Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

hi i can't figure out how to join the project can some one tell me on my talk page. Mr Roboto 15:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Stick {{User WPCVG}} on your userpage to add a userbox. This will add you to the relevant category. Hut 8.5 15:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to draw some attention to the biographies of Tim Schafer and Ron Gilbert. I think I got them to a point where they are showing potential. Could someone add them to the project and rate them? Schafer in particular is a very significant figure in the game industry. Technitai 18:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

One user has decided that fan translations are not notable and should not be discussed in articles on video games. He or she is therefore removing this material from Radical Dreamers. I have no idea what the official opinion of this project is on this subject, but it would be nice if people would stop by Talk:Radical Dreamers to weigh in on the subject. — BrianSmithson 09:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I would think that if the translation itself conforms to WP:V, it should be included. I would just revert it and start a discussion about it on the talk page, then get more people involved in the discussion. Havok (T/C/c) 11:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

If a game has become popular enough that some dedicated fans have decided to make a translation of it themselves, then I would say it's notable within that video game article; it is a good example of how popular the game has become (FF II, FF III, FF V, and MG2: Solid Snake are some translations that come to mind). As to the issue of WP:V that Havok brought up, if the translation is finished(no crystal ball stuff) and has been mentioned on a few fan sites then I'd say it meets the criteria for verifiability. --Mitaphane _talk 19:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I've done some more work on Game Boy recently since about a week ago-- I've changed the format a bit, added some more on technical attributes, a few images, and a few other odds and ends-- but I'd feel better if other people were checking my work. Can some of you take a look at my changes and make sure everything is sound? This is sort of a personal project of mine, but I'd appreciate the comments, revisions, or additions of others. I Jethrobot 17:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at this. It's a gigantic task, but I'm trying to knock down that unassessed count (currently at 6445). I took off about 100- everything in here that started with . through 9. If anyone wants to help, please do! --PresN 00:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm game. I went through many articles A-D that I'm familar with. I'll try to knock out more as time goes by. --Mitaphane _talk 05:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Count me in-- though, this is definitely a long-term project. I Jethrobot 06:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)^talk

I was planning on contributing more to this project, and this looks like a good place to start. Oh, and another thought - why not get a bot to rate all articles that are stubs as Stub-Class? They are doing it in that music albums project. VPeric 08:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been rating some articles today and plan to continue to help out. The total really needs to go down alot. RobJ1981 18:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that Mitaphane changed Frank Klepacki to A-class - I thought that an A class article had to already be GA class. While I personally think that it's GA-worthy, and could be A class very soon, I'm going to move it back down to B-class, unless A class means something other than what I think it means. Also, I notice that the unrated number is down almost 200 since yesterday- good job everyone! And yeah, this is definately a very long term project, I just felt bad for adding 500+ articles to the unrated list when I tagged all of those articles. (see above at CVGproj tag update) --PresN 18:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit - Turns out A class doesn't require hitting GA first. So...I reverted it. For those who don't want to look it up, A class is basically anything from GA to FA class, that hasn't actually passed FAC yet. It doesn't have to have passed GAC, just be an article that would if it was submitted. --PresN 19:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

To act as a benchmark for a willing newbie rater. What would be the correct rating be for this (Adventure (Atari 2600)) entry? I'm thinking Start class to weakish B class. - X201 22:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You could do either one, based on your preference. It's long enough to be a B-class (I didn't read it, just looked), but personally, I won't give a B-class to anything that doesn't have a reference. I'd personally rate it Start, therefore, but you could rate it either way. It's all subjective. --PresN 19:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd lean towards Start-class, based on the lead being two sentences with a lengthy parenthetical comment. Nifboy 22:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I rated it as START. Two hours later someone else re-rated it as B. As you say, subjective - X201 09:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Only 5846 for the total now. Probably less: since the statistics are only posted one time a day. My goal is to get it down to a reasonable amount by late September (or earlier if possible). RobJ1981 18:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey I'm in. The ratings sometimes seem to blur though. I've done a few, and I'll do more later.--Clyde Miller 02:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I've knocked out W-Z. I'm done with this for now. Mitaphane _talk 01:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

At what point to fansites become reliable enough to use as sources? Obviously some random geocities site made yesterday isn't reliable, but I've seen the likes of Smogon and serebii.net being used as sources for featured article Torchic, so clearly they're considered reliable.Disclaimer: I'm not planning on using a fansite to source any article I'm working on. I've just noticed a small conflict on an article, which I don't edit myself, over whether a particular fansite is a reliable source. -- Steel 00:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I'd say you can cite them for out-of-universe facts (release dates, merchandise info, etc) but not opinions or in-universe "facts" (frequently meaning speculation). I use the same general rule when pulling info from GameFAQs. Nifboy 13:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I second Nifboy's opinion. Using Tekken Zaibatsu as an example, they often report offical information the comes straight from NAMCO when comes to details about Tekken games(their release, changes made, the designer's inentions, etc.). However, the site is also filled with complete speculation about the story in Tekken, which really shouldn't be surprising given how little detail NAMCO goes into about Tekken's story. As long as you stick to details about the game and not the story, you should be fine. --Mitaphane _talk 20:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Currently there is a straw poll on Template talk:Mario characters on whether a few articles should be added back, such as Birdo and Waluigi, or if the template should be kept it the same.--TBCTaLk?!? 02:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Reviving the discussion (sorry if this is a faux-pas). I guess the logical thing to do would be to create a sub-page on WP:CVG listing users and issues of certain magazines they have. Separate lists of content in those magazines can be supported elsewhere on the page (most magazines list content in backissue listings, but we will have to make a point to document every game reviewed). Then, as editors write, they can stop in to check if the topic in question is covered in a magazine and move from there by asking an editor for information. How's this? --Zeality 03:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Seriously, just go for it, maybe have it somewhere like at WP:CVG/Library and we can all upload what resources we have. - Hahnchen 03:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Yeah, be bold and just start whatever you think will work out the best and work out problems along the way. There's a good number of CVG editors who want and support this, we just need to get the ball rolling. As soon as you've started it, I'll add the resources I have to this project. --Mitaphane _talk 04:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay! The revolution begins when I get back from lunch. Thanks for the encouragement. Is there a proper place to announce this kind of thing? --Zeality 15:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, the CVG project page has a guidelines section for CVG articles. Under, the Organization subsection there's a mention about citing sources. Placing it there, or creating a subsection in the Guidelines section if you have a lot to say about the project, would be good. --Mitaphane _talk 19:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

When you do find somewhere to put it, remember to put a link to it back here for all of us lurkers who are interested but haven't said anything. - X201 09:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

~

Here it is. The next step for me is to go through all my issues and check out the back issue listings to document what info's covered in certain volumes at /Magazine. If anyone jumps on board, be sure to list every game recovered under a volume. Right now, I'm planning on follow a simple format like this example:

==Nintendo Power==

• Volume 89: Tetris Attack, 3D Maze, Super Mario 64 Preview. Games Reviewed: Bubble Bobble, Fievel Goes West.
• Volume 90: Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island, Lost Vikings 2, Pilotwings Preview. Games Reviewed: Batman & Robin, Lost Vikings 2.

My only question is, should we wikify the game titles? At first I thought it might make the page look uglyish, but I realized it might be convenient for certain editors who can use "What links here" to see if something from /Magazine pops up. But the chance of someone actually doing that versus just going to the page from WP:CVG and searching with his or her browser is slim. --Zeality 17:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit: I found the old NP Archive link. To avoid TOC bloat, I think we can put headers by year. --Zeality 20:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit again: I'm going to stop for a while, but I've got the general template up with NP#1 as an example. --Zeality 20:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I've made some comments on the layout at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer and video games/Magazines. It would also be useful if contributors can note down whether they have a scanner, and the dates of publications for the issues. - Hahnchen 01:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• I'm copying the content of this conversation to the magazine talk page Anyone else interested in helping in the project came go there to discuss it. Mitaphane _talk 01:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

An anon user, 70.101.201.248 (talk · contribs) is currently replacing all mentions of the GameCube Optical Disc (currently a redirect to the Nintendo GameCube article) with the erroneous MiniDVD. A GCN disc is not a miniDVD, the formats are completely different. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've just discovered that there is an article there, but the anon redirected it to the GCN article. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Continuing problems with the anon user. To recap: anon user makes several vandalism edits on WP, gets temp banned. Afterward, tries to argue that this page should be a redirect, but no one else agrees, there is a general consensus by other editors to keep working on the page.

Anon user changes IP in a lame attempt to hide his past, starts chopping the article, which is already a relatively new stub, blatantly trying to make a point, and now keeps reverting my edits so that the page is a two-paragraph stub with no historical context, with broken sentences and phrasing suggestive of an editor that uses English as a secondary language.

How should I proceed here? --SevereTireDamage 03:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Restored this back to the talk page. I don't want to act out of turn, but I think it was a little too soon to archive it. Note, the page I'm discussing is currently at GameCube Optical Disc (Talk page). --SevereTireDamage 04:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, you're right. Sorry 'bout that. :) RandyWang (^chat/_patch) 04:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Since I'm not sure what I want to do here, I thought I'd throw the question out here; right now all FAs are being nominated for Wikipedia:Version 0.5. I've included more than half of them, but aren't sure what to do about the rest. Here's the short list of things that have not been decided one way or the other:

• Bishōjo game
• Bulbasaur (Torchic is out as too obscure)
• Final Fantasy VIII (Note: 6, 7, and 10 are already in)
• Final Fantasy X-2
• Katamari Damacy
• The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask (Wind waker, Link are in)
• Shadow of the Colossus
• Wario

Articles that 0.5 have thrown out as too trivial include Torchic, Lakitu, and BZFlag. Any opinions one way or the other about including these? Also, if there's any not-FA articles we absolutely must have in 0.5 (we already have the main Computer and video games article and Nintendo), make sure to nominate them by Thursday. Nifboy 18:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Shame that MM is FA, but OoT isn't; that'd be the natural choice. If X is in, it seems natural to include X-2, as I imagine readers of X will want to learn more. FFVIII sold 8 million copies (I think, been awhile since I checked), so it seems like fair game. Katamari Damacy is a cult hit, but I have no concept of its notability. That's all I can offer so far. Oh, almost forget -- I have to be completely shameless and ask about Chrono Cross. --Zeality 18:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This might be the stupid question of the day, but is there a credits page for each game to add the names of people who worked on them? Gastaman 21:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The only time people who worked on games tend to get mentioned is if the person who worked on it is a significant figure in Video Games like Shigeru Miyamoto,Peter Molyneux etc. Long IMDB style credits lists aren't really needed. But if it's something of importance, like Rob Hubbard's first piece of game music (Thing on a Spring) then a credit to him would be fully merited. But like everything Wiki, there are no hard and fast rules just a number of people saying "Yay" or "Nay" - X201 21:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should be listing the entire credits list like say Moby Games does. Making a note of the creative directors and leads of the projects may be notable in the text say, Ken Levine for BioShock, but I don't think the dev team section there is that helpful or encyclopedic. It's like listing the cameramen in a movie. - Hahnchen 18:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, should the article on the PlayStatation 3 be rated low importance (if so, why) or is it just valdalism. I've posted something on the PS3 discussion but havent recived any replys Pjcard 11:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

At the moment the PlayStation 3 is just another console, it hasn't done anything of any significance, it hasn't changed the way games are played, it hasn't opened up gaming to thousands of people who never played video games before. It's just more of the same with bigger bells and whistles. - X201 13:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not that the PS3 is just another console, it's that the PS3 hasn't been released yet, as such, it is hard to know anything about its final impact on the world. Without it being released, there is also little information which isn't from Sony press releases. When we know the impact and find out just how notable it becomes (big seller, big flop?) then it can be rated more appropriately, but at this time low importance is correct, the WII should also be rated low in my opinion, but I haven't checked... Altair 16:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, as far as Wikipedia:Version 0.5 is concerned, there's no sense in including an article that's going to change very rapidly in the months following its release. Nifboy 16:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think theres a bit of wooly thinking going on here; whether its a big sucess, big flop or otherwise it is the sucessor to the highest selling line of consoles in history (PlayStation 1, PSONE, PlayStation2) so of course its going to make a mark. Surely the world wide interest, billions of dollars spent developing it and the cell and even sonys arrogant behaviour regarding it all make this an important page of console history. Whether it flops or not hundreds of games will be made for it. Whether it flops or not it is one of the first Blu-ray players on the market. If it was a huge flop surely that would make it even more of an important story as it could sound the death-knell for sony. I aggree with Nifboy, however, that it would make sense to wait until it is released before including it so that the content settles down a bit. And also I agree with Altair that the information on the console comes almost entierly from sony and it would make sense to hold off and wait for more 3rd party information on it. Having said this wouldn't it make sense to remove the low importance rating and just wait until its released to decide on what it should be. 81.137.243.44 10:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Microsoft Xbox 360

Manufacturer	Microsoft
Type	Video game console
Generation	Seventh generation era
Lifespan	November 22, 2005 November 22, 2005 December 2, 2005 December 10,2005

Nintendo GameCube

Manufacturer	Nintendo
Type	Video game console
Generation	Sixth generation era
Lifespan	September 14, 2001 November 18, 2001 November 18, 2001 May 3, 2002 May 17, 2002

Nintendo 64

Manufacturer	Nintendo
Type	Video game console
Generation	Fifth generation
Lifespan	June 23, 1996 September 29, 1996 March 1, 1997 September 1, 1997

Could someone please make a Flag icon for North America? While I understand that Canadians want to be handled as equal people, it's quite annoying to see release lists like the here mentioned ones. While the solution for the Nintendo 64 is at least a bit better it's still not perfect. Just think about what would happen, if every non EU country in Europe would be on that list ...

Here's a fast merge which could be a solution: --32X 11:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Flags are a lazy solution to the problem, their use is only really appropriate for the Japanese release dates. When dealing with North American and European markets neither flag used currently is adequate, as the US flag does not represent Canada/Mexico and the E.U. flag does not represent all European nations. To further complicate matters, some games may have dozens of different release dates, depending on port, country, language localization, video broadcasting standard, etc. etc. Also visual representations are inaccessible to visually impaired users who depend on screen reading software. Finally, there are at least a half dozen different approaches to handling the release date field that are used by WPCVG members.

If there is to be any standardization, it should address these concerns. Maybe require only one release date per game (or per major port), or use more obvious contractions (US, EU, JPN), or even create a sub-template that might have multiple release-date-type fields (though that would make the infobox even more labyrinthine). So, um, I agree with 32X completely: we need a clear, elegant solution. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 12:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Check out Chrono Trigger. Ryu Kaze instituted superscript acronyms in the place of flags on the Chrono articles and at several Final Fantasy ones. Seems like a neutral solution. --Zeality 13:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks OK and could be used with this ISO 3166-1 alpha-3. - X201 13:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that was a quick wait for a clear and elegant solution. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 13:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we should use the superscript acronyms from now on. Anyone else agree? Thunderbrand 22:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. While I like the flags (pretty colors), the EU flag is hard to see, if you break it up by country it's unworkable (most people probably don't know what the Polish flag looks like, and the AUS and New Zealand flags are almost identical), and there's no such thing as an NA flag. That being said, we still need a clear solution- there are a lot of games that get release in most EU countries on one day, but in Poland 2 weeks later and Spain a month after that, for an example. Should we just go with the first release date in Japan, NA, and EU, no matter the country? --PresN 01:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems the best choice. Otherwise, the infobox will be filled with countries and start to look tacky. Thunderbrand 01:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Since we're talking about the first release I think it would be O.K. for the majority if European countries are mentioned under EUR or something like that. It's pretty normal to many releases that not every sub-markets have the stuff available at the first day. (Just think of (half) a million Japanese people at the release day of a new console, not everyone will receive one and has to try it later again.) Then again it's quite interesting to see when one country gets a new console really late (see the French release date for the N64, SECAM \o/ ). Short: 2 weeks later - no need to mention it. 6 months later - interesting enough for a note. --32X 13:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That does look quite a bit better than the flags. You have my vote.Combination 12:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

How about the earliest date for each continent? That way the maximum number of dates per infobox would be six (or seven if the Antartica market takes off). - X201 14:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, since we're discussing the original version of any computer, arcade and video game. Additional release details can go into chapters discussing other releases, ports etc. Combination 17:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Just thought I'd do a "country code" version as an example.

Nintendo 64

Manufacturer	Nintendo
Type	Video game console
Generation	Fifth generation
Lifespan	JPN June 23, 1996 USA CAN September 29, 1996 GBR DEU AUS March 1, 1997 FRA September 1, 1997

It's going to get really messy, really quickly. The country code thing would look great for one or two release dates, but get messy after five or six.
I think a single original release date regardless of country in the infobox with other dates listed at the bottom of the article. - X201 08:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Use continents or technical codes when possible. Such as instead of "USA and CAN", go with "NA" or "NTSC". Also, if all PAL regions got the copy on the same date, you could just say "PAL". Or, if the European PAL territories all got it on the same day, but those in the Australasia area got them later, use "EU" for the European territories and "^AUS" (making sure that the link is for Australasia and not Australia) for the others. I've found this to work quite well since it's not that often that the PAL regions have more than two or three release dates. The list shouldn't go beyond five entries on most occasions (one for Japan, one for North America, one for Europe, one for Australasia and maybe one for the International version release in Japan if there's one of those). Ryu Kaze 02:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and make changes to the project page about this if no one disagrees. Thunderbrand 15:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I like it. --PresN 01:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I've always hated the flags, myself. Pagrashtak 21:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I like and prefer the flags, they are easier to use at a quick glance. US and Canada usually get games on the same day, and most of Europe gets games on the same day. TJ Spyke 04:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

A survey has been called at Talk:Xbox 360#Straw poll - Games list, to determine which games should be used in the Game library section of the console. It is possible this survey could be used as precedent for other consoles, so it has been added to Wikipedia:Current surveys. Everyone is welcomed to voice an opinion there. -- ReyBrujo 05:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey I was working on a little known game engine (Titan 2.0) and I had, without thinking, added a CVG tag to the talk page. After looking at other game engines for content ideas, I realized two things. First of all, almost no other engine had a CVG tag, so I got rid of the one on the page I was writing. Is that right? I don't know if engines are part of CVG. Second, since no game engine has been brought up to GA or FA status (almost all are stubs), there really is no model for these articles. Most of them are improperly formatted and don't have the right tags or an info box. I'll start adding tags but I need to know whether or not engines should get a CVG tag. Thanks. --Clyde Miller 17:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I would add tags to them, since game characters get them too. See Doom engine, Quake engine, and Unreal engine for others (which have no infobox). Thunderbrand 17:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I looked into those. Source Engine has a pretty good article too (doesn't have an infobox either). --Clyde Miller 17:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you know already but there is a rather involved survay going on at Talk:Xbox_360#One_more_straw_poll about whether or not to include a full hardware specifications list or an alternative such as paragraphizing with or without every detail. This will likely have implications for other articles as well... RN 00:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:PC game covers is being used as a dumping ground by editors who don't know better. I need some help in moving the items to their appropriate subcategories. {{game-cover}} accepts 3 platform arguments at this time. Just click show on its usage. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I sorted as many as I could. The only ones left have generic covers with no tell-tale sign of platform and/or are associated with games that have been released over multiple platforms. Thunderbrand 18:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I sorted through a vast number of them by looking at the article the image was on. Now the only ones there are the covers for games that don't have relevant information on their corresponding articles; mostly games which only have a series article, and a few odd Japanese titles. Nifboy 21:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a huge help. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

A side note: If it says PC CD-ROM, then it's for Windows. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

After failing to find Wikipedians who would collaborate with me, I have decided to work on the AdventureQuest article on my own.

I have rewrote the lead section and am currently working on the Gameplay section, writing a subsection a day.

If you wish to collaborate with me on this article, please leave a note on the article's talk page. If you play AdventureQuest and wish to become my Wikifriend, leave a note on my talk page as well.

While collaborating on the article, we will discuss how to improve the article on its talk page. I would appreciate suggestions for how to structure the article.

I will need someone to help me with the layout of the screenshots. I'd like all of them to be aligned to the right. I have uploaded six screenshots in total, and will add them to the article as I add their respective sections.

Hopefully we will successfully turn this messy article full of fancruft into an article with useful information, offering a broad coverage of the game. Once I've completed my rewriting of the article, I will post a request for feedback on it. Perhaps we could even improve AdventureQuest to Good Article status!

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Nominate it for the Wikipedia:Gaming Collaboration of the week now, and I think you might stand a good chance of it being chosen. There's only one nomination at the moment and no one seems at all keen about it. - X201 17:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I did done fix yourn image alignment/sizes/placement. You may want to edit the captions (if they be wrong). — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Infobox added. - X201 18:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me with the images, and adding the infobox. I'll continue working on the article for the next few days and nominate it for Gaming Collaboration of the Week after that. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion may be found here. JimmyBlackwing 17:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

User:4.140.15.244 at first suggested in the body of the article that the sections on the modding projects should be removed, and has now started blanking that section despite my attempts to start a discussion on the talk page. At this point I'm bumping up against WP:3RR, could someone please help out here? BryanG^(talk) 20:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how to merge or redirect, so could someone do this for me? These need to be merged (or redirect the GBA page to the regular Road Rage page): The Simpsons Road Rage (GBA) and The Simpsons Road Rage. The GBA version is just about the SAME game (with only a few small differences): there is no need for a seperate page for it. The Simpsons games box will also needed to be updated: since it lists both Road Rage games. Why in the world was the same game allowed on the Simpsons games box in the first place?! Multiple versions of games don't get seperate pages, but somehow Road Rage got away with it for a while. I posted this on the Simpsons project talk page as well. RobJ1981 01:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Add {{mergeto|The Simpsons Road Rage}} to the gameboy version article and add {{mergefrom|The Simpsons Road Rage (GBA)}} to propose the merge. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If multiple versions don't get separate pages, then I would like someone to merget he two Mario Tennis and two Mario Golf (both N64/GBC games) articles together. THanks. Hbdragon88 07:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It all depends on whether the game in question are ports or independently developed. I don't know if the GBC Mario games in this instance are ports/remakes of the N64 ones or if they are just each a Mario sports title on their own. In the case of The Simpsons I think all of them came out at the same time and the GBA is a version of the home console (I'm not saying with certainty because I haven't read a review of the GBA to compare it to the console). Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The GCN and GBA games (Power Tennis/Tennis and Toadstool/Advance tour) have different titles. I think that substantially separates the two. Hbdragon88 19:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Mario Golf and all those aren't ports, so they obviously need seperate pages. Simpsons Road Rage for the consoles and GBA, are the same game with the same title. There is tiny differences, but not enough to qualify for seperate articles. RobJ1981 20:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:PC games has bloated up to over 140 articles. Last time we managed to get it under 80 articles. So I'm gonna need more help in clearing it out. Personally, I really want this category gone as it is grossly inaccurate. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I've moved some and will move a few more after writing this. Would there be merit in creating a Misc category to file the weird stuff like PC Booter titles away in? They're not really DOS games because they bring their own operating system with them. - X201 08:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Last I read the PC booter article, the definition was a little vague, it seemed like it could have been DOS on some and not others. I wouln't object to leaving PC booter games there for the time being either. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

To confuse matters further, some games are both PC booter and DOS. Ace of Aces being one of them. I'll add the DOS games flag to them but leave the PC games flag because of the PC booter situation. I've sorted 30 so far, picking them on a random basis to get the bulk down, I'm now going to work through them in alphabetical order. - X201 17:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I've sorted everything up to, and including the letter K. Anything that's left in A-K now is either a PC booter, being played on an ancient mainfrane, IRC, or just plain unclassifiable. - X201 18:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

For those really old text based MU* games should we make a Category:Mainframe games (as they didn't execute on home or personal computers)? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... that would be like classifying Star Fox Adventures as a SNES game because a previous iteration of the game ran in SNES. Most MU* I know have been ported to PCs, some even to Windows. -- ReyBrujo 18:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, I don't follow your analogy. If it's been ported to another platform, it should be categorized as such. But the fact remains that some of this stuff did not originally run on a "PC". Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Link (The Legend of Zelda series) has been put up for Featured Article Review, so if you want to help improve it to current FA standard, its there! I'll try to help out too. Judgesurreal777 00:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal computer game is now up for CVG peer review for the second time, since I've largely rewritten the article but honestly don't know where to go from here. Despite being on review for some weeks now, nobody has provided any feedback.

Please suggest some way to improve the article. I haven't a clue how to continue improving it, but I do want to see it up at GA status at some point in the future. And maybe I'll go review another peer review article when I have the time.. :) Any suggestions?Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 13:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Just at a glance, it desperately needs references. -- Steel 13:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I just added another three, but I'll get onto this more seriously tonight. Thanks! Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 04:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I just created the List of level editors for those who are interested. Please edit and expand. Enjoy... — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, FYI, I recently created the List of Electronic Arts games because it is sorely needed. It's barely populated right now, but I am slowly adding new sets of games. Please feel free to visit & expand or disambig links. Thanks! — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Computer and video games rated by the CERO. CERO is a basically Japan's equivalent to the ESRB, which is used to rate video games (E, Teen, and so on). Then I came along this: Category:Computer and video game content ratings systems. There is 4 ratings systems categories: I really don't think they are needed as categories. ESRB (and the other ratings systems) should just all be in the video game infobox, and that's it. If it's all put in categories, it's just redundant (since ESRB is usually listed in the infobox already). There is no reason to be redundant. What does everyone else think about this? RobJ1981 19:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess, as soon as a system is mentioned in the infobox it automagically appears in the corresponding category.

Only semi-related: Pan European Game Information#Criticism - What's the criticism there? Other system has other ratings, or what? --32X 22:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

No. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, if my theory is correct, then this categories allow you to check where the templates are used. War against edit terrorism and stuff, ya know. --32X 22:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

No, these wholly unnecessary categories are being added by hand. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, many (or all) of the rating categories need to go. As I stated before: categories of things ALREADY listed in the article is just redundant and not needed. There simply doesn't need to be a category for everything. I'm thinking of putting CFD on some of these rating categories, if nothing else is going to be done. RobJ1981 22:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm with AMIB et al. Categories are navigational aids, not "Let's categorize it because we can". Nifboy 23:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Categories are navigational aids most of the time. But in this case, it's just categorizing because people can. Being redundant isn't helping things. The rating is already listed, it doesn't need to be listed numerous times. That's not being an aid, it's being redundant. RobJ1981 23:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm definately against these categories. Should we list all of them under CfD? Thunderbrand 19:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes I think we should. RobJ1981 03:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Your logic confounds me. If these categories should be deleted because the info is already in the infobox then by that line of reasoning, the "year they were made" and "system" categories should be deleted as well. N. Harmonik 15:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I listed the ESRB ones here. I don't have time to finish listing the other ones now, so if someone else can please do so. Thunderbrand 14:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Bishōjo game is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 00:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Link (The Legend of Zelda series) is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 00:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

BZFlag is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 00:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)