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.

It's probably too early to tell how this will fall out through the rest of the industry, but if you haven't seen the news, Gerstmann was fired from Gamespot after a 10 year stint after giving Kane and Lynch a bad review, and Eidos, who was advertising the game heavily on their site. I'm sure most of us know that there's always so bias due to advertiser influences in video games, but this is the first strong example that some of these gaming sites may not be reliable sources as they are biased by advertising dollars.

I doubt this changes our current status quo for how we approach game articles: these sites are still good secondary sources for direct news, but now there's the question if using Gamespot reviews (and potentially other major site) reviews to support that a game is "good". Right now, I don't think we do need to change, but I'm just bringing this up in case someone in the future points this out - we should really state why what common sources we use are considered "reliable sources" for purposes of WP. --MASEM 04:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Was just coming here to leave a warning: watch for vandalism at Jeff Gerstmann, Eidos Interactive, CNET Networks, Kane & Lynch: Dead Men, etc. I noticed there have been some additions in some articles, and the GameSpot fans have been attacking Eidos forums. It is a bomb about to explode. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 04:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

good idea: I've gone and requested a week long semi-prot on these articles for it to blow over (the news came late in the day, the vandals will likely strike in the morning). --MASEM 05:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if the articles should be protected right now. Maybe in four or five hours, once vandalism is constant. Protection is not a preventive measure, it is a last option when there is no doubt the article integrity is in danger. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 05:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Should this incident be mentioned in articles yet? I've seen mentions of it in the articles Rey mentions (in addition to Gamespot) and my problem with it that so far, this whole story is just a rumor based on a report from gaming blog Kotaku, who start their report on this incident with "We've heard an unsettling rumor today from an anonymous tipster", which seems to indicate this isn't exactly a reliable source we're working with on this. Should mentions of this on articles wait until there's some sort of official confirmation from Gamespot or Gertsmann himself? (Not that it would stop the anons and SPAs who would do so anyway in the name of "informing" people, but still...) NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 10:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Stop the spreading rumours on Wikipedia, this thing is totally unsourced, people are just stabbing in the dark. Gamespot is still a reliable source as well as the other major online players for recent reviews.

For their old stuff though, published when the were an online minnow? No way, none of the online giants had any kind of influence or credibility before the PlayStation 2 generation. CNet should be stable enough not to be swayed by a single advertiser, but it's not always been the case.

Which is why I will not support articles on WP:FAC such as 1080 Snowboarding which rely mostly on online sources for their reception sections. I also oppose most FACs where sales data is lacking, but not everyone has standards. - hahnchen 12:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The only confirmed news is that Gerstmann is out at Gamespot. The why is not yet known, I'm sure we'll know today.

One of the problems with print data for video games is that that market moves much faster than print journalism allows. There's a handle of magazines that don't have online duplication of their material as well. It would be great if there were more print sources for video games but these aren't things that are covered in reliable print sources outside of the gaming press save on controversial issues (eg Jack Thompson vs Take Two). This is why I suggest that we may serious want to consider listing what online/offline sources are appropriate for calling "reliable secondary sources". Thinking about how this applies to the Gerstmann issue more, if it becomes the case that a "reliable source" review of a game is found to be influenced or biased after the fact for a game, it should be pulled , but that's a case by case basis.--MASEM 14:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of sources, is anyone still working on Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources ? It's been "proposed" for a while now. JACOPLANE • 2007-11-30 21:34

I see several recent edits. The page is only a week old. SharkD 03:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

People have been vandalizing the GameSpot, CNET, Eidos Interactive, and Kane and Lynch articles. I assume Jeff Gerstmann has probably been hit too, although I haven't checked. Some cleanup may be in order. --Optichan 22:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

See the section above :) JACOPLANE • 2007-11-30 22:26

I suggest adding one or more of the following from Template:Infobox Software:

1. latest release version
2. latest release date
3. latest preview version
4. latest preview date

This is useful for open source games (or games like Battlecruiser 3000AD) where content is added post-release or over a lengthy period of time, or for games which haven't reached v1.0 yet (such as Vega Strike). SharkD 03:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

A Purpose specifically oriented for boxart should be added. Maybe something like "The image is being used for no purpose other than to identify the subject of the article" (copied from Image:CivIVboxshot.jpg). Also, if you could provide some example rationales for images that aren't low-res, that would be great. SharkD 03:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I've had images removed from Turn-based strategy, citing an invalid fair use rationale for that article. Could you clarify the rationale in this regard? Thanks. SharkD 03:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you point to an edit or an image that has been removed? Likely the image was tagged by BetaCommandBot, which is charged to make sure all non-free images on WP meet WP:NFCC, specifically having rationale and licensing, and making sure WP:NFCC#10c is met: having the exact article name the image is used in present in the fair-use rationale for the image. --MASEM 15:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

This and this edit (one of the two times it was called "spam"), both by User:Frecklefoot. SharkD 04:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The images that I checked do require a fair-use rationale to explain their purpose on the page. This can be done a couple of ways, one way is through the use of the ((Template:Non-free use rationale)) template. There is no reason that once they are properly rationaled, they can be included on the page (screenshots of turn-based strategy games on the turn-based strategy game article is fully appropriate). Though I do wonder how Monopoly is considered turn-based strategy - not that it isn't but that stretches the definition. --MASEM 05:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. The images were not removed because they were lacking a proper rationale in their pages; they were removed because the user thought their use in a genre article was improper. RE:Monopoly - Note that turn-based game and turn-based strategy were, for a lengthy period, merged into a single article. That may explain why Monopoly was listed. Also, it's a game of strategy (though I prefer to reserve the term, TBS, for strategic wargames). SharkD 22:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed that some major emulator articles (Kega Fusion and VisualBoyAdvance) have been proposed for deletion. I wish to bring this to the attention to this WikiProject, because it is likely that all the emulator articles will have to be deleted, considering the concerns given in the proposed deletions. --tgheretford (talk) 11:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with the deletion concerns on those articles: neither article demonstrates why those emulators are notable - particularly as they are non-commercial products as well. I very much doubt more visible projects like MAME need to be deleted. This is not say that a page of "major emulators" isn't appropriate which can lump the non-notable ones into a single list. --MASEM 15:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

With regard to emulator articles and Wikipedia:Notability, I think WP:IAR must apply. There is an apparent taboo that prevents mention of console emulators in general (an even more so of specific emulators) in "reliable" gaming publications and other mainstream press; whether this is due to pressure from the industry, fear of such pressure, concern over possible legal liabilities, concern over provoking lawsuits against emulators by giving them attention, or something else, I do not know. It seems the only way for an emulator to get press is to be sued, and those in a position to do so seem to feel it's not worth the effort as long as the emulator stays out of the press and doesn't try to turn a profit. Thus, the lack of "reliable secondary sources" is not due to a lack of Wikipedia:Notability but to this taboo.

This is not to say any emulator article gets a "free pass" or that an article "List of major emulators for <system>" wouldn't be a better idea for many cases, but strictly applying WP:N would result in even MAME being deleted as the article currently stands.

I am willing to change my view if someone can demonstrate that reliable secondary sources for console emulators in general (not just emulators for modern consoles, but NES, SNES, Genesis, and such too) do exist outside of lawsuits. Anomie⚔ 15:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the MAME article is just underedited ; a casual search at news.google.com on "mame emulation" gives even a few Businessweek links among several other reliable sources - how to connect them all would take some time - and this is more than just lawsuits, its about uses of Mame. ScummVM would be another that should be well-sourced by the same quick search test. I just don't think every emulator will have the same ability, nor is it WP's job to have a specific article for each emulator.

I understand the taboo issue, though last I heard emulators themselves are not illegal - only the distribution of the ROM images for them are - but its hard to discuss the emulation without saying where one can get stuff to use with it. I'm doing a quick scan of the emulators on List of emulators and most of the pages are non-notable nor appropriate - they describe development history aspects, which, without having notability, just weigh the article down. These articles are comparable to writing an article on a piece of free/shareware that has not received significant coverage -- and basically should be deleted though only after giving notice and time for concerned editors to try to remedy the situation.

My suggestion is that list of emulators can likely be improved to be more than just a list - each emulator can probably get one or two lines about who made it and what's special about it, but not much more detail is needed for that. --MASEM 16:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want to be completely accurate about it, some ROM images are perfectly legal to distribute; it all depends on whether the copyright holder has authorized the distribution. Not that anyone would want them (they're just test patterns and such), but I have quite a number of such SNES ROMs.

It's actually quite easy to discuss emulation without pointing people to illegal content. For the most part, you can even link to the emulator's homepage as most emulator sites seem to have have a strict policy against telling people where to get non-free ROM images.

I agree that List of video game console emulators (perhaps with console sublists for WP:SUMMARY purposes) could hold all the relevant information about most console emulators, although more than just one or two lines may be needed. For example, taking bsnes, incorporating the "OS", "Status" and "License" from the infobox, and revising the second paragraph for conciseness seems like it would be just about right:

bsnes^[1] for Linux and Windows was started by byuu on October 14, 2004, and a Mac OS X port was added by Richard Bannister in 2005.^[2] It is currently in active development under a custom license.^[3] bsnes focuses primarily on accuracy, providing bus accurate processor emulation which requires substantial overhead. As such, at least a Intel Core 2 is recommended to achieve full speed.^[4]

(The page and section headings take care of identifying it as an emulator for the SNES/SFC)

Something like ZSNES with more history would need slightly more discussion, while ideally something like MAME would be able to stand on its own and have a summary in the list article. Anomie⚔ 18:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the prod on Visual Boy Advance. Google has four hundred thousand hits on "Visual Boy Advance" -forum -blog which I believe to be a sufficiently huge number to make common sense override the immediate requirement for secondary sources. With that many hits (compare to the average gamecube game), some secondary source must have addressed it, we just didn't get around to finding that source. User:Krator (t c) 19:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I know I'm prolly guilty of a few emulators which won't ever become something besides a stub, and I'd be happy to merge them in. Perhaps a portion of the infobox could be kept for each one, to detail the release date, etc.? I'll draft what I'm thinking of in userspace later if I can. David Fuchs ^(talk) 19:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I was going to suggest making this list a sortable table, listing platform emulated, platform the software runs on, website, author, release date, and then a "notes" column that would be for those emulators that lack pages or are merged back to the list. Info for those with their own pages should still be on the table with full info. --MASEM 20:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Something like that is already in place at List of SNES emulators. Personally, it makes my screen scroll horizontally and IMO still doesn't contain enough information to support a merge. Anomie⚔ 01:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

What about something like Nintendo DS emulation? --Teggles 02:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I had in mind. Although the section on ROMs is unnecessary, ROM image handles the general situation and there is no information specific to the DS. Anomie⚔ 14:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

But there will be, as there are tools specifically used for dumping Nintendo DS ROMs. Those can be discussed. The format of the ROMs can be discussed too. --Teggles 19:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good then. Anomie⚔ 03:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that game Console/Handheld/PC Emulators can have articles, but maybe we should have some type of guidelines written up exclusively for Video Game Emulation software. I think it fits within' he range for "WikiProject Video games" Smile Lee 04:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:VG/GL would be the appropriate location for it, but I don't think we're quite ready to start writing guidelines yet. Anomie⚔ 14:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I would argue we already have one: Notability. Emulators that have received coverage in reliable sources should have their own page; all others should be merged to appropriate lists or tables or however we decide. Just because a piece of user-written, third-party software exists doesn't mean we cover it on WP. --MASEM 14:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we were talking about article content guidelines, not notability guidelines. At least, I was. Anomie⚔ 03:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I was talking about content guidelines, because the content to cover in emulators comes in different medias than most. Smile Lee 10:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources are a bad standard for notability of emulators. Why? Because most of the things they do are illigal. This does not make it any less notable, but does make it less likely that established sources devote an article to specific subjects within the field. User:Krator (t c) 12:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

A number of people take emulators and use them to violate copyright, but emulators as such are not illegal despite what certain large corporations want people to think. Consider Console Classix, for example: if emulators were illegal they would have been sued into oblivion long ago. Anomie⚔ 14:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, modern emulators are illegal since they circumvent access control systems, see Digital Millennium Copyright Act. JACOPLANE • 2007-12-4 15:09

Obviously there needs to be careful concern for the modern ones, but ones for NES and those types of systems where access control was not present are still legal. But to Krator's comment on that lack of notability in secondary sources due to the perceived copyvios, unfortunately, there's no exception when the content is perceived that way - lack of secondary sources is still a lack of secondary sources.

A better way to view this is that trying to go into the details of every single emulator is akin to a game guide - from an encyclopedic standpoint, it is worth noting there are game system emulators that cover numerous console hardwares for numerous platforms and that there are legal issues in using them. It is worth noting via their own articles the small handful of emus that have gotten noted coverage in reliable secondary sources. It is worth listing down those emus for older systems that are not copyvios (NES and such) in a list or table. That's sufficient to coverage the range of information that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia. To go further and include pages on other individual emus that lack secondary sources due to any number of means (the perceived copyvio leading to lack of coverage included) is approaching the addition of indiscriminate info. --MASEM 15:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is an exception: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." That said, I don't see enough material on almost all console emulator articles I've checked to justify not merging into List of video game console emulators (or console-specific subarticles like Nintendo DS emulation), and I think we have consensus here on that (next step is to seek consensus among those who edit the individual articles but don't pay attention here, if any), although we haven't yet agreed on how the merged article should look (IMO, List of SNES emulators is going a bit too far).

If I get time soon, I will try some merging in my sandbox to see how it works in practice. Anomie⚔ 13:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI, two more emulator articles are also up for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dolphin_(emulator) and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/NO$GBA. Mdmkolbe 15:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I note both have been withdrawn by the nominator, although the second has not yet been officially closed. Anomie⚔ 13:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Several other WikiProjects have outreach departments where major developments in project organization or policy are announced to participants. I think something similar would be beneficial for this project as well. For example, several participants have recently started Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Cleanup, which is a fantastic idea, but needs widespread participation to be truly successful. I think we should advertise such drives to people listed in Category:WikiProject Video games members. Anyone want to help me get this started? JACOPLANE • 2007-12-2 01:00

I'd like to see this initiated, but it would be a major job. We'll probably need a bot on board and whatnot - but it sounds like a good idea :) Dihydrogen Monoxide ^♫ 02:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree it's a good idea, but a bot will be needed to advertise to the hordes of CVG cat'd peoples. David Fuchs ^(talk) 23:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm having trouble with a few I.P.'s on virtually every Sonic the Hedgehog game. He keeps adding every level onto the article, and reverts me when I remove them. I've explained my actions in the edit summary several times, but have gotten no response. I'd appreciate some help with this. DurinsBane87 10:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Mind naming some specific titles? I'll see what I can do. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 11:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Really, just pick ANY of the game articles. It's a series wide thing. Like 8 or 9 games, at least. They're not a problem right now, But i'm sure they'll be back. Just pick a game and check the revision history, you'll see it. DurinsBane87 11:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I just checked your contributions list, and good lord. Have you tried talking to this person through their talk page? I know since they're hopping between so many IP addresses that it might be useless, but it's worth a shot. I'll add some of these to my watchlist and keep an eye on them. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 11:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I left one on ONE of the I.P.s, but I didn't notice it was more than one till like 5 minutes ago, because the number's were so similar. I followed up on the latest two with messages though. DurinsBane87 11:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I just started to see what you're talking about on the Sonic Blast for Game Gear article. I came over here to see if there was any mention of this history and sure enough, there it is. What's up? --Bishop2 14:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It's happening on pretty much EVERY Sonic game article. The actual I.P. keeps changing, but I still suspct it's the same guy. Any chance we could get them all temporarily protected against I.P.s? I think even if it was just for a few days it would kill the problem. DurinsBane87 15:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Given that the new company is called Activision Blizzard, should we merge Activision and Blizzard Entertainment into that article or start a new one? JACOPLANE • 2007-12-2 17:40

I would personally say a merge with a nice, well cited, history section. Otherwise, down the road, they're going to end up being merged from three to one, and that's even more of a pain. Zemalia 17:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Aye, merge them with a concise history section detailing both companies. I'm convinced by the following comments, keep Blizzard and Activision, simply make sure its all put into past tense when the merge of the companies is fully complete. I also doubt that the logo will remain the same, given the incorporation of Blizzard into the company's name. -- Sabre 21:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Square Enix. And yes, creating a single article with the best of both worlds and redirecting both Activision and Blizzard Entertainment to the new article is the correct solution. -- ReyBrujo 21:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Wait, delete that. This is a new company, with a brand new history. Blizzard Entertainment and Activision should stay as articles, while a new one is created, just like Square Enix became a new article but the individual company articles stayed (changing everything to past tense). -- ReyBrujo 21:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Merging it outright is going to cause a lot of problems though. There's a lot of content on the Blizzard page (Controversies, titles, corporate culture) that just would not fit on an Activision merged page, but shouldn't be lost though. I agree with ReyBrujo as well. --Marty Goldberg 21:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your deleted comments, one option is to move the Blizzard/Activision-specific text (if there's too much of it) to a "History of Blizzard Entertainment" or "History of Activision" article. SharkD 00:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

An interesting point under Blizzard's FAQ: see point 2. If they are keeping their original name then I'd imagine that they may still be publishing using the name Blizzard Entertainment, much like under the old arrangement with Vivendi. I don't think we're going to be seeing "developed by Activision Blizzard" on the box of StarCraft II. Also bear in mind that according to that FAQ the merge won't be complete until mid-2008. It could be a long time until we see some major changes in the works. -- Sabre 22:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It would get complicated if we merged every defunct company article. Companies are bought and sold all the time. What if EA would buy Activion Blizzard? We would merge all info to EA article? It would make no sense. --Mika1h 23:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose any merger. With other mergers, we just create a new article (like how both Namco and Bandai kept their articles when they merged to from Namco Bandai, same with the Square Enix merger). TJ Spyke 00:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, no merger should be done; if one of the companies was sufficiently small to have only a stub or less on WP, then it would make sense, but not with Activision and Blizzard. --MASEM 00:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I also oppose any merger for exactly the reasons stated by Mika1h & Masem. Create new article for new company and past tense and link "old" articles. - X201 14:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but I currently oppose any merger until we see in action whether or not Blizzard will opt to keep themselves a separate credited developer, i.e. "Rare" after they were essentially absorbed into Microsoft. However, I think this is definitely something we need to keep an eye on and revisit in the future... --Bishop2 14:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Start new article. Change the former articles to past tense. When businesses merge, this is the regular procedure. Might also ask on WP:BUSINESS. User:Krator (t c) 16:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Should games like those on the Virtual Console have only their original reviews? Ratings or just comments, should the new reviews be mentioned at all? « ₣ullMetal ₣alcon » 18:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless there's a huge difference in ratings, I don't think it deserves much of a mention. Maybe just a "... the Virtual Console rerelease was..." type of ending to the reception? David Fuchs ^(talk) 19:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The usual approach for this is to just mention it on the existing game's page, e.g. Defender, Pac-Man, Tapper, Bomberman, all of which have been released on Xbox 360 Live Arcade. --Oscarthecat 21:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

How about the way F-Zero X mentions it? « ₣ullMetal ₣alcon » 01:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Can some people help me keep an eye on this? Several people keep adding a section for upcoming games, that isn't from a reliable source and is just original research. They claim it's alright, because the site has guessed the upcoming games right several times already. The information isn't useful for the article, and the sections just encourage off topic posting such as this: Talk:List of Virtual Console games (North America)#November 26. Saying the new releases are crappy, has nothing to do with the article. RobJ1981 23:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

1)The site hasn't guessed anything. Like most decent sites, they have a Nintendo rep. One of the editors of the site started reviewing VC games a few weeks ago and got their Nintendo rep to give him the PR release a couple of days early so he can have a review ready for Monday morning. So he's not guessing, he's using the info from the official PR release Nintendo releases on Monday, the only way he could be wrong is if Nintendo changes their mind at the very last minute. This editor also posts at NeoGAF, where he reveals which systems that weeks games will be for (he also posts hints at what the games will be, and sometimes posts the exact games, like he did this week and a couple of weeks ago). I have shown that he is reliable, and you are not the boss of the article Rob (and it's bizarre how you think someone calling you stubborn is a personal attack). I just hope you don't violate 3RR (you are at 3 reverts for it). TJ Spyke 00:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not at 3 reverts. The 3RR violation occurs after the 4th revert in a 24-hour period. I'm currently at 2 for the timeframe. RobJ1981 01:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of overlap between Category:Video game gameplay, Category:Game terminology and Category:Video game design. Maybe we can discuss the role of each category, and how best to allocate articles to them. SharkD 00:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Game terminology needs to be renamed to "Game concepts" or something similar to that. Everything in Wikipedia is part of the "terminology" of something, a redundant term.
• Video game gameplay is a valid category and should remain as it is. Perhaps can be a subcat of the above.
• Game design is a valid category too, but several articles need to be moved to gameplay probably.
  User:Krator (t c) 15:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Terminology (especially Category:Terminology, Category:Lists of terms and Category:Glossaries) is used quite often in titles of articles and categories. I'm not convinced the category needs a rename. SharkD 18:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

These 4 articles: PlayStation Portable System Software, PlayStation 3 System Software,Wii System Software and Xbox 360 System Software are useful, but I don't see them as encyclopedic. They are just lists of everytime the system was updated. I'm considering putting them in AFD, but I'm not sure what reasoning to give. Thoughts? RobJ1981 01:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I'm pretty new to Wikipedia, and interested in joining the video games project. I have many fond memories of Atari ST games in particular, and have noticed that there are many well known, or 'considered classic' ST games which do not have articles yet, so my plan very loosely is to work though List of Atari ST games, create articles where it seems needed, and try and expand stubs, contribute screenshots, etc for other games, so long as that's ok with everyone. I've already created my first article here: Archipelagos (computer game)

I've added the Video Games WikiProject userbox to my userpage, as it said that anybody could, but wasn't sure if there was any more proper way to join this project, or announce my intention to get involved. I'm still pretty new at doing any kind of editing on Wikipedia outside of the reference desk though, so let me know if there's anything I should be doing differently. Thanks :) --Monorail Cat 22:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

That's about it. You might want to familiarize yourself with the various subpages of this project like the Article guidelines, Assessment department, Cleanup department, Magazine archive, and the Peer review. In addition to those there are the standard guidelines and policies of Wikipedia we have to adhere. It's a lot of info to go over, but worth skimming through to know where to check for what. If you have any questions about editing video game articles this is the place to do it. Welcome to the project. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC))

Hi Monorail Cat, welcome to WP:VG! Nice job on the Archipelagos article - I remember the game (or at least being quite confused by it) on the Amiga back in the day, so it's nice to finally read what it was all about! Anyway, I've also noticed the lack of many ST game articles so I'm glad someone's come along to put it right - if you need magazine sources for any ST games let me know, I've got most issues of C&VG and The One from around that time. Cheers, Miremare 22:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You may want to also check out the Atari taskforce. They are members of the VG Project that focus primarily on Atari related articles. I don't know if it's still active, worth checking out though. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC))

I've redone Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/to do, which is used in ((vgproj)). So now the template lists all current peer reviews, current articles that have been accepted by the cleanup department, current FACs, as well as some other tasks. When adding a new peer review or FAC, please also add it to the template. JACOPLANE • 2007-12-4 15:54

I'm thinking we could add GA candidates to that as well - WP:AWNB does something similar. On the other hand, they'd all be clumped together at GAC...I dunno, any thoughts? Dihydrogen Monoxide ^♫ 06:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Since they're listed in one section at GAC and also at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Good articles, let's not bother trying to keep up with another duplicate list. Pagrashtak 16:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of GA/GACs, while looking through the recent GAs, I have to wonder how a gameguide article like Warhawk (PlayStation 3 game) got to become one. Either the reviewer is a fan of the game or he/she doesn't know the guidelines the project has established. Should some sort of guidance on a game-article's style be introduced in the VG project template? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.4.136 (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, 'tis a bad article, but the GA guidelines are clear enough; the problem lies with the reviewers. I suggest taking Warhawk to WP:GAR; I'm currently in the process of weeding out bad vg articles from the GA archives via the Sweeps, but that'll take a while. David Fuchs ^(talk) 23:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to help with a new game article called President Forever 2008 + Primaries (Political Game), but I'm not sure what a more appropriate title would be for the article. The additional classification via the bracketed (political game) isn't necessary, there's not going to be another article with this game's title, but what about the plus sign?Someone another (talk) 06:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yea, dump the Political game - it's not needed. As for the plus sign , I would create redirects where it's replaced with "&" and "and". Otherwise, a + is a common symbol and ok to use in article names. --MASEM 06:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Someone another (talk) 06:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Two weeks ago Pagrashtak had asked why do we have ((VG Navigation groups)) and ((VG Navigation)). The reason is due to a (mostly enforced) former policy that attempted to ensure that navboxes remained small. The former policy has remained uncontested since July, the history tag was temporary, was contested, and for whatever reason it seems to have stuck. For what I can say about ((navbox)) is that it attempted to fix the problems that were practically non-existent and doesn't fix the problems that our ex-policy addressed. —Dispenser (talk) 13:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

While it is good to have small navboxes, it is better to have organized navboxes. While going through all the video game navboxes, I noticed that on most of them it is hard to tell which links are games, which links are spin-offs, characters, movies, etc. That's where ((VG Navigation groups)) comes in. The problem with ((VG Navigation groups)) and ((VG Navigation)) is that they don't have the hide button, which does discourage bloated navboxes but I noticed many VG articles that have many navboxes on them that are uncollapsed and take alot of space. Also, when it comes to VG navboxes, there really isn't much you can bloat them with, since most of VG articles are getting deleted and merged now. —TigerK 69 (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This so-called "deprecation" had virtually no discussion about its merits or whether or not it was good for the project or better than the original boxes. At least AMIB's proposal had a few more supporters and more than one person unilaterally changing all the navboxes over. I disagree with this implementation and vigorously dispute the "depreciated" nature of the original CVG navigation template. hbdragon88 (talk) 10:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I really wish I had more time to discuss this right now and the issues and to look back the archive to see if what was discussed and what parts consensus was reach, but now I'm going to remove the deprecate tag. And maybe starting in two week I'll have some time to look at the issues. —Dispenser (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Why are Bastila Shan, HK-47 and T3-M4 still separated from the respective lists? Are they more "notable" than the other characters from those games? — Raffaello9 | Talk | 16:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't imageine why either of those are kept, unless some RS can be found for them. If you can't find any sources, you might want to PROD or AFD. Dihydrogen Monoxide ^♫ 23:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Please add a video game screenshot (particulalry a high-res one) to Wikipedia:Use rationale examples. Thanks. SharkD (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

For what reason? Also, we don't use high-resolution screenshots unless they are free content, in which case they have nothing to do with that page. Pagrashtak 15:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Political game, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((dated prod)) notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add ((db-author)) to the top of Political game. SharkD (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The author of the article wasn't a registered user, so I thought I'd post it here. SharkD (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Here are the reasons I proposed deletion (copied from the deletion template): "Topic already covered by Government simulation game. Games covered here but not in that article haven't established notability." SharkD (talk) 02:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

A partial merger might also be appropriate (wherever reliable sources can be found). The list of non-notable games really belongs in DMOZ, not here. SharkD (talk) 02:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Please report video game-related deletion proposals at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Deletion. Thanks, Pagrashtak 15:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I've edited a section of WP:VG/GL, and added the shortcut WP:GAMECRUFT. The meaning did, at least not on purpose, change beyond the addition of one point, namely point three. Please review the following diffs:

1. the rewrite
2. the proposal

User:Krator (t c) 13:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. However, I'd use another example than Warcraft, as Warcraft universe isn't a "quality" (for want of a better expression) example of an article of that type. Maybe one of the featured or good article ones, such as World of Final Fantasy VIII, would be more suitable? I'm sure that's had stuff merged into it.

I also made a minor edit adding Steam games to the point about achievements considering they're increasingly being used. -- Sabre (talk) 15:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability and encyclopedic value are things we have to address as soon as possible. It's a farce that articles on Characters of Oblivion, which features noted actors such as Terrence Stamp and Sean Bean are getting deleted, yet we parade other in universe articles such as Characters in Castlevania: Sorrow series on FAC. - hahnchen 17:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I wish someone with reason and authority would please try to put a leash on JudgeSurreal777. He's flagged hundreds of articles for deletion in the past week alone[1]. including the Characters of Oblivion article. It's a headache for people trying to actually add to the site, especially when he gets overly defensive and angry when things appear to not be going his way. SashaNein (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with you that improving the encyclopedic quality of the article in this project is a priority, I unfortunately don't see how that applies to the gamecruft topic. Regardless, I'm quite sure "Characters of Oblivion" could be improved similarly to how "Characters of Castlevania: Sorrow series" has been. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC))

"Excessive detail in describing fiction" is a direct quote from the above proposal, and that is the stance taken against articles such as List of enemies in Doom and Characters of Oblivion. Yet other, less notable games, in this case the Castlevania Sorrow series is lauded. That smacks of a double standard. - hahnchen 18:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I see the connection now. So do feel the proposal does not adequate express a part of this? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC))

It needs the words "undue weight" in there to balance it. "Excessive detail that places undue weight in describing fiction without describing real-world aspects of the fiction." --MASEM 18:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The statement, as it stands, already describes a case of undue weight. To reword the article would be to state that "one shouldn't use undue weight when using undue weight", which is silly. SharkD (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to turn this into ANI, but JudgeSurreal has been particularly... disagreeable... especially when I delisted some GA-clas articles he helped work on. He also nominates pages for GAC when they clearly can't yet pass... David Fuchs ^(talk) 18:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how JudgeSurreal is being "disagreeable" in defense of his stance (in the thread linked to above). I don't think it's proper to "name names" when backing up arguments regarding policy. SharkD (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it proper to shout down one administrator, and then accuse another admin of having no grasp of what he's talking about and knowing nothing about Wikipedia's policies? SashaNein (talk) 03:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of causing further animosity, I don't think that really applies to the current topic, nor that this is the proper place to discuss this. There are designated channels for that. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC))

While I agree with the intent of the proposed item (it's basically pointing out that WP:N applies), I think the wording could use some work. As it stands, it could be too easily misread to imply that there should be no discussion of the fictional element in the context of the work (rather than just limiting it to be in balance with the rest of the article). Also, IMO, "one good-sized article about elements of a fictional universe is generally a better way to organize things than several short articles" is a better argument for merging than "sure, they're notable, but they're 'barely' notable so we should merge them". Anomie⚔ 03:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused as to these arguments you are citing. Where are these arguments made? Simply quoting them without adding any context surrounding them isn't very useful. SharkD (talk) 19:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. The former is completely my invention. The latter is the impression I get from reading the proposed text, it's not explicitly stated anywhere. Anomie⚔ 14:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

What are the exact differences (or criteria) between this list and Category:GA-Class video game articles? I also noticed that while Chocobo World is delisted as a Everyday life good article (and getting excluded in the list), it is still listed as a GA-class video game (hence included in the category), Square Enix and Final Fantasy article. Jappalang (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There's technically not suppose to be any difference. I believe they're both meant to be a way of keeping track of the GA video game articles. The one main difference I see is that the Good article page has an edit history that can be used to track the listing and delisting of GA articles. If Chocobo World was delisted then the class rating on the talk page may not have been updated. I updated it to B-class, that should solve the discrepancy. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC))

Here lies one of the things puzzling to me. Does the Everyday life or Video Game rating determine all project ratings? From my experiences so far, it seems video games are first submitted and assessed by video game peers, then brought up to the Everyday life category for assessment as a GA. If it passes, it then gets rated as a GA video game. (Of course there are articles which skip some steps.) Does that mean the Everyday life assessment determines the GA of a video game article? What happens if the Everyday life assessment is mistaken (a case pointed above in the todo reorganisation section)? Does that mean the article should be considered a GA video game article, or its unpromoted video game rating? For the case above, Warhawk is in Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Good articles, but excluded from Category:GA-Class video game articles as it is a Everyday life GA but a Start class video game. Jappalang (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no "Everyday life" project (that I'm aware of) - it is simply one of the main 11 categories that all WP articles are broken down into, and which all video-game related topics exist under. When an article goes GA, it is assigned to one of these categories either by the submitter or by the reviewer.

But tangentially, a VG article could also fall into the scope of another project (for example, Guitar Hero III is both in the scope of the VG and the Rock Music project; it is possible for an article to have different ratings in two different categories, though it is accepted that when an article is GA (a non-project specific assessment), it becomes GA in all projects its associated with. More likely, an article that is B class in one project may lack enough to be only a Start-class in another project. --MASEM 23:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the "Everyday life" tag is simply how the GA is categorized on Wikipedia. As far as the cases you've brought up. What happened was that whoever promoted/delisted them forgot to update the class rating in the project tags on the talk page. That's another benefit of having two ways of keeping track of things like that, it helps show discrepancies like that. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC))

The original title: "Mass merge all video game articles as a subpage of this Wikiproject" was changed in oder to avoid confusion. TTN (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

MASS MERGE ALL VIDEO GAME ARTICLES AS SUBPAGES OF THIS WIKIPROJECT.

This makes sense because it is not a Wiki for video game projects. if there is a parent page (AS IN THIS WIKIPROJECT) then just move the wikiprojects to this project and since it is a sub-wikiproject page, it should be called "___whatevergame___ task force" as an example. sorry my english im jottin this down but im pretty sure you understand.

example.

WikiProject Video games/Mortal Kombat

or

WikiProject Video games/List/Mortal Kombat

etc... be creative and make up your own idea if you dont like mine. I request this because some game wikiprojects are inactive and irrelevant to the world. also i got this idea because i was reffering to the fact that anime cartoons (like naruto) are a sub project of wikiproject anime and manga. same with mmorpgs.

--Storkian aka iSoroush ^Talk 22:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that all of the sub-Wikipedia VG Projects to be made into task forces? Like switching something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Square Enix, into something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Atari? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC))

I, too, find the post hard to understand. I would agree with turning VG-related projects into task forces. SharkD (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think they're proposing that WikiProjects like Wikipedia:WikiProject Mortal Kombat be merged into this WikiProject as task forces. Not a terrible idea IMO. We could lose some of the drama AND THE CAPS though, JACOPLANE • 2007-12-6 22:45

I think something like that would have to depend on the level of activity of the project, and their past accomplishments. Because if it has functioned well and continues to function well as a sub-project, I really see no reason to change that. However, something that is completely inactive at the present time would probably be best to switch to a task force. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC))

Yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking. The Final Fantasy WikiProject has done an absolutely fantastic job at improving their articles, so I see no reason why we should demand that they become a task force. They could voluntarily become one because it makes more sense, but let's leave it up to them. But for every Final Fantasy WikiProject there is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Castlevania that is pretty much useless. At least if they were a task force of this WikiProject they would have some visibility and perhaps some contributors would sign up. JACOPLANE • 2007-12-6 23:04

This comes up every so often and people seem to go for it, but nothing ever happens. For the record, I'd support this in most cases. I've found that overly-specific WikiProjects tend to result in a lot of articles about non-notable subjects. Pagrashtak 02:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

(←) Might I suggest we set out a project purge, basically going to all WikiProjects that deal with video games but outside of video games, and drop a message in the main project talk page that unless there is a "wait, hold it!", the project will be reverted to a Task Force of WP:VG? Obviously, the larger active onces will reply, but others will probably just be adsorbed. --MASEM 02:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Quick question; how many sub-projects of the VG Project are there and what are they? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 02:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC))

Here's the list: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Culture/Games#Video games. Miremare 02:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

For me, it is pretty obvious he is saying that all gaming articles (like Mortal Kombat, Mortal Kombat II, etc, etc) should be put inside the WikiProject scope and not in the main namespace. However, per WP:PAPER, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and there is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page. So, the video game articles will stay where they are now. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

So in other words, the merging of 27 active and inactive projects into task forces is the proposal? David Fuchs ^(talk) 18:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually I believe he is suggesting we merge all the video game articles into Wikipedia space of this project as well, but I'm probably misunderstanding this based on the awkwardnes of the wording. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No, that's what I get out of it too. He's stating to bring all video game related articles on Wikipedia under the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games directory listing literally. I.e. Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games\Atari 2600 and Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games\Sega Mega Drive and his example Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games\Mortal Kombat, etc. I personally don't see the rational for it. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I was confused about this, too. I think he's talking about WikiProjects. SharkD (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I realize he said "Articles", but given this edit, I believe his proposal is to move the WikiProjects, not the articles. In any event, this is now the topic of this thread, so let's continue with that. Pagrashtak 18:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that this is a terrible idea. He seems to be suggesting that our VG articles are kept only to the video games themselves and not cover any other aspects of games such as characters and locations, and turning our VG Wikiprojects into taskforces which I strongly disagree with. This attempt to fix a problem that doesn't exist would actually create much more problems. If projects are inactive for a long period of time then they will dissolve. There is no need to inflict this on every project, especially properous and beneficial projects such as Mortal Kombat. I also suggest to everyone to read this. Also "irrelavent to the world" is a poor argument. Anything could be considered irrelevant, depending on one's opinion. .:Alex:. 18:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

As made apparent by my post on the MK talk page, I'm not a fan of this idea. Frankly, I don't see any benefit to reorganizing everything, except for the sake of reorganizing, which isn't a particularly compelling argument. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

One good argument for the move is to stem the addition of articles about non-notable fictional topics. Alex cites the Mortal Kombat project as "prosperous and beneficial", but there is barely any activity on the project pages (Other than reverting the Inactive tags I place), and the project has produced many articles that should never have existed and have recently been merged or deleted. WikiProjects that are too narrow in scope have a net detrimental effect and need to be addressed. Pagrashtak 20:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be clarified that the any project that gets switched to a taskforce will not really disappear. The members can still function as editors with similar goals in mind, just as a taskforce rather than a separate project. Something else I'd like to throw out there. Should inactive projects be absorbed (for lack of a better word) by a related project that is still active. Like the Square Enix Project have a Dragon Quest task force, and the Nintendo Project have a Zelda and Kirby task force. How does that sound? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC))

To shed a bit more light, it looks like this proposal is intended as a continuation/resurrection of this previous one. Miremare 21:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh that's my friend. He told me that you guys should mass merge all the video game wikiprojects under your listings. So like the MK wikiproject being under the listing of WP:video games/WP:MK kinda thing. Sorry for this confusion. Not the articles. Pagrashtak's idea was what he meant.

I realize he said "Articles", but given this edit, I believe his proposal is to move the WikiProjects, not the articles. In any event, this is now the topic of this thread, so let's continue with that. Pagrashtak 18:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

--µWiki   Peers / Seeds (YouWiki) 21:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sub-proposal

I've thought about it. Well it would be looking at all projects and taskforces to see which ones are inactive I suppose. This page lists (or at least should list) every project and task force that comes under WP:VG. However it does appear to be quite outdated. We could start some sort of procedure to look at the inactive projects first, and decide whether they should be reduced to task forces or be deleted. Wikipedia:WikiProject Warcraft would be a good one to start with. It has remained inactive since June 2007 and has had a phenomenal amount of articles deleted, of which there is a list on the talk page. Wikipedia:WikiProject TimeSplitters is an example of a project that was vastly too small in scope to start with. There's hardly even anything on the main page, and has been inactive for a very long time (hard to determine due to users tagging it and such). A few others have been inactive since May. It would be worth going through the projects and taskforces and reducing or deleting inactive ones. It's kind of similar to Masem's project purge that he mentioned somewhere above. I've made a small list of the inactive projects and taskforces below. There might a few more, and some were hard to tell but this is what I have got. .:Alex:. 16:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

So where should we go from here? Leave a note on the Project pages about switching them to a taskforce? Also, if that is the course we're going to take with the sub-projects, what is the course for inactive task forces, deletion or just leaving it as it is? Anyway, whatever we decide, I agree that the Warcraft project would be a good place to start, and also the TimeSplitters, it's been tagged for merger into the VG Project since Feb 2007. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC))

I've never been clear on whom makes a task force, but assuming it works like I think it does, here's what we want to do:

1. First, create a subpage here, describe the effort to adsorb inactive VG projects as VG task forces (I don't believe we ever want to get rid of a task force).
2. Go to every VG wikiproject outside of WP:VG and point them to the proposal, and say politely that we're basically pinging each of these, and if there's no response in 2 weeks, we assume them to be inactive. (Possibly create a table of those projects and when they pinged back). Encourage them that even if active, if they can be made into a task force under WP:VG, the better. Some WP's can't be (WP:POKE).
3. Once two weeks are by, work on taking any necessary content from the various WP projects determined to be inactive or willing to go task force and get them set up here. This step, I'm not sure how it is done.
4. Once things are moved over, then figure out how to delete the task force. This may mean some bot or AutoWikiBrowser action to migrate project talk templates or the like.

--MASEM 17:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Support the whole proposal, running it something like what Masem outlined above, and place a link in the navbox. David Fuchs ^(talk) 00:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable plan. Gives us direction and room to change it as needed. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC))

What shall we call the subpage? Project assessment? Project review? Project cleanup? .:Alex:. 16:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

How about VG Project consolidation? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC))

Go for it. User:Krator (t c) 20:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Inactive Projects

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Warcraft
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Dragon Quest
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Arcade games
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Artix Entertainment
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Pinball
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Strategy games
• Wikipedia:WikiProject TimeSplitters
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Castlevania —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobJ1981 (talk • contribs) 08:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Inactive task forces

• Guild Wars task force
• Neopets task force
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Tycoon games

I know Meta Knight and King Dedede are going to be a hassle to keep redirected because they are major characters, so I could use some additional comments at Talk:List of Kirby characters#Merge to assert a number consensus. Currently, there is nothing to assert notability, though there is a chance that it is out there if anyone wants to dig deep for it. TTN (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The articles currently contain no real world information, but you might be able to dish some up. Look at stuff like Cortana and Arbiter (Halo) (both GA) - information from the voice actors, designers, etc. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 00:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Can I get some more opinions? There is currently a stubborn editor that does not understand our fiction guidelines trying to keep King Dedede. TTN (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I have cited some more sources about voice actors, and I am looking up at the moment his voice actor for Kirby Air Ride. It is too notable to be merged, he is kirby's version of Bowser. This fact separates him from most of the characters in the game. FangzofBlood 23:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Voice actors do not establish notability, and notability requires objective evidence. Your comparison is completely subjective. Add sources if you believe it to be so. TTN (talk) 23:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I took mention about how the voice actor for King Dedede, has taken up parts in the Pokemon anime. I found that a fun fact to include for some "real world" information. FangzofBlood 00:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That is an original connection that has nothing to do with the character. TTN (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Original Research is defined as research with no citing or backed evidence. I have citing. Both the Pokemon and Kirby franchise are owned by Nintendo. FangzofBlood 00:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, your point is irrelevant to the character at large. As it is now, the article demonstrates no indication that it satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Naturally, if sources are found, then the article can be recreated at a later date, but the article as is should be merged. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Still, this mean that Bowser (Nintendo) fails also, due to it being presented in the same format. FangzofBlood 00:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Simply because other articles exist that are similar to yours does not mean that yours is notable. The issue at hand, which you have not addressed, is rather simple: provide sources to satisfy WP:FICT, and every editor here will be more than happy to let the article stand. If not, then the article should be merged. Dodging around this isn't helping the situation. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I can see the issue now that is causing this. WP:FICT wasn't really adapted for video games, we really need to come up with a proper guideline for video game related articles, maybe a listed set on the front page. To tell you the truth, almost all video game character related articles fail in some way. FangzofBlood 01:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

PS: We should also leave it alone as of WP:PROBLEM for now. FangzofBlood 15:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a heads-up that I've nominated Cortana for WP:FAC here. David Fuchs ^(talk) 00:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems that everything really important here is related to the discussion over WP:FICTION, and , as it appears there is no agreement on anything, I am trying to urge some sort of at least temporary compromise. I'd be glad if anyone could suggest some wordingt here. DGG (talk) 02:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there needs to be an official stance posted by this WikiProject on what is and is not WP:FICTION and WP:NOTE. I suggest a list of requirements. FangzofBlood 00:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that all the deletion discussions are now directly transcluded on WP:VG. Anyone else feel this is not the best place to have this? JACOPLANE • 2007-12-10 20:13

Concur. I did not recognise this consequence when changing WP:VG/D. Edited. User:Krator (t c) 20:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If the deletions are no longer being transcluded, should the "Deletion" section be moved under "Project structure" with the rest of the departments? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC))

Probably a good idea. Also, perhaps we should do the same for the new articles and the requested articles. JACOPLANE • 2007-12-10 21:14

Sounds reasonable. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC))

Leave the featured articles and stats box. They do seem appropriate on the page. .:Alex:. 17:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

OK added that back. How is it now? JACOPLANE • 2007-12-11 17:24

Looks great. I suppose you could have the GA articles on another page (like it was before) but otherwise it does look great! .:Alex:. 18:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Get rid of the Good Articles. I'd like to see New Article announcement back on there though. - hahnchen 19:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the GA section should be gone as it adds un-needed length to the page. I think adding the new articles would be good idea also, but not in the past form it was. Perhaps a complete redesign of the layout is in order. Several other WikiProjects have done redesigns recently as well, should we follow suit? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 05:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC))

I don't know, I guess we could go for a redesign, but personally I prefer the current layout we have greatly to something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Square Enix. JACOPLANE • 2007-12-12 07:27

I understand. Though if a redesign does happen, it needn't look like the Square Enix or Final Fantasy Project pages; it can be designed as needed. If I got some time later I'll try to come up with an idea on my sandbox. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC))

I am a proponent of a redesign if it significantly shortens the page (i.e. limits it to one 1024x768 screen). User:Krator (t c) 15:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

He's hit Radical Dreamers, Final Fantasy IV, and Final Fantasy V, the most important of them all. Special:Contributions/Newspaper98. Anyway, let's have a discussion about whether fan translations are notable or issue a policy ruling or something so that things which most of the editors find notable don't keep getting chopped off like lost limbs. Why doesn't he nominate Fan translation of video games for deletion? Why doesn't he nominate fan translation for deletion on top of that? Holy crap, they might be notable! Zeality (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact that fan translations for games exists is fine. However, specific fan translations are non-notable. His deletions are appropriate. --MASEM 20:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Masem. Due to the dubious legality of fan translations I think we should need a pretty good reason for mentioning them, such as if they'd been mentioned in a reliable source. Despite the fact that notability doesn't restrict the contents of an article, I think we should at least try to justify it, or it could be seen as promoting/validating an illegal project. Miremare 21:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Legality is not a special case for considering inclusion in Wikipedia. Only notability applies. SharkD (talk) 00:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The best way to keep something from being removed is as Miremare stated, cite it with a reliable third party source. Doing so will help establish notability for mention in the article of the original game. If there's a magazine article, or online article from a reliable gaming site, that should suffice. If not, then the fan-translation probably doesn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. Unfortunately, not everything is suitable for Wikipedia. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC))

I agree with the three users above we replyed; most of the time, fan translations are not notable no matter what form they're in. This is why we don't cite fansubbing groups, or create articles on them; same goes for scanlaters and visual novel translators. I have yet to see a fan translation group get noteriety in a reliable third party source, but I suppose there's a first time for everything. However, until that happens, I agree with Newspaper98. I've had similar problems removing translation info from Wind: A Breath of Heart and had an extensive discussion on the issue on the article's talk page about it. Same goes for Ef: A Fairy Tale of the Two., Maria-sama ga Miteru, Tsukihime, and Fate/stay night (which does not have any mention of the translation anymore, but still is listed under the Category:English-translated H games).--十八 22:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I hate to have to mention it again, but Wikipedia:Notability only applies to article topics, not article content. No one is discussing articles on the translations. If you're talking about wikt:notability, it would be best to say so and note that if "It's not notable" isn't a sufficient agrument for Wikipedia:Notability it's certainly not sufficient for wikt:notability.

In the articles I've looked at, I have seen no reason for all mention of the fan translations to be removed. I suspect Newspaper98 is trying to prove some sort of point, although I can't rule out their being one of the (disturbingly many) people who just seem to get a kick out of deleting things. Anomie⚔ 02:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Further to my above post, proof of notability would be desirable to justify their inclusion in any form more detailed than "there have been unofficial translations". There's no need to go into any details at all - we don't need to know who's doing it, and how long they've been doing it for, and what countries they're doing it from. Just like fan-remakes, the majority of fan-translation sections are probably self-promotion. So given their legal status, why would we include them if there is no coverage of them in secondary sources (and do they deserve it?) - they are distinct entities from the original game after all. Miremare 03:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to get some facts straight:

• That something is illegal is no grounds for not writing about it.
• We are not doing notability checks for every single sentence included in an article.
• When stating something vague like "there have been unofficial fan translations", an example may be appropriate to aid the reader's understanding.
• Do not go beyond the above if no reliable sources exist that specifically treat the fan translations.

User:Krator (t c) 10:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. IMO, "It was fan translated by X in YYYY" or "In response to the above issues [which would be in the article anyway], it was re-translated by X in YYYY" is sufficient for most cases. In the latter example, mention of the fan translation depends on there being enough information about the issues in the article to justify it. I'm thinking of a case like Final Fantasy IV where people translated the Japanese "hard type" edition because of the many gameplay changes in the US release, but not necessarily a case where someone just didn't like the original translation. Of course, the existence of reliable secondary sources overrides all this. Final Fantasy V should keep its second sentence.

Also, IMO there is no need to mention a translation until it is released in a state that a normal person would be able to use it (no partial translations) unless there are reliable secondary sources. Anomie⚔ 13:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Krator, let's keep a little perspective here. To your first two points, no one has suggested that something being illegal is grounds for not writing about it, nor has anyone suggested that every sentence in the article should be checked for notability. I suggested what I see as a common sense application of extreme care when writing about fan translations and remakes specifically because the combining factors of copyright infringement/non-notableness/spam/WP:WEIGHT could easily give excessive coverage the appearance of promotion or endorsement of an illegal product, which of course is unacceptable. To the third point, an example may be appropriate, but how would you source it without linking to a site affiliated with it? Other than that, I would agree with Anomie's suggestions above. Miremare 18:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that was included more for clarification. To be honest, it sounds like everyone is saying the same general thing, though we may disagree on the minute details. Basically the impression I get is that everyone agrees it can be mentioned if done properly, which is a tricking thing to write and to source because of the subject matter. Because of that, something like this should probably be addressed on a case by case basis. My two cents. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC))

Can I join? Check out my page, read it, you will see why I think I should be on this WikiProject. Uzumaki Dude (talk) 22:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games#Participants, you need only add ((User WPVG)) to your user page. Though technically that isn't even required. If you find a video game article you'd like to edit feel free. I'd also suggest looking over the Project pages for suggestion in editing such articles. If you have any questions, here's a good place to ask. Welcome to the Project. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC))

Just a word of caution—you user page mentions you like cheat codes, but please note that Wikipedia is not the place for cheat codes or game-guide content, such as detailed descriptions of how to play the game or lists of minutia and statistics. Pagrashtak 22:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to say something about how people are using WP:FICT is being abused for mass deletions. WP:FICT has recently been disputed and is "not set in stone". Recently members have been using it as a scapegoat to delete articles, which I find in repulsive. FangzofBlood 23:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

FICT is built off of WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, and certain points of WP:NOT. Even without it, those condone the removal of content that does not establish notability. WP:FICT and WP:WAF just deal with fiction specifically. Anyways, only certain points are being disputed at this point, so the tag really shouldn't be there anyways. TTN (talk) 23:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It also says at the top "This page is considered a notability guideline on Wikipedia. It is a generally accepted standard that all editors should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." I am doing this in good faith, and I wish to not push it beyond. FangzofBlood 23:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The key aspect that is under issue there is the fact that many people do not try to use the other methods described on the page (tagging, merging, or transwiki) before calling for an AfD. If an article is tagged for being non-notable and no action is taken after some time, then the article can be brought to AfD, but lack of notability is not a criteria for speedy deletion, nor should it mean an immediate trip to AfD save in extreme cases where the editor is reasonable sure, by good faith, that notability can never be established for a topic. --MASEM 23:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Another issue is that some people refuse to use common sense and acknowledge when articles have no merit, and simply argue and obstruct the process anyway. I'm not referring to anyone specifically, but I am tired of hearing of procedural abuse and the keepers getting no "credit" for their role in recent arguments. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The transwikiing in particular is one avenue that I have not seen a lot of these zealous deletionists pursue. SharkD (talk) 04:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I found the link which King Dedede was one of the most requested villians for Brawl. FangzofBlood 23:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a good source. Now, what is it for? SharkD (talk) 00:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is a mess. I'm not sure if can even be kept. Googling "gold edition" brings up multiple instances where this is true, where the original game is bundled with an expansion, but it is my impression that that is not enough for Wikipedia. Examples I can off the bat see are Rise of Nations, Painkiller, Civilization II...that's about it. PROD, AFD, or leave alone and clean up? hbdragon88 (talk) 05:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is true (I have the Age of Empires gold edition for instance), but I don't think it's notable, and is probably better discussed in the individual article. AfD. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 05:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Just put it up on AfD in response to the comments here. Marlith ^T/C 05:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

A while ago I noticed that Template:Infobox VG was no longer using the preceeded by/followed by fields, apparently due to editors "abusing" the feature by adding unrelated or barely-related games to those fields. I have to ask, isn't that a bit extreme? I would think the best solution would be to trim the offending uses out, rather than cutting out a useful and relevant bit of functionality from an infobox. (Or to paraphrase, aren't we cutting off our nose to spite our face?) -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 10:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup, agreed. When translating Supreme Commander to nl:Supreme Commander, I noticed their infobox had the fields - as well as an expansion field. It's quite nice to have. User:Krator (t c) 11:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. The infobox is already large, and the games that would go in these entries are often ambiguous (do spin-offs count?), often have a tenuous connection, and just lead to unnecessary conflict. The navboxes typically already list these games, and in a broader context. I see no reason to add them to the infobox. Pagrashtak 16:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a "Me too" for what Pagrashtak said above. I concur on all points. - X201 (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this information would be much more useful to have in an infobox rather than ESRB-like ratings and release dates in five different countries. In fact, I previously wrote about this on this very page. User:Krator (t c) 22:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, then that's an issue that needs to be sorted out on the individual pages. The purpose of this project is to establish an informative and well-written collection of articles about video games. If we stopped trying to do anything that was difficult we'd never get there. Sure, there may be some complications that may arise, but so long as the template clearly explains the intended use of the fields clearly then it won't be that much of a problem. The benefits far outweigh the drawbacks. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 01:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The other day I radically changed the Body Harvest article - it was written like a FAQ, with extended lists of enemies, worlds and weapons. Ofcourse, not suitable for Wikipedia article. My changes were undone by someone, who, according to the history page, worked excessively on the article. Ofcourse I could tell the user what's right, but he'll won't believe me. Can someone here show me the right guidelines for videogame articles? --Soetermans (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Your edits were perfectly fine, per WP:WEIGHT, and WP:NOT#GUIDE. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 17:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The guidelines for video game articles are at WP:VG/GL. Miremare 18:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I dont know if this is the right place to ask,but do you guys accept the Moddb site as a Reliable source?.I recently Edited the C&C Renegade page,and added a mod section bout 3 Renegade mods,but where removed by a user,who says i need a notable source,and not the main site of the Mod itself.So do you guys consider www.moddb.com as a notable source??user:Theta123

The editor-written content on that site is reliable, the user-submitted content is not. Which specific article where you using? User:Krator (t c) 22:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Moddb is reliable to establish facts about those mods, but is wholly unsuitable for establishing the notability of said mods. In order to justify including a mod you'd need some kind of third-party independent coverage (such as mentions in a gaming magazine) or the mod winning an award. (Moddb awards count) -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 01:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I can't find any use of anything other than pseudonyms on the part of their writers, and their staff page seems not to be implemented. Are you sure they're reliable? SharkD (talk) 04:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Their article sections all have "Add New" links in their site map, suggesting all their content is user-submitted. How do you tell editorials apart? SharkD (talk) 04:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

As with user-submitted content, often you can't. However, since a number of the users are the mod creators themselves, it is permissible to consider information from mod creators about the facts of the mod reliable. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 10:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for ur time.I hope this suits the person well,who noticed me of the Problem.If u want to see what i was talking about,check the Command and Conquer Renegade page,where i adda small line of these mods.-Theta123 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theta123 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that one of the guidelines for Wikiproject: Video games should be to refer to products released in the northern portion of the Western Hemisphere as "North American" rather the "U.S.", "US", or "United States". I have nothing against the US (heck, I live here), but I feel it is inaccurate to refer to the whole North American market as the "US" and I have noticed many pages within the scope of this Wikiproject that do that very thing. Does anyone object to this guideline being added? Thingg (talk) 03:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with certain exceptions. The game Rock Band for example, is being relesed in Canada almost one month after the US version so it would make more sense in that case not to use North America and to mention the two countries sepertaly. In most cases though I don't see a problem with this idea. --70.48.108.72 (talk) 03:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant to say that if there are differences between the countries of North America, then obviously use the term "US". However, I think that in most cases, it is safe to use North America because most games/accessories release in the US/Canada/Latin America at the same time Thingg (talk) 12:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I proposed this standard alongside Template:vgrelease almost a year ago, and I actually did it for many articles (back when everything just used a U.S. flag). I also proposed this: There needs to be "PAL region" instead of just Europe. PAL region includes Australia and New Zealand, who often release games on the same date as Europe. If this isn't the case, then "Australasia" should be used instead of just Australia, as Australia and New Zealand ALWAYS release the games on the same date. --Teggles (talk) 07:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

To tag along, what is the recommendation for NTSC/J releases outside of Japan? NTSC/J in Japan are purely Japanese products (in interface, contents and language). However South East Asia also utilizes NTSC/J while possibly having Chinese or English languages, as well as different contents and release dates. Are there any recommendations on the branding of South East Asia NTSC/J? Jappalang (talk) 08:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Use a new code to represent SE-Asia? Ong elvin (talk) 10:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• SEA: December 13, 2007

? Jappalang (talk) 11:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

((vgrelease|SEA|December 13, 2007)) avoids a redirect. Anomie⚔ 13:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

First, I agree with using the term "North America" as opposed to "The United States" or "The Americas". Second, as for Asia, I'm fairly sure that most countries have different release dates then Japan, but I always thought that was because, aside from maybe Korea, possibly, most countries in Asia are in the PAL or SECAM region (If there is a SECAM in Gaming).
As for PAL, I think we should probably separate those countries only by Europe/Australia. Australia usually gets stuff shortly after Europe, and most Europe releases are done simultaneously in every country. Theres also the issue of some of the PAL/NTSC Countries in South America and Africa, but I know nothing about those. Dengarde ► Complaints 10:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Even better piece of advice: the only time a non-primarily-English-speaking-country's release date should be mentioned is when the game came out first for that country (this follows what the Films project does for movie release dates), unless there some other notable aspect to itself release in a different country. If anything, this needs to be applied to the infobox to keep the infobox short, it is not as important in the prose to follow this, but we don't want to basically have a long list of release dates for every country in the world. --MASEM 14:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem I tend to have is that the sources use "US", and whether they are actually referring to US or they really mean "North America" is unclear. Anomie⚔ 13:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think ((Video game controversy)) could use some help. Why does it list so many rating boards? Valtion elokuvatarkastamo is linked, but I don't see anything on that article about controversy. Joe Lieberman is linked, presumably for his role with the Family Entertainment Protection Act, but his article doesn't have anything about controversy in this area, just that he is critical of the entertainment media, and he denounces video game violence. That's not really controversial. Even the article about the act itself (the first link on the template) doesn't cover any controversy. The closest thing I see to controversy there is "This bill did not become law".

This template doesn't seem to cover video game controversy so much as video game rating. Articles such as Console emulator, Super Columbine Massacre RPG!, or Jeff Gerstmann are not on the template, but cover more controversy than a lot of articles that are included. Pagrashtak 16:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I created it a while back, and as you can see from the original version, it was really a "video game rating and regulation" template, and you're correct that perhaps "controversy" is a misnomer. Perhaps we should create two separate templates? JACOPLANE • 2007-12-13 16:14

Does this need to be a navbox? Unlike a video game series, what are we "navigating" through? Would this box not be better served by a category called (possibly) "Controversial video game topics"? (Just a thought...) --MASEM 16:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

A category would make much more sense and is a good idea, the main article for it is obviously Video game controversy. At the moment the template appears to be more to do with ratings and regulations than actual controversy. Maybe a template for one thing and a catgory for another? .:Alex:. 16:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the category would be that useful. I think a large part of the problem here is that only sections of these articles are applicable to the navbox/category. I think the best option would be to turn this template into a "Video game rating" template, and skip a controversy template altogether. Pagrashtak 16:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Given that the navbox is currently title-linked to Video game controversy, which gives a good overview of the subjects involved (and can go more beyond just ratings, and should/does include issues such as Columbine, Jeff Gerstmann/biasing in video game reviews, etc.) and that the subject is not necessary a finite set, a navbox just feels wrong, as it suggests that what you present is the end-all, be-all of video game controversies. As I see it, while it does break down the articles into sub topics, it still looks like a random collection of links and there's no suggestion of how they are all connected (though as noted, the bulk of these are simply about ratings of video games and issues thereof). I still strongly recommend that a category be created (with possibly sub-cats for "ratings controversies", "influence controversies", etc.) since categories can be infinitely large without any problem. --MASEM 16:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the category would just get deleted. I like the idea of a template of some sort, even if it doesn't currently cover all the topics it should. Also, with a template you can (potentially) link to specific portions of articles in cases where the entire article isn't relevant. SharkD (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, in a template you can group articles together in various ways, which you can't do with a category. SharkD (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Sub-categories can be made and will appear (with one extra click) on the main category page. --MASEM 15:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Well this dispute needs some outside intervention and so far this hasn't happened, so I've decided to alert the project about it. See the discussion here. .:Alex:. 16:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the original poster in that discussion. Images should be excluded from lists, unless the copyright holder has created a montage of characters. Images are OK in articles about the character. SharkD (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I thought we could reorganise the page in a similar manner to some of the other Wikiprojects, such as WP:ZELDA and WP:FF for example. You can see my proposed template here. Please note that this is a first draft and by no means the final proposed redesign. There will likely be many additions and refinements to make and maybe some problems to fix too. I just wondered if it is worth considering making a new, more user friendly and asthetically pleasing layout. .:Alex:. 21:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it looks better than what is currently used. However, I personally think a 50/50 split design isn't that functional as a webpage. All in all I think it's a step in the right direction though. Mind if I come up with an alternative? Maybe we could find a happy medium. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC))

Go ahead. That one was just an experimentation of what we could do to the page. In fact, feel free to use the actual sandbox page. It would make an ideal testing ground. .:Alex:. 08:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's my go at a proposed layout on my sandbox. It took the overall look you came up with, which I like and think looks good, and tweaked the layout some. The right side bar has some room for special announcements or for extra deletion/new articles/promotion type of announcements. Some of the headings are slightly different sizes mainly as different examples of what they could look like.

Regardless of which layout is use, I think the FA and GA should be included at the bottom in collapsible tables. When I tried to add them in the "Example articles" section I had some trouble. When I put the FA and GA part via transclusion, the collapsible option didn't work properly. It either added the show/hide to the shortcut box or to the assessment status box. I basically had to copy the content from the separate FA and GA pages and paste them into my sandbox. If anyone else has a better solution to this, I'm all ears.

Anyway, what ever feedback anybody has would be appreciated. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC))

I like the sidebar in the current version. I'd like to see that information not get lost. SharkD (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It can be added back in. I left it off my design because it seemed partially redundant with the "Project structure" there. I'll add it back in to see how it looks. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC))

I created the sidebar because I felt we needed something to tie all the different pages within the WikiProject together. I feel that it should be present on most pages, but if the main project page can display the information in a more efficient manner I would not object to its removal. JACOPLANE • 2007-12-14 23:02

How does it look added back in? I'm up for either way. But it does include more links than the main page presents, so I can definitely see the plus of having it there. I had to include the wiki code for it instead of transcluding it as its position floats. That was a common issue I encountered in my sandbox, transcluding everything in their current state didn't work out too well. Any suggestions? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC))

The added sidebar aesthetically seems a bit too wide to me, plus its titlebar is misaligned (in terms of width) with the frame it is in. Jappalang (talk) 00:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This is quite pleasing. Is it possible to work the total number of FA/GA into their titles such that when 'hidden', it will be displayed ala "Featured articles: xxx", "Good articles: yyy"?

Could "Articles for Deletion" be changed to include articles up for renaming as well? Basically articles, categories, templates which are up for status-changing concensus would be listed to bring them to attention of the project members.

Would a section stating how to create a video game article, the templates used (navbox, infobox, project template), the guidelines one should follow (both Wiki-general and VG-specific), and the assessment procedure (internal Stub -> A, and the GA/FA process) be useful? There are likely people who want to quickly get into the article creation/editing process and would appreciate a central plan to follow. Jappalang (talk) 21:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I added in the FA/GA numbers, though I don't know of a way display it only while hidden. For your second point, do you mean renaming it to "Article changes" or something like that? I guess we can. To be honest, I didn't really know of other consensus processes besides the AfD. For your third point, I assume you mean something like Wikipedia:Tutorial; is that correct? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC))

Wow, looks really good Guy, that would be a big improvement. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the FA/GA numbers look great. I doubt it would matter if it displays while fully shown. For the second point, Renaming has consensus process too. Regarding the third point, yes, it could be like the Tutorial, but named more like something new game article editors (or regulars) should remember. In other words, the Tutorial (renamed to something more like "best practices for editing game articles" with specific content/pointers/links to VG guidelines. Jappalang (talk) 00:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I have written up a completely different redesign in my own sandbox (Link). The design considerations were everything but aesthetics itself, though a certain minimalist approach can be detected. In list form:

• Remove redundancies with Portal:Video games, such as the transcluded FA list and the related projects list. Some things overlap, but should not be transcluded on the project page. A link is sufficient.
• Remove the fragmented stub-sections and change the list-like appearance.
• Reduce the "boxcruft" at the top. The TOC, the redundant lead section and the redundant WikiProject box took up a large amount of valuable space.
• Introduce the to-do list on the main page per suggestions.

User:Krator (t c) 00:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

That is completely different. I have to say that I really like too. It's straight, to the point, and gets the job done. I do however think the departments should still be listed instead in prose, if only for the sake easier readability. The only other suggestion I have would some kind of announcement sections. If not for new articles and AfD, then at least for article promotions and delistings. Nice job Krator. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 01:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC))

After a process of trial and error I managed to fit the sidebar in without the page looking deformed. I'm also trying out a new design as well, so bear with me on that one. See it here. .:Alex:. 11:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've come up with a new design which may still need work, but it involves two vertical panels rather than two panels running horizontally next to each other. Take a look. .:Alex:. 18:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Circlestrafing had the prod tag on for over 5 days, and the tag was removed while I was considering pulling the trigger. It does have no sources that support it's inclusion as an article, and I don't feel it should remain an article without reliable sources. The other articles linked in the above template are in the same situation except one, Rocket jumping which appears it may have two reliable sources, but they're not easily accessible. Without enough reliable sources to support all of the content in these articles, they should be trimmed of original research which would result in no article for all of them but one. Of the rest, they have all had the unreferenced template for over 6 months. So my inclination is to AFD all the unreferenced articles. At best I believe enough reliable sources could be found to merge them all into one article on "Specialized movements in first-person shooter computer games" or something similar. I'm posting notice here to see if people are willing to find the necessary reliable sources to support that, or if they should proceed to AFD. Since they've all been unreferenced for so long, I kind of view this as their last chance. :) Have fun all. - Taxman ^Talk 23:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead. I fail to see how the articles are even remotely notable (I'm using that term loosely here)in the first place. The articles themselves are poorly written and seem to mainly be a list of games that the particular "jump" has been in. .:Alex:. 16:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I kind of like the pages, personally. The animations are cool, too. SharkD (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The rocket jumping one in particular seems to be well-sourced. A lot of the same sources could probably be applied to circlestrafing. At the very least, they should be merged into Specialized movements in first-person shooter computer games, as the topic seems to be well-covered in secondary sources. SharkD (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Has there ever been a proposed guideline for the notability of computer and video games? When I created My Hero (video game) my article was slapped with a speedy deletion tag, A7, although it clearly didn't meet any of those criteria for being a video game. Not only that, it was a widely distributed game for a widely distributed games console. Still this led me to wonder - are all video games that have been released to the world at large on a major platform notable? I think they should be in theory, but there is a lack of online reliable sources in this case.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The deletion tag was probably added too hastily. SharkD (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The user who added the tag probably thought the article was a hoax (due to the funny title). SharkD (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I would argue there are some cases where it's not so much the individual game that is notable but the series that is more so or that grouping the games into the series would provide a better article. I did suggest this with Crazy Taxi (series) though there was consensus against it. Swordquest is an example of 3 separate games (Atari 2600 games to wit, but still...) where one article makes much more sense than three. It's a rare, but not impossible, case. --MASEM 20:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. That doesn't apply to my case though as I do not believe it's part of a series.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Rule of thumb: If a video game has actually been on the shelf of a shop, there's a 99.9% chance it's notable. That's the way the industry works. User:Krator (t c) 22:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That .01% didn't save Tonka Rescue Patrol. Very hard to fanthom, but no review sites touched it. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Current fiction 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. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned a part of the issue before with Super Mario Galaxy in that people were rushing to place what ranking the game had on GameRankings or MetaCritic. Since that point, SMG and LoZ:OOT have been jumping back and forth between 1 and 2, and someone has suggested some evidence that the webmaster is intentionally adding or ignoring reviews to put one or the other at the top. One can argue MetaCritic does the same.

I don't believe that there's any issue with sourcing either to state what the aggregate scores are, as both provide many more links to reviews than we can reasonably provide. However, I believe we need to state in guidelines that stating a game's relative position from GR/MC lists should not be included in an article since 1) these are absolute averages (no consideration if a site averages games at 7 or at 5), and 2) there is bias on these sites for these ratings. If a game is good, it will be at worst nominated for Game of the Year type awards, which is a good representation of how good the game is, and may later be included in the Top X games of all time-type lists for relative comparison across console/pc generations.

Anyone have any objection to including this in the GLs? --MASEM 17:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why you would exclude GameRankings or MetaCritic for any reason at all. It's no different than listing any other review site - there's no such thing as "reliability" when it comes to reviews. Everyone is "biased." They're reviews. And both aggregate sites have ALWAYS failed to include many professional reviews in their averages. At their very core, the nature of reviews is subjective, and so too are these sites. As an encyclopedia, it's not our job to tell people which reviewers or web sites are more sreliable in our personal opinion; it's our job to link to notable reviews or aggregate sites that give a general concept of the reception the game received. Readers can decide for themselves, at that point, what they agree with. In the end, I absolutely feel these sites should still be utilized here. They give a better sense than linking to individual reviews could ever hope to do, and the very minor skewing their editors can create by excluding three or four reviews doesn't change the sense of overall opinion they provide. And again, the key word is OPINION. Because they're reviews. That's what they do. Keep 'em. --Bishop2 (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe Masem was suggesting adding some guidelines for to restrict the usage of GameRankings and MetaCritic as sources, not their outright removal as acceptable sources. I agree with the idea and suggest that also some kind of recommended time frame or minimum number of total reviews in the aggregate score should be included in the usage. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC))

Let me clarify: I am not saying we ban those (as the link provided suggest, for exactly Bishop2's reasons); I'm just saying that we should include in our GLs that one should not use language stating "Such-and-such game was ranked #X at GR/MC" particularly to emphasis how "good" a game is, letting the reader determine that for themselves. --MASEM 20:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I see them as a useful link for the overall reaction since we list the major publications and their views but also provide the reader with a link for a mor euniversal view on things. And most articles say that the average score is based on a certain number so its not claiming to have it all and finally I think the debate comes from "rankings" as Masem has mentioned. If we don't mention these rankings WITH GR and MC then I see alot of the problem gone already. Keep them listed and mention the avaerge score but thats it, no ranks. Of cource this is just one look on the situation though. Stabby Joe (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with MASEM. The additional guidelines should be added. On a different note, can I take this discussion as supporting GR as a reliable source (in general, ignoring the above issue)? I notice it's not listed in the Sources policy page. SharkD (talk) 22:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I now see that the discussion is not complete yet. SharkD (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The broader issue

For clarity, I am cross-posting my note I wrote in a previous discussion now in WT:VG archive 33:

Including GR and MC rankings should not be done, because video game ratings given in reviews are not measured according to relative standards, but absolute standards. Though this follows from common sense, it can be illustrated by looking at the rating of 10/10. A perfect game will have that rating, not the best game. Use notable awards instead if you must - they compare different games.

— User:Krator (t c) 16:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Krator (t c) 22:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think there are at least 4 cases under discussion here:

1. Including GR or MC scores in something like ((VG Reviews))
2. Including the GR or MC ranking in something like ((VG Reviews))
3. Including GR or MC scores in the article text
4. Including the GR or MC ranking in the article text

My opinion is that #1 is certainly acceptable, and #3 depends on the article, but #2 and #4 are not useful for the many reasons given above (lack of correction for bias, bias in review selection, and so on). Anomie⚔ 00:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There are two main reasons why I think putting ANY mention of MC/GR is a bad idea:

#1) "Even if we just put the MC/GR metascores and not the ranks, when people compare across two different articles and see that one game has a higher metascore than the other, they might be inclined to believe that it is better. However, this may not actually be the case for reasons discussed above. Wikipedian06 (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)"

#2) It's highly redundant. Why? All of the notable media outlets (IGN, Famitsu, etc.) are already listed individually. What's left are the amateur "average-Joe" reviews that make up probably 60-80% of MC and GR. The issues with amateur reviews are

a. It enables the GR webmaster to easily tweak the results to his liking (as has already happened), by including or excluding certain reviews that may impact the averages.

b. Any average Joe can write those reviews. Many of the amateur reviews are only 300 words long and not up to professional standards. Look at IGN's 3-page review versus The Onion's. They are nowhere near the same level of detail and quality, yet they account for the same weight in the critic average.

c. It doesn't make sense for amateur reviews to be weighted the same as professional ones written by hired staff in offices.

d. Many of these average-Joe amateur websites do not review every game, but rather, only the games Joe himself is interested in (to award high scores to) or UNinterested in (to hurt their averages with low scores). IGN has adequate staff to review every game that's released to the market, and generally assign staff based on their genre preferences to cut down on bias. (For example, have staff writers who are genuinely interested in shooters review shooting games.)

e. Given all these reasons, why does it matter what the amateurs think? While we're at it, why not include the GameFAQs reader review average under the reception section? In fact, most of the "detailed reviews" I've been reading on GameFAQs, such as this one, are at least of comparable quality to the amateur ones on GR. The amateur reviewers are only one step above the GameFAQs reviewers in that they know how to create their own websites. That's it! Many of them have no formal, professional writing experience as is required to get into IGN or any other gaming media company.

Wikipedian06 (talk) 07:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If readers will only look into high profile reviews then they will and will ignore GR and MC and of course not everyone does that. And of course you will have to take up the same issue with film aritlces that list MC and Rotton Tomatoes if you want to make this guidelne stick here. Stabby Joe (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Frankly I don't think any kind of label is a good idea because it's going to smack too much of personal opinion. Just because one person sees bias or flaws doesn't mean everyone will agree with such a statement. A simplistic link that allows readers to decide for themselves how much stock to place in these sites is still best. --Bishop2 (talk) 14:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to respond to Wikipedian06's points:

1) They might be led to believe that one game is better than another, but it is not guaranteeed.

2) Reviews only need to meet reliability reqs when determining if they get listed, not notability. I'm not sure that reviews should be given additional weight based on the notability of the site. The reader can determine this by visiting the site where the review is hosted.

a) This is indeed a great risk. I hope what you're saying isn't true.

b) I don't think the length of reviews need necessarily be taken into account (barring an absolute lower limit of at least several paragraphs). IGN is perfectly capable of writing 3 pages of crap.

c) I'm not sure what you mean by amateur. Lots of smaller sites have staffs that get paid. If they're reliable, then they're reliable. E.g., if they meet Wikipedia's reliability requirements, then no other issues need be taken into account.

d) IGN does not, in fact, review every game.

e) Again, the only requirement that needs to be met is reliability. GameFaqs is not generally considered a reliable site.

SharkD (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I would be a firm proponent of any guideline that speaks out against both Metacritic and GameRankings for above reasons. User:Krator (t c) 13:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

(←) While we link to a lot of top sites, there are still more that sometimes get missed in such a review table (I'm beginning to see a review table as being a crutch for writing a well-written prose reception section, but that's not a pressing issue nor the one at point). While GR/MC may list a lot of blog-ish type reviews, they still list the top sites. Basically, they are like a directory for reviews, something we can't do on WP due to WP:NOT#DIR. As long as we present these links as being aggregate review scores, the reader can proceed to determine what reviews are important and how well the scoring works out if they consider other factors. --MASEM 14:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

We have some incredibly poorly thought out arguments above. I use Metacritic, and I use separate sources. I value the prose of the reception section alongside the scores boxout. Generally, the only score I will provide in the prose itself is the Metacritic score, after that, I'll use quotes detailing the gameplay, graphics, audio etc. from separate review sources, such as Edge, Eurogamer, PC Gamer. I will not include those separate scores in the prose because it doesn't flow well and clutters up the text, Ballistics (video game) is an example of my work. Here are a few counter-points to the arguments above:

• I agree that Metacritic's biggest flaw is that it considers schlock reviews such as Deeko, Armchair Empire, ZTGameEmpire(?), Da Gameboyz(?). I would kill them all with one fell swipe, but Metacritic does not give equal weightings to each source, this article may give you some more insight. Yes, of course the webmaster can alter the weightings, but that's their call, how else can they keep up with the ever shifting sands of internet media? Magazine editors and webmasters can alter scores on their own publications, it's the same thing.
• You cannot possibly list every notable or substantial review source in the reviews boxout, there are dozens and dozens.
• Metacritic does give a good indication of a game's critical reception. It cannot be skewed by singular anomalous reviews, and its impression of a game's overall feedback is a heck of a lot less subjective than an average reader.
• We're not telling the reader what to think, we're telling them what Metacritic says, it's up to the reader to draw his own conclusions.

- hahnchen 22:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Addressing Wikipedian06's two concerns: #1) When people compare across two different articles and see that one game has a higher score than the other, they might be inclined to believe that it is better. However, this may not actually be the case. Therefore, let us not mention any reviews at all, since it may give people a false impression that one game is better than another?? After all, a game with a lower metascore will either have a wider range of scores or a lower median score. Either way, just looking at the raw scores for a game and not showing its lower metascore may still prejudice a person against the game, either by the scores being uniformly lower than another game's scores or not as homogenous in their evaluation. Therefore, though this is a valid point, it is not a practical one upon which to base policy.

#2) Not all major reviewers can be listed individually as the table gets too long. This is especially true for non-exclusive games. In such cases, one can really only pick three or four reviewers to list for each or else the article gets too long. Additionally, writing in 'prose' about the reviews in the critical reception section can become redundant and wordy, taking up space that could better be used to describe controversy or awards, and needlessly lengthens articles. To address your sub-points:

a. Do the principles behind assuming good faith, verifying your claims, and maintaining neutrality not also apply to discussions and content here? This point relies completely on the assumption that GR's web-master tweaks "results to his liking", which, as far as I can see, is assuming bad faith, is not verifiable, and is not a neutral perspective on this source. Besides, every reviewer tweaks marks to their liking! GR's web-master can only choose to consistently ignore certain sites.

b. You said, "They [IGN's and Onion's reviews of Galaxy] are nowhere near the same level of detail and quality, yet they account for the same weight in the critic average." However, this is a false statement. Please take a second look at the list. The Onion is not in bold. This means that it is not counted towards the total score. Presumably, the reason why the web-master decided to not include it is precisely reason you mentioned: it is an amateur review and does not have the requisite level of detail and quality. Seeing as the web-master of GR has already addressed your concerns expressed in this point and in the subsequent three points by his decision to not include amateur reviews in calculating the total score, I feel no need to address either this point or the next ones (c, d, and e) here.

I hope you do not find my reply too dismissive. I think your concerns are valid. However, they are either 1) not practical, because they could be reasonably applied to scores in addition to metascores upon the same logic, or, 2) already accounted for in the way GR calculates its metascores. I see no reason to object to the use of GameRankings in articles, and defy anyone to provide a verifiable and practical reason why it shouldn't be. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 22:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I notice also that MobyGames features aggregate review scores. I don't see why these can't be cited if GR's and MC's are. Sure, they're user-submitted; but an editor exists to filter these submissions. SharkD (talk) 01:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

   Theoretically, I suppose there wouldn't be a problem with this. Practically, however, it seems like overkill to list yet another score aggregator. It's not nearly as notable as GameRankings and Metacritic are; hahnchen posted this article above, which, to summarise, explains that GR and MC are used by game publishers and developers. MG does not seem to have achieved that level of notability, so including it would just seem redundant. Though I don't think any formal policy should be made against it.

    The only real policy about review aggregators I support is one that puts a minimum on the length of time a game must be out for before MC and GR refs are added to its article. That way, it is less likely that the ranking of the game will change, since, after a certain length of time, most of the major sites will have written their reviews. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 02:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There will be small inconsistencies between MC scores if one game gets 7 reviews, and another game gets 7 different reviews from "tougher" sources. But ratings aren't an exact science in the first place. There's still a lot of value to having them there. I think we can trust readers to make a fair judgment call. They know that the difference between a 86% and 88% won't be scientific. But it's still extremely useful and notable information. I'd support the use of these ratings. Music has ratings. I don't think it's a question of if we should have ratings for games, but which rating we should use. 65.95.157.129 (talk) 04:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's the evidence that the GR webmaster tweaked the rankings

Warning: Do not disturb Wikipedia to make a point. User:Krator (t c) 13:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Today, Mario Galaxy got a review added that ranked it above Ocarina of Time once more. The averages for both games were at 97.6%, with ties broken by the total number of reviews. Since Mario Galaxy had 52 reviews vs. Ocarina's 31, Mario Galaxy came out on top. The webmaster then proceeded to expand the decimal precision to three decimal places to change the ranking. Pictorial evidence here

2. In addition, the webmaster also DEACTIVATED a 10/10 GameTap review so that Mario Galaxy wouldn't rank above Ocarina with the new three-digit decimal precision. Notice how it's no longer in bold on this page, meaning it's no longer counted into the composite score.

3. A few years ago, the default cutoff for minimum reviews was 10. Then, Metal Gear Solid (GBC) got a review added that ranked it above Ocarina of Time. The webmaster then changed the default cutoff to 20.

Keep in mind that these kinds of ties are NOT new. For example, Tekken 3 and Resident Evil 4 had been tied at 95.8% for over two years. Both games are in the top 10. Previously, RE4 ranked higher because it has 104 reviews versus Tekken's 23. It seems more than coincidental that the webmaster would change the decimal precision just today, considering how many similar ties existed in the past. If he had truly been interested in etablishing a more accurate ranking methodology, he would have done so the first time this occurred, not when another title is threatening to overtake the game that he personally believes to be #1.

Also, keep in mind how much freedom the webmaster has to bend the rankings to his personal likings:

• which reviews to include (these are denoted in bold)
• the ranking methodology
• the default cutoff for a game to appear in the rankings
• the decimal precision

and more.

I think the best way to resolve this would be to STOP citing GameRankings entirely in the reception sections. It's not reliable, since the webmaster has shown clear evidence of bending numbers and rankings to match his own bias. Plus, this isn't the first time in the site's history that something fishy like this has happened.

(You might argue that Mario Galaxy was once #1 on GameRankings, so why didn't the webmaster tweak the results back then? First, the difference was way too high at that point for him to tweak -- 98.3% vs. 97.6% -- and from big-name publications, too. Plus, as the webmaster, he'd know that as more reviews from amateur sites begin to pour in, group polarization starts to kick in and the averages go down. This has become increasingly true over the past half-decade or so due to the exploding popularity of the Internet. Nowadays, any random Joe can start his own review site.)

- Wikipedian06 (talk) 06:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Responding point-by-point:

1. This does not prove the mens rea, if you will. He may very well have expanded the accuracy in order to determine which one actually deserves the position because it was a great point of controversy, and greater controversy calls for greater accuracy. There is no way you can prove a causal link between Galaxy attaining the #1 position and expanding the decimal precision. More precise decimal places aren't innately anti-Galaxy. You have established not causal link and not intent. And certainly not "clear evidence of bending numbers and rankings to match his own bias".

Learn to read.

Keep in mind that these kinds of ties are NOT new. For example, Tekken 3 and Resident Evil 4 had been tied at 95.8% for over two years. Previously, RE4 ranked higher because it has 104 reviews versus Tekken's 23. It seems more than coincidental that the webmaster would change the decimal precision just today [on the day Mario Galaxy regained #1 with 52 reviews], considering how many similar ties existed in the past. If he had truly been interested in etablishing a more accurate ranking methodology, he would have done so the first time this occurred, not when another title is threatening to overtake the game that he personally believes to be #1. Wikipedian06 (talk) 07:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but Tekken 3/RE4 have not been a recent source of controversy. With internet news sites reporting the twiddling back and forth of OoT and SMG, 'op! it's #1! op! It's back to #2! Op! #1, etc.' it became suddenly of pressing urgency to list to more decimal places. Considering that there was at one point only a difference of 0.062% between SMG and OoT, it became of utmost importance to show all the worked up Ninty fans why it was that OoT ranks above SMG though they appear to have the same mark. You make a false conclusion that the WM would have necessarily moved to three decimals before "if he had truly been interested in establishing a more accurate ranking methodology," and your assertion that "he personally believes [OoT] to be #1" is completely unfounded. In any case, since you admit it is a more accurate ranking methodology, why are you complaining that it knocks SMG out of #1? clicketyclick_yaketyyak 10:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Because for who knows how many years, ties had always been broken by the number of reviews. Pressing urgency and utmost importance? Give me a freaking break. Metroid Prime and Soul Calibur had been tied as #3 and #4 (formerly #2 and #3, before SMG came in) with 96.3% for years, and he didn't do jack about it. Wikipedian06 (talk) 12:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Have they been broken by the number of reviews? MP is 96.304% and SC is 96.259%. Rounded to 1 decimal, they look the same, but MP was always ranked above SC. Hey, here's a thought; maybe they were always ranked by score alone, only, we couldn't see those two extra decimal places that made the difference. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 13:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

2. When did he 'deactivate' GameTap's review? It was most definitely before you posted this (December 12) In fact, it must have been before Galaxy was even released! Here is a google cache of Ratchet & Clank's game page on GR from October 27 (before SMG was released) and as you can see, GameTap is not in bold lettering, and as GR says, "Only Sites in Bold are used to calculate the Average Score used in the Rankings". (link) My question to you is, how can the web-master have deactivated GameTap in anticipation of Galaxy getting a higher score than OoT before Galaxy was even released in order to preemptively knock it out of first place?

It was there before on the page for SMG. Maybe it had become a "counted" website after Ratchet & Clank and October 27? In any case, it was shortly deactivated (re-deactivated?) after SMG regained the #1 spot. Wikipedian06 (talk) 07:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hahah, but why would he reactivate it if it would boost up SMG's score? I mean, isn't the point of your accusation that he deactivated it in order to demote SMG? Well, anyway, sorry but I checked Google's cache from the beginning and end of November as well as December 4, 5, 10, and 11 I believe and it was always listed deactivated. If you really want the links to each cache I can provide them, but rather than wasting (more of) my time, let's just leave it at this: you imagined it. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 10:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

O RLY? Show me the links. Wikipedian06 (talk) 12:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

No my dear, that is not how it works. Rather than me providing a million links to disprove your statements, you must provide one single link to prove your allegations. Not only is it a more logically efficient solution, but it is the only fair one. You don't get to make unsupported accusations that it is the responsibility of others to refute. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 13:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

3. I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to. The minimum number of reviews a game needs to make it into the top/bottom 20 lists is 8 reviews, not 10, and certainly not 20. (link)

The Rankings Kind of hard to miss considering it's the first link in the left bar. Notice the "Default Reviews/Votes" drop-down? The 20 there used to be 10 by default. Wikipedian06 (talk) 07:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight... the reason you're proposing to place a ban on using GR is because they provide you with the option of using a minimum number of reviews of 0,5,10,15,20,25,30,35,40,45, or 50 in searching for games, and they just placed the default at the approximate middle of all those options: 20?! clicketyclick_yaketyyak 10:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

(1) the numerical rankings you see on GameRankings (such as together their reviews have resulted in an average ratio of 97.4%. That ratio has resulted in this title becoming the 2nd best game of all time and the 1st best game on the Wii.) are based off of the default cutoff (which at the moment is 20). (2) the media sites don't bother to dispute it, either -- whenever I've seen -ANY- external site report figures from GR, they're always based off of the default 20-review rankings. (3) it's a known fact that he once changed it from 10 to 20 after Metal Gear Solid (GBC) placed higher than Ocarina of Time. Just how like he tweaked the decimal places after Mario Galaxy overtook OoT. Wikipedian06 (talk) 12:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Prove your statements. I've seen links to this instead. Also, prove when he switched it over. Also, explain why Wikipedia should care about this when news sites don't. I highly doubt your story about MGS, since it only has an average of 95.9% while OoT has an average of 97.6%. And in any case, it doesn't prove a thing. There is a difference between causation, correlation, and coincidence. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 13:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see here, you have made unsupported accusations of malicious intent (qualifying as libel) that certainly goes against the spirit of assuming good faith, you have twice made false claims about what/when GR counts and does not count (1. you previously maintained it counts The Onion's reviews; it does not 2. you maintained it stopped counting GameTap because of Galaxy's ranking, but it didn't count GameTap since before Galaxy was ever released), and you have referred to GR with clearly biased and offensive language ("granking's faggotry"). At this point in the debate, I'm past assuming good faith on your part. Stop making up false accusations and lies to support your campaign to make a policy vilifying GR. Or, if the lies and false accusations aren't you're own, then stop repeating them and start checking your facts, please. What do others think; can we end this discussion now? clicketyclick_yaketyyak 06:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Where did I ever use language like that? Wikipedian06 (talk) 07:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The url of the "Pictorial evidence" you submitted. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 09:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I simply copied and pasted the image URL from another site where someone had initially reported this. Don't blame me for it. Wikipedian06 (talk) 12:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Take responsibility for the information you post on Wikipedia or don't post it at all. Additionally, prove your accusations or don't post them. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 13:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Summary... and conclusion?

• It seems already established in this discussion that it is fine to cite GR and MC in articles. What is at issue is whether rankings ought to be used.
• The basis for Masem's proposal that there should be a policy against using GR's rankings was that GR's "webmaster is intentionally adding or ignoring reviews" and is 'tweaking' results based on personal bias. (The other point Masem made about absolute vs. relative was addressed early on by users and the discussion moved on to hinge around the points of misleading a reader as to the quality of the game — a point which was strongly rebutted by multiple users — and accusations of 'intentional tweaking' to alter rankings and 'obvious bias'.
• Neither Masem nor Wikipedian06 have provided definitive, conclusive proof of these accusations upon prompting. In fact, two 'proofs' were disproved (the 'proof' that there is bias in review selection in that The Onion is given equal weight as IGN though they are not of the same quality of reviews was shown to be false as The Onion is not counted towards GR's average; the 'proof' that GameTap's review scores were deactivated — not counted — in order to knock SMG out of the top spot in favour of OoT was disproved with evidence that GameTap's review scores have been deactivated since before SMG was released. The accusers have yet to provide proof that there was any time that GameTap's review scores were activated and counted on GR.)
• The other 'proofs' offered depend on speculation (i.e. if GR's web-master was actually interested in using three decimal places, he would have instituted it sooner. Therefore, the fact that he has instituted an "accurate ranking methodology" at this point in time proves that he is biased!!!), assumptions (i.e. that previous to the 3-decimal places, ties were broken by the number of reviews), and confusion of causation and coincidence (i.e. that providing more options for minimum number of reviews in searching and viewing game lists was done in order to knock Metal Gear Solid out of the top ranking in favour of OoT — and that's despite the fact that MGS is a good 1.7% lower than OoT and was never ranked against any other games to date.)

Since accusers of GR have been unwilling or unable to substantiate their claims of its bias, which is the only basis left in this discussion's proposal for a policy against using GR/MC's rankings, and since one accuser admits that "the media sites don't bother to dispute it", I move to disregard the proposal and not have a policy of excluding rankings, since the very basis upon which such a policy is justified is comprised solely of unsubstantiated, fabricated, and untrue claims. Further attempts at 'proving' these claims that have been demonstrated to be baseless can only lead to violations of WP:POINT and WP:SOAP — a concern Krator expressed (see side-discussion). clicketyclick_yaketyyak 22:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I should point out that while I did point to someone else's claims of bias, that itself wasn't the crux of my argument, nor do I believe it necessary to be true - it just hilighted what the end of result of using GR/MC rankings as "fact" in Wikipedia articles. That basically the "averages" that they calculate do not consider the relative differences between gaming review sties, and, particularly when comparing games published several years apart. Stating the average is fine, but we should allow the relative quality of the game should be judged by the reader. Additionally, what may be the #x game today could easily change after a new game is released tomorrow - its too much of a transient piece of data to include --MASEM 22:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

One of the reasons there is an edit button is to update information. As a game develops, all kinds of information are liable to change. If we were to make a policy of excluding potentially transient information, then game articles really ought not be created until the games have been released. And even then, it might be safer to only make the article five years after release. I support your original proposal to put a minimum time policy before any kind of GR/MC reference can be included to guard against incessant change though.

Hahnchen already addressed your point that "we should allow the relative quality of the game should be judged by the reader". Said Hahnchen, "We're not telling the reader what to think, we're telling them what Metacritic [or GR] says, it's up to the reader to draw his own conclusions."

Hahnchen also addressed your point that rankings "do not consider the relative differences between gaming review sties". Said Hahnchen, "Metacritic does give a good indication of a game's critical reception. It cannot be skewed by singular anomalous reviews, and its impression of a game's overall feedback is a heck of a lot less subjective than an average reader."

Once objections to rankings based on allegations of bias are put aside, the remaining reasons are weak, or, to quote Hahnchen again, "incredibly poorly thought out arguments". Wikipedia is not censored, and unless you can come up with an explanation of how rankings — properly indicated as being listed by review aggregator site GameRankings as # in their all-time best reviewed list, rather than "this game is the best" cited with GR (which should not be done as it violates WP:NPOV) — violates policy, then there is no justification for making a policy against using rankings from GR/MC, and in fact, making such a policy would violate policy. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 00:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not so much "censorship" as the fact that we don't need to include those numbers (especially rankings) because they're not needed here. Wikipedian06 (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Policies forbidding the insertion of things shouldn't be made upon the premise a person's POV that they're "not needed". The criterion for inclusion is notability: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." By your own admission, GR's rankings are widely quoted by "media sites". It meets the notability threshold for inclusion and unless you can show how it violates policy, it is a violation of WP:CENSOR to not allow it. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 01:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Proof

• Proof that ties used to be broken by the number of reviews: See here. (Archive dated 5/29/07)

• Proof that the webmaster changed the default minimum review count (from 10 to 20) when Metal Gear Solid (GBC) was threatening to overtake OoT: Before After

Now, is that convincing enough for you? Wikipedian06 (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Your first 'proof' does not demonstrate anything more than a correlation, since GR weighs review sites differently. Additionally, what does it matter? Even if you could prove that it used to be sorted by number of reviews and that they switched over to purely ranked by average, that does not show intent to tweak with the ranks in order to place a certain game at the top. You accuse GR of bias for setting the default number of reviews to a higher number, requiring games to get more reviews to be ranked by default, and then you also accuse GR of bias for deciding to not require games to get more reviews to get ranked! Damned if GR does, damned if GR doesn't in your eyes, eh?

Your second 'proof' is not even a correlation because it does not show a trend; it's only a coincidence — and MGS wasn't even in first place! You have first imagine that MGS was "threatening to overtake OoT" and then you have to imagine that the web-master cared, and then you have to imagine that he changed to default listing to foil MGS! Your explanations tend to require a large amount of assumption. Occam's razor dictates that my explanation is better.

You failed to provide evidence for the things I asked for, most notably, proof that GameTap was ever activated in between October and December such that it could be deactivated again. What you have just provided, though I appreciate the effort you put in, is inconclusive. Certainly not rigourous enough upon which to base policy. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 01:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

GR does NOT weigh review sites differently. All sites are given equal weight; it even specifically says so at the end of the FAQ. You can confirm this for yourself using Excel or a calculator. Averaging all 54 bolded review scores for SMG gives you exactly 97.441%.

I only accused him of bias because he happened to change the cutoff RIGHT when MGS' critic average was going on an upward trend, instead of deciding that in the beginning or when there's no apparent battle for the #1 spot.

So the MGS thing was a coincidence and the recent decimal precision expansion was also a coincidence? Are you just being thick-headed or can you honestly say with 100% certainty that nothing fishy was going on in both of these instances?

As for the deactivated 10/10 reviews, I'm still trying to look for cached pages. It's a bit difficult to find cached versions from EVERY single day. I can try to prove the rest of the accusations, but it seems that no matter how much evidence I provide, you'll always twist it in GameRankings' favor and call it a "coincidence" or say my evidence is insufficient to prove anything. It almost seems as if you already had your mind set from the beginning, so no amount of proof will change your beliefs.

Wikipedian06 (talk) 04:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Why don't you hold off for a bit on the debate, clickety? I'd like to hear what other people think about this (especially the evidence I presented), since hearing exclusively from you results in a very one-sided argument. Wikipedian06 (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Wiki6, you mention MGS there but on another occasion you have protested that they don't list sites like Game Tap... thats abit of a controdiction on your argument. You complain that they increased the reviews needed for the rankings then complain that they take reviews away, meaning theres not enough so which is it? Plus your link never shows MGS being number 1, if it was number 1 once then that might be better proof but... Stabby Joe (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read my arguments once again (as usual). I don't have a problem with GameTap not being counted. THE POINT I'VE BEEN MAKING ALL ALONG IS THAT THEY NEED TO STAY CONSISTENT. If GameTap was once counted in the average, it counts FOREVER, or the webmaster should have a darn good reason explaining why it was deactivated. Same for the default minimum number of reviews, or the decimal precision. When you run a site like that (which is supposed to be as objective as possible), you don't change those settings whenever you feel like it. (And yes, reviews themselves are subjective, but aggregator sites are meant to be as free of bias as possible.) Wikipedian06 (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

No. Sites like Metacritic can and will change their weightings in the same way Google tweak their algorithms. I've already made my points above as to why I feel Metacritic scores are relevant to Wikipedia articles. Having them change every so often does not matter, it does not make them any less notable, reliable or influential. - hahnchen 02:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

what about tweaking them only when another game is (arguably) on track to snatch the top spot from OoT? Wikipedian06 (talk) 06:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read my arguments once again (as usual). I feel your need to insult me to make your case despite me NOT insulting or provoking you in anyway and openly stating I am open for both arguments, is not only pointless and problematic but very unhelful to the debate proccess which I'm very open to for both sides. And now I will make my case again. I'm putting whether the webmaster is being biased or not to one side, forget about that point you're making for now. I just want to know why exaclly do you mention Game Tap, then complain about using less known sources and increased the cap at one point since those to arguments are kind of contradictory. Stabby Joe (talk) 13:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Replaced this thread here because it's not on the topic below
Wikipedian06, while I agree that the recent changes you have brought up are cause for concern and seem fishy, they technically do not definitively prove the actions and intents of the webmaster making these changes for their own agenda. While the scenario you've proposed is possible, other scenarios have been proposed that fit the facts as well.

However, after looking at the rankings page, I feel that perhaps we may have misinterpreted the original intent of this page, or at least its current use. It looks to be more of a searchable database rather than a definitive list of best games. The fact there is filter control with several different options on what to filter and how means that the list is variable and gives different results depending on the criteria. For instance setting the "Minimum Reviews / Votes" to zero lists "Christmas NiGHTS" as #1, while the default settings list The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time as #1.

Given this, I believe that including statements about the rankings on GR in the prose of reception sections does not provide accurate and verifiable information. I still feel that listing the aggregate score along with other scores in a table is neutral enough and adds something to the overall reception. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC))

The thing is, when external media sites cite GameRankings, they usually just report data straight off of that page without disputing it or tweaking with the options. Wikipedian06 (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

That may be true, but that doesn't mean we should continue to do so. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC))

And if you look above, that's exactly my argument for why GameRankings should not be cited as a source on Wikipedia. It doesn't meet WP:RS. Why exaclly do you we have to not list GR at all when in many cases it has the most reviews listed, even more than MC? And it actually DOES still list those reviews not in the final average unlike MC. Not listing the rankings at all and just the basic reception seems to me like a perfectly good source to mention in reception. If we are even going to consider such a move by not listing a well known and well visited site, we're going to need more reason that this SMG case, which is just one example of something POSSIBLE that only affects the RANKINGS, which we're not thinking of even listing now? It seems like a very neutral option, and many think so. Stabby Joe (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

On rankings specifically

This is a specific response to User:Clicketyclick, written in this space because I think that is the best thing. (I even have a user page on that.) First of all, the goal of this response is to show that rankings should not be included, for different reasons than reliability. Or, if you wish, a different kind of reliability aggregate review sites can do nothing about. Because the below will inevitably result in the above soapbox ranting if I do not include a little disclaimer, I have a little disclaimer below. I also encourage the users Clicketyclick and Wikipedian06 to abide to WP:ETIQUETTE and keep the use of (borderline) personal attacks to a minimum. Finally, I must say that I find it a great loss of rationality and sensibility that this fringe discussion needs A) such a large amount of attention and B) such a structured "bit by bit" and "OMG proof" approach. You'll find it on WP:LAME after the discussion is over.

• This subsection does not consider any kind of intervention by any webmaster whatsoever. If you want to discuss that point, go to the section above.
• This subsection does not consider any kind of information but the actual ranking (i.e. using aggregate review sites to compare games with each other). If you want to discuss other kinds of information, such as the use of average scores without comparison with other games, go to the section above.

My actual argument has appeared twice before on this page, but I feel a third repetition is necessary to avoid 10kb more. I'll rephrase it, too. Gaming reviews always award absolute scores, not relative scores. This means that a game is not rated according to its position relative to other games out there, but simply how close to perfect it is. This means that scores between games are incomparable, by any method. This includes all aggregate review sites. This is actually just mathematics, and follows clearly from the methods used. Grading/rating methods that would make this work are, for example, the elo rating system and Bell curve grading. These would make aggregate rankings work - in theory. This is practically impossible because one cannot rate all video games at once, nor can one re-rate every game every time another game is rated. User:Krator (t c) 02:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Personally, I don't care one bit whether GR manipulates their rankings or not. The aggregate score is potentially useful, but a ranking based on unweighted or possibly-poorly-weighted averages of semi-arbitrarily chosen reviews that may not even be from all the same sources is IMO not worth mentioning.

And BTW, WP:CENSOR has absolutely nothing to do with this issue. Anomie⚔ 02:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

but a ranking based on unweighted or possibly-poorly-weighted averages of semi-arbitrarily chosen reviews that may not even be from all the same sources is IMO not worth mentioning. And if you look above, that's exactly my argument for why GameRankings should not be cited as a source on Wikipedia. It doesn't meet WP:RS. Wikipedian06 (talk) 04:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Please go to the above section to make this point. Semi-arbitrarily here doesn't mean: webmasters selecting reviews (if you want it to, go to the section above). It means: one can never possibly include all reviews, nor can it include all significant reviews. Local newspapers etc. are simply overlooked because of the enormous amount of reviews out there. That's kind of the point of this section: GR should not be used, regardless of any unreliable webmasters, because its methods are inherently flawed. Note that "flawed methods" are not in WP:RS. User:Krator (t c) 19:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

If thats the case we shouldn't use Metacritic either nor it or Rotton Tomotoes for film articles. Then that also means we can't make any statment like "upon release X was generally well recieved" since GR and MC are the best sources to back that up. Seriously, we will nee lots of reason and support to rule out future use. Also it should be mentioned that when mentioning GR and MC most state its based on a number of reviews so its not saying it has all which seems to be the problem for most against using it. Stabby Joe (talk) 22:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

First, I would like to point out that this is not WP:LAME. This is an extremely important point. Revert wars are going on in a number of articles on whether or not to include rankings, so even though you (and I) think the debate is silly, it's still relevant in order to stop WP:LAME editing.

Addressing Krator's point: I shall attempt to rebut this two ways —

• 1) Basing policy on your argument would violate WP:NOR; Wikipedia doesn't publish material based on original thought, so it should also not exclude material based on it. Only WP:NOTE is relevant, and GR rankings meets it; reliable media outlets and game publishers use the verifiable rankings, so what violation of policy justifies not showing those rankings on Wiki too?

• 2) While each game may be graded according to different expectations of its console's limitations, all are graded with the same sort of criteria in mind and an excellent game (regardless of time or platform) will receive a mark reflecting that, i.e. marks don't inflate as technology get more impressive. Besides tech/graphics, other aspects of the game are largely comparable between platforms and generations. Good plots/gameplay are good regardless of time or platform. Therefore, games are comparable. Also, my philosophy classes don't bell-curve though marks are based on essay-writing with a subjective marking scale (no concept of a "perfect" essay since there's no correct answer.) Yet the class average is published by the University. This dichotomy you paint between absolute & relative scores is not reflective of how subjective scaled averages are treated by academia and by the media.

Addressing this point: "semi-arbitrarily chosen reviews ["one can never possibly include all reviews, nor can it include all significant reviews. Local newspapers etc. are simply overlooked because of the enormous amount of reviews out there."] that may not even be from all the same sources is IMO not worth mentioning" —

• 1) Whether it is worth mentioning or not in your opinion is not what is at issue but whether we can form a policy of it ("no use of rankings from GR"). Being "not worth mentioning" (and that's indeed strictly your own opinion, as rankings are quoted by media outlets and other users) is not sufficient grounds upon which to make policy forbidding the use of something. That would be a violation of WP:CENSOR.
• 2) Local newspapers' reviews are not significant reviews. The inclusion criteria of GR is restricted so only mags and sites with a sizable catalogue of reviews are counted. And why is it that GR "can never possibly include all ... significant reviews"? That's an assumption.

Basically, you cannot exclude rankings because there is no policy that they violate. The rankings conform to Wiki policy and making a policy to exclude them is a violation of WP:CENSOR unless it can be proven that GR is not a reliable source. That's why discussion has been dominated by attempts to prove that GR is not a reliable source (on account of bias influencing rankings.) There is no other way to justify a policy of excluding rankings, and all attempts to show evidence that GR is not reliable have either ended in being disproved or have been inconclusive. Therefore, any attempt to formulate a policy against GR's rankings is indeed a violation of policy. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 00:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

More fishy business

December 19 - GameAlmighty's 9/10 factored into the critic average (note bold)

December 13 - GameAlmighty's 9/10 NOT factored into the critic average (note not bold)

Seriously, what gives? Wikipedian06 (talk) 00:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I feel the same way. Seriously, what gives? Have you not listened to a single thing that others have said?

• "Sites like Metacritic can and will change their weightings in the same way Google tweak their algorithms." — hahnchen
• Proof is something that demonstrates the truth of a statement.
• Inconclusive is an attempted proof that does not lead to a single inevitable conclusion.

A url is not proof. You have not shown the key thing here: the link between this activation and SMG. I could claim that the sudden activation had to do with any one of the number of other games that site reviewed. Hell, you haven't even shown that GR's webmaster is even remotely interested in SMG's score. You persist with these baseless accusations which may be okay for a blog but do not belong on wikipedia discussion pages. Seriously, stop it. This is libel. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 00:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Responding to your previous argument:

"GR does NOT weigh review sites differently. All sites are given equal weight"

No they weren't. Whip out your calculator and calculate the pure (un-weighted) averages (to three decimal places) of HL2, Halo, and Tekken in this link you cited as "proof that ties used to be broken by the number of reviews". They do not all come out to 95.6%. Therefore, review sites at least used to be weighted differently.

On that subject of being broken by the number of reviews... in the same post, you cited this link as some sort of proof about a vendetta against MGS and how it was threatening OoT's #1 spot. Look at the bottom of that list. Notice how SM64 and Halo are tied at 95.6%? Tell me, which one of the two has the larger amount of reviews, the one that wins the tie and comes in #9, or the one that comes in #10? In light of this information, tell me, how is it that ties were broken then? clicketyclick_yaketyyak 01:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I've asked you to hold off on your arguments until we've gotten more feedback from others. It's like trying to argue with a wall. Wikipedian06 (talk) 01:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

How about the consensus of views above that assert sites like Metacritic as being reliable sources, and accurate in gauging responses. You're sounding like a broken record, repeating your conspiracy theories again and again ad infinitum without anything else to add. - hahnchen 02:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Check out my last two paragraphs and you'll see why (i.e. you're factually incorrect.) clicketyclick_yaketyyak 01:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe the ranking system was different back then? Especially considering that there's a critic score and a "main score," whatever that is? Keep in mind that this archive was taken over two years ago. I know for a fact that ties were broken by number of reviews at least as of last month, since I expanded the rankings to the to 100. Wikipedian06 (talk) 01:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

No, you set out to prove that the ranking system was different back then and failed, recall? You set out to prove "that ties used to be broken by the number of reviews". In actuality, you showed that they didn't used to be broken by number of reviews. Why were you trying to prove this? Because I asked you to back up this statement of yours: "for who knows how many years, ties had always been broken by the number of reviews." You made this statement in order to assert that, before GR elected to display to 3 decimal places, ties were broken by number of reviews while I asserted that you had no proof of this and that they were broken by the average score alone — it's just that the other 2 decimal places weren't shown. It appears that I was correct; for who knows how many years, ties have always been broken by average score, not number of reviews. Displaying 3 decimal places could then not possibly be construed as an attempt to knock SMG out of #1, but only as an effort to show suspicious viewers why it is that they were switching back and forth.

Why do you suspect the worst and assume malicious intent? Is it not better to assume good faith until proven otherwise? clicketyclick_yaketyyak 02:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

As of November of this year, ties WERE indeed broken by the number of reviews. What explains these screenshots, then? I was wrong about the "for many years" part, that's all. Wikipedian06 (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but "for many years" was key, as it was meant to show that the only possible reason why it switched over at this point in time was because of SMG. But quite clearly, it has been ranking by mark since long before SMG came out. Even if it did at some intervening point use number of reviews to break ties and switched back to the pure mark system, it was not malicious or calculated. In fact, you (unwittingly?) admitted yourself that it was a superior system. Surely you should applaud GR that it's become more accurate. Yet you take it as a reason why it shouldn't be used...?! (And also, as you pointed out repeatedly, new review sites were added and old ones deactivated. So it can't be concluded that merely because it says "52" reviews in both shots that they are the same 52 reviews.) clicketyclick_yaketyyak 16:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: Your main concern, I take it, is that GR is anti-SMG because of a desire to keep OoT in the top position. They will stop at nothing — deactivating reviews, changing the way ties are broken — to accomplish this. Though you have not been able to prove this (and in fact you and I have even disproved a few of those claims), I am going to preemptively end all such speculation by going through the sites that are deactivated for SMG and explaining why they are:

• Maxi Consolas(Portugal) (score given: 100%). Only has 65 reviews. Needs 300 for activation
• Wham Gaming (score given: 100%). Only has 254 reviews. Needs 300. Additionally: they didn't even write the review. It is republished from a newspaper (sun media).
• GameTap (score given: 100%). Only has 170 reviews. Needs 300.
• Wii Advanced (score given: 96%). Only has 58 reviews. Needs 100.
• The Onion (score given: 90%). As you pointed out quite rightly, not exactly professional review material. Good thing GR agrees with you.

Those are all the reviews that do not count towards SMG's score. They were all done so on policy. Do you see any bias there? No? So can we put the argument of bias to rest now? Yes? (Also, note that, even with only one decimal place, OoT ranks higher than SMG.) clicketyclick_yaketyyak 02:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

What about GameAlmighty? It doesn't have 300 and yet it's counted. Wikipedian06 (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Really I find it quite amusing that you still haven't learned through all this that you should check your facts before posting. Go to their bloody site. Now what does it say in the top left corner of that list of reviews? "Showing 20 of 322".

Shows 298 reviews by GameRanking's count. Wikipedian06 (talk) 07:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Look, SMG is a fantastic game. And so is OoT. Interestingly enough, the rankings reflect many opinions expressed in the reviews (i.e. that it was almost as good as OoT.) What does it matter really that OoT comes in first? They're both shown to be excellent games. Let me put it to you another way. Read this short, hilariously clueless review from Variety magazine of SMG. Now tell me, which would be the best succinct rebuttal to it? 1) "look you tard, Eurogamer gave this a 100% and so did 20 other major review sites!" 2) "look you flunky, the average rating this game has received is 97.4%." 3) "look you moron, based on this game's ratings, it ranks as the 2^nd best-reviewed game of all-time." Seems to me that the first response fails because, while it shows that some other people loved the game, it doesn't explain why everyone else should think the same or risk being considered idiosyncratic idiots. The second response is definitely an improvement (showing that the praise was quite universal for the game), but then, maybe reviewers are always going gaga over games and that kind of mark is standard. And maybe, as the reviewer suggests, they're just marking it as the best that can be done (which is not very good at all, according to him) with the Wii, whereas other games he mentioned have similar high scores reflecting much loftier achievements. At which point, the third response silences the outspoken cretin, as it shows that achieving such a high rating (reflective of universal praise) is incredibly hard to do in the game industry and in fact the only game that has surpassed it is the undeniable classic OoT.

Rankings aren't interpreted as being "oh, this game is better than that one," as I'm sure everyone in their right mind (and all gamers are) understands that a few points (or even fractions of a point) difference is not necessarily significant. It's not so much the number of the ranking that matters but the mere fact that it ranks so impressively, which is why rankings are important. And as I mentioned before, the reason why the aggregate average is important is because it gives an indication of how universal the praise is (since it's too cumbersome to list all reviews and listing them selectively can be misleading about how universal and what the level of the praise (in high marks) — or criticism (in low marks) — was. Like if I only displayed the reviewers who gave SMG a 90%.) Together, aggregate reviews and rankings provide two very important clues about the critical reception of the game and for that reason, are invaluable information in the corresponding section of the heavyweight titles! clicketyclick_yaketyyak 16:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Summarizing to this point

(Yea, we're going to WP:LAME over this but...)

Here's the points I feel it's necessary to restate now:

• We will not discourage (and in fact, still encourage) the use of GR/MC as both being good repositories for game review links that we as Wikipedia cannot provide (per WP:DIR) and to state their aggregate scores as a rough measure of the game's review score averages. While Wikipedian06 may be correct that at least one site is biasing the average to change rankings, we're talking small changes that affect the score no more than 1 percentage point. At least to me, there is very little difference in game quality if a game got 84% and 85% for these aggregate sites, so if the webmasters are playing such games, they're not affecting the general category they fall into.
• There is the question of the ranking inclusion. Again, Wikipedian06 may be right on the biasing going on, but here are reasons I would not include rankings:
  1. What Krator has stated about absolute vs relative ratings.
  2. Comparing reviews of two games with a significant span of time between them (more than two-three years, considering console lifetimes) is like comparing apples and oranges - the expectations for gameplay, graphics, and sound change with each console generation. Within the same generation, its certainly reasonable, but 10 years (SMG vs OoT) is a 2 generation split. GR/MC provides these rankings regardless of this concern.
  3. Rankings are transient data. This is not to say that WP can't have transient info, but there's a logistical nightmare if we allowed GR/MC rankings on articles. Say, today, the top 50 games as ranked by GR have their position listed in their articles. If a new game comes along that gets into the top #50, then someone would need to "bump" all the other games that fall after it; that means if a game gets to #1, 50 other game articles have to be bumped. I do not want to be that person with how fast new games enter the top tier. We could use the "accessdate" of the ((cite web)) template to say "oh, but it was #x on such-and-such a date" but because these ranking pages are completely dynamic, there is no way to "fix' that version of the page nor will it be captured by internet archiving sites.

  Now specifically for this, if GR has a feature each year where, in a static content page, they stated "Here's the top 100 games based on GR rankings as of such-and-such date", and that page would always be accessible and would not change ever again, then we can use that type of information. It is in stone, so the rankings can't be biased, and its always there as a reference. We certainly have no problem if IGN or another big site lists their top 100 games of all time, this would be the same thing. But again, the key here is that the information is no longer subject to change by the webmaster and that a user can always go back to review that page. (Best of my knowledge, GR/MC do not do such features, but that doesn't mean they won't in the future).

My opinion is that providing aggregate scores and links to GR/MC is more than sufficient to give the reader an impression of how well a game was received, and we provide them with the tool to , if they want, determine how the game fares to others, but let them make the distinction of how the rankings are used. --MASEM 15:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd say Masem sums it up rather nicely and I agree with his stance. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC))

Yeah, thanks for summarising this long thread that not everyone wants to read through. It's because of posts like this that I supported Masem's RfA. JACOPLANE • 2007-12-19 15:49

Indeed it is easy to agree with Masem when you do not read the discussion and miss the rebuttals to the points that he is restating. Hearing only one side of the argument always goes far in promoting consensus. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 16:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I personally have been keeping up with the discussion and still think Masem's summation is accurate and correct. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC))

In agreement with Masem. User:Krator (t c) 16:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Would any of you who are in agreement with him care to address the rebuttals to his points? From what I've seen of how Wiki operates, mere "I agree" statements without explanation hold little weight in determining consensus. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 16:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Fragland review

GameRankings added a Fragland.net review today. The 92% score wasn't bad by any standard, but Fragland is clearly a site geared towards fans of shooting games (Bioshock: 96% Halo 3: 96%), as its name suggests.

Nintendo's PR department issued an announcement today. Apparently, Nintendo still cites GameRankings as a source, despite how unreliable it may be.

Wikipedian06 (talk) 01:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Now its Fragland? Its one conspiricy after another with you lol! And by the way I checked in to some of those sites not added like the Onion, they're a joke publication yet MC lists them so why haven't you bashed them? Stabby Joe (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

That may be so (that it's geared towards shooting games), however, GR must maintain neutrality and not take these things into consideration when qualifying/disqualifying sites. As Fragland has 1127 reviews on file, it has clearly surpassed the needed 300 to qualify. Thus, maintaining its neutrality, GR added the site. The great thing about GR is that, by averaging all these sites together, the bias that one site may possess is compensated for and neutralised. You're far more likely to get a real concept of what mark a game deserves from GR's aggregate scores rather than just listing 10 or so review sites. 18:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

And why isn't the 9/10 Happy Puppy OoT review on GameRankings, then? It'd lower OoT's average to 97.3, but then again, the webmaster doesn't want his favorite game to lose the top ranking. Wikipedian06 (talk) 02:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Because it doesn't pass GameRanking's inclusion guidelines. What's more likely, that the GameRankings editorial staff, accountable to CNET suits, piss about with the rankings to get their favourite games to the top. Or that you're looking for any possible way to promote Super Mario Galaxy, because you've somehow tied your ego to a product. How else can you explain edits like this, and this. I mean, why are you even pointing out Happy Puppy? A source no one has ever heard of, let alone trying to include it into the LoZ reviews box? That's a egregious example of WP:POINT. - hahnchen 11:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Because Happy Puppy was a major gaming news site in the N64 days. Its 9/10 review has been listed on Metacritic, GameRatio and TopTenReviews. It's almost like not including an IGN or Gamespot review just because it'd lower the average significantly. Wikipedian06 (talk) 17:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, get your facts straight: GameRankings has no full-fledged "editorial staff," only one webmaster, Lee Alessi. It's sort of like how CNET acquired GameFAQs, but to this date, it is still mostly run by a single editor (first, site creator CJayC and now SB Allen, CJayC's appointed successor.) Wikipedian06 (talk) 17:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason it's not up is because it doesn't exist. You can't cite websites that don't exist. You can't even do that in wiki articles. That edit history that Hahnchen brought up makes me very suspicious. Now why on earth would you remove a line on Famitsu's review? Before you go to accusing other sites of bias, explain your edit. Is Famitsu not reliable? If Famitsu had given Galaxy a 40 instead of 38 and GR had removed it, wouldn't you be up in arms? (By the way, please try not to split my replies in half.) clicketyclick_yaketyyak 18:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

So if Happy Puppy doesn't exist, why is it listed on every other review aggregator? 71.198.186.51 (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Wiki 6, you were before complaining that GR were using less known reviewers... which is it? Stabby Joe (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not "less known." It was a major review site back in the N64 days, which is why Metacritic, Game Ratio, et al. all have it listed. Wikipedian06 (talk) 08:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Was? Hmmmm... never heard of it. Plus it should be noted that GR has MORE reviews than those other sites mentioned, including Metacritic. Stabby Joe (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out that Nintendo cited it. Nintendo said:

• " Super Mario Galaxy was lauded for its presentation, design and gameplay, averaging a 97% on GameRankings.com."
• "currently, GameRankings.com shows it is one of the highest rated games ever"

The first quotation is based upon GR's aggregate scores. The second is based upon GR's rankings. You have already established that many reputable news sites use GR's scores and rankings and Hahnchen established that game producers and developers and developers use it too. And now you have established that Nintendo itself uses it. Therefore, as I have maintained all along GR (its scores and rankings) is notable and any attempt to institute policy barring the use of GR's aggregate scores or rankings qualifies as a breach of WP:NOTCENSORED. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 17:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Most media sites just report things at face value without bothering to dispute them. They're way too busy. Now, if there were only another site like GameRankings, except run by an unbiased webmaster, who knows if they'd still continue to cite GR? Wikipedian06 (talk) 02:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yet again, you sound like a bad broken record, repeating your conspiracy theories to an audience which has entirely dismissed them. What's more likely, CNET altering their ranking algorithm to improve its accuracy and relevance, or CNET altering their ranking algorithm to promote a game that was released in 1998? Your argument is crap, it's the same as saying global warming is caused by a reduction of pirates, correlation does not imply cause. Every game is affected by the changes, heck, CNET did this so that Mario Kart Double Dash would be considered the greatest game in the Mario Kart series. But wait, Occam's Razor cuts through that argument, as it cuts through yours. Read up on WP:FRINGE, the fact that we're even considering that this is true is a farce. This argument is dead. - hahnchen 11:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

There are Ocarina fanboys who will continue to deny the evidence no matter how much of it I've presented. Of course, there's no formal "proof" that the editor is biased unless he personally admits it, but he'll never do so because he wouldn't want to lose his job. Wikipedian06 (talk) 17:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not an Ocarina fanboy (I haven't even played the blasted game) and neither is Hahnchen. When Occam's razor is mentioned twice in a discussion and two people have to stress the difference between causation and correlation, you know it's time to stop. Regardless of why they reported them (you cannot prove your accusations), the fact remains that they reported them. Therefore, GR's rankings and scores are notable.

So far, not a single person in this entire discussion has even attempted to respond to me on this point and justify censorship of the rankings/scores. You have simply proposed numerous spurious and speculative things to question GR's reliability and others' arguments came down to 'I don't feel that it's needed'. Yet others in this discussion merely said 'I agree' without even bothering to propose any reasons. No one has provided a sufficiently robust reason for why there should be a policy censoring GR's rankings or scores. There is no way that any bureaucrat would be able to find consensus out of this mess and no way that anyone could institute this policy that contravenes Wiki policy. Considering that there were a few admins (and admins-to-be) involved in this discussion, I'm surprised that they didn't recognise this. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 18:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I myself am a huge fan of SMG and think its better than OoT... but that is my personal opinion and that shouldn't have sway when editting and I fail to see any reason to not use GR entirely as many above have already said. And Masam is a universal edittor so no bias there either. Stabby Joe (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)