Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

A user has recently moved the Luigi page to Luigi (Mario) without any discussion whatsoever. What's more, none of the links were changed. Even on the disambiguation page that was created in the process. I brought the subject up at WikiProject Nintendo, but I feel that it should be mentioned here too. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 02:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't care particularly about the move, although I wouldn't have made it myself. If people are OK with this, then you need to do a {{db-move}} at Luigi and then move the disambiguation page in its place. - Hahnchen 03:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this completes the trifecta of major Mario naming disputes (Mario, Bowser, and now, finally, Luigi, although Peach also had a somewhat less controversial article name change). Nifboy 05:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but the Mario paged was never moved. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 02:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I came across this AFD for a mod I know nothing about and someone spouted the useless keep vote of "But there's loads of nn-mods on Wikipedia. Look at these!" Well now, these nn-mods have all been prodded or AFDed. I've removed prods on some that I know to be more notable than the article suggests, but the nominations have been on the whole incredibly lazy. I've removed prods on Science and Industry, Hostile Intent and voted on Dystopia (computer game), Firearms (computer game) and the stupidly notable Rocket Arena. - Hahnchen 04:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm very annoyed that someone tagged Dystopia as AfD mere hours after I marked up as a CVG article. Was this guy just waiting for anything to come along that he could afd? I hadn't even had a chance to insert all the awards and links that irrefutably prove it's notability. It won Game of the Year at the Independant Game Festival for crying out loud! The Kinslayer 11:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I think one or two people are being extremely over-zealous in marking stuff for deletion. The reasoning seems to be 'The article isn't finished, and I'VE never heard of it, so it should be deleted.' The Kinslayer 11:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The second pointer in nominating an AfD clearly states: Consider adding a tag such as {cleanup} or {disputed} instead; this may be preferable if the article has some useful content. In the case of at least two of the above AfDs, this hadn't been done, not even giving people a chance to fix the 'offending' problems. The Kinslayer 12:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Wicketthewok seems to be the main culprit for the lazy AfDs. He certainly seems to have stirred up a couple of hornets nests with AfDs recently! He is very over-zealous with deleting new articles within a couple of hours creation, citing non-notability and lack of sources as the reasons, even though he usually deletes the articles before the person had a chance to add the links! Just letting you all know to be careful when your creating new articles, as this guy will probably delete it! He's also fond of quoting wiki policies chapter and verse, but seems to conveniently forget ones that provide arguements against deletion, such as the one I quoted further up the page.The Kinslayer 10:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Lazy though those AfDs may have been, there is no need to attack Wickethewok. Seriously, how about you take the time to explain why his actions were incorrect, and what should be done to correct them? If you have already done so, there should be no need to continue the thread here. Remember, NPA. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 09:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, Wickethewok was completely in the right to nominate any article that does not have meet Wikipedia:Verifiability or similar policy / concern. WP:V says "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." -- Ned Scott 09:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The issues been resolved, and I wasn't attacking him (as I stated on his talk page.) I was just expressing concern over his nominations. But since it's been resolved, lets all just move on now. The Kinslayer 10:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Navigational boxes _→AzaToth 12:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, please explain what you're talking about. It's a proposed guidline for nav boxes. "Per request, nav boxes" doesn't tell me what you're looking for here. --PresN 13:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The following is an edited duplication of Template talk:Infobox CVG#Cover arts to use, which is created following a suggestion to bring the discussion to this page:

For some cross-platform games like Need for Speed: Most Wanted, there are multiple versions released simultaneously for each platform (PC, PS2, Xbox, GameCube and the Xbox 360, for example), and thus has multiple cover art labels. Would a PS2 cover art, for example, be preferable if the port is notable in any aspect (i.e. special edition, launch title)? ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 15:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC) ╫

If it's multi-format, I usually go for the PC box because they don't include a Xbox/PS2 banner advert at the top of the box and you get slightly more of the art. See for example Image:Psychonautsbox.jpg and Image:Tomb Raider Legend Boxart.jpg where I've uploaded PC covers over the originals. The NFS box however, even has a banner for the PC edition, so it doesn't matter as much. But in general, I stick to the generic most common box cover over the special edition ones. For example, I could have uploaded a box shot for the special edition of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (PC), but decided against it, being that the special edition was a different colour to all other box art. - Hahnchen 15:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

And now the Psychonauts box has no source. I'm starting to get frustrated at this. Please provide sources, people. Thunderbrand 16:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for input; the importance of using a plain box art over a special edition or more notable port in the infobox is also noted. However, taking your approach into consideration, the present PC cover art of Need for Speed: Most Wanted would still be unsuitable because it includes an extra PC CD-ROM tag, while the top banner is just about the same size as those on the PS2 and Xbox; as such, I took the liberty of submitting a PC DVD version which has minimal obstructions. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 19:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC) ╫

Can someone please clarify the need for sources in fair-use scenarios where the source has absolutely nothing to do with the copyright holder? I thought the source was needed to confirm that it was indeed fair-use, what use is a link to a random hungarian game site or a link to amazon? At Image:Half screen004.jpg, I replaced a sourced watermarked image with an unwatermarked unsourced version. That image was a widely distributed promotional screenshot, the source is Valve Software if needed, should I have a handy link to gamespot there? - Hahnchen 20:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, as soon as you click on Special:Upload, it says to provide a rationale and source. Thunderbrand 23:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

After a discussion with ZS, I'd rather conclude that:

1. Since Wikipedia is widely viewed using the PC, all games should have the PC box art rather than the console box art, unless the game lacks a PC version.

2. If the game under discussion is MOST notable in its console version, whichever that may be, the box art for that console should be used. (eg. Halo and Halo 2)

What are my fellow Wikipedians' views on this?

P.S.: I've taken the liberty to replace some of the games' console box art with their PC counterparts (vis-a-vis Hitman: Blood Money, Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter, NFS: MW, NFS: U2 etc.)

Here's an easy order, based on how pointless style disputes are handled in other areas:

1. The version most strongly associated with the game (in English-speaking territories, if there's a conflict).
2. The first English-language release.
3. The first publishing in the creators' territory or native language.
4. Whatever was uploaded first.

This is based on the way stupid grammar issues (color vs. colour) and original-language vs. English-language issues are handled, and assumes we don't have a free/unfree situation (use the free version no matter what) or an image quality situation.

This specifically ignores ZS's suggestion to favor PC game boxes. The PC versions of games which are not initially released on the PC are often afterthoughts; it would be silly to represent many of EA's latter-day games with the PC versions. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

List of best-selling computer and video games is currently suffering an edit war that has lasted around 2 weeks already. WhiteMinority believes VGCharts should be used to reference sales information in the article, while A Link to the Past believes it is not a reliable source. I would appreciate some members from this WikiProject to drop by and give an opinion here to try to settle the matter, as I don't want to call for a mediation. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 18:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

What extensive options do we have besides VGCharts? --Tristam 03:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

For every game, we should find an article in a reliable source stating the game has passed the 1m mark in the european, american, japanese or worldwide market. -- ReyBrujo 04:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Which is not easy. -- Steel 10:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

True, but put it this way, are shipping figures the same as retail sales figures? No. Therefore shipping figures should not be used to get numbers for the best selling computer and video games. WhiteMinority seems more concerned with trying to provoke Link by reverting his edits and accusing him of vandalism than he is with the quality of the article. The Kinslayer 10:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

There must be someone on Wikipedia with access to the NPD Funworld sales data. Just like we're using the magazines project to collect information on which users have access to which reviews, we should as a project try to find people who have access to this data. Some other portential sources: [1], [2], [3], japan. It sucks that all this stuff is not just open and out there, but at least if we know who has access we can start using this data to properly source our articles. jaco♫plane 11:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Not someone on Wikipedia, as that would be original research and no reliable source. For japanese titles, it is easy to track which titles are best selling, as there are three independant trackers Dengeki, Famitsu and Media Create. For others, we need to rely on press releases and sites like GameSpot and IGN. The important thing is getting a reliable source stating the game sold over a million copies. No need to get exact numbers, just knowing 1m copies have been sold should be enough for us. -- ReyBrujo 16:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Why are the lists slightly different in format? All are a list in alphabetical order, but that's about the only thing that is the same with them. On the Xbox 360 list: List of Xbox 360 games, there is *'s and FP by games meaning certain things, along with release dates for games that aren't out. At List of GameCube games, there is a list of cancelled and Europe games at the bottom. Other game lists have small differences as well. Shouldn't all lists be in the same format and have the same exact things? I think all should be the same, since they are the same type of list: a list of games for a certain console. RobJ1981 22:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Good question. The subject was brought up before, but the subject drifted towards the non-platform lists, and no clear consensus was reached on how to format the lists based on platforms/consoles. Personally, I would suggest including only the title and the regions the game is released in, probably in a list format rather than a table. Adding alternate titles given for games in the list would seem like a good idea too. I'm not sure if publisher/developer information is significant enough to add in these rather large lists, and perhaps release dates should only be shown on a chronological order version of the list, as exists for the GameCube. Not that I care much either way, but I do agree they need to look the same. --ADeveria 23:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

A partial attempt at making List of Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis games more useful (like List of SNES games) was deemed far too time-consuming to be practical. Nifboy 02:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe it's necessary to have links to generic, popular websites such as MobyGames. They are popular, so a lot of people know about them and they are easy to find, so it is kind of a waste to link to them in every single game article. If people want those links, they can easily do a search and find them within seconds. Most of these websites do not actually have that much information on games, anyways. They usually just have general stuff that you can find basically anywhere, and, more importantly, on the Wikipedia article. So why bother linking to them? I believe they should be removed. -Yggdra Juril Altwaltz 20:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, believe that they should be included, because they are easy sources for the articles and generally used. This is regarding an edit war over the external links on Riviera: The Promised Land, by the way. Another link that was being repeatedly removed was a link to an external review. --tjstrf 20:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Why does this keep coming up? MobyGames is an extensive database of video games (a term, which I maintain, encompasses computer games as well). It has much more content than we generally have for Wikipedia articles, including game credits and many, many more screenshots than we have for games. Plus, MobyGames has most information in a relational database, so information and context for games can easily be retreived. Because it is a popular game resource is exactly why we should include links to it, just as we link to BoardGameGeek for board games. — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Frecklefoot. Moby should be included simply because of those reasons. But I also feel the courtesy should be extended to other major archives/resources as well like KLOV and http://www.arcadeflyers.net/. --Marty Goldberg 20:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The MobyGames page DOESN'T have game credits for Riviera, though. Besides, "Everything in MobyGames is contributable by users." So I might as well link to the GameFAQs information pages about Riviera. The credits are incomplete due to GFAQs rules, but I ripped them from the game myself and I know they're accurate at least.

Also, the MobyGames page doesn't even list RiviPSP. --Raijinili 00:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the KLOV should be included for all arcade games, but not arcadeflyers.net, whose content is of dubious value, at best. But I don't see the inclusion of links to these sites as a "courtesy" to the web site operators, just to our readers. But I digress... — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that KLOV should certainly be used as an external link; the information on the site usually expands upon the information of articles. arcadeflyers.net, on the other hand, doesn't. That said, I'd love to see some Project-backed encouragement to use it as a source when documenting a game's history (which is something where it could be extremely useful). EVula 22:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding arcadflyers.net, I'd say the view of dubious value" is certainly not the case among industry historians. Its been a pretty standard reference since long before wikipedia was created and has a large significance when discussing and informing about arcade platform games. These flyers (which were distributed to vendors and operators only) represent the commercial viewpoint of the manufacturer and its vision for the game (which is a commercial product). This includes relevant vendor and operator info (if you're not familiar with the coin-op terms, vendor is the distributor or "middle man" and operator is the end location - i.e. the arcade owner), specifications (including design advancements, settings, available formats such as standup, cocktail, cabaret, etc.), artwork, designer info and more. This is also why these types of materials are frequently referenced and presented in books, articles, and references on the subject. While there is some overlap with KLOV from a purely database facts and figures context, KLOV does not address the facets of vendor and operator promotion and explination. --Marty Goldberg 22:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand that, which is why I think arcadeflyers.net should be used as a source, not an external link. EVula 22:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you are all missing my main point. If people want information from those sites, they will go and find it themselves. It is not difficult in the slightest to find them. I mean, it's like saying every gaming website should have a link to Wikipedia, just because it's well-known. Fansites are different because they generally focus specifically on that game, and are usually not so easy to find. Am I seriously one of the only people who think this? -Yggdra Juril Altwaltz 22:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes, you are. We link to those sites because they contain useful information, both to us at times as writers and to the readers. It doesn't hurt anything having them there, they meet WP:EL, and they make it a whole lot more convenient for the reader. We're a reference source, providing links to other useful (non-competing) reference sources is only sensible. --tjstrf 23:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I know they meet WP:EL. Did you think I came here just to whine for the sake of whining? No. I came here in hopes that others would agree with me and eventually stop adding links to these websites. And I'm sorry, I thought this was an encyclopedia. Apparently I was wrong. -Yggdra Juril Altwaltz 00:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I challenge that they fit EL. The usefulness of the Riviera page is the Chinese name (which I have doubts about), the screenshots (which are found on the Atlus page), the links to buying the game (oh, so now we should link to an Amazon search of Riviera:TPL?), and the ranks/ratings, which a link to GameRatings.com can do better. Everything else you can find on the page belongs in the wikipage, instead of linking to it. IMDB at least has things like trivia pages and quotes, while the Moby page for RTPL has... non-trivial information which is already included. --Raijinili 00:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Mobygames again?! Linking to Mobygames is generally seen as alright, although I definitely wouldn't want it being an infobox item like imdb is. If you've used mobygames for research, then it's nice to link to them and they might provide further information. But sometimes Mobygames articles are crap, just as some Wikipedia articles are, I don't think we should link to them when the only information offered is places to buy the game. Another dubious activity is that of User:Ravimakkar who was warned by a non-CVG editor for spamming mobygames, being that every single edit he made, right from the start was just to add links to Mobygames. I know we have WP:AGF and all, but do you really think he was trying to improve Wikipedia, or just to direct more hits towards MobyGames? - Hahnchen 23:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Your rationale doesn't seem to make sense. Technically you can find websites (including fansites) on any topic quickly through Google or other search engines, so why is being "easy to find" an issue? Also, fansites are generally not as reliable or verified as more notable and popular websites such as Gamespot, IGN, or Mobygames.--TBCΦtalk? 23:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the easy-to-find part really depends on the situation. Less popular games will have harder-to-find fansites, and popular ones will probably have a ton that are easily discovered. And you are correct about fansites usually not being very reliable/verified, so maybe we should not include links to fansites that have false information frequently. However, IGN is really not reliable at all. I've seen tons of false information there. -Yggdra Juril Altwaltz 00:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

"Easy to find/difficult to find" is a horrible qualifier for an external link. The official website for Mortal Kombat: Armageddon is easy enough to find with Google; does that mean we shouldn't have a link to it? We're not a link deposit; often an obscure website is obscure because its crap and has nothing on it worth checking out. Such a website has no place being linked to on Wikipedia, as the entire point of external links is to provide the reader additional useful information that is highly relevant to the topic at hand (and a shitty website just plain doesn't qualify). EVula 03:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

No, you should have a link to it. Why? Because it actually focuses specifically on that game, and likely contains significant information on it as well. And I wasn't saying that every single hard-to-find website should be linked to. I don't even know how you came to the conclusion that I even implied such a thing. But don't worry, I have an idea. We should put links to Google searches in each article! It's well-known, will probably lead you to a ton of information on the subject, and best of all, almost everyone who uses the internet knows about it so it will just be a waste of time and space. -Yggdra Juril Altwaltz 03:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

" I thought this was an encyclopedia." We are. That's why we should link to Mobygames if we got information from them, because it's part of our journalistic integrity that we source our information. At any rate, I hope you've realized why I kept reverting your link removals. --tjstrf 04:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Then do not state that it is something other than an encyclopedia. And keep in mind that I only removed the links once before I turned to discussing it. -Yggdra Juril Altwaltz 03:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You're talking about in-general. You're not talking about Riviera's page at all, since we DIDN'T take information from that MobyGames page. Your reverts have nothing to do with sourcing.

Also, your reverts after the first one were UNJUSTIFIED. The editor in question gave a valid reason for his/her edit, and the issue was brought into question. From there, the discussion should have IMMEDIATELY gone to the talk page. You also violated the three-edit rule, and insulted the editor in question by calling him/her a vandal without proper justification. A registered user should know the rules better than an anonymous or new user.

So no, I don't understand why you kept reverting the link removals and the "overweight" comment. Also, I responded to two other people above. --Raijinili 02:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I never broke WP:3RR, don't throw around false accusations. My closest together reverts were 2 within 24 hours. --tjstrf 18:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I actually think in the case of Riviera: The Promised Land that the mobygames link or the Netjak review weren't that important. The mobygames entry was pretty incomplete and didn't include the dev-team which I think is the most important mobygame asset, but still there was some information there. Why not just link to Metacritic or Gamerankings instead? I know they're both part of the CNET global empire, but the Metacritic link looks quite promising. - Hahnchen 00:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe it's necessary to have links to generic, popular websites such as MobyGames. They are popular, so a lot of people know about them and they are easy to find, so it is kind of a waste to link to them in every single game article. - strongly disagree - by that rationale we should remove links to IMDB for each film article too! We might know all about MobyGames, as hard-nosed gamer types, but the casual user doesn't necessarily. --Oscarthecat 04:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do think we should remove links to IMDB, as well. Regardless, people still seem to be misunderstanding me. Maybe I'll just go find a free thesaurus that anyone can edit, instead. Maybe they will be more open to improvement. -Yggdra Juril Altwaltz 23:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me try to validate the links to MobyGames with a list. I don't think any of us want anyone leaving in a huff:

1. MobyGames lists a great deal of purely statistical information that we may not want to include in the article (entire dev team, for example).
2. MobyGames often has large galleries of screenshots of games in play, which we usually do not. Even if we did have the same volume as MobyGames, we usually don't have an elegent way of working them into an article (a few is great, dozens is too many).
3. MobyGames is not commercial. Yes, they have banner ads, but they don't have the bane of the Internet, pop-up ads. And I'm sure the revenue generated from the banner ads do little more than pay their hosting and bandwidth costs (if that). Yes, they now sell some "MobyGear" (mugs, t-shirts, other stuff), but use of their site—including membership—is completely free.
4. MobyGames information increases over time. Like Wikipedia, information in MobyGames is not static, information for entries is being added all the time. For this reason alone, MobyGame links should be added to articles, even if at the time of the writing of articles, the MobyGames entry is "crap."

Now, if MobyGames only had stuff like reviews, I'd contest their inclusion. But with all the pros above, I think we should link to MobyGames in all articles, even if they really don't augment the information in the Wikipedia article when it is originally written (I know I am probably in the minority here).

That being said, I think links to IGN, GameSpot, <insert your favorite online magazine here> can justifiably be included, when they have NPOV information on the game. This doesn't include reviews, unless it is citing, e.g., a major bug (this doesn't include stuff like "I found the gameplay extremely uninspiring"). These game sites also include news and industry info, which MobyGames doesn't, which can augment an article's content. Just cite them as the source for the information. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Except when it doesn't. GameFAQs DOES have the dev list, though incomplete due to their rules about "real names" and such. I can edit in the COMPLETE dev list, but to get it on MobyGames, I would have to make an account.
2. The screenshots in the case of Riviera are easily accessible from the Atlus website. In fact, I believe RPGamer has a lot more screenshots than MobyGames does, as well as news, an interview, the movies (which are ALSO accessible from the Sting website, if not the Atlus one), the character art, and pre-release screens.
3. That's not reason to put it on every page. That's barely justification for ALLOWING it on every page.
4. It's been over a year. They have the bare-bones. It makes Wikipedia look bad for linking to a site that has almost nothing, even after a whole year. No one links to a blank Wikipedia page as a source for information except Wikipedia, and only because Wikipedia wants to encourage people to edit those pages.

Also, I looked at the Netjak review on Metacritic. It was the lowest score on that site. I believe now that the person who originally added it was a vandal. --Raijinili 18:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I doubt the Netjak review was added by a vandal. Netjak scores hard, and we had a fan spamming Netjak links a while back. Probably just linkspam. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what it looks like --Raijinili 22:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there a list of genres that should be used for new game articles?
If I asked this in the wrong place, please rudely shout at me and don't give me a link to where I should ask it.
--Dinoguy1000 ^Talk 18:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, why would anyone shout at you, it's perfectly fine to ask your question here. For the genres, see: Category:Computer and video game genres. Hope that helps. jaco♫plane 18:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It was meant to be a joke, you know, the whole self-deprecation thing... Regardless of the unintentional confusion, thanks for the link! --Dinoguy1000 ^Talk 06:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been involved with some edits of EDGE magazine's article. Another contributor very strongly disagrees with my opinion that the article is POV and makes uncited claims, with regard to the foreign language editions of the magazine, see the talk page. I'd be grateful if others in the CVG project could get involved with reviewing the article's contents, rather than me getting into an edit war. --Oscarthecat 20:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Ninja Gaiden 2 (Next-Generation)
• Ninja Gaiden 2 (Xbox 360)

Anonymous user engaged in reversions regarding these name differencies. I think this need more experiences WP:CVG member to clarify. --Ragnarok Addict 21:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I would vastly prefer a year attached (a la Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 game)), and bar a name change that's where it should ultimately end up, but since we don't have even that, I'd go with the console. Nifboy 00:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

If there's no Ninja Garden 2 in the first place, why are we even adding a parenthesis disambiguation? That's only needed if we have multiple versions, such as Mission: Impossible, whose game franchise has all featured the same title. Anyway, "(Next-Generation)" is very vague, so (Xbox 360) would be much more preferrable Hbdragon88 22:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I always seem to mix up Gaiden and Garden. I concur with Nifboy in stating a year rather than the time-subjective "Next-Generation" and this will change when PS3 comes out - next-gen would be the eighth generation. Hbdragon88 00:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking it would be cool to have a mascot for the WikiProject. Perhaps someone could create an image of Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan playing video games? This is the character that is the mascot for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga and the Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit. I know, it's very esoteric. Perhaps we could organise a contest? Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games/Mascott contest ?? We could take submissions and then finally vote. Or is this a stupid idea? jaco♫plane 04:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I say no to that idea. A mascot isn't needed, and would just distract from people editing. RobJ1981 04:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

How would it distract people from editing? I think that it might actually improve the project by community building. It would be good for marketing the project to newcomers I think. jaco♫plane 05:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

People should want to help the project, not be attracted in by the mascot. The whole contest thing is the distraction. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to do random contests to create a mascot for a project. RobJ1981 05:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

However, if someone were to create Wikipe-tan in a video game setting of appropriate quality, I don't see why we wouldn't use her. But a contest is simply out of the question. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone already has. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 09:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The only way a mascot would distract editors is if it were a Lara Croft lookalike. Still, not sure if it's a good idea. I don't think there can be a good avatar for a category as broad as CVG. -- Solberg 07:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Solberg

Who would be distracted by a Lara Croft look-alike?? -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 07:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Straight up, no. I don't see anyone coming up with a mascot which doesn't involve stupid cutesy japano-characters. - Hahnchen 00:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

If not Wikipe-tan playing a video game, who else? Would the caterpillar or the Gnu (also seen here) look better playing video games? Wikipe-tan is better than the alternative, methinks. Besides, Wikipe-tan doesn't have to be in "cutesy" pose, just look at her logo for Counter-Vandalism Unit. What's cute about that? --DavidHOzAu 01:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Wikipe-tan is a cutesy japano-character breaks your argument. - Hahnchen 00:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, I'd be highly amused by a picture of Wikipede playing a four-player match of SSBM against himself. That said, we've devoted entirely too much time to this inane discussion, and I really, really don't think we need to follow WP:CVU as an example for anything. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, you should ask Kagura to draw a mascot for you. Ashibaka tock 19:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, have two versions of Wikipetan (as seen in this image) playing against each other seem to be nice.L-Zwei 05:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

If it can add to the discussion, the joypad we use as a logo doesn't really appeal to me, and probably doesn't even mean anything to the young generation, who never saw a white joypad, let alone with two buttons. I thing a mascot is a cool thing to have, as wiki, and the projects, are comunity-driven efforts, and not result-driven kolkhoz. Maybe Duke Nukem would be good, as it's not too "cutesy japano-character". Oh, and the term is "Moe".--SidiLemine 11:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

"The young generation"? How old are you, Sidi? Because that's clearly a six button Super Nintendo controller, and the snes was popular into the late 90s... -- Bailey^(talk) 20:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think it's a Gravis PC GamePad. jaco♫plane 20:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I always thought it was sort of a non-literal intertretation of the SNES gamepad, but it does more strongly resemble the Gravis controller. I guess that explains what happened to start and select. :-) -- Bailey^(talk) 20:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I seem to remember there was a discussion here about cover galleries in articles not really being fair use, anyway, I have come across a few articles that contain them, for example NBA Live series. I know this article is about a series, but is it really necessary to have every single cover of every game there? It even has four different covers for NBA live '06! Surely this violates fair use in a big way. Timkovski 22:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that gallery should go ASAP. I'd do it myself, but I can't be bothered to go through and tag all those images as orphans right now... -- Steel 22:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Could someone please "adopt" Panzer General and neutrally review the edits for vandalism, spam, and NPOV. Thank you.Wikist 00:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Lakitu 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 02:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Gaming Collaboration of the week

Sorry if this request is off-topic or otherwise unsuitable for this section, please redirect me accordingly. Over at talk for the article for Motorhead [4] a dispute has erupted. Basically we had for some time the article for Motorhead, a videogame, which had a For-template link to Motörhead, a heavy metal band. The heavy metal enthusiasts argued that the roles should be reversed[5], I argued against. After an AfD nomination [6] (in itself a rather dirty "trick"), User:Freakofnurture [7] performed the move "Motorhead" -> "Motorhead (video game)" and created a dab page at Motorhead (after he first populated it with a #redirect to Motörhead). What happened next was that there has been kind of a revert war [8] going on between the dab and the redirect. Apparently, the heavy metal people have joined forces, so before I go any further (or not), I'd like to hear what the rest of the CVG community feels about this. --Frodet 21:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You would get a better response at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer and video games. Thunderbrand 01:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

As someone from the CVG camp my two peneth is: Redirect to band, link to game on band article - X201 08:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Motorhead should redirect to Motörhead, which should have a dab notice at the top of the page to Motorhead (video game). Common usage VASTLY favors the band. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with the move. I can't believe that some users who were pathetically trying to compromise to save their own petty decision actually thought a disambig page would be the best idea, where the disambig was the worst possible solution in each case. Go go compromise groupthink. - Hahnchen 16:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate since, in my head, there really shouldn't be an issue with dab at all, ref. eg. Ardal vs. Årdal.... --Frodet 16:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't care too much about the page move, but the suggestion and implementation of a disambiguation page at Motorhead was totally ridiculous. You're forcing everyone at the Motorhead article to waste another page load and click again, it was a pathetic attempt to try and keep the video game article visible and baseless cries of undue weight, when having a link at the top of the Motörhead article was enough. As I said, I don't care about the page move, what I do care about are when people decide to go for the worst possible solution in some compromise scenario like a disambig page, one of the worst examples of this can be seen at be bold. To Liftarn and the others who proposed a disambig page, do you really think Ralph Macchio should be a disambig? What about Ken Watanabe? - Hahnchen 16:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree - the dab page is not the best solution - I did not implement it, though. Yes, I was enforcing it based on the what was set up by the mover. What I reacted to was the "sneaky" way this was done, without any real consensus or a call at Wikipedia:Requested moves. I consider myself neutral as I have never played neither Motorhead nor Motörhead, hence why I ask here. But why a redirect and not (a move of) the Motorhead (video game) article to Motorhead? --Frodet 16:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of emulators with articles on Wikipedia. see List of Emulators. Recently, there have been proposals for deletion of a few of the Nintendo Console emulators(see for example iNes, FCE Ultra), but given the large number of emulators with articles (Not to mention the Redlinks), I felt it would be important to open up a discussion on where to draw the line as regards emulation software. Certain examples (like Bleem! should clearly be kept, although they could clearly be improved, but others might not qualify. So I'm here seeking some thoughts on where to draw the line, so forth. So share what you feel. FrozenPurpleCube 22:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:SOFTWARE seems good, although software included with a Linux distro is a lame standard we really shouldn't use with peripheral software like emulators. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can agree with applying WP:Software as emulators really don't receive that much published attention. How much though, do you think is the absolute minimum necessary? FrozenPurpleCube 22:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I can safely say that just because an emulator exists isn't reason enough to have an article on it. Existence and availability are totally different from notability. Surely there are reviews of emulators that can be cited to prove notability? As WP:Notability states: 'a subject needs to be of sufficient importance that there are multiple reliable secondary sources, independent of the subject, on which we can base a verifiably neutral article without straying into original research.' Nearly all these emulator articles utterly fail this, as well as other Wiki guidelines and policies. The Kinslayer 08:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

First, citing rules like that is not convincing to me, for reasons I've already mentioned. It troubles me a lot. But instead of getting into that, I'll just say that for the vast majority of emulators, I must say, I'm completely unaware of any reviews more significant than "here's this cool emulator here" or a release on some website that is nothing more than the changelog. This is particularly true of console emulators, which is something of a less formal environment than most. It really doesn't get the kind of formal attention that say, automobiles do. Does this mean Wikipedia should have no information whatsoever on them? I can't say that appeals to me. I can't imagine how that improves Wikipedia at all. FrozenPurpleCube 14:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The rules are there for a reason. You can't apply the rules to only the bits you want, and I don't really care if you have a problem with the rules, because I don't, and I intend to use them to highlight my point, which is, those ARE the rules (regardless of whether you like it or not), so how can we fit emulators into that frame? Obviously it can't be done in the most conventional sense, because as you say, emulator communties are too informal. So we have to to adapt. I stand by my conviction that just being listed for download on a couple of meta-emulation sites is not sufficient notability in itself. The Kinslayer 14:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there are reviews at sites like Zophar's Domain and ClassicGaming.Com, which have been standard emulator resource sites since 1996 and 1997 respectively. Zophar even goes so far as to categorize by "Best", "Good", "Promising" and "Not Worth The Download". --Marty Goldberg 14:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, there we go then, that's two places we can use. The problem here is that it can easily turn into a 'if it's not mentioned on them, it shouldn't be here' which may not be the best situation. But a least we've got a starting point. The Kinslayer 15:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Sigh, yes, the rules exist for a reason, but reasoning and discussion exist for a reason as well. Why? Because the rules simply aren't appropriate in every situation. Your own statement covers that, and I agree, the conventional standards don't work for emulators, particularly console ones. And BTW, every emulator I saw you nominate is mentioned on Zophar's(and at least one is also on Classicgaming.com). FrozenPurpleCube 15:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to say that most of my noms for speedy deletes were upheld today, and I feel that most of these pages have been set up as either ads, vanity pages or, in a couple cases, set up to compare the emulator unfavourably to another emulator specifically. I agreed with Mister Manticore that we'd take the discussion here and try to reach a group consensus on what standards we should be setting for emulators (how do we define notability etc etc) The Kinslayer 22:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

In the case of FCEUXD reveals that it was created in April last year, and counting a couple of people randomly correcting some spelling, has received 7 edits up to this point. This article seems strongly not worth keeping. (I know this isn't an AfD discussion, I'm just providing it as an example of the pages I've been nomination for deletion.) The Kinslayer 22:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• BTW does anyone else think that console emulator needs a bit of work? It lacks sources, and some sections (like the bit on Nesticle ) probably receive too much attention. FrozenPurpleCube 22:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree it skips right through all the various consoles in the first paragraph, then seems to dwell on the NES and SNES for most of the next 3 paragraphs. The Kinslayer 22:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Any suggestions on how to tag it? I'm not sure whether to go with unverified or simple cleanup.
      • Actually I just removed the entire first paragraph in question because it was completely incorrect. None of those used any sort of emulation. Provided references on the talk page. Marty Goldberg 15:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and another resource is Category:Emulation software stubs that might help show off the problem. FrozenPurpleCube 23:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Do you mean another example of poor quality emulator article? All the ones on the AfD list on our project page can be used as them in that case. The Kinslayer 23:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • No, I meant to type in a category, but I can't figure it out. Anyway the Category Emulation software stubs has probably a hundred entries in it. FrozenPurpleCube 23:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, so I'm still going through some thoughts in my head, but in general, I'm going to say this about console emulators. (Note by console I'm also including handheld devices).

1. There's a lot of console emulators out there. Most are freeware, and most are never going to be reviewed or studied by anyone reputable. This doesn't mean they aren't widely used(for an emulator), or important. It just means that this particular area doesn't attract the same kind of scholarly attention as much popular subjects. Yes, there are exceptions that make the news, or get a commercial release. Or are produced by a major company. But that's not true of the vast majority.
2. It doesn't do Wikipedia any good to not have information on them, as this is still a reasonably important subject. Wikipedia not having information is not a good thing. Sure, it'd be a bad idea to get into any comparisons between emulators (as some of the articles tread upon now), but there's a difference between simply reporting that this is Emulator X, and this is Emulator Y, and Emulator Z and saying Emulator X is the ROKS! while Y and Z are deh SuX! .
3. There's a lot of articles on them, some of which will probably never be expanded. See the stub-Category I already mentioned. So for many cases, perhaps a better way to do things would be to merge and redirect to an informational list. See List of esoteric programming languages . This would also help as it would allow us to determine whether or not what's being emulated is important, which may be somewhat easier. Obviously, there are exceptions that merit their own articles, but that can be determined after the fact.

Anyway, that's what I'm thinking right now. Does anybody else have any other input that isn't just repeating some Wikipolicy or another? I'm sorry, but I just don't find that quoting WP:Software or WP:NOT or whatever very stimulating thoughtwise. They actually tend to preclude discussion IMHO. FrozenPurpleCube 14:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The best compromise I can think is the one Manticore suggested (I think) on one of the AfDs, which was rather than having 70-odd (random number) articles with three sentences about them, compile them into lists of emulators by system. We could then have articles about the TRULY notable emulators. The Kinslayer 15:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, this seems to have stalled now, so can we either have some fresh input from other people, or reach a decision on how to handle emulators? The Kinslayer 19:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid three or four people contributing on a subject that covers at least 90-odd articles isn't enough for me to think we've got enough people to have reached a decision. Especially since some of the people have only chimed in once to cite some already established policy, without replying to comments on why that policy might not be quite fair. I'm just not sure how to get some real discussion going. Considering the PITA that was resulted in over a dozen undeletions from those cookie articles the other day though(or the earlier Esoteric programming languages thing), I'm inclined to advocate patience and thought rather than act improvidently. FrozenPurpleCube 03:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I do like the idea of a list though. Because emulator use is in most cases illegal, is it not ? Sure, if you have a legitimate bios to make them run, you are kinda ok for personal use. But that's just a technicality IMHO. The risk exists that Wikipedia might get some copyvio complaints. I hate the idea of having Wikipedia lack information but in case of illegal software... The less we have the better. A list with links to other sites would be informative and not too risky IMHO. Renmiri 04:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope, besides the fact that reporting on something criminal is rather different from actually doing the thing, emulation is NOT illegal in and of itself. I don't know of any emulator being found criminal at all, though I suppose it could happen. In any case, relatively few emulators require an actual BIOS to run, and even then, those haven't been the subject of any of the discussion here, or anywhere that I know about, solely because they might require a copyrighted bios. Now if there is a wikipedia page that talks about getting copyrighted ROMs, proposing that for deletion is another matter. But it's not like we go around deleting pages like Abandonware or The Pirate Bay just because they might be "risky" in some vague sense that they could be misused. As arguments go, this is relatively weak. FrozenPurpleCube 05:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

An emulator itself is certainly not illegal. For emulators that require a bios image (and there are some, but they're more commonly computer emulators), it is the bios itself that would be illegal to have and not the emulator. Even then, there are some bios's that have been released to the PD, and others that have been reversed engineered and provided in PD format. Such is the case with the Vectrex for example, where the owner has released all roms (including the bios) in to the PD. Nintendo is the only one that I'm aware of that took an "emulators are illegal" stance, but has since corrected it since they couldn't prosecute anyone. They even tried prosecuting hardware based "famiclones" (NES's on a chip) but couldn't win that because they were produced with reverse engineering and couldn't prove otherwise. (I believe it was against someone selling them locally to NOA in Washington in fact just a few years ago). Their official stance on emulation is still very negative, i.e. "emulation promotes piracy therefore it is bad". --Marty Goldberg 14:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • I think we're moving away from the point here. The issue is how we are going to deal with all the emulator pages currently in existence. Most of them have no further information to expand them, and some seem like adverts. I think the way forward would be to delete articles and compile them into 'List of [insert gaming system] Emulators.] But also, I do think it would be good to include something about the legality of emulators in the general overview article, and I think the whole Nintendo situation is especially worth noting. The Kinslayer 12:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone here besides Frecklefoot and tjstrf think that MobyGames should be linked to on EVERY video game page? Because tjstrf is adding it to Riviera: The Promised Land citing "consistency". --Raijinili 01:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Mobygames should be linked to when it is used. Consistency is not a valid reason for external links. There are almost 10000 tagged cvg articles- they don't all need a mobygames link. --PresN 13:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think MobyGames should be added to every article. MobyGames provides screenshots and information that is not appropriate for Wikipedia. jaco♫plane 15:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

If the MobyGames article covers information that exceeds the scope of the Wikipedia article, it should be linked to. If it has just the same info, it shouldn't be. EVula 15:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Jaco, in the case of certain pages, such as Riviera: The Promised Land, Atlus already provides screenshots. Just about the only other things that the MobyGames page offers are where to buy the game, some reviews (which Metacritic does better, in my opinion), and a Chinese name for a Chinese release I've never heard of. Do you think that it should be added to Riviera? --Raijinili 00:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll ammend my previous comment and say that it doesn't have to be linked in every article. If you want to wait for the information and other data to be updated first, before you link to it, fine. But I've always been partial to only doing work once. If I'm working on a game article, I'll link to MobyGames because I know the information there is generally useful and expands on what Wikipedia will have. Linking to MobyGames isn't—and shouldn't be—a requirement. However, it is one of my personal standard practices. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Same stupid edit war, different day... I think that it's important to have a standard system for linking and that there is no reason whatsoever to remove a link that is normally included on other similar pages. --tjstrf 15:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I would typically agree that a link should be provided if it is used as research or if there is additional information not part of the pedia. In the case of Riviera: The Promised Land MG has detailed cover art, detailed release info Example the Japanese release was developed and published by Sting whereas the US release was published by Atlus and developed by Sting. The wonderswan version was published by Bandai. Some people go crazy for these details. Obviously screenshots. I think I may of put the link there in the first place ... but hey whatever you folks decide. --Flipkin 16:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the MobyGames entry had no more information than the Wikipedia article. Now I see it has a great deal more than our article. The screenshots alone merit its inclusion. But since the comment at the top of this thread excludes my opinion, I'll keep it to myself. >:( — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Well MG and the CVP are like sister projects. Both user contributed. There are some philosophical and technical differences but I think both goals are the game. Video games are culturally and historically important. Document everything. Offer that information free to the public. I think both benefit from the association. Obviously the policy should be by concensus, but my opinion is that the MG are OK. --Flipkin 18:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that it had no more info than the Wikipedia article. Pay attention. I said that the other links already covered most of what MobyGames had. If you want me to respect your opinions, then I expect you to actually read what I say so that I don't have to keep saying it. --Raijinili 00:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

And one more link, to finish it off. --Raijinili 00:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems you are just bent on ignoring the reasons people do give to you, which are more than sufficient for the rest of us. This discussion has gone on long enough and it's obvious which way consensus goes: link acceptable or imperative, argument over removal WP:LAME. I'm readding the link. --tjstrf 00:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

What reasons did I ignore? Back it up. You're saying that "we should support MobyGames" is a valid reason?

People said that MobyGames provided information. I responded time and again that the other links provide just as much information and more. Redundancy isn't a valid reason for exclusion now?

"Consistency" for external links is NOT Wikipedia policy and you can't cite that for a reason unless it's decided by consensus that it is a valid reason, because then it leads to stupid edit wars.

People then brought up that MobyGames had screenshots and release info. I replied that I already talked about how the other external links covered those screenshots and release info, and did it better. What exactly did I miss? --Raijinili 01:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You have just made false accusations for the second time in this same debate. Lovely. I have not made personal attacks, nor have I broken the 3RR rule, I have explained my actions, and I have attempted to negotiate here. There is nothing more to say in this debate if you refuse to acknowledge that an acceptable link according to policy may be included in the article. Even the original IP opposer to inclusion acknowledged that the Mobygames link met WP:EL, and Yggdra's opposition was due to a misunderstanding of policy to begin with (he believed that External Links should be to obscure sites that were not widely known, misunderstanding that the site must be mainstream in its field to even qualify for inclusion). --tjstrf 01:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Might I suggest that everyone take a breather for a couple of days? This debate is becoming absurdly heated, and I think everyone would be better off if we let it cool down. EVula 02:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me. I really didn't care what happened with the specific links to begin with, just about correcting Yggdra's misconceptions of the purpose of External Links. I've only continued this argument after he left because Raijinili's false accusations ticked me off. I won't interfere with the links anymore if Raijinili promises the same. --tjstrf 02:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't "cool down". I forget.
I admit that I misinterpreted 3RR, ignoring the time restriction.
You accused me of ignoring valid reasoning. I personally find that offensive and take it as a personal attack. It's certainly not backed up and has no relevance to the debate (both of which would have been solved had you provided some examples).
The original IP opposer doesn't understand Wikipedia policy. I challenged that it met WP:EL, which everyone seemed to ignore, because it didn't contain much information outside of what the other links covered (under "useful"). --Raijinili 04:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Even the original IP opposer to inclusion acknowledged that the Mobygames link met WP:EL Consenting to it being allowed is not the same as consenting to its inclusion. Learn to read; I said that the WP:EL allows it, but that it shouldn't be included because it provides absolutely no new information. DrSturm 18:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

So this may a bit overly nuanced, but ... In terms of screenshots MG and VGMuseum screenshots are actual grabs of images of gameplay that the user/player would see in their native resolution. The publisher / developer and sites like Gamespot, IGN use promotional material. Often there are subtle but important differences. The publisher/developer grabs screen from their dev environment or using a debug kit. This means that the screen is in a resolution not possible during gameplay and sometimes elements such as nav, hud and info boxes, prespective are missing or incorrect. [Example check out the first screen on Gamespot added Sep 22. This screen is dramatic but entirely inaccurate. The perspective is wrong and there is no hud. This screen is the creation of someone using a dev kit and would be impossible to experience playing the game. I don't know if anyone really cares that much, but for instance MG requires actual captured gameplay for screens. I believe VGMuseum is the same way. Just a FYI. --Flipkin 15:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

That does not apply to the situation of Riviera, which is what started this whole thing. Atlus has many more shots than MB and in a more accurately displayed resolution. DrSturm 18:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we should merge no importance with low importance. Then we would have low/mid/high/top, which I think is plenty. I find it very difficult to say an article has "no" importance whatsoever. Also, other projects like WPBiography don't have this "no importance" category. Another reason is that the AWB plugin I've been using to rate/prioritise articles doesn't have support for "no importance". Anyone disagree? jaco♫plane 08:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, if an article truly has no importance, shouldn't it just be deleted? jaco♫plane 08:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not certain, but I think to actually merge the two, you need to take it up wiht the Version 1.0 project, who made the rating system to start with. Personally, I agree that I don't like slapping on a "no importance" tag. I prefer to not use that tag, basically treating not having a tag as the same thing as no importance. I propose rather than merging no and low, we just don't use no, getting us the same result. --PresN 13:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice edit summary :) Anyway, I actually think we're the only project that has a "no importance" category, see: Category:Articles by importance. No "no importance" there. So I think that we don't really need to take it up with the Version 1.0 project since they're not using this anyway. jaco♫plane 13:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I support their merger. I agree that an actual "no importance" article would equal a deleted article (in which case, there'd be no talk page for the tag to be on...). EVula 18:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

On a historical note, No-importance was created especially for the Essential Articles list, which is meant to list only essential articles and rate their importance appropriately; for example, the EA list has only 9 top-level, whereas 22 are currently top-level on the bot's list. No-importance articles had to be justified or removed. Nifboy 00:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the statement that "no importance" implies that the article should not even exist on the wikipedia. But that's an issue of semantics. If the 1.0 editorial team has use for it, then we shouldn't worry about it too much. Like other editors have mentioned, I've just been ignoring the difference between "low" and "no". Effectively they are synonomous; almost all things in the "low" category are such minor topics(e.g. various minor video game characters, or minor games that have made no impact in their genre) they will never see inclusion in version 1.0. —Mitaphane _talk 00:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

To further the argument, Mathbot would, I assume, classify articles of No-Importance as not ranked for importance - Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Computer and video game articles by quality statistics. I'll change the template so that articles marked as No- are put in Low-Importance. Pagrashtak 01:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I've updated the template, but only with respect to the category. The template will still display No-Importance, but will be categorized as Low. It would be possible to force the template to display Low when No is used, but I don't think it would be worth muddying up the code for that at this point. For now, I suggest leaving the display and switching No to Low if you run across it and feel like updating it. Or, someone could request a bot to update it if he feels it's important. Pagrashtak 01:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It actually should be "priority" and not importance [9] as explained by Morphh. Some games and systems just have no priority whatsoever to be included in Wikipedia 1.0 Hbdragon88 00:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Importance -> priority change implemented. Should we rename the associated categories? --tjstrf 06:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. We should aso run a bot to change all the cvgproj headers from "importance" to "priority" as well. Hbdragon88 21:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• How does "priority" gets assigned ? FFX got changed from High to Low without nary a word by the editor. Yet Famitsu readers just elected it best game of the last decade. Renmiri 23:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

  In general, single games aren't high unless they're extremely influential. FFX isn't high, but mid wouldn't be inappropriate. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Could a couple of people please come and give their opinions in this? At the moment it's just two or three of us debating back and forth, and I think some fresh opinions are badly needed. The Kinslayer 17:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Additionaly, the AfD has now been mentioned on The Trenches forum, so I'm expecting some major sock puppetry any time now. The Kinslayer 18:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I've known about this for a bit, but it's really eating me up lately. This page's history only goes back to July 29, when the page was moved to archive old discussion. The rest of the history is here, at Archive 13. Is it too late to fix it? I know, I'm an admin and I could probably fix it, but I'm one of the lazy admins. Also, I tend to mess up fixing cut and paste moves sometimes, and don't want to make it worse. Comments? Thunderbrand 14:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

What eats me up more is having the history all on one page. Really, why can't we must move pages over instad of cut-and-paste archiving? If I'm looking up an old discussion, I hate having to look through 5-6 archives. I'd much rather try to hunt through my own contribus to find which archive page I put the discussion on. Hbdragon88 22:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It's just that we should probably keep it consistant, as per Wikipedia:How_to_archive_a_talk_page#Controversy. From archive 1-12, they were cut and pasted, and 13 was moved, and the rest are also cut and paste. Thunderbrand 23:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I am just notifying you that I am putting a few cvg-related stubs up for deletion since their categories are empty or nearly empty. Please voice your opinion on the SFD page here.

• no template / Category:Computer and video game franchise stubs
• {{cvg-hardware-stub}} / Category:Computer and video game hardware stubs
• {{speedrun-stub}} / Category:Speedrun stubs
• {{MK-stub}} / Category:Mortal Kombat stubs
• {{Zelda-stub}} / Category:The Legend of Zelda stubs

~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 17:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's still alive! I took a wikibreak, and it seemed to have deteriorated--but I'm back! I was thinking of removing the inactive notice, reply if you have an objection. Primate^#101 01:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I mildly object- one person does not a wikiproject make, and you're the only person who's active in the project. That said, go ahead if you wish, it doesn't really bother me. --PresN 14:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I've got some work to be done on the CVG by year categories.

1. remove interwiki links. Most or all of them are automatically covered in {{cvg year interwiki}}, if not, please add them to it.
2. add it to the parent year in software category (don't worry if it doesn't exist yet, I'm making them).

See Category:2000 computer and video games for an example. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Donald Duck has appeared in the category today. The actual article merely lists video games he has been in. Should it really be part of cvgproj? My opinion is not. Yes he is a game character but it was secondary to why he exists, if you have any comment please add them to the talk page - X201 12:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, just in case anyone cares, the Unassessed catagory now only has articles from F through U, which still encompanses around 3700 articles. So, drop on by, assess some articles! Link is in the to do box on the main project page. --PresN 14:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

No, Donald Duck doesn't belong in the CVG project. His games do, that's it. Articles that just mention video games briefly, certainly aren't a part of this project. RobJ1981 17:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

BZflag has been removed as a Featured Article, due to...well, being a B class article that no one cares to fix. This means that the only CVG related article currently at Featured Article Review is Link (Legend of Zelda), though it looks like it's going to pass. This has been your daily Featured Article News Update. --PresN 17:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Apparently the article Doom clone has been killed. This is completely absurd; it was a fine article on an important subject, and tons of pages link to it (there are now a lot of dead links instead). Any administrator who can figure out why it was deleted, or better yet, would be willing to simply restore it? Fredrik Johansson 21:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, if someone had bothered to remove the WP:PROD tag that wouldn't have happened. Just ask an admin to restore it. --tjstrf 21:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, seems that there's controversy over removing the website run by a GAFer (who is not a professional estimater, and it does not have any actual sales figures). Well, see, we are asking for sales figures, VGCharts does not provide sales figures, so it cannot be a source for sales figures, the end whee! - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's an awesome job of explaining what you're doing and both sides of the discussion. Please don't remove VGCharts links until you've explained better, please. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what this is about, but isn't it the job of the editor who wishes to include information to provide reliable sources, and not the one seeking to remove it? -- Ned Scott 03:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

ALTTP has been removing links to VGCharts from a number of articles, many of them long-stable and some featured. If there was some evidence that ALTTP had considered the arguments to keep these links, or even considered why they were added, then removed them for a second, more-compelling set of reasons, it'd be fine, but he's pretty much refused to do anything but point to a rather useless argument between him and some anons on a fairly-obscure talk page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I agree then, more discussion is needed before a mass removal of such citations and links. -- Ned Scott 03:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Right. I have no great stake in this, but I'm unhappy to see references being removed unilaterally from multiple articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I would no more consider this link appropriate for Wikipedia as I would a dead link. The link has zero legitimacy - why am I the one arguing against this? Can anyone show me evidence that his numbers are sales figures or that he can be considered as professional as the hair on NPD's pinky knuckle? - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

And, there is no other side. The only one arguing for VGCharts are those who don't want content to be removed, and users who appear to have come to Wikipedia for the reason of inserting this link. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No worries, we're just trying to get all on the same page here. -- Ned Scott 12:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, this is an interesting issue. I had heard ALttP explain it, and had agreed to a certain point with him. We need to determine if VGCharts is a reliable site or not. VGCharts started as everythingandnothing.co.uk or something like that, and somehow became part of Advanced Media Network. Per www.vgcharts.org/welcome.php

VG Charts uses a proprietary system

As I said, this site began as a site founded by Generic Bob, where he picked the data from trackers, calculated an average, and rounded up (in example). No different from me uploading my estimates at a Geocities page.

Since VG Charts does not collect or assemble the raw data itself, we recommend that anybody wishing to use officially sourced data for formal reports and so on should really contact the tracking services above

So, does Wikipedia need to use officially sourced data, or are these estimates enough?

When analysing the sales of a particular title, or comparing present data to historic data, we strongly recommend the use of VG Charts in your analysis

Well, a site without advertisment would not be able to grow.

So, is VGCharts a reliable site? Someone should sit down and check that out. I am off to sleep. -- ReyBrujo 04:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'm misreading what you're saying, but Wikipedia is not for advertising. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Based on what I've read here, I'd have to give a gritty in-your-face 'No' to including this as a reliable source. The quotes above imply thatL

A) They work it out themselves, based on what they find (this sounds awfully like off-site original research)

B)There is absolutely nothing official about it, and the links seem to be added purely for advertising reasons.

C)They even say themselves 'Don't use our data, go straight to our sources.'

D) Why has this even come up for discussion again? I thought we settled this last time in the debate over sales figures. The Kinslayer 12:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, ALTTP is right, he's arguing on the basis that site is not relaible enough to be a wikisource, while everyone is arguing over the fact he was bold and removed spam. The Kinslayer 12:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

However, and here comes the tricky part, according to this, May have taken their own look at the available primary sources and used their own judgment in evaluating them. which is basically what VGCharts are doing. And according to this, Reliable sources also are ones which differentiate within their own information stream between assertions which are backed by observation, those that are theoretical but highly likely, and those which are speculative, conjectural and rumor. which they do, however, they may fail the following point, as Reliable sources have reproducible or verifiable means of gathering information. A fact which could be checked, even if it has not been, is generally more reliable than one which cannot be checked. which we can't as they use a proprietary system to get the final numbers. As I said, someone must sit down, verify every point in WP:RS, and inform whether VGCharts is a reliable source or not. -- ReyBrujo 12:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this is pretty much a green light to continue the removal of these references, now that we are all on the same page. -- Ned Scott 12:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we should put it to a vote, just to make sure. The Kinslayer 12:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

m:Don't vote on everything, and it's pretty clear that VGCharts don't qualify as reliable sources. -- Ned Scott 12:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, m:Polls are evil (a better link) -- Ned Scott 12:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Then I stand corrected! I just wanted to avoid potential editwars, since VGcharts has cause trouble recently already. The Kinslayer 12:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Note the Wikipedia:Voting is not evil essay. Although I agree that polls are often evil, they should not be discouraged on sight. -- ReyBrujo 12:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Just when they are unneeded. I've made polls on Wikipedia before, I don't always find them evil. -- Ned Scott 09:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Just as an aside, anyone looking for Square Enix game data should consult their website's fincial reporting page. They have a 2003 IR Roadshow document I've used for the Chrono series that lists figures for games sellin over one million copies (and there are a bunch, let me tell you...) --Zeality 19:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a piece of blatant project publicity about the fact that The Magazines Project now has over 200 individual magazines listed, and the size of the list is increasing (almost) daily. It now covers the last 12 years of video gaming and has articles available on everything from trade shows to French computer games. - X201 22:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm cross-posting this at the CVG Magazine Archive, but thought the wider WPCVG community might benefit from it.

Now that Computer Gaming World is changing their name, the entire back catalogue of first 100 issues' worth of CGW articles has been posted for free download at FileFront, here. It's a pretty huge collection of free content, and provides both interesting historical information and an accessible source of facts for articles that touch on its subject matter. Personal computer game will be received some new citations from this source, and I hope it helps improve some other articles as well.

Unfortunately, these are extremely large PDF files - Issue 1 alone is fourteen megabytes. I'm downloading them all now, though, and would be happy to start a torrent if necessary. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 06:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Since before there was discussion about how to clean up the large amount of WikiProject templates on talk pages, I thought you guys would be interested in the proposal at Wikipedia:Mini Talkpage Template for the additional templates (like featured article, good article, peer review, etc). -- Ned Scott 09:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Here are just some: various King of Fighters characters, Mario Kart: Double Dash!!, various Mega Man articles and much more. If you want a more complete list, see Category:Articles with large trivia sections. RobJ1981 21:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

it's an ongoing problem - arm yourself with an anti-chuff cannon and set about it :) --Charlesknight 21:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll see your Mario Kart: Double Dash!! and raise you FIFA Street 2 - X201 21:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

What a mess. I've seen articles bad like that before though. For some shooter games, there is huge lists of every single weapon. People fill articles with way too much cruft. RobJ1981 21:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You like trivia? Check List of King of Fighters: Maximum Impact characters. 52 trivia items in 10 trivia sections. -- ReyBrujo 01:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Get your mouse button ready and commence trivia whacking. Hbdragon88 07:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Also take a look at pretty much everything linked from {{RE series}}. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought I should probably bring to mind the Chrono Trigger and Chrono Cross articles here. Both of them not only have "plot" sections that are massively long, but for some reason an enormous amount of in-game character quotations have "cross references" going down to where, ordinarily, external link references would go. Given the huge plot text, this results in the references section being way, way too large. I'm going to go through and get rid of those cross references (we don't REALLY need an entire section devoted to ingame quotes like "What's going on Lucca? WHERE IS SHE?"), but the plot text itself will still need some extensive paring. It looks like several other articles like Final Fantasy IV also have this inane plotlinking. Seriously, if someone REALLY wants to read each and every quote that a character makes during the course of a game, can't they just play the game itself? It seems to be of limited value to fill up entire article sections with this stuff. Ex-Nintendo Employee 11:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

See, the difference between what we're talking about here and CC and CT is that FIFA Street 2 was half-filled with a list of all 100+ soccer players in the game (before I whacked it), while CT and CC are featured articles, and held up as examples of what all cvg articles should look like. Also, what are you talking about? There isn't a section in CT about quotes. Please do not go about hacking apart featured articles, you will be reverted. --PresN 13:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you meant. You meant that every ref that was to the game itself should be removed. Ironically, the editors at FAC felt that not referencing the plot meant that it was OR. Since you deleted 20ish references, I've reverted you. Please do not do massive edits to a featured article like that without at least discussing it first. --PresN 13:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

PresN is correct. DO NOT REMOVE those cross references. Those were put there in response to citation needed tags during the FA and GA process. The cross-reference section is not a quotes section and is indeed part of what makes the CT and CC articles worthy of being Featured Articles. Renmiri 13:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

" No, PresN is not correct. There is absolutely, positively no reason for each and every single plot-related dialogue quote to be referenced within the article itself. Someone who wants such a deep focus on the plot can read a guide (which Wikipedia is not). If you don't feel that the cross-reference section is a "quotes" section, then simply don't fill it with quotes. Imagine how disturbingly large every single game plot section would be if we did that to them all. A short summary of the plot is all that is neccesary, no matter how well-liked the game is- a massive, guidelike list of events and quotations, on the other hand, is not. Come on, do we seriously NEED to reference things like "Look, Crono! Your cat's running away because you haven't been feeding it!" I don't know how something like that got to Featured status, but there's no reason we can't pare down the un-needed pieces to make it better. Ex-Nintendo Employee 16:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, lets see why it passed FAC, shall we? It was only the beginning of August. Here's a scattering of quotes from the nomination- "The Story section needs to be more comprehensive, and shouldn't be rushing itself quite as hard as it is" "I know you're probably concerned with length, but being comprehensive is more important than length. Don't try molding the article to fit some imaginary standard of length. The only standard of length is that it cover everything important and do it with clarity without going into the territory of detail that only fans would look for." "'Do you mean for the story? I can dig up some script references'.....'Some for the story would be good, yeah'" "You don't come to an encyclopedia if you don't want comprehensive overviews." I respect that you feel that the plot section is too in depth, and that there are too many game references. I do not respect the fact that instead of starting a discussion, you went and removed all of the references to the game. Yes, anyone can edit wikipedia, but for FA class articles it's usually a good idea to tell people about major changes to the article before you do them. --PresN 16:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

And yet, despite your lovely quotes, references to people's cats still remain. Oh well. Honestly, if you want to turn Chrono Trigger into a vast repository of random facts and quotations about Chrono's pets, be my guest. I have parakeets to feed. Ex-Nintendo Employee 16:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Ex, you are missing the point and blowing it out of proportion. The quotes are presented to solidify that the synopsis is not original researach; it also deters OR drops. This has been an accepted procedure in numerous featured articles; I believe you are only the second person to have a real distaste for them. Furthermore, these plot sections do not cover all minor subarcs; however, they are comprehensive in all areas of the games (yes, including the plot) in a succinct manner to satisfy both criteria as much as possible. Plus, the cat reference is key to the conclusion of the plot section; it's not about the cat, it's about the situation, and the quote provides evidence that such a situation described in the plot synopsis is not OR. — Deckiller 16:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Ex-N Missing TWO points actually: No matter how he feels about the citations section, it was pretty rude to just erase half of it without discussion, on an FA class page. Had he bothered to ask we would have explained the difference between citations and random quotes. For anyone not familiar with how to survive a peer review, Good Page Award review and FA review they might look unsightly but Deck and Ryu can confirm what I tell you, no page makes into FA without citations. Renmiri 21:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Just got back from visiting my birds, and look at that! A slew of new replies. Hey Renmiri, I'm not missing ANY "points" here- I just happen to disagree with you. You'll notice that I've stopped bothering with the CT article- I know that the little group that's huddled around it would immediately jump to its "defense", no matter what unencyclopedic minor content one attempts to pare down. It doesn't matter that quotes about a cat, random dialogue about the gate Keys and other fudd aren't really "citations", they're just fluff- fluff that puffs up an article's size and makes it interminable to wade through. Despite all the self-congratulatory back-patting going on here, the fact remains that you're sitting on an article filled to the brim with minor, unencyclopedic quotations. Remember, just because someone disagrees with your point of view (as I do) doesn't make them either stupid, nor does it mean they're "missing any points". And for the record, I haven't seen any evidence that the dialogue about Chrono's cat food helps give the article any level of succinctness. That's my two cents, and I'll go away now and leave your group to ponder over what next to do with your gargantuan puffy article. I'm sure more back-patting will occur, and a few rounds of "Oh, that darn Ex-Nintendo Employee." Have fun! Ex-Nintendo Employee 21:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, what you said toward the end proves that you missed my point. Also, the term "missing the point" was not in response to disagreement; it was in response to the fact that you did not (and still have not) addressed the issue of why the references are being used (which would therefore be the point). I stated that the reference with the cat in the dialogue provides evidence that the scenerios mentioned at the end of the plot synopsis actually occured, and were not just OR statements. That has nothing to do with succinctness, nor is it a quote section — again, they are direct references to the text to prove that the synopsis is not speculation or false. — Deckiller 02:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

XNE has a couple of good points, albeit somewhat harshly stated. Regarding the length of plot summaries, remember, not every plot point or event needs to be described in a plot summary, despite the recent trend (I'm finding which is largely led by WP:WPFF, since they've done the bulk of the CVG FAs lately) to write very detailed plot summaries. When you are writing a plot summary, strongly consider omitting points which are not necessary to the understanding of the rest of the article. (Chrono's cat food is a good example.) We're not here to retell the story in less-compelling form.

As for the citations to the text, this is better than not citing anything, but is less than ideal. Whenever possible, try to use secondary analysis of the story, rather than relating it yourself based on primary observation, as part of the foundation of this encyclopedia is to synthesize commentary in secondary sources. I realize that such secondary sources are often scarce, but we should not have a five-page-long plot summary of Chrono Trigger when no other source has ever felt the need to go into that much detail.

I realize these aren't popular points, but they're important ones, and I think the current trend needs to be reversed. Comprehensiveness does not require that we retell the story in less-compelling form. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

To give an example we should follow, The Lord of the Rings, a featured article on an exceedingly plot-dense trilogy of lengthy books, currently has a shorter plot summary than Chrono Trigger or Final Fantasy IV. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

As we both know, secondary source plot analysis are often published by self-published sources, which are currently even more discouraged than primary source citations. :) Also, I checked, and the only time the word "cat" is used is in the citation that happens to have the subject of the cat in it, despite the reference being used for a more general reason. — Deckiller 02:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• The recent trend follows a series of featured article reviews, which claimed that the articles were not comprehensive because they lacked detailed plot summary. Said reviews were placed by fairly experienced outside editors (such as User:Silence), who don't normally edit RPG articles (making it more important to follow). Thus, it is not necessarily our wish to provide such detail (which is NOT fancruft), but not doing it can very well result in getting hit from another (and potentially more brutal, since the FA voters are usually outside editors). So, it's not as simple as it's made out to be here. You know me; heck, I had my four paragraph plot summary of Final Fantasy IV (and my three paragraph summary of Final Fantasy IX) completely rewritten (partially by myself) to be more "comprehensive" as these users wished. And since the articles managed to pass FAC without much resistance to it, the trend was set to be how we'd handle things. Ultimately, it boils down to what is best for the reader, not what's best for editor politics. That is, unfortunately, the achilles' heel of Wikipedia (especially since we're debating featured articles). In all honesty, I'd rather do without the lengthy plot summaries as well (but keep the citations, as this is an encyclopedia), but we must also remember that the current versions are actually a compromise between the opinions on peer reviews and FAs, so they ideally represent what is acceptable to editors on the outside. — Deckiller 02:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

  My point (and I think XNE's point) is that the pendulum has swung too far the other way, and that the example of FFVII, a 90K monster, is being used to make ridiculously long plot summaries for games that are not nearly so plot heavy (Chrono Trigger, for example). The next time someone complains that a four-paragraph summary isn't comprehensive, feel free to let me know so I can make the opposite case. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

  My issue is that if said pendulum overswings in the other way, it would be even more of a problem. You know me, I always like to strike a balance and a compromise; all I did with the Chrono articles was copyedit them, so I can't really defend the length of those articles' synopses (I can, however, say very firmly that the synopses of FF6, FF8, FF10/X-2, and soon FF9 are compromises considering how plot-heavy they are). In the end, though, it's more of a superficial issue; these articles passed FA, so outside editors don't see it as much of a problem (or they have given up; Ryu and myself were pretty hard on all the inclusionists and deletionists who poppsed up to say that the articles were too short/too long).

  I can offer to cut down 20-30 percent of the summaries for CT and FF4, if I can be certain that there will be no more lingering problems about "length". We are here to educate the masses; so, as editors, we must balance all of our organizational ideas to a common point (which had certainly been done with FF6, FF8, and FF10/10-2). If we cut back, we MUST not overcompensate. — Deckiller 03:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

  Well, I'd argue that overly detailed plot summaries do the reader a disservice, to the point where little is lost even when the plot summary is short of "comprehensive". You're ruining the work for readers who haven't already read/played the work in question, while boring those who have. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

  Whereas the arguement for a brief summary is that it doesn't cover the topic on the whole, and readers who wish to gain a grasp of the story in conjunction with the article are often docked major events (and people who have played it will not be able to get an adequete summary as a whole, or make more significant edits). That's why I'm an advocate for finding a balance between informing and overinforming — I believe the plot summary of Final Fantasy 8 is a perfect balance thereof. If we can mold articles around that style, I think it can be a fitting compromise. The key is to inform, but not cut so much to let ignorant wikipoliticians get their way, and not include so much that your arguement comes into play (which I really only think is an issue with the summaries of Chrono Trigger and maybe Final Fantasy 7)— Deckiller 03:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

  This isn't going to have any bearing on the argument, but as a former lurker (ages ago), I always appreciated it when an encyclopedia had more than two or three paragraphs of plot summary. A lot of film entries basically echo the plot outline given in the press kit and do not reveal the resolution, major arcs, characters, etc. These seem like things that must be included an an encyclopedic article on a fictional work. Not arguing for expansive blowouts here, but perhaps we could set out some guidelines? Like, CVG articles should cover major plot arcs, major character development, and major events in the game? And perhaps we could note that editors should exclude sidequests or plot jokes? --Zeality 16:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I have had to add the {{toomuchtrivia}} template to virtually every Sonic game article going. According to WP:AVTRIV the guidelines are not about the trivia in articles, it is to do with trivia being in articles at all (or as I informally call it, the War on Trivia). The guidelines suggest that trivia sections should be avoided and be merged into the article or deleted off the page (or better yet, of the idea of a project like Wikitrivia gets off the ground, moved there). Too much trivia on a page according to WP:AVTRIV is regardless of how much trivia there is on a page, it should all be merged or removed. I love reading trivia on games, but I think the time is now where it should be moved to another project (a la Wikitrivia?). --tgheretford (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

A project for trivia? I certainly hope that doesn't exist on Wikipedia ever. Trivia is a problem on Wikipedia now, and a project for it wouldn't help matters. The only useful trivia project is one that is used for cleaning the sections, not helping promote it. People need to realize Wikipedia is for encyclopedia content, not every little trivia note that they think is useful. In my opinion, trivia sections should be completely banned from Wikipedia altogether. They seem to be just sections for random things that don't fit anywhere else. If it's useful: add to the article itself. If it's not useful: don't add it to the article ever. Wikipedia isn't a fan's guide for every little detail. RobJ1981 23:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood my point, I was refering to the idea being coined where trivia would move to a project completely separate from Wikipedia in all regards, like Wikiquote is for quotes for example, or gaming guides to one of the separate gaming Wikis for example (technically if all trivia should be banished from Wikipedia - wouldn't the Department of Fun's Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense sections all be ripe for MfD? I'd hope not! ) --tgheretford (talk) 00:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I see two fabulous ideas here: First, the WikiProject: Trivia integration, whose sole aim would be to hunt down trivia sections, integrate what they can in the article, and sort the interesting, relevant, sourceable facts from the basic fancruft. Second, the Wikitrivia. That could be a great place for all the fanboys and fangirls to breathe a little, and rave about the subject of their passion in very tiny, but oh-so-amazing detail. Any support to these two? Does anyone know where I can post the idea for the wikiproject?--SidiLemine 11:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you go here. Note you have to create a new account for the Meta Wiki site, from what I gather. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of the script citations either: it inflates the references section, making it difficult to pick the real references out. I think the overall mess can easily be remedied with a single citation, such as the game itself or a link to the full game script (and there are plenty). This was, in fact, suggested during the FF4 FA nom. Since this may mean that a single source is bloated with an entire cross-referencing alphabet, you can always consider the versatile "Ibid," which takes up far less space than the quotes themselves. --Tristam 17:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

After cleaning up some redundant information, I noticed the page needs help. It just seems like a cluttered list of North America and Japan releases. I think a split should be made, or the list should be in a table of some sort by year to make it look neater. RobJ1981 21:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it appropriate for this title to be considered a good article? FullMetal Falcon 22:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Too many bulleted lists, and not enough references. It's a very good B-class though, wouldn't take it too much to get to GA. Also, we don't decide if it's GA class, WP:GAC does. Though I and other CVG editors review articles on there sometimes. (I try to avoid CVG articles, I'd feel biased.) --PresN 00:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Can someone figure out what this is and what should be done with it? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

My eyes! It should be deleted, as Tron ni Kobun is the japanese name for The Misadventures of Tron Bonne, a much better article. --PresN 00:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I am TrackerTV from subproject WP:PCP. In the past 2 months, we have received 2 inquiries concerning a name change. The first came from me with no consensus. The second came from User:Atomic-Super-Suit, which mentioned PCP is a drug (as an abbreviation). Would you, our parent, support a name change for three Projects:

• Pokémon Collaborative Project (WP:PCP) to WikiProject Pokémon (WP:POKE, WP:WPP as dab link at top, WP:PKMN dab link at top)
• WikiProject Digimon Systems Update to simply WikiProject Digimon (no shortcut change)
• WikiProject Legend of Zelda series to just WikiProject Legend of Zelda

I think all Projects should be held by a standard name, and should meet naming conventions so they are not mistaken for a guideline page or anything else in the Wikipedia namespace.

Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 05:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT a bureaucracy, last I checked, and, really, who cares? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Two people appearantly. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 06:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Call yourself PCP, it dosen't matter that it's the same as something else. If it really worries you prefix it with CVG-PCP - X201 08:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be at anime and manga? We've got more manga and anime articles than video games articles. Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 09:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

No, no it shouldn't. You have approximately 440 Pokemon articles under CVG, far less than that which would fall under WP:MANGA. I believe the name change unnecessary, btw. --tjstrf 16:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Em, the Pokémon appear in -

• the games

which covers your portion, they also appear in -

• the anime
• the 10 mangas
• the trading card game

So how do they get grouped "under" CVG? Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 11:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Because WP:MANGA primarily defines its involvement in an area by the original media. We cover things which were originally Japanese manga, Japanese anime, and Japanese light novels, and their derived works. This means we don't cover Pokemon, because while Pokemon overlaps with our "jurisdiction" in content, but it is not based on a light novel, manga, or anime series. Similarly, we don't cover Battle Royale because (despite its manga adaptation) it was originally a normal Japanese book, not a graphic novel or anime. --tjstrf 23:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

How bureaucratic. Why not just cover the subjects to which your tools are well-suited? We could really use the help with the largely anime-based articles at WP:PCP. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the most recent discussion the project had on the subject here, you'll notice that I don't exactly agree with the current standards. Personally, I believe the scope should be expanded to include subjects such as Manhwa and published manga based on other licensed properties for the sake of standardization, but I got shot down. --tjstrf 07:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I personally like the collaborative part, as it indicates that it's a collboration. I don't mind either way (though I haven't been contributing to Pokemon articles for awhile). Hbdragon88 03:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi all. I am currently working on renaming a whole bunch of Japanese history articles to their more proper spellings, using macrons. One of the more common examples of this coming up in video games (as many of you are probably aware, and many of you may not be) is in any name that involves "ryū", meaning "dragon." Technically speaking, "ryū", representing "ryuu", is a different spelling and hence a different word from "ryu". What I am getting at is to ask your opinions and policies towards the renaming of such characters as Ryu from Street Fighter and Strider Hiryu. Let me know. Thanks. LordAmeth 13:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

From WP:MOS-JA: Article titles should use macrons except in cases where the macronless spelling is in common usage in English-speaking countries. In other words, the vast majority of CVG articles won't have macrons (including aforementioned examples), because I don't know of any English translations that keeps the macrons. Nifboy 16:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so it's called a macron. I did not know that. Utterly off topic, anyone played Ōkami? ;) Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been trying to use the Manual of Style (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)) to dictate my work on infoboxes in the CVG project, however I've been receiving a lot of annoyed users about this (well not really, but several reverts). I have my date display preferences set for dates in the dd MMMM yyyy format (e.g. 16 October 2006). When users put release dates of games with a subject year (1998 in video gaming for example), it screws up my date display. Is there an official guideline I should follow regarding this? I don't want to get on other user's nerves regarding this. Alex 23:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought we all settled on what is at the main page. Thunderbrand 00:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry bout that. Misread the page. Alex 05:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

While I'm thinking about it - what's the justification for not using flagicons for the release dates instead of the ISO TLDs for country designations - is it accessibility? I'm just curious - don't wanna screw up any actual policy when I'm so passionate about this project. :) Alex 05:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there was ever really a discussion. I just use the TLDs because little images are annoying. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

A previous discussion (now archived) did cite accessibility. There's also issues with multi releases - Canada might be different from the US release, and there might be a few release dates in Europe, etc. Hbdragon88 07:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The previous discussion was archived here. jaco♫plane 11:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I have been adamant in removing information is feel is bordering on being a game guide from Classes in World of Warcraft. Could anyone help me define what is to be kept and not? Do we allow information about how many % in armor a spell gives and things like that? I have tried to keep the article as clean as possible, but it's an impossible task. Any help much appreciated. Thank you. Havok (T/C/c) 10:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

See the main page of the project. Item statistics and lists of minutiae are not encyclopedic. Andre (talk) 01:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Then could someone help me clean it up, seeing as I get flamed and reverted when trying to remove information like this. Havok (T/C/c) 11:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I once nominated this for the GCOTW, but it lost out to some crap like Dead Rising or some minor Final Fantasy character. It then got lumped together with the advergaming article, although the concepts are fundamentally different. Still, better late then never, I've made a bit of a start with the article, and would like others to help expand it. I've left empty section headings as a guidline although you don't have to follow those, it'd also be appropriate to move some of the history of in-game advertising (static ads, such as sponsorship in sports games or crazy taxi) into the lead, and move some of the lead into the section on dynamic ads. I've also written nothing on concepts such as the virtual advertising islands you get in overrated chatrooms such as second life. I don't normally announce new articles here, but this is a big concept in advertising and gaming, and rates pretty highly in terms of importance I believe. It's been a misplaced redirect for so long, I hope we can finally sort it out. - Hahnchen 04:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed that the titles of video game articles are very inconsistent, many have game subtitles in the article titles and many do not. Which one is preferred? Local discussions have taken place in a variety of places, with various outcomes, but there should be a site-wide standard. Personally, I think that all video games that can only be told apart by subtitles should use subtitles (such as The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask) and others that can be disambiguated by number (where the number is the primary distinction, such as Xenosaga Episode II: Jenseits von Gut und Böse) should not include the subtitle. Opinions? —Mets501 (talk) 01:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see this as an issue. Yes, we could change the Xenosaga articles to just the numbers and not the German subtitles, but why? The subtitles are right there on the game's box. Thunderbrand 14:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the standard is to use what the box identifies itself as. People are going to have different conventions regarding the use of subtitles, sequel numbers, etc. To keep it simple, we might as well use what the game calls itself and call it a day. —Mitaphane _talk 15:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

For some reason, Super Mario 64 is up for featured article review again. It's already come through a previous FAR and a removal candidacy, but for some reason it's not very well-liked. It was one of the CVG project's first featured articles and I think it's still a great article, but I guess everyone might not agree with me. Please weigh in on the FAR page. Andre (talk) 01:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:Nintendo franchises has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Andre (talk) 06:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)