Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

I just made a bold edit removing unacceptable passive voice. We should always use the active voice, unless in a direct quote. Taric25 22:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted that change and left a message on your talk page. Although Strunk & White and George Orwell have unfair prejudice against the passive voice, it's a perfectly usable part of the English language and definitely serves a valid purpose in the way it is described in the guidelines. Andre (talk) 22:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Scope of information currently states, among other things, the following:

“

Articles on computer and video games should give an encyclopedia overview of what the game is about, not a detailed description of how to play it or an excessive amount of non-encyclopedic trivia. . . . A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it's unsuitable. Keep in mind that video game articles should be readable and interesting to non-gamers; remember the bigger picture.

”

I have attempted in several places to surface the issue of apparent ambiguity in this section of the guidelines, and would like to solicit discussion on this issue. In specific, articles such as Pac-Man and Pac-Man Championship Edition currently include detailed scoring information, such as the value of dots, power pellets, ghosts when eaten, and an exhaustive list of the bonus fruits and their individual scores. (The list in Pac-Man C.E. is very long.) Yet I have seen many cases where similar details were removed from other game-related articles because the content was deemed "game-guide/strategy-guide" material and thus inappropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia.

It appears to me that there is significant disagreement among WP editors about what level of detail should be kept in various game articles, and as such, the current guidelines are being inconsistently applied across this project. This has led to at least one contentious personal dispute between editors as well.

I'd like to suggest that we come to a consensus on how this section of the guidelines should be applied, clarifying the section if necessary. I personally am in support of keeping such details, as they may be interesting to gamers. However, I interpret the current guidelines and WP:NOT#GUIDE to mean that such details should not be included, because they do not help with an essential understanding of the game's overall purpose. Thus, if the policies remain as they are currently, I believe things like the fruit table in Pac-Man and its related articles should be removed and the article generalized to describe overall gameplay. If we come to a consensus that such details should stay in the articles, then I believe the guidelines should be updated to reflect this, and game articles where these details have been removed should have those details restored.

Please discuss. Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The consensus is that detailed scoring information is definitely not encyclopedic. Go ahead and remove it. Andre (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed the Pac-Man C.E. tables. In the case of Pac-Man however I think it's borderline, as the information is pretty simple and has to do with describing the game mechanics, so you should discuss that on the talk page there. Andre (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Pertinent section of the guidelines, under content that needs to be removed: Lists of mere statistics, items, or other minutiae. The HP or weight class of a character is not important to the article; neither are all the swords available in the game. To clarify, I have added the sentence: This includes scoring guides, etc. Andre (talk) 22:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. If it's possible, can you point me to where/how the consensus on this topic had been reached? I'm curious to see the process. (If it's not possible or easy to link to, that's not a problem.)

Take a look in the archives of our WikiProject talk page, for starters. Also, somewhere there's a decree made by Jimbo that disallowed the inclusion of game guide content in Wikibooks, which is where we had been moving it for a while. Andre (talk) 20:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

One thing about Pac-Man, specifically: Part of the issue that's causing problems on the PMCE article is that the presence of the fruit table on Pac-Man is serving as a precedent for other articles. That's where some of the ambiguity comes into play. (Also, how do we get more people to weigh in on this issue? Is there a way to formally request peer review, since people who regularly edit that article aren't participating in the discussion?) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 10:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's the problem - you're confusing "telling a player how to play" with "telling a player the basic gameplay". The fruits in Pac-Man and other games are basic information. So are the points. It doesn't tell anyone HOW TO PLAY. And I suggest you look at the Assessment Scales - ask yourself this: in an item in which scoring is the sole part of the game, how does it help a researcher to remove point values? They might as well just skip Wikipedia and head to Google to work on their research - and then what do you have? They stop going to Wikipedia for research. Ever see Amadeus? It's analogous to Mozart removing the music from the ballet portion of The Marriage of Figaro. As the Emperor said, "Yuch. What is this?!" JAF1970 15:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you're a little confused. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which is supposed to be an overview reference. As an encyclopedia, it is not intended for in-depth research purposes, as any good professor will tell you. This is a slippery slope argument anyway, as anything could theoretically be useful for research, but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Andre (talk) 20:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Arcade games are all about scoring points. Taking away point references is like trying to describe American football without allowing someone to say "A touchdown scores 7 points." JAF1970 15:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me put it plainly: arcade games are all about scoring points. In Donkey Kong, jumping over a barrel is 100 points. Furthermore, a lot of arcade games are all about levels. The point is this - be brief in describing scoring, describing levels, but don't been obscure, either. The word concise jumps to mind. You should tell a player HOW A GAME IS PLAYED, but not HOW TO PLAY.

In Pac-Man CE, telling someone that dots go from 10 to 50 points is not a strategy guide - it's basic useful information telling someone who wants to know what the game is. Telling someone that it changes the mechanic from other Pac-Man games is useful, because it's a comparative statement within the context of the series. Telling someone that they should eat dots as soon as possible because wandering around the maze without eating them as the timer counts down is NOT good for the article. That's stepping way over the line because it goes from being an encyclopedia entry into a strategy guide, and is subjective.

And there's the word: subjective. The other key is objectivity over subjectivity. If you describe the level as "for advanced players" in an objective voice, that's fine. If you describe it as "difficult" or "tough", etc, that's not. JAF1970 15:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The issue arises when you have comprehensive tables or huge lists that lay out game details and minutiae, numeric or otherwise. Yeah, arcade games are all about scoring. But by the same token, RPGs are all about stats, and racing games are all about time trials, and so on. There is no way, though, that RPG articles should discuss the best items by stats, or racing games should talk about the best possible times on each course. This information has no value to anyone outside of the game's world, thus the umbrella term "game guide content." Which is to say, "inappropriately detailed or specialized content whose value is limited to game players specifically." I think the Pac-Man scoring table is borderline -- on one hand, you can really explain everything quite well in the part of the article that says, "eating a fruit scores extra bonus points. The prizes change throughout the game, and their point values increase (see the table at right)." On the other hand, there are comparably unimportant details in many articles about non-video gaming topics, and there is a slight bias against gaming articles on the part of those who consider Wikipedia's game coverage unprofessional (we have 400+ Pokémon articles, for crying out loud). So as I say, it's a borderline case. Andre (talk) 20:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

An interesting counter to this is that, for some simple games like Pac-Man or Donkey Kong, it's almost impossible to describe the game without also telling people how to play it. For example, "The objective of Donkey Kong is to defeat Donkey Kong." That doesn't actually say anything. But it CAN be argued that saying "The objective is to get Mario to the top of the girders" is telling a person how to play. Unfortunately, remove something as basic as that and people won't really come away from the overview article with an understanding of Donkey Kong's gameplay. So it seems to me that some "slippery slope" MUST be allowed in order for the articles to be useful - it's just a matter of determining where to draw the line. In my opinion, the second example here would be appropriate because it conveys enough information for someone to understand the game, without going into exhaustive detail ("by climbing ladders and jumping over barrels. Barrels score 100 points each.") and also without glossing over the basics too much. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

That said, I stand by my original statement that things like the fruit table and ghost point values are unnecessarily detailed. People understand that video games are all about scoring points. Do they really need to have the points spelled out for them if they're not actively playing the game? Or is simply knowing they need to eat the dots and eat the ghosts sufficient?

The football argument is an interesting one, and I concede that it introduces part of the slippery slope that Andre mentioned above. You do lose something when describing the game of football when you take out the game's scoring rules. I still don't think it makes the fruit table necessary - it does, however, validate prose that says "fruits appear periodically, and eating them scores additional bonus points." — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Slippery slope is a logical fallacy. Once more, other game-related articles have charts, etc. Arcade games and points are relevent. There's nothing wrong with featuring the charts, so long as they remain objective and informative, without telling a player HOW to play. Telling someone how much each fruit is worth isn't telling them how to play. It isn't extraneous information. Telling people blue ghost scoring isn't irrelevent, especially since it varies from Pac game to Pac game.

The most important thing is to impart research information. Have a list of each fruit and their point score is not a "strategy guide" - it's just factual information. Someone doing a research paper on Pac-Man will find the information profoundly useful. They'll also note the progression of blue ghost scoring as helpful.

Above all, keeping it OBJECTIVE is the most important aspect. JAF1970 21:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Just because it's factual, objective AND it doesn't tell the user HOW to play the game doesn't necessarily mean it's appropriate for an encyclopedia. Using that argument, a detailed table that describes the shapes of each level and the individual colors of each group of levels in Tempest would also be appropriate - again, those don't actually tell the reader how to play. In Pac-Man, you could tell the user about the rounded edges, the number of dots in the maze, the amount that the ghosts slow down in the time tunnels, etc., and still fit within those objective/factual/non-strategy definitions, yet that would clearly be too much information for the article. Again, where do you draw the line? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Where did I say "detailed"?! Did you note notice my saying concise? And those tables are not "detailed".

“

Let me put it plainly: arcade games are all about scoring points. In Donkey Kong, jumping over a barrel is 100 points. Furthermore, a lot of arcade games are all about levels. The point is this - be brief in describing scoring, describing levels, but don't been obscure, either. The word concise jumps to mind. You should tell a player HOW A GAME IS PLAYED, but not HOW TO PLAY. JAF1970 00:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

”

You talk but you do not listen. JAF1970 00:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

(*sigh*) I thought we were starting to make progress, but there he goes, just outright dismissing my thoughts and statements and totally misunderstanding them in the process... JAF, go back to the mediation page and read my most recent replies. This dispute isn't really about video games or about Pac-Man C.E. or what not - it's about you and me, and I'm getting really sick of it.

Back on topic: This whole time, I have been saying that I DISAGREE that the fruit tables are concise - I believe they are unnecessarily detailed. A CONCISE mention would be: "Periodically, a fruit appears in the middle of the maze. Eating this fruit scores extra bonus points. The fruits change between levels." See? Does the casual reader REALLY need to see every single fruit and its score value in a table? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

So picture yourself a researcher. You want to know about the key. You go to Wikipedia -- you find nothing there. You have to go to another site, and think, "Wikipedia isn't informative for video games. I'll research elsewhere." Scoring tables are NOT "game guides", nor are they "in depth". Just the opposite.

By their VERY NATURE, tables don't go in depth. Just ID, score, and maybe level. I don't know what sort of world some of you live in, but that's pretty brief. JAF1970 00:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Try telling that to the dozens of people whose consensus appears to disagree with your opinion. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The number of people doesn't invalidate my point. I'm speaking as someone who does research for a living, and has also dealt with book publishers, etc. You don't vote for where to dig for oil - you get a geologist. When writing an article, the first issue should be "does this help the person reading it understand it?" If you look up "dog", do you get a deep analysis, or "Animal with 4 feet that barks"? I suggest you read the Quality Assessment Scale. JAF1970 00:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is invalidating your point. You should stop invalidating ours, though. Unless you can prove that you are a foremost authority on this topic (in which case you should take it up with the admins and founders of Wikipedia), you are in the same boat as the rest of us, and that means you do not have the right or any call to be as uncivil and hostile toward us (especially me) as you have been.

I repeat: Go back to the Mediation Cabal page NOW. Or I will escalate our dispute to FORMAL mediation, and/or file a harassment complaint against you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

And you try to invalidate my point with a hostile ad hominem abusive. Go to the Spore page. Are you going to shrink all the phases listed - which would be the proper thing to do under your pruning ideas. Would you like me to contact video game industry professionals and websites and ask them what would be most useful? I can get as many people backing my idea as you can yours. That's not the point. I've been playing video games for ... jesus, 30 years. I was alive when Pong debuted in 1972, and playing Space Invaders when it just came out.

So was my father. He worked for the man who is most commonly credited with designing and developing PONG. Your point? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You have yet to prove how a simple listing of the fruits somehow represents a "strategy guide", telling people how to play, and how it imparts too much information. Arcade games are all about points. If you decide to do this,will you remove every single offending item? For example, remove detailed descriptions of Donkey Kong levels? Remove all point references from every video game?

I have experience in both video gaming and arcade gaming - the entire era, in fact - and a research background. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - that's where the "pedia" comes from. It's not a dictionary (that's what Wiktionary is for. If you want just brief descriptions of games, that's what a dictionary is for. An encyclopedia has articles. There's huge difference between that and a "strategy guide". JAF1970 00:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

And you seem to think nobody else has anywhere near the same level of experience, JAF. You haven't stopped to consider the possibility that maybe some other people, such as myself, may also be experts in the field. Moreover, you have ABSOLUTELY REFUSED to acknowledge your uncivil behavior, you have REFUSED to work with me on resolving our dispute, you CONTINUE to make snide, dismissive remarks and attempt to dismiss conversation, and you have given me no indication that you understand how your behavior is affecting not only me, but other people within this community. I have asked you repeatedly to take your personal attacks off of the article-talk pages and to my user page, and you have refused. I have asked you repeatedly to work together with me. You have continued to fixate on what few mistakes I made, even though I corrected them, and have worked very hard to try to invalidate me as a person and an editor. I am really tired of this, and if you don't step back as you have been directed by the mediator and start working with the mediation process, I am going to file a report. I don't care how old you are or what you do for a living. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

And you seem to think nobody else has anywhere near the same level of experience, JAF. You haven't exactly been mediating. What do you think mediation means, anyway? I tried sending the olive branch, but you threw it back into my face. Here's an exercise for you -- how would you deal with this article: Contract bridge. It features tables, and it actually deals with strategy. How about American football? Answer seriously, please. This is not an attack -- this is a legitimate question. JAF1970 01:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I answered that question in several places already. I even told you I appreciated you talking to me about it in a more civilized tone. It's not my problem if you just skimmed right over that, y'know.

PS. You never answered the question: You have yet to prove how a simple listing of the fruits somehow represents a "strategy guide", telling people how to play, and how it imparts too much information. Arcade games are all about points. If you decide to do this,will you remove every single offending item? For example, remove detailed descriptions of Donkey Kong levels? Remove all point references from every video game? JAF1970 01:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Look, JAF, for the last time, I called for discussion on the topic. It's not up to me to prove this point, and I wish you'd get that through your head. It's up to the community to agree one way or another. And as I've said multiple times now, if the consensus IS to remove such scoring details, then I will work toward removing those details from all related articles and will encourage others to do so as well. IF that's what the community decides. In fact, User:Andrevan stated above that this consensus had, in fact, been reached some time ago. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a feeling some of the rules were instituted because people kept including actual strategy. For instance, maybe on Sonic, they described how to get max points in minimum time. That is exceedingly inappropriate for an encyclopedia. That's quite different than listing fruits and points, and describing levels. Encyclopedias are not supposed to be minimalist expressions of articles - look around the best articles. They get in-depth analysis.

I think the thing people don't seem to understand is objectivity and a neutral voice. Points are a part of video games (er, those that have them). Removing a lot of these references is like trying to describe a human being with a stick figure.

Another thing people seem to fail to realize is that Wikipedia is not for Wiki contributors. It's for the general public. If the public finds the articles unhelpful, they simply won't come. JAF1970 01:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a really interesting point you bring up there, JAF. I doubt that WP:NOT would have been written the way it is if the general public didn't find extraneous details, minutiae and trivia to be unhelpful. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me give you an example I posted in the Mediation:

Which is better?

Pac-Man CE consists of six main "challenges", each with their own unique set of mazes and time limits[5]:

• Championship Mode: Regular Pac-Man CE gameplay, with a timed limit of 5 minutes.
• Challenge Mode 1 (Patience and Reward Course): The mazes alternate between an abundance of power pellets and no power pellets. Timed limit of 10 minutes.
• Challenge Mode 2 (The Darkness Course): Only the area directly around Pac-Man and the Ghosts is visible and the maze walls are completely hidden. Timed limit of 10 minutes.
• Extra Mode 1 (The Freeway Course): Starts at near-top speed and features many long, horizontal tunnels. Timed limit of 5 minutes.
• Extra Mode 2 (The Manhattan Course): A set of mazes inspired by the streets of Manhattan. Timed limit of 10 minutes.
• Extra Mode 3 (The Overall Course): A mix of all other modes. Timed limit of 10 minutes.

Or this:

• Championship Edition (Blue, 5 minutes)
• Challenge Mode 1 (Green, 10 minutes)
• Challenge Mode 2 (Dark, 10 minutes)
• Extra Mode 1 (Light blue, 5 minutes, starts off fast)
• Extra Mode 2 (Grey, 10 minutes)
• Extra Mode 3 (Orange, 10 minutes)

Does the first version indicate "strategy guide"? Does it honestly tell people how to play? Or is it simply information that tells someone who doesn't know the game what is involved? Does the second version truly help a reader? And if you prefer the second version, why even say "Blue" or "green"? That's useless "guide" talk, isn't it?

According to Quality scale, which belongs? JAF1970 01:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Can I just interject something here real quick? At what point did you miss that we're not just talking about "strategy guide" anymore, and we're also talking about "scoring details" and "minutiae"? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not details to list the fruit. It's not "minutiae" either, either. Every encyclopedia includes this sort of information - what invalid information does it impart? And you still haven't explained your reasoning for slashing the levels in Pac-Man CE in the first place. JAF1970 01:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

At least acknowledge that the scope of the conversation is not just "strategy guide" material. It's all stuff covered in the CVGProj Guidelines. And my reasoning has consistently been to follow consensus. And my strategy has consistently been to ask for discussion, clarification and consensus. I have invited you to discuss why such details should stay, and in a few isolated instances you've brought up good points for them. I have also invited others to do the same, and for a large part of this dispute, you have attempted to block that by declaring your opinion to be the correct one and overrunning the conversation so heavily that nobody else is likely to want to get involved. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You still haven't addressed the first statement in this section:

“

I have a feeling some of the rules were instituted because people kept including actual strategy. For instance, maybe on Sonic, they described how to get max points in minimum time. That is exceedingly inappropriate for an encyclopedia. That's quite different than listing fruits and points, and describing levels. Encyclopedias are not supposed to be minimalist expressions of articles - look around the best articles. They get in-depth analysis. I think the thing people don't seem to understand is objectivity and a neutral voice. Points are a part of video games (er, those that have them). Removing a lot of these references is like trying to describe a human being with a stick figure. Another thing people seem to fail to realize is that Wikipedia is not for Wiki contributors. It's for the general public. If the public finds the articles unhelpful, they simply won't come.

”

JAF1970 01:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Y'know, it's really not necessary to keep repeating yourself. You're just wasting space when you do that. "See my comment above" is sufficient. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Clarification -- but nothing is clear. Wikipedia is not for Wikipedia contributors. It's for people to get information from. Removing the point tables from Pac-Man Championship Edition or Contract bridge - how does that serve the people or researchers? JAF1970 02:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Information regarding the specific fruits I would consider unsuitable to Wikipedia. It gives the reader no insight into the mechanics of the game. At most, I would add something under Gameplay along the lines of - Occasionaly, a fruit will spawn in the center of the field. Collecting this fruit provides the player with bonus points. And that's it. No more than that. Ong elvin 03:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

From the Halo 3 page, look at the Iris section in this archive. I pointed out in the talk page that it was pretty, um, terrible. I tagged the article as needing cleanup, and someone else deleted that section. I think that sort of thing is what this Policy is trying to guard against, not whether fruits and points are listed. JAF1970 02:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Carcassonne (board game) and Carcassonne (video game). Could you rightfully remove scoring references to either of these games? Can you just say, "People put tiles down" in the game? Doesn't the types of tiles and the scoring of tiles have some relevence? JAF1970 02:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing - the video game scoring is different in a few ways to the board game, so you couldn't just say "It plays like the board game". Especially since the board game has 3 rules variants based on the edition of the game. JAF1970 02:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to let someone else respond to this. JAF told me I'm wrong, so obviously I don't deserve to participate in the discussion. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop it. This isn't about who is wrong and who is right. This is about showing the reasoning behind things. For example, I didn't post the fruit chart because it was cool. I posted it because the fruit list has always been something discussed about Pac-Man. JAF1970 03:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Just giving you a taste of what you did to me when I did the same thing in Pac-Man and Pac-Man CE. Doesn't feel that great, does it? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Please, do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and don't be the first one to make things personal. It's not nice, relevant, or helpful. --Quiddity 06:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Quiddity, I do hope you'll forgive this, but the dispute is already quite personal between JAF and myself, and it's spilled over onto this page. JAF has done the same exact thing to me several times in other article talks, apparently just to prove his point, so I'm trying to find ways to get him to see how disruptive his behavior has been. We'll be going into formal mediation soon, since informal mediation has apparently failed. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not personal. I said that in mediation and in your user talk page. You're taking it personally, and that's something I cannot help. That's your issue, not mine. JAF1970 17:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, then why did you take my initial edits to PMCE so personally? This whole mess wouldn't have happened if you'd kept it civil, instead of blocking my attempts to open up discussion there. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

KieferSkunk posted this in Pac-Man CE Talk: If that's what the consensus comes to, then yes. I don't think we need to know the specific point values of each individual item in the game, nor do the descriptions of the boards in Donkey Kong need to be more than one or two lines long. (For instance, and without having read the article yet, I'd be perfectly fine with something like "Board 1 consists of girders and ladders, and Donkey Kong rolls or throws barrels at the player. Board 2 has straight girders and plugs.", etc. Of course, exact wording would take more time to get right, and probably multiple edits among multiple editors. However, I would consider "Board 1 has pink girders, two hammers, and the player must jump over all barrels, which score 100 points each, or 300 points if the player jumps over two barrels simultaneously" to be overly detailed.)

Can you now see how disastrous that would be? Would anyone treat an article that is not useful in any way to anyone seriously? What possible information could someone get from something so shabbily eviscerated? How about just taking all the descriptions of a dog from that article and saying, "Dogs are of the canine family."

There's a difference between a dictionary and an encyclopedia. Wiktionary condenses that far. Wikipedia is a research tool.

I once again refer you to the Quality Assessment Scale]. Do you want to render all computer and video game articles to stub-class articles?

Honestly, how in the world is "Board 1 consists of girders and ladders, and Donkey Kong rolls or throws barrels at the player" going to help someone understand the game WHEN THEY'VE NEVER HEARD OF IT? JAF1970 14:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Others have complained about "game guide" material:

“

I noticed that Pkaulf made an edit on May 17th citing "game guide material, doesn't belong on the article" that removed the whole classes section and all individual class information. The article now to me seems to tell me almost nothing about the game, it doesn't even tell me what the classes are, or how say, the spy works. How fluffy is this supposed to be? Seems like a huge change to the article without discussion. I also noticed another edit by Uber that cited "deleted unreferenced material" and yet what he removed was a paragraph full of cited stuff then he shot down Tom Edwards for reverting. The quality of this article is going downhill fast. Olivier Beaton 17:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

”

How can people use an article for reference if it tells them nothing, or worse, tells them to literally find other sources? I recreated the class section as its own page to help people and keep them at Wikipedia. But note: the class guide only tells them what each class does, not how to play each class. That, once again, is the crux of the argument. You're so afraid of telling too much that you tell too little. JAF1970 14:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Exhaustive lists of classes are considered game guide material. Wikipedia is not a comprehensive research tool, it is supposed to provide a brief overview for laymen. Lists of mere statistics, items, or other minutiae are not acceptable. Andre (talk) 00:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Andre, JAF does have a point: Many other pages on Wikipedia outside of CVGProj have exhaustive content - JAF has pointed to American football and Contract bridge as examples, and I told him at one point that, as a casual reader unfamiliar with and mostly uninterested in the topic, I would not want to read the Bridge article because I found its scope of information really overwhelming. Many sports articles also go into exhaustive detail about their subjects. Personally, I think it makes a little more sense there, since we're talking about substantially more complex topics than simple video games, but there is a little slippery-slope at play here, with respect to Wikipedia as a whole. How should that be addressed? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you it's a little confusing. Part of it has to do with the fact that there are over 15,000 video games in existence, many with exceedingly large lists of rules, items, points, etc (by contrast, maybe 1,000 notable games/sports covered in depth). Also, few of these games are as notable as the major sports or card games covered in depth, and none of them have had the same impact on the world. Regardless of WHY, though, the definite consensus is that video game rules and such should not be covered as in depth as say, chess. Andre (talk) 00:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think a little common sense should be employed. Simply: we know how much is too much. Most Wiki editors are not idiots, and can make sure things don't get out of hand. It's like writing - good writers can "feel" when the grammar of a sentence is wrong. If an article looks and feels right - it's right. JAF1970 00:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Common sense is all well and good, but you need to have common sense AND follow the consensus guidelines set forth here. Andre (talk) 00:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The question is, who determines when an article looks and feels right? Not everyone is going to agree on those points. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Compromises. And anyone can tell when an article is bloated. JAF1970 01:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting... — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This whole debate is really trivial, most of the information that you guys are arguing about should be contained in the relevant related article on StrategyWiki.org (if it isn't already, which in the case of Pac-Man, it is.) It is pointless to provide that information in the pages of Wikipedia since the pertinent information about how to play and the score value for each individual element is already contained by a wiki site that SW has diligently been linking each game article to. You're only engaging in redundancy that is both a waste of effort, and a waste of storage on Wikipedia when SW's servers are dedicated to this one specific purpose. An overview of each game is all well and good (include history, storyline, a brief explanation of how to play, as well as any pop-cultural influences), but all specific information should reside in StrategyWiki, and properly externally linked from the Wikipedia article page. Plotor 17:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, since our licenses are compatible, if it is later decided that some of the information is found to be encyclopedic, it can always be copied back. -- Prod-You 17:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Except I don't know researchers who go to StrategyWiki. It's like saying to go to SporeWiki for Spore information -- but no one uses it. JAF1970 18:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

That might be because the main articles don't currently have sufficient links to the sub-wikis. That's certainly something that can be easily corrected. (Personally, I don't know any researchers who would rely solely on Wikipedia for all their information anyway.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It's safe to say that a majority of researchers who come to Wikipedia then follow links to StrategyWiki (wherever said links are provided) to find more information because a majority of the traffic that StrategyWiki gets actually comes from Wikipedia. If you do happen to know any researchers who are not following this trend, it would be a good idea to alert them to site's presence. Plotor 19:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Most researchers will follow search engine links. If they don't find the info they want on Wikipedia, they'll move on to another site. Anyway, like I said before, the fruit table imparts no strategy. What possible "strategy" can you get from it? Arcade games are all about scoring points. JAF1970 23:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't take it so literally. StrategyWiki imparts strategy in the same way that GameFAQs distributes lists of frequently asked questions. Andre (talk) 23:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many responses JAF needs to that question before he'll stop asking it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I've gotten lost in the mass of discussion and couldn't find a definitive answer to that question. I believe having the tables is necessary for the pages here. The specific scores aren't absolutely necessary, but nothing is lost by adding them, and they give a more in-depth view of the game. -- Prod-You 04:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you feel that because of Pac-Man's relative importance to the gaming world, scoring information is helpful in the main article? I'm perfectly willing to accept that - I'd just like to know where we draw the lines so we can maintain a consistent policy on this and similar points. I've seen several people say that things like the fruit table are important information for Pac-Man, but the same sort of information is not important for other games like Bosconian, Galaga, Star Fox Command, etc. The only real reason I can see for that is because Pac-Man is itself a very important milestone in gaming history and therefore deserves more attention than most other games.

If this turns out to be what we agree to in consensus, could we consider clarifying the guidelines to come up with a more-or-less formal definition for an "important game"? Also, does the presence of these kinds of details in Pac-Man justify their presence in derivatives, such as Ms. Pac-Man and Pac-Man Championship Edition? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 07:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Pac-Man's importance does give it some leeway, but I don't think we need to decide on "important game" criteria. It seems like instruction creep. Andre (talk) 02:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't find information on the Displacer Weapon from Half-Life - the only mention is in Half-Life: Opposing Force, which is a broken hyperlink. So, basically, Wiki is worthless for me to find information on it - time to Google it. You see the problem?

Sort of reminds me of "1984", about how they're proudly talking about how they're making the dictionary smaller and smaller. "It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words". Doubleplusungood. JAF1970 03:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

JAF, your analogy is terrible. That's like saying McDonalds is just as bad as nuclear radiation because exposure to both for an extremely long time could eventually kill you. Top that analogy! The point is simple: All you are doing is arguing over information that is already presented the best way it possibly in can, in a dedicated and nurturing environment, on StrategyWiki, so there's really no need to argue over its existence on this site. As long as the SW article is appropriately linked on the WP page, then any researcher will ultimately find the information presented in the best possible form in the best possible location. If you're really insistent that readers know where to find the point values for the fruits, by all means, add a note that the table is contained on SW. We certainly won't mind. Plotor 14:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but when I do a web search, no StrategyWiki appears. You're trying to decentralize Wikipedia (at least as far as video games), and in doing so, turning into Swiss cheese, full of broken links and unhelpful half-information. I've seen this in business - companies get all hot to decentralize, then end up re-centralizing everything 5 years later when no one can access the data they need. JAF1970 14:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize that I was talking to a blind person. SW is the second site listed, right after WP, in a Google and Yahoo search for "Pac-Man Wiki". It is the 1st site listed on Yahoo after searching for "Pac-Man walkthrough" and granted, the 18th site listed on Google for the same search. But don't worry, stem cell research is making a lot of advances these days, and maybe your sight will be restored one day. And the decentralization of WP started long before this discussion ever began. Plotor 16:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Who is going to search for "Pac-Man Wiki"? And when I do a search for "Opposing Force" and "Displacer", I don't get any Wiki entries. JAF1970 16:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you JAF, you just proved my point. If I didn't know any better, I'd think you were arguing for me, instead of against me. Discussion closed. Plotor 17:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I used to. That's my point. Do what you like. (shrug) I'm betting that with the Wiki DVD coming out, they're going to mutter - "Ugh! We have to centralize all this. It's too unfocused!" JAF1970 18:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand why "See Also" and "For more information" links are so terrible. Any good researcher will know how to find related information in a main article - for example, if you know the Displacer Gun is a Half-Life weapon, then going to the Half-Life article to read up on general Half-Life information would eventually lead you to a more detailed article on all the weapons, including the Displacer gun. (If an appropriate mention of the Displacer Gun hasn't been made in a prominent spot, such as a "List of weapons in Half-Life", we can always add it.) And if you only know that a Displacer Gun exists but have no clue which game it belongs to, searching Wikipedia for "Displacer Gun" should bring you to the appropriate place. (Searching Google or another web engine will likewise give you enough information to do the research.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to spend the hours to investigate every single little article? And decentralization is fraught with disaster. Trust me.

Ever heard of the term "bureaucracy"? JAF1970 19:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Tell me if this sounds familiar from the article:

• Vertical hierarchy of authority can become chaotic, some offices can be omitted in the decision making process, there may be conflicts of competence;
• Competences can be unclear and used contrary to the spirit of the law; sometimes a decision itself may be considered more important than its effect;
• Nepotism, corruption, political infighting and other degenerations can counter the rule of impersonality and can create a recruitment and promotion system not based on meritocracy but rather on oligarchy;
• Officials can try to avoid responsibility and seek anonymity by avoiding documentation of their procedures (or creating extreme amounts of chaotic, confusing documents)

Even a non-degenerated bureaucracy can be affected by common problems:

• Overspecialization, making individual officials not aware of larger consequences of their actions
• Rigidity and inertia of procedures, making decision-making slow or even impossible when facing some unusual case, and similarly delaying change, evolution and adaptation of old procedures to new circumstances;
• A phenomenon of group thinking - zealotry, loyalty and lack of critical thinking regarding the organisation which is perfect and always correct by definition, making the organisation unable to change and realise its own mistakes and limitations;
• Disregard for dissenting opinions, even when such views suit the available data better than the opinion of the majority;
• A phenomenon of Catch-22 (named after a famous book by Joseph Heller) - as bureaucracy creates more and more rules and procedures, their complexity rises and coordination diminishes, facilitating creation of contradictory rules
• Not allowing people to use common sense, as everything must be as is written by the law.

Just remember the KISS principle. JAF1970 19:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You should talk. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's not talk about pages under construction, please. If you want an apology out of me, there's now more chance Charlie Callas will become a big time romantic lead than getting one from me.

Anyway, I've seen this happen before, so trust me - all this decentralization and beaurocracy? There's be a ton of work trying to undo it and centralize later. Especially if the Wiki heads go ahead with that Wiki DVD-ROM. JAF1970 20:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I just find it interesting that you're making such a strong case for people accepting "dissenting opinions" when you so adamantly blocked mine. Whether the page is under construction has no bearing on the validity of either of our points. However, bringing up large amounts of bureaucratic support is not a good way to make your case for changes in the policies and guidelines - don't you think such things might have already been considered? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure they've been considered - just unheeded. I don't care - do whatever you like. (laugh) I just reserve the right to say "I told you so." JAF1970 23:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

First off, no true researcher uses an encyclopedia for their information, it's considered a secondary source (or even tertiary source). An encyclopedia is supposed to give a good overview and enough information to begin looking into the relevant primary sources. Secondly, stop flaming each other and stay on topic. This isn't a discussion about politics or dinner. Next, there is a difference between arbitrary decentralization and specialization. I am going to stay away from a construction-worker-doing-open-heart-surgery allegory, but StrategyWiki is centralizing all the game information it can (within reason). My position is that the point values aren't necessary, but the fact that it takes up so little space makes it pointless to debate. -- Prod-You 02:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

In regard to the point values: I'm of the opinion that we should keep the format consistent among similar articles. The reason this debate exists in the first place is because I was in favor of removing the fruit table from Pac-Man Championship Edition, where the table is almost as long as the article itself. The argument that came up is: If Pac-Man can have one, should Pac-Man C.E. as well? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

For one, researchers do use an encyclopedia as a start-off point, so let me disabuse you of that notion quickly. I'd love to know what "within reason" is.

Ever heard of the "someone better" rule? Because there will be something better in the future if this kind of decentralized eviscerating isn't stopped. There is a saying, "Better to have too much information than too little.

If Wikipedia doesn't want to be for research purposes, then what the fuck is it good for? Trying to be listed in Google searches? Sounds pretty onanistic to me.

For example: Removing achievement lists on XBLA games? What purpose does removing them serve? It's not a "game guide", or a "strategy guide". It's just facts. But, hey, you're trying to make the Newspeak Dictionary here. "Destruction of language is a beautiful thing", right? JAF1970 07:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

If you think 360 Achievement lists are so important, start your own 360 Achievement wiki. Consensus is here not to include them. Andre (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, decentralization. You know what happens? The Wikipedia gets diluted to the point of uselessness. Most people want all the information under one roof, you know. Imagine doing this with animals. Can you imagine anything more boring or useless than having a Cat Wiki, a Dog Wiki, a Mouse Wiki, a Cow Wiki, etc? Pretty soon Wikipedia is one big directory. Or worse, a web ring.

I've seen this happen before - centralization always occurs after de-centralization. Watch. JAF1970 18:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

But that's what encyclopediae are for. Even printed encyclopediae serve as fairly detailed summaries of the subjects they cover, with massive amounts of source citations pointing researchers to articles and publications that contain far more detail. Encyclopediae, by definition, are a means of looking up information - a starting point for research, as you put it. I have no disagreement on that point. I just think that your arguing that all the information should belong on Wikipedia itself is working at cross-purposes to the very definition of Wikipedia, and encyclopediae in general. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think you answered your own question right there, JAF. Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia. Researchers use encylopediae as start-off points. So why is having WP as a start-off point for more thorough research a bad thing? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

If I could add my thoughts to this. All games and their relevant content should be able to be summarised within one webpage. Beyond that, extra pages should only be created if they have some extra significance, such as Warcraft III and Creeps (computer gaming), and possibly (I say this tenuously) Hero (Warcraft). Nearly all other pages relevant to a specific game should only be in a StrategyWiki. I cite RuneScape#Gameplay as an example. The link to Skills describes all the skills in the game, what they do, and what benefits it provides. The link to Combat describes each of the attributes and how it affects combat, how to engage enemies, why you engage enemies, and so on. In both cases, clearly explaining to the player how to play the game, rather than giving an overview of the gameplay. So again, games and their relevant content should have only one webpage within the main Wikipedia article; extra information should go to a StrategyWiki. Ong elvin 03:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Well done, I think that was a good change and helps clarify the situation. Andre (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. :) I made that change after boldly removing the fruit table and other scoring details from Pac-Man (after some consensus discussion there), while leaving the extra-life score in the article. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey Wikiproject VG,

I'm new to your project, but have reviewed a couple of your articles for GA status. In both cases I've been moved to question why the plot of those particular games isn't discussed before the gameplay. From an outside perspective, it's much more instructive to understand the context of the game and the various characters involved (most particularly in RPGs for example) than it is to get the detail of the gameplay. The most current example is Fire Emblem (Game Boy Advance) which to me, a relative outsider to the intricacies of your Wikiproject, is confusing to read. I most certainly don't want to appear here all new and try to re-write your rulebook but I'd be interested in some discussion over your manual of style. The Rambling Man 22:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Not so much a direct reply here, but I've noticed this too. Some game articles discuss the plot before gameplay, and I agree that this seems to make more sense, since most games introduce their plots before introducing the player to the gameplay, controls, etc. Some articles, however, put gameplay above plot, so the articles become somewhat inconsistent. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm no regular editor for WP:VG (I usually stay in my WP:FF bubble), but I was under the impression that the original reasoning behind it was the nature of the subject matter. The most important aspect of a video game is its gameplay and casual readers would be most interested in how the game plays first, rather than how its story goes. Thus, it would make sense to explain that at the beginning before moving into the plot section. Correct me if I'm wrong. Axem Titanium 02:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right, Axem. Andre (talk) 02:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts on this matter - if the plot summary is very short, a paragraph or two at most, then it should go before the Gameplay section. If it's longer than that, decide which of the two is more important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ong elvin (talk • contribs) 03:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

with mmorpg's getting more and more popular, there is many differences here, for example WoW, has 9 million players, but they are divided on thousands(?) of seperate servers/worlds, while other games let all players enter the same world, like EVE-Online have nearly 200 000 players in the same server/world.

Why was this removed?

• Don't confuse the player with the on-screen character. The player pushes buttons, enters a code, or completes the game; the game character swings a sword, saves the princess, or performs a special move.

This is standard advice to game writers and one of the first things I was warned about when I first started writing for gaming magazines (albeit, that was for RPG mags, not VG mags). Link and Mario don't enter codes; players do. Players don't swing swords; Link and Cloud do. This should be self-evident, but it's a common mistake made by game writers. Shouldn't we warn against it? — Brian (talk) 23:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed it because it was ambiguous and a bit vague. Players are often described as having performed moves or completing portions of the game. I don't really think that particular sentence, as written, makes clear the distinction between player and character actions. I also think the difference between video games and tabletop RPGs is larger than you seem to believe. Andre (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

In an effort to cut down on trivia, a small group of this project's members have come up with some guidelines and have been enforcing them on a few wikipedia video game pages (Pong, Galaxian, Galaga) since this past June. Its been a success, and I'm now proposing it here for full inclusion in the project's guidelines.

Very simply put, to be included in an In Pop Culture section the appearance has to be a notable appearance, where the game or character in question is a significant part of a scene (not just a background prop) or integral to the storyline, song, etc.. Some examples of pop culture appearances following this standard in relation to Pong: The recent Andy Riddick Pong commercial is a good example, as is the King of the Hill episode (where the Pong console plays a main character and a driving part of the storyline, appearing thoughout the episode). Likewise, the album Pac-Man Fever, where Pac-Man is integral to the product, appearing both in the title, an included song, and the cover art. Some examples of not meeting standard: A glimpse of Pong in the background of a scene in a movie or television show, a one liner mention in some dialogue between people in a movie or television show, or a one liner mention of Pong in a song. --Marty Goldberg 19:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

When we did something similar at SNES, the whole section went away. Good riddance. Anomie 02:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yah, the sections in the three test entries went way way down as well. I think that's kind of the point though, is give an established guideline to weed out fluff/trivia vs. more substantial examples of pop culture influence. --Marty Goldberg 03:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's good to have pop-culture information on important milestone games, like Pac-Man and Pong, because there are definitely notable and well-documented examples (like Pac-Man Fever and the Riddick Pong commercial) that don't just reference the games, but show how they have influenced culture in a general sense. Those are important to the articles, but as mentioned further above, mere cameos or mentions of a game in a TV show are not terribly noteworthy.

I've been helping enforce the pop-culture experiment on Pong and Galaga, and I agree that it doesn't seem to be too difficult to maintain. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 07:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has guidelines on trivia sections at WP:TRIVIA and WP:POPCULTURE, and these suggestions will help to enforce them. Long lists of non-notable trivia can spoil an article, but it is useful to have a few notable examples of the pop culture influence of games like Pong and Pac-Man. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at Pong's pop culture section, and I have a few suggestions that you may want to incorporate into your proposal. The last two trivia items listed just say "In an episode of"; I suggest entries like that should have a citation to the specific episode (e.g. using {{cite episode}}) or be marked {{fact}} and eventually removed.

Also, the last four entries should do a better job of indicating just how important the game is to the plot; what is interesting about "In the film Airport '77, children can be seen playing a cocktail cabinet version of Pong Doubles"? Similarly, what importance does anything in Galaga's pop culture section have? Anomie 12:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I can see how the first item is questionable. The second item is a major news story involving a video game, though, and the third item denotes a direct parody of the game, which is something more notable than a mere cameo.

BTW, if you want a feasting ground for questionable pop-culture references, check out Tron (film), which has several lengthy sections on how various other media (TV shows, movies, commercials and games) have either parodied or referenced Tron's visual style, plot or characters. Much of the information (not to mention the sheer volume of it) *is* what I'd consider noteworthy because the fact that it all exists is proof of that film's cultural impact. But at the same time, not very many of the individual pieces actually seem to fit the bill themselves. The same is likely true of a number of video games. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Anomie - yes, that's a good suggestion regarding citing specific episodes. As for the Airport '77 - I think the it needs rewording as well to convey its importance. Pong Doubles isn't used as a background prop, some main characters (children that will be on the airplane) are introduced playing that game literally on the plane sitting around it for the scene. You can see pics of it here.

So what do you all say we start formalizing the actual wording now to include everyone's great input above now? --Marty Goldberg 20:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Just my $.02. I think this is a great proposal. I've seen way too many VG articles spoiled with lengthy, non-notable trivia. Notable stuff is great. The rest is just noise. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok here's the rough draft of the guideline then. Feel free to suggest changes for more clarity, etc. --Marty Goldberg 08:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Pop Culture Citations

Video games have been around long enough to have made their mark in influencing pop culture. Likewise, recognizing a subject's influence on popular culture can enhance an entry subject's notability on Wikipedia. WikiProject Video games recognizes this, and has allowed for the inclusion of pop culture related material with the placement of an In Pop Culture in Wikipedia video game related entries, along with its subheaders In Film/Television and In Music. However, material included in this section must still adhere to Manual of Style guidelines on trivia as well as suggested guidelines on In Pop Culture appearances.

The following guidelines are to be used for judging if content is notable enough to be included in a pop culture section:

• In references to film or television, an appearance is worth inclusion when the game or character in question plays a significant part of the storyline, dialogue, or scene. With very few exceptions, the film, television show, novel, or other work should meet the relevant Wikipedia:Notability criteria for the appearance to be worth mention. Examples of different types of appearance include:

• • Worth mention: The game subject is a literal character in the film. The game is integral to the plot of the work (e.g. it would be named in a well-written plot summary).
  • Consensus Needed: The game is being played by the major character(s) and is the major subject of the dialog in at least one scene. The game is being played and the game events are an illustration, counterpoint, or ironic commentary on the subject of the discussion—note this must be obvious or sourced to a reliable secondary source, or it will likely be labeled original research. Consider the importance of the dialog or scene to the work as a whole.
  • Not worth mention: The game is only mentioned in passing, or is just a source of occasional interruptions of the real conversation. The game is being played only because the playing of any game is needed for the scene, for example to give the characters something to do or to be distracted by, even if the game is specifically named. The game appears as a background prop.

• In references to music, the appearance is worth inclusion when the game or character is integral to the artist, album, or song itself. Examples of worthiness would be where the game or character is part of the song presentation (artwork), song title, album title, or the subject of the song itself. Having a brief mention in the midst of the song does not constitute notability.

• All instances must be documented and follow Wikipedia policies on citing sources and verifiability. Specifically in regards to television citations, a citation to the specific episode using {{cite episode}} should be used. Any entries not following these guidelines will be marked {{fact}} and eventually removed if suitable reference is not found.

---

Regarding "or when all principles directly interact with the game for the entire scene", should a differentiation be made between types of interaction? Since I can't think of any good video game examples, I'll use the wagon rides in Calvin and Hobbes as an analogy to the playing of a video game in a film. Sometimes the wagon ride is integral to the strip, as in this strip from 1990-04-15 where the discussion involves the ride; those appearances are likely to be worth inclusion. Other times, it is just background action because "talking heads" are boring, as in this strip from 1992-05-18; IMO this is the equivalent of a background prop and is probably not worth mentioning. In between, we have cases like this from 1993-08-22 and this from 1993-04-12, where the principles are not paying any attention to the ride but the events of the ride illustrate or counterpoint the conversation; these can easily be interesting or trivial, but WP:OR will likely be claimed (validly or invalidly, some people's OR threshold is too low).

On a related note, perhaps a differentiation should be made between "playing this game" and "playing a game, which arbitrarily happens to be this game". The former is more likely than the latter to be an interesting appearance, particularly since the latter is more likely to be like the 1992-05-18 comic. Also, I recommend avoiding the word "notable" in this context, because it's too easy to conflate wikt:notable with Wikipedia:Notable. "Worthy of note", "interesting", "relevant", or another synonym would IMO be better. Anomie 17:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding you calvin and hobbes examples, I think the issue is some intelligence on the part of editors (such as what you're demonstrating) is still going to be needed no matter how we word it. That's just life here at Wikipedia. But as you point out in each of your examples, the part the wagon is playing is in variation across the examples is pretty clear. But yes, I tried to make a distinction between types in the examples, if you want to come up with better worded examples and such feel free. As far as some video game examples I can think of a couple by the way. In the film WarGames for example, there are two specific scenes that are built around Matthew Broderick playing Galaga while having dialogue. Even to the point of the Galaga machine playing a third character by switching back and forth between close shots of the Galaga screen and Matthew. In the same token, he's in an arcade full of other games - all of which serve as background props in importance. An example of the grey area you were talking about (with your wagon example) is an early episode of the TV show Growing Pains where an Atari 5200 appears through the entire episode. Most of the time its a prop on the set, but there are several scenes when the son, Mike Seaver (Kirk Cameron), is directly playing the console and having dialogue (none of it related to the console) with his father. What wording would you suggest to deal with what you're talking about? --Marty Goldberg 18:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

How about something like this?

• In references to film or television, an appearance is worth mention when the game or character in question plays a significant part of the storyline, dialogue, or scene. With very few exceptions, the film, television show, novel, or other work should meet the relevant Wikipedia:Notability criteria for the appearance to be worth mention. Examples of different types of appearance include:
  • Worth mention: The game subject is a literal character in the film. The game is integral to the plot of the work (e.g. it would be named in a well-written plot summary).
  • Maybe: The game is being played by the major character(s) and is the major subject of the dialog in at least one scene. The game is being played and the game events are an illustration, counterpoint, or ironic commentary on the subject of the discussion—note this must be obvious or sourced to a reliable secondary source, or it will likely be labeled original research. Consider the importance of the dialog or scene to the work as a whole.
  • Not worth mention: The game is only mentioned in passing, or is just a source of occasional interruptions of the real conversation. The game is being played only because the playing of any game is needed for the scene, for example to give the characters something to do or to be distracted by, even if the game is specifically named. The game appears as a background prop.

Examples could still be added. I've added mention that the work the game appears in should itself be notable, to stop someone from claiming their homemade YouTube movie constitutes an appearance worth mention (yes, this does happen^[1][2]). Anomie 20:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Just added your revisions, I just changed "Maybe" to "Consensus Needed" because I thought the wording sounded better, and it reflects the process that should occur. Do you guys think this looks good enough to put up now? --Marty Goldberg 22:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: Move the draft of these guidelines to a sandbox/personal-project page (like User:Wgungfu/Pop Culture Guidelines draft). Then you can more easily track your edits and separate the discussion about those edits and the subject in general from the draft itself. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, if there's no further suggestions content wise, I'm going to go ahead and put the revision we came up with on the main page then. --Marty Goldberg 21:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there some other way to label these sections? Video games are pop culture, so including a section called "popular culture" in an article on a game or character is a bit problematic. Perhaps "in other media"? — Brian (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say video games "are pop culture", anymore than you'd say baseball, football, McDonald's or a Macintosh computer are pop culture. All these things have certainly influenced and had elements that have contributed to pop culture, which is the point for recognizing that. But in no way are those subjects themselves pop culture, that's a confusion of two very separate things. Likewise, the problem with using "in other media" is that it makes it sound like appearances of the game itself in other media formats (i.e. disk, cd, etc.). --Marty Goldberg 21:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

No, those things you list are pop culture too. From our article on that subject: "It can include any number of practices, including those pertaining to cooking, clothing, consumption, mass media and the many facets of entertainment such as sports and literature." Video games are part of mass media. The section title remains problematic. — Brian (talk) 03:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

No, they are not, you're taking what you want out of the pop culture entry and ignoring the rest. Specifically that line you quote is referring to where elements of pop culture can come from. It is not stating those subjects themselves are pop culture. Pop Culture is pop culture, it is not one in the same as the subjects that contribute to it. As the leading statement of the entire entry states: "Pop Culture is the widespread cultural elements in any given society that are perpetuated through that society's vernacular language". These example subjects (baseball, football, McDonald's or a Macintosh) stand on their own substance, regardless of any pop culture connection - i.e. they are not pop culture in and of their own. They have elements that have become part of the culture, and in turn they have pop culture links to those elements. And that is indeed what we're recognizing here with this section. But the subjects entries themselves are not pop culture, and you'd be hard pressed to find an editor on those pages that considers them one in the same as "pop culture" (i.e. your rationale for video games). Or that McDonald's shouldn't have a section on how it's influenced pop culture because its pop culture itself. McDonald's is a business, pure and simple, elements of which have become part of pop culture, but nobody would mistake it as being a pop culture derived and driven entity. Likewise, Video Games are an industry, that over the years elements of (companies, characters, stories such as the creation of Pac-Man) have become part of pop-culture. Being part of pop culture (i.e. contributing and influencing it) is a far cry from being pop culture itself. I see the issue here not being the title (which was already well in use across Wikipedia entries before I suggested it here, and not in dispute before now). Rather its your understanding of the difference between something being part of pop culture vs. being pop culture, and how much being a part of pop culture really weighs on the subject matter (Apple, football, baseball, video games, etc.) itself. --Marty Goldberg 05:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You're splitting hairs, Marty. Video games are a part of popular (as opposed to "high") culture, and I fail to see the benefit of distinguishing them as merely something that contributes to it as opposed to being pop culture themselves. Even if I concede your distinction that they are merely elements of pop culture, or part of pop culture, that still makes the section title ineloquent, like a section in Rome and Juliet called "In high culture". — Brian (talk) 05:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That's the point Brian, I think you're the one running things together by saying "video games are pop culture so it makes no sense to have a pop culture title", so that hairs have to be split. The position doesn't make a lot of sense because of the reasoning I already discussed above. The current title makes perfect sense and is already well in use, and seems to have the critical consensus. --Marty Goldberg 06:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my point and don't concede that video games are not popular culture in and of themselves. But I respect that you disagree and that you're unlikely to change your mind. I also realize that lots of Wikipedia articles have "In popular culture" sections, but that doesn't mean the title is eloquent or that such sections have the right to exist. At any rate, I've registered my oppose to the naming, though not to the intent of your proposal. Anything that cuts down on these trivia magnets is a step in the right diretion.

I think a better way to write "in popular culture" sections is to use reliable, secondary sources. If scholars or journalists have remarked upon and analyzed the pop culture impact of thing X, then we can write about it. Until that time, it's best to leave the fact that thing X was mentioned on last night's Family Guy out.

This would result in the complete removal of the vast majority of "in pop culture" sections, I think, so it would probably be quite controversial. Barring this idea, however, I support your text above. — Brian (talk) 06:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

After a lengthy discussion on the main project talk page, the usage of "is" vs. "was" was decided by consensus. Moving the discussion to here to begin work on a formal guideline. --Marty Goldberg 16:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This definitely needs attention. Here's my proposal:

• When describing a video game or console in the abstract, use present tense unless a reliable source proves that no instances of the product exist or the product was never released.
  • "The Nintendo Entertainment System is an 8-bit video game console."
  • "Star Fox 2 was a flying shooter game in development for the Super Nintendo Entertainment System. The game was canceled prior to the release of Star Fox 64 for the Nintendo 64."
• When describing a specific event related to the console or game, such as production, advertising, reviews, etc., use a tense appropriate for the time period in which the event occurred.
  • "The NES was released in 1985."
  • "The PS3 is being sold worldwide."
  • "The rivalry between the SNES and the Genesis sparked one of the fiercest console wars in history."

— KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Should probably add one more sentence in the intro to that, stating something towards a standard format to the intro sentence with regards to tense. As came out in the discussion, part of the problem was brevity in the intro sentence. It was obfuscating the tenses for the sake of cutting down on verbage. "The NES was a video game console released by Nintendo in 1985", which is confusing on intent (as Anomie had brought up several examples of), should follow the expanded and less confusing "The NES is a video game console developed by Nintendo, and was released in 1985" format. --Marty Goldberg 21:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and put the above phrasing in the main guidelines, and based on your point there (good point!), I added a note about being sure not to confuse verb tense, and gave the "good" phrasing for the NES example to show a good way to do it. Do you think it needs more? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm currently working on the Super Mario Galaxy article, and we've come across a little bit of a tricky situation. There doesn't seem to be any clear consensus on the usage of Japanese titles in the introductory sections of video games--for example, titles like Mario Strikers Charged, Final Fantasy VII, and Elebits have Japanese titles while games like Super Monkey Ball: Banana Blitz, Metroid Prime 3: Corruption, and Resistance: Fall of Man received no such treatment--and so we've had several reverts in the past day alone trying to settle this.

So my proposal, then, is that games developed in Japan or by Japanese companies be accompanied by their Japanese titles, while those developed outside of Japan would not be accompanied by their Japanese titles unless there is demonstrable reason to do so (e.g. the game is more famous and successful in Japan than in the rest of the world). So in the examples given above, FF7, Elebits, and Super Monkey Ball would all have Japanese titles while Mario Strikers Charged, Metroid Prime 3, and Resistance would only have English titles.

Any thoughts on this? --jonny-mt(t)(c) 04:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a start, but I would emphasis more that games released in Japan sufficiently far in advanced of NA/Eur releases should include the Japanese title, as likely the game will have received attention in the western world via its Japanese name. In a venn diagram, those games vs games released by Japanese companies have a large crossover, but I wouldn't necessarily limit it by its maker, more by its timing. --MASEM 04:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

My issue is that in some cases the "Japanese titles" are merely direct phonetic transcriptions of English titles in katakana. They're not different titles or translations. The redundancy is compounded even further by the use of romaji for what is English in the first place (Sūpā Mario Gyarakushī?). English titles are not uncommon in Japan, and as I mentioned a few months ago when this was being debated on the PlayStation 3 talk page, looking at the prominence of the Latin character titles on these boxes show that they are a common, if not primary, usage there. Such is the case with Super Mario Galaxy. Anyone who would benefit from an English name or title in katakana would be just as well served with a ja.wiki link. Dancter 21:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in replying. I see both of your points, although I have to admit that Dancter's makes more sense to me. Is it possible to compromise on this point--say titles with sufficiently different Japanese names (e.g. Super Smash Brothers Brawl, The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass) have their Japanese names added to the articles while titles with no difference in the Japanese and English names don't? --jonny-mt(t)(c) 06:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you should include the name of the game in the foreign language when the transliteration is different, such as the very obvious example of Eternal Sonata. When the foreign title provides a completely different meaning, and some "insight" into the game, I'm all for appending it. And don't limit it to just Japanese titles, include it for all games of any language. (Although I do know it would mostly only be relevant to Japanese titles.) For games which are transliterated identically, such as Super Mario Galaxy, I'd leave out the katakana. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ong elvin (talk • contribs) 12:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, then. I'd like to go ahead and add this to the guidelines, but I think we need more comments to ensure consensus. --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)Tell me what you think! 02:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. I wasn't advocating the complete removal of Japanese titles, anyway. Though, as demonstrated by an edit war on the Super Smash Bros. Brawl page a few days ago, it's important to be careful about how we present the Japanese titles. Perhaps that can be addressed in the revised guideline, too. Dancter 19:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that seems like quite the war. I'll put together a proposal for the presentation of the Japanese name (probably just using the standard values of the {{nihongo}} template) and post it below, but in the meantime I've dropped a note on their talk page suggesting that anyone interested in commenting do so here. --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)Tell me what you think! 08:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

All right, here is my proposal.

Japanese titles should be provided for games of Japanese origin whose official English name differs significantly from its Japanese name. Phonetic transcriptions are, as a rule, not considered to be significantly different. However, games known in English-speaking countries by their phonetic Japanese titles (e.g. Katamari Damacy) are an exception to this rule; these games should also have their Japanese titles included for clarity, although a phonetic transliteration is not required.

• Phonetic tranliterations of any Japanese characters are to be in line with the Manual of Style guidelines on romanization. English translations should also be provided for any Japanese titles which differ substantially from the official English title. These translations should be enclosed in quote marks to indicate their unofficial nature.

• Japanese titles, transliterations, and translations should be added using the standard properties of the {{nihongo}} template.
• Examples:

• Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots (no translation; phonetic transliteration)
• The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass - The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass (ゼルダの伝説　夢幻の砂時計, Zeruda no Densetsu Mugen no Sunadokei)
• Katamari Damacy - Katamari Damacy ("Soul Clump" (塊魂))
• Mega Man 3 - Mega Man 3 ("Rockman 3: The End of Dr. Wily!?" (ロックマン 3 Dr.ワイリーの最期!?, Rokkuman Surī Dokutā Wairī no Saigo!?) in Japan)
• Grand Theft Auto: Vice City (no translation; American game)

Similar guidelines apply to games of non-Japanese origin (e.g. Korean RPGs).

I went ahead and included a note about games being sourced from Japan. I did this because noting that, for example, Resistance: Fall of Man is known as RESISTANCE~Jinrui no Botsuraku no Hi~ (RESISTANCE～人類の没落の日～) in Japan doesn't add anything to the reader's understanding of the game, while knowing that Super Smash Brothers Melee is known as "Great Fray Smash Brothers Deluxe" (大乱闘 スマッシュ ブラザーズ DX, Dairantō Sumasshu Burazāzu Derakkusu) might. I anticipate that the specifics of what qualifies as a "game from Japan" will be hammered out in the future, but for now I just want to float the above proposal for inclusion. --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)Tell me what you think! 06:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Can we make it policy to exclude the romanised version (phonetic) of the Japanese names in these cases? It does not add anything for the reader (either you can read Japanese and understand it, or you cannot), and fills up the first two lines of every article it is used in. User:Krator (t c) 09:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly not 100% against that, and I see what you're saying. But the it's not so black-and-white as "either you can read or you can't read". While Hiragana and Katakana are pretty easy to pick up, Kanji is a large stumbling block for most students of Japanese--I know a number of foreigners who are fluent at speaking and listening but can't read a newspaper, and I'd say they're in the majority. So for those reasons I'd rather leave it in, but if consensus wants it out then I'm certainly not going to argue :) --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)Tell me what you think! 12:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

So given that a week has gone by since the last comment in this discussion, I'm going to go ahead and be bold and add this to the guidelines. Regarding romanization of Japanese titles, I'll note that while it is strongly recommended, the inclusion is ultimately optional. --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)Tell me what you think! 13:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the Talk:Video game page is mulling over a key definitional problem, that being that there is no good definition of what a "video game" is. I think this affects a bunch of articles in this project, and may well indicate that the project itself should either be split, renamed, or both. So ya'll should head on over, I think. -- Akb4 17:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been editing one article where there have been a few editors which have deleted text (sometimes in large blocks) under the argument that the text is unreferenced.

Third-party references for the video game are few and not very detailed. However, primary source material is plentiful in the form of developer discussions, game materials (manuals, for instance), and the publisher's game website.

We've tried to provide citations with links to developer materials which detail the game features, but these have been deleted as unacceptable because they aren't third-party materials.

Unfortunately, game reviews are rarely very detailed, and it is impossible to find third-party materials that cover the same points. And peer-reviewed journalistic articles on video games are simply non-existent.

Is it acceptable to use the developer materials in this case as a primary source, if there isn't anything to disprove the content?

Warthog32 (talk) 02:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this related to Talk:World War II Online#Verifiable References? Taking a quick glance over the discussion on that page and the mentioned removals in the article history, it looks to me like someone there is trying to prove a point of some sort. In general, primary sources are perfectly acceptable when the fact cited is clearly stated in the source and there is no reasonable challenge to the fact's or the source's veracity (is there any reasonable possibility that those posts were made by someone just pretending to be a developer?). Regarding game development decisions, writings by the game designers and developers are certainly acceptable and in fact are useful to provide the "real-world content" Wikipedia requires. While sources hidden behind a paywall should not be used if equivalent non-pay sources are available, I see nothing in the guidelines that prohibits their use completely (WP:EL applies to external links rather than sources). Anomie⚔ 02:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm the person requesting verifiable and acceptable references for the section dealing with what the developer claims their game engine does in regards to a damage model. I'm not doing it to prove a point, claims are being made about proprietary software in a client/server environment that are very suspect and should require better and more accessible references than those currently there. If I click on a URL reference in a Wiki article I do not expect to be taken to a log in screen for a web site that requires a monthly game subscription. There are plenty of acceptable gamers websites that include developers interviews about the type of game engine or software that would probably be acceptable for this type of article. I consider that I have compromised on what I initially deleted (after several months of putting in specific inline citation requests) and that I have stated on the articles discussion page why it should be corrected or deleted and that I have conducted several searches on my own and have found nothing. I am acting in good faith, I assume you all are as well, but one editor in particular has had other problems with several different editors and is not even considering what's being discussed. I am more than willing to have this arbitrated if that is what's called for. Awotter (talk) 05:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Burnout Revenge#Requested move for the start of this discussion (copied here)

• Oppose - the spine of Burnout Revenge's game box and its manual never use a colon in the name of the game, the game is always referred to as Burnout Revenge. The same goes for Burnout Dominator. By contrast, Burnout 3: Takedown has a colon both on the game box and when referred to in the manual. Those articles at least are currently named correctly. (Those are the only Burnout games I own, I don't know about the others) - MTC 17:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't see any colon on the Burnout 3 box, where do you see that? Anyway, it's common usage to seperate the serie's title from the game's "unique" title. E.g. Need for Speed: ProStreet is often not refered to with a colon in text but is named with a colon nontheless. When the title in the game's logo is seperated by a linebreak and/or significantly different typeface it's common represent that with a colon. --MrStalker ^talk 18:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The spine of my UK-bought PS2 Burnout 3 box says "Burnout®3: Takedown™"[3], obviously the ™ and ® shouldn't be included in an article title but I see no reason to leave out the colon, and that's not what you're proposing anyway is it? The "common usage" you speak of is only true for some, not all game series; the Tony Hawk's series for example doesn't use colons. In fact while looking through some of the games I own, it seems quite a few articles use colons when they shouldn't. Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines/Naming#Games says the official name should always be used, and the official name is usually the name given on the spine of the game box with ™ symbols removed as necessary. - MTC 18:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not proposing to remove the colon, which pretty obvious if you look above. Tony Hawk's is an exeption because you have to consider grammar, "Tony Hawk's" is a genitive. Also, if you look at the logo you can also see that "Tony Hawk's" is given equally much space as the subtitle. If you go "by the spine", there's a lot of articles that must be moved. The common usage I speak of is true for all articles I can remember coming across. --MrStalker ^talk 20:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the featured articles at WP:VG, I can't find one that doesn't seperate subtitles from the series title with a colon. MobyGames also uses "Burnout: Revenge". --MrStalker ^talk 21:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It's entirely possible that all the games listed there that do include a colon also include it in the official name. I can't check any of them myself as I don't own any of the games listed there, but I can see that the Legend of Zelda series includes a colon on the one game in the series that I own.

I still see no reason to disregard both the WP:VG naming conventions (which state the official name should be used) and the official manuals and boxes of the games in question, none of which use colons. It can't be denied that the official names don't use colons and we should go with that. - MTC 06:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have copied this discussion to this page. --MrStalker ^talk 11:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I propose that "Use colon to seperate franchise titles from subtitles in article names even if trademarks encourage otherwise" is added to the naming convention. --MrStalker ^talk 15:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I still can't see why you want this, what problem can you have with just using the official names? - MTC (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Lack of consistancy. It's also very difficult to determine what "really" is official. --MrStalker ^talk 15:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep. Anomie⚔ 16:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Your totally out-of-context addition to the discussion is noted. --MrStalker ^talk 17:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

How is "Avoid instruction creep" out of context in reply to "Let's make yet another naming rule!"? Anomie⚔ 22:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Because it's not a unnecassary one. --MrStalker ^talk 23:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

1. The guideline mentions presenting that multiple sites should be checked for game release dates, including shopping sites (Amazon). I think this last point should be removed or stipulated should only be used after the game is released and after other sources are exhausted: shopping sites generally are correct about future release titles but are not accurate 100%. Sites will often use a default date for games that are due to come out but not yet scheduled, and people will try to cite those incorrectly (a game coming out in 2009 may be cited by a gaming store site as 1/1/09 only to match what their database requires for date information) Ideally, the most accurate source for release date is a press release from the company shipping it, secondary would be the various Gamespots/IGNs/1UPs.
2. I propose we modify the current section "Links to remakes" to expand into more about what links are generally acceptable or not acceptable for VG articles; while some of this repeats WP:EL, citing specific examples related to VGs can't hurt. My thought is that acceptable links (for games themselves) include an official game site, links to the developer/publisher barring official game sites, and then possibly a Moby Games-type link; non-acceptable include fan-made remakes, GameFAQS's guides for the game, or other game guide information (360 achievement point lists), PlanetINSERTGAMEHERE-type sites, and similar fan sites. Mind you, there's exceptions on both sides, but the examples should help prevent the EL linkfarm creepage that can be seen in some articles. --MASEM 14:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think those are good suggestions. Though I think the nature of VG release dates will always lend itself to inaccuracies. Another suggestion I'd like to bring up is the addition of more Organization guidelines in the Article guidelines#Organization section. Currently there are only recommendations for games. I think it would be helpful for new and current editors to have recommendations for series, character, setting, system, and music articles. I think it will help standardize some of the lower rated articles and improve their overall quality. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC))

I had created the links to remakes section specifically to deal with the plethora of online or downloadble clone games that kept getting added. These of course violate the copyrights of the game. If you want to expand to a section covering linking policies in general for video game articles, I'd suggest having a main section on links and having this as one of the sub-sections under it. I think its a good idea all around, the more specific we can be (i.e. the more we spell things out so there is no question), the better. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've been WP:BOLD and expanded the section to talk about EL's in general for VG articles and included a breakout of examples for appropriate, inappropriate, and unacceptable links. The existing case of remakes falls under inappropriate (not unacceptable) because some of these may be notable but in general to be avoided. --MASEM 16:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I like it. I think the new changes adequately explains the limitations on external links but still gives editors room to make exceptions as needed. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC))

For some time now, the type of articles in the VG Project has expanded beyond just game articles into articles about various aspects of games; such as character articles, setting articles, etc. The VG Project has also been trying to tighten it's quality control on these articles. I think part of this should be a more defined outline of organization for these articles. The "Organization" section here outlines ideas for how to organize articles but only provides ideas for game articles. I put together some ideas for other types of articles in my sandbox that hopefully can be incorporated into the current content. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC))

So, in a recent edit war, a section of the guidelines was removed that referred users to third-party wikis such as StrategyWiki, citing policy that we don't want to be promoting third-party sites. However, consensus in this WikiProject has been for a long time that StrategyWiki and other related gaming wikis are appropriate for in-depth game content, that there is no harm in having unencyclopedic content diverted there, and that there is no harm in telling people to go look there for that sort of information. So, which should be go with? Discuss. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I've seen several people stating that by pushing content to, say, any Wikia site, we're lining Jimbo Wales' pockets since that is a for-profit site that he reaps any benefit from. However, with the more general push lately to bring a lot of areas of WP into meeting WP:NOT that pushing material to Wikia and other third-party sites needs to be encouraged (otherwise, editors will fight to prevent content from being lost) and there's no problem with doing this as long as these other sites are still GFDL-license compatible. Thus, I see no reason to change it here. --MASEM 16:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The way I see it, having those external Wikis and explanations of where different information types go helps us in enforcing WP:NOT#GUIDE. You could very well say "Walkthrough material not welcome" and that certainly has validity. But it becomes more obvious what does not belong when you can also say "this material should be there, not here." Furthermore, WP:LINKS#Links normally to be avoided under #13 specifically says that open Wikis can be linked to, providing of course they meet the reasonable criteria. Ong elvin (talk) 08:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Linking to something is not the same as zctively adviseing people to add content to it.Geni 13:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Simply, it is just being constructive, instead of destructive. User:Krator (t c) 13:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Acticly promoteing one third party project over another is not an area of construction we wish to get into.Geni 14:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, though, what's the harm? Would it be any different than, say, an article about Wikia.com mentioning that people can contribute to content on a variety of subjects there? In order for us to provide convenient access to comprehensive information about a subject, we either need to include it here (violating WP:NOT in a lot of cases) or provide convenient links to other places where the info exists. Since other wikis exist for comprehensive game-guide material, I don't see what the harm is in telling people here that those wikis are a more appropriate place for that information.

If it's really such a big problem with regard to policies, would the people concerned with the policy consider a clause that allows for the sort of third-party use that we're in support of here? There's a difference between providing third-party sources of information and promoting third-party websites whose purposes aren't as clear-cut. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's my take on this: we can all agree that Wikipedia leaves out a lot of unencyclopedic but useful information (for good reason), such as more in depth info or a walkthrough. However, because of this, we ought to inform readers where they can find that info. By not doing that, we say that "this is the only information worth knowing about the subject and all other info is completely worthless." --Sir Crazyswordsman 15:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

How did this statement find its way into the guidelines:

For conflicts between a series and the first game in the same series when no other naming conflicts exist: Disambiguate the article about the first game and let the series article be non-disambiguated.

There has not been a consensus over this, and people are now trying to enforce this? I flat out disagree with the guideline, Quake, Metal Gear and The Legend of Zelda should stay where they are. A discussion at WT:VG in early 2007 has consensus going the other way. - hahnchen 13:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course there has been a consensus about this, we discussed it when we created the guideline (dated late 2007). Take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines/Naming. --MrStalker ^talk 14:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) That wording seems to have been merged from Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines/Naming, and was (supposedly) based on discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines/Naming. I don't remember and still don't see any consensus for that particular blanket statement, however. If anything, the version before this edit was more reflective of the consensus at the time: first look at the particular case to see which is more well-known, and only give a recommendation for cases where it can't be determined. Anomie⚔ 14:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The way I remember it, consensus changed supporting that edit. Whether or not you where there to see or participate in the discussion I don't remember. --MrStalker ^talk 15:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, my original proposal was to give the non-disambiguated title to the most notable on a case by case basis, but then consensus changed. --MrStalker ^talk 15:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion linked has too few participants, and quickly degenerates after a few paragraphs into something else entirely. I didn't even consider working on the VG guidelines, thinking them an unnecessary extraneous exercise. I'm only here now that I've encountered someone actively trying to enforce this contentious point. This should be taken to WT:VG.

It was: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/archive31#Video games naming convention. --MrStalker ^talk 15:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason that the original game should occupy its title page is because that is exactly what it is, its official name. Quake is Quake, without argument. The series could be referred to as the Quake series, or Quake (series), this is the same for the vast majority of other titles. Just as we do not use popular unofficial translations of foreign titles as article names, we shouldn't be claiming that an unofficial series name takes precedence over the original unambiguous game for the sake of convenience. - hahnchen 15:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I can see your point. I honestly don't care either way, I'm just trying to uphold the guideline. The only thing I really must argue for is that there must be a guideline. Then if most series articles is to be disambiguated, we'll have the "xxxx (franchise) vs xxxx (series)"-issue as well. --MrStalker ^talk 15:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we need a new section to cover ratings (BBFC, ESRB, etc). I think the section should urge editors to put extra effort into citations by urging the use of links to the actual ratings bodies themselves rather than secondary or tertiary sources. It should also detail what info should be included and when (e.g. don't put TBA on a game that is still 3 years from release). Also needed would be a guide on what to do when refused or re-rating problems like Manhunt 2 and GTA:SA arise.
Add your opinions below and if you think it's a go-er I'll create a draft text that we can then knock into shape. - X201 (talk) 09:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem? Do you have an example of when this was bad, and when a guideline would've helped? We need to avoid instruction creep. User:Krator (t c) 12:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Does "Releases in non-English countries should not be included in the infobox, but if determined to be necessary to include, can be discussed further in the article's body..." in the first paragraph of the "Release dates" section also apply to {{Infobox VG system}} or just {{Infobox VG}}? --Silver Edge (talk) 06:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say yes, it appears to consoles/systems too. --MASEM 06:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

In the "Style" section it states: "When filling out the infobox for a downloadable game (for example, a game on Xbox Live Arcade), the media field should simply read "download" (no quotes)." Does that only apply to the "Media" field or does it also apply to the "Release date" field, where the release date on Steam is usually listed. --Silver Edge (talk) 10:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether I understand your question. The release date field needs a date, not a word like "download". What do you mean? User:Krator (t c) 14:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

See the release date field in Half-Life 2, Grand Theft Auto III or Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. --Silver Edge (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Apologies if this is the wrong place to ask, but what should be done about games that have different content for different versions? As an example, Test Drive Unlimited has different missions, different sound tracks etc. for the different versions. Rather than write about this in an organised manner different posters appear to just be constantly editing the article to match what they see in their own version. BetaTesterDLA (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Different possible ways:

• Explain in section concerning a specific topic. Example: in the music section, state that the music was different. Works for a few differences.
• A "versions" section or paragraph, usually under the Development header, explaining all differences. Works for a lot of minor differences.
• A second article. Works for a lot of major differences (e.g. Age of Empires: The Age of Kings as the mobile spin-off of AoE2.)

The second may be most appropriate here. User:Krator (t c) 18:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

A guideline concerning conflicting release dates for unreleased games should be added to the "Release dates" section to prevent disputes, such as the one at Talk:Mario Kart Wii#Release Dates. Mario Kart Wii's publisher, Nintendo, hasn't officially announced a release date for North America, while 3 different reliable sources list 3 different release dates: 1UP has April 15, IGN has April 28, and Gamespot has May 1. The dispute is over which date and source is to be used or whether it should be listed as "yet to be confirmed". --Silver Edge (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider any of those reliable sources, as they all seem to be database listings. Despite the fact that the sites are good news sources, they are often as bad as retailers when it comes to their game databases. If you can find actual articles that specify particular release dates, if there is still a conflict, I would choose a general description which best fits them all, and elaborate on the matter in the article itself. Dancter (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The guidelines already cover this issue, but there has been confusion in the past about "in-store" dates, vs. "release/ship" dates. Metroid Prime 3: Corruption saw a lot of edit warring over this topic, so I added some verbiage to that section about it and stated a guideline preference for "release" date, now that the difference between the two has been explained. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is it that flag icons shouldn't be used in the infobox? MrKIA11 (talk) 02:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no flag that represents North America, which might be one of the reasons. --Silver Edge (talk) 13:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

See WP:FLAG for more details - basically, a flag should never be used without the country name alongside it (for visually impared people) - within a VG infobox, that gets it rather heavy rater fast, so sticking with a 2/3-letter code is much better. --MASEM 13:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Its difficult to represent areas like PAL & NTSC with flags. The use of the European Flag to represent Europe was also wrong (The flag represents the European Union and not all countries on the continent of Europe are members). The release dates section of the infobox was becoming long and ugly as well and so the idea of grouping by continent or TV region was used - and individual country where the article warranted it. Points were also raised about flags causing problems for users who have eyesight problems and rely on magnifiers and speech reading software. - X201 (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Companies must PAY the ESRB to submit games for ratings and to even get the RP badge. JAF1970 (talk) 16:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not new information. It's been known for years that companies have to pay to get their games rated (and not just ESRB, they also have to pay for other ratings like PEGI and CERO). It's basically required though since Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft won't allowed unrated games on their systems and most stores wouldn't carry unrated games anyways (even though they will carry unrated movies). TJ Spyke 20:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a little dispute with an editor who keeps removing the official link to Nintendo's page for Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games. I don't think the guideline on multiple external links excludes this link since the Japanese version of the game was published by Nintendo, not Sega. So if a game is published by one company in Japan and another in North America, why should only the North American website be included? What about games like Harvest Moon, which is published in Japan by Marvellous Interactive and outside of Japan by Natsume? TJ Spyke 20:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Link to the English site. This is the English Wikipedia, so you should stick to English sites. Now, if there isn't an official English site, or if the topic in question is not in English, that's when you link to the non-English site. Ong elvin (talk) 11:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

When disambiguating articles, should all articles about video games be named "Xxxx (video game)", including arcade games, or should we use for example "Xxxx (arcade game)" as well? I think it's better to stick to just one standard and disambiguate all articles—computer, console and arcade games—with "(video game)" when necessary. --MrStalker ^(talk) 22:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It's usually (video game), and ports of the game in question are given special mention within the article. See Gradius for an example. Ong elvin (talk) 11:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

For some odd reason, the people who made the release date rules for Wikipedia seem to think that the term means "When the publisher ships the game" when in reality, a release date (for the common mortal anyway) is when a consumer is able to get his hands on the product.

So if the term "Release Date" for some of you means when the publisher ships the game, fine, but you can't change the term "Street Date" which is what people really care about. So I suggest that we vote on using the actual Street Date for video games from now on. It's of little concern for the majority about when a publisher shipped it's games to Wal-Mart, what matter is when they go on sale.

Duhman0009 (talk) 02:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The release date for a game is nearly always easier to source to reliable references. If we go by street date, we'd have people all the time going "But I bought this a week before it was supposed to be out!". If the fact the street date was broken that created a notable event for the game, it should be included, but release date is the most reliable date we have. --MASEM 03:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

A broken Street Date does not count of course and you can always rely on the publisher's website (most of the time) to know the Street Date since this is what they publish on their website. Just like some stores go over or under the MSRP, what's important is the publisher's MSRP. Duhman0009 (talk) 04:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen publishers consistently advertise "street date". It seems to depend on how important the game is to the publisher, and of course on the individual publisher itself, but I've seen plenty of cases where the only date listed on a publisher's website is the ship/release date. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Strange, that's all I'm seeing when I go to an official website. Why would a game publisher make a website for a game, telling consumers when the game is going to be shipped? That would just confuse the consumer and make him show up at GameStop for nothing. Duhman0009 (talk) 11:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

With respect to the incident which prompted this thread, this was not true yesterday,[4][5][6][7] and you know it. Dancter (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Tisk, tisk, tisk, if Nintendo forgot to mention that May 19th was an exclusive date for the Nintendo World Store, that's far from being my problem. Fact remains, I was right and now the people here who went to the mall to pick this up are banging their head on the nearest wall and I'm happy about that. It's even worst for the people who just come here to see which date they can go and pick up the upcoming games. I can just hear them now "Man, what an unreliable website this is, I should have just believed the date GameStop gave me". Duhman0009 (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a one-off incident for one particular game should change the way all games are done. Address the circumstance, not the method. As others have stated above and below "street date" is a very fluid term, whereas release date is set, and citable. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 17:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Well this wouldn't be the first time that Wikipedia had the wrong date for a video game release, regardless of the reason. Fact remains, this is one of the many areas that keeps Wikipedia from being it's own reliable source. Anyway you wish to call it, the date that the game becomes available nation wide in a region is the date that should be showing on the article, not the date that the publisher ships the copies because at the end of the day, the people visiting this site for info on an upcoming game won't give a rat's ass about when it's ship, they just want to know when they can get their hands on it. Duhman0009 (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If you are arguing we should change what we use as the date such that people know when they can go to the store to get a game, you are significantly misreading the purpose of WP. We are to be a reference, not a shopping guide, not a release schedule, or the like. The reason we include release dates is that it matters for historical purposes.--MASEM 18:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I understood it, I just don't agree with it. Also, what's with this "We" part, you're not Wikipedia, Wikipedia is an Internet tool and like any tool, it should be used to it's full capacity and if that includes being a reference that could tell consumers when to show up at the door of their local game center for a launch date, then let it be. Duhman0009 (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

WP may be a tool , but there are certain things that WP is not, including that it is not a directory, which what you are describing falls under. If it is important to note that there are two release dates, one that is a timed exclusive, this can be easily noted in the text of the article and a concerned reader can learn that, but the last thing we want is to have people setting their calendar by WP. --MASEM 19:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Took someone long enough to say this. According to what you just said, WP is NOT considered a directory by having the shipping dates of the game but it would be considered one by having the official market date. So my good man, my question to you is, how can you justify this? Duhman0009 (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue is "why are we including the date?" That reason is not because we want to let people know when they can line up in front of video game stores to be able to pick up a copy (as that would be making this a sales catalog) but instead to make sure we track such dates for historical significance. When this is understood as the purpose, then we recognize that the most relevant and appropriate piece of information is the "release date" which can usually be cited to both the game publisher and many other sources. It may be off from the street date by a day or a week depending, but to that extent of what that data is being used for, the difference is negligable. --MASEM 15:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It would have been worse still for those arriving early at their local store on Wednesday to discover that the product had sold out a day or two before, had you been wrong. Yes, Nintendo did not do the best job of clarifying the release date of its product. Nevertheless, given the choice between using an NOA website and trusting a Wikipedian synthesizing a hodgepodge of indirect sources, I think adhering to the existing guideline was erring on the side of caution. Dancter (talk) 10:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If you had done a better job showing that the date you were pushing was a current official date, then most of this discussion could have been avoided. You made your case based on what some store websites were listing, and did not provide any singular evidence from the publisher itself. Dancter (talk) 10:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Note to Duhman: It's not a matter of what "some of us" believe the term "Release Date" means. The industry defines the Release Date as the date on which the publisher releases the game - meaning the date the game is shipped. (That's why the terms "release date" and "ship date" are generally interchangeable.) And in addition to Masem's point, the "street date" is often different for different regions - major metropolitan areas tend to get the game sooner than more remote areas. Therefore, the term "street date" is too flexible and not easily sourceable, nor is it consistent. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Slight clarification: "Release Date", as defined by the industry, is the date that the publisher makes the game available for sale. (Note the wording: "the publisher makes it available", as opposed to "the game becomes available for sale" - the latter wording applies more to street date.) Technically, the game is for sale as soon as the publisher releases it (usually when it ships from the distribution center, though nobody can actually buy it until it arrives in stores). In some cases, such as midnight launches for Halo and SSBB, the release is deliberately set for a specific date and time, even though the game may have been shipped before that. In those cases, the release date and "street date" are the same. But that's the exception to the rule. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Now where's your source for that (and Wikipedia doesn't count) :P ? Duhman0009 (talk) 04:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Industry experience, mainly. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

lol, well in that case, I to have experience in that department and the date that's given to us by the publisher is the date we had to put them on the shelves, regardless on how many days we got the games in advance. Duhman0009 (talk) 11:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Question for you, then: Does that happen with every game? Or does that tend to happen with games sent by a particular publisher, or does it happen with specific games? (Also, as a point of curiosity, which distributor do you work for? I'm not calling a COI or anything - I'm curious mainly because I wonder if the "shelf date" may also be determined by the distributor and not just the publisher.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the experience I have is much more on the "source" end (game company and publisher) than on the distribution end. I've worked officially in one game group, and have served as a beta tester for several other game companies. I've seen both cases happen - some games are "released" (as far as the game producer is concerned) as soon as it ships, while other games (usually "AAA titles" like Halo and Brawl) have deliberate release dates that correspond with the "on shelf/buyable" date (again, midnight releases, where they specifically tell the distributor not to sell the game before that point). It's mostly determined by marketing, but when the game is not a "AAA title", they usually set the release date to coincide with the ship date, which means the game is actually buyable in stores between one and two days later, when the store receives the shipment. (In fairness, though, I do not have a source handy to back this up.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Right (roll eyes). You know that claiming on the Internet that you're part of the gaming industry automatically requires proof, right? If I had a buck for every that claimed to have worked for X company, I could buy a PS3 >_> Duhman0009 (talk) 10:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the credits list for Sewer Shark (Sega CD), Descent 3 (PC), and Crimson Skies: High Road to Revenge (Xbox) sometime. You'll find my alias in the last one, along with my real name, which you can then pair up with the first two. Also, you have not answered my questions. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

← The date used for "release date" is the date the publisher sets. In most places, this is also when you are able to purchase the game. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 04:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen a publisher or game site (e.g. IGN) mention "street date", they almost always use the term "release date", thus it's the most easy to find and most reliable. --MrStalker ^(talk) 12:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"Street date" doesn't work with digitally distributed games. JAF1970 (talk) 16:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The thrust of the guideline is understood to be in an "all things equal" circumstance. A company is likely to strongly favor one over the other, and thus publicize it more. Dancter (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

BY the way, the use of "street date" is mostly in the automotive industry, not software. In fact, it's almost never used for software. JAF1970 (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Release date. Street date is at best archaic in terms of software, at worst simply not used. Show me any press releases from publishers talking about a "street date" first, if you can even find one - then compare it to the sheer volume of publishers using "release date", or saying "scheduled for release", etc. JAF1970 (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • We had a pretty big argument in Talk:Metroid Prime 3: Corruption (link to actual discussion) about this subject, since Nintendo advertised two different dates for the game. On their website and via the game review sites, they had a "Release Date" (don't recall it offhand), but then they released their Preview Channel for the game that advertised an "In stores" date that was one day later than the Release Date. This was consistent with the release date being the "ship date", but it confused a lot of people because we had two official sources of information with apparently conflicting information. The consensus we reached in that article was to note the discrepancy in the article text, but to also use the Release Date since it was more consistent with industry practice (and was quoted on the Nintendo website, which is considered a reliable source). — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

One example is not enough - and they don't use the term "street date" either. 99 44/100% of press releases say "release date" or "will be released on". JAF1970 (talk) 04:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you said "if you can find one". :) But we're arguing the same point anyway. I'm just making the point that in the relatively rare case where the publisher advertises a "street date", it tends to confuse the general public, unless that also happens to be the official release date. In cases like Metroid Prime 3, it was very confusing. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, if memory serves correctly (I no longer have the Preview Channel installed), the phrase they used was "In stores August 28th". The terms "street date", "on sale [date]", "in stores [date]", "on store shelves [date]", "shelf [date]", etc., are all interchangeable - they mean pretty much the same thing. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Then DON'T say street date. Don't use terms the industry itself does not use. If you want, use In stores, which is what the industry uses. JAF1970 (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

What does it matter how we refer to it in Talk discussions, JAF? Like I said, all of the terms mean the same thing. If such a term needs to be used in an article, of course it's important to make sure it's quoted accurately. But we're arguing semantics in a Talk discussion - I don't think it really matters that much if I say "street date" and you say "in stores" during the same argument - as long as people can figure out what we both mean, what's the problem? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This was probably a misunderstanding. I think JAF1970 thought that the discussion was about wording, hence the vote for "Release date". Dancter (talk) 10:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

← Fact of the matter is, if a consumer wants to know if the game is in stores, they really ought ring up the store, rather than check Wikipedia. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 17:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This is in reply to the following comment from Duhman, which I missed earlier: Strange, that's all I'm seeing when I go to an official website. Why would a game publisher make a website for a game, telling consumers when the game is going to be shipped? That would just confuse the consumer and make him show up at GameStop for nothing.

Frankly, that sort of thing happens all the time. I used to have that problem where I'd be looking forward to a game coming out on a specific day, and I'd go to the game store (any one of them, really) on that date, only to be told that today was the date the product shipped, and that the store would actually have the game on the shelf the next day. When I started paying more attention to the relationship between release date and street date in-store date, I was frequently one of the first people to show up on the correct date to pick up the game. And I've had numerous conversations with GameStop employees who've all talked about how people come in on the release date and walk away empty-handed and disappointed because the store doesn't physically have the game yet. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this a US only thing? My experience in the UK is that I've gone in to shops on the release date and purchased a game. I can't recall ever being told "we haven't got it yet" - X201 (talk) 12:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be some consternation over the source of the interview with Lucy Bradshaw. The fact of the matter is this: it shouldn't. When you have an interview with a person of authority, such as Bradshaw, who is the executive producer of Spore, the source is irrelevent in this case because it's Bradshaw (especially in the case of a Q&A, which is impossible to misquote). It shouldn't matter if it's the New York Times, Joystiq, a supermarket handout - it's Bradshaw. Otherwise, it's a case of ad hominem. While editorial fact-checking and processes are valid in terms of game news, because you're checking with the source to make sure those facts are correct, in this case, it's already checking with the source itself! It's an interview, and in the case of a Q&A interview, you can't misquote, because it's word-for-word what the source is saying. JAF1970 (talk) 18:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Now, here's the other thing - Inside Mac picked up the story. So, it's "verified"... but now, you have the problem of if you only accept Inside Mac, they're not reporting the WHOLE story. THAT can only be done at the source, which is Gamers Global. But, according to "policy", you can't use GG because it's "not policy", but Inside Mac isn't reporting the whole story. Again, ad hominem. JAF1970 (talk) 18:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec x2) I suppose there's always the possibility that it could be a complete fabrication. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 18:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but it isn't. For one, you can always ask Bradshaw if she did the interview. But here's the main point: the original has been verified, but it's not a "good" source. The verification, however, is incomplete. So now what? JAF1970 (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I was just talking in general, not about this particular one. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 18:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether we are allowed to criticize the source is a moot point: of course we're allowed, and we do. See WP:V and WP:RS. The question is if gamersglobal qualifies as a reliable source. Randomran (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Missed the point. When the source is verified, now you have the problem with citations. JAF1970 (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you detail why you don't believe the source in question here to be a reliable source. Nick (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This seems quite out of context, there's a discussion on it here at the spore talk page. Essentially, it is a site where anyone can submit a story. John.n-IRL 18:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is getting rather spread out indeed. (WT:WikiProject_Video_games#GamersGlobal_-_can_this_be_considered_a_reliable_source.3F, WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#GamersGlobal. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 18:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

(I am aware that this is a double post, feel free to delete it if it doesn't belong here:) I am the author/interviewer of the Spore interview with Lucy Bradshaw, and I also own GamersGlobal.com. Let me explain one thing about the site: While any registered user can post news directly to the site, everything which appears as a "top news" (on the left side of the main page) was chosen / edited by an editor, and all "Specials" (e.g. Interviews) are written by an editor. Now, the only editor of the site at the moment is me, but I have been a professional games journalist for 14 years, for example heading GameStar magazine and www.gamestar.de as editor-in-chief for seven years. ---Joerg Langer, GamersGlobal.com

ie. cite web|url=http://www.gamersglobal.com/special/interview/interview-with-spores-executive-producer-lucy-bradshaw%7C title=Interview with Spore Executive Producer Lucy Bradshaw| work=GamersGlobal| accessdate=2008-05-20| date=2008-05-20| quote=Inside Mac verification

Used the url of the verifying site in the quote section. However, the future solution: have a "verified=" section of the template. JAF1970 (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This dispute is idiocy, it clearly falls under the rule in WP:V that self-published sources can be used in the case of an expert discussing his/her field of interest. Hit the other side of the debate on their head with WP:SPS and continue editing! User:Krator (t c) 21:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If that person is publishing themselves, "produced by an established expert" is clearly not what happened here. The importance of the person being interviewed is not in doubt, only the source which reports it. John.n-IRL 21:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

"As the inclusion of Japanese titles can enhance an article on a video game by providing additional cultural context, when possible these titles should be provided as follows."

Can someone just run past me exactly how they enhance an article. IMO, they clutter the text, interrupting the flow with symbols that are intelligible to only a vanishingly small proportion of English-speakers. I don't buy the line that they provide additional cultural context (or disambiguation or search facility for researchers, as is sometimes the case in the use of non-Roman characters). In other contexts, those symbols have their own meaning and beauty, but they are totally inappropriate at the top of vid articles. TONY (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

In addition to my annoyance that a WikiProject guideline is being cited as "policy", I agree with Tony. --Laser brain (talk) 15:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's my fault that attention was brought to this. In any case, please keep me out of it since I'd rather not displease the masters at WikiProject Video Games but on the other hand, I'd really like to pass my FACs. Gary King (talk) 16:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Gary, it's not your fault. I'm the one who raised the issue. --Laser brain (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I see the inclusion of Japanese characters the same as including the original French title in Breathless (1960 film), or the chinese title in Chungking Express. - hahnchen 17:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree (with Tony) - I often find the Japanese characters useful when I'm looking up something about a Japanese game. I also don't think that English readers who can read Japanese are a diminishing group of people. However, I do agree that the wording here is rather poor. --Eruhildo (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

One of the "masters at the WikiProject Video Games" here (LOL). I believe this line is actually the result of a debate on a different topic, which was one of the most oft-debated issues here at WP:VG, namely how to name articles that have no English title but only a Japanese one, or where the English title is unofficial, whatever. IMHO, all the Japanese can go, with perhaps a note in the development section on the translation process with the original title, which is interesting and should be there anyhow. User:Krator (t c) 20:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), "The native name should generally be included in the first line of the article, with a transliteration if the English name isn't one". If you wish to change this, I believe you should bring this up at that page instead, and leave a note here about the discussion. You'll probably want to notify Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan, etc. Pagrashtak 20:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's not go down that road... User:Krator (t c) 20:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't see the use of Japanese Kanji in any article except for the first line translation of video games, films, soundtracks, etc. I honestly don't see what the problem is at all. --haha169 (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to clarify the remark I made at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess that started this conversation. Any piece of writing that is published for readers (like Wikipedia) is a "text" and the text has visual properties. Chunking, white space, margins, all that. These things all give the reader visual cues as to what they are encountering. For example, if they see the end of a sentence followed by a white space, they will assume they are seeing the end of a paragraph. Readers are put off by encountering visual cues they don't expect or that don't make sense... like a whole row of characters they can't read. Yes, there is a slim percentage of readers here who can read Japanese, but we don't write to slim percentages. We write to largest proportion of our audience - English speakers who came to en.wiki to read articles in English. You should not make a poor writing decision that does not serve your audience.

Pagrashtak, I believe you are misinterpreting the guideline you cite to some degree. It was likely written for subjects that have no "official" English name. If you were writing an article about a Japanese video game that was not sold with an English title, I would agree with putting the Japanese name there in Kanji. As it stands, these Zelda games are sold in the English-speaking countries with an official English name. --Laser brain (talk) 23:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. The guideline should be clarified if that's not the intent. I've always taken that to be the root of the reason for the foreign titles in video game articles. If consensus is to not include them for games with an official English title, I don't have a problem with it. Pagrashtak 04:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

There only appear to be a select few people fiercely defending the characters' presence. I don't want to go against consensus, either, but if most people don't care if they are removed (at least from the Zelda articles) I would just as soon remove them. --Laser brain (talk) 04:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

As I recall, when this issue was brought up previously, the consensus was that Japanese titles which are transliterated into English should have Japanese characters; Japanese titles with no English name should have Japanese characters; and that Japanese characters that use English words don't need them. The example cited then was Super Mario Galaxy, but Twilight Princess is in the same category - Japanese game using English words. In that case, the katakana should be dropped. Ong elvin (talk) 00:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

There is still no issue with this. People look at the Japanese name and say, "Oh, interesting, and in the case of Super Smash Bros. Brawl, they notice an English literal translation: Great Melee Smash Brothers X. This is considered a trivial remark that adds and contributes to the article. Anyways, readers probably wont understand what "大乱闘スマッシュブラザーズ" means, but the will understand 99.9% of the rest of the text on the article. What difference does a few kanji characters make? --haha169 (talk) 04:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyways, I find it encyclopedic to include the object's native language within the article due to foreign nature.--haha169 (talk) 04:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It might be worth looking for consitency with other similar products in other genres, such as Spirited Away.Gazimoff ^Write_Read 09:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I expect that the consensus elsewhere is the same as here - foreign name if the translation holds a different or deeper meaning, but otherwise unnecessary. Ong elvin (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If I were to suggest a ruling, the Japanese characters should only be there when there's no Japanese Wikipedia entry. JAF1970 (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Everything here is good and all, and JAF gives a nice suggestion, but Laser Brain, you still haven't addressed Pagrashtak's note about the Wikipedia guideline: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). Try and change the guideline there first. I doubt a wikiproject is a good place to discuss this since the issue concerns films, music, and virtually any foreign object.--haha169 (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Most notably, countries too, e.g. Japan or Germany. Japanese just happens to use another alphabet. User:Krator (t c) 23:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I could go either way. It's not a burning issue. JAF1970 (talk) 00:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• What difference does it make, Haha? It gums up the whole of the start of the article for all but a tiny number of English-speakers for whom it means NOTHING. TONY (talk) 03:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hold up, there. Shall we remove the English from say, the Russian wiki for Alien (1979)? JAF1970 (talk) 04:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• If anyone is interested in a compromise, at The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages I put the Japanese text in a footnote during its FAC. Pagrashtak 06:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a good compromise, though I personally prefer the "gummed up" method myself, especially for games with shorter titles. I think JAF1970 made a good point - articles should have the original title mentioned. After all, the Zelda series was originally called THE HYRULE FANTASY ゼルダの伝説, only the English translation is called The Legend of Zelda. I see no reason why not to mention a game's original title regardless of whether it uses Latin characters or not. --Eruhildo (talk) 21:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That's right. If it was only japanese characters, I would remove it in an instant. But this includes translations, and that is always an interesting addition to an encyclopedia. I prefer the current way, and I do not thing it is "gummed up" in any way. Readers can skip that if they don't want to read it. And Tony, if you want, go to the Wikipedia guideline linked above and change it. Not here. --haha169 (talk) 22:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Good compromise. Still, I think native names should go at the beginning of an article just as much as native names for other stuff goes on their articles. In fact, I don't even think I want to get involved here. Looking at all these debates, it's clear that one particular user on one side of the argument is strongly biased against many aspects of VG articles at the moment, and is almost down right insulting in their response. .:Alex:. 16:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

In the Scope of information section there are currently three shortcuts, WP:GAMECRUFT, WP:GAMETRIVIA, and WP:VGSCOPE (I added VGSCOPE earlier today). I don't think GAMECRUFT or GAMETRIVIA are neutral terms, and even if they were neutral terms, neither appear to apply specifically to video games. The Scope of information doesn't even use the word "cruft." Looking back, I see...

On November 8, 2007, TTN started a thread about King of Fighters character articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games (thread visible here in the archives[8])

Krator said "You'd have my support for a "gamecruft cleanup squad" task force."[9], in response to TTN or Zemalia or in general, I don't know.

On November 10, Miremare said "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."[10]

On November 14, 2007 02:02, Krator added the WP:GAMECRUFT shortcut to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Scope of information. At 02:03, Krator created the page WP:GAMECRUFT as a redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Scope of information. On November 14, 2007 at 02:39, Krator started a user subpage called User:Krator/Gamecruft[11]

This was after Krator participated in three AFDs[12], Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horde (Warcraft), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Apothecary Society, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scarlet Crusade. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Apothecary Society, the nominator IAmSasori used the term "gamecruft" twice and linked to WP:CRUFT both times. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scarlet Crusade, the nominator IAmSasori used the term "gamecruft" twice and linked to WP:CRUFT both times. In those three AFDs, Edward321 used the term "gamecruft" and linked to WP:CRUFT.

On November 21, 2007, Krator said in this thread[13] "Starting with a pure copy-paste merge excluding obvious gamecruft, then listing for WP:VG/C, would be a good start."[14]

On November 23, 2007, Krator removed "gamecruft" from the Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance article.[15]

On December 6, 2007 13:13, Krator started a thread called "WP:GAMECRUFT proposal" at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games and said "I've edited a section of WP:VG/GL, and added the shortcut WP:GAMECRUFT."[16]. The full thread is visible here.[17] This was 22 days after Krator added the GAMECRUFT shortcut to the Scope of information section.

On December 12, 2007 20:23, Krator contacted Anomie about Krator's WP:GAMECRUFT proposal.[18]

On December 12, 2007 13:45, Krator removed content from the Layonara article, about a D&D campaign setting, saying "Removed gamecruft per WP:GAMECRUFT." — evidence that the term GAMECRUFT is not specific to video games.

So Krator added the GAMECRUFT shortcut before discussing it, to a section that doesn't even used the word "cruft", and then mentioned it 22 days later. It's been shown that people don't use the term "gamecruft" to apply just to video games.

I think the GAMECRUFT and GAMETRIVIA shortcuts should be removed from the Scope of information section. Neither terms are specific to video games. I don't think either term is neutral. The essay Wikipedia:Fancruft does contain the word "gamecruft" and I think WP:GAMECRUFT should probably redirect there. There is no such thing as "gamecruft", it's a completely made-up word. The term "gamecruft" is like Newspeak, like "thoughtcrime", "doubleplusungood", or "goodthink." It appears to me that Krator saw IAmSasori linking the term "gamecruft" to WP:CRUFT and decided to link the term "gamecruft" to a guideline instead. I think VGSCOPE is a much more suitable shortcut for the Scope of information section. --Pixelface (talk) 01:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

"Cruft" need sto be expunged from our vocabulary as it is an unhelpful and non-serious word. As for trivia, trivia is actually consistent per our First pillar with specialized encyclopedia. So, yes, both definitely need to be removed. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

"Cruft" is not a bad word despite the way people want to villanize it; its the context that it is used that can make it negative. Most editors are intelligent and aware enough to recognize that cruft is the best word we have to describe material that we know has value to somebody, but not within WP. If you can provide a single word that describes this type of material better, please suggest it, but it is not meant to be derogatory. "Gamecruft" may be made up but it clearly implies this is material that is excess to what is appropriate for WP inclusion, and thus the shortcut should stay.

Wikipedia is not meant for trivia; the first pillar says elements of specialized encyclopedias, not wholely inclusive, and it has been determined that trivia is not appropriate. Just like the above, GAMETRIVIA clearly is specific to trivia for video games, and thus also should stay. --MASEM 21:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

"Cruft" seems a lot like "I don't like it" as it has a certain subjective if not somewhat insulting ring to it, because the truth is what is valuable to somebody is likely valuable to Wikipedia, i.e. that's why people come here and that's why people contribute here. "Trivia" is also incredibly subjective, is overused, and is another variation of "I don't like it," as it is easy to dismiss something others find relevant as "trivia" even if that is just a handful of editors' opinions. In any event, core elements of games that may seem "trivial" to some are not necessarily so to others. Thus, both shortcuts should be eliminated. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Except that we've outlined what types of material specific to video games have been considered by consensus, including weapon lists as per the section below, that we consider either as excess or trivial information for WP. There are borderline cases that have to be evaluated case-by-case, but there are sufficient examples of what we've previously decided does not below on WP but is appropriate for other wikis. --MASEM 21:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Per my comments below we do not consider weapons lists trivial for Wikipedia. Real consensus is measured by the hundreds if not thousands of editors who in good faith made such articles and continue to work on them, not a handful in AfDs or a couple who worked on this particular page. And after all, we do have Ignore All Rules. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Masem, do you think the Scope of information section should contain the shortcuts WP:GAMEJUNK and WP:GAMERSHIT? The term "gamecruft" *is* used in a derogatory way. How are the terms GAMECRUFT and GAMETRIVIA specific to videogames? Here[19] Krator "Removed gamecruft per WP:GAMECRUFT" and that was not a videogame article. Krator is the editor that added the GAMECRUFT shortcut to the Scope of information section. The shortcut should be removed. It was added without discussion and I'm challenging it. WP:TRIVIA refers to Trivia sections in articles. I think most editors are aware that the word "cruft" is complete bollocks. And the concept of "trivia" is totally subjective. If WikiProject Video games wants to set lines about the Scope of information a video game article should contain, I think WP:VGSCOPE is an appropriate shortcut. But the terms and shortcuts GAMECRUFT and GAMETRIVIA do nothing but poison a discussion, and neither are limited to videogames apparently. --Pixelface (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The word "cruft" is not derogatory, the problem is is that it is tied with the deletion of material, and thus people take it to mean something bad. There are positive uses of the word, including removing cruft of extra spaces and invisicomments that just has accumulated from many revisions as part of general cleanup. But if the argument is that we must get rid of that word, then GAMESCOPE/VGSCOPE seem fine as a replacement (GAMEGUIDE is pointing to NOT so sorta needs to stay there). However, we can't wipe those shortcuts completely off WP as they have to be there for historical reasons, we can only change what new people see. Older editors will still use them, and thus all you're doing is just changing from this point on. (Also, the Layonara is a vg article - in addition to being a D&D/board game article, though arguably the information removed by the edit wasn't VG related. However, through WP:NOT/GAMEGUIDE, the same arguments apply). --MASEM 22:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

While I agree the term "cruft" has been thrown around more than it has needed to be, I still believe the fault lies with the editors misusing it and other such guideline links. Many other editors agreed here. Faulting the term will not solve the problem. Stating a reason based on logical interpretations of guidelines and policies are what editors should be doing instead of relying on a term and link. Removing the link won't change that. Working on ways to better inform VG members on policies and how to communicate will though. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC))

...are indeed suitable per actual consensus and so that section of the totally disputed gamecruft element of this guideline also should be removed. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you do me a favour and move this to WT:VG? Very few people watch this page. User:Krator (t c) 10:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to put a note there if you think it is relevant. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, could you please also point to this "actual consensus" you speak of (preferably in a condensed form) for those who haven't been following? Thanks, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Just look at all the editors who worked on weapons related articles and all the ones that were created and still exist or those that were deleted in AfDs in which a mere half dozen or so editors only participated. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is not determined by numbers, but instead the result of discussion within the framework of existing WP policies and guidelines. The issue of weapon lists has been talked about many times before on the main WT:VG page in years past, and that consensus, over time, has shaped to say that these are not appropriate unless notable outside the game's context. Just because hundreds of other editors want to make these articles doesn't make them correct. However, no one is stopping the use of StrategyWiki and other wiki sites that this information is more appropriate for. --MASEM 16:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Numbers matter here in that if we assume good faith then all those making and working on the weapons articles interpret policies and guidelines in such a manner that they understand these articles to in fact be appropriate for Wikipedia. By removing them, we insult good faith editors, diminish our value as a comprehensive reference guide, and send out an elitist message to our readers and donors as well. The other problem is that some use that bit to suggest that even weapons made into toys or replicas beyond the games are still somehow covered by this guideline, which as it says on its top is "not sent in stone" and allows for "exception"s. It is far more important if we want to retain contributors that we allow them some leeway with these articles that an obvious minority does not like. More so than anything else in order to build the hybrid general/specialized encyclopedia and almanac, we need mainspace contributors. Just because they would rather build articles than participate in AfDs does not mean their opinion somehow does not count. We can logically infer from their actions how they interpret policies and guidelines and we should write policies and guidelines with an eye to how the community at larger as well as our readership views these things. A large segment of our community and a larger segment of our readership believes in good faith that non-how to weapons lists or articles on weapons for which games themselves are even named or for which toys and replicas and in some cases special controllers have been made merit articles on Wikipedia. A half dozen or so comments in a random AfD should not trump that reality. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not based on a half-dozen AFD comments. It has been a part of writing VG articles for several years, involving many more editors than that, and has been modeled on larger WP policy, specifically we are not a collection of indiscriminate information. Our first purpose is to serve the non-gamer reader, and thus to provide all information that they need to understand what the games are outside of the context of being a video game. Any information beyond that can be added if it does not overwhelm the non-game context of the article. The problem is that we have a slippery slope when you start adding any specific video game information not sources to secondary sources. If you say that weapons lists are allowed, whats to stop this to allow monsters lists, ability lists, level lists, etc? There is no hard line between these that, if we were to make an allowance for one type such as weapons lists, there would be people wikilaywering over every other type of game content lists. Again, there's a resource to place these and that we can link to, but the project has come to a collective agreement over the years its been in place to decide that we do not include those lists on WP proper. Just because there are a large number of editors and readers that want them ,including them will devalue WP's mission and overall quality. WP is not meant to be infinite, and we have to draw a line to make sure that is maintainable.

Now, that doesn't mean we don't cover weapons or the like. If there's a weapon in the game with coverage in secondary sources, particularly if it surpasses the context of the game, we can talk about it. This rarely means every weapon in a game is notable, but just the select weapons. Thus, the specific weapons can be covered in the game's main article under Gameplay or other sections. --MASEM 18:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Having organized and verifiable lists of weapons familiar to millions of video game players does not make us a collection of indiscriminate information; rather it makes us more useful and comprehensive reference guide. We can serve the non-gamer by providing information in the main article on the video games themselves, but there is no reason not to go further in spinoff and sub-articles that obviously are relevant to a large number of our contributors and readers. Monster lists and level lists also should indeed be allowed. Having such things does not somehow cheapen us and if anyone thinks they do, well, they can focus on improving the articles they do care about. The fact that editors keep making and keep working on these articles means that the project has NOT come to a collective agreement, only that a segment of the project has. We can draw a line at how tos, hoaxes, libel, and copy vios, but we don't need to draw a line here. Some weapons also appear in multiple games or have been made into toys, controllers, or even replicas and therefore merit coverage beyond one particular game's article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

But WP is not a guide, we are a tertiary reference source, meaning we should be skipping the surface as much as possible to let other more appropriate sources that we can link to deal with the specifics. And again, if we allows all such lists, WP's coverage of video games alone would be unmaintainable and fail several core pillars and policy. We have to draw a line, and that's been draw through years of previous discussion. --MASEM 19:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Having this material does not make us a guide, just as having a table of elements or list of Oscar winners does not either. We are gaining new accounts every day and so this coverage is hardly unmaintainable and actually passes core pillars and policies by being verifiable and notable information. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Masem here. Why in the world should Wikipedia be a guide based on a small number of people that refuse to follow guidelines? The guidelines aren't new either. Le Grand, don't claim a consensus, when one doesn't exist. The true consensus was established a while ago, and has been followed. Just because people have strong views in deletion debates (as well as working on the articles in the first place), doesn't justify the policy must be changed. Wikipedia isn't the place for everything, period. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. The problem is that if we start including lists of weapons for some games, we have to then start including virtually all weapons for all games. That will likely start extending to other items - powerups, collectibles, expansion items, etc. Then you end up with split-off articles like "List of items in the Metroid universe", which spanned more than a megabyte of information (text and graphics) before it was deleted. And, as has been pointed out, the non-gamer isn't really going to care about how many weapons are in a specific game, or what their abilities are, unless that weapon is central to understanding the game itself (for instance, the portal gun in Portal). And when that is true, it can be explained in prose at an appropriate level of detail. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a logical fallacy with slipper slopes. Because we allow one group to vote does not mean, then we'll have to allow five year olds to vote, too. We wouldn't be starting to include lists, we would be acknowledging and accepting a traditional practice on our project. The non-scientist isn't going to understand certain articles either, but that does not mean we shouldn't include them. The portal gun and others are indeed notable as you suggest, but the problem is that some is using this guideline to blanket remove ALL weapon related articles. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The rule I've been following is thus, and I think it works both with the current guidelines and WP's more general policies:

Notable weapons: Weapons that must be explained in order for the article to make sense. These weapons should be explained in the Gameplay section of the article, in prose, at an appropriate level of detail. These are things like the Portal Gun, Samus's Power Beam, etc. Just enough information to explain its purpose and function, but does not need extra detail such as how to use it, available expansions, etc.

Non-notable weapons: Generic guns, a variety of weapons that essentially serve the same purpose, things that do not stand out on their own. These can be summarized in one or two sentences, like "The player can use one of ten different weapons to battle his/her way through each arena. These weapons include a basic pistol, a plasma rifle, and a rocket launcher." Going into more specifics than that is likely to be unnecessary.

Does that make sense? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

What would you say about say Soul Edge and Soul Calibur? Titular weapons for a whole game series, Soul Edge has been made into a life size replica for sale at all sorts of online locations and even as a toy with an action figure. Plus, they are making a Soul Calibur movie in which they are to appear and yet somehow they are nominated for deletion with a rationale based on the video game guidelines. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually looking at the article in question, it's 90% in-universe. I'm not going to sit here and say such a thing like Soul Edge isn't notable of course, but the article presents it poorly and without real world relevance. But that article doesn't support your statement either: they're just two weapons out of a series with a slew of notable weapons and doesn't justify weapon list articles. On the flip side however, I will state when I look up a game or character on WP, I do prefer to know as much detail as possible about them, so to a controlled extent information of such a sort can be good. It's just that happy medium hasn't been defined really well, and as a result there is squat in terms of control when writing the articles at all.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

What you wrote above seems reasonable, but regarding the condition of the article, please keep in mind Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state, Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built, Wikipedia:Give an article a chance, and User:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy. If the article is in bad shape, we don't just delete it, we fix it, especially when there is some reasonable likelihood that it can be. We know these weapons are the titles of games, we know they have been made as toys, we know they will appear in a movie, and we know they have been made as replicas. Therefore, reviews of the games, toys, movie, and replicas are bound to exist and possibly in publications not found online, but we do not just delete it when a plausible possibility exists. Even articles of unquestionable notability, such as here started out unreferenced and in relatively poor shape, but over time look like this. Now of course Wold War II is more notable than Soul Edge and Soul Calibur, but the process of not just blanket removing the article because of how it looks whil being written does apply. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, if the house is in bad enough shape...sometimes it needs to be scrapped and started over for best results. Otherwise you're effectively going to carve out a lot of detail where simply restating it from the getgo in a more compact means and focusing on other aspects would be a far better move. But by no means am I saying "the article shouldn't exist in any form"--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

That's why we have the be bold guideline. One can start over without deleting an article's contribution history. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a democracy. Policies like the 3RR or "no original research" trump any number of votes. That's why we don't just take the sum of all edits -- good and bad. That's why discussions are helpful, because people are expected to justify their reasoning and not just vote.
The rule against weapons and items is a long standing guideline here and has been developed in accordance with the general policy on notability. This is an effort to elevate video game articles to the standard used in the rest of wikipedia, and frankly I'm tired of non-VG editors crapping all over the work that VG editors do just because a few VG fans don't care about wikipedia standards.
Something to be clear: this is a guideline that is based on WP:N. It's an extension of WP:N. It explains that most weapon articles simply aren't notable. But because it's based on WP:N, some weapons do merit inclusion. For example, the BFG9000 has acquired notability. So has rocket jumping. Randomran (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It may not be a democracy, but those editors who write articles matter and should not be regarded as if their opinions somehow do not count just because they focus more on building the project than on diminishing it. 3RR and no original research do not apply to this particular discussion on weapons. The opinion of some editors against weapons and items is not one that is followed in practice by a majority of editors and per Ignore All Rules does not have to be followed to a T anyway. If the effort is to eleveate video game article standards than more time should be spent looking for sources, not just on the internet, but also in publications that exist to actually improve the articles rather than just delete them altogether, which is doubly bizarre when any of these weapons articles can justifiably be redirected and/or merged instead. Some weapons articles might not be notable, but for military games or games in which the weapons have been made into toys and special controllers, they are indeed notable and should have articles. To suggest that video game "fans" don't care about wikipedia standards is to assume bad faith and somewhat insult those editors who spend volunteer times doing what they can to build our project and rather than destroy their work, we should help them to better reference it and better contextualize it. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Nominating AFDs is not diminishing wikipdia. If you believe that AFDs are a destructive tool, then you ought to begin a discussion at WP:deletion policy. Your problem is with deleting articles in general, not with this guideline. Randomran (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

My concern is with this guideline being misused and not reflecting the real consensus of the community at large. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

That may be, but you haven't established (1) what you would consider suitable content, (2) that your interpretation of suitable content is grounded in wikipedia policy as it is, not as you wish it to be, and (3) that your interpretation is so persuasive that it trumps long standing guidelines. It's not enough to say "somewhere out there people agree with me". Randomran (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Suitable content is anything consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on video games that can be verified in reliable sources, including reliable primary sources or even game guides, because just as citing an article from Time magazine does not make us a magazine, citing information from game guides does not make us a game guide). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that isn't compatible with the general notability guideline. Notability can only be established by a source that it independent of the subject. Randomran (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

For spinout and sub-articles, it is fine and for most weapons, some independent review can usually be found to supplement the primary sources. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that isn't compatible with policy either. See Wikipedia:Summary_style#Avoiding_unnecessary_splits: Editors are cautioned to not immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criterion nor the specific notability criteria for their topic. The new article has to meet the general notability criterion as well. Randomran (talk) 22:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) I'd just like to know what your reasoning is for saying that weapons in general are more suitable for video game articles than, say, point values, character details, pop-culture references and trivia, lists of items, etc. Some items and some individual characters (like Mario, Samus Aran, etc.) are notable and have their own articles, or expanded info in other articles. But does that justify us creating articles for every character, or listing every character in each game's article? This seems to be what you're suggesting we allow for weapons, so again, I present my slippery-slope argument: If we do it for one class of items, why not do it for all of them? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, I don't see much of a problem for sub-articles that cover any of that stuff. We aren't running out of disk space. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

(Separate reply) Above, you said: "Suitable content is anything consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on video games that can be verified in reliable sources..." I'd like to just point out that Wikipedia is not a specialized encyclopedia on video games. It is a general-purpose encyclopedia, and as such, it should contain general-purpose information. The info you're proposing is great for something like StrategyWiki - that is a specialized gaming encyclopedia. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Five pillars, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs." It is therefore NOT just a general-purpose encyclopedia and is indeed also a specialized encyclopedia. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The key word is elements. We are more than a general encyclopedia, but less than specialized ones. --MASEM 22:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Having lists of notable weapons would be consistent with "elements". As indicated, I'm saying Soul Edge, a weapon that is the name of a game, that appears with toys, and that has been made into a lifesize replica is notable enough for an article. I am NOT saying that weapon random one-time character in one game used does. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

← BTW, in reply to the question posed above about Soul Caliber and Soul Edge: If the weapons in question have achieved their own notability outside of the context of the game, then they deserve special mention within the article, or as a separate article if there's enough out-of-universe info to support such an article. In this particular case, you mentioned that one of the weapons has been re-created as a life-size replica and as a stuffed toy with an action figure. Personally, I'd say it's fine to mention pretty much exactly that in the game article, in one or two sentences, with an appropriate citation. This could go in a section on development and marketing, or in the reception section to describe how consumer response to the game has prompted additional marketing.

My point is that guidelines are not hard-and-fast rules that cannot ever be overridden, but they have to be taken on a case-by-case basis, and the resulting article content must still reflect community consensus and fit within the official policies. I think your proposal that we change the guideline is legitimate, but you need to be prepared to have it turned down if your proposal fails to change consensus. And we unfortunately cannot just take your word for it that you represent the community at large - so far, you appear to be the only person arguing for this change in this discussion. If you want the Project to consider more arguments in support of your proposal, I'd suggest you get other established editors to contribute to this discussion. Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Imho, this should be brought up at WT:N. I doubt you would find many to agree with you, Grand Roi. Honest as your supplications seem, I doubt the larger of Wikipedia would agree with you in this matter.

That said, I'm on the fence about real world weapons in lists: I'm referencing games such as Counter-Strike or Medal of Honor (video game). Any other mentions of items in games should be in prose, and only consist of those items/weapons which are notable in the game, rather than whole lists. As has been said for, those lists should be left for wiki(a)s which specialize on the topic, like WoWWiki. --Izno (talk) 21:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

In response to this comment by Le Grand: My concern is with this guideline being misused and not reflecting the real consensus of the community at large. The guideline isn't being misused, you simply don't agree with it. Don't claim a consensus, when one does NOT exist. The small number of people that make these game guide content articles (weapon lists, item lists, etc) are (in many cases) editors that haven't read the policy in the first place. People ignoring policy, and then making whatever they want... isn't how Wikipedia works. You want just about everything kept, so you disagree with nearly everything that restricts content on Wikipedia. Also that user essay you state (User:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy) isn't something that people should be following. From the tag at the top of that: This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it. So stop trying to push it off on others as fact and something that must be followed. Also, the "so fix it" policy you stated also has problems with it. Many times people HAVE worked to fix an article in AFD, however there is nothing to fix it. So it rightfully should be deleted. Just because something is in AFD, doesn't automatically mean everyone should drop everything just to save it. Some like to do that, and have the time. While many others don't. I agree with Randonram, the bigger issue is you disagree with deletion of just about any kind. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

In Le Grand's defense, only some of his arguments talk about why we should never delete articles made in good faith. He has other arguments that deal with whether an article meets deletion criteria, and those are the arguments that would be productive for the sake of this guideline. I'm almost 100% sure that the *general* guideline against weapon and item articles is based on fundamental wikipedia policy on notability, but I'm interested if he's read some kind of policy that I haven't seen. Randomran (talk) 21:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the edit histories of some of these articles nominated and the shear numbers of editors who do think they belong suggests that the larger Wikipedia community does agree with me in practice: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], etc. Why not notify everyone who contributed to those articles to see what their take is on the guideline? See also [29], [30], [31], etc. In addition to hundreds of editors, thousands of readers also look for these articles each month. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there a single article that is deleted that DOESN'T have dozens of people working on it? Again, this kind of "we should never delete" argument is completely unproductive. Wikipedia is not a democracy or a vote. The only consensus that matters is one that is grounded in (1) evidence and (2) policy. Please see the WP:GNG. That's what matters here, not the hundreds of editors who ignore it. Randomran (talk) 22:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course there are plenty of deleted articles that don't have dozens of poeple working on them. Considering that I have nominated and argued to delete over two dozen articles, I am hardly making a "we should never delete" argument. The evidence is that most editors interpret our policies in such a manner that means most of these articles should be here. If we assume good faith then they are not ignoring the policies, but interpreting them differently. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If we assume good faith, we can just as easily assume that they don't know about the policies, which is for the most part far more likely. -- Sabre (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point. This guideline is in place to comply with the general notability guideline and ensure that video game articles are held to the same standard as all other articles. You're criticizing a policy that exists for all articles, rather than this specific guideline. You're essentially challenging WP:EFFORT, which says that the hard work of many editors does not trump policy. You're entitled to challenge that tenet of wikipedia, but then this isn't the suitable place for that discussion. Please take that discussion someplace else. If you succeed, be sure to let us know so that we can change these guidelines to meet the new relaxed standard. Otherwise, please focus on the policies as they exist now, not the policies as you wish them to be. Randomran (talk) 22:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Randomran is right with his comment of Wikipedia is not a democracy or a vote. Also, Sabre is correct. It's indeed more likely people didn't read policies. Many people come to Wikipedia and just create, and do NOT read all the policies first (many hoax, nonsense, copyright violations and so on are great examples of this). We can't assume good faith each and every time, when there is more than enough proof people don't actually read policies first before editing. Also, Otherwise, please focus on the policies as they exist now, not the policies as you wish them to be.: exactly correct. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Support RobJ1981, Randomran and Sabre's assessment. This is simply an attempt to adjust the guidelines to fit personal views. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Concur with the above. This change isn't going to happen if it's just a personal assessment of guidelines and policy that you're trying to impose on others. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

← This is starting to become tedious. The long list of article histories Le Grand pointed to earlier is a mix of articles with agreed-upon notability (Master Sword, Halo, BFG9000) and lists of weapons within a game series. I have absolutely no problem with an article about a notable weapon, IF it satisfies WP:N and WP:V, as all articles must. However, I think that articles in the form "List of weapons in X series" should be looked at VERY carefully, as the articles are likely to contain more trivia and cruft than real-world, out-of-universe information. Specific instances of notability do not automatically justify an overall change in policy. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

And that's the disparity I think we have to note and make apparent. An individual weapon, hence one subject, can have an article if WP:V and WP:N are satisfied. A list of weapons, however, is a failure of WP:NOT#GUIDE and the guidelines we've set on this page. There will be that exception once in a blue moon, but that will be an exception that demonstrates an extraordinary amount of real-world notability to turn opinions. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted, Le Grand has been editing the main page (found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines) since May 25. From what I've seen, he is just forcing his personal view onto the page (which has been rightfully reverted). Those edits were disruptive, and it seems like Le Grand is just coming here to force his anti-deletion views onto the video game project. RobJ1981 (talk) 23:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noted that. Treat any such attempt as a violation of WP:POINT, as he's been doing it repeatably now. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Le Grand clearly has a problem with using notability as a criteria for inclusion and should take his/her complaint to a more general discussion about the notability requirement.
2. We should remain flexible and open to revising these guidelines if extreme inclusionists succeed in removing or relaxing the notability requirement.
3. Keep this discussion in mind if there are any further challenges to these guidelines. This discussion reinforces the strong consensus that has existed here for a long time.
4. Let's re-organize the "scope" part of these guidelines, as it is starting to become unreadable. I admit I think the guidelines difficult to read quickly, but don't have the most constructive criticisms on how to improve it.
5. Let's clean-up/improve the guidelines to show a clearer link with wikipedia policies on notability and scope. Particularly:

• the general notability guideline: that notability means "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"
• the policy against unnecessary, non-notable splits: that subarticles should not be created if they "meet neither the general notability criterion nor the specific notability criteria for their topic"
• WP:NOT, particularly the policy against gameguide information

I'm assuming good faith here, and figure that if it were clearer how our wikiproject ties into general wikipedia policy that discussions like these can be avoided. Right now, I think it's hard for a novice editor or an editor with strong and incorrect views to read, understand, and appreciate the reasoning behind these guidelines. Randomran (talk) 00:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Concur with the above items, specifically with the notion that we need to tie these guidelines much closer to our policies and guidelines. Confusion between the two, specifically in AfDs, should be eliminated. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Considering that I did not create that user box and a number of others use it as well, I am hardly the only one who has an issue with it. The truth is encyclopedic tradition is not based on "notability", but on cataloging human knowledge. I agree that we should be open to revising the guidelines. This discussion is ongoing and demonstrates a lack of consensus in this section. I agree that the guidelines are confusing in places. I pretty much agree with the rest of the points in the sense that there are disconnects between one policy/guideline page and the other. One suggestion is to invite new users to participate in these discussions, i.e. perhaps develop the welcome templates in such a fashion that invites users to not only see the guideline and policies pages, but to participate in their talk page discussions as doing so will help answer questions nad will inject new blood as it were into the discussions. We need to get the opinions of more of the article creator and writers involved to see what the community really thinks. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm against revising these guidelines for anything but readability and clarity. If you have a problem with the notability requirement, please round up the rest of the people who agree with you and visit WT:N. These guidelines are written to comply with the general notability guideline, not to dismantle it. Randomran (talk) 02:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

We need to get more editors who actively work on these articles in on these discussions as they do not reflect consensus in practice. By the way, any chance you might email me? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for further contributors, but there's no value to discussion if we can't agree on basic policy such as WP:N. That's a discussion that would be much more productive at WT:N. Let me know how it goes and good luck. Randomran (talk) 02:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking I should do regarding that talk page? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

See your talk page. You probably won't make much headway on a specific wikiproject's guidelines until you attack the more general wikipedia guidelines. Randomran (talk) 03:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll see you wrote. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The guidelines outlined on this page are derived from the guidelines placed on WP:N. If you have issues those here, you must similarly have issue with those there. As you continue to believe that there is an issue of consensus here, similarly you have an issue there, and thusly, you should seek consensus there. We would encourage you to take up your views on that talk page, as from what I can tell, there is a consensus on this talk page that shows that your views are not with consensus, rather than the reverse.
I'm sure it would be appreciated if you left a link there from here indicating your fellow video game editors have spoken with you on it. --Izno (talk) 03:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

What I see here is that a handful of editors in a day's worth of discussion feel a certain way that again does not coincide with a much larger group of editors who have created and worked on the kinds of articles under question over the course of years and for which thousands of readers check Wikipedia every month. Anyway, I'll do as you suggested. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with you that the majority of editors don't comply with guidelines. You should try that argument at WT:N to see if you can overturn fundamental wikipedia policy such as WP:N and WP:GNG. Until then, we've made peace with the notability requirement and think it's generally a good policy. Good luck, and let us know how it goes. Randomran (talk) 03:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Which suggests that if they don't comply with it, they either interpret it differently or that large of a portion of our community of editors and readers disagree fundementally with those who wrote it and argue for it. But anyway, I am following your suggestion and we'll see how it goes. Have a nice night! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Like I said earlier, we can't just take your word for it that you represent the overall gaming community. It might indeed be true that the majority of gamers really want it one way, but we need to hear from them as well as you - otherwise, the argument is moot. Consensus is not reached through a spokesperson. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think I represent the overall gaming community per se, but one way we can hear from them would be for someone to contact all the editors who ever created or significantly edited a video game weapons article (which would have to be an admin as I can't see deleted contribs so I don't know how many weapons articles we've had) and request that they participate in these discussions as well so that we can get a better sense of consensus. We cannot just assume that they are unaware of or ignoring this guideline unless if they say that. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid the onus is on you to rally that sort of support. Here's how it works: If there are a lot of other editors out there who feel the same way as you do, eventually they will find their way to the appropriate places to discuss this matter. You can't be the only one. Every major video game article has a link in its talk page to WikiProject Video games, and from there, they can easily find their way to this discussion (or create a new one either in the Guidelines talk or the main talk). And of course, they can always go to the policy discussion pages. I think it's a bit of a stretch to assume that the vast majority of editors won't ever seek out a forum to state how they feel.

That said, I'd like you to consider the fact that the WikiProject as a whole (and the even broader community of Wikipedia editors) has already discussed this matter and very similar matters many times. It's not like it's just a small group of us discussing this for the first time here today. I personally have been active in VGProj for about a year and a half, and I've seen several iterations of this kind of discussion (about what's notable, suitable, etc. vs. what's not). I once challenged the community on it myself, making a case for including detailed plot summaries, lists of vehicles, etc. - I think the article I pushed for it hardest on was Star Fox Command, which used to have a nice table in it that described each of the ships and their abilities. Over time, though, I realized that the policies were put there for a reason: Because much of that information is meaningless to someone who doesn't know anything about the game and who wouldn't really care about it. In the case of Star Fox Command, it's sufficient to say that each character has his/her own ship, each with its own abilities - that describes one aspect of the game that the average layman would find interesting. But going into detail about each one was just cluttering the article and would likely overwhelm the average reader with information, making it more difficult for him/her to understand the game as a whole - they'd likely go "That's nice, but why should I care about this?"

Like I said, it's not that we just want to shoot you down here, but we're all trying to tell you that this argument has already happened, and the current guidelines reflect community consensus that has been formed over a period of years. By continuing to push it unilaterally as you are, you're running a real fine line between stating your case and pushing your POV. Please make sure you're familiar with WP:CONSENSUS and how the process has been working here for years. It's not that consensus CAN'T be changed, but it's unlikely to change when it's just one against many. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think if I were to mass contact those editors it would appear to some as a form of canvassing. We have had around ten editors comment in this discussion and yet a far larger number of diffrent editors have written and continue to work on weapons articles. I have no idea why they do not all join in this discussion and I hate to speculate, but what do we do with that? We know that for whatever reason a far greater number of editors who presumably at some point got a welcome message that shortcuts to our guideline and policy pages and still see fit to create and work on these sorts of articles. The thing is even if this discussion has happened before, I believe we have a guideline somewhere that says consensus can change. After all consider all those AfDs that keep getting renominated and so it's probably healthy to keep some discussions alive as maybe by doing so we can indeed encourage others to come here. Something just seems disconnected between the guideline page discussions and the actual practice of a larger number of editors. Again, naturally, I hope that others will come along, but I am concerned that were I to ask editors, I'd be accused of canvassing. Unless if we all agree here that we can notify any editor who created a weapons article of this discussion and have an admin or two help out with the creators of deleted weapons articles? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, KieferSkunk's story is eerily similar to mine. I got into a dispute, took the dispute up the ladder, and found my way into the heart of this wikiproject. These policies areen't just one person's opinion. It was years of discussions by hundreds of editors based on a web of coherent policies. You're not attacking anything that any of us have participated in. You're actually attacking fundamental planks of wikipedia policy like why do we delete articles made in good faith, or why do we require notability from reliable sources. Most of us take those policies as given. You don't, and need to tackle those head on if you expect to get anywhere. Randomran (talk) 06:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am willing to engage others on these larger issues, but the main thing I see is we somehow need to encourage greater participation here among the hundreds and thousands of article creators and writers who for whatever reason do not participate in these discussions. We have had about ten editors comment on this thread, but have had hundreds, maybe even thousands create and edit video game weapons articles. I don't know how we can get them to participate in this discussion, but we either need them to come here and make their case for why they believe the articles should be kept or we need to directly discuss with them on their talk pages the viewpoints of others who wrote in this thread, because there is clearly some kind of disconnect here. Plus, I'm not sure what to make of all these policy and guideline pages also being edited regularly, even if some of the edits are minor, because when new editors receive a welcome message with a shortcut to a guideline or policy page, they may indeed check it, and then all of a sudden even a day later some talk page discussion they were unaware of results in a whole new section being added to the page or another revised. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Registered editors are given several links when they complete their user registration pointing to key policy and guidelines, and even when creating a new article they are pointed to Your First Article which repeats this. Like our policies on (lack of) censorship and spoilers, these are policies and guidelines that we don't make anyone read through before using the site, but expect them to be followed and aware of. Should you create an article that gets deleted, then, just like if you got spoiled by reading a WP article, you should be well aware of the policies that led to the deletion of that article, so that the next one you create is not deleted in the same way. But I've seen editors that don't seem to do this: their articles go up for AFD being cited for not being notable (per WP), and they come back saying that it is notable because it's important or popular (which NOTE clearly states is not the same). I don't expect the first few edits a new editor makes requires having them read through all policies, but I do expect those that plan to make serious significant contributions to be fully aware of them along with being aware they can change.

Policy and guidelines change - we are a dynamic system constantly changing to address new input to the system when it fits WP's mission. Yes, this can cause a problem if you look at the page one day, make an article that meets standards, then the next day it's shifted to make the article fail. There are timing issues that one may unfortunately fall into. However, I would expect that most other editors (particularly admins) to be aware of when such changes occur such that there is sufficient time to grandfather in existing articles. But I've rarely seen a policy change with such a large shift in approach that would make an article pass one day, fail the next and would require significant effort to correct. We do need to encourage editors that they should be watchlisting key policy and guideline pages , if not at minimum the Village Pumps where announcements of most major shifts in policy would be announced before they go on. However, we can't force this either.

And thus this comes to the point that while I can't disagree that there are likely hundreds and thousands of editors and readers that would like to see weapon lists from VG articles, there are likely a large number of those that care little about what else WP covers, and are only interested in WP's coverage of video games with maybe narrow slices of other topics. This brings a biased viewpoint to the table, because while they are thinking what they do in VG articles, they are not considering how this meets up with larger policy across WP. This is not to say their opinions are worthless, but, this is an example that unless they are brought to help support the issue across all of WP, then we are talking local (VG) verses global consensus. Thus, it is important that if there are these many numbers that support a shift of policy to allow weapon lists, then these numbers need to be aware of what WP implications that could have and focus on what changes in global policy needs to be done to make this a possibility (though consensus is still needed); now we then could talk global vs global consensus. If such changes are made to policy, then that will filter down to local guidelines for wikiprojects as appropriate. The difficulty is two-fold; making such editors aware that this the right approach, and making such editors explore other areas of WP to understand how it all needs to balance out and be consistent across the entire WP project. The first one is the easy one, the second one harder because you're asking editors to give up natural biases they may have. --MASEM 14:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

And I'm reasonably convinced that what would more likely end up happening if we were to adopt guidelines that allowed more detailed weapons lists, items, strategies, etc., is that we'd get split off from Wikipedia into a separate, gaming-specific wiki that was no longer beholden to WP's policies. A step that seems wholly unnecessary, since such wikis already exist and are a FAR more appropriate place to put such details. (By the way, if the issue is whether or not the detailed info is accessible or not, we could still find ways to more easily link the sub-wikis from Wikipedia, in the form of a "For more detailed info on this game, see...") — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

To slightly build on that point, this sort of stuff is golden ammunition for the people on Wikipedia who want us and anything else popular culture related torn off Wikipedia and put onto popular culture Wikipedia equivalent. We really don't want to give them reasonable excuse to do so. -- Sabre (talk) 15:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, personally, I don't have a problem with that sort of information being collected elsewhere. Trivia sites are interesting places for some. Just so long as the more relevant, salient information already on WP doesn't get pulled off inappropriately. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

At the same token there are some who outright do not care about some of these articles either; I have seen multiple editors now, even admins, say they know nothing about the article in question and have no interest in editing it. It'd be one thing if someone who has multiple subscriptions to game magazines can say that they could find no coverage in published sources and know enough about video games to recognize that some particular weapons list is not all that significant, but we have instances of AfDs in which people who just outright don't like the popular culture stuff. I see no real reasons why Wikipedia can't or shouldn't be the umbrella or master Wiki that unifies all wikis. We have the most editors and the most publicity and we are told not to worry about performances. We have a real opportunity to not only be a great general encyclopedia, as some want, but also perhaps the all time greatest popular culture encyclopedia, which a determined group doesn't want, but which really is not incompatible with the other goal. There's no reason why Wikipedia cannot be simultaneously a successfuly general encyclopedia, gaming encyclopedia, and popular culture encyclopedia. We would only attract more editors, readers, and donors and provide a much greater contribution to human knowledge. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem with detailed coverage of pop culture is that it does run contrary to WP's mission to be a free content encyclopedia. This is not meaning we need to fear copyright concerns, but that after we get past talking about the context of the work, any significantly detailed discussion of the content of the work is considered to be a derivative work, and thus is non-free content that we must strive to minimize. This does not mean eliminate entirely the coverage of such works (as some want to do), it just means that we need to realize any deep coverage of such works is a problem if we cannot justify fair use of that. In the case of video games this means that if we start getting into details of specific aspects of gameplay or of the game's plot, we are providing too much content that without context is not congruent with WP's mission of free content. --MASEM 20:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

← Le Grand, you said: "I believe we have a guideline somewhere that says consensus can change." Yeah, I pointed you to it in the message directly above yours. It's WP:CONSENSUS, with additional links off that policy page that describe in more detail some aspects of the policy and guidelines about how to have consensus discussions. It's a little frustrating to point you to a link that exactly tells you what you need to know, only to have you go "I think there's something somewhere that answers this question..." - it tells me you didn't bother to click on the link and read it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I had read that page previously (hence, why I remembered something from it), of course, I see, however, that it to has undergone several revisions since. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You'll know an article doesn't reflect consensus when it's tagged with a disputed tag. Otherwise, the article has been mostly stable regardless of minor edits over several months. That's especially true about the section dealing with weapons. Randomran (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily; checking the edit histories tends to reveal much more in the way of revert warring and checking talk pages for discussions like this one reveal when consensus is disputed. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

That's your opinion. Checking the edit history tends to just reveal the occasional edit that's usually disregarded by the broader consensus. If there's a real dispute, you can be assured that the disputed tag will appear there and stay there for a while. Randomran (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Not when some removed the disputed tags. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

If there's a real dispute, then there will be people willing to put the tag back. Otherwise, the tag was probably put there by a single editor disrupting wikipedia to make a point. Randomran (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Or removed by an editor doing so. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

If there's a real dispute, then the tag will be re-added. The 3RR is to prevent a single editor from being disruptive. Randomran (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I've said this before, but I consider a reasonable compromise is to test the real-world relevance of such lists. In a game like Rainbow Six it's understandable that people might want to know which real guns are portrayed in the game, and learn more about their real-world context, and a list is a tidy, convenient way of providing links to those articles. This is compared to a list of weapons in, e.g. Metroid, which have no meaning outside the game itself, and could thus be considered purely gameguide material. In other words, Chemical laser is something that could be on a list, but Wave Beam is not. Ham Pastrami (talk) 07:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You can summarize the weapons in a sentence or two max. Why would you need a list of weapons in Rainbow Six either? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 10:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Because it is a major comment of a notable game and there's no benefit by not having it. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

As with David Fuchs, what else can you really say about the weapons beyond that they exist in the game? This is not to say that some can't be listed, but what point does it serve to list out every weapon in the game without any additional details specific for each weapon? I think there's much more value in a sentence that says "The game includes many modern weapons, including X, Y, and Z.", compared to "The game includes A, B, C, .. X, Y, and Z." Yes, people will fight over what X,Y, and Z are though if you can link that list to a source (press release, game review, etc.) to provide reasons why those examples were picked, you'll get a much better article. --MASEM 13:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Some reviews of games comment on the appearance of and use of weapons in the games and in some instances weapons lists or tables are as relevant to a video game as a list of Academy Award winners is to the article on the Oscars or the periodic table of elements to the article on elements. If we have weapons lists as spinoff or sub-articles, then that way the non-gamer could read the main article for the general information, but then we have the sub-articles to provide a service for those readers who have that greater interest. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a fansite. We are here to service those who know nothing about the subject (ie the "non-gamer"), not the fan (ie the "readers who have that greater interest"). The service of those with a greater interest lies with the Wikias, not Wikipedia, and I suggest that if you want to include this sort of information you would have a far easier time at one of the Wikias. -- Sabre (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Having these articles does not make us a fansite. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that WP:N doesn't say anything about what you can include within an article. But otherwise, I wouldn't make an article on any subject within a game unless multiple reliable sources independent of the subject itself stated that the subject was notable. Is there someone who's taken the time to write about the weapons of Rainbow Six? There's your answer. Randomran (talk) 17:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Le Grand keeps on bringing up the argument, which is gisted as "what's the harm of having these articles?" The harm is that it drags down the main articles. I've been around since 2005. Back then, there were lists of vehicles and weapons in the Halo series, even one for the Warthog or the fictional coilgun that appeared in Halo 2. Guess what the quality of the actual game articles were... major shit, barely could be considered start-class. Since then, the scope of WP:HALO has decreased from more than 75 articles to 55 (soon to be around 40, if we stop focusing on machinima)- but more than 35% of those articles are GA or higher. A more focused scope leads to better quality articles. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Credibility is an issue. Before I found the video games wikiproject, I was helping with articles on world history, racism... truly important stuff. But an article on Islam gets undermined by the fact that wikipedia will have a dozen-page article about the shape of the wheels in Halo fanfiction. The fact that journalists (or average readers) could point to hot garbage on wikipedia ultimately undermined the value of the high quality, notable, properly referenced articles that people were making. The quality controls are there for a reason. At any rate, this is a moot discussion because the policy is bigger than all of our opinions combined. Randomran (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

If we're really interested in credibility, then to be fair look to the articles that I can't link to on certain cites that criticize us for deleting things more than anything else. Some pundits in the blogosphere who have nothing better to do than gripe about stuff can say what they want, but the facts based on evidence are that are contributors want to write and work on these things and thousands of readers come here for these articles. I'm far more interested in them than random media critics. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this isn't about your interests. The policies against non-notable information exist BECAUSE wikipedia is trying to improve its credibility. There's plenty of other wikis for non-notable information. Randomran (talk) 18:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately it is about the interests of are readers, contributors, and donors. I am interested in the majority of these editors more than anything else. The policies in practice are that such articles are releveant and are why people come here and edit the project and there's no reason why we can't duplicate this notable information that is covered by other wikis just as Britannica also has an article on Napoleon. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You can't claim to know what's in the interests of our readers. AFDs exist for a reason, because deleting non notable information IS considered in our readers' interest. If it weren't the case, then the policy would change. Randomran (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I need only look at the edit history and article traffic statistics to gauge what our readers are interested in. Who knows why the don't spend more time on the policies, which is why I encourage you to invite major contributors to weapons articles to this discussion and to the AfDs. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

All the readers in the world couldn't overturn the notability requirement. But I welcome you to try. Randomran (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

All that shows is that we need to encourage editors to also focus and work on the main articles or work harder on them ourselves by being bold. Just because some articles are being worked on does not mean those articles should also be eliminated. We gain new users every day and given time we have a reasonable shot of improving the other articles as well. Or that we focus on the main articles, but keep the secondary or sub articles and move to them when we're ready. I don't see a compelling reason to permanently delete them altogether. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that just because there are articles about it lessens focus is a reason to delete articles; I fully admit editors get sidetracked by other articles (for instance, I've been meaning to pool together the sources I've found about design and creation of Halo (megastructure) and put it into the article, but I've been working on Myst and Riven and I Love Bees instead.) I'm just pointing out that merging stubby or crap articles, even if they are eventually fleshed out and made into good articles in their own right, can often be a more productive way to go about things. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Merging is one thing, and something, I'm not always opposed to; I am opposed however to outright deleting articles that can be merged and redirected without deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

And I don't think anyone is disputing that merging and redirecting is often preferable to outright deleting content. If there is a way to incorporate good, noteworthy content in a way that makes sense and satisfies the policies, and the purpose, of Wikipedia, then I'm all for it. But we've now been beating this dead horse to a pulp for two straight days, going over the same points again and again. Consensus was already reached on this issue. It doesn't matter how many people in the Blogosphere criticize WP for its policies and practices - if those people aren't willing to come and debate the policies with the people actively working on WP, then it's not going to change how WP actually works.

Le Grand, this conversation is getting really, really tedious, and is, in my opinion, moving over into tendentious editing. I've been reluctant to refer to it as such, but I started feeling that it was heading that way yesterday. You were already informed of the consensus here, we all believe there are very good reasons to keep the guidelines as they are, and you were asked to take your issue to WT:N, where you would be more likely to have an effect on the actual policies that form the basis for the VGProj guidelines. The fact that you're still here hammering home the same points over and over again makes this much more a matter of WP:TE than constructive conversation at this point. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing else to say about the content of the guidelines. There are no dissenting opinions grounded in actual policy. We have a consensus. Does anyone else have time to help improve the formatting, organization, and clarity of these guidelines? I'd like to put together a sandbox. The goal of these revisions will be to stay synonymous with the guidelines we have now, but with clearer links to WP:SPS, WP:RS, WP:N, WP:GNG, and so on. Randomran (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

See Evan Samoon, "Gun Show: A real military expert takes aim at videogame weaponry to reveal the good, the bad, and the just plain silly," Electronic Gaming Monthly 230 (July 2008): 48-49. The article covers in some detail the practicality and historical precedents of Oddworld: Stranger's Wraths live ammo crossbow, Gears of Wars Lancer, Halos Needler, Dooms BFG 9000, Final Fantasy VIIIs Gunblade, Half-Life 2's Gravity Gun, and Team Fortress 2s sticky-grenade gun. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this confirms what the guidelines essentially say. Most of the time weapons aren't notable and don't really have much independent and substantial coverage -- most of the stuff comes right from the game itself, or game guides. But on the rare occasion that someone does cover a topic in more detail, it does become notable and worthy of its own article (even if it takes forever to clean it up). Randomran (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It shows that sources are out there, but we just have to find them and not think of Google as the end point of our research. It also shows the problem with AfDs in that here I was able to find a reliable published secondary source for topics that for all I know may have been deleted. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it also shows that if you have to search to the ends of the earth to find something that qualifies as a "notable secondary source", perhaps the topic ain't all that notable after all. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree. At least looking at what LGRdC added to the articles in question, that specific article doesn't establish notability for the weapon (much less all the weapons in the game), though it is a good data point to add to the article for the game. Might there be other sources for those specific weapons? Likely, but even with a couple more data points, the discussion of the weapon is a better topic in the main game article than a separate article. --MASEM 22:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The article does contain much more detail than what I initially added to some of those articles. The article profiles seven game guns and is written by a video game expert and a real world weapons expert. The profiles are divided into whole paragraphs as follows: 1st a description of the gun, then a discussion of the gun's real world practicality, next a look at the gun's historical precedents, and finally it's lethality. The article concludes by asking the real world weapons expert which of the guns would be best in a real war and why (he has a multi-sentence reply). So, when I added the reference initially, I merely intended to show that such sources exist, but then when I had more time I expanded the details. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I would still think that we need to include a matter of practicality; I've read more than enough gaming literature to know that coverage of weapons beyond a passing mention in a game review is few and far between. Articles like these do occur, but this is the exception, not the rule, to the typical coverage you get in most reliable sources. When it does occur, we should extensively use such articles as you've done with this one. But we should not pretend that any weapon from any game will gain additional sources if we look hard enough. However, we also should be practical; if the game is a hit, and in a WP:OR-ish way there's support that there should be more information to support the notability of a weapon, then it makes sense to wait and look. But I would not hold my breath on such a search; it's the exception articles one comes across on accident that will more likely provide what is needed. --MASEM 18:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Kiefer, I would not call locating an article in a magazine available at Walmart, Game Stop, etc. searching "to the ends of the earth." And for any of these weapons listed articles such as this one could be joined with the games' respective published strategy guides (reliable sources and of course citing a so-called game guide doesn't make us anymore a game guide than citing a scholarly journal makes us a journal rather than an encyclopedia) for at least a respectable list the blends both primary and secondary coverage. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Nobody thinks google is the end point of research. But we can't wait indefinitely on one person's belief that appropriate evidence is out there somewhere: no decisions would ever get made. Obviously we shouldn't decide too soon either, but people have to make an educated guess at a certain point. If the article has existed for a long time, with no appropriate references in the actual article, no appropriate references in a quick google search, and editors on an AFD actually build a consensus for deletion... safe to say it probably should have been deleted. The smartest thing is to be incremental: add this information to the main article, and split it out when there's actually enough appropriate information and sources to support a split. Randomran (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:There is no deadline. If ever there's potential and even some editors believe that in good faith, the thing to do would be to boldly redirect rather than going through a time consuming AfD. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Who said anything about deadlines? I'm talking about making an educated estimate about something's notability. You're talking about a single person being able to override the consensus of an AFD because they can merely insist something is notable with zero evidence. I'm just as bothered by the idea that an AFD can be imposed too soon, before the article has had a legitimate chance to prove that it's notable. But you're talking about essentially abolishing AFDs for articles that fail to comply with notability requirements. Randomran (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I should note that just because there is coverage of a weapon, however, doesn’t mean we should be in a rush to spin off the information into its own article. Often, info on a weapon is best folded into the Gameplay or reception section of the game article in question, or in another fictional topic article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this more what you mean? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah; the whole article needs a thorough cleaning whenever I can muster myself to get around to it. But that's a better fit for the information than the game article. :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, cool. By the way, I also started going through the Stranger (Myst) article for grammar and am still trying to think of what would be the best sources. Anyway, note: [32] and [33]. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Update: As for Halo weapons... In addition to the source listed above, please also note Kevin Rorabaugh, “How Hardcore Are You? Your proudest gaming moments: The next contestant in our monthly harder-core-than-thou competition arrives!” in Electronic Gaming Monthly 228 (May 2008): 10. He made a potato launching replica of the M41 SSR MAV/AW Rocket Launcher from Halo; features a photograph as well and is set aside from other letters to the editor in special colored box in magazine Demonstrates influence of the weapon and telling that they would feature this one with picture and all. Thus, if we had an article or section on Halo weapons, we have at least two published magazines that provide out of universe information on them. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I think I understand what you're getting at now. Are you trying to prove some kind of point that the guidelines are wrong? Because you're only confirming what the guidelines say: "It is usually inappropriate to describe game items in detail. But describing the portal gun from Portal is necessary to understand the game, and has significant coverage in reliable game news reports." Randomran (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No, just showing that sources do exist, but twice now they appear in published sources that are not necessarily found on Google searches. Therefore we can make articles based on reliable secondary sources and multiple ones, but we need to look beyond Google. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

But wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We can't know what the most recent issue of EGM is going to say. Something that's notable now wasn't necessarily notable a couple of months ago. Randomran (talk) 17:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is still going on? Wow.

Yes, sources exist for some weapons, establishing notability for some weapons. That does not justify automatically putting ALL game weapons in Wikipedia. And conversely with what Randomran said, if a weapon is deleted from Wikipedia for non-notability and you later find a source that establishes notability, you can always add it back. It's not like deletions are absolutely set in stone, y'know - it has always been this way. We just want to make sure that truly notable stuff is covered, and non-notable stuff is not.

I don't think anyone is going to dispute that the BFG9000 and the Covenant Energy Sword are notable weapons with good press coverage, whether in print or on the web. But as I said before, the fact that a standard machine gun is available in Call of Duty is about as notable as the fact that the steering wheel in the Mazda Miata is round. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

There are some who have from past experience automatically delete articles previously deleted claiming "restoration of deleted material" even if new sources are indeed being added, which is why we need to delete very carefully. And I have been in enough AfDs now to see some say there was a clear consensus to delete in a previous AfD even if the new version of the article looks nothing like the old version. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and there's a lot of variance in interpretation of how the AFD and CSD processes should be run, as well as some vagueness in Deletion policy. Generally speaking, though, previously deleted material should not be automatically re-deleted unless it's obvious that the new version of the material is not substantially different or more notable than the previous version. I agree that some people are a little too quick to just speedy-delete stuff in cases where a little more review would justify its presence. But again, that's not necessarily a justification for just automatically including everything. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, I do not think every game related thing should be automatically included: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homosexuality in Kingdom Hearts and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Best of Sonic the Hedgehog are some examples. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come on, LGRC. You know what I was addressing. But just in case you missed my point, I'll spell it out: Vagueness in deletion policy is not necessarily a justification for just automatically including all weapons from every game, which is what I've seen you arguing over the last month or so. You never did answer my question about why weapons were somehow more important than other types of game items, BTW. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a lot of magazines preview their next issues at the end of the current issues. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If there were some way we could preview all their future issues, then we'd be in business. Otherwise, KieferSkunk nailed it. Randomran (talk) 19:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

So we don't get sidetracked, I brought the reference here because my hope is that someone more familiar with the Halo games than me will be able to use it. I have subscriptions to several game magazines and will likely continue to come across these sorts of articles; in some cases I have a good idea of where to put them myself, but figure someone else may know better on this one. Because it follows on finding another reliable reference on a Halo weapon, maybe a real section or stub article is coming into play. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Update: I am not sure how we would cite TV shows, but I just watched the latest episode of GameTrailers on Spike TV and as seen here, the episode featured "Daniel Kayser is in Las Vegas for SOCOM weapons training with the Navy SEALS, and we reveal the new trailer for SOCOM: Confrontation." If I recall that show has covered video game weapons in such out of universe fashion in the past as well. Also, yet another published secondary source to consider is Dan "Shoe" Hsu, "Weapons of Bodily Destruction: New ways to turn your opponents into unrecognizale piles of meat," Electronic Gaming Monthly 230 (July 2008): 65. This article focuses on weapons in Gears of War 2 with some comparison to those used in the first game in the series. --Happy editing! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 08:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi everyone. As per our discussion before, I've attempted to clean up the content guidelines. I do not want to change the meaning or scope of the current guidelines. My proposal should ONLY improve organization and clarity, while preserving the current guidelines in meaning and scope. You can see my proposal at User talk:Randomran/guidelinework. I have two questions for everyone:

1. Do you see my proposal as being substantially different in meaning or scope from our current guidelines? If so, I'll change the proposal to be more similar to the current guidelines.
2. Is there anything else you would add or change to improve the layout and clarity of the content guidelines? If so, then I'll fix it.
3. (As a side question, I threw a clean-up tag in one section. I more or less copied it from the current guidelines. Is there a better way to deal with this part of the guidelines?)

Reply back at your earliest convenience. I'll make copyedits and changes based on problems that people point out. Randomran (talk) 04:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

• Let's call the essential "History" section "Development" to begin with.
• In your rewritten note about article size, the excellent part that's currently there ("the ideal article is neither too large nor too small.") is gone. I'd argue for its return.
• The third exception at the bottom is not an exception at all. It is always appropriate to describe things like that. It's not a gameplay item, either, it's a plot element that warrants discussion.
• The note that homebrew clones infringe on copyright is irrelevant. It's in the original page too, but shouldn't be there anyway (I think I responded to such an argument on WT:VG recently, by you, I believe).

User:Krator (t c) 11:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Concerning your first point, I think it should perhaps be the reverse, actually. The development sections found in articles are often really about the game's global history and marketing rather than just development. For instance, the development section in Final Fantasy XII (a Featured Article) mentions the shipping of the game's demo in a Dragon Quest VIII bundle, and it also mentions a special day/event in New York. The "Development" section is also often where game showcases such as those of the TGS, E3, etc. are mentioned. All of this might be better summarized by "History" than "Development". Kariteh (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• There's obviously a disagreement about "history" versus "development". Along with Kariteh's arguments, I feel like history generalizes better to all topics, not just individual games. Let's see what other people say.
• I re-added the note about article size. Good point.
• Can you think of a better example of an exception to the general rule against listing weapons/items?
• I'd be okay with removing the note about homebrew infringing copyright. But the current guidelines include it. Wouldn't that change the meaning of the guidelines? I'd feel more comfortable if you made that change to the current guidelines, before the cleanup. (Assuming it reflects consensus.)

Thanks for the feedback. I can definitely make those last few changes once I have a better idea of how to proceed. Randomran (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• I support the proposed revisions as is. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I made a couple of small changes, as to make some of the last ones read descriptively instead of prescriptively and also added in WP:FICT (I know it's listed proposed, but I doubt it will remain that way for longer). On that issue, the first "do not" is a bit against this as worded, though I don't think the intent is there in this fashion. Per FICT, non-notable lists of major/minor/recurring characters from a game or series is appropriate if the main article becomes too long, as long as it remains reasonably bounded and otherwise meet all other aspects for articles. We want to discourage this of course, particularly for single-shot games, but it is not a hard limitation, and recognizes that we're still balancing inclusionists/deletionists wars here. --MASEM 20:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the revisions, which I support. These are guidelines that should be generally followed, but there can be exceptions if they're reasonably justified. Keep the feedback coming. (If someone wants to respond to the questions I asked Kariteh above, that would also be appreciated.) Randomran (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

In answer to the more appropriate example of an item/weapon exception: I would name the Portal Gun in Portal (video game) as a great example. You cannot understand the game without describing this weapon in considerable detail, so it stands out as an excellent example in my opinion. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

My comment on the "History" vs. "Development" section: Why not both? "History and development"? That's a term I've seen used in a number of other places that describe the development of a particular program, game, etc. If it's deemed that putting the two together isn't appropriate, I'd vote for History as a more general term, since a game's development is naturally part of its history. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Good call on the portal gun. I replaced the example. The only lingering issue is how to deal with a "history" section. If there is no consensus, I'll just leave this essential element out entirely, and leave it to a future discussion. As of now, it's not stated explicitly on the current content guidelines -- it's only mentioned in the guideline about organization. Randomran (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion would be something along the lines of "You should have a 'Development' or a 'History' section. If you prefer, include both, if it enhances the article to enter a discussion on both a game's history and development."
That said, I think history is too overarching of a topic name, as that kind of includes reception and criticism of the game. --Izno (talk) 03:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I tried updating the guideline to say "History" or "Development" section. Just something I'm trying out. It might be a step backwards in that it reduces clarity. But I think it gives the general idea. If there's no other way to make it work, I'll just leave this part out and let someone else deal with it some other time. Like I said, the current content guidelines don't mention it specifically and it's something I copied from the organization guidelines. Randomran (talk) 04:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the current wording ("A 'Development' or 'History' section.") works fine. It uses the more common term used in single game articles, "development", and the more generic term, "history". (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC))

Regarding the "illegal" homebrews, they should be treated like all video game articles. Hence, articles would describe their reception, development, and general gameplay and plot. However per WP:IINFO and WP:GAMECRUFT, the article shall not dwell on details on how to get the homebrew working and where to get it (copyright violations). In other words, the article shall not tell people how to violate copyrights but shall tell that such applications exist and what were their effects on the gaming industry. All such details are of course again subject to WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:N. Jappalang (talk) 13:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the above -- however, particularly for copyvio games, strong notability must be demonstrated at the time of creation or otherwise should be deleted, as those types of articles can attract more trouble. Homebrews, not as much. --MASEM 13:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: the homebrew and remake stuff. I'm not going to change the guidelines because I'm just following the lead of the current guidelines. If someone wants to change the current guidelines and develop a consensus for that now, I'll change my proposal to match. But otherwise, my goal is to make sure there is no change in the meaning of the guidelines. Strictly clean-up. Randomran (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The only remaining criticism is about the homebrew stuff. If someone wants to change the current official guidelines, I would back them. At which point, I'll change the proposed guidelines to match. I don't want this clean-up to change the meaning. I'm very focused on that. So if someone wants to change the meaning, they should do it before (or after) the clean-up -- not during. Are there any other concerns with the proposed changes? Randomran (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Not with me... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I say go for it. The new draft should be very easy for people to understand and work with. I'm eager to see these guidelines adopted. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd invite someone else to do the copy / paste. Not because I'm ashamed of my small contribution, but I think it would go a longer way to reflecting that this is truly the work of a community rather than a unilateral revision. Randomran (talk) 22:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Be bold. We know it wasn't the work of a one person cabal... ;) --Izno (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead. We can sort out the contents later. Jappalang (talk) 23:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah what the heck, here I go. Randomran (talk) 15:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Very nice. Now if only WP:FICT was so easy to deal with... :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It's far easier to clean-up what's already been agreed to. Far harder to build consensus for real change. Randomran (talk) 01:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to propose a rule of thumb be added here. Basically, if you are adding something, consider whether you would ever expect it to appear in a respectable print encyclopedia of any sort that covers gaming in general. If not, then it almost certainly doesn't belong. Ong elvin (talk) 08:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I propose to rewrite the gaming jargon section. In the current FACs, one of the most common complaint with video game articles is that video game slang terms are bandied about without care for the common readers (okay, slight exaggeration but the point is clear). The current section seems to be limited. My suggestion as in the lilac box.

Any comments? Jappalang (talk) 06:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks much better and comprehensive, to be sure. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 12:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Great idea! After that whole discussion with Laser Brain about the Smash Bros. Brawl article, it would be a really good idea to remind everyone about the need to make the text accessible to the "common man". Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I propose to implement the text by Friday if there is no true opposition. Jappalang (talk) 00:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Section rewritten. Jappalang (talk) 01:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

In the article Second Sight all levels (locations) are listed. Should it really be mentioned?--Megaman en m (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Not really. A brief summary of what sort of locations are visited in the course of the game, usually in a "Setting" paragraph, can be useful, but indepth details and a comprehensive list of locations like that is not necessary. Same goes for the psionic powers listed in the article. See the item on "lists of gameplay items, weapons, or concepts" in this guideline. -- Sabre (talk) 17:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Why are people cropping box art, especially on single platform titles? JAF1970 (talk) 02:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? -- Sabre (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think he means that he is encountering box cover arts with their "For the Xbox", "PlayStation3", or "PC-DVD" sections(labels) cropped out. I think this started as a concept to avoid edit wars between rabid platform fanboys. For games that had boxes for two platforms with the same art, the image of one was selected and the Xbox360 or PlayStation3 section cropped away to leave a "neutral" version. There are supporters of this who also follow a reasoning of such images being "cleaner". Halo3, Devil May Cry 4, and Conan (2004 video game) are done along these reasonings.

Anyway, it appears from JAF1970's statement that someone has (or several people have) carried this idea to extremes. The user might be acting in good faith, assuming that the move was a concensus applying to all video game articles or that such images are "cleaner". We could tell if the user is instead acting in bad faith as he or she would be specifically targeting only one platform's titles. Jappalang (talk) 01:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the main image in question is Image:Halo wars.png, which appears that User:David Fuchs has cropped maybe to work in consistency with the other Halo images. In my opinion i think conistency would be good, but at the very least for the Halo wars image the green border should be removed. Salavat (talk) 04:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Should text adventures/interactive fiction be disambiguated the same way, e.g. Bureaucracy (video game) - even when they have no "video" element beyond plain text? It seems to me that this should be an exception to the normal rule. — sjorford++ 11:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"Non-notable articles and spinouts" and "Numerous short articles" are not part of the content of an article, and the discussion of these needs a separate section. I need hardly mention that this is likely to be much more controversial than the others. The new section should probably give advice on merging them, or redirecting, which by Wikipedia deletion policy, are always preferred to deletion. In particular, the justification for the short articles section is given as the Wikipedia:Article size guideline; checking it, is has no such rule. It's only about how to handle articles that are too long. DGG (talk) 12:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of the earlier discussion with LGRC. I'm not LGRC, and I am not, for example, focused on advocating separate articles on weapons used in a single game. I'm more concerned with ensuring proper merges and redirection. DGG (talk) 12:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

According to the new WP:MOSNUM change (see MOS:UNLINKDATES), we shouldn't be wikilinking dates solely for the purpose of date autoformatting. That means several things for WPVG right now:

• We would need to change our MOS to reflect the change. In particular, we shouldn't be using the {{Start date}} template for full dates or even the {{vgy}} template for years in video gaming.
• We would need to change the infobox and all {{vgrelease}} templates so that dates are no longer linked.

I should also add that there is also a bot (User:Lightbot) going through all articles as we speak and removing all linked dates from articles. (There is currently a discussion regarding the repercussions of this at ANI). MuZemike (talk) 04:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

{{vgy}} is fine; it's not the sort of thing that MOSNUM is talking about. We don't need to change it. Also, {{start date}} has been changed so it no longer automatically links, I believe (see the examples on its documentation). Giggy (talk) 07:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see the change in the {{Start date}}. Does that also imply that we shouldn't link any release dates, in particular, those dates in the infobox? MuZemike (talk) 20:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have any objections to an archive bot being added to this page? Due to the gentle turnover speed of discussions on this page I was thinking of something in the area of 100-150 days for the age of thread before archiving parameter. - X201 (talk) 09:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

No objections from me. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable idea. Randomran (talk) 13:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it permissible to include external links to webpages containing a game's downloadable content (e.g. mods, patches, maps, etc.), such as FileFront, as was done in this edit. This isn't covered in the External links section. --Silver Edge (talk) 22:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Not really. I think it's neither our purpose or need to provide these links, and we also run into the problem of supporting one such service over another. (And generally, patches to games really don't need to be talked about unless there is some significance in the sources to them) --MASEM 22:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The table of contents here is pretty long, and not to mention disorganized. Not to be harsh. I think there's a better way to group some of these guidelines, but I'm not really sure how. I'd encourage someone with better ideas to be WP:BOLD, if they think I'm onto something. Randomran (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I did a cursory reorganization: relevant content are moved together or into a more general heading, and the more general immediate stuff are moved to the front. Hope this is acceptable. Better writing can further cut down some redundancies and make for a smoother reading. Jappalang (talk) 12:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That's already a huge step forward. Good job! You're right that there are some redundancies, but those will be harder to weed out. Any ideas? Randomran (talk) 13:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me throw something out here... One of the most common problems with most video game articles now is their tendency to devolve into game guides and tellings of intimate story details. This is readily visible by large Gameplay or Story sections accompanied by miniscule Development and Reception sections. Perhaps, the Organization guidelines should readily point this fact out and stress that Gameplay and Story sections are to be as compact as possible (without sacrificing key items or language fluency). We might consider passing off some sections as links to other pages, for example the entire "Screenshots and cover art" section can be point to "Video game images" as the main article. I dare say that the Release dates guideline is bloated... Jappalang (talk) 05:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

At Talk:EarthBound we're in a debate over whether an external link to starmen.net belongs in the article, with Yoryx citing Wikipedia:VG/EL being cited as the main reason for its removal, which is why I'm posting here. Over a period of about 20 days now only one other person has expressed agreement, so I added the link back in on day 15 on the assumption that there was no consensus to delete it, but Yoryx insists that the link violates the policy somehow and deleted it again. Since this has been dragging on so long and Yoryx doesn't want to give up, I'd like to see some kind of resolution to the debate one way or the other. Can anybody help? - furrykef (Talk at me) 08:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see it as a outright violation of external links. Yes, we tend to discourage fan sites, however, this seems to be the best fan resource for Earthbound out there. It probably is additionally notable for the recent bit about the Mother3 English translation -- which since they neither provide the original or patched ROM (only instructions presuming you have one) I don't think there's any major copyright problems with this -- the site has gained notability for that point so including it seems perfectly reasonable. --MASEM 14:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

We really do try to avoid linking fansites, because it's not too long before you have a link to a dozen fansites, some walkthroughs, an online game based on the article, and some ROMs. But in principle, one great fansite that is highly notable within the community would be totally fine. I just find that it's sometimes easier to "just say no", wipe the ELs, and build it up again from scratch. But if you have someone watchlisting the article, I'm sure they can distinguish the quality stuff from the spam. Randomran (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

In the article Resistance: Fall of Man, there is a section titled "ranked matches" which describes all playable modes. I couldn't find this in the inappropriate content list but does this count as gamecruft or not?--Megaman en m (talk) 13:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

In principle, I don't see any reason not to include different game modes as part of describing the gameplay. The key is not going into excessive detail to the point that you're explaining to fans of the game how to play it. You just need enough so that an outsider would understand the game modes. Randomran (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, we should be mindful of whether a mode listing will make the article read like an advertisement or promotional flyer for the game. Often times, short lists of modes read very much like the game manual, something off a promotional site, etc., so we need to be careful when going over this stuff. Also, I'd say that modes should only be described explicitly if they contribute to the overall understanding of the game - for instance, Pac-Man Championship Edition has several different levels that it calls "modes", but in reality they're just different maze layouts with different properties (time limits, starting speeds, etc.), and otherwise they don't change the gameplay at all. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I was wondering, shouldn't locations be added to the list of WP:GAMETRIVIA? Especially number 6: Lists of gameplay items, weapons, or concepts. Often lists visited in a video game are added to an article, without adding anything of value to it (see Tomb Raider: Underworld, I took such a section out). Perhaps anyone here can shed some light on the subject. Thanks! --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 18:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. The guideline already says we exclude levels, but locations is probably a little more accurate for games that don't specifically say "level one, level two". Maybe we should try to improve this whole statement, since there are some parts of it that are redundant or unclear. Randomran (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up, Randomran. I'm not a member of the video games WikiProject, but I do follow its rules. I'll keep citing WP:GAMETRIVIA. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 10:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The guidelines are always open to changes, although they've basically been this way for a year or more. So by all means, if there's something to add, even for clarity, starting a discussion can't hurt. Maybe we should change "levels" to "locations"? Randomran (talk) 03:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Should I add Downloadable content in the "inappropriate list"?--Megaman en m (talk) 14:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Why?. --SkyWalker (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Because there can be over a 100 DLC of a game, it would be silly to name all of them.--Megaman en m (talk) 14:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd leave this out (that is, do not include again guidance against it), though guidance that certain DLC is appropriate to discuss, and certain DLC isn't. If a new Halo 3 mappack comes out, that's likely going to get coverage and can merit a brief statement. On the other hand, take, er, Tales of Vesperia where there's about 20-odd DLC that are basically the equivalent of ingame cheats, listing them all is not needed, though it probably can be said that DLC includes these aspects. --MASEM 15:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

So someone added a DLC in LittleBigPlanet listing all or a part of the downloadable costumes, is this necessary?--Megaman en m (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Well no. I think LBP is a user created content? In some case it has advantages and disadvantages. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Has there already been a discussion about convention regarding the use of the term "videogame" (one word) as opposed to "video game" (two words) in article titles and/or the body of articles? If there is consensus on the issue I suggest a line be added into the guidelines, perhaps in the "General" subsection. If consensus has not been reached on this issue, then let's try to gain some. I support the idea that "video game" (2 words) should be used in every case. -Thibbs (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I second that. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 11:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't seem to find it, but for a long time we've always used two words. We've also been able to describe something as a "video game" even when we mean video or computer game, ever since the project changed its name. That's just sort of the common practice. Randomran (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll act WP:BOLDly then. -Thibbs (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I can understand platform neutral boxart, but how does this apply to handhelds? The Wii/Xbox 360/PlayStation 3 have the same shape and size for boxes (although PS3 boxes are slightly smaller). The DS and PSP are very different though. The DS is small and square in shape, the PSP is tall and rectangular in shape. There is no neutral way to do it since it will be clear which one it is. I am bringing this up since my image of the Space Invaders Extreme box DS version (which had been up since the article was created over a year ago) was deleted and replaced with a PSP boxart. There is no way to be neutral for DS/PSP games when it comes to boxart due to their unique shapes. TJ Spyke 01:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

My rule of thumb:

-If the game came out first on one platform (months ahead of others), use that boxart regardless. -If the game was first released on multiple platforms simultaneously, crop an image and use that. For aspect ratio considerations, the PS3/PS2 version is easiest to crop, then 360, then DS. Both the Wii and PSP versions are difficult to work with and should be avoided --MASEM 01:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I let the other user know about this discussion. TJ Spyke 01:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that rule of thumb doesn't work here, the game's predominantly on PSP and DS, with a Live Arcade release. Its clearly obvious which box art is in use with either DS or PSP versions, despite the lack of logos and the like. In this case, I'd try to seek compromise by looking for potential generic artwork or a logo, something generic enough that its not obviously from either the PSP or DS versions. The way the title is done is similar, I'd consider using that, that on its own is plenty generic enough. If you do go down this way, choose one at editor discretion, based on which is better for presentation, rather than potentially edit-warring over the different colours used by the platform. Its not an ideal solution, but its just about workable. -- Sabre (talk) 01:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

When looking at the two boxes, only one box lacks platform identification, namely the DS box. There's no way to crop the DS image into either a good image or a neutral image, while the only indicator is the shape of the box for the PSP, which is only a "problem" for people who are aware of these kind of things, and would not be of consequence to anyone who wouldn't know, which is basically most of the English-speaking world. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, I'd say the current version of File:Real Space Invaders.jpg is a fair attempt at it. There's really no "right" way of doing this in any case, unless you can find a piece of title artwork that clearly identifies the game, but doesn't associate it immediately with either platform, this ultimately comes down to editor discretion. -- Sabre (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Space-Invaders-Extreme.JPG - the images both show a different shape than typically found. However, the above mentioned image is forced to cut off a part of the image, while nothing has to be done to avoid problems with the PSP image. Any problem with the PSP image's size exists with the cropped DS image's size, and with the PSP image, it doesn't have to cut off a part of the image to accomplish this. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

My image for Captain America and the Avengers keeps getting deleted. The response I got today was "no 2nd image in stub articles". I never found that anywhere on guidelines and as far as I'm concerned the image was requested at its talk page and I met the request. Raphie (talk) 11:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks like User:S@bre weighed in to have the image included. And you're right - as near as I can tell, there's no policy or guideline that says there should only be one image on a stub article. That's kinda like saying that we shouldn't add more information to a stub because it's a stub. :P

I think more generally, the expectation is to keep the number of images reasonable for the size of the article, but stubs are obviously not finished works, so if there are a couple more images than there's really space for in terms of the content, we should look just as strongly at fleshing out the content as we might at reducing image count - especially when the images are not redundant and are in keeping with fair-use policy. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, I guess you are spot on there. Another one of my images for Terra Cresta was removed and replaced with cover art but I'm not too bothered about that one as it only shows the title screen (i.e. I'm too rubbish at the game to make a proper snapshot). I generally look at the size of the article and decided wether an image would work, like if it only has one line and already has the box art uploaded than for me, adding a image would look rather silly. Raphie (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)