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.

→

Cleaning up Capcom and Konami-related cruft

I'm working in cleaning up all the articles on Category:Street Fighter and Category:Resident Evil, since most of these articles are in pretty poor shape as they were right now. I'm thinking of merging all the salvageable Resident Evil characters articles to List of characters in the Resident Evil series and merging all the movie characters to their respective films. I'm also working on cleaning up all the Zone of the Enders and Boktai related articles when I get the chance to do them.

I was recently involved in an edit war with another user on Template:Major Street Fighter Characters. Kung-Fu Man believes there should be a link Saturday Night Slam Masters on the navigation box, since the characters of Slam Masters are mentioned in some of the Street Fighter games. I beg to differ, since none of them have actually appeared in a Street Fighter and most of the references are superfluous at best (i.e: Character from game A was a tag partner of Character from game B). Jonny2x4 (talk) 13:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there a discussion on this somewhere? I can chip in.

(BTW a hand with the Sonic articles would probably be appreciated.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no discussion right now, which is why I decided to bring it up here. A lot of the Street Fighter articles are in pretty pathetic shape right now (focusing more on the characters' fictional backstories, even though the games themselves have a very loose continuity), even as I'm cleaning them up. And not just the characters articles (i.e: Ryu). The articles on the games themselves are not much better either. Street Fighter 2010 for example talks more about the backstory of the Japanese version and doesn't even have a gameplay sub-section.

As for the Sonic articles. I'm not much of an expert on that series, but I'll do my best there.Jonny2x4 (talk) 13:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd be more concerned why Gouken and Goutetsu even have articles at this point: both of the articles are relying on heavy speculation, but have the problem that they can't be effectively merged anywhere. Slam Masters ends up cited enough to at least warrant that it is involved: heck, even Zangief's moveset similarities to Haggar's get 'explained' via it. The tie ins have been noted by magazines as well, though mainly Haggar's case.

As for the others I'd rather rebuild than mass merge: some of the articles abound can be cited with enough notability to keep them standing. Also regarding the matter of storyline vs. gameplay, it's rather interesting Master Chief (Halo) ends up a feature article while focusing on the character's weight in the series as well as a fictional character. So you can't shout "cruft" for the entirety of a character's background (and really how much gameplay could you cite for many of the characters?). The articles suck, but a slash and burn isn't going to improve them.

Regarding SF 2010, it's a mess I plan to address once I finish writing The Final Fantasy Legend (I'm still waiting on a source regarding the soundtrack). Also it would serve you a lot better to work with people like I suggested rather than try to circumvent with shouts of "cruft" when you know that'll get a rise.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Note that Master Chief (Halo) is about 60% real-world content by volume. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but still it's relevant is what my point is. As it stands, like I suggested to Jonny2x4, it'd be better to pool real-world content relating to the character articles, sort out and merge those that lack enough content, then completely rewrite the rest. The alternative of tearing out whole chunks of the articles here isn't going to do much to actively fix them as you'll just have the same article with less content.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The difference between the Master Chief article you point there and an article like say Chun-Li (which is one of the better written Street Fighter articles) is that the Master Chief article is loaded with references and real-world production info such as the character's design and voice actor. Yes, there's some plot summary there too, but unlike the Street Fighter games, the Halo games are very plot-heavy, whereas the Street Fighter the backstories are mostly told through sourcebooks and character-specific endings. Also, a lot of the plot elements of the Street Fighter games were influenced by the anime and manga based on the games (like Gouken, Cammy's codename Killer Bee, and the origin of Ryu's red bandanna in the Street Fighter II Animated Movie), all of which can be undermined with a strictly in-universe/"canon only" perspective. It wouldn't be a bad idea to have a characterization sub-section for all the character articles, detailing how the characters' histories slowly evolved. Jonny2x4 (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

To use A Man in Black's words from the Sonic cruft discussions, is "burn them with fire" too harsh? This is what we need to do with a lot of fancruft, and I can see that that would apply here as well. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 19:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

More than SF characters, pretty much every fighting game character in any fighting game that got at least one sequel has an article for every single character. This is not the first time this has been brought up, and, well, nobody's been angry or determined enough to really make a difference with them. I tried merging some KOF characters into lists, which has slowly been undone over time. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I am now! I think as soon as we're done cleaning up most of the Sonic stuff, we should work on the Street Fighter-related.

My main problem with a lot of these Street Fighter articles is that cite "Tiamat's Street Fighter FAQ", which is based on the author's own assertion of what's canon and what's not (i.e: a certain detail in Game A contradicts Game B, since Game B is more recent, Game B is canon). The Street Fighter games don't have much of a continuity, other than "3rd Strike" and "Alpha 3" making references to the previous games.

As bad as the Street Fighter articles are, they're nowhere near as bad as Category:Mortal Kombat.Jonny2x4 (talk) 17:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Is the Mortal Kombat Wikiproject still around? Last time I tried to clean up the MK mess I was roundly rebuffed by that crew. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I tend to be surprised at the amount of real world info (namely creator commentaries and acknowledgement of their reception) that tend to be overlooked here. And most of it in English too. Sadly, most Wikipedian users are kids who are more concerned into turning this site into the "backstory database". Jonny2x4 (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, once the worst of the dross is gone, what do we do with these articles? When a character is only in one game, it's easy to deal with; merge (sometimes very little material, as appropriate) and redirect. Omnibus lists tend to be terrible (bad long articles instead of bad short articles), and that's the usual proposed solution. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I have in mind to merge all the characters who first appeared in Street Fighter II to be merged in a Street Fighter II-specific list (although that probably won't be neccesary, seeing how its the most popular incarnation of the series and there's bound to be several real-world references). All Alpha-debuting characters (including Alpha incarnations of SF I and FFight characters) in an Alpha list and all Street Fighter III into Street Fighter III. Jonny2x4 (talk) 18:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

So merge them to the games by first appearance? Sounds reasonable. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't shout "merge it all!" so readily there, save for the SF3 exclusives (Gill may be the only exception revolving around his difficulty as a boss and whole "here's what SF3 can do", as well as early design sketches. Merging the rest should be handled case by case: this isn't the same issue as the Sonic articles because you can reduce storyline content while emphasizing character development, design changes, gameplay, promotion and reception (okay maybe not T. Hawk, but how likes him anyway?). All a merge results in is the same we have with the Pokemon lists and similar: a bunch of useless CRAP that does a half ass job informing anyone of anything.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Depends on what we can source. There's a fair bit to say about most of the SF2 characters, but not so much to say about Adon or Birdie or Sodom or Ingrid and such. If all you can say is "They appear in such-and-such game and they're such-and-such cliche," that's all we really need. It's what happened to most of the SF3 characters.

The Pokemon lists are what we're trying to avoid. Big bad lists instead of little bad articles aren't an improvement. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you there. My only suggestion being tackling each case by case and merging if nothing can be said but a bunch of storyline content. That's why in the end I agree with the SF3 mergings. Cases where storyline can be cut back and design info and promotional material (hell even Sodom lucks out having that) can be cited should be able to satisfy notability and help make the character articles encyclopedic.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, it's going to be case-by-case. As for design and promotion, a lot of times even that ends up duplicated in character articles, when we could just put it in the game or series articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If I were you all, rather than just discussing it, if there is a problem, I would just be bold and fix it, and keep things within your own talk pages or dispute resolution if needs be. The last thing we need are editors being banned or given warnings under 3RR or likewise. We really don't want another discussion between editors going the same way as the similar one on Sonic above. --tgheretford (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, mostly we're brainstorming aloud on how to fix the problems. Everyone agrees on the short term, and we're discussing the long term, fairly amicably as far as I can tell. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I already went ahead and fix a couple of articles. Mostly Resident Evil stuff like Albert Wesker, Ada Wong, Barry Burton (merged into S.T.A.R.S. members (Resident Evil)) and Nicholai Ginovaef (merged back into Characters in Resident Evil 3: Nemesis). Most of these articles don't have enough real world references and are barely above stub-class. Carlos Oliveira and Billy Coen should just be merged back into Characters in Resident Evil 3: Nemesis and Resident Evil Zero respectively (their appearances in Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles don't count for much, since the game is mostly a cliff notes version of the series). I think its best to merge everything into List of characters in the Resident Evil series (I've removed sub-sections that only covered minor supporting characters from the comics and novels).

Also, its hard to do any real work on these articles, when other users are challenging your changes. Jonny2x4 (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Merged Urien, Sean, and Elena with Street Fighter III. The others should have enough to keep them separate articles, though I doubt that with Ibuki. On the SF3 article, it does mention design stuff regarding Dudley though doesn't list a citation: might be worthwhile seeing if anything in the SF3 Bible or All About Capcom books have anything to say about his design that could make it worth a separate article again.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposals are in place for Ingrid (Capcom) (w/multiple targets), and Maki (Final Fight) (to Final Fight 2). Neither article has much to go on in terms of solo articles, as Ingrid is mostly story, and Maki really just had a design and goal change that could easily enough be mentioned in FF2's article. The toy bit could easily go at the CvS2 article under promotions. Someone feel free to tend to either if they get a chance.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Non-en Ratings

There seems to be ambiguity in the vg infobox documenation - for releases, it says "Use the first public non-festival release in the game's country of origin, as well as any English-language release dates available.", but for ratings, it says "The game's censorship rating most widely accepted in the game's country of production (or other countries it has been released in)." - shouldn't the ratings also just be for English-language releases (and/or country of origin)? Fin©™ 12:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes I've been wondering about this for some time myself. This is the English Wikipedia after all, so they are not necessary, yet some infoboxes have around 10 different ratings for many different countries. Really these are only really notable if there is a particular reason for it, such as a game being rated much higher or lower in one country than all the others for specific reasons. I can't remember which articles they were, but I have seen some where over half of the ratings where not even for english language speaking countries. I too think it's confusing as everything else is basically a case of "country of origin and all additional english language countries involved". This too should follow the same mould. --.:Alex :. 15:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I say go for it. There is no disagreement within the project. Kariteh (talk) 07:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool so, I'll change the template documentation! Thanks! Fin©™ 21:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Resident evil page vandel

An anon user 80.5.143.72 has been repeatedly been vandalising resident evil articles especially the Raccoon City page. His other edits on other RE pages have been reverted often and has been uncivil in his comments. Can something be done about him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.134.128 (talk) 17:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't wait to see what other users say about my 'vandalism'. 80.5.143.72 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

No, he's not vandalizing anything. If anything, he's removing fancrap. For starters, the producer of Resident Evil 4 clearly said that the setting is NOT Spain, but a fictional unnamed country. Jonny2x4 (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Would appreciate a hand over on Raccoon City. 86.132.134.128 (and the same person using idfferent IPs, as you can tell by the spelling coming from those IP's) keeps reverting the page to a much worse version (please do check the diffs to see) and this has gone on for a silly amount of time. Thank you.80.5.143.72 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

C-class article discussion on to-do list?

Could the discussion on whether to allow C-class to be integrated into the project be put on the to-do list? Though I'd be disappointed if it isn't, it'd be nice to know one way or the other. Coming across articles which could be rated C-class is beginning to seriously get up my goat, checking back here to see the discussion's stalled. Someone another 20:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Right now it's 80% for, albeit not with a major turnout. I've been marking articles as c anyhow. I think being bold is best here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Please post it on the to-do. It will help a million.Gears Of War 21:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Done, have added the discussion to the to-do.Gears Of War 21:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, some closure on this issue in the forseeable future would be good, having it slip away due to lack of participation would be bad. Someone another 22:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Meh, I think I was the only one really resisting it... I'd be ok with C-class being added here. (Note that I am still willing to incinerate anyone forcing List-class on us ...) User:Krator (t c) 00:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This thread is not about whether or not C-class is desirable or not, just about whether or not we want to add the discussion about it to the todo list that's in every ((vgproj)) template. I personally don't know enough about the whole C-class issue, so I'll go with whatever the consensus is. JACO PLANE • 2008-07-2 00:46

Cleaning up Capcom and Konami-related cruft

Is there a discussion on this somewhere? I can chip in.

(BTW a hand with the Sonic articles would probably be appreciated.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

As for the Sonic articles. I'm not much of an expert on that series, but I'll do my best there.Jonny2x4 (talk) 13:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Note that Master Chief (Halo) is about 60% real-world content by volume. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I am now! I think as soon as we're done cleaning up most of the Sonic stuff, we should work on the Street Fighter-related.

As bad as the Street Fighter articles are, they're nowhere near as bad as Category:Mortal Kombat.Jonny2x4 (talk) 17:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Is the Mortal Kombat Wikiproject still around? Last time I tried to clean up the MK mess I was roundly rebuffed by that crew. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

So merge them to the games by first appearance? Sounds reasonable. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The Pokemon lists are what we're trying to avoid. Big bad lists instead of little bad articles aren't an improvement. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, its hard to do any real work on these articles, when other users are challenging your changes. Jonny2x4 (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Ninja Gaiden – Article Naming

I've been extensively helping to clean up and edit Ninja Gaiden (video game), which currently goes to the NES version of the series released in 1988. However, I have noticed some blaring ambiguities in the article naming of not only this article, but most of the articles regarding Ninja Gaiden. Much of the confusion arises from the fact that most of the Ninja Gaiden games have been released under the exact same names over and over again. I think some of the articles, by how they're named, can be misleading. From judging by looking at the "Move" record for the article I'm editing, this hasn't been discussed for quite some time.

Here's how the Ninja Gaiden articles are arranged and my concerns:

Ninja Gaiden – This goes to a disamb page, which I wouldn't think would be necessary since we are dealing with only the series and its games.
Ninja Gaiden (series) – The entire series of Ninja Gaiden.
Ninja Gaiden (arcade game) – The 1988 arcade version; the first Ninja Gaiden game in the series.
Ninja Gaiden (video game) – The 1988 NES version. (Could be confused with the arcade version, the Master System version, the game gear version, or the xBox version)
Ninja Gaiden II: The Dark Sword of Chaos – The 1990 NES version. (May possibly confuse those looking for the 2008 version.)
Ninja Gaiden III: The Ancient Ship of Doom – The 1991 NES version. (Fine)
Ninja Gaiden (Master System) – The 1992 SMS version. (Should be renamed Ninja Gaiden (1992 Video Game))
Ninja Gaiden (2004 video game) – The 2004 xBox version. (Fine)
Ninja Gaiden II (2008 video game) – The 2008 xBox 360 version. (May possibly confuse those looking for the 1990 version, even though I really don't think it would.)
Ninja Gaiden (Game Gear) – The 1991 version for the Game Gear. (Would make sense just to rename it Ninja Gaiden (1991 video game))
Ninja Gaiden Shadow – Game Boy version. (Fine)

Wouldn't it make more sense to dump the disamb page, redirect Ninja Gaiden to the series article, and then disambiguate the rest of the game articles (of the same name, that is) by year or console if necessary? Thoughts? MuZemike (talk) 07:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Lose the disamb, redirect to Ninja Gaiden series article. From there I'm kinda lost on ideas. Someone else wanna chip in on this? Chan Yin Keen | ^UT_C 08:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Lose dismbig and redirect it to the series article. - X201 (talk) 08:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ninja Gaiden Dragon Sword is missing up there. Anyway, I would suggest setting up the series article as the primary Ninja Gaiden (no disambiguation). The page in describing the games in the series should have the links to the various versions (having another page serve as a disambiguation page seems redundant). The second version of Ninja Gaiden then could have a Ninja Gaiden II disambiguation page. Redirects are set up for Ninja Gaiden DS, Ninja Gaiden 2, and Ninja Gaiden 3. Thus, we end up with 11 articles, one disambiguation page, and 3 redirects. Jappalang (talk) 08:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the dab page can be dumped, but do not redirect it; just move the series article on top (probably you'll need to request at WP:RM, and potentially for other moves as well). For article titles, here's my suggestion: Ham Pastrami (talk) 09:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Move Ninja Gaiden (series) over Ninja Gaiden dab page.
Leave Ninja Gaiden (arcade game) where it is (or simply shorten to "arcade" for consistency).
Move Ninja Gaiden (video game) to Ninja Gaiden (NES). It was eventually ported to PC Engine/Turbografx, and emulated elsewhere, but I don't think this needs to count in the title -- otherwise we are looking at a lot of ugly conversions because of services like Virtual Console. If the PC Engine version has independent notability, by all means, add Ninja Gaiden (PC Engine) to the fray.
Redirect Ninja Gaiden (video game) to Ninja Gaiden.
Leave all the other articles where they are. If the other games can be confused with each other, use a hatnote on each respective article.

Ham Pastrami (talk) 09:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Successfully moved Ninja Gaiden (video game) to Ninja Gaiden (NES) and changed the redirect of Ninja Gaiden (video game) to point to Ninja Gaiden. I also moved Ninja Gaiden (arcade game) to Ninja Gaiden (arcade) to improve consistency in naming. I have requested a move per WP:RM to move Ninja Gaiden (series) to Ninja Gaiden, as it cannot be done automatically since Ninja Gaiden is a disamb page. MuZemike (talk) 16:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The version on the PC Engine is a pure port of the NES version, so it doesn't need its own article. MuZemike (talk) 18:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't move Ninja Gaiden (Master System) to Ninja Gaiden (1992 video game). Its an obscure version of a game released for only one platform and its less confusing that way. Same thing with Ninja Gaiden (Game Gear)/ Jonny2x4 (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's best to keep them as it is, as well; I would not move them, either. Otherwise people would start to get confused trying to associate a year with a console version, which goes against what disambiguation is supposed to do. MuZemike (talk) 01:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Ninja Gaiden should redirect to the first game. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

As in the arcade game or the more popular NES game?Jonny2x4 (talk) 20:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

NES version - I'm of the opinion that the NES game is the by-far most well-known thing called Ninja Gaiden.

Although, overall, considering that there are four things called Ninja Gaiden, Ninja Gaiden should be a disambig. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

But I'm sure that there are some people (i.e. people who are just getting into gaming with the current-generation consoles) may not realize that the NES version exists let alone was very popular. Furthermore, people who grew up playing the NES and know Ninja Gaiden are going to relate to the popularity of the NES version. On the other hand, people who are right now growing up with the xBox are going to relate to the popularity of the two xBox games.

Assuming that both the NES version and the xBox versions have achieved some degree of success and popularity, we'd only be splitting hairs over which version is more important, more popular, etc. Therefore, I think there would be confusion on both sides if you make Ninja Gaiden point to the NES version or to the xBox version (which for the latter someone who may only know the xBox version primarily can contest).

With that being said, I think the most neutral thing viewpoint-wise to do is to point Ninja Gaiden to the series (which I have already requested) and then disamb all the games separately by console version. And with that change, a whole disamb page on Ninja Gaiden would not be necessary. MuZemike (talk) 01:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Why? There are five articles called Ninja Gaiden, that's plenty for a disambig. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, dab pages are to distinguish heterogeneous subjects, not to serve as a WP:SETINDEX, which is what a series article is. If JK Rowling's next book was Harry Potter and the Ninja Gaiden, we would need a dab page. But no matter how many Ninja Gaiden games there are, they would not need a dab page, just the series index. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, we don't apply that logic ever it would seem, since there are dab pages for tons of series (Mega Man, Donkey Kong). There are still five things that people would likely do a search for on Wikipedia. The fact of the matter is that people would likely search for the original game or the Xbox game before they'd search for the series, so making them auto-go to the series article isn't the best idea. The only reason it's suggested to redirect to the series is because it's too difficult to pick which popular Ninja Gaiden game it should redirect to. Because there is no way to pick which should be at the main article, or where it should redirect, it should be a disambig. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there are a lot of misused dab pages, and I don't believe that encouraging more is the proper course of action. If the most likely search target is for one of the Ninja Gaiden games, but it's uncertain which, why exactly is it a bad thing to send the user to the series page? In what way has the user been led astray? Either way, the user is brought to a page that provides a list of more specific topics. On a dab page you get an obscure parenthetical and a one-line description to help you tell the difference. On a series page you get an excerpt from the main article, maybe a screenshot, and other details which makes it fairly obvious whether or not you are about to click on the right link. I don't recommend putting the series article up front because "it's too difficult to pick" a game to redirect to. I recommend it because it is strictly better than a dab page. Ham Pastrami (talk) 05:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

These are heterogenous subjects; they're four different games all with the same name, plus a series of the same name. We're not including Ninja Gaiden 2 or Ninja Gaiden Black or whatever in the dab page, just things that are named Ninja Gaiden and only named Ninja Gaiden. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

No, they're not heterogeneous; they're four games with the same name, using the same IP, in the same series, owned by the same company. That is fairly homogeneous in my book. Certainly you cannot say that it is incorrect to bring you to the series article for any one of those games; if, on the other hand, you were expecting something that wasn't related to these games at all, then that would be a heterogeneous subject. I understand you're saying that games titled "Ninja Gaiden" are a subset of the Ninja Gaiden series, but they're just as effectively disambiguated in the series article regardless. Ham Pastrami (talk) 05:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The whole idea of redirecting to the series article ignores the fact that series articles shouldn't get preference. Especially in this case, where the series is most definitely not the most popular usage. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I have followed A Man In Black's thoughts and removed any title that is unlikely to be mistaken for Ninja Gaiden from the page. I believe having Ninja Gaiden as the series article is a good idea. The series article itself is a summary of the Ninja Gaiden titles. There are no other notable Ninja Gaiden that are not within the scope of the series article. Hence, having a set index article instead of a disambiguation page makes sense in this case. Jappalang (talk) 01:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That is not a criteria for an article to be at the main article. In fact, your reasoning is exactly opposite to what's appropriate - the series shouldn't get precedence unless it's clearly superior in notability (ie FF series vs. first FF). - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Who stated that ("series shouldn't get precedence unless it's clearly superior in notability") to be a criteria or policy? In any event, Final Fantasy is pointing to the series, instead of a game. Ninja Gaiden amounts to the same thing. Reading through articles from established reliable sources point to the three NES games (and even the new NG and NG II) being referred to as Ninja Gaiden games. Instances of the phrase Ninja Gaiden alone are also used to refer to the series as a whole. Tecmo and the official sites state Ninja Gaiden as encompassing the whole franchise ("Ninja Gaiden and Tecmo are registered trademarks of Tecmo, LTD."). I see no heavy obstacle in us putting the series in the Ninja Gaiden slot. Jappalang (talk) 05:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It was a decision based on the fact that in most cases, the series is not the most popular usage. And your example of FF doesn't really stand - I already used it as one of the series that DOES have more popular usage. Here's more examples for you:

And I'm sorry, but your argument of trademarks does not establish anything. For one, what Tecmo registers doesn't establish what is best for the reader. For another, how does it refer to the series? The trademark refers to one thing and one thing only - the name "Ninja Gaiden". That point is completely irrelevant, as it doesn't establish the series as the most well-known usage of the name "Ninja Gaiden". - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Not the most popular usage in whose eyes? Certainly the series article needs cleanup, and once that is completed, one can claim that that the series article contains information about the franchise as well as the series of games in a way that pointing Ninja Gaiden to the series article does indeed benefit the reader the most.

As I stated earlier about splitting hairs over which game is more popular, etc., the same applies to these articles. Taking that into account, why should we have to determine among roughly equally popular usages when we don't have to? MuZemike (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

My FF example? Link to the Past, you were the one who brought it up ("ie FF series vs. first FF"). Just as well, you claimed it is a decision based on fact. Whose fact? Please bring up the fact that Ninja Gaiden is the most common name for the NES game (as you have stated much earlier), or are you now standing by the claim that the Xbox version is now the popular (common version). These sites show that Ninja Gaiden refers to the entire franchise.[1][2][3][4][5] [6] Jappalang (talk) 01:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I do have another idea, in which School makes for a good example: we make Ninja Gaiden the series and then create a Ninja Gaiden (disambiguation) article. The appropriate hatnote in the series article would then point the series article to the disamb page.

I acknowledge that this is not consistent with WikiProject Video games guidelines, but I don't think the guidelines take into account the situation in which multiple games of the same name for multiple consoles, all different games and not ports, exist – which seems like the unique case here. Thoughts? MuZemike (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

So many people know Ninja Gaiden only by two games - Ninja Gaidens 1 & 2 for the Xbox and 360 - so it's very absurd that one could suggest that the series is the most well-known usage. I've seen that most people consider either the NES game or the Xbox game the most popular usage. Your argument of so many things using the name Ninja Gaiden is an argument for disambig, not for one of those to be used - especially when you suggest a less popular usage of the name. And your example of school? I'm finding it hard to comprehend that you're comparing school, which most people attribute to what it's at right now, to the series, which has no arguments suggesting why it is the best usage of the name. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I gave school as a general example of a disamb structure, not as a parallel to Ninja Gaiden. MuZemike (talk) 22:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

School has so many terms describing it, but the term School is known as an institution of learning. Your argument would require that series be given preference in many, many more cases. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a bad example. Disregard what I said. MuZemike (talk) 00:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

How about instead of referring to it as a series, we refer to it as a media franchise under Tecmo's umbrella, which is actually what it is? MuZemike (talk) 00:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

A series article is about the franchise in the context of our current articles. Examples: Age of Empires, Resident Evil, and Halo. Jappalang (talk) 01:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

On another note, WP:VG/GL state that "Disambiguation pages are not required if the only disambiguation exists between similarly named articles related to the same video game series, but hatnotes are strongly encouraged to point between these items on their individual pages." By that guideline, we can rightly say that a disambiguation page for Ninja Gaiden games should have been discouraged. The Ninja Gaiden "disambiguation" page should not exist. Jappalang (talk) 01:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

On another note, that doesn't establish that the target should be the series. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Who said it does? It is to eliminate the option of a disambiguation page, which has been brought up earlier. Facts are further above to present the series' case as the default Ninja Gaiden. Unlike any assertion that one of the games is the commonest name which has no backing, the game industry (fans, reviewers, journalists) has associated Ninja Gaiden with that of the entire series. Unless someone can bring up proof (policy, guideline, data) otherwise, we should have the series as the set index for Ninja Gaiden. Jappalang (talk) 05:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The only thing EVER presented to support people attributing Ninja Gaiden with the series over one game was a trademark (and fun fact: trademarks have NOTHING to do with series). - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Since you did not notice this above, I repeat this again. These sites refer Ninja Gaiden to the entire series.[7][8][9][10][11] [12] Jappalang (talk) 06:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That evidence is awesome, so long as you save it for when we're arguing whether the series' name is Ninja Gaiden. I'm just curious how the fact that people call the series "Ninja Gaiden" proves that it's the most popular usage. If people DIDN'T call the other uses of the term Ninja Gaiden "Ninja Gaiden", you'd have an argument. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

In fact, doing a quick Googlehits test, we see that almost every single hit is for the Xbox game, NOT any kind of series. It's very, very hard to establish that the series is known as Ninja Gaiden more than anything else called Ninja Gaiden, simply because Googlehits doesn't establish that people were looking for the series - when they go into that Ninja Gaiden franchise page, it's far more likely they go in for interest in the Xbox games or NES games, not for the series. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Google hits are not a wholly acceptable test for common usage. In this case, your test is flawed, especially with regards to recentism and the ineffectual separation of games from the series. Simply put, you have nothing to prove that Ninja Gaiden will be the commonly used name for only a single game. On the contrary, the industry and society look upon the games (series) as under the Ninja Gaiden trademark as shown in the articles. The facts (and reliable sources), policies, and guidelines show that the case stands for the series article to occupy the Ninja Gaiden page. Jappalang (talk) 07:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

So, if guidelines apply to Ninja Gaiden in such a way, why are most of the video game articles in similar situations going the opposite route? And here's a thought - how can you call recentism for this game? Let's see, that was what, 2003? 2002? And how many games have been released since then, four? - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Just because "other articles do not follow the guidelines does not mean that this article has to do the same. Four, five years are still recent compared to the history of Ninja Gaiden (20 years) and the "greater focus" of any "fan" tends to be on the latest release of a series before things fade. How many of your Google hit test (flawed as it is) are truly on the first Xbox game instead of the NES games, II, DS, Sigma, and Black? After ten, fifteen years, the NES games are referred to as simply Ninja Gaiden games encompassing the trilogy as a whole. When reviewers talk about how Itagaki (with his new Ninja Gaiden works) is propagating Ninja Gaiden and following its history, they are certainly not talking about a single game. Jappalang (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Rather than continue being railroaded and extending this thread way beyond what it should have been... Five editors (Jappalang, MuZemike, Ham Pastrami, Chan Yin Keen, and X201) support the notion of moving the series article into the Ninja Gaiden article namespace. The basis for this is compliance with guidelines (WP:VG/GL, WP:SETINDEX, WP:MOSDAB) and the use of the name as representative of the series by the industry. One editor (A Link to the Past) opposes but has no solid backing for his arguments. Since Ninja Gaiden is currently occupied, the series article cannot be simply moved into it. Administrator assistance is required. Can an administrator voice any concern or reasons this move should not proceed? If not, can an administrator effect this move please? Jappalang (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Have already requested a move here, but they are backlogged as is. MuZemike (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I see more trouble outside the titles, for example Ninja Gaiden (Master System)'s article is 2/3 cruft, if we remove the lenghty "Stages" section and half of the "Gameplay" section we are left with a really vague article, it should probably be merged into the series article due to its obscure nature; Ninja Gaiden (Game Gear) has the same problem. If there is consensus to get rid of the disambig page the logical step would be renaming the series article to Ninja Gaiden, it may seem trivial but this series has already reused a title three times (Ninja Gaiden) and a second one twice (Ninja Gaiden II) we can't expect that all casual readers will be familiar with that. Naturally if all the titles of a series share the same name, they will be referend to as such, seeing examples of Halo, Devil May Cry or Final Fantasy being used when refering to their respective series is actually very common. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I do agree, but we should do the "big move" first and deal with the merging, if absolutely needed for lack of sources, as a separate discussions on those articles' talk pages involved. Also keep in mind that many of these articles, including the NES one that I am currently working on, are in a huge need of cleanup. MuZemike (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion from WP:RM

This move discussion is located on a WikiProject's talk page... is it supposed to be there? To me, it seems slightly non-Kosher. 70.55.86.139 (talk) 05:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It's part of a discussion pertaining to renaming nearly all of the articles in that series, the other articles already having been done without problems. This was the one that requires assistance, since a disamb page already occupies it. MuZemike (talk) 23:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no established reason why the series should be given preference over all of the games. Looking at series articles, very few are given preference over the character of the series or the most well-known game of that series, and most are adorned with (series). The only exceptions for the most part are those whose series titles don't conflict with a title in the series, and for those that are more well-known as a series, such as Final Fantasy (FF, while well-known for being the first title, is not that known out of that). Ninja Gaiden is not more well-known as the series than any one game. If any title gets the redirect, it should be the NES game or the Xbox game, not the series. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note that in the discussion pointed above (read for details), A Link to the Past could not provide solid backing for why the title should redirect to a particular game (his sole basis being popularity which he cannot prove). His claims of "most series" not given preference is also based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. On the other hand, WP:VG/GL, WP:SETINDEX, and WP:MOSDAB give enough direction for the series article to be established as a set index for the Ninja Gaiden namespace article. Jappalang (talk) 05:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note that citing an essay doesn't really do anything but waste bandwidth. A lack of one good reason to say "Ninja Gaiden is better known as the series than any one game" is a bigger hurdle than me trying to prove your shoddy arguments wrong. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope, you have nothing to back your reasons (and you are the sole vocal opposer to the motion), whereas the vocal supporters (numbering five) have the guidelines and the fact that the gaming industry commonly use the name in referring to the series to back up the move (and that is the good reason you have been stubbornly refusing to accept). Let us just let the administrators look through this proposition on the basis of presented evidence and make their decision. Jappalang (talk) 07:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Just curious, but is there some strange reason why you are demanding me to provide some clear-cut, absolutely perfect reason for any one of the video games that they should get preference, but you wouldn't dare to even slightly do the same thing? You've hardly provided anything in the way of showing that people would know the name Ninja Gaiden to mean the series more than any one game, and have done a whopping nothing to establish that it overcomes five different uses of the name Ninja Gaiden. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have provided proof that the title is used for the series in the discussion. The articles provided establish the reputation of the series in association with the title. Stubborn insistence, without clear evidence, that "somewhere out there, everyone calls this game Ninja Gaiden" proves nothing. Since the same points are being repeated again, I will await for the administrators' decision. Jappalang (talk) 08:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Providing proof of it being used for the series is enough? How is that enough? How does proving that it's one of the many things that use the title establish it as the dominant use of the term Ninja Gaiden? I've been asking you for proof that it's the most popular usage of the term Ninja Gaiden. Not "that it is a term for the series". If that's all you've got for an argument, then I'll just go one better - Ninja Gaiden started off as the video game Ninja Gaiden, not the series. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Non-en Ratings

I say go for it. There is no disagreement within the project. Kariteh (talk) 07:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool so, I'll change the template documentation! Thanks! Fin©™ 21:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Release dates for Japanese localizations

The article guidelines currently state:

"Releases in non-English countries should not be included in the infobox (unless it is first released in a non-English country), but if determined to be necessary to include, can be discussed further in the article's body."

However, I have noticed that, in practice, Japanese release dates are always included in infoboxes, even when Japan is not where the game was first released. See for instance Lair (video game). Since Japan is a non-English country, should these kinds of release dates be eliminated? Kariteh (talk) 13:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

What about Japanese localizations of American-produced sequels of Japenese games? Jonny2x4 (talk) 14:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Per the guidelines, they should be removed. But as you say, this isn't the case on the wiki. I'd be all for removing japanese dates from non-japanese games, but methinks this needs more discussion!! As does my other section above! Seems hard to get discussion on infobox stuff these days, doesn't it Kariteh? ;) Fin©™ 00:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I think we can go with the idea that unless the main text mentions the information in other countries, we should leave them out of the infobox? (This applies to release dates and ratings.) Jappalang (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, since nobody disagrees, I'm going to remove all Japanese localization release dates from infoboxes now. Kariteh (talk) 07:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Small question. What about games from a Japanese series that were for some reason or another released in the US first such as Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty. Should we keep thoses Japanese dates. --76.71.208.204 (talk) 13:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, any games developed in a certain country should have that country listed in the infobox. Fin©™ 14:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Resident evil page vandel

Can't wait to see what other users say about my 'vandalism'. 80.5.143.72 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

C-class article discussion on to-do list?

Right now it's 80% for, albeit not with a major turnout. I've been marking articles as c anyhow. I think being bold is best here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Please post it on the to-do. It will help a million.Gears Of War 21:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Done, have added the discussion to the to-do.Gears Of War 21:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, some closure on this issue in the forseeable future would be good, having it slip away due to lack of participation would be bad. Someone another 22:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this AFD trying to set precedent that any video game with no "third-party" articles should be deleted from this site?

Betacommand has nominated the ZX Spectrum game, Roller Coaster, for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roller Coaster (video game). The article appears to be decently written for a ZX Spectrum game and is noted on Mobygames and World of Spectrum, but this whole AFD feels very, very dirty.

If this is deleted, what's next? Any NES game that didn't get reviewed by a popular magazine? Most Atari 2600 games? ALL Ti-99/4a games? I really don't understand nominations like this, or a previous one at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xena: Warrior Princess: The Talisman of Fate. It's just another thing to add to my list of reasons as to why I shouldn't even bother attempting to expand any articles on the mainspace. If I expand Gate of Thunder, which has no coverage from 'reliable' sources that's easily available, how does it stand a chance against a gang of well-known deletionists? SashaNein (talk) 03:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think you answered your own question. WP:N sets the standards for what articles really should be included. If a game is not particularly notable, it probably doesn't need its own article. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This AFD in itself was a bit misguided: the article is pretty clearly citing a review, even if the article does need a rewrite. Either way it seems to be sorting itself out. As for third-party coverage though, while that doesn't required major magazine articles, it does require some attention. Mobygames really isn't the best citation: it's more or less saying "this existed and here's some info from others".--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

As Miremare pointed out in a previous AFD, there is a database of ZX spectrum magazine scans here at World of Spectrum, there is also the Amiga Magazine Rack which is exhaustive and contains a fistful of reviews for the average game. I should get my finger out and add these to the sources page. If a multi-format game came out in the Spectrum/C64/CPC era, then chances are it's in the WoS archive, if a game came out during the ST/Amiga/DOS era then chances are it's in the AMR. if anyone sees a similar resource for different systems (or an archive of multi-format magazines) please let us all know. BTW the discussion has been closed as a speedy keep. Someone another 11:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Chrono Trigger DS announced; can someone help?

I've never handled an article that's had a significant rerelease, so I have no idea if Chrono Trigger DS (which just exists at http://www.square-enix.co.jp/ctds/ for the time being) should get a new one, or how it should be integrated into Chrono Trigger, or whether it should even get its own separate infobox right now. Any help is appreciated for smoothly integrating this news. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 04:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Right now we just have clocks, "ctds", and some magazine scans floating around. At this precise moment, there's not much to say about it, though I imagine news will come quickly over the next day or so. I would suggest initially placing the game on its own page, at Chrono Trigger DS, when we actually have something concrete. --- RockMFR 04:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not of the opinion that CTDS will be a significant enough of a remake to warrant an article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with ALttP on this : Wired point out it's merely a port, see here. --Oscarthecat (talk) 06:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If it's just the same thing with 'something' added to the second screen, a single screenshot showing both screens and additional infobox details should do most of the work. A few snippets could also be added to reception. Someone another 11:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Deal with it like Myst deals with its ports and remakes: another section in the main article. It hardly needs a seperate infobox, especially right now. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Update to Template:WikiProject Video games

((WikiProject Video games)) has been updated to automatically rate a non-article page by namespace, and sort it into the appropriate category. So please start adding it to every Template:, Category:, Image:, Portal: and Wikipedia: page that falls within our project. Thanks! JohnnyMrNinja 09:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

FIFA soccer articles

I think a lot of these articles need some cleanup - a lot of them list every national team, every stadium, the entire soundtrack and every league. This, to me, is complete overkill (as is the blatant overuse of flagicons to denote the nationality of everything). I'd be all for culling everything I just mentioned, instead having a concise article for each iteration, detailing how it was different from the last, features, reception, etc. Anybody have any other opinions, or is that the way to go? Fin©™ 11:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

TMNT video games

There's currently an article titled Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles video games. The content is laid out like a list rather than an article, so I propose a move to prefix the name with "List of". Before doing the move myself, I wanted to gather consensus here. Thoughts? Lumaga (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Id say yes to the renaming per all the featured lists that have been made. Maybe "List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles video games" or "List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles video game titles". Also the games should be displayed in the Template:VGtitle box. 01:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Resident Evil Creatures

There's a bunch of articles around Resident Evil that could use a clean-up, perhaps even a delete or merge based on notability and WP:PLOT problems. Just from a quick scan:

Viruses in the Resident Evil series
Las Plagas
Tyrant (Resident Evil)
Nemesis (Resident Evil)
Hunter (Resident Evil)
List of creatures in the Resident Evil series
List of Resident Evil 4 creatures

There's also an article about The Hive (Resident Evil), which might make for a decent merge candidate to Raccoon City.

I might also suggest a merge of S.T.A.R.S. members (Resident Evil) to List of characters in the Resident Evil series, since so much of the information is redundant.

Just throwing those out there for discussion. Randomran (talk) 00:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

All of those can and should be better referenced, but absolutely none of them need to be deleted as in the worst case scenario they could be merged and redirected. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Gah! I feel a certain sense of embarrassment towards those articles (since I worked on some of them, and probably created one or two). I was planning on tackling them myself. Here's a concrete list of what we should do:

List of creatures in the Resident Evil series needs to be chainsaw first.
Chainsaw Tyrant, Nemesis, Lisa Trevor and Hunter, then merge to the creature list.
Chainsaw List of Resident Evil 4 creatures. If possible, merge to List of creatures in the Resident Evil series.
Cleanup Viruses in the Resident Evil series and Las Plagas, and then merge the latter into the former.

S.T.A.R.S. members (Resident Evil), Characters in Resident Evil 2, Characters in Resident Evil 3: Nemesis, Characters in Resident Evil Code: Veronica and Characters in Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles all need to be clean up as well.Jonny2x4 (talk) 02:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Guns of the Patriots

Exactly how big of a role did USS Missouri play in the game? I keep getting these one-liner trivia points in the article, but those aren't really acceptable for both WP:NOT and WP:OR reasons. If Missouri does in fact play a big role in the game then I would be happy to add a mention of that fact on the main Iowa class article, but having never played the game I need some input from those who have. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The USS Missouri was the staging ground for the final assault in the game, and was under attack and in danger of being sunk before the conflict ended. Dunno if that counts as notable but in the scope of the game I'd say it was a substantial role. That and the ship was being Captained by a recurring character of the series. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 02:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me put to you like this: if it can clear the ground rules listed in the hidden note in the pop culture section on the Iowa class battleship page then a mention of the role can be placed in the article. Missouri would have to be a "main" character, such as it were, but otherwise if the appearence clears those 5 points I can put it in. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I would classify the Missouri as a "vehicle" in the game. It was mentioned at the beginning of the game but not seen until the end. Despite the fact that those "rules" aren't actual policy it is a featured article so I understand their tending of the content that goes into it. I don't think that the appearance in MGS4 would count to them. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 08:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, after looking at both articles (And realizing that you're a key contributor) I don't think video game trivia would be appropriate. It would be better to make the mention on the game's article and link to the Missouri article from there. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 09:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Broadly they could be considered policy points since they encompass material coverd at WP:OR, WP:NOT, and elements of the MILHIST MoS. It sounds like my original take that the battleship was in the game but not essential to the game is correct; she seems to filling a role similar to the one she had in World in Conflict: there for one mission and mentioned once later. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

My Weight Loss Coach

Would anyone care to start this article. I was going to, but feel a little burnt out. It shouldn't take that much to get it going and could possibly even be a WP:DYK. :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 08:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Make a request, there's a page for that. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 08:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:PlayStation 3 Trophy Compatible games

I can see how this category is useful at the moment because Trophy support is not in all games, but before too long, as trophies become more widespread, this will just become a category that contains every PS3 game that is released and therefore lose its distinction. - X201 (talk) 13:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

True, it'd be much like every Xbox game having ((Category: Xbox Achievement Compatible)) - maybe a category of games that aren't compatible might be better? Or perhaps not have the category at all? Fin©™ 15:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It's true that the Xbox games will always have achievements, but unless they patch all the other PS3 games, there will always be some that do not have trophy support. Given that, this category is not harming anything (ideally, the inverse "PS3 games lacking Trophy support" would be better but categories should be of what something is, and not what something isn't.) --MASEM 15:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems a bit overkill IMO - only a handful of released games are being patched to add trophy support and Sony has said in the future it'll be a requirement. I think it'd work better as a list, much like List of DualShock 3 Compatible Games. There's no categories for PS3 games that support motion control and/or rumble so I don't see why there should be one for this. SeanMooney (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it should be a list and not a category. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Also agreed. While the Trophy System is obviously an attempt by Sony to compete with Microsoft's Achievements system, it doesn't seem that it's notable to the point that we need a new category for it. A list of games should suffice, and would be easier to maintain, methinks - plus, it can be more easily linked from any article on the PS3's software stuff. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Third party and character articles

Here's a good one for everyone, a slew of questions related to third party content as so far as they related to notability:

Cases where a non-Capcom game artist does artworks of capcom characters. Or you have cases like KoF: MI2, where alternate outfits have the characters appear like existing characters (i.e. B. Jenet -> SF3's Elena). Does this count towards tribute material for reception or the bulk of an article instead?
Speaking of SNK, their DS card game comes to mind as another example here: one of the cards draws a comparison between Capcom's Rolento and their General Morden. Now the question comes up does that go under game appearances or SNK's reception of him?
The last one's an odd thing to bring up, but Japanese doujinshi comes to mind (either sort) as something to point out: if character(s) end up used in a significant citable amount as so far as to warrant a sentence on the subject, is that a valid point for reception? It should factor into popularity of the subject I would guess. And yeah I just typed this with a straight face.

Anyway looking forward to seeing what people say in response.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

First one is a gray area, but I guess it could be construed as the "impact" or "cultural impact" of the character. Second one depends on the context. If the review goes into specific details on the comparison, then it can be included as reception, but if it's a throwaway comparison, then it isn't critical reception. For the last one, it probably needs to be a fairly prominent dōjin group, and probably belongs under an "appearances" section rather than reception. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 22:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit unclear on what you're asking, but let me offer my understanding. Derivative works are definitely worthy of mention in the reception section of certain articles, if you think it's important to understand the subject. But derivative works don't usually count towards proving notability. That's because a derivative work is usually authorized by the owner of the copyright. Thus, they're not independent. Independence is key for a source to assert notability, or else I could commission virtually anyone to reproduce my work and make it notable. Randomran (talk) 22:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Appearances really doesn't seem to be the place for unofficial material though, no?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I can has peer review?

Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Midtown Madness seems to be the only unreviewed submission at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review. I would of course be happy to do a review in exchange if anyone could take the time to take a look. (And yes, I know I should canvass people instead of posting here... deal with it :p) —Giggy 05:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I skimmed through it and posted something for you to chew on. If I have time in the future ask me again and I can do a more thorough peer review. Cheers. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 07:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks (and thanks Jappalang too!). I might get around to your offer at some stage. Cheers,—Giggy 06:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

VG Infobox

I was thinking. Should we now try to keep up with the prices of video games and have that information in the VG Infobox. Just wondering.Gears Of War 15:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

No.WP:NOTDIR item 4 - X201 (talk) 15:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Plus even if Wikipedia did allow it, seeing as every shop sells games at different prices, it would be a complete nightmare. --.:Alex :. 16:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

We've had many discussions about including sales figures in the infobox, and there was widespread consensus that those would be a bad idea, so this would be even worse. JACO PLANE • 2008-07-4 16:21

Actually Alex, what stores sell things at is irrelevant -- all games have a MSRP which is what I assume GoW was getting at. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Definitely not, prices change all the time, a MSRP is often unreliable. Fin©™ 20:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Release date categories

I think that there needs to be a fix in the release date category placement - for instance, games like Phoenix Wright are listed by their first release date, which is true - it should use that date - but it should also be listed at 2005, because that was the first English release. The GBA release and DS release are very distinctive and important. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. The template documentation is pretty clear "Use the first public non-festival release in the game's country of origin, as well as any English-language release dates available". Obviously, this would be done on a per-format basis (eg, JPN, EUR, NA release dates for GBA and DS). I notice Phoenix Wright doesn't have GBA English releases, but I assume that's because nobody's added them yet, not that they're not meant to be there. Where's the problem? Fin©™ 09:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

He's talking about categories not the infobox. Personally I wouldn't add any extra year categories. Books and films don't have them, why video games should be special?

As yes, the title kinda gave that away, my bad. I would lean towards including the extra years, but as said, if books and films don't, games probably shouldn't either. Fin©™ 13:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed numerous times here: only the original release year is needed. Films, books and CDs follow this format at well. We don't need to overcategorize. RobJ1981 (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, consensus can only change if it's not this subject. Like I said before, Phoenix Wright has two distinctive and important dates. It's not suggested that "every single year it's release in", or "its release in every region should be acknowledged", but two significant releases for this game should have an extra category. On top of that, Gyakuten Saiban was merged into Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney, and should retain its category - it's not a case of Super Mario Bros. 2 vs. Super Mario Advance. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "Apparently, consensus can only change if it's not this subject", but it seems rather cynical. Anyway, I had another think about this, and now I think games should only include the original release date as a category. As an example, Halo 2 was released on Xbox in 2004, and on PC in 2007, but it only has the 2004 category. Likewise with Gears of War. Unless the game undergoes total redevelopment (in which case it is a remake, not a port - I'm not sure what Phoenix Wright is), I think the original, first, release date/year should be used. Thanks! Fin©™ 20:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Phoenix Wright is a semi-remake, with a new case at the end of the game. However, I think that both dates are appropriate - 2001 because it's representing the original release of the GBA game, and 2005 because that was the release of the DS game, the first release in the series for English gamers. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Gears of War has an extra act on PC too, but I'd still consider it a 2006 game. That's my opinion anyway (keep the original release, regardless of origin or platform). Fin©™ 20:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

GoW had a wide release in English regions, GS did not.
Sticking with the original year doesn't work with games such as PW. To pretty much every single non-fan in the first English region for it to be released, it's a 2005 release, but that's the release date of the remake. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm still of the opinion only the original release date should be included, regardless of localisations or ports. Fin©™ 23:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The original release date category isn't appropriate for the en.wiki. The release date of an obscure version (albeit the original version), a version that is not the focus of the article, is not how the article should be categorized. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

By that logic, we would need to add in english and japanese release years for all games, because all of those could be considered important as well. The infobox lists the release years already, for people to see. This would just be overcategorization in my view. Consensus doesn't change for this subject, because multiple year categories simply aren't needed. People aren't going to change their minds, just because this subject was brought up again here. Also, consensus doesn't instantly change for everything except this subject, so don't assume. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That logic is your logic that you decided to toss into play. Japanese dates and English dates are NOT significant releases. They are two distinct games. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Gyukaten Saiban and Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney are the same game. I think consensus on that point is clear. But where do we draw the line between remakes or related games in one article?

Take Metal Gear Solid, which may end up having Twin Snakes merged into it. It covers almost a half-dozen different works all related to the main.

Should Integral have a category? It's a omake-included rerelease.
Should Metal Gear Solid: the Twin Snakes, if it's merged? It was a large-name remake, but it is just a remake in all but game engine.
Should Metal Gear Solid: Digital Graphic Novel have one? It's a pretty minor release, but it's an adaptation of a graphic novel adaptation of MGS. It's pretty far divorced.

This is going to apply to the Pokemon Ruby and Sapphire and Emerald (and similar) Pokemon articles in particular; it may be a good idea to come up with some sort of project guideline on what gets a release cat and what doesn't. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think all three of them deserve their own category - Integral was released separately, as a mission disc/expansion pack, in NA and the EU (and I know my EU version needed the MGS disc to play); Twin Snakes follows the same basic storyline and locations, but (as far as I know), has rewritten cutscenes and uses the MGS2 engine; Digital Graphic Novel is completely different and also deserves its own category. Fin©™ 10:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If we are to categorize those games, shouldn't we categorize the redirects instead of the main article? --Mika1h (talk) 12:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted: A Link to the Past refuses to accept the current consensus on release date categories. See: Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney. I changed it to the original release, but then hours later, he reverted it back to the English release. He gave an uncivil edit summary of I didn't know VG existed to make articles worse. This article is about the Nintendo DS version with the Game Boy Advance version as an afterthought. Categorizing by an obscure release is unhelpful. Going against consensus isn't the way to go. Seeing as how this discussion isn't over, the release date belongs at the original until we decide something different. RobJ1981 (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Besides, this discussion is about whether extra release date categories should be added. What ALTTP seems to do with Phoenix Wright is to outright remove the original release date category to include only the English one... and that's simply ridiculous. This is an English encyclopedia on worldwide facts, not an encyclopedia on English facts. Regardless of what we do with extra release date categories, there is no reason to remove the original release date category. Kariteh (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, there was a consensus to have a new rule applied to all articles that applies in all cases with no exceptions, so I HAVE to remove it if I intend to add the well-known date. Are you implying that WP:VG has more power over video game articles than official Wikipedia guidelines do? - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Another note: A Link to the Past went to all the Phoenix Wright game articles and added another year category. Consensus hasn't changed, and this discussion is ongoing. This extra year category is overcategorization at best. Categories are supposed to be useful, and not just used for everything. While American, Japan, Europe and all other releases are important... they aren't useful all as categories. This goes back to the point about movies: they get re-released at times, and don't get cluttered with numerous categories for it. The infobox states the complete release information just fine. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

So I'm just guessing - the reason you didn't answer me when I asked where you got the power to enforce this as if it were a policy is that you don't have such a power? This is a guideline that has exceptions.
If someone looks for major games released in 2005, they will not find it because being unhelpful is, according to Rob, the purpose of WP:VG.
At what point is this an attempt to add every year? It's an attempt to add two important, distinctive games. Exceptions exist for one reason - the rule cannot be the best thing to do for all articles. No one has the ability to apply this rule to every article without exception - what value is there in sticking with the less known category? There's no use in categorizing by the original date versus the Nintendo DS release because the original date is very obscure to non-Japanese readers and non-fans. If it can't be decided on which date to use, we should use both. The argument of over-categorization does not become "there can be only one date, period." If there's reason to use more than one, that's NOT over-categorization - if it's the right thing to do, it's PROPER categorization. The arguments for using 2005 video games haven't been debunked - the only thing ever done was that you cited a consensus to use one date. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Stop reverting the article, ALTTP. Have you ever seen someone winning an edit war like that on Wikipedia? All these reverts don't serve your point and will only piss off other people. Discussion goes first. Anyway, I think Mika1h's solution is best. The article should be at 2005 while the redirect of the original game would be at 2001. This is the most logical and useful solution I think. But really, discussion goes first. Kariteh (talk) 08:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I second (third?) the call to stop reverting. I'm sure what Kariteh means by categorising the redirect (the redirect I found went to the series, not the game). Also, if a category for 2005 is added, why not 2006 and 2007 (NA release was 2005, EU 2006, AUS 2007)? According to ALTTP's view above, not having these extra dates would be unhelpful to the reader (as an EU reader would not find Phoenix Wright in the 2006 category). Fin©™ 09:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it funny how some people tell you what your position is, even when saying such a thing is such a blatantly foolish lie that any intelligent human being would notice? Oh, no, it's not. It's annoying and stupid. Stop being a troll. If you legitimately think that's what my position is, you haven't been reading and you need not contribute to this discussion at all. If you don't think that's my position, you're being a troll. Pick. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Link, don't call people trolls. There's no need to attack people here. Discuss things in a civil manner. RobJ1981 (talk) 17:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I never said he was a troll. I said if what he was doing was telling me that I have one position I very clearly do not do and is aware of it, he's trolling. If he was doing something else, he was not. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

"Stop being a troll." certainly sounds like you were anyway. You should give a read of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, if you haven't already. Thanks! Fin©™ 08:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not gonna have someone who participates in a discussion and essentially ignores my entire statement, thus not having any reason to be in such a discussion tell me to be civil, thanks. How, exactly, did you come to make a statement that states that my stance is opposite to what it obviously is, considering I've stated multiple times that that is not my stance on ths issue? - A Link to the Past (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

"If someone looks for major games released in 2005, they will not find it because being unhelpful is...the purpose of WP:VG". Right, so this statement implies searching for a game and not finding it is being unhelpful, which I assume you are against, due to your sarcasm. So if a European or Australian user was looking in the year category Phoenix Wright was released in their territory, they would not find it, which is unhelpful. Therefore, in order to be helpful to all readers, all year categories for each release would have to be listed. (I think my logic is sound here, but feel free to ignore me if not) Fin©™ 15:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Erm, here's an idea - you know that statement where I flat-out point out that my attempts were not to "give every release its own category there"? But hey, what does that matter? You have a statement which you assume implies something. That's much better than a statement that flat-out contradicts what you think is implied in another. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

2006 and 2007 are unnecessary because they're not the first release date of the remake; 2005 is. The argument about English readers looking for English date categories is bogus IMO, but the one about distinguishing the remake from its original GBA version is definitely unchallenged. I propose again that we categorize the remake at 2005 and the redirect at 2001. I think we could also categorize the remake article at both 2005 and 2001.Kariteh (talk) 07:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

My intention was never to remove the 2001 category, but to add the necessary 2005 category. - A Link to the Past (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes it was.[13][14][15]. Falcon: I'm thinking Gyakuten Saiban, or even Gyakuten Saiban (video game) (could be created). Kariteh (talk) 15:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. That redirect to the series at the moment, maybe Gyakuten Saiban Yomigaeru Gyakuten or something? Fin©™ 15:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I strongly recommend not taking this path, as it would then encourage the creation of new articles for any port or localization versions along the lines of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (some ports do deserve them, but there's a significant difference between, say, FF3 and FF3DS, and Gyakuten GBA and Gyakuten DS). A better question to ask is, what are we trying to do with those date categories? If we are trying to allow people to find what games were released when in any region and any remake, then yet, every release year should be included, but will lack any sort of resolution for region specifics. A different way that could be done is that for any pages using the ((vgrelease)) it may be possible to create auto-categories of "Video Games released in XXX during YYYY". (XXX being North America, Europe, Japan, and Australia, with others as necessary). All "Video games released in XXX during YYYY" would be subcats of the current "Video games released in YYYY". Thus, remakes would automatically be sorted (assuming the template is used). Now, I say "may" because I'm not sure about the year parsing part yet, but I think it can be done with backwards compatability. --16:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, let me just speak for what my intentions were rather than you deciding them for me, yes? The point was not to remove 2001, it was to add 2005, and adding both would have immediately gotten the added category deleted. If my intention was to remove the 2001 category, it would mean that I removed it for the purpose of removing it, not to add another category.

And Masem, no one's planning on making an article of it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! --For the 1.0 Editorial Team, .:Alex :. 20:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW, in case anyone hasn't been paying attention, it has already been fully implemented in Template:WikiProject Video games. See Category:C-Class video game articles. JohnnyMrNinja 22:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

But it hasn't been added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Assessment yet. The page is pretty outdated, with sentences like "We do not use list-class", etc. The page needs to be revised.Kariteh (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to edit Assessment instructions to reflect this and the recent discussions and changes to our project template. The actual Quality scale I will leave for others. Keep in mind that ((FL-Class)) is also not mentioned. We also need to come to a consensus on ((List-Class)). On this, I will comment on the above discussion. JohnnyMrNinja 22:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Also note that A-Class reviews now take place on the article's talk page and must be transcluded on the assessment page here. We don't have to do it like that of course, as this is mainly designed for projects without full-blown assessment departments. --.:Alex :. 09:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

More Capcom cruft cleaning

As discussed in above sub-sections, I'm working on cleaning some of the Capcom and Konami-related game and character articles. While editing Zangief, I got into a mild edit war with another user who wants to retain a paragraph of unverified speculation about a character's sexuality. While I don't care either way, I don't think the character's implied homosexuality (which seems to be based on a few quotes by the character in the Japanese version of Alpha 3) is a notable enough aspect of him to be mentioned. Especially considering cited quotes are not even in their original Japanese and are likely being taken out of context. Jonny2x4 (talk) 23:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, aside from Wikipedia:Do not call things cruft, I agree that an unverified section of a character's sexuality should be removed if no sources can be found (the discussion mentions some, but I'm not sure on their reliability). Every once in a while such material pops up. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homosexuality in Kingdom Hearts, for example. Also, so others are aware of the discussion you cite above, see Talk:Zangief#Zangief and homosexuality. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You know darn well that "cruft" is much easier to say than "in-universe fictional biographies filled with fan-speculation and no real world references". And yes, I already posted my objections in the article's talk page, but the conflicting editor is hardly helpful with his ad hominem attacks towards other users. Jonny2x4 (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It's best to be more precise than easy so others clearly know what you mean. Anyway, have you considered a request for comment on that section as it does indeed look like an already extensive/heated discussion? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Man, give it a rest with the cruft complaints. Anyway @Jonny: Jumped in and removed it myself, he adds it back just smack him with a 3RR warning. As it stands that barely deserves a footnote in reception regarding how Americans perceive him, and a counterpoint could even be the CFE ending (which is the only time other than R. Mika's ending where we see him with either males or females in such a fashion, even if it isn't "canon"). Also did he really use the purple pants as a reason? Should we be checking into Ken's and Dee Jay's background now? o_O'--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Something like that. Apparently people who played the location test version of SF2 Dash said that Zangief looked gay in purple briefs, so they changed it to the dark green used in the final game.

I played the Japanese Zero 3 and one of Zangief's exact quote to Ryu literally translates to "I don't like the hadoken, but I like you! Mwahaha!", but I see it more as a "but you're not so bad yourself" than a gay come-on. Meh. Jonny2x4 (talk) 01:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like WP:OR and POV-pushing. If a character is homosexual, they're homosexual. But one editor's interpretation of a few quotes doesn't belong in Wikipedia, regardless of whether it's about sexuality or not. Check back in here if you run into any trouble. And thanks for tackling our serious gamecruft problem. Randomran (talk) 01:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't have a "gamecruft", just some details that can be addressd, but again, unless if the game makers themselves have said the sexuality of the character in question, then it's speculation. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Assessment template glitch

The template seems to have an error on it, it's counting B-class articles as NA-class as well from what I can tell.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

That was a mistake on my part. I already made a editprotected request on the template page to fix it. Sorry, MrKIA11 (talk) 01:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sidebar show/hide functionality

As you may have noticed, the sidebar now has show/hide functionality. There's a discussion about this change here: Template talk:WPCVG Sidebar. JACO PLANE • 2008-06-30 13:47

Timestamp (-5 days) for archive bot. —Giggy 04:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Formula 1 articles

This point is much the same as the FIFA one above - a large number of the Formula 1 articles list every driver, every team and every track present in each game. Shouldn't these be removed under wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information? Normally I'd do it straight away, just want to make sure it's ok first, as it'll effect quite a few articles. Thanks! Fin©™ 11:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The quick answer would be "yes, they should be removed". My understanding of it is that the F1 games go by year, so the most they should say is that the tracks/teams/drivers/test drivers/pit crews/the shinyness of Murray Walker's head are all consistent with the season the game is set in, preferably with a link somewhere to the article dealing with the season, which happily details that information in its appropriate format. Any discrepencies (such as if one of the games puts Mark Webber in a Ferrari) with the corresponding season should be noted and backed up with reliable sources, but anything further than that can be put down to a sentence saying that they are all the same as the season the game represents. -- Sabre (talk) 22:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That was the conclusion I came to myself alright. I'll get on it once I've got some free time! =) Thanks! Fin©™ 00:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

List of Wii games is now split by region

It's now seperated by region. I don't see much agreement on the talk page (Talk:List of Wii games about this big change. There was this comment here: Talk:List_of_Wii_games#Arbitrary_break, I change my mind. Let's just do region lists like most here are supporting. That is the simplest thing to agree on, and will show the information everyone wants.Ether7. Personally, the region lists are just redundant. There isn't that much duplicate information, and the only problem (that a few editors had) was the size. In comparision: look at List of Xbox games. It lists a lot more games, it has a decent color coding system, and works fine. The only other video game list that is seperated by region is Virtual Console: which is correct, due to many different releases per region. With regular consoles, that's not usually an issue. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Decent color coding? I don't think it's decent at all; what if someone wants to print the article in black and white? and how can color-blind or visually-impaired people read the list correctly? I don't see why a few columns aren't added to the table to replace the color coding. There is a lot of white space on the right side of the page. Kariteh (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

While I'm not a fan of the color-coding (I think it's too distracting) I'm not seeing this "lot of white space" either at 1280x1024. While I generally dislike redundancy I think the region split is the best of the available evils. Nifboy (talk) 22:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't really understand the need for the split: List of NES games seems to contain the same amount of information. The question of white space is neither here nor there; cells wrap text as needed, so you will always see the most efficient use of horizontal space possible for any desktop resolution. That said, it looks to me, on my display, that a few short columns could be added without significantly changing the amount of wrap occurring on each row. Barring a ridiculous amount of wrapping, there's no particular reason to forbid the addition of columns, especially if this will save editors from having to maintain three separate lists with the same information. Ham Pastrami (talk) 23:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why List of Wii games should be any different to List of PS3 games and List of Xbox 360 games - is there such a reason? Fin©™ 23:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

There isn't a good reason the Wii list should be split into multiple articles. A few people on the talk page complained about size, so one editor just decided to split it. Such a drastic thing like that, should be discussed more before it happens. As for color coding: we could always come up with something else to make the long list work. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

And the problem is that the articles, as they are, are still pretty big, so it doesn't really solve the problem, while limiting the information presented does. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing about the Wii split, but be aware that we cannot use color as a key/legend/etc. within tables or the like; it can be an addendum to other methods, but it cannot be the only way. The use in the xbox game list is an example where it is a problem and needs to be fixed. --MASEM 11:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I've done a quick fix of the colour problem at List of Xbox games using footnotes. --Silver Edge (talk) 12:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

So are we going to do anything about List of Wii games? There hasn't been any activity on the article's talk page since the split. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 05:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that there should be color-coding. I believe region lists is better. Wiki131wiki (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess this is about how well we're doing at removing cruft

Even video game-fanboys think we've got too much cruft. JACO PLANE • 2008-07-6 02:21

Meh, I actually just read the entire article, and it's actually really stupid. They don't know what they're talking about. JACO PLANE • 2008-07-6 02:30

Yea, I was going to comment that it's not really a helpful article. Not all articles compared have the same quality. --MASEM 02:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

But still, damn that hurt Gears of War ^{Go 'Skins!} 02:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I think they failed to note a number of sub articles for important topics like WW2. But appreciate the spirit of the joke. They see what's going on. Randomran (talk) 03:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that's not the only website that is about the massive cruft on Wikipedia (in general, not just the video game project). It doesn't bother me, people have the right to think what they want. I didn't read the article, but cruft is indeed an issue on this site. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

User:FullMetal Falcon put this up in the Sonic cruft discussions: [16]. Seems like this is becoming a trend. You would think that these people would know that quality is better than quantity when it comes to using your words. Still, we do have more to go on addressing cruft, don't get me wrong. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 05:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

If all of the topics written about World War II were compared to all of the topics related to Call of Duty, then I think it'll be obvious which one would be bigger :) Gary King (talk) 06:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

List of weapons used in World War II? (Heck, if we have people arguing for in game weapon lists...) —Giggy 07:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You mean: List of common World War II infantry weapons? -- Sabre (talk) 10:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

A big part of the cruft problem is that people have the idea that every little detail is notable. Then when a revert or cleanup happens, the person reverts, another revert happens, a discussion happens with multiple people and things are made right (in many cases, but not all). Look at all the Sonic sections above, as well as Resident Evil. Popular series = a lot more cruft is added, because there is more fans of the series of games. This same thing applies to just about any popular subject not related to video games as well. RobJ1981 (talk) 07:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The Register and WR did this before SA did this before Gameradar did this before Kotaku noticed they did it. It's not new.

In the end, it doesn't really matter. Let's focus on doing our thing and not worry about snarking from wags. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

A lot of cruft exists because that's what people are generally most interested in writing about, including Plot sections and Trivia sections. If those edits were reverted on the spot, then a lot of these articles would be tiny stubs and would probably be much less useful than at least having some content. When editors get to those articles, then it makes sense to clean out cruft at that point.

And yes, this has been done many times before. Don't try to take it too seriously :) Gary King (talk) 07:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

So there's a 6k article about COD4 but only a 3k article about Modern Warfare. In what way is this a failing of the WP:VG project and its contributors? Surely it's the military history guys who need to be stepping up and improving / expanding their articles? --Oscarthecat (talk) 08:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

There might be several things wrong with their methodology, but several of Gameradar's points are valid. Why should a project calling itself an encyclopedia even bother with all manner of minutiae in its articles (even now, the drama is still being drawn out in front of us)? Jappalang (talk) 10:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Cracked.com had a really good article about the Top 8 Most Needlessly Detailed Wikipedia Articles in which they mocked the Universe of the Metroid series. [17] hbdragon88 (talk) 18:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Metacritic and GR scores in both table and prose

This is following a point raised at Talk: Super Smash Bros. Brawl#Metacritic and priority level. I was just wondering what the consensus is on having the aggregate percentages in both prose and the table; I personally feel that it is redundant and needless, but I know that it is present in many articles, including FAs. So, for users that do do this, what is the rationale? Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 08:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

As a reader, I find it entirely redundant to have a table of review scores at all when there are aggregate scores available. No single score, without explaining how the score was achieved, says much of anything about the game, and taken together, all those scores simply add up to whatever the aggregate scores are, which should be stated plainly enough in the prose. However, even if the score tables are technically listcruft, they seem to be a popular form of it, and I generally don't touch them. If the score table is allowed to remain at all, being picky about what goes in it is sure to raise questions of POV (but that is another reason they should be done away with IMO). Ham Pastrami (talk) 08:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This. I detest the ugly, largely useless tables. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think much of just throwing the aggregate score in to the prose and table. However, if there is anything that can be said about it; eg. common trends in reviewing (Metacritic quotes bits from reviews for this purpose), it makes it more interesting and makes for a good first paragraph of the reception section. That's my opinion. —Giggy 08:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with tables being superfluous. The older FAs reached their status without any complaint about their Reception section being difficult to read or something. The only instance I think tables could be useful is in series articles, like in Kingdom Hearts (series)#Reception or Mana (series)#Reception, due to the sheer number of games to account for in a single section. Kariteh (talk) 08:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I do think the tables can be an aid if they were not stuffed with dozens of review scores. A small sample listing can show the spread of reviews in the industry. This list can be a helpful aid in general visualization. I do agree that scores in the tables should not be in the text of the Reception section. Anyway, the table also helps in clearing the text from being inundated by "this review gave it 6.0, that review gave it 6.8, that review 9.0 with one saying that blah blah blah" (we can simply dump them into the table). The scores do help in general visualization but are a particular stumbling block when placed in the text. Having several paragraphs full of 6.0/7.2/8.9 also do not make the section look like one in an encyclopedia. Thus, having the table of scores (with a small appropriate sample) is useful with the text stating the comments and opinions of the listed reviews. Jappalang (talk) 10:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict: seem to be similar views anyway) I don't know, I feel that it's a simple way to represent a diversity of reviews so that we don't merely go from the aggregate alone. This helps to establish reviews at the other end of the positive-negative spectrum in some cases, and is a quick way of representing different regional views (Europe and Japan). At a very specific and pragmatic level, it can be used for Famitsu scores when the actual content of the review is not available, as you can't just write "Famitsu gave it 33." However, this alone is not justification for the whole use of tables. It also helps the quality of prose—constantly punctuating the prose with the score given doesn't help it to flow well. Regarding point-of-view, I feel that in many instances taking the score from a particular website or publication is no more arbitary than the source of choice for the quotations or opinions used in the prose. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 10:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Metacritic scores should be mentioned in the prose as well as in the box out. Just saying a game had "positive feedback" is too vague, quantifying it with a Metacritic score in the prose is helpful. When writing an article, I will not mention any other scores in the prose, but will syphon them into the reviews box out. The problem with citing scores in the prose, is that it breaks the flow of the text, and encourages people to just summarise one response after another - "Gamespot gave it a 9 and said A, B, C. Edge gave it a 4 and said D, E, F." Whereas I much prefer to split reception sections into paragraphs about gameplay, presentation, multiplayer etc. This means using multiple sources for each section, and means the only place to put the scores is in a separate score dedicated paragraph, which the boxout fulfils succinctly. - hahnch e n 12:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

But I still don't understan why it should be in the prose and box. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 15:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

My own take on reviews as part of the reception section is that scores should be mentioned in a table, coupled with a citation to the review delivering the score. That citation should also be used in the prose in order to describe what critics praised, criticised and noted. This means that rather than the reception section being reviewer-centric (IGN said this, this and this scoring it 80%), it becomes concept-centric (Gameplay was liked for these reasons, audio was unpopular for these reasons, etc.). This way the review table is meaningful, as scores aren't mentioned in the prose, while reception becomes much more analytical instead of just a collection of review highlights. You can use metacritic/gamerankings to refer to overall reception of the game, but that's about it. Have a look at World of Warcraft#Reception for a recent example of what I mean. Hope this helps, Gazimoff ^Write _Read 17:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, why are release dates and platforms included in the lead and infobox? Should this discussion about redundancy apply to that too? Kariteh (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

To play advocate; I never quote individual publication scores in the prose, but I usually do give the MC and GR aggregate scores in the prose to lead off discussion about the games, as they give a nice snapshot of what reviewers thought: for example, in Riven: "...On the whole, it was also positively received, with the PC version garnering an average critic score of 84% at Game Rankings.[26]" As long as it is understood what those numbers are, I feel it adds further comprehension to the section. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

To Kariteh, when GR scores have the absolute same use as the release dates then the application of one will result in the same application as the other. In the meantime, let's debate this by the merit of its own use, and not by example. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 20:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

To David, saying hypothetically that your rationale is valid, then why not have it in the prose but not in the infobox? Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 20:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I changed it to that in Myst III: Exile 'cause you complained :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't debating anything, it was just a (side) question. No need to be aggressive... Kariteh (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry... I wanted Federer to win and then Nadal snatched and then I checked my watchlist. Evidently, that was not a good idea. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 20:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

C-class description

I haven't really followed the discussion about the new C-class rating, but could someone who knows more about it add a description here: WP:VG/A#Quality scale? JACO PLANE • 2008-07-6 15:02

I've adapted the text from Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment and modified it a bit for the description. Changes are of course welcome. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Herr Fuchs. JACO PLANE • 2008-07-7 17:30

Looking for someone willing to help write a featured list.

Hey, everyone. I've started work on List of Sega Mega-CD games, but a lot of it is very repetitive work and I could use some help finishing it. There is a little reward in this in that I will co-nominate the list with someone that works with me for featured list status once the list is finished. Basically, a lot of this list will be focused around the recently-passed List of Sega 32X games, but it's a longer list. I've already got sources for the list. Any takers? Message me at my talk page if you're interested. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 17:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Aren't graphics discouraged in long list/table? Kariteh (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well he want's to emulate List of Sega 32X games, which contains only one image. JACO PLANE • 2008-07-7 16:03

I'm talking about Image:Yes check.svg and Image:X mark.svg. Kariteh (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that, I'm not a complete moron (I admit that's a rather debatable statement), but my point was that since he's trying to emulate List of Sega 32X games, those images will presumably be removed once work on improving the article starts. JACO PLANE • 2008-07-7 17:33

Actually, it was more or less an idea for the moment to use images. I think I'll have to change it to a note format in the name. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 21:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

PlayStation 3 game updates & install sizes

I came across this today. Is this necessary? I believe there is other update lists out there, so perhaps just the install sizes should be removed. On regular game articles, we don't list how much space it takes up. It certainly shouldn't be in an article. It falls under directory material, and game clutter/cruft not suitable for Wikipedia. It's useful (for gamers only), but certainly not encyclopedic in my view at least. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sizes are definitely unnecessary. The list itself, I'm not sure about; I don't see the point of collecting the data together in that fashion as opposed to on the individual game pages. --MASEM 22:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this article notable? Doesnt seem like it. Gears of War ^{Go 'Skins!} 23:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I put it on AFD. This information should be on individual game articles (if at all), a list is unnecessary. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This is certainly not a necessary list; the AFD was appropriate in my opinion. Gary King (talk) 00:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

"Music of" articles that are actually discographies

Several "Music of (game)" articles, like Music of the Final Fantasy Tactics series, are actually discographies, i.e. lists of soundtracks, rather than articles about the game's music (which would really discuss the music of the game rather than the albums). Should these be renamed "(Game) discography" or maybe "(Game) soundtracks"? Kariteh (talk) 09:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Ealdgyth (frequent checker on sources at FACs) has posted a dispatch (thank David for the heads up on this) about she judges reliable sources at FAC. I think it is a good read especially since there is much discussion over what makes a reliable source for FACs. Read it at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches. Jappalang (talk) 13:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Partner peer review for The Battle of Lake Erie (Put-in-Bay) now open

The peer review for The Battle of Lake Erie (Put-in-Bay), 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) 01:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just seen someone question my request, and I can agree it may have been worthy of Afd from the start. Nevermind, if you don't like it, I suggest reviewing the Battle of Kiev (1943) article instead ;) Comte0 (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)