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.

Final Fantasy Summons should now redirect to Gameplay of Final Fantasy#Magic. (Right now it redirects to an old article which is now a redirect.) Can anyone help out with a quick fix? Randomran (talk) 01:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Randomran (talk) 02:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The peer review for Alexander Cavalié Mercer, an article within the scope of the Military history WikiProject, is now open. The Military history WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^[pf] 12:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Alfa Romeo Racing Italiano infobox has a dead link to Valcon Games. I can't find a suitable alternate article. There seem to be 11 articles referring to the same company. I do not have any prior knowledge of Valcon to help me here. There is http://www.valcongames.com/. Do you have a template for a videogame manufacturer wikipedia article, somewhere? I don't have time to do a respectable job of a brand new article right now. and certainly wouldn't mind if someone else can create it really quickly. Also what precisely should the article be named? (And was this talk page an appropriate place to ask this?)--SportWagon (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

There's no template, per se, but perhaps look at Smith & Tinker and create something similar. Yes, this talk page is perfectly appropriate for stuff like this. –xeno (talk) 16:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright made the page and done the best i could. Salavat (talk) 06:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at the iPhone talk page over whether or not it should be given a WP:VG notice. Talk:IPhone#WP:VG_notice. Please discuss. Thanks!--haha169 (talk) 05:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I've continued this discussion here because it seemed more appropriate. If you haven't already checked this out, please do. Brianreading (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Off-topic: What is the common abbreviation for "iPhone"? SharkD (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe there is an abbreviation for it. barksim (talk) 10:50, 13 April 2009 (GMT-4:00)

This is something that's been kicking around in the back of my skull, but some companies such as Capcom and Namco freely distributed artwork of their characters and in the case of Namco (starting specifically with Soulcalibur IV) encourage the use of the artworks on personal webpages as a form of promotion, as long as they get credited, and there's nothing to that end excluding wikipedia. Is there a way to set up provisions with Wikipedia Commons in cases such as these?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Considering that they would effectively be releasing the images for any purpose including unauthorized commercial use, I doubt they'd be inclined. But you could always ask for select permission. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking about the same thing... some companies are a little more liberal with this stuff. I just wouldn't have the faintest idea how to figure out which ones, or if we'd have to get appropriate permissions, or what. But this is a really good idea that someone should follow up on. Randomran (talk) 00:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as copyrights go, the GFDL-with-disclaimers template makes me think there are non-commercial provisions too. I sent Namco and Capcom emails just in case, though I'm expecting the usual automated responses...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

No, this is one of the most common questions (and debates) about Wikipedia's image policy. Bottom line, however, is that WP is a free (as in GFDL) encyclopedia and that includes the images. Any image used under license must have a free license, such as GFDL or equivalent CC. So, if you're contacting these companies, you are basically asking them to publish their art under a free license; whether they do this at Wikipedia, through email, or somewhere else is inconsequential. It is ok for them to add requirements with reuse (e.g. attribution), but not conditions for reuse (e.g. "non-commercial" restriction). A free license implies, among other things, that anyone can reuse the work for any reason. Since it is unlikely that any active company is going to offer their works under a free license, any other concession you can get from them is moot under the Non-Free policy. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Ubisoft has allowed anyone to use screenshots, so asking companies is obviously not out of the question. /shrug --Izno (talk) 02:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

No one said it was. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

For the article Cel-shaded animation, could the lists possibly be removed and changed into categories? The blanket category being "Cel-shaded media", containing the categories "Cel-shaded commercials", "Cel-shaded video games", "Cel-shaded films" and "Cel-shaded television shows". Could someone get a bot to do it?--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

In any case, the lists should be removed per not a complete exposition of all possible details and WP:EMBED. bridies (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I created Category:Cel-shaded animation, which contains as a subcategory Category:Video games with cel-shaded graphics. Category:Cel-shaded television shows and films can be added later.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I've started to create an id Software task force. Do I need to make some sort of formal proposal to get this approved? JACOPLANE • 2009-04-9 18:31

Not that I know of, but do try to not be yet another inactive task force. Nifboy (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, no; I've joined. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a heads up for everyone that tomorrow there will be tons of vandalism on the article and complaints that vgames are overrepresented on the main page. --PresN 04:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, crap. That probably shoots Alleyway out of the running for the 21st... I'll help keep an eye on the page though and undo any vandalism the anons toss our way.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Riven? Should have gone for Myst instead, I doubt that one would have raised any of the usual over-representation of video games comments. Still, I think enough non-gaming people will recognise Riven enough not to complain like they usually do. -- Sabre (talk) 09:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Raul picked it, not me. Dunno why, you're right, Myst hasn't been on the main page yet. --PresN 15:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I tried to get Myst on the main page for it's 15th anniversary, but that got shot down... this is just another indication of why I hate TFA (coincidentally, I never hear that my FAs are going on the main page, and then get confused when I have to revert massive amounts of vandalism...) --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Why in Christ's name they don't just lock them I'll never know. Anything so earth-shakingly important that it needs fixing NOW NOW NOW can be left on the talk page. Bitching-shields at the ready. Someoneanother 17:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Long story short - locking the most visible article on WP of the day breaks the mantra of "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" and devalues WP. If it gets bad (I'd have to check to see what they did on the election day when both Obama and McCain articles were up) they will protect it, but they start the day and cross their fingers it doesn't. --MASEM (t) 17:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, figures. Creating work for volunteers and those who already put the time in to build the article up in the first place is a crap way of saying thank you, but there you go. Someoneanother 17:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's posturing, but considering the articles I write are so obscure the only time they actually pick up what some would consider a "normal" amount of vandalism is TFA I'm fine with it. I've locked my FAs before (such as when Bone Wars appeared on the main page) because it was only me and ClueBot against vandals, and I can't sit in front of the computer the entire time while I've got class and stuff to do. Luckily video game FAs have more watchers so it's generally not an issue. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a member of this project, and I rarely work on video game articles, but I belong to the pro wrestling project, where a promotion recent released a video game: TNA Impact! (video game). It won, from what I understand, two video game awards this pasted Wednesday. I can't seem to find an article regrading MI6, so I was wondering if they are notable at all?--WillC 02:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain what MI6 is please Will? I've looked at the article and can't see what it's referring to. Someoneanother 17:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Its an award(s).--Truco 17:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I see, these guys. Well, seeing as it's a collective of the big boys in the industry and sponsored by EA, I'd say it's fine to use. Whether or not the awards themselves are notable, I'd say the award is relevant in relation to marketing (IE the 'thinking outside the box' award listed here), particularly if you've got further sources focusing on Suicide's inception and how reviewers etc. reacted to him. The question is, how much of it belongs in Suicide's own article compared to the game's article. It's unusual for a video game to be the source of something which carries on into the real-world counterpart, interesting. Someoneanother 17:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Well the promotion released a statement regrading the award and they seem very proud of it. It took them about six months to even get the character on tv. I was wondering if it is notable enough to place in the reception section of both articles: TNA Impact (video game) and Suicide (character)? Here is a link to the company's press release: [1]. I've never heard of M16 and them not having a page makes me wonder a little more if I should state it at all.--WillC 21:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

That seems fine. This is industry-level stuff, outside of the user-level gaming press, and that's a good thing. It's always good to combine things like this since it gives a much broader perspective. Articles like ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, Controversy over the usage of Manchester Cathedral in Resistance: Fall of Man and Super Columbine Massacre RPG! go beyond the basics because sources allowing that exist. Go for broke, so long as the source is reliable (this seems to be very much so) and the information is not given undue weight within the articles it's all good. Someoneanother 19:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the info. TNA Impact! will be my first video article to expand, and before I start the process, I'm trying to learn.--WillC 21:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Coleco Donkey Kong.png has been nominated for deletion at WP:FFD 70.29.213.241 (talk) 05:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I am looking for broad input into a proposed rename of Creatures in the Half-Life series to List of creatures in the Half-Life series. Discussion can be found here. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 10:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the use of 2009 in the title of the article Formula One 2009 (video game) is right. Codemasters have never said it will be based on the 2009 season, and they've never said it will be realased in 2009 either. Indeed, on the Codemasters website, they refer to the game as "F1 The Game", so no clues there. The information on this page is based on SimRacingWorld's info, and why do we trust them? Indeed, they say that Formula One 2009 is an unoffical name. Where's their info coming from? It's certainly not on the web. Anyway, I think that it should be moved to either "Future Formula One video game" or "Codemasters Formula One video game", until further information is released about the game's release date. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Darth Newdar (talk) 12:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

IGN lists it as FIA Formula One World Championship if that helps. What's with all the renaming discussions all of a sudden? It's a tarp! Someoneanother 13:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to rush. Since the canonical title seems to be in limbo, it does no good to move the article to another guess, or worse, to a title that necessarily will have to be changed (neither of your suggestions are suitable for a permanent title). If it's coming out this year in a reasonable time frame then they will have to provide a working title to the press soon. (If not, the article shouldn't exist yet.) Just be patient, wait for an announcement of the official title, and rename the article then. Ham Pastrami (talk) 07:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Someone has added "Not to be confused with Nintendo Entertainment System" to the top of Super Nintendo Entertainment System, and vice versa. It strikes me as quite unlikely that people would confuse them; I removed the addition once, and now I'm asking for a second opinion per WP:1RR. Thanks. Anomie⚔ 16:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

There should be a SNES pointer on top of NES, since it's a part of that term, but not the other way around. --MASEM (t) 17:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) I'd actually ask this question in a discussion area not inherently tied to video games - I can sorta see how someone might confuse the two if they weren't familiar with video game history at all. Unfortunately, I'd wager that most of us here in the VGProj are pretty familiar with the two machines, so it would be very unlikely for us to get them confused. But the person who added that confusion notice may have a point, so I'd ask among non-video-game people if possible. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The lead says, in the first sentence of the second paragraph, that it was the "sequel" to the NES so I can't see that a DAB-note is necessary. bridies (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I really doubt that people would confuse them, and wouldn't bother reading the article. It should be removed.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Though it's a different world for non-gamers, the SNES article already makes clear that the NES is a different thing altogether in the article lead, so rather than having a hatnote why not just do the same in the NES article lead? (IE "it was followed by the Super Nintendo Entertainment System (SNES)" or words to that effect? Someoneanother 00:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

An image I recently upload to commons, File:The Simpsons Arcade Game cabinet.jpg, is up for deletion. I'm not asking for a flood of "keeps", but I'd really like to know if this image and a derivative I made should really be deleted as I've seen numerous arcade cabinet images on commons. Any help would be appreciated, but some comments from our resident image experts would be greatly appreciated. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

The deletion tag is missing a reason. Do you know why the image proposed for deletion? I, too, have seen arcade cabinets in the Commoms and did not think there was a problem. In my mind, arcades' cabinets are the analogue of console games' boxart. I'll throw my support behind the image just as soon as I understand what reason for deletion I need to refute. —Ost (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It was deleted by commons:User:Belgrano, but restored by commons:User:Bayo who also opened the deletion discussion. See file log. Belgrano cited commons:Commons:Derivative works as the reason for deletion. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

Thanks. That makes Bayo's comments make sense, about the picture not being about the characters. —Ost (talk) 21:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Is the COTW always selected by a bot? Would it be possible to suggest articles here and overrule the bot? Doom (series) was just created and would be great for a collaboration. Some of the articles recently selected, such as last week's Cel-shaded animation, aren't exactly fantastic selections that invite a good collaboration from this WikiProject. JACOPLANE • 2009-04-14 14:50

It appears that historically, there was a nomination process. Now the bot selects a high priority article of low quality. Personally, I like the random article because it throws an article in your face and says to fix it, regardless of page activity. This seems to drag up some interesting picks that may have otherwise gone untouched. That being said, anyone could overwrite the bot's choice if it pleased the project. —Ost (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It used to be nominated by vote, but it died out. The bot is better because it selects articles regardless of activity or bias towards popular topics.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the article "Star Fox (SNES)" should be renamed to "Star Fox", as per the accepted naming convention. Examples of said convention include:

• The first game in the Zelda series' page is called The Legend of Zelda, not "The Legend of Zelda (NES)", even though a The Legend of Zelda (series) page also exists.
• Same deal with Metroid; the first game in that series' page is called Metroid, not "Metroid (NES)", even though a Metroid (series) page also exists.

The only thing that makes the Star Fox situation different from these examples is the fact that another game simply entitled "Star Fox" exists. However, that other Star Fox game for the Atari 2600 is nowhere near as noteworthy as the SNES game, and, thus, the page's name shouldn't have to conform to account for the 2600 Star Fox.

I expressed this on that page's talk page, but no one responded. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 07:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Star Fox should link to the disambiguation page, as it does currently. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 08:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to leech off of this and suggest that it be moved simply to (video game). The only other game called Star Fox is notable for no other reason than the SNES game. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Rename "Star Fox (SNES)" to "Star Fox (video game)"? I still think that someone typing "Star Fox" into the search box is probably looking for the SNES game, so they should be led directly there. I don't see how changing (SNES) to (video game) is an improvement. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 09:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. There are two games that could be considered Star Fox (video game), after all. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 10:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Since there are two video games called Star Fox the one way not to disambiguate is to make out that only one exists. In addition, the ZX Spectrum game Starfox, currently listed on the disambiguation page but lacking an article, is also notable as shown by this list of reviews (since it was also released on C64 and Amstrad there will be more reviews in magazines). What happens when that is developed into an article? The disambiguation is necessary, so long as Star Fox and Star Fox (video game) point to the disambiguation pages everyone can find what they're looking for (Starfox should be on the Star Fox (video game) disambiguation page too). Someoneanother 11:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Linking to the dab page is far from the only way to do things. Per WP:DAB, if one use of "Star Fox" is going to be by far the most commonly searched for then that one can be at the non-disambiguated name with a hatnote pointing to the other uses and/or the disambiguation page. For example, were Star Fox (SNES) at Star Fox, it could use a hatnote such as "((two other uses|SNES video game|Atari 2600 game|Star Fox (Atari 2600)))". Something similar could be done if Star Fox (series) were at Star Fox instead. Many film articles do this, for example: a recent blockbuster is at the main name, with a hatnote pointing to the obscure 1974 film with the same title. Anomie⚔ 16:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It should still go to the disambiguation page, you can't be sure that most people are looking for the SNES game.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Star Fox (SNES) has about 5 times more traffic than Star Fox (Atari 2600) --Mika1h (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

And the only reason the 2600 Star Fox gets even that amount of traffic is because there's a link to it atop the SNES Star Fox's page. WP:D states that if one topic is "significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings", then it should get the main namespace. I just checked, and Star Fox (SNES) gets significantly more traffic than any other Star Fox/Starfox article. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 23:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Having come back and read the above arguments I was initially going to switch and agree that Star Fox should link to the SNES game article. Having used Henrik's tool on the series article, it turns out that it has much more traffic than the SNES game, so if we were going to use # of hits as the guide then it wouldn't be any individual game. I think Star Fox should remain a disambiguation page, we know that the 8-bit computer game is notable and that the novel was written by a notable author (very notable by the look of things), throw in a comic book character and it seems valid to leave it as a disambiguation. However, as has been pointed out, those looking for a video game called Star Fox are far more likely to be looking for Starwing/Star Fox SNES, so it would seem fair enough to rename that particular article Star Fox (video game) and add a hatnote for the 2600 game (and an additional one for the 8-bit game Starfox if and when it's created). That way when folks wikilink to Star Fox (video game) they're pointing at what will more than likely be the right article. Someoneanother 00:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let's use an example: "Jupiter" links directly to the planet's page despite the "Jupiter (disambiguation)" page having nearly 50 other uses listed. So, just because "Star Fox" has 8 different uses doesn't mean there can't be an article simply entitled "Star Fox". And which "Star Fox" article should be chosen to use the main namespace? The one with the most traffic: the SNES game. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 01:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, so we use a main article with a disambiguation hatnote. Why are only the individual games in the running when the series article is disambiguated in the same way, IE they're all Star Fox (disambig.), and attracts more traffic? Do individual games take precedent over series articles? Someoneanother 01:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a game's page takes precedent over its series page, according to the examples set by The Legend of Zelda, Metroid, and probably many others. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 02:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Support. Someoneanother 02:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think that Star Fox should redirect to Star Fox (series), with a disambiguation page linked to above the series page. Just because one is more popular doesn't make it the overwhelming contender for linkage. Sure, Jupiter is a planet known by the entire world. Star Fox (SNES) is just a single video game among many. I think that when people search for "Star Fox" without a particular game in mind, they are looking for the series. Linking it to the SNES game seems biased as it is much less well known than, say, Jupiter.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No, an individual game's page does not necessarily take precedence over a series page, and in most cases it probably shouldn't. Is it reasonable to assume that "The Legend of Zelda", the first game, is more sought after than any other of the Zelda games? Given how successful other games in the series have been, I don't think it's a reasonable assumption at all, though I'm not saying it should be moved at this point either (mainly because it may be disruptive). There are just as many article titles that point to a series article (Resident Evil, Prince of Persia, Ninja Gaiden, etc.) This largely depends on how the articles were originally written and expanded. For example, Metroid started as the series article, but it was preemptively disambiguated, and someone started the game article from the redirect that was left behind. Ham Pastrami (talk) 06:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that precedent doesn't mean that much in this case. Articles about series are generally made after several individual game articles are made. So of course they'd be named "NAME (series), because the original game has already taken the name space. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

Weak Support As others have pointed out, there's plenty of precedent for both redirecting to an original game or the series. I personally prefer redirecting to the original game. All the sequels have different titles so I feel it's better to disambiguate using those rather than adding parenthesis to the title of the original game. bridies (talk) 06:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion seems to have slowed down a bit, so I'm going to recap the votes as of now:

Oppose: 1

Support: 3 (including myself)

If anyone wants to see these numbers change, then go ahead and discuss and vote! I'm not trying to rush this, I'm just trying to kick up some more interest. Oh, and remember to use "Oppose" or "Support" when you vote. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 10:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: As stated above, I don't think precedent applies here. If this was just between two or three related articles, I'd agree with making the most popular topic the main one. But the number of search possibilities at Star Fox makes me think that a disambiguation page is the prudent way to go. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC))

Oppose, as per Guyinblack. And to compare with the Jupiter example, the main use of that word is, IMO, a lot more obvious than the main use of Star Fox. Miremare 17:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay this is about my 5th time posting here about Blue Dragon but this time everything from the GA review and the peer review has been fixed. But only one thing is left. The gameplay section needs to be copy-edited. I need help romovng VG Jargon and fixng grammar and spelling errors. Also I'm thing about nominating it once again as a GAN. Please can a experience editor help me with the copy-editing. Thanks you and cheers.N.G.G. 00:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

While doing copy-editing, someone pointed out that some of the cites in the gameplay section are invalid and need to be changed. Can someone help me find references for the gameplay section.Kingrock 04:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Reviews will work just fine; from reliable sources like IGN, GameSpot, GameSpy, etc. I use GameSpot a lot for Gameplay sections because their reviews seem to be more accessible to non-gamers (less jargony, for instance). — Levi van Tine (t – c) 06:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This question came up on the [| Fallout 3] article and while what I've read seems to point to it being unreliable, especially when there are NPD numbers, Rehevkor suggested that a widespread discussion would be prudent, and I agree. The conflict I see is that they change their numbers to more closely match NPD estimates, which they freely admit (though they claim to change it based on reexamining their own data), and are sometimes +/-100% of NPD estimates but that other reliable sources do use them as a source. Here are some articles which criticize it or discuss them changing their numbers: [2] [3] [4] [5]. Here is an article which praises it: [6]. There are a few more links on VG Chartz. If this belongs in the WP:RS discussion then I can move it to there but I thought I'd start here as it's a source exclusively for video games. UncannyGarlic (talk) 01:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussion has come up several times, and the result is always the same- VGChartz is not a reliable source. They do a lot of extrapolation/guesswork to come up with their numbers, so they're just not a good source of accurate information. --PresN 01:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Last discussion is here, a couple of weeks ago. --PresN 01:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It is considered that NPD, ChartTrack, Famitsu, etc. have more sources than VGChartz, which makes them more reliable than it. One must also take into account that VGChartz does this for free, while the rest are paid for it and have been at this for a longer period of time. @PresN, that discussion took place a year ago. Rhonin the wizard (talk) 06:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

VGChartz, as demonstrated by a Gamaustra article, also basically guestimates where it sees fit, and does not mention when figures are pretty much made up, as well as changing figures without any notice or history. In short; they are popular 'cause they throw the figures out there first, but there's little evidence they are correct in that.[7] --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 11:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I have a problem with the release date of ToeJam & Earl, whose article I'm rewriting. The release date currently in the article is 12 March 1991, which is not sourced. This appears to be wrong, but more importantly the various sources I've looked at give different dates. IGN states June 1 1991 [8], and other IGN articles state "mid-1991" [9], with various other sources saying "1991". The developers state 1991, so this must surely be the correct year [10]. GameSpot however states 12 Mar 1992 [11]. I'm guessing this is where the current article takes its date from, but the writer put it back a year thinking GameSpot has the year wrong. The various contemporary sources are reviewing the game late 1991 (November-December), which suggests that the "mid-1991" is too early, or even that they were reviewing it ahead of a 1992 release. One of the articles states that the release date is "October" (i.e. 1991) but another one from July 1992 says it was released "February 1992" [12]. It could be that there were different release dates for NA/Europe but I can't verify this and further both US and UK publications disagree with each other over the dates. It seems to me that 1991 is the correct year, but that it was nearer Christmas than IGN claims. Should I just go with "1991", which is the year most sources claim and leave out a specific month? Or list all the different dates? Furthermore the copyright notice in the game itself has "C JVP [developers] 1991" and "C Sega [publishers] 1992"... bridies (talk) 11:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Huh. A conundrum, indeed. In this case I'd go with the developers and general trend that the sources say 1991. If we can't be more precise, it's a shame, but it's better to hedge our bets. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 11:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You're going to love this, IGN also says March 1992 in one article. Here are some other sources that state 1991: Allgame overview, Allgame European overview, and MobyGames. Along with the sources you have in the article, like Gamasutra and Mean Machines, I'd say 1991 is as accurate as you're going to get.

I still have the game boxed up somewhere. If you want I can dig it out to see what copyright year the manual says. May take a day or two find it though. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC))

Could this be the clincher? A magazine review from November 1991 - X201 (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

That's one of the sources I listed above. I think late 1991 is the most likely time frame but that's the only source to put it specifically at October. bridies (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The title screen has a copyright of 1991: [13]. --Mika1h (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I misread the Sega copyright as 1992 (see last sentence of my first post)... OK well that's not so weird then. Still doesn't help with the month though. bridies (talk) 22:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Heads up, this is in the news and is going to need some attention. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the initial issue will be copy editing the content to make it sound less like a new clip and more like an encyclopedia entry. However, depending on how and how much the news media (gaming and non-gaming alike) reacts to it, the article could get flooded with well-meaning edits and/or vandalism. A couple editors watchlisting it for a while should be able to keep things in check. Regardless, damn that's sad. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC))

Wanted to run this by the project before going ahead with this. I'm proposing a page move from "Sega Mega-CD" to "Mega CD" (latter link redirects to former). Two reasons:

1. The official name of the product is just "Mega CD" in print materials - it does not directly include the company name in the same way that "Nintendo Entertainment System" does.
2. It appears that in print materials, the name of the product does not include a hyphen ("Mega CD"), despite the logo printed on the unit itself (which shows up as "Mega-CD"). I'm personally fine with either version as the page title, but since there's a discrepancy, I'll defer to the more experienced folks here for consensus.

Lemme know what you think. If there's no objection to the page move, I'll go ahead and do that in a few days. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm biased (read:American) but I think Sega Mega-CD is preferable simply in terms of recognition, without any consideration to the "official" status of the name, which I am willing to defer to. Nifboy (talk) 23:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

"Sega CD" is the name in the States, but for clarity and consistency, the article's title should probably match up with the parent system's article (Mega Drive), which reflects the Japanese name. The main reason I'm considering this a possible 'controversial move' is because the article's been titled this way (and had a redirect from "Mega CD") for close to 5 years. I'm not sure if that's just because nobody ever thought about it, or if there was some longer-standing consensus that I wasn't aware of. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I think "Mega CD" might end up being ambiguous at some point in the near or far future. No opinion otherwise. --Izno (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Do we have anything "on the radar" that would cause this sort of ambiguity now? Or are you just hedging bets against it becoming ambiguous sometime in the future? That could happen to virtually any topic - not sure that I agree it would be a reason to keep the existing article name. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Not so much a reason as a comment. I'm entirely apathetic to the name. --Izno (talk) 23:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

If the media used in the system isn't called the Mega CD, then by all means go ahead and move the article.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

If the full and complete title is "Mega CD", then that's what should be used. To use an FA as an example, more people might recognize the name "Nintendo Wii" than "Wii", but since the full title is simply "Wii", that's what's used. Oh, and why the heck is the Genesis article using the Japanese name? The Famicom/Super Famicom use the international titles, so why are Sega's systems different? -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 00:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Because it's also the European name, and many discussions have been held that ultimately concede to use it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, "Mega Drive" redirects to "Sega Mega Drive", for apparently similar reasons to the Mega CD article. Should we consider renaming that to "Mega Drive" for the same reason? (Again, the product's name is just "Mega Drive", not "Sega Mega Drive", AFAIK.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, if "Sega" isn't a part of the Mega Drive's official name then it shouldn't be included in the article's title. Oh, and I wasn't aware that "Mega Drive" was also used as the European name, so thanks Melodia. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 01:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It would also have been the North American name, but for legal reasons. I agree it would be better to drop "Sega" from the Mega Drive article title: I would think plain Mega Drive is the common name. Same with Mega-CD. bridies (talk) 06:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty, I'm going to go ahead and perform the page moves. "Sega Mega Drive" -> "Mega Drive", and "Sega Mega-CD" to "Mega-CD" (there are more print materials that include the hyphen than I thought, so it appears that "Mega-CD" is the commonly-accepted form). — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool beans. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 03:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Right decision, but it would have been nice to have mentioned this on the Mega Drive talk page so the editors there could have had a say. Miremare 15:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry this was overlooked; this discussion wasn't originally about the Mega Drive, but the Mega-CD. KieferSkunk did leave a note on the MD M-CD talk before bringing it here on the Project's talk, but we all forgot to do the same for the M-CD MD talk when it entered the discussion. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 15:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

For those that are looking for something to do, there are a couple areas within the project that could use some help. Feel free to tack on something I overlooked as well. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC))

Assessment

Five GAs have requested A-class ratings at WP:VG/A

1. Nemesis (Resident Evil) – talk page
2. Braid (video game) – talk page
3. Discography of the Final Fantasy VII series – talk page
4. Left 4 Dead – talk page
5. Planescape: Torment – talk page

The oldest one, Nemesis, has been up there since February 1st. Also, it was requested by Kung Fu Man, who is one of the more active assessors. Basically, the review can't include him and two other editors are needed get the ball rolling for it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC))

A-class reviews should have nominations on the article's talk page. The nomination should be made by an involved editor; Kung Fu Man for Nemesis, for instance. Myself or another uninvolved editor could start a discussion and approve the article, but it may seem like conflict of interest. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 06:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No, no it won't look like that. o_O It's like starting any regular assessment discussion.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the DrKiernan incident was isolated, but I see no reason not to do things by the book, especially considering we don't have a formal A-class review process. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 07:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

How is that "by the book"? That page has no sort of binding rule attached to it, and frankly is just an essay on how the WP1.0 group thinks everybody should do A-class assessments. There's no reason we have to do it that way when the current way works just fine. --PresN 13:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

What's "the current way", then? WP:VG doesn't have one or we wouldn't be having this discussion. Whatever it is, I'm not sure it works just fine, considering articles can go 2+ months without assessment. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 13:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The "current way" is the same as for stub-C - post a request on the VG assessment page. The only difference between that and a "formal" process is that we're not precluding people just rating articles as A-class on their own without telling anyone. I'm not sure how making a section on the article's talk page is going to make outside people notice that you want an assessment. --PresN 14:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right. I guess I was once bitten, twice shy with the DrKiernan incident. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 14:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

(un-indent) It was my understanding that we request at WP:VG/A, and then a discussion would be started on the talk page. Discussions have been linked at the main assessment page so the process is still centralized there. I think it worked out well enough, because I couldn't imagine something this long on the assessment page? Having it on the talk page allowed the assessors to give more detailed comments and nitpick about issues that should be brought up, which I think led to a higher level of quality that truly deserved A-class. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC))

Article requests

There's still a sizable backlog at WP:VG/R. Sources have been found for some of the requests, and editors looking for WP:DYK? possibilities could make some decent articles. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC))

Inactive clean up

Some discussions have stalled at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Inactive project cleanup.

• Possible merging of some of our seemingly inactive task forces.
• Merging of WP:SE and WP:FF
• Future of PlayStation project (discussion) — Levi van Tine (t – c) 07:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments from some editors would be appreciated. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC))

Megata Sanshiro has gone and done the WP:FF upmerge to WP:SE. --PresN 17:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Peer review

Though most everything at WP:VG/PR has some comments, peer reviews work best when comments are left from more than one person. They don't have to be long and detailed comments either; a short paragraph of issues (large or small) can be just as helpful. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC))

Good article review/reassessments

In particular, the GA reviews are piling up. Please review an article to two if you have the time and according to the Good article criteria. More discussion is also needed at the various Good Article Reassessments, as a couple of them are stale. MuZemike 21:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sources

On the talk page for reliable sources, there are a few proposed sources that need more comments to establish consensus, like Game Revolution, Green Pixels, and GameSetWatch, for instance. Obviously, decisions made there are not required to establish reliability, but having a centralized location for discussions can make it easier to defend them at FACs and such. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 07:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I put in a lot of work on this article over the past couple of months. I think most of the hard work is done to get it to good article status. I haven't re-written the lead yet, though. And I'd appreciate someone looking to make sure there aren't any gaping details missing. A copy-edit couldn't hurt either.

Thanks in advance. Anything helps. Randomran (talk) 07:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I read over it and it seems fine to me (corrected some typos and such). The only missing game I thought of while reading was The Thing (video game). bridies (talk) 10:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your help. Re: The Thing, I don't have strong opinions on it either way, but sources say that it's not really a survival horror game. I'm sure there are a few out there that do, but I'm not sure that the article should go into every great game with elements of survival horror? I don't know though, and I'm sure there's no harm in adding a few more games. Randomran (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

A related question: do the F.E.A.R. series and Doom 3 count as survival horrors? Or is that just action with a horror feel and a lack of ammunition? This is just for clarification, since I removed the genre from Doom 3 earlier today. -- Sabre (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Contentious issue probably. I believe there's a source in the survival horror article that says no, but one could make a case for yes. bridies (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I actually found sources that have said they are AND they aren't. There's a *lot* of games like that. I'm okay with adding a few of them, but I wouldn't want to drag the article too far off topic. Randomran (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, colleagues, how do you pronounce his last name, I mean Hollen-shead like in 'need' or Hollens-head like 'head'? We need know it to correctly transcribe it in Russian wikipedia. --Koryakov Yuri (talk) 14:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This looks like a job for our handy-dandy id Software task force. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC))

I would think "Hollens-head" as in "head" is by far the most likely. Don't know for sure though. bridies (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I tend to think it is a combination of the two: pronounce it Hollen-shead like in 'shed'. But I also don't know for sure and would defer to the new id taskforce. —Ost (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

According to ancestry.com, "Hollenshead" (variant of Hollingshead) is from Old English for "holly side" (as in side of a hill). Hollen and Shead are also independent surnames. So, I think the compound is Hollen-shead. My guess for pronunciation is the same as Ost's. Ham Pastrami (talk) 23:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I know right, yet another task force. I think we've got some momentum for this one though. If you're interested, head over and help out. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 14:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm planning to fix up the Baldur's Gate article at some point. Don't know much about D&D beyond that though. bridies (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, if you're interested maybe you could make a Baldur's Gate series template so we can start breaking up ((D&D video games)). — Levi van Tine (t – c) 15:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know much about D&D beyond BG, but I'd very much love to assist with the BG articles so if something like this happened I'd definitely try and be a part of it. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Great! Some of the D&D editors and myself are working towards a Neverwinter Nights 2 good topic, maybe you could start something similar for Baldur's Gate. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 08:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd offer help with getting character articles to A-class or higher probably, still poking at Minsc these days. Not much else has come up for characters from D&D based video games for worthwhile articles sadly.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Someone help me to understand why someone created a task force when there already exists such a WikiProject? --Izno (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/D&D:

"The Dungeons & Dragons task force on Wikipedia was created informally in February 2009, when WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons editors BOZ, Drilnoth, and others began collaborating with WikiProject Video games editor Vantine84 on Planescape: Torment. After a successful GA nomination for the article, these editors realized that with their powers combined, they could change the coverage of D&D video games on Wikipedia as we know it. And so, the D&D task force was born. For more information on task forces, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Task forces."

I think the D&D taskforce should be renamed to "Video games based on Dungeons & Dragons" or something more explicit. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I've reworded the description. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 06:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I created a Baldur's Gate template. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm clueless when it comes to templates... and mark-up in general :P bridies (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Heads up. Second VG FA on the main page in a month, so there could be some backlash from anti-VG elitists with this one. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 01:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there a protocol or standard concerning how to list a game's distributors in the infobox if there are many? Take for example Elven Legacy which has five digital distributors, at least two of which (Steam and Impulse) have extant wiki articles. Source here: http://www.elven-legacy.com/#/about/but_elven_legacy/ How should one decide which —if any— of the distributors should be listed? I foresee this becoming a tricky issue as the number and ubiquity of digital distributors grows; should five, six, ten distributors be listed? Jambe (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

To expand on this, take Europa Universalis III as an example. In a cursory search I found three digital retailers for this title (Steam, Impulse, and GamersGate) and yet no Distributor is listed in the infobox. I'll reiterate: is there a protocol pertaining to if and how distributors should be included in the infobox? If no such standard exists the Distributor section of games' infoboxes will vary from quite large (5+ entries) to nonexistent. This is a big consistency problem. I also question whether Wikipedia should be listing distributors at all. Jambe (talk) 00:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Note on terminology: a distributor is a party that sits between the publisher and retailers. An example of this is GT Interactive in its early years--they distributed the retail version of Doom, which was previously published by id through mail-order. Nowadays, the publisher and the distributor are usually the same company due to vertical integration, though publishers themselves still contract for distributorships (for example, Atari commonly distributes 1C Company's games outside of Russia). A "digital distributor" is, for the purpose of this discussion, a digital retailer. We do not list retailers as this would quickly turn into a laundry list of all common retailers for every game, as you pointed out in your example. There are ways that this line can be blurred, such as when a game is only available through a particular service, then it could be argued that the service acts as a distributor too, though this is really by circumstance rather than by definition. In short, Steam, Impulse, etc. should not appear in the infobox. This is also why we do not have game categories for these services (they were deleted). Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I cleaned this response up as I'm starting to wrap my head around this. I don't understand how "it could be argued that the service acts as a distributor too". If we stick with the "distributor = publisher/retailer go-between" definition then it's impossible for a digital retail service to be a distributor. The game goes directly from the publisher to the digital retailer and there's no "middle man" whatsoever. In fact, the game could go from the developer straight to the retailer, or the developer could itself be a retailer. The presence of any digital retailer in the Distributor section can thus only be seen as a form of advertisement and any such presence should be eliminated (for example, look at any of Valve Software's game articles and you'll see Steam listed in the Distributor section of the infobox — it should be removed). On a related note, if a publisher sends boxed copies straight to retailers, shouldn't it be listed only as publisher (as opposed to both publisher and distributor)? Because the word distributor explicitly refers to an entity which enables the transferral of goods between publishers and retailers?Jambe (talk) 07:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Steam extends beyond the norms of digitial distribution to a level closer to things like Games for Windows Live and Xbox Live Arcade; in some cases the software is integral to the game (FEAR2, Dawn of War 2, Empire: Total War for example, won't run without Steam and use a variety of non-distribution features of Steam). As such, its sometimes prudent to list it in the infobox. It isn't advertising, and shouldn't always be removed. Steam certainly shouldn't be removed from the Valve articles, the two are very much interlinked in their histories.

A case in point in favour of digital distribution in the infobox: Sam & Max Save the World's six episodes were initially released over late 2006-early 2007 on GameTap, following with a general release a week later on the developers own site. It was later put on Steam, and an upcoming Xbox 360 version is integrally tied into the Xbox Live Arcade system. It was not until mid 2007 that any form of standard retail publisher turned up, which under Ham Pastrami's ideas would be the only ones listed. Digital distribution can be of high importance to the development and release process, as well as post-release development, and should in such cases be put in the infobox. -- Sabre (talk) 11:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The infobox is presumably a location for pithy, easily-digestible information, not vague musings on the roles digital retailers fill in the absence of traditional publishers and/or distributors. Why do Steam's "integral" game services warrant its inclusion in the infobox? I understand why Steam may warrant mention in the article proper (as in Half-Life 2), but I don't understand why it should also be listed as a distributor in the infobox. The functions you're implicating have more in common with middleware than with distribution. If we use the unambiguous definition of the word distributor, the following issues become crystal-clear:

• Steam is not a distributor and should never be listed as such.
  • Steam's level of integration into a game has nothing to do with whether it's a distributor.
  • Steam's position as the sole or prominent avenue for purchasing a game has nothing to do with whether it's a distributor.
• The only distributor of Valve games is Electronic Arts.
• GameTap is a subscription service, not a distributor.
• Xbox Live Arcarde is a digital storefront & retailer, not a distributor.
• In the case of the Sam & Max episodes, Steam is functioning simply as a retailer, not as a distributor.
  • The Same & Max episodes have no distributor.

Allowing the definition of the word distributor to remain ambiguous negatively impacts the clarity of game articles. Jambe (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Steam is a distributor; its "involved in the process of making a product or service available for use or consumption by a consumer or business user", rather in the sense of downloads as opposed to putting a box a shelf. There was a reason for why these content delivery services were dubbed "digital distribution", not "digital retailing" or any other similar label. Considering that most of Valve's sales are done on Steam and ignore Electronic Arts completely, excluding it from the Valve game infoboxes is stupid and makes it appear that Electronic Arts is the only way of a consumer acquiring a product. If other games require Steam (or any other major digital distributor), it should be noted in the infobox somewhere, as it is key information to an overview - the sole purpose of the infobox is to provide a snapshot of key information. Products that don't require a digital distributor to run for the most part won't have them listed it in the infobox, but should if it is of significance to the product's development and history. ie, Hitman: Blood Money on Steam and GameTap isn't of any significance and can be summed up as "download" in the media column, but Sam & Max on GameTap as the debut release and initially the only way to get it is, regardless of the opinion that it is "vague musings". Ambiguity in the distributor column allows adaptability, which is only a good thing since few articles actually need to make use of it either way. Though to be honest, I don't think either of us are going to change each other's mind on this. -- Sabre (talk) 23:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The article Distribution (business), and the passage you cite, is an overview about the process of distribution, which of course involves various parties including the publisher and retailer. The distributor, however, is a specific party within the chain. If you read just a little further down, you see how it breaks down:

• Distributor (also called wholesaler), who sells to retailers
• Retailer (also called dealer or reseller), who sells to end customers

Steam sells to end-users. Steam does not sell to other resellers. Hence, Steam is a retailer, not a distributor. These services are called "digital distribution" by way of dictionary English, not sales/business jargon. Calling them a digital retailer is ambiguous with the term e-tailer, where you can place an electronic/digital order for a product to be physically delivered. Steam is based on digital delivery (which, btw, is the listed synonym for digital distribution) of the product. Listing Steam as any sort of company is factually incorrect, as Steam isn't a company at all, Valve is. What you're suggesting is the equivalent of listing battle.net as a distributor for Blizzard's titles (yes, it is the interface to their online store). You could list Valve as the online distributor for The Orange Box, but who would Valve be distributing to, themselves? A publisher who sells out of their own store cannot meaningfully be called a distributor as such. In the case of Sam & Max, it looks like Telltale itself is the publisher (article even says that they secured funding from private investors to keep development going, so apparently did not receive publishing support from the other parties), while the companies listed as publisher in the infobox are probably only retail distributors. I might not be able to change your mind, but there's a reason why the infobox specifically lists "developer", "publisher", and "distributor" in sequence. It represents the business chain that is responsible for bringing the game to market, not a list of marketplaces where you can purchase the game from. Ham Pastrami (talk) 07:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Ham, you bring up an interesting point: the word distributor, when defined narrowly as "publisher/retailer go-between", is jargon, and it is Wikipedia policy to avoid or explain it. I doubt distributor carries the aforementioned narrow connotation in Average Joe's mind; it probably has a more general connotation, such as "one who markets, sells, or delivers goods". Is there a clearer way of expressing this "publisher/retailer go-between" role in the infobox?

Considering that most of Valve's sales are done on Steam and ignore Electronic Arts completely, excluding it from the Valve game infoboxes is stupid and makes it appear that Electronic Arts is the only way of a consumer acquiring a product.

Wikipedia is not a sales catalog. Again, the ambiguity of the term distributor is troublesome. Mention-worthy availability issues —such as those of the Sam & Max episodes you mentioned— can be discussed at length in the article proper. Why should a game's availability be mentioned in the infobox? Even if it should be mentioned therein, why via the Distributor section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.3.190 (talk) 05:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing in WP:DIRECTORY relates to mentioning a particular form of distribution in an infobox when that form is important to the topic—it relates to the sort of thing like replicating the Argos catalogue, prices and all; putting a digital distributor with max two words in an infobox does not make a sales catalogue... -- Sabre (talk) 09:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

So why not simply mention that it's "available for digital download"? Why link to the specific download providers? If a game has six+ "distributors", should they all be listed? That'd be awfully directory-like. Wikipedia is also not a place you visit in order to find out where to buy things (i.e. it isn't a sales search engine).--Jambe (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Because the individual digital distributor service itself can sometimes be important information to the development, release and overall history of a game - this is very much a case-by-case business, where one should not end up with a abnormally long list of online services. My intent is not to advertise such services or create a "sales search engine" (and if you go down that road then merely having an article on a game accounts to the same thing), so please stop insinuating as much. This isn't going anywhere, so I'm just going to leave it at that. -- Sabre (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I think the infobox template should link the word "Distributor" to the Distribution article mentioned above, as is done respectively for Developer and Publisher. This at least gives readers a chance to understand the context. Ham Pastrami (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm okay with this, but I'm still on the fence. Sabre, this isn't a discussion about you or your intent; it's about how game articles read. My comments are not personal. My point is simple: if there's a digital retailer listed as a distributor, there's a digital retailer listed as a distributor — no two ways about it. The issue at hand is whether or not this ambiguity is acceptable (I don't think it is). For Valve games, Electronic Arts is not a distributor in the same way that Steam is: if we can make the distinction between them obvious in the infobox or elsewhere, we should, because articles will be more straightforward that way (and presumably, straightforwardness > vagary). --Jambe (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Digital Distribution =/= Distributor. Distribution is merely the act of sending copies of the game anywhere. But being a distributor, in business terms, means that you send physical copies of the games to retailers. So a game can be distributed without a distributor, but only digitally.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

A quick addition: should the ambiguity of the field be redefined to be more restrictive, it should be noted that many people will just move them elsewhere in infoboxes for games where the digital distributor is significant: digital distributors have been found listed in the media, publisher, requirements and platform fields beforehand, none of which I'm sure we can agree are appropriate. I certainly prefer the more uniform method of putting them in a field where the name is at least partially relevant. -- Sabre (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Edits can always be redacted/changed, but I see your point here. I'd prefer a separate field for digital distributors if they must be mentioned at all; I still don't understand why they merit inclusion in the distributor field (as opposed to being mentioned only in the article proper or in a clearer, dedicated field). I don't think "this game is only available through one source, namely source_x" is a good reason to mention a source in an infobox, and the various delivery and/or social networking/achievement functionality a network like Steam might provide can be left to the article proper (see Fallout 3). --Jambe (talk) 04:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

A discussion started at the Newsletter talk page about evaluating the effectiveness of the newsletter. The result was a poll to obtain feedback from the newsletter's readers. With only one editor responding, it appears to me that the newsletter is not meeting its intended goals: help connect editors, keep members up-to-date with the VG project's activities, and improve member's editing knowledge. A similar response (zero) also happened when a new feature was tried out.

So, the question is what do we intend to do with the newsletter? If no one really reads it or is not interested in the content, I see no reason to continue proceeding in the same direction. A few ideas are to completely revamp it to suit the needs or members, reduce the frequency of delivery (to bimonthly or quarterly), or discontinue it all together. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC))

I personally don't read the newsletter thoroughly, but I do check it out when I see that it's changed. I didn't know about it for a while and still don't follow it avidly, but I think that's mostly because I've come to expect important topics to be discussed more thoroughly here. Maybe the newsletter could have some highlights of discussions from the Project talk pages, mentioning consensus that was determined, ongoing debates, and project-wide initiative (like changing the VG banner template).

I also did not quite realize the featured editor was a new feature. When I just looked back at the current issue (before checking what the newly tried out feature was), I immediately noticed the section was absent. It was one part of the newsletter that I had looked to read as I liked getting to know more about the editors that you meet in discussions here or that you see consistently contributing to project articles.

So, although I am not the best reader of the newsletter, I do appreciate it. I was going to suggest a more explicit section for community comments, but a section at the top labeled Reader Poll should be pretty clear. —Ost (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Features have been a mix of informative pieces designed to help improve editing skills and summaries of important topics here. If more people are concerned with topics on this talk page, the features can be geared more towards that. Featured editor is also something that can be done on regular basis.

However, I still have a concern that despite the large number of readers (170) it's a lot of unnecessary work if most people aren't going to read it. Combing through the talk archives to summarize everything for the Weekly Collaboration and Article Importance features was quite time consuming. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC))

[14] or <ref>((cite web | url = http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/4001/what_went_wrong_learning_from_.php | title = What Went Wrong? Learning From Past Postmortems | first = Brandon | last = Sheffield | publisher = [[Gamasutra]] | date = 2009-04-22 | accessdate = 2009-04-22 ))</ref> --MASEM (t) 17:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on the GA at survival horror, and a very helpful reviewer pointed out that the existing image of Alone in the Dark wasn't very helpful, because it didn't really show the core gameplay. He suggested this image, although many others would do. Would someone mind uploading one of these to WikiMedia commons? (It's a long story, but I can't really deal with any images from my computer.) Randomran (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done, although not to Commons as it isn't a free image. -- Sabre (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! (And yeah, not commons.) Randomran (talk) 19:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I move that we add the ((out of date)) or ((Disputed)) template to List of best-selling video game franchises.

• We are comparing sales statistics that are seperated by lots of time
• The reliability of some of the stats are questionable
  • Hence, many problems raised on the talk page.
  • Made even more so when only franchise were a reliable source states how many the franchise has sold, since this doesn't exist for a lot of franchises, many aren't on the list. (Wikilaw states we cant add the separate game sales numbers up on our own.)
• Plus what is and what isn't a franchise, List of video game franchises states that the Mario and Mario Kart franchises are separate, are generally are. Last two Mario Kart games have sold over 13 million each. Yet they are not on the list, because no third party has bothered to add up the seperate sales. The thing is that both the information for the two sale amounts for those two mario kart games, come from the same published Nintendo document (reliable source). Mario Kart for example, deserves to be on the list at an appropriate rank. It is currently at 78 with the "12 million in North America" being the source for that.

Overall there are numerous problems with this article, and it would be a good idea to at least inform readers of the page that there are some factual problems with the article. IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 03:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the difference between the lists is that they content has been added/edited by different people. My guess is some just added it there because an article exists for it. Unless the source for the Mario series says otherwise, I'd say it encompasses the main games and all the sub-series.

I've always thought lists like this are too difficult to maintain accuracy. The difference in dates is a concern, but I'm not certain what would fix it. :-\ (Guyinblack25 ^talk)

here. Thought I'd announce it since it's always so hard to find reliable numbers for games sold. They include franchise totals, as well as more specific numbers/graphs for Eidos games like Tomb Raider, Hitman, Kane and Lynch and Deus Ex.--PresN 05:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Game related question on the Reference desk. Perhaps someone here may be of assistance. See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment#PCU. Thanks 124.214.131.55 (talk) 05:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

If you look at how topics in film are laid out... their root category is Category:Film, with individual movies and lists of movies listed under the subcategory Category:Films (note the distinction). This lets them separate and organize the huge number of articles on individual films, and keep that distinctm from the huge number of articles on film as an art form and as an industry.

We don't do that. We just have a single category Category:Video games. What's the big deal, you might ask? Well, our main video game category frequently gets cluttered up with articles about individual video games. You can even see that at least half the subcategories in our root category are just different ways of sorting the individual video games.

I'd really like create a new root category. Something like Category:Video game topics, or Category:Video gaming, as a way of separating the vast number of articles about individual games from the articles about video gaming in general.

Any suggestions for names? Randomran (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Both sounds good, though I'm leaning towards Video game topics. When I hear "gaming", I think of the hobby rather than the whole package: individual games, history, key figures, companies, study of, etc. That's just me though. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC))

I'd prefer the second... seems a little more elegant to me. --Izno (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I must admit, it rolls off the tongue better. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC))

I might prefer to err on the side of clarity, even if it's not as elegant. "Video game topics" sums it up better, and "video gaming" probably does sound too much like the activity (rather than the other things we want to cover: the industry, their development, etc.) Randomran (talk) 21:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

"Video game topics" sounds good! Megata Sanshiro (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Another possibility to consider is moving the categories of individual games to their own root. "Video game titles" for example, "title" being a de facto manner of distinguishing actual games from the broader topic of video game... stuff. I'm not opposed to any of the previous suggestions, though. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a decent idea. But one reason why I'd rather rename the root is because people frequently misplace games in it. May as well let them have "video games" for the actual games, and come up with a new root. I'm open though. Randomran (talk) 04:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a good concern. --Izno (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• I went ahead and created Category:Video game topics, because it seemed to lead to the fewest problems with clarity. If someone could look over the category hierarchy, and the descriptions of the categories... I'd appreciate a second pair of eyes. Randomran (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I've done some touching up, mostly just making use of the category sorting. I also removed the WP category (Category:Wikipedia:Books about video games) from being under a mainspace category, and removed the journalism category out of the parent category since it's already found in Category:Video game culture and Category:Video game media. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 18:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. It all looks much more organized now. Randomran (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick note, but shouldn't this get "NA" for importance automatically?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. --PresN 20:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I see that many series have hard-coded tables for aggregate review scores (list below), so I recommend creating a template if the tables are to be kept.

• Age of Empires
• Alone in the Dark
• Chrono
• Crash
• Far Cry
• Earthworm Jim
• Halo
• Jak and Daxter
• Legacy of Kain
• ^Legend of Zelda, The
• Lufia
• Mana
• ^Mario
• Metroid
• Resistance
• Sonic the Hedgehog
• StarCraft
• StarFox

^ also contains columns for TopTenReviews and MobyGames

If this template is created, then one may wish to notify Darkness2005 (talk · contribs), who has created many of the hard-coded tables. —LOL ^T/_C 01:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable idea to create one. Though I think not every series should use it. I also question whether TopTenReviews and MobyGames should be included. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC))

I started the template with just basic functionality. —LOL ^T/_C 18:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Don't know what else a table like that really needs.

I guess try it out for a while and see if it takes. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

We have a pretty big back up at WP:GAN in the video game section. We need more reviewers to help review these articles before it gets out of hand. I recently knocked out Rock Revolution and will be trying to knock out some more. Thanks.-- Gears of War 2 (NGG) 11:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not too bad, still much smaller than some of the other topics' backlogs. It was like this about a month ago and they all got done eventually. bridies (talk) 12:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

There's some progress being made. See WP:GAN#VGAMES. MuZemike 01:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Assessments are still clogged with a bunch of A-class article requests. At this point I think I've managed to be the assessing editor for most of the articles from the past 3-4 months at least that have come through the gate. o_O'--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Does anybody see any problems with that? Perhaps not so much in the past, but now there are a lot of videogames in this area, especially in the casual sector. I'm suggesting this as a videogame-centric category rather than something which slots into the food and drink side of things. Someoneanother 18:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you give an example of video games which feature food/drink? (I'm guessing we wouldn't categorize it under food or drink though, just as we wouldn't categorize Half-Life under a theoretical physics category.) — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This might fall under Wikipedia:Overcategorization. --Torsodog^Talk 20:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The over-categorization thing was the concern, though it doesn't appear to be clean-cut so input seemed good. Some examples:

• Mr Wimpy, Fast Food Dizzy and Sneak King are some of the limited examples of advergames for the food industry.
• Diner Dash and Cake Mania are some notable examples of the large number of food industry games in the casual sector, which are usually time management games.
• Cooking Mama and What's Cooking? with Jamie Oliver are examples of the new wave of cullinary games which is in the main gaming sector.
• Chocolatier, Chocolate Castle, Food Fight, Food Force and Fast Food Tycoon are examples of games from different genres with food themes. Someoneanother 20:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, a possibility is making a sub-category for Category:Advergames called Category:Food advergames.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

What I was thinking is that this would in effect be part of a larger subject 'food and drink in popular culture', rather than just about advergames, since those represent a tiny corner of food games. Articles like these suggest there is something of a trend and a subject at the centre of this combination: [15] [16] [17] Someoneanother 20:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with grouping video games by themes.--Remurmur (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well there seems zero enthusiasm for this and I'm taking a break from WP, so consider it closed, thanks for the input. Someoneanother 12:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

To chime in kind of late (things are often slow here over the weekend)- There was a similar discussion about "physic puzzle games", and I would say that this is similar in spirit. Because the topic is hard to nail down, I don't think we can't create an accurate category. Best to let the industry come up with an appropriate term and follow suit with them.

The only other suggestion I'd have is to change Category:Cooking video games to a more generic one about Food preparation; that might expand the scope to include a few more games. I'm hesitant to say Food industry or Foodservice simulation games, because I think that borders on being too ambiguous. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

Cooking isn't necessarily the food industry, so Category:Food preparation video games would be better.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Games where you prepare food should be categorized by an actual genre (e.g. Category:Puzzle video games), not by the specific activities you do in the game. What you are suggesting is like putting the original Donkey Kong into Category:Barrel jumping video games. I thought the consensus was that this is over-categorization, so why are we looking for more ways to over-categorize? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely, but the question then becomes, what actual genre do these games fall under? Ham Pastrami (talk) 05:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

They fall under different ones: Mr Wimpy is a platformer and Diner Dash is a strategy-type game, Fast Food Tycoon is a simulation game, etc. Food is the only common factor they share.

That's why it's best to defer to what reviews and articles call them. If something more concrete pops up, then we have a term to apply. Until then, we'll probably just go in circles trying to come up with the "perfect" term. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC))

The only one i'd agree with might actually be ones that would include more than food something like Category:Games designed around product placement for video games that say McDonalds makes. This is because, like education games, the primary intent is not entertainment.じんない 04:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok. <frustrated ranting> Apparently, an image like MarbleMadnessCabinet.png should not be on Wikipedia because a free equivalent can exist (see FfD for details), and an image like The Simpsons Arcade Game cabinet.jpg should not be on commons because such an image is not eligible to be truly free.</frustrated ranting>

I find this situation to be very disconcerting and believe one side to be wrong. Unless there's a way for them both to be correct that I'm not seeing. After reading up Commons:Derivative works and Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, I'm inclined to believe that Wikipedia is the place for such arcade cabinet images. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. However, if that is the case, there are several Commons images that may need to be moved over to Wikipedia and deleted from Commons.

On more specific case, I would really like to dispute the deletion of MarbleMadnessCabinet.png, but haven't dealt with deletions that much. Is this something I can discuss with the admin that deleted it? Any help/advice would be appreciated. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

You seem to have the worst luck with images of arcade cabinets. After the explanation given at the Commons, I also agree with you that cabinets should be uploaded to Wikipedia (did you get the picture from the Simpsons successfully uploaded to here?).

From the FfD for the Marble Madness image, I get the impression that the nominator is upset about something more than just an image of the cabinet. Unfortunately, I can't see the original link due to context filtering at my job, but you mention the image is from an advertisement showing the cabinet. I think the argument is that Atari owns the copyright to the photo and the ad, so can you use one of the images from a Google search instead of the ad? —Ost (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Tell me about it :-p It's stuff like this that makes not want to deal with images at all. I'm waiting for the Simpsons image to be deleted from Commons before I upload it here.

I don't think I can pull an image off Google because I'd have to contend with the copyright of an unknown photographer. I believe the flyer is more simple to deal with because Atari Games owns the rights to the content as well as the photograph. I mentioned that Atari owned both copyrights in the FfD, but no one responded to it. They argued that an image where the photographer gives up their copyright to the photograph is more compliant to WP:NFCC#3. I admit images are not my strong point, but I feel it was being cited incorrectly.

I guess I'll try contacting the admin who deleted it. Though, I'm not sure what to say without coming across as a disgruntled editor that is pissed off content I uploaded was deleted. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

If that fails, there's always WP:DRV. MuZemike 20:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I asked a similar question once about the images in Pepsi: if you take a picture of a soda bottle, and the bottle has a logo on it, can the image be free or is it necessarily infringing? I never got a straight answer. But you might have better luck; try posting this question in Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Ham Pastrami (talk) 22:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 28#File:MarbleMadnessCabinet.png. But for the larger issue of the arcade cabinets on Commons, WP:MCQ sounds like a more appropriate place. Thanks. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC))

Is there any need of this article?. Should this be sent to afd?. Has time goes by many of the games will have DX 10 support . Is there need for such articles?. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so, though it looks like some work went into it. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 16:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think every game will support DirectX10 for quite a while, so the article is still useful. And even then, it's hardly useless - could just rename it to a "Choronology" and voila - a useful article (again). --VPeric (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This list should probably be deleted. It is unnecessary. --Torsodog^Talk 18:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think what we should examine is if the topic of games with DirectX support is adequately covered in independent sources. While we may not find the list useful, if others have found the topic notable, then it can be on Wikipedia.

The current sources seem bare-minimum in my opinion. Most mention it in passing, but a few articles are more dedicated (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC))

It seems useful enough. The "notes" comments are OR but that can be fixed. Unless there is a specific rationale for deletion, I'd leave it. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I would want to welcome interested gamers to discuss this WIC genre. Currently for very long time World in Conflict is considered an RTT. According to recent press release and other sites WIC is considered an RTS 1, 2, 3, 4 and many others and even the developers also claimed WIC belongs to new category "Action-Strategy" 5. SO i was wondering why is Wikipedia entry says this is an RTT. I believe many of them are violating WP: NPOV. That is all i want to say. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, from the standard array of reliable sources for video games:

• GameSpot lists it as real-time strategy.
• IGN lists it as real-time strategy.
• GameSpy lists it as strategy.
• 1UP lists it as strategy.
• Eurogamer lists it as real-time strategy.
• CVG lists it as sim/strategy.
• Game Informer lists it as strategy.
• Allgame lists it as 3D real-time strategy.
• Metacritic list it as real-time strategy
• GamePro list it as strategy

I'm sensing a pattern in favour of "real-time strategy" here; not one of the typical sources labels it as a "real-time tactics" game. The article should echo what the secondary sources say on the issue, not individual editor intepretations of the gameplay from personal experience. -- Sabre (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Real time tactics means that it is more closely related to a military sim than an RTS game. If it has things like resource gathering, base building, etc, it's a real time strategy, but if it focuses on the fighting itself, it's an RTT.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Avoid the urge to make up new genres on the spot. Not all real-time strategy games are C&C/Warcraft. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the real issue here, which has been discussed before, is that "real-time tactics" has not quite reached the status of genre proper, though there are some experts who recognize it. Many if not most of these games will still be regarded as an RTS or derivative of RTS by mainstream sources because the terminology is more familiar, even when there is also an expert source that identifies the games more specifically as RTT (either as an independent genre or a sub-genre). So basically we're in a confused transitional phase where some people recognize and use the phrase RTT while others don't. Would it be an acceptable compromise if we just included both terms in this article? Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, this is tough. By most measures, this is an RTT. To quote from the very well-research strategy video game article: Strategy_video_game#Strategy_versus_tactics

• "... releases that are considered pure tactical games usually provide players with a fixed set of units,[3][14] and downplay other strategic considerations such as manufacturing, and resource management.[11][14] Tactical games are strictly about combat,[19] and typically focus on individual battles,[11] or other small sections in a larger conflict.[20]"

But the genre is small enough that reviewers will either call it an RTS out of convenience, or just to be consistent with the vast number of RTS games out there. (They tend not to like using niche-ish sounding names in infoboxes and such.) If we can find even a few sources that say it's an RTT, I would trust those more than those that flippantly call it an RTS. See this, that, the other... and it helps that these sources explicitly explain why it's an RTT and not an RTS, while the other sources that call it an RTS don't seem to be aware of the distinction. Randomran (talk) 01:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a good solution would be to introduce the game as an RTS in the intro and infobox, thus remaining consistent with the majority of sources, but to elaborate either in the gameplay or development section on the discrepancy between genres, using the dev comments that its "sometimes internally referred to as an RTT" and "we like to think of it as an Action-Strategy". -- Sabre (talk) 08:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think mentioning both would be a good compromise. However people decide is good to cover that is fine, although I'd probably give them equal prominence. Randomran (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have any contemporary articles for Metroid II: Return of Samus (1992) on the game's development, reception, sales, etc.? The article's FAC failed because it was lacking these things. The only magazine that I know has a review of the game when it came out is Nintendo Power, which reviewed it in its December 1991 issue, so if anyone has that, then I think that could be useful. Gary King (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I may have that issue. Not sure, I'll have to dig to find out though.

Something else to consider, there's a decent amount of legacy info: Samus's new suit and some weapons were introduced in this game, and Super Metroid is a direct sequel to it. There may be enough to make a short section. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC))

Google News turns up [18], behind pay gates though. bridies (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I have that issue of Nintendo Power, and they do in fact have a review/walkthrough of the game in it. Like most early (pre-92-ish) NP reviews, it's really more of a general description of the game than an actual critique, but they do give it scores on graphics, sound, challenge, and theme (which, going by Game Rankings, should be averaged together). I also have a GamePro issue where they have a more proper review the game (Feb. 92), so I can add that too. I don't have any real development info to add, but I'll see what I can find. If the info isn't added to the article by this evening I'll try and get it there soon enough. Nall (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay; feel free to either add the information to the article yourself or send me the text and I can add it in. Gary King (talk) 22:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

That issue of GamePro, and other retro gaming magazines can be found scanned at Retro Mags. It's a really good resource, and growing, it's also a copyvio - so let's keep this to ourselves... - hahnchen 15:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I searched through WP:VG/M and found that Metroid II was reviewed in the July 1992 issue of a German magazine called Play Time, although I'm not sure the editor with that issue is still active on Wikipedia. Sorry, that's all the help I have to offer. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 01:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it okay for me to move Sonic Drift#Sonic Drift 2 to Sonic Drift 2?--Launchballer (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Sonic Drift is already a small—and unreferenced—article, even with the sequel included. I would not think that the sequel needs its own page, but I know nothing about the games. Does Drift 2 have more coverage for notability than currently represented in the article? This thread is not directly related, but it highlights some considerations for sequel articles. —Ost (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I actually beleive so for the simple reason that Sonic Drift was not releases in England (the manual in only is Japanese) while Sonic Drift 2 was released in England albeit as Sonic Drift Racing. Plus, Sonic Eraser is only just notable, and Sonic Drift 2 is slightly more so that.--Launchballer (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Could someone with admin powers move Persona (game) to Persona (video game)? Thanks. --Mika1h (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. --MASEM (t) 19:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been working on rewriting Lost Planet but there are still a couple of things I need help with in the article. First, I need help writing the reception section. I can provide the actual review links, but actually writing the section will be tough. Can I get some help here? Thanks?--(NGG) 00:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll work on it; I've got an inexplicable fetish for Reception sections. Give me a few days. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 06:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey all. Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver is at FAC, and it has been suggested that the Next Generation Magazine (October 1999) and Electronic Gaming Monthly (June 25, 2003, according to GameRankings (?)) reviews be incorporated. One additional aspect that might make this tricky is that I somehow doubt that EGM's first review of this 1999 game is actually originally from 2003.

Unfortunately, no one at FAC has access to the relevant magazine issues, and Mitaphane (talk · contribs), who is listed at WP:VG/M as possibly being able to consult them, hasn't edited since April 1 and hasn't yet responded to email. Can anyone else help out in this respect? Thanks. — TKD::{talk} 02:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't have either of those two magazines, but I do have a relevant issue of Game Informer. The September 1999 issue of GI features Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver as its cover story, including their review, a gameplay guide, and an interview with director Amy Hennig. Is this the kind of thing you were looking for? -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 13:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that would be helpful, too; thanks. — TKD::{talk} 14:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I added Game Informer's information, and commented at the FAC page. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 08:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a general question on boxart. The Just Cause 2 article shows boxart sourced from Amazon, something I'm pretty certain is placeholder/user-generated (shows "Only on 360" despite no platforms announced, no release date announced yet, etc). Anyway, I've been having a disagreement with TJ Spyke over this, his argument is that the boxart can't be proven to be false (not sure how this would actually be accomplished), and comes from a reliable source (Amazon), so should be included. I'm against its inclusion (clearly user generated), just wondering what everyone else thinks! Thanks! Fin©™ 18:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood the question. Actually, since the boxart isn't final, you shouldn't put the boxart there, just the logo if you can find it.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

More evidence it's inauthentic: the ESRB hasn't given it a rating yet (search for it on the ESRB's website), but the screenshot claims it's rated "M". -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 00:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

TJSpyke insists on keeping it on the page claiming amazon is a 'reliable source' when it's not. Is there any way to have the image completely removed so it can't just be reverted? I'm relativly new to editing wikipedia.. 12.199.45.138 (talk) 03:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You can list it on Images for Deletion.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Direct him to our reliable sources. For unreleased games, retailers are not reliable sources.じんない 05:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

BS. If that was true then almost every unreleased game article would have to have it's boxart removed since that is where they usually come from. The source is reliable and there is no reason to remove it. TJ Spyke 21:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool guys, thanks for your help! Fin©™ 08:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like this is pretty much wrapped up but I'll just add I got this from amazon; the site being used as a source, through E-mail:

"Thanks for writing to Amazon.com to bring this to our attention.

We build our website information from many sources, and we really appreciate knowing about any errors which find their way into it.

I'll see that this error is corrected as soon as possible." 12.199.45.138 (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you would have to show proof. An IP saying that they got an e-mail with no proof. TJ Spyke 21:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm almost positive users can submit photos for products on amazon anyways, so this wouldn't be reliable no matter what. --Torsodog^Talk 21:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeh im pretty sure they can contribute images, i think they go under customer images. anyways just for informations sake, amazon.com have now pulled the Xbox 260 image, http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0013RATNM , and TJ maybe you shouldnt be so angry towards the random IP guy on his talk page Salavat (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh and a good example that amazon.com doesnt only have official artwork on their site (although at least this one makes it obvious): http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000SQ5LQ4 Salavat (talk) 17:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Gamespot has now also removed the image: http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/justcause2/index.html?tag=result;title;0 By the way I am 'that random IP guy'. F4M (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't sure where to ask this, but I thought I'd give it a try. I uploaded images for a number of games in their infobox a while back and some of them are being replaced by cover arts and being left orphaned. Which leaves me to ask, what kinds of images are preferred, screenshots or cover arts. Raphie (talk) 12:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Usually cover art in the infobox and screen shots in the article body. Without knowing which article/images you're talking about its difficult to give an exact reason for each. - X201 (talk) 12:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Cover arts generally, as it's used for identification purposes as well as demonstrating the most universal and marketed aspect of the work. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 12:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There were a number of games, but lately it's been ASO II: Last Guardian and Air Buster. Now before this heats up, I'm not whining about a bunch of images, I was only curious into thinking that I and my uploads were the reason, since it's normally my images that are affected and I guess Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs just hit the nail in the head for me. Raphie (talk) 12:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added the Air Buster screen shot back into the article. Pointless letting it go to waste as an orphan. - X201 (talk) 13:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Based on the guidance for the VG Infobox, box art is preferred but if that isn't available, some other identifying image (usually a logo) is used. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 13:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

So if cover arts are generally preferred (at least for the infobox), I can go through all the articles I added an image to and either move it to the article and make way for some kind of art/logo or I could request it to be deleted. Saves me getting messages throughout the year for orphaned images. Raphie (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

For the infobox the general order of preference (and this is just unofficial guidance so you can somewhat ignore it) is: cover box (original English version if multiple languages exist), cover box (any other English version), cover box (original language if not English), logo, screenshot with title/logo in English then if not the original language, misc screenshot.じんない 06:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay thanks for that, appears to me that screenshots are least preferable so I will look at my images and so what I can do.Raphie (talk) 13:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I stumbled across this page a few days ago, and then did a search for info today. I did not turn up anything for a game under this title. Is anyone aware of any such game or mention in magazines? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC))

It's a hoax: the game described is a blend of both Marvel: Ultimate Alliance games with some OR and a dash of oregano.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Figured it might be. Thanks for confirming. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC))

If I wish to make a request for an image to be removed, what should I do? For the record, I have made requests on the image page itself but is there anything else I need to do? Raphie (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The simplest way is to just remove it from the article and mark it as orphan and let the bots do the rest over time. Or try and get it speedied with Template:Db-f1 EDIT: scrub that, template is for duplicates. - X201 (talk) 15:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

There are also other templates for image deletion. —Ost (talk) 15:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

If the image is an upload of yours use Template:Db-author. If it's for an article that was removed, used Template:Db-reason with that as the reason. Both get the job done.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, that latter tag will save at lot of time as I have some many images to look up and possibly delete.Raphie (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This month's PC Gamer UK came with a rather interesting article concerning the legacy of Sam & Max Hit the Road, which I'm going to use to enhance the article, but it also mentioned that it was originally reviewed by the magazine back in issue 2. Due to the age of the game, contemporary reviews are hard to come by; some, such as Edge, are in the article, but I'm always open for more to help develop the article. I don't suppose anyone here has issue 2 of PC Gamer UK? I think its either Christmas 1993 or January 1994. -- Sabre (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't, but I've seen at least one article about the game in either Edge or Retro Gamer (both also UK gaming magazines). Would that help? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Both already in the article, unfortunately. -- Sabre (talk) 09:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi! The Dungeons & Dragons portal is currently a featured portal candidate here. Since D&D has created so many video games, I was wondering if the members of this project could take a look and comment on the nomination. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I've started working on Ice Climber since it's peer review and now I ready to finish the article. Sadly, I have to work on the two hardest parts for a old game like this.

First if the development section. I can only find links that talk about development for the Wii and GBA versions. Can someone please give me more links for any of the versions. Preferably alot.

Then theres reception. Again only a few of the versions have any reviews that deal with them. Can anyone help pick around for some reviews of the other versions.

As much help as possible will be great. Also, after all this work is done, I will need someone to copy-edit it for me. Thanks.--(NGG) 20:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll sign up for help with copyediting. Unfortunately, I don't have any good sources for either of the topics you're working on. :/ — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good, thanks for the help. Doing digging right now through GameFaqs and Google.--(NGG) 03:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm having an ongoing edit war with User:Nintendonly about the inclusion of "GameCube exclusive features" in various EA Sports articles (he/she does most of the edit warring, vandalism and disruption under anonymous Verizon IPs). I was initially fairly sure that saying that one version had more characters than another version is not a core difference and essentially WP:GAMECRUFT/WP:TRIVIA, but now I'm having second thoughts. Any ideas? Thanks! Fin©™ 22:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This is pretty serious if Nintendonly is using IP sockpuppets to vandalize your userpage. Have you reported them?
Anyway, I'd say mentioning that GameCube versions have more characters is reasonable, if not expected. Hope this helped, cheers. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 23:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Civility issues aside, it is worth mentioning the differences between platforms, so long as it is following the usual content guidelines: verifiable and neutral, etc. I don't see a particular problem with the way these facts were presented in the linked articles (at least, the latest revisions that included them). It doesn't seem like cruft or trivia to me. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

K cool, I think the incivility was making me just blindly revert! I'll try reporting the user for sockpuppeting today. Thanks! Fin©™ 07:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I draw everyone's attention to the WPVG's XFD page at WP:VG/D as I have added a significant amount of AFDs within the past week that have been missed. I encourage everyone to participate in the discussions and, if they can be kept, consider making a small, modest improvement if possible. Also keep in mind that AFD discussions now last for seven days instead of five per recent changes in WP:DEL and WP:AFD. MuZemike 16:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Commented a couple. Perhaps you shouldnt of mentioned the extra two days limit, dont we all have a tendency to leave things to the night before.:) Salavat (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

(While I brought up the Deletion page in the above thread) This would make sense I my view, as there are far more video game-related XFDs, and also gets more traffic, than plain Game-related XFDs (WPVG's parent WikiProject). This move would also have an additional feature of closed XFDs being automatically removed (and archived) by a bot as opposed to manually. We would still have this page, (which would also provide links to relevant TFD/CFDs, which cannot be transcluded) but instead simply have everything from Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video game transcluded to WP:VG/D. Any thoughts? MuZemike 20:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not that active with deletions, but this sounds reasonable. Especially if it would get more traffic. A few questions though. How would the bot archive things; would they continue to be subpages under WP:VG/D or get moved under WP:DS? Is there a way to include Wikipedia:Files for deletion to the list like the TfD and CfDs? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC))

I don't understand what the benefit is. If traffic is the issue, why not translude WP:VG/D on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Game? Although that would be redundant. I personally don't like the auto archive format. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

User:The wubbot archives everything at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting. Looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Game, the bot adds archived AFD discussions to an archive subpage. I suppose the one thing, as MrKIA11 noted, that I personally don't like is how they are archived, formatting-wise. I still wish there were ways to transclude TFDs and CFDs directly, but there still isn't. MuZemike 16:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If it will archive things differently from our current ones, it may best to go with MrKIA11's idea of transcluding our current page to the deletion sorting one. Perhaps we should also consult the editors at WT:DS. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 13:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC))

I made a request to have a Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 43#Bot to categorize all WP:VG articles as low by default. It looks like Xeno is willing to lend us the bot to help if there is consensus. I brought this up a couple times in the past as the backlog is immense and 95%+ of the articles would be classified as low to begin with. This would basically be a one-time thing to help clear away the debris so to speak. Any article that would be bot assessed is perfectly legit in having its priority raised if if anyone thinks it deserves a higher rating based on our assessment scale.じんない 23:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Another option pointed out by Sam Korn was we could have the bot categorize all articles as low if the priority was undefined. (But I gather the motive here is to "cheat" once , to get us out of backlog, and then try to keep up with unassertive going forward.) –xeno ^talk 23:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Just make sure the bot auto-tags certain classes as NA (Image, Disambig etc), since I've noticed a lot of these haven't been classed as such and might get swept up in the unassessed pool as a result.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

じんない 21:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

All Fronts Collection was announced yesterday and it has been added to Gears of War 2 under down loadable content. But the DLC will not contain all the features the retail game will. The retail game has a new stealth mode, a poster, strategy guide, an Xbox Live theme made by Cliffy B. and everything the DLC will have included. So is the retail game notable enough to have it's own article?--(NGG) 12:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Not really; the additional pieces lists really aren't details that would be expanded in a VG article save for the stealth mode and there's enough space in Gears 2 to include this discussion (also, be aware there's varied reports on the "differences" between the retail and DLC version; obviously the physical items are one thing, but there's mistakes in some reports that the DLC will not contain features in the box version). --MASEM (t) 12:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

At List of Wii games, all games are listed with it as part of their title. I personally don't think it's an official part of the game name. It's a group of GameCube games with new Wii controls, so new play control refers to the group itself: not the game name. What does everyone else think? RobJ1981 (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I would say that they belong on the list because they are re-releases. It's not like there's an article with that name, they just have "new play control" to show the difference between that and the original game.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I never said once that they don't belong in the list. I was just stating "new play control" is just a term Nintendo uses for GameCube ports. It's not part of the game title, so they shouldn't be listed. The links for the games go to the relevant sections for the ports, so there is no reason to list it under something incorrect. RobJ1981 (talk) 01:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)