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.

Anyone have an opinion on this? Someone removed them from the chart in List of Castlevania media and I'm not sure they would fit there either. However, they have a long list of different instances where the song is used, leading me to think that they are no different than a hit single. However, due to their relation to the Castlevania series, I feel they'd be better in the series article.--_ZXCVBNM 02:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I was just looking at some video games articles and found that most of them have the number of copies sold in the lead or mentioned somewhere. Wouldn't it be better if the Game sales be mentioned in the infobox. Like in the movies article, which have the box office earnings, there should be a profit section in the infobox and there should also be a production cost section. These sections should at least be available to be added if available. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a value that unfortunately is not readily available for many games (not that data isn't there, but often it is only available for-pay source). Movie figures are different since these are widely reported. Sales data is important, and thus should be a lead item, but because of the inconsistency if a game has it or not, it would be best not to require it. --MASEM 17:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, finding the information is the biggest problem. Films are fortunate to have Box Office Mojo, although even less popular films don't always have sales information available. Gary King (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The main infobox is getting rather big as it is. It might be better to break the info up into like-oriented topics. In this case, I might suggest adding the copies sold info to ((VG Reviews)). I know the template has "Reviews" in its name, but the template itself is titled "Reception". SharkD (talk) 03:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, might be a better spot. It does already include Awards, too (although to be honest, I rarely use the Awards part of the box since it stretches it way too much vertically). Gary King (talk) 15:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I would rather keep it out of both infoboxes. Pagrashtak 17:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the availability of the data is so hit and miss that inclusion in an infobox or the VG review template would prompt people to try to find bad sources to support sales data. (That is, I don't have a problem when using VGchartz if absolutely no sales is there, but stipulated that the data comes from VGC, but putting this in a template would obfuscate this and lead to the impression the data is accurate.) --MASEM 17:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

That's why you use references in the table. If you look at the example in ((VG Reviews)), you'll see that several of the scores are followed by source references which will automatically appear in the References section of an article. As for the suitability of certain sources, this can be described in detail in the template documentation where users would look first. SharkD (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe Masem means stipulating VGChartz in the prose and not just in a reference that some people won't actually check.

I also agree that sales info should be kept out of both boxes. Video games just don't have a single, readily available source to go to like movies do. Also, some sources list units sold and others units shipped. I don't think there's enough standardized info for something like this to work as intended. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC))

Yes, the problem is the industry is different. Movies have an established venue when they're released (movie theaters) that has a long running network of accounting and tallying of ticket sales. Video games do not, they're released in a multitude of retailer formats (including downloadable now). The closest would be the movie industry's traditional "after market", i.e. home sales, and usually just gross earnings are reported for that rather than numbers of copies. That's about the closest we could get for a tally, but the only sources for those would be actual filings from the company itself (SEC filings), or press releases, etc. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

OK. I did notice that the topic was brought up earlier, and that the NPD was cited as a reliable source. Noone refuted it, so I assumed it was true. SharkD (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, in case there's confusion, I'm not suggesting that the addition of sales data be mandatory. Most if not all the fields in the template are already optional. SharkD (talk) 21:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right, no one refuted it because they are one of the best sources for such data. They just aren't a readily available source. Most mentions in articles are other sources like GameSpot or IGN citing them, which isn't very often. To be honest, I don't think I've ever come across a citation directly from them, which kind of sucks. :-\ (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC))

As I understand it their data is a subscription service which companies subscribe to to get sales data and magazines and websites subscribe to on a different license model that allows them to quote/republish figures. - X201 (talk) 10:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine. We could stipulate in the template that all data *must* be attributable to NPD to be considered for inclusion. SharkD (talk) 05:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that would be that NPD only covers the video game industries in Canada and the US, so NPD doesn't have sales figures on games released only in Europe or Japan. --Silver Edge (talk) 09:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I was already contemplating separating the sales data into regions. Each region would have its own row in the template. SharkD (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The NPD Group occasionally releases press releases with video game sales information such as this and this, and there are press releases that date back to 2002. --Silver Edge (talk) 09:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Just wondering if the pixel-counting nature of Beyond3D forums can be used as a source. It's already used on PGR3, GTA IV (PC World->PS3Fanboy->Beyond3D) and Ninja Gaiden II (N4G->Beyond3D). It's also been quoted by Joystiq (and as far as I know, was the originating source for the native resolutions of Call of Duty 4 and Halo 3), but its use has been contentious on Metal Gear Solid 4 (perhaps becuase it states the native res of MGS4 is 1024x768). Any thoughts? Thanks! Fin©™ 12:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Best to avoid it, since the identities of the forumers are pretty much a mystery. If reliable sources choose to talk about the findings from there, their reports (reliable sites') can probably be used with attribution ("GameSpot reported that users on a video game forum have found the native resolution to be ..." or something like that). Jappalang (talk) 12:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah ok, I found a Videogaming 24/7 article that used the information =) Thanks! Fin©™ 18:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This suit have been in the news a bit lately, but I can't seem to find an article on Worlds.com, and the suit isn't even discussed in the NCsoft's article.

A little help perhaps? This would seem like a reasonably important topic.--140.184.40.134 (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to log in.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 01:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Chances are that the first-parties in any sort of lawsuit aren't going to disclose anything publically about the suit until after it's been settled, which could be quite some time. Usually they avoid commenting on it (and employees at the companies are usually instructed to give a boiler-plate response along the lines of "I cannot comment on that") because any public commentary may hurt their case. If there's news on this suit, though, your best sources will be reliable industry news sources - 1up.com, Joystiq.com, GameSpot.com, etc., may have information as secondary sources. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

(BTW, I'm listing those sites as potential examples - others in this project can vouch for which ones are considered reliable and which ones aren't.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Check out some judicial sites (can't think of which ones off the top of my head) as they will list any major changes there as well even if those industry sites don't pick anything up.じんない 05:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

All I was getting at is perhaps an article on Worlds.com and some sort of mention of the suit (which given the patent involved may end up applying to all MMOs) There seems to be a fair-share of discussion about it, like here [1] and it's even been discussed in a Penny Arcade comic. I just thought I'd mention it.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 06:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

What is the rule for including a Japanese title in a video game article? The reason I ask is because I added it as a note in Star Wars: Rogue Squadron and it was immediately reverted with the user citing it as "irrelevant". As the game's only other title as well as it being sourced, I believe it has some place in the article. Opinions? --Torsodog^Talk 05:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It's good to use them if the title originated from Japan, as it can make finding sources and information to work on an article easier. This doesn't seem to be the case though.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I did notice that Japanese titles are usually only in articles of games originating from Japan. This game, however, was not made in Japan. The only reason I thought it was worth adding was because the title was different in Japanese. Also, I found this method in the Super Mario 64 DS article, just to let everyone know. --Torsodog^Talk 05:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure that is a fare comparasion here. For on thing the game in question was not created by a Japanese company and if anything SM64DS's article should mention the Japanese title in the infobox.--76.71.211.108 (talk) 05:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

No, the infobox isn't the place for that. The japanese title for SM64DS should be just fine in the lead, as is the norm with most games.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I actualy meant to type lead. The Japanse title is actually in the notes section though and not so it should be moved. Never mind I see what they were doing there now. I missed the link to the notes section in the lead. I would also like to add one last point regarding the name change. Mario 64ds is different because it was releaed in the US first due to the DS being released earlier. This game however, was released in the US first because it was it was the primary market and only much later was there a Japanse release. Unlike Mario 64 there is no evidence that there was any initial plans to relase it in Japan. --76.71.211.108 (talk) 05:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

As KungFu says, they should be used if the game was developed in Japan, but not otherwise. This should probably be added to the article guidelines, if it's not there already... Thanks! Fin©™ 16:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It is removed. Thanks for the help everyone. --Torsodog^Talk 20:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this is the right move, but there would be one exception I'd add, though I don't know of a good case for that, and that if a western game significantly impacts the Japanese market, such that if the user were to pursue the references they would understand what name they are looking for in the game. However, this has to be "significant", not just released over there, and as far as I'm aware, no recent titles come to mind for this . --MASEM 20:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Another possibile exception I could see would be if there was some sort of controversy related to forien title. That would not apply here though. --76.71.214.236 (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

What about when a Japanese game series has a Western developed game? For example Silent Hill is game series published by Japanese company but Silent Hill: Origins was developed in the UK and it's known in Japan as Silent Hill Zero. --Mika1h (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, tricky question that. I'd say in that case the Japanese name should still be kept, unless its first release date was outside Japan or the primary market was western audiences. I can't think of and example offhand, I imagine it doesn't happen too often! Thanks! Fin©™ 00:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, if it was released in America or Europe, the Japanese title should redirect to the American one (since this is the English Wikipedia). If it was released in Japan only, it should have the English title redirect to the Japanese one, since it's the real title. For example, the article BS Fire Emblem: Akaneia Senki is the Romanized Japanese name, rather than "record of holy wars", E.G. the translated name.--_ZXCVBNM 02:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)--_ZXCVBNM 02:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This isn't about the name of the article itself, it's about including the Japanese name in the lead of the article. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't even really talking about having it in the lead necessarily. I was asking if it is appropriate to mention it in the article AT ALL, even as a note as the end. --Torsodog^Talk 04:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

In that case, yes, of course it's appropriate. Any alternate titles ought to be listed. You can see an example in Fire Emblem (video game); at the very start of the article, it mentions the Japanese name and its translation.--_ZXCVBNM 06:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That is what I thought, but the argument many are making here is that if the game is not of Japanese origin or had a significant effect in Japan, then it is not worth including, as I did here. --Torsodog^Talk 06:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where the game was made, the article should include all other names the developers released the game as. Just because it wasn't "popular" doesn't mean it shouldn't be listed for information's sake.--_ZXCVBNM 07:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it is ill-advised to simply dump in foreign versions of its names just because it has it. By that note, all games should have the Chinese titles inserted in because they are packaged as such in the Chinese market, which has a larger gaming population than most European countries; Iranian and Arabic titles should also be included then. I would think we do not wish to see a string of 106 different language titles in the video game articles, especially in the ledes. WP:VG/GL#Non-English games is fairly clear on this for foreign games; by common-sense, it is also extendable to English-language games (no foreign names to be mentioned in the text unless they are crucial in some way to the article). Jappalang (talk) 08:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, though Japanese shouldn't get preferential treatment either. A Korean MMO should have the Korean name, a French-developed game the French name, etc. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

To give an example of what we would have to do to satificy such an idea. If this was implemented the Dragon Quest IV would have to add all these names

French: L'epopee de Elus German: Die Chronik der Erkorene Italian: Le Chronache dei presclti Spanish: Capitulos de los Elegidos.

Obviously the Japanese name would stay in this case due to the game being of Japanese origin but the point is if we allow one forien countries title we would likely have to add them all. In this case Dragon Quest IV would be cluttered. Conquenclently a suggestion was made to add these names and was rejected for good reason in my opinion. --70.24.180.230 (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It should be the same for release dates, as stated in the guidelines, but for some reason I see Japanese release dates everywhere even for non-Japanese games (just look at Star Wars: Rogue Squadron in the collapsible list). The guideline should be enforced more actively IMO. This isn't Weeaboopedia. Fargo of Diarmuid (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought they were dated according to region release, as per the publisher. Now you're telling me that there are secret regions that nobody knows about?--_ZXCVBNM 19:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No, what he's saying is that non-Japanese games often have the Japanese release in the infobox, which is contrary to guidelines (and also quite common) - I do my best to rectify though =) Thanks! Fin©™ 20:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that Star Wars: Rogue Squadron should not contain the Japanese release date? I'm simply looking at and following the format of other Featured VG articles such as Halo: Combat Evolved, which has many release dates in the infobox. --Torsodog^Talk 20:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, the first release in the game's country of origin and then any English-language dates should be used (EU/NA/PAL/AUS), that's straight from the template. Thanks! Fin©™ 20:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

See WP:VG/DATE for the section in the video games article guidelines concerning release dates. --Silver Edge (talk) 05:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Outside opinions would be appreciated here. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Can it be counted as a game engine? I'm asking because F-Zero lists it as a game engine in the infobox and I've always thought that Mode 7 is more like a graphical effect and not a separate engine. --Mika1h (talk) 10:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Nah, Mode 7 is a graphical effect like you say, it's not an engine. Thanks! Fin©™ 16:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I removed it from the infobox. --Mika1h (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Should F-Zero have its second image animated to provide a better illustration of that effect? « ₣M₣ » 18:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You might want to animate someting for the Mode 7 main article instead.--_ZXCVBNM 21:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone keeps on removing them from List of characters in Chrono Trigger#Magus. Fargo of Diarmuid (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope...polls from GameFAQs aren't exactly prime source material.--_ZXCVBNM 19:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Why? Fargo of Diarmuid (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Exploitable, and basically user reviews. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Unless there's a good reason, internet polls (including the GameFAQs one) should usually be kept out of articles. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 22:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The GameFAQs yearly character polls are heavily promoted and orchestrated on the site, it's not just a poll script in a box on a random page. Fargo of Diarmuid (talk) 11:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

If people are really trying to use GameFAQs, we should probably list it as among the sites not to source.じんない 03:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe they're listed under situational sources; they're satisfactory only for release dates. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 06:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait wait wait. So does this mean any "viewer's choice" or "reader's choice" or any other poll using the public's opinion on a subject should be considered uncitable? That seems to lock any means of establishing what a topic's weight with the general public is out entirely, no?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC) To be more accurate, I mean material such as this.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It comes down to how reliable the survey is. Gamespot and the other major gaming sites surveys likely have control on the voting as to make sure its not exploited, while the GameFAQS "character battles" don't seem to have such controls (and I've known I've seen vote polling for certain characters in certain channels when they are up). That is, best I can tell, I don't have to log in to GameFAQS to vote, so vote flooding is quite possible, while Gamespot and others require a login to do so. --MASEM 13:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

GameFAQs will only let you vote once per IP, and if you try a second time you get the message "A vote from this IP address has already been submitted. This is likely because you share an IP address with others, so you may want to register for a GameFAQs account to enable yourself to vote in this and future polls.". Just thought id point that bit out. Salavat (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Still exploitable - in that those with dialup or dynamic ip allocations can try again on another day to do so. But more worrisome is the lack of registration needed for the poll, so results can be readily influenced by a small group. --MASEM 14:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Which is enough to rule them out as a reliable source for a statement like "L-Block was the most popular character of 2007." However, it still seems to me that the poll, which is popular, widely covered, and significant, is worth reporting as is. I have no problems with the results of a given poll being mentioned, in one sentence, in a given article. Does that confer much notability? For me, not really. But it's still worth mentioning. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

That I agree to - GameFAQS' reporting of the results is verifiable and can be included if for lack of any other "interesting" facts, but the results cannot be taken to infer notability. Mind you, if a character is really popular, I'm pretty sure one can find other sources that are more reliable than the GameFAQS user poll that show this. --MASEM 16:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm still doubtful that even GameFAQS reporting of the results is notable. It's a source for release date info and game data only. Not to mention that the poll can be influenced in a million different ways - ballot stuffing is allowed.--_ZXCVBNM 18:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Prima faciae restricting what a source can be used for is fairly silly - I would, in any case, imagine that GameFaqs can always be used as a source about claims made by GameFAQs. The issue is what sorts of claims about other things they can be used for. Yes, the poll can be influenced and/or ballot stuffed. But on the other hand, it's still a notable, oft-reported on poll. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well the fact that reporting that say, L-block won the character battle at GameFAQs in year X. That by itself denotes a level of notability by context and since GameFAQs polls are unreliable about true popularity in a general application because of ballot stuffing, short period of time, and general level of how people may decide to vote for a joke character because they are a joke.

In addition, the character battle polls are rigged since they stack them so that certain characters will almost certainly win the 1st few rounds which further weakens their credibility for the character battles as notable.じんない 22:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

But the character battle is an oft-remarked upon annual tradition - I've seen it get coverage in Kotaku, Joystiq, etc. I mean, I recognize that you don't like the character battle. I recognize its flaws. However, I think its results are still significant enough on a cultural level to be worth remarking on. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It would have to be done in such a way as to make clear to the reader that the poll, be it a regular poll or battle poll, can be stuffed (and in the case of character battles are rigged). Just because it's for games does not mean you do not report that the polling results may not be a true picture due to the contrivers surrounding it.じんない 00:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The poll is not authorative, meaning that it wasn't a poll of actual people or by an experienced polling agency or notable source. Besides the fact that the poll is only representative of GameFAQS users and not of gamers in general, and besides the fact that it can be easily manipulated, that is. Sure, it can be reported on, but it's not indicative of significance among the gaming, or general population. You wouldn't use an anonymous poll in an article about the US president's popularity, so why use one here? Just to be clear, ANY person can vote as many times as they want by clearing their cookies.--_ZXCVBNM 00:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

So based on that assumption, would it be a stretch to rule out GameSpot polls as well as they only cover a certain segment of the gaming audience? Personally, I feel that online polls will always be flawed, but I feel that GameFAQs is more akin to a database than a fluid gaming site in the vein of IGN or GameSpot. Therefore it shouldn't be used in articles (apologies for the weird wording of this comment; I'm a tad tired). I feel it's ridiculous to write in an article, "Character X won the poll, but do note that these results could be flawed because the ballot could be stuffed". -- Nomader ^(Talk) 04:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)And yet, if this was a more serious subject, say deciding new government offical, people would object if that wasn't made apparent. Merely because the polls are seen as just fun questions, people don't care, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia shouldn't note such things. Really though, I personally don't think they should be used, except on an article about GameFAQs itself.じんない 04:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Having followed the contest closely in the past (and placing fifth one year), I can tell you the results do get screened for vote-stuffing using various methods (remember, they run a huge series of message boards, they have their own version of WP:CHECKUSER) and CjayC would often post commentary on close matches, noting whatever vote-stuffing did go on in close matches didn't make a difference. That having been said, I wouldn't make the particular statement about Magus ("he has appeared in three GameFAQs character battles.[cite]") because the same would go for a lot of other different characters, including Crono, who, by GameFAQs' standards, is consistently as popular as Mario. Go figure. Nifboy (talk) 06:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

My other contention about the character battles is that they rig them by setting the first few rounds to be against people that, with the exception of stuff like L-block or a vote-drive get a character to advance. You never see Crono and Cloud face each other in round 1, even though normally in such tournaments the first round is usually randomized so there is no question about rigging. Because they do that, the results can be said to be skewed to favor particular characters.じんない 16:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not a good reason. By that logic winning the Stanley Cup could not be mentioned because in the playoffs the higest ranked teams play the lowest ranked team and in each round the rankings are ressessed to keep it that way until the finals. I am not trying to directly compare winning the cup to a Gamefaqs poll but if we followed your suggestion we would not be able to mention it either. I am not sure if it should be included or not but the ranking manulipation argument is deaply flawed. --76.71.215.80 (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

After SimSig had an AFD close as no consensus, I attempted to clean up the sources used in the article, but the discussion on the talk page regarding the reliability of certain sources is no longer constructive. If anyone cares to weigh in on this issue, I would appreciate it. Pagrashtak 18:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to bother. Just like with the Threshold AFD, they blatantly refuse to understand anything basic about Wikipedia. All those two users are doing now is whining and trolling, and I see that as very disruptive. To be quite frank, these users who come on here thinking that the entire community owes them everything is personally frustrating me to no end. I am done assuming good faith with single-purpose users who come on here with an extreme sense of entitlement. MuZemike (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

If the users are causing trouble and are really ignoring fundamental policies like WP:Verifiability, it may be appropriate to take it to a higher level of dispute resolution. It would be unfortunate to let them poison the well, and create an environment where everyone can suddenly take WP:OWNERship for pages and scare off good faith effort at improvement and cleanup. Randomran (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I generally try to avoid dispute resolution when I can, but that may be what it takes here. What's the first step, an RFC? Pagrashtak 21:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You've already started, just by asking for help here :) See Wikipedia:DR#Turn_to_others_for_help. Remind them to be civil and assume good faith, and acquaint themselves with Wikipedia's policies. If they still don't understand what a reliable source is, the next step might be the reliable source noticeboard. ... if it persists after that, take it from there. Randomran (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I had no idea that noticeboard even existed, that would be much better than an RFC for this case. I've always thought that one of the poorer aspects of Wikipedia is that it's hard to find the page you need unless you already know what the page you need is called. I won't bother with the noticeboard right now, as your presence on the talk page is having a positive influence. Pagrashtak 18:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I just stopped in here to discuss another issue and noticed this. I used to have an account some time ago, but after dealing with AfD bitterness, sockpuppetry, article ownership and other issues, I just got tired of it. I've attempted to do everything within a standard user's jurisdiction, including filing ANI reports and involved administrators to help with disputes, but most of them overlook the issue or just don't care to get involved. Is there really anything that can be done about these issues? I've long since given up hope on ever becoming a contributive member of Wikipedia again. 74.242.123.2 (talk) 01:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The Final Fantasy Legend title is under debate by the same anons again, this time with them demanding a Request for Mediation, despite being directed to the archived discussion we had here on the subject. He's rather insistent, again, to use an "accurate" translation which he himself apparently isn't even sure of over the citable one. Now I've got another anon going on and saying that I "shouldn't make such a big deal about this" on my talk page. I'm really not sure how to proceed from here. I'm tempted to take it to the pages for protection discussion, but that may be more paperwork than it's worth for everyone involved. Any advice? Rules or guidelines I can point them directly to?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

There really isn't any point in bringing the discussion over here. I suggested a request for mediation because that would ultimately resolve the debate for good, and not trouble either of us (or anyone else who wants to get involved) in the process. I don't understand why you wouldn't want to go that route. It would be a lot easier.

The problem with the translation you added is that 1) it's not accurate, and other people here can tell you the same thing, and 2) the citation isn't a notable or official reference. You know this. Others who examine it are going to tell you the same thing, dude.

The issue really doesn't have to be a big deal, but you're blowing it up into this huge context and making it into something it's not. Why do you want to go out of your way and waste your time to make it difficult for anyone to contribute toward this article but yourself? I would point out that Wiki policy goes against article ownership, but I'm sure you'll just ignore this policy since it's not convenient to you. 74.242.123.2 (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. And let me point out that reverting someone's edits with an alternate account WILL get you blocked for sockpuppetry. I encourage anyone who is reading over this discuss to seriously look at the edit history and get an idea about how far Kung Fu Man is willing to go to bend the rules to his favor. 74.242.123.2 (talk) 01:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

In the mediation request, citations for the title were listed and agreed upon, so unless the anon here can definitely prove otherwise, he should probably stop causing useless arguments unless he wants to be blocked. Even if he's translated the title differently, the truth is that sources are more important than original research. And no, this is not against "the man", or "sockpuppets", it is Wikipedia policy.--_ZXCVBNM 01:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you actually take a look at the article's history? Kung Fu Man has a blatant sockpuppet right there as the most recent revision. 74.242.123.2 (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

How can you be sure? Surely other people are allowed to disagree with you, and agree with him.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 01:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Based on the user's contribution history, which ties in with that of Kung Fu Man, and the user's convenient revision time. Apparently, the account has been used to resolve other disputes Kung Fu Man was resolved in. Can someone run a user check? 74.242.123.2 (talk) 01:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a sockpuppet. Can you at least say their username? Unless you mean an IP address, which isn't a sockpuppet. The latest revision is by Nakanon, who seems to have made only one edit to the article - not exactly master sockpuppetry at work.--_ZXCVBNM 01:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay seriously, what the hell?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said, if he's disrupting Wikipedia without the consensus of anyone else, it seems as though it's grounds for an IP block. So far he hasn't backed up his arguments with any solid evidence whatsoever.--_ZXCVBNM 01:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Nanakon here. Cross-check this user's history with that of Kung Fu Man. Also, run a user check and I'm pretty sure you'll get your answer.

Secondly, trying to resolve an edit dispute on a talk page is not disruptive editing. Stop threatening me when you don't even know anything about this situation. 74.242.123.2 (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The anon user posted a message on my talk page, so I've come and taken a look at this disagreement. It seems to me that the translation listed in Kung Fu Man's source must be official, because the exact same translation is found on other pages advertising the CD, e.g. Amazon.com, RPGFan.com, etc. Unless all of these sources are inexplicably making the same error, the title must be coming from an official source (i.e. the CD). You might be able to get around this problem by having two translations - one "literal"(purely semantic translation) and one "official" (from the CD).

Also, the current revision in the history doesn't appear to have been done by a sockpuppet of Kung Fu Man, as Nanakon's edit history shows him/her to have begun editing at an entirely different time than Kung Fu Man, and he/she has largely edited different articles. There are a couple of overlaps, but Nanakon never seems to have come to Kung Fu Man's aid in a way that would suggest sockpuppetry to me.--Danaman5 (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I too was asked to come here by the anon, and after having reviewed the situation, agree with Danaman5's assessment of the issues. This has apparently been discussed numerous times in the past, I don't see any reason to change the translation, given that the IP editor hasn't provided any reliable sources stating the current version to be false. Parsecboy (talk) 03:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I was notified too by the anon IP too. By default, if there's no consensus to change it, then don't change it. I see nothing new since the July discussion to give any good reason for change. Randomran (talk) 04:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about anyone here, but I sense something fishy, as nearly all the IP's edits are on others' user talk pages, as shown here. MuZemike (talk) 07:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I noted that earlier in this discussion. He effectively ran to various editors to claim I was harassing him and using sockpuppetry over the subject, neither of which was occurring.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

If it makes you feel any better, I recently had a different IP user indirectly accuse myself and User:Wgungfu of being the same person, in an accusation that us "established users" were forming a gestapo to suppress minority views. I find it really unfortunate that people are still pulling this crap. :P — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

A fellow user and I are considering a merge of a whole bunch of The Smurfs video game articles into one, as documented here at Talk:The Smurfs Save The Day. If we did go through with a merge, what would the proper naming convention of the merged article be? I suggested The Smurfs (video games), as no other such articles would be left out. Given that no clear guidance is given in the WP:VG's Manual of Style, would this be OK? MuZemike (talk) 07:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's what I typically see happen when there's an article about multiple games that requires disambig. So I'd say yes. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The only reason there is any question about the matter would be if it is more common or policy-friendly for such a collection take the The Smurfs (series) format as I have seen numerous times in other articles. If there is no policy on the issue then I would suggest a pragmatic approach regarding how the games relate to one another (i.e. are they truly a video game series or are they simply a collection of games that happen to use the same title). If we can find no information on how the games relate to one another then I would suggest going with The Smurfs (video games) as the closest sensible suggestion to MuZemike's original suggestion considering that it was he who suggested merger (a good suggestion in my opinion) to begin with. I know it hardly matters, but all other considerations aside I think we should be open to a later move in either direction if policy on the issue emerges. -Thibbs (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hah. Of course it would be seconds after my post that I found some sort of an answer: see WP:VG Naming Guidelines - Disambiguation Rule #6 which ties in with WP:VG Naming Guidelines - General Rule #3. -Thibbs (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, the best thing to do would be a List of Smurfs video games. I ran into the same problem with a whole pile of stub articles on Mahjong games, which we agreed to merge into Mahjong video game. The smurfs games are different... in theory, someone could actually add enough information on each game to make a non stub article that isn't completely redundant. Yeah, a merge is appropriate for now. But in the long run, you'll want to make it clear that there are multiple games, just in case anyone should ever improve any one of them to split them all out. Randomran (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to move this last comment to the discussion concerning merger here as it relates more to merging than to the name of the merged end-product. -Thibbs (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a dispute over which image should be used in the infobox for this game's article - a modified PSP box art which cuts off the top PSP banner, or a modified DS box art, which cuts off the banner and part of the art. Any input would be welcome. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Use the first release version. If they were released at the same time, use the most widely recognized image. If there is no consensus on which, then the first one placed should be used.じんない 18:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Both were released at the same time, and both were created recently as per the guidelines to use an image that doesn't identify itself to its platform of origin. As the PSP image does not cut off any part of the actual art while the DS image does, that is what should be used. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

And of the two modified images, the PSP box art was there first. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be many "list of character" pages needing cleanup, but one thing that caught my eye was the fact that there are a total of six individual character pages for the Suikoden series, one for each game and one for recurring characters (that ostensibly overlaps with the other lists). Now, this may be going just a bit overboard, especially since many character pages aren't referenced (since their only references come from the game transcript itself, or other related game media). Does anyone have any thoughts on some sort of guidelines to possibly trim down these lists or transwiki them to their respective Wikia wikis?--_ZXCVBNM 21:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

All of these could be combined into one character list, possible separate list for reoccurring characters assuming they meet WP:GNG. Most of the characters in a Suikoden game are unnotable.じんない 22:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't really looked at the lists, but I'm sure you'll encounter some upset fans. I'd read up on WP:What Wikipedia is not#PLOT and WP:Notability for guidelines that apply to this type of situation and how to respond to some angry users. Maybe take a look at Talk:Characters of Final Fantasy VIII and Talk:Characters of Kingdom Hearts to see some examples of the type of arguments you'll encounter and how to deal with them. You may also want to check out List of characters in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow for structure ideas. Hope it helps. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC))

For the upset fans, I'm sure directing them to the appropriate Wiki where they can detail the characters to their heart's content (e.g. Suikopedia) would assauge their concerns. I'm not sure how to reconcile having 2 lists (List of characters in the Suikoden series and List of recurring Suikoden characters), so I suppose the recurring characters could be merged into a single list article as well. Something I've noticed in the "Characters of FF8" article is that each character has development info alongside their in-game description, something that should be added to any notable character.--_ZXCVBNM 23:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

There are a few series that actually do have several lists. I would suggest to assume good faith for the list of reoccurring characters being notable unless you cannot find anything yourself before merging it.じんない 04:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering if it were possible to place pages whose AfDs result in 'Move to Wikia' in some sort of a buffer where they cannot be edited, linked to, viewed by anons etc., but can still be copied to the other wikis. There could be a time limit of say 1 week after which the pages get deleted for good. Secondly, is this a real issue that has actually come up, or am I worrying over nothing? SharkD (talk) 04:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

We could design a special template to warn users, but getting restrictions is probably out of the question. EDIT: Considering other areas might use it, this might be better discussed on WP:Village Pump.じんない 04:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

See Category:Wii games that use the Gamecube controller and Category:Wii Zapper games. Note: the Zapper category was up for deletion over a year ago, with a no consensus result. Do these need to exist? I see both as just trivia and cruft. While the information might be useful to some, it's still trivial and not very important overall. Both are just optional things for Wii games. I see it as overcategorization at best. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It's harder to judge whether categories are trivia or cruft, so I am inclined to say that they are OK to have around. Unless it's an obvious spam category like Category:Video games reviewed by the Angry Video Game Nerd, they should be fine, as long it's not OCAT or any sort of trivial intersection (which I don't think either are). MuZemike (talk) 07:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd say they are fine, since control method is a pretty large part of a game, especially when it comes to Wii, where the difference is noticable even to someone just watching someone play. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

These are definitely overcategorization, and should be deleted. Since control methods can differ over time, and many games have unique peripherals (for example, Guitar Hero controller, DK Jungle Beat bongas, etc.) making a category for every control scheme is an exercise in futility.--_ZXCVBNM 22:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Guitar Hero, and games like it, are a specific sub-genre themselves and thus do not need such categorization to begin with so the comparison is not so good. Better comparison would be Nintendo (original) games. Do we categorize games like Duck Hunt as requiring the use of the gun?じんない 04:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I put the controller category up for deletion, but not the Zapper one. I wasn't sure how to do a second nomination for CFD. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Further to the discussion of GOTY awards being notable - what about VGChartz' (the awards themselves, not nominations)?. I personally don't think it's particularly notable (IGN, Gamespot, Eurogamer etc ok, but a website that is primarly for reporting sales information?), and they did give Best Racing Game to Mario Kart Wii - Race Driver: Grid and Burnout Paradise were nowhere to be seen, which kinda makes me doubtful about the reliability of the authors themselves. But that's mostly just my POV. Thoughts? Thanks! Fin©™ 08:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC) - All too POV

Ignore that, I've had another user remind me that VGChartz isn't considred a reliable source, so that's probably enough reason to exclude. Thanks! Fin©™ 10:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The current proposal for a notability guideline for fiction is nearing completion, and we'd like to get a final round of comments on it to make sure it fully reflects community consensus inasmuch as it exists on this issue. Any comments you can provide at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction) are much appreciated. Thanks. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

And just to make things go smoothly for anyone who hasn't stuck their head in this issue, I strongly advise them to read the archives (or just browse through the most recent) to get a feel for "how we got here". --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Look at the Dreamcast VGA article, it has no real encyclopaedic value other than a short paragraph in the dreamcast article. I've started a merger proposal if people would like to take a gander and see.

Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 21:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see the enyclopedic value of making a page for hardware items of a console, this article would be equivalent of making one about "Wii Sensor Bar" or "Xbox Fan". It should be deleted and the content merged into the Dreamcast's "Hardware" section.--_ZXCVBNM 22:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Definitely should be merged, IMO. --Torsodog^Talk 22:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on these two articles but am having trouble finding references for the Development and Reception sections of both articles, mostly because they were released so long ago. I managed to find information for other Metroid articles like Super Metroid from obscure interviews published by defunct magazines, but I still can't find anything like that for these two games. If anyone has anything useful, please let me know. Ideally I'd like to eventually bring these articles to FA status, but considering the lack of references, GA might be the highest I can go. Thanks in advance! Gary King (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This article focuses on a really specific aspect of Metroid, but I thought it was interesting and memorable enough that I should make it available. Even if it's not development/deception, it does talk a lot about notable aspects of the game's design. Randomran (talk) 01:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that is an awesome starting off point. Thanks, I'll work on that. Gary King (talk) 01:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Research is actually something I'm great at. Just that RL is keeping me busy, and so I mostly try to help facilitate other discussions these days. But if you ever need any help with research, I can always give it my best shot. Randomran (talk) 02:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I just need Reception information for Metroid, pretty much. I've already got Reception for Metroid II done, from some old magazines and whatnot. But I can't find anything for Metroid, which is strange considering it was pretty darn good—especially compared to Metroid II! Gary King (talk) 02:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It's tougher for old games, because you really want to know how it was received then, not really how it's received now. But here's a few: [2] and [3]. There's bound to be something about the fact that it had a female protagonist, too. Randomran (talk) 02:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This too may help: [4]. If you want to toss Samus Aran into this mix too I can add some reception info into her article, she's one of the most recognizable female leads in gaming so there is a ton to work with.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, please write up the Reception for that article if you can, I'd appreciate that. Gary King (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Page 6 also has some info on Super Metroid. ~ Hibana 01:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Awesome, I'll get started on that one, too. So, looks like the FA goal is back on track! Gary King (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There is an edit war going on in the Super Mario Bros. article about whether the claim that it is the highest selling game of all time is still valid. There are 30 reliable sources that indicate that Wii Sports has dethroned it. So what's the problem...all those sources cite VGChartz, which, from what I understand is somewhere between "never reliable" and "possibly reliable in small, isolated instances if mentioning "VG Chartz reports...".

So, can you use a citation from a reliable source that depends on information from VG Chartz? Ever? In this case?LedRush (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I've run into this situation before. Without commenting directly on which game has sold more, this is how you resolve conflicting reliable sources:

• Ignore the minority point of view, and quote the majority
• Use both of them, but identify one as the minority point of view
• Ignore the more controversial, bold, expansive statement, and pick the more conservative, narrow, safe statement.
• Ignore all rules, and do the fact checking yourself. Ignore the one that's not true. (Normally, the standard isn't truth -- it's verifiability.)

Just the other day we removed an verified statement from Gamasutra, because most other sources didn't mention that statement, and most people felt the statement wasn't true. Randomran (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

VGChartz makes up fake info, lol. You should never reference from them.--_ZXCVBNM 19:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The "edit war" (sort of small) was really about adding this without a reference at all. between 7–8 Jan, an anon was adding this info with no ref and being reverted as such. Then today, the reverting user added the content he had been reverting because he found this source. I then reverted that, because that article mentions SMB falling to number two according to VGChartz and specifically questions its validity. I can't speak for the other 30 sources, but the PC World article seems to be a clear-cut case to me. Pagrashtak 19:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The talk page has had a cite to yahoo news for a while now. What do you think of that source?LedRush (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The information comes from VG Chartz, which is a dumb site, because it counts all Wii sales for Wii Sports, regardless of the fact that not all Wiis come with it. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

What? According to VC Chartz, Wii consoles sold 45,87 million, Wii Sports 41,33. Rhonin the wizard (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, VG Chartz has a history of far overestimating sales. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

A similar discussion is going on over at list of dowloadable songs for rockband 2. As I am saying there. USE COMMON SENSE. You cant use a source that is known to be unreliable, or proven wrong by other sources but claim, "This is a reliable source. Let common sense prevail and remove the inappropriate source and the content based on it. Sometimes you need to stop qouting guidelines (which BTW all have a prefix stating that they should be used with common sense and that there are always the exception). Follow the spirit of the guideline/policy, not always the literal meaning. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 19:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I just want to be clear...there are no conflicting reports at all. The problem is the 30 articles all cite VG Chartz (or nothing at all) when making the claim that Wii Sports has outsold SMB. For me, I'd use it just because I believe it is true and that it is indisputable that Wii Sports has/will supplant/ed SMB and some other sources are reliable sources. However, the guys on the SMB website have ignored the issue and just reverted each other so I thought I'd try to get an idea for what the VG project people thought before I inserted my opinion there.LedRush (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding something because you "believe" that it is true goes against WP:OR. You need to find a RELIABLE source (NPD, or something) that says that Wii Sports supplanted SMB. You say that you have other reliable sources, so using those instead of VG Chartz is fine.--_ZXCVBNM 22:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't preach WP policy to long-time editors, especially when you don't accurately portray his opinions: there was a second part of my statement. Also, you've ignored the central theme of my question...the reliable sources' info comes from VGChartz, hence the question above.LedRush (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but what I believe he was trying to say was that even if the "reliable source" cites an unreliable source, the source should be derived from the original source, e.g. the unreliable one. Even though the reliable source "takes responsibility", we know that most of these gaming websites don't do any research (or mark it as a rumor) when they have a copypasta from another website.--_ZXCVBNM 00:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification and the help.LedRush (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If they had quoted say a less known website that did not seem to do that, then it's perfectly fine, because they are "taking responsibility" on a site we have no knowledge of. This is how journalism and secondary research work. The difference is we know VGChartZ cooks it charts so all it does it make the reliable source look less reliable.じんない 00:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

We have to be somewhat careful here - we do not want to make a policy that when reliable sources cite unreliable sources, they are not reliable. That would get rid of any research that deals with blogs, forums, or other unreliable sources.

On the other hand, we do need to recognize that reliable sources still make mistakes, and when they are caught in an obvious mistake like using what we know to be bad sales data, we shouldn't repeat the error.

In this case, I would not dethrone SMB, as there are not yet reliable sources for the Wii's sales having surpassed SMB's sales, little yet for Wii Sports (since its Japanese sell-through is surely not 100%) Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's the way I look at it—you always want to cite the source directly. That is, if a book has a quote from a magazine that you want to source, you need to find the magazine if you can and reference it instead of the book. If you're quoting a source that reads (according to Source B, ....) then you should reference Source B instead. The Yahoo! article begins. "According to game-tracking website VGChartz...", with that link included. So you'd typically want to reference the root source. Now, would you use [5] as a reference? Pagrashtak 14:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Can I get more opinions on this matter? I removed the Fallout series category from the Wasteland article because Fallout is just a spiritual successor to Wasteland and are two different IPs. Then User:Markvs88 reverted the change because he thinks Fallout series has enough references to Wasteland for it be a part of the series. Discussion is in here. --Mika1h (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, they're only tangenially related. Still worth a mention in the articles though (some characters/locations from Wasteland are mentioned/alluded to in Fallout). SharkD (talk) 05:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, the producer of both games is also the same. SharkD (talk) 08:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there any way we could get the Quality/Importance table on the main project page to display changes over the last week or so (and also keep a record over longer time periods)? I'd be interested to know how the many categories change/grow over time. SharkD (talk) 05:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully. Though, i'm still waiting for someone to fix them template so slecting "rated" will actually go to the right page... Posted it on the template talk page a week after they took effect...じんない 06:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Like this? It only keeps track of quality, not importance, though. Gary King (talk) 14:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Importance is tracked, along with renamings and deletions. I don't know why some are in bold and others not though. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC))

Ah yeah, importance in brackets. The stuff in bold have either been renamed on that day or moved. Gary King (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That's too detailed, I think. I'd rather have a table, like the existing one for our project. And, the list is sorted by date/article name instead of importance/quality. I just want to see the +/- changes in the importance/quality categories. SharkD (talk) 00:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't we make it customizable to sort by either?じんない 01:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. If you look at the current table used for listing importance/quality data you'll see that changing it to a sortable table has little benefit. SharkD (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way to find out, say, all Start-class, High-importance articles? There's a category for each, but they don't overlap.--_ZXCVBNM 19:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I've already asked CBM at User_talk:CBM#Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team.2FVideo_game_articles_by_quality_statistics. Gary King (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

How about specifically editing the Wikiproject Video Games template so that it places the articles in overlapping categories - say, "Category:C-Class, Mid-importance articles" alongside single categories, e.g. "Category:Mid-importance articles"?--_ZXCVBNM 21:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

That is required for the request I made to work; here's the edit I made to Template:WikiProject Economics to make it work. Gary King (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, something like this is what I had in mind. SharkD (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I doubt there's going to be a simple or automated method of tabulating such data; the most straight-foward method is quick and dirty page history browsing. A bot updates Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Video game articles by quality statistics every couple of days, so that's where the data comes from. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The bot could just compare the data from the data that it submitted the last time. Gary King (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, but do we have to get bots to do everything? Statistics are only fun when someone slaves over them :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be best if the bot kept its own record of the data, as parsing the table itself is needlessly expensive. Further, it would be nice to have/link to a page corresponding to each table cell that lists in detail the additions/subtractions to each category. SharkD (talk) 03:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

[6] - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably not; there is no associated license for it. VentureBeat also uses a blanket copyright: "© 2004-2009(c) Matt Marshall. All rights reserved." Gary King (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You can always try contacting the copyright holders and asking for a free license, then forward to OTRS. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we get a bot to assess all lists to low priority? I just spent today and yesterday manually doing this. Considering unlike other items, there is no level of higher value for lists on the new scale this would not be contentious move and would free up time I spent doing this myself for other pursuits.じんない 21:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that Titan 2.0 be merged with Titan (game engine). See Lithtech for a comparable article. SharkD (talk) 05:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I merged the two articles. However, the screenshot doesn't have a rationale. Can you use a screenshot to showcase an engine, or should it just be removed/moved to the Caesar IV article?--_ZXCVBNM 17:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The ((vgrationale)) template has an "platform" parameter so that an image can be used to showcase hardware/software capabilities. SharkD (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I added the above rationale to the image. SharkD (talk) 05:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Utsusu Made in Wario
• Touhoku Daigaku Karei Igaku Kenkyuujo Kawashima Ryuta Kyouju Kanshuu Chotto Nou wo Kitaeru Otona no DSi Training

General cleanup and fact-finding would be nice, but the biggest thing I'd like is if any of you guys would help translate the following pages:

For the first article:

• I would like to milk some more information for this article

For the second:

• I need to take as much relevant information from this, specifically the names and descriptions of the new puzzles

Any help is appreciated. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Because I found the template on The Force Unleashed, a tad ugly, I decided to create a better (in my opinion) option for the reception section.

The template ((Video game multiple console reviews)) is a new template, which is a little complex but as simple as I could make it. You can see it in use at Quantum of Solace (video game).

The template is finished but there are quite possibly errors, so I would like if you find any errors to alert me and I will fix them ASAP. I hope fellow users will use this, I do plan to convert the Force Unleashed over soon. Thankyou.  The Windler talk  07:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

While we all appreciate the work you put in it, this is going overboard some. Review templates are already thought by many to be unnecessary, and by making it even larger, it's also becoming obstructive to the actual prose. I mean, why can't people visit Game Rankings to find the score of their games? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

With video game review boxes, the most important rule, in my opinion, is to use every review mentioned in the box in the prose somewhere. Otherwise, remove it. Gary King (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

May I ask, where can I find the discussion(s) which back this up "Review templates are already thought by many to be unnecessary". I'm not trying to be rude, but it undoubtedly been discussed before. And both templates use the collapsable feature, why don't you force the template to be hidden from the start and only shown if click to shown. Thats an option, because I feel that they are a neccessary part of article/reception section.  The Windler talk  03:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 48#Metacritic and GR scores in both table and prose, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 55#Food for thought: Getting rid of review tables, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 59#Proposal regarding reception sections for examples. Jappalang (talk) 06:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

After reading through those examples, there seems to be mixed consensus. While there are strong pushs by some reviewers giving reasons why they should be abolished or cut down to just aggragate scores, there are just as many rebuttles. I don't think it's over-whelming consensus. I have to agree that to many reviews can clutter and bias is a problem. But with so many video game pages, it's going to be hard to suddenly change them all. Although the use of ((VG reviews)) could simplify that. I don't know if that template is universally used or tables are created manually in some articles. But I still believe they have a purpose, and should be used (in moderation) but also believe that they should be automatically un-collapsed that is they are not expanded when the page is first opened and can be explanded. That will only disturb the (more important) prose a tiny little bit.  The Windler talk  09:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have created a comparison here of Star Wars TFU reception table at User:SpecialWindler/Sandbox.  The Windler talk  04:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Arb. Break: Dealing with multi-platform releases

There is a good question raised here and I've seen no easy way to answer it, is what we do about multi-console releases at the same time (e.g. not long-in-coming ports such as Chrono Trigger DS or Okami Wii, but something like Rock Band 2 Wii would be the same as Rock Band 2 360/PS3). Trying to list even the big 4 reviews (gamespot, gamespy, ign, 1up) for 4 consoles weighs down the table. My opinion is that to avoid spamming the review table, only one of the 360 or PS3 review scores should be noted score-wise (and staying consistent across the table) but if there are significant issues or benefits that arise on the other reviews, that review should obviously be included (e.g. "Wii waggle controls were no replacement for a normal controller").

Long-in-coming ports, however, should be different, usually as they are treated as a separate release by reviewers and thus should have a separately considered set of scores. Whether this is a new table or in the current one, that's fine, though completeness and consistency are important here: if you have a Gamespot review of the original release, then you should have a Gamespot review of the new port. --MASEM 14:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's another possible solution: why not make it so that the table only shows one column by default, but can be expanded (or better yet, "flipped") horizontally to show all the columns? This method seems to work OK for navboxes. Not sure if anyone has as of yet written any "flipping" scripts, though. SharkD (talk) 03:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean columns or rows? I don't quite understand, could you use an example?  The Windler talk  04:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Columns. Only one column would appear by default. The user would then click a button or link to scroll to the next or previous column. This would be a pretty complicated table. You'd have to give it some thought as to how to best approach doing it. For JavaScript-disabled browsers it would have to revert to something readable as well (probably to the current format that we see now). SharkD (talk) 04:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It would probably also require changes to "wikibits.js", which is a pain because you have to go through Bugzilla to have the changes implemented, and work on Bugzilla tends to proceed very slowly. SharkD (talk) 04:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I've come up with an example script and am discussing it here. SharkD (talk) 09:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Recently began editing Darkfall. Is a countdown site (displays a JavaScript counter with the limit set at the published release date) considered acceptable for external links? One was added in this edit yesterday. Cheers, Basie (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Should be removed Gary King (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Gary's right. External links are meant to provide extra information not found in the article. With a release date already in the article, it does not do that, and is more of a novelty than new content. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC))

Mmm... (frozen) novelties... --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Now I'm hungry :( Thanks guys. Cheers, Basie (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm no image expert, so I thought I'd get some clarification. File:AlAlcorn.jpg and File:Ralphbaer.jpg are free images on Wikimedia Commons. Am I correct in assuming it would be alright to upload a cropped version of their faces to Wikipedia for use in Pong? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC))

There's a special template that indicates that you modified the file on commons, but yes, you can. --MASEM 04:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool thanks. Got a link for that template? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 05:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC))

I do not think there is a specific template required for this; you have to link it back to the original image for verification anyways. Aside from that, just state that the new image file is cropped, or use the ((retouched)) template . Jappalang (talk) 06:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You could have uploaded those on Commons, so that other Wikipedias could use it... Jean-Frédéric (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a Commons account. Do you not need one to upload images there? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC))

You do have one (with the same name to boot). Since the drive for a Unified account, each user name has an account at other projects (the projects involved are shown in the icons displayed as you log in). Jappalang (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Huh, who knew? Well obviously Jappalang, and I'm sure some others too, but I digress. Anyway, how do I get them moved over to Commons? Is there a bot that can do this if I tag the images? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC))

The instructions are given in Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons, specifically Transferring your own images to the Commons. Jappalang (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Files are now on Commons. [7] and [8] (Guyinblack25 ^talk 01:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC))

I need a screenshot of this to demonstrate the mechanic in some articles. Preferably, the image should have a game in it that requires the sideways view. Doesn't matter if it's DS, DS Lite, or DSi. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Something like this? But, it'll be fair use if you are asking for a game to be shown. Gary King (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Holding GHOT front.jpg is already used for Guitar Hero On Tour; dunno if the Guitar Grip distracts from it... --MASEM 22:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Will it? I thought that if the purpose was to show the DS itself being played in this way, it constitutes a free image. If not, I suppose I can do without the game. But yeah, that is what I mean in that picture.

And I saw the GHOT pic, but that's what I thought, that the Guitar Grip would feel off in showing the mechanic and distract the reader from the purpose of the picture. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll see if I can take one tonight after work. Just to clarify, do you want one with or without a game playing? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC))

Well, if displaying a game would make it not free use, then without. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Holding-NDS-sideways.jpg. There you go. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC))

Oh, and something that's somewhat relevant: I'm having a terribly difficult time understanding what the heck the top three puzzles listed on this page are saying. Can anyone explain it (Google translate just makes it sound like babble)? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated List of Metal Gear Solid characters for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks, where editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.じんない 21:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I propose a merge of Tomb Raider and Tomb Raider: Anniversary, as Anniversary is simply a re-make of the former. I won't waste time explaining here, as there is already a discussion going on. I am simply listing this here because I can't get a thorough enough discussion with it just being listed on the two article's talk pages. So please participate, and please read all of the comments prior to yours if you plan to comment. I don't want to have the same discussion twice. Thanks in advance. --The Guy _complain ^edits 00:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to repair a dead link to a site written in the greek language. As this could be considered an official site (the publisher of the game) I think it fits criteria for external links even though it's not in english. However, I'm having trouble navigating. Anyone who could help, please see Talk:Darkfall#Audio_Visual_Enterprises_SA:_anyone_speak_greek.3F. Thanks, Basie (talk) 01:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Worst case scenerio, you can always try google translate if it's just a navigation issue.じんない 09:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, you could use this little site. I heard about it learning Spanish.-Warriorscourge (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me check it.--Michael X the White (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It's actually here. Gary King (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

A little bit back I did a ham-fisted cut-and-paste merge of AV Family Computer and NES 2, and renamed it Top-loading NES. The reason for the rename is that it never was known as the NES 2, but it was commonly called the Toploader (the official title is simply "Nintendo Entertainment System Control Deck", like the other one). As Toploader is an ambiguous title, and there is an article there anyways, I chose Top-loading NES. Now someone seems (overly) upset, so if people would come and voice opinions that'd be swell. I absolutely don't care which title it ends up at, as it should really be merged into NES or the "history of the NES" article anyway, but I'd rather not deal with the fanboys. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 00:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Since I'm a mergist, I would suggest merging it into the NES article anyway. But NES 2 sounds better than any of the other titles ("Toploader" is slang, and "Top-loading NES" is a description rather than a name", so if you're not going to merge, you should keep it there.--_ZXCVBNM 02:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely cannot see the need for the NES 2 to have a separate article. It's just a redesign, it barely deserves more than a paragraph. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I won't stand in the way - thought it should probably be merged into History of the Nintendo Entertainment System more than NES, I would think. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 03:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree. Maybe a paragraph or even a (sub)section under Nintendo Entertainment System and History of the Nintendo Entertainment System, but nothing much more. MuZemike 19:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Masebrock moved List of Sega Mega Drive games to List of Sega Mega Drive and Genesis games. This needs to be reverted per Talk:List of Sega Mega Drive and Genesis games#Requested move discussion. We have talked about it before and it was recommend against doing such a title. Govvy (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Can some people weigh in on this article's talk page? There is a consensus to move the article, but not where to move it. The 2 choices decided are "0 Story" (the title used on the games website) or "Love Story (video game)" (since the "Ø" is supposed to represent the word "love"). TJ Spyke 04:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Alastairward doesn't believe the sources in Talk:Real-time tactics#Cites accurately reflect the article. He thinks they're talking about something else. I'd like help explaining to him that the articles are talking about the same thing. I'm having trouble making it clear that the topics are the same. SharkD (talk) 07:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Based on a recent discussion, which is based on other discussions, I am proposing a redesigned WP:Gaming Collaboration of the Week. Here's how it will work.

1. The collabortaion will focus on High and Top priority articles that are rated Stub, Start or C class. This gives us over 420 articles to choose from.
2. The goal of the collabortion will be B-class or better.
3. A bot chooses an article at random from set group of rating categories. There is no more voting and red-tape, and nobody knows what the article is before the article is chosen.

Removing the stress of nomination and voting will reduce frustration, and make participation the focus, not bureaucracy (this isn't an RfA). The random nature will make it more fun, as part of it is wondering which article will be chosen. As the goal isn't FA, there's no real pressure; just make the article better! If people aren't interested in participating for a week or two (this is the big part), the bot won't care. The bot gets no bruised feelings or frustrations, the bot never says "What is the point!?!? Nobody cares anymore.... :(". The bot will trudge on. We already have a bot volunteer.

There may be other ways to do this and have it work, but there are already 4 inactive projects (not including /Cleanup) in WP:VG subspace. This bot-driven process makes it easy for every human involved, and maybe this time it can actually thrive.

I'd like for people to voice their opinions. I personally think it's a good idea, and hopefully others do to. I'd rather not have a poll, but we can do that if need be. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 03:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone should just run a bot that follows the rules you have laid out and we should see what comes out. I'd like to see what article it chooses. Gary King (talk) 03:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The only problem with it is that it could potentially pick something that's (a) hard to research and (b) most people don't know/care about. I think a certain amount of randomness is healthy, and we shouldn't waste time with too many votes. But we also don't want to trap or discourage ourselves with hard work. It's a volunteer project, and should be fun. Randomran (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the best bet would be for people to suggest articles, and then the main part where we use a bot rather than people is when we choose which of the suggested articles we work on; instead of voting on it or having one person pick it, we let a bot randomize it. Gary King (talk) 03:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There are probably better ways to implement this idea. The point is that all revival attempts have died off because people can't agree on all of the details and lose interest. This idea is simple and very easy (one random call and a few edits a week for a bot). We can always make it more complicated as it goes along, but surely High/Top articles that are below B-class need improvement no matter what. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 03:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) I think that the Top and High categories should be pruned first, but the benefit of having a week is that if people don't like it, a new one will be there in a week. We could also set up some sort of "Re-roll" or something. Also, I meant to say the aim is B-class, not the goal. The goal is simply improvement. And I do think it's fair to say that we should try to get all the top/high articles at-or-above B, even if nobody likes them. That's actually what is good about this, is it might draw attention to important (to the project) articles that people aren't usually interested in, or that researching is difficult. No matter what, it'll be more fun than the voting-version. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 03:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we should ignore High-importance articles and just focus on the Top-importance ones first. Even a few High-importance ones shouldn't be rated High-importance, at least I think so (considering the category is so big, there are bound to be a few in there that don't belong). Top-importance, however, is more focused and so there are quite a few that really do deserve to be in there. Gary King (talk) 03:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It should really focus on getting the entire Top priority section up to GA-class first. Then, move to the High-priority articles and pick from a random list consisting of stubs (of which there are 54) and start-class articles (of which there are 282).--_ZXCVBNM 04:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we should have it focus on video games, however, rather than consoles or genres etc. -The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It should be indiscriminate, otherwise it defeats the point of randomization to avoid voting. However, if there's a consensus that the page doesn't deserve a COTW for some reason (mis-marked, etc.), then the bot should pick a different one.--_ZXCVBNM 04:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If games, then the problem is none of the Top-importance articles are games, and as I said, I don't consider all of the High-importance games to actually deserve that importance level. I'm sure a lot of those games don't interest a wide range of people; some of them have been release in the past few years! I'd consider games that were released in the 1980s and 1990s to have a much bigger impact, such as Super Mario Bros., which I would agree to work on. Gary King (talk) 04:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at the bottom-left of Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Video game articles by quality statistics. Removing High priority games would limit the article choices to less than 40 (there are only 47 total Top priority articles). While it is certainly an option, this would reduce the randomness of the process, which I think is part of the appeal. We should just go through Category:High-priority video game articles and remove the obviously mis-rated articles. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 04:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Assessment#Importance_Scale, and after giving it some thought, I'm baffled that there are no Top-importance video game articles or series. I'd think that something like Mario (series) is deserving of Top-importance? Instead of weeding out High-importance, which would take a long time, I think we should focus on populating Top-importance a bit further. Gary King (talk) 04:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

(undenting) I think we should do both of those things anyways, no matter the outcome of this discussion. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 04:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It turns out that Mario (series) was indeed Top-importance until only a few weeks ago. So from what I understand, we have to discuss first before adding articles to Top-importance, which I think is fine. We should have that discussion in another section. Gary King (talk) 04:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Pruning the ratings system can be done separately, but if there's a page that doesn't deserve the collaboration, it can always be voted off by consensus.--_ZXCVBNM 04:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

We can make a "re-roll" template that can be placed somewhere, and if there are like 5 # votes underneath, the bot can re-roll. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 04:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It should be kept simple; everyone just says Support or Oppose, and then an involved person will determine consensus after a day or two. Gary King (talk) 04:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, then template can be placed to get the bots attention at that point. Which makes sense, because if several people are interested in improving an article, it shouldn't be changed just because others aren't. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 04:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

How about this: on the first day, 2 pages are chosen, one for this week and one for next week. Then, we can vote on both pages, and then each successive page a week in advance.--_ZXCVBNM 04:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not a bad idea, but I was really hoping to avoid any kind of voting. I think an article should only be removed if the importance scale is off, that way get fun ones and tough ones, but they all need improving. If people aren't excited about the article, they just don't edit it much that week. Also, that would remove the "lottery" aspect, which is part of the appeal, to me at least. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 04:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I stay stick with what the bot decides, even if it leaves us with an article where the only changes we can make are spelling and formatting it will still mean that we have improved aspects of an article that may have just lain their unattended. - X201 (talk) 09:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

As long as there is a way to make certain 1 article doesn't get picked 4/6 weeks in a row because of the "random" nature. Some kind of exclusion should be added for ones that have been done within the last month.じんない 04:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully, the exclusion is the fact that their article rating has increased. But in the off chance that it's rejected, it should be excluded off the bat by changing its article rating. If the article rating remains, then 2 months or earlier if someone submits a formal petition.--_ZXCVBNM 04:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The project template says if an article has already been GCotW, and we won't choose those articles again. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

So after we run out of Top, and I assume High, are we going to move down to Mid?じんない 05:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It will be probably 500 weeks down the line, but sure :). We have to assume that other articles will be added to the categories as we progress, so I don't know that we'll ever get to Mid... ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thinking more on it, I think New Age Retro Hippie has a point. Category:Top-priority video game articles is filled with articles that would be lame to collaborate on, and many already have been. There are hardly any games in there. So I'd strongly suggest that we stick with Top and High, that way we run a lower chance of getting a boring article every week. Variety is the spice of life, and all that. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I put together Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Collaboration of the week/Proposed, which is my thinking of how this should start. If it needs to get more complicated then we can do that at the time. Just please take a look and comment here. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said, sure, a lot of High-importance stuff is boring; I don't disagree with that. But a long of games, series, and characters definitely deserve Top-importance status, which is what we should also discuss. Also, who's actually going to be the one to write a bot to do all this? If no one wants to do it, I could perhaps give it a go; all it really needs to do is take articles from a category and then grab a random one. I'll watch that new CotW page. And, there seems to be two general camps: one that feels we should work on something abstract like Real-time strategy or First-person shooter, while others want to work on a game like Super Mario Bros. Ultimately, I think all individual games should be excluded as those are too easy for a group of people to work on; we gotta focus on the articles that a single person is less likely to take on, which is typically the abstract stuff, and perhaps video game series as well, especially Mario (series). If it is necessary, we might also have to change the genre of the article we work on every month (something FPS-related, something RTS-related, etc.) to involve more people. Gary King (talk) 14:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

See the previous discussion we had about VG importance - basically deciding that articles at Top should be there to specifically establish what the VG industry is - thus defining the key companies and people, the basic history of the field, and fundamental game genres - instead of trying to define it by the games themselves (very important games should fall into the various genres anyway, so they're one-off from these articles). --MASEM 15:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. I like the idea of getting a bot to take care of all the boring stuff though, as that's a driving reason as to why these things grew stale in the first place. My only real comments are that we obviously need a different name (seeing as it was agreed upon earlier that we should use a 2-4 week period instead of a week) and we just need to remove any of the bureaucracy involved in the previous efforts (I noticed you added a link to removed nominations). I was thinking that a link to a version of the old GCOTW in the history would be appropriate for those who are curious, and redirecting all three previous efforts to the new one. I also think we should create a parameter for the ((WikiProject Video games)) template for currently chosen collaboration pages (maybe convert the existing one), so we don't need to slap useless templates all over it. I suppose we can deal with that stuff later though. Top and High importance articles seems like the way to go. I agree that we need a good variety to choose from, and these articles definitely need to be of the highest quality possible. --.:Alex:. 17:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Randomly selected articles separated by Importance

Okay, so I quickly whipped up a script that will randomly select any number of articles from any category. Here are the results for our importance levels:

At the moment, article classes are not taken into account by the script. We can do that manually for now. Thoughts? Gary King (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

How about we start with History of video game consoles (third generation) and continue from there? Not to mention being the first chosen by the script, it's also important, Start-class and in serious need of cleanup.--_ZXCVBNM 17:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I support having a random choice from a mixture of top, high, and mid-class articles for variety's sake.--_ZXCVBNM 17:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Here are ten randomly selected Top/High/Mid-importance articles (in two columns).:

At the moment, I suspect most of these are Mid-importance because there are more of those, so chances are better that they will be chosen. Gary King (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Now we have to narrow them down to the Start- and Stub- class articles, and weed out some others. For example, is DcVD really medium priority? I'd put it at low priority since it's a proprietary media only for a single system. And OverClocked ReMix is B-class so it doesn't really merit a collaboration.--_ZXCVBNM 18:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's a list of Top/High-importance articles, a list which I very much prefer as I don't think a lot of people will be interested in some Mid-importance articles:

Gary King (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Not just that, Mario Tennis (video game) really doesn't meat the new criteria of a mid-level video game as it did not "[a]chieved wide commercial success, [was] critically acclaimed or had a wide sub-culture effect outside of their country of origin" and i've reassessed it to low.じんない 19:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I hate to repeat myself from the previous discussion, but I really feel we should avoid collaborating on articles on games (I'd be more amiable towards a series article, but those are easy too with well written individual game articles). My main thought is that an article about a game is more likely to draw an interested editor or fan, while that is much less likely for a genre article. On the other hand, it's also easier to find information on a particular game (especially the more popular ones are bound to have a fansite/forum somewhere), while a comprehensive and factual explanation of the evolution of real-time strategy or role-playing games is much harder to find (if not nonexistant) and therefore more valuable. So, in keeping with the idea of randomly selected articles, why not just get limited to top importance once? There's still enough to choose from for the forseeable future.

BTW, we also talked about extending the collaboration period as a way to drum up interest, but I see you guys are again mentioning just one week (or I just misread as I was skimming through, in which case I'm sorry!) - I would say a whole month would be a better idea, especially if we focus on the more "core" articles. Also, why stop at B-Class? I'd shoot for A-class at least, if not even FA or close to it. Half-baked improvement efforts generally don't mean much in the long run (though some of those articles are SO bad anything would be better). --VPeric (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with going for a whole month is that it's easier for people to lose interest, and the project would move slow as a snail with no time incentive to improve the articles. If there's an article that a certain editor dislikes, they'll probably leave forever. Also, though the minimum goal is B-class, the maximum goal is, of course, A-class.--_ZXCVBNM 20:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on only focusing on Top-importance articles, as those could really benefit from a group of people rather than an individual. Gary King (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well top importance ones below FA status.じんない 20:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is a given :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned at the top of my post, the bot has already volunteered. I hadn't read any discussion except the last one, so if we want to do two weeks, that works, though I don't see the need with the bot system. Sticking to Top priority is a bad idea, as they are boring, and it eliminates the randomization. This isn't a forced-labor camp, and most editors won't want to edit boring articles week after week.

I'm going to step away from this, as I'm just not interested in debating the details. Feel free to change or edit whatever you want, if you can agree on anything. I don't know why everyone needs to nitpick instead of being supportive; that's why no previous discussion got anywhere. This is why I made the simplest proposal I could think of, if you want to keep debating it, go ahead. Remember that you can always work out the details as you go along, you don't have to talk it to death before it gets born. If anyone thinks that editors will be interested in a month of editing the least-interesting articles, be my guest. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 17:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

GET ON WITH IT!--_ZXCVBNM 18:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Jump start proposal

Alright then, someone needs to grab the reins now and take action or we'll be back at square one again. In the interests of moving things along, here's what I propose we should do now. I think that we should at least get the ball rolling by setting it all up, and adjusting it from there (rather than continue to deliberate). I was thinking that a larger time frame might not be necessary now that the super-time-consuming red tape is gone. Proposal: Each article collaboration will run for a week but the actual time frame will be made flexible so if it isn't sufficient, it can be adjusted as and when we need to. At least give this time frame a trial period, if anything, because if someone doesn't like the chosen article they only need to wait a week before something else comes along. We'll use the bot to pick Top and High importance articles, to give us a nice mixture of genre/designer/company and video game articles to work on. The whole point of the bot in the first place is for things to be completely random, and picking one out of 46 very similar articles isn't terribly random, or much fun. Plus we can appeal to everyone, as every type of VG article has a chance of being selected. Every Monday, or whatever, it can update the appropriate templates automatically, and we can just get on with it. Yea or Nay? --.:Alex:. 20:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Just do it; I'll help out, whatever happens. Gary King (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine. I'll start working on it now. Are we overhauling the GCOTW page or just making a "/Collaboration" subpage of WP:VG? --.:Alex:. 20:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If we want things to run longer, maybe it might be best to have 2 weeks with 2 projects worked on at the same time?じんない 20:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Right I'm just going to move it all to a subpage so the time frame remains flexible. --.:Alex:. 20:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Overhaul the GCOTW, why leave it lying around and useless?--_ZXCVBNM 20:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I have. I was just thinking of moving it, or redirecting it or something. I'll definitely redirect the other two to wherever it's to be at. ETA: I've completed the page here. Edit mercilessly as you guys wish. --.:Alex:. 21:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well kinda poking in here, but if you guys are really interested in something to collaborate on, I would like to offer up Big Daddy (BioShock). It's just Mid-priority, but only needs the lead, gameplay and promotion sections fleshed out, which should be easy for a group to come up with. I just bored after writing the rest and figured it'd be a shame to leave it unfinished and below A-class.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Erm...has everyone abandoned it again?--_ZXCVBNM 04:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

With the discussion at Tomb Raider: Anniversary we have someone claiming that despite it being just a remake, it deserves it's own article despite having no evidence that it shows significant changes that deviate; indeed other remakes that have been noted have had more changes them yet, are merged.じんない 03:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This isn't really telling the whole story. Other articles covering remakes do exist happily, all of which are sustainable despite sharing the core gameplay/plot of the original material. Throwing a blanket over all remakes and saying "these should be covered in vague detail in another article" is entirely unhelpful. The fact a video game shares its plot and elements of its gameplay with is irrelevant. The article in question here is viable, with substantial coverage in 60-odd reliable sources provided in the discussion to create the decent development and reception sections required of a good article. If proper sources were not available, then a merge would be prudent, but they are. Something like the 1984 remake of King's Quest: Quest for the Crown most likely does not have the sources available, and thus makes more sense to merged. There's also more than one person disgreeing with the merge: out of the seven people currently involved on the discussion, five are against merging. -- Sabre (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget this, this, this, and this. Remakes are not inherently non-notable. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with some of the comments above. Something like this should be decided on a case by case basis. The most applicable guideline would be WP:Notability. So if good amount of reliable sources exist for an article of reasonable quality, then I see no reason not keep them separate.

Personally though, I'd have to say a separate article would require decent sized development and reception sections. For example, there's plenty of sources available now for a reception section of the PS2 remake of Kingdom Hearts: Chain of Memories, but virtually nothing for development. For that reason, I would oppose a split there. But something like Super Mario 64 DS was eventually merged after a lengthy time of no improvement. I worked up a draft online and then split it back out when it could survive on its own.

My long-winded point is that this doesn't have to be the cause of a dispute. Both parties can give some leeway. Those supporting the merge can give the other side a week or so to improve the article. If they can't improve the article enough, then the article gets merged. They can still work on the article offline or in a draft. Once it's improved enough, the merge can be undone. That's the beauty of a wiki, few edits are definite and final. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

I would have to agree that additional content is warranted before articles be split, as per Wikipedia:Summary style. SharkD (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure there really needs to be a separate article for a remake. The issue isn't so much about notability as it is about organization. Why are we going to split the effort and quality into two tiers? We should have one great article, with two subsections on reception. Splitting it into two articles can really interfere with quality. The exception would be if the gameplay really deviates. Randomran (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd hardly say it really interferes with quality. Take a look at Super Mario 64 and Super Mario 64 DS, released ten years apart and without radically different gameplay, but both are now perfectly respectable articles: one is an FA and one is a GA. The exact same relationship between the articles can exist with a number of remakes that have the sources available to make it happen; Tomb Raider Anniversary in this case has the sources to create a proper article like Super Mario 64 DS does. -- Sabre (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The gameplay is different, though. To me, that's the standard to apply. If the gameplay is basically identical, there's no need for a separate article... and it can even lead to a WP:content fork that's either inconsistent, or of a lower quality. I'm speaking in the abstract here, but it looks like the Tomb Raider anniversary edition would meet that standard too -- it's taking advantage of new features, such as Wii controls. Randomran (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the remake article should focus on the differences from the original more than features it has as a single game. And to be honest, if the gameplay is completely identical, it is hard to call it remake. However, I can't really think of any game that is like that. Most remakes bring some new feature or change to the table. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

I guess that's the difference between a port and a remake. I'm thinking we should we add something to WP:VGSCOPE -- we don't need a separate article for ports, but we do sometimes have separate articles for remakes if there is more than a trivial difference in gameplay? Randomran (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

What would constitute a level that would deem it better to have a separate article? Look at King's Quest: Quest for the Crown. The remake radically altered the gameplay, in addition to many non-gameplay elements, far more than anything listed above, even Super Mario 64. The remake itself is notable for being one of the games that causes Sierra Entertainment to stop remakes (which is published in older magazine print articles). What then makes those games listed above worthy of split, but not something like this game?じんない 22:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that what I was just talking about? If it's a remake that has non-trivial changes to gameplay, then having a separate article is appropriate. It it's just a remake with a few trivial button and menu changes, it's more like a port, and we can cover that at the main article. Randomran (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should base forking on some arbitrary criteria (usually dealing with minutiae anyway) of how "different" two games are. Rather it should be based on the amount of content that can be written that is different from what is written for the first game. SharkD (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That's also a bad way of doing it as well and could actively promote violations with WP:PEACOCK.じんない 23:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Aren't we talking about the same thing? If two games are different, there's going to be enough content to write two articles. If two games are basically the same except for the platform and the release date, you're going to end up with two articles that cover basically the same ground in different words... with only a few minor facts that are different (e.g.: controller configuration, menus). Randomran (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we're going to come up with a catch all guideline for something like this. If we include a mention in our guidelines, it should encourage discussion and research among the interested editors, and discourage edit warring. Like most things, it's best to just provide sources to demonstrate notability and enough content existing to warrant an article. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

That I have done at Talk:Tomb: Raider Anniversary, I've posted the source listings on Metacritic and Game Rankings, which give around 60 reviews to work with on a reception section, assuming there's overlap between the two. Obviously not all of those would be used in a properly written reception section, but it provides a good example of the coverage the game has received. A quick search of IGN and GameSpot for the PC version alone also turn up plenty of articles to create a development section. A more detailed search of all platforms will yield only more information, probably with extra commentary on technology and the like. If needs be (as there's always the chance no-one who regularly edits the Tomb Raider articles will do it) I'll rewrite the article myself when I've got a free moment, much like Guyinblack did for Super Mario 64 DS, though I'll have to play it first: I don't like writing articles on things I haven't any first-hand knowledge of. -- Sabre (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that lots of remakes are notable, even if there is no real content to write a distinct article. For example, you might have two different console-specific magazines covering two different versions of essentially the same game, with the same release date, and the same gameplay. But I guess common sense and discussion has led us towards a good path thus far. In general, when someone proposes a merge of a game and a remake, it's usually assessed on its own merits. But let's keep our eyes open if this starts to be a recurring debate. Guidelines are meant to avoid this kind of repetitive debate. Randomran (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how WP:PEACOCK is relevant, here. The splitting of an article is of course also dependant upon the demonstrated notability of the topic. SharkD (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Because those wishing to split will tend to trumpet the differences beyond what is reasonable level of coverage to support the need for a separate article, rather than a separate section. Statements like "storyline is radically different" when it might be that an extra dungeon or subquest was added, that minor changes to locations or names were altered, but have no impact on the storyline as a whole, that gameplay was "radically altered" when some buttons were remapped or a new feature was added where you could skip cutscenes or the like or enhanced graphics make it worthy on its own because its more visually stunning.じんない 00:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Example of a game with two remakes that offered little or no change from its original (with expansions): Ninja Gaiden (2004 video game) (with Black and Sigma). The core gameplay remained the same, aside from the tweaks to the weapons and enemies. Major difference would be a mission mode, but that is not enough to make it a substantial difference. Jappalang (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

[9] Does an image need three licenses if they're all applicable? Evaunit♥666♥ 18:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the first two and only kept the third. Gary King (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

[Shortened title] Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Tōhoku Daigaku Karei Igaku Kenkyūjo Kawashima Ryuta Kyōju Kanshū Chotto Nō o Kitaeru Otona no DSi Training Could I get some input on this? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Should gimp (computer role-playing games) and nerf (computer games) be merged into a single article, and if so, what should it be called? I say this because they are practically synonyms, except for the fact that a "gimp" can refer to a character as well as "gimped", while "nerf" is only a verb or adjective.--_ZXCVBNM 02:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I've personally rarely seen gimp used as a synonym for nerf, so I'm not sure where you're coming up with that. --Izno (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

A better question I'd personally ask is why nerf (computer gaming) and buff (computer gaming) aren't in one article, as those are two sides of the same coin. --Izno (talk) 02:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...in my experience, saying something was "gimped" is the same as saying it was "nerfed". In both cases, it refers to a reduction of usefulness, except that "gimp" is a more negative connotation while "nerf" may be a positive one (e.g. "Good thing they nerfed that" or "Why would they gimp that?") As for the "buff" question (I see you've rebuffed it), "buffs" refer to an actual in-game effect, such as that from a magic spell. You can say "this spell buffs my HP" but not "that spell nerfed my HP". --_ZXCVBNM 02:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Your experience is strange! ;P. No, I've also seen gimp used (and used it myself) in the instance of "That's gimp", not necessarily of the case where something's been nerfed, but where an ability or whatnot just isn't useful or pretty or whatnot. This is all hearsay though of course.
As for nerf/buff, yes, our article on buff is focused on buff as in a spell cast, but there is also the case where "Class X was buffed last patch" as opposed to the (also proper) flipside of "Class X was nerfed last patch". --Izno (talk) 02:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, gimp refers to something the player did wrong (eg. "I gimped my character [by investing in X instead of Y]"), while a nerf is something the game developers did. In that sense, they aren't synonyms, though, of course, that doesn't mean they couldn't share an article. --VPeric (talk) 09:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

These are all related to Game balance. I wouldn't rule out a merge to centralize the content and improve the articles. Randomran (talk) 02:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, perfect, that makes sense. However, buff (computer gaming) doesn't relate to game balance, only "gimp" and "nerf". And if those terms themselves are hearsay, do they even merit an article? Anyone want to find a reliable source?--_ZXCVBNM 03:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

On Buff...buff also has another slang meaning, perhaps now obsolete, meaning the opposite of Nerf. Thus, the linkage between the two. It does not appear in the current article at all, IIRC.sinneed (talk) 06:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I would support a merge/redirect of both articles to Game balance. SharkD (talk) 05:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

How would you recommend it be added to the article? A new section on "terminology" or just a redirect of those terms, deleting the article content itself?--_ZXCVBNM 20:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, creating a new section would probably be best. You don't have to copy 100% of the articles' original content since they are so large and unreferenced. SharkD (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

1st - I think this is a great idea. That said: Had a bit of trouble finding this discussion. I found it by looking in the Contributions of the moving editor. No comment at the target, no discussion at the source. As I watched Nerf and its talk page, I was a bit shocked to see the "per consensus" move. I am also a bit shocked to hear the Nerf article called unreferenced and large. Ah well, I tried to drive a steak (sic) through its heart and a number of much more experienced editors referenced it rather nicely, though it is very short, and merging it into a game balance article sounds good. I did add a subsection so that those looking for Nerf don't have to wade through to it. There is a staggering amount of OR in the game balance article. I updated the article flag to reflect that.sinneed (talk) 06:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The merges look OK to me, but in my opinion this sort of non-trivial merge/redirecting should probably only take place after ((mergeto)) tagging and/or notification on the talk pages of the articles to be merged. --Muchness (talk) 06:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I thought about removing the redirect and putting in the flag, but decided to just dive in.sinneed (talk) 06:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Further, I think it is very important to preserve the talk page at Nerf. There is a good deal of sourcing information ready to be added from the talk page, including refs pulled off the German Wiki, search results from the AfD research, suggestions from a number of editors.sinneed (talk) 06:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You can link to the old Talk page in the new article using the ((archivebox)) template. Or, maybe a mod could move the Talk page if asked. SharkD (talk) 06:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sinneed: Buff for the use of describing enhancing a character, item, etc. from tabletop era. It's not nessasarily obsolete, but the term might not be used so much with reguard to video games.じんない 07:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, I didn't know about the tabletop usage. I learned it in EQ... or UO... 1990s anyway.sinneed (talk) 07:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about not notifying the page itself, I forgot that nerf had a bit of a talk page following. But for "buff", I suggest merging it into stats since buffing is a type of stat change.--_ZXCVBNM 21:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

As I work through the article (it is a low priority for me), I'll add buff, which is the opposite of nerf. Buffs don't generally get the level of attention and whining, in general, unless an already-powerful class, quest, dungeon, encounter, or whatever, gets it. The Buff article that exists today makes no mention of the game-balance usage, so it won't be affected, except that it will finally get the "see also" that is also on my "someday" list.sinneed (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

In general, I don't really hear about "buffing versus nerfing". Nerf refers to something the developer does. When the player does it, it's usually a debuff. But that's just my understanding of it. Randomran (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

nerf - something devs take away. buff - something developers provide, opposite of nerf. Usage of buff in this way has faded...dev buffs just don't get the attention nerfs do, except when they cause fits of jealousy.sinneed (talk) 13:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I will admit something like "twinking" are used by players more than "buffing" in reference to a character, but in reguards to game-balance, buffing is still used at timesじんない 22:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)