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.

The MilHist project has institutionalized certain contributors as coordinators, see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators. Perhaps a similar approach would be beneficial for our project. I nominate MrKIA11, S@bre, and Guyinblack25 (there are many other fantastic contributors who would be great too). Thoughts? JACOPLANE • 2008-11-23 13:37

Though I do see your reasoning behind having project coordinators, I disagree on the basis that we are simply a smaller project. WikiProject Military History has about 48 task forces; we have 26. I know that may sound like a rather large number (and that number does not include projects such as WP:FF), but I feel the less bureaucracy we can have, the better -- the project appears to be running fine now without them. It's just my personal opinion though, and I'd have no problem if the project decides on consensus that coordinators would be for the best. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 14:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I certainly did not intend to advocate more bureaucracy (libertarian here :). The reason I'm advocating more central organizing is because although we often have good ideas about how to give new energy to the project (think: restarting WP:GCOTW), we rarely have people who truly take the lead in making it happen. JACOPLANE • 2008-11-23 14:57

Just making sure that we don't create a bureaucracy in the vein of Esperanza (and its crazy elections). As long as there's set priorities for the coordinators, I have no major objections. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 15:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I admit we're lacking in initiative to get things going, but I too am uncertain if coordinators are the way to go. However, I can't really think of an alternative. A few questions come to mind on how this would be implemented.

• How would they be appointed? Nominated, seconded, voted, etc?
• How would responsibilities be designated (this may tie in to the above question)?
• How long should coordinators be in their position?
• This may sound selfish, but what is the incentive to being a coordinator? Many things on Wikipedia come with a lot of trouble and little benefit.

This idea certainly has potential, but I think some of these questions need to be explored before we decide to implement it. Any thoughts? Or am I just over thinking things? :-p (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC))

Hrm... I think we should follow WP:MILHIST's example here. Six month term limits; a two week sign-up period and a two week voting period. It would be an approval vote, thereby avoiding negative conflict. I think that coordinators should run the project as a whole, not just task forces, and however though, there should be specified leaders of seperate task forces to keep them active. I'm not sure how that would work though.

One rather major thing though... people who become coordinators would have to actually want the job -- it would be their major motivation, to make the project work better as a whole. There wouldn't be too many perks in that but they'd have to be willing to accept it. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 18:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Really, I think we get along fine without the added b'cracy. In terms of sum articles and task forces, we're smaller. While I understand the issue Jaco brings up, really, if we're not motivated, we're not motivated, and assigning a job to someone isn't going to change that. :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

David speaks the truth. However, I think some sort of leadership will help provide direction and alleviate some of that unmovitation. (is that a word?)

Jaco- How many coordinators did you have in mind and in what kind of capacity? We obvisiously don't have the scope MilHist does and would not need as many serving in the capacity they do. Would they oversee the various departments and associated discussions? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC))

Jaco: "Zolang ik niet weet welk probleem hiermee opgelost wordt ..." -Wiegel. User:Krator (t c) 10:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

One of the problems I see with coordinators is that you have to pick someone who is driven but who does not contribute great amounts of work to improving articles. If you take them and make them 'coordinators', then they have to split their obviously much better-spent time dealing with the bureaucracy (of whatever amount) associated with the position, rather than researching and writing better articles. This is not to say they could not pull it off, but that I think this would be a poor use of the human resources available. --Izno (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's take a step back. Yeah, we need to have a mechanism to choose and replace our coordinators, and we'd need to define their duties. But is there anyone who actually wants to be a coordinator in the short term or the long term? If so, then maybe they could step forward and talk about the kinds of things they'd like to coordinate. Because as of now, everyone kind of works by themselves or in small article-based teams, and it seems to be going basically okay. (Seriously. Don't be shy. If you have any inkling at all, I'm interested to hear peoples' ideas. What would you like to see us coordinating?) Randomran (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

As long as it's not for an extended amount of time I'd be willing to coordinate something (6 months sounds reasonable, 4 sounds better to me). I'm already helping with the newsletter, inactive cleanup, and portal and wouldn't mind sticking with those. I'd also be willing to coordinate collaborations of the month/week/fortnight/whatever we're going to call it.

Though to be honest, I still have mixed feelings about the idea. Yes we lack some direction and overlap of responsibilities to make sure things get done efficiently, but at the same time we don't have that many active editors that require coordinating and things are working well enough. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC))

Sounds to me like a lot of the things that need to get done are getting done, including the newsletter and cleanup. The only really "new" thing is the GCOTM, and I'd be excited about participating on that. It sounds to me like we really just need a coordinator to step up and do that, no? Randomran (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

If the newsletter and inactive project cleanup get some fresh new blood, I'd be happy to get the collaboration going. Thankfully MrKIA11 has been updating the stats, but coming up with newsletter features is starting to get difficult and a couple of people to bounce ideas off of and help write them would be a big help. Same thing with the cleanup. Izno and a few others have been a big help with it, but most times it's one of us being bold and taking action. It's hard to build a real consensus with just a couple people. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC))

I noticed when I was browsing through The Sims article page that all of the major expansion packs are simply a part of the main article instead of having their own separate articles. Unlike many expansion packs, these have extensive coverage (see here to see the plethora of reviews for The Sims: Hot Date), both from a reception and a development standpoint. The Sims 2 also has coverage for each expansion pack separately (see the University expansion as an example). I'm asking to see if there are any vehement objections to the idea before I go ahead and start creating separate articles for the expansions. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 15:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Most expansion packs have significant coverage in the media, especially if they are for successful titles, and they are often reviewed with equal status to full games and have full development history. I've no problem with spinning the articles out, too many subjects just roll the expansion packs into a quick sentence or two in the parent article. -- Sabre (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'll probably start writing up the articles as a whole over the next few days then. The article appears to have existed previously; does anyone know why it was merged into the main article? -- Nomader ^(Talk) 16:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep most of them should probably have their own articles. On a side note, it'd be interesting to see someone build a featured topic out of the series, considering that they release a new game fairly often! Gary King (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

That's around 20 articles that would need to get to FA or GA... that's a fairly tall order. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

What about a compromise of creating an article for all the expansions like: Expansions of The Sims? --Mika1h (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Considering how things used to be on WP, I can't imagine that they never actually had articles. It might be wise to check the redirects for older article history and go from there. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems all of them used to be articles, until they were all merged into The Sims without any sort of clear merge consensus anywhere. The Sims: Livin' Large is the only page that still exists; looking at the sorry state of the article though, I can see why they might've been merged. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 18:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of the Sims, should we merge the inactive WikiProject Sims into WP:VG as a task force? -- Nomader ^(Talk) 19:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The merger would be me, because I thought that any coverage it received was not anything so important that it could exist as its own article. And yes, WP:SIMS should be merged. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I second the merger proposal, it seems like one large article such as the one Mika1h proposed would be the best solution since the expansion packs that do exist on their own have shoddy articles. I also agree with merging the WP:SIMS into a WP:VG task force. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 21:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe there is any particular merger proposal... actually, I believe the above just established the opposite of such. In either case, WP:SIMS is now a task force under WP:VG. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 23:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening and trying to find more development and reception info. This article looks to be promising in terms of content, but it's only for IGN insiders. Anyone here a member who can view it? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I can do it. But, I'm logging off now. If someone else hasn't, I'll help tomorrow. _Skeletal SLJCOAAATR ^Soulsor 02:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm a member, but I just joined to recieve Destroy All Humans! Path of the Furon updates. --SWJS: The All Knowing Destroy All Humans! Nerd(Cortex Scan) 03:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you access the article though? (It's for insiders (paid); I'm assuming you just did free registration). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You wanna help make every article in the Zelda topic featured? ;) Gary King (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Well whoever is doing this can also check this out for me and copy/paste it in my sandbox. Thanks, « ₣M₣ » 23:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It should be emailed, otherwise it's a copyright violation. Gary King (talk) 02:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

On the Syphon Filter (series) pages (Syphon Filter 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Syphon Filter 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Syphon Filter: The Omega Strain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) etc), 64.85.234.166 (talk · contribs) and Dibol (talk · contribs) are favouring some extremely long plot sections (I think they're the same user, not sure), and have been since March 2008 (see here), this is an average example: here, and so on in that fashion. Dibol has tried to misconstrue my edits as vandalism (here, here), accused me of bias, 'stalking' (?) the articles, "Get your elitist head out of your fucking ass." etc. If other editors would like to chip in it would be appreciated.Mr T (Based) (talk) 12:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Dibol. Looks like he's been busy aside from trolling Master Chief to keep on adding to the bolded title... at Syphon Filter 3: Yikes. Have you pointed them to WP:PLOT and WP:WAF? The plot summaries are way too long indeed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

If it's obviously well beyond anything concise, then it's a pretty blatant violation of WP:PLOT. Randomran (talk) 18:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

What would be a proper name for this article to include the various other games from Nippon Ichi that are part of the overall series universe? Should the title just stay as is, while the other games are just mentioned, or should it be changed? TTN (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I would agree on making a overall series page if it can properly cover the vast amount of games that take place here. Some among these games are:

• Disgaea: Hour of Darkness
• Disgaea 2
• Disgaea 3
• Makai Kingdom
• La Pucelle: Tactics
• Rhapsody: A Musical Adventure
• Phantom Brave
• Soul Nomad and the World Eaters

With this, the proper elements common to all series suchs as Prinny, Overlords and Netherworlds can be covered here without needing their own independent pages. I have been following on the recent trouble you've been having in merging Prinny to Disgaea (series) so I can see where you're coming from. Having one page to cover so many miscellaneous elements is the right step, as it will allow us to better organize the content. Unfortunately I have no idea what name should be given to such a page. And I am also somewhat worried if such a page has any sources to support it in the first place. DDDtriple3 (talk) 17:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a good idea, but I'm not sure about the name. The closest thing I can find is Final Fantasy or The Legend of Zelda (series) which mentions the spinoffs but focuses its coverage on the main series. There are other articles like Universe of The Legend of Zelda, Gameplay of Final Fantasy and Common elements of Final Fantasy that go into more detail about what's in each game. I'm just brainstorming at this point. Randomran (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

If the world was built around Disgaea as a base, then Universe of Disgaea is fine if Nippon Ichi does not have their own official title. If it was built around another series, use that one.じんない 18:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking at Nippon Ichi, it appears that La Pucelle and Rhapsody: A Musical Adventure were released first. It is only during and after the release of Disgaea: Hour of Darkness that the company started to tie in various elements for future games and, retroactively speaking, the previous two games. While Disgaea has three installments, all other related games amount to one. For this reason I am leaning toward Disgaea (series), Universe of Disgaea or Disgara Universe as a possible name. Perhaps even the explicit name Common Elements of Disgaea as per Common elements of Final Fantasy.DDDtriple3 (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

If you have time, please have a look at Half-Life 2: Lost Coast and peer review it at Wikipedia:Peer review/Half-Life 2: Lost Coast/archive1. We plan on taking it to FAC soon. Thanks in advance! Gary King (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I need these two interviews translated [1] [2]. « ₣M₣ » 03:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

That is, a category used to weed out articles that are top priority articles, but indicating that they are already "prepped" so to speak. This can be used to make it easier to focus on articles, so if we were to get all the genres, companies, histories, and platforms to featured status, we can bump the high importance articles up to top importance. So the gist of my statement is to make it and establish top priority based on what should be featured first. This will allow us to move articles up in the queue while keeping the queue clean of articles already finished. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Once an article is featured how can they be top priority if they have passed the final hurdle, wouldnt featured articles be either no priority or low priority due to their be next to no more work to be done on them. Salavat (talk) 10:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Is the existing category Category:Top-priority video game articles sufficient for this? --Oscarthecat (talk) 10:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand—this isn't top-priority as in priority of work, it's priority for including in a release version of Wikipedia. While it would be nice to concentrate efforts on higher priority articles, this ranking is independent of the quality of the articles, which is measured on the Stub–FA scale. It's not a "queue". Pagrashtak 22:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

And it should be a queue, I'd say. A top-importance article becomes featured, it could go to "Top-priority video game articles (archived)", to say that this top-importance article is now ready to be included in the release of Wikipedia, so it becomes easier for people to find which top-priority articles yet need to be improved. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Quick Q, Rmedia warrior (hunt for blood) is obvious hobby-spam, the username of the article creator is the same as the youtube account which uploaded a trailer, does this really need to be sent to AFD? There's no sources, checked, according the YT account the uploader is 15, power to his or her elbow for getting involved in development but it's not something we're going to be able to make an article out of anytime soon. Someoneanother 01:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

If it's been contested, it's unfortunately got to go to AFD. You can suggest a speedy delete there. --MASEM 01:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do so tomorrow. Someoneanother 01:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

((Infobox_VG_series)), because I think the articles on the main franchises could use their own infobox too. ViperSnake151 15:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Looks like it's worth exploring. The only grey area that comes to mind is what constitutes the latest release version? Like for Final Fantasy, would it be FF XIII or the latest spinoff? Same thing with the Mario series, Galaxy or the latest Party/Sports game? And would a spin off series use one too, like the Chocobo series or Mario Kart? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC))

Yeah Medal of Honor (series) for example. You might want to add in Platform :). --SkyWalker (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The "Primary distributor" field is useless. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If we use this, I would make it consistent with the alternating colors of the normal VG game template. --MASEM 22:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Generally spinoffs aren't considered the latest version.Jinnai (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Should we use just the main games in a series or forgo first and last versions altogether? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC))

I've been using the less-than optimal template ((Infobox Media franchises)) instead of something like this, so I'm all for it. The last one, practically speaking, is not as important as the game which spawned the franchise in terms of 'impact', so I'm not sure we need it. Beyond that, we don't need lists of games or media, as that should be in the series article. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the template has added to some series articles. Any thoughts, suggestions, or comments on how it looks and works? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC))

Does the image Image:LAscreenshot2.JPG as used here meet the fair use criteria? User:Krator (t c) 01:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutral there, but there is room for a better purpose screenshot as the sidescrolling element is rather difficult to convey. As stated when I do add a shot to the article I'd remove it in favor of keeping the free images down, so keeping it out now may prevent issues later?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe it does. Sidescrolling gameplay is common in Link's Awakening, it shows cameos, and visualizes something mentioned in the article. The article is big enough to allow for three screenshots, and the three screenshots have three purposes - the first shows the primary gameplay, the second shows a common sidescrolling section, and the third shows the game's color version. And Kung Fu Man, perhaps a screenshot showing him jumping in the sidescrolling mode would be better? - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Does the reader really need to see a character jumping? Like I said before, we need minimal use of images per WP:NFCC; it doesn't matter if there's room in the article. We should strive to combine important elements into as few images as possible, see this FCDW for an example. As I stated earlier, I can try and find a color image which features sidescrolling elements to satisfy requirements, but the current image discussed above does not meet NFCC. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

That would be fine, combining the DX image and the sidescrolling image. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

If I might recommend, the fight with the Angler boss or one of the side scrolling fireball rooms in the eight dungeon would work well in color versions to also show the sidescrolling areas of the game.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay nevermind that, new one looks awesome :D--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I've uploaded a new version of Image:Linksawakening-overworld.png based on the above (you may need to clear your cache.) I captured it using an emulator, so the eigth boss is a ways away, considering I'd have to play through eight dungeons, but I suppose it can be eventually replaced (the boss fight is what springs to mind for a different image.) Either way, ALttP, do you agree this can replace Image:LAscreenshot2.JPG? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It's fine, you can just delete the b&w sidescrolling image. Though try and replace the current one with the boss battle if you can (the Eagle one)! Ideally, I think it should show Link using the Roc's Feather, too. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you might be going for overkill there Link. It's rather hard to give the same platforming feel in an open area as it is one with, well, actual platforms for a screenshot.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this article adheres to British English, could someone review it, and then switch the style if necessary? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure, assuming that you wanted it kept in British English. I just scanned it quickly, but I think it all should be in BrE now. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 22:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I just reckoned that since it's an event that related to the UK, it should use its English. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, how much easier the world would be if everyone just used English as used by the English. By the way, I slapped a ((British-English)) template up on the talk page, just to inform anyone who comes from the main article that this article is meant to be in British English—the parent article is after all, in American English. "Strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation" doesn't really get much closer on video games than when the subject is directly brought up in the Commons. -- Sabre (talk) 01:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of this article, is there a similar picture of the cathedral that could replace the Fair Use image? - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Any project members in Manchester here? If so, mind going down the cathedral and taking a few shots of the interior? -- Sabre (talk) 01:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I was advised by the administrator Iridescent to ask about whether links to the composer profiles at Square Enix Music Online should be added back to the video game composer pages here. They were removed last month by someone with a vendetta against the site and apparently a discussion is needed before they are restored. I would have been fine if the links were initially removed by an administrator or registered user of Wikipedia. However, the person who removed the links is the user Jeriaska hidden under the IP address 67.117.91.115 which he is registered to on Square Enix Music Online Forums. As I document here and here SEMO and at least three other websites have been having major problems with this user. Wikipedia is just the latest vector he has used in a long campaign that he refuses to end.

The links Jeriaska removed were on Wikipedia for about a year earlier and there has never been problems with them being there before. Square Enix Music Online has a good reputation for its composer information and, as you can probably see, its original biographies, discographies, and game information are more comprehensive, thoroughly researched, and accurate than other websites out there. I know that people wanting to learn more about the composers covered have found the external links useful. I also know that several Wikipedia editors have used the information on this site to improve Wikipedia's information. Unfortunately most of Wikipedia's game music composer pages are stubs or littered with errors or omissions so I think editors and users alike would benefit from links to more comprehensive profiles.

I don't think it is fair that a troll pretending to be a regular user can sabotage all links to a reputable site, especially without any prior discussion. There are mass links on Wikipedia game music composer pages to inferior pages such as OC Remix or MusicBrainz. These have not been sabotaged by a unregistered or hidden user so remain present here while a superior resource does not. If policy is enforced fairly and consistently such that you feel links to Square Enix Music Online, I accept that. Nevertheless, I don't feel the circumstances where they were initially removed by Jeriaska are acceptable. Do people find the composer profiles at Square Enix Music Online useful and, if so, is it OK to add back the links? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.34.158 (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it may or not come into play, but a few months ago there was an article about the site itself, which was deleted via afd. One of the concerns was copyvios. Now while linking to a site with copyvios somewhere else isn't inherently against the EL policy (otherwise Youtube would never be allowed), it may come into play depending on what's being linking to. Also, the links guidelines suggest a minimal number of links, and fansites (no matter how well done) tend to get the short end of the stick. Honestly I dunno in this case as, I agree, there's plenty of info at SEMO, but the biggest question when linking to something is "is there content there that goes beyond the WP article?". ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

If a reasonably important reviewer (GamesRadar) make a horrible review, as in every statement goes against statements of all the other reviewers, and it is clearly wrong and that he didn't try to understand the game, should that review be mentioned in the article? Diego_pmc ^Talk 06:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's possible for reviewers to have different opinions on things. What sources to use or not use is primarily a judgment call. Nifboy (talk) 06:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

GamesRadar is probably a source to avoid IMPO (the Wikigroaning ripoff focused solely on wordcounting comes to mind), ScrewAttack being another. Regardless of that, it might help the discussion to link to what review you mean in this case.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The article is Mount&Blade, and the review is here. There also is an ongoing discussion on the talk page. Diego_pmc ^Talk 09:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

GamesRadar is one of the sites used by two print magazines, PC Gamer UK and PC Zone (they use CVG as well), run by Future plc. The review in question is by PC Zone, its a perfectly reliable source. Its your call as to whether you use the review or not if it dissents on the consensus of the majority of other reviews, but its worth considering integrating it slightly (not so much as to break undue weight as it is a minority opinion) to bring in some elements of criticism. As for the comments on the talk page on "the point is that it is clearly obvious that the guy didn't play the game for 5 minutes", you may want to point out that that's an entirely fan-based response and speculation, a reliable source, regardless of a person's opinion of the reviewer, trumps their personal point of view on in the issue. -- Sabre (talk) 12:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sabre. As long as it's a reliable source, then it makes sense to include it. If most of the reviews were positive, then try to balance the amount of positive content with the negative to portray an accurate picture. No game is perfect and reviewers can find fault in anything, even if we don't care about such points. Like Super Mario Galaxy, one of the greatest single-player platforming game being the worst two-player game ever. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC))

For the sake of balance, yeah, you should probably include *some* criticism. So it wouldn't be appropriate to exclude criticism just because it's negative. That said, if you really honestly think that the criticism is based on some inaccuracy, people do make judgment calls all the time. Try to find another criticism that you think is more reasonable, even if you disagree with it. Randomran (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

A whole bunch of Super Robot Wars have been nominated for deletion via WP:PROD in the last few days, see WP:PRODSUM. 76.66.195.63 (talk) 04:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the articles up for deletion; it appears to be mostly character pages and other non-notable stuff. There's nothing anyone can do if there aren't any reliable sources. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 04:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, yeah. A lot of them have been taken to AFD and deleted, already. Nomader is correct on the observations made about all those articles. My sense is that most of them, if contested, would likely be taken to AFD. MuZemike (talk) 19:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

There have been a number of AFD discussions over the past year. Most end in consensus. Some don't. Of those, some are resolved as merges, others are improved, and yet others are re-nominated. I pulled out a few discussions from the past that haven't really moved forward since then, and figured it would be helpful to re-evaluate at this time:

• Clank - (Old AFD) → merge discussion
• List of songs in the Donkey Konga series - (Old AFD) → merge discussion
• Chao (Sonic the Hedgehog) - (Old AFD) → merge discussion
• Characters in Call of Duty - (Old AFD) → merge discussion
• List of gangs in the Grand Theft Auto series - (Old AFD) →
• List of minor Mortal Kombat characters - (Old AFD) →
• List of creatures in the Resident Evil series - (Old AFD) →
• List of units in the Age of Mythology series - (Old AFD) →

Discuss and be WP:BOLD. Randomran (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

To offer a few quick thoughts... 1: there's actually a merge discussion for Chao, with a growing consensus to merge it. 2: Clank wasn't merged, but his co-star Ratchet (Ratchet & Clank) was. 3: The resident evil creatures are generally not-notable, but there's one or two characters in the list that might be -- I might suggest splitting the notable ones out, and dealing with the list after. 4: The songs in Donkey Konga does sort of follow the same form as List of songs in Guitar Hero, but does it need reception from reliable third-party sources? Randomran (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe gangs in the Grand Theft Auto series and Units in the Age of Mythology series probably should go back to AFD sometime. I see little improvement in them. The same issues apply: they are full of repetitive plot details found in the main article, game guide content, trivia, etc. RobJ1981 (talk) 17:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The list of units in the Age of Mythology series is a tricky one. There's a lot of information in there which is well-referenced. However it's all the real-world information from Greek history and mythology. Of *course* that stuff is notable, but it's already covered in the historical articles like Chthonic and Hoplite. The fact that the article goes the extra step from the game unit to the historic concept verges on WP:OR -- okay, you've managed to dig up the historic concepts, but what about the units in the series? And once you remove the historic research, I don't think you have much left. But that's a very convoluted argument for deletion, and it's something that would make an AFD discussion very blurry. Maybe it's best to clean-up the article first, and decide if an AFD is necessary later. Randomran (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's a relevant data point - when I was working on Okami, it is completely possible with that game to create a list of characters that point to all the Japanese legends and folk lore tales that exist on WP. However, in the context of encyclopedic coverage of the game, these meant little save for the main characters (Amaratsu, Issun, etc.) Thus, the character page was eventually scrapped. I would argue the same in AoM's case - yes, they are encyclopedically-linked topics, but as a aspect of gameplay, they matter little, but examples of the units would make sense to cover in the main article. --MASEM 18:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the Mythology information is OR per se, as the AoE games all have loads of historical information in their manuals, etc. (The Age of Empires II one was half an inch thick). That said, I'm not sure it still falls under our scope. I would say the gangs, creatures, songs and units are all possibles for deletion. I'm also unsure about Characters in Call of Duty. There's been some effort to add out of universe information, but it's very scant and not anywhere near the level of Characters of Halo or Characters of StarCraft. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Call of Duty's focus isn't on the characters in the same way as it is with Halo, StarCraft and properly story-driven games. Information on characters is very sketchy, no characters have backstories and reliable sources haven't really seen fit to comment substantially on them. There simply isn't the information to properly flesh out an article on it. The toy stuff is useful, that should be placed within the series article, but the rest of it cannot really be more than plot repetition. -- Sabre (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Some quick comments on this, too: most of the AFDs listed I left were kept because of either bias and/or personal attacks against the nom and failed to discuss the subject, have been stymied by the Wikipedia:Five pillars argument, or some have fallen into the pitfall that some clear consensus exists out there that major characters of every video game is notable, verifiable or not. (I think there was one in which I also agreed to keep as well, so there ya go.) Of course, WT:NOT is also talking about the same things that I am touching at, as well, in regards to the recently-disputed WP:PLOT. Personally, I like the discussion here, so far. MuZemike (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I've created a merger proposal for Call of Duty, since nobody is really sure about deletion, but everyone seems to agree that a standalone article is inappropriate. We need to figure something out for the List of units in the Age of Mythology series as well. I don't think we should even consider deletion until we clean up the historical information -- then we'd be able to tell once and for all if there's some real coverage of the game, or just gamecruft. If that seems too tedious and with questionable benefit, maybe we should just start a merge discussion and take it from there. )Keep the discussions coming, or be bold!) Randomran (talk) 22:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting how every time an article has been brought to AfD, its defenders yell that there are reliable sources out there and promise to improve the article within the project's guidelines. Yet, when we look at the article a few months later, the same basic faults remain (no reliable sources that prove notability or back up certain statements, game-guidish material still remainining "20% chance that a shade will appear at the player's temple", indiscriminate listing of every game element, etc). Jappalang (talk) 02:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Going down the list, Clank has a standalone article, but Ratchet (Ratchet & Clank) redirects to the series. I think a merge makes sense here. But should we redirect it to the series, or to the List of characters in the Ratchet & Clank series? Feel free to be WP:BOLD here. Let's keep this discussion moving. Randomran (talk) 20:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC) User:TTN boldly merged Clank, to some resistance. We should try to form a consensus here, so please do chime in on the merge discussion to figure out something we can all agree to. Randomran (talk) 01:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

From my perspective, these articles could fit into the main articles of their topic just fine with some trimming, and don't really justify being on their own. If AFD has proven controversial, I think someone should take a deep breath, trim and merge them. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't merge this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Error96 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

request to check in, one more time

There were a few merge proposals voiced right here, and I've followed through and created the merge discussions. Follow the links and check in -- whether you support or not. Let's try to find a consensus.

The next on the list are the "minor characters of MK" and "list of gangs of GTA" articles. Both of these seem like deletion fodder, to me. But I'm interested to hear if anyone has a better strategy to deal with these. Check in when you find a moment. Randomran (talk) 23:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I merged the List of DKa songs. Though, I wonder if the three DKa articles should be merged together. DKa1 & 2 aren't nearly as notable, and the gameplay is the same in all three. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for dealing with the list of songs. Merging all three articles is a whole other discussion... but if you wanted to start that one, I'd chime in. Let's keep the discussion going... Randomran (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

No comment on the above two articles (wild horses would not drag me within a mile of them), but the RE enemy list is dead useless. During the last AFD I had the idea "ha, I'll dig up some good sources and give examples of what they could be used for". The problem with that is that there were none despite trawling the web, news posts and inspecting excerpts from books. There is a very small chance that a determined (rabid) fan might dig up enough nuggets to break out of the list format and cobble together a passable article, but whether that article would get by guidelines like WP:N and WP:SYN would be another matter. That would be if someone even attempted it, judging by the state of the majority of RE articles this isn't happening. Even if someone did so, we would be talking about a different article, what's there now is neither use nor ornament. Someoneanother 17:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for checking in. For what it's worth, those two articles appear to have a growing consensus for a merge. Dropping in an honest opinion couldn't hurt. As for the creatures article, I just noticed there's a merge tag (and I fixed the discussion link)... is this the kind of thing that you think is suitable for a merge, or should it be nominated for deletion? Randomran (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to have a look at them at some point. I don't see what there is to merge with the creatures article, two of the strongest items there (NEMESIS and Lisa Trevor) could just as easily be classified as characters, so if they're not in their respective character lists then there's something to consider. Apart from that, the only other thing to say about the enemies is that they're either zombies, bioweapons or misc creatures contaminated by agents like the T-Virus, that's all there is to say about them collectively, as long as the series article has a stab in that direction then there's nothing more to report. Someoneanother 18:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Halfway there! Feel free to look at past merges and offer words of criticism or support... or to offer a way forward with the other articles. Randomran (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone see any possible potential in this topic, or should it be put up for deletion? TTN (talk) 23:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I've wondered the same thing myself. I've had trouble tracking down sources for this. That said, the golden age of fighting games was half a lifetime ago, and M.U.G.E.N popped up in 1999. Maybe it had some coverage in magazines back then. Beware of people who turn up articles about a character in Samurai Champloo, and articles about racing. "Mugen" is somewhat of a common name. Randomran (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with random. Unfortunately, the only aspect of print which you can't usually find online or in archives are video game magazines. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Or in foreign magazines where people scarfed up content and spat it out onto a demo CD. Capcom even took a swipe at it awhile back, but it wasn't so much at the engine as it was the vs-series-esque content. Hardcore Gamer did a full article on it, but it wasn't worth a damn.

Truthfully it won't improve, and deletion would be a good idea. However you try that and you're bound to have people dragged in to vote keep solely to keep it. Many of the links there are, sad to say, kept for the advertising purpose in the end: there's no reason to link to them, people just insist on it because Wikipedia comes up when Mugen's googled. Completely tearing down the old article and starting from scratch may be the best bet but you still have to deal with the fanatics that'll go after it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It's been on and off my watchlist for some time, and it's definitely an obscure piece of software that only occasionally gets covered because of some YouTube video or another (case in point). Nifboy (talk) 23:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• All other notable articles and lists are of a low importance. These are articles on a highly specific area of knowledge or an obscure piece of trivia.

The previous discussion had become too cluttered. I think that cutting/summing up the "low" column makes the whole thing more readable. Any other thoughts? Is it basically done? Randomran (talk) 23:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

eh, I've stayed out of this because I really couldn't care less, but it looks fine to me. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we've got a slight issue with Mid class Characters. From what I can see, the current table at that cross basically defines every character that would be likely to find a home on Wikipedia, as those characters are usually the notable ones with regard to reliable sources as well... Just a comment, rather than asking for a change. --Izno (talk) 01:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed that a *lot* of the low importance stuff would be merge fodder. In that sense, mid level characters would find a home, whereas low level characters would be merged. But then, the same is true of low importance genres or concepts: they're best covered in the context of something larger. Just my observation. Randomran (talk) 02:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed that too with just the character articles. There are some low-priority characters with a lot said about them still for notability (i.e. Tira), but for the most part they're fodder. Though it brings into question if there's enough said, are they actually low level importance to culture? o_O' I'm also a tiny bit confused about what qualifies as a top-importance character now. Can a character really be as important culturally as the concepts behind it anyway?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Me personally, I don't think a character can be. I think this list is close in terms of layout, but I think in terms of content it could afford to be a little more consistent. Randomran (talk) 03:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense to rank them from top to mid importance by category like this rather than rating which topic is more important because there is simply not a large enough scale to allow for the nuances. We all accept top level characters will not = top level concepts, for example, but this is an easier way of seeing relations in the actual groups. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by the characters, 'exceptional' characters would be Mario, Sonic and Lara Croft. Seeing Mario ranked at anything other than top means that no character can go there, since he's the most recognizable video game character in existence. Someoneanother 12:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I think PacMan would argue with you there. ^^ --Izno (talk) 15:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

If he wasn't merged into the video game article you mean.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It sounds to me like there is legitimate disagreement about whether the table is consistent, or whether the categories are relative. In the current revision, the most important character is less important than a huge game genre. Some people want to say "a top character is a top character", even if they're not as important as a genre. I worry about moving towards the latter scheme, because it would make it harder for this table to provide an "all others" kind of catchall: would the most important miscellaneous article be considered a top article? But I defer to the consensus here. Randomran (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to re-make List of Kirby games in my userspace, but I'm running into one large snag regarding Japanese titles; does anyone know where I can find sources for the names of Japanese games? I'm finding varying characters for some of the games and would like to know if there's one source that I should give more credence to over another. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 05:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

This may help somewhat: Nintendo's website collection for older games. You should be able to get the direct japanese from there, though as far as translations of them, eh...Sorry I can't help more :\--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a start -- thanks a bunch. I can usually find most of the translations on the GameSpot release summary pages, but I can never seem to come up with the Japanese originals (they're all in the articles already, just unsourced). -- Nomader ^(Talk) 17:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's a webpage on Nintendo Online Magazine that list all of the Hoshi no Kirby games from Game Boy and Famicom originals and up to Kirakirakizzu. Its a bit dated, since it only covers games released up to 1999, but I'm pretty certain you can the newer ones on Nintendo's main Japanese site. Jonny2x4 (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; the older ones were the ones I was especially looking for including a few Japanese release dates back then so it's just fine. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 18:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

At Gary's Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Metroid Prime 2: Echoes FAC HurricaneHink is opposing based on lack of secondary sourcing of plot details. As I understood it, it's common practice to not require sourcing of plot in general cases since the game itself is the plot; am I correct in this assumption? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

That's what I've always thought too. According to WP:PLOTSUM, "we should be sure to use the best source available for summaries. This is a case where secondary sources may not be appropriate - a summary of a summary is less likely to be useful. Consulting other summaries may be helpful in narrowing down on what the major plot elements are, but be sure to consult the primary source material in this case to make sure you get it right." So I took that to mean that primary sources are perfectly fine for sourcing the actual plot, and secondary sources aren't needed. Artichoker[talk] 20:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The section is now cited to the guide published in Nintendo Power anyway. I wouldn't think having unsourced plot sections is desirable at all, if it was previously uncited, I'd ask for that to be done before passing a GA let alone supporting an FA, or have I missed the point? Anyway, there's a full IGN guide here too, and doubtless other sources which could be used to nail it down further. Someoneanother 20:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with using primary sources. The only problem is writing an entire article from primary sources. If he's busting your chops about it, then he's being far too strict. Randomran (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering, when i was looking at the titles of these articles that they should be changed:

• X³: Reunion to X3: Reunion (also check out the amount of fair use images on this article)
• X³: Terran Conflict to X3: Terran Conflict
• X²: The Threat to X2: The Threat

Im pretty sure the titles should use the numbers and not the superscripted numbers, but i wanted to double check because that would mean deleting the redirect and moving the articles or is having a redirect good enough?. Salavat (talk) 01:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Get an admin to move the articles so that the history is preserved. Gary King (talk) 03:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Something to note, did a google search of "X²: The Threat" and found the related website: that is the correct title for them, with the exponent sequel number. Should it really be moved in such a case?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should just leave it then if the superscripted numbers are officially correct. Salavat (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The "Special Characters" section of WP:NC suggest that the exponent character should be avoided even if it is part of the trademark name. --MASEM 14:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, ok then should i go ahead and tag all the redirect pages with ((db-move|PAGE TO BE MOVED HERE|REASON FOR MOVE)) and make them ready for the move? Salavat (talk) 14:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that a disadvantage of superscript characters is that it is harder to tell what character it is on smaller screens, such as mobile devices. Gary King (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware that superscripted characters could be used in URLs... --Izno (talk) 03:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Me neither, although it works without a code in the URL, i cant seem to find the squared button on my keyboard (scratches head). Salavat (talk) 14:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok so ive had the articles changed to the normal number styles. Now do i change the superscripted number within the article in the text and then just have a bracketed part in the intro saying "stylized X²: The Threat"? Salavat (talk) 15:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Do that, its what appears to be the norm on articles with stylized trademarks. MOS:TM is the appropriate guideline for the representation of trademarks on WP. - X201 (talk) 19:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok all is changed. Thanks all for the input. Salavat (talk) 14:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

If anyone's interested, I'm trying to start up a "Wikinews team" to make it a better source of information for video game news. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you go into a bit more detail? Not sure I follow.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Basically, act in the capacity that an IGN news team would - write news articles about anything that's both related to video games and is newsworthy. Video game releases, announcements, events, etc. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It's something I'd certainly be interested in—covering Ninty's latest exploits—but it depends when it starts. I've simply got too much work to do anything at the minute. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 09:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd definitely be up for it... but just out of curiosity, is there any precedent for this in Wikinews? I'm just not familiar with the project enough to know off-hand. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 01:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm interested in this if it kicks off at all. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 14:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Are plot sections really necessary in fighting game articles? Aside from a few couple of games that has an extensive story mode, storyline of these games mostly consist of character-specific backstories and endings, most of which can be summarized in the characters section.Jonny2x4 (talk) 18:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It might help to take a closer look at what you're talking about. Do you have an example or two? Randomran (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much every Samurai Shodown and KOF related articles for example and a few Capcom games as well. Jonny2x4 (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel they do. Especially in Samurai Shodown as you just linked, if the plot is that menial, it's merely a premise that could me summarized in one or two lines of a "gameplay" section. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 19:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I think a section on plot is always appropriate. But in some cases the plot is really simple. It usually requires a tighter summary and clean-up. I'd say shorten it, but don't scrap it entirely. Randomran (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Even in cases where the story is so minor like this? I'm not so sure... I can understand having a plot section, but I feel it should still be a sub-section to gameplay especially when the game's story is simply a premise as in the examples above. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 22:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

If it honestly and truly results in a stub section -- we're talking less than 3 sentences -- then yeah, just sum it up in the gameplay. "The game takes place against a crisis by the villain... Your mission is to... You do this by fighting in a tournament." But you may have a hard time merging the section without being reverted. A short well-written section might be the best compromise. Randomran (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, that works for me; I just question whether or not the plot deserves a full section instead of just a smaller heading under gameplay for fighting games. I'll admit though, I haven't had too much experience with plots; I normally stick to racing and sports games. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 22:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

If someone gripes just tell them more detailed plot bits belong in the character articles as that's how they relate to it. SF2 is "Bison holds the second SF tourney." Details like Guile wanting his butt are secondary to Guile (though by contrast, the live action movie game would have a more detailed plot. Go figure!)--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

[3] - This user has been constantly vandalizing articles. Two requests - that the user be indefinitely blocked as a vandalism-only account, and that his vandalism edits be reverted (I've been doing it myself, but I must be off for now). - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

As with above, WP:ANI is the place for these things to be discussed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 04:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

For info, user was blocked shortly after this. --Oscarthecat (talk) 10:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Finding myself dealing with User:Mines32 over the article Talim. Basically he's reverting the page to an older version, from the looks of things to push the character being Filipino judging from what the older version had and his frequent insults in the dialect, despite a discussion on the talk page page with an earlier user.

I'm taking it to WP:ANI, but in the meanwhile I've gone through three edits: I need someone to keep an eye on it for today and revert if he switches it back again. :\--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

So this is nationalist POV, even in fictional worlds? Oh... I'll check it out.--Michael X the White (talk) 17:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

For info, the dude's now been blocked. --Oscarthecat (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Requesting comment here to see if List of multiple-disc Nintendo GameCube games should be merged (or possibly redirected) into List of Nintendo GameCube games. Discussion is at Talk:List of Nintendo GameCube games#Merger proposal. Thank you, MuZemike (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Requesting comment again (can be discussed here if wanted) to gauge the necessity of Chronological list of Famicom games, 1983–1988 and Chronological list of Famicom games, 1989-1994. The List of Famicom games can be sorted by date. My suggestion would be to delete as they no longer serve their intended purpose, but I want to get other comments/discussion before jumping the gun on anything. MuZemike (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Nuke 'em.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Seconded; are you going to put it up for AfD? -- Nomader ^(Talk) 01:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronological list of Famicom games, 1989-1994. MuZemike (talk) 02:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows. Suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)), suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)), accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username))

Too many columns make it so I have to scroll to the right to see more information. From the looks of the talk page: one editor just decided to make the table huge with no consensus from others. The people on that talk page seem fine with it, however things such as block size and multiplayer need to go. Block size isn't notable (as per the discussion above), and multiplayer can easily be found on the article for each individual game. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I liked it the old way (Title, Developer, Mii Support, WC24, WFC (+ Pay & Play), and region releases) the rest is too much. Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 23:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I dont see why the columns: Mii support, WiiConnect 24, and Wi-Fi Connection need to be in this list. These things already have lists, at List of Wii games using Miis, List of Wii games using WiiConnect24 and List of Wii Wi-Fi Connection games. This multiplayer column i think should go, and the release dates should merge and then resplit to form "Release date" and "Regions released". Controller support and multiplayer can be adressed in seperate article and what the hell is block size (im sure it isnt notable). Salavat (talk) 10:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree mostly with Salavat. The Mii Support, WiiConnect24, Wi-Fi Connection, Pay & Play, Offline Mulitplayer and Controller Support columns should be removed from the list. I also wish to change the dates to the yyyy-mm-dd format (international style). Ratengo (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that the editors that make these lists have got to remember that their making a list of games and not a list of game details. Salavat (talk) 14:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed those sections and made it look like List of Wii games. Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

While it is a matter of opinion in regards to the value of the other columns, I think it was a huge mistake to remove the Wii Points column seeing as there is no standardized pricing for WiiWare games like there is for Virtual Console games (and even retail games for the most part). -Zomic13 (talk) 08:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I restored the Wii Points table after I read the comment above this. (Zomic13). Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I added a new version of the table (replacing the old one) with the columns Salavat mentioned. For the World Chess game (Wii Chess in Europe) do I use the WiiWare release date in "First Available" or the Wii one? Also, do I put Europe in regions release or not? (Japan was released on WiiWare, and Europe on Wii). Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 04:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this isn't the correct place to talk about this, but I think the cleanup made it harder to browse and look for information, when was it released in MY region, and will it ever be? Before, it had some "this will be released in october" texts for different regions and also if there are no such text, how do we even know IF it will be released or not? And now I find it a struggle to see "newest european releases" since I don't know when it was released for my region etc... You get my point. 130.236.146.154 (talk) 11:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC) — 130.236.146.154 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The previous Nintendo lists (List of Nintendo Entertainment System games, List of Super Nintendo Entertainment System games, List of Nintendo 64 games, List of Nintendo GameCube games, and even List of Nintendo DS games) do not have a release date for every region. On those lists, it's just the year or the original release date (the first region that got the game). Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Also you can find release dates for the three main regions on the video game info box in the game's article. Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 15:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

But this makes the table useless, for me anyway, I used to be able to sort by date and see when what was coming out. On mondays I could check to see if there was a game I wanted to download. Now it doesn't say what latest games coming out in my region. I'm sure it took alot of time to change, but can it be changed back? (Mattsshelton (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)) — Mattsshelton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The table is looking much better but on the regions released column what about Australia? Nintendofootball (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes we should add it (but I forgot what the template was for that region). Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 18:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand why people need to tinker with things that were just fine, and many people had come to rely on. Changing it to "first release" has made it an absolutely useless page for those of us that check it every Monday and use this page regularly. There was nothing wrong with it - it was extremely handy to see what titles had been released in your region with a simple click.

It is terribly confusing now. Who cares what the date of "first" release is? THAT is the type of information you should have to click on the game page for. I want to know when the release was/is in my region without having to go to the individual page. Just like the Virtual Console pages, I do not understand why some people want to reduce the usability in the name of making it more "encyclopedic". We all understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but since it is a dynamic, online resource and the way people use the information needs to be considered.

Everyone I know who has a Wii has this page and the region-respective Virtual Console pages bookmarked, and this is the first place we check every Monday because it's always updated first and such a great site. Before, I could come here and sort by region release date and see what the recent releases are; now it's just a big useless list that I have to click to go to another page to get the needed information. PLEASE CHANGE IT BACK! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.190.85 (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC) — 74.75.190.85 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Have you considered importing the list as you would like it to here or here and then contacting those others of you that you seem to know? It would solve the issue here, I think... --Izno (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news site (WP:NOT). The goal of Wikipedia is to become an encyclopaedia, not a up-to-date on-the-minute CNN on video games or other events around the world. Jappalang (talk) 22:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

If that's the way it is that's fine. I just won't visit this page anymore, because it's completely worthless for what I want it for. It's kind of funny though, this was the page I visited the most on Wikipedia. It's the classic case of form over function. Typical.Mattsshelton (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying and I have to agree with you but the is another solution. By creating the pages by region you will be able to see your regions release dates and upcoming games. List of WiiWare games (North America) has already been created. Nintendofootball (talk) 07:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I just found that this morning. My thanks to Brigity for for the North American page and to you for the european page. Now everybody can be happy. Mattsshelton (talk) 15:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I felt that this information on the Game Boy article was excess and cruftish, so I would remove it but then get reverted right away, normally by IPs who provide no reason for the reversion. No one has responded to my query about this on the talk page, so I ask here if this information should or should not be kept in the article. (I think a couple of other console articles have the same thing.) MuZemike (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Technical specifications on hardware are perfectly fine as long as they have sources backing them up. They are not required for the understanding of the topic, but they are also relevant details that can provide a better understanding for viewers who are technically inclined. There is real world impact stemming from technical specifications with regards to production, model versions and performance that can be used for comparison, emulation and modification.

This is no different from articles of other man-made machines such as cars, computers, locomotives, calculators, military assets and airliners that list technical specifications. In the same vein, such details aren't necessary for basic understanding of the topic but they provide relevant content pertaining to the topic that has real-world implications.

However, pertaining to policies, the decision to include this information would be based on WP:V, they need to be verifiable. DDDtriple3 (talk) 18:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

While technical details of an electronic or military hardware does describe the subject, the details for this game device are excessive. The key thing is pertinence to Wikipedia's goals. As an encyclopaedia, the objective is for a general summarized presentation. "On-CPU-Die 256-byte bootstrap; 256 kb, 512 kb, 1 Mb, 2 Mb, 4 Mb and 8 Mb cartridges" glazes the eyes of your average reader. There is no point in giving this table, when prose will do, especially when it can link the various facts together into a solid description of the device. Given as it is, the table (and the Accessories list) is just a casual throw-on to satisfy those who seem to be more intense on presenting in-depth statistics and trivia. Jappalang (talk) 22:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

No, technical details are important for hardware such as this. It's true, that the average reader may glaze over at the sight of technical specifications, but they're fundamental in describing the nature of the device. Wikipedia isn't just for Joe Sixpack, one of our featured articles - Wii, contains detailed technical specifications, and should do. Having a clear concise list of details sure beats the impossible task of trying to cram it into gushing prose. - hahnchen 20:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

But that is backed up by reliable sources, whereas the Game Boy one doesn't. Or does it not matter that they are backed up by nonreliable sources? MuZemike (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It should be backed up by reliable sources. But these should be plentiful in any developer's kit and published by Nintendo themselves. 10 minutes of Googling gave me this and this. - hahnchen 21:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not a matter of verification by reliable sources. It is a matter of being discriminate in the information the project presents to the readers (WP:IINFO). The grand question remains: is it of interest (and importance) to the general reader, now, 10 years later, or even 50 years later? One would likely be more interested in what impact the device had on society and general technical specifications than one-line throwaways about catridge sizes. Jappalang (talk) 03:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

What's your definition of "general reader"? Someone who just wants the article on the USA to say "America - Fuck Yeah!"? Stop busying yourself with what Wikipedia isn't, and engage in what it is - WP:5P. Wikipedia is more than a "general" encyclopedia. I'm pretty sure in 50 years time, people will still care as to what the Game Boy actually is. - hahnchen 19:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion to whether this stays or goes, as long as the end result maintains article quality. However, the "general reader" in this regard is someone who has not and may never use a Game Boy. If a hypothetical person matching that criteria would understand and be interested in this sort of information, then it should be kept. If it is not, then it shouldn't be there. In the same way we don't cater towards the fancruft elements by loading articles up with irrelevant plot details that the general reader as described above wouldn't understand or care about, the same is true of the techcruft way of loading up on irrelevant technical data. How vital are the technical specifications to someone who doesn't really know what a Game Boy is understanding the topic? -- Sabre (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

As per the discussion above, I've reworded the template and removed the header

((VG-RfC|RfC Template: Rewording)) now produces this

A discussion regarding RfC Template: Rewording has been added to the talk page of the Wikiproject: Video Games. As a contributor to the project, please add your opinions to it [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#(({2))}|here]]. Thank you.

-Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 18:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Archive function would be nice, maybe as a second parameter you can add later once the section has been archived? User:Krator (t c) 20:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well this would really only be used for active discussions rather than archived ones so I don't think that would really be needed --Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 15:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Although the archive function is well-intentioned, chances are someone would just remove the template altogether once the discussion is done. No? Randomran (talk) 22:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. Should that be mentioned in the template documentation? Also, should the template be renamed to not included "RfC"? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC))

Yeah, add it to the documentation. And I think a rename would be appropriate. Randomran (talk) 19:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

How about VG-Discussion? Any other name ideas? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC))

VG-Discussion is fine. VG-Comment or VG-Talk are some alternatives, if you think they improve anything. Randomran (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Cabe- VG-Discussion sounds like a good name for the template. If you need help moving it and adding documentation post back here. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC))

I've moved the template to VG-Discussion so ((VG-Discussion|RfC Template: Rewording)) produces

A discussion regarding RfC Template: Rewording has been added to the talk page of the Wikiproject: Video Games. As a contributor to the project, please add your opinions to it [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#(({2))}|here]]. Thank you.

I don't really follow what people were talking about with documentation, this is my first foray into templates. Does it mean simply adding instructions on the page under a <noinclude> tag? Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 00:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. I suggest checking out WP:DOC for details and some of the other templates for examples: Template:WikiProject Video games, Template:Infobox VG, Template:Vgrelease, etc. Any other questions, feel free to ask. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC))

Some documentation added. Not sure how great it is so feel free to critique Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 19:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I expanded the documentation some and added it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Templates. I'd say it's ready to use, and we can tweak it as needed once it gets some more usage/testing. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC))

Full disclosure: I had a disagreement with User:Cliché Online back in June, which eventually led to his one week ban for incivility, by User:KieferSkunk.
Anyway, I'm currently having a second disagreement with Cliché over Killzone 2 and Metal Gear Solid 4 - he's repeatedly adds the phrase "which is the native resolution of the game's main competitors, namely Epic's Gears of War 2 and Insomniac Games' Resistance 2" to a section about Killzone's native res, something I feel is completely irrelevant to the article. I would bring it up on the talk page, but given his history, I don't think it will lead anywhere.
Likewise, he keeps adding 1080p as the native resolution to Metal Gear Solid 4, despite my requests for a V, R source (I don't think he understands sourcing, I repeatedly asked him to read the articles on it in June).
I don't think I'll get anywhere by trying to discuss it with him (he's already accused me of being a fanboy and "not having a clue" about the PS3), so I'm not sure what to do next. Thanks! Fin©™ 20:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm just a few more incidents away from blocking him completely. The user does nothing but cause disruption, calling those who disagree with him names (he accused me of being paid by Microsoft). This page isnt the venue for such disruptive users however, I suggest WP:ANI. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 04:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok so, thanks! Fin©™ 12:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

oh david fuchs again, what a surprise. where are the evidence that falcon9x5 knows the correct resolution for those games he doesn't have them. they are 720p for killzone 2 and mgs4 is 1080p. by surprise falcon9x5 is watching my contribution logs and keep doing random edits to articles where he didn't made nothing but i have created. falcon9x5 doesn't use any source by the way, but who cares as long as david fuchs supports him again. Cliché Online (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Metal gear solid 4 is displayed in 1080p where are the evidence to bring? just buy the game, a ps3 and a 1080p capable tv and your'll see it's 1080p. also falcon9x5 removes Dual Shock 3 and Sixaxis in games i have edited to replace thme by a genric gamepad which links to nothing the question is why doing articles about the Dual Shock 3 and Sixaxis if we don't use the links. also falcon9x5 remove Dual Shock3 and sixaxis in the articles infobox but let the "xbox 360 controller" on xbox 360 articles such as gears of war 2. this is strange and meaningless. i have to bring sources and he can edit what he wants with no source? what a joke.

Cliché Online (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Template:Infobox VG#Syntax guide pretty much says already that field is for native resolution instead of the resolution it's being outputted in, so what resolution your TV is capable of really doesn't matter anyways. (Oh btw, I do have a PS3 and a Japanese copy of MGS4, in case you are wondering). -- クラウド６６８ 17:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay this...definitely needs some cleaning up...to the point of I'm thinking of proposing one very, very big AfD... Thoughts?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I would completely support it if you went through with it. Those character pages need to go. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 04:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I hate to add to the fire (and it isn't nearly as bad), but Tsukihime appears to have quite a few un-sourced character pages... -- Nomader ^(Talk) 04:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, noticed those before this one. Shiki and Arcueid are the only ones that I'm wary about nominating from there, as they're central enough some sources turn up, more may with digging. The rest are grinder fodder.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand; you could probably just leave them out of the nomination then. But Fate/stay night is by far the worse of the two -- I agree it needs to be taken care of. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 04:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Current articles nominated for deletion: Servants group--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

All of them could be deleted, with the exception of Archer, and merged easily into their respective master's page, or if we merge them, to their respective section. Archer is the only one that looks to have had any semi-serious attempt to try and verify information on him, still not enough to warrant a whole article, just a separate section under his master's article, rather than a short blurb.じんない 06:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

We should probably merge discussion from here on out into the recently created AfD. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 07:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap! Just as this thing with Super Robot Wars is dimming down a bit! MuZemike (talk) 07:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree, there's a pile of gamecruft lurking there. --Oscarthecat (talk) 11:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

There's piles of shit everywhere on the wiki; it's just frightening how much there is when you stumble across it. :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, as it appears there are quite a few series having shit articles for simply every character. I'd say merge every article into a list(with the possible exception of Saber and perhaps Rin), like what happened to Metal Gear a few years back. -- クラウド６６８ 17:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Part 2 here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Argh, someone (random IP) insists on adding two similar looking cover arts to our featured article: Oddworld: Abe's Oddysee. I have tried to tell him that its against WP:NFCC but he won't listen. I give up so if there is someone else who can do better feel free. --Mika1h (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Get an admin to speedy delete it. After all you are the uploader and it is causing problems. image link. Salavat (talk) 13:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Image File:AbesOddyseeWinBox.jpg now deleted. --Oscarthecat (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I remember having a video game console as a kid. It isn't listed here, so i'm wondering if it'd be worth mentioning. But i can't remember what it was... It was pretty similar to the Arcadia 2001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcadia_2001) but it didn't have the number buttons on the paddles. It was tan and dark brown.. We had one game for it, i think it was called "sports" or "super sports"... and in the game you'd pick one of the events by pressing one of the number buttons on the main console.. there was one event which was "Tennis" kinda like pong (green background, white blocks)... and some skeet shooting game where you had to aim and shoot this big square going across the screen.

any ideas?

edit: oh and i should mention this was in Sweden, so i'm guessing it might have been some type of European console.

--Poposhka (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like one of the sd and related series consoles. They were "pong" consoles that had the dedicated game chips in removable cartridges. Made them appear more like CPU/game rom driven consoles. The console itself just served for television output, power, and game control input. All the actual game circuitry was in the cartridge. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 07:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a shout about it, unsure if it'll catch on for usefulness or not though. It came to mind when looking at other articles when issues were not plot related yet being too overly detailed, and the other tags weren't the best resource to say "This needs to be fixed."--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there any specific guideline in WP:VG that states most remakes should be merged? I ask because I'm thinking of beginning work on Kirby's Adventure, but I see that Kirby: Nightmare in Dreamland sort of exists in the article as its own article. How should these two be integrated (knowing that there should be enough for a stand-alone Kirby's Adventure article due to its release on the Wii Virtual Console)? -- Nomader ^(Talk) 04:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Remakes and ports should be merged to the original game. --MASEM 05:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

To add to that, unless a significant amount of unique reception and development exists between the two. Though generally the port goes into it's parent game article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Should fair-use box art be included for both in the article? -- Nomader ^(Talk) 19:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless A) the box art was significantly different than the old art, and B) it aids critical commentary in the article significantly, another fair use image shouldn't be added. To chime in with above, it depends on the amount of content, but 90% of all ports/remakes are going to be folded into the main article. See Myst for example. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

And for sake of example, Okami's wii box art is included because there is commentary on it despite being nearly the same as the PS2 - there's an inadvertent watermark on it that prompted Capcom to remedy it. But if that wasn't there, I wouldn't have the Wii cover at all - it's the same wolf picture and logo, just a different background. --MASEM 20:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild_Wars_2 you will see someone has change the 'video game' in the future video game panel to 'www.addictgaming.com', not sure if this is the only article? (78.86.141.86 (talk) 14:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)}

You must be viewing a cached version of a page. The template was vandalised on 30 November and fixed on 1 December. - X201 (talk) 14:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

There were some links to that site, but I've edited each of the pages to remove 'em now. Some links to it from Talk pages remain, no need to remove those. --Oscarthecat (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Articles: List of Chrono Trigger characters, List of Chrono Cross characters

Anyone interested in doing some work on these? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated Chrono Trigger for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.じんない 22:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This text was recently added by an IP: "Recently, the "Heartbreaker" song for the PlayStation 3 version has experienced some technical problems where it would be corrupted the previous 148 downloadable songs from the previous Karaoke Revolution Presents: American Idol Encore were present in the HDD. The player must delete all 148 songs from the previous series to be able to select the song "Heartbreaker"." I have noticed someone who seems to be on various discussion forums starting/repeating this information, but this individual has also been proven to have posted false or misinformation on these various sites as well. See AschTheHated's posts here, CrossWard 's posts here, as well as 2 Impossible's posts here. Now, the claims this individual made about there being no downloadable content was obviously proven to be bogus. So, does anyone have any source regarding "Heartbreaker" or is that also inaccurate information being spread on those forums and now here as well? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this list necessary? I've only played a bit of the first game, so I don't really know how many of the characters outside of the main character section are recurring. If they fit with the levels that I played, they're all just minor, one stage characters, so any coverage is unnecessary. If the main characters are the only recurring ones, they can probably be covered on the series article. TTN (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Either the main characters need merging or everything else on that list needs removing. When 'characters' includes the likes of "Snorkel is a dolphin that has been trapped under the anchor of Grunty's ship, the Rusty Bucket. If Banjo finds the switch that controls the anchor, Snorkel will be freed and reward him with a Jiggy." it's a clear sign that the list has lost all sense of perspective. Someoneanother 21:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I've played Banjo Kazooie 2 extensively and the characters are, for lack of a better phrase, confusing. I believe listing them would be fancruft. Lots42 (talk) 00:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

And in the Banjo games, doing pretty much anything rewards you with a Jiggy. Lots42 (talk) 00:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• The list is a lot of gamecruft. Details about where to find characters and how they'll help you. A lot of it is plotcruft too, verging on exhaustive detail of scenes, locations, appearances. That said, I think a merge would be preferable to deletion. One is because maybe there are enough characters to be worth about 1/4 of the coverage. But two is more of a practical reason: if we delete it, it may tempt / provoke people to start creating independent articles on every single character once again. Sometimes the best way to prevent that is with a strong redirect to a short section in the main article. But I'm keeping an open mind about this. Randomran (talk) 01:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• I played the first two BK games extensively, and the only characters worth writing about are the Main characters (in a trimmed form). The other characters are either gameguidish or can be mentioned in the context of the main characters (e.g. Grunty's sisters). A merger into the series article sounds reasonable. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Pretty much anything outside of Main characters can be dropped. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

All of these episodes have sufficient notability to have a separate article, as the press tended to review each one as an individual game. Each one has entries on Game Rankings and Metacritic and the like, so there's plenty of scope for some full on real-world reception information, even though at initial viewing you might think "this is rather bad and should be merged". I'd like to get some opinions on what image should go in the infobox. These episodes aren't released individually to retail, so there's no proper box art for them. However, unlike Sam & Max: Season One, they have a title screen in their opening credits that could be (and is currently) used. GameTap, however, (who publish the game before general release) also provides a title card on its website. These title cards are used for Season One episode articles, which means that the GameTap cards could arguably be used for consistency with Season One. Which should be used for Season Two episodes, the in-game screenshots of the title screen, or the title cards off of GameTap. For instance: for Chariots of the Dogs, there is a choice of this GameTap card or this screenshot. -- Sabre (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I like them both, but the GameTap cards are going to be a lot easier on the eye since the text is larger, if they're used on the first season articles then doing the same with second season articles is best IMO. Someoneanother 16:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not fond of either, but the GameTap card does get bonus points for already being lo-res. Nifboy (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I've replaced them all with the GameTap images. Its now fully consistent across both Season One and Two -- Sabre (talk) 13:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Do we have any editors familiar with Featured portals and WP:FPOC? Getting Portal:Video games to Featured status has been on my list for a while now, and I'd like to mark it off if someone can help. I thought about putting it up for Portal peer review, but it looks to be extremely slow process with little participation. Any general comments and/or suggestions to improve it would also be appreciated. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC))

Was there an consensus on the inclusion of ZP's viewpoints in articles (see for example Mirror's Edge)? I'm thinking his priorities when making the reviews are being funny rather than actually reviewing the games, so it wouldn't really be fair to include his comments along with "proper" reviews... --aktsu ^(t / c) 20:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

ZP's reviews have to be carefully metered. When they are highly negative, that's just a bunch of jokes and humor so it's hard to take seriously, but when you counter that with the few games he's praised (Portal, etc.) they can be useful. However, if ZP's reviews can be avoided at all, then they should be. I've yet to find a point that ZP makes negatively of a game that another more reliable source covers as well. --MASEM 20:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Masem. Entertainers should generally not be used as benchmarks for reliable criticism because their first task is to entertain. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced that entertainment is not part and parcel of any professional reviewer's task. I think ZP is a sufficiently notable source that discussing their opinions of a game is valuable, but that it needs to be contextualized adequately. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

We've been down that road before. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we want to not say he's an RS for a game review, however, there is a general trend that people want to quote ZP's reviews much more than more ..."professional" review sources (IGN, etc.), because when ZP rips on a game, he rips on a game with colorful language and the like. Which, yes, is funny to read and the like, but from a standpoint of an encyclopedia article, is not helpful; one can summarize ZP's reviews stating "ZP didn't like this and that feature of the game" without quoting him verbatim. Now, there are times that his language is perfect to describe his impressions without breaking encyclopedic approaches, and that's fine to use. But to forcible work in his similes and metaphores and other oddities is not what we should be doing. --MASEM 21:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The criticism is not echoed from reliable sources as they are more likely to be afraid of game publisher backlash. The last critical review of an overhyped game I saw from a certain 'reliable source' got someone fired due to publisher influence. I do not watch Zero Punctuation to determine whether or not to buy a game. I watch Zero Punctuation to find out what is wrong with the game, as no other reliable source will speak up. SashaNein (talk) 21:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Try PC Gamer once in a while. They ripped into Halo 2, for instance, with no regrets for the fans or Microsoft. Any way, in regards to ZP, I pretty much agree with Fuchs and Masem here. ZP should only be used under serious consideration, and then only used limitedly. -- Sabre (talk) 21:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with most of what's already been said above. I would like to add that a review need not rip into a game to provide negative reception. Even reviews that are overall positive normally mention a negative point or two. You just have to comb through the reviews.

Anyway, stringent judgment should exercised when using one of Yahtzee's review or anything similar. Also, given the types of higher profile games he reviews, I'd say there will almost always be a more balanced review elsewhere. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC))

The whole schtick of the "funny reviewer" is that they usually make fun of what they are reviewing. So you can't really count on them for actual critical coverage. But it's the kind of thing that might be appropriate for an article in the same way as "in popular culture". To have your game parodied or mentioned in the Simpsons is kind of a big deal, and so is having your game torn apart by ZP. Randomran (talk) 22:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

"When he says good things, he's a serious and critical reviewer. When he says negative things, he's just trying to be funny. Let's discredit his opinion and worth as a video game reviewer!" t(-_-t) I'm sure he'd flip you off too, guys.--Koji† 23:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Even when he's praising stuff, he's trying to be funny. It's entertainment. Nothing wrong with that. But we need to treat it as such, for Wikipedia. Randomran (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

No offense intended to the guy or anyone else like him. Yahtzee is incredibly funny and does have valid points, but his style just seems to give too much undue weight to the negative points of games. Because of that, I don't think any of his reviews (good or bad) should be the first source to examine when writing a reception section. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC))

But the fact that it is entertainment does not seem to me to negate the fact that he's a significant reviewer, and we ought discuss what he says for NPOV reasons, if nothing else. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

ZP is to game reviews as The Daily Show is to news, pretty much. Yeah, I suppose we should cover it somewhere. But treating his reviews on the same level as others would be the opposite of neutrality. We cover common points of view. ZP goes out of his way to put his reviews in the most controversial terms possible, and set himself completely apart from common reviewers. (And I love him for it, by the way. As well as the Daily Show.) So, again, we would cover it in more of a popular culture sense: "Game X is also roasted by ZP". Randomran (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Randomran. His reviews, or anything else similar, can be used in certain circumstances, but the general usage of it in a regular reception section would be inappropriate. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC))

There is a disagreement about whether the multiplayer columns are worth keeping in the article. Comments? MrKIA11 (talk) 00:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I concur with MrKIA. The list of psp game information is fine the way it is. Tons of people play multiplayer with their psp's and that last column is extremely helpful. And, with all due respect to Mr. "A Link to the Past", your logic (concerning this discussion on your talk page) would indicate we need to have a giant list of game titles with absolutely no information at all other then ensuring their name's are linked to their respective pages. Don't suppose you took into account the fact that there's a good chunk of these games that don't have wiki's written up about them.

Also, The purpose of a wiki is to provide thorough information. With a wiki list like this, it means getting the needed information at a quick glance. And you should never ever confuse 'trivial' information with 'useful' information. Knowing the gender of the main character is a very unimportant point for a game list. It's trivial...cosmetic if you will. But knowing if I can play against someone else or if AdHoc is available...that deals with the functionality of the game itself and is thus important.

My vote is for the list with the 3 end columns concerning multi-play capability to stay as-is. Info on PSN games excluded of course (per a rather large cleaning edit from MrKIA done earlier on all the 8games I added from the PSN)

--ZeroAccend (talk) 06:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Anyone want to work on this? One thing that needs to be done is that the Development section is pretty meager for a game that's been in development for almost a decade. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

[4] - Assuming this is true, there is a long history of development for the title (going back to 1994!). - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Could someone comment on my work so far (with the exception of the lack of references, I just have to add my source in)? - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering if it would be useful for a VG project department that can be used to group pending informal RFCs, merge requests, or other discussions that need more eyes than just those editing one or two pages, but doesn't apply at the Wiki-wide level to warrent the use of the actual RFC mechanism. (This type of request does come up here frequently, even looking at the present history). That is, say I start a talk page section that likely requires more than the regulars that edit the page. Ideally (with a bot) I could tag that "vg-rfc" at the section top, and like the current RFC approach, adds the discussion to a separate page (WP:VG/RFC), which people can watch and participate on as needed. Without a bot, a manual addition would be required but this is still only one extra step. This would help reduce reduce a bit of traffic on this talk page to where the conversation is specific to. --MASEM 15:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I definitely agree we need some way to attract more attention to decisions such as merges. Whether we need a task force, a template, or what... I'm not sure. But I'll go with everyone else's opinion. Randomran (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I already try to keep track of Nintendo-related merges over at the Nintendo task force at WT:NIN. However, it must be reported manually with no way to categorize the type of article needed for a merge.

WikiProject Hawai'i includes an extra parameter in their talk page template that informs (and categorizes) users that a merge discussion is taking place (see Talk:Hawaii Rainbow Wahine for an example). MuZemike (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

A few things and mainly thinking out loud:

• Do you envision something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Deletion?
• I think such discussions are getting some decent attention here and worry moving them to another page will reduce that attention. However, I must admit I can see it swing the other way and improve that attention.
• I hate to admit it, but as a project, what we have in good ideas, we lack in management and follow through. Like most of our endeavors, I worry this will be something that most people will forget about after 6 months.
• If nothing else, I think the talk page parameter would be a good alternative.

It certainly has promise. Let's see what others think. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC))

Ooh, I'd like to be a part of this department. Can I be the deputy? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

My response is an overwhelming meh... it's up to you guys, I don't have feelings one way or another. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems like everyone (including myself) really don't feel one way or the other on this one. If someone really wants to do it I guess I'd be in support of it. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 23:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's da problem: too many departments. I think having a whole new area to grind is just going to be another thing to fall into disuse, as it stands both the peer review and assessment departments are almost at a standstill. Would it not be possible to just have an extra box or something on the top of this page for merge discussions? Once dealt with they can just be plucked out again, without the need for any automated malarky or separate areas. Someoneanother 12:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Some input if an enhanced port of a game deserves its own article or should be merged is requested. You can find this discussion here. --MASEM 14:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think articles on software like Moonshell, XBMC, and Nintendo DS Browser belong to this project as they aren't video games.A policy should be made as to what exactly belongs in the project. --Ssj4android (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It's video game software. It doesn't have to be a video game to be related. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It is related to video games.How will you anyway play a NDS game if you don't have an NDS? And anyway the purpose of consoles is video games.--Michael X the White (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Video game consoles aren't video games either. This project encompasses things related to video games, not just games themselves. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 22:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a very broad umbrella project like the film and music projects, anything even vaguely related gets the tag. Why is the connection to this project a problem? Someoneanother 22:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

What about computers like Apple II series? They had some very influential games like Ultima 1 but the articles themselves don't deal much with video games. --Mika1h (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It's still a gaming platform, is linked numerous times from video game infoboxes and is no less relevant than Sinclair ZX Spectrum which coincedentally is tagged for the project. The computer formats make up an important part of video gaming's history. Someoneanother 00:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm planning to do some work on it, but I've never played the PSP version. Could anyone who's played it try to make the article more neutral between the two versions? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, there's a small dispute over the image. I've provided an image that has no markers indicating either DS or PSP, but someone disputes this and wants the image to be the Nintendo DS image. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:VGSCOPE#Screenshots and cover art states that a platform neutral box art shot is preferable in cases of games on multiple platforms. Template:Infobox VG#Syntax guide echoes that. Direct the user to them if they persist in restoring a specific platform's box art after a generic box art is provided. -- Sabre (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know that. Neat. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Managed to get the article to A-class quality awhile back and getting close to the point I can bring Astaroth (Soulcalibur) up for GAN, so as it stands I'd like to go all the way and work out what may need fixing in it before I go through the FA-nomination process to avoid any unforseen issues, if you guys have the time.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Awhile back, Namco through one of their websites offered it's members a means to submit questions for Project Soul to answer regarding Soulcalibur IV and the characters in general. The kicker though, is that while they did answer some in a useful context, they decided to email the responses to everyone instead of post them online. A transcript is viewable here: [5].

Now the question is how can I cite those answers? The information would help Astaroth's character article as well as add the missing piece to Amy's article before it was axed, but if I understand it correctly unless something like IGN or another reliable source posts up these answers they can't be cited, right?

Any advice? Best I've done thus far is forward the information to two websites in hopes they'd post it up, sadly without responses from either as of yet.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Citing that forum post is allowed per WP:SELFPUB, in the same manner we can cite fansites that provide transcripts of video game dialogue. Cite it in the following manner (find the right date etc.):

Namco staff (2008). "Q/A with Katsutoshi Sakasi". Retrieved 5 December 2008.

Bottom line: if a source is written by an author (or authors) who is an expert in the field, it doesn't matter who publishes the information.

User:Krator (t c) 10:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That would be approved of if the poster is undeniably an "expert in the field" or Namco official. Who is TigerC10? Who has guaranteed that he did not cook up statements or altered the principal meanings? Jappalang (talk) 13:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Jappalang is right. I'm certain a source like that would not pass FAC. It might pass GAN depending on the reviewer; I know I'd feel uncomfortable accepting it like that. The only other solution that comes to mind is to request Namco to send the email to Wikipedia via WP:OTRS. But you may not have any luck with that either. :-/ (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC))

Hm. What about giving someone related to OTRS access to my email itself temporarily? Unorthodox I know, but it would show the email as there and as having been sent from Namco directly. I wouldn't push this if the info could be found elsewhere somehow :\--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I hate terribly to bump this subject up, but really we don't have any real provision for this at all? There has to be some past incident where an editor got an email from somewhere and was able to use the info in a related article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't know enough about OTRS to say one way or the other. I guess ask at Wikipedia talk:OTRS and Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources and see if anyone knows of anything similar done in the past. :-/

Quick question, did Namco post their intent to email people the information anywhere on there site or forums? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC))

Just a quip that was on their related website, but as you can see they decided to take it down without any means to access the information that was on there previously (rather quickly too I'll add, given that the original SC website was open for years after the game was released...).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok so it seems that me and A Link to the Past cant reach an agreement, so i figured id come here and try and source other peoples comments. So first of all we have A Link to the Past removing the Rune Factory games of the spinoff part of the Harvest moon template, stating that they have their own template and therefore dont need to be on the harvest moon one, however im arguing that they are still spinoff's and therefore should still have a place on that spinoff section regardless of the template size

Having them on there creates a path of navigation to the rune factory articles from the harvest moon articles. Currently i have a setup like the one on the rune factory article where the harvest moon template is the second template and it is collasped. Its just i dont see how a seperate template justifies removing links on another one.

So any comments?Salavat (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Would you argue the same thing, that the Mario template should include Wario, Donkey Kong, and Yoshi games? - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

While Link brings up a good point, I have to agree with Salavat. Mainly because we're only talking about three links. If the Rune Factory series continues to grow and releases more titles, then it makes sense to have separate templates. Until then, I think it's better for both series to be in the same template. Consolidating them makes everything more organized, and it provides more related links to each article. My two cents. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 01:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC))

Well, the creator specifically said that Rune Factory Frontier is not a Harvest Moon title, making Rune Factory, starting with 3, far more separate that it should be kept separate. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Rune Factory 1 and 2 are. They bear the subtitle "A Fantasy Hervest Moon". That title was removed from Rune Factory Frontier and has been said to be removed from Rune Factory 3, which has already been announced. Thus, 1 and 2 are legitimately placed on the lsit, but nothing else. A mention should be put on the harvest moon series link that after that the differences between them that the series became a rightful series in it's own, not just a spinoff.じんない 05:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

How about this - we compromise by directing people to an article on the Rune Factory series, or the template itself. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hrm... I really don't think there's a need for that small of a template when it could just as easily be merged into the main Harvest Moon one. As it originated as a spin-off, I think until the series becomes considerably larger that we should include most of the Rune Factory games in with the Harvest Moon template even if they don't have the "A Fantasy Harvest Moon" subtitle. If other editors feel otherwise, I won't put up too much resistance to another idea. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 05:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Rune Factory Frontier does not have the subtitle, and was even stated as not being an HM title. But I guess we could merge Rune Factory back into the template. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a suggestion: Is there enough information to make a Rune Factory (series) page? If so, you could just include the series article in the Harvest Moon navbox. ^TH1RT3EN

I should pay more attention. I support the Rune Factory (series) addition, if possible. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 05:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, i havent commented back for a while, been at work. Anyways i figure that merge it back into the harvest moon template due to lack of size should work, unless someone is willing to make a Rune Factory series article and then we link that from the Harvest Moon template. Salavat (talk) 11:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)