

When a site such as IGN reviews an Xbox Live Arcade game, they list the price within the review. In contrast, when they review a retail game, they don't mention the price unless it's notable in some way, e.g. MSRP is $20 when games for that platform are usually $60. They do this because it helps to provide perspective for their review, "It's a good game... For $10", rather than "It's a good game, completely independent of price". Wikipedia isn't in the business of reviewing games, but Wikipedia is here to provide details about various subjects. If a game sells for the standard retail price, then there's obviously nothing to mention, but if a game is a value priced title, this bears mentioning. If one can only say "is targeted at the value segment" or "is positioned as a value title" but is not allowed to state that price, it makes the article less informative. By logical extension of your argument above, the majority of video game topics are "crufty" because they're only interesting to gamers, so most of WP:CVG should be deleted. -- Slordak 14:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

(resetting indent) So your moving from WP:ILIKEIT to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS? Stick to arguing about Wii points and there encyclopedic value please. We are not reviewing the whole of CVG project, just Wii points. If you have a problem with other articles, I suggest you go deal with them. You have also argued yourself into a corner. A casual glance at the list reveals that 500 points is a NORMAL retail price for the games. Practically every game is priced at 500 points, so what's so notable about that? You've already said regular shop prices for games are not included because they are usually the same. The same applies here. VC points are in 99% of the time exactly the same. DarkSaber2k 14:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see that we're not going to change each other's minds through this discussion. My point was that game articles have lots of information in them, not all of which is of interest to all viewers. The fact that every GameCube article states that the game comes on a GameCube disc (over in the infobox) is redundant, and yet I don't lobby to have it deleted. Your stance is what I term that of a deletionist, someone who would delete all content on Wikipedia that can't be "proven" to be encyclopedic to all viewers. Since this is a subjective standard, the intersection of topics from all deletionists, if allowed to have their way, eventually will yield an empty encyclopedia. -- Slordak 14:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If we can stick to remaining on topic, and not devolve into name-calling and issue dodging (again, we are discussing Wii points, not Gamecube game formats, and besides, the various Lists of console games don't list the media format that's game on, e.g. It doesn't say 'DVD' after each and every entry on List of PlayStation 2 games) that would be great. The only time the price changes is with desired console. So at best all that's needed is a sentence that say 'N64 games cost 1000 points each'. There certainly isn't a need to actually list that value 4 times one after the other. (or more times in the case of the other consoles.) Now, do you have reply in response to what I have said, or is it still pretty much based on ILIKEIT arguments, and my editing personality? Remember, your supposed to comment on content, not editors. DarkSaber2k 14:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Are we talking only about the list, or about the individual game articles? If every Wii virtual console game had the same pricing, then yes, I can reasonably see removing this information from the list. The problem is that we start to wind up with exceptions, e.g. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, which have to be noted separately. After some time passes, we have multiple exceptions, and thus we're better served by having the price of each captured separately (rather than have a long paragraph about what costs more or less). In the individual game articles, this is a key distinguishing feature and worth a sentence. I don't know how else to "prove" notability other than to say that other users find it useful (based on previous votes), review sites regularly contain this information, and that folks make their decision whether to purchase an Xbox Live Arcade game based in part on price vs. perceived value (see Lumines Live!). -- Slordak 15:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I count two games that are different from the standard price. At this time, to say there ARE going to more is just predicting the future. I agree that if a game is differently priced from the norm, then a sentence noting as such in the games individual article is perfectly acceptable. But to list the price '500' 25 times just because the 26th price differs is ridiculous, becuase by the logic of not listing standardised pricing, ONLY the 26th price shuld be mentioned because it is different from the norm. You said yourself that shop prices aren't listed because they are nearly always the same. So why should a virtual shops prices be held to a different criteria? DarkSaber2k 15:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't List per DarkSaber2k's arguments. Kariteh 14:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• List This was already decided on the talkpage, so this who section is moot. Why do I think that if the request fails, Rob is just gonna be complaining again in the future? Rob, take a look at WP:IDONTLIKEIT. My opinions were already expressed in the discussion where everyone (except Rob) agreed that the prices are a very important part of the service and should be included. TJ Spyke 20:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how prices [in this context] are encyclopedic. Whether they are currency independant (It's really more like a separate currency that most people are unfamilar with) or "useful" is not really important. Prices are borderline directory-style information. Prices are or should be easily accessible from one or more external links. If they are not accessible from an external link, they should probably not be included then as they would fail WP:V and WP:RS. Also "This was already decided on the talkpage, so this who section is moot" is very poor reasoning as the only "decision" on the talk page was a couple days of indecisive discussion and a 9 hour poll of 10 users, with most users giving a WP:ILIKEIT or WP:USEFUL reasoning. Polling is not a substitute for discussion. The information is much better put into a gaming wiki or left on other external sites. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC) edited to make less of a blanket statement 22:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It was not a "9 hour poll", people just stopped voting after a day. The poll was never closed, someone just posted what the current consenus was, not the final consensus (people could continue to vote). So, the poll has actually been open for over a month. TJ Spyke 23:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I keep seeing the phrase "prices aren't encyclopedic". So I did a quick search on a random, but established product: the Ford Model T. Both the online article at Wikipedia and Britannica included information about the price. -- MisterHand 21:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The Model T is famous partially for being one of the first affordable passenger cars. The price, which hasn't changed recently (except for the inflation adjusted one which needs to be updated or removed) is quite relevant there. Note that Chevrolet Nova does not include a price. Neither does Buick LaCrosse which is currently in production. This is also a variation on the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Not at all. I'm just pointing out that the blanket statement "prices aren't encyclopedic" isn't true. Prices CAN be encyclopedic. Of course, it doesn't follow that Wii points are encyclopedic -- although I think they are, for reasons stated above. -- MisterHand 22:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
      • The reason you stated above was that they should be listed because Xbox Live marketplace points are listed wasn't it? DarkSaber2k 22:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Z-man, you do realize that one of the reasons those cars don't have it is because none of them have set prices? Car prices vary by dealership (and even individual cardealers). Virtual Consoles don't fluctuate like that (except for Genesis games starting at 600 in Japan and 800 everywhere else). TJ Spyke 23:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Cars still have an MSRP, which is usually the advertised price. Some very expensive cars (see Lamborghini Murciélago) do include base prices on their articles as these are known for their high cost. And as I said before, the reason Ford Model T does include prices is not because they don't change but because the cost is, like the Lamborghini, part of the fame of the car. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
        • All I was stating above is that we should be consistent, one way or the other. I do find it curious, however, that Wii points are being attacked again and again whereas Xbox Live points are getting a free ride. Perhaps this debate shouldn't be about Wii points, but all video game points listings? -- MisterHand 12:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Lets not confuse the issue by introducing new elements this late. The discussion is already well under way for Wii points. Either starting a new but seperate debate, or waiting until the conclusion of this one would be better than trying to introduce it to this. If Wii points are kept then there isn't an issue with Xbox points, and if the decision is to remove them the we have a precedent that can be applied to XBox points. DarkSaber2k 13:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you think, should I find some admins to rule on this? Because at this rate: it's just going to be a constant arguement with no end in sight. Also this section isn't moot (as TJ Spyke claimed): the talk page discussion in the past doesn't control and determine that "forever we will list Wii Points" in the article. I don't think ANY discussion can do that, so using that as an excuse to end this, isn't going to work. RobJ1981 22:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If that happens, I would like any admin to note that no reason has been presented to really delete it (other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT and that a poll started over a month ago on the talkpage resulted in only 1 person (Rob) opposing including them. I want to assume good faith, but Rob, you have admitted you are not going to give up on this (even though it looks like once again the general opinion will be to include them). If this is an issue, then why has no one objected to Xbox Live Arcade prices being included for the past few years? TJ Spyke 23:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

That's funny, I could have sworn I agreed with MisterHand that XBox live points should be removed earlier in this debate. And once again the only thing your saying is if x is on wiki, then y should remain also. And I think an admin should preside over this, not some straw poll kangaroo court. And TJ, pretty sure WP:NOT indiscriminate information, price guide and shopping directory is fairly valid reason for removal. And has been stated numerous times. DarkSaber2k 23:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

"a poll started over a month ago on the talkpage resulted in only 1 person (Rob) opposing including them." - Consensus can change. As of now, there are 4 users favoring inclusion and 4 users (including myself) that are advocating removal. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)