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.

Wouldn't be necessary to leave the Wii version cover art in The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, or we just go for the GameCube one Talonmalon333 recently uploaded? --HOUNDER4 (TALK) (CHANGES) 22:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Neither. According to the project guidelines, "If the game was released for multiple platforms with a similar cover, a cover without any platform-related logotypes should be used by editing the cover picture in order to create a platform-neutral picture." ~ Hibana (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Considering the way the boxart is designed this should be rather easy to do by cropping a part at the top. Or are these kinds of modifications not allowed? Salvidrim! 02:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Its OK as long as you aren't making Massive changes. extending a little or cropping a little isn't a problem. Super Mario Galaxy 2 had a problem in that we had the original art without any logos but in between the time the art was published and the time the game was published an extra star had been added near the number 2. The art that is now in the Super Mario Galaxy 2 article is a merging of the two pieces of art. - X201 (talk) 08:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I found a logoless image of the Twilight Princess cover art, without the titlecard. (Source) Notice however the Wii cover is colorless; the NGC cover is colored. Same overall size but the scaling is different also; the NGC cover is slightly scaled up. Even with platform-specific information removed, a choice will have to be made between the two versions. Salvidrim! 09:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I would say use the Wii version. It has been up for years and it was actually the first version that was released since it came out in the US before any other country. It was also the first version to be released in every other country except Japan. Finally, other the the difference in colour I see no major difference to merit replacing an image which has been up for years.--70.24.208.34 (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Also before anyone asks I know that the Wii version was ported from the GC version but I believe that this is one of if not the only time that the ported version of a video game was commercially released before the version it was ported from so I think we should make an exception in this case.--70.24.208.34 (talk) 23:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The image was last tweaked 3 years ago, it does the job. We can all sit and quote blue-links and release dates at each other or just say hey, it ain't broke, let's fix one of the millions of things which are. I prefer the latter where possible. Someoneanother 00:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree that the Wii version was released first, thus should be used; in any case, why bother fixing stuff that works? Status Quo's good enough. Salvidrim! 04:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep. "Don't change it" applies here. Didn't realise about the colour difference. If you can come up with a platform neutral version that you all agree on then change the image with consensus. If there's no consensus then the "Don't change it use the first uploaded version" applies. - X201 (talk) 11:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Ryulong has been adding more wp:game guide content to List of Persona 4 characters although it was previously discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 91#Persona 4's arcana that such information was not significant for the characters. Despite already reverting his edit, Ryulong once again reverted my edit and keeps adding such information. I want to avoid edit warring, but it has still happened in the past with the same user. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I've put in new real world information regarding the animated series as well as the Japanese names for the Arcana. The information exists in other forms on similar character lists, anyway. Tintor2, your only argument is that the information is not significant. I have shown that it is significant to the games, the characters, and the animated series. Simply because it is a game mechanic does not mean that the content I have added is WP:Game guide content.—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't happen to play the game at all. So, I may take a look. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 00:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

You have added everything without any citation at all and once again reverted edits before even ending a discussion. The way it is now the list has excessive confusing Jargon such as what is Social Link or arcanas in the characters? There is no explanation to what means that "Izanagi is from the Fool Arcana". How is that necessary to explain Izanagi? Just because other articles that require clean up show this type of information have this, it doesn't mean that they can be used.Tintor2 (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

If there's sources out there confirming/explaining how the the different arcana's affect the gameplay, then I'd think it should be left in. If it's literally just being listed off as "X player is Y Arcana", then I'd think it should be removed until it's importance can be verified... Sergecross73 msg me 15:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no source dialogue in the game that says that "Izanagi is from the Fool Arcana." Furthermore, the Social Links would still be unexplained in the list and if we add what it is, it's just adding more information about how the game works. Even the long summaries from List of Persona 4: The Animation episodes or any information from Persona 4 Arena make no mention of social links or arcana. The only article that talks about the arcanas and social links is Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 4 in order to explain the gameplay's mechanics.Tintor2 (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, if arcanas/social links have no implication in this particular game, then I'd agree with you, it doesn't belong. If/as soon as it could be sourced that it does affect this game though, it seems like it'd belong in there. Sergecross73 msg me 16:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Tintor2 is mistaken. There is indeed dialog in the game that states this information. The animated series does mention the arcana/social links, during the lead-in sequence and in the ending animation, which is why I added it to the article. It could be sourced to this particular page, or even the dialog in the games such as the source brought up last time. And the only reason none of the Social Links are mentioned on the episode list is because you Tintor made such a stink about it and removed it yourself. You are the only person who has had any preference to remove the content from the pages. They were there to begin with, you removed them, and I have been trying to reincorporate them. Tintor2 is misrepresenting the games, as the Tarot motif is a central one to all of them. Sergecross73, you should try to look these things up on your own, because Tintor2 never gave me a chance to respond to this thread before he removed all of the content, again. I will be adding references to the article to suffice for the new information.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

First of all, Ryulong added a lot of undue weight to the Persona anime list just to add the five second segment about arcanas making the list a bigger mess to what it used to be. The episodes list's talk page already had a discussion about how the summaries were a mess in detail, so don't go blaming me for lack details. Second, you keep reverting all edits despite not reaching an agreement and having the same discussion in January, and now you add vague references to justify them (they don't say who is the magician, what is the magician, what is does the Fool mean to Izanagi, etc.). They may be significant for the gameplay but they aren't for the characters' stories. Social Links are still unexplained words in capitals while arcanas don't anything at all to the Personas' names.Tintor2 (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't go telling me to look anything up, do your own work sorting out the actual content. I just offered neutral, general advice about whether or not it should be included in theory, because I'm familiar with the series. Sergecross73 msg me 20:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Tintor2, it's not undue weight when it's part of every single episode, and particularly when it is only a sentence or two at best. Everything is now reliably sourced to the show, featuring the commentary. And the references are not vague. The show explicitly shows the tarot cards in conjunction with images of the characters in question. It's just not something that can be quoted. It seems that you are doing anything in your power to make it so that the content cannot be added, when I have worked for the past 2 hours to get exact quotes and times for everything. It's all sourced, it's all shown to be integral to the games (I don't have the time to go and find someone's playthrough to get exact quotes from the game) and anime. And the relevance of the Tarot motif is described in detail in Persona 3, but I do not currently know where I would go about to find it. Sergecross73, I apologize for my accusatory statements earlier.—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Intended symbolism of the Arcana found and added to character list.—Ryulong (竜龙) 22:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

That's not the problem. The arcanas and social links are still unexplained to the readers who are going to read it, making it confusing jargon. Just try using common sense and avoid assuming bad faith. Their significance make as much impact to the characters as their heights and weights. Why bother doing a two hour search when you were already told two months ago about this? Besides, you already rewrote every episode's summary about four times and I remember that you even told me not the edit the episode list. About three editors found the length excessive and even tried to copyedited only to have their edits reverted.Tintor2 (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

It's defined on the page and probably also on Persona 4. Again, your opinion on the significance of this aspect of the game is just that, an opinion. And consensus can change. I've vigorously sourced the content I've added, showing that while you won't see a mention of Kanji's height or Chie's blood color in the game or anime, the Social Link and Tarot Arcana mechanic/feature is ever-present. I've incorporated it in a way that's not intrusive in the article, and covers everything in a multimedia fashion, including the way that the development team views the motif (albeit through their script for Persona 3). Also, Tintor2, the only decision that was made 2 months ago was maybe a new article could be written, but this has been incorporated better and with reliable sources. And I do not use the word "Social Link" in regards to the various Arcana. I just say "X serves as the link to Y Arcana", an explanation of Arcana from P3, and the Persona used by Yu in P4A from that Arcana. Perhaps this information would be clearer on the article if you hadn't decided to do a total rewrite of the page in December which removed the information you now say the page lacks for my content to be acceptable.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Again with the same opinion thing rather than being using arguments? Anyways, I have already added a three sentence explanation of what a Social Links and how it affects the Protagonist in his own section with a reference straight from the game, so Jargon will be less difficult to understand what does it mean that "X represents such arcana to the protagonist." By the way, I don't like rewrites especially since my English is not good so I rarely write new content.Tintor2 (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I've made my arguments, and all you have said is that you do not think the content is necessary or it's undue weight.—Ryulong (竜龙) 17:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Which are arguments?Tintor2 (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey everybody,

I dropped by to ask for some advice. I feel that the article New Game Plus (and its content of course) should be 'new game plus' and not 'New Game Plus' and proposed a move. Wikipedians Masem and Axem Titanium (I'm sure you know them) say I'm wrong here, so if you would please join our discussion, we might come to some consensus. Please see Talk: New Game Plus#Request move. Thanks. --Soetermans. T / C 16:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey everyone. Over at Mass Effect 3 there is a rather lively discussion going on about the use of meteoritic user reviews. It (seems) to boil down to experienced editors saying they are not RSs as they are self published, and SPAs saying they should be included. (I am simplifying some, but please take a look, I think I am being fair). We could use a few more eyes there. Thanks everyone. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm uncertain which section is the active one at this time, but the same debate took place in the COD: MW3 article, and ultimately the user reviews were kept out of the article. -- ferret (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

That said, I am pretty sure that the fact there were a rash of negative user reviews that MC stepped in to remove is news-worthy (that facet I've seen reported). This was similar to the case in Portal 2, where media sites commented on the highly exaggerated claims made by the user reviews for that game, possible as in retaliation for other things. In other words, don't focus on the reviews as critical reviews but the impact the user reviews had (in this case, causing MC to step in and change things). --MASEM (t) 14:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

There seems to also be sufficient coverage of the fact that a section of players want Bioware to change the endings, with many reliable sources covering it, such as [[1]]. It's all about reliability and notability in the end. Metacritic user reviews directly is a non-starter. Reliable sources covering user feedback and trends? I'd say it's worth consideration of inclusion. -- ferret (talk) 14:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Yea, as long as our normal RS's are reporting on any user-backlash, that's fine to include (though again, strive for unbiased coverage). We just can't take user-generated commentary (user reviews, user petitions, forum posts, etc. etc.) as the starting points for these. --MASEM (t) 15:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! Dbrodbeck (talk)

Is Game Nostalgia considere a reliable source? --Khanassassin ☪ 15:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Probably not. -- GSK (t ● c) 15:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. If you would check, you will note that GN states as much sources as much as possible. See the recently added info on Revolution Software [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamnos (talk • contribs) 16:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC) Added: and if there are no sources, the info is checked by the designers (emails available), and they aren't unhappy with it, see recently the bio of Steve Ince, mentioned at his Facebook page [3]. If GN should improve something in this respect, just drop a line.

It's not all about the sources – Wikipedia has rather strict guidelines on self-published sources. The interviews should be okay, but most of the other stuff probably isn't. However, Khanassassin, if you can come up with a good reason that it should be a reliable source, go ahead and bring it up at WP:RS/N and hopefully we can get it accepted as a RS. Regards, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if it is reliable, so I wanted to check. So, if it isn't reliable, it isn't reliable. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 15:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, but "the other stuff probably isn't" is a bit of guessing. As said, often facts are being checked by the original designers (by email), and so the features, or parts of the facts about games, bio's, credits etc. include - besides sources - direct info from the persons involved. It would be a bit strange to include their emails on the site. But as said, I understand what you mean, and it is OK with me (and others). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamnos (talk • contribs) 21:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• This discussion should be held at WT:VG/S. Salvidrim! 22:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your insightful contribution to the discussion, Salvidrim. Gamnos, I understand what you are saying too, but if the authors of the site (I'm guessing you are one of them?) aren't recognized in their own right, we can't accept it as a reliable source. It's a great policy for areas like the one I work in (old warships), but we occasionally run into problems like this one with more modern material—i.e. in the internet age. If we have a specific point on which we can say it's reliable, I'd be happy to bring it up on the reliable sources noticeboard (RS/N) or its video game-specific equivalent (the VG/S linked above) so we will always have a discussion to point at when other editors shout "it isn't reliable!" in the future. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Hey, I'm just saying! Some editors well-versed in source reliability watch WT:VG/S but not this talk page. :) Salvidrim! 01:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes, but we're discussing an issue here with a user who has 45 edits. I highly doubt they knew exactly where the conversation should be held, and an unprompted stark statement like that could be read as biting, that's all. No beef with you or what you said, just how you said it! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Most sincere apologies if I came across as snappy or anything! Not my intention at all. :) Salvidrim! 13:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I recently added this screenshot. It has been nominated for deletion because it is suggested that it doesn't provide contextual significance. I wrote a caption that includes the locomotive which is mentioned in the article. Shouldn't the article have a screenshot and isn't it appropriate? - Shiftchange (talk) 13:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The screenshot says nothing about the gameplay; it's not even something that could be in prose, the screenshot literally gives no information whatsoever. It's an image of some train on some tracks; looking at it, I have no clue what the game about. Fair-use Screenshots are not meant to be decorative, but to aid in explaining the gameplay. Perhaps an image of the menu, or with some form of HUD (or any actual information) would fill the role more. Salvidrim! 14:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

There's much more to an screenshot than just the gameplay... Diego (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

One of the reviews called the graphics "mundane". If that had been the viewpoint of a number of reviews you could have used the screenshot as an example of the graphics. - X201 (talk) 19:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Wha!? How is the number of reviews relevant? It is the viewpoint of some number of reviews: one. Either the source is reliable and then it provides context for the image fair use claim, or it's not and the commentary should be removed from the article. Besides, there are other sources that provide context for the graphics, those calling it a train simulation. Diego (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

In some cases, if the graphics have been called out in either direction by a good number of review sources, it can be appropriate to include a shot of the graphics. But in nearly all cases for video game articles, we can always use a single image to do both graphics and gameplay in a single shot, so rarely do we just have a standalone image that is used just as a demonstration of the graphics. --MASEM (t) 14:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

On March 14th, Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss will be on Today's Featured Article. GamerPro64 20:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Nice to see that it got the honor. I just wish it was in better shape. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

An anon has been creating Hal Emmerich, Liquid Snake and Meryl Silverburgh but the first two articles are basically empty while the third is completely unsourced. Despite reintegration to the characters list by another user and me, the anon keeps adding them insisting others to add the content to the articles. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, I've spoken with the anon about this a few hours ago. Instead of copying what he said, I'll point you to the relevant thread on my talk page. He's attempted to engage in discussion to no avail and editors keep on simply re-merging the articles. Please, at the very least, discuss the issue properly before continuing to revert the splits. Salvidrim! 17:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

That's what I've done here about three times since there has been discussion about notability for fictional characters. Moreover now that I check the attempt to discuss it, I can't help but notice informal messages towards user:Axem Titanium and the fact that the talk page discussion started just after the empty articles were created. No discussion was made for such proposals.Tintor2 (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't wish to be personally involved in the actual content discussion, but if one editor keeps splitting and the other re-merging, it devolves into an edit war, which is all I am trying to avoid. I see you've replied to the discussion at Talk:List of characters in the Metal Gear series, hopefully something helpful will come out of it. Salvidrim! 17:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I undid the splits before seeing Salvidrim's discussion or comments. With so many editors (I saw more than just Tintor in edit logs) undoing the demerge it seemed clear to me that a consensus doesn't exist, while the anon is claiming one does based off a 4 year old talk section that doesn't indicate consensus or discuss the characters he's demerging. The split stub articles are sourced almost entirely by various "top 10" type lists. -- ferret (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Tossing my input in here from looking at Meryl's sources: GamePro's (incorrectly attributed to GameSpot) is a joke article, especially with the last entry being Jack Thompson. The Complex source also doesn't seem to be recoverable, even after fixing the url and trying it on web archive: they just didn't record it. It's already weak before you take out those two, and Google has no book sources for "Metal Gear"+Meryl.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Moving on to Otacon (Hal Emmerich for those of you playing at home), the last source can't be used, it's an open online poll. The "Greatest Jews" article seems as odd here as it does in Meryl's...not too keen on it. But there is more being said here than in Meryl's article at least, and a few more sources could bulk it up to let it stand alone.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Kung Fu, could you drop your comments on the Talk:List of characters in the Metal Gear series? I've commented there too. We should take the conversation there now so the record of it stays with that article. -- ferret (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You beat me to it, I was about to say the same thing. I'm glad discussion has picked up on this. :) Salvidrim! 18:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Read what I just wrote at Talk:List of Tekken characters. 2 more cents:

• I wasn't even really looking for reception for any of them, it's just the random stuff that I've been only came upon accidentally and noting to use (at Portal talk:Fictional characters - some of these sources became even defunct in the meantime, as noted by you). There's of course much more, so CONTRIBUTE - don't you see the "expand section" tag there, as well as the stub tags? And the "empty section" sections to fill, with the old content, current content, and selected stuff from the wikias, and to source all of it - but it's up to you (everyone) now, because I just laid the groundwork, more or less, burt that's all because I'm positively sure I'm not the only Wikipedia editor still alive (an article that I actually worked on recently is Taki (Soulcalibur), and before it Mileena and Kitana (Mortal Kombat), if you want to see what I can do when I really try my best - I could do just the same with most others, but only if I had unlimited time on my hands).

• But if you do search for more, try to do any better than this wild claim by you of Google has no book sources for "Metal Gear"+Meryl - because if you search properly she has 659 sources, for god's sake. And you just don't know how to search! 124 are even for "Meryl Silverburgh" (the full name) is also far from "none", including Interactive Storytelling for Video Games, Guinness World Records Gamer's Edition and... Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Operation Barracuda (I'm just as surprised as you). But seriously, learn how to use Google already, that's amazing that you still can't do it (and I'll tell what you were doing wrong: the "+" in your search entries destroys the results you get, because you make it search instead for things like "Metal Gear Meryl" in this example, so no wonder you can't never ever find anything there).

And that's all folks. Now, start being contructive, by contributing to the articles instead of being needlessly obstructive (literally). --194.145.185.229 (talk) 13:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Also as of the claim of "the fact that the talk page discussion started just after the empty articles were created" - see: Talk:List of characters in the Metal Gear series#Is it possible to separate Sniper Wolf?. But yeah, there was no discussion. Because no one answered my very clear and polite questions. SIX MONTHS AGO. So, who was "discussing", and who was "not discussing", again? I'll tell you: it was me who who was discussing (and not only in this section, I then posted 2 more additional sections in this talk page, there were also 0 answers, until yesterday). The problem: I was the only one disscussing. And now that's really all about it. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 13:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

One of the requirements for any wikipedia article is the idea of notability, that the topic has been discussed with significant coverage in secondary sources. That means, for fictional characters, not just about their in-universe appearances, but information about their creation and their reception or impact. Google-searching as "Meryl Silverburgh" (both regular and news archives) does not result in any such hits - the closest thing that comes up is mention of toys based on the character; the rest are fan sites and the like, inappropriate. This is likely true for most of the rest of the characters that have been identified here. Hence, splitting out the character is inappropriate since it fails the basic requirement for a stand-alone article. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

And where is exactly a definition what makes "the topic has been discussed with significant coverage in secondary sources"? These are not "fan sites and the like", these sources are called mass media. It's gaming press, it's regular press, it's general entertainment websites such as UGO.com. Not "fan sites and the like", hello? Look, I do revert the articles that fail WP:N - just recently I fought to have Isaac Clarke merged, and I won! (Just see the edit history: various people were constantly reverting my redirects, until I finally got some reasonable discuss it on Talk:Dead Space (series)#Merging Isaac.) I merged a lot of articles. Just yesterday I merged Bob (Tekken). Seriously, Jesus, people. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 14:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Take it down a peg, nobody's going to be impressed by your machismo, just irritated by it. There's still no sources popping up here: Searching for "'Metal Gear' Meryl" turns out 670 hits for sure...but most have nothing to do with it, and those that look like it would (like Mr. Clancy's novel there) don't list anything inside. It's one thing to claim there are sources, it's another to actually dig and follow through.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

That definition is the core of WP:N. And while yes google search brings up some hits from general gaming media sites, the coverage from those sites is very limited, either simply identifying the character and role in the game (not secondary) or the mention of toys, or even in some cases part of the site's various forums and user-generated content (not acceptable as reliable). Also, we generally don't use simply inclusion in lists like "top 10 couples" (one of the first hits from google news) as proof of notability. And as a note, Wikipedia is not a battleground, you shouldn't take attitudes like "I won!"; the goal is to come to a consensus decision. You should demonstrate by listing explicit sources how the articles on these characters can be shown notable and gain agreement from others before creating them, particularly when your changes have been reverted (that's part of edit warring. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

That definition is the core of WP:N. - what definition?? And please give me the link to policy/guides to back this weird claim: "Also, we generally don't use simply inclusion in lists like "top 10 couples"" - this is just shocking for me, I always thought it's the most important thing (and I think Kung Fu Man at Talk:Lili (Tekken) also demanded just that)! I don't even know what to say, I'm quite speechless now. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 14:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, he did! I cleaned up the reception a lot...some of it was from unreliable sources, but even then most was basically saying the same thing over and over again. Still, with that said there's at least a small start here...but you direly need character reception to show notability. Hasn't she appeared on any "top ten" lists at all on reliable sites?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC) - funny, huh? --194.145.185.229 (talk) 14:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

That was a suggestion on things to look for regarding sources, if one was desperate enough (as the author was), and even then it depends on just what's being said by the source, not the fact they've been propped on a list. See: "Top Ten Asses in Gaming" by GamePro, which is a joke article. Common sense needs to be applied here. Nobody's going to care how a character ranked on some list, but whether or not they were significant enough to say something noteworthy about the character.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I assume that Masem means that notability can't be established entirely by Top 10 lists, and that's probably because most individual entries in Top 10 lists just aren't that detailed. However, they can be used in addition to other sources, which is likely what that quote from Kung Fu Man was referring to.

Also, I'd like to second the notion that you take it down a notch, it's not helping your argument. It's easier to persuade people if you act a little more civilized... Sergecross73 msg me 14:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Noting that both KFM and Sergecross read me correctly - inclusion on a top ten (or whatever) list not necessarily appropriate for notability but may contribute towards it or lead to other sources.

As for the definition, please see WP:GNG: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list. and there's more details as to what that all means and is expected for satisfying the guideline. --MASEM (t) 16:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

What "other sources"? And where does it say that "just the lists" are NOT "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? You claim that multiple lists (and that's hardly definitive list of reception, just the stuff that I came by accidentally, over the course of few last months) is not enough - and how do you back it up? And anyway why won't YOU make it any better, didn't you see the "expand section" tag that I posted? Do you believe I should do eveything myself, start with a complete article (than why Wikipedia has even all these templates for the stub articles?), only for you to mercifully allow me to (re)create an article according to your own subjective understanding of what allegedly is and what is not enough of a "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", all while calling the media outlets to be "fan sites and such", among other elitist and dismissive approach towards me and my work, selectively singling out all the restored articles for reverts before anyone (and that's including both me and you) had even a chance to improve them? Please cease your obstructive activity at once. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Now, this is causing us more trouble. Please assume good faith and be WP:CIVIL. We must cite reliable, third party sources. It will never get better if we can just create stub articles at once with low-quality sources and above all, these were de-merged without proper consensus and fan sites are generally not considered reliable sources. As such, we must remove undue weight on the articles and build a consensus. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Notability of game characters

I think what we need to do is establish what exactly meets character notability once and for all, because across the board we have many articles that are either propped up on gameplay critique, or not enough actual statements from third-party sources to support them, and then from there take it by a case-by-case basis. The Ficitonal Character project exists in part for this, but it's been...quite dead lately. But with as many articles as we have, having some groundwork before a cleaver starts tearing through things would help.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I think WP:GNG and WP:NOTPLOT is basically all that's needed, really. Character articles should be created only for characters that have had a sourced impact in the real world, regardless of their weight in the game plot. Detailed description of in-universe character traits would instead be better placed at Gamepedia; keeping Wikipedia only for characters that have been directly reviewed either by critics (as long as they give some critical commentary beyond the plot) or the general public, will make those significant characters easier to spot. Diego (talk) 21:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that KFM is suggesting unique aspects for video game characters compared to any other types of fictional characters. Our field tends to get populated by things like top ten lists, or notability of characters as a game asset (eg "Pikechu is the easiest pokemon to learn" does not establish notability as that edges on a game-guide approach). There are probably very few characters that are actually notable due to their gameplay mechanics (Missing No. comes to mind). We would not need any new guideline page, just be clear that video games need *strong* reception and development sections as their basis, and that more than likely most characters can't be spun out as their own articles. --MASEM (t) 01:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Understood. That sounds fine. Diego (talk) 13:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Notability of game characters pt 2

Video game characters already have the most draconic notability restrictions in the whole Wikipedia!!

Just look around at most comic book characters - they have no reception sections at all. For example, I just randomly clicked on the first character on the list of X-Men in their navbox, Angel - and here you go. Followed by Anole (allegedly, a "good article"!), Ariel, Armor, Aurora (and so on, that was just the letter A for the X-Men characters). Whatever "sourced impact in the real world" are they having? And only one of them has even any resemblance of "reception" section - the one that is a "good article" (it's "reception and sexuality", for being, gasp, gay or something), and it's citing mostly, or even exclusively... the primary sources (comics themselves).

And that's normal elsewhere, only the video game community is ever obsessed to restrict themselves more and more, which excuse me but it is just pretty crazy.

Why won't you wait for everyone on Wikipedia to catch up with us here, before setting even strictier standards for ourselves, again? Most video game characters have been purged about 4 years ago (which had upset me at a time, but it was a good thing for developing the unprecented level of quality as we're having now). Then I think some anime characters were also merged, but not on this scale (for example: I've seen several dozen of character articles from some super-obscure anime that were created in 2006 and never, ever, updated since then, they're all tagged with "unsourced" and "notability" tags for years, and that's it). But that's all.

The comic characters were never purged (as I just demonstrated to you: all reccurring characters have their pages, not even these really famous). Just the category "Marvel Comics superheroes" has 1,013 articles in the main category, "Category:DC Comics superheroes" has 782 in the main category, and so on. In total, that's thousands of comic book character articles only counting the superheroes and supervillains ("Category:DC Comics supervillains": 718, and so on). There's of course also a plenty of non-supers. And look at their "good articles" that are often worse than our regular articles.

But that's comics, so what about the novel books? I checked "Category:Characters in American novels of the 20th century" (very specific one), and I clicked on the very first one, and so there is David "Noodles" Aaronson - zero sources, but of course. The next ones in the row being: Genco Abbandando (1 source), Achren (0 sources), Kay Adams-Corleone (1 unreliable source, the IMDb), Nick Adams (1 source), Alain Johns (1 source, primary), Achilles Alexandrakis (0 sources), and so on - all having oh so-excellently proven "sourced impact in the real world", right? Are they having "*strong* reception and development sections as their basis"? No, of course not (and not even "weak reception and development sections as their basis"): most of literature character articles (also thousands of them) are actually worse even than the comic characters, because are not even citing the primary sources. Most often they're not citing anything at all. And nobody even tags them for unreferenced, or notability, or as stubs or anything else - that's just their de-facto standards, that will continue.

And that's like that for all/most of the other fiction.

Except of video games, where, once again, there are standards. And these standards are already set extremely high. And so there are only less than 400 video game characters, in total, including villains, including everything, in the most popular entertainment of today (much more than the comics, rivaling the film industry, but of course you know it). But, for you even that is still too many? What you want to achieve - to make it just (say) the 40 very top video game characters with "sourced impact in the real world", as compared to all the 4,000 or so comic book supers and 40,000 (any number) non-video game characters, elsewhere? Why? You think that would be an improvement, somehow? Such a very selective approach to anything will not make Wikipedia any better. And no, it's not any "other stuff exists". It's "we're already way ahead of the de-facto Wikipedia standards, and that's for a long time, right now, and for an indefinite future too". That's the reality. And as such you should be very proud of yourselves, instead of this samokritika session going on for not being udarnik enough (speaking in communist terms). Now come on and congratule each other, and chill down a bit.

And now that you've seen other character articles, go and check out just almost any existing video game character of Wikipedia - and even my stubs that you redirected (without a consensus, because I for one disagree, and without an objectively good reason), but that were already better sourced than most fictional character articles around, and with better proven notability than the vast majority of them - even being just still quick stubs. You will see that my vastly incomplete (note all the expand, update and refmore tags that I've posted there) Meryl's article is already much better than, I estimate, at least 95% of all fictional character articles on Wikipedia! And that's including video game characters, because these are so few in number.

So, unless all the rest of Wikipedia gets even remotely close to our current stanards (and they are far to even the video game Wikia standards), we should not estabilish the ones for video games only. I don't say to lose our existing current standards, that I adhere to and promote all the time, I just say to uphold them. And by this I mean to rid of the still long-standing crap articles (objectively - no reception whatsoever, you know) such as Edward Carnby, Augustus Sinclair and John MacTavish (and yes I did talk about them to both Kung Fu Man and Tintor2, but they just flatly refused to touch them because they got tired of merging stuff - and thta's some serious double standards, for me and everyone else, even if my work is so much better - and I just bring them once again), which might be actually okay according to normal Wikipedia standards (heck, they would be even actually well above most of non-videogame character articles), but NOT according to our standards, among the gamers. Once again, these standards are already set very, very high, and I hope you got it now.

And about these exclusive standards we have, as I understand them, in a sensible way - my understanding, and my work here, is just merging the crap stuff like Isaac Clarke (really, if I didn't insist, this article would be still online - and its author even kept reverting my repeated attempts to improve this article!), but re-creating the long-due articles on actually notable characters, such as, to name just a few, Pac-Man (character), Dogmeat, Dark Queen (Battletoads) and Avatar (Ultima) (a creature, a dog, a chick, and a dude) - and somehow no one has ever complained about it before. But that's because there was nothing to complain and you're trying to create some artifictial "problems", and not only for me but for all of us. We are the Wikipedia's vanguard! But no one's following, so stop.

And so now revert your obstructive work on the MGS 'and Tekken characters (the latest ones, such as Julia Chang, because the previous Tekken splits such as Anna Williams (Tekken) have been left alone - I see you guys suddenly obssessing over all my work everywhere, but selectively just the most recent, because it was all good for looong time before you suddenly woke up and dogpiled me for some reason), assume good faith, and start the constructive edits on them.

If you want to answer me about it, or make a comment, first read what I wrote once again. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with this. These standards would only be ideal for when Wikipedia has mostly Good Articles, and is pretty much complete.(Which will never occur) Articles don't need a whole complete section of Reception(or Legacy/other Notability showing stuff) before they are even brought into the open. Wikipedia is incomplete, and allows for incomplete articles. Thus, only a hint of notability is required for an article to be created. "Having a real-world impact" is nice and all, but it should never be necessary for an article to be created. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 17:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The cases of comic characters that you put together are in poor shape and likely won't survive AFD if they were sent there. They only cover the plot elements of the character and nothing about creation or reception.

What we need to consider is how any fictional character is handled on WP, and the best indicators of that is looking at what have become Featured Articles. Those include (in the "Media" category) Homer Simpson, Jason Voorhees, and Jabba the Hut. I don't see any comic characters though I know Superman had been an FA before, so the format and layout of these articles, as well as those in the VG project that have been featured too (eg Master Chief (Halo)). --MASEM (t) 17:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Please read my post again, where I addressed the "other stuff exists" issue. These are the current Wikipedia standards. Many, many thousands of complete crap articles, and no one cares. The mine articles that got reverted, even in their very icomplete phases, were well above these de facto Wikipedia standards, better than most of the stuff. And why won't you take care of all these actually bad articles (once again: many thousands of them), that continue to exist for so many years for the sole reason of not being video game-related? That's some really odd priorities. And why do you even bring featured articles here? I didn't claim mean my stubs were featured class or anything, these were stub articles (and the stub articles are allowed on Wikipedia, even having their own templates) - once again, read my post above for the second time. And what I wanted was just to make some stubs, for me and the others to expand later, that would result in some regular articles - not featured, not good, but the just the normal Wikipedia articles. And that is what I do for a long time - see the edit history of, say, Jade (Mortal Kombat) and how it's getting expanded. That's how it works. If one only allows it, instead of barring the work for no real reason. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 17:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

At one point, early in WP's day, we had articles on every character, every episode, every issue of comics; this included, at that time, every Pokemon monster. But we as a whole have matured, and recongized, among other things, that notability of these characters and other fictional elements needed to be shown to allow an article for the character. The Pokemon articles were all merged to lists with the exception of the most notable ones (eg: Pikachu).

But this wasn't a project wide effort to review every single character article. The Pokemon change was done because it was a concerted effort. The same hasn't been done across the board. Hence, you will find articles that fail notability apparently existing without problems. This is the point of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - we do have articles that fail guidelines and policies and hence we need to be careful about using these as examples. The reason I bring up featured articles is that because those have had extensive community consensus of what the content of such articles should be about, and thus are the examples we want articles to strive towards. --MASEM (t) 18:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to weigh in here too: just because an article is merged doesn't bar it from being recreated, or someone working on the article on a subpage. For a long time, that's how many articles were actually developed and then brought out into the open. However, I am going to be flat and say that the quality of a lot of character articles on wikipedia is crap, and even I'm partially to blame for that. Reception's been used as a measuring stick, where if you get X sources saying so-and-so about some fictional character, you can has article. That's absurd. It's one thing for reception to toss out lines regarding a character's design and whatnot, but if the reader can't grasp what makes it important to know about outside of the context of the game, it has failed miserably. There's a distinction between being notable in the context of one's source material, and notable in the context of fiction as a whole. As for your claim of double standards? The only reason I haven't torn through those yet is to be frank, I'd be more than happy to cleave through a whole ton of articles at the same time. Over time wikipedia's standards are going to improve and that bar is going to get raised. That's common sense.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

@Masem - The problem with using Featured Articles as examples is that they are mostly complete. You are pretty much saying "An article needs to be complete before it is created", which is wrong on so many levels. I am not proposing that we create hundreds of new articles, but we shouldn't stop others from doing it if they meet basic notability guidelines.

@KungFuMan - Like I said above, "Having a real-world impact" is nice and all, but it should never be necessary for an article to be created. Sure, we shouldn't have articles for every character in every game, but if they are covered non-trivially in a multitude of sources, then that should be a good indication that they are notable. Really, Reception sections are not required. Even a source such as this could help for notability. That is how Wikipedia works. You don't see an article such as Basenji having a section devoted to establishing notability. The sources scattered throughout the whole article make it notable by sourcing the actual information about the subject. As a whole, we are writing articles incorrectly. Yes, "Reception" sections stating "X editor from Y thinks [the subject] is cool because it's green" is wrong, so maybe we need to better address this issue. When I get the time, I would love to re-write an article to show what I think it should be. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Blake, I'm not saying it has to be something like "This character cured cancer!", but hell even an article like Haunter has people commenting on why they remembered it as a fictional character, citing specific aspects of it. Gengar by comparison doesn't pull that off. If the article can say something even small like that, it's a big step closer to notability. Stuff like pokemon distribution is nice and all, but that's just the promotion aspect: it has nothing to do with how important a character is, just a matter that a company wants to push a product.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be complete, but by notability guideline, an article should at least demonstrate why we should presume it notable and thus allow an article for it. I point to FAC to show the types of elements of notability that we should be looking for in fictional characters - namely can we discuss their concept and creation out-of-universe, or is there reception for the character that we can go into. --MASEM (t) 19:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying. But what I am saying is that the promotion source shows that IGN editors would take the time to write about such a thing. That is what the core of WP:N describes.

Anyways, I did some playing around here, and am conflicted on my thoughts of the result. This of course would not be an end result of what I am proposing, but a step in the direction. Basically, comments like those aren't really "Reception" and could possibly be better fit into sourcing gameplay content, which is a large part of its character. It could do with some rewriting and WP:NPOV copy-editing, but its a start. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I told you twice to not bring "other stuff exists", and yet you did it also twice. How many times should I repeat: video game characters standards are now EXCULUSIVELY extremely strict already, for years. There are less than 400 video game characters right now, and for you this is too many. But, at the same time, there are more than 1,400 DC Comics superheroes and supervillains alone. For many years. And there are no guarantees it won't remain this way for many years to come, or forever. And you're NOT doing anything about it. Once again: what good it will be to have just, say, 40 game characters and 40 THOUSAND non-game characters? Why won't you wait until the rest of Wikipedia caches up with our standards BEFORE estabilishing the new standards as the vanguard of Wikipedia?

I also told you: I didn't plan to make featured or even good articles there. Over 99% of the stuff in Wikipedia is neither. And people everywhere are NOT usually shooting down the stubs on sight. Only here. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 12:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I, for one, would fully support to create much stricter inclusion rules for comic book characters, instead of loosening the restrictions for video game characters. I always found the existence of extremely detailed, in-universe articles about every single insignificant comic book hero on Wikipedia to be rather silly. They are much better suited for a comic-book-wiki, IMHO, just like detailed articles about every single video game character, ever, would be better suited for a video-game-wiki. --Conti|✉ 12:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Your position seems to entirely rely on "other stuff exists" to support your position, while telling people to ignore "other stuff exists", and basically saying "because other projects are at a lower standard, we shouldn't have a higher standard." The fact that there's 1,400 or 5,000 or 10,000 DC super hero articles doesn't mean that the VG project should do the same or should not attempt to have higher standards. You've just said you don't even want to make good articles... because most articles aren't good anyways (i.e. "other stuff exists"). Over and over you've said "I made a stub, now YOU GUYS deal with it." Why should we? Wikipedia is about consensus, and if the project has a basic consensus that most characters shouldn't have their own article, that's what should be done, whether every single comic book character ever has a stub article or not. The project exists to improve Wikipedia. The argument that "other projects or articles aren't held to such high standards, so we shouldn't do it either" is absurd. -- ferret (talk) 12:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

If you don't have interest in making quality articles on WP, then you shouldn't start creating articles. Our standards have gone beyond just being able to show that something exists, but now towards an article that helps to set the context for a reader that may have zero familiarity with the term. Wikia and other wikis exist if you want to focus on the in-universe or game content, but we've decided en.wiki needs to be indiscriminate about what it includes, and that includes fictional characters; if you can't discuss them out-of-universe then they probably don't need their own article. --MASEM (t) 13:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The IP's argument is that he should be allowed to put out a stub with at least more then a hint of notability and allow others who know more about it find more sources. 1 person should not have to find ALL of the sources required to show notability. Sure, these stubs shouldn't be sitting out rotting for over a year, but give them a little time before throwing them away. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

If they were completely new articles, that would be a fair assessment, but when the articles have been community-merged before to a list, that argument fails; in this case, the editor wishing to remake the article needs to clearly show that the article can improve beyond the originally-merged version before creation to get consensus. Plus, at least personally, I'm one of those that rather see an article created only when notability's clearly established, using user-space or the like to build it out first if that's not the case, particularly for fictional characters or the like which are generally frowned on otherwise. --MASEM (t) 16:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to promote the ideas in the WP:SNOWFLAKE essay at AfDs and policy pages. In this context it basically says "keep the character as an stub if someone cared to write about it, merge to a list article if all references are primary"; the specific criterion to make the test is commentary from professional critics. This is basically consistent with the opinion of the named editors in this thread, that articles like those would be better moved to Wikia; but I'd love to hear what the IP editor thinks of this outcome and the guideline. Diego (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm really proud of the kinds of arguments brought out in this discussion. I'm glad to see that WP:VG has grown to the level where we can set an example for other Wikiprojects (whether or not they follow our lead is not something in our control). At the very core, you can't force an editor to do anything since Wikipedia is 100% a volunteer effort. No one can say, "I made this, YOU make it better" and expect people to comply unless they are personally interested in doing the legwork (and it is very much like work) of finding strong, reliable, enough sources. Glad to see this resolved before I had a chance to comment. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm just going to chime in and even if this point has been made, I'll be making it again: it's not a matter of Draconian restrictions, it's a matter of editors who care more about these elements of their articles' quality. Video game characters receive more scrutiny than most other mediums' characters, which means that we are going to have to be a lot stricter. Be proud that you are in a project that cares~! - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 05:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Notability of game characters pt 3

I told to read what I wrote repeatedly until you understand. It's all addressed there. For example:

• Your position seems to entirely rely on "other stuff exists" to support your position, while telling people to ignore "other stuff exists", and basically saying "because other projects are at a lower standard, we shouldn't have a higher standard."

NO, this what I actually wrote:

• "Why won't you wait for everyone on Wikipedia to catch up with us here, before setting even strictier standards for ourselves, again? (...) It's "we're already way ahead of the de-facto Wikipedia standards, and that's for a long time, right now, and for an indefinite future too". That's the reality. (...) So, unless all the rest of Wikipedia gets even remotely close to our current stanards (and they are far to even the video game Wikia standards), we should not estabilish the ones for video games only. I don't say to lose our existing current standards, that I adhere to and promote all the time, I just say to uphold them. (...) And about these exclusive standards we have, as I understand them, in a sensible way - my understanding, and my work here, is just merging the crap stuff like Isaac Clarke (really, if I didn't insist, this article would be still online - and its author even kept reverting my repeated attempts to improve this article!), but re-creating the long-due articles on actually notable characters, such as, to name just a few, Pac-Man (character), Dogmeat, Dark Queen (Battletoads) and Avatar (Ultima) (a creature, a dog, a chick, and a dude) - and somehow no one has ever complained about it before. But that's because there was nothing to complain and you're trying to create some artifictial "problems", and not only for me but for all of us. We are the Wikipedia's vanguard! But no one's following, so stop."

So, read it again, until you'll understand what I wrote, and only then start commenting. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you please stop with the ridiculous/overdramatic/irrelevent section titles? Thanks. (Note: I've changed them since this comment, FYI.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh and as for:

• "At the very core, you can't force an editor to do anything since Wikipedia is 100% a volunteer effort. No one can say, "I made this, YOU make it better" and expect people to comply unless they are personally interested in doing the legwork (and it is very much like work) of finding strong, reliable, enough sources."

Go and demand to all the stubs eveywhere be disallowed (instead of actually ancouraged), seuceed in this, then come back. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't even follow what you're talking about anymore personally, so I'll let someone else respond to you on that. But I'll say this: You're not going to win anyone over with these angry, rambling posts that are riddled with typos and demands. Sergecross73 msg me 17:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I cannot tolerate anymore incivility and disruptive activity to prove a point by the IP. As such, I will probably have to do something about this behavior Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Now, since this is getting out of hand, I've started an ANI discussion here. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Sir, I'm lost as to why you didn't read what I said. It's not our responsibility to care about comic characters or book characters. We worry about our characters because we care about the character articles being good by legitimate standards. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 06:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - the IP has now been blocked for 6 months. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I've nominated Armaroli Sim Racing World Cup for deletion. You are more than welcome to contribute to the deletion discussion. Readro (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, video game related stuff is typically automatically notified to people of WP:VG at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Deletion, so you don't need to really post it here. (I only say this because I used to always put up notes just like this, until someone told me the same thing.) Thanks none-the-less though! Sergecross73 msg me 17:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

To be precise, automatically at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article alerts, semi-manually at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Deletion. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there currently an issue with GameRankings' site? Whenever I try to check game's score like this one, I just have "The Ranking" and below several advertisings. The reviews are available though by going to the reviews part. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 01:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I am getting a list or reviews when I click on the first link so it seems like whatever issue there is was fixed.--174.93.169.157 (talk) 01:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Works perfectly on my end too. Salvidrim! 01:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Then I guess it's just a problem with computer only. Now that I see it in the second link I also have the same ads but in the right, so they don't bother the views. However, the first link has the adschoices in the middle. Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 01:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

In case this isn't already cited in the appropriate places: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.1895v1.pdf has some new complexity theoretic results for a number of classic games including Super Mario Bros, Pokemon, and Legend of Zelda. Many are NP-complete and some are PSPACE-complete. 67.117.144.57 (talk) 11:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone who knows Japanese (or knows the CERO icons) tell me what this icon means? I believe it is the "no rating" icon, but I'd like to make sure. :) Salvidrim! 13:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

And while we're at it, is it possible to get info on the first icon, witht he big letter A? Thanks... :) Salvidrim! 14:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Those icons indicates that the game is suitable for "all ages", most games from Gran Turismo and Pokémon series, for example, carries that rating. Hounder4 (Talk) 14:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the first icon is the "former" A-rating icon, and the second one is the "current" A-rating icon? Thanks for the explanations. :) Salvidrim! 14:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

In an article for Rocky for PS2 I mentioned that the Angry Video Game Nerd mentioned several of the glitches on his show but my information was taken down saying that the Wikipedia Video Games Project doesn't allow AVGN information and that it was considered spam.

It that accurate or was that person a troll? Because I don't see why you wouldn't deny any videogame information especially if it's true. I mean I know AVGN is crude but I did not mention any vulgarity of any kind. Dartpaw86 (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Dartpaw86

Per Wikipedia:VG/S it is considered an unreliable source. If you disagree with that you should probably bring it up there. Яehevkor ✉ 23:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

??? I did not give any information that he stated on his show. All I said was that it was featured on his show, which it was. How is that not a reliable fact? Dartpaw86 (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)Dartpaw86

The show itself is considered unreliable per Wikipedia:VG/S which unfortunately means any mentions or sourcing of it are not allowed. --Teancum (talk) 01:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I just checked that link and AVGN isn't listed in unreliable sources. Someone should fix that? Dartpaw86 (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)Dartpaw86

Never mind, he was listed in "Other" which I missed. Dartpaw86 (talk) 01:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)Dartpaw86

I'd like a review done, please! I believe it is not a stub anymore and should at least be a starter-class article. Thanks! --J (t) 01:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I have been working on Revolution Software-related articles (currently, the first three [Broken Sword]]s are GAs), and I've recently nominated Lure of the Temptress for GA. Could someone please review it? All the Best, Khanassassin ☪ 08:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

My my, aren't we impatient. </sarcasm> But honestly, your GAN has not even been up for 2 days. Meanwhile, an article I nominated, Rewrite (visual novel), and an article Valce nominated, School Days (visual novel), have been on that list for two months. Just pointing that out.--十八 09:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say that the articles is nominated for too long... Usually, It takes a couple of weeks for someone to start the reviews, and I wanted to speed it up quite a bit. But we could make an exchange? You review mine, I review Yours? ;) -Khanassassin ☪ 11:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Anyone guys, sources for River Raid ? I'm looking for release date verification and some review. Thanks in advance, Sir Lothar (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Try searching for "River Raid" and "Activision" on Google Books. ~ Hibana (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Unresolved

 – Action still needed.

See: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting#Proposed_split:_Video_games_from_Games. Short version: No objections to tracking VG deletions separately from non-VG game deletions, since the VG stuff has swamped the games deletion sorting and the VG project has its own project-internal deletion sorting page. Proposed moving that page to an official delsort page. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 01:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Nothing appears to have been done yet to separate CVG articles from non-electronic games at WP:DELSORT. WP:GAMES basically cannot keep track of deletion sorting relevant to that project, because all videogaming deletion discussions, lots and lots of them, swamp the Games DELSORT page. Please move the WP:VG deletion sorting page into the DELSORT system. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 19:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the current consensus at WP:VG is that we keep our deletion sorting separate and WikiProject-specific as opposed to the traditional WP:DELSORT system. I think I or someone else a while back may have proposed separating WP:VG/D out into the DELSORT system, but it was shot down IIRC. --MuZemike 22:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Well the discussion linked above earned nothing but support. :/ Salvidrim! 22:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

So let's do it. I don't think anyone but a handful of editors of WP:VG care that a largely identical handful of editors at WP:VG insist on keeping their deletion sorting page at one place rather than another. Redirects exist for a reason, and we have a site-wide deletion sorting system for a reason. Site-wide consensus trumps smaller consensuses. This project is causing, by inaction, the parent project some serious problems. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib.

So what do we need to do exactly? Ask for a change in tools, change classification in DELSORT? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, it just needs a page move and maybe some reformatting to match the other pages of that sort (I surmise that bots read them and do stuff based on them, so having mismatched formatting would probably break them. After that, I guess it just needs to be listed at WP:DELSORT. I'm unaware of any other needs, except maybe a note at the top of the game delsort page saying to use the VG one for VGs. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 23:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a filibuster going on. The reason we still use ours separately is because we don't like how the sorting is dealt with (by day) and because we also cover deletion outside of the article space. If those improvements were made to the WP:DELSORT/ pages, I wouldn't see a problem, but otherwise, there isn't a reason to move to the one over the current. It's a little specious to say that it's creating a lot more work for games editors; simply change the relevant template so that video games aren't included in the games category and create a redirect from DELSORT/VG to here (if one doesn't already exist)... --Izno (talk) 02:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to nab the review score for Soft & Cuddly from the Spanish magazine MicroHobby here, except when I zoom in I can't even make out the words under the scores. I'd need to translate them anyway. I assume that the right-hand score is the overall mark, but don't want put that in the article without knowing for sure. Can anyone help? Someoneanother 19:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Left to right- Originalidad (originality), Graficos (graphics), Movimientos (movements), Sonido (sound), Dificultad (difficulty), Adiccion (addiction). So no, not a total. Adicion would be addition instead of addiction, but there's definitely two cs there. --PresN 20:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

You're a gem PresN, I'll use the Addiction rating as a total (and label it as such) and copy and paste the translation somewhere in my userspace for future reference. Many thanks. Someoneanother 20:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello everyone! I'm from China, and I want to write a massively multiplayer online music video game article, but I don't know how to write the article like this genre. So is here some example article (Like FA, GA or B-class article) I can follow? If not, can you tell me what I should write into the passage? Thank you!--铁铁的火大了 (talk) 11:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, welcome. Here are 7 video game genre articles which reached GA status: Beat 'em up, Fighting game, First-person shooter, Light gun shooter, Rhythm game, Shoot 'em up, Stealth game and Survival horror. They should give you some ideas. The other thing is to find some good sources covering the genre you're going to make an article on. Someoneanother 00:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Is that a real genre, as defined by reliable sources? If so, is it a big enough genre to justify its own article, separate from the main MMOG article? Consider these questions before embarking on your editing quest. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to get some thoughts on two things

• First, I noticed in recent games we have been quoting multiple reviews (typically up to half a dozen) when we write about the reception. For new games well received by critics (like ME3) this can often read more like a PR statement or advertisement than an encyclopedia entry with a handful of quotes saying essentially the same thing. We already have a chart of numerical scores which links to individual reviews. What would you think about cutting back on quotes and just summarizing the pros/cons of games by the critics and maybe having a single quote highlighting the positives and a single quote highlighting the faults (if either are necessary)? I think this would make our articles more concise and read better but what does everyone else think?
• Second, as I'm sure many of you are already aware, ME3 has received excellent critical reviews but has been less than warmly received by the public (or at least a very vocal section of the public) which has caused some significant media coverage and has gotten Bioware to issue statements on the matter. When the reviews were published on March 6, the day of the North American release, the WP article was updated within an hour or so with scores and a Reception section that had multiple quotes from these highly positive reviews. During the next few days as the controversy over mainly the ending and day-one DLC began to grow and the media began to pick up on it, editors were reluctant to mention any of these things citing the "wait and see approach" and "wikipedia is no news site". At the same time, the paragraph of quotes summarizing how great the game is remained.

So my question is, before we even make a Reception section for video games, do you think we should wait at least a week or two to see how games are received universally and not just by professional critics? If we wait we will have info like sales figures and metacritic users scores (which I know we cannot use directly, but if there is a big discrepancy we can look to see if there has been any coverage as to why that is) and in turn we can write a more balanced article about the reception. Maybe I'm just skeptical of how positive professional reviews have become because of articles like this[4] and seeing publishers like Activision and EA heavily advertise on sites like IGN and Gamespot (if you turn off any adblock and browse those sites for a few minutes you are bound to run across a Call of Duty or Mass Effect ad) whose reviews we constantly use. But I wanted to get your thoughts on this because I think too often with video game articles we rush to write what the critics wrote and end up assuming that it's a universal viewpoint.

Thanks to all in advance.Redredryder (talk) 03:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• To your first point- no, with a caveat. The issue is that you're seeing articles with quotes that don't add anything that hasn't already been said; the two solutions, both valid, are (1) to not add so many quotes, and (2) to make sure that all the quotes add something to the article. In my opinion, quotes are just fine, as long as it's not completely overwhelming. 'Many reviewers liked the graphics, such as joe shill of IGN, who said "the graphics are very pretty" and john noname of Edge.[1][2]' Not four sentences in a row with quotes on the same thing by different reviewers. That's just bad writing, even more so than sounding like an advertisement.
• To your second point- eh. Good luck enforcing that. VG articles right at release are a classic example of recentism- the reception section is heavily weighted towards reviews that came out first, the development section is a blow-by-blow of the marketing push as the game came out, etc. The main editors of new releases are drive-by editors/ips, who aren't going to be reading any guideline we make about 'not making a reception section for a week'.

In my opinion, Mass Effect 3 is hitting several issues at once- (1) drive-by editors excited about the game have made a reception section that's just 1 summary quote from a reviewer after another, instead of making a fleshed-out section that splits it into paragraphs about what the common threads were in the reviews about what they liked and didn't like and (2) We can only use reliable sources, which means if "popular" opinion on a game differs from the early reviews, it's not going to show up in the article until a lag of time has passed. There's no good solution to these problems- the only trick I've found is to not touch AAA game articles until at least 6 months after they've been released, so that you can take in the general opinion of the game after it's finished see-sawing back and forth. Fluff reviews by IGN come out first, and make it into the article first, but a few months later there will also be good articles in Gamasutra, RockPaperShotgun, or PA Report on how the ending diminishes player choice/is a novel approach to video game storytelling.

TL;DR the problem is real, your solution isn't great and is unworkable in any respect, and you'll be happier if you work on AAA games a few months after they've been released instead of a few days. --PresN 03:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with PresN. Game articles are just too volatile just after release to create anything resembling a good article because the gaming public is part of Wikipedia's prime demographic, yielding extremely high traffic. What you get is an article with a lot of fluff from fans, hate from detractors, and tons of plot and marketing info, especially with AAA titles. Just remember, WP:TIND. Grit your teeth and wait it out until the righteous fervor dies down and then you can go ahead and write some worthwhile prose. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I am planning on eventually taking Portal 2 to FAC, though I'm waiting for its promised patch/map editor to be released as this is anticipated to be the last major update to the article.

That said, the P2 article is LONG, at nearly 250 refs and probably tickling the 100k of non-markup text size issue. We've already shuffled off the major character sections and the music to separate articles, but now the question of moving anything else out from this is there. I know that there is one case of a development section being separated (for Elder Scrolls IV) has been done, but I don't think that works well here.

Instead, and the opinion I seek here, is that I'm thinking of creating some article, name not yet known, to cover the ancillary market aspects of Portal 2, and in this case, Portal as well. That would pull in, as currently listed, the ARGs, "The Final Hours of P2", the Lab Rat comic, and then probably some other things such as the Mari0 game, some of the notable Portal mods, some of the highly-received Portal films, and others. Because this goes beyond just officially licensed media, it's not just a "franchise" here. I'm struggling with some name of the article ("Media of the Portal series"?) and if this is a reasonable way to trim down the game article without harming its comprehension. --MASEM (t) 17:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

"Portal in popular culture" is an option, but it's unnecessary. It looks to me like the article is full of dead weight and cruft that doesn't help the reader understand the subject. There's nothing wrong with the topics covered, it's just that there's unnecessary detail scattered throughout. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Noooooo, "Dev of Oblivion" is one of my least favorite articles on Wikipedia (after "ESRB re-rating of Oblivion"). I agree with Meth. There seems to have been a perfect storm around Portal 2, generating huge amounts developer info which we Wikipedia editors have hungrily devoured. I know it's easy for me to say, but I suggest taking a hard look at every sentence and source and deciding whether or not it adds something substantive. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Yea, trust me "Dev of Portal 2" is not going to happen; the dev section is a core part of any VG article, even if it is the longest and could possibly be separated out from the rest. And while I would agree that the section specifically called under "Development" is long, it's representative of the amount of coverage that the development of the game (a core VG game in the overall scheme of things). That's why I'm looking at anything dealing with media offshoots - official or not - for both P1 and P2 as the separate article. Once that stuff is moved out, it may be more obvious what to trim out from the dev section. --MASEM (t) 00:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Really, though, it's all too long. You have 6 paragraphs for gameplay- okay sure, it's a puzzle game, it's all about gameplay mechanics. But you also have 5 paras for the single player plot, plus 1 for co-op, plus an intro para. You could do a JRPG plot in 5 paragraphs! Skipping development, you have 4 paragraphs on the announcement alone, in a release section that's longer than most articles (and that's with the potato sack already split out!), and a whopping 8 paragraphs of reception. Why? It's a AAA game- every review outlet covered it, same as any other AAA game. The non-award reception section is longer than Halo 3, Halo 3: ODST, and Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare's - all 3 FAs of games that sold millions and had mega-releases. Pretty much every section in the article needs about 2 paragraphs or more worth of material cut. (Which is an odd problem to have for a VG article).

I guess if you want to move out chunks of that release section into other articles rather than cut it, you could call it "Portal 2 media tie-ins" or "Related material of Portal 2". I suppose "Media of Portal 2/the Portal series" works as well, so maybe just go with that. The article title can always be changed later. But when you go back to trim the development/release sections, use a saw, not a scalpel. --PresN 01:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

MegaTraveller 1: The Zhodani Conspiracy was recently expanded to include a number of references to various print publications. These publications range in length from two pages (game reviews) to over a hundred pages (game user manual). Citations were split between a "Notes" and a "References" section because in-line citations frequently referenced different pages from the same publication. However, a discussion subsequently took place on the Talk suggesting instead that I "should make one ref use a {cite} template and simply use it in-line wherever you're sourcing from it, instead of unassigned references and a slew of "notes."

Using the suggested {cite} template method certainly would condense the citation section considerably. But if all citations referencing the same publication were condensed using the {cite} template into a single reference, information about which page(s) is being referenced in a specific citation would be lost. That strikes me as being contrary to Wikipedia general citation policy. Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Journal_articles states:

Citations for journal articles typically include the name of the author(s), the year and sometimes month of publication, the title of the article (within quotation marks), the name of the journal (in italics), the volume number, issue number and page number....Inline citations usually also include specific page numbers, as described above for books.

I also came across this on Template:Rp: "Featured Article and sometimes even Good Article review generally insist upon specific facts being cited with specific page numbers."

Moreover, it seems to me that it enhances WP:V when specific facts are directly associated with the specific page numbers on which those facts may be verified.

So my question is this: Should Wikipedia's general guideline that 'specific facts be cited with specific page numbers' be strictly adhered to when citing brief video game reviews from print publications, or are VG articles a situation when the exception to the rule is preferable to strict adherence to the general rule (WP:IAR)?

Again, there's more background discussion which led up to my question on this Talk page. --Mike Agricola (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, lets break it down.

• Yes, GAN and especially FAC prefer for you to cite the exact page that the information comes from, unless the source is only a few pages long. 5 pages is about the limit before you need to say the exact page. I see no reason to ignore that in video games articles.
• There is no Wikipedia-wide stone standard for how to do references- while the general use case is to just do inline "cite x" templates, and the vast majority of articles use it, there are other templates floating around out there for Harvard or Chicago referencing styles. (not to mention the {citation} template, which just changes the punctuation).
• The way the article is right now, with a split references and notes section, is perfectly acceptable at FAC- I've both seen it done and used it myself. It is definitely in my opinion the way to go when you're citing multiple different pages of a longer work, like a game manual.
• Your other option is to have multiple copies of the same cite template, with the page number different in each one- not an issue if there's only a few, but since you're extensively using larger print sources, I'd go with what you have now. I certainly think it's cleaner than the {rp} template.
• Summary- the article is fine as it is, and page numbers are generally expected for works longer than 4-5 pages. --PresN 22:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to echo PresN. The article as done now looks fine, and there isn't a need for any further styling, and at this point, the citation guideline leaves it up to you as the major contributor to the article. --Izno (talk) 00:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

What they said. Someoneanother 00:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• Looking into it a bit more, I'll agree on some of the refs. However I think that: Foley 1991, Campbell 1991, Wilson 1996, McDonald 1991 shouldn't be in "notes pointing to a reference". The first is a range of two pages, the three others are only cited once anyways. :) Salvidrim! 01:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I am having problem at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of The Simpsons video games/archive1 why the list needs to be improved and to have the list in chronological order like the other video game FLs. Can someone help explain how that's standard for VG video game lists? GamerPro64 02:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect. Wikipedia:Featured list criteria pretty much says it must fit with MOS:LIST, which in turn has the following to say:

"Although lists may be organized in different ways, they must always be organized. The most basic form of organization is alphabetical or numerical (such as List of Star Wars starfighters), though if items have specific dates a chronological format is sometimes preferable."

Taking the lack of precise, unambiguous dates in the above FLC, alphabetical could indeed be a valid format. Salvidrim! 02:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

There's a disagreement at Talk:All your base are belong to us#More accurate English translation about the need to list a sample of sentences from the video game cutscenes. There are three possibilities being suggested:

• Include the quotes in Japanese and the broken Engrish translation original from the video game.
• Include the quotes in Japanese, the broken Engrish translation, and an accurate English translation.
• Remove the table.

The existence and contents of the table have been debated several times through the years at the talk page. Please join in to help achieve a strong consensus. Diego (talk) 11:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

While i was browsing through the Monster Hunter related articles i have not found a lit that provides a short (a paragraph long ) description of the monster its colors and any subspecies it might have. I mean monsters are vital to the franchise so i thought there would have been a page for something like that--Deviljho12 (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

That would be game guide type material, and inappropriate for Wikipedia. --MASEM (t) 16:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Currently we have only one article on the classic game/series Cannon Fodder. It's a series article but is heavily biased towards the first game. I want to give the first game its own article and was wondering where to put the content I'm writing. Start a new article (titled what?) or rewrite and split of the current article? The current one is at Cannon Fodder (video game), though bizarrely Cannon Fodder just redirects there (it was moved recently, perhaps because of Cannon fodder i.e. the military term). I'd probably be inclined to replace the redirect with new content on the first game and move the current article to "Cannon Fodder series". Any ideas? bridies (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks like you have two options here. You can start a new series article, but I'd suggest drafting it up in userspace first to see if you have enough material. Or you can turn the current article into a series article by changing the focus. If you do that, you'll want to movie ti to "Cannon Fodder (series)" or something. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The current article is apparently supposed to be a series article: it opens with "Cannon Fodder is a short series..." and there's a big section on all the (mostly cancelled) sequels and spin-offs. That said, it would also pass for an article on the first game if the first sentence was changed. bridies (talk) 03:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It now seems to be tacit consensus that compilations, collections and HD remakes need to be able to support themselves regarding article content i.e. just existing as a compilation or a HD version on its own is not enough notability. I came across this article this morning (Capcom Digital Collection) and felt that it needed nominating for deletion, as it falls into the criteria mentioned above. I was looking through WP:VG/GL in order to point to the appropriate guideline in the Prod notice, only to find we don't have an explicit guideline. We have a Remakes section but that doesn't really cover compilations. Does anyone have any objections to the addition of compilations to that section/text? Opinions? - X201 (talk) 08:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe most "studio compilations" (compilations of a large-ish number of games from a studio, released by said studio) to be notable when they include at least some manner of content other than "just the games"; examples include Atari Anthology & Midway Arcade Treasures. Salvidrim! 12:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Salvidrim provided that sourcing can be found to support an assertion of notability. If I understand your question properly, X201, you're asking whether it makes sense to add compilations to Wikipedia:VG/GL#Dealing with remakes, right? If that's the case then since the same rationale underlying this section applies to compilations as well in my view, I'd support adding compilations. One question worth considering, though, is where the information would be merged to if an improperly created compilation stub article is identified. Unlike with remakes where the "merge to" is obvious, compilations could conceivably have to be merged into the individual articles on all games compiled. Is that what you're proposing, X201? -Thibbs (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

If a compilation is not notable enough for an article, it could simply be mentioned in the individual games; if really needed, a page with the compilation's title can be used as a disambiguation page linking to the game articles. We should discuss and form consensus on what should be done with compilations not notable enough for their own article; specifically where the title should be redirected, if it is decided not to keep it as a disambiguation page. I think of the Tetris & Dr. Mario example; has been alternating back between Dab & stub/list; a previous AfD ruled keep with a proposition to merge; a merge had been done but reverted. We really need to work out some actual guidelines. Salvidrim! 19:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Actual guidelines would probably be the best solution. Where to merge non-notable compilations may ultimately have to be a case-by-case determination. For semi-notable compilations (i.e. ones where a stub is justified but which may be nearly impossible to bring to GA class), I'm ok with using the above yardstick that "studio compilations" with significant original content can remain but that simple bundles and multipacks that provide nothing new should be merged or deleted. We could either clarify this by expanding Wikipedia:VG/GL#Dealing with remakes or by making a new subsection like "Dealing with compilations". -Thibbs (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Arguably, I think two factors come into play: the first is whether there is an appropriate page where the collection/compilation/HD version can be placed without being out of place. It makes sense to talk about, for example, the God of War collections on the God of War series page. On the other hand, it would be difficult to place the Ico & Shadow of the Colossus collection on the Team Ico page since that target is not really well suited for game descriptions. (There's other reasons in this case too, but just as an example). The second factor is what details can be discussed that are unique to the collection/compilation that were not part of the original games. Small changes in gameplay to account for capabilities previously not available on older systems (eg support for stereoscopic 3D, network play, etc.) are not sufficient. On the other hand, when an entirely new development section can be spun out about the collection alone, that's a clear indication that a separate article is warranted. (Again, this is certainly the case of the Ico/Shadow collection, but not so much of the God of War one). A slightly different example is the upcoming Tony Hawk Pro Skater HD - which is a hybrid of 2 (or more) titles, as opposed to an HD port of one specific game. This would warrant a page on its own because of it being a completely new game even if it borrows from two past ones. --MASEM (t) 21:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed; when there is a sensible target to discuss the compilation (a series page, for example), that should be the first choice; but what guideline should be followed when there is no such page? Or, say, it is a compilation of two mostly unrelated games? Salvidrim! 21:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It is unlikely that a compilation - if its not part of a series and otherwise lacking significant detail for a full article - will be of games with no common developer or publisher; assuming that these pages are thin to start, the compilation can be covered on the dev/publisher page. But if those pages are already large a standalone article is fine. For example, I'd argue that Midway Arcade Treasures, though could be on the Midway Games page, that publisher page is far too large to support the collect title.

The reasoning should be that one should strive to include the collection on an existing page first, but move off or start a new one if it obviously out of place, too large, or notable on its own for the collection itself. --MASEM (t) 22:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Per that reasoning, if that passes as a guideline, ICO & Shadow of the Colossus should be covered at Team Ico? I was mostly thinking of "bundles" like Tetris & Dr. Mario, where games aren't connected by a series or studio which could serve as the "host" article. Salvidrim! 22:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for not being around to chip-in, but you've got to the point of my post, which was basically "at what point does a compilation title reach the point where it should have it own article" and what should be done with articles that don't reach that threshold. I think we need something added to the guidelines (perhaps with examples) so that there is a consensus for people to point to. The number of compilation/remake articles arriving at AFD is increasing and it would be helpful to be able to point to a consensus guideline so that an article could be measured against it. - X201 (talk) 12:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm currently trying to take Cave Story through GA and hopefully FA. I know that it was originally released as freeware. Does this mean that screenshots of the freeware PC version are considered free (or CC/GPL-compatible)? Also, does anyone know what exact license the original game was released under? I've only been able to find it listed as "freeware" and that's it. Thanks, Axem Titanium (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Good on you for doing Cave Story. Without knowing the details, freeware does not imply GPL-free- it just means that it was released for no charge. Nothing to do with copyright status. I would assume unless you can find a statement to the contrary that Pixel retained the copyright on all derivative screenshots, or he possibly sold it to the company that made the 3DS remake. --PresN 19:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Oh well, I found a nice pic of Pixel so I'm happy. Do you have any suggestions for an infobox image? There used to be a pic of the title screen but that seems to have been removed at some point. Other than that, just waiting for a GA review. *whistles* Axem Titanium (talk) 23:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd say either the title screen or a box shot of the 3DS version, whichever you'd prefer. --PresN 01:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey all, my article at FAC, Bastion, is nearing the bottom of the list with only two supports- if anyone could come by and review the article so that it doesn't get archived for lack of response, I'd be much obliged. (nomination) I'd be remiss, though, if I didn't mention that Axem Titanium's Capcom Five is second from the bottom at FAC with three supports, and though it's had some activity today it could really use some reviews as well. (nomination) --PresN 00:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• Update - Capcom Five is now a Featured Article. GamerPro64 18:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Thanks for the shout-out, PresN. I left some comments on your FAC. For the record, I did that before seeing this message, lol. :P Axem Titanium (talk) 22:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• It's now fourth from the bottom with three supports (thanks to Axem); I'd really appreciate it if anyone else could come by. --PresN 20:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Is it essential to replace a screenshot for Metroid Prime Hunters? I assume that a current screenshot has graphical detail that does not represent to those from the final version, especially with Spire's cannon. Hounder4 (Talk) 16:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on this a bit more? Is there a dispute about the current screenshot in that article? As I see it it's definitely not essential that the screenshot be replaced. The licensing looks fine and 1 illustrative screenshot is usually permitted. If anything I'd get rid of the image of Nitnendo's Redmond, WA headquarters which seems to have little to do with Metroid Prime Hunters except on a very general level. -Thibbs (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey folks, I don't normally worry about templates but I could really use one for lists within Category:Video games by theme like List of dragon video games and List of horror video games (didn't even know that existed, it's currently not linked by anything). I'm not sure what parameters should be in it but I was thinking one for lists about a certain type of character (vampire games, dragon games etc) and then.. the rest. Any ideas/help with this please? Someoneanother 23:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Template? Like a NavBox? Salvidrim! 00:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That's probably what I mean :) Someoneanother 00:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That's very, very easy. Gimme a min. Salvidrim! 00:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• See User:Someone another/NavBoxBase; everything's there. Just copy the text and links you want and put them in the appropriate pages! Salvidrim! 00:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I've been meaning to do this for awhile. After I've finished (tomorrow, time for some sleep) would you mind giving it a look and telling me what you think before I start pasting it around? Someoneanother 01:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

OK I've put the items in, how does it look, anyone? Is there anything else it should be linking to? Someoneanother 17:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Eventually either remove the portal link or replace with a relevant category or something. Rest looks okay for what you want to do with it... :) Salvidrim! 18:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Well nothing seems to be on fire and there's no new message on my talk page with the title of 'oi, cretin', so I think it's OK. I refrained from adding it to some of the general lists since they're huge and a template just covering video games looks lopsided. Thanks very much for your help Salvidrim. Someoneanother 18:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Np! As you've noticed I added a link to the relevant cat at the bottom. :) Salvidrim! 18:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Only thing that jumps out at me is that it's titled "Lists of video games by theme" and then one of the categories is simply "theme". Surely they are all themes, right? So this last category doesn't really give any information. I'd say change it to "concept" (or something like that) if you are trying to make a group for game-universe tropes or perhaps simply "other" if you're looking for a catch-all group for odds and ends that don't fit. -Thibbs (talk) 15:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I paused at the naming of that particular grouping for that reason, but couldn't think of a more suitable word. The setting and character sections seem to fit alright, so perhaps a synonym for theme would be better for that section. How about topic or subject? Someoneanother 17:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe. I guess I'm just trying to imagine future additions to the template and so I'd need more information on the exact nature of this subcategory before I added anything to it. "Time travel" as a theme could fit into any number of increasingly narrow thematic categories from very broad settings (like "post-apocalypse" or "dystopian future") to more specific elements of the universe (like "magic" or "future technology"), and down to specific technologies (like "medieval weaponry" or "telekinesis"). All of these could be considered themes/topics/subjects and perhaps these terms are sufficient to express the narrowness of your focus (i.e. "broad themes", "general topics", and "specific subjects"), but clarity for the reader and future editor should be the main goal. -Thibbs (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I take your points, in the future the template may need reworking if clear levels of depth (IE ninjas and dragons VS. horror and science fiction, specific plot devices fitting into larger 'genre' classifications) come into play. At the minute it is simply the contents of Category:Lists of video games by theme which is effectively a smaller, list-specific offshoot of Category:Video games by theme. Historically there has been little interest in creating, populating and maintaining lists like these, which is why it is lopsided. For instance the zombie, vampire and ghost lists were all split from a larger list; undead-themed video games, by myself. Cat video games was split from the cats in fiction list (me again), I created the dragon list. That's why they form a more cohesive group along with the couple of others that existed. The others have either been there for ages, or as in the case of horror video games has been there a little while but not linked to other lists and articles in a visible way. Looking at what's there now as opposed to what could be there in the future drives me up the wall in terms of article and list content, but for this particular template the chances us getting snarled up in a what-belongs-where situation are slim. These sorts of lists aren't a priority for editors to create, despite readers finding a use for them. Someoneanother 18:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

Relatively new Wikipedian here. I am a very big enthusiast of games made by Bethesda and I noticed that the task force on The Elder Scrolls is currently marked as inactive. Could I offer to create a new task force dedicated to Bethesda games and merge TES task force into it? I'm looking for a place to start, and I thought this would sound promising.

Please reply back with any thoughts on this, and if it gets the 'Ok' to go ahead then I will start the necessary pages.

Makhram"The Maniac" talk 23:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Feel free! Task forces and WikiProjects which focus on one series or set of games typically have a harder time surviving in an active capacity. --Izno (talk) 02:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Normally it is polite to post on the project's talk page before upmerging into a bit broader taskforce; if it generates no opposition then there'll be no issue with upmerging the TES taskforce with your new Bethesda one. :) Salvidrim! 02:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Given that the last post on the talk page—which was the notice that it was being turned into an (inactive) task force—was over 3 years ago, and the last two members are now vanished/gone, I think he's fine not notifying people there first. :) --PresN 05:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Could anybody point me in the right direction as to how to name the task force, how to merge it with the TES one and how to effectively "run" it? Makhram"The Maniac" talk 20:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The naming is simple (Bethesda). You could simply move the TES pages to reflect the new title, modify all entries listing it as TES, and edit the pages' text to reflect the new scope. Salvidrim! 20:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

How would I "move" the page? I am still new to wikipedia and I don't know how to do this. Makhram"The Maniac" talk 20:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hover your mouse over the down arrow next to the star at the top of the page, and then click move. --PresN 21:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm so used to gadgets that I'm not sure what default options look like... However for a direct link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:MovePage/Example, where you replace "Example" with the full page name (the URL) of the page you wish to move. Salvidrim! 21:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah! Unfortunately, my account is still too new to move pages. Could somebody else do this please? If you would then post the link to the new task force here or in my talk page then I can begin work on it. Thanks! Makhram"The Maniac" talk 21:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I've made the move for you, and tagged for speedy deletion a few of the pages that basically were unnecessary. The main task force page could definitely still use some cleanup; hit us up if you want ideas on how to improve it. I might suggest cleaning out the list of participants, for one. --Izno (talk) 01:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your help guys! I rewrote a ton of the page, made a new userbox/templates for the group and flushed out the old user list. The hardest part is going to be getting people willing to help. Any suggestions how? Makhram"The Maniac" talk 21:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC) P.S. We really should move this conversation to the TaskForce's talk page.

GameSpot just put out a great article on game patents. Find it here. This is especially nice because patent images are in public domain! The games covered in this article are:

• Final Fantasy X (#6676519)
• Tekken (#6149523)
• Sonic the Hedgehog
• Soulcalibur (#6340330)
• Mass Effect (#8082499)
• Xbox 360 Achievements (#7887419)
• Katamari Damacy
• Pac-Man Vs. (#7762891)
• Midtown Madness 3 (#7497776)
• Pikmin (series) (#7762893)

If anyone has been working/taking care of these articles, this is an easy, valuable addition. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this! I work on/look after much of the Sonic-related articles these days, so while there's not a ton on him, that could probably fit in somewhere... Sergecross73 msg me 15:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Adding to Katamari Damacy (shame they don't give the actual patent numbers but that's easily searched on Google Patents or uspto.gov) --MASEM (t) 15:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The author just responded to my email with most of the patent numbers. Thanks, Brendan! Axem Titanium (talk) 02:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Cheers to the first ever video game engine GA: Virtual Theatre :) --Khanassassin ☪ 12:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Well done Khanassassin, nice job. Also, a big thanks to Dmitrij D. Czarkoff for his work during the GA process and assessment. Someoneanother 15:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and, yes, Mr. Czarkoff helped me with all my GAs, not just this one. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 15:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Then doubly so. :) Someoneanother 15:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Seeking more opinions on Talk:Star Wars: The Old Republic#Edit request on 4 April 2012. A representative of the site wikiswtor.com is seeking guidance on how ELNO has been applied towards the exclusion of wikiswtor.com but continued inclusion of Wikia's SWTOR project. While I believe the SWTOR project on Wikia would probably survive, I'm not particularily vested in it. Seeking some more input beyond myself, SudoGhost, and KingDMS, as we seem to just be rehashing our positions at this point. -- ferret (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

New section Talk:Star Wars: The Old Republic#In search of consensus: fansite wiki project external links. -- ferret (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

While I would like to help out, EL discussions which generate pages of discussion make me >.< My inclination would be to remove them both and have done with it, ELs are the least of our concerns. Someoneanother 13:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Awhile ago I seem to remember Muzemike suggesting we should re-assess our stubs in case some have since been improved. At the time I didn't think it was an issue and said as much, but there seem to be several stub or start class articles which need re-assessing. Would it be possible to set up some kind of list where we can go through them? In particular, now that one of the project's stated goals is to get 10% of article to C-class or higher, we're going to have problems with the number being diluted if we don't keep up with articles that have been improved. Sorry Muzemike :( Is there any interest in this, or is it possible at all? Someoneanother 18:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Could you link me to any project pages covering reassessment and what's involved? I might try a hand at this to try to branch out from my watchlist and mostly vandalism patrolling. -- ferret (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

There isn't a specific page for it, it'd just be a case of going through every stub (and hopefully start) class article and making sure the assessment is still relevant. The only thing is marking off who's doing what so multiple editors don't check the same article, which would suck. Someoneanother 18:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Main problem with this is that there are currently 15,073 stubs and 9,209 starts in the project- a bit long for a list. We're very bottom heavy- we have more GAs than we have B-class articles, and over half of our articles are stubs. --PresN 18:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I suspect a lot of them could be wrong, I flicked through less than 10 start class articles from there and found Aliens versus Predator (video game), which surely must be a C-class article? No idea how such a volume of work would be laid out, short of someone volunteering to do 'A' in stubs etc. Someoneanother 18:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The very next one I clicked was A Vampyre Story, currently start-class, again this looks like a C-class article. Someoneanother 18:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Make a temporary taskforce, not unlike the WP:VG/Reviewing Pre-2008 FAs on! :) Salvidrim! 19:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of a temporary task force, I would definitely be able to help out there.Makhram"The Maniac" talk 21:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea Salvidrim, your help would be most welcome Makhram. The only other thing is I'm wondering if we shouldn't check C-class articles as well to make sure there aren't any B-class lurkers amongst them. Whatever the range we'd have to check the higher rated articles first or we'd just be re-reviewing articles which had just been promoted from lower ratings. Someoneanother 21:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Once an article is C-class I'm perfectly content to leave it there unless an assessment is requested. We should start with Stub and see if they're Start or C, then Start to see if they're Stubs or C. That should be plenty of work for now. :) Salvidrim! 21:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, let's leave C-class out of the picture. I've created Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/2012 article reassessment drive and will add a table for interested parties to sign up. Someoneanother 22:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Reworded a bit, moved a stronger title (2012 Stubcheck certainly is a catchy name), added the assessment table at least temporarily since I don't know what exactly your plan is. :) Salvidrim! 22:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Great stuff, this is just a draft for everyone to tweak, so fill your boots. With some things it's good to discuss everything first, other times there's the risk of a lot of discussion and everyone sat smiling at each other :) :) :) (: (: (: waiting for someone to actually do something. Once we hammer this thing out we can just get on with it. I'll have a go at a table. Someoneanother 22:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

There may be 15,000 stubs, but you can reduce the field of likely candidates down to about 2,100 if you're willing to discriminate. The real problem with efforts like this is that you're inviting people who don't understand the difference between a stub and a start to go on an assessment binge. We may have more stubs that people think look like starts than we have stubs that should actually be reassessed as starts. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 22:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

There's always that risk, but the project's goal of 10% of articles at C has effectively mandated that articles need assessing which don't go through the rigorous GA/A/FA. It's going to take more than one or two editors without confering to do that. If we were to use that tool to shorten the list of articles to review, is there a way it can output a list somewhere so we can manipulate it? Someoneanother 23:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not a risk. It's an inevitability and it's already happened. Your first brave volunteer doesn't understand the assessment criteria. It doesn't help that WP:VG/AI doesn't do a great job of explaining classes and requires a familiarity with WP content policies that most editors don't have. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 11:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, then some guidance and checking is in order and will be provided. Getting people involved is half the battle. Someoneanother 12:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Huh, how is that score generated? That is a much more reasonable number to go through. --PresN 23:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a WP1.0 thing; documentation is available... somewhere here. Salvidrim! 23:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm none the wiser, but since we can just click on the results without any extra software doohickys we could provide that as the link for checking stubs and reduce the table's letter parameters to complete letters (ie 0-9, A, B, C and so on). ButOnMethItIs, can you work the thing to produce a similar results link for the start-class articles? I need to sleep now, back tomorrow/later. Someoneanother 00:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm no longer so keen on a score based cutoff. I wouldn't recommend it. You can link to an alphabetical range of articles like so. Just change the letters as needed. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 11:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The score looks like it's generated via the importance rating/quality rating given in the wikiprojects' boxes on the talk page, combined with how many people a day view the article. Nothing about a higher score indicates that it's more likely to be improperly rated. --PresN 01:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The score doesn't reflect whether or not a rating is incorrect. The score is being suggested here as a filter for articles with relatively high visibility with the (correct) assumption that highly visible articles are less likely to be stubs. Of course, it's like doing surgery with an axe and I now think it's too exclusionary no matter what cutoff you use. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 11:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

With that in mind I'll sign up for a quarter of the stubs now, using the tool-thing you've kindly provided to assess, thanks for that. Someoneanother 12:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

And we're off! 9 stub sections down, 97 to go. --PresN 23:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I myself will take care of the 311 stubs that fall through the cracks in my regex pattern. Also, I think a note should be placed in the drive page telling people not to start work on Start-class articles until work on Stub-class articles is done and not to volunteer for the same selection so a different pair of eyes can reassess the reassment. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 03:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

From what I know, articles get significantly more points depending on what class (i.e Stub, Start, C, etc.) and what importance (i.e. Low, Mid, etc.) they are at. There are also points awarded from the number of hits the article receives from http://stats.grok.se. Of course, this is assuming that we care about the various classes the articles fall under, i.e. Stub, Start, C, etc. --MuZemike 07:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I think I have mentioned this quite some time ago, as there are quite a few stubs that are likely no longer stubs and Start-Class articles that probably should be stubs. I fully support such a drive to make sure the correct articles are properly tagged as stubs so that we have a more accurate portrayal of the amount of stubs in the project. Another thing we could also be reassessing at the same time is stub categories. I have noticed that a few stub categories are underpopulated and may either 1) need to be populated, 2) upmerged, or 3) deleted. They shouldn't be so large that they are virtually unmanageable to work on, and they shouldn't be so small that they are virtually irrelevant. --MuZemike 20:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Should've thought of the stubsorting earlier... damn. :| Salvidrim! 23:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The 1st Quarter WP:VG newsletter is about as ready as it is to be released, though it is running late as it is. We do not currently have a Featured Editor or any significant announcements or discussion over the past quarter that I have observed. Does anyone have anything to add in before I put it in the actual newsletter and send it out with my bot? --MuZemike 20:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Either the A-Class usage RfC or the discussion about modifying guidelines about remakes/compilations might be solid discussions to add. It's a bit short notice for a featured editor, obviously. Salvidrim! 20:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thibbs has put a lot of work into the request for editors to finalize sources suitable for the project. There is also the 2012 Stubcheck which is now in progress. Someoneanother 21:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The 2012 Stubcheck is not a Q1 thing, it'll be a Q2 thing. Thibbs' work, however, has been nothing short of phenomenal and would certainly deserve the recognition. :) Salvidrim! 21:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Seconded. Sergecross73 msg me 22:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the kind words. If the newsletter will help to give that project exposure then that would be very nice to include since to date the responses have been limited to only a few of the most die-hard currently active WPVG editors. The Google Custom Search Engine has also been split into a RS-search and a Situational-search and both are updated to reflect current consensus so that may be worth mentioning as the previous CSS is almost 2 years out of date. -Thibbs (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Let's put the stubcheck on the next newsletter. --MuZemike 00:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• Wow. This Newsletter delivery is making me realize how many of the editors around here are on my Watchlist. XD Salvidrim! 19:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Letting everyone know that Turok: Dinosaur Hunter will be on Today's Featured Article on April 13th. Also, Friday the 13th is tomorrow! GamerPro64 15:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

This one is simple. I have noticed that several of the sources designated on the checklist as RS, Situational, or Non-RS have actually never been discussed in the normal discussion pages (WT:VG, WT:VG/S or WT:RS/N, etc.) Since the checklist is supposed to present consensus-based designations and since there's also been no objection to the un-discussed sources, I am assuming that most of them probably have been discussed and that the designations are accurate. So I propose that we discuss any objections to the current designation all at once in a single thread I started here. If there are no objections to the current designations (which have been in place for many months or years in many cases), then I think we can apply WP:SILENCE and assume that their designations should remain unchanged. Thanks in advance for considering the sources listed in the thread. -Thibbs (talk) 02:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I have become involved in a rather awkward and uncomfortable discussion on a forum with someone over whether or not HAL Laboratory should be viewed as a first party company or a second party company. I cited IGN - [5] and he has cited the HAL Laboratory article. To clarify, the article originally read second party, but was changed for unknown reasons to first party; I have recently changed it back to second party, with the IGN source. He may or may not be participating in this discussion, and if he does, will likely argue that my edits were in bad faith and/or vandalism. So if anyone could provide their input on the matter, that would be great. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 03:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the confusion stems from the very definition of what a "second-party developer" is. As this thorough, in-depth company profile & history shows, HAL is not owned by Nintendo in whole nor in part (as Retro Studios or Intelligent Systems is), thus cannot be considered first-party or a subsidiary; however it is being heavily funded by Nintendo and has received a lot of support in exchange for what amounts to working exclusively with Nintendo. Both HAL & Nintendo also own a 50% stake in Warpstar, Inc., which seems to further indicate that despite the channeled funds, the two companies remain clearly distinct entities. At this point we have sources asserting its status as a second-party studio and none as a first-party; as such, the article needs to reflect this consensus and mention the company as second-party. If a conflicting source emerges then we can discuss it at greater length. Salvidrim! 04:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• I think the line between first and third party is pretty clear: a company or studio that is operated as a subsidiary of a hardware company is a first party, while a company that operates independently from a hardware company is a third party. Second party is a little trickier, but in general the relationship entails a nominally independent company with an exclusive relationship to a hardware maker. The difference appears to primarily lie in a second-party having the theoretical power to develop for whatever or whomever it wants to, but making a decision to stick with a specific hardware partner. In HAL's case, the company is not a Nintendo subsidiary but has chosen to work with that company exclusively. That pretty clearly makes it a second party. Indrian (talk) 04:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Second party doesn't actually mean anything. It's ill defined, no one uses the term in a professional context. HAL are an independent company, they just happen to produce work for Nintendo - that's third party. Template:Nintendo_developers should not refer to "second party". These are just merely third party companies which work closely with Nintendo, that there is a "Former second-party" category just shows that these are not permanent. If a company solely creates iOS apps, that doesn't make them an Apple second party. - hahnchen 19:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Several IPs 98.164.126.212 and 98.164.116.249 has removed "survival horror" from the article on Resident Evil: Revelations, claiming that the game is a "third person shooter" only since it is "now much more focused on action and shooting", making the two genres "cancel each other out". Like most games of the series, it is still a survival horror game even if it has a focus on "action and shooting". I really don't want to edit war here. Hounder4 (Talk) 19:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Survival horror and 'action' are not incompatible; survival horror, remember, is a subgenre of Action/Adventure games. There has been a long history of progressively-action-intensified survival horror titles: Dino Crisis 2, for example, introduced the genre to the concept of fighting enemies for points - this later made it into Resident Evil's "Mercenaries" multiplayer mode, while Resident Evil 3: Nemesis introduced live-decision making and special action moves (eg. fighting off attacking zombies; jumping out of the way of explosions). Elsewhere, Resident Evil Survivor; Resident Evil: Survivor 2 CODE: Veronica and Resident Evil: Dead Aim are also first person shooters within the Survival Horror genre, I think should be added. The user's argument that the game is not survival horror is based on personal opinion, and disregards the evolution of the genre (Other than Amnesia, pretty much no Survival Horror title in the past five years matches the original version of the genre).-- OsirisV (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm slightly annoyed that horror games and survival horror games are synonymous nowadays. If the survival aspects are suppressed why insist calling them survival horror? Why not call them just horror games? For example IGN even called F.E.A.R. survival horror and now that is referenced in the survival horror article. Ughh... --Mika1h (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

There are two issues. The first is that survival horror started in 1992 with Alone in the Dark, 20 years ago, with the first Resident Evil in 1996, 16 years ago. The survival horror movement started at a time when genres as we know them started to fall by the wayside and everything started resembling action adventures and first/third-person shooters. Survival horror can be difficult to define, it is even more so when the archetypes are 15-20 years old yet a lot of people seem to expect survival horror games to resemble these now ancient titles. Despite this, it's slippery nature leads to some questionable instances of the genre being cited, further muddying the waters.

The other issue, and this one drives me up the wall more than the debatable use of survival horror to describe some games, is journalists insistence on using survival horror and horror as being exactly the same thing, or looking to create a new genre (action horror for instance) just because something doesn't comfortably fit within survival horror. Horror games have been around forever, but horror itself is not a defining aspect of any genre except survival horror, it's a theme, like the wild west. Someoneanother 16:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

They cancel each other out according to who? And if that was the case then the Anon. should have removed both since that's what 'cancelling each other out' actually means, not keeping one and removing the other. There are several sources stating that this particular game harks back to the original REs, more so than 4 and 5, so picking on this particular example is an odd thing to do anyway. If they don't explain themselves then there's no case to answer. Someoneanother 15:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm wondering if someone could provide another set of eyes at Talk:PlaneShift (video game)#Primary sources and scope of article. Am I out of line here? I'm worried that a relatively obscure game/article will slip under the radar, and I'd like some input, either for or against my comments. Wyatt Riot (talk) 05:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I've recently been trying to go through the Checklist at WP:VG/S to concretely nail down WP:VG's stance on the usability of the listed sources in order to enhance clarity. In some cases I've found as many as 12 prior discussions on a source and still there has been no official determination as to its reliability. I'm currently presenting cases for the 9 most frequently-discussed of the no-consensus sources from the first third of the checklist (alphabetically covering sources A-G) at WP:VG/S. I've also presented the case for another source that has never been discussed just to bring the total to a round 10.

Considering how many discussions have occurred over some of these sources in the past it's time a solid determination was finally made. Please weigh in here even if it's just to make a simple up-or-down vote. Thanks for your help. -Thibbs (talk) 05:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

OK I've just finished linking up the second third of the checklist (alphabetically covering sources G-O) at WP:VG/S and I've now presented cases for an additional 8 consensus-less but commonly discussed sources (in one case discussed as many as 20 times previously). Please weigh in here even if it's just to make a simple up-or-down vote.

Additionally, I want to thank the three of you who have already provided feedback on one or more of the first 10 sources presented in talk. Since WP:VG's RS determinations are based on discussion and consensus you are helping to legitimize the very underpinning of the whole WikiProject. For those of you who have not yet expressed any opinions, I'd again like to encourage your participation. I believe that it should be fairly simple to review these sources given that I've already done my best in good faith to provide the background research and have located most if not all relevant prior discussions, researched the source sufficiently to give a broad overview, and presented my own best guess as to how we should vote on the issue. All we need now is your opinion. Even if you only have time to review and comment on one of the discussions this will help a great deal. Thanks for your help. -Thibbs (talk) 05:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Finished. I've now linked up all 1000+ sources listed in the WP:VG/S Checklist and I've added an additional 11 sources to be discussed (alphabetically covering O-Z). These 28 (total) sources represent the most commonly discussed of the non-consensus sources, and so presumably they are the most commonly used and/or disputed sources that still have not been given WP:VG's official stamp of approval or rejection. For obvious reasons, these are the most important items to deal with on the checklist.

We've now had 6 people responding to 1 or more of these presentations, with some of you having responded to as many as 9 of the discussions. Thanks to all of you who have helped out so far! And again I urge those of you who have not yet participated to weigh in. My efforts in this exercise have been to present what I understand to be the existing state of consensus regarding the sources based on past discussions (some as old as 2007). So even if someone has no opinions to share regarding the reliability based on the evidence, please at least review my conclusion regarding prior or emergent consensus as this will legitimize my determination. I have done my level best to plumb the discussion archives to uncover all commentary on each source and I'm very open to different interpretations of the prior consensus so please don't be shy. Rather than waiting to express your view on these commonly-discussed sources as an involved editor during a heated content dispute, I'd request that everyone participate in the discussion now as a rational and uninvolved editor. By my last count there are 648 editors watching this page. My minimal goal is to have at least 1% of the page watchers respond to my call, so I need at least 1 more person to take the plunge. If I can't reach this goal, I'll cry. :) -Thibbs (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Well thanks to the 1 more respondent, we've reached the 1% participation rate that was my minimum goal so my warm appreciation goes out to all of you who held back my tears. ;) There are still a number of sources that have not been reviewed by even 1 editor, though, so if anyone is interested in making a final push toward determining reliability, please weigh in. Again, these sources have been summarized and the prior consensus has been collated to the best of my ability so it should be a simple matter of reviewing my 1 paragraph of work to legitimize or refute my understanding of the current consensus. If anyone who has not yet taken part in this discussion would like to, please help the project by reviewing even just 1 of the discussions located here.

For reference, and to enhance visibility of the as yet uncommented sources, we need eyes on the following sources:

• TechCrunch discussion
• Mania/AnimeOnDVD.com discussion
• Softpedia discussion
• ZTGameDomain discussion
• Meristation discussion (a Spanish source)
• PC World discussion
• The Video Game Critic discussion

There are also a great number of sources with only 1 person commenting (12 such entries by my last count). If you have any opinions on the above or if you just find an idle moment, please give input. Thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Updating with strikethroughs. Only 3 left! Thanks for the continued responses. Nearly finished! -Thibbs (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Could I get some feedback on Talk:Piplup, Prinplup, and Empoleon? The article has only a few good sources, and even those do not address the topic well enough for notability. I would just merge it, but I think the article creator might protest without me showing a consensus. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean to be a curmudgeon, but isn't that exactly the sort of gameguidey thing that belongs on a specialty wiki like Bulbapedia? Are there any other video game series where each species gets its own article? I can see a need for objectively notable characters like Pikachu and perhaps a few of the most notable characters from within the subculture like MissingNo, Meowth, Togepi, and Mew/Mewtwo,... but Rayquaza?... Wigglytuff?... Victini? I'm not trying to pick on those in particular - we have 90(!) Pokemon species articles currently - but it really seems to be a case where our policies are too lax. Extremely closely related articles like these should have some sort of real world differences between them in order to avoid merge. The only differences between most of these characters is in-universe physical/personality traits and episodes of guest appearance. I frankly can't imagine anyone except diehard fans reading these articles. We should leave minute details like these to specialty wikis and collapse this sprawling morass like we did with Goron, Zora, and Hyrule at "Universe of The Legend of Zelda". I'm in no mood to start a debate about effecting these changes, and I'm confident there are many who would disagree with me (I've probably forever lost favor with WikiProject Pokémon just now), but I just wanted to point out that as a mere casual fan of the series, I find Wikipedia's coverage of it to border on the absurd. -Thibbs (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Somewhat agreed. After splitting off most of these characters(which was mainly done by User:New Age Retro Hippie), we realized there is a difference between "a strong Pokemon" and "a strong character". Most of the "reception" is of the gameplay features. Out of the 90 however, 30 probably do still deserve to stand alone. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 22:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't want to repeat all the arguments I made at - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_92#Mortal_Kombat_characters, but basically - I think most of our character articles suck. I mean, read the reception section in Lapras and try telling me with a straight face that it's not a game guide. - hahnchen 00:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey VG members. There's a discussion at the Civilization V talk page here asking whether a list or table of the playable civilizations should be included in the article (essentially, whether such a list is gamecruft. Would any of you like to give your opinion? Thanks, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 11:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe an overview of the fact there are civilizations and the difference choosing a civilization (along with one or two examples tops, to illustrate the concept) is more than sufficient to explain the gameplay element. Salvidrim! 11:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I first commented on that discussion in November 2010! Who re-animated the corpse? - X201 (talk) 11:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Oosh did, and I must say it was done in good faith and with perfectly valid concerns. :) Salvidrim! 11:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Proposal - How about an article called List of playable civilizations in the Civilization series? If judged necessary, it could include a table like:

Someone posted this as a suggestion but it did not garner much discussion; I believe it would be a healthy compromise, and stays informational (what civilizations are playable in the video game series as a whole is interesting information). Salvidrim! 23:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'll point out that that table already exits on the Civilization (series) page. There's no need to make a separate article just for it when you can already just link to the series page..207.237.208.153 (talk) 02:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• I was not aware. Then there is no doubt another full listing is unneeded and redundant. Salvidrim! 02:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion involves several articles(Civilization II, Civilization III, Civilization III: Play the World, Civilization III: Conquests, Civilization IV, Civilization IV: Warlords, Civilization IV: Beyond the Sword, Civilization IV: Colonization, Civilization Revolution, Civilization V, and Civilization V: Gods & Kings). It's not so much who re-animated the corpse as it's been ongoing for well over a year now. It's looking very unlikely that a consensus is going to be reached on Talk:Civilization V#Removal of tables of Civilizations. With a new expansion announced it has the potential to get out of hand again (edit warring) so some more outside opinions would be appreciated in hopes of finally stopping the debate. I'm going to add a VG Discussion link to that talk page redirecting here as well (also, hope you don't mind me editing the topic name of this to make the link a bit more specific than "question").Flygongengar (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify things for WP:VG people who are coming to this blind. Its the tables like the one in this (Civilization_V#Civilizations_and_leaders) section and the table in the expansion section below that, that are being discussed. - X201 (talk) 12:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Like in Mario Kart, this kind of table belongs in the general article: Civilization (series), which compares the different Civ games in one table. As for the individual articles of Civ, Civ II, Civ III, etc. -- they do not need their own tables displaying the Civs and their attributes. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 21:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

EDIT. Ah, such a table is already there. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 21:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Other game examples

Consider Megaman games, such as Mega Man X (video game) and Mega_Man_2. None of the Mega Man games have tables for the Robot Masters and the weapons Megaman acquires from them. Based on this pattern, Civ games should not have a table dedicated towards Civs and their attributes. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 23:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Or even more applicable, SMAC (sucessor of sorts to the Civ series), which is a good article. Factions, leaders and actors are all included in prose, with sources. Table is not such a good idea IMO. Very hard to reliably source, and ends up as gamecruft (if you can include the factions, why not their capitols? and important advances? and....?) .Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 23:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Well there's no really a need to source the table. All the info contained in the table is from the game itself which acts as the source (and if you cite it you only need to cite it once at the top). Although you could list individual 1st and 3rd party sources just to prove the civ exists, it's redundant and does nothing but clutter the prose or table.207.237.208.153 (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Err, of course you need to source the info. If you need to use the game itself (major primary source issues here) as a reference than that's a key that the info might not be right for Wikipedia. That seems obvious to me as an answer to the question of what is gamecruft and what isn't. The fact that unique units, buildings and abilities aren't gonna be found in any RS's...well, I mean, major red flags there? Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 22:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• There's a difference between sourcing to prove something exists (a disputed fact) and sourcing to establish notability. There is no need to source the table to prove the fact that the civs exist as the game itself proves that, which is what I was getting at. Everyone of these civs have been mentioned by reliable third party gaming sites, many even highlighted in their own articles especially during the preview phase before the game is launched and a new civ is 'revealed'. One could argue that that establishes notability. I'm not addressing that or arguing either way. My point was that your point that prose is better because citations clutter up tables or is somehow harder to source is invalid.207.237.208.153 (talk) 01:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

In other words, the main source for the table info. would be the game manual itself. in fact, we might as well copy the entire game manual into the Wiki articles. But of course, that's not going to fly. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 22:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Also, exaggerate much? Just because one thing is also mentioned in a manual we should just copy the whole manual? Really? The whole point of gamecruft is the level of detail. Point 2 "Saying that a character can jump, shoot, and drop bombs is helpful to understand the game, but avoid explaining button combinations or cheat codes." Wow, you know, I bet the manual for those games mention they can jump and shoot fireballs, but by your logic we should also copy all the information like how to jump and shoot fireballs...207.237.208.153 (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Essentially, the tables must be omitted. The Wiki articles on the individual Civ games would end up mimicking that of an instructional manual, regardless of notability and the source of information. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 01:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I may be wrong here, but wouldn't leaving a table with just the civilizations fall under WP:PLOTSUM and wouldn't have to be cited? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

@207: FWIW, I wasn't saying that "prose is better because citations clutter up tables or is somehow harder to source", I was saying that because of the nature of tables, it's much easier to expand them with completely unnecessary information. Not quite as much with prose. I don't mind giving examples of the civs (all may be a lot) but having those in a table will inevitably lead to exactly what we have now, and worse if not checked. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 20:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The single table in the Civilization (series) should be enough and acceptable. This discussion involves the tables in the individual Civilization game articles, which lists the Civilizations, leaders, special buildings/units, etc. And that's not necessary. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 00:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Decision Time

In order for the (Civ, Civ II, Civ III, and so on) articles to move forward. This situation must be resolved. To parallel with other games, like Mario Kart, Megaman, Mario games, their main articles like Civilization (series) do have a table summarizing inclusion or exclusion of playable characters and civs. Those tables function as summaries. That is fine. However, the individual articles (Mario Kart, Megaman, Mario games) do not have lists and tables for playable characters which includes other attributes such as abilities, skills, and other special attributes. Therefore, for the Civ games, the individual tables must not be included in Civ, Civ II, Civ III, and so on, per WP:GAMEGUIDE. It is time to follow the examples of other games in order to press forward with the Civilization articles. Otherwise, this argument will come up again. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 00:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete the tables in Civ, Civ II, Civ III, and so on. But keep the table in the main Civilization (series) article. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 00:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm just going to comment that your argument is completely flawed. It is completely irrelevant if Mario Kart, Megaman, Mario games have or don't have tables in their individual articles. One can counter this by pointing to a ton of videogame articles that do contain lists or tables on their individual pages such as articles in the MvC series, the Tekken series, the Street Fighter series, Total War series (look at Total War: Shogun 2, I see a list of the 9 factions with descriptions of how they differ--is this more "acceptable" because it's in list and not table form?), blah, blah, blah WP:OTHERSTUFF. Even your examples are weak; there's no list of Robot Masters because playable characters could be argued to have more notability than non playable ones, the Mario games rarely feature different playable characters outside of aesthetic difference. I have no problem with wanting to settle the current debate and requesting a vote but please when doing so, put forward an actual argument and not, but this other page doesn't have it, especially when it's not universal across all gaming articles.Flygongengar (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. As article listing can indeed be countered by another set of article listing. Yet, I shall take this method one step further. Let's bring in some featured game articles. What better way to cite comparison a set of articles in dispute with those marked as featured. Most of these articles lack any sort of table displaying playable "characters" and their special attributes. So, by the standard among the BEST articles Wikipedia has when it comes to gaming, the use of tables are omitted. Finally, if the tables stay, this argument will resurface in years ahead, just as this argument was fought a couple years ago. As long as this dispute remains, the quality of these Civ articles will remain sub-par. So, I ask this: Can you justify the use of tables (with misc playable character information) in the featured articles? If YES, then I dare you to add character tables to those articles with the intent of improving them. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 07:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Table or not, all of the civilizations need to be included in each article. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Check these the featured game articles to see examples of game articles without the need of doing so. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 07:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure we could both find examples of what we think is ideal for a video game article. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what is or isn't in other articles. As they stand the list of Civs in the Civilisation articles goes against the WP:NOTGUIDE policy. I repeat policy. So unless there is some exceptional reason why the policy should be ignored and WP:IAR implemented, they have to go. None of the arguments for inclusion have compelled me to back their cause. And as it stands, there is no notability in the list of Civs, its just a list of playable characters and their in-game abilities. - X201 (talk) 11:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't feel like these tables are references about in-game game play content as much as they are important historic references used in the game. If they were in guide format it would be like referencing actual in-game benefits, etc. But I think that Civ itself is a history lesson and that these tables in particular are of encyclopedic importance because of their contexts. ie. The Arabian ability Trade Caravans links to Silk Road. This is no way provides any context into the game except to say this was an important encyclopedic event the game mechanics drew from. If they need to be abstracted then I suggest doing something like the Characters of Final Fantasy VI page for each version instead of an overall "This Civilization is or isn't X version". Each Version has it's own context that highlights the an important era in a Civilization's timeline and that context is one of Core game play aspects, and almost akin to the 'Plot' in other games. -Azolo (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete All Tables - Per WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:GAMECRUFT. Sergecross73 msg me 20:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep WP:NOTMANUAL and WP:NOTGUIDE don't say an article can't include any information that is in the game manual. It says an article shouldn't instruct someone how to play the game (i.e. by giving specifics about stats, button combos, etc.) like a manual. Second, it doesn't give the same exact information as a guide or the manual. While yes, you can find all the information in the chart in the manual, the manual also gives specific stats of how each ability functions and what each unique replaces (pg. 170 "Trade Caravan +1 Gold per trade route, double Oil"; Came Archer, replaces Knight"). That sort of specific information is what's frowned upon by the wiki guidelines as that's what's more appropriate for a strategy or gaming wiki. None of that info can be found in the chart. The only valid concern of WP:NOTMANUAL is "But avoid lists of gameplay weapons, items, or concepts, unless these are notable in their own right". But, the Civ series is in a position where everything in the chart is actually notable in its own right and has its own wiki page as it focuses on a list of historical items instead of a list of random fictional items that no one outside of the game has heard off. So the only real criticism of the policy has room to be debated. Additionally, the exact depiction of a civ differs between games in the civ series. Saying the name of the civ is somewhat meaningless without context. Is that England prior to the United Kingdom? Elizabethan or Victorian England? Many of the games in the series do in fact represent only very specif eras of a civilization, while others go for the more general approach. The capital and uniques in the chart help to define what representation is in the game which can't always be done with a wiki-link (if say the representation primarily spans two eras but ignores the rest) or with the general chart on the series page. Finally, the civs differ greatly in terms of function between games in the series. America plays completely differently in every civ game. The chart shows how representation and gameplay has changed for specific civs between games while not going into the strategy guide/manual detail of statistics and button combos. I'm not opposed to the conversion to prose, however, I believe the chart format still presents it more clearly.Flygongengar (talk) 21:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

You're playing semantics with the "unless these are notable in their own right" text. You know that the spirit of that text does not apply to your case. That text means "unless the specific in-game representation is/are notable in its/their own right". You're bending it to fit.

As it stands there is no need to have every Civ listed. They are merely game characters who have in-game special abilities, units, weapons and power-ups. I can't see a case for them being listed in tables or included in the article, it only needs a mention that historical figures are used and each has a special historically significant special ability. I've waited for a case to be made but I haven't seen one that swings me so I'm now voting Delete all Tables - X201 (talk) 09:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Delete all Tables as per above comment with same timestamp. - X201 (talk) 09:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I think this discussion needs winding up. - X201 (talk) 11:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• Keep or replace. There is nothing in WP:NOTGUIDE which aids the argument that lists of characters should be deleted. 9/10 featured articles about games have sections titled "characters," or in the absence of a "character" section a separate page for characters. This also applies to other media such as TV programs and films. There maybe an argument there for deleting the unique units/buildings, abilities, capitals and maybe even leaders, but I disagree with that also, as such details are standard fare for a paragraph about a character in any media. A paragraph for each Civ would obviously be excessive so the tables as they are are already a fair compromise. A significant difference between Civilization and other media is that each of these Civs are not just any characters but each is the main character of the game. Surely any decent encyclopaedia article can afford one line to describe a game's central characters. If they are to be deleted, the information must be presented in some other way. Kanjo Kotr (talk) 19:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

These aren't "characters" of a fictional work. They are simply names - pulled from documented history - to provide context. They could have used completely random names or just colors and alphanumeric identifiers, the game would have been the same. The only association with history is the starting units, technology and unique units, but that's it. As soon as the game sets you out onto the playing field, nothing follows from documented history. This is unlike, say, Assassin's Creed, where the story has been written to try to be as true to possible to historical accuracy. Here, for Civ, it's just placeholders. --MASEM (t) 19:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

No, but they are Civilization's equivalent to characters. And while I would argue the opposite that what Civ you pick does matter, it is irrelevant as with the same logic you could replace characters (or countries) in other media with "character A" or "country A" because their names rarely have a large impact on the story. Kanjo Kotr (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Characters are developed and fleshed out over the course of a story, whether a book, movie, video game. Ergo, yes, it doesn't matter that the lead character is called "Cloud Strife" in FF7, but because that character is developed throughout the game, its important to list them. Civ leaders are not at all fleshed out besides the splash of history that we are given when selecting them. --MASEM (t) 17:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, we do not HAVE TO present this information at all. Whether or not we present it and how we choose to present it are matters of community consensus, of which there is none. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 21:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

No, we don't have to. Just as we don't have to have a page on Civilization in the first place, but I produced a reason for keeping it and I see no reason why it should be deleted. It fits in with policies, completes the article and is not unpleasant to look at. Only the third part of that is my opinion. Kanjo Kotr (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

But as ButOnMethItIs said, it does not have consensus support. - X201 (talk) 09:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

A user moved SimCity (2013 video game) to SimCity (2013 computer game) over the weekend with the edit summary "See WP:NAME", I moved it back stating our consensus that article should not use "computer game" as a disambiguation term (WP:NCVG - "In addition never use "(computer game)" or "(computer gaming)" for any disambig even if the article is exclusively about a PC-related topic.") and left a note on the user's talk page explaining why. The user has moved it back, again with the edit summary "See WP:NAME", no response to my entry on their talk page. Can someone else please chip in before this turns into a move war. - X201 (talk) 08:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, an RfD Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#SimCity_.282013_video_game.29 has now started. I commented there, suggesting a RM instead. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Have added the specifics from my original post to it. - X201 (talk) 09:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I also commented on the RFD, suggesting that the closing admin should simply deal with the moves and deletions accordingly. --Izno (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Simcity often later releases games for other media devices after development of the original product. Perhaps we shall someday see SimCity (2014 Xbox game), SimCity (2096 Neural network game), etc. For now, this page is not a disambig page, and its only a computer game, so I'm not quite sure what a "disambig" page has to do with anything. JamaUtil (talk) 15:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Because the original Sim City and the 2013 game both have the same name. So the long-standing WP:VG consensus is that the latter game should be disambiguated from the first game by titling it Sim City (2013 video game). When you put "See WP:NAME" in your edit summaries, could you please explain the specific part of WP:NAME you were referring to please. - X201 (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Additional: from your comments on here and the RFD page it seems you're equating disambiguation only with disambiguation pages. Disambiguation is also the term used with articles that have the same name. A disambiguation is the bit in brackets in the article name. e.g. Sim City (2013 video game) is a disambiguation from Sim City - X201 (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

JamaUtil, you apparently fail to realize that video game refers to what you think of as computer games as well. In fact computer game specifically states that it "is a video game" right in the first sentence. Also, judging by the title of that article, if anything it should be at (PC Game) rather than (Computer Game) but as there is no other video game with that name, that level of disambiguation isn't necessary. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

SimCity (2013 PC game)

The article has now been moved to SimCity (2013 PC game). As you all know WP:VG only disambiguates by platform if its a platform specific remake. This new move is now starting to look like a deliberate attempt to flout guidelines and Wikilawyer the article to any disambiguation other than (video game) which the user seems to have a problem with. What would be the best plan of action to resolve this? A requested move debate, or just try and get it cleared up in the current RFD? either way I think we need admins involved. Thanks in advance for any advice. - X201 (talk) 08:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I think some of it is deliberate and some of it is not. I think I'm just going to ignore the seeming deliberate nature of the move myself. As for resolving to the correct title, I think that is born out in the RfD and in the guidelines, so I think someone just needs to close the RfD. Which will happen at the normal closing time, I'm sure. --Izno (talk) 14:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks like he took Melodia's comment above at face value (Without replying to anyone here or gathering consensus) -- ferret (talk) 15:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

He/She also seems to be confused about what a double redirect is. After each move they've gone through every article, talk page and user page that linked to the old location and changed it. They even altered a closed Move discussion. - X201 (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

That's what I get for thinking people would understand English. Silly me. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Resolution

Just for archive purposes - The article was moved back to SimCity (2013 video game). It has 11 (eleven) different redirects, plus a new one that appeared shortly after the RFD close and move. We can keep the historic ones (SimCity5 etc), I've fixed some of the unhelpful ones and will RFD them. - X201 (talk) 08:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Baldur's Gate: Enhanced Edition uses "@TrentOster Twitter" extensively as a source, but we have no links to verify this, and I'm sure his Twitter page is changing constantly. Is there a way to fix this? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Twitter should really be avoided as a source. Yes, they do have "Verified accounts' where the identity of the person behind it has been confirmed behind the scenes with Twitter. But because of the necessary terseness of the message and the like, it is a bad source. On the other hand, if, say, Joystiq or Kotaku points out that that Twitter account said something, that's a better source. --MASEM (t) 22:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned with the article, in that case. User:Schmeater was adding large amounts of unsourced text, and then started using this as a citation, without any links. If that source were removed, the majority of the article would be unsourced. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

That's actually fine. The game's been announced with some details so the page won't go away. But details that can only be sourced to Twitter should be removed, until better sources do come along as the game nears release. --MASEM (t) 22:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Probably true, but I'm not about to open that can of worms - it was hard enough just to get him to add any sources at all. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Twitter can be used as a source, Trent's tweets have been picked up by reliable sources thus confirming his identity. They are primary sources though, so use them with care - Wikipedia:PRIMARY. - hahnchen 00:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

"@TrentOster" is not a sufficient citation. You can click "Details" at the bottom of each tweet to get a permalink, which is a suitable citation. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, ((Twitter status)) can be used to link individual tweets once you know its id. jonkerz ♠talk 09:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Are tweets permanent, or are they deleted after a period of time has elapsed? SharkD  Talk  00:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Permanent up to now at least, but can be deleted by the user and/or Twitter staff, making them unviewable. Salvidrim! 00:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Could they not be archived with Webcite or something. Salavat (talk) 00:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Not sure how exactly it works; try it with this tweet, lemme know once it's done I'll delete it. Salvidrim! 00:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it works with WebCite: Archive Link. Salavat (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

It says "Showing WebCite for URL: https://twitter.com/". Salvidrim! 01:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't work because twitter uses stupid hashbang URLs to stop anyone from crawling it so they can sell their data firehose. I used twitter as a primary source in the WiiWare article (it's backed up with a secondary source). I just quoted the entire tweet in the citation template, I'm claiming 140 characters is de minimis. Obviously, if the tweet cited were deleted, I couldn't prove it's contents if challenged, but it's better than having nothing to challenge. - hahnchen 01:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I want to move the Talk page archives for Console role-playing game and Computer role-playing game (now archived at Talk:Role-playing video game) to Talk:History of Eastern role-playing video games‎ and Talk:History of Western role-playing video games‎, respectively. However, this is a complicated task. In particular, I am confused as to what happened during these edits by User:JohnnyMrNinja: [6], [7]. It seems some discussion topics were removed, and others added. Where did the old stuff go to, and where did the new stuff come from? Also, could someone assist me and walk me through the moves? SharkD  Talk  00:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks like someone moved the talk pages from the other two (three?) redirects into the archive path for Role-playing video game. Johnny first removed an AFD template and a merger section from what became Archive #3. He then moved it. Johnny then archived into archive #3 from Talk:Role-playing video game. Then Misza bot got into the middle of it and also used Archive 3. It moved a new thread into Archive 3, then decided the archive was full.

On archive #4..... Johnny archived a huge section of the page. Then the same day, moved the talk page to become archive #4. Where did he put the sections he archived...? After the move, Misza started using it when Archive 3 was declared full. After three archive periods, moved on, skipping over archives 5 and 6. Misza is currently using archive 7.

To untangle it, you'll need to seperate out Misza's archives (which should be pretty easy) and also undo some of Johnny's edits where sections were removed. It'd probably be easier to using C&P methods to create a new archive, rather than trying to perform a move. -- ferret (talk) 01:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I've created your new archives with the threads that originally belonged to Console role-playing game and Computer role-playing game. -- ferret (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, awesome!! Thanks! SharkD  Talk  04:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

There are disputes regarding on God of War (series) and God of War: Chains of Olympus between User:JDC808 and User:Bluerim (JDC's comments are in the talk pages of GOW series and Chains of Olympus).

A year ago, JDC808 and Thebladesofchaos developed a "solution" for the lead section in GOW articles by "[keeping] the text in the correct tense, with information staying either in or out of universe in the correct places and avoided numerical repetition". JDC felt that the lead section that was expanded is "too excessive" and should leave it like that. Does the format JDC808 and Thebladesofchaos settled out looked okay or does it fail to comply to WP:VG/MOS? It looks like to me that the lead section on every GOW article is too short and/or may not adequately summarise its contents. Hounder4 (Talk) 07:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've weighed in as I disagree with some of the sweeping reversals made by User:JDC808, as have you. As to the format I really don't mind so long as the articles looks presentable and are well written, which seems to be the area where JDC808 needs work. Comments welcome. Bluerim (talk) 11:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at Talk:List of Xbox 360 games#Separating of the list, regarding the length of this page. It is exceptionally long, which increases loading times when just trying to edit the page. The amount of code can sometimes cause the page to freeze for awhile as well. I have not gotten any feedback, and would like some so please come to the talk page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Why is this needed at all? The category page would suffice. Salvidrim! 00:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Having a giant sorted list of game releases by year, publisher, regions, etc. is encyclopedic information that categories can't recreate and would require too much work for a reader to recreate from individual articles. --MASEM (t) 00:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I may have been unclear; I know the rationale & consensus behind those lists. I was just saying that I personally don't consider them to be manageable enough to be reliably sustained. Salvidrim! 01:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I noticed a minor little edit war going on over at Mass Effect 3 as to whether or not to include Metacritic user scores within the article. What exactly is the VG Project's stance on citing user scores? I couldn't find any mention of it within the guidelines. DrNegative (talk) 19:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

In general, user scores aren't supposed to be included, unless it's being reported on by a reliable source. (For example, let's say IGN did an article about how good/bad/crazy the user reviews were for a game. Then it'd be notable to include.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Serge. DrNegative (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Userscores really aren't worth mentioning because the users either vote 10/10 or 0/10 most of the time. Most people don't know how to rate a game seriously. So when a game like MW3 or ME3 has a ton of attention brought to some flaws, tons of people vote it 0/10 when it really doesn't deserve it. If a reliable source actually comments on the REASON that the people voted it so horribly, and not just the fact that they did, then it might be worth mentioning. So "The game was heavily criticized by users for having a horrible ending" would be much better then just saying "The game was rated 5/10 by users". _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 22:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Articles are mostly based on reliably published 3rd party source material, user scores/reviews fail this because they are basically self-published sources, so should not be used. If these scores generate coverage from reliable sources then Wikipedia articles can comment on the coverage, but not really the scores or opinions themselves. An example would be the coverage on the negative Metacritic reviews for Portal 2. No comment on this particular issue, because well.. fuck Mass Effect 3. Яehevkor ✉ 22:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• The exact same thing was discussed a month ago on this very talk page, then indirectly a few days later again on this page. Salvidrim! 00:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

It's also been a major discussion point on Battlefield 3 and Modern Warfare 3, to name some other recent articles where "USERS ON METACRITICS HATE THE GAME YOU SHOULD INCLUDE IT" has come up.. -- ferret (talk) 00:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

All the more reason that a consensus should be formed Salvidrim, and a hard guideline on repeatedly discussed issues drafted into the VG Project MOS, which is somewhat vague on the issue of citing user scores which happen to be on a reliable source. I or any other user can only use talk archives as a reference, never to justify a reason to revert an editor pressing an inclusion of this nature. DrNegative (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:SPS already encompasses this. There's already policy in place, it just needs to be enforced. (Which I guess could be a tall order considering all the fan-rage regarding this game...) Sergecross73 msg me 12:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Believe me, I have been really trying to explain policy, and really trying to AGF at the ME3 article. We get a ton of new users, who go right for the talk page (which to me usually smells of canvassing off wiki, but I may be wrong) and it just goes on and on and on.... Any help there is appreciated. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

There have been edits by anons and User:Niemti to add an 8 kylobite character table with no sources to Tekken. Finding it as Undue weight and fancruft, I removed the list but Niemti reverted my edits stating the table was necessary with no discussions made before adding such a table. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Hah, I still had your talk page on my Watchlist, so I've been keeping a vague eye on today's discussion... I had a feeling it'd spill over here again. :| Salvidrim! 21:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I've seen charts like this in other articles, but never really known if they were frowned upon or not. I know WP:GAMECRUFT rules out a lot of those types of charts, but I also know that it seems that guideline is overlooked in many fighting and racing type video games too. I'd like to see how people feel about this as well. Sergecross73 msg me 23:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

IP 98.164.116.249 expresses concerns that the Resident Evil series "began as a survival horror series, but it's now [...] a shooter series with a horror atmosphere." I know that survival horror and action (which basically a shooter) are not incompatible with each other, but if anyone has any suggestions on IP's comment, respond to Talk:Resident Evil: Revelations#Not a survival horror. Hounder4 (Talk) 18:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

This debate was already brought up here earlier and the consensus was to use survivor horror. The discussion can be seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 93#Resident Evil: Revelations genre change and as far a I know nothing has changed since then.--174.93.169.157 (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I already knew that for two weeks I started that discussion, thank you. Hounder4 (Talk) 22:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I missed that part.--174.93.169.157 (talk) 23:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this discussion is relevant to this WikiProject or not. There have been a large number of D&D video games, but I hesitate to immediately list it under WP:VG's delsort page. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It's more relevant to pen-and-paper RPGs, so I don't think it needs to be listed here. --MuZemike 18:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Some articles on old Data East games like Bad Dudes mention that G-Mode currently has the rights to some of Data East's back catalog. Most of them link to a website, Data East games that is currently domain parked. I am not certain if this means that G-Mode no longer has rights to the games, but it definitely means that all external links to the site should be deleted and references should be tagged with the Dead link template. Previously versions of the site are unavailable from the Internet Archive as robots.txt prevented the site from being crawled. ----Jtalledo (talk) 14:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's the relevant info about inherited Data East games from G-Mode's website. Salvidrim! 17:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I have a question regarding what I assume would be covered by a video game specific notability guideline. A game from the early late 80s/early 90s has been noted as the inspiration for a game that is receiving significant cover but finding significant coverage of the game itself is difficult. Other guidelines like WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF make exception for things like this but as there's no video game guideline, one does not exist. Is the game notable? I asked without noting the specific case to get a general idea of what this project has determined or if there's a precedent rather than solve a specific case. OlYeller21^Talktome 18:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I will abstain from commenting as I know exactly what case you're referring to and have !voted on it. Salvidrim! 19:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I had a look into the particular case. Without referencing it exactly, it's usually the case that reliable sources can be dredged up for older games, to at least cover a merge if not an outright keep. It takes a good bit of paper and magazine digging though. --Izno (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

If you want to make an exception to the general notability guidelines, the first step is to come up with a well-articulated rationale. I myself can't think of a good one for video games in general or for that game in particular. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 01:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like Masem slipped Raul an extra $20 as Limbo (video game) is prepared to be on Today's Featured Article on the 10th. GamerPro64 22:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Man, I hate when this happens... :) --MASEM (t) 23:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Can someone crop File:Limbo Box Art.jpg to removed the Arcade banner? - hahnchen 01:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done Salvidrim! 01:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Update: The article's appearance on the Main Page was pushed back to the 13th. GamerPro64 20:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

To those parties interested, this request has been sitting there for awhile. Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fzero-nopatterns.svg. « ₣M₣ » 04:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've notified one of the creators. I'm afraid I'm hardly knowledgeable enough about copyright to form an opinion on whether this logo passes the threshold of originality. Salvidrim! 04:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• There's no way that is appropriate for Commons. --Izno (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• Likewise, I'm no copyright expert, but I think it's probably above the threshold of originality. Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 11:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, the previous discussion seems to have gotten archived. Despite the last post being a declaration that "[the tables] do not have consensus support", the truth of the matter is closer to there being no consensus either way with almost an even split on both sides of the argument. Of the people that officially voted there were 3 deletes and 2 keeps. In terms of the members who actively participated in the discussion there appears to be 5 in favor of deleting the tables (KyuuA4, X201, Sergecross73, Masem, Salvidrim), 4 in favor of keeping the tables in at least some form (Flygongengar, Ed, Azolo, Kanjo Kotr) and ButOnMethItls who simply reminded everyone that the decision to keep or delete the tables is based on community consensus. (I grouped the names based on the arguments presented in the discussion, if you feel I misrepresented your opinion please say so here). The discussion has been going on for 2 months on the Project Video Game page.

The original discussion on the Civ V talk page has been ongoing since November 26, 2010 (so around one a half years). No real vote was ever done on the original page, however reading over the discussion the following people seemed to either oppose or support (at least in some form) the tables--and not double-counting people such as KyuuA4, X201, Masen, Ed, and Flygongengar who also participated on the project page--4 additional people expressed views completely against the tables (Oosh, Fin, DP76764, UncannyGarlic), 5-7 expressed views in favor of the tables in some form (Lowellian, TheFreeloader, The Dark Peria, Jenova20, Bloodycelt and 193.221.39.5 & 67.208.188.68 if we choose to count anons), and 2-3 took a relatively neutral stance (Walen, Muskeato & 69.3.100.169). Again, I grouped the names based on the arguments presented in the discussion, if you feel I misrepresented your opinion please say so here. Also, If I missed anyone, please speak up.

So after 18 months of debate the community seems split with 9 completely in favor of removing the tables, 9 (11 if we count anons) in favor of keeping the tables in some form, and 3 (4 if anons) remaining neutral. As one can see the debate has been ongoing for a significant amount of time and the community consensus is pretty even on both sides of the argument (and was also pretty evenly matched when looking at the individual discussions as opposed to an overview).

Because of this--and because the previous discussion reached such a point that it was archived--I'm convinced that it is unlikely that future discussion will reach a consensus either. The question is what to do now. Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus holds that "in deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, image, or other content being kept" which would mean keeping the current status quo of the pages and thus keeping the tables. I'm going to give this 2-3 weeks, but unless the debate seriously kicks up again with new blood allowing a consensus either way to be reached, I'm going to remove the "copy to gaming wiki" tag on all the tables at that time.Flygongengar (talk) 23:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a note to inform people here that I've split Psygnosis back out from SCE Studio Liverpool. -- Trevj (talk) 15:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:SCE Studio Liverpool § Split of Psygnosis

-- Trevj (talk) 23:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• This discussion needs input from everyone at WP:VG. It's becoming... well, have a read yourself. :-s - X201 (talk) 10:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
• I second this. Could one or two other people active here please take a look at this. You don't need to be interested in the topic or the outcome of the discussion. We have a really disruptive editor trying to run roughshod and this situation needs to be resolved. I don't want to go through the hassle of an administrative proceeding with this guy, and further input on the situation (even if you guys actually disagree with X201 and myself) could help make that unnecessary. Indrian (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• ? Err, are you guys familiar with WP:CANVASS. Please retract your influential statement about me being a really disruptive editor trying to run roughshod. In the interests of neutrality, the other relevant WikiProjects also require notifying. If you're unwilling to do this in a non-influential manner, I could do so myself by using the ((Pls)) template. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Trevj, you have taken Indrian's comment and then attributed it to both of us. I can't see how my comment breaches WP:CANVASS, which is the implication of your post. Obviously you didn't know that I was creating the RFC at the same time, but the insinuation of bias is not welcome. - X201 (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• • Your disruptive behavior is self-evident. Even if your views on the policy disputes are found to be correct, the manner in which you have engaged in this discussion has not been constructive. I stand by that statement unequivocally. Indrian (talk) 14:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) This is the most relevant WikiProject and there's no issue with asking the opinions of people here. personal attacks still should be avoided. Salvidrim! 14:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Labeling an editor disruptive is not a personal attack if the editor's behavior is at the heart of the current controversy and the primary reason that additional eyes are needed on this issue (yours would certainly be appreciated, again regardless of whether you agree with my position or not). While others may categorize his behavior differently upon examining the record and are entitled to that opinion, I think there is enough evidence there to look into the matter. Indrian (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
      • I didn't particularily mean that there has been personal attacks, I simply wanted to remind everyone involved to avoid them. I haven't looked into the subject itself, but from an overview of the discussion, it seems a fairly coherent and civil content dispute. I don't think it is fair to call either side "intentionally disruptive" here. Salvidrim! 14:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
        • I will agree that the discussion has been pretty civil, though I would characterize it as a policy dispute not a content dispute because no one is advocating the elimination of content, only debating its placement. The disruption comes in the form of actions (undertaking the initial split without discussion and then claiming this was a valid revert of an edit made three years ago, adding an unjustified notability tag, since removed, perhaps in violation of WP:POINT, and then undertaking a targeted redirect that in a vacuum may appear harmless, but which directly touches on the earlier discussion and appears to be pushing a viewpoint that the [admittedly small] current consensus has already rejected, therefore raising WP:OWN concerns). A few more eyes on the underlying issues and a firm consensus either way would end this quickly and without any permanently damaged feelings. Indrian (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

          without any permanently damaged feelings Support. -- Trevj (talk) 15:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I've added the discussion to the RFC list for Companies and Media. - X201 (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've amended with what I consider to be a more neutral statement.[8][9][10] Please amend further if necessary. -- Trevj (talk) 15:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC) Hmmm... Not sure the bot will take the amendment. If not, then what do we do? -- Trevj (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The edit notice says that any user changes will be over written, and to alter the RFC on the talk page. I presume it checks back to get the latest version. - X201 (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd just like to bring attention to the above two pages. They've been created in the past couple of weeks. I suspect them to be unattributed copy-and-paste of some Wikia articles or another. Seeing as they're mostly plot, they should probably be merged or be cleaned up (brought into line with WP:VG/GL). Anyone want to poke them? --Izno (talk) 02:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I !vote redirection. I would be shocked if there's anything worth merging. They certainly wouldn't survive an AfD, so I think any clean up effort would be wasted. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 03:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I would like this article to be upgraded to at least Start in the portal. It has an infobox, a logo and a lot of information about the game. Could someone please review it? Shaun9876 (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

For future reference, article assessment requests can be lodged at WP:VG/A/R. :) Salvidrim! 18:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Shaun9876 (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I've started a discussion about updating/changing/clarifying the Cast List part of the Inappropriate Content section of the Article Guidelines.

The discussion is here - X201 (talk) 10:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I've recently posted a question at WikiProject Pokemon but I haven't received any feedback. If anyone here is familiar with the Pokemon series and might be able to shed a little light on the issue I've identified, please comment here. Thanks in advance. -Thibbs (talk) 20:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The VGratings template is up for deletion. See - Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#May_23 apparently similar ones for film and TV have been deleted and the video game one is next in the firing line. Don't know what the rational for deletion of the others was. - X201 (talk) 12:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional: In 2009 WP:FILM moved to excluded ratings from their infobox for reasons such as systemic bias etc. Rather than have indiscriminate listing of ratings, they now focus on ratings in prose if they have been controversial or note worthy. So despite my inital shock, I agree with that idea, it would mean deleting the ratings field on the infobox, making the infobox shorter :) and push towards prose for exceptional ratings. - X201 (talk) 12:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi there! I'm looking up information for 3D Tetris, a game for the Virtual Boy that received relatively little attention. I found one review in the LA Times through ProQuest, as well as reviews on various fan site of questionable notability. I'm looking for a wider variety of sources, though. Does anyone know where I can find reliable databases of old video game magazines, reviews, and the like? Perhaps there is a research database to that effect. Or where I might find information about them in reliable sources? Some textbooks do mention the Virtual Boy, although I'm not finding a lot on this game in particular. 3D Tetris is not impossible to find - the Virtual Boy was a relatively important console and wasn't released all that long ago. Thanks in advance for your help. CaseyPenk (talk) 09:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The search at WP:VG/RL brings up one hit for Tetris 3D in Next Generation Magazine. Its a start. - X201 (talk) 09:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you SO, SO much. Already I found a review from Game Informer, which is more notable than most of the current sources combined. CaseyPenk (talk) 09:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I've just had another thought. I think there is a (very) brief mention of Tetris 3D in this month's GamesTM, in the Retro collector section, if someone could have a look for CaseyPenk. Would do it myself, but haven't got access to my copy at the moment. - X201 (talk) 11:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• Can you work with non-English sources? -Thibbs (talk) 12:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd really appreciate if someone could do that, X. And if you're talking to me, Thibbs, I can translate. I know a bit of Japanese, which I'd imagine in the most useful in this case. CaseyPenk (talk) 14:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

OK I can send a few scans your way too then. -Thibbs (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Sounds great. Not sure how you want to pass them along, but you can email me at --MyUsername--@gmail.com if you want. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so images are one of the few areas on Wikipedia I'm not that knowledgeable about, (which I'm fine with, it typically doesn't interest me) but I'm tired with arguing with the user there, so I figured I'd bring it up here.

So the issue is the main infobox picture at Sonic 4. A month or so ago, User:Zagurzem kept on switching in a logo that was merely the "Sonic the Hedgehog" in text, which I felt was a bad choice, considering the image prior to it already contained the same logo, but also contained an image of Sonic as well. There was no reason to "downgrade" to a picture that captured less of what the game was about. He eventually stopped this, but a week ago, another user added a different, second image to the infobox, and now Zagurzem is proposing using all three images. (See here for what it looks like as of writing this.)

Again, I'm not real familiar with image policy, but I know it's a "keep it to a minimum" type things, which makes me think that three in the infobox alone is excessive. When I try to remove them, he always answers with things like "No, please, give it a shot" or "I think you'll see it my way eventually" rather than giving a real rationale or quoting policy or anything. So I was looking for input/help. Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 18:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Very excessive as it is, just one image image should be sufficient. I don't claim to be an expert on images, but WP:NFCC#8 specifies that they must significantly increase understanding, a single image does does (for identification of the game), any further images would fail #8 by default unless they had coverage explaining why they are otherwise significant. Also the rationales for most of those images is extremely weak, most are just "yes", "no" or "n.a."... Яehevkor ✉ 18:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

...And that's why I most strongly objected to the one that is strictly the "Sonic the Hedgehog 4" text logo, as it's the worst as far as helping identify the game... Sergecross73 msg me 18:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

There's on two options as I see it -- 1) Post the text-based logo, or 2) Post the newest logo, and caption it with "Promotional art for Sonic 4: Episode II". As of now it's not clear. I'd go with the Ep II logo, personally as the background has been removed and thus will work fine on all themes used by Wikipedia. --Teancum (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that; I only object to using all three, or using just the text based one. Sergecross73 msg me 19:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I support using the stylized text logo only. It's the only logo representative of the game as a whole. The other two logos only represent portions of the game, and would thus be appropriate for the pages Sonic the Hedgehog 4: Episode I and Sonic the Hedgehog 4: Episode II, if they existed, but not for representing the game as a whole. The question you face, if you want to include either the Episode I or the Episode II logo, is why that particular one? I see that as a fair use issue as well; the Episode I logo is not essential to illustrating the game, and is thus of questionable fair use. Ultimately, I think the stylized text logo communicates the necessary components that a logo should communicate (that is, the artistic style of the subject and the name of the subject). If you want to illustrate the characters there's leeway for character artwork later in the article. CaseyPenk (talk) 23:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Given that the images of SOnic and Tails vary little from their appearance on their respect character pages, they are extremely redundant here and fail NFCC#8, NFCC#3a. The text based logo is all that is needed. --MASEM (t) 23:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Really? Text best illustrates a platformer video game like this? *Sigh* this is why I stay away from image stuff in general I guess... Sergecross73 msg me 01:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

This is for the infobox image (cover or logo). A screenshot of the game is fine but that's not the point of contention. --MASEM (t) 01:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

They're all logos though. Look here, at the image that was originally used for the articles existence up until the last few weeks. It's description is "Xbox Live logo", and while it's from "Episodes 1", it doesn't specifically mention episode 1 anywhere, and it shares the art style of both games. I don't understand how this isn't the better option. It's a logo that not only contains all of the text option, but character art as well. Sergecross73 msg me 02:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm almost positive that File:Sonic_4_Logo.png is a derivative work of the Episode I logo, meaning that a fan created it. I don't think it's anything that Sega actually released, because that logo in that form is never used alone in the actual game. As User:Masem points out above, you can illustrate the characters on their own later in the article if you feel artwork or screenshots are necessary within specific sections. The infobox is the most basic, irreducible element of the page in that it strictly conveys the core information about the game. There's no need to concatenate the character imagery with the stylized logo-text, because the stylized text logo itself is just as descriptive and uses a smaller portion of the original, copyrighted work. In any case, I think we need to focus on the core of the discussion. I'm not thinking about "should we illustrate Sonic and Tails in the Sonic 4 article?" I'm thinking, "should we illustrate Sonic and Tails in the Sonic 4 infobox?" And I don't see the need to do the latter. CaseyPenk (talk) 05:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, I think the specific policy to which User:Masem was referring does apply here. "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I don't see the inclusion of the character artwork as essential. CaseyPenk (talk) 05:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) At the risk of shifting the topic, I'm not sure the article as-is is constructed in a useful way. Every section has both an Ep I and Ep II sub-section, which suggests to me that it may be better if it were either split or re-factored significantly. If it were split, then using one logo for one game's article and the other for the other (assuming the Ep II logo is actually real RE CaseyPenk's comment) would solve the problem pretty easily. This would probably be fine since it isn't far off the size required for a size-only split anyway. However, it seems to me that re-organising the article may be a better way forward, at least for now. I'd suggest that a shift to a generalised portion for each section with additional Ep I and Ep II sub-sections would be more appropriate; I'm not sure how this would apply to plot or reception, but it certainly could be easily applied to gameplay (any Ep I or Ep II specific elements get their own sub-section, with the universal bit as the super-section - this seems to be more or less how it's organised anyway, with Ep I mostly representing generalised gameplay). Anyway, I digress.

Assuming the article is left as one, I think the only applicable infobox logo is probably the text-only one since the Ep I logo doesn't represent Ep II at all, and nor does the inverse. I'm not sure how his would fit with the non-free files policy, but the episode logos could always be included in the prose somewhere.

There's also another thing to think about - I'm not sure the text logo is copyright-eligible; it is only stylised text after all, so ((pd-textlogo)) may apply (see Threshold of originality). If that were the case, then copyright issues would be significantly simplified.

Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 13:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I am in favor of splitting the article, but when I raised it on the article's talk page, the only person who chimed in was someone who said splitting was against precedent for episodic games. (I've never worked on any myself, so I wasn't sure.) Then the game was leaked, and released, and it was enough work just to keep the article cleaned up, let alone splitting and whatnot. Sergecross73 msg me 14:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Sergecross, I am so sorry about all of this. After reading your long message to me, I now understand my mistakes.

We should just use the logo that was used in the first place in order to not cause any more trouble. I see that there was some controversy regarding the non-free usage of the images that I wanted to use. Before I uploaded the images, I read the policy and thought I was in the clear, but I guess I wasn't. Am I going to go to jail or something???

I meant well when I was editing the Sonic pages. I just wanted information that was accurate because I have been a fan of Sonic since I was seven. I am not the most experienced person with Wikipedia, but I am learning more thanks to you guys helping me.

I will continue editing Wikipedia, but I will most likely refrain from uploading images from now on.

I hope you guys understand. User:Zagurzem —Preceding undated comment added 12:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC).

You're not going to jail, the worst that happens is that they delete the images. Sergecross73 msg me 14:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Zagurzem, now isn't the time to stop uploading images. Every single one of us here has made mistakes on WP at some point. WP tends to operate on a version of the old medical model of "see one", "do one", "kill one", "teach one". - X201 (talk) 15:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, Sergecross' idea to "post the newest logo, and caption it with "Promotional art for Sonic 4: Episode II" is a pretty good idea as well. That way, it is kept up to date with the latest installment. And if/when an Episode III comes out, we can replace it with that logo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zagurzem (talk • contribs) 13:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm liking all the compromise I'm seeing. As long as we're up-front about the fact that we're including the logo for one particular episode, I think it will work effectively. I subscribe to inclusionism and would support splitting the main article into, well, "episodic" articles if you will. There is certainly enough information for each to have its own page, and the segmentation has already developed cleanly between the episodes as User:Alphathon pointed out above.

User:Zagurzem, let me reiterate what other have been saying - don't let this discourage you. You've clearly already learned some valuable lessons that will serve you well. I remember, several years ago, being embarrassed at my lack of experience and I made some rather significant mistakes - moving entire scores of pages to new categories without consensus, for example. The problems were easy enough to fix, though, and the world didn't end (at least not yet). You haven't done anything egregious, so keep doing what you're doing. I'm personally happy to see someone already engaged in these intricate discussions, for being a relatively new user. Keep at it, and feel free to ask me if you have any questions. CaseyPenk (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi everyone! As I was reading the Sony article I came across some patterns that I found very troubling - first, a lack of objective information and historical context; second, an overwhelmingly negative and critical approach found in most sections. I started a discussion located at Talk:Sony#POV problems. Whether you share my concerns or see the issue differently, please provide your input and chip in with some constructive edits to the main article. I appreciate any help. Thank you. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

This page List of video game remakes is completely wrong. And is similar at the categorie:vidéo game remakes where there is, the same, a lot of games who aren't remake but simply "Porting" or re edition. LatinoSeuropa (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The page states "This list includes updated versions of original games and remastered ports", I'm not sure what the confusion is about? Salvidrim! 19:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The page is now at AFD on the grounds that 90% of the content is wrong.--174.93.169.157 (talk) 01:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

My guess is that it was originally a list of remakes, then someone started adding ports, then someone changed the opening paragraph to include ports, and now LatinoSeuropa, seeing how the list is overwhelmed by ports, feels like the list need to be deleted outright. Of course, as the AFD results would show you thus far, that's now how these things are typically handled on Wikipedia. Usually, we either clean up the list, or change the inclusion criteria and/or article name. Sergecross73 msg me 02:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

i talk a little english, sorry. For me, one, it is just stupid this page because it is big "confusion", and it is the same at a categore who have the same goal simply... LatinoSeuropa (talk) 13:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

A user has moved the article about the original Xbox console, from Xbox to Xbox (console). It seems their intention was to create an Xbox brand article similar to PlayStation, but what they've actually put up is a stub article with no references and a graphic from Commons where they claim to be the copyright owner of the Xbox logo (Rumours and logo I have now removed). The Xbox needs a "brand" article, but this one isn't it.

Trying to decide on best plan of action, prod/delete and then move the original back, or Requested move of brand article to Xbox (brand) and (console) to Xbox. Opinions? - X201 (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Something like that needs to be incubated in a userspace before making such a bold move. I'd say revert it. It's far too high traffic of an article to have a stub lead the way. --Teancum (talk) 16:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with the current setup, wherein Xbox redirects to Xbox (console). The ideal setup would be to mirror the PlayStation arrangement (which, I might add, is a Good Article). Whatever we do in the short term, it makes sense for the core Xbox article to refer to the series. The only difference I would note has to do with semantics - PlayStation (console) was known at times as PSone, while Xbox (console) has almost always been known as just Xbox. That doesn't reduce the need for an Xbox family landing page, though.

I've started a draft for the Xbox page at User:CaseyPenk/sandbox/Xbox. Please do edit it and help me fill it out! CaseyPenk (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It still says at the top that if you want to see the brand, go to the article "Xbox", which obviously isn't right... I'll see what I can do for the draft, but I make no guarantees. I'm a pretty random contributor. Nomader (talk) 23:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Xbox redirecting to Xbox (console) should never be 'fine' with anyone, because it runs afoul of the disambiguation rules. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting the redirect was a long-term solution. My point is that we're going to populate Xbox with actual content (as a brand landing page) sooner or later, so there's no need to turn Xbox into a page on the first console. Moving Xbox (console) back to Xbox just makes more work for us in the long run when we actually have content for the brand landing page. That's why I would really appreciate help with the sandbox page, so that we can get the brand landing page up and running sooner rather than later.

In other words, Xbox (console) is at the correct location already, so we should keep it where it is. We just have to fill out Xbox to make it what it should be - a page about the brand. CaseyPenk (talk) 04:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

We already have more work. This incorrect move now means that thousands of articles now point to the wrong place, and will continue to point to the wrong place when the redirect page is replaced with the brand content. Anyone fancy organising a bot?- X201 (talk) 08:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Two completely distinct units is not a "brand" like the PlayStation, where that has been applied across 5 different units, consoles and handhelds. It makes no sense to disrupt WP to create this split in this fashion. --MASEM (t) 13:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I thoroughly disagree. Xbox Live, Xbox, Xbox 360, Official Xbox Magazine, "Xbox Live on Windows Phone," and "Kinect for Xbox 360" span a number of platforms using a single brand and don't yet have a centralized brand page. Should Microsoft use the Xbox moniker for its next console, I can assure you a page will be needed. CaseyPenk (talk) 14:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Kinect is not an xbox-branded product (since it can be used on Windows'based machines now). Xbox Live is a separate brand entirely, though would fall under an "xbox" brand, but still, that's not a lot left. And as it relates to the above move - "Xbox" is more recognizable not as a brand but as the actual hardware. so the move of the more common usage to the disamb is absolutely incorrect. If there is to be a branding model, then likely that should be at "Xbox (brand)" (This would be the same logic we use to have where the first game of a series name is the most recognizable to disamb the series and leave the game at the undisamb page.) --MASEM (t) 14:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

As Masem said, Live (+Live on Windows Phone) and Kinect aren't really enough to make it more of a brand. OXM is a magazine about Xbox (360), and so is no more part of the brand than adverts, fansites or the Wikipedia articles are. I'd say that having a brand article is probably OK however, at least when the 720 (or whatever it ends up being called) launches. The "Xbox (brand)" suggestion seems to make sense - it would negate the need to use a bot to fix the links. Incidentally, the PlayStation (console) article was originally named PlayStation, while PlayStation was PlayStation (series) (I think, something along those lines anyway), but both were moved to their current locations after very little discussion. Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 14:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Good points all around. I know for PlayStation at least, the brand article is very fleshed out and serves as a respectable landing page. I'll keep the Xbox brand project on my mind and we can pursue it further if and when the right time arrives. As a side note, I was really impressed by the research that went into the history sections of PlayStation and Sony Computer Entertainment. It would be great if anyone who worked on those articles could help out with the various other non-VG Sony pages -- not the least of which is Sony, as well as VAIO, BRAVIA, and Cyber-shot. They are in need of major help! CaseyPenk (talk) 20:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)