Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

Wikipedia:WikiProject Mortal Kombat is one very good example. It's very inactive, and should just be merged into this project. Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Tycoon games, is this a taskforce currently, or just an inactive project? The page name is similar to the other taskforces, but it's still listed as project. Is there a taskforce box made for this yet? I looked on the project page (taskforce page, or whatever), and didn't see anything. Also: Wikipedia:WikiProject The Legend of Zelda series seems to be inactive or dead as well, with only a few posts in the recent months. I would imagine there is more inactive projects that should be merged and/or redirected to this one. If enough interest is around: change relevant projects into taskforces when needed. While we are doing this, taskforces should be checked to see if they are active as well. I suppose it's possible, activity could pick up in them sometime, but it doesn't seem likely. Broad scope projects usually die down and just sit inactive for long periods of time. This isn't a space issue, it's just a matter of some project cleanup. Thoughts? RobJ1981 23:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

If there somewhat limping along, perhaps making them task forces and soliciting help from the main project might be in order. David Fuchs ^(talk) 23:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

We definitely should be encouraging more task forces rather that wikiprojects, and these slow traffic projects would be better as task forces anyway. --MASEM 23:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I've marked the LOZ project as inactive a few times, but someone usually comes along and removes the inactive tag while the page just sits there, as inactive as ever. I would whole-heartedly support converting it into a task force. Although I am (as far as I can tell) one of the major, if not the main, Zelda editor, I have not joined the WikiProject, as I feel it is too limited for a project. If it is a task force, I would be glad to help maintain it and keep it active. Pagrashtak 14:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I've marked MK and ZT as inactive. Pagrashtak 14:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's another inactive that probably should just be merged into this project: Wikipedia:WikiProject Arcade games. As for the Zelda project, I think it should be made into a taskforce. In my view, there is little activity and that doesn't warrant a project. People removing the inactive tag is a bit bad faith. A member or two isn't an active project, it's a 2 man group. We need to determine exactly how long these inactives should just sit, before we merge and/or taskforce them. RobJ1981 18:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Technically, not all arcade games are video games, though. Ski ball, crane games, air hockey, etc... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 18:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe the editors removing the inactive tags are doing it in good faith. They don't realize that active editors and an active project are different. I'm all for task forcing some of these projects, as long as we've got group support. By the way, my tagging of the Mortal Kombat project as inactive was reverted about a week ago, but there have been no edits to the project page or project talk page since then. Pagrashtak 15:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I just tagged Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Command & Conquer as inactive, as the talk page has not seen any use since June. Pagrashtak 21:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

In the past I've always removed inactive task forces from {{WPCVG Sidebar}}. No point directing users to inactive task forces. JACOPLANE • 2007-11-9 21:54

Here's another inactive project that could just be merged into this project: Wikipedia:WikiProject Pro Gaming. RobJ1981 00:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I feel like I'm treading through unsteady water. I just failed Silent Hill 4 and think that Silent Hill 2 needs to go through GAR. Meanwhile, Flash Focus is stewing around becauase I can't find any dev information. In order to be "broad in its coverage," (3a) a develompent section is ncessary, right? Can someone start picking through WP:VG/GA and delist or submit to WP:GAR the ones that do not have dev sections? From first sight, it looks like most of the Fire Emblem articles do not pass this... hbdragon88 23:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

There isn't a whole lot of information I could find on the matter. It appears to be particularly difficult for SH4 as it wasn't even made a Silent Hill game until the last minute, limiting the publicity it got. If I had found development information I would have included it.

On the subject of that GA failing, nor could I find info on how many copies were sold. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 00:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Information on development and copies sold can be difficult to come by. I'd argue that a development section would be necessary in order for an article to hit FA status, but not necessarily for GA status. GA just means the article is in good shape, but FAs are those articles we want to promote for all the world to see. In that case, I'd expect there to be a lot of information about the subject, which means that it needs to meet a higher notability bar than lower-status articles. Same with sales and critical-reception information - those items are important in a Featured Article. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe both SH2 and SH4 should go to GAR. SH2 got a OR tag a while ago and the plot looks a bit long. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 00:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the reviewer for Big Rigs noted that 3a "needs improvement" because I couldn't answer why Stellar Stone decided to make such a poor game. Since then, and since nobody objected when I stated that one of the reasons Super Princess Peach was not GA-worthy during its GAR (one person even agreed), I've been under the impression that no development section != GA quality.

Ashnard was in strong disagreement when I failed Marth (Fire Emblem), but this precedent seems more firmly established, with Princess Peach, Aeris, and that Sepy guy from FFVII all demoted. Black Marsh, a fictional element in a game, was too demoted due to a lack of real-world information. hbdragon88 01:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The articles in question, however, are games which contain more than just overblown plot summaries --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 02:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I might be crazy, but I consider development in some form as necessary as gameplay or reception to make an article well rounded. It completes a cycle of before, during, and after the the topic in question (development, gameplay, and reception respectively), completing the package for the reader. It is a significant sign of working to make an article "good" for reviewers (bad diction in my opinion though); an average reader can now go deeper into a game and find out of universe research that catalogs the creation and production of a game. This is something I have come to expect from a quality article; as a reader of VG articles, I tend to learn the most new info from a development section. They're not easy or fun, but they're important.

If a game really has no development info, any other out of universe info about the game seems to help (patches, re-release, legacy, merchandise whatever can be dug up). I'd like to think our expectations of out-of-universe information in quality articles puts us a step above a random blog that can write about gameplay and story with a link to Game Rankings, and instead makes us able to produce a quality encyclopedia.--Clyde (talk) 02:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I have faith in User: David Fuchs and User: The Rambling Man for their GA reviews of the Fire Emblem articles. I must point out that I questioned Hbdragon88's review, but didn't express strong opposition. I want to let you know that the "Development" information for the Fire Emblem articles simply cannot be found. I've said this before, but this doesn't stop the articles from being broad, it just stops them from being comprehensive. Please remember that they're still broad in their coverage; all factors of information that are available are covered well. I appreciate that, under their present condition, none could achieve FA, but they cover each of the GA criteria sufficiently. I'd also like to inform you that the Fire Emblem articles aren't the only GAs without a development section. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 07:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Development sections are necessary if there is information on development available somewhere in the universe, as Ashnard said. But if there is nothing, you could probably get away with it. Better safe then sorry, though. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 08:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Incoming has today achieved GA without a "Development" section (reviewed by User: Canadian Paul). As Dihydrogen Monoxide said, it is preferred, but I highly doubt that it's a necessity. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 17:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I only just noticed this discussion, but as the person who wrote Incoming, I'll say the reason there isn't a development section is because there wasn't any information on the subject available to me due to the age of the game. Una Laguna^Talk 06:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

We all must remember that saying about the chain and the weak link. If someone believes an article to be GA without a dev section, it will pass. If not, it won't. The reviewer has much power in the initial process.--Clyde (talk) 21:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ashnard, The statment about Fire Embelm wasnot intended to be an exhuastive list of GAs without development sections; I was just saying, if the CVG's guidelines say it so, then we should make sure all WP:VG/GA follow the same pattern. It just seems very unprofessional to have two sets of standards. It seems that it is split on whether they ought to be absolutley required or not. hbdragon88 21:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

In that case I say no, it shouldn't be an absolute, but highly (emphasis) recommended if possible. — H₂O —  08:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you direct me to the CVG guideline that says that games must have development sections? Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 13:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, checking, they're aren't -- there's a suggestion that a development/history section in article organization but no requirement.

However, I think its completely reasonable that in addition to a reception section, a development section helps to establish the notability of a video game if one can be provided. Again, this may not be possible for all games, but it helps to strength an article, and if the information is readily available (say, any post-2000 video game) then a lack of one is questionable in its broadness of coverage. --MASEM 13:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

If you doubt my claims that the "Development" information cannot be found, then you can always try lookinh yourself—maybe I'm missing something. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 13:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not doubting you. Best I can tell there aren't any. Mind you, I believe we should strength the statement for VG article guidelines that a good VG article should include, if reasonable, a development section and a reception section to establish the work outside of it being a video game, but this cannot be a requirement as not every notable video game is going to have readily-found resources to describe its development. --MASEM 15:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Then why don't we just be bold and fold them in as task forces? David Fuchs ^(talk) 18:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The article is up for FA here, and so far so good but I need some fresh, good editing eyes to help copyedit the text as per suggested by the most recent comment. Thanks. --MASEM 23:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do tomorrow from what was said in the FAC. Bit too tired now, but I'll definitely help. Crimsonfox 23:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. there is a game I used to play in school about 15 years ago and I cant remember the name of it. It had graphics, but you had to type in commands (get the book, move left, etc.). All I remember from it is that it began in a jail cell and you had to break out of it. The cell had a bed, a shelf with books, and a window that you escaped out of. There was also a gulch at one point where you had to run to jump over. Does anyone remember this game? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.203.245.146 (talk) 03:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

What system was this on? Miremare 22:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Since he played it in school, I'm assuming it's a PC game, perhaps DOS-based, given the time (1992). Pagrashtak 14:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You might try asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing instead. Pagrashtak 14:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me if the question's been asked before, but I've noticed that none of the first person shooter articles around have actual comprehensive detail of the maps in that game – often it's just a short summary of the most popular maps, if any at all.

I then proceeded to try and create List of Battlefield 2 maps, only to discover it had been deleted almost a year ago.

Is there a reason for this?

Thanks. Aitsukai 13:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes there is a reason. it's to keep articles to an encyclopaedic standard and not get them filled up with lots of intricate information that would be useless to the average person in the street. This link Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Scope of information might help. - X201 13:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Counter-Strike maps (2nd nomination), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/archive19#Should links to Maps for video games be allowed?, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Counter-Strike maps, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Individual Counter-Strike maps for some prior discussions. JACOPLANE • 2007-10-30 13:55

A few people say a list of playable characters should be on the article, and others say it shouldn't. See that talk page for the discussion. RobJ1981 15:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

MOHA is being reviewed for GA. I thought it was good enough for nomination and nominated it ages ago. It has just been reviewed and there is info at the talk page. I addressed all the minor stuff, but I'm not really dedicated enough to fix the other stuff. The article needs some people to address the GA issues. Good luck! --Simpsons fan 66 04:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You should be prepared to address points yourself on an article if you nominate it for GA. I really haven't got time to help right now; sorry. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 13:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to give the heads up, as the AFD result is merge. The debate closed a few weeks ago. The talk page has activity, but I'm not so sure how much merging (if any) has happened. The note on the top says the list can be re-nominated if the merger isn't done promptly. RobJ1981 13:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

How about a Weekly Collaboration on a single video game article? Would help make select articles better faster. I would select the more prominent and important/influencing games such as the GTA series or Halo, etc. --Crash Underride 17:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That existed in the past, see WP:GCOTW. A list of previous collaborations can be found at Wikipedia:Gaming Collaboration of the week/History. JACOPLANE • 2007-11-1 18:22

GCOTW died out, eventually. One of the reasons for that, I guess (not know) is that many of the editors at WP:VG are primarily interested in one topic within video gaming, and not just any random article. User:Krator (t c) 19:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The main reason it died out is that User:Thunderbrand and me stopped updating the process, and nobody else stepped up to the plate. I've said this before, but if somebody wants to revive the GCOTW, feel free to, the instructions are @ Wikipedia:Gaming Collaboration of the week/Update guide. I'll help out if needed, but I haven't got the time to consistantly update every week. JACOPLANE • 2007-11-1 19:43

I can help with the maintenance if someone is serious about promotion and activity. I used to prune nominations occasionally in the past. Pagrashtak 19:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Krator is right, GCOTWs only attracted a tiny audience, because no one was attracted to improving and writing articles outside their sphere of knowledge and interest. It's pointless for big name games like GTA and Halo, as to make any enduring changes, you need a dedicated team working for more than one week to make any sweeping changes. It's better for new articles and stubs, where people can instantly improve the article by uploading cover art, adding infoboxes and sourcing reviews and gameplay content. - hahnchen 21:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to problem solving, the project is always the place to come, but GCOTW is about article building. Unless the contributor has actually played the game long enough to have a good idea of the game itself, building said articles is joyless donkey-work filling out the infobox and citing, coupled with gawping at several sources trying to get a feel for what should actually be in the article. It's like cramming for a test you'll never sit, and chances are someone else will fill out the sections you've been poring over before you have a chance. If and when contributors feel like editing for editing's sake, they can pick a random stub or beetle over someone's contributions and patch up an article they've been working on to help it along.Someone another 23:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I said before that I typically only edited in my sphere of influence; that's still true to an extent, but I've been randomizing my articles more (I've nver played Frogger: Helmet Chaso, Flash Focus, or Blender Bros. before, for instance, and Project Titan was also somewhat random). However, I still wouldn't join GCOTW. Part of why I like it is because of its randomness. hbdragon88 01:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

There's two ways we can approach GCOTW:

- We can take active articles that are just close to GA and/or FA quality, and help with editors to improve the article: copyediting text, prose flow, other suggestions (none which does not require game knowledge) and then also help with identifying where and finding those last tidbits of information to nail the broadness of the article (eg the history/development/reception sections). This will help bring more VG articles to FA status and provide more examples for other editors to use to build articles.

- We can take semi-inactive articles that are start or B class but better than Low for importance, and work to build it up to at least GA, maybe FA (but that's a lot of work). Unfortunately, this route takes people more knowledgeable and dedicated to the subject, which may be harder to find. However, this will help to build up articles that are deemed important but have otherwise been lacking.

The first option gives more routes for inclusion by any interested VG editor but feels just a bit like a large scale peer review, but I think that's how you keep such interest alive. Maybe the second type is a different group collaboration and not so much on a weekly scale but on a month so that we don't let key VG articles linger without improvements. --MASEM 05:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Masem, you stole my idea. I was going to suggest that a "committee" work on improving articles based on their priority level as well as their quality level. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I like Masem's idea. I think one issue is the "week" element - why not GCOTF (a la WP:ACOTF) or GCOTM - that would give more time for interested editors to improve articles, and more time to nominate and gather votes. — H₂O —  10:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think option A of Masem's plan would be perfect: helping with things that don't necessarily involve detailed knowledge of the game, but rather knowledge of Wikipedia; there are many editors who know what they're writing about, but not all the conventions used in Wikipedia, and if we'd help with that, I'm sure we'd end up with a lot more high quality articles. It also avoids the "only edit in the sphere of interest" problem. --VPeric 11:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Just chipping in to say that I'll help out when it's up and running again. I'd like Masem's option A, with an option B every once in a while as a change of scenery. - X201 12:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Maesem's idea is really nice. Peer review seems kind of dead, too; Alessa Gillespie went up for VG Review on 3 August, failed GA on 26 August...and finally got its first comment on 4 October. Two months is a lot of wikitime. Maybe GCOTW is something we need (stares at the stagnant Flash Focus). hbdragon88 18:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Given that people seem to be keen on my ideas, let me expand more.

• For option A: What currently is GCOTW should remain as such. Users are encouraged to contribute games to a list - however, preference should be given to articles that are B class already or better (thus encouraging more at the assessment department), and the current page editors (including the person submitting it) should be actively involved when the article is up for collaboration; this basically should be an active discussion between the key page editors (that know the information) and those of us that know what good articles on WP and on VGs are and can offer suggestions. Articles should be reasonably built; this aspect of the collaboration is not to write the article for people, but more of an aggressive peer review: within the week (on the dot) the goal is to get the article up to GA status, possibly to FA and if that's not possible at least identifying areas that the page editors can seek out to improve. To that end, I suggest that each such collaboration should have a separate discussion page and possibly other template info, such that after the collaboration is over, one can see what was suggested, what the page originally looked like, and what it looked like after the collaboration; additional templates or modification of existing templates can be made to allow editors to refer back to this. D

• Option B: We take the assessment list, and start with all High importance articles that are less than GA quality; order would be decided by an informal vote and the target of the article should be clear. Same sort of process here in that we have a separate talk page and track before and after aspects, but we should also create a to-do list for the selected article such that if the collaboration ends and the article is still missing stuff, there's a least a targetted list that inspired editors should go after. Assuming that the collaborate should be able to get it to GA-level, one editor should volunteer to usher the article through GA and FA is possible. The timing of this one should be longer, and possibly there could be multiple ones of these going on (but no more than 2 or 3).

Again, we're not stopping anyone inspired to go off and edit these themselves, but we want to make all of the VG articles top notch quality and work with those knowledgeable on the specific game or game aspect to make these high quality articles. We also want to make this more than just a glorified peer review - if one finds bad grammar, they shouldn't just mention it but go in and fix it, for example. Also, I recommend that unless we know we can establish notability we should "Characters in" or other such articles about specific game universes unless there is really strong just-cause. --MASEM 05:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, don't keelhaul me here, but can I ask if the current system for logging deletions is actually worth it? The list never represents the real volume of VG related deletions, and I don't add them myself since it seems like such a faff on.

Would it actually harm the project if we just had an area to throw internal links to VG related AFDs/Prods/CFDs etc and removed them once they were done? That'd mean moving away from cataloging but towards actually letting project members know, at a glance, what's going on.

As with the GCOTW discussion above, the project's strength (to me) and priorities lie with our own individual tastes in games but with a common interest in discussing problems as they arise and dealing with things as they pop up. Being able to let other project members know where the deletion discussions are without jumping through hoops seems like a win-win. Someone another 23:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

We just need a category for video games in WP deletion sorting, this will make the whole process way more effective, and allow all the twinkle deletors to choose "video games" immediately as a cat. User:Krator (t c) 11:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI: Article has been nommed for deletion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tonka Rescue Patrol#Tonka Rescue Patrol if anyone's keen on establishing notability. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 00:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

There is some unnessacary harsh attitude going on there about adding the category "Nintendo DS games". I've created a topic on the talk page to discuss, but I would really apprecitate a third party or two to help sort out this matter. If you want to know what's been happening, check the history of the article, the discussion has been going on there between two editors (which was really not the place for it). I appreciate any and all help. Zemalia 15:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

In short it's the "Game system X only" category dispute again. - X201 16:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunatly... its getting a bit out of hand though. Zemalia 16:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I came across Category:Genre hybrid games the other day, and I was wondering if it's too broad of a category? Many RPGs are action and RPG, Mario sports games blend sports and action, Super Paper Mario has RPG and platform aspects and so on. RobJ1981 23:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Nowadays, almost every game is a combination of multiple genres (adding RPG elements to everything is popular, for example), making them all "genre hybrid" games. As such, I think the category should be deleted. --VPeric 11:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I put it in CFD, if anyone wants to comment. Here's the page: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 13#Category:Genre hybrid games.RobJ1981 18:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I've probably helped quite a few people but also frustrated quite a few people with my attitude, and for that I am sorry. I hope that you all continue editing Wikipedia and enjoy doing so, and keep up the good work. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

:( You will be missed, I'm sure. We never interacted directly, but I always saw you as an excellent editor. — H₂O —  05:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

*sighs* Ah, man, ALTTP, not you too (after Thunderbrand, Deckiller, missing a few others). Who else will create the lists of fancruft that I like to spin through to delete? (e.g. I sent three Destroy All Humans! character articles at Orthopox 13‎ deleted) hbdragon88 08:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, we've never really seen eye-to-eye, but I've always respected you as a decent editor. This Wikiproject will be worse off without you. Bye.Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 09:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Second what Ashnard said - and Wikipedia would be a boring place if we all saw eye-to-eye anyway. Hope you decide to come back sometime, Link. Miremare 15:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

*Salutes* You will be missed. Thanks for your contributions, and I hope that some time in the future you decide to continue your work. Una Laguna^Talk 20:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC) User:Krator (t c) 23:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

*sigh* This wikiproject is like a giant tetris game, and another bottom row just disappeared.--Clyde (talk) 23:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Your metaphor...can be disturbing. It implies that the VG project was about to face its game over, and only ATLLP's leaving prevented it from happening. hbdragon88 06:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You misinterpret how far I intended to go with it. Think more of the structure and physics. This project is a huge dynamic structure. Core members make up the lower rows and when they leave other newer people must fall in to take their place. Its a sad circle. That's all I meant by it. CM (talk) 04:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I previewed Ratchet & Clank: Up Your Arsenal and made a few edits. I would like if another member or two also previewed the article to make sure all is in order there. Aquzenn 01:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's yet another article hanging on the edge because of wikilawyering. I'm sure most of you know that the Pokemon are currently being merged to lists (though the process is sort of dead for some reason). Bulbasaur is being held up due to essentially one user refusing to accept that the article is not up to standards. It fails WP:FICT, and it's only assertion of popularity is shared by eleven other Pokemon, so there isn't even a possibility for improvement. There are currently some sources that pretend to assert notability, but they fall quite short. Anyways, we just need a quick number consensus, so if a few people could comment here, that would be appreciated. TTN 20:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

{{Scores VG}} – old discussion

I've archived the old discussion, as it was mostly hammering out the template particulars, but I'd like to restart the discussion on this template in general. Pagrashtak 15:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Addition: Outside of testing this template in one or two articles, please do not use this in the article namespace until we have reached a decision on its use or finalized the template. Pagrashtak 17:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

(Testing it) Looks cool, and it certainly saves a fair amount of time. What about publications that aren't coded in, are those taken care of by the revs? David Fuchs ^(talk) 16:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it certainly saves space: [1] But what about Electronic Gaming Monthly? Or does that go with 1UP? David Fuchs ^(talk) 16:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, is there any particular reason it has to be that shade of purple too? It's kinda distracting... :P David Fuchs ^(talk) 16:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there rev1–8 parameters for other reviews. An example is on User:Crimsonfox's page as "Unknown Magazine 100 out of 100".
Also, I know this is a minor detail, but is there a way to add some padding around the table so it isn't right next to the text of the article? Mainly for aesthetics and consistency; images, and the current review score tables have that. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC))

Didn't see that, added in a slight margin. David Fuchs ^(talk) 17:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Augh, please be to not. There's no reason to put a bunch of arbitrary numbers in a big ugly table. We can summarize the reviews in prose in the article body itself quite effectively. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

True, the review can be summarized in prose and that is the normal practice in many video game articles. However, the review scores also provide supplementary information to the overall reception of the games. They also help to provide a quick overview of the critical reception. Besides, I don't see how the numbers are arbitrary. They provide an overall subjective score to a game provided by an independent reviewer. I think the table is a good idea and standardizing it via a template is an even better idea. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC))

How are arbitrary, contextless numbers useful supplementary information? We don't do this for books or movies, and we only do it for albums for a couple well-recognized sources. No, no, a thousand times no. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

May I ask how the review scores are "arbitary, contextless numbers"? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 05:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC))

The colors need to be toned down. We should have a one-color maximum, not counting shades of grey. Personally, I prefer all grey. Pagrashtak 19:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

How about now? I made it closer to grey, while still keeping a slight tint. David Fuchs ^(talk) 19:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It might be my monitor but that looks nearer to green than grey. Additional not that I'm saying there's anything wrong with the colour - just saying that it's not grey. The green dosen't look too bad. - X201 19:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It's slightly green because the tint for the publication-score is a slight green-grey, it's just lighter so you don't notice as much. David Fuchs ^(talk) 19:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The template is so wrong. It has a whole list of reviewers that people will have to look up codes for when they use this table. So for each row, users must give an attribute for publication, an attribute for score and also a reference. So why have we got this template again? And why the colours? Take a look at some featured articles, such as Devil May Cry, Age of Mythology and Perfect Dark. They all use the same colours, and they're not the ones you've just picked. - hahnchen 01:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Because it reduces the amount of code by roughly 1/2, and would standardize the appearance of the tables across games. David Fuchs ^(talk) 02:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's no harder to use than a template like the ArticleHistory for talk pages. Besides, it's not like people have to use it. They could just as easily use the wikitables that have been used for review scores. Some other editor could came by and update the table much like the reflist template has been done with the div tags on the references tag. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 05:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC))

You should get rid of the list of review sources, and leave the thing dynamic. You should stick with the colours used in other score boxes. - hahnchen 18:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Dynamic how? Can you eloborate? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC))

As in, remove the preset variables, and let the editor do the formatting. - hahnchen 19:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You mean like the unnamed rev 1-8 parameters, but just have more? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC))

User:Thumperward/infobox CVG – old discussion

I'm restarting the discussion on changes to {{Infobox CVG}}. The old discussion ended with the feeling that the infobox code could be updated, but only for technical matters. Tomwhite56 raised concerns about the width of the template. Please copy over any relevant comments or examples if needed. Pagrashtak 17:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

My only beef is with the color; it stands out a bit too much, especially now that it's duplicated over to reviews. David Fuchs ^(talk) 19:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, in a mad spitting case of BRDitis, I changed the CVG character/infobox articles to match the color scheme of the reviews. Death to purple (until someone reverts me). David Fuchs ^(talk) 00:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, I hate the two-color approach. Pagrashtak 00:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

God damn no. Revert please. There was some discussion earlier about revamping the thing altogether, but we've used different colors before and always found them pointless. - hahnchen 00:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm confused. Do you want the template to match up with the books, films, etc infoboxes? David Fuchs ^(talk) 01:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

No, not really. But if all you want to change are the colours, then don't bother. Changing it to the style of the film infobox is not something I'd endorse, but I wouldn't oppose it either. - hahnchen 18:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Then what is the point of arguing against an edit if you don't have an alternative? David Fuchs ^(talk) 01:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Are we all agreed about adopting the new code? If so change the code, keep the present colours/layout and we can argue about them separately. - X201 09:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we all agreed the new guts were better, but I'm unconfortable changing such a template. Someone who knows what they're doing should do that. David Fuchs ^(talk) 21:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Since when was "knowing what you're doing" a requirement for WP? - X201 09:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've mangled enough templates in my day, I'd rather not try it on one I didn't create and have very little knowledge of the changes being implemented. David Fuchs ^(talk) 12:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so it was pretty much like the old one so I swapped them. One issue though; the caption seems mandatory (if you look at Halo 2). David Fuchs ^(talk) 12:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

May I edit it? I would be able to implement the proposed code changes whilst keeping the appearance as per the consensus, and fixing the bug that causes the caption to be required. -- DatRoot 13:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't be the only one who thinks the colour scheme is horrible. Can we at least have it in a grey like Template:Infobox film, rather than that absolutely horrible watered down puke-green? -- Sabre 14:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The consensus was to keep the appearance the same for the moment, but to implement Chris Cunningham's changes to clean up the code. I don't know where Chris is at the moment, but I'm pretty sure I've managed it, at User:DatRoot/Infobox VG. I've kept what were required fields required, as there didn't seem to be consensus to change those, and I've added MrStalker's request to change the default width from 23em to 256px. -- DatRoot 14:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

One thing that has confused me about this whole discussion: Where is there purple? The old version uses blue (#ccf). Also, the new version uses a shade just on the blue side of cyan, not "puke green". I've also left an {{editprotected}} request on the template's talk page to fix the {{{caption}}} issue. Anomie 14:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of that, can we please not muck around with the template until everything's been hammered out? Pagrashtak 15:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. Why has its appearance been changed to the (apparently rejected by consensus) new grey version with no discussion or reason provided? I endorse Datroot's new version, though I also quite liked David Fuchs' previous colour-change too... death to the purpley-blue! Miremare 16:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ditto, it looks bloody terrible, like a plastic tombstone with a garish cover instead of a photo. >,< Having multiple fields with text in floating around in there without the dividing lines makes it a pig to read.Someone another 18:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Currently I'm a bit "Ooh no" about the changes, but that may just be my reaction to anything new playing up again. The grey-beige cover may not appear to provide issues with box art such as that at Half-Life 2, but it looks seriously bad at Star Wars Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast. Something like what Daroot's come up with would be good as the white-on-grey problem is much less noticeable. Una Laguna^Talk 18:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't the best solution be to just not use cover art that has a white background? JACOPLANE • 2007-11-9 19:01

Ssh! Una Laguna^Talk 19:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorely tempted to revert the thing back until we have a actual working copy (I had to fix two mistakes in the new version) that has general agreement. Pagrashtak 19:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I put in DatRoot's version, but what I think most people are missing is that it makes much more sense to have an infobox that matches all the other infoboxes for films, music, and books, rather than our own which is somewhat garish and stands out more than it should. David Fuchs ^(talk) 21:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If the code matches with the exception of the template class, this can be fixed at a project level in the future without further intervention. I'm happy that the code, at least, is consistent with other modern infoboxen now. Too many members of the project are attached to the table-tastic look to make this worth fighting right now. Chris Cunningham 10:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I was looking over the film infobox and would like to propose some minor changes to some wording and a new column. I personally dislike the way that the current way of simply using singular style on wording on developer, publisher and particularly designer, as there can and in many cases often is more than one. However, there seems to be some opposition to simply sticking (s) on the end. So, I'd propose changing the wording to "developed by", "published by" and "designed by", thereby happily accomodating both singular and plural forms without implying either only one or many. In addition, I'd also like to see a music composition column, as music is becoming increasingly important to the games and the career progression of the composers. A sandbox of the changes is here, but I'll warn you now that my ability to edit these things isn't brilliant and so the music column may not be properly implemented, so can someone who knows what they are doing look at it.

The article Fiolina Germi has been nominated for deletion (here) on grounds of non-notability, but looking at the article, it seems to be one of many, many such articles on characters from this series. Here's the relevant template:

I can't bring myself to look at every one of these, but having viewed a selection, I'd be surprised if any of them meet notability requirements. There seems little point just nominating (or indeed deleting) one of them and leaving the rest, so what's to be done? Someone on the AfD discussion suggests withdrawing and taking it to the King of Fighters talk page, but unless a merge is what's intended (and would that solve anything?) there seems little point. A massive all-encompasing AfD perhaps, though those don't tend to go down too well... Any ideas? Miremare 19:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

How about merging them into a character list? Pagrashtak 19:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Read my mind Pagrashtak. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC))

Is that going to affect notability? I have no idea about this series or the sources likely available, so I can't really offer an opinion on that right away, but it seems unlikely in theory that merging all these would result in an article that asserts notability. Miremare 19:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

They should just be redirected to the main article. With a series like this, there is no real reason to give specific coverage to the characters. They are not special, and they are just new ones created in each new installment. Their details can be covered in the single game articles, and a general section can be placed in the main article. TTN 19:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Surely a list of King of Fighters characters does not violate any of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Notability can be established with enough reliable third party sources on the characters. Consolidating all the characters into a single character list will pool whatever available sources to help establish notability. Truthfully though, I don't know what the amount of available sources is. I also must admit that all the articles as they are now don't qualify as articles. But I believe that trimming the excessive in-game content away and merging them together can create a respectable list. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC))

Even if TTN is right (he might be, I've only looked at the AFD article, really, so I can't say), merging into a character list would be a good first step. When the list is done, it can be merged into the game article if need be. Pagrashtak 20:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Most of those do not appear to maintain enough notability on their own, but a couple of categorized lists may make a good alternative.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 00:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that Angel (The King of Fighters) and May Lee (The King of Fighters) are both GAs. Also, many of the articles don't work for a merge because The King of Fighters is a crossover series, with most characters having either started in the Fatal Fury series, Art of Fighting series, or something entirely different (such as Athena Asamiya's first game being Psycho Soldier); some characters have been in over twenty games, including other crossover games such as Neo Geo Battle Coliseum and the SNK vs. Capcom series. Even if a list is created, the majority of characters would need stand-alone articles regardless.--72.204.47.232 18:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

If they are GA, then they don't need to be merged. Just because they are in a crossover series doesn't mean they can't be still categorized by multiple series. That can be stipulated in the list lead paragraph. The characters could even be divided by their original series. Unfortunately, even though a list would limit the amount of character information and images used, if that information in the original article is limited to only a character description and/or list of appearances, that doesn't meet the requirement for out-of-universe content.
Some characters could probably stand on their own, but without the sources to provide real world content they'll need to be merged. Merging the separate articles is a way to pool resources to find out if they can stand on their own. Like in the merging of the Kingdom Hearts characters; turned out there was enough content to get the Organization XIII characters article up to GA. (Guyinblack25 ^talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I rethought my opinion. While I do believe that most, if not all of the characters deserve their own articles, what we have now is crap. I think cleanup would be best, but maybe it would be alright to just merge them all and recreate individual articles later. However, the current list really isn't set up to take a merge.--72.204.45.94 07:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't give undue consideration to the fact that some of these are GA's - remember that there were Pokemon FA's that no longer exist because they didn't meet notability requirements. Angel (The King of Fighters) and May Lee (The King of Fighters) may be GA's but still aren't sourced well enough prove notability. Miremare 15:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Just so anyone who may be interested is made aware, I have just tagged a myriad of Xenosaga articles for WP:OR WP:SYNTH and various WP:MOS issues such as in-universe writing and gameguide style.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 00:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw, and thanks, I've been meaning to get to it. Also, I was wondering if anyone could create an in-universe character template infobox for the series since I'm not too good with them. If not, I guess I can try in a bit. I'm currently looking for help with improving the articles if anyone is interested. ^.~ Zemalia 00:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I've thought things over a bit and I'm sure you've noticed Tcaudilllg's fairly "spirited" attitude. I'm thinking that the best way to deal with that situation is to do so per WP:NOFEED. So, in the interest of making everyone's life a little easier I'd say it would be best to let him get bored and leave before any of the OR gets taken away.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 01:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't had any trouble with him so far and I hate to turn people off from contributing to making Wikipedia better. Working with people calmly is better than plain ignoring, IMO. He probably just hasn't been taught right. Zemalia 01:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

GameFAQs has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Life, Liberty, Property 11:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

And that's getting shot down fast, apparently. 216.37.86.10 15:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I recently put StarCraft: Brood War through assessment just to see what needs doing in order to get it to good article status. However, one issue put forward by the assessor is cutting back the plot details some more. I'd like someone - preferably without substantive experience of StarCraft and thereby unbiased - to go through the plot section of StarCraft: Brood War#Plot and try to get each episode section down to a couple of sentences in a similar style to StarCraft#Plot. Another editor and I cut the plot back somewhat substantively before putting the article into assessment and although I know it can be cut down further still to meet requirements, I can't see what to cut down. -- Sabre 15:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

There definitely are plenty of character articles that do not need to exist (see the above King of Fighters section for just one example). Is anyone here interested in creating a sub-page or something here, so we can list something like Category:Nintendo characters, and go through it to see which characters need articles? Or we can try some other method if someone can think of one. I just don't want to have to come here every single time I run into a consensus wikilawyer. TTN 17:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You are definitely right in that the number of non-notable single character articles that exist in this Project is too large. If you can be patient with us, we could try to proactively go through the character articles and merge then appropriately before they reach AfD. Something of this scale might require a task force. Of course TTN's idea of a character subpage/department is another viable option. Something else that may need to be ironed out is that WP:CVG/GL doesn't mention anything about guidelines for character articles, perhaps it's time to organize some. Any other ideas? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC))

That's what I've been doing over the last few months, but the number of people that oppose with totally invalid arguments and establish that numbers are more important than policies and guidelines are constantly increasing. That's why it would be good to have just a quick page where a complete category is laid out, and people can comment on which articles need to stay. After a week or two, the ones that received no attention can just be merged/redirected immediately, while others can have merge tags placed if the discussion was split, and the rest can be kept. That way, we avoid needless AfDs and needless explanations of why we need to follow WP:FICT, and they'll have a consensus behind them. TTN 18:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think having some established guidelines used by the WP:VG will help to quiet invalid arguments and help with the fixing of current articles as well as standardize both current and future articles. Like you said, there is a needless amount of VG character articles going to AfD, it's more work for everyone. We need to get to the root of the problem which I think a set of guidelines will do. With those set, going through all the articles will be easier instead of being a popularity contest of favorite characters. What do you think? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC))

What about something like a videogame characters task force, or even a subproject. I bet it would lay off a lot of work on the main project and I'd definately be interested in helping out. Zemalia 18:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, TTN, you're suggesting a page where people may nominate a list or category of articles, which can then be reviewed by other editors to judge whether each should remain on WP or not? If so, I agree it could be a useful pre-AfD process, especually for large numbers of related articles - however we don't need to restrict it to characters; there are other categories, like Category:Video game weapons, that would benefit equally well, and even individual articles could be submitted as an easy way of judging consensus without the bother of going down the "official" route unecessarily. Miremare 19:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You'd have my support for a "gamecruft cleanup squad" task force. User:Krator (t c) 21:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

A cleanup task force would be good, there is a lot that can be merged or transwikied. A "deletion blitz" task force that just mass-redirects without really trying to merge would be not so good. I hope the first doesn't turn into the second, but I don't have very high hopes. Anomie 01:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that such a task force also look at other fictional aspects of VGs besides characters, setting being the next obvious one, but I'm sure there's others. Characters are easiest since merging can be done easily, but I think a general look at any article that goes into details beyond the video game needs to be examined along the same lines. --MASEM 01:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems that a task force of some kind is the preferred solution to dealing with this. Perhaps details about the scope of the task force and standard practices they should followed should be discussed before any action is taken. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC))

The best thing usually is for someone to go ahead and implement a proposal, and then we can discuss the specifics. If we spend a lot of time discussing before getting anything done, it doesn't usually get done at all. That's the approach I took when I set up the Assessment page, just created the page and then proposed it to the Project. I think something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Cleanup is probably a good location. JACOPLANE • 2007-11-9 15:27

The work done by such a task force would be quite tedious, seeing that in order to determine a character's notability a process to see if there is enough out of universe information out there should be done first, if a character has enough out ouf universe information to develop "Development" and "Reception" sections then its capable of becoming a encyclopedic article and should not be deleted, and even that should be handled depending on the situation you would be surprise to see how little development information the Arbiter (Halo) has available being a undoubtly notable character. - Caribbean~H.Q. 15:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That's stuff that we'll have to iron out. Like applying Wikipedia's definition of notable to the article, and making sure they have the necessary sections and not too much unnecessary content. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC))

Regarding tedious work, it wouldn't be the task force's responsiblility to find sources for everything - it's the responsibity of the editors adding information to source it. Otherwise we run the risk of people writing unsourced character articles and then dumping them on us to reference them. If something's unsourced, or sourced but crufty, we should simply remove it. Miremare 17:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

True. Other duties could include adding fact or original research tags to content, or something along those lines. I'll add a section in the test page to help establish what the task force's purpose is not. (Guyinblack25 ^talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I started a test page in my sandbox of what a department/task force page could be like. I'll be making some tweaks here and there to get the point across better. I based it on the Video game assessment department. Right now it's barebones, so feedback would be appreciated. Once it looks close enough, we can create the actual page and edit it there. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC))

A point about characters: Why is (to take the above example) a character like Arbiter (Halo) notable? It's a character in a massive series, but there are no independent sources cited other than reviews of the game, which don't provide significant coverage of the character itself. We don't decide what characters are notable on the basis of what games they've been in, and "this is a notable character so there must be sources" is a fallacy - the sources come first and provide the notability, not the other way around. As the article stands, it fails WP:N / WP:FICT. Miremare 17:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Then take it to AfD. I suspect it'll end up much like the one for Cortana. David Fuchs ^(talk) 01:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say that that sizeable reception section, along with the tidbits in the character design section, establish notability fairly securely. A bit of prose cleanup is perhaps in order, but naturally, that's not a deletion reasoning. Anyhow, this proposal seems to be a constructive and interesting endeavor. I would be happy to join. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The term "real world notability" is thrown around too often, yet nobody seems to agree on what satisfies this. The process of which fictional characters are deemed notable is so random and opinionated it makes me sick. I don't think any culling of articles should be done until we are very clear on what satisfies criteria. What kind sources are we wanting here? I want specific examples.--SeizureDog 02:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

For video game characters, notability is most likely to be established by interviews with developers on how characters were developed, the influences of the design, and, in some cases, critical reaction to the characters if appropriate. Theses will come from reliable sources (not blogs, not forums, not personal web pages). Because of these level of requirement, there is likely very few individual VG character articles that can stand alone, though grouped into lists can provide the notability of all the characters in the game/series. Characters of Final Fantasy VIII is generally agreed to be a very strong VG character article that well demonstrates notability (even though there is a lot of in-universe referencing, citing the dialog of the text) through interviews with the game producers and the like.

Remember that notability is a guideline for inclusion, regardless of fictional work, and defined concisely for WP as "coverage in reliable secondary sources". While a flexible definition, it's a better line that a personal, subjective opinion that had existed prior to that guidelines establishment. --MASEM 02:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

(damn edit conflict! Reply to David Fuchs/Sephiroth BCR): Well, this should be exactly the kind of thing we'd be dealing with with this task force. The Cortana article has sufficient sources, and if an AfD is what it takes to get up to standard then that's what should be done. My gut instinct is that there are going to be a hell of a lot less sources for the Arbiter than for Cortana though. I reckon it's pretty much a perfect example of somthing that should be merged to a character list but will have people defending it to the hilt because "it's notable". I mean, it's all very well removing gamecruft from small articles about small games, but gamecruft from a massively popular series is still gamecruft, and non-notability is still non-notability. There's no reason to cut Halo or Mario or Final Fantasy or whatever any slack from the same policies and guidelines we would be enforcing on every other article. Miremare 02:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Coverage is coverage. There's enough there to justify notability (the design and reception sections specifically) in Arbiter (Halo), notwithstanding the fact he is featured in two of the most prominent games in recent history, as well as in various Halo novels and other material. I'm certainly not saying that we should make exceptions for articles, whether they belong to popular franchises or not, I'm simply saying that notability is established in this case. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Coverage is coverage, but it has to be "significant" coverage to establish notability. The "character design" and "reception" sections of Arbiter (Halo) were what I had in mind specifically, as these are likely the only areas where notability would be established, but is it? Look at the individual sources used:

• An interview with the voice actor apparently actually talking about a role in another game, Mass Effect.
• Halo concept art: not independent, so of course can't be used to establish notability.
• An article by Microsoft (not independent)
• Halo 2 review by Gamespot which bizarrely doesn't even mention the word "Arbiter".
• Halo 2 review by CVG which mentions the Arbiter once.
• Halo 2 review by yougamers.com the best of them, a paragraph.
• Halo 3 review by IGN a mention to say that his AI isn't very good.
• Halo 3 review by cinemablend.com mentions that the Arbiter isn't playable in Halo 3.

These are what are currently being used to claim notability, and they simply don't come close. None devotes more than a couple of sentences - the fact that game reviews mention characters in the game isn't unusual after all. As it stands, reception of the Arbiter as a playable character would be more in place in the Halo 2 article itself (if it's important enough to the game's reception in general), though as Halo 2's reception section doesn't make a single mention of him anyway, and judging by the quality of the available sources, it's probably not worth even doing that. I can see no reasons at all why it shouldn't be merged to Characters in the Halo series. Miremare 00:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Those are all good points on both sides, but details like these can be ironed out once the taskforce/project department/whatever it will be gets up and going. If there's no objection, I'll use what's currently on my sandbox to start a page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Cleanup per Jaco's suggestion. We can decide what exactly it'll be once it's created and move this discussion to its talk page. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC))

In response to Miremare: Caribb just added in a whole paragraph of info about the character gleaned from an MTV feature. And to make a point- you sound exactly like Jobjörn- not that that's bad, but what you're saying is exactly what he was saying at the AfD for Cortana. Just a few weeks ago he congratulated me and the other editors of the page for finally improving it to a level he never had expected. AfD's are not for cleaning up articles, even though that is occasionally the result. But for articles like Arbiter, etc., they only improve with dedicated effort from a handful of editors. There are plenty of Halo-related articles which shouldn't have their own pages- when I get to 343 Guilty Spark, for example, we'll see if he's better suited to a merge- but the fact is that video game articles in particular are hard to deal with, and it often takes a while for an article to show its notability. In short, bad articles can be good articles.

P.S. To Guyinblack: Sure, go ahead and create the page; we can hammer out the details there, no? David Fuchs ^(talk) 20:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The page has been started at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Cleanup and I've left some comments on the talk page to try and get things started. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC))

David: I hate to be picky, but the new MTV source gives the Arbiter no more coverage than any of the others, and indeed less than the yougamers one. Granted there are a few sources, but still none of them are offering significant coverage. Miremare 21:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Then I'm not going to argue. Take it to AfD if you think it's crap. David Fuchs ^(talk) 17:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say it was crap, I just questioned the significance of the subject's coverage in the sources used. The article itself seems pretty good. Miremare 21:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

What is the point? if Cortana survived in the status that it had back then this article in its current state will probably snowball, this seems pointless even to me and I am known to be a deletionist/mergist. The Arbiter is the third main character in the series behind Master Chief and Cortana, and the references in reception do discuss the character's involvement in the series, with all of the being reliable sources, the argument that some of they don't give the Arbiter an entire page is quite weak, these reviews only give as much coverage to the characters since they are reviewing the game's game play and replay value. We do have a entire article dicussing the character but you argue that its not a second party source wich is inaccurate, this review was performed by the staff of xbox.com wich is entirely independent of Bungie and were never involved in the development of these games while the studio was part of Microsoft, this source is not directly linked to the studio, and they reviewed the game after the release of the game, as a third party unrelated to Bungie's involvement with it. There is enough out of universe information here to warrant a article and we can still develop more including a "merchandise" section. If you want to take it to AFD do so but be forewarned that this can be easily perceived as trying to prove a point, wich as can be seen above appears to be quite unilateral. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Most AfDs are unilateral, but the fact is I'm talking to two people who edit the article in question (who can hardly be expected to be entirely impartial on the matter) - I might be a bit defensive myself if the notability of one of "my" articles were questioned (though I'd like to think I wouldn't, as I'm quite keen on the whole notability thing). The fact that Cortana survived was due, judging by the AfD, to a combination of weak arguments by "the prosecution" and apparent vote-counting by the closing admin (who didn't even comment on any of the arguments when closing) - there is no way the article should have survived in the state it was in at that time and this is the point I was originally making. If that article, with those sources, had been about a character in a less popular game, you can bet your mortgage it wouldn't exist right now, but it's from Halo, so obviously it's notable right? Don't get me wrong, Cortana now is well sourced, but this only highlights the inadequacies of Arbiter (Halo)'s sourcing, I mean, just compare the two reference sections. Realistically, if Arbiter were to be AfD'd, there's not a snowball's chance it would snowball, though you seem (just to prove my point) to be implying that it should, because it's Halo and therefore automatically notable. If you can improve the article, that's great, but everything has to prove notability with significant independent coverage whether it's from Halo or Game X, and Arbiter doesn't do that right now. You could write an article about any old game character by citing a bunch of reviews that mention him/her, but game reviews rarely prove notability for anything other than the game itself. Regarding xbox.com and Bungie, they were both (at the time) owned by Microsoft - a massive part of whose console strategy, incidentally, depends on the success of the Halo series. It may be reliable but is certainly not independent, and there's a clear conflict of interest. Miremare 21:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

We are pretty much going in circles here, if you want a neutral opinion why don't we ask the opinion of Deckiller he worked with with WP:FICT some time ago and hasn't been involved with the article, that's probably as good as it gets. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

And my point is that even if the Arbiter doesn't meet the criteria now, it's not blinkin' done yet! Cortana was only improved in the last month pretty much because I finally got around to it, and ditto for any of the other character articles shaping up at all if it weren't for Caribb. Slap cleanup or other tags if you really must, but we're working on it. David Fuchs ^(talk) 01:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No no, I'll leave you to it. I'm not determined to see it deleted or something, I'm just trying to make a point about character articles, and it was a convenient example having already been mentioned earlier in this discussion. I look forward to the article's progression. :) Cheers, Miremare 02:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Should we change {{General VG character}} and the character subboxes to mirror the changes made to Infobox CVG? JACOPLANE • 2007-11-9 15:31

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it" would be my opinion. David Fuchs carried out some colour changes to mirror Infobox VG, I don't personally think anything further is needed. -- Sabre 16:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I actually made the changes to mirror the new reviews infobox, but whenever the main infobox gets ironed out we'll prolly change it then. David Fuchs ^(talk) 21:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. JACOPLANE • 2007-11-11 00:52

Template:RuneScape Wikia Link is up for deletion, it's used solely in the RuneScape article. Note that Maple Story is using strategy wiki links in the same way - in the article body. I'm no expert on category/template issues so could some project members who are take a look and provide some guidance? TY. Someone another 19:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

When is it too much, that it falls under game guide content? Mushroom (Mario) is a big example of excessive detail. The item is indeed important, but I don't see why each and every mushroom should have a section. From the max mushroom item on the page: It is very rare and very expensive, but it is useful for some of the battles, particularly the final battle. Information like that, leans towards game guide in my view. However most of these item articles probably could be deleted because they are game guide content mainly. Category:Video game items and Category:Video game items seem to have many articles that are just being cluttered. RobJ1981 18:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm of a few minds about this. On one hand, the mushroom is probably one of the few items that could perhaps deserve its own article, but either way it's waaay too detailed and crufty right now. For items in multiple games (Hookshot (device)) it also makes more sense for an article. The majority? (I'm looking at you, Totemizer, and all the crap in that universe), should prolly go to afd or be merged. I myself will probably start with some Zork stuff. David Fuchs ^(talk) 20:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

We at gameXplore.com test and analyze video games and have done so since 2003. We write objectively about the contents of the games, and take in-game screenshots from the games that represent the games as they are. We have also published the book series The Book of Games Volume 1 We are the only company in the world that does not write subjective reviews of the games, but deal with the media in a factual way.

Wikipedia has lots of good information on video games, but very often few or no images available to illustrate what the games look like. We would like to offer Wikipedia a module that can be placed into the games posted on wiki that shows 3-5 screenshots from the game.

As for copyright, the images we provide are either taken by ourselves or on the odd occasion redistributed from the press resources available from the publisher of the respective game. This should comply with the copyright rules you have. We would like to watermark the images provided with a wiki logo and our own logo in a discreet place if this is ok with Wikipedia rules.

What’s in it for us? We would like to be accredited the contribution either by being allowed to place a watermark on the images or by getting a "contributed by gameXplore" text near the images. We are also open for alternative suggestions.

We provide images from the following platforms: PC, PS2, PS3, PSP, Xbox 360, Nintendo Wii and Nintendo DS.

I don't know how the wiki community feels about commercial business companies contributing? Any thoughts around this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bendik Stang (talk • contribs) 20:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Unlike some other editors, I am pro commercial editing on Wikipedia, if the edits are beneficial and on the whole neutral. You need to elaborate on what the "module" entails. If it's a third party browsing tool such as the scripts that can be seen at Wikipedia:Tools and Wikipedia:Popups, then there's nothing anyone can do to stop you and some people might find it useful. If you're just uploading screenshots on the other hand, watermarked screenshots are generally not welcome, and will be tagged with Template:Watermark. - hahnchen 20:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

These images would be available under Fair Use, since you can't own the copyright to the screenshots unless the game developer decides so (like Ubisoft did). Therefore, while your offer is thanked, I don't really see how it would change the way we currently work (unless those are games that are really hard to get screenshots). -- ReyBrujo 20:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm... pretty sure that wouldn't be allowed. It likely violates many policies; other images already on Wikipedia, as you can see, have no watermarks of any kind, and I'm pretty sure some "commercial business company" is no exception. You might want to show proof that you are a company, too, if you're making an offer to the Wikimedia Foundation itself. Haipa Doragon (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

ReyBrujo is correct. The images would still fall under our non-free policy, so why would we want to take watermarked images from your company when we could just as easily upload non-watermarked images ourselves? I don't see how Wikipedia is gaining anything here, just free advertising for you. Pagrashtak 20:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Hahnchen. The Module I was talking about was a loose term. Before I suggested any module, I wanted to get some input on what people thought. We can basically deliver a stream of XML to Wiki (The XML in this case would be a reference to one or more images, but could also be cover art and publishing data). We have a php api, that will enable someone at Wiki to implement this on the server. This would then enalbe fully automatic implementation of VG screenshots on Wiki. It would require some programming from the Wiki staff, and a little on our part, but it should be an easy job. Exactly how it should work is open for discussion. We could try to do a match on all the games based on the game title and if a match was found on wiki, we would show images. Alternatively, it could be some synax interface like the various boxes on the wiki pages. There must be someone here that knows more about how this should be implemented. As for watermarks I was thinking that the images should be watermarked with Wiki and our company logo. No watermark on the thumb nail but only on the large image. If this is problematic, then does anyone have a suggestion on how to credit our company for the job? We are talking about 1000+ images taken manually in game, so I think it would be fair to get some form of credit.comment added by Bendik Stang (talk • contribs) 20:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, this is way beyond a WikiProject's area. You need to be talking with developers, although I doubt this is something that will get implemented. By the way, please sign your posts by adding ~~~~ at the end. (Just talk pages, not articles.) Pagrashtak 21:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to pursue this, I believe you should start with a request at BugZilla. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.) However, as long as you are dealing with copyrighted images, I don't see this working out. Pagrashtak 21:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that your idea would fly with the Wikimedia foundation, who will inevitably be the guys you'd have to talk to. Wikimedia will not implement any built interfaces into Wikipedia itself, in order to remain impartial. It could offer a developer API for others to develop Wikipedia interfacing apps, but I doubt that's going to happen. The only way a module would work as you describe, is for it to be an optional download, 100% third party, and I doubt people will download it. The problem with watermarked images, is that people can just upload unwatermarked ones. Image crediting is done in the text on the image page, for example, an image I uploaded Image:Killzone 2 - Gameplay.jpg credits Sony, Guerrilla and Threespeech with the screenshot. - hahnchen 21:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I have tried to get in contact with the developers, but have not found any way to do so. Thought I'd start here and see if those of you who contribute to video games liked the idea. After all, if you don't like the idea, it is no point contacting the developers. I really think Wiki would benefit from this. (Nevermind the watermarks, it is obviously not acceptable.) It would be a lot easier to get screenshots into the articles this way. It also requires special equipment to take screenshots from the Xbox360,PS2,PS3 and NDS so it is not just sometihing anyone can do. The alternatives is to aqquire images from the publishers and they are a lot more partial than we :). Bendik Stang 21:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC) When doing our job on a game we could reserve e.g. 3 or 5 images for Wiki. This would be the donation from our part. If we cannot make some automatic process to place the images on Wiki, it would be a lot of work to manually upload the images to wiki as well, and that extra job would mean that we would not have time to do this. I think that would be a shame. I shall ask around on MediaZilla, thanks Pagrashtak.Bendik Stang 21:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you're still missing the major point here -- no matter the fact that you "took the images", the content within the images are NOT your copyright, so, as is said above, it would change nothing. If that actually mattered, images would have been constantly added a LONG time ago. As it is, a lot of people do it already (complying with the rules or not). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 22:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any legal references to the statement Melodia? Having worked with this for almost 5 years, I find this a bit hard to believe. If I go into Disneyland and take a picture, that picture belongs to me - eventhough all the objects in the picture is owned and copyrighted Disney. I would have to see a ruling in a US court on this before I would believe it. If there has been no court case on this matter, then it is an open question that no one holds the answer to. Over to the practices in the media and game industry. According to Electronic Arts and Sony Interactive, to mention the two that pops in to mind first, the screenshots available for the press may be used for any articles about the respective games. They may not be used to sell other products. An other aspect of this is that there are normally two types of images availabe from games. The first is the press release screenshots that by all definitions are copyright the publisher, but allowed useage as mentioned above. The second is the screenshots taken by press. E.G. GameSpot, where they would all argue that they own the copyright. To ensure this they watermark the images. Try finding images from gamespot, gamespy, ign, etc without watermarks. Since watermarking is such a big no-no on wiki, and the press release images are often hyped images made to sell the games, the only images left to use on Wiki would be images taken by non-professionals. Non-professionals does not have access to Debug equipment from Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo and so they can't take the screenshots in good quality. ...What I really don't understand is that when all other media, magazines, newspapers, gamesites and portals, use in-game screenshots frequently to illustrate editorial text on games why on earth does the Wiki community follow policies that disallow the use of the very same type of images? This surely is going agains Wiki Policy rule number one - and without any reason I can see. Please enlighten me. Bendik Stang 10:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want legal advice instead of random non-lawyers guessing at the law, you should go hire a real lawyer. As far as I can tell, in your example Disney owns the copyright to the stuff depicted in the photograph while you own the copyright to the photograph itself. OTOH, GameSpot probably has minimal copyright in the screenshot since they had minimal creative input in its creation (they do, of course, have copyright in the larger work that includes the image as a portion), but fair use (in the US anyway, where Wikipedia is located) certainly allows images to be used for reviews and such.

Wikipedia's Non-Free Content guideline is more strict than the law, however. In fact, even explicit permission for Wikipedia to use an image isn't good enough for Wikipedia to be able to use it in ways other than the very restricted usages allowed for other fair-use material. Wikipedia:Basic copyright issues has a more in-depth explanation of these points. Anomie 12:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

...I was about to respond, but Anomie said it much better than I could have. To add a bit, when you take a picture, you're photographing everything, and this includes stuff like trees and sidewalks and people -- images that can't be copywrited. A video game is fully original content, so even taking it yourself, you don't hold any rights beyond standard fair use. And furthurmore, as mentioned in WP:NONFREE, WP's guidelines are more strict than law allows. That's the rules of the site, and while I don't nessesarily agree with it all, if you want to do things here, you have to agree /to/ the rules. Remember that this project is meant to be free as in freedom -- there are some people on the site who'd want to get rid of ANYTHING fair use (and I believe the German WP is like that, for instance)... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we are saying the same thing Anomie. However I wasn't expecting a legal discussion when proposing to donate work to wiki. What is the current consensus on screenshots used in a wiki article about a game? Is it ok or not? Also, I get the feeling that people here are sceptical or negative to my proposal. If people on the Video Games Wiki Project does not like or want the help offered I see no point in continuing this discussion. If on the other hand people think it would be helpful, then please help me find a way to do this, not reasons not to do it. In short: We do a lot of work testing video games and can with a little extra effort supply screenshots to wiki. That's it. How it is done I personally don't care, but the time consuming process of manually inserting the images requires more time than we can afford to donate.Bendik Stang 13:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to add in images, go ahead. They can't be watermarked (from what I know), and you just can't have the number of screen shots in the articles you were suggesting. In other words, feel free to contribute, and your help might be useful, but remember that the reason we don't have so many shots in aritcles is NOT because of technical ability, but because of site rules. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 13:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The rules for adding copyrighted images in a nutshell: No watermarks, the image cannot be replaced by a free (libre) alternative (almost always the case for game screens), the image must be relevant to the text and add to the reader's comprehension in a way the text cannot, the image must have the appropriate copyright tag and status indicated on the image page, the image page must have article-specific non-free use rationale for each inclusion, the number of non-free images should be minimal, and the resolution of the image should be no greater than is necessary. You can read the full policy at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. If you would like to upload images that comply with our policy, you are more than welcome, and we thank you for helping improve Wikipedia. If you do not want to spend your time on it, but have some images you think would improve our articles, you can give us an URL and one of our editors will probably upload it onto Wikipedia for you. Please note that super-high resolution pictures displayed with advanced filters are not suitable, however. (A mistake I've seen a few times in the past.) The image should accurately represent the game with no touching up, and the resolution should be relatively low—a width of around 300px should be safe, for example. Pagrashtak 16:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

If you do want to upload screenshots, you might start with Category:Video game articles requesting screenshots. Pagrashtak 16:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Should they be in both the games category, and the other category? Example: many games in Category:GameCube-only games don't have the GameCube games category in their article. I remember a previous discussion about this determined that games should be in both. I've been adding the category to some articles, however a user reverted many of my changes months ago: [[2]], scroll down a bit to August to see his mass category removal. I didn't even notice this, until I checked the history of an article today, and noticed he did quite a lot. I don't see any new consensus on this issue here, so should I keep re-adding the category? If that's indeed the case, I would like some help (as it seems like there is a lot to do, besides just the GameCube games). In my view, a game exclusive to a console should be listed for both categories: the console and the console-only category. RobJ1981 07:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Until we come to a consensus or find a way of categorizing the "Exclusive" games in an easy to use way, the secondary categorisation rule applies WP:SUBCAT#Secondary_categorization_rule. - X201 10:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, having the article as a member of both categories seems to make the most sense and agrees with WP:SUBCAT#Secondary_categorization_rule, as noted. -- Slordak 17:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay thanks. Now it's just a matter of putting all games in both categories. I'll work on the GameCube category, as I started doing that yesterday. RobJ1981 17:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Can we get a bot to maintain this? Editors who aren't aware are going to keep removing these. The bot would just have to look for Foo-only categories, and add the Foo category if it's not there. Pagrashtak 17:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Perhaps a bot can do this. For future reference, if I do see people remove it...I will point them to this discussion. RobJ1981 18:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

There is already a bot taking care of this, but it obviously hasn't done a sweep for a while. I'll get on to it. Thanks for bringing it up. Miremare 19:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to request some assistence in critiquing the The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion article in the article's talk page. SharkD 10:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Should this be sent to AFD? There is already a D & D list sorted by platform. I don't see how settings are that notable (as this is the only game list I see sorted this way). It appears to be list/fancruft to me. Thoughts? RobJ1981 14:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Eh, it doesn't bother me. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 14:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Valid list, IMHO. User:Krator (t c) 15:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The games seem to make quite a big deal of which setting they're using, but we don't need more than one D&D game list; a single, sortable one could include setting, platform, year of release, and whatever else. Much more useful all round. Miremare 15:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That would indeed be useful - I would favour a merge into such a list. No need to AFD this one before that happens though. User:Krator (t c) 15:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll make a start on it then. Miremare 16:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with Krator's suggestion (was about to make it myself). --MASEM 18:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. New name: List of Dungeons & Dragons video games, based on List of Dungeons & Dragons computer and video games by platform. I've boldly redirected that and List of Dungeons & Dragons computer and video games by setting to it. There are a few holes, as I've gone by what info was available in the existing articles, so if anyone can fill in the holes that'd be great. Miremare 20:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Also there is some overlapping between the "Gold Box" and "Silver Box" series (apparently based on the appearance of the game boxes and/or game engine) and series based on the actual contents of the games. The older article wasn't very consistent about this, so that's something to be fixed. Miremare 20:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to point you guys here. We have something of a disagreement on the appearance of the article. I and another user think it looks fine, but a user has raised the issue that it looks too much like a game guide. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 15:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Macintosh has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Kaypoh 15:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to explain to people why a page on Ike from Fire Emblem shouldn't be created. The rationale people seem to be creating is for the sake of practicality/convenience as they feel that there should be a page since information on Ike is on two separate lists: List of characters in Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance and List of characters in Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn. I've criticised their reasoning as illegitimate since they are paying no attention to WP:N. The main pusher, User: Wikada, is getting emotional and throwing around various accusations. I'd just like it if anybody would provide an extra opinion since this user doesn't seem to pay attention to what I'm saying. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 16:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, how forgetful of me; the discussion is on Talk: List of characters in Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 16:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I have taken to using eStarland to establish the worth of certain games in the secondary market. For an example of my use, see Bust a Groove. My rationale for using the site is that they have consistant prices for used games (which is a major problem when trying to use sites like eBay as a guide) and that their prices are quite conservative. I know of no better alternative to cite game worth, but I figured I ought to ask the project before using this system too heavily. Of course, this wouldn't need to be used on very many articles, just those in which the value of the game has either stayed the same or risen above its original MSRP. So, is it acceptable?--SeizureDog 16:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It's often ok to mention a game's high value, especially in approximation ("it constantly goes for over $100" or similar) but an exact value shouldn't be said. I don't think a retail site like that should be used as a source, though if one must be, Amazon is better IMO because of its relative trustworthiness and "big name" as a place for commerce. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 17:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem: "constantly" is a weasel word. Amazon completely fails to work because its used games are user sold, and are just as much in flux as eBay is. I might find a game selling for $20 one day, and $80 the next week. Attempting to establish an average price would be OR.--SeizureDog 04:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if listing a secondary market value would be in the interests of a Wikipedia article. The only time I can see a justification for it is if a game is notable for its price, such as being a rare collector's item. --Scottie_theNerd 13:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I was trying to get at, which is why I gave the "over $100" example. But a lot of games aren't particularly collector's items, just rare, but that rarity IS often notable, I'd say. To say what it goes for at one RETAIL site, though, isn't something we should be doing. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 14:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

For us to consider a game as rare, we will need the appropriate sources indicating the facts and figures -- and often those also include a price. Using an external site to establish the worth of a game seems too much of a venture into WP:OR. --Scottie_theNerd 14:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't using external sites to establish various facts what Wikipedia's sourcing policies are all about and exactly what WP:OR requires? -- Anomie (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

That comment of mine wasn't worded very well. I was thinking more of why we would be mentioning price in the first place. --Scottie_theNerd 17:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC):

Because it gives a tangible number to the game's demand. Simply stating that the game is "rare" or "valuable" is pointless without a number to back it up.--SeizureDog (talk) 03:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is currently at GAR (WP:GAR#Call of Duty 2) - the main reason was a lack of broad coverage. I was wondering if anyone could take a quick look see and give some suggestions. Cheers, Dihydrogen Monoxide 04:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

How useful are these series articles (such as Halo series, Total War series, Half-Life series) in practice? Is it a good idea to have one if the series is deemed notable enough with sufficient real-world impact, reception, etc on the series? (as Halo series tries to do). I'm mainly thinking in terms of the StarCraft series here, whether I may be able to move the mess that is StarCraft universe to StarCraft series and rehaul it to something akin to Halo series when I'm done with my current SC commitments. I was simply going to put StarCraft universe up for AfD once I'd made its content completely redundant through my redos of other articles until I noticed the improved styling used in Halo series.

Consider this a move for creating a debate on the point, I'd like some discussion on the pros and cons of such series articles. -- Sabre 11:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards distinguishing between game series with non-game media (e.g. books, film) and series that are exclusively based on games. I don't think it would be accurate to compare the StarCraft universe, which contains novels, to the Total War series. We should also consider game series that are not primarily known as games, but are based on more popular media (e.g. Naruto or Dragon Ball). --Scottie_theNerd 13:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Its probably to widely varied to say one way or the other. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it really depends whether a game series is large enough to warrant a comprehensive article about it, the best example of this point being the Mario series (which has countless games). If it has only two or three games then it seems a little unnecessary unless it branches into other aspects such as film, comic/manga and television and anime ect. .:Alex:. 20:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd highly recommend not using the word "universe" as that generally implies you're going to be talking about the in-universe elements; "franchise" is probably a better word as it suggests cross-medium marketing and real-world sales. --MASEM 20:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GDI technology of Command & Conquer has been relisted. If you participated in any of the below, you might want to give it a look.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soviet technology of Command & Conquer
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allied technology of Command & Conquer
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nod technology of Command & Conquer

Thanks, Pagrashtak 22:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I've had this happen twice to three articles I've edited this year, where people want to rush in and state what overall ranking a very recent game has gotten at game rankings or metacritic. (Today's notable example being Super Mario Galaxy). I completely understand that after an infinite amount of time, the ranking of a game at either site is a completely unbiased, factual statement of how good the game was received, and so I don't argue these shouldn't be used. However, when a game has just come out and currently those sites may have a smaller number of reviews than normal for a similar game, it seems too much jumping the gun to state its ranking at GR/MC. Extreme example would be a game that has one absolutely perfect review but that's it at either site, placing it as #1, but ends up getting 5/10's from all other sources.

My feeling is that one either waits about 2 weeks from release (barring any wide time frame between NA and PAL releases - if the PAL version is significantly late, then one only needs to wait on the US side updating when the PAL reviews are out, but if the PAL version is out within a week or two, wait for PAL reviews to accumulate as well) or until the game receives a comparable number of reviews for other games on the same system. So for Galaxy, Wii games at GR get around 50 reviews, Galaxy has 30 presently - by these guidelines, including the ranking of the game is premature. --MASEM 13:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I have seen that happen with Twilight Princess. I think this is reduced just to those games that have a chance to get into the top 10 of the list. I would remove all other ratings, though, unless you use those references to justify the reception section and not just creating a table with scores. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 16:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, waiting for a number of reviews may not be justified, mostly because sometimes the games are delayed before reason. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Including GR and MC rankings should not be done, because video game ratings given in reviews are not measured according to relative standards, but absolute standards. Though this follows from common sense, it can be illustrated by looking at the rating of 10/10. A perfect game will have that rating, not the best game. Use notable awards instead if you must - they compare different games. User:Krator (t c) 16:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, meta review sites are usually better because you link to just one site instead of linking to 10 or 15 individual ones, since the meta review includes links to all those individual sites. However, you can include links to other reviews if you are using them to reference sentences in the article itself. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree on the concept of what Krator suggests: to determine in WP that because a game is #1 at GR/MC, that it is the best game of all time, is speculation because of the averaging of absolute ratings. I do think it's appropriate to state that aggregate ratings for GR/MC are such-and-such, with links to said pages, but without stating much more - that's all factual and provides useful external sources. (I don't believe Krator didn't suggest linking at all to the individual game pages at GR/MC with the game info - just that the rankings comparative to other games

What's sorta of an annoyance is that reliable news outlets (Joystiq, Kotaku) have cited that SMGalaxy has "dethroned" Zelda:OoT as the #1 game at GR, and people want to jump to include that, despite that the comparison of review sources is very disparate. I think Krator's logic is what's appropriate to include, and I know other articles exist within this project that include the ranking at GR/MC and thus we may want to make a guidelines/suggestion about what to use from these sources. --MASEM 14:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

At severe risk of sounding like a dunce, please will someone briefly explain relative and absolute standards to me? Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 15:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Each gaming review house (IGN, 1up, etc.) have scales that are significantly different for games: the required quality of a game to get 90% at IGN may not be the same quality needed to get 90% at 1UP, or the same at Gamespot, etc. Each game review house has their own "absolute" scale for rating the game, but no one has yet to come up with a way to make those "relative" to account for the differences (a ratings unit conversion in other words), and there will not ever likely be one. Mind you, these are generally close: a game that gets 90% at one house is very much not going to get 10% at another, so the averaging that GR/MC does is a reasonable way to give a overall number averaging all scores absolutely, but realistically, a better way would be to use the relative ratings to average them, but such will never exist. --MASEM 15:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks for clearing that up. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 16:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

On top of what Masem said, it is not only the nature of the comparison made at GR/MC that makes using their rankings a bad habit, but also the ratings by sites themselves. To continue the example above, if one game has a rating 90% on IGN, that does not mean it is one of the "10% best games in the world", nor does a rating of 95% mean it is one of the "5% best games in the world". User:Krator (t c) 16:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe this category is becoming much too stuffed. It's basically impossible to find what you desire in here. I propose a system (not unlike that for the game covers) of subcategories, once for each system. A few have already been created after all. N. Harmonik (talk) 21:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds sensible to me. Miremare 22:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've been trying to locate some out of universe information for the characters and have come up empty. I think all the pages under Category:Xenosaga characters, e.g. KOS-MOS, should be merged into their appropriate lists. I would definately need some help though, since I've never merged anything before. Can someone please help or supply an opinion? Zemalia (talk) 06:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to get it set up (make sure that there is consensus/nobody is going to revert them), and I'll go ahead and merge all of them. TTN (talk) 23:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty simple, just follow the instructions at WP:MERGE. The hardest part is copyediting the resulting merged article to combine whatever information is useful from the old articles. Don't skip this step though, unless the result of the merge discussion is that there is no useful information to combine, or your "merge" ends up being a sneaky delete. The idea is to improve the whole collection of articles rather than just to press for wholesale deletion. Anomie⚔ 12:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Basically, I'm thinking about attempting a Featured with this, but the article's going nowhere unless this information can be found. Does anybody know of any sources detailing some development info? Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 18:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I would try using one of the web archive sites, and look back at the old Japanese site. I think the creator answers questions and stuff. TTN (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 15:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Turd the Borg is adding excessive, and often unneeded cleanup tags to several VG featured articles. I've reverted a few and left him a note that it isn't helpful. He also seems to be removing content when editors revert his tags. Some other admins might want to keep an eye on this. Here's an example of an article he overloaded with cleanup and fact tags. Pagrashtak 23:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I find it hilarious that after he added all those tags, he nominated Music of the Final Fantasy series for GA, although the article has practically no refs, it has cleanup tags (which he didn't add) and is need of a major rewrite. --Mika1h (talk) 23:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

He's not responding to user talk page comments. Although he throws in some good edits every once in a while, I am no longer assuming good faith with this user. Would anyone support a block if he continues adding these tags in what I take to be a disruptive fashion? Pagrashtak 15:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Those are just weird edits - half the ones I scanned through are reasonable tags or even appropriate modifications, but then the other half seem on the verge of WP:POINT. I would consider dropping a personalized message on his talk page and explain that a lot of what he's asking and so forth should be discussed on talk pages first, that many of his contributions are welcome, blah blah, but many are also very disruptive and that should he do this again without discussing or providing discussion (and lack of edit summaries), he may be blocked from editing. --MASEM 15:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I left another note, warning him that he is being disruptive, which could lead to a block. I was prompted by this jem of an edit, which I would appreciate if someone would care to revert if they agree that it is not a helpful addition. I've been reverting enough on that article. Pagrashtak 17:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Also left a note at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Turd the Borg. Pagrashtak 17:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This is getting stupid. His recent spurt added a "This article needs additional citations for verification" tag to an article with 86 references]. The above Zelda edit is simply ridiculous. He's also randomly coming along and creating sections with no content, flagging them as stub sections and disappearing. I can't see any sense or pattern to his editting at all, it's as though he's gone to one game page, tagged it to death, clicked a link, tagged that page to death, clicked another link and winded up on a healthcare law article. And then to completely confuse you, he thenperforms a reasonable edit. I know that some people feel that Wikipedia policy is tough, but this guy seems to have taken that feeling to heart. If he can't be convinced to stop, I'd support a block for disruption. - Sabre (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

With regard to the healthcare law, he found that page because it's one of the seven articles listed on my user page. He made an edit to each of the seven back-to-back. Pagrashtak 18:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

He definitely needs to be kept an eye on. I've reverted a few of his edits, but he's redirected Dirge of Cerberus Lost Episode: Final Fantasy_VII and Last Order: Final Fantasy VII with seemingly no discussion. - hahnchen 18:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

His 2nd and 3rd edits were to use templates on his user page, and his fifth edit was to warn a vandal. Straight after that he makes poor quality edits to the featured VG articles. This is not the typical editing pattern of a new user. - hahnchen 18:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. His knowledge of the proper use of several different types of templates and tags suggests he's been on Wikipedia for some time, possibly as an anon. I'd like to assume good faith and would hate to suggest he's using a sock puppet, but it's still a possibility. Though some edits are disruptive, others have an real basis and purpose. I'm trying to get a discussion going with him on Talk:Final Fantasy in case others would like to try talking to him. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC))

Blocked for Wikipedia:Username policy violation by MaxSem. Pagrashtak 21:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I am new to this project, and I see that you have no COTW [I may be wrong]. Why not start a COTW? Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Guest Book} 19:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

We had one, but it is inactive. See Wikipedia:Gaming Collaboration of the week. Pagrashtak 19:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The regular editors insist on having a "newest releases" section. It's both clutter and turning the article into a news release. I've reverted it off, but they claim the consensus is there (which they've used as an excuse in the past). This is simply a matter of the regulars claiming ownership in my view. What does everyone else think? RobJ1981 (talk) 19:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

That articles can be kept up to date is a good thing of course, but this does seem a little excessive. Not to mention a little like advertising for Nintendo. Miremare 20:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I agree. I'd say it falls under a couple of points on WP:NOT. I've commented on the talk page. Let's see if we can explain this to them. (Guyinblack25 ^talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

More specifically, WP:NOT#NEWS, #ADVERTISING, and #DIR. There was another thing, but I can't seem to find it...Dengarde ► Complaints 20:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It's just trying to make it easier for people to find the updated information. --LN3000 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

We realize the edits were made in good faith. It's obvious you're not trying mess things up or make destructive edits, but it is not within in the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia. Please understand, that is the consensus of Wikipedia. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC))

For example Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/ ( Game name here )

• Something like that

It sounds reasonable to me what do you think?

Make a concensus.

--Storkian aka iSoroush ^Talk 21:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe Wikipedia was originally structure in a similar way before the categories we know today were implemented. The main argument against it was that it limits what articles can be subcategorized under. For instance, something like Music of [video game name] could only fall under video games and not under a music one. Same thing with something like GTAIII, it could fall under VG but not controversy. It sounds like a nice organized idea, but I believe that the amount of smalled headaches it could and would create outweigh the advantages. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC))

Sorry, I have absolutely no idea what this proposal is. Pagrashtak 22:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No. User:Krator (t c) 22:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I was looking through the articles in this category, and it seems to me that many of these articles are really only Start-class. Perhaps we should reassess a lot of these. JACOPLANE • 2007-11-20 17:42

I had similar thoughts a while back on the discussion page for the cleanup department. I think the project needs to stricten its assessment of B-class candidates. It just seems to be used rather too casually for articles not really deserving of it and those that are perhaps are not far off good article status. Take this revision of a character article and it's current revision after a major overhaul. Both are rated as B-class, although the first is simply a compilation of "cruft", referenced only to the game's manuals and novels, whilst the second is an attempt to move the article in the right direction in relation to WP:FICTION with commentary on design and reception. In my view the first draft should never have been classified as B-class. -- Sabre (talk) 18:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

When I've been assessing articles my standards are much higher than most B-grade articles are. When I assess articles I use Mitaphane's criteria, as listed here. Una Laguna^Talk 18:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a suggestion that applies to this somewhat. I noticed that the organization guidelines for video game articles only outline what is recommended for game articles. Perhaps outlining the organization format for character articles, setting articles, music articles, etc would help give structure to some of these B-class articles. I believe giving all types of game articles a structure will help with the enforcement and application of the assessment process. Some general ideas were compiled on the Clean up department page. Perhaps these could help create some additional organization guidelines. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC))

Quite a few potential GAs there that just have no sourcing. Ultimately, this cat would be very empty... Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 22:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with that, so long as articles are appropriately rated. Besides, I'm sure it wouldn't take too long to repopulate, and hopefully with better quality articles than what's in there now. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC))

Xbox Live Arcade games are spread out on several articles, and one list would probably be the best route to go. See Xbox Live Arcade#Xbox Live Arcade games for the Xbox 360, List of Xbox Live Arcade games by date and Upcoming games for Xbox Live Arcade for the mess. The Virtual Console (another gaming download service) has one list for it's games per region. I don't know a lot about Xbox Live Arcade, but if the games are for all regions then one list is all that is needed. If not, various region lists (similar to how Virtual Console lists are setup) should be the way to go. RobJ1981 (talk) 07:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

XBL games come out on the service but they can be region locked and unlocked at various times (I'm not aware of any that have yet). That said, you're absolutely right there can be one table instead of the 3 pages; regions can be handled by footnoting or if there are more execptions of region encoding, adding a second date of releases for a region. The table, of course, should be sortable.--MASEM 13:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead (After prodding by RobJ :-) ) and created List of Xbox Live Arcade games that combines the various lists, using sortable tables (though the date sorting is still funky). I'm asking for input for replacing at Xbox Live Arcade. --MASEM 19:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed Category:Warhammer 40,000? It's filled with many articles (and subcategories) that need to be deleted or merged. For some reason, many of the articles have an unneccesary dab suffix, like Weapons and equipment of the Tau Empire (Warhammer 40,000). (As opposed to what other Weapons and equipment of the Tau Empire?) I'll help tackle it after the Warcraft deletions start dying down, but if someone wants to start in on PROD/AFD now, feel free. Please note that some articles (like the W&E of Tau up there) have had PRODs removed already. Pagrashtak 17:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

OMG, this will be like a full time job there is so much junk! :) Anyone who wants to help, step up! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This is gonna be a busy weekend for me, but I'll start on some. DurinsBane87 (talk) 19:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Please just do some WP:BOLD merges before going for AFD. User:Krator (t c) 19:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to suggest that. One possibility is a "races of" page instead of each race getting a seperate article. Unfortunatly, it's going to mean alot of material cutting. I don't even know where to start. DurinsBane87 (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Starting with a pure copy-paste merge excluding obvious gamecruft, then listing for WP:VG/C, would be a good start. User:Krator (t c) 19:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Warhammer 40K is primarily a tabletop gaming thing with only a few related video games, so I've left a note about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Board and table games#Warhammer articles. Miremare 19:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Good point, thanks. That's totally correct about merging, but there are quite a few articles that don't even look like they are worth a merge (I've PRODded a couple). Pagrashtak 19:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

There's actually a wikiproject just for 40k (Wikipedia:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000). I dropped them a note after reading the notice at Board and table games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chunky Rice (talk • contribs) 23:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I should have figured. Anyone ever notice that a narrow fiction WikiProject usually equals cruft? A good reason to clamp down on them. Pagrashtak 15:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

These are largely outside the scope of WP:VG, it's going to be hard to source things in that space unless you have copies of White Dwarf (magazine) or similar resources. The way we're applying WP:FICT is pretty inconsistent, we're deleting a lot of in-universe information, and yet Characters in Castlevania: Sorrow series is on FAC, and Characters of Final Fantasy VIII is a featured article. - hahnchen 23:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

.....and that would be because those articles have extensive real world notability and referencing, and those other articles don't; all they have or are going to be are in-universe things. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The 40k Wikiproject has already been discussing this, and we currently have some sections discussing this, and a sub page to deal with transwiking. As most of the content is outside of WikiProject Video games, and to keep the discussion centralized, I'd ask that it be discussed on the above linked pages. This will also make sure that those most interested in the material are aware of what's being decided. Thanks. --Falcorian ^(talk) 16:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

When does it leans towards game guide content (and/or listcruft, clutter)? Here's a recent example: Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles#Gameplay. I'm sure there is more though. In general, shouldn't listing levels just be avoided? RobJ1981 (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Any sort of level list is game guide material, as they do not add anything to an encyclopedic overview of the topic. Just cut any that you see. TTN (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Listing levels/weapons/maps etc. doesn't actually add a whole lot of information unless they go into totally OTT detail anyway. Once you've listed them then you have to stipulate which enemies appear, what weapons are available, who's the boss.. it's never ending. Details like like level lists are exactly the kind of information included as part of FAQs on GameFAQs. If readers want these specifics they can find them there.Someone another (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

A documentary about how the video game industry came to be. Could be used as an additional source for multiple articles. Tv-schedules _{« ₣ullMetal ₣alcon »} 01:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you help me tell if Crysis 2 violates policy. I don't really see how it violates CRYSTAL or NOTABILITY. Thanks! Marlith ^T/C 06:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it wouldn't come for years though... Marlith ^T/C 06:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no deadline. According to the deletion rationale there was a single source, not quite sure what a chatlog is but it sounds like it could be a message board post or something equally unreliable as a source. Notability is something that new articles should aim to pass from the get-go, rather than something to trip them up after contributors have spent time and energy. WP is a tertiary source and without reliable secondary sources there is no article. Someone another (talk) 12:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I have put up a request to rename Category:Descent: FreeSpace to Category:FreeSpace series for the reasons listed at the Categories for discussion page here. However it seems none of the admin or frequent traffic there are interested in this request, so I am putting a heads up over here since the main VG page has only a section dealing with deletion requests. Jappalang (talk) 01:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

If you take a look in this category, you will see yet another host of stubby in-universe articles. We should look at this one too. Someone nominated ten of them for deletion, and that's a good start, but there is still a lot to do. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Convenience links: Category:The Elder Scrolls | Wikipedia:WikiProject The Elder Scrolls Pagrashtak 05:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm an avid game player. I play Star Wars Galaxies and Second Life. I nominate those two for a side project that I can start on. The Second Life article is extremly slanted in its opinion and Star Wars Galaxies and be expanded. CrazySain (talk) 02:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't need permission or anything, if you want to improve the article, go right ahead! Just remember, don't add excessive plot details or a description of how to play the game. Pagrashtak 05:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

OK great, thanks a little new to projects :-) I'll start on the Second Life articles CrazySain (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm encountering some odd opposition on this FAC. I would appreciate any commentary or criticism regarding certain novel presumptions regarding "FA notability"; scope of topic and substance of topic have no bearing on the FA-ability, so long as reliable sources covering the subject in all its major details are there, correct? I am, as ever, confused: individuals demanding something beyond the possible on the basis of personal laws instead of policy always frustrate me. Please, any commentary would be welcome. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor characters in Xenosaga is good for a laugh. I'd wager this happened because it didn't get added to WP:VG/D until five days were already almost up. I really think we need a video game only category for AfDs - considering the sheer number of them, the fact that they get spread around the "media and music", "games or sports", "science and technology", and "fiction and the arts" categories doesn't make things easy, and they only get added to the WP:CVG deletion section when someone notices them, or if the nom does it themselves. Miremare 16:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia sseems to have a schzoid personality about these lists of characters. I mean, look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Guild Wars characters, deleted. Even if it is just a list it still needs something more than plot details. Unfortunately, it looks like List of Time Crisis characters is heading for a merge.

As for the actual topic on hand, I think it is a good idea to have a separate cat. Call it V...video games and related! hbdragon88 (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

An editor has called to question the use of Joystiq on the Frank West (Dead Rising) page. This source has been used on featured articles as has similar "blogs" such as Kotaku. Could I please get some assistance with explaining to him how Joystiq and such are considered experts in the field of gaming and that they do have editorial processes and aren't simple blogs such as a blogspot or livejournal? Thanks. I'm getting too hot to deal with this.... Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Joystiq isn't the problem source, as nothing from it is being used (though the misunderstanding is my fault). It's an extension of gaygamer.net in a MTV online only video that does not represent any kind of critical review. This provides a fairly comical overview of the game, but that is about it. TTN (talk) 23:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You removed the information sourced back to Joystiq which is why it isn't being used. *rolls eyes* Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I already clarified that the content that it is sourcing was not necessary (trivial, not about the character) for the article, which is why it was removed. I didn't even look at the site. TTN (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree that the way that the "dress up" aspects of the game and how they relate and are taking advantage of Xbox live is a out of universe aspect of the character of Frank West. The availability and continued developement of costumes for the character even after the release of the original game is content which should have a place in the article. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I too am curious as to the status notability/verifiability of Kotaku (and other "blogs"), as I wanted to use the site as a source, but chose not to. In fact, I would like to see a list of video game sources in the portal, listing their status regarding notability/verifiability. The general rule of thumb I use is that the site features news, reviews and articles/editorials, as well as multiple writers who don't use pseudonyms. SharkD (talk) 22:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you up to the pseudonyms part. When I published a magazine back in the early 90's one of our Editors did not want to disclose she was a female because she wanted to avoid all the sexist BS, so we all elected to use pseudonyms to accommodate her. Sometimes there may be good reasons for aliases.BcRIPster (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I made a start at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#List. Go ahead and add everything you see, I think this will be a useful addition to Wikipedia - thanks for the suggestion. Especially in the area of open source games and foreign language sources, this could add be a useful source for many editors. User:Krator (t c) 23:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Halo 3 is up for FAC again, seeing as no meaningful comments came up last time... show up! David Fuchs ^(talk) 00:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been running into some editors replacing {{VG Navigation groups}} with {{Navbox}}. Is there a reason we aren't using Navbox to begin with? They seem practically the same, except for VG Navigation groups isn't as wide, doesn't have the "hide" ability, the "vde" displays on the right (and too low), and perhaps a few syntax particulars. Am I missing something important here? Pagrashtak 17:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

That template was only created in September, I don't think it was ever discussed here, but perhaps MrStalker has a good reason for using it. I think it's probably best to just use Navbox. JACOPLANE • 2007-11-24 18:36

I was just about to start a similar topic until I saw this one. IMO, we should use {{Navbox}} instead of {{VG Navigation groups}} and maybe also {{VG Navigation}}. {{VG Navigation groups}} just seems like a buggy version of {{Navbox}} anyway. If there will be no objections, I'll label {{VG Navigation groups}} as deprecated. —TigerK 69 (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

What bugs are you refering to? Please tell me. I created {{VG Navigation groups}} because {{VG Navigation}} doesn't support groups and I wanted a template that supports groups but still looks much like {{VG Navigation}}. If you want to scrap the design we've used for quite some time now, that's fine by me, but in that case {{VG Navigation}} should be scraped as well as {{VG Navigation groups}}. --MrStalker ^talk 13:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

By "buggy," was referring to what Pagrashtak mentioned above, the way the "v • d • e" links are too low, when you resize the window it overlaps over the text in the first list. As far as scrapping {{VG Navigation}}, I think it would be a good idea, since most of the custom navboxes on wikipedia have been replaced with {{Navbox}} to maintain consistency. —TigerK 69 (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem switching over to Navbox for both. Pagrashtak 21:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

VG Navigation groups is now unused and I have marked it as deprecated in favor of Navbox. Pagrashtak 20:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm currently trying to add sources to Super Smash Bros Melee. There's a claim that Roy and Marth were supposed to be exclusive to Japan, but gained popularity during localisation so were included in the Western version. Could someone read this [3] and [4] to see if it's true. I've tried translating it by Google, but I can't seem to decipher the poor translation. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 19:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

"The character puts out just Nintendo Co. ones or, in the foreign country the title which is not sold. However is, it overstrained because of the fan which desires appearance strongly." seems to confirm it. You can probably ask someone over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan to help you. TTN (talk) 20:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll trust you on this one ;). Cheers TTN. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 20:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Another request (sorry): it says in the article that Kojima originally wanted Snake in Melee, but the game was too far in development for him to be included. Does anybody know of any sources to verify this?—I've scoured websites on a Google search but couldn't find anything. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 21:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm more skeptical of that, because SSBM consisted of (I thought) 100% Nintendo characters. Brawl was supposed to deviate from the 100% Nintendo tradition by including characters like Snake and Sonic, but I don't know for absolute certain. (I was under the impression that Marth, Roy and the kid from Earthbound were Nintendo characters as well.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to find anything about it, you'll probably have to search through the Japanese Q&As on the Melee and Brawl sites. I think you'll have to use this to find the one on the Brawl site. Though, it could just be one of those rumors that is circulated so much that people believe it is the truth. TTN (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing in Roy's article, close to what you are looking for. Marth's article...

キャラクターは任天堂だけのものじゃないし、海外では発売されていないタイトルだし。
だけれど、登場を強く望むファンのためにムリをしました。
＃ムリをするにはインテリジェントシステムズ他、多方面のご協力が必要だったわけですが・・・

"The character does not belong to Nintendo alone, it's a title not sold abroad as well. Even so, we will try to do the impossible for the fans who strongly wish for his appearance.

#By impossible, we mean we need the cooperation in many areas from Intelligent Systems and others, as well as..."

海外版では外す覚悟でマルスを作っていたのですが、キャラを立てた結果、海外のかたにも絶賛され、結果日本と全く同じ仕様で搭載されています。
（ゆえにマルスは日本語のままです）

"If we dodge the overseas edition issue and made Marth, the result of establishing the character will be an overseas acceptance of Marth leading to the Japanese version being a total copy of the overseas version. (Therefore, the name "Marth" is still in Japanese.)"

Take my translation with a pinch of salt. Jappalang (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Adverts for video games often limit their use of actual in-game footage, and it seems that Wikipedia articles do this as well. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Characters in Castlevania: Sorrow series and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Characters of Kingdom Hearts. Using promotional art exclusively makes articles misleading and advert-like. Unlike comics or film characters, video game characters often differ markedly from their promotional artwork, and we should not shrink from depicting this.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring the fact that in the first example, the characters are a proper representation of their in-game appearance (portraits mind you, not the sprite), and in both, practically every character that each lists covers is used in the single image, making it quite attractive under fair use concerns, and granting the reader a greater sense of understanding of the topic than say a single in-game image of the protagonist (per User:Nydas' suggestion at this FAC). That we're misleading the reader is ridiculous, especially if it is mentioned that the image is promotional art, and seems to be a rendition of WP:IDONTLIKEIT more than anything else. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 10:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying promotional artwork should be removed, I am saying that an article about video game characters should have at least one screenshot, to give readers a basic idea of how the characters look in-game.--Nydas^(Talk) 10:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

While we agree with you that most character articles should have a screenshot, this can be impractical for articles about a group of characters, especially a group of characters which span more than one game and/or system. The other fact that I feel is being overlooked is that in the Castlevania and Kingdom Hearts articles you've mentioned above, the promotional artwork used is actual artwork done by the series' respective lead character designers. Given this fact and that screenshots of multiple characters are hard to come by, the character artwork is more than appropriate. Also, I know you mean no disrespect by this and your point is being made on good faith, but I'd be careful about comparing some of the articles here to advertisements (a different wording might convey your message better). A lot of editors spent a lot of time and effort trying to build encyclopedic video game articles. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC))

I have to disagree with you on your last point. The assessment that some articles look like advertisements is very accurate. In fact, I think the overly positive representation of many subjects in the scope of this project is a problem. Just about every game has been criticised in reliable sources (reviews), yet very little of that criticism is reflected in the articles themselves. Read reception sections of popular games that score about 8/10 on average, and look how much is written on why reviewers didn't give it a 10/10. It is often more interesting to read what was found to be bad in a game, than to see what was rated good.

For that reason, a featured article I largely wrote, Supreme Commander, does a strict positive/negative approach with every review it includes in the reception section. Over the past few months, many editors have made edits removing the negative sides of some of the reviews, and even more have removed all trace of a single review that was exclusively negative. It just happens to be the case that most editors who write articles happen to like the subject. In order to counter an expected argument against this observation: yes, there are articles (for example those in Video games notable for negative reception) that are negative about their subject. That is because there are no fans of those games.

The amount of articles that include negative adjectives in the Gameplay section is incredibly low, while features are often described as "revolutionary" or in a positive manner. Look at random FPS articles and see how most of them describe the game's AI as intelligent. For example, the gameplay section of featured article Halo 1 says its weapons have been praised (¶3), the AI has been favourably received (¶7), and the multiplayer aspect too (¶8). These things are all sourced to reviews. It just happens that all those reviews say the level design is dull and repetitive, yet this is not written in the gameplay section, but pushed back to the Reception section where all the praise of the previous points is repeated too. To get back to the topic of this section, User:Nydas' observation that using promotional art is often overly positive in a misleading way is right. Screenshots often look ugly, and therefore, are often not used - promotional art has cool poses and looks nice. To write that "A lot of editors spent a lot of time and effort trying to build encyclopedic video game articles." is no reason to overlook the fact hat many of these video game articles are written like advertisements, and this does not only apply to the images. User:Krator (t c) 14:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems I've touched a nerve. I apologize for saying anything offensive and I'm sorry that you disagree with me. While I cannot argue that there are ample amount articles that are very similar to advertisements, game guides, and other non-encyclopedic types of articles, there are still a good amount of articles that are not like that. That and there are editors that try to avoid writting articles like that by including negative and positive reviews, excluding any type of review in general from gameplay and other methods of writing to maintain NPOV. But as you said, this has little to do with the subject at hand. What is relevant is that it is a good idea to include screenshots for character pages, however it is impractical for some character pages. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC))

Agreed. The above comment of mine was to rebut your argument that editors generally do not want their articles to be like advertisements (or, in more correct words, "present a positive picture"). The impracticality argument is a good one, particularly for old games. User:Krator (t c) 15:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

A few times I've tried to remove some unhelpful categories from character pages, but I always end up reverted by fans or anons. For example, Wario is currently in the following categories:

• Category:Fictional baseball players
• Category:Fictional basketball players
• Category:Fictional football (soccer) players
• Category:Fictional golfers
• Category:Fictional racecar drivers
• Category:Fictional tennis players

Just because a character has appeared in a golfing video game doesn't mean he's a fictional golfer. Bagger Vance of The Legend of Bagger Vance is a fictional golfer, as is the title character of Happy Gilmore—these characters are defined by golfing. Wario is not. Does everyone agree that these categories are not helpful and should be removed from Wario and related characters? Pagrashtak 19:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If part or all of a character's profession/hobby, which is related to the plot/story of a game, is related to a sport or some similar then yes, they belong in that category. But various characters that appear in a party-type game should not qualify for that. Per the general guidelines on WP:CATEGORY, "An article will often be in several categories. Restraint should be used as categories become less effective the more there are on any given article." and "An article should normally possess all the referenced information necessary to demonstrate that it belongs in each of its categories. Avoid including categories in an article if the article itself doesn't adequately show it belongs there." (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC))

You're right. Mario is not a fictional submariner just for taking to the sub pop in Super Mario Land. - hahnchen 23:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Noticing that Guyinblack25 has removed the categories from Wario, I've followed suit and removed similar categories from other Nintendo characters. Pagrashtak 18:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't {{Future video game}} be redirected to {{Future game}}? Also, for a game just released like Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games, should the template use the "type" parameter since it is not yet released on the DS? Maybe there should be an explanation on that... _{« ₣ullMetal ₣alcon »} 03:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

{{Future video game}} transcludes {{Future game}} rather than redirecting to it because it is hoped that when it becomes feasible, {{Future game}} will become a generic template rather than implicitly assuming that games are video games. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This should be documented on the template page then. Pagrashtak 18:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a related question. Which template should I use for games which haven't reached v1.0 yet, but have had several working releases already (such as many open source games)? I felt that the Future Game template wasn't completely applicable. SharkD 04:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

This article has been labeled as a stub and I would like it to be re-evaluated because it has been expanded since it was given the stub label. I would appreciate any improvements that you make to it. Thank you. Jecowa (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a job for our assessment department, but it's still a stub, and is headed for deletion. Pagrashtak 22:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the info on the assessment department. The article is a bit shorter than when I though it might be larger than a stub. I didn't realize that forums were a bad place to get positive and negative opinions on subjects. If such things were acceptable, would this have been at the "start" class of computer video game articles in your opinion? Jecowa (talk) 06:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

If they were acceptable, yes. But they are not. User:Krator (t c) 11:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It's highly likely that this will be deleted, so I wouldn't recommend spending too much time on this. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 16:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Odd how WP works sometimes. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm in discussion with the guy who added the details regarding the recently released trailer for Deus Ex 3. I don't consider the information encyclopedic, but the author of the section disagrees (See the discussion here). Thoughts? Una Laguna^Talk 22:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that level of detail smacks of original research and gives the subject undue weight, a violation of WP:NPOV. Maybe a short blurb about how a number of symbols appear would be good, but not that laundry list. I'd point the user in question to the treatment of the GTA4 trailers as an example of how it should be handled, asking them to pay particular note to the presence of citations. --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)I'm on editor review! 01:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Recently, there's been a trend towards removing or drastically cutting down on the usage of images in articles on characters. While the issue is currently video game characters, it could imply that most other fair use images could possibly be on the chopping block as well, such as screenshots and the like. I've opened a discussion about this at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free content#Character images and lists. This has fairly important repercussions; if the recent trend is affirmed, then many of the images in current character articles need to be deleted. SnowFire (talk) 19:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

After doing a little research: I found out that Go! Go! Minon and Mr. D Goes to Town are the same game. Which game title should it be under? Go Go is the original name for the Japan release, while Mr. D is for the North America release (which hasn't been released yet). RobJ1981 (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

At first glance I would say the North American title should be used as that's the English language name. Is the game going to be released in other regions with either title? Miremare 00:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Miremare. Discussion on the talk page for WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines resulted in this guideline, which indicates that Japanese names should be provided for English games, not the other way around. Given that Mr. D seems to be an actual upcoming video game per its presence on IGN, et al., I'd suggest merging Go! Go! Minon into Mr. D Goes to Town, noting the Japanese name in the new article, and leaving the former article link as a redirect. --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)I'm on editor review! 00:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Theres currently an edit war on Fox McCloud, people are redirecting/merging it and reverting it back and fourth to the point where it's full-protected (Ends 01:11 December 7, 2007). The discussion is on Talk:List of characters in the Star Fox series, so I was hoping you guys would help them come to a consensus. Dengarde ► Complaints 01:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone like sonic?Evadog (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Evadog