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

I propose we move List of Sega Mega Drive and Sega Genesis games to List of Sega Mega Drive games (a current redirect). There was some discussion about it a while ago, but I don't think those people realized one thing: the Mega Drive and the Genesis are the same console. Sega Mega Drive is the parent article name, so why shouldn't the list name match the parent article? I think it's ridiculous the way it's set up now. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 02:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was defeated last time. Talk:List_of_Sega_Mega_Drive_and_Sega_Genesis_games#Requested_move. So maybe this time we'll have a different consensus. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 03:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say that the move should have happened - the reasonings for opposing were based on them being misinformed. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, given the situation last time and the failed nomination for the move, I figure we should let a little more consensus build before moving the page, just in case. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 03:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Consensus in this case would need to be established on the article's talk page, since the current record there shows no-joy for the move. You have basic support here, so go ahead and re-open that discussion and we'll comment there. Ham Pastrami (talk) 07:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Id support that. Salavat (talk) 03:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I support the support the move as well, its been the one article that retained the ugly compromise naming format. List of Sega Mega-CD games has a redirect from its alternative name (Sega CD), List of Sega Mega Drive games games makes sense to be the same. - X201 (talk) 08:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Having supported similar Mega Drive moves, I'm not sure about this one. It seems to me that a valid point was brought up in the previous discussion about games that were only released in North America being exclusively "Genesis" due to never having seen release on a "Mega Drive". For that reason I think the current title is probably better, or at least more accurate, than moving to Mega Drive only. Though I'd prefer to see that redundant second instance of "Sega" taken out. Miremare 12:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Mega Drive and Genesis are the exact same console. We can move the title and rewrite the lead to clarify this. I have intentions to clean this list up, should List of Sega 32X games make it past WP:FLC or at least get close. How does that sound? Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 14:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I know they're the same console, but the fact is that there are a number of games that were realeased only on the "Genesis"-branded version of it and never appeared on a version branded "Mega Drive", which is not what the proposed new title implies. Cf. List of Famicom games and List of NES games. I'm not saying go as far as splitting to two lists, but these games are a distinction between the Genesis and Mega Drive brands, despite them being the same machine. Miremare 14:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

To me, that's not a very convincing argument, Miremare. My apologies that I am refuting most of what you say with what I'm about to say, but here's my opinion: The two lists you mentioned are not a good example, because in my opinion they should be merged and keep the "Nintendo Entertainment System" name since it is the one used here on Wikipedia. Likewise, the same is my opinion with the Mega Drive/Genesis list: the parent article is called "Mega Drive", not Mega Drive / Genesis. Now, should it be noted somewhere that the North American model is called the Genesis? By all means, yes. But that's what the lead section is for. The current list title is an ugly compromise that shouldn't be there. By the way, I am an American and grew up calling it the "Genesis", if you're thinking about pulling some comment about that (not that you would, just letting you know). Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 15:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Red Phoenix's points. While the American version of the console is named Sega Genesis, the name Sega Mega Drive can still be used as a generic name for all versions of the console. In fact, this was the whole point of naming the console's article Sega Mega Drive instead of Sega Mega Drive and Sega Genesis. The arguments brought up in the console's article debate are equally valid for the list of games in my opinion. The list should be List of Sega Mega Drive games. Kariteh (talk) 15:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well Red Phoenix, I'm British and always called it the Mega Drive, so nobody can accuse either of us of bias! Yes, the console itself is rightly at Sega Mega Drive, and I have argued for it to stay there on the occasions that it has come up for debate again. However, this isn't the same issue; games exclusive to North-America were never released on any hardware bearing the "Mega Drive" name, therefore I don't believe it's right to state otherwise in the article title. I'm not objecting to the proposed move, I'm merely pointing out that the current title is a more accurate one, and therefore, IMO, a better one. Miremare 16:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well at least there's no bias lol. The console is rightly put at Sega Mega Drive, as you said, because it is the more international title (Japan and pretty much the whole world other than the U.S. use it). True, these games we're talking about weren't released on a system explicitly named "Mega Drive", but it is Mega Drive hardware nonetheless, as much as the Famicom is NES hardware, though we use NES because it is the more international title. The only real hardware differences (other than design and NTSC-PAL) are anything to do with regional lockout—much like what Nintendo did with the SNES. As I have suggested, it certainly shouldn't go without note that the North American games were released on hardware called "Genesis", but I think it's more appropriate for the lead section, much like what I would do if I were given the Famicom and NES lists and merged them. Speaking of which, I would do that if that was my focus, but it isn't; right now, I'm working with Sega lists, like List of Sega 32X games. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 17:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of which, while we're on that subject, I invite everyone to check out the FLC on the 32X list and give their comments. If it passes, I'll start working on more lists like the Mega Drive/Genesis/whatever consensus decides to call it list. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 17:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'm going to copy and paste this discussion at Talk:List of Sega Mega Drive and Sega Genesis games#Move Request 2 and we'll build consensus there instead of here, per Ham Pastrami's suggestion. Please continue all discussion there. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 17:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Would it not solve the "released only for Genesis" issue if the article was renamed and an additional column added in to dictate "Only released in North America" or something? Jappalang (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we just add a "regions released" column period? Every video game list really should have one. I even have a reliable source ready to source the released regions. Also, I do have intentions to clean this list up after List of Sega 32X games is out of WP:FLC. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 22:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey can i get an admin to delete the redirect "Harvest Moon: Tree of Tranquility". so then i can move the page "Harvest Moon: Tree of Tranquillity" (theres a double L typo in the current title) to that location. Thanks, Salavat (talk) 04:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. In the future just use ((db-move)). Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Kool thanks, and thanks for the template link, will come in helpful. Salavat (talk) 05:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Tranquillity can be spelled with one or two Ls. As there are no official translation for the game, neither is more correct. --Mika1h (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm learn something new everyday. Although there is an now an official cover art of this game on Natsume's english site which uses the single L, just in case you were interested

Ok first of all id liked to thank everyone who helped this article become a featured list. I have one query though:
In regards to the games that were remade, say for example Harvest Moon: Back to Nature, it has been remade two times, one time for a girl oriented version (Bokujō Monogatari Harvest Moon for Girl) and another for a boy and girl version on the PSP (Harvest Moon: Boy & Girl). So my question is should these remake be listed as seperate entries on the list or should they remain under the one title of Harvest Moon: Back to Nature. Although while asking this question some remakes already have an entry on the list, one of those remakes is Harvest Moon: Another Wonderful Life, a girl orientated version of Harvest Moon: A Wonderful Life. I made the list as to what game articles were already here on wikipedia. Salavat (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

When making the Castlevania list, Sephiroth BCR, myself, and one other editor were discussing something similar to this. I believe we tried to minimize remakes as much as possible and include them in either the "Notes" or "System release" sections of the title boxes. But yeah, I think we also included some because they had an article. For instance, I honestly don't know why Castlevania (video game) and Vampire Killer are two separate games as the only difference are a few gameplay tweaks and the originating system. But Konami has them listed as separate games on their website and they are two separate articles on Wikipedia. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC))

Thanks for the answer, that cleared up my query nicely. Ill leave it as it is then. Thanks for your help, Salavat (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The peer review for Battle of Lissa (1811), an article within the scope of the Military history WikiProject, is now open. The Military history WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 13:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm proposing a clean-up of the content guidelines for video game articles. Please visit Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines and look for the thread I started. (There was a discussion not more than a week ago where the consensus was that the guidelines were good in effect, but needed to be better organized and clarified. I want this discussion to be strictly focused on clean-up.) Randomran (talk) 04:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Update: I wouldn't normally bump something. But I figure this is pretty central to the wikiproject. A discussion has ensued, and some revisions have been made to the proposed guidelines to improve their clarity. If people could give the proposed clean-up one more look to make sure they're the same as the current guidelines in substance, I'd greatly appreciate it. Head over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines Randomran (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Two things:

The first is that i think it would be an awesome idea to make a list article listing all the acievments to Xbox360 games.

Also maybe we should make a Ubidays article. For those of you who don't know, Ubidays is the first official press confrence of the year with Ubisoft where they announce all their major upcoming games. This is indeed a notable article that I want to make and would like to know if you guys think it's a good idea.Gears Of War 12:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ubidays. Provided the article is good enough and not just a press release re-write, I can't see a reason for it not to be in. As for achievements, I would need to be convinced beyond the initial "they exist so they should be listed" argument. - X201 (talk) 12:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ubidays has become a reasonably big event, and is probably worthy of inclusion, as long as it's not a press release re-write, as X201 says. Achievements, absolutely not. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Fin©™ 12:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with X201 and Falcon. The Ubidays sounds like a viable article, but a list of 360 achievements would only be useful to gamers. An average reader could read a handful of achievement examples and determine what they are, so there'd be no need for a full list that would probably be very very long. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 13:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC))

...not to mention that achievements are the big sticker text for "do not want" per our VG guidelines... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool, well then I'll get started on a Ubidays article in a few days.Gears Of War 22:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Page createdGears Of War 20:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Umm, what should be on the Ubidays page should be information on how, why, and who behind its creation and organization. How the gaming and non-gaming industry recognizes it should be there too. In the current state, it is simply a list of announcements that would fall under WP:NOTADVERTISING of What Wikipedia is not. Jappalang (talk) 23:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Help with Ubidays stuff

I need some serious help with the Ubidays article. I had no idea what to put in the article so I just through in a list of announced games and a image and bang....you gotta a Ubidays article. But there are a number of things I would like to have in the article.

1. I really wanted to list some of the features and stuff the presentators mentioned about the announced game.
2. Next, I wanted to list who created it and all that good stuff that Jappalang mentioned, but I dont know where to find it(it's so f-ing hard to find refs)
3. Also, the articles importace is currently listed as low. But this is a huge event so shouldn't it be high or top?
4. I need help looking at past Ubidays gatherings. But the Ubidays website only list stuff about the 2008 press confrence.

So...help...please?!Gears Of War 20:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering on opinions on this concept. I've only seen it in use on Halo 3 and Halo 2, and have just implemented it on Half-Life 2: Episode Two due to finding the artwork and the alternative Steam title looking rather poor. What is the view on using promotional artwork and clean artwork of the box art image, as is usually done by our editor friends for films? I personally think its a really good idea, as its the image with the title that matters more than the "PC DVD" or "Xbox" parts of the box art. That, and having a box art shot that says "Only on Xbox!" when the game's on PC as well is misleading to readers, especially considering that the infobox will usually contradict this immediately after the image (unfortunately the person who uploaded the art for Halo 2 and 3 missed Halo 1). Of course, its not always available, but I think it looks much better when it is used. -- Sabre (talk) 17:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for it. GTA IV uses clean artwork as well. - X201 (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, I guess part of me is just use to seeing the actual game cover there. But I honestly can't think of a reason why it would be a bad idea. It would alleviate some immediate confusion. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC))

I think either of the two can be used as long as the caption parameter of the infobox is used to describe what it is. Kariteh (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I prefer to use the actual box art if it's an exclusive to one platform. If it's a multiplatform game then it's simpler to use clean art. --Mika1h (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

From my own arty perspective, I go with clean, especially when we are commenting on something in the image; the XBOX 360/PS3/whatever logos are just distracting in that case and we can squeeze more informative pixels out of it. I dunno who changed the Halo 2, Halo 3 images, I don't really care either way. I have no idea where they found them, though. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

For consistency, too, I might crop the Halo image so it removes the rating and the Xbox header... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to what has been implied, but I would to clarify that we are not comparing "clean art vs box art" but "clean box art vs actual box art". The image should still be representative of the box art in either case, and not be some completely different image. If no actual box exists, as might be the case with HL2 Ep2, then I'd be ok with using any promotional image, and if you find a better version of said image, that's ok too. I'd also shy away from a comparison to film, as they generally use theatrical posters/print ads, which is equivalent to using game ads from EGM. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable restriction. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC))

I'm all for it. The boxart design is far more important in the lead image than what system the game is avaliable on and what the rating is. That information is already covered in the info box. Plus it's great for multi-platform games (such as GTA IV), and it prevents the debates in the past as to "What platform's cover should we use?" and similar such edit wars. --.:Alex:. 10:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Just curious, would anyone say that this article could one day be featured? I believe I've found as much information as I could, so I don't think it can be added to at all, only maybe copyedited and such. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

In terms of size, length has not been a major issue in featured articles, as long as it meets comprehensive criterion. That said, it's a bit thin on content. I'll try going through ProQuest and seeing if I can find you some print reviews or summat'. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'd have thought there'd be a fair bit more reception on the first Kirby (!) game. giggy _(:O) 08:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

After a quick glance, it's possible. Some of the sources look a little shaky though. Did you check the Magazine archive? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC))

If only this game was ever re-released (that is, in an English territory). Too bad there's little opportunity for it to be re-released, save for Nintendo announcing a "Virtual Handheld" service. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone has editted Team Fortress 2's class section to add all the voice actors for the nine classes. The problem is that it looks a right mess now, spread with red links and all - only three of the actors have articles. Is there a better way to integrate the information than as it is now? Although the actors may be a helpful edition, they can't stay in their current format. -- Sabre (talk) 22:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Create a section in Development called "Voice acting". Make sure to include the fact that Ellen McLain voices the announcer in there as well. --MASEM 22:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

IMO voice actors should not be listed unless they are notable persons and have an article on the wiki. Otherwise I don't see any justification that these credits would be added while others are not (programmers, etc). An exception would be if the VAs were called out by name in press coverage. (Ellen McLain's performance in Portal was mentioned in several sources, I'm not so sure about her or anyone else's voice in TF2.) Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ham. Though voice actors constitute real-world content, a full listing of voice actors adds little and they should only be included sparingly if the actors are notable. In Kingdom Hearts#Voice cast and Kingdom Hearts II#Voice cast, a good chunk of voice actors were left out simply because listing all the notable ones would have bloated the section. It's like most everything else, a general overview will suffice. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC))

The voice acting has not been covered that much in reviews and other reliable third-party sources, so I've dealt with the problem by removing them. -- Sabre (talk) 10:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Since we're now adopting the newly revised "inappropriate content" article guidelines (thanks much to User:Randomran!), I'd like to point out that List of Virtual Console games (for each region listed) includes Wii Points prices for each class of game (NES, SNES, etc.), and prices for specific games that differ from the norm for that class. I'm wondering if we should consider pulling the prices from each of those articles as a strict interpretation of the guidelines, or if people think the prices should stay. I'm interested in hearing the rationale for keeping the prices on these lists. My personal opinion is that they don't serve any significant purpose there and should be pulled. Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no real reason for them to be there. Prices are already covered in other articles (or at least they should be. I say get rid of them. --.:Alex:. 18:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we had a similar discussion about something like this before, but I don't remember when or what the consensus was. Anyway, I believe the prices, even Wii Points, violate WP:NOTDIR as the prices turn it into a "resource for conducting business" and/or "sales catalogs". Though I think a brief mention of the pricing in the lead would be alright so long as only a few prices are given as examples. Something like, "Virtual console games are priced differently by their system of origin. For example, Nintendo Entertainment System titles are generally priced 500 Wii Points, while Sega Genesis titles are generally 800 Wii Points." (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC))

I don't really have an opinion on the issue, but if the prices should be removed from the lists, they should also be removed from List of Xbox Live Arcade games for the same reasons. --Conti|✉ 19:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree on that. There's no particular reason to list those prices for XBLA - mentioning that games generally cost between 400 and 1200 points in the main XBLA article should be sufficient. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Previous discussions (about the Virtual Console prices at least) weren't ever a consensus in my opinion. I still strongly feel that prices shouldn't be listed on the list pages, or the game pages. Wikipedia isn't a price guide, nor is it any form of shopping website. People can find the prices easily on the official sites listed in external links. Seeing as how no pages list prices (except for downloads such as Virtual Console and Xbox Live Arcade), they shouldn't be exceptions. I also remember something about how pricing should be only used if it's an antique or a high value at an auction (or similar things). Neither of those apply to basic downloads of video games. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Prices should be removed. I think the main reason why download catalogs often have this stuff added is because it's authoritative and easy to verify (which does not imply that it's encyclopedic). The same could be said if you were to make vendor-specific lists like List of games available at Best Buy (don't). The difference is that VC/XBLA are considered to be platforms, which is why these lists are allowed to remain at all. Ham Pastrami (talk) 22:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we should have the prices the way they are as of this writing. Mention them like "Each SNES game costs 800 wii points" or something like that but not for each game. Dont have price as a seperate column though in the lists. guitarhero777777 (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you think it would be fair to use something like the wording given above on the main Virtual Console page? "Virtual Console titles can be downloaded for between 500 and 1000 Wii Points, depending on the system and/or the specific title"? This gives a range of point-prices to work with, without going into price-guide specifics. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I like that idea. If anyone is intrested in the exact price though, we should add the prices at least to the individual game pages or something like that. guitarhero777777 (talk) 23:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

While we try to provide as much information as we can, specifics like pricing doesn't really constitute encyclopedic content. That's why WP:NOTDIR stipulates such content should be excluded. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC))

I think there's a little bit of paranoia going on about the prices. I agree there's no need to go add VC prices to every game article, and including the price for each game in the "List of VC Titles" article is not needed, but removing all mention of prices entirely seems like it might be excessive. It may be useful to a reader to know that NES games are generally 600 (or whatever), SNES 800 (or whatever), N64 1000 (or whatever), and so on as an indication that Nintendo thinks newer old games are somehow worth more. Anomie⚔ 00:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was trying to say. I do believe there should be some mention because some people (like me) might be intrested. I'm not attached to the prices, so I dont care if we delete them if they truly violate policy and are trivial. I'm just intrested and believe there should be some mention of them. guitarhero777777 (talk) 03:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think prices should not be indicated since Wikipedia is not a buying guide. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 12:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure briefly listing a few prices as examples in the lead of a page is within guidelines, though I'm also sure others could argue otherwise. If we keep it to a minimum, we should be ok. But I'm certain the current setup where exact prices are given for each game—whether in a list or an article—violates WP:NOT. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC))

I'm pretty sure it's forbidden for prices in dollars; why would it be different for Wii points? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 17:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. However, I believe the alternative Keifer and I are suggesting, listing only a price range as an example to explain how games differ in prices, is within the guidelines. It helps describe the organization of the games while excluding a full listing of prices. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC))

I proposed that the template be changed to use ((WPBannerMeta)) on the talk page. Please comment. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

While we do have articles on selected video game terms, I think it may be worth our time to make sure that we have a good body of terms that we can wikilink to in gameplay and other sections for reference. However, we want to avoid making this a glossary but make sure to group and discuss terms in the proper sense.

For example, "hit points", "life meter" and I'm sure a half-dozen other terms can be grouped into a common article about how a player's health is measured in a game, not to attempt to historically describe the term (though if possible, we should). In this example article, for example, you'd have a section on "lives", on "hit points", and so forth, using sources that state which games have these (aka reviews, and for better or worse, as with Super Mario Galaxy and its lives system).

The task force would first need to list all possible terms, ignoring article organization to start with. From there, various articles should become obvious for grouping, others may need more work; once there, we take any article we have already, add what new content is needed (ideally, in the task force, one article at a time so these all end up B-class or better articles after the TF is done), and get them all cleaned up for use elsewhere. --MASEM 19:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This, to me, seems like GCOTM material. I would strongly support this kind of task force, no matter how we implement it. Just off the top of my head, there's lots of strategy gaming terms like: Build order, Micromanagement, Rush, Tank rush, Technology tree, Turtle and Spam that all need to be raised up to at least B-status. GA status would be nice, but even just a little attention would be nice. Oh, and all the video game genre terms could really benefit from some good research and consensus-building. If we can put together a team large enough to make meaningful progress, you can count me in. Randomran (talk) 22:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Several more terms already on Wikipedia:

• Game mechanic
• Health (game mechanic)
• Non-player character
• HUD (video gaming)
• Experience point
• Magic point
• Boss (video games)
• Mob (computer gaming)

... Okay. There are still more out there. I dare say some of them are redundant or can be lumped together into one article establishing notability for a concept, instead of being spread across several articles with the barest of sources and ideas. Jappalang (talk) 00:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

((Anti-WPVG))...dudes.Gears Of War 00:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Not to rain on your parade, but you should move that to User:Gears of War/Anti-WPVG. Userboxes in the Template namespace are held to a high standard of being useful to collaboration towards building the encyclopedia, and this clearly does not qualify. Anomie⚔ 00:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

And besides, you did get what you wanted - many people provided their opinions. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Toolbox/Partner peer review notice TomStar81 (Talk) 00:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Can I add the confirmed roster for the game?. Please send me a message to my talk page. --KingOfDX (talk) 08:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If it's confirmed by a reliable source I'm 99% sure (s)he can. Anyone wanna confirm? giggy _(:O) 08:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Semi-related, didn't we have a previous discussion that for rosters like this that it makes sense to create a separate page ala the Super Smash Bros. series to list who are in the games, and what specific games they are in? --MASEM 12:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe the ball started rolling on that, but it didn't get very far as most of the games still have their respective rosters in. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, per previous discussions at Talk:WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2008 it was determined by consensus that the roster lists would only be added when IGN/GameSpot/or a reliable source announced the full roster list. In response to Masem, that had been discussed before, though it was disagreed by users and no consensus was formed around it. The other thing is, that WWE games are different than games like Mario, WWE acquires new talent every year, and loses talent every year, so the list would keep growing and growing, eventually the list will get to huge, and will look difficult to read, and it would take up a a lot of amount of space, and would look redundant in that way.--SRX^--LatinoHeat 16:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Please. Wikipedia is not a forum. Go to IGN or Gamespot. Ta'. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

See, this is what I was talking about. You just can't win if you're going to be inconsistent about this sort of thing. (Looking mainly at Link here.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Huh? ffm 20:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I was the first to respond to GoW's request by saying this isn't a forum, and both GoW and Link jumped all over me about it saying I was being unnecessarily unfriendly. A couple other users also pointed out the "not a forum" thing, and now WBOSITG has closed the discussion on that basis, even after ALTTP posted a rather unfriendly remark himself about it. So, I'm mainly upset at ALTTP's rude response to RobJ and the fact that, harmless as a discussion like this may have been, it points to people wanting to be inconsistent about the rules. When people start bending the rules due to convenience or WP:ILIKEIT, one has to ask why the rules exist in the first place.

In short, if people are going to yell at me for having forum-style discussions in article/project talk pages, then they should yell at everyone for the same thing. There's very little that irritates me more than seeing some people get preferential treatment, regardless of the rationale. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

My two cents- Is this clearly a forum-like topic? Yes. Should such topics be avoided here? Yes. Does it hurt to loosen up for one time to get to know each other a tiny bit? I'd say it's arguably beneficial to productivity. So while I don't agree with Gears using the talk page to do his homework, I do think the thread turned into something a bit more community oriented and was a welcome change to the normal discussion we take part in.

Now, I'm not saying this is something that should occur regularly or even every now and then. But it did happen, and it made sense (to me anyway) to roll with it in the spirit of community. Sometimes we need a reminder why we're editing on here in the first place. It's for Kingdom Hearts, Shadow the Hedgehog, The Curse of Monkey Island, and Grand Theft Auto IV, and for the rest of the fans out there interested in those games. I know I don't have the stamina to do this without a reminder every now and then, not for free anyway.

I doubt something like this will happen again, and even if it does, I trust it'll be a long time from now. I see no need to blame or hold any ill-will to anybody involved; the editor who started it, the editors who participated, or the editors who stopped it. In short, it happened, nothing was really damaged or hurt, and it is best to go back to business as usual. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC))

Sorry but there is some really serious stuck up stupid ignorant shit goin on in this fucking project. My main concern is with that god damned Kiefer Shark. Who dare you come out and act like me and Link attacked you. That is staright BULLSHIT! You jumped on me dude. I just wanted some god damn help with some frekin Home work. I asked for help and you jumped on my ass just for asking for some help!! And then you have the god damn nerve to say I was attacking you. BULL, Im always getting jumped the fuck on. So get your foot out your ass and stop trippin. I wont ask for nothing any more. Did the mo-fo creators of Wikipedia ever think about fun...do they have lives...at all!! You guys get a fucking problem with every DAMN thing I say. I'm out of the damn project. I may stay a bit active with discussions but I cant deal with this shit. If you gotta problem with this message come kiss up at my talk page. But people like Guy In Black always see the reason in what I do, so thank you.Gears Of War 23:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I did not say I didn't see the reason in your request. I simply informed you (politely, I might add) that we have a policy on what Wikipedia is not, and I happen to be a person who believes in consistently applying the rules to everyone. I tried to steer you in a direction that I thought would be more helpful to you, and I felt that it would be more helpful to everyone to do so. I've seen other similar requests in the past, and I wanted to avoid having this turn into a flame war like has happened in the past.

I don't really mind if you have a problem with me personally, but you need to (a) cool down and (b) avoid personal attacks. I understand you're upset, but cussing me out (and further assuming I was acting in bad faith) is only going to lead to you getting blocked if you keep it up.

Finally, I did not say YOU were attacking me. I called out ALTTP for his comment to RobJ1981 about "did this discussion hurt you in some past life?", which struck me as particularly rude and out of line (but certainly not inconsistent with things I've seen him say in the past). I also criticized the project in general for being inconsistent about the rules, and pointing out that I have been yelled at for similar forum-like conversations held in Talk space in the past. So, frankly, it upsets me to see yet another instance of "It's okay if this person does it, but not if you do it" being dictated to me.

I have left you an NPA warning on your talk page. Like I said, cool down and come back when you're ready to discuss this in a civil manner. And if you have a problem with me personally, you are welcome to take it to my talk page, so that the rest of the project doesn't have to be bothered with it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I reacted to Rob the way I did because I was also dealing with a naming conventions debate at the anime WikiProject. You can understand what this can do to a man. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

And I hardly rudely reacted to you. I said "you don't have to be so uninviting", that's pretty light of an "insult". - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing to do with the naming conventions, so don't drag that into it. The subjects aren't related. RobJ1981 (talk) 00:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It is directly related. I responded the way I did because of a heated debate with people who refuse to support any guideline besides their made-up ones, and having to go through four discussions to get any progress in something that should have taken one. I am sorry that I vented my frustration at you, but trying to keep the tension up high is not going to help anyone. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Boy, it sure doesn't take much to get everyone to misconstrue everything I say, does it? :P Let me state AGAIN, for the record, what I said earlier: I was upset at Link's response to RobJ. I was annoyed by his response to me personally, but I went along with it since it appeared other people were doing so as well. But I thought Link's comment to RobJ was particularly rude, and given the context since then, I think it was also totally out of line. Though since it was directed at RobJ, I'll let him deal with it as he sees fit.

As for the blowup between GoW and me, it's being dealt with. I think it's under control for now, and hopefully there won't be any more of that here. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Gears, if I'm not mistaken, did you not criticise User: Hahnchen for using bad language on this same project? People are bound to get upset and annoyed and think: "you know what, b******* to the project". I think we all know that I've felt like this at my most stressed time. The policies are here to be enforced, and ultimately to improve the subject. There may be confusion at the lenience—or lack of—by which they are imposed, but that's just a testament to the diversity of people you get on Wikipedia. I'd take issue with attack or strong sentiments to this wikiproject specifically—the policies are supposed to be imposed everywhere, and from my experience here the users are more inviting than most when comes to relations on a talk page. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 06:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did get on Hanachen for his language. But at that point I had never been un-civil. But like I stated in my appology and like i was told by Hanachen and another editor..."Wikipedia is not censored"...and the reason why I criticised Hahnchen was because I thought children editors like me might be offended by that sort of language. But now I see, be civil, but that dosen't meen you have to be some sissy making everyones life better...but to make Wikipedia and your experience with it better.Gears Of War 20:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't want this to come across as condescending, but inadvertantly, you've probably learnt alot from this dispute. It's one big learning curve, and everybody's still learning. Happy editing. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 20:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Final Fantasy IV has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

It has since been removed since the conern was simple to deal with. --76.71.213.183 (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As some of you might know, some people has received their copies of Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots before the street date, as well as the corresponding . Needless to say, this has led to certain users (both registered and unregistered) have been posting spoilers since the release of the game. Of course, these spoilers are unverifiable and technically unethical, as Konami did not intend to release the game nor the guide earlier. The following articles has been subjected to being edited with illegal spoilers:

• Big Boss (Metal Gear)
• List of Metal Gear Solid characters
• List of Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater characters
• List of recurring Metal Gear characters
• Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots

Possibly a few others not listed too. Should we revert/delete all spoilers prior to the June 12 date (which is only two days) or is it fair game to allow spoilers? Jonny2x4 (talk) 01:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything illegal about it. WP:SPOILER is pretty clear that Wikipedia articles are not sensitive to this sort of content. Ham Pastrami (talk) 05:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

In this case, I'm not sure, since technically the game hasn't been released yet, and I'm sure Konami wouldn't want info from one of their most popular game series to show up on Wikipedia before the actual sale date.--十八 05:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well it really isn't Konami's say in all honesty, and the information is readily available through other means anyway at this point. I find no problem with posting the information up if it's relevant to the articles in question. We're not forcing anyone to go read it, and a postponement until the game is sold isn't going to change a heck of a lot is it?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Didnt the same thing, and correct me if im wrong, happen the last Harry Potter book when that scanned copy got leaked onto the net? If so i dont see how posting information before the release date is going to harm anything. Salavat (talk) 06:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point, Kung-Fu Man. Just a moment ago, I went to all of the local game store to seek a copy of the game and the guide. They all claim they have in storage, but they all refused to sell me the game. So how can I verify all the spoilers I've seen are correct until then? Simple, I can't. So I'll revert all the spoilers I'll see until June 12. Its only a couple of days away anyway. Jonny2x4 (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If you are worried it is unverifiable, then you should be removing all plot info not sourced, not just "spoilers". Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that all the MGS, MGS2 and MGS3 plot info can be verified by citing quotes from the games. Right now, I can't verify anything from MGS4 by playing the game itself, unless its from a leaked clip of the game on Youtube that's bound to be removed at any moment. Jonny2x4 (talk) 01:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I am Gears of War. I originally asked for help with homework but was not exactly taken the same way I thought I would. In my experience, I have been attacked alot but have overlooked each incident and appologized. But this had done it. I went off the deep end and I appologize.

But let us be sure about one thing I appologize to the WPVG, I do not appologize to the user that I insulted. Because of this i may never become a Admin but hey that sucks but what can ya do? I cursed the user out so I apologize to the project for having brought it in the middle of the storm of my anger. If anyone was affended...like I was once told, Wikipedia is not censored. In other words...get over it.

I have argued with the user I cursed out and sadly I dont like his attitude any better. I also do not appologize the other users I mention to Keifer for calling you out. I am sorry and quite frankly, this experience has changed me and my attitide to Wikipedia. Thank you and sorry for the inconvenious of interupting the cpnversations that normally go down here.

I will rejoin the project and stay active but to sum up would also like to appologize.Gears Of War 02:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Just shrug it off and move on man. More you discuss these things, the more they end up like quicksand. Though I must say I too found the discussion somewhat useful as far as knowing where the tastes of some people lie, which can make a collaboration easier. Just my two cents.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey man, no offense taken. Welcome back. For the most part, when I see editors blow up at one another I'm more embarrassed that it had to go that far. Remember that this is supposed to be fun, and remember that we can always walk away, take a deep breath, and count to ten. I'd be lying if I said I haven't been pissed off before. But don't let others get the best of you. The best thing can do most of the time is ignore it and move on. Keep up the good editing... Randomran (talk) 04:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I wanted to name my two favorite games, but then I started going into convulsions. :) Not an easy question to answer. Do I measure it by hours played? By number of times replayed? By emotional impact? By what I consider innovative and memorable game design? *head explodes* Randomran (talk) 06:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Up to you. He asked for two games so I gave him the two that immediately came to mind. Personally, I find it very difficult to justify choosing newer games for these kinds of polls in favor of older games, so I guess that's just me (otherwise I would be pointing to Grand Theft Auto IV, Advance Wars, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, etc.). Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, don't worry about it. We need a little levity once in a while. Oh, and Star Wars: TIE Fighter and Final Fantasy VII all the way =) Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Boy, I'll say we need some levity. Would someone mind keeping an eye on User:Gears of War to make sure he doesn't start spamming the project with "Here's everything that's wrong with you" pages? According to comments he's left on my user talk page, he's going to just categorically "fight like a soldier" against anyone he, in his sole judgment, thinks has treated him poorly. I'd rather just block him and be done with it to prevent further disruption, but since I'm the one he attacked right off the bat, my blocking him would be seen as simple retaliation. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Direct to GoW: I for one do not accept your apology as given. With respect to your Homework request and other suggestions you made to the WikiProject, I don't think you have anything to apologize for, and I tried to make that clear to you - they were all good-faith requests and, while not necessarily all appropriate for the project, there was nothing wrong in you making them. I don't believe anyone attacked you over them. But with regard to the severe disruption that your behavior caused after your homework thread was closed: I don't believe you've properly owned up to that. You flat-out attacked me over trying to uphold Wikipedia policy, and you further threatened to continue disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point in the conversations on our respective talk pages. I have been nothing but polite and friendly to you, up until the point where you made it clear you were only interested in throwing a temper tantrum and weren't willing to listen to reason. You created an "Anti-VGProj" template and posted it here, you made a big deal about "retiring" from Wikipedia (or at least the project), and you have certainly gone well over the line with respect to WP's civility policies and acceptable-use guidelines.

I don't think you realize just how disruptive all of that was, and until you really own up to it and start working to correct your behavior, I will not consider you as having apologized for it. I, for one, would appreciate a personal apology for your completely unwarranted attack. I doubt I'll get one, and personally I don't care if I ever receive one, but it would go a long way toward redeeming yourself in my eyes. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Updated: GoW has since apologized to me personally and has agreed to tone things down. I now believe he's truly sorry for the disruption, and I now accept his apology both personally and with respect to the project. Sorry for my own disruption as well - I didn't mean for this to get out of hand. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Glad you two could diffuse the tension. Randomran (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Defuse even? Sorry Randomran, I'm just sharpening up my pedantry for my return to FAC. Happy editing. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 20:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Either or. :) Randomran (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay,the article on characters of spyro the dragon really needs cleaning up. I mean REALLY NEEDS TO BE CLEANED UP. It's like a two year old wrote all the characters, then gave it to an illiterate child to proof read. Yes, it's that bad. Really need help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.132.181 (talk) 15:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I've only just realised the ^INT template on the Template:Vgrelease is in fact International version, rather than International version (I thought it was an incorrect link in the template, rather than a separate release). As far as I know, it's most often used as International - see Starcraft, maybe it's just me though. Thoughts on maybe expanding the template to INTV for international version and INTR for international release? Fin©™ 16:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It's used for international versions in FF articles, like Final Fantasy X. I thought the accepted practice for worldwide release was to simply not indicate any abbreviation (for instance see the Publisher field in Final Fantasy XII, compared to the one in FFX). It seems like none of these stuff is regulated by VG guidelines though. This should probably be explicited. Kariteh (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps just explicitly stating it would be enough so? Then again, FFX is the only game with an international version I'm aware of. Fin©™ 16:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Final Fantasy VII, Final Fantasy X-2, Final Fantasy XII, Kingdom Hearts, Kingdom Hearts II, etc. I know of these Square Enix titles, but I'm not sure if it's that common outside of Square Enix. I agree it's confusing and it needs more input. Kariteh (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I decided to start cleaning up this article...and then I noticed something. It's really long it needs to be split, please think about that.Gears Of War 20:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Link List of characters in The King of Fighters series --Oscarthecat (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Problem is other than alphabetically it really can't. The list is the result of someone combining all the KoF character articles in there at once, and given that's a large cast you can imagine the results. At least two people are working on the list as it stands though.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete the in-game bios, and replace the individual portraits with a group shot. Merge individual fighters into factions. Jappalang (talk) 03:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone decided to complain about every image in a VG article by throwing around reference to WP:NFCC, and then someone else decided to be paranoid and remove images from several other articles. I think this needs a wider discussion: Is identification of the topic of the article/section a "good enough" reason to have a boxart image, or should we go ahead and remove boxart images from all VG articles? Anomie⚔ 23:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not really what's happening. The issue raised was that the article contained box covers for every edition of the game, and it's true that this crosses the line of NF use guidelines. A single box cover, provided in the infobox, is sufficient to identify the subject for the entire article unless a box cover itself is somehow noteworthy in the following discussion. Nobody that I can see is proposing to remove all box art from all articles. Ham Pastrami (talk) 00:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

If the paranoid user mentioned is removing all boxart images though I would suggest mentioning to them that was not what was being suggested and to revert any changes of that nature. --76.71.213.183 (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I invite all present to head on over to WP:Notability (fiction) to look over the proposed guideline, as well as to comment on it. There is currently an RfC on it. This will impact the local project by a large amount. --Izno (talk) 02:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

To Izno's invite, I add an urge. Please form an opinion and comment here, we need some kind of consensus here, one way or the other. User:Krator (t c) 15:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Initial glance looks ok. Anything I should pay attention for here?--ZeWrestler ^Talk 04:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Having everyone saying what their favorite games were gave me the idea to ask if anyone here likes Atlus games. The reason I ask is that I've work with a few in my day and was wondering if anyone wanted to collab with me on any of them (non are FA and I cannot think of any GA's at the moment). I have finals and acts and sats for the next few weeks, but I thought I'd throw this out there. Feel free not to respond. Evaunit♥666♥ 00:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to work on Persona 3, as it's recent, and it's won awards from last year, so finding info on it will probably be easy. I've got it watched so if you need, let me know. --MASEM 03:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest Trauma Center: Under the Knife. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I love Persona 3. I'll look into it. Evaunit♥666♥ 00:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

But Personal 3 is the easy way out! It's super popular as it is! I throw Etrian Odyssey out there for kicks. =P --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 04:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I saw the request for this article and I'm currently writing it. But when I looked on IGN and Gamespy for info on them I saw that they are originated in Athens Greece. Now does that sound crazy to just me? Please help me and tell me if thats true or if there something wrong and please help me find some helpful refs to help me write the article.Gears Of War 23:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Athens is quite big a city, so I'm not surprised some game development companies originate from it. User:Krator (t c) 01:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The article is finished feal free to edit.Gears Of War 21:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyone know anything aboutGalaxy Angel Eternal Lovers? There's a rather strange edit war going on. Most of the article is currently about an unlockable shoot em up mode, which allegedly doesn't even exist (one of the editors has accused the other of sockpuppetry also). Personally I know nothing about the game (though I'm pretty confident the statement 'IGN voted Galaxy Angel Eternal Lovers as the greatest 3D space shooter of all time' is bs...) so I thought I'd point it up here. Incidently, there's a load of character articles related to this game/series/universe as well... Bridies (talk) 04:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The article's since been put under page protection and two accounts involved in the conflict have been blocked indefinitely for continued editing abuse. The article should stabilise and settle down now. It does need some work on developing sourced content, but it seems that most of the excessive detail seems to have been removed.Gazimoff ^Write_Read 13:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There needs to be one, as there is a priority type for disambig. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright to cut right to the chase, I think suffice to say with the large number of people pouring in complaints about articles, and the fact many older ones that were fine are now getting the axe, it's just useful to say across the board "these articles suck". Like I said above in the Sonic character discussion, the whole thing needs a reboot.

Problem is there isn't too much in terms of a full on effort to actively improve these: just reading this page you can see more effort shoving things into lists than fleshing out articles. I still feel that's just so counterproductive and defeats the point. Anyway not going to argue that, but did want to suggest the following:

• More of a collaborative effort in pooling design information on characters, and legitimate sites and other sources that can be used to look up said material in.
• A set standard on what should be followed for a character article. We don't really have a format we can just point people to, and another article doesn't always suffice. We really need something that gives a solid skeleton idea, and actual articles don't always work for that (what flies for a character in a FPS isn't going to necessarily in a fighting game).
• If some design information and third party mention exists to a significant point, maybe shying away from the lists would be a better move for those. The lists end up better reserved in cases where the subject can't support it's own article without consisting solely of in-universe, first party content. If IGN though is taking their time to discuss the character though or CNN mentions it repeatedly in the context of it's home material as a recognizable example, then it should be more of a given that it has notability.
• Collaborations: a lot of the mini-project groups have died or are barely existing. Right now like I said, we're collaborating better on what to get rid of than what to improve :\ There has to be a fix for that.

Hopefully this all didn't make me sound like a jackass, but anyway here's the subject waiting for discussion in the end.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, we do have one good character article: Link (The Legend of Zelda) is a featured article, and it's passed two FA reviews. As I mentioned on Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog (character), I'm using it as a model for that article's improvement; certainly it could be a good model for other VG character articles to follow. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 03:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There's the Master Chief and Cortana who are also FAs. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

And the fourteen GA-class articles on individual video game characters. -- Sabre (talk) 13:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm honestly wary about using the GA-class articles as examples. When I started writing Poison (Final Fight), had two editors point me to the Sonic the Hedgehog article as a template to follow (given it was a GA at the time). :\--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well then, there are the FA-class articles to use as templates. And layout is almost never the issue in GA, it's more the content; that said the GA articles might be missing important components, who knows. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The FAs and Aerith Gainsborough (A-class) are all good models to follow in my opinion. Kariteh (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The guidelines to writing a good article about a video game character is the same as writing an article on any fictional character (see WP:FICT). The problem with most of these articles is that they read like really badly-written biographies from a fansite than an encyclopedic treatment of the character, emphasizing fictional chronology and original research from users over concrete over a real-world treatment of the character. For the record, why is there still an article on Poison, a minor small fry enemy character whose only distinction is being a cross-dresser?Jonny2x4 (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Because we have dozens of bad fighting game character articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah irony Jonny...given it was you that was the one to point me to that blasted Sonic article as a guideline to follow in the first place, so it's funny to see you preach about how articles should be now. And the article manages to get around notability: people in the industry apparently like discussing a guy that look like a girl in a fighting game. Go figure. There's another discussion for that though if you really want to drag it on.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to leave my point here though: WP:FICT if you notice is still only a proposed guideline being discussed in part on that page's talk page. It's not a set in stone policy yet.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That Sonic article really wasn't as bad as it is right now, when I directed at it for you back then (I don't even remember though if I did to begin with). The problem with most of these Street Fighter character articles is that they focus too much on a canon that has a very loose continuity to begin with according to the creators (the producers of the Street Fighter games did say that each sub-series is a self-contained work). Do we really need a "Fictional character biography" for each article? The Poison is mainly more fancruft than anything else.Jonny2x4 (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Fictional character bios are (in my opinion) the realm of trashy comic book character articles. I think it's best to just summarize the relevant details in the characters' appearances, it helps keep it out of universe (example, "In Random Novel, Random Character's backstory is fully explained &c." rather than "Random Character was born Julio Random Character in 1920..." Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Belling the cat

Want something to do? Clean up, merge, redirect, or delete some of these articles.

• Category:Fatal Fury characters
• Category:The King of Fighters characters
• Category:Art of Fighting characters
• Category:Bloody Roar characters
• Category:Crash Bandicoot characters
• Category:Monkey Island characters
• Category:Resident Evil characters

I'd add more, but this is depressing. Feel free to add any other crufty cats. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• I've added a Resident Evil category, which sadly I'm partially responsible for. Jonny2x4 (talk) 23:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel inclined to tackle the Monkey Island category after I'm done helping out with the Myst stuff. Most of the LucasArts adventure games need looking at, this seems like a good entry point for me to start with. A Characters of Monkey Island article ought to do the trick nicely, I can't see the need for all those spinouts and minor characters. -- Sabre (talk) 10:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Category:Galaxy Angel characters is another one I found (overlaps with anime/manga etc though). Bridies (talk) 10:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• As a note, categories in themselves are not bad. If you do merge and redirect characters articles, leave the redirects in the category along with any existing articles; even if the category is all redirects, leave it as is and don't delete the category. Also, you should include ((CharR to list entry)) on the redirected page and help sort these more. And of course, redirections should always been done for these characters: they are cheap and help with searching purposes. --MASEM 14:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I've proposed a move to the PAL names of the games here and here. Please comment. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, after a month or so after I announced the work of the above articles, I am done. Before the series articles did not look like a series article, though I have expanded it fully, and transferred the original content to the list of game titles. Please provide feedback here, thanks. I wish to get them to GA/FA and FL.--SRX^--LatinoHeat 02:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I came across some pretty badly written articles.

• List of Front Mission characters
• List of Front Mission 3 characters
• List of Front Mission 4 characters
• List of Front Mission 5 characters

How do we even go about cleaning these up? I'm not even sure these are notable. Randomran (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If you have concerns over them (which I do slightly but am, unfamilar with the topic) I would take them to articles for deletion as a group AFD. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, they suck. Find the main characters (easy by reading through reviews) and put them in a List of Front Mission characters, then redirect all those other titles to that. giggy _(:O) 02:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I noticed this was made in May. Is this needed? If I remember right, other "list of games by genre" have either been deleted or redirected. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

User:A Link to the Past/List of songs in Super Smash Bros. Brawl - I believe that SSBB has received a lot of reception and has a ton of development information to speak of, and a ton of songs with 38 different composers involved. Comments? - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I was looking for some sort of SSB music article or even section today, and sadly I obviously found nothing. I say go for it! --.:Alex:. 18:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Just because it's well received, and has a large number of composers does not mean the music should have it's own page. As well as having questionable notability (is the fact it contains "Jungle Level Ver.2" actually notable?), it could be argued as being under what wikipedia isn't (a list of indiscriminate information/game guide). Fin©™ 19:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Being well-received does a LOT to say it should have its own page. And having a development history, a development history more in depth than most games in the history of the industry. There were sites covering every single update on the Dojo, for Heaven's sake. The music is one of the most highly-reported aspect of SSBB.
2. I don't see why SSBB's music list would be less notable than all of the Final Fantasy soundtracks.
3. Jungle Level Ver.2 is a different song, with different composition, with a different style. If you heard them, you would only notice a vague resemblance between the two.
4. If the article was expanded to be all three games, then it would be a ton more notable - SSBM has its own soundtrack, is orchestrated, and has had its own live orchestra. The listing may be much, but I could easily establish that the list is not only notable, but is a list that people would consider very helpful, and do not teach the reader how to play the game, so it doesn't even qualify as guide content (anymore so than Rock Band's or GHIII's lists). - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Em, no, just because a game is good doesn't mean it deserves more article space. Sure if people like it they'll add to it more, but that doesn't mean it's deserving of it.
2. I don't think the Final Fantasy soundtracks are notable either.
3. I picked Jungle Level Ver.2 as a random track in all the music as the title does not inspire much. It's of no interest to the average reader, where, say, the inclusion of a soundtrack with popular artists within a game article may be (though I'm not endorsing that either).
4. There are lots of things in game guides, not just stuff that teach the player how to play the game. For example, the credits of games are not listed on article pages, simply as the majority of the time it's not useful or notable. A list of music from the Smash Brothers series (indeed, I remember how good the music was in Melee) may just appear as a list of random names, with no significance (such as Jungle Level Ver.2) to the average reader. Also, it's unfair to compare Rock Band's or any Guitar Hero's list of songs, as in their case, it's an integral part of the game, just as the characters (but not, I would argue, the music) of Smash Brothers.

But anyway, we need more input. Fin©™ 01:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment: Rock Band and Guitar Hero games revolve around music, while Brawl doesn't. Brawl has an official soundtrack, doesn't it? That should be an article (as it's a verifiable music CD), but nothing else needs to be made. The songs (on the soundtrack only) should be listed there, and it should remain watched in my view. Otherwise fans will come along and add every little bit of trivia they can to each track. Things such as "this song was used in all these games, but was removed from this one" and so on, I don't see as useful to a soundtrack article. RobJ1981 (talk) 01:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Em, no, it certainly does. If you look at any discussion on, say, a discussion on giving a character an article, a notable amount of reception for the character is necessary. SSBB fulfills that, and its soundtrack receives more reception than most games, with the obvious exception of rhythm games.
2. It's certainly a legitimate song - Hell, looking at a lot of soundtrack articles, this is way more notable, because there's actually history to these songs - all but most of the original, SSBB music are actual songs (albeit gaming songs), so there's history that other soundtracks lack. The history of the songs is what people want the list for.
3. But like I've said, SSBB is no less notable than most soundtrack articles that exist, including all of the GA FF music articles. And just because you find them non-notable, it still sets precedence, because those articles reached GA.
4. And right, Rob, this is one of those articles that should be monitored at all times. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Smashing...Live! was an article that was merged into SSBM about 3-4 months ago as a non-notable. I think you'll be hard pressed to find reliable secondary sources on the subject of the music in the series. Nintendo Power is obviously out of the equation in the case of Smashing...Live! itself. Just noting. --Izno (talk) 02:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

My opinions (Edit conflict):

1. I think the reception for the game itself is notable with respect to the game, and if the game's extensive soundtrack contributed to that, it warrants mention in the game article. ("SSBB has been well-received due in part to its extensive soundtrack, which includes close to 200 songs by 38 different composers spanning multiple generations of Nintendo and third-party games.") I don't think it would need to go into any more detail than that, since the vast majority of songs are either remixes or re-releases of songs from earlier games, or variations on the SSBB and SSBM theme songs. In short, the songs themselves aren't necessarily notable.
2. You could feasibly create a section in the SSBB article that describes the game's music from a general standpoint. Since most of the video-game music does have a history, it's worth elaborating on how some songs have had multiple remixes, based on various styles, while other songs have been included verbatim from their original games, and still others are completely original. BUT: I don't think you need to call out specific songs, except in maybe just one or two examples, because then you risk having to elaborate on all of them. By talking about the whole set of songs in an abstract sense, you address the notability of the game's soundtrack without stepping into the more questionable notability of the songs themselves. And if you keep it abstract, it doesn't need to be very long and wouldn't warrant its own article.
3. My personal opinion is that if the FF games have their own, officially released soundtracks, and so does SSBB, then SSBB should have a corresponding soundtrack article that talks about the soundtrack itself and how it was released as a complement to the game. That article should follow the format of the previous FF articles. Any FF soundtrack articles that don't correspond to officially-released products should be carefully examined to verify that they really belong on WP - just because they were once promoted to GA or FA status doesn't necessarily mean they comply with the policies or guidelines.
4. Totally agree that a soundtrack article should be monitored to keep out the cruft. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I never proposed an article on Smashing... Live! - however, an article on the music of the series, which is very notable. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the point was Smashing...Live! was consider to be non-notable, even though it was related to Smash Bros. Also, it'll be difficult to find reliable secondary sources on the subject of Smash Bros music. Just because something is well-received and/or has a large amount of critical reception does not mean it should have its own article - there's no companion cube article, for example. Essentially my point is the same as Kiefer's above. Fin©™ 11:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me here, but I do kinda have to voice my objection to that reasoning on the grounds of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists: just because one article doesn't exist doesn't mean another shouldn't. Also to add, looking at the history for companion cube shows it was never an article, but always an outright redirect.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I was just making the point that a game being well-received etc is not a good enough reason to create an article about a sub-topic of it, the sub-topic must also be notable etcetc. Companion cube's never had its own article?!?! Heresy!! =( Fin©™ 14:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Erm, no? SSBB's music, like I've already stated, is well-sourced. Many web sites were covering the music and the updates, and the sources are stronger than many game articles'. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

(reindenting)

Maybe the sources are ok, but that does not mean the subject is notable enough for inclusion! Also, you've no sources or references on your example page. I think the current bit in the Brawl article is fine: "The game's musical score was composed through the collaboration between 38 renowned video game composers.", no need to expand it to a whole page. Fin©™ 16:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I also don't have categories, does that mean the finished article will lack categories? - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

... I was merely commenting that you asserted, and I quote, SSBB's music...is well-sourced. For you to say this, but not include sources in your example, seemed strange to me. I just thought I'd make you aware of it (in case you thought you had sourced it). Also, I'd a quick google for Smash Bros music, the only reputable, verifiable link in the first three pages (excluding the Dojo) was a slashdot article. Anyway, I think I've contributed enough to this discussion. Fin©™ 16:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, your point is invalid - you're essentially asserting that because the article is not sourced now, that is proof that it cannot be sourced. There is also no development info, reception info, or a lead. And doing a two minute Google search doesn't matter for anything. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

And you're talking about sources? [1], a three page interview with Sakurai about the music. [2], official information about the music. That's me spending three minutes Goggling for sources. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose there would be two ways to get there. [1] The reviews specifically make a big deal about the music, and another article would expand reader comprehension or edification on the subject. This is probably unlikely. [2] There has been an official OST release. I disagree with the above and hold that you could probably use this article as a way to talk about songs not included on the OST; for instance, Music of the Chrono series discusses certain unreleased material or beta content. What concerns me is how well that could be presented for SSBB. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 20:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the subject is fairly recent, and Nintendo isn't known to release soundtracks in a timely manner (or at all in many cases). It may also present a problem with the size.

And I've seen several reviews that give it amazing praise. Not necessarily its own section, but they praised it nonetheless. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

From GameSpy, "The most worthwhile thing you'll collect is the unlockable music strewn throughout the game. There are many different unlockable tracks that are added to your playlist when you snatch up a music CD during gameplay. The soundtrack is a wonderful compilation of original tunes based on classic game anthems, composed and directed by some of the industry's most talented musicians. It's a remarkable collection, and one that you'll definitely want to give a listen to." From GameSpot, "Equally impressive is the game's soundtrack, which boasts more than 100 songs from all over the Nintendo universe and beyond. Each of these tracks is arranged specifically for Brawl by a star-studded lineup of composers that includes notables Koji Kondo (Super Mario Bros.), Yasunori Mitsuda (Chrono Trigger), Yoko Shimomura (Kingdom Hearts), and more." From IGN, "Sakurai has enlisted the aid of the industry's greatest musicians to record a largely orchestrated soundtrack for his fighter." From IGN again, "One of the best soundtracks ever created." It seems that there are plenty of people who are praising the soundtrack. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of the VG Reviews template, although I like the idea of a standardised format across all review boxes, I think the implementation is greatly flawed. I made my thoughts known when the review box was originally suggested, where I mentioned that having to look up codes would be a stumbling block, and that we should use something dynamic. There are also concerns over the bias having a predefined list of reviews as mentioned in this discussion.

I'm chasing this up now, because I've just come first hand over one of the problems, and I think we can do this better. Take a look at this edit. A new user has tried to add the GameSpot score to the table, by adding |GameSpot = 10/10, that doesn't work, as GameSpot is in the VG Reviews list as GSpot. Why? I don't know, but its confusing, and there isn't a set rule for abbreviating sources.

Right now, with the reviews box, we have to type in a review source, score and reference. Which is exactly what we had to do without the template. Instead of using codes, we should just be able to type in the source and link it from within the table. I'm hoping we can have a format which works like so:

((VG Reviews
|[[1UP]]|A+
|[[GameSpot]]|9/10
|[[Edge (magazine)|Edge]]|8/10
|Compilations
|[[Metacritic]]| 64
|[[GameRankings]]| 80
))

You would use a for loop to cycle through the reviews, putting them into a table, until you hit the field "Compilations", where you generate the Compilations header, and then you use another for loop to cycle to the end. Is this possible in wikicode? There is a problem in that 300 pages already link to the VG Reviews template, which creates quite a lot of overhead, but this is why hard coding in sources is bad anyway. If we can get a dynamic system in, I think it'd make it easier for all editors. - hahnchen 11:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible in wikicode? I think so. You couldn't have any nifty features (like converting Metacritic's 64 to a 64%, etc. etc.), but for a basic layout it could be done, I think. And I'd like to see it happen, so put me down as a support of a simplification. giggy _(:O) 11:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeeeeeees, but it is painful to code (says the person that coded the alternating color variable row table we're using for the infobox).

A much easier solution is that we simply include code that catches additional variations of the basic names. There's no reason we can't catch "GS" or "Gamespot" or "GameSpot" or "gamespot" (I can't remember if param names are case sensitive, I think they are) to all mean the GameSpot score, so the example of what the user would add would work. --MASEM 12:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

If it really is a bitch to code, and Help:Template seems to give no satisfactory way to use loops, how about a system like:

((VG Reviews Top))

|[[1UP]]|A+

|[[GameSpot]]|9/10

|[[Edge (magazine)|Edge]]|8/10

((VG Compilations))

|[[Metacritic]]| 64

|[[GameRankings]]| 80

((VG Reviews Botton))

The main point is, I don't think review sources should be predefined. I don't think editors should have to look up a review in the VG Reviews template. - hahnchen 14:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me demonstrate: The easy way to fix it that I refer to would make the code look like this:

((VG Reviews

|GameSpot=9/10

|metacritic=89%

|Gamerankings=88%

|GSpy=8/10

))

In that it is (I believe it is) easy to add multiple alternative names to catch including varied cases, in addition to the abbreviations, so that as you said, there's no need to look at the table. We still have predefined sources, but the naming can be more intuitive. --MASEM 14:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

What's the problem with the first solution, Masem? I've just created a rough template at User:Kariteh/Sandbox and it seems to work fine:

((User:Kariteh/Sandbox|[[1UP]]|A+|[[GameSpot]]|9/10|[[Edge (magazine)|''Egde'']]|8/10)) (un-transcluded Kariteh (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC))

((User:Kariteh/Sandbox

|[[1UP]]|A+

|[[GameSpot]]|9/10

|[[Edge (magazine)|''Egde'']]|8/10

))

Some tweaking is needed to make unused rows not appear, but I don't think there's a problem concerning that (Template:Tracklist does it fine). The only difficult thing I can see is the "Compilations" row; I'm not sure how to code it, but it's not impossible, is it? Kariteh (talk) 15:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Removing the predefined commands would simply butcher every article that uses the template, and that's quite unnecessary. If people want to add reviews not on the list, they can, but I've never seen any problem with having a supply of standard sources that we can go by. Plus, it helps ensure consistent styles and correct formatting of publications' names - how many different entries will we get across the articles for IGN? ign.com, IGN.com, IGN, ign, there's a lot to be said for keeping it all consistent by making every IGN entry appear as IGN, every 1UP entry appear as 1UP.com and every PC Zone entry appear as PC Zone. The point made about the names of the predefined reviews is another matter, can we bind multiple names to one entry, so that GSpot, Gspot, GameSpot and any other variation of that all link to the one GameSpot entry? -- Sabre (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm saying, Sabre. See my example code above. --MASEM 15:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, sorry. Managed to miss that particular bit somehow. -- Sabre (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point. The only minor issue I can see with this is that the custom reviews aren't alphabetized and appear below the predefined rows. Kariteh (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think having multiple references to one source, as suggested by MASEM is very clumsy and inelegant. We're trying to capture all the different permutations of rendering a source in a review? How about for PC Gamer UK? There are lots of ways people could write that. The best solution would be one where users can add there own scores and sources, and I think my second example is a good way of doing that. Because it uses two templates to book end the scores, we would not instantly break 300 odd articles either.

I don't think that different links to IGN as cited above is a big issue. The vast majority of links point the right way[3], and these issues are easily dealt with by semi-automated editing tools. I also don't think that this is as important a benefit to having a reviews template, as the standardised colours and formatting. - hahnchen 15:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The biggest concern with the suggested method is that it works like the episode list template, which, while the row contents are simple, explaining you need a header template, and then table rows, and then a closure, is confusing , as opposed to "fill in these values in this template here." As to iterating possible values for something like "PC Gamer UK", the annoying part is that parameter names are case sensitive, so we'd have to catch reasonable lowercase versions of them all. --MASEM 16:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

How about a compromise between the first example and the current template? The code for reviews need to be flexible, but it's not necessary for aggregate reviews since their number is much more limited (it's basically always Metacritic and GameRankings, plus a few others).

((VG reviews

| [[1UP]] | A+

| [[GameSpot]] | 9/10

| [[Edge (magazine)|''Egde'']] | 8/10

| ... | ...

| Metacritic = 89%

| Gamerankings = 88%

))

The point about breaking current articles is moot in my opinion since we can easily have two templates co-exist for some time (just call the new one Template:VG reviews for instance. Kariteh (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Masem, I'm not a big fan of my second suggestion either, I'd much prefer the first if its possible. But I'm just throwing out some ideas here, I don't have the time or knowledge to actually implement the change. My problem with the codes is that they're too restrictive, and I don't think the sources should be hard coded. If you're writing an article from prior to the mid-nineties, most of the predefined sources are going to be useless, so you're going to typing in your own sources anyway in the "rev 1" fields. And if you're doing this, then the benefit of having sources in alphabetical order is also lost. - hahnchen 18:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

These boxes are still unsightly, place undue emphasis on numeric reviews despite the lack of a community consensus on what the bellweathers are, attract advertisements, cause edit wars over which region's version of a given publication we'll use, and just plain suck.

Just putting that out there. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite a few featured articles don't have reception tables at all, so yeah, that whole table stuff is kind of iffy. Kariteh (talk) 18:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Either a ((#if:((#switch:((lc:(({1))}|x|xy|xyz)))))) could be used, or a ((#if:((lc:(({3|(({2|(({1|))))))))))))}. No comment on anything else. --Izno (talk) 01:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Could someone come to the article's talk page to discuss the implementation of a "reception" section for this article? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I have added my thoughts.Gears Of War 19:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I hope this is the right place to ask for help. Anyone could help me to "clean up" this page about Cheat Code Central if it's necessary? Someone made it a candidate for deletion, but I'm not sure what's wrong with it...I tried to find as many references as possible, but I'm sure there are more out there.

I tried to make it similar to Gamespot's:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamespot

Also, I don't know how to insert images exactly, but you're welcome to add the logo and a screenshot of the site if you think would help.

Mmccc (talk) 23:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC) Mmccc(talk)

Here's a bit of something I'm questioning. I'm working on an article for a character that was featured in Nintendo's pokemon anime material, but the character's handling ends up completely different between the Japanese and dubbed versions of Mewtwo Strikes Back. Said original though ties into other Japan-only material that can be used for information. But the kicker comes that much of the reception section is attributed to the 4Kids dubbing.

So the question is do I stick with the Japanese presentation, the dub, or the Japanese one with an explaination about the different handling in the dub? (Can't omit entirely as it does relate to the fictional character's growth and presentation).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

If you can, both. Because 4Kids isn't perfect - remember, a lot of the content is censored content (like, for instance, Ash got many Tauros, but we never know this because 4Kids did not release an episode because of the presence of fire arms). It is a very confusing situation. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You might remember there was an afd a while back for Chris Chike, which resulted in a merge to the game he became famous for playing. Uniquely, though, his performance was actually documented by secondary sources. What happens if that's not the case, and the only sources are either from the game companies or tournament organizers, both of which could be considered primary/promotional sources? Is every person who won a World Cyber Games tournament worthy of mention in a game article by virtue that the WCG has a verifiable record of it? Or would we need additional coverage in the press? Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you guys think of List of video game franchises and Category:Video game franchises? I'm a little concerned about how one decides what constitutes a franchise, and if this bears any reasonable significance -- all successful games (and even many that aren't) tend to become what someone would call a franchise, so this is invariably going to be a huge, aimless list unless it can be reworked somehow. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I share your concerns. I've had a similar issue with List of Sega video game franchises, a list I put some work into after salvaging it from an article that was indiscriminate information. But now I don't like it because of this same issue. Anyone else have any comment? Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 03:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

If the media or the company calls it a franchise, then it should be considered a franchise. You can use the ((dynamic list)) template to indicate that the list may grow indefinitely, which is not something bad as long as you keep the inclusion criteria. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is in poor shape. It has very bad grammar, it's sloppily written, it cites no references, it seems to be full of Fancruft, and it could also use a bit of restructuring, or rewriting. --SWJS: The All Knowing Destroy All Humans! Nerd(Cortex Scan) 04:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

edit: nevermind, already on there. 71.188.7.49 (talk) 15:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

New game franchises are usually not a problem in this area, as in only a few cases, the franchise is officially announced by the company at some large event (E3) or press release; the few cases involve special "code name" projects and the like.

However, when you have a series, people are always looking for words of sequels and expansions, so the sources for these can become less authoritative or reliable. The case in point is "Guitar Hero: Metallica" which was listed in Activision's SEC filings, but otherwise has not been officially announced by the company or any other source that doesn't ultimately point here. I'll also add in "Beyond Good & Evil 2" as another, but different, data point: Ubisoft announced this themselves but all we have is there announcement and a trailer.

My take is that when there's a reliable source that says a sequels coming, we obviously create the article, but the content will vary depending on the source. If the announcement is from the company /developer directly (BG&E2), a new page with content is warrented. If the information is secondary, such as for GH:M, it is worth mention on a series or previous game page, but the page should be redirected until more concrete information can be provided. If any less than two sources exist (considering the ultimate source of any source), the redirection should be in place.

That's my take, any other opinions? --MASEM 14:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Amending to add in another data point GTA V. Here's a case for redirection to the series article. --MASEM 16:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

To structure the discussion a bit, there's three basic possibilities here:

• Just some rumours, e.g. random forum posts and blogs. Per WP:V, created articles should be deleted.
• Established sources, but no official announcements. This is the grey area. I'm inclined to say that there's no difference between this and the last option, see WP:VG/S. This is up for debate though. Your suggestion about a note on a series article as all we should do has merit as well.
• Established sources and an official announcements. Usually warrants an article.

User:Krator (t c) 15:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

All this sounds very reasonable, however, I don't know if we'll actually be able to enforce it. There are plenty of editors wanting to create articles for every new game announced regardless of sources available. Some just don't realize that a stub doesn't always offer much to interested readers. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC))

Mostly agree with Krator;

• Just rumours/blogs; delete per WP:V.
• Sources but no announcement; mention in series/previous game's article, and create redirect.
• Sources and official announcement; create article.

giggy _(:O) 02:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This is concerning GH: Metallica. I have looked deeper into reaerach on the subject and found out that there will be a Rock Band Metallica. Now it kinda sounds like you guys are saying that the announcement on Gamespot is not considered a reliable source, I would like to beg to differ. Okay so we'll wait on creating a Metallica article, but what about a Rock Band Metallica. I will supply a source to Gamespot talking about Rock Band Metallica in a few seconds. But if im wrong about anything I said please tell me.Gears Of War 04:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

follow this link for more on Rock Band Metallica. When should we make that article.Gears Of War 05:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

If you actually read it carefully and looked at the trailer, it is a 5 year old announcement of a game that would be inspired by the music of Metallica. The trailer hinted at what seemed like an action (or driving game), rather than anything remotely resembling Rock Band. In addition, it's an announcement from VU Games; Rock Band is published by MTV Games, not VU Games. Unfortunate (or maybe very fortunate, if going by the trailer) vapourware. Chan Yin Keen | ^UserTalk _Contribs 05:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

See: Talk:OpenAL#Wrong WikiProject?

"Why is this in the VideoGames WikiProject?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielPharos (talk • contribs) 11:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

From a quick glance over that should be obvious: for its usage in games.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That's true, but that's also true for OpenGL and DirectX, and even PhysX: they're mainly (NOT exclusively) used in games, but that doesn't mean they're video game material. You can easily use OpenAL for media players or something like that. --DanielPharos (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

All the other articles you mention are in the scope of video games. That doesn't mean they are necessarily of top importance as video game articles, but if it were me, I'd go ahead and tag them as well unless they already have a laundry list of more relevant projects. Ham Pastrami (talk) 00:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Also true, but what about Visual Studio? It's used a lot in the development of video games, so should it be tagged too? But in that case, Windows itself... Photoshop... Where do we draw the line? I'd say: since OpenAL isn't SPECIFICALLY geared towards video game development, let the Computing Wikiproject deal with it. --DanielPharos (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a false dilemma. Nobody is suggesting that completely generalized computing topics be placed under the auspices of VG. OpenAL was created by a gaming studio for the purpose of easing game development, and gaming is still the foremost application where it is used. OpenGL was created as a general graphics package but it has gained mainstream recognition due to its role in gaming (i.e. lots of people use the driver, few program with the API). DirectX and PhysX are designed for games. Neither Windows nor Visual Basic nor Photoshop can make any similar claim to being focused on games. I mean, you're really stretching for technicalities here. As is, the computing project is actually very generalized, and individual APIs are not of particularly high importance to it. Articles like keyboard (computing) are. As such I could even argue that topics like OpenGL are better suited to VG than the computing project. I think that a gaming-oriented editor would be more interested in OpenGL than the average computer user. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm the one who originally tagged the article. The reason I did so is because it is in Category:Video game development. I used AWB to tag all the articles found in that category. JACOPLANE • 2008-06-14 17:36

There is such a thing as having multiple WikiProject tags on one page, if that's an issue... ---Izno (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

A good thought was brought up over at Portal (video game)'s talk page about the lack of sales figures for the game and if due to that, should the article fail Featured Article Criteria's comprehensiveness requirements. Now, for Portal, that's a special case (and that said, there are figures for the Orange Box's sales), but let's consider the main question: Is the lack of sales figures for any game a failure of being comprehensiveness?

My argument really depends on the game. If it is top-tier, highly visible game (ala Halo 3, COD4, etc.) and there's no sales figures, I would call it a failure, because of just the amount of media attention on these. But your average release, non-top tier games or the like, I would expect to try to find this information but it simply just might not be available without paying NPD for it, which makes that a questionable source for the information. And even then, data for games are not always available. Mind you, I would assume that a good faith effort was made to find references for sales figures, but sometimes this information is just not available. --MASEM 15:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, Alleyway is at FAC now without any sales figures, so perhaps we can draw from there a confirmation on whether sales numbers are a must for comprehensiveness. Jappalang (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

For most titles, I believe that sales data is a must. Portal is slightly different in that it's part of the Orange Box, available separately, and across Steam (of which Valve have not released figures for). If the rest of the article is top notch, and it can be explained why there doesn't seem to be sufficient sales data, I'd be OK with it.

NPD is not a questionable source for North American retail sales data, it is a reliable one. If the data is available on NPD, and the reason we don't have it, is that no one has been willing to pay for it, then the article is not comprehensive. For Alleyway, I can't be sure as I do not know when games sales tracking started in various markets, were NPD figures available then? What about ELSPA? What was happening in Japan? Alleyway isn't of a featured standard for other reasons though, so I've not pushed the sales figures point over that game. - hahnchen 15:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait wait wait. Someone's willingness to fork over serious money to get sales data shouldn't be a measure of an article's comprehensiveness: if the data isn't readily available to the public in one form or another the verifiability of any sales figures gotten through such means can be brought into question, no?

Additionally what do you mean by "Alleyway isn't of a featured standard for other reasons"?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Alleyway's reception section is up to scratch. If there is important data, such as sales information, available to the public, and we choose not to pay for it, then the article is not comprehensive. I wrote Kingpin: Life of Crime ages ago, it's not that great an article, but I emailed Chart-Track over sales data, they said it was available for a price. I chose not to pay for it, but the data is available, and without it, the article is not comprehensive. A review from a 1990 Famitsu review might not be easily accessible, but if it exists and would add significantly to the article, and is not there, then it's not comprehensive. - hahnchen 16:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Kung Fu Man, Retromags has the EGM you wanted a while back. - hahnchen 16:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Got it already actually, and cited the information within the article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Firstly, I'd say that an absence of reference by reviewers at a FAC is not evidence for a lack of sales, and would probably be putting too much faith at that FAC's reviewers. I'd have to disagree with Kung Fu: if the information is out there then there cannot be any exuses. FAs are supposed to represent Wikipedia's best work. Of course, this doesn't mean that there is an onus on the top contributor to fork over some cash, only that they're at an unlucky handicap if they want to pursue a higher status. The problem is how we can be totally sure that the info doesn't exits, as in whether they may exist within published sources that the top contributor isn't aware of. Generally, I consider sales to be a must, and preferably with a range of locations to represent a comprehensive account.

If that info isn't available, then you need to judge it on the merit of other content in the article. In this case, I would expect coverage of reception beyond the critical, such as cultural impact, etc. There has be a limit by which "it doesn't exist" simply is not good enough. Sadly, it's the reason why some articles can never become FAs. But again, this is only my interpretation of what comprehensiveness entails. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 16:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

And may I add that NPD sales are not, for the most part, available? NPD is very protective of its sales, so even if you paid for the sales, you could NOT add the information to the article, because NPD would be all over you for leaking it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, that nobody has questioned a lack of sales at FAC is a cause for concern. Reagrdless of the impact you feel it has on the FAC's chances, there still needs to be confirmation that that info doesn't exist, and is not merely a mistake in the article. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 16:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

To Link, I don't have a clue about NPD. I was arguing theoretically on the basis that the information doesn't qualify because it has to be paid for, which it does not. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 16:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't speaking to you on that, hence the same number of indentations. But I know NPD - if NPD does not intentionally release it, you releasing such information could get you in trouble with them. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I assumed that would be the case, but I'm also assuming that if you paid them even more, you could. This discussion is largely academic, because no one will be willing to pay the market prices for this data. - hahnchen 17:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not about money, it's about privacy. NPD doesn't want this information public besides the top ten sales. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, are you really going to be such bitches at FAC because of crap like "I need to know how many units this sold" when all other elements are there? That's utter bullshit. It it's not available by looking through businesswire, proquest, newspaper and web searches, I don't want to hear crap from reviewers that "you should pay money to find this". I include the info when I can find it; if I cant, it's up to the reviewer who is being a whiner to find out if there is anything or not. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...Are you being serious? It is the responsibility of the nominator to ensure that their article is comprehensive. Available sales figures fall within this if no other sales have been released. If nominators don't feel like obtaining it, then that's fine. If they don't but want to portray it as comprehensive, then that really is just tough. I'm concerned at your attitude towards users who expect high standards at FAC—half-arsed reviewing may make the moninator's job easier but it doesn't help the project as a whole. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 18:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That's terribly absurd. Are you asking the nominator to spend more than $10,000 just for one source, which he cannot cite because there's no way to include NPD as a credible secondary source because he cannot prove that NPD gave him the information, and he is completely unable to post the information without NPD denying him access to the content that he paid $10,000 for. Portal should not be punished for CIRCUMSTANCES. The sales figures CAN'T be sourced, and because it was released in a collection, only the sales of the collection are relevant. Just use those. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I never said that Portal should be punished, and I discussed matters relating to circumstance above. I think I made it explicitly clear above that there should be no expectations or onus on the nominator to do this, but they must realise the limitations when they're declaring that something meets the FA criteria when it clearly doesn't. Unsurprisingly, my words are being twisted. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 19:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd also say it's telling that FACs can coast through without getting questioned on its absence of sources, yet nobody seems to cares too much, yet when things are made more stringent people begin to take issue. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 19:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

What you're saying, Ash, is that you would oppose any video game at FAC where there were no sales figures, even if as we discussed above the only possible way to get them would be to spend $10000? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it would depend on circumstances as stated above as to whether the absence of data hurts the article. I personally didn't think the sum would be close to that figure, but my stance hasn't really changed. I wouldn't really expect any person to hand over the cash—I certainly wouldn't. But the information still exists out there in the public, regardless of the conditions. Conclusively, that would mean that highly relevant information has been witheld, thus not making it comprehensive. You know what, I may be right, I may not be. After all, it's only my take on things, which I've expressed as my interpretation. It may be best to take it at WP: FAC to get more insight. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 19:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not public information. We should not assume that privately owned information is available somewhere. Do you have ANY evidence that would suggest the sales info exists? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It began talking about the scenario in general. Then as it went on, it went into specifics about NPD, which I admittedly don't know anything about. I'm talking in general about sales information that can be accessed but is not for whatever reasons, which stops it from being comprehensiveness. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 20:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Instead of sales figures, can we replace such expectations with the state of its commercial reception? If there are no sources for numbers, but there are reliable sources stating that the game "sold poorly with the effect that ..." or "was a tremendous hit among gamers such that ...", would it not be reasonable to say these statements are enough to replace "34,589 units sold"?

Sales would be preferable, but I personally don't see any problem with that as it would be accounting for reception besides the critical. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 22:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

NPD is the only source of North American sales figures, and even in PAL regions, it's very difficult to find numbers - in both regions, the best you can get for non-top ten content are from the publishers themselves. There's no expectation that it IS accessible. It costs a lot of money to get it, it can't be used as a source (since the editor can't use NPD as a source, since there's no way to establish NPD gave him the info), and posting the information would get the editor in trouble and he wouldn't get the information (or he would be unable to post it). NPD is the only source of NA sales, so if you can't get them from them, how is it available? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, this was originally based on sales in general. I've stated how I would judge the situation if an FAC didn't have the sales information. I think I've already expressed my views on how accessibility affects it. About NPD in particular, I tried not talk about it specifically too much as I know nothing about NPD. If you what you've said about how NPD works invalidates what I've said in relation to NPD, then that's an honest mistake. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 22:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

How? You admit that you know nothing about NPD, and yet you declare that the facts don't invalidate your opinion. It is literally an impossible standard that not one Wikipedian could ever hope to reach, because it CANNOT BE SOURCED because the only reliable sources that get the information wouldn't POST it. The only way to get sales for Portal is through a press release from the company, and they never made one. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

As in multiple times before in discussions, you fail to read what I'm saying and then twist my words to your benefit. I'm sorry to say this but discussing anything with you is hard work, so I won't waste my time if you continue to misrepresent what I'm saying. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 07:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess the question is, if sales information is not be publicly available (NPD or no, but lets assume totally unrelated to NPD), will that still be a mark against against the article in question should it go up for WP:FAC, and if so, how would we be expected to rectify it? Chan Yin Keen | ^UserTalk _Contribs 07:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be, but the severity would depend on the rest of the "Reception" section. I feel that's on the same scale as not having a "Development" section, because the information is not accessible. Unfortunately, as I've seen with articles without "Development" sections, nothing could be done to rectify this, besides looking for alternative information that would cover reception besides the critical. However, may it be unjust of me to oppose anything at FAC on what is justifiably a grey area by looking at the mixes of responses here, so I'd probably raise it at WP: FAC or FA criteria page. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 08:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've raised this at Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria#Criteria 1b, comprehensiveness. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 08:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Blue Dragon is in really hrrible condition. Its all over the place. Please help out.Gears Of War 20:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've attempted to clean it up a bit. The Prince (talk) 00:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The article is now under peer review, everyone please help out.Gears Of War 01:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone able to offer an opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheat Code Central; there doesn't seem to be a consensus as to whether it's signigicant enough to warrant its own page. – iridescent 17:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we should start a Madden NFL Taskforce. I would be willing to coordinate this. Madden is an extremely popular game that has a couple of articles under it's scope.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  20:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The peer review for 11th Airborne Division (United States), an article within the scope of the Military history WikiProject, is now open. The Military history WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 21:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)