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

I have nominated Ninja Gaiden (NES) for FA; its FAC can be found here. –MuZemike 03:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the Ninja Gaiden series of video games but it seems that Ninja Gaiden was released/ported for a large number of platforms. Unless there are major game differences between all of them (not just better graphics here or there) shouldn't they be grouped in a single article? (Instead of articles for the Arcade, NES, Game Gear, Master System, etc...)

But anyway at first glance it looks a really nice article to me. Let's hope it gets to FA - NeoGenPT (talk) 05:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there are some rather major differences between all of them. The arcade version was a beat 'em up akin to Double Dragon in which the events took place sometime before the NES series. The SMS and Game Gear versions are also different, and their events took place after the events in the NES series. Not to mention that the creator of the 2008 Ninja Gaiden II did the story so that the events led right up to the NES series. It's very confusing, indeed.

It cut a long story short, they're all distinct games, and they'll all likely stay separate I think. As far as the ports are concerned, they should all be mentioned in this article (being the PC Engine, SNES, and cellphones) and not in separate articles, so that is taken care of. –MuZemike 21:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Can we have an article created for the game Quest for Camelot (video game). Based on the 1998 Warner Bros. movie of the same name and released in 1998. Published by Nintendo (not licensed) and developed by Titus Software for the Game Boy Color but also compatible with the original Game Boy. It can be used with the Game Boy Printer and Super Game Boy. It's gameplay is similar to The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening. So is it possible to have an article of the game? --VitasV (talk) 06:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead! — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I was requesting if anyone could help create it but I guess I'll try to give it a shot. --VitasV (talk) 06:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess everyone is busy with their own works, it's normal, the number of articles in wikipedia grows almost exponentially every year but the number of editors doesn't, so it can get complicated. You don't need to create a major article right out of the blue, just a paragraph or two about the game with a couple of references for verifiability are enough to start as a stub. And from then on, if you want you can continue to expand it. And the good thing is that we don't have deadlines here so no rush, take your time. NeoGenPT (talk) 07:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Here are some sources for anyone interested in creating the article. The only substantial source I found was at Allgame. GameSpot and GameFAQs have the release date as 2001 though.

• Brief description at GameSpy
• Overview, review, credits, box art, and screenshots at Allgame
• General info at MobyGames

Hope it helps. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC))

Well there I've started. Hopefully anyone else could help add more to it. --VitasV (talk) 08:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I'm currently tweaking Civilization (video game) and I'd like it to cover some of the criticism that has undoubtedly been leveled against its depiction of history. The thing used to mention one academic article, "Civilization and its Discontents: American Monomythic Structure as Historical Simulacrum," which gets a bit of description here. It was removed in this edit by an anon as "pseudoscientific." That's a bit dubious: could someone who has access to Popular Culture Review please check?

Furthermore, can we use this very interesting thing?

Thanks, Kizor 11:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I did a brief search of the two sources. Of course, a more in-depth search may be in order.

• Assuming this is the same Popular Culture Review, they appear to be a peer reviewed journal sponsored by the University of Nevada, Las Vegas and associated with the Popular Culture Association and American Culture Association. Looking at a list of the author's writings, Matthew Kapell looks to well established as well. That specific paper was also cited in a Eurogamer article.
  I remember encountering a similar dispute at Super Mario Bros. 3. Content about gender trends in the US was removed as "feminist tub-thumping". The source was then deemed unsuitable for the article because it did not represent a "significant view".
• In regard to World History Connected, their guidelines mention they're peer reviewed. They are published by University of Illinois Press and have a group of editors from various academic levels.

I think you could make an argument for both sources at an article review here.

If you're interested in other academic sources on Civilization, check out GameStudies. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC))

Here's a protip to everyone submitting an article at Featured Article Candidates; look at the candidate list before you nominate. Right now there are five different video game-related FACs, most which have received almost no comments let alone declarations of support. I try and review as many video game FACs as I can, but given my involvement with PRs, Sweeps, and my own writing I can't give thorough reviews to so many, and we have few constant topic reviewers here we can rely on. FAC is currently suffering a severe shortage of reviewers, and adding more candidates to the pile exhausts everyone and is unlikely to get your article promoted. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to give one or two comments. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC))

I can understand the problem but on the other hand if we don't submit the articles they won't be evaluated either, so it's a lose-lose situation. Submitting them is still the best choice, because even if it takes 6 months or 6 years to be thoroughly reviewed, we are sure they will be reviewed someday. As a new user to wikipedia, I can understand why there are so few reviewers, the list of rules the articles must comply are so long that no one person can keep it all in mind. I confess I do not aspire to do article reviewing anytime soon. It is descouraging to look at the manual of style only, let alone to review an article point by point against it. I would suggest a breakdown of the "reviewers guild" into smaller parts for easier reviewing, something like Format Reviewers, Grammar and language reviewers, Image and table reviewers... well, maybe that was not the best of examples, but I think everyone can imagine what I'm trying to say. Something that would break down the effort of each individual in the reviewing process. NeoGenPT (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, if people can't follow the MoS, then they shouldn't be submitting to FAC and wasting resources of others in fixing their issues. Specialization is a double-edged sword, considering that we're a volunteer force. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

~We still have four articles up for A-class assessments at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Assessment/Requests, three that have been there for over a month. Can someone review some of the articles with me? GamerPro64 (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reviewed a couple (put the reviews at their talk page or peer review page) and I'll probably do a couple more but I hope it helps you or someone else job of assessing easier because I'm not good on criteria for each quality level so I'll leave that for someone else. CrimsonFox ^talk 22:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe that this needs to be clarified. In the [Year] in video gaming articles, should games only be listed under the year of their original release, the year of their English language release, or under both. There seems to be disagreement on the talk pages of these articles. I found this discussion, but there were not many participants, and some in the articles believe consensus is against linking to anything other than US release dates. As an example, Final Fantasy XIII is now listed at 2009 in video gaming for the Japanese release, and the 2010 in video gaming article for its European and North American releases. Thoughts? Cheers! Scapler (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

i believe that the english wiki is a international one. used by americans, asians, european and african people which are all able to communicate trough english. its just my opinion. but the original release should always be mentioned. no matter where that was. but later releases like in europe should be mentioned as well. so in the case of FF13 the game could of course be in 2009 and 2010. GBK2010 (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The last time I checked (which was some time ago), a bit under half of en.wikipedia's traffic came from natively English-speaking countries. --Kizor 14:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

less then the half? thats less as i thought. i thought about 60% are from natively english speaking countries. GBK2010 (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Heya, as the headline says, can i use gamespot as source /reference or not? what other famous websites can i use or do i have to choose the developer/publishers website as reference that a game exsists? In my case the developers exsist no more and the publisher is SNK/Playmore greets, GBK2010 (talk) 07:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

According to the VG sources, it's considered a reliable source. The list is fairly extensive. CrimsonFox ^talk 08:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thx for the fast reply and the link ^^ GBK2010 (talk) 08:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

If you'd like, you can search all of the sites deemed reliable per consensus on that page with a custom Google search engine I created here: www.google.com/cse/home?cx=004453055800956638747:6ed0u5bnolu&hl=en. You still have to make sure that the content is not user-created, like a forum or reader review, however. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 08:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I'll definitely be using that in the future. Might be an idea to specifically request that page be put on the whitelist just so linking becomes easier CrimsonFox ^talk 12:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Cool link indeed, might help a lot for that one article i want to improve ADK Tamashii and other ones without reverences i see. Should anything else be added /improved on that article? GBK2010 (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated Characters of Kingdom Hearts for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro64 (talk) 02:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I've seen on other articles talk pages, that some templates have features to say something like "this article has been reviewed for B-Class status" and it shows the list of requirements with a green check or red X to say what was ok and what wasn't according to the last review. I tried it on the video games template and nothing appears. Would it be a good feature? IMHO it looks good and gives somewhat of a sense of what needs to be done to "level up". Any thoughts? NeoGenPT (talk) 08:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe our banner supports that. Personally, I think it makes the banner to cluttered, but I see the benefit of encouraging editors to examine the B-class criteria. Do our assessments post such criteria on the talk pages in the discussion area? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC))

I personally add a section to the talk page when I review against B-class, and I prefer this to the built-in template version as it allows you to leave more in-depth comments without using a subpage, and just feels more usable to me. I believe several others who assess articles leave such reviews, or at the very least highlight which criteria are failed in the case of B-class not being met. From my point of view, the current system is fine, although perhaps we could organise a sweep of C-class articles, or groups of articles, to identify some which may have been improved and never re-assessed. --Taelus (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw your section to the Talk:Formula One (1985 video game) article and experimented on adding the todo template to it, with the items you provided. I don't really understand the tasks template so I just added a list of bulleted items. It was only after that I came across with the B-Class review template thing that the video games template doesn't have, and it look nice as a way to focus on what is required for leveling up. But I guess the todo template can do the same and even more because it's not just for B-Class. NeoGenPT (talk) 05:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The to-do list actually looks pretty good, and is also a clear marker of progress which is nice. Good idea, thanks for putting it there, perhaps we should encourage users to add them to highlight areas for improvement during assessment. Even brief guidance would be helpful after all. --Taelus (talk) 12:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

That does look a pretty good idea. Although I don't tend to do assessments it is useful to have a concise list of points that need addressing, either provided by the assessor or by whoever has the time/inclination to created the to do list. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I found article todo lists very helpful when I first started editing. Especially when there are three or more editors working on an article together. It coordinates efforts quite well. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC))

Now that we've established that the terms "console" and "computer" RPGs are too wishy-washy to formally classify genres, the lists at Chronology of computer role-playing games and its counterpart, Chronology of console role-playing games, need to be merged. But if that happens, I don't know how it will be different from the chronologies of RPG sub-genres such as Chronology of tactical role-playing video games and Chronology of roguelike video games.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think that these chronologies should just be deleted, wholesale. I'm sure people put a lot of work into them, but they seem impossible to maintain and we already have chronologically ordered categories (games by year). Plus, we have a chronological list for every sub-genre (that intersects with the main lists unnecessarily) as well as unreleased games (which needs to be kept up to date). So, basically, everything in Category:Timelines of video games that isn't a sub-category.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so emphatic about deleting them as they are Dynamic lists which do fall under WP:LIST as a valid type; however, those articles currently fail WP:V for what is a "rogue-like" what is a "tactical" role-playing video game. Without those clear criteria, then its just an indiscriminate list of information better left as a category.陣内_Jinnai 06:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

What's "impossible to maintain" about them? It's not like new games are currently being released back in 1987. It seems to me they're a lot more static than an alphabetical list. SharkD  Talk  04:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, forget that, then, but Jinnai makes a good point - there is no way of telling whether a game belongs on the "console" or "computer" list, since they often overlap with multiplatform releases. The sub-genre articles are clearly not verifiable and should be deleted.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure the resident roguelike experts could dig up sources verifying they're roguelikes if prodded. As for the tactical RPG lists, have you even looked at them? The later ones especially are pretty well sourced, as we have lists like this to rely upon. As for the computer vs. console lists, I can't really comment on them other than to repeat what I said earlier in the merger discussion: good sources are few and far between, but there is precedent that they are handled and discussed separately. (For instance, IGN awards console and PC games separately, including RPGs.) SharkD  Talk  05:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I was an early contributor/maintainer to all of these lists, but Dawynn seems to have taken over the role. SharkD  Talk  05:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

In the article Transformers:_Revenge_of_the_Fallen_(video_game) which is nominated above i saw the sentence " Revenge of the Fallen received mixed reviews on the next-gen systems, holding a 64% at GameRankings and a 61% at Metacritic "

Well, i dont know but speaking about a next generation of consoles when they are 3 (ps2) or 4 (xb360) years old sounds a bit weird. All in all i would replace "current gen" and "next gen" in all articles just with the names of the consoles. dunno in how many other articles the terms were used. Greets, GBK2010 (talk) 16:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

May also be better to mention which generation specifically (6th for PS2 or 7th for X360/PS3). "Next-gen" is a loose term in the industry that USUALLY refers to the current generation of consoles as though they're still new and fresh in the market. Since there isn't an 8th-generation console lineup yet, "next-gen" basically means "current-gen", but that term will obviously mean something different when the 8th generation does materialize. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly my thought. Articles in which the current gen, next gen terms are used are somewhat "outdated" as soon as a new generation of consoles is announced. GBK2010 (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Kiefer: context would certainly help with that. "Next generation" may mean one thing to the gaming community, but it doesn't really translate easily into well-written, jargon-free prose. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC))

It should simply read "its X and Y console versions recieved mixed reviews", thus eliminating any confusion.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

So, can it get edited in that transformers and perobably many other articles? GBK2010 (talk) 06:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Sabre or Zxcvbnm's suggestions both have merit, but probably I think it should depend on the writer's style of prose. So yeah, I'd say make the corrections in which ever way you think makes the most sense for a particular article. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC))

Transformers was updated. I simply listed the consoles. Seems a bit nitpicky to me, but since it doesn't matter to me it was an easy change. --Teancum (talk) 12:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

yeah, its more or less a minor edit..but to the better :) thanks for the work and a nice weekend to ya GBK2010 (talk) 12:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I support the removal of the term "next gen" on general principle. Of course you can't remove it from quoted text or from the article Next generation (buzzword) which doesn't exist. SharkD  Talk  04:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to bring this matter to this project's attention. It appears that there has been continuous reversions over what games should be listed in the lead, in the article 2010 in video gaming. Some feel only the most "notable" games should be mentioned, while others think that it should remain the same. --The Taerkasten (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

And there's no discussion on the talk page... *facepalm* Silly editors! But yeah, I'm thinking that putting so much focus on sequels is POV. Why isn't Bayonetta, one of the earliest releases and definitely one of the most well-known ones, in the lead? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Overall most of the "year in gaming" articles are just flooded with mentions of the sequels and not much else (last time I checked at least). Are they any better now, or just the same mess of clutter that people consider "notable" to be included? RobJ1981 (talk) 03:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Are these even necessary? Is there anywhere else where someone can get the release dates of all the games?--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Heya, saw that the smackdown games dont have the roster WWF SmackDown! and acording to the talk page it is or was? The character guidelines are mentioned in the talk page there..but didnt see where exactly it says the characters couldnt be mentioned. On other wrestling games like WCW/nWo Thunder also for PS1. the full roster is mentioned same with WWF WrestleMania 2000 as example. on TNA Impact! (video game) only a few of the wrestlers are mentioned. so what are the current guidelines now? Can we add the characterrosters for the smackdown games now or not? I believe they are a significant piece of informations for fans of these games ..similar fighting games feature the character roster as well in the most cases. GBK2010 (talk) 04:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd say the other games you mentioned (WCW/nWo Thunder and WWF WrestleMania 2000) should not have the full roster. Mainly because of WP:NOTGUIDE, which states Wikipedia is "not an instruction manual, guidebook, or textbook", and "should not read like ... tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides or recipes." Every video game walk-through, tutorial, and guide I've seen lists full rosters for such games. Some instruction manuals do as well. Also, most times a full list of characters doesn't really give much information to the layman. Simply stating, "there are X NUMBER of characters based on real-life wrestlers, including NOTABLE NAME1, NOTABLE NAME2, and NOTABLE NAME3," typically conveys the same idea.

The only reason that other articles currently have full rosters is that there are too many articles for use to monitor and we have yet to get to them yet. The only exception comes to mind is if a full roster is pretty small (like 10 or less) and the characters are integrated into plot at the level where the reader needs to know some details to grasp the story. Other than that, I'd say keep such details to a minimum. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 05:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC))

You'll also notice that none of those articles have a B rating or above. As they improve the rosters will be dropped. --Teancum (talk) 06:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Heya thx for the replys ^^. Okay this raised another question tough. Whats with gameseries like tekken..streetfighter etc. which have. 1. a full charakterlist in the series article. b. sometimes a second article where all characters are listed. also often articles for each character. so..i understood it right and..the rosters will deleted from the articles.. but the articles about a character not? and those character-list sites ? Will articles like List of characters in the Tekken series or even Characters of Kingdom Hearts get deleted then as well? Or are those articles about characters prefered and possible for the smackdown game as well? GBK2010 (talk) 08:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, since that games feature professional wrestlers who pass notability, one would assume that articles on the major characters in the games already exist as articles about actual people. Secondly, any character or character list article must demonstrate real-world notability (though you can find some who don't - those ones should be deleted). These notability outside of the game is normally demonstrated by showing reception from reliable sources towards the character(s). A good character article will include a good amount of info on character creation and development, and reception from outside sources as well. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 09:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The use of a single release date over regional release dates is being discussed for List of Wii games. Comment would be much appreciated here. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 12:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

There is another proposal to move the deletion page under the WP:DELSORT project. See the discussion here. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI- Wii Sports‎ will be the Featured article for February 4th. Help keeping the article tidy would be appreciated. --MASEM... Whoops. I mean (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC))

Only when I get two TFAs in the same week will it be that bad... --MASEM (t) 00:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The article on GNUlactic Konquest was recently deleted. Would these books have helped? SharkD  Talk  04:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The former article is needing major work, and a lot of work already has been done on the latter article (albeit primarily be me). I think it would be best if we merged the Classic Controller list into the GCN controller list and rename it List of Wii games using the Nintendo GameCube and Classic controllers any opposition? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Pardon my French, but HELL NO! It would simply be a trivial list that may be deleted. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think both of them should be deleted. Listing games by control method seems unencyclopedic to me. A category could do that job just fine. The information from List of Wii games that use the Nintendo GameCube controller should be added to List of Wii games instead.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that the lists seem rather unnecessary. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

There have been discussions about that so I was playing with this table format, but never got around to receive input about it. « ₣M₣ » 21:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears that the consensus is against the merge. I will fix up the Classic Controller list (probably next weekend) and leave it a separate page. On another note, I like FMF's proposition. There have been attempts to merge the GCN controller list into List of Wii games but the consensus was against it as it would make the page very large and make it even slower to load. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, I would support the formatting being used on the main List of Wii games article. How about splitting it into alphabetical sections such as List of Wii games (A-G) or something along those lines?--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If you can get the consensus to add compatibility to the list, then I'd help, but I don't think that consensus could be found any time soon (here was the original merge proposal, it tanked Talk:List_of_Wii_games#Merge_proposal) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I was bold and redirected the former to the latter - there doesn't seem to be a need for the "Classic Controller" article anymore. --Teancum (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I actually have a wikified version of Classic Controller list partially completed, as soon as I finish I will be reverting your edit. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 09:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Not owning a Wii myself, what are the differences between using the Classic and using the GC controller? Why can't this information be in List of Wii games that use the Nintendo GameCube controller since there's already a column for it? --Teancum (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Using a CC involves also using a Wii remote, while using a GCN controller simply means plugging in a controller into the GCN controller slot. There is desire to know what games use GCNCs, while not so much for CCs (source: google searches that depict many gaming fora with posts about this). This is most likely because Wii remotes and nunchuck are very expensive and GCN controllers are rather cheap (and also many Wii owners were/are GameCube owners).

There are plenty of games that allow use of only one and not both (e.g. Monster Hunter Tri is CC only, Bomberman Blast is GCNC only), thus it isn't that simple to turn the CC list into a redirect Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That clears it up, thanks! --Teancum (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

A user has requested to make lots of merges regarding fighting game characters: See Talk:List of characters in The King of Fighters series#Merge (2010 Edition) and Talk:List of characters in the Street Fighter series#Merge. I don't want to throw bad faith, but I think that user is angry because other articles he liked were merged, and he is ignoring WP:Notability. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

good you reported it here. GBK2010 (talk) 15:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I replied. I agree with GBK2010. It is good that you posted here, because now it will be dealt with. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Explains why half my damn watchlist lit up like a Christmas tree. So much for retirement...if I could get ahold of SF20: The Art of Street Fighter, I could really go to town on those Street Fighter articles. I'm kinda surprised he didn't go after Soulcalibur.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Nobody retries from this place, it's like the famous Al Pacino quote from Godfather III - "Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in." ;) --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Best I've managed so far is semi-retirement. :-p (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC))

With all that said, I did go ahead and merge Balrog: out of all the remaining articles his just felt overly weak; he's in many ways the "me too!" character when it comes to this series and people's reactions to it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Charizard has been peer reviewed, and significantly improved. I think it could be ready for GA. Should I nominate it, or does anybody have any more comments for the peer review?(please post suggestions for the article in the Peer review, but comments on nominating here.) _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 17:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well it's been over a month since the last notice, so should we remove ((User WPVG)) and Category:WikiProject Video games members from any users that are still listed as unknown, either by bot or AWB? MrKIA11 (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't remove it; simply add and set |nocat=true on those with the userbox; for those manually in the category, I would suggest making it an inline link rather than complete removal. --Izno (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know.. I don't think we should remove userboxes and categories from users that added it themselves. That list includes some people that greatly contributed in the past, and just because they are inactive do we have to remove these things from their userpage? It isn't like we are cleaning the members list. These are items on their page that they chose to put there. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 18:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The original reason for the list was so that we could then make the category responsive to who currently contributes (or at least thinks of themselves as contributing). The people who previously contributed are still welcome to re-add themselves to the category, but there is a innate quality that if one identifies oneself as a member of this WikiProject, that they are also identifying themselves as an active member. --Izno (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:UP#OWN, we are allowed to edit others' user space. But I'd say it's discouraged. I'm sure some might even see the edit as unwelcome.

Regardless, the list in its current form serves the purpose of the category. I think it would be easier to simply maintain the list. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC))

Yea, there's no point having both a category and a list. Just modify the userbox to stop categorizing members. –xeno^talk 15:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

And then delete the category on the basis of G8? Otherwise it will show that there are very few people in the project. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

We could either delete it or leave a note that it has been deprecated and point to the member list. I've a slight preference to the latter, but either way is fine imo. –xeno^talk 16:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Member list maintenance

Now that the list contains only active editors, should we change the format to a bot-maintained table with more information about activity, as was brought up before? MrKIA11 (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. I think we had trouble finding an available bot that could manage this on a regular basis. At the time, we had a much larger list to go through. That could have been a hindrance that may no longer apply to the current list. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC))

Almost every source shows this game being named Darius Burst, but the page has been moved to Dariusburst on the grounds that the logo is DARIUSBURST, and this album website shows it being one word. Thoughts? MrKIA11 (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I typically follow WP:COMMONNAME. Most people don't call a "grizzly bear" an "ursus arctos horribilis". Of course, the other name can and should be mentioned in the lead. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC))

most Japanese sources and Japanese speakers WRITE it as "DARIUSBURST". English convention (well, Wikipedia convention) would state that this would be made lowercase, and the soundtrack album reinforces this. you're getting "Darius Burst" from mostly western sources, and that's not fair because it directly conflicts the standard spelling simply because of that space.

if we had the game released here in the States or over in Europe or somewhere as "Darius Burst", that'd make a lot more sense. but we haven't, at least not yet. Elm-39 - T/C/N 16:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be strange to think that this is the first time in the Darius series that "Darius" and "otherword" have been combined. Maybe best to look for a Taito press release or something. Salavat (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

They are all in Japanese, which when directly used is "DARIUSBURST", at least thats the jist I got looking around their official site. Personally as long as a redirect is kept going either way, I think most readers will be content. (Short-term anyway). However, it seems all the English sources which have reported/discussed this game refer to it as "Darius Burst". I would think that as the English wikipedia it may be better to hold it at the common name. --Taelus (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

but that's not fair because it's not a very applicable name. it goes right against what is fact as proven by the market it was released in.

let's say <game title> has Latin characters as its title and it was not being released outside of Japan. this one gaming publication decides to completely change the name because they don't like the original name for some reason, and all the other gaming publications decide to pick that up. would we still use this new name anyway, even if it's completely different from the original name? Elm-39 - T/C/N 16:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a rather extreme and unlikely scenario. The article name is meant to be a unique identifier for Wikipedia's purpose. Common names are meant to help people find the article by providing a unique identifier that is easily recognizable to the masses. The actual and common names can be included in the lead. For example: "Darius Burst (promoted as DARIUSBURST) is a...". (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC))

1. Ah no, that's actually pretty much what we're talking about here, and almost exactly what happened.

2. Technically speaking, the presence of that space there makes the title wrong. The name "Dariusburst" can still be read using English conventions and it is also correct at the same time. I really don't see the problem here. Keeping "Darius Burst" as a redirect to "Dariusburst" makes things even better for those English speakers who would feel more comfortable typing the former in the search bar. Elm-39 - T/C/N 16:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Elm- I'm afraid I must disagree with your first assertion. The scenario you gave mentioned "completely changing" the name. This specific case only involves a extra space, which is a minor spelling difference. English publications are not calling this game "Humperdink" or anything similar.

In regard to your second point, no one is arguing that the common title may be incorrect. The point is there are guidelines in place for such disagreements and we're simply trying to follow Wikipedia's naming conventions. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC))

1. The point I was trying to make is that adding that space could completely change the meaning of the phrase.

2. "All national varieties of English spelling are acceptable in article names; Wikipedia does not prefer any national variety over any other. An article title on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the variety of English appropriate for that nation (for example Australian Defence Force)."

So in regards to this, a Japanese game with a particular usage of Latin (which could be construed as English) characters, we would use "Dariusburst" as opposed to "Darius Burst", even if some sources would tell us otherwise. Other than this one bit, I can't really see how the guidelines would affect something like this.

However, a friend has pointed out that the official website for the game has tags "darius" and "burst". Would we trust the tags as being definite, which seems to go against the preferred company spelling; or would we simply see these as search aids?

And one thing I'd like to make clear: the album website simply took "Dariusburst" from the cover of the album itself. Technically, if "DARIUSBURST" were one word, and since there is no other particular capitalization for it besides "Dariusburst", it could still follow Wikipedia conventions on English. Elm-39 - T/C/N 17:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:COMMONNAME: "Common usage in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name". Cheers! Scapler (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I completely missed that, thanks Elm-39 - T/C/N 18:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

comment: i name games exactly like they are on the game cover and "push start" screen/ main meno GBK2010 (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

A relatively new user seems to be starting the above linked possible project. This user is a good faith and motivated editor and as such I encourage anyone in our group with experiences on project formatting to extend a friendly welcome and offer of assistance in how to create a project. Thank you. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I have been reading in various non-RS pages online that the spell-point system in DDO was based on rules from the Unearthed Arcana book. I am trying to get the UA article to GA - anyone have an RS that would confirm this otherwise speculative claim? :) BOZ (talk) 04:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

24.67.9.40 has been vandalizing video game related articles for the past three months and has been blocked three times. Examining the IP address's edit history reveals tons of video game vandalism that hasn't yet been removed. Some of it is more subtle and may not be easily identified as vandalism, but research shows that the edits are indeed vandalism. Based on the edit history , it appears that no constructive edits have ever come from this IP address. Is it safe to assume vandalism and revert all of them, or will each edit have to be manually verified first? Reach Out to the Truth 01:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If the volume of edits is such that it would create a lot of work then I'd strongly suggest someone with appropriate buttons/edit-fu just undo them. No need to glorify vandals by picking through their shit looking for pearls. Someoneanother 14:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I was able to remove some with rollback, some with undo, and in cases where later edits made undo impossible I had to fix it manually. Took an hour and a half. As it turns out, it took quite a bit more time to revert than to verify that it was all vandalism. The block expires in two weeks, at which point I think it would be a good idea to check up on this user's contributions to make sure these sorts of edits don't continue. Reach Out to the Truth 04:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that the constant updating of specific articles on the To-Do list has to go (along with the banner). It would be less intrusive with simply links to the relevant pages in which, for example, articles up for Peer Review or GA Review are listed. Right now it just seems like there's a permanent backlog. Or, maybe replace the To-Do list with something more organized.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

How about this?

Not perfect, but maybe we can tweak it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC))

That looks a lot nicer, but is there any way that the list of pages doesn't have to be manually updated by editing the template itself? For example, sub-templates with separate edit functions resembling the infoboxes below articles. Also, the project tasks section could be more organized, like broken up into different boxes instead of just listed.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Any progress on this? I'd like to replace the todo list ASAP, but each section should be separately editable without having to edit the main "todo" template.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess you could make them subpages of the todo template, like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/to do/FA and then transclude them in the template. Also, shouldn't the template be at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/to do instead of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/to do? JACOPLANE • 2010-01-7 10:39

Sorry for the late reply. I've been sick.

My only issue with sub pages is that splitting the content up like that will prevent mass updates across the board. Admittedly, I don't do updates as frequently as others so this may not be a major issue. But I know some of my edits fix formatting to several sections.

Can you elaborate more on the organization for the project tasks? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC))

I don't think that mass updating will be that much of a problem as opposed to the considerable clutter that this template possesses right now. It probably takes longer to actually FIND the correct list than to edit them all separately. As for the project tasks, I was thinking of separating them similarly to the top bar on WP:Village pump with the boxes/icons. The ones that are simple reminders, unrelated to deletion/creation/improvement/etc. can go underneath the boxes.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

←Splitting the template into multiple transclusions would be a royal pain in the ass. Frankly, the todo list is supposed to be intrusive so people actually see it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I think of it as more of a "reminder list" for current members of the Wikiproject than a call for new editors, as not many of them seem to be paying attention, as evidenced by the backlog.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm kind of on the fence. I agree it is overwhelming in its current state, but I don't want to raise the barrier for new editors. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC))

I really can't see any problem with it as it is. If it gets overwhelming, then that's just it telling us to get off our backsides and do some project work, rather than find a way to sweep it under the carpet. -- 20:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, if it's getting too big to manage, it might be a sign that the project is burdened with unnecessary work. Personally, I think we should drop Good Articles altogether, since the evaulation process is too time consuming and bureaucratic, and focus on attaining Featured Articles. I am a firm believer in the C, B, A, FA (evaluated) system rather than the C, B, GA (evaluated), A, FA (re-evaluated) system that is redundant and ridiculous. I don't think Peer Reviews are much trouble, but it's also a pain to add and remove articles from the template, hence why I'd like multiple transclusions with edit links if possible. But this is for the sake of ease of use - I don't see how having a hard-to-read and edit list cluttering the template will compel new editors to help. Also, I think that the requests page should be removed due to neglect and all requests should be posted here so that they can be individually evaluated. Most of them usually aren't notable enough for new articles.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Those ideas are certainly thinking outside the box and worth examining.

My main issue with cutting GA work is that it is the one thing we've got down pat. The FA bar has been steadily rising and many of us (myself included) just haven't been able to keep up. Our FA output is starting to slow down, but our GA output is certainly going strong because we have a number of talented editors that write strong articles. The articles don't quite cut it for FA, but generally do very well at GAN.

As far as the peer reviews go, I may have a template idea that could be transcluded on the todo list and WP:VG/PR. Let me think it through first before I go into detail.

The request page has had mild success with new articles, a couple DYKs as well. But my experience with it has been explaining why an article can't be created. This will require more discussion from the active editors there. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC))

I still argue like I have that A class should simply be moved to have it set up as Stub-Start-C-B-A-GA-FA. I just don't think it makes sense to stop doing letters, restart, and stop again. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't really start and stop. GA-FA and the lettered assessments are two different things: Stb-Stt-C-B-A are roughly the same, but they can change depending on what project you're talking about. GA and FA are independent assessments. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

GA is a "false bar" to strive for. Why not simply improve it to "A" class and leave it at that, if you can't go any further? Why is a B+ more important than an A? If you're going to keep Good Articles, at least put them AFTER the A class instead of before. When an article reaches Good Article status, you're basically saying "you can stop improving it, it's a good article now". The Featured Article is supposed to be the highest quality, almost perfect encyclopedia article, so having "good" articles suggest that they have similarly transcended the letter rankings, which they haven't. Not to mention that there is really no difference between a Good Article and a peer review, so what's the point of having both?

Having a request page is inherently flawed. Most people who simply request articles are also unwilling or unable to find sources. This makes the page a veritable ghost town because if the article hasn't been created, it's usually non-notable. I say, make the person explain *why* it's notable when they request a page be created.

And, finally, I think the To-Do list should be replaced ASAP and then updated later. It's just cluttered and ugly as it is. Most people will probably TL;DR on the lists of articles it contains.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I think B, GA, A, FA sort of makes sense. B is satisfactory(80-85% Almost good. Needs some tweeks), GA is "Good"(85-90% Nothing seems to need tweeks), A is really good,(90-95% Almost perfect, but not quite there yet.) and FA is perfect.(95-100% One of the best articles. Very good.)

Not all articles can get to FA. They just aren't enough of a subject to have a featured article on. GA can be achived, as the article is "good", but it isn't "perfect". _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 18:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't take issue with the rating scale itself but with the fact that "GA" quality is emphasized so much. Why can't B just encompass 80-89%, A encompass 90-99% and FA be 100%? That's how the letter grading scale usually works. I just think that reviewing things when they reach a B+ level doesn't make sense and takes up unnecessary time and effort, as well as trivializes the "A" ranking by making "GA" a de facto "A". In my view, things should only be comprehensively rated if a peer review is asked for, or if the article is an FA candidate.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

←There are a few issues are work there in regard to the rating scale.

• Because of the increasing strictness of the FA criteria (especially 1a), most editors just can't write the "professional prose" necessary for FA. Many of us, however, are still quite capable of writing GA quality prose. I think that's where some of the emphasize comes from. Editors are still trying to write quality articles, just at a level they're capable of.
• The other part is that we're following Wikipedia's site wide model of rating progression. The GA → A → FA path has been around for sometime now. But we've had such little emphasis on A-class for so long that we largely ignore it.
• In regard to A-class reviews, the process in its current form is flawed. I think it's too loosely defined and understaffed, which results in a lengthy waiting period (for starting as well as closing). If we plan to aim more for this rating, then the process will need revamping.

I agree that the request page is flawed too. I think stricter guidelines should be applied to the removal of requests to keep the list more manageable. I also suggest informing the requesters of such guidelines via an edit notice.

Overall, Zxcvbnm brings up some good points about our project. Our current structure stretches our resources too thin. I hope we can consolidate things to improve our article writing, but really I think this boils down to having enough experienced editors to make the processes work. Maybe some mentorships could help newer editors fill the gaps that older editors have moved on from. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC))

I do think that we have to at least not split B and A class up with GA. Two ideas I think would help:

Shuffle them around. Make GA like FA mini, and A just a grade that you don't have to get opinions for. Or...

Merge GA with Peer Review. Eh? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer the latter, for the sake of making the ratings less confusing. Remember that non-wiki-editors might assume that good articles are equivalent or close to featured articles, which would not be the case. But if you increased the standards of good articles, then why not simply work towards a featured article?--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The thing about FA and GA is those have site-wide criteria. Aside from individual GA nominations, we can't exercise any stricter grading. And even then we would surely be chastised for not adhering to WP:GA?. The only review process we can tweak and set standards for as a project is A-class, which according to WP:A? is suppose to be near-FA quality.

Something else worth mentioning, articles don't have to progress from B → GA → A. They can go B → A → GA or even B → FA just as easily. The GA point between is just how things normally happen.

If we do away with our peer review page, we'd also do away with the agreement we have with WP:MILHIST to review each others articles. Admittedly, that practice has died down, but the door is still open at this point. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC))

I could see peer reviews being helpful to bring attention to a certain article. But we can't simply eliminate GA unless we have something to replace it with, such as replacing all GA articles with A-class ("rounding up" all the GA articles into the A criteria). Considering the current lack of use of the obvious next letter of the alphabet, A, in favor of the loosely defined good article standard, GA, that also requires extra work in the form of independent peer reviews.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I took the liberty of replacing the To-Do list with the new design. However, I still think that the subpages are a good idea.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I've rv-ed on basis of WP:BRD, I really don't think that this has been given enough discussion to make such a change yet. Especially given that most of this thread has managed to derail into "FA/GA" vs "Stub-Start-C-B-A", which has absolutely nothing to do with the to-do list. Actual discussion of the to-do list ends nine comments after Guyinblack's draft, and what's there doesn't exactly produce a firm agreement or account of different views. It still needs work.

My concerns are this: if you visibly remove what has to be done, its much more likely to build up and not be noticed. That would be very bad. Its simple fact that people will be more likely to do something if they see it needs doing: they are more liable to do peer reviews, FACs, etc on the to-do list if they load up this page, see a direct link and go "what-the-heck" rather than going out of their way to check what reviews and nominations are going on. It might sound minor, but I think that using the "show/hide" feature is a very bad idea: all it does is sweep it under the carpet. Out of sight, out of mind. Sure, it might look smaller (though it actually takes up more space on this page than the old version), but I think it will adversely affect participation in those areas of WP:VG business. There has to be a simpler way to deal with this, which keeps what needs to be done instantly visible without the necessity for further clicking, but keeps it a comfortable size.

(yes, I know I probably should have voiced this earlier, but as I said, the thread got derailed and taken away from anything involving the layout of the to-do list) -- Sabre (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

My previously stated view was that people only use the to-do list if they are actively looking for an article to edit. They don't just go "what the heck" and start to peer review or cleanup an article, since it's not a trivial matter. Therefore, sweeping things under the carpet isn't an issue, and right now it's so cluttered that people might actually avoid it as tl;dr.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I do, and I can't believe I'm the only one who goes "ah, I see that needs doing, I'll do that" when loading up this page. Not article cleanup, but certainly GAN, FAC, etc (cleanup's not on there anyway). I'm not saying that the current one is absolutely perfect, all I'm after is some on-topic discussion on design that brings together some different ideas and attempts to compromise between views. I don't think jumping in the first one that turns up is necessarily the best. -- Sabre (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

How about a straw poll on which one is better? You can advertise it above the template itself.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No, you miss what I'm getting at. I'm not trying to defend the current version, I'm after refinement of the redesign that will satisfy all. Holding a straw poll at present would be needless. -- Sabre (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Section break

Let's get a section break in here to start things over. From what I read, here are the desired goals for the to do list:

• Provide anyone interested in helping out with something to do
• Display content prominently yet concisely
• Be easy to update

If we can agree on these goals, I think we can proceed. Sounds like a good starting point? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC))

Aye, sounds reasonable. Some thoughts: we need to displays the information in the top five, possibly four depending on thoughts on the bounty board, lines prominently. However, these are the ones that need some sort of organisation so they are clear and concise, as they are being updated and can build up. Though as previously mentioned I don't think that adding a show/hide function to deal with this is the best approach. For the rest, what about limiting the ones from deletions down to possibly single links in a footer-like arrangement across one or two lines? That would certainly cut down amount of size used as opposed to writing out the full points for them. Something like:

Deletion  · New articles (Requests)  · Images  · Whatever's next

Alternatively, get rid of the second half entirely, since most of it is linked to on the sidebar. -- Sabre (talk) 20:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I like the compact list for project tasks. Here's an expanded version:

I agree that the show/hide functions may not be for the best, especially for our less-experienced members looking for stuff to do. I think getting this bottom portion sorted out first may make the top (which is the bulk of the list) easier to redesign. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC))

Centered is a bad idea. It hurt my eyes trying to read it when I went on this page. I don't see why it needs to be centered. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

How about this?

Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC))

I think that deals with the second half sufficiently. How to deal with the first half adequately, on the other hand, is going to be a challenge. Perhaps some sort of tabular format? (I'd try to provide some sort of example of what I mean, but I'm seriously rubbish with this sort of code, even if it is basic.) -- Sabre (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Just the top part

This two column idea works best when anything that is empty is hidden. I don't think this is ideal, but I figured some feedback from others can take this further. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC))

I like the two columns better. I would change "boards" to "incentives" or something like that.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Aye, I think that the two column approach works well. I'd suggest playing around with text size though, trying to find something smaller than the default, but larger than <small> tags produce. - Sabre (talk) 13:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's a slightly tweaked and updated version.

For those that plan to do updates, where the second column starts is determined where ((Col-2)) is placed. So depending on how bloated the peer review or GA sections get, we can try to balance things. If need be, something typically short like Article reviews can be complete moved from one place in the first column to a different place in the second.

Unfortunately, I don't think we have much room to play with the text size. The todo list is meant to use the styles of the pages its transcluded on. However, since its our project, I assume we can tweak that as needed. I just worry that there may be some unforeseen complications if we mess with the style too much. It's easy to set the font in this mock up because it uses a table. The actual list would have to use <div> or <span> tags. That's what I worry about causing problems down the road. Right now the font size is set to 95%. Anything smaller pretty looks like we're using <small> tags. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC))

Aesthetically it looks cleaner and takes up less vertical space, so I have no problems with it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Support the bottom template update. I don't really have a problem with the current one, but the new one is still an improvement. --Teancum (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The new version looks a lot better. In fact, I would go so far as to say this was a triumph. Making a note here, huge success. I don't have any preference for the 95% or 100% font, though.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Addition

Should we add a section for articles marked in the talk page as needing urgent attention like Computer role-playing game? Usually these are the pages that have had decisions like AfD merge or Arbcom ruling.陣内_Jinnai 04:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be a good idea, since it's, well, urgent.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Should we have some loose guidelines for such discussions? I'm sure sure it'll get updated just fine, but some guidelines would help share the workload. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC))

Not sure what you mean by "such discussions"?陣内_Jinnai 21:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

He means make some rules so people don't put just any discussion up there. What exactly makes it "Urgent"? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 21:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah okay. Basically I;d say some kind of dispute resolution that has some official consensus or decision that needs to be implimented. Those would be:

1. AfD - merge or copy to a fanwiki
2. RfC, Mediation or Arbcom decision that requires cleanup or merge.
3. Any article marked with a ((BLP dispute)) tag because of legal issues (the legal issues with images and the like are usually deleted quickly enough).陣内_Jinnai 22:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Any comments?陣内_Jinnai 23:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if we want to include any AfDs on there because we get a lot of those and they are already listed at the deletion page. The other two sound good to me. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC))

Does anyone mind if I modify ((VG deletion)) to add a link to Google search the reliable sources for video games? I received a request for it, but I wanted to make sure no one else minded. Also open to suggestions for better placement or wording.

From:

*Note:  This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. ~~~~

to something like:

*Note:  This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) ~~~~

The only problem is that subsequent deletion discussion (e.g., Page (x^xx nomination)) will have this part included in the search, but I figured it's easy enough to remove that from the search box when it does happen. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that would be great! Whenever I see an article up for deletion that I know about, I use the Google search. It is very useful. I have saved an article or two by doing that. ;) _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 17:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. SharkD  Talk  20:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC))

What's the difference between this and the ((findsources)) that is included on top of the deletion discussion? –MuZemike 22:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This uses a Google Custom Search of the websites that are listed as reliable sources for video games. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there a way to remove certain sub-domains? SharkD  Talk  03:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Examples:

• "shopper.cnet.com"
• "forums.gametrailers.com"
• "forumplanet.gamespy.com"
• "download.cnet.com"
• "www.gamespot.com/users"
• "www.gametrailers.com/users"
• "www.gamespot.com/pages/forums"
• "www.firingsquad.com/matrix"
• "boards.ign.com"
• "sitemap.gamespot.com/forums"
• "www.gametrailers.com/comment_window.php" (followed by some random PHP junk)
• "www.gamespot.com/pages/unions"
• "rockpapershotgun.com/rpsforum"

SharkD  Talk  05:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I would think so, but I don't know who's custom search it is. Odie5533 was the one that added it, but they don't seem to be very active. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the template is working. I keep getting directed here. SharkD  Talk  04:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That was my mistake. It wasn't substing ((SUBPAGENAME)), so if you clicked the links on WP:VG/D, it would use that page as the name. I fixed it now. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Should there be an option to disable the search, for discussions that it doesn't apply (e.g., Character lists, Music), possibly by something like |search=none? MrKIA11 (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Definitely. I'm sure some might take issue with useless google searches. That should remove any opposition to this feature. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC))

Currently there are four books on the FF series.

• Book:Final Fantasy Series
• Book:Final Fantasy
• Book:Final Fantasy VIII
• Book:Final Fantasy XII

However Book:Final Fantasy Series and Book:Final Fantasy significantly overlap, and should probably be merged.

Also, I think the overall series of book should be structured as follows:

• Book:Final Fantasy series
• Book:Final Fantasy I
• Book:Final Fantasy II
• Book:Final Fantasy III
• Book:Final Fantasy IV
• Book:Final Fantasy V
• Book:Final Fantasy VI
• Book:Final Fantasy VII
• Book:Final Fantasy VIII
• Book:Final Fantasy IX
• Book:Final Fantasy X
• Book:Final Fantasy XI
• Book:Final Fantasy XII
• Book:Final Fantasy XIII
• Book:Final Fantasy XIV
• Book:Final Fantasy XV

• Book:Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles series
• Book:Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles
• Book:Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: Ring of Fates
• Book:Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: My Life as a King
• Book:Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: Echoes of Time
• Book:Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: My life as a Darklord
• Book:Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: The Crystal Bearers

• Book:Final Fantasy Tactics series
• Book:Final Fantasy Tactics
• Book:Final Fantasy Tactics: The War of the Lions
• Book:Final Fantasy Tactics Advance
• Book:Final Fantasy Tactics A2: Grimoire of the Rift
• Book:Crystal Defenders
• Book:Crystal Defenders: Vanguard Storm

Or something close to that (for instance, maybe the FF Tactics series shouldn't have individual books). What say you? Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 19:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Where did this Book namespace come from? SharkD  Talk  04:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It's about 2 months old. You can read all about it here. There are currently 28 books related to videogames. See also Archive 77. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know this namespace either. These "books" look like (and I guess they really are) just groups of articles mashed together around a specific topic, like categories. I wouldn't call this a book, but that's just my oppinion. NeoGenPT (talk) 06:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Click the PDF link and things should start making sense. The purpose of the Collection extension is indeed to create books, collections of articles that can be viewed as a PDF or printed. Or if you don't want to print a big book of Wikipedia articles you can have PediaPress print them for you. Reach Out to the Truth 22:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

There are at least 5 "real" Books about the Diablo series as well. Good written btw..can recommend them to fans of the games. GBK2010 (talk) 07:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget Book:Music of the Final Fantasy series. --PresN 18:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Do we really need a book for every Final Fantasy game? Not every one has that much content. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC))

Well if you extend books to include designers and important people, a book on FFI could look something like this. Which is more than reasonable, IMO. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 17:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Looks like the books can be organized in ways that our Featured and Good topics can't. So long as the page length is taken into account, I guess we're free to create them as we see fit. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC))

One thing I've noticed is that in the case of most top class character articles - ie, Mario, Solid Snake, and Link (The Legend of Zelda) - the reception is sorely lacking. Mario, while he has a sizable section, it is lacking in critical reception. My theory is that because people assume that their notability goes without saying, they don't really have to try to establish it. Some great counter-examples are Samus Aran, a character who is both significant to video games and with a strong reception section, and Bowser (Nintendo), which while it definitely needs trimming, it has a lot of content that can be added to its section in many ways. But when you compare it to certain articles like Ivy Valentine, which has probably the biggest reception section of any video game character article I've ever seen, there's no way that Mario doesn't have as much reception for the biggest video game character ever. Anyway, my proposal is that we should get to work on improving these characters' articles so that their notability isn't just assumed, but established. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 17:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

And Ivy sadly still has more to add (she's become somewhat of an odd standard for overdone but strong females in games, basically becoming the "next Lara Croft"...which is funny considering characters like Rayne (BloodRayne) aspired to do the same but have been mostly forgotten). Samus has a LOT more reception than what's there, for some reason the book refs for example were sliced out during it's GAN run and I've never understood that. Lara Croft got a cleanup awhile back, so mainly waiting on Guyinblack so we can go gung-ho on that one. With the others...it's more a case of wanting to write them though. I really gave Mario a go awhile back (the dev section still needs tidying), but the problem is...a lot of the high-class characters are just damn boring to write about. People keep repeating the same things ("Love Samus because she was the first girl not a dood OMG!", "Chun-li such a strong woman!", etc).

Hell when I beat Metroid I never cared Samus was a girl, I was glad I beat the effin game. Why can't they talk about that more? But I digress. In the end it's going to boil down to is interest.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

My biggest problem is that finding sources for Wario is a lot harder than Midna, for example. Basically, if you search for Wario in Google News, you get every Wario game etc., not necessarily content discussing the character. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 17:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I've noticed that myself, and when you do find reception it's a tidbit saying that the character is iconic, but never really saying why. I even went back to old reviews of Wario Land in hopes of something and struck out. Mario and others are kind of in that same state though too. Take Link for example: he's high up there and assumed to be an icon. However there's been more citable reaction to Sephiroth (Final Fantasy) and even oddball Necrid than him. But if the suggestion ever came to reduce him to Mid, it'd fly in the face of people chanting that he's too significant.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure that Link and Mario have those kinds of sources, they're just so much harder to find. On a related note, though, I'm wondering if there's any way for us to do a quick search of Metacritic - ie, instead of having to open every single review URL on a game's page, we could do an auto search of every article on Metacritic that mentions a certain word - ie, Sephiroth etc. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry. I haven't forgotten about Miss Croft. I have one magazine and two books (one which will be a doozy) left to summarize, and I started piecing together the development section in Notepad last week.

Echoing the above comments, I noticed a lot repeat in some reception content for Lara Croft. I found enough different stuff for a full section, but I know some of it will be summarized as "PUBLICATION1 and PUBLICATION2 praised the...". I guess that's just how it is for video game characters. :-\ (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC))

Hi, File:Wonder boy platform.gif is a fair-use animation. However, it is replaceable with a similar sequence of images from free software platform games like SuperTux or Secret Maryo Chronicles. I don't know how to make a gif, but perhaps someone from the project can help and this replaceable image can be replaced with a free one? Thanks! Hekerui (talk) 10:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

A move from Doctor Ivo Robotnik to Doctor Ivo "Eggman" Robotnik has been proposed due to conflicts between people wanting the article to be at Doctor Eggman and Doctor Robotnik. If anyone could input their opinion into this, that'd be great. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that a clear guideline should be made. The first use rule is confusing and creates more disputes than need be. I think that if we made the rule of using the first English name of a game, it would make everything a lot simpler. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

What are you referring to? The "first english name"? Why would there be more then one? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 21:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of video game articles. Such examples as Another Code: Two Memories and Brain Age 2: More Training in Minutes a Day!. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Let us not forget the Mega Drive/Genesis. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC))

Ah, of course, that. ~.~ - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I do have to admit that a guideline would be nice, even though I'm still of the mind that if something came out by a different name here in the US, we should go with that (friggin Sega Genesis...)--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It's an interesting quandary. This is the English Wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia, and so it was decided that the original name of Sega's 16-bit console would be used, even though that's not the American name. But consider a game like Shin Megami Tensei: Nocturne. That's the US name; Atlus originally released the game in Japan as Shin Megami Tensei III, and in Europe it was called Shin Megami Tensei: Lucifer's Call. I think "first English name" is a good rule of thumb. I suppose that doesn't account for the possibility that one region's name is somehow more notable than another, but I've never heard of that being a problem.

Also, note the rad use of six bolded titles in the article I linked to. --gakon^{5 (talk / contribs)} 01:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I can think of one exception - the original Brain Age may be a conflict, since the American release was cited by the president of Nintendo as disappointing, while the UK release is one of the most successful video games in the country's history. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

you people know what would be good? just ONE international wikipedia. Now we have the first, the english wiki. for some its a american wiki, for others a english wiki, for another people an international wiki. and then there are german, french, italian and so on wikis. And the "awesome" thing? the articles are not just translations..no..they are sometimes totally different in size and content. let me point out an example almost every videogameplayer knows. the character sub zero ya know..that blue ninja from the mortal kombat fighting game series. look at the english article. then...go to the german wiki and try the same..or the french wiki and so on. The "politics" of the wiki administrations are different from land to land ..in germany from where i am as example an own article about sub zero or another MK character would get deleted in less then a hour. no matter how good it is written, how many souces are cited . even if it would be a direct translation of the english article. long speech short sense, its a problem that there are many wikis which are different but still "official" its not a problem that a game or a console was named different on different continents or in different countries if its possible to give an article more then one keyword (aka more as one game name/hardware name) the bigger problem is that there are sometimes quite different articles about the same stuff. GBK2010 (talk) 12:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

That's more a case of getting translators to create the articles, and policies to allow them. I can tell you the Japanese wikipedia is 90% of the time a mess compared to what's here at least.

On topic, what do you do about subjects like character names? M. Bison, Vega (Street Fighter) and Balrog (Street Fighter) all had a name switcheroo for audiences outside of Japan, with a heavy amount of merchandise specific to those countries also relying on those names. Another odd case is Super Gem Fighter Mini Mix, which was released only in Japan as Pocket Fighter and nowhere else. Yet in both of these cases, the first english name should call for a change unless some exception is considered?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Good example, damn those many capcom characters with different names. Vega(Japan)/ M.Bison(USA) one article, both names as keywords, in MY opinion refering to him would should always include both names. the ennglish wiki has visitors of every continent, probably every every country on the world. written in a language which gets teached almost everywhere as well. makes it quite international doesnt it. its just my opinion but alone to avoid confusion its just safe to always mention both names of characters, games, hardware and what not. GBK2010 (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Gem Fighter is a horrid example -- it's actually CALLED Pocket Fighter in the home versions. I'd say it probably should be at that title, in fact, for that reason. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

So after the discussion, can we decide something? GBK2010 (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't know. I think we need to make a widespread discussion since it would be implemented as a guideline. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:Naming conventions (video games) is the current version (which is based partly on consensus here and partly on WP:NAME applied more locally.陣内_Jinnai 23:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The guideline states: "Use the most commonly accepted English name first, if one exists. This is usually the official title in the initial English release, but not always."

Is this in line with the general sentiment of this discussion? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC))

I think so, yeah. THe last line - to use the official title in the initial English release - definitely exemplifies the whole ease of use of the guideline. The way it was before, the most commonly used name, lent itself to interpretation way too much. This way of doing things allows readers to definitively say "okay, we should use this one because it came out first." For example, I'm currently attempting to move Brain Age 2 in relation to the new naming convention, since it came out in the UK long before the US. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - The VG space should stick to the "most common English-language name" as per policy - WP:Article titles. If you don't have an overwhelmingly good argument to support a move, then don't do it. - hahnchen 21:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • So you propose that the more complicated, confusing, argument-creating method of deriving the name of an article is the one thing we should implement? I'll pick the clear and easy method, that allows certain exceptions, over something that will created regular arguments. The VG naming conventions allows for the exception where an exception exists, but the conventions recommend that we name an article after its originating title. What is wrong with that? If there is an article that using the original English title is a problem, then the naming conventions allows for that exception. Pardon me if I want to avoid "look at the Google hits!" "look at the sales figures!" "France doesn't count!" "Parts of Canada don't count!" "This had more advertising!" The METHOD of gathering what the common name is is not a method, but a random series of rules and guidelines made up by small groups of users and discarded just as quickly once the discussion is over. Going by the first English title eliminates almost ALL debate, and opposing it is only going to keep these endless, subjective debates going forever and ever. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Exactly, so don't do it. - hahnchen 22:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Yeah, great advice - I'm sure the many people who do it will suddenly stop. I guess you have a point - I mean, your proposal creates arguments, while mine only eliminates them! Silly me. I forgot that endless arguments that cannot consistently be ended based on the same evidence are the foundation of Wikipedia. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
        • When you say "my proposal", you really mean "Wikipedia policy". Why don't you lead by example, and suddenly stop? - hahnchen 23:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
          • Because I'm trying to make articles adhere to the new guideline? I'm sorry that you think nigh unwinnable arguments are great for Wikipedia, but you are in a very small minority here. Maybe if you get over accusing everyone on Wikipedia of acting in bad faith and in general being completely belligerent who doesn't bow to your opinion, you can actually participate in such a discussion about this subject. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
            • I'm not in a very small minority, Wikipedia policy is not written by a very small minority - I don't think video games are so special that we supercede policy. The whole set up of the policy is to dissuade from starting these "nigh unwinnable arguments", it's a shame it hasn't stopped this one. - hahnchen 23:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

A bit off topic, but did we list our naming guideline at the appropriate places per Wikipedia:Article titles#Proposed naming conventions and guidelines? Or did we just reach a consensus among VG project members? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC))

Well, I wouldn't know because I wasn't really here for it. Perhaps we should bring it up for a discussion on that. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that proposal process is that important. I'm OK with what the guidelines say right now, that it's a guideline supplementing the policy. I'm happy that it places the emphasis on most common English language name, as per Wikipedia policy. Video games are not so special that we do our own thing. - hahnchen 23:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Afab1900dsmall.jpg Is these really a free image? Apparently it's been released into public domain but I don't understand how since it's from a commercial video game. This flyafa.com site doesn't seem to have any relationship with Microsoft. --Mika1h (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the craft pictured is their work (it can be downloaded from their website), and therefore the copyright on the plane is not Microsoft's, even though the program displaying it is some MS flight sim or another. Not sure if the clouds are eligible for copyright. Nifboy (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Saying the picture isn't free because of clouds is ridiculous. Microsoft doesn't have a patent on clouds.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

And yet the issue isn't patent law, but copyright law. If you take a picture of clouds, it is, in fact, a copyrighted work. The main problem I see here is that it is still a screenshot of a copyrighted program. I have the copyright to the words I am writing right now (released under a CC-BY-SA and GFDL license of course), but I cannot take a screenshot of my words on this page and say I own the copyright to the screenshot, since the copyright of the website design belongs to the Wikimedia Foundation. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 14:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The Mass Effect article has had an external wiki link added and removed twice (removed based on WP:ELNO). In the talk page I discuss why I think the WP:ELNO does not apply to this link and hope to draw further attention to this issue. ialsoagree (talk) 03:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You brought up #12, but the issue arises from #4, "Links mainly intended to promote a website. external link spamming." Why would WP:ELNO/WP:FANSITE not apply to a link to a fan site when one of the shortcuts is explicitly named WP:FANSITE? --Doink9731 (talk) 04:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

As to "when one of the shortcuts is explicitly named WP:FANSITE" I'm not sure what you are referring to. As to the rest, I believe the content of the link speaks for itself. The wiki meets criteria for exception under 12, in my opinion, and 4 I don't believe arises. It can be argued, certainly, but I think anyone who takes the time to consider whether the content of the external wiki is a benefit to the wikipedia community will see that it is and that the link is not there just to promote the external wiki. I'd ask that further discussion (including any response to this message) be placed at Talk:Mass Effect as other requests for consensus direct there and not here. ialsoagree (talk) 05:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It makes sense to add relevant Wikia pages in the external links. The Mass Effect wiki is not a mirror or fork of Wikipedia, but a stable wiki.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This definitely falls under WP:ELNO, criteria #12. "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." There are only 65 users with over 100 edits on masseffect.wikia.com, which is not enough to justify it. You could have 10,000 members, but if only a small percentage do any real contributing it doesn't matter. --Teancum (talk) 12:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the input, please make sure to check Talk:Mass Effect as ongoing discussion is being held there. ialsoagree (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I have responded at Talk:Mass Effect as requested. --Izno (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've come across a possible copyright violation that I'm not quite sure what to do with at Talk:2010 FIFA World Cup (video game). Schmloof (talk) 04:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've deleted the offending revisions. –xeno^talk 19:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I went to make a link to leaderboards while editing the Dragon Quest Monsters: Joker 2 article when I was brought to a twenty year old golf game. Is there an article for leaderboards (you know, like for online games) that I'm not finding or a section somewhere and if not, should an article be created?  ?EVAUNIT^{神になった人間} 20:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like there are other other articles incorrectly linking to it too. Not as many as I'd expected though. Is there another term for this that we don't know of? Reach Out to the Truth 21:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Could do something similar to the ladder disambiguation page with Game ladder and call it Game leaderboard. --Doink9731 (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I would advise simply vacating the page by moving it to to "Leaderboard (series)" and then creating an article on leaderboards at the base page. –xeno^talk 18:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

With only a handful of exceptions, the Mario Party video game articles are largely redundant. The only differences in gameplay are the mini-game variants and the levels. It uses the same gameplay, rules, etc. Mario Party 4 and 5 are obvious exceptions since they are both GA-class, Mario Party Advance is a possible exception due to how much the engine variates, and Mario Party 8 and DS could stand to be apart due to their unique features as well as their immense success [both are easily the two highest selling in the series], but Mario Parties 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 really lack anything special to set them apart. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

IMHO merging articles greatly discourages wikipedians to further develop them, or at least that's the effect it does on me, I don't feel comfortable expanding merged groups of articles like a set of video game stubs of a series, when I look at such articles I leave them alone. NeoGenPT (talk) 18:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Those articles have been stagnating for years, though. I just don't anticipate that someone will suddenly come and fix them. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer keeping them apart, too. The EA sports video game series for NBA, NHL, etc. are kind of similar to this, too, where each game usually only has slight differences between each other. Also, shouldn't Mario Party be the series article and not the first game in the franchise? Gary King (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Even if they are similar, each one has their own reception and commentary, so they each qualify for an article. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above, also. They should probably stay separate, as all of them haven't been developed yet, and all has the potential to develop into full articles in their own right. If you look at EGM, GamePro, or Nintendo Power, there should be plenty of coverage on each and every game in that series. –MuZemike 19:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, perhaps. I was actually going to bring up that Mario Party should be moved to (video game) and (series) moved to the main article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Like the above said, the articles have more potential, but nobody has taken the time to improve them. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I would say that a move of Mario Party to Mario Party (video game) and having the series article become the base one is a good plan, as I would think the series is probably the more common search. Also, this would conform with how many other series articles are done. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there currently (or would there be scope/sources for) an article that describes the "Good/Evil scale" or "Karma scale" mechanic in various video games... when it started, how its evolved over time, how its implemented, etc? -- saberwyn 01:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Category:Video game gameplay says that it doesn't exist at present. Should it exist? If you can find a few articles/publications that specifically talk about it- otherwise you're just going to end up with an article that briefly describes what it is (unreferenced, natch) followed by a bulleted list of games that have one. And light knows we don't need any more of those, eh? --PresN 02:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean, Pres. GamerPro64 (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's enough to fill an entire article, but it definitely could be added to a suitable article that already exists (assuming you can find one). AFAIK, you usually only find this sort of thing in RPGs (for instance, KotOR or Fallout — Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines is also a good example). SharkD  Talk  03:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

inFamous is another example. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking around some sources, it seems the better term for this may be morality system. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 05:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Mass Effect (series) is another example. --Doink9731 (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I support Scapler's idea of going with a Morality system (gaming) article, as karma can be a bit ambiguous. --Teancum (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I concur. --Doink9731 (talk) 17:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that there should be an article for the morality system. I don't think its been more coverage like the Cover system (gaming) (no pun intended). GamerPro64 (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Is Role-playing video game#Character actions and abilities a better place? --Doink9731 (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That would be a good article to put it in, though it wouldn't necessarily have to be in that section. A new section could be created. SharkD  Talk  18:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't need a morality system article. It falls under character actions, since you determine how your character acts (e.g., good or evil).--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the morality system isn't linked to role-playing games exclusively, I don't think it'd be right to do that. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There should be enough in reviews of games with morality elements (see: any BioWare game, Infamous) to help build up something of a critical reaction to "mortality guages" in video games section, as to augment a more fundmental description of the mechanic in a standalone article. That's not considered any direct outright critique of the mechanic in other sources. --MASEM (t) 17:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There is already Alignment (role-playing games) — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a little heavy to include VG karma/alignment, particularly considering critiques on it. (adding to the list above for things like BioShock, Mass Effect, Black & White ,etc.) --MASEM (t) 02:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

D&D's two-dimensional alignment system is certainly more complex than a simple "karma" score; and a "karma" score doesn't have to mean you're aligned with a faction. But still, there's considerable overlap that will have to be dealt with at some point. SharkD  Talk  16:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Scratch that, as I'm not even sure I understood your last post. SharkD  Talk  17:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I recently revised/expanded the Victoria 2 article, which is by no means perfect, but while doing so I noticed that a number of Paradox Interactive articles are poorly graded on the project's quality scale (and rightly so). I'm wondering if starting a task force would help fix up these articles. I think the need is there. Paradox is an indie developer and publisher and has a number of titles under their belt, but I'm not sure if the project is broad enough and how interested people are in joining. What do you guys think? --Doink9731 (talk) 16:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I can help for somewhat, but I don't know how much.陣内_Jinnai 18:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

What about making this a bit more broad and calling it the Indie Games task force? Although it requires one to figure out what makes a game indie. --Doink9731 (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't think that Paradox Interactive needs it's own task force but I agree that indie games could have one. Perhaps this article could help with it's scope. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Because they're now a publisher as well they aren't considered indie anymore... Fiddlesticks. --Doink9731 (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering if anyone would mind helping fill out information, find references, etc., and in general finish these lists. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 17:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The Mario media list in its finished form would probably be as daunting as List of Final Fantasy media. I made a suggestion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Square Enix#Final Fantasy titles Featured Topic about splitting the video games segment out into a separate list that would serve as the "main article" for a condensed video game section in the media list. I think the same approach would work with a Mario list. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC))

That's probably true, but I'd like to kinda finish it [or get to the point where it's too big] before I split out. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 17:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Would this serve as an expansion of List of Mario games by genre with other media like comics and anime as well? I personally don't see the point if there are separate lists already existing. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 18:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Because those separate lists are not "in keeping" with how lists are done. By year, by genre, and by platform would be merged and completely rewritten with nothing salvaged. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, those separate lists need to go. Completely off-topic, but it seems a bit unfair to other famous "Marios" that Mario is the character article while Mario (given name) is relegated to the bottom of the disambiguation page. I think that he should be disambiguated to Mario (character) instead.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I think that the character Mario is simply so iconic that he is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the most notable usage of Mario. Hell, so many kids probably do not understand that Mario is a name people have in real life. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for its existence of the name in other countries but I'm from Portugal and Mario is a very common name. The video game character is not the first thing in my mind. This is a question that might depend on the cultural environment a person is in. NeoGenPT (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

One of the things is that no single person named Mario or place named Mario that really has as much of a cultural impact all over the world as the character does. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed not all over the world, but I can think of one in Portugal, we had a president named Mario Soares. There should be other examples out there. Once again I believe it depends on the culture a person is inserted. NeoGenPT (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably depends on the region. Obviously a president named Mario would be significantly more notable for people in Portugal, but other people would likely associate the name with either the character or another well-known Mario from their region. I don't know of any other Mario that would be more well-known worldwide, although I'm sure they're all fine people. :) Reach Out to the Truth 01:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I actually saw that you'd created the lists-- I'd been thinking about working on them for awhile. I'm about to fly back home from college but as soon as I get the chance, I'll start to add references for all of the systems. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 23:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that any other Mario take up the Mario namespace, just the disambiguation page with a link to Mario (character) and Mario (given name).--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, I'm just saying that Mario is pretty popular enough that leaving it there is appropriate. Though, characters like Link etc. evoke the same ideas. But Mario's quite a bit larger. I just don't think that the demand for Mario to be moved to Mario (character) is all that huge. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:Warcraft_II:_Tides_of_Darkness#Merger_proposal. The combined article would be Warcraft II (new title). I've asked at Help_talk:Merging#Help_text_needs_adjusting.3F on how to a merge from A and B into C, and will add merge templates when this question is resolved. However I think discuss can be started now and will advertised it at Talk:Warcraft_II: Beyond the Dark Portal. --Philcha (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't be bothered to go to the other page since I'm going to be heading out right now, but I agree with the merge. Since it's an old article without much easily accessible content, a merge makes sense; if editors go and find the tougher sources to expand, subarticles can be spun out of the parent. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a dispute over at Real-time tactics regarding citations that has more or less been going on for over a year now. Would appreciate some comment. SharkD  Talk  03:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you sum up what's going on? That's a lot to read through for someone who hasn't been following it. --Teancum (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a tough call. Basically, I think Alastairward feels the subject matter is dubious. He's continually asked for citations and threatened to remove material that hasn't been cited. A lot of the material has been cited since he originally posted his criticisms; but a lot of material still remains uncited. SharkD  Talk  03:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It's been argued that Yume Kōjō: Doki Doki Panic is notable for an article; can I get some opinions on this? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

As with anything else, it depends on if there's coverage. Only personally speaking I'd say the collector's value merits trying to save rather than axe this article. --Teancum (talk) 17:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Well yes, but any coverage would be related to SMB2. I mean, looking at the Nintendo Life review, all but one paragraph in said review didn't compare it to Super Mario Bros. 2. I highly doubt that there's much of anything available that doesn't discuss the similarities between the two games more so than the game itself. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 17:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Well the viable alternative would be to merge it to SMB2, but the article has a lot of content that wouldn't work in the SMB2 article. --Teancum (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see it. I mean, we can easily sum up the plot and development in SMB2's development section. I don't really see what makes it stand out that any of this content couldn't be covered adequately in SMB2's article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I was catching up on my watchlist this weekend and noticed that a number of IPs seem to be pushing for ignoring sales figures from mainstream websites (e.g. IGN, GamePro) in favor of adding up numbers cherry-picked from various Sega fansites and fanblogs (e.g. this). I hope those of you more familiar with VG sourcing (and with more time for Wikipedia than I have these days) can get to the bottom of this mess. Anomie⚔ 12:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Seem to contain original research and/or low quality sources. I found it because double jump has been nominated for deletion, and it's from there. Other articles linked from there, like Bunny hopping and Strafe jumping have similar problems. Pcap ping 05:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi WP:VG, I've been having a bit of tedious back-and-forth with editor Geregere who repeatedly adds a score of 120/100 for this game quoting Dengeki but doing so raises a number of problems which I have tried to explain to him:

• The review is in Japanese with no third-party English source commenting on the review to verify any of the statements made by himself
• Editor freely states the reviewer who gives the 120 score is but one of eleven who review the game, ergo this is not the entire of Dengeki's opinion (one of the eleven could just as easily hate the game for all we know) - my edit to add this explanation explicitly was promptly reverted by same editor
• Editor's opinion is at odds with this translation here which states that this was not a final review, as well as being just one of the eleven editors' opinion, which shows just how unreliable this citation is and requires reliable third-party source to draw any conclusions from, which there are none
• Editor adds only the issue number as reference, relying on his own translation, as well as some obscure foreign shopping website as his reference, not understanding the need for reliable/verifiable sources
• Any edits to e.g add "verification needed" tags to the cite are just instantly reverted.

I feel this highly tenuous reference should simply be taken out unless Geregere can come up with a better, more reliable reference that states explicitly. Hope you can help shed some light on this so we can get the reception section stable and in a state that implies consensus among editors. Thanks. SynergyBlades (talk) 09:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• English wikipedia allows editors to use non English sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources

and there are several sources showing the dengeki's score.

• Forum is not a reliable source. Obviously the link is a forum. AndUser:SynergyBlades repeatedly claims the 120 is not dengeki's score based solely on that forum's post. And if 120 is not dengeki's score, what is true dengeki's score? He has not shown "true" score at all and just states it's just one reviewer's score! What? On most magazins or websites only one reviewer gives scores. It is not a strange thing at all. I think the reasou why the person who posted on the forum was misunderstood is that FF13 review was very different from usual dengeki's review style. FF13 was a very big title, so they wrote very long reviews for FF13 (in 50 pages). In this long review, they gave 120 to FF13. This style is differnt from usual dengeki, so the forum's person was misunderstood that another review for FF13 would come in the next issue, which never happend. It is very silly to rely on just one person on FORUM who was misunderstood. Several sources show dengeki's score. That's enough.--Geregere (talk) 10:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

For those who don't know, Heavy Rain is a very story driven game that can be ruined by spoilers, so much so, that I have decided to temporarily remove it from my watchlist following a deliberate spoiler post on the talk page this morning. I know one other regular is also considering temporary removal from their watchlist for the same reasons. Would it be possible for an editor or two who aren't interested in this game to put it on their watchlist and keep an eye out for deliberate vandal posts concerning the plot and killers identity. I know the article may eventually have spoilers in it, I just don't want to see them before the thing is released. - X201 (talk) 11:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

CakewalkScragFunds (talk · contribs) has replaced ((Castlevania series)) with ((CastlevaniaSeries)) on several Castlevania pages. I noticed the original template is edit protected because of a dispute and this user's only contributions are creating the new template and switching it out on the relevant pages. Basically this looks like someone trying to get around page protection because they are edit warring. Could someone with AWB or some other quick tool undo the template switches? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC))

Underway - X201 (talk) 15:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done 37 in total - X201 (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks a lot. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC))

I've been browsing through dozens of games and one thing I see is that although the infobox guidelines for the input section are clear, in that it should be as generic as possible:

Use generic names like joystick, gamepad, keyboard and mouse etc. Do not use brand names for devices e.g. "Logitech G25 Racing Wheel" instead just use steering wheel. Only include devices such as microphones and cameras if they are used as a controller, for example the PlayStation Eye in EyePet or a headset in Tom Clancy's EndWar.

It's often visible a large number of different things like Trackpad, Remote control, Xbox 360 Controller, Wii Remote, Nunchuk, Wii Balance Board, Touchscreen, D-Pad, Game controller, Light Phaser, Zapper, NES controller, Light gun, Mega Mouse, Menacer, Buzz! controllers, Guitar controller, Dual Shock 3, Sixaxis, stylus, etc, just to list a few.

Although some of that list I guess might be generic (Guitar controller), and others might be considered specific but included because they have unique properties (Wii Remote) I think many of these should be standardized like for example Light Phaser, Menacer and Zapper I believe they are all Light guns.

So, in conclusion, would it be a good idea to create a template to standardize the input methods in the infoboxes, much like the vgratings or the vgrelease templates do for the ratings and release dates? NeoGenPT (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment erase Buzz controllers from that list. Buzz games can only be played with those. GBK2010 (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd like to see some standardization here too. Gamepad, Guitar controller and Light gun should all be standardized, as well as the PC controls of keyboard and mouse. Wii Remote and Nunchuk can be simplified to Wii Remote. Wii Balance Board, Touchscreen, Buzz! controllers and stylus are a little more specific and might not fit the build. --Teancum (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not so sure about the remote and nunchuk since there are some games that only use the remote such as Super Paper Mario. Keeping the two parts seperate can demostrate which games are remote only. If we simply used Wii Remote that could not be done and might create some confusion.--76.66.190.92 (talk) 04:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the Wii Remote and nunchuck could be generalized as "Motion Sensing Controller"? I know the Wii Remote is presently a very unique piece of hardware due to its motion sensing capability, but I can imagine that capability becoming common in future game controllers. NeoGenPT (talk) 13:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, even if no template is created, I think we can we agree on some corrections/generalizations to apply on articles?

Gamepad <--- (Xbox 360 Controller, D-Pad, Dual Shock 3, Sixaxis, NES controller)

Light gun <--- (Light Phaser, Menacer, Zapper)

keyboard

Mouse <--- (Mega Mouse)

Joystick (does it matter if it's 4-way, 8-way or how many buttons it has?)

Guitar controller

Now what to do with the others? Some involve motion sensing and others involve sensitive surfaces, how can that be generalized? (Trackpad, Remote control, Wii Remote, Nunchuk, Wii Balance Board, Touchscreen, stylus, etc...) NeoGenPT (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if those last few miscellaneous control types need to be generalised, as they all have links should a reader need more information. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

There are articles already created for every kind of specific or generic game controller but nevertheless the guidelines say that generic names should be used for the input method. Now if we look to every Wii video game article, the input method is always Wii Remote and/or Nunchuk, which are very specific things. Doesn't that give undue weight to the Wii against every other past and present console that uses generic gamepads/joysticks? NeoGenPT (talk) 23:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Not really. The Wii's control system is fairly unique in that there isn't a viable generic substitute, unlike with the more standardized game controllers used on most other consoles. The name "motion controller" or "pointing device" wouldn't really work, since the Wiimote has numerous functions, and the set of specific functions used depends on the game. This is one case where specific naming works simply because the control system is that unique. I would agree with you on undue weight if, say, we had an article on Guitar Hero that specifically mentioned a Wii version of the guitar controller (unless, of course, that controller was particularly notable beyond the general class of guitar controllers). — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

There aren't any examples directly related to the Wii, but you can find for example on Guitar Hero II and Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock (both GA articles) that they list on the input methods the names of the guitars like Gibson Les Paul, Kramer Striker, Gibson X-Plorer, etc... That strikes me as odd, should that be there? NeoGenPT (talk) 05:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Personally I would say no to listing the different guitar controllers in the infobox, although they should be mentioned in the article's body as they were packaged with the game. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 11:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, those should be simplified to just "Guitar controller" - possibly even more generally as "music controller" or "instrument controller", since there are other types of controllers for similar games that fall in the same general class. But "guitar controller" is more than sufficient. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Yea there no reason for specifics. Wii can be done with motion sensory control. Future games will use motion control and we should begin standardizing a term now. As for indivisual buttons and whatnot on joysticks, I'd say no, unless we do the same for other controllers like a 1-button, 2-button, 3-button, 5-button mouse.陣内_Jinnai 01:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is that naming a specific controller/brand is okay if the alternative is to name the device's individual components (Wii remote = gamepad + accelerometer + light gun). I'm sort of neutral to the idea of taking e.g. Brawl's different choices for controllers out of the infoboxes, though. Nifboy (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we should never do that kind of alternative replacement as you said for the Wii remote, otherwise we would have to do the same for gamepads (gamepad = d-pad + buttons) and joysticks (joystick = analog stick + buttons) and all other controllers. I agree with Jinnai, in that the Wii remote could (and should) be generalized as a "motion sensory control" (or something similar) in video game articles. NeoGenPT (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Why would we want to use the incredibly generic "motion sensory control" as the input method instead of the specific "Wii Remote" that can direct the reader to the controller's article, which then offers them specifics about what kind of input is used. The term "motion sensory control" does not adequately inform the reader about how the game is being controlled. And honestly, I have no idea why we are using the term "gamepad" to replace things like "Nintendo 64 controller". The controller has an article, and that is the only thing that can be used to control the game when playing on the N64. Why would we change it to the generic term that gives the reader less information about the controller? --Torsodog^Talk 20:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I would say that although for the Nintendo 64 that might be correct, the Nintendo 64 controller is the only controller, we have to remember that on the other hand for the PC there isn't a "PC Controller" but instead a large variety of controllers we can use from different brands with different characteristics, which would make it unfeasible to list them all in the input methods of the infobox. But I'm hoping more people can give their opinion on that subject as well. NeoGenPT (talk) 07:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Why wouldn't we use "gamepad" to replace "Nintendo 64 controller"? The N64 controller is a gamepad, and it's the only type of controller you could use. Plus we're trying to standardize here. --Teancum (talk) 12:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That didn't answer my question at all. We wouldn't use "gamepad" because it is less specific and gives the reader less information. I said this before. And what's all this about "standardizing"? What benefit does the reader get by linking "gamepad" instead of specific controller articles? There doesn't seem to be a real useful reason why this is being done. --Torsodog^Talk 13:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

We use it because it's less specific. Adding each system's controller to the list causes the list to be bloated with entries for controllers that are nearly identical in functionality. If the game is available for a certain system and that system uses a gamepad, then the game uses that system's controller when played on that system. If a reader wants to know about the controller used by a specific console they can go to that console's article and read about it there. There may be exceptions, such as a Wii version of a multiplatform game that doesn't offer a Classic Controller or GameCube controller option, but that can be described in prose if necessary. Reach Out to the Truth 15:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I could see using the generic term for multi-platform releases, but I see absolutely no reason to use it for single platform releases. Linking to the generic gamepad article omits important information about the control input method, such as whether or not the controller uses analog controls, if there are two analog sticks, etc. And using your logic, the reader could go to the specific controller article and click the link to gamepads there if they want to read about gamepads in general. Again, by listing only the generic term, we are making readers jump through more hoops to find specific information about the game's input method, which is (presumably) the reason they clicked the link listed in the "input method" section of the infobox in the first place. --Torsodog^Talk 15:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I fully support the use of generic grouping over brand names. I've been changing the the input sections of the template to gamepad for quite some time now. In line with the Template instructions that generic names should be used. - X201 (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you tell me why you support the use of generic names? I still don't quite see the reader's benefit of us linking to a generic term in every article as opposed to linking to information about the specific controller required to control the game. --Torsodog^Talk 15:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Just throwing in my two cents- I agree with Torsodog's idea above. A generic term for multi-platform releases sounds reasonable as it will prevent excess bloating in the infobox. But I don't see the benefit to excluding a specific hardware for exclusive releases. I'm sure exceptions exist, like multi-platform releases that include the Wii and has different input methods (Tomb Raider Anniversary comes to mind). Not sure what to do about such exceptions though. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC))

I've been away for the past few days but I guess in the end the conclusion is that everything remains the same as it was and the generic names prevail right? NeoGenPT (talk) 06:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should assume that. There are a couple of people still disagreeing with this policy. I think it should be discussed fully before changing EVERY video game infobox. That is a lot of articles to change. No need to be hasty on this. --Torsodog^Talk 15:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I have been watching the topic every day and judging by the lack of comments it seems everyone has voiced their opinion by now. I believe that, as with so many other discussions, this one will never have a solution that pleases everyone. In any case I think the rules that presently exist should be followed, and if in the future they change we should change as well, as nothing is immutable. NeoGenPT (talk) 22:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

A week ago, ABC published their 2009 circulation figures. Lots of UK magazines go through this auditing process and release their figures, including all Future Publishing publications and some others. This covers a significant percentage of UK video game magazines.

I think it is important to list annual circulations in magazine articles such as PC Zone to show how a title has progressed. ABC make available to the public their latest set of figures only, so you can see Edge's latest circulation certificate linked from http://www.abc.org.uk/Data/ProductPage.aspx?tid=2182 ABC requires registration to view previous certificates, however - they are still viewable if you know the file name. Thus, last year's certificate is still online at http://www.abc.org.uk/Certificates/15727745.pdf But it's best to use webcite (as I have done at Edge in case they ever close up this hole)

I don't really have that much time to edit now. Will anyone commit to updating the 2009 circulation figures for UK games magazines? If you think this is important and interests you, then I can give you access to some ABC figures from previous years too. - hahnchen 20:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Note, I have already updated Edge (magazine), Games TM, PC Zone, PC Gamer and PC Format - hahnchen 20:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Still to go are 360 (magazine), X360, GamesMaster, Play (UK magazine), PSM3 Custom PC, NGamer, and the "Official" magazines. - hahnchen 20:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Nice find hahnchen.

FYI- Webcite is something we all should be using more. I lost count of the number of times I had to update broken links in my articles. Sadly, I couldn't update some, which had to be removed along with the content in the article. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC))

Been trying to clean up the article, but my last revert of the IP's WP:COPYVIO puts me at the max of the 3RR. They have been warned, but I need help to get this under control without looking like I'm in an edit war. --Teancum (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I've watchlisted this article. You've tried talking to this user and they haven't responded, so I'm going to put in a semi-protection request for the article. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 23:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Note that this is a clear-cut case of an exception to the 3RR: "Clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy." Cheers! Scapler (talk) 02:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

A registered user is copying-and-pasting the same features back into the article, I'm not sure if this is the ip logged in to their account or a good faith user who doesn't get that we can't copy-paste sources. They also insist that having a dump of every team is necessary due to other football articles having them, whether there is consensus to remove these or not I don't know, I was happy to ignore it until the copyvio reappeared. Someoneanother 01:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I've dropped them a note, could do with some eyes on the article just in case. Someoneanother 01:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I've recently greatly expanded upon and improved the article for Demon's Souls, which is currently classed as a Start class article. I know the article is better than that and of course would like an assessment to see how far along the article is. I am aware of a number of sections that need improvement such as the soundtrack and better structured references. Stabby Joe (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to start a peer review to get some input. It's also easier to refer to in the future. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to draw this project's attention to a duplicate Final Fantasy XIII article, titled Final Fantasy XIII Oficial, author has removed speedy deletion template. At the time of this writing, the template has been re-added, however, this situation needs to be resolved. It may be in response to the recent protection over the orginal article. --The Taerkasten (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I was about to delete it when someone else already did. I left the creator a (hopefully non-WP:BITEy) message not to do stuff like that again and to use Talk:Final Fantasy XIII for suggestions/corrections/etc. –MuZemike 20:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not realize the misspelling in the word "Oficial". I deleted the article per WP:CSD#A10. –MuZemike 20:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

This might never've happened if I didn't edit the original article, which started the controversy over the resolution of the Xbox 360 version [of the game], and subsequent protection. --The Taerkasten (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. The controversy was probably going to happen anyways, eventually. With that said, you got the standard WP:DR steps to take as well as this and the article's talk page to hash out the issues. Creating a "your version" of an article will not get around the semi-protection and may be construed as disruptive, depending on the context. (I don't know enough about this specific article to make that determination right now.) –MuZemike 21:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been having an argument with another user whether the title of Metal Gear should direct to the the first game and the series itself, and this got me thinking. Why are "series" given more preference to first installments in video game-related article titles? I know there are exceptions (where the first installment already has a subtitle on its title which is not used for the rest of the series), but when it comes to other media (like films and novels), first installments are prioritized over franchises with some exception. I want to know what everyone else thinks? Jonny2x4 (talk) 17:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

We had this discussion probably a few months ago. Check the archives. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It should also be noted that consensus was reached in requested moves for both The Legend of Zelda and the Kingdom Hearts series pages that the series pages should take president. I am sure that there are other discussions as well.--76.69.170.230 (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

How come Metroid hasn't been moved yet in that case? Jonny2x4 (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The reason for that it that has not been a request yet to move it. One has recently been addead actually so it may very well be moved in days. If a consensus existed not to move Metroid that may have been relevant to this disucssion but that is not the case.--76.69.170.230 (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

As a number of my notability speedys have been reverted of late, I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Amendment to A7 to allow us to properly be able to speedily delete non-notable articles, effectively leaving less work in the AfD areas. I'd appreciate some input. --Teancum (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Knowledgekid87 has suggested to merge various Digimon video games article into the non-existent article Digimon Video games; I find it rather excessive. The discussion is on Talk:Digimon Video games#Merge. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 02:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

In articles about games there is always small information panel at right with developer, genre, ratings, media etc. I would like there (or in other suitable place within article, like System requirements) information about copy protection and similiar restrictions (CD/DVD in station, internet registration, non-stop internet connection, DRM, obligatory account on steam or other provider etc). This important information is not always written on box (or some things are omited), official sources ofter give contradictory information, or it is just... different from reality (to put it delicately). In light of more and more intrusive restrictions (sometimes bordering on rootkit-like behaviour), this is needed for me (and I humbly think that not only me) to commit fully informed customer decisions about buying this or other game.

Sooo... I think that information would be useful addition to video articles. In fact, I am suprised that kind of info is not contained in articles long ago. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.79.219.221 (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I would put it in system requirements if it had DRM that required an internet connection. Otherwise, having the DVD in the drive is common but maybe that could be included as well.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I asked for this to be added a while ago in the template talk, but people didn't seem to go for it. Has DRM become a big enough topic yet for this to happen? I don't think the nature of the DRM is really relevant for inclusion -- as long as it can be sourced, it should be listed. It is technical information, important in every case to someone who wants to know, but not always a subject of discussion in every game so it's not practical to try adding a line of prose to each article. IMO it is every bit as justified as having an "Engine" field and such. Ham Pastrami (talk) 12:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Can someone see if the fields for other notable indivisuals is working on ((Infobox VG series)) like it does for ((Infobox VG))? If it does, please update the document and if it doesn't, please see about adding them as we are having an issue with the Dragon Quest FAC on this.陣内_Jinnai 22:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The only such parameter in there is for the creator (and oddly a "creater"). Would you like parameters for "artist" and "composer"?

Anyone mind if I remove the "creater" parameter? It seems unnecessary because it replicates "creator". (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC))

I added parameters for artists, writers, and composers. The documentation was updated and I removed the duplicate creator one. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC))

Thanks.陣内_Jinnai 17:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Just want to know if Microsoft should be in this Wikiproject's scope or not. I mean, they made the Xbox and its not tagged. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Outside, as the company's main function (even secondary function) isn't to produce video game related items (it's really to take over the world; thank God we have Google to stop them!). --Izno (talk) 05:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Although Microsoft falls outside of the project's scope, Microsoft Game Studios is considered part of the project's scope. Reach Out to the Truth 06:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought that was Apple's job :-) –MuZemike 18:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a dispute over whether a controversy section, specifically dealing with addition to World of Warcraft, should be included in the article. Discussion here. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Please join discussion about MW4 multiplayer and write your opinion. Thanks. --Peter Porai-Koshits (talk) 10:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

This is just a heads-up for those who haven't noticed: The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (video game) has had a WP:VG peer review open for a couple of weeks. So far no comments have been given. If anybody can spot anything in the article that could be improved, however big or small, please make some suggestions! Thanks, Una Laguna^Talk 17:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright, all of our articles face one very key problem: they use a lot of online references, and those references aren't going to be online forever. In several cases one dead reference can effectively take down a good chunk of a subject's development information, and the Wayback Machine is not always going to be reliable as a fallback, especially if that reference happened to be on something like 1UP.com, which has a robots.txt excursion blocking Wayback Machine from doing it's job at all. One thing I would like to push is that we get the Wikimedia foundation to approach websites for permission on archiving their material on WikiCommons in some form. This would allow a longstanding resource and an in-house one that we don't have to worry about going offline on us at an inopportune time. And hell, if I could cite the time's 1UP, GameStop, GameDaily, IGN etc have used *us* as a resource (even if only for an image on a fictional character) I'd be here all day, so to some extent we should be able to convince them that it's a valid endeavor, if only to archive the references used in our GA or higher articles.

The alternative would be some form of bot to go through on WebCite and start mass backing up files, but that's apparently already in partial effect and for the most part, still forces us to rely on a service that might one day go down completely (thus taking down a good amount of our cumulative work with it).

Either way something should be done to ensure what we have that's good and solid remains that way, and isn't threatened by someone's domain biting the big one.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

We're going to have to stick with Webcite for the time being. Being an internet archive is outside of the Foundation's remit, and would go against the free content philosophy behind Wikimedia projects. What's to suggest that the Internet Archive or WebCite will fall down any sooner than Wikimedia? User:WebCiteBOT should be operational again soon, but that only captures new links - and there's a massive backlog. - hahnchen 21:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing suggesting that Internet Archive or WebCite will fall down sooner than Wikimedia, but I agree with Kung Fu Man that the more backup copies of something we have the better chances we have of not losing information. History shows us that nothing lasts forever, especially on nowadays fragile digital medium where for example dropping a hard drive can kill it, while if you drop a book you can pick it up and its as good as it was before. NeoGenPT (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Another option, though not ideal, is to use the quote parameter in ((cite web)). This would work well for a source that is only used for a small piece of information. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC))

Unfortunately I usually bleed my sources dry :) The problem isn't saving copies, it's making them accessible so they can still be cited. I only regularly webcite publications that have notably bad linkrot issues, like Edge. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Would the quote tag suffice for a FAC though if the link was dead? That's something that comes to mind as a possible problem...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:FA? links to WP:CITE which has a subsection that uses WP:LINKROT as its main article which mentions the quote parameter. The linkrot page is a how-to-page though. So I don't know if that would count for them. I'm sure if we ask at WT:FA or WT:FAC they'd weigh in. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC))

I would assume in general that the quote would be enough to cover your ass at an FAC, but it's best not to let that happen. For video game FAs, there's a dead link checker I use to periodically sweep articles under my care. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I've also started adding the quote parameter to all my refs. It increases the size of the article, but there's no way around the problem currently. Maybe if refs were stored independently to article content using a separate editing interface, as has been proposed repeatedly on Bugzilla... SharkD  Talk  03:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Pikachu has been submitted for a peer review, which can be found here. Any and all input would be welcome. Regards, IndigoSeptimus (talk) 00:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I just tried following the instructions for putting Max Payne up for peer review. Had I saved the change, it would have stated that the article is currently under review, which wouldn't be true at the time of putting it up. Did I do something wrong? Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 05:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The instructions for this project's peer review is at the top of WP:VG/PR, but it's sounds like you're doing it right. When you add the |peer=yes parameter, it says the article is currently under review. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, just wanted to make sure of that. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 05:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

User Lextarget is working on the Lazy Raiders and Sarbakan as an employee of Sarbakan. Not that big of a deal (though possibly a WP:COI), however the user clearly does not understand Wikipedia policy. I'd appreciate some input towards these articles and this user to (preferably) guide them to correct edits, but (definitely) stay away from conflict of interest, manual of style, etc issues. It looks as though the game itself is notable, dunno about the company though.

Sorry for the jumbled mess of text - I was trying to get this out while at work. --Teancum (talk) 21:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I already tried to guide the user in the right direction as far as the images are concerned by giving him a couple of directions on his user talk page (as there are obvious copyright issues with said uploaded images). However, I forgot to mention WP:OWN to him – that they don't own the article or technically what they upload (lest what they upload be deleted). –MuZemike 23:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The article has been stagnating; the rescue squadron often comes in to rescue it, but it usually amounts to ignoring it once it's been rescued. However, it really needs to be dealt with. It's not improving, no one's found any references for notability, be it creation of the characters or reception for the characters, and lately no one is trying. There is no deadline, true, but if it's apparent that no effort to improve the article is being made or will be made [as shown by how quickly the rescue squadron ceases improvements of the article and makes not even one edit when it's out of danger], then leaving the article there is just giving credence to the idea that lists of characters have no standards. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

And to illustrate my point, A Nobody, one of the rescue squadron members and one of the active participants in the article's rescuing, made his first edit to the article since December 6, 2009 only after this discussion was opened. I argue that there be one and only one chance to improve the article enough, that if the article is not redirected to the list it will be untouched until the next discussion is opened. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I took it to RfD twice a while ago, and my original intention was to have it deleted because we didn't hold the information anywhere at the time, but the discussion outcome was to restore it back to an article. Whilst I probably look rather irritating by now from my commenting in each subsequent discussion, I want to echo previous points from the RfDs: Don't redirect it without merging it. Otherwise it just goes back to being a misleading redirect, especially if it ends up pointing back to the game article again.

Then again, the most recent discussion about keeping/deleting such "List of X" and other redirects which we don't actually maintain information on ended as "No Consensus", thus perhaps a larger discussion needs to occur.. --Taelus (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, it could be a partial merge. Characters such as Vivian, Kammy Koopa, or any character with proper reception could be included, but it would not have to be a full merge. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a horrible list. Just merge notable characters to the main list of characters. I haven't played the games, so I have no idea who needs saving. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 22:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Just leave it alone. Character lists have become a favourite sidestep of guidelines like notability and WAF, and even verifiability and OR to an extent, and the community has let it happen. It's not that nobody is bothering to fix it, it's that putting a dead mouse in the microwave doesn't magically change it into a beef dinner with extra roast parsnips. There are a million and one more useful and productive things to do with your time. Someoneanother 00:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

If what you say is true, then what more useful thing is there to do but try to rectify it? You just stated that many of these articles go against every policy on Wikipedia, and quite frankly then make a mockery of the project. In the interest of academic integrity, poorly constructed lists need to go. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 00:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Attempts were made to rectify it; it was sent to AFD several times. In this instance the list is of characters either covered within the plot sections of the relevant game articles or characters so trivial they do not belong anywhere. This is an extremely loose 'series', where one of the consistencies that is there is the massive volume of named but trivial characters, so represents something of a special case. Sure, it can be redirected to preserve history (which would suit me), but there has been no indication that that would be allowed to happen. Someoneanother 00:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

For this, as with those various character articles recently mass nominated that you, New Age Retro Hippie, and I all commented in, I would not oppose or seek to prevent a good faith merge of sourced content and redirect that preserves the edit history. That should be the basis of compromise in all of these instances. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Well we're all operating in good faith here, but what is there to merge? Someoneanother 01:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I would say at least the following, most of which is what I think I added and which is really the sourced content:

The Paper Mario series of video games, which consists of Paper Mario, Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door, and Super Paper Mario. Paper Mario featured "distinctive retro-style 2-D-looking paper-cutout characters",^[1] which GameAxis Unwired praised as "colorful".^[2] The four playable characters from the Paper Mario series are Mario, Princess Peach, Bowser, and Luigi.^[3] Matt Casamassina of IGN notes the main characters are "all fun to play for different reasons" and that the ease of moving between playable characters "is a plus since there are some well-designed puzzles that require you to use two or more of the heroes to continue forward."^[4]

On a side note, I really do hope those who said to delete in some of those other discussions will reconsider compromising and instead agreeing to at least redirect. Again, I would not challenge that. Also, a better writer than I could/should probably do something with "Super Paper Mario: Characters and History Interview," GameTrailers.com (Apr 16, 2007). Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I am happy for it to be redirected, so long as some information is merged into a relevant target. Game pages strike me as unsuitable, as it is a title referring to a series, thus the suitable targets strike me as the series page, or recurring characters page. (So long as the relevant information is merged to the target.) I understand the appeal of having a redirect here, but redirects which lure the reader into thinking there is a list of characters somewhere, then being redirected to a page with no real relevant information on it is infuriating. If we keep it simply to keep its history, it should be kept as an article, or moved into project space. If it is going to be redirected, it needs to point to a location with the relevant information. --Taelus (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

What is the relevant information, specifically? Someoneanother 01:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

How about something like redirecting to Mario_role-playing_games#Characters where I just merged the information (note: that merge edit can be undone as it to visibly illustrate a possibility here). Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

That was exactly the same place I was looking at, nice. If Taelus can fill us in we can hopefully sort this out. Someoneanother 01:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a fine target to me, it avoids the problems that were encountered in the past when the page was a redirect targetting only a specific game in the series. Thanks for doing the merge work! --Taelus (talk) 01:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. I am always happy to help when I can. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help A Nobody, for your input Taelus, and for bringing this up Retro Hippy. -2 character levels from me for pessimism and a dead mouse sandwich :( Someoneanother 02:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. Have a nice night! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

NARH, we are all volunteers here. I have a job, a family, pets, etc. I tend to use my time on Wikipedia for two purposes 1) spreading wiki love (hence all the welcome messages I give and my tendency to support so regularly in RfAs, even if moral support) and 2) addressing articles with an immediate concern. If accounts would slow down with afding articles or follow WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE and merge or redirect, okay, but some don't and so the time I would indeed much rather be using returning to articles to continue to improve them is oftentimes distracted having to address the more immediate concern of something afded that could/should be redirected, merged, transwikied, etc. instead. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I take it back; nothing better than a little wikilove :) Cheers! Scapler (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we have a Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign and Wikipedia:Welcoming committee for which I am a member. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The question is how much needs to be merged, and I can say "very few to no characters". What's to merge? Indepth plot summaries? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Because of remakes, reboots, etc. many fictional characters tend to have renaissances in terms of their notability. As such, it is worthwhile to keep their edit histories intact for the sake of what is increasingly realistic in terms of their expansion as new adaptations come about. Practically every character article can and should at worst be redirected with edit history still available as a matter of convenice for our readers. Only that which has no redirect location (or something legally damaging) actually needs to be deleted. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Well then, it does not really matter since this is about redirection, not deletion. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

He does make a good point. It's not like the article is going anywhere. It will still be in the history. It just isn't in a state right now that it needs to be shown to the public. Redirect it and salvage whoever is notable to the plot. Just tell their role in the story. Not what they did, but who they are. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 00:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Why would edit histories benefit readers? Aren't they there for editors? SharkD  Talk  14:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

We have to keep edit histories of anything we merge public per the GFDL, i.e. for attribution purposes. Plus, even as a reader, I have found it helpful at times to look at old versions of articles. And while working on my doctorate, I attended a presentation on campus on Wikipedia that used the edit history of articles to demonstrate how they evolve/change, i.e. they are also useful as a means of studying our project's culture and methods. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You're citing a study about Wikipedians as a basis to forming an opinion about readers? Last time I checked readers don't get any attribution for coming here and reading articles. I still don't see how "Readers won't miss it because there's an edit history" makes any sense. In that case, why omit information or have articles at all? Readers can just be directed to a series of edit histories instead. SharkD  Talk  00:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Previously in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_76#Attribution-Ubisoft

Heads-up regarding Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Attribution-Ubisoft 3 : Ubisoft screenshots are very likely to get deleted now.

You may want to get prepared for transfers to local projects (under Fair-Use). Jean-Fred (talk) 17:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

That answer's pretty clear, there's no iffy-ness now.

So, from this side (on en.wiki, other wikis will have to do it their way), my suggestion is this, working off the presumption that most screenshots are still appropriate (though possibly too many in some articles) but now need to be treated as non-free:

• Employ a bot or whatever to transfer all ubisoft-tagged images at commons to en.wiki. Tag the transferred with some temporary template or category (like "Ubisoft-transfers-from-commons") or something.
• From the image of affected images, we have 7 days to run through them and add proper rationales or tag them for deletion. Once tagged either way, we remove that template.
• Any files that remain in the template/category after 7 days are to be outright deleted. This would follow all other standard non-free image handling.

I think this is quite doable in the time frame. --MASEM (t) 17:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't actually expect Ubisoft to respond. I thought we'd have to wait it out a bit longer. Anyway, I've added a notice to Category:Ubisoft screenshots indicating the non-free status of the screenshots and requesting non-free use rationales. We'll also have to replace images 3, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 17, 29, 35, 38, 61, 78, and 80 on Portal:Video games/Picture, since fair use won't work there. Reach Out to the Truth 04:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll take care of the portal images. Of course, help from others is always welcome. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC))

Portal images should be done. An extra pair of eyes giving all the images a once over wouldn't hurt. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC))

Looks good. Thanks. Reach Out to the Truth 02:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I've looked through the category, removed some images from articles that don't need them, and added the useful ones to my watchlist. I also removed the ((commonscat)) and ((commons)) templates from pages that were using them. The images that remain should be acceptable. Looks like we're ready now. Our next step should be copying over the images we're using and add fair use rationales. Is there a bot that can copy images from the Commons? Reach Out to the Truth 20:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge (why would anyone do that? :P ). I've gone ahead and grabbed all the images used in the Myst articles and will go ahead and tag them for deletion on Commons. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I've dropped a bot request; hopefully this has been done before so it's just a matter of customization. --MASEM (t) 21:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Square Enix#Concern in FFXV page - Mythsearcher and I are disagreeing about the article Final Fantasy XV and I would like input from other people. Thanks. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 15:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The recent TfD for Template:VG reviews brought something to my attention. ((VG reviews)) was edit-protected last year because a number of editors added their favorite publication to the table. This caused two problems: it needlessly bloated the template (more of a technical/usability issue) and caused confusion over what was a reliable source.

I'd like to get some input on what should be trimmed because I question whether all of the sources listed are reliable sources. I also think it's best to keep the number of dedicated parameters to a minimum. Anything extra can use the eight additional review parameters. Here's a listing of what publications are currently in the template:

Discussion

Getting the ball rolling, I'd like to see at least TopTenReviews and Action Trip removed. After discussing it WT:VG/RS, I removed topTenReviews from our list there and don't think it should be here either. Action Trip has been discussed before at the RS Notice board.[1] & link. Game Revolution and Nintendo World Report are question marks in my head.

I want to say that any magazine should get a free pass in, but that's a lot of magazines. Also, I think any publication that is only a website should be multi-platform to offer the most to editors. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC))

I say we start by removing all of them not listed at WP:VG/RS; if it is not reliable enough for information, then it is not reliable enough for us to care what their review information is. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Game Ratio and GameWire need to go. If it's not notable enough for an article, it certainly isn't notable enough to cite for a review. --Teancum (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That's not necessarily true, Teancum (though, for the most part, it's probably the case). Wasn't there an issue with that for VGChartz? But then again, I'm afraid I'm making a false argument, because VGChartz was considered unreliable, and it was subsequently nominated for deletion. –MuZemike 20:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

MuZemike's right. Reliability and notability don't go hand in hand. There are notable sources that aren't reliable and reliable sources that aren't notable. -- Sabre (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. There was a discussion just recently about this on either WP:N or WP:RS. Can't remember which. Just because something is notable doesn't make it reliable and just because something isn't notable, doesn't make it unreliable.

However we should remove anything not on WP:VG/RS because its not unquestionably reliable.陣内_Jinnai 23:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I remember a long argument here in the summer where the result of the discussion seemed to be that sources with the largest cultural impact should be given the greatest weight -- not reliability. (I.e. this was in response to my call for being more egalitarian and giving all reliable sources equal weight.) SharkD  Talk  03:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I've brought this up multiple times before. I would personally cull all aggregators other than Metacritic and GameRankings - see this conversation from Archive 70. I've also brought up TopTenReviews as being unreliable/uninfluential in various discussions, an aggregator added to VG Reviews just to troll Featured Article - The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (that editor is now blocked). It is a shame, that TTR is still featured prominently in that featured article, even though it has no influence, reach, or credibility in the video game space. - hahnchen 14:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that's the discussion I was talking about. SharkD  Talk  17:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I say we get rid of G4. We have X-play, so why do we have G4 as well? GamerPro64 (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that G4 shouldn't be on there. It is a television channel rather than a television show.

It looks like there's support to remove TopTenReviews.

How about Action Trip and Game Wire? The first has been deemed unreliable and the second isn't mentioned anywhere on WP:VG/RS. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC))

Any input? I don't feel comfortable making unilateral discussions on such a widely used template. It's hard to get edit protected content changed without consensus. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC))

Um... What did we agree on so far? GamerPro64 (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's a summary as far as I can tell.

• There's general support for anything deemed unreliable or not listed as reliable on WP:VG/RS
• I expressed disapproval over Action Trip and Game Wire, one which was deemed unreliable at the RS noticeboard and the other we have nothing on.
• You and I expressed disapproval over G4 because it is a TV channel that airs X-Play and is ineligible/redundant.
• Hahnchen expressed disapproval over all aggregates besides Metacritic and GameRankings.
• I expressed disapproval over the TopTenReviews aggregate, which is listed as unreliable on our source page.
• I'm not sure what is the outcome over the MobyRank aggregate below. Lorson expressed disapproval over the score. There really hasn't been any opposition to his statement, just questions and clarification.

I think that sums it up. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC))

• Out of all of these selections we have, I think we should remove the ones nobody uses. It might be hard to tell which is barely used, but really, what article has Playr and Gamezebo? GamerPro64 (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

  Playr is only used on Madden NFL 09 and Skate 2, and Gamezebo is only used on Chocolatier (video game) and Plants vs. Zombies. Both could easily be dropped from the template. Reach Out to the Truth 18:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

  Two of the inclusions in the template (one for Playr and one for Gamezebo) use the extra review parameters. So the amount of work to add them back in is minimal. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC))

  I assume SharkD's striking of MobyGames expresses his disapproval of it. Sound right? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC))

  Nope. I struck it out because it has already been removed. This despite the decision still being ongoing here. Provision should at least be made for custom aggregators before removing it. SharkD  Talk  02:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

MobyGames

MobyGames should be removed from the Aggregate scores. Volunteer users of the website choose which reviewers are taken in to account to create the 'MobyRank'. Plus the 'MobyRank' is affected by the websites personal opinion/reputation of the reviewer.

"MobyRank assigns a weight to each critic based on their history, accuracy and past variance. Critics with high accuracy, low variance, and high repute have their score weighted higher in the MobyRank calculation than critics with low accuracy, high variance and low repute."[2]

--Lorson (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedians also choose which reviewers are taken into account to create articles. But I suppose we're not using ourselves as a reference, so it doesn't count. Anyway, the blockquote sounds like an example of editorial control to me. SharkD  Talk  03:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd call it editorial control. Although they do have to be approved, it's entirely up to volunteer contributors to submit those reviews in the first place. So certain reviews could have been purposely left out by the contributors adding them. Reach Out to the Truth 04:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

What does high accuracy and low variance mean? I mean if you look at it with a cyncial view it could mean high accuracy=reviews we agree with, low variance=always give the same range of scores for everything. There's no detail what those vague words mean.陣内_Jinnai 02:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Not that different than Metacritic:

"The METASCORE is considered a weighted average because we assign more significance, or weight, to some critics and publications than we do to others, based on the overall stature and quality of those critics and publications. In addition, for music and movies, we also normalize the resulting scores (akin to "grading on a curve" in college), which prevents scores from clumping together."[3]

A cynical view could mean "overall stature and quality = publications we agree with". GameStats also accepts review submissions:

"To ensure that our ratings and article lists are as up-to-date and accurate as possible, submit reviews and previews from sites and magazines that you notice are missing."[4]

The "Average press score" in the reviews section also differs from the "Press score" in the article's lead, so there's some sort of weighting going on. SharkD  Talk  17:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to put in an editrequest for the removal mobygames due to all the issues discussed above, unless there is any objections?--Lorson (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's wait to do all the removals at once. There are a few formatting changes that need to be done as well. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC))

I thought taking them out one at a time over time would cause less problems than taking out large amounts all out at once.--Lorson (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The removal of the parameters won't break the template. They just won't display anymore because the template won't recognize unknown parameters. The only problem would be if someone sees their favorite publication gone. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC))

I object based on the reasons you have cited. MobyGames' practices seem to be industry standard, judging by the two aggregators that still remain, as I have pointed out. SharkD  Talk  02:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

There are no volunteers who submit the reviews to gamestats or metacritic. Gamestats accepts submissions that are missing and have a proper editing process in place, not volunteer run. MobyRank is too open to user-influence and error. The site is helpful for finding reviews about older games that the other two don't cover though.--Lorson (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Do we need them at all?

Getting rid of the pre-made parameters entirely would fix formatting issues where you have some publications that are pre-made and others that are not, and they are all out of alphabetical order. SharkD  Talk  04:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No, we do not. The idea that all reviews should be predefined is a very bad one, and I have not been a fan of it from the start. The only gain, is that our title links are consistent, ie - the right publications get italicised and everyone refers to EGM as Electronic Gaming Monthly.

I've held this belief since the outset, my first comments in 2007 regarding the then new template was "The template is so wrong". The template legitimises several poor quality sources, and omits many others - try using it for anything predating the PS2, and you'll find yourself referring to multiple undefined publications. I've not been editing of late, but one of my last articles - David Crane's Amazing Tennis has 5 reviews in the table, yet only uses 1 template defined one. Although I use Nintendo Power as a source, I manually define it to get the ordering intact.

The solution is not to continue adding new codes and definitions to the template. That's unwieldy and hard to maintain. It's also means that every inclusion of VG Reviews in an article requires the parsing of a needlessly large template. Having hard coded definitions, has also created a giant barrier of entry into changing the table - we cannot change codes without having to submit bot requests.

We should not have any hardcoded publications, but instead rely purely on custom fields. We should link the documentation to our reliable source lists and ask that editors consult that to see what should and shouldn't be used. This will require heavy bot work. - hahnchen 14:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

That would only increase the use of unreliable publications in an "authoritative" template, and make them harder to eradicate. It's not going to happen. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Templates should not be an authoritative dictator of sources. You are misguided. - hahnchen 18:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

And you're being damn rude. Calm down, Hahnchen. I agree with David's point.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't this is such a bad idea. We should at least get some more comments before we dismiss this.

One of my biggest complaints about this template is I often find it bloated with 10+ scores. Sometimes the tables runs out of the reception section because it's gotten too long. I tried finding a way to limit the number of displayed scores, but came up with nothing. Switching usage solely to the user-defined parameters would alleviate this. However, I'm certain most users wouldn't format the publications properly. David does bring up a valid point though. The template should mirror what we have on WP:VG/RS.

Perhaps the solution to some of these problems is better documentation in the template. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC))

We trust the editor's judgement when it comes to the prose. We should trust the editor's judgement when it comes to the table. Creating an ever expanding table with hardwired codes that we can't change does little to help the state of reception sections. - hahnchen 20:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

And try editing one of these tables, the codes just confuse things. You have to look at the URL to see what you're editing, or have the documentation open. - hahnchen 20:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I have been intending to write a "how to" on using the review table. The short answer is that for most modern games (post, oh, about 2003 or later), we only need at most eight sources in that table: the two aggregates from MC and GR, and 6 review scores, ideally from the set of IGN, Gamespot, 1UP, Gamespy, Eurogamer, and Game Informer (all which are platform neutral); a platform specific print source like OXM or Nintendo Power should be added for console exclusives, while Famitsu should be added for games first released in Japan (but not those released later). However, that itself is based on how the scores come out, as we should always include reviews from reliable sources that skew from the averages as to be able to ID the either strong positives or strong negatives they have on the game, if there are such outliers (this does not mean a 7.5 score when the average is floating around 8.5, but instead more like a 6.0 score from an 8.5 average). This is further emphasized that every reference listed in the box should be used in the reception section. I may have to write this out more formally to help here. --MASEM (t) 17:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

That would be awesome if you did that Masem. Let me know if you need any help. I know my editing time on here is erratic, but I'll make time for something like this. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC))

Here's what I wrote up previously, adding a couple tweaks today. --MASEM (t) 21:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I added a few things. I think what was there already looked pretty good. Should we add it to Template:VG reviews/doc once this discussion is done? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC))

Summary

Well, the discussion seems to have died down. Here's a summary of the proposed ideas: [Edited by SharkD]]

1. Remove TopTenReviews and MobyRank

Based on specific requests from individuals and the general support to remove anything deemed unreliable or not listed as reliable on WP:VG/RS.

• Oppose unless support for custom aggregators is added (see below). SharkD  Talk  04:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Basically I don't see why having as many aggregators as possible isn't a *good* thing. A broader pool of sources reduces statistical variances. SharkD  Talk  23:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I'd go further and remove everything aside from Metacritic and Gamerankings - ie. removing Game Ratio, GameStats & GameTab. (Why wasn't this an option?) I'd support custom aggregator fields for special cases. - hahnchen 21:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I didn't include it in the first summary draft because there didn't seem to be much support. However, if the custom aggregator gains support below, then removing all those besides GameRanking and Metacritic makes sense. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC))
• Support: TopTenReviews definitely needs to go. I'm indifferent about MobyRank though. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC))
• Support: Sorry I haven't been a part of this discussion-- Gamerankings and Metacritic suit our needs just fine, and I've never been sure about the reliability of TopTenReviews. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 07:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

2. Remove Action Trip

Based on a discussion at the RS noticeboard that deemed it unreliable and the general support to remove anything deemed unreliable or not listed as reliable on WP:VG/RS.

• Support - Good idea. SharkD  Talk  04:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support per my comments above. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC))
• Support: it's important that the parameters reflect WP:VG/RS. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 07:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

3. Remove Playr and Gamezebo

These are reliable sources, but the parameters are only used once. It's also unlikely that usage will increase so switching to the additional review parameters will reduce template clutter. In fact, each one is already used once in the template via the rev# and rev#Score.

• Support - Seems reasonable. SharkD  Talk  04:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support per my comments above. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC))
• Support as it would reduce the clutter in the parameter section. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 07:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

4. Remove all predefined sources

Creating an "authoritative" template may give undue weight to a handful of sources.

• Neutral - Removing them would require a lot of work to fix existing templates. Otherwise I am indifferent. SharkD  Talk  04:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Being able to copy/paste the template into an article and have predefined sources makes creating a reception summary much faster. Any arguments of favoring this or that reviewer are irrelevant, as if there were no pre-defined templates the same could still be said. The reason people choose [x] or [y] reviewer is due to the reliability of that review and the fact that it's one of the reviews people look for. --Teancum (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Undue weight to sources. Relegates responsibility from the editor, who just fills in the blanks instead of asking themselves which sources should be included. A fundamentally flawed concept for a template, which will just continue to grow and grow and grow if it is to incorporate all suitable sources. - hahnchen 21:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Weak oppose: I'm not convinced this is a bad idea, but I think all the pros and cons need to be discussed by a much larger group. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC))
• Oppose: By creating parameters, we're listing specific sources as definitely reliable to use; although there can be exceptions, I think it's a great solution for the number of newer editors we have in this WikiProject who may well use the template. If we need to add a review, we can add it through the additional parameters. However, I do think that there are a few too many review options, and some of them should be removed. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 07:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

5. Add support for custom aggregators

Add support for custom aggregators in cases where other sources are useful (such as very old games).

• Support - WP:VG/RS isn't 100% conclusive with regard to MobyGames. Provisions should be made for when MobyRanks are suitable, such as very old games. SharkD  Talk  02:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support - hahnchen 21:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Conditional support: I think this should be limited to one. A large number of aggregate scores provides very little. Also, if this is added, then we should limit the number of predefined parameters to just GameRanking and Metacritic. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC))
• Support Although I'm wary about using ones other than Gamerankings and Metacritic... I think we need to highly encourage editors to stick with just those two if they're available. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 07:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd argue that limiting options to only one extra aggregate would encourage the usage of the predefined GR and MC. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC))

6. Remove G4

• I think the G4 should be discussed further. Originally, there was support because it is a TV channel that airs X-Play. But I learned that their website offers reviews too. The X-Play website is under the g4tv.com domain and the only reviews I found there are from G4TV. So I'm not sure what should be done with this one now. Aside from G4, any objection to the five sources listed above? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC))

• Though the website points to the G4TV reviews, the X-Play show actually does the review. It makes sense that they're hosted on the G4TV domain, and to keep things simpler for end-users to have reviews under the parent domain rather than hosting them in the X-Play portion. Still voting Support to remove G4. All G4 reviews should be changed to X-Play, who actually does the reviewing. --Teancum (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Do you have a link for that? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC))

O.K gang, on March 9th, Flower (video game) will be that day's Featured Article on the Main Page. So basically, all hell's gonna break loose that day (due to that and a little known game being released that day). Fun! GamerPro64 (talk) 03:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh wait what?! Dude! I only FA'd that thing a couple of weeks ago! I was going to ask for it next year- that's pretty awesome. I'll watch over it that day. --PresN 06:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Raul654 was a tendency to place recently-promoted FAs on the Main Page right away. –MuZemike 17:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone know what the policy is for a DFA as to what class it goes to? That is to say, if an article was promoted to GA, followed by FA, but then delisted at a FAR, what does it become? GA again, or lower? And assuming it doesn't regain it's GA status, should it be listed as a DGA, since it used to be a GA, and now isn't; or not, because it was not demoted directly from GA? The article in question that this applies to is Characters of Kingdom Hearts. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Generally seems best to go the DGA route from what I understand and rate it B class, though there can be exceptions where an article is still Good-class, just not FA?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, it depends on what the people who downgrade it think it is now, doesn't it? If an article has greatly decreased in quality, it may go to below B class. Like Link (The Legend of Zelda). _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 00:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I get you. You mean do you say ^{Characters of Kingdom Hearts is a former featured article.} or ^{Characters of Kingdom Hearts is a former good article.}? I would assume you would do FA, since it did make it to that point once. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 00:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Well it's already listed on WP:VG/FA as a DFA, but should it also be listed on WP:VG/GA as a DGA? MrKIA11 (talk) 01:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. --PresN 18:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Lorson has been using AWB to remove Moby games links from article that were added way back in 2006 by User:Ravimakkar. A previous discussion from late 2009 here last year suggested that removing spam-added links are appropriate, but not all moby games in one fell swoop. Due to the age of these links, as added several years ago, I would be hesitant to remove them all without checking for consensus. (If a spammer today added them, well, yes. But this is from 2006...) Any comments on this? Is what Lorson doing ok? --MASEM (t) 22:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't really like mobygames temps as I think they're rather useless. I'm not going to add them back in on the articles I watchlist, but if someone else wants them I'm not going to fight it :). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see any problem. Let's totally assume Ravimakkar was acting in good faith, spamming is spamming. Moby Games links are largely redundant, often left in long after the article has long since left them in the dust. We have magazine scan databases which provide actual sources, rather than Moby Games issue #s, we have GameRankings etc. which do the same thing more comprehensively, and we have allgame these days which in many cases is a far superior resource, offering directly citable information on gameplay and even reviews. Sooner or later WP is going to need a spamrectomy of Moby links anyway. Someoneanother 22:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Case in point: what possible use is this thing when we've got this? That link had no business being there, yet it only gets removed as part of a spamrectomy. What about this gallery when we've got this. We're more than a little too passive about these links hanging off articles for no reason, and a great deal of these articles which do lack cites could probably referenced these days. Someoneanother 01:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

We can't use the magazine scan databases as ELs though, as they are copyvios. SharkD  Talk  11:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, what I'm saying is that the databases contain the actual reviews which can be used to expand and verify articles, rendering the likes of allgame and Moby Games irrelevant as ELs. The ELs are only a stopgap anyway, and we aren't half as beholden to them as was once necessary. Someoneanother 12:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything? ELs are there for the readers, not the editors. They have no idea the magazine databases exist. SharkD  Talk  03:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say otherwise, readers don't need ELs which duplicate the information within articles, meaning if the articles are expanded then they're not needed. Someoneanother 18:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure there's a lot of info that can be put into an article that's largely redundant when it comes to MobyGames. But that's not the point. There's a lot of info on MobyGames that can't be put into articles due to necessarily needing to be brief: Detailed information on individual releases in multiple regions, versus English-language-only release dates on Wikipedia; detailed images of different box designs for collectors who deal on eBay and so forth; different screenshots or credits for each release, including non-English-language releases, etc.. Does this stuff belong on Wikipedia? No! Does it belong in an EL? Yes! Judging MobyGames based on its usefulness as a resource to editors doing research is irrelevant, as the allowed content is necessarily different. SharkD  Talk  00:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The only links I am removing are ones placed by Ravimakkar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Which I've nearly done. I am not removing every link I can find.--Lorson (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

If the links themselves don't violate Wikipedia policy, what difference does it make who added them? I'm sure that there are a lot of editors out there that limit themselves to only certain activities. It seems to me that you're just replacing spam with more spam. (I agree though that allgame is often superior to MobyGames in many cases--except for maybe box scans). SharkD  Talk  02:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

On my last FAC the MobyGames link I had was removed for apparently violating WP:EL. –MuZemike 02:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I still think MobyGames is useful to collectors by treating each release of a game separately and including things other sites lack such as box scans. Sure, the descriptions and such are inferior when compared to allgame, but it covers games the other ignores (at the moment). SharkD  Talk  03:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I would just like to add that the last time this issue came up I think consensus was to forward the issue to Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam and let them deal with it. Has this been done or were they circumverted? SharkD  Talk  03:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Which FAC was that by the way? SharkD  Talk  00:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Next despam includes additions by:

• Flipkin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) founder of the site, added about 700 links Y done.
• TnS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) about 1400 edits to articles, 1200 include adding or changing a mobylink
• 69.139.77.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) added about 500 mobylinks article edits, didn't do much else Y done.

That's about 2,000 in total, I will be doing each one separately.--Lorson (talk) 09:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Considering that more than a couple of contributors have objected to what you're doing it's not cool to keep doing so until we've discussed this properly. Kindly wait a minute. Someoneanother 12:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the current consensus on MobyGames external links is that they may be useful on a case-by-case basis on sub-optimal articles. That is, a MobyGames link on a FA would be redundant with the article itself, but for articles that don't reach that standard, there may be something to it.

As someone adding hundreds of external links to the same site within a short time span cannot reasonably be presumed to add these links with the proper care and judgement needed for a case-by-case basis thing, I strongly support their removal by Lorson. That's just a presumption; the users in question are welcome to explain what their criteria for adding those links were. Until they do that, let's run with the presumption. User:Krator (t c) 14:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Even on an FA - a MobyGames link can be useful. They cover things that we don't track - even in an FA such as detailed developer credits. This is useful, and analogous to IMDB links from the multitude of film articles. Unlike GameFAQs or IGN et al. - MobyGames are purely focused on being a repository of game information, and they're also independent with no company lines to toe - which is why I favour a MobyGames external link versus some of the other sources. - hahnchen 19:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to argue in favor of keeping MobyRank as a viable option in all this (semi-related, bear with me), simply because Lorson's arguments against it don't hold that much water: GameRankings for a very long time there also allowed users to submit links to reviews, and also decide which reviews they will include and will omit. Not to mention it still is the only alternative for such a score for older games since Metacritic has a cutoff point that excludes many systems, including the Game Boy's entire lineup.

As for MobyGames external links...yeah it's case by case. But I can see the validity in including it if there are instances where one link could take the place of several to, say, show the game's various box arts if there was significant variance as generally the fair-use rules limit how much of that can be shown in an article visually.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Why not let him remove them? 9 times out of 10 it's not useful, and if someone objects they can just revert. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

GameStats also accepts submissions. SharkD  Talk  03:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The removal of links should not continue. The spam additions were added in 2006, any of the links still remaining have already passed through many editors. I objected to the 2006 inclusion of Mobylinks as evidenced by this Archive 8 discussion. But I even then, I acknowledge that Mobygames has certain qualities that Wikipedia (and Gamespot et al) don't - such as the ability to list an individual's contributions. The sole focus of MobyGames is complimentary to that of Wikipedia and listing Moby entries in our external links can be helpful. If you were reverting a recent spambot whitewash, then that'd be OK - but these are longstanding edits that have survived since 2006. I do not appreciate having to respam such edits 4 years later - this has not been a productive use of AWB editing. - hahnchen 19:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't see that there has been a consensus established on this topic, in fact, most editors seems to be against this purge. This is much more than a bold edit, and a very difficult one to revert. Further, the basis for it is very dubious: the state of the articles have changed since 2006; MobyGames is a notable and informative resource not pushing agendas; MB's inclusion in games articles seems to have become an norm, and a service I've used more than once; and this is an incredibly invasive incision. As such it should be thoroughly discussed and anchored before enacted. I think this slew of edits is extremely controversial, and I find the lack of discussion beforehand disturbing. Miqademus (talk) 12:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

So what you are both saying when somebody spams a 100 articles with a link to the same website, and that link is left there for a few years it makes the spam become not spam? I am not purging the links, I am reverting the spammers. Know the difference.--Lorson (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that's exactly what we're saying. If your spam links remain in articles 4 years after they happened, if the link itself may be useful, then they should no longer be purged without any consideration or discussion. We should not have to rely on other editors letting us know of your behaviour. - hahnchen 20:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You're making a strawman argument, trying to change the argument to "you say that yesterday's spam is today's valid info". Rather, I think most participants here are saying that

• [major points] (1) extraordinarily bold edits requires establishing consensus, and bold edits contested through reversals or other means must be discussed to establish consensus before being repeated or continued, (2) consensus is against your mass-purge, which makes it closer to vandalism than editing, and (3) editing AGAINST consensus is anything but good faith.
• [minor points] (5) things not removed for several years will likely be of a nature agreeable to editors and readers, and (6) mass updates are not necessarily spamming

You have also persisted in your edits against the requests of other editors to stop, which is against the cooperative and consensus-based spirit of Wikipedia collaboration. You should reflect on what that implies of your edits and you as an WP editor. Miqademus (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

What is more disturbing, is that you started your Wikipedia career spamming the crap out of GameFaqs. Of what possible use was this edit - leading to a website with no information, who only hold game data to complement their focus as FAQs and message boards. And yet you've removed links from Silent Hill (video game)[5], even though since the insertion of the link, there have been hundreds of edits from dozens of established editors. Take a look at ActRaiser, you've spammed GameFaqs - which offered nothing that wasn't already there, and then "despammed" MobyGames which had been on the article, having gone through hundreds of edits since its insertion in 2005. GameFaq links offer nothing that MobyGames doesn't, and is significantly worse in several respects. Those edits have not been helpful. - hahnchen 21:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I also don't really see the aversion to using GameFAQs. 1) it has lots of detailed GAMEGUIDE material (more than any other single source); 2) it's not a reliable source and is not directly citeable; 3) it's hugely popular. That makes it a good candidate as an EL, not bad. Sure it's connected to Gamespot or IGN or whatever. But so are Metacritic, Gamestats et al. Why are they being forwarded as good sites when GameFAQs isn't? SharkD  Talk  00:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I've got nothing against GameFAQs myself (I'm actually one of the site's most prolific data contributors), but when a single editor spams links to the site and also "despams" links to another more useful resource... Well, it doesn't look right to me. I'll try to avoid bad faith assumptions here and just say that if the links have stuck around this long, people are probably fine with them being there. The removal of the links should have been discussed first. Reach Out to the Truth 01:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This issue is being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Editor using hacked AWB code. Reach Out to the Truth 17:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)