Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 72

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 65

←

Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

Should categories also be listed somewhere in the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Video game articles by quality statistics tables? I for one think it would be informative, though I'm not sure where exactly in the table it should be placed. Please respond here. SharkD (talk) 04:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I've got an FAC, but it's not a video game article, so I don't feel justified asking for help here. Nonetheless, I'm short on friends since I've been away from Wikipedia for so long, and I'm wondering if there's any place I can submit the article for quick copyediting attention. It's the best I've written yet, but there are still apparently bones to pick, and I'm really trying hard to get it passed in time to TFA it August 26th. Does anyone have some suggestions? Thanks. After I get this passed, I plan to restore Chrono Cross to proper FA form and get it TFA for its 10th anniversary in November (JP release) or next year (US release). ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 19:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

For copyeditors, check out WP:GOCE first.陣内_Jinnai 00:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 08:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a noticed a few Wii game lists (List of Wii Wi-Fi Connection games, List of Wii games using Miis, New Play Control!) use the US flag to represent all of North America, I have no doubt that there are several other articles doing the same thing. Does anyone else see this as non-NPOV? I think it would be a good idea, if we remove all the flags and replace them with region shorthand (AUS, EU, JP, KO, and NA). Anyone else agree? Also, it would save column width in most of the cases where it is used Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not how it should be, per WP:VG/GL#Release dates. Read up on how they should be done. --Izno (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

those three pages have now been updated. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Zappernapper created {{Pokebox}}, a variant of the VG character infobox in that it's intended to have several of the parameters pre-filled, though the structure is slightly different. User:Artichoker and myself argued against it on WT:POKE, and apparently ZN took lulls of silence as a green flag to "be bold" and force it on every page. His primary argument in a nutshell is that every character in the Pokemon series falls outside the scope of just video games due to them appearing in various other media...despite the counterargument that many other character articles do the same yet use the infobox of their initial appearance.

I wouldn't raise a stink about this, but the box ultimately feels unneeded and harkens a bit back to the day when we had a bunch of mini-pokemon-project templates that did this very similar thing that got TfD'd for limited usage. Currently, less than 10 pages will ever actually use the template, and that number is unlikely to increase. Thoughts?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, here is how it really went. Zap made the {{Pokebox}} using "{{Infobox VG character}}". Then KfM said that it was unnecessary as it was very limited. Then Artichoker said that the "Character infobox" should be used, so Zap changed the template. Then Artichoker said never mind, that the "{{Infobox character}}" doesnt have all the required parameters. Zap diddnt change it back, arguing that the "Character infobox" should be used since Pokemon are in Games, Anime, and Manga. Meanwhile, KfM is still saying that it is very limited and unnecessary. Zap is saying that nobody has changed it on Pikachu or all the other articles, so consensus is that nobody did anything about it, so its fine and should be put on Mewtwo and Jynx, which KfM is protecting saying he is the main contributer. --Blake (talk) 13:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to correct a point I objected the first time badly on Mewtwo. Wasn't trying to imply ownership of the article but that I felt the edit was unneeded. Should've worded that better but arguing with him is very difficult...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

1. wish i didn't have to find out about this discussion through a diff—a comment on my talk page, a response from KFM, or note at the project page would have been nice. Sorry, I rv an edit before i knew this discussion was going on.
2. In defense of "limited usage" we have hundreds of templates that serve to simplify text in the edit window on only a handful of articles.
3. The VG character template is confusing for this topic in that it displays voiceactor information for their video games, when we are referring to the voiceactors for the anime.
4. I implemented the infobox on almost all the articles (except Jynx) after making changes to controversial aspects of the template, and KFM reverted only one (Mewtwo). The rest stayed up several days on high traffic articles without being reverted (Pikachu history). After i brought this to the attention of the project [1], KFM reverted the template [2] and brought his case here.

I have made every effort to compromise with other editors in good faith and engage in discussion but i do not need to suffer being ignored when those editors are obviously active, and then rv on the grounds that "silence != consensus". I could write a template to be used by {{Infobox VG character}}'s inuniverse parameter, but the resulting required code on the article page is ugly and confusing. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 21:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

btw, KFM still contends that pokemon are not a special case, so using my best example, i'd like to know of another video game character that has been in almost every episode of a twelve-year show and 12 movies. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 22:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Yu-gi-oh, while not as long, the monster cards from the various spinoff episodes would probably parrallel. Digimon definalty. Megaman maybe. Sonic the Hedgehog definatly.陣内_Jinnai 00:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

yu-gi-oh and digimon are definite parallels, however neither of them use the vg character infobox. sonic is probably the best argument out there for precedent, but then i could easily counter with Agumon. however i would still contend that simplifying a template to be used across multiple pages would be a better practice. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 02:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Just an outside perspective, I don't see the absolute need for an extra template in this case. Yes, the voice actor parameter doesn't specify that it's for an anime, but then you could just say "(anime)" or "Anime:" instead of creating a whole new template. First episode and manga chapter would be useful if we had individual articles on every episode/chapter, but we don't and I don't forsee that we will any time soon. TCG set seems kind of overkill to me. In all, the extra parameters that Pokebox has don't seem terribly necessary to me. I agree that many, many, many video game characters also appear in companion anime/manga/card games/lunch boxes so Pokemon are not an exception here that would invalidate the use of the VG char-box. Also, Zapper's 4th point seems kind of like a straw man since random readers aren't going to know to have a preference and people who care aren't going to know that a change has been made unless the page is on a watchlist. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

my last point about the fact that no one had changed the article was relevant because no one thought the added information was unneccessary to the point of needing to remove it... no one came upon it and thought "hey this doesn't look like the infobox for Mario, i should change it". Axem, what you are asking regular editors to do is extra work, and requiring them to understand how to use break tags, etc. Pokebox is simpler, but to be honest with how much i've had to fight to keep it, it seems kind of pointless now because any time i saved anyone in the future, just got spent having all these conversations. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 02:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I tossed up a quick stub on the olde tyme classic Dungeons & Dragons Computer Fantasy Game, which I noticed here. Anyone want to help shore it up a bit? :) BOZ (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

On list articles, I have been fixing cases where flags are being used, and I have to one question. When I a replacing Australian flags I substitute them with ^AUS. Should this be representative of Australia? or Australasia? Unless I am mistaken, these games are released in New Zealand too, right?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegreyanomaly (talk • contribs) 19:32, 15 July 2009

Thegreyanomaly, my bad on that -- it was the first time I've ever heard of Australasia before; i thought it was some kind of joke or typo. You may want to use the edit summary to explain what you're doing and why the first time around next time so other editors know exactly what's going on (and don't just revert to what was there before if an oversight was made, like missing a second table on the same page). :) -- Khisanth (talk) 19:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I would think it would be based on context. Nintendo uses the term "Australasia" I believe for regions; I don't know about the others. MuZemike 21:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The peer review for Platine War, an article within the scope of the Military history WikiProject, is now open. The Military history WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 00:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

There are currently five articles at WP:VG/A that have requested A-class assessments. One of which is by User:Kung Fu Man, one of our regular assessors. In the interest of diversity and neutral assessing, some extra point of views would be appreciated so the articles can be cleared from the backlog. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC))

Here's the five articles:

• Music of the Final Fantasy series
• Q*bert
• Nintendo DSi {See discussion)
• MissingNo. (See discussion)
• Mega Man 2

GamerPro64 (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...my main question is, what are we really looking for in an A-class article, especially one that's passed GA assessment?陣内_Jinnai 05:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

According to the WP:VG/A, an A-class article, qwote, "Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described in Wikipedia:How to write a great article. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, appropriately structured, and be well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources. It should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. Only minor style issues and other details need to be addressed before submission as a featured article candidate". GamerPro64 (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

They pretty much need to be better then a GA, but not quite a FA. A-Class isnt really a big deal. They are still listed as GA on most lists. It is just a way to tell which articles are closest to FA. --Blake (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

To add one to the above comments, there shouldn't be any glaring prose, style, reference, or image issues. Give it a thorough read and point out any prose issues you find. Take a look at the sources to make sure they are reliable sources. If you have a hard time finding anything wrong, that's normally a good sign that the article is A-class. That's what I do when looking at A-class candidates. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC))

WP:VG/R has a lengthy list of request for new articles. A hand full of editors have made a good dent in it the past few months, but there are still five sections left over from 2008. Some requests have comments left about the likelihood of creation and any sources that have turned up. Editors looking for articles to create for DYK might find some easy articles to create. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC))

WP:GAN#VGAMES is starting to get a bit backed up. A few reviews wouldn't hurt to keep the list from getting too long. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC))

WP:VG/PR has about 10 VG peer reviews that could use some comments. Many only have a short list of suggestions. Short lists are perfectly fine, but generally do more good when multiple reviewers offer them together. If you don't have time to give a list, a quick copy edit of the article is welcome as well. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC))

Someone has decided to make WP:V rear its ugly head with this edit to SNES. It's trivially easy to actually verify that both Star Ocean and Tales of Phantasia contain 48 Mbit of ROM data: just go to your friendly neightborhood ROM site and look at the uncompressed size of the (good-dump) ROM images (6291456 bytes, or 6291968 bytes with a copier header). But can we find something that passes WP:RS stating the fact? Does the author of one of the top SNES emulators count as an "expert" so we can use this? Or is a 1up.com "blog" by one of 1up.com's staff editors reliable enough that we can use this? Anomie⚔ 20:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Just use the 1up source, the WP:RS drum gets beaten too often without the accompanying blast from the WP:COMMON trumpet. It's a trivial detail. Someoneanother 22:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I do believe at least one of those is mentioned in a Nintendo Power somewhere in regaurds to its size. NO idea what issue it'd be, outside of being before 1997. This is just a many years memomy talking, but if anyone wants to flip through the 1995-6 issues to see, it may help. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a couple books I can check which may have the information. I will have to locate them, however, as I'm in the middle of moving. Go with the 1up ref for now. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, hold up, if you go to this fansite you'll see there's a magazine scan from Gamepro here which states Tales of Phantasia is 48 Mbit. The author, page # and issue are all there to see. That's one down. *sigh* hoop-jumping... Someoneanother 23:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Even better, the same site has a scan of that Nintendo Power issue for Star Ocean, stating the same. Someone track down the webmaster and smooch him. As Gordon Ramsey would say, "done". Someoneanother 23:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! Anomie⚔ 02:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

TBH, you can cite the game itself for that kind of information. This is because dumping the game is not illegal in and of itself for personal and academic use, thus being able to cite that it is such here would be fine as this is for academic use (ie we are trying to make an encyclopedia).
Just because another cite says this and may be doing something illegal or shady does not mean it isn't citable in another manner (see Amiga Magazine RACK which legal was noted as such upon asking for legal advice for citing that website.陣内_Jinnai 08:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I've started a draft article at User:Zxcvbnm/Rune Factory (series), with the aim of merging all the Rune Factory articles into a single series page, which I think should be located at Rune Factory. Since they all have extremely similar gameplay and are mostly low quality articles, they would benefit from the merge.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I like that idea, especially considering Rune Factory Frontier is drastically different. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't like the idea. Rune Factory games have similar gameplay, but so does Mario, GTA and many other series. Just because Rune Factory isn't as important, doesn't mean all games should be jammed into one article. RobJ1981 (talk) 01:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) I have to agree with Retro on this one; a lot of the games are notably different from each other and if an editor took the time, the articles could easily be improved (there's at least extensive reception coverage for each game). The games shouldn't be merged together because they're just low quality articles: I wouldn't be opposed to creating a general series article though, because the games truly have split from the Harvest Moon games. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 02:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Well if they can both meet notability and get beyond start-level articles I think it should have there own articles. However there should still be a main series article.陣内_Jinnai 04:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I've changed it around somewhat to make it more like a series article. Feel free to contribute, with development info or whatnot.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I just remembered that I should have patented this article idea! [3] - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it'll definitely work as a series article in that format, Zxcvbnm– I was thinking we should develop it along the lines of something akin to Mana (series). I'll try to start working on the Rune Factory game articles themselves in the next few days and see what I can do. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 07:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

What is the order we will be listing them? Release date? I ask because the game do have a chronological order so just wondering for when the next game comes out. The New Age Retro Hippie, some of your plot details, specifically those with RFF are completely wrong. Some Japanese press releases and website info says the game takes place between RF1 and RF2 in the same town as RF1, kina like RF1.5 unofficially.陣内_Jinnai 08:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The games should be listed in order of their chronological release date, not their in-game universe order per lists like List of Metroid media. The notes section should be sufficient to explain if a game is a prequel or a sequel, especially in a series with so few games. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 08:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Should these still be listed? It's difficult to restore an article to FA when it's no longer in existence, so it's an odd notice to make. The listed merged articles are Bulbasaur, Goomba, Lakitu, and Torchic for reference.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Wait. I thought Bulbasaur was a full article. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

There was consensus at WT:POKE to move it to a project subspace article and return Bulbasaur to being a redirect until it could be significantly improved actually.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't list them; we don't for former GAs. --PresN 21:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I've removed them. --PresN 21:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

But why not? It could promote people to make the article whole again. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I think they should still be listed. Maybe with an asterisk explaining the situation. --Torsodog^Talk 21:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that they should be listed as former featured articles just like the others, although maybe with some marker like what Torsodog said. They were featured articles at one point; therefore, they are former featured articles, even if they are now redirects. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with GamerPro64 and Drilnoth. If anything else, they should be there for historical purposes. MuZemike 01:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Should we just make a separate section for them on the page then? Something like "Merged DFAs"?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I actually like that idea quite a bit. I take it the section would still use the same icons that the Delisted FAs uses? -- Nomader ^(Talk) 01:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

What about delisted Good Article? GamerPro64 (talk) 02:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The same thing should be done with both, IMO. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

But these been dozens of former GA articles. I can only think about 3 or 4 merged articles. How will we find all of them? GamerPro64 (talk) 02:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Click on them. Are they redirects? If so, then they probably were. MuZemike 02:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've listed the article Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen for peer review here, as I would like to know of any outlying concerns before taking this article to WP:FAC. If any of you could take time to review the article, I would appreciate it. Thanks, Artichoker^[talk] 20:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If anyone has time, please peer review Samus Aran at Wikipedia:Peer review/Samus Aran/archive2, thanks in advance! In particular, I'm looking for more information for the article, but specifically the Reception section. Gary King (talk) 21:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There's currently an edit war about Keiji Inafune's contributions to Mega Man 2. An anonymous editor using a number of IP addresses (basically in 200.74.84.00–200.74.84.255 range) is changing the content and refusing to discuss the issue. Some assistance would be greatly appreciated. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC))

User is clearly edit-warring/violating 3RR via the usage of multiple accounts. If an admin doesn't come here to help, I suggest going to WP:SPI. MuZemike 16:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. –xeno^talk 16:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Semi-protection lifted as underlying IP range has been blocked for 1 week. MuZemike 16:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the prompt response guys. That's been bugging me since I put it up for A-Class. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC))

Update- Actually, can the page be semi-protected again? I don't believe the full range of IPs was blocked. The IP made the same edit again today. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC))

Anyone up for a collaboration on Thief: The Dark Project? It's the most famous Looking Glass Studios game, but it has one of the lesser articles. Several LGS game articles have been brought to FA (System Shock, System Shock 2 and Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss, the first and last of which being mostly my work), so this one should at least warrant a collab to bring it to GA. So, anyone interested? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Wait, SS2 wasn't featured. Could have sworn that it was. Anyway, anybody willing to collaborate? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • System Shock 2 is GA, it did go to FAC though. Maybe that's where the confusion came from.
    User:Noj r worked on SS2, maybe see it he's up for a collaboration. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC))
    • Thanks, I'll do that. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'll help. I've already taken un-needed stuff out of the Story and Setting section and possibly work on the Reception. GamerPro64 (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Anybody else? The more the merrier. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I would but I'm struggling to get at the 4 projects on my plate ATM and there's others further back which need returning to. Definitely a good article to improve though so the best of luck. Someoneanother 19:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem; good luck with those projects. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I asked Vantine if he wanted to help. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Great. Hope he can help. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This user, Ttboy200 is obviously not Wikipedia-material. If/when banned, please delete the bad posts made by him/her, or notify me and I'll do it. --DanielPharos (talk) 10:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this 'user' 218.81.243.124 is in on it too. He actually 'corrected' a typo in a post made by Ttboy200, and is basically doing the same thing. --DanielPharos (talk) 10:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Another one: 58.37.103.169. Say, I'm (kinda) new; is there a better way to report these kinds of 'contributors'? --DanielPharos (talk) 10:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Goto WP:AN for general administrator requests. WP:WPSPAM for spam reports. - hahnchen 11:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll try and memorize those! --DanielPharos (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I sent this to WP:SPI. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ttboy200. MuZemike 20:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

On the article requests page there is a request, under July 2009, for this salted article to be unprotected so that a new article can be created it (requester states that they have multiple sources). What would be the right venue to discuss unprotection or the viability of the sources? Someoneanother 20:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

For an article with that sort of history, I recommend creating it in userspace and moving it over after discussion (here, I guess). Nifboy (talk) 21:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

They already posted it at WP:RFUP, and it was denied due to the lack of reliable sources.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. For those curious the article is already in userspace here, and I agree with the denial. Nifboy (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks you two. That being the case the contributor has been given guidance and the request can be removed. Someoneanother 21:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The peer review for Battle of Grand Port, an article within the scope of the Military history WikiProject, is now open. The Military history WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I can recall seeing a bunch of games that say a game has received 'generally positive' (or along those lines) when its reviews average around 70%. Now, everybody knows the gaming press reviews extremely leniently and a terrible game (that has say great graphics, sound etc. but that no one actually enjoys generally scores 40-70%) will rate a lot higher than a comparably terrible movie. So... has this been discussed before or perhaps something should be done about this? --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 08:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't use a summary statement like that for a game in the 70-80 range, at least, not based on the average alone. It might be justified if there's consensus amongst reviewers, but a game with several 80+ and 60- reviews is mixed reception. Nifboy (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that it is generally the same as the rating on Metacritic, since then that can be used as a reliable source. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd say the content of the reviews should dictate that statement. If reviewers consistently praised several aspects of the game, then it was positive. If they consistently criticized several aspects, it was negative. If the comments are all over the place, it was mixed. This is especially true about games that don't really have scores, like Bubbles (video game)#Reception and legacy and Computer Bismarck#Reception and legacy, but it can still apply to games with an abundance of scores. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC))

Sounds like a can of worms. For instance, I've read at least one article lamenting the overuse of 7/10 as an 'on the fence' score, whereas some sources state that 5/10 really does mean an average game. I also doubt that you would consistently find reviewers who do not get any real enjoyment from games rated 7/10 or below. For instance, the Edge (magazine) review of The Munchables rates it as 6/10, citing repetitive play and the small size of the game, but also had a lot of praise for it (sorry, I would quote directly but the magazine is behind a locked door at this particular minute). It's a very difficult balancing act and I don't see how a cast-iron system can be made for summarizing these scores. Someoneanother 19:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I use the aggregated rating as an overall guide. Usually, a game ends up getting some very positive and very negative reviews, regardless. The average score represents the prevailing consensus.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

This language is borrowed from Metacritic, and I think they summarize 70-90 scores as generally positive. It's understandable that some editors disagree with that labeling, because I think Metacritic's labels are calibrated to movie reviews, which do follow a more linear scoring curve than games. If summarizing the reviews with English phrases is potentially contentious, I think it's acceptable to simply provide the aggregate score and let the reader decide what it means. Ham Pastrami (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Games with 70-ish ratings usually have some fatal flaws that make them pretty unenjoyable, but not unplayable. Games with 80-ish ratings are usually good overall, maybe even great in one aspect, but not good in all aspects. However, I would still consider an average rating of around 80 as "generally positive". Games that are rated 60-70 or below tend to have the "don't play this" reviews.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, i was thinking about nominating this game for deletion for lack of notability, however i never know with old games if im missing something be only doing a quick google search. If anyone could take a quick look around so we could at least suss out a bit more information on the game that would be great or tell me if i should take it to the chopping block, thanks Salavat (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Already had the same thought and have checked for sources (nil that I can find). I noticed that the contributor who started the article's user name is the same of the game's creator, which I'm not worried about in terms of COI but it may well be worth asking if he has access to any magazine reviews etc. Someoneanother 15:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm didnt notice that in the names, im guessing this is the company which marketed it: [4] (not much info on them though). Salavat (talk) 15:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

That's the one, remember playing some of their games back in the day. Someoneanother 16:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Sent the creator a message asking for a bit more information, hopefully he will get back to me in a few days if not ill take it to AFD i guess. Salavat (talk) 11:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Wondering if anyone here can help? Does anybody know whether the above website is reliable? I'm wanting to include some of this information into Bubbles (chimpanzee). Thanks in advance. Pyrrhus16 15:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it was mentioned awhile back to note be reliable, a search through the WT:VG/S archives should dig something up.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. It appears to be an unreliable source per Jappalang's comments regarding it. Pyrrhus16 15:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It can definitely be revisited if need be. However, nothing has changed as far as the site's editorial management is concerned since I asked about that last year. MuZemike 07:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

If possible and applicable, I would like to have more input on the Left 4 Dead 2 talk page about the boycott information. There is a lot being discussed, whither to add a NPOV tag to the section, the removal of the boycott information, and/or rewriting the section to be more balanced. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Left_4_Dead_2 Napalmdest55 (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Currently it has a tiny gameplay section, and basically the rest of the article is just character descriptions. No plot at all that I see. RobJ1981 (talk) 08:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems pretty good compared to most start class articles. The gameplay section looks fine to me. Just delete the superflous sections and condense the character list. I'm not sure what the policy on voice actor lists is, though.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Viewtiful Joe is now up for peer review. Please share you opinions on the article so that it may be improved. ~ Hibana 16:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone want to help expand this article? There seems to be a surprising amount of information available for it, especially development, considering how obscure it is.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

From what I've seen, almost every single article on Sonic is, unfortunately, mediocre. It would seem too much attention is being paid to the character articles, so I would strongly advise that anyone with familiarity to the series do some major cleanup. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd imagine trying to clean up all the character articles on Sonic would be a nightmare, what with all the excited kids creating gamecruft. Maybe all the editors were scared away? I think the Sega task force should be alerted.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a task force? Huh. Well, I'd do it, but I'm off to play Team Fortress 2. Could you?

Oh, and I didn't mean characters, I meant that articles about the Sonic video games are seriously lacking - Sonic the Hedgehog (video game) has no reception section at all. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

This really isn't a problem specific to just Sonic articles by any means...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, but I had been looking through them and noticed this problem. It's also a big problem with Donkey Kong and Mario spin-offs. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

NARH, yes, there is a Sega task force. It was a WikiProject, remember, until it assimilated itself and tried to eat WP:NIN :) MuZemike 18:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well not all the Sonic articles require reception. Just see Sonic Unleashed or Shadow the Hedgehog (video game). The oldest games may be harder to work since some of the websites removed the reviews. See the GameRankings page of the first game. It has some reviews, but not linked.Tintor2 (talk) 03:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I made Sonic the Hedgehog (video game) the collaboration of the week since User:AnomieBOT has not been functioning. It fits the selection criteria and the History of video games article was up for two weeks. —Ost (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

What should be done with this page? It is not really about the characters, but the game. I think it should be at Dragon Ball: Raging Blast, but that page was redirected to List of Dragon Ball video games 2 months ago, because at the time it was deemed non notable. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not an obvious redirect, so I guess deletion is the way to go here.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The peer review for Battle of Dunkirk, an article within the scope of the Military history WikiProject, is now open. The Military history WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 00:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed a large amount of discrepancy between lists of games developed by various companies. Many, such as List of video games published by Nintendo simply headline the console or system and then list each game by year. Others, like List of Square Enix games, use a table that lists the first release along with the developer, publisher, system, and whether it was released abroad. This may have been addressed in the past, but is there a way we could create a table that could be used by all these lists in a similar fashion, just like the standardized infobox? ~ Hibana 02:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

For most normal video game lists, we have use Template:VGtitle which I think would work well for smaller company lists. However, I don't think a table could be created in a style similar to the infoboxes– I think to make the tables sortable, they need to be created at each of the articles like the Square Enix one currently well-versed in Wiki mark-up than myself can feel free to correct me on this). The Nintendo list seems haphazardly put together (uses different formats in different areas), and I feel that the general format used in the Square Enix list would be the version to emulate. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 04:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone own Gameinformer? they made a feature about Thief: The Dark Project in an issue a couuple months ago. I've seem to misplace mine. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Found it! It's a two-page "Classic GI" feature in last December's issue. I'll be happy to provide you with scans if you don't mind waiting until sometime tomorrow. -sesuPRIME 05:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Please. And thanks. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Nevermind. I just found it. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I've just unmerged a whole bunch of articles (around 20) which had been collated into one big 60kb unfathomable super article at List of games based on the Star Wars prequel trilogy[5]. The merge was ridiculous, undiscussed, of no benefit, and self described by the editor responsible as a "failed experiment". I cannot see how putting all those articles together, held together by their Star Wars universe link, could in any way aid navigation, or promote the improvement of those articles. In fact, I'm fairly certain they would have had the opposite effect.

Anyway, what do people want to do about List of games based on the Star Wars prequel trilogy now I've gutted it? And can someone check to see if there's anything I missed on the revert? (I know there's some double redirects, but we have bots to sort those out now) - hahnchen 18:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You could've given me a ring; I'd have done the splitting for you.

Anyway, I think a lot of the merged articles should be deleted or merged; the Star Wars Episode I article, for example, I doubt it could ever muster up enough content/reliability to warrant its own article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought from your talk page, you weren't going to do anything about it. I was mistaken. - hahnchen 18:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I suppose you could separate it into Games based on Star Wars: Episode 1, etcetera.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

That's one thing I considered, but I wasn't sure. I was thinking that we'd have to make a list for each Episode, but then again, not every list must exist. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not want to see these articles merged. You may be able to merge some specific cases, but the vast majority of these articles are notable games in their own right. The articles may be poor, but with some Googling you can easily fill them out - they are Star Wars games after all - so they're bound to generate critique. If you're wary of navigational issues, make a template. - hahnchen 18:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Hahnchen here, the majority of these games are notable and have more than enough coverage out there to warrant separate articles; Republic Commando sticks out to me as the one that makes the least sense to merge. As we all should know, current quality shouldn't be a factor. As Hahnchen said, mere Googling reveals sources for the majority of these, and Metacritic and GameRankings certainly covered the ones I checked up with sufficient reviews. Star Wars games, by the mere virtue of being Star Wars games, tend to rack in press coverage. -- Sabre (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree as well. As someone that is currently working on one of these article to get an FA (Star Wars: Episode I: Battle for Naboo), I know that there is enough info on most, if not all, of these games to at least write up some worth-while "plot" and "reception" sections. --Torsodog^Talk 19:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I think development is worth much more than a good plot section. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Am I mistaken in thinking this is against the NFCC? I've done enough reverting there. Anomie⚔ 01:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You're not mistaken. If you think about it, the logos are an overkill. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Other thoughts are needed on this matter. I fully expect some to disagree with me on this matter and am not simply looking for people to agree, but also consensus. Two editors by themselves going back and forth on this -- whether the article is best titled Fictional character or Character (arts), or whether we should have articles with both of these titles -- is not going to solve anything. Flyer22 (talk) 04:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I just went to the Street Fighter Alpha expecting to find an article referring to the SFA series (ie, SFA: Warriors' Dreams, SFA 2 and SFA 3), but I there found the article for the first game in the series, being there no article with information in common to the three of them. Shouldn't the Street Fighter Alpha article be changed into an article on the series, with a notice at the top saying something along the lines of "This article is about the third sub-series in the Street Fighter series of videogames. For the first game in the series see Street Fighter Alpha: Warriors' Dreams"? Then the article would list the games in the sub-series, and present any information regarding them all as a whole. If this was the case, the same would apply to the Street Fighter II series (which includes at least five games), Street Fighter III (three games), and Street Fighter EX (three games also). --uKER (talk) 03:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I would organize it like this: Street Fighter Alpha (series), Street Fighter II (series), Street Fighter III (series). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Usually it would be better to move the article to Street Fighter Alpha (video game) instead, unless the first game is more famous than the series.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Not saying the sources don't exist to create sub articles, but why can't the sub-series be explained in Street Fighter? It's my understanding that fighting games have very little in the way of actual plot. Also, given the amount of overlap between the development and reception content a series normally has, I'd say a separate article is needed. But I don't know the series that well, so I could be wrong. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC))

Yep, most Street Fighter games don't have too much story. I think the best would working the main Street Fighter article and only create new articles if there are weight issues or enough content for a new article.Tintor2 (talk) 16:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on a collaboration to bring Thief: The Dark Project up to quality status. It's progressing smoothly so far, but several articles that contain necessary information are only available through a Highbeam account or equivalent. If anyone could give me a hand with these articles ([6], [7], [8]), it'd be great. Thanks. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I found [9] and [10] on NewsBank. Can I send them to you in an email? Theleftorium 16:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone care to cast their eye over this: Talk:Third-person_shooter#Tomb_Raider_is_not_a_TPS. bridies (talk) 06:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The general gist of the argument going on at Talk:Knuckles the Echidna is that an element appears in one game and can appear in other games by "Locking-On" the game in which the element appears with the another game, so does this make it a recurring element in the series or is it game guide material? CIGraphix (talk) 23:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you're saying.陣内_Jinnai 00:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's more triviality than gameguide. Basically Sonic 2 and Sonic 3 can be interfaced with Sonic & Knuckles which allows Knuckles to be used in the earlier games and some small tweaks. Well worth mentioning in the Sonic & Knuckles article (whether it warrants the level of detail currently present is another matter), but mentioning these relatively obscure differences in Knuckles' character article is another matter, they're just gimmicks to catch the kids' eyes, like all those nearly identical Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles figures they were churning out back in the day. If these er.. transformations haven't been present in the numerous other appearances of the character in misc. media then it's applying undue weight. Someoneanother 01:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it counts as a "legitimate" appearance...--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I was just too vague, I was trying to keep it general and guide everyone to the discussion itself. The the main question is, is the element of Knuckles super transformation into 'Super Knuckles' a recurring element based on its ability to appear in multiple games in which it didn't originally appear (Sonic 2 and Sonic 3) by using the Sonic and Knuckles game's Lock-On ability? A second question is does a mention in Sonic Chronicles (but not an actual appearance) make it recurring, or would it be considered more like the collectible cards in Sonic Rivals? CIGraphix (talk) 13:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

In that case, it would be more like retconning, and IMO would be recurring. If you're talking about the same thing in Sonic Chronicles, then I would guess that it's part of the plot and therefore legitimately recurring.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If so, please discuss! - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you be a bit more exact than that? That's kinda a helluva broad subject that's potentially going to be as much a mess as the homosexuality one without care. o_O--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

What homosexuality one? GamerPro64 (talk) 02:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

LGBT characters in video games. I ran across it awhile back when working on Poison's article...it's a doozy.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a general article covering racism in games. Won't discuss in-universe racism, at least for the most part, mostly real-life accusations of racism (ie RE5, White PSP ad). - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Somehow I feel that it would be better to use that more in the related articles than a grouped one, especially since, unlike the homosexuality example, most accusations of racism are the reactions of one group to a game or element of a game. Maybe "Accusations of racism in video games" would be better, but even then it's probably better off handled in the individual articles than a grouped one.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Well if this article is made, I demand that it should be at least semi-protected. I don't wanna hear any racist jokes. It could hurt people. :( GamerPro64 (talk) 03:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

An "Accusations of racism" page doesn't sound like a good idea. If a game is clearly racist, it wouldn't fit on the page, and if it's not clearly racist, listing accusations of such would constitute WP:UNDUE weight. A page about racism in general doesn't seem like it would make a good encyclopedia article, since if a game is racist and notable enough for Wikipedia it will probably have a section describing the controversy and be listed on List of controversial video games as well.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That's quite an ambitious project. Certainly doable, but very difficult. I'd say something like this would require very strong sourcing. And not just our normal IGN, GameSpot type sources, I'm talking about print articles from gaming and non-gaming publications (magazines and newspapers), in addition to whatever academic sources are available. That's the only way I can see that avoiding a giant $h!tstorm of negative bickering (not just between us, but among IPs and non-video game editors). Reliable sourcing generally stops most of that, so thorough research would need to be done well before any editing.

Personally, I believe that higher level articles that cover broad topics are best done after the related lower level articles are done. Like working on the individual subjects first (RE5, White PSP ad, etc.), then using those sources to build a more generalized article. I'm taking that approach to Pac-Man, which has probably one of the most diverse legacies I've encountered in an article yet. I'm working on Pac-Man (Atari 2600) and Ms. Pac-Man first, to make the legacy section more manageable.

Good luck with if you decide to start it. Feel free to hit me up for a copy edit if you need it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC))

I'm afraid that, since racism in commercial games is rare, the article would end up being a list anyway. Unlike Portrayal of women in video games (a lot of video games have women), there would be a handful of games examined on the page.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Zxcvbnm is right. It would basicaly be a weak article. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Recently we've gotten the bounties for three articles related to this project at the top of the page...and I have to admit they're a bit of an eyesore being up there. Could we possibly add a slot to the TODO page so they'll still be at the top but less in-your-face? A boon about doing it this way too would be having it show on every vg article as well for anyone that checks since TODO is copied to all of them.

Other than that...Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Assessment/Requests is still backlogged with 6 A-class requests, three of which that need another vote to go one way or the other. If someone could take a gander and review, it'd help.--Kung Fu Man (talk) _TODO_list_proposal,_A-class_assessments_still_backlogged" class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">03:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why we shouldn't– wouldn't it be best if the bounties would reach the maximum number of people? I'll go through the A-class requests in a bit and vote. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 04:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Music of the Final Fantasy series
• Q*bert
• Nintendo DSi
• MissingNo.
• Pokémon Red and Blue

Here's all five A-class canidates (minus Mega Man 2, now an A-class article). GamerPro64 (talk) _TODO_list_proposal,_A-class_assessments_still_backlogged" class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">05:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree Kung Fu. I made an edit to /todo, but if someone wants to tweak that, feel free. --Izno (talk) 06:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I read Music of the Final Fantasy series last week, but got backed up with other things. I'll try to post some comments this week. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC))

I have started a discussion on the possible deprecation of the "Future" templates at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates. Since this project uses such a template, I invite everyone from this WikiProject to participate in the discussion. --Conti|✉ 11:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

An IP claims that Yoshi's Island DS is a remake of Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island. [11][12] Thoughts? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Its wrong. Its a squel. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I havent played the DS game, but judging from what the article says, I would say it is a remake. Sounds like it is the same story and gameplay with added characters and such. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 20:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I've played it to completion. It uses entirely new levels, a brand new plot, new bosses, new gameplay mechanics, etc. Ocarina is more a remake of ALttP than Yoshi's Island DS is of YI. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it? GamerPro64 (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I've also played through both games. It is a sequel—made to play similar to the original game—and not a remake. I'm blocked at work from viewing the source in the lede; what does it say to justify "DS is an enhanced remake of Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island"? —Ost (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the IP is mistaken. I left them a message earlier. – Steel 21:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello everyone. 1up.com reports that Metroid: Other M will be released on December 15, 2010, but they're the only source I know of that gives a specific date; everyone else (including Nintendo) just gives a vague "2010". So... should we accept 1up's date? -sesuPRIME 06:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Nintendo's date is the only one I would trust. Since the only confirmation they've given is 2010, we gotta accept that for now. It'd be nice if it wasn't so vague, though. I look forward to the day they make it official. DesertLynx83 (talk) 06:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't use 1UP.com for release dates, an issue came up in the past where they showed Marvel vs. Capcom 2 as being released well after it already had been for example.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I never trust any date in a gaming website's "game overview" page if they have not published an article that reveals that date prior to it. They're not as bad as vendors that need to put something there for adding to pre-orders, but they are trying to jump the gun if they've not reported their source for the date. --MASEM (t) 13:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, vendors kind of have to do that so they can take preorders, though I've seen some places, like Amazon, don't even bother to put the date until they actually have it. DesertLynx83 (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

In the past day or so, I've noticed that an anonymous user, 81.141.22.84 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) insists on putting several categories related to Super Battle Opera (the biggest fighting game tournament in Japan) to a number of VG articles. He's added Category:Fighting games used at the Super Battle Opera tournament into several articles about fighting games, as well as adding Daigo Umehara to the category Category:Super Battle Opera tournament winners. Kung Fu Man (talk · contribs) has been reverting these additions, but the IP user has reeverted back, claiming they are "important to research" about the games and people involved with the tournament and compares them to categories such as Category:National Hockey League venues and Category:Monaco Grand Prix winners. However, the category pages in question are currently red-linked, and I have serious concerns that even if they were created, both categories would be immediately deemed non-notable by other WP editors and wouldn't likely survive a deletion discussion (with the IP's arguments for keeping them around, IMO, being pretty weak by Wikipedia standards). I'd like to ask for some thoughts on whether or not these categories should be kept. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 11:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Well we don't add categories to the pages for articles on Evo involved games, so doing it for Super Battle Opera didn't make much sense, especially since they can be covered in the parent article apparently.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion in tournaments is not a defining criteria for games. Notable winners should probably be placed in Category:Electronic sports players rather than a tournament-specific category. (Incidentally, maybe that category should be renamed.) Ham Pastrami (talk) 20:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

After discussing with JimmyBlackwing, I think we need a couple of new screenshots to really set it off for GA and better. I have a combat scene from the NES version, but I'm not so sure it's the best; anyone got a better shot of the overhead view?

Also, I need a good first-person perspective shot. I think these are best accomplished as part of the exploration mode - walking around the city or wilderness or whatever, so you see what your character sees. This could possibly also be accomplished with a portrait shot of a player character, or non-combat encounter with a creature or NPC, or whatever you can find.

Jimmy recommends a "robust" FUR for each, and no watermarks. Anyone got anything to help out? :) BOZ (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless their is something notable in with the NPCs, or a particular screenshot is notable in someway for gaining infamy, it's one is usually enough. It shows the level of graphics detail, the basic setup for the game, etc. See Final Fantasy IV which boasts 1 screenshot and one concept artwork even though their are multiple types of possible iteractions.

Don't let me discourage you as I think it can be benifical to have more than one screenshot, but be prepared to defend multiple screenshots. Also a portrait of the hero to show what he looks like is better suited for character articles, if at all.陣内_Jinnai 04:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The player creates the portrait for the PCs, so that might be a good reason to have such a screenshot? BOZ (talk) 06:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

In the gameplay description there are three main types fo screens talked about (maybe 4), one of which is already covered: character creation, combat, exploration and possibly menus (wasn't sure on the last). As I see it, unless character creation is a major part of the game, such as in Darklands (video game), I'd say it can be skipped as its not something that's generally reoccuring or has signifigant impact (Darklands is because you have to create multiple characters multiple times and its fairly complex and involved and has at time signifigant impact on gameplay and starting location). Even then it's still debatable. Exploration, however, is something that is integral to the game. Also since the perspective differs from battle that helps.陣内_Jinnai 06:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the exploration screen is probably what I'd need most. BOZ (talk) 12:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I managed to generate multi-panel illustrations for the Champions of Krynn and Death Knights of Krynn by using DOSBox and making screen captures while playing the game, then merging the images into a single file. Yes I had to cheat a little by downloading the game from abandonia and copying the rules/journal over the net. But the games were only available on floppy, so that's the only way to get them these days. Why am I still playing those old clunkers, you ask? Well nostalgia I suppose; I used a Mac back then and only some of the gold box games came out on the Mac. Plus I'm waiting patiently for DragonAge... :-) —RJH (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, can I just get like five people to say that without proper creation information and reception information Captain Falcon does not currently require an article? I don't really want to edit war, so I need something that resembles an actual consensus rather than the original flimsy merge discussion. TTN (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually surprised there is an article on Falcon, given he's pretty much a racer in F-Zero and beyond that a character in Smash Bros. But yeah, without creation and reception info it fails notability and doesn't require to be an article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesnt really look like much of an article, and where it redirects to looks like it is really well written and well referenced. I say merge. He isnt really a big character outside of Smash Bros. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge. He's a common element, but there's nothing about him with development or reception on the Internet... --Izno (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, merge until if and when real world information is found. bridies (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

There's not really much notable info. Falcon....merge!--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Strong keep. All the other characters in Super Smash Brothers. He even has articles in Spanish and French. By the way, have any of you even bothered to read the article, which is just like a version of the article that achieved good article status (except for the addition of a Brawl reference and the elimation of all the red stuff). Honestly, if you're gonna delete something, delete F-Zero instead of the Cap...he's more well-known, and his article achieved good article status. I do not believe that any article should fall from good all the way to deletion. If this was about a character in a TV show instead of a video game with similar viewership, this would not be happening. I also believe that this discussion is unfair to be had on anything but an AfD on the article's talk page. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

"If this was about a character in a TV show instead of a video game with similar viewership, this would not be happening."

Tell that to the anime department.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to make a few points. 1. Plenty of characters in Smash Bros dont have articles. 20 out of 45 to be exact. 2. The article isnt getting deleted. It is getting redirected to List of F-Zero characters#Captain Falcon, which is a very nice looking section. Most of Captain Falcon's article is very trivial stuff that doesn't need to be there. If you cut down all the unnecessary stuff, you would get what is in that section it is getting redirected to. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

My point is that millions and millions of people, including many that don't watch anime, have played Super Smash Bros. Super Smash Bros is to video gaming as The Simpsons are to TV. Many of the Simpsons characters have the, yet a great many SSB characters don't. Why? Because it's a video game, and there are those on Wikipedia (mergists mostly) who want to toss a lot of video game articles. I stand for Strong Keep. Stand with me. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: Though only 25 of the 45 have their own articles, all of the other 11 in all three SSBs have their own articles. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Shouting "Strong Keep" over and over again does not paint a positive image of yourself. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:Notability, WP:FICT. Those three should give you an idea on how things work around here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

In most of the AfD discussions I've seen, the action recommended is always bold like that (i.e. strong keep, weak delete). Remember, I wanted this run like an AfD discussion (which you can run for merging as well), not a straw poll/speedy redirect like it's being run (I believe it does not merit the criteria for speedy redirect). By the same logic, almost any other character could be deleted. And what of the fact that this is one of only two characters in the original SSB (Ness) to not have their owb articles? Don't treat me like I'm a noob...I've participated in Wikipedia for quite awhile now, and I have participated in quite a few AfD discussion (almost always on the splittist side). Purplebackpack89 (talk) 20:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Well yes but you don't need to keep repeating "strong keep" we got that that's your stance already. Look nobody is going to argue Captain Falcon isn't notable as a character in its series. But there's real world notability that serves as a guideline for whether or not a character has an article. There are many characters from Tekken, Street Fighter, Soulcalibur, Guilty Gear and other fighting games that don't have articles: the reason is because they haven't established any real-world notability, or that nobody's tried finding sources.

To establish notability for wikipedia, check reliable, third-party publications for sources. That'll be the ticket. WP:VG/S has a list of reliable sources. It's not bias against the subject whatever the case, just maintenance and progress.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

This isn't an AFD discussion, it's a consensus discussion and is not as formal, e.g. an admin doesn't choose directly what to do. If you believe that Captain Falcon has reliable sources then get someone to rewrite the article. I just added a bunch to Phoenix Wright (character) which was merged previously. Merges aren't permanent, they're reversible, and we're not trying to delete it outright (which you're suggesting by saying STRONG KEEP!!11!), just merge until there are actual sources.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I ran the custom Google search on WP:VG/S. Falcon isn't mentioned anywhere relative to reception or development, which is the basis for my merge earlier. If you're going to find that information, it's going to be in print... or not in print, as I suspect is the case. --Izno (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Purple, you need to understand that all 11 (10 - Ness doesn't have an article) are better quality articles. Captain Falcon shouldn't be separate because it lacks what the other Smash articles have. And your comparison with Simpsons again fails to take notice that the many split articles about The Simpsons characters discuss their creation and reception, while Captain Falcon does neither. That is why it should be merged. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

OK...dogpile on Purple! So what I'm hearing is that there's been a shift in the criteria for being an article since the Cap made GA? Say, would anybody be adverse to me creating an article entitled Characters in Super Smash Bros.? It'll be way better than that cheesy table they've got now. You can probably find the article at User:Purplebackpack89/Characters in Super Smash Bros. Dogpile on Purple! Hit when down 15:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to make that, because they all already have articles and/or sections in character lists about them. This would just create an unnecessary page. The table is there to direct you to the characters to learn more about them. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No such thing as an unnecessary page. Redundency helps people who think differently can find information. When I finished it, I'll mention it here, and hopefully you'll come round to supporting it. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 23:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I am just letting you know in advance that this is a wasted effort, as there is no need for such page. The table is already at the Smash Bros. page, and the characters's info can be found in their respective article or section. Any information on them for Brawl can be found there as well. This wouldn't make it as an article, because it probably wouldn't have sources to support it. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 00:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Did my redundency effort fall on deaf ears? Besides, there are plenty of other lists that are like that. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 01:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• sigh* What would be the purpose of this list? What does this have that the others dont? It will be a copy of information, and will be a burden. Other lists have information that only they have. Such as a list of characters unique to their series. This is why the Super Smash Bros. (series) page has information on things such as Master Hand, and Tabuu, while only having a table of playable characters. I hope you understand what I mean. Repeating information that is already on other character pages is silly. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 01:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

There's another word for what you call "dogpiling", and it's "consensus". Playing the victim doesn't work when you can convince any number of editors to change their position if you have a good argument. In fact there is such thing as an unnecessary page (See WP:NOT for all the types of unnecessary pages). The Characters in Smash Bros. list will obviously be deleted because all the characters in the game are cameos from other games. There are no original characters, and therefore no need for a duplicate list. Redundant pages are usually deleted to avoid confusion.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, nobody gets that people think differently. That's why we can't always put information in just one place, and why mergists are all wet. And BTW, under the not...not a democracy. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 02:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not a democracy - it's about the arguments, not the number of people who "voted". This isn't about a vote count, it's about that Captain Falcon doesn't have anything at all that makes it deserving of being amongst the ranks of many other quality video game character articles. The reason WP:NOT includes the democracy line tells people that the popular vote doesn't win, but it's the best argument that wins. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Say, has anybody actually bothered to read The Smash Bros Characters before shooting it down? I think it compiles lots of information that people would have to go to 5-10 different sites to find, and I'm only about a quarter of the way done! Very useful. And stop treating me like a little kid, Blake. I personally thought "It was a good article, it shouldn't be deleted althougher" was a good argument. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 03:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It is a delisted GA. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

And I'm not sure the point of the list you're proposing. It doesn't need to be split from the series page, and we deleted the original SSB character list because it just repeats info from other lists. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's what I envision--synopsis of how the characters work, than a paragraph or two on each describing their history before SSB and what they do in SSB. Right now, that information is scattered amongst 40 different articles. I think it would be useful to the casual gamer to have all that stuff on ONE page (and if it can be useful to ONE person, it's worth it...there's no limitation on space that can be devoted to articles here). Here's what Luigi's blurb looks like (this can also be found at User:Purplebackpack89/Characters in Super Smash Bros., if anybody ever goes there):

Luigi is Mario's brother and has appeared as a sidekick or 2-player option in most of the Mario games (though in Luigi's Mansion, he appeared as the protagonist). He is an unlockable character in all three Super Smash Bros., usually one of the easiest to unlock.

Luigi's attacks and attributes are very similar to Mario's, with slight variations (For example, Luigi's fireballs are green and he jumps higher than Mario). Luigi's Final Smash is a psychadelic dance.

38 more of those. That's the article. Maybe redundant, but centralized. Where can I get a copy of this original article? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 04:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Your idea addresses no problems with the article. Any reception would be effectively copying/pasting content that should be in the main article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Which article? If you mean Super Smash Bros., that information isn't there. If you mean Luigi, the point is if somebody wanted to find information on another character in Super Smash Bros., they'd have to go to that article. And some of the character articles (such as Mario's, Luigi's and Link's) are so stuffed with information, they'd have to read half the article before finding it nestled in the middle of some section. This condenses parts of articles in an easily organized format. Honestly, you're putting far too much burden of proof on me and are kinda being in bad faith. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure GameFAQs exists for a reason. And bad faith? Huh, silly me - to be in good faith, I suppose the only option is to put the burden on me to prove your article a bad idea, rather than you put proof forward to show it's a good idea. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha. That's kinda the rule. You're welcome to edit it if you want. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 04:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you really sure that their appearances in that specific game - Super Smash Bros. - are notable enough in the real world to require an entire list? It's clear that overall they're notable, but to make a list like that work, you'd have to have extra information that wouldn't fit in the main article. Right now all you have is game guide information about their attacks and such, which will quickly be shot down. Luigi's attacks and attributes are very similar to Mario's, with slight variations (For example, Luigi's fireballs are green and he jumps higher than Mario). Luigi's Final Smash is a psychadelic dance. would be considered fancruft since no reader who doesn't play SSB or is planning to play SSB would actually be interested. REAL-WORLD NOTABILITY means mentions in secondary sources. News, articles, reviews, etc.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sure. Stop lecturing me like I'm a little kid, I know what that stuff is. And you're forgetting I have a summary of their previous work. It seems like all you do is shoot my ideas down. Bad faith. If you want to merge all the facts I have in the article (WHEN IT'S FINISHED) into Super Smash Bros., go right ahead. You'll find that the article is way too long (it's kinda long already) and will need to be split. This so-called fancruft about attacks and all that appears in many video game characters' articles. By the way, I don't believe "cameo" is the right term for their appearances...a "cameo" is what Tails makes in the Green Hill Zone, not what Mario makes in the Super Smash Bros. series. They are characters in Super Smash Bros. just as much as they are characters in their respective games. Also, most people who have played Super Smash Bros haven't heard of many of the characters and games there. Having all this info on the character page would make it much simpler for everyone Purplebackpack89 (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

People can easily see information on these characters if they just click the link on the table. It doesnt need to be displayed on a page with everyone's attacks and such. We are trying to say that without reception on them in Smash Bros, this article wont make it out. Even then the information you might find probably will just be split to their respective articles. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

...Of which there are 40. And it's not easy, as some of those articles are 30k or more. Why read through 40 articles when you could read one? There's loads of reception on SSB, and therefore there's reception on the characters (Remember that there doesn't have to be reception on every iota of an article, just some on the article's topic. I do know Wikipedia policy a lot more than you guys are willing to give me credit for, I just interpret it more fairly). Purplebackpack89 (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I've gone through all the reviews. There's very little worthwhile commentary on the characters. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 15:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to make sure that this isn't just my computer. Can anyone else open any of the links here at IGN? -- Nomader ^(Talk) 01:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Not just you, seems they're dead. Web Archive might be a good backup though.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I just tried the archive and it archived only the ads that appeared before the page– when I tried to go forward to the actual awards, no archive of the page existed. Thanks for the tip though. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 01:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it's the same for you two, but I can open some of the links. They aren't all dead. --Torsodog^Talk 16:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I can open the Action, Adventure, and Multiplayer awards; I was hoping to see the Racing one, but alas I suppose some things aren't meant to be. I tried it on a different computer to make sure it wasn't just my hardware or my browser, but it seems it's the site and not me. Thanks for the help, though. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 21:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I noticed a few recent merger discussions being conducted on this page (#Need outside opinions for Blastoise, #Lord British, #Captain Falcon). Personally, I prefer #Some input, which links to existing discussions. Help:Merging#Proposing a merger recommends using the Talk page of the destination article. One reason is that previous discussions should be easy to find, to avoid rehashing the same points. The discussions here should be linked from the articles' Talk pages.

I stress that my comments do not invalidate or weaken these discussions in any way – they're just things to keep in mind. Flatscan (talk) 04:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I totally agree. This place isn't open enough Purplebackpack89 (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

There's a search option here so that you can search through previous discussions on this page...not to mention that it's open to everyone, these aren't some kind of back room dealings.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the project and its talk pages are rather transparent. We've got nothing to hide here.

But linking discussions together to and from here would be a good practice to implement. Getting outside viewpoints doesn't hurt, but letting discussions splinter and deviate would hurt. Thanks for the suggestion Flatscan. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC))

While that it is true that discussions here are not secret, discussions exclusively here don't help editors with articles on their watchlist. It would be considerate to note that a merge discussion is occurring here, at least if the article has been given a merge tag. —Ost (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

A merge tag alone should be sufficient if its Discussion link is specified properly. The tag on Lord British points to its discussion on this page. Thanks all for considering my comments. Flatscan (talk) 04:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Brought this up on the template's talk page, but {{cite web}} is omitting the p. (or pp. in the case of multiple pages) from the displayed reference. Can someone with admin access take a gander at it and see what the kink is?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I peaked at the source, and I have no freakin' idea, but based on the listings, I'd say the error has something to do with {{Citation/core}}, as that's where the page listing comes from. Rather, something to do with how cite web interacts when it calls citation/core. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 23:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the necessary markup. Here are a couple test cites:

• Cite 1: Multiple Authors. "Wikipedia". p. 16. Retrieved 17:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC). {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
• Cite 2: Multiple Authors. "Wikipedia". pp. 20–33. Retrieved 17:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC). {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

— KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I just finished going through the source and I was going to leave a comment as to what needed to be fixed. Thanks for beating me to it and making the change. —Ost (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been going through some of the games from the 2005-2006 period, which is when the two companies merged. I'm having a bit of trouble finding consistency in how the companies are attributed. First, it seems that in certain regions, the "Namco Bandai" label isn't even used, and games continue to be released with plain old Namco or Bandai labels, or some mix of all three. In fact it seems like NA is the only region that consistently gets "Namco Bandai" labels, though most of these turn out to be games that would otherwise be from the Namco side (most of Bandai's games never get localized). For example, Namco Museum DS has an NB label for the North American box, while it carries the old Namco label in PAL regions. Despite having merged, it seems like the two halves of the company continue to operate independently, along with the internal divisions that both companies previously had (e.g. Project Soul and Tales Studio still exist within Namco). One could argue that both companies are owned by the same "Namco Bandai" umbrella and should just be counted that way, but that doesn't seem like the best way to attribute the game makers -- for comparison, is Starcraft 2 considered a "Blizzard" game, or "Activision Blizzard"? Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I would say that if the first English release uses Namco, we should use Namco. And IIRC, Activision Blizzard is an umbrella company, so Blizzard games are Blizzard and Activision games are Activision. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, Blizzard develops its own games and Activision its own. --Izno (talk) 07:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Judging from their websites, it doesn't seem "Namco" exists as a video game subsidiary anymore (there are some Namco Inc. and Ltd. around but these are arcade game subsidiaries). From what I can tell only "Namco Bandai Games" exists, even if a "Namco" logo is used in Europe and Japan. Note that a logo is not necessarily the same thing as a company's name; Square Co. used to have a "SquareSoft" logo in Japan for instance, even though the company's name was Square Co. in Japan. So I think Namco Bandai Games should be used. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 09:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated Final Fantasy IV for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. The Prince (talk) 12:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone here dealt with trying to merge any of the Lists of Grand Theft Auto characters? I'm trying to get an idea of the potential fan backlash. I really haven't played many of them besides IV, but if the characters in that one are any indication of the status of the rest of the series' characters, there is no need for any of the lists. TTN (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

That looks like a lot of work, considering there's so much information in each article that it'd have to be trimmed serverely. I can see the list of minor characters in GTA IV being deleted, though. I don't know about the list of gangs.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been sprucing up Turok: Dinosaur Hunter, and I've about exhausted the print sources I can access. I didn't see anyone listed with magazines that contained info on Turok in our ref library, but I'm just putting it out there: if anyone has any print sources or magazine articles/reviews for Turok, send 'em my way (btw the article is at peer review here so if you have comments, let me here them.) Thanks, --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone that's good with the mechanics of Wikipedia, is it possible to place a table (in this case Template:Video game multiple console reviews in Lego Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy) in the horizontal center of the page? I only know how to do that with text. Tezkag72 (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Centering a table that does not take up the majority of the width of the page generally looks bad; the only reason that it couldn't run on the side right now is the box is crazy wide. I replaced the stars with numbers, which makes the box not overpower the text so much on my monitor, but you may want to consider breaking it up into two boxes above each other. --PresN 21:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It does take up the majority of the page width; that's why I chose to use Template:- to not let the text wrap around the left side. But you're right, that would somewhat overpower the text, and that could very well come up in the FAC. So, I've kept it how you made it. Tezkag72 (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you just leave it like it is? It looks fine...

You could put the template inside this Wikitable though.

--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but it just makes the text big. Tezkag72 (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The table really shouldn't be centered. The focus of the section should be in prose, the table is only there to aid the prose, not to overpower it. BOVINEBOY2008 22:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It should be made collapsable if it's detracting that much from the prose.陣内_Jinnai 23:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Collapsing the template does not resolve issues with regard to width—only height. SharkD (talk) 20:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the fact that I think it's fine is because I have a 1680 width monitor =P On my screen it looks better left to the side.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fine (not optimal, mind you) at 1024x768 as well. Another thing: Metacritic's Metascores are not percentages. They're just numbers. SharkD (talk) 05:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Previous discussion

There was a discussion about this before, but I'm going to bring this up again. According to the guidelines, every VG series page must be disambiguated with (series). However, there are a number of pages where the series article doesn't have a disambig (Final Fantasy), etc. and other pages that do (Legend of Zelda). In my opinion, the series article should always take priority and never be disambiguated, due to it being of a wider scope and representative of the franchise. How can a game be more important than the series containing the game itself? Is there a distinct reason why the Legend of Zelda (series) article should take second fiddle to the less important first game? There should be a more specific guideline established.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that the game should say The Legend of Zelda (video game). Someone linking to Legend of Zelda will most likely be wanting it to go to the series, not the game. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, the original discussion is here. Apparently they decided that the main article space should be for the first game, because of a vote, with kind of a shoddy rationale - that the "series" explicitly clarifies that the page is about a series. On the other hand, it doesn't address the matter of importance at all, only delving into what people would be "likely" to name it as. Another suggested idea was a case-by-case basis, but that doesn't seem to work - there's too much confusion.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to be consistent. Assuming no other disambiguation problems, WP:NC suggests that the topic that is most recognizable at that name should be at the non-disamb title. For some games/series, this is the series (things like Zelda or Final Fantasy). For others, it's the first game (Ratchet & Clank, Dark Cloud, etc.) Basically, all we can do is advise to consider what is the most likely term people are searching for when you refer to a game or series, and make a decision. To spell this out any further is going to violate other naming rules. --MASEM (t) 04:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

How do you know which title is the most recognizable, if it differs from person to person? WP:NC does not take video games into account, where a game can also be part of a series with the same name. Making a decision every time is a waste of energy.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

That's why WP:VG has its own naming convention page. You're right, we shouldn't have to decide every time, hence we follow the conventions and append (series), if only for simple naming/chronological reasons. The video game is actually called The Legend of Zelda, and was from the start. The Legend of Zelda (series) didn't start until Zelda II (can't have a series until you have more than one) but even then, afaik Zelda II didn't use the The Legend of Zelda moniker. At any rate, someone at Nintendo would likely refer to the series as the "Legend of Zelda series" and the game as "The Legend of Zelda," which thankfully meshes with our current naming conventions. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 16:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• It's difficult to create a hard-and-fast rule to cover all the intracacies of naming and take into account the difference in cases. This thread appears to be related to a present case at Talk:Mass Effect#Page move. Personally, I think that for now, "Mass Effect" the first video game) should hold the primary use and "Mass Effect (series)" is fine where it is - there's less than 3 games in the series and only a handful of other-media. Compare to Gears of War / Gears of War (series). –xeno^talk 16:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• There is maybe one pattern that can be used, when looking through Category:Video game franchises, and that has to do with the success of individual games from a series.
  • If it is the case that a majority of all games (loosely defined) are considered significant and popular video games, then likely the series is also significant and popular and moreso than any particular game - thus the series should get the bare title.
  • If, on the other hand, it's only the first game that has the significant impact and followup games are interesting, but do not have the success of the first, then the first game should have the bare title.
• It is not perfect, but spot checking on the category gives about an 80% success rate, using a subjective assessment of "successful" titles. Or considering an easier test, if you ask yourself the hypothetical question, "What do you think about that (name) video game?" and you have to answer "which one do you mean?" then the series is most significant. --MASEM (t) 16:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• I personally prefer games over series for the simple article space. When I hear a name alone, I generally assume it's referring a game and not a series. --Remurmur (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The system that's in use now says that, since having a page marked (series) is clearer than having one marked (video game), the former should be the case. However, this contradicts the usage of disambiguations in Wikipedia, namely that the name itself contain the disambiguation page and link to all other articles. I consider the series article a type of "disambiguation page" for the rest of the series. If the video game is placed in that spot, we have to put dablinks on top of all the pages and the series page gets overlooked.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
    • This confused me, sorry - do you mean to make The Legend of Zelda what The Legend of Zelda (disambiguation) is now? ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 22:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Actually, The Legend of Zelda (disambiguation) is really unnecessary. If a game series needs a disambiguation, that purpose should be served by the series page in the base namespace (e.g. The Legend of Zelda). Most games don't have separate disambiguation pages, though. Here, I've made a diagram.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
        • I'm going to bold kill that dab page with fire. I agree; it serves no function and is basically a copy of the Zelda navbox. On the topic of this discussion, I disagree that there should be a hard and fast rule about which way to go and that it should be discussed case-by-case. Some series are long and thus the series should take priority. Others are shorter and younger so the first game should. The closest thing I could see to a good VG-MOS guideline would be to say series with at least X number of games should put the series in the main slot, while those with less should put the first game in the main slot. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, when I type a game's title in the search bar I'm looking for the article about that game, not a series page. It might be ideal to send readers to the series page first, from which they can then go the first game if that's what they were looking for, but the point is the series page isn't where they may want to go. The way things are set up now is what the average person expects: type in a game title, go to a game's article. I believe a change to this system would at best be somewhat inconvenient for those who don't expect it, and at worst misleading or confusing. If a change had to be done, I'd rather it be on a case-by-case basis. -- Commdor {Talk} 20:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • One thing to remember is that every case that I'm aware of, whether the series or game has the non-disamb. title, there is always a template like {{otheruses}} that is employed right at the top to point out the game or series that has the disamb. At worst, it's one more click. --MASEM (t) 21:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Hmm, forgot about that. Still, I think it's better to have each series evaluated individually; small, lesser-known series with only a few games and other media probably wouldn't need it, whereas something as huge and well-known as Final Fantasy definitely does. -- Commdor {Talk} 21:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
      • It's the same number of clicks whether you're using a series article or a dablink. Putting a series article in the main space is more enlightening to readers who have never heard of the series and might be confused when they're directed to the OLDEST game in the series. Face it- if a series is notable enough to have its OWN PAGE, then that page should take up the most important spot!--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
        • There's a notability requirement for series pages? I thought they could be created as needed for any series, that's why I made Gears of War (series) a while ago. That particular series is certainly notable, but what if it hadn't been? Then I would have been making a series page for a non-so-notable series. By your definition, if a series page exists, the series itself is notable and thus the title change is warranted, but I'm sure there are many lesser notable games. Again, I think the number of articles in a series should be the main factor taken into consideration if this is done at all; I still believe when I type a game title in, I should get the game, not the series. I suppose I'm choosing simplicity over enlightenment. -- Commdor {Talk} 02:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
          • So, how about a guideline that says "If a series has ___ or more notable games or other media, it should be placed at the base namespace. Otherwise, it must be disambiguated at "series". For the number, I suggest 4 - either 3 later games in the franchise, 2 later games and one piece of media, etc.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That sounds workable. I could agree to this if such a guideline were in place. Four would be a good number, all of the big new series seem to get trilogies, novelizations, comic books and so on. -- Commdor {Talk} 03:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll add it to the guidelines - if anyone wants to make the number larger then we'll decide by consensus. Actually, I think I'd change the minimum requirement to "3 games and at least one other game/media item" since a franchise is usually bigger than a game and its sequel. I'd be OK with 4 games, or two game/media items, if anyone objects. Another thing - most people aren't familiar with the (series) disambig, so they'd probably type in the name of the series when looking for the series.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yet ANOTHER reason why the series page should go first: when a character or other item is being disambiguated, such as Link (The Legend of Zelda), that would be referring to the game rather than the series, unless you'd disambiguate it Link (The Legend of Zelda (series)).--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If so, [13] this guy is giving away a bundle of old magazines, which could help with editing of some articles. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If he's not too far away, and nobody from the magazine project speaks up, I'll grab them. But my wife will probably be quite cross with me accumulating more junk, I'll have to sneak them in the house. Just the magazines then, right? –xeno^talk 16:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Mmmhmm. I'd have taken them myself if I could actually do so, but I'm simply too far away. Shame he won't ship. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 17:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm in Toronto too, but if xeno wants them, I won't stop him. I've got too much junk as it is already, also :) Gary King (talk) 17:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I tossed a mention of them to Retromags, but if anyone's up for scanning them that could work as an alternative too (Tips & Tricks was damn useful for information back in the day).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, not to rush, but it'd be ideal if we could come to a decision of who's going to go pick these up so I can arrange a meet-up between them and the give-awayer. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You should email Xeno to get his details, or ask him if he's going to pick them up. Gary King (talk) 07:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you want to get them Gary? I'm not sure I'll have time to fulfill the requests from editors. –xeno^talk 16:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't really want them though, and I haven't been as active lately as I usually am. New Age, can you take the first step and ask him where he is located? Gary King (talk) 17:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to do this, but if this NeoGAF person doesn't want to go the mailing route, I'll pay for the shipping costs if someone picks them up and mails them to me. I'd hate to see such a treasure trove go to the dumpster. Just out of curiosity... anybody have an estimate of what that ginormous stack of dead trees would cost to ship? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC))

If you put them in an extraplanar chest they shouldn't cost that much to ship. SharkD (talk) 04:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Gary and I have agreed that whoever is closer to the party will pick them up and then we can send 'em on to you. Just to clarify, are you looking for the whole stack (strat guides, etc) or just the magazines? –xeno^talk 17:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... Not sure really. I have a slight collection of strategy guides I don't have the games for anyway. But I worry that would increase the shipping costs. Let me look into shipping costs first and I'll post back later today. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC))

After looking at the prices of mailing large parcels from Canada to the US, I don't think I can afford the costs. Unless someone crosses the border into New York and mails it from there, but I believe that's frowned upon and it is a lot of trouble to ask someone. I guess forget about it. :-( Sorry. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC))

Well, not really, but I thought it might be an idea to come up with a very obscure (but not so obscure) subject to make into a quality article. Might be fun and invite people to make more interesting Wikipedia articles. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Like "fix foo on bar article and get an award"? Or "Get foo article to GA and get an award"? Seems cool. Everybody would be trying to to the same things and end up aruging over who got the award, and who has the most, etc. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 01:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, more like "create foo and make it quality" kinda thing. Like (not tooting my own horn, just drawing a blank of other creations) Burger King Pokémon container recall etc. But that's a good point, that it would create strife over who deserves it (though, I was just joking with awards, it would be just like a barnstar for participation in the article's improvement. But in all reality, it wouldn't be a quick add-on, but I think it's kind of an extension of the bi-weekly project and barnstars. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I have an idea! How about if people are working very hard on VG articles, you give them a barnstar?!?! Oh wait. Thats what they are for. lol. Sorry if it seems like I am being rude or something. I am just in a good mood for some reason. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, first off, we could read the first post sufficiently - I don't know why you discuss "rewards for working hard" when that's absolutely irrelevant to this. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I mean, if someone does make a really good article out of nowhere, you could just give them a barnstar. I dont really see what else there would be other then a custom userbox or something, but they would all mean the same thing. "You did good with this article, so here is something to display on your page." _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

So, you mean, rewarding people for making esoteric articles like the Gears of War controversy, or the Burger King recall? Actually, I'm not so sure it's a good idea, since it might encourage people to make unnecessary spin offs. How about just awarding more Barnstars?--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I strongly recommend avoiding this. Make it a game, and people will treat it as such. As noted, we have barnstars to deal with that if you feel someone has done a good job. --MASEM (t) 03:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This whole idea came from the idea of encouraging discussion of more obscure article subjects, though got clouded by the whole "reward" thing. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It's probably because the title refers to "achievements" rather than "obscure article creation" but, as I said before, usually that information can fit in the original article.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

A nice idea, but like most processes on Wikipedia the execution is always more difficult than we'd expect. Our current system isn't perfect, but it's working so far; we currently have a good collection obscure but encyclopedic articles. I'm sure more will pop up as time progresses. Keep the ideas coming though. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC))

'Sup, gamers? Can someone please create a page for the old Atari game Canyon Bomber? Just create the page and leave the rest to me. Thanks! ^_^--66.177.73.91 (talk) 23:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Your wish is my command. Enjoy editing... — Frecklefσσt | Talk 00:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Now, if only I could write articles for Turtles (video game) and Atari Football...--66.177.73.91 (talk) 01:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Created Turtles, wasnt sure is the mobile game was also a port. Also created the Atari Football page now. Any one have any idea about the turtles mobile game???Salavat (talk) 02:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Senthryl has been going around replacing images of gameplay in video game info boxes (usually arcade games) with images of promotional flyers for the games (such as here). He then removes the cover request from the talk page.

I contest these changes since:

1. Promotional flyers often do not contain representation of gameplay
2. Are not notable, because many players have never seen any of the flyers in question
3. Do not constitute a "cover" as that is normally reserved for boxes for home versions of games.

Everytime this has been discussed before on the project, the consensus has been that arcade game flyers are not notable and don't belong in an article. I just want to see if my understanding is still sound. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 17:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

What's the problem if he's putting the flyer up as an infobox cover and moving the screenshot to the article? Both images are still in the article that way. --Torsodog^Talk 17:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted this is for arcade cabinet games in which there is no official cover art. But I agree with Frecklefoot - the promotion image is being added in addition to the gameplay image but without adding anything new to to justify non-free use. The only possible replacement would be of the game's logo alongside a screenshot, but getting a clean version of the logo can prove difficult. --MASEM (t) 17:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I've stopped doing this as soon as I discovered that this was a point of debate (I thought it was a non-issue). I've asked this question previously at the images department, which seemed to have evoked no response. Before starting to upload these flyers, I looked to see if this was resolved previously. I found another unanswered question in the image department archives, and after this conversation found a debate in the wikiproject archives, which seemed to me to suggest that flyers were preferable. I'd very much like to see what the current consensus is, since the images guidelines don't seem to definitively state how to treat arcade articles. — Senthryl ^(talk) 17:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the last debate, and it was pretty inconclusive. But it did point out that flyers are essentially advertisements, and that therefore their value is pretty negligible, which I agree with. But I'm interested to see what others have to say. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 17:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that Flyers would better to have in an infobox then gameplay. Gameplay belongs in the body of the article, not the infobox. As long as its getting moved and not replaced, it shouldnt really matter._Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 18:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion they are no more or less an advertisement then the game covers and they prove to be a better replacement for the random gameplay screenshots in the infobox. Ultimatly im sure a free arcade cabinet image would be preferrable for the infobox. Also the point that they dont contain representation of gameplay isnt limited to flyers, its also very common for box art. My opinion is they are more or less equivalent. Salavat (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that a flyer is similar to having boxart for home games. Having a single representative game play shot in the body of the article should satisfy fair use as well. It looks to me like Senthry was doing the best thing...but that's just my thoughts. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I support the use of posters and flyers to identify arcade games in the infobox. Screenshots never belong in the infobox in the first place in my opinion.--Remurmur (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

IMO, the flyers are the closest thing to box art that arcade games have.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, it sounds like the consensus is that arcade flyers are preferable to screenshots in the infobox. I guess I was wrong. But screenshots should still be included in the article, not removed entirely. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure there's a clear consensus there? I'm not sure of that. My thought is that flyers are better for the article body to help illustrate the game's introduction to the market, its critical reception, etc. The purpose of the infobox image is to give the most recognizeable representation of the subject in question. For many of the older video games, this is best done with a gameplay screenshot since many of these games didn't have title screens or "box art". Not very many people would be familiar with a promotional flyer for an old game. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I strongly believe the arcade flyer should be used if available. In many cases this also shows the arcade cabinets used (i.e. (Centipede (arcade game)), which is very informative to a reader. A screenshot is better suited for the prose where the elements of it can be best explained right next to the text describing the gameplay, not up front in someone's face when there's little clue as to what all its about.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

KieferSkunk's position is mine exactly. But from reading the responses, it sounds like more editors want flyers in the infobox and not gameplay screenshots. As a fan of old arcade games, the flyers say little to nothing to me, because I rarely—if ever—saw them. I was too busy playing the games themselves and few arcade owners would waste valuable wall space that could better be served with a game cabinet. Arcade game flyers just aren't very relevant. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 15:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's assume we're limiting this to arcade cabinet games in which there is no "box art" but fliers may exist. There are four possible images that can be used here:

• Gameplay screenshot
• Flier image
• Photo of the arcade cabinet
• Game's logo

Now, in nearly every case, these all are going to be non-free content, so we have to limit the usage to what is the most significant to the general user who may never have played a video game in their life.

Given this, I would assert that the best possible image for the infobox goes in the following order:

1. Game's logo - it's the closest equivalent of clear "box art" that we do for PC and console games, and thus should be used if possible.
2. Game's cabinet - it will likely have the logo on it, but may also include identifiable art on the front and sides

And that's it. Neither the gameplay or flier should be used in the infobox to identify the game, because these are both misleading. That's not to say the gameplay screenshot shouldn't be in the article, but it should, preferable, be in the text next to the section about Gameplay as to avoid having the user to scroll between the infobox picture and the text section. Gameplay screenshots are pretty much necessary for any video game to help describe the mechanics.

That leaves the flier, and, in my opinion, a flier image, unless it has some iconic history with it, is never going to help the casual, non-gamer reader gain any further comprehension on the game over the game's logo or cabinet picture and the game's screenshot. As it is NFC, we should not be including these at all unless there is more to say specifically about that flier image. --MASEM (t) 15:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That's an ideal, but in many cases neither is easily obtainable in a clean format, and in all honesty without the body of a flyer a logo can be in some cases confused for a corporate logo. Not to mention if memory serves Guyinblack had a recent struggle over posting an image of an arcade cabinet because of a debate whether it counted as possible for free use or not.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd work on the assuming that an arcade cabinet picture is non-free, since there's 2D art on the side. That doesn't change my rationale: the infobox image doesn't have to be (and infact for most of our articles isn't) a free image, but barring a clean logo, is the best way to identify the game for the causal reader. --MASEM (t) 16:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Well, on one hand, I understand one side of this discussion, that a flyer is closer to box art, introductory art, title screens, etc., than a gameplay screenshot is. It would be more consistent with the general use of such images in articles, and would make for a more consistent (and possibly informative) feel in general. But consider the following points as well:

• Most arcade flyers contain some amount of text and are made for relatively large posters. A lot of them also contain at least one gameplay screenshot, promotional art, an image of the cabinet, a logo (either the marquee logo or something similar), and other elements. Trying to fit all this into a thumbnail image in the infobox seems impractical to me - in at least a few cases, probably the only thing that would show up clearly would be the game's logo, at which point I'd wonder why we didn't just crop the image to show just the logo.
• Is it really such a good thing to overwhelm the reader with that kind of information in the infobox? A reader who isn't familiar with the game and may not have any appreciation for advertising practices of the time may have a hard time figuring out what the point of the image is, and would have to invest a fair amount of effort into deciphering the potentially tiny text (or click on the image to see a bigger version of it, taking them away from the article). IMO, it's better to give them a simple image that represents the game as a whole, and a flyer, despite presenting fairly comprehensive information, only really reflects one aspect of the game's lifespan.

I had discussed something like this previously on a user talk page, and I suggested that if there was a strong consensus to replace the gameplay images in the infobox, that they be replaced with the marquee art or the game's logo from the flyer, rather than including the entire flyer. The idea is to identify the game, not overwhelm the reader. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I sure missed this discussion. Just to throw my hat in, as I think there are some points that should probably be mentioned.

• I believe arcade flyers were mainly used to advertise to arcade owners. After reading a number of them, they basically said, "look at this new game and all its new features that will make you money". I don't recall ever seeing them in arcade either. In short, I'd say they were more for within the industry than for the general public.
• I did have a big headache involving and arcade cabinet image. My understanding of the whole is that most every arcade cabinet would qualify for as a non-free image, making them ineligible for Commons. But we can only upload images we ourselves take, because they are less "non-free" than say grabbing an image off a website or cropping it from a flyer (according to some general, unwritten practice associated with NFCC).
• Infoboxes don't always need to have an image. See Marble Madness.

Personally, I'd like to see cabinet images in the infobox, but if not, I know of no policy or guideline that says identifying images are required. My two cents. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC))

As a side note, although not an arcade game, there is but one game I know specifically that the flyer have mis-information on it. Tales of the World: Radiant Mythology's flyer said players could team PCs of different Tales of series together in the same team, like Cress Albane in Tales of Phantasia with Lloyd Irving in Tales of Symphonia(names and series specified in flyer). However, the game did not include Cress in it and the statement is impossible in the actual game. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 06:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I've been, as of late, frequently editing articles regarding the Prince of Persia series. To give a short explanation, the Prince of Persia series are video games which have been frequently rebooted. The original debuted in 1989 featuring three characters, none of which really spoke or received much background fill-in. The sequel, Prince of Persia 2: The Shadow and the Flame featured the same character list, and filled in a bit of character history. The proposed sequel to the second installment is Prince of Persia 3D, which presumably has the same characters, as well as adding new ones. I really say presumably because it doesn't seem certain; only two of the characters really return, but it's never confirmed that these are the same characters; but the antagonists, etc, are different, and it's in complete unrelation to the previous installments, so it's uncertain if it's really in the same universe. In 2003, the series was rebooted with The Sand of Time, which added a whole new list of different characters. It's in a completely different universe from the previous presumed trilogy, despite sharing the namesake. The Sands of Time characters carry over throughout three games, new characters usually being added in each game. Again, different universe as the previous trilogy, but same namesake. Then the series was rebooted again this past year, and featured, ultimately only two substantial characters. OK, so now you're filled in (sort of; any questions, just ask me), and this is where I need advice.

The first trilogy featured a Prince character, a Princess character, a Sultan character, Jaffar the vizier, Assan (the Sultan's brother), and Rugnor (the Sultan's nephew). If I remember, the Prince character is the only one to really receive any back story. The other characters are really, in a few words, paper thin. The Sultan, Assan, and Rugnor all only appear in one game, albeit briefly. Jaffar appears as the primary antagonist of two of the games. The Prince and Princess characters are the only two to appear in all three of the games. That's not too complicated -- but then you throw in the Sands of Time trilogy. Again, this is a reboot; none of the same characters carry over, none of the same plot devices, etc. That said, the main protagonist is again titled simply "The Prince" (referred to mainly as "Prince" by other characters, but his profile in the game booklets label him "The Prince"). I'll get back to the Prince character issue in a bit. Anyways, again, this trilogy spanned three main games, and a spin-off, as well as inspiring a movie adaption. Arguably the most meaty reboot character-wise. So yeah, now we have two lists of unrelated characters; with The Sands of Time trilogy having a substantially bigger one. Then we throw last year's reboot into the fray. Only two characters were really filled in in the reboot, one being filled in badly (The Prince character). Also, yes, yet another Prince character to throw into the fray; the third unrelated one. But now we have three separate universes, three character lists, but one character page. I wanted to propose splitting according to unrelated franchises; one for the original three, one for the Sands of Time trilogy, and one for the reboot. However, I doubt the originals and the reboot would in any way stand on their own, while I have no doubt that The Sands of Time would have no issues. However, leaving all three lists together creates the obvious issue of confusion: "Which character belongs to which universe? They're all put into the same list seamlessly, how do I tell the difference?" I do believe splitting the one list into three would be a good decision. I just need advice on a good way to do that. Now onto the issue with the Prince characters.

The current article for these three characters features all three put into one article. This produces confusion and clutter, as we're referring to three different characters, but all three characters are referred to by the same title, and possess similar abilities and sometimes, traits. It's very difficult to make it clear to the reader that we're referring to three different characters, and then to follow through with that and be able to keep the reader in the loop in-article; i.e. the reader clearly understands which of the three characters we're referring to throughout the article. Therefore, I believe that the Prince characters' article should be split appropriately. It's naming conventions I'm a bit confused about. Should I title the page, i.e. "The Prince (Sands of Time trilogy)"? That might not be descriptive enough to cover the character through all three games he appears in, though; only one game is actually called The Sands of Time. Then how would we go about naming the other articles, provided we could do that one successfully? The other two universes have no clear plot device that refers to the series of games that it appears in. In popular culture, the first reboot is called the Sands of Time trilogy. However, no such names exist for the other two universes. They are mostly referred to as "old Prince of Persia" or "new Prince of Persia", etc. So that obviously presents a problem. The only thing that I believe is obvious is that keeping the three characters confined to one article is a potential mistake. It would be a mighty feat for any editor to be able to write that prose clearly.

In short, I just need a few suggestions as to how to separate lists of characters that are from different universes, but of the same Prince of Persia namesake. I would also like advice as to separating the three Prince characters into separate articles in compliance with the naming conventions. Thanks for reading. The Guy ^(edits) 03:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't the main list article have individual sections describing the character traits in the different series? Batman has been rebooted as well, that doesn't mean there are articles about multiple Batmen. Conversely, you could split the main article by series and duplicate the characters for each, but with their different traits. As for the naming scheme, "Prince of Persia (date)" and "Prince of Persia (other date)" could work.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of making the discussion sound like an AfD, I'm not sure any of the characters except for maybe the Prince himself (condensed across all versions) should bother going in either a separate article or a list. The games and series's articles' plot summaries (should) do a better job of distinguishing which games are relevant to the plotline, and the one sentence in the plot summary relating to any given character doesn't really justify a list entry. Nifboy (talk) 03:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Generally you shouldn't seperate characters if they are essentially the same. I had similar problems with Popotan which was a visual novel with an anime adaptation that used most of the same characters, but in different circumstances entirely and the general consensus was after discussing it on several boards was to move them to List of Popotan characters divide format them with description first, then followed by 1-2 paragraphs depending on whether they existed in both versions. The first one if they exist is the visual novel as that is the primary work.

It sounds like this is essentially the same thing, except the media is different. That's why I suggest you follow this kind of model. While it's true Prince of Persia has multiple games, if they are all essentially the same character, but under different circumstances then this is how it appears to be dealt with. For character articles the same thing would apply and probably even moreso.陣内_Jinnai 04:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I had described that the characters were different perfectly, but then there was a double edit conflict, and for some reason I can't retrieve the text in beta mode, so I'll try to type it up again. These three Prince characters are not the same. Batman has his essentials; his secret identity, his costume, his gadgets, Gotham City, etc. He's the same character even if the series is rebooted multiple times; he still has those essentials. He's much more than simply going by the same name. These Prince characters, however, vary widely. I tried saying that they had similar traits, but I fear I expressed that too broadly. It's true that they do have similar general traits; they're all three swordsmen who possess extreme acrobatic prowess. However, I daresay that's where the similarities start to stop. The first Prince starts off as a beggar on the street, but becomes royalty by marrying in. The second Prince was born into royalty. The third Prince is an adventurer, not related to royalty in any way. They possess extremely different appearances; the first Prince is a poor man, and appears as such. In the third game, however, he's dressed in royal attire, because he's become a prince by that point. The second Prince dresses in royal attire, because he's been born into royalty. Even in the second game; when he's become brittle and prefers to wear all-purpose armor instead of normal clothes, the armor is expensive, of royal make. Same with the third game. The third Prince dresses as an adventurer; leather leggings, non-consistent clothes, etc. He's clearly not royalty. So now there are vast origin and appearance differences. Then there's personalities. The first Prince never really uttered a word; virtually no personality whatsoever. The second Prince went from an innocent boy seeking to impress his father, to a bitter man who calls women "bitches" and has a "devil-may-care" attitude, to a man who cared about his kingdom and freeing his people. The third Prince, being an adventurer, is carefree. He doesn't take much seriously, he lacks tact, etc, etc. So there are also vast personality differences to go with the origin and appearance differences. I could go on. Really, the similarities stop at the general "name, sword-fighting, acrobatics". These are, essentially, different characters. The Guy ^(edits) 04:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems it amounts to the same idea as Link (character) which means you need to adequetly statw their commonalities, but emphasise their differences. However, unless their are reviewers or analysis that differs otherwise, splitting them into seperate articles would be WP:Content forking and will likely not surivive AfDs for WP:NPOV conflicts.陣内_Jinnai 04:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The different princes are not different characters, but different incarnations of the same character. The page should definitely not be split, just divided into sections.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The characters are really nothing like Link from the Legend of Zelda games; not the same case. The Links in the Zelda games have a chronological connection, right? They are the same character in the same universe doing the same thing (typically). The Prince characters are not "different incarnations of the same character." More accurately put, they are different characters that share a few common traits. I could find sources to specify that these are different characters. In the official press release for the latest installment of the game, one of the main selling points, if you will, was that this was "A new Prince." So, while saying "different characters with a few common traits, the same name, the protagonist of the same game" would be an accurate way to put it, "different incarnations" likely wouldn't. Bottom line, they are definitely different characters (as I said, I could provide sources), and that provides complications since the commonplace solution is not to split the article. The article will have to be divided peculiarly; rather than the normal sections, we'll have to have the normal sections, then sub-sections to differentiate between the three characters. Either that, or masterful prose. Further, the article will require many illustrations; since these are three different characters, we'll have to equally illustrate them all, pictures and all. Not even to mention that the protagonist, unlike Batman or Link, wears different attire every installment. We'll really have fun characterizing and providing pictures for seven different variations of three separate characters. Not to mention reception of the individual characters, sections about their abilities, appearance (where the illustrations would likely go). Do you see where I'm going with this? I'm trying to make the point that, if done right, these individual characters could definitely warrant their own articles. I would definitely not dismiss that because they are similar characters in games of essentially the same title. If enough sources could be found for each individual character, it would definitely pass for notability; then it would be fine. I'm confident that I could find ample sourcing for the latter two iterations; both have received enough media coverage to warrant their own articles; probably start or C-class for the latest character, but an article no less. The Prince from The Sands of Time series is one I'm confident would have more than enough sources to warrant his own article. That said, I do see where you guys are coming from. Still, though, this is an obvious issue, as masterful prose writers are few and far in between. The Guy ^(edits) 03:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, just because they have different personalities, clothing, mannerism, etcetera, doesn't mean that they're different characters. They are all fulfilling the same role - that of "The Prince" - a protagonist who is some kind of Arabian prince, fights with a sword, etc. I can see why you'd want to split, but unless you can find enough external references to make 3 separate articles about the different Princes, they will still be the same character. In the Super Mario bros. movie, Bowser was a human...but you don't see anyone making an article about that because it's still the character of Bowser. You're in luck with the illustration part, because Ubisoft allows screenshots to be used regardless of fair use, but finding information for each is another matter.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does mean they're different characters. Your analysis is a bit too general; only one of the Princes are actually (revealed to be) a native Persian. Sure, they fulfill the same general roles: an acrobatic swordsman. Still, as I've already said, they've each unique mannerisms, origins, attire, etc. They are also trying to achieve different goals; the original to rescue his princess; the Sands of Time one to rid himself of the Sands of Time, first for himself, then for his kingdom; the third is just trying to get himself out of a mess. They aren't even all Princes; the first one wasn't, but was married into the throne; the second was born into royalty; the third is just not. The third is never even referred to in-game as "The Prince." He's known as that completely out-of-universe, no one calls him that in-game; he never becomes that. So yes, they're fulfilling the same "acrobatic swordsman" role, but they have different nationalities, different origins, different skills, different aims, different personalities, different mannerisms. In other words, these are different characters. They fulfill, essentially, the same attributes, but are fundamentally different in many ways. As I said, I could easily source this. The Guy ^(edits) 03:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You could start by making example articles in your User namespace, to prove that the character(s) deserve more than one articles. You'll have to find reception and development information for all of them, since I doubt that splitting would leave space for a "2-in-1".--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I know the steps I have to take. Remember that this discussion is not about whether or not these three characters warrant their own articles, but how to comply with naming conventions if they did. It's turned into a debate about something completely different, however, and I do not plan to indulge it further; let's get back on topic. My plan, I think, is to split the current main character page into three different pages: one for characters of each different PoP universe. As for the Princes, I plan to build up their articles, of course, but I still need advice in the matter of naming the articles. I really rather doubt this will be a problem with the original Prince character, who speaks not a word in any of his games. I think just give him an entry on the relevant character page, and that should do it. The other two Princes, though... how to name them. The Guy ^(edits) 00:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Well you'll haveto probably find reception/analysis that shows reviewers treat them as seperate characters as well otherwise if anyone brought the articles up for AfD they'd almost certainly be merged on the basis of content forking and NPOV violations.陣内_Jinnai 04:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, to go back to the naming conventions thing, the titles would probably be like The Prince (Prince of Persia), The Prince (Second game) and The Prince (Third game). Actually, as the article is titled now, The Prince (character) would probably suffice rather than The Prince (Prince of Persia), but it might be overly confusing.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(article disambigs) if you get far enough, the titles should all be made clear that each is a character from a Prince of Persia game. The first does that. The others don't since The Prince (Second game) could be any game. "The Prince" is a title used in multiple games.陣内_Jinnai 05:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think he was trying to illustrate The Prince (insert name of first game), rather than literally The Prince (first game). That said, that wouldn't work either; there isn't a new Prince character for every game. Basically, there are seven games in all, and three characters. Therefore, specifying games likely wouldn't suffice. There would have to be a way of specifying which generation (for lack of a more accurate term) would be appropriate. For example, The Prince (Sands of Time series). The only issue is that, and I believe I skimmed over this earlier, only one generation of PoP games is clearly defined in popular culture as having a definite name, and I've just used it. The newest Prince doesn't have anything like that to refer to him by. Nor does the old Prince, but I doubt he has enough info to constitute an article to himself, anyways. Hmmm.... The Guy ^(edits) 05:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Really, even if the character is different in EVERY WAY, it's still the same name, made by the same company, with the same trademark. There have been numerous instances of very different character incarnations, and all of them go back the the shared franchise. There really is no reason to split the article. Not to mention that the "appearances" section would have to be split up, just because the prince has a different personality? What about Princess Zelda? She is a different person in every game. Same with all the Final Fantasy Doctor Cids and such. They are all completely and utterly different, but share the same article.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, this is irrelevant; you seem intent on derailing this discussion. I would appreciate if you allowed it to stay focused. The Guy ^(edits) 22:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been going through Category:Mac OS games today and I have found quite a number of games there that shouldn't be in that category, they should be in Category:Mac OS X games instead. Here is a quick rundown on how to tell which category to use:

• New game (at least since 2004)? Mac OS X.
• Published since 2001? Probably Mac OS X (may be a CarbonLib game, so it may go in both categories).
• Has Linux version? Probably a Mac OS X game.
• Open source? Unless it is an old game, Mac OS X.

Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

See Also: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#Romanization of foreign words rendered in Japanese katakana

It's been discussed there and gave us this... But I think someone went a little bit overboard with that one...

Let's keep it to intros, and English words in Japanese titles, just as the thing says, shall we?

Removing the romanization of a bunch of names, for example, isn't helping anyone, especially when those names aren't English and/or have unusual pronunciations... Erigu (talk) 00:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I interpreted that as "remove redundant Japanese game titles in the article intro"; the discussion wasn't clear in saying if the titles refer to "game titles", "character names", "plot terms" and the like; so I reverted some of the edits. — Blue。 03:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to me to extend this to any instance where a Japanese pronunciation is being provided as an approximation to a Western word or name. The principle is the same in that there is no actual preference for the Japanese pronunciation, which is likely to be just as inaccurate (if not more so) than an English-speaker's best guess. But definitely, anyone who had an interest in the previous discussion should weigh in on whether or not the guideline should be generalized to all text and not just the titles. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that while the Japanese pronunciation is an approximation, it's still better than a guess.

Extending this removal to "Western" (what does that entail?) words or names would definitely be a mistake, in my opinion. Alphabet spellings don't necessarily tell us much about the way a name is supposed to be pronounced. At best, you can make educated guesses based on context. You could guess wrong. You could not get enough context. You could very well have to deal with made-up names from some made-up universe that don't obey "obvious" phonetic rules.

How is the name "Samus" supposed to be pronounced? Is it really obvious? A reader with some Japanese skills would read "サムス" and get a better idea: it's "samusu", meaning the "u" is pronounced as a short "oo", not as "uh". If you can't read kana, you're out of luck though, as the romanization has been removed...

How is the name "Zell Dincht" supposed to be pronounced? Well, that's obviously a... Er... It looks Western. Well, chances are it is, anyway. German, maybe? Something like "tzel dinsht"? Well, you could look at the romanization (which I put back): "zeru din".

Of course, I realize most people aren't too familiar with Japanese phonetics anyway, even romanized (there are some "quirks"), but still...

I really, really think romanization should only be removed to unclutter intros, and when the pronunciation is absolutely obvious (in fact, I'd say that should only concern English words that could be found in a dictionary, not names, not "English-sounding" neologisms).

(wouldn't a detailed table off on the side be a better way to unclutter the intro in that respect, anyway?) Erigu (talk) 04:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I can see that the consensus in the archive is pretty obvious to not include the romnaization, and it is very reasonable, which I fully support. Aerith Gainsborough (エアリス・ゲインズブール, Earisu Geinzubūru) sounds, well, pretty redundant and to be blunt, stupid. Aerith Gainsborough is not a Japanese word, and thus it is not necessary to include the Japanese romanization. A guess of how Aerith Gainsborough should be pronounced is not too much different to a Japanese altered pronounciation kana system then approximated back to romanization. No matter how the guess is, Aerith Gainsborough in English will not be pronounced as E A Li Su Ge In Zu Buu Lu(which is what the katakana is suggesting). —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 06:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I can see that the consensus in the archive is pretty obvious to not include the romnaization, and it is very reasonable, which I fully support.

The discussion (and the guideline it resulted in) was about English titles used in Japan. And it was about article intros, too. Many of the recent edits have nothing to do with that.

Aerith Gainsborough (エアリス・ゲインズブール, Earisu Geinzubūru) sounds, well, pretty redundant and to be blunt, stupid.

It's not a title, and those are not plain English words.

Also, no, it's not "redundant". The kana and romaji spellings provide additional information regarding the intended pronunciation of the name. With the alphabet spelling alone, you'd have no choice but to take a guess. And I'm not sure how many English readers would guess the intended pronunciation of that last name (which apparently sounds a lot like "Gainsbourg").

Besides, removing romanization like that flies in the face of the manual of style... Erigu (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I would tell you that discussion did changed to talk about romanization towards the end, and people agreed that it is redundant, these include Prime Blue, Guyinblack25 and ZXCVBNM, Jinnai said if the pronunciation is very different, then it should be there, but at least agreed that it should be in the footnote instead. The one who opposed, sesuPrime, did not get back to the discussion. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 14:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The archived discussion mentioned it, but the guideline didn't elaborate: the use of footnotes.

When do we have to use footnotes to denote the Japanese titles?

Plus, I have to agree that the discussion didn't take into account WP:MOS-JP.

The former way might have been redundant to one who knows kana - but the present way didn't take into account those who don't. Personally I have always thought the romanization was helpful in learning how the Japanese might have pronounced terms or names, especially considering some terms used kanji characters.

I would really like it if the romaji was restored back to the articles. If the footnote method is the way it should be executed, then by all means. — Blue。 21:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that the romanization also doubles as an useful substitute for furigana when some kanji have unorthodox or debatable readings, like here, for example. "白夜" can be read as both "hakuya" and "byakuya", and Konami opted for the latter. As for "協奏曲", it should be normally be read "kyōsōkyoku", but is actually pronounced "koncheruto" (Japanese approximation of the Italian "concerto") in this title. Erigu (talk) 22:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with the way things work now. SharkD (talk) 11:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It is common sense to figure out that kanji, if different from the title of the page, would need the pronunciation. However, I don't see why the characters having western style names officially in the Japanese release should include the romanization. I understand why the katagana is there, and regular readers would not be able to read them, but romanization of them would not give much more to the article, since the pronunciation of the word is already in front. No one is going to pronounce Aerith as E A Li Su, and the katakana is not pronounced as Earisu, usual English users would think that the E and A are pronounced together, but in Japanese, it is pronounced as two different words. Same as Mitsubishi, I hear a lot of westerner pronounced Mit-su-bi-shi, but Japanese is Mi-tsu-bi-shi instead. The romanization creates more problems than it is really helping in the case of the original word is already rendered in a very simple western style word like Aerith, Cloud, Tifa, Barret, Vincent, Cait sith, Red XIII, Sephiroth, etc. For the sake of it, Cloud is 100% English, you do not pronounce it as Ku la do even if the Japanese katakana romanization is available, Vincent is even an English name(with Roman/Latin origin) and Red XIII, do not tell me there are anyone who are regular English speakers do not know how to pronounce the word red and thirteen or would pronounce the terms as Ledo Satin after seeing the romanization. It seems more like redundant information in which an encyclopedia would not need. I am bring this to WP:MOS-JP and see if anyone can give me a better reasoning for this. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 14:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand why the katagana is there, and regular readers would not be able to read them, but romanization of them would not give much more to the article, since the pronunciation of the word is already in front.

It generally isn't, actually.

For the sake of it, Cloud is 100% English, you do not pronounce it as Ku la do even if the Japanese katakana romanization is available, Vincent is even an English name(with Roman/Latin origin) and Red XIII, do not tell me there are anyone who are regular English speakers do not know how to pronounce the word red and thirteen or would pronounce the terms as Ledo Satin after seeing the romanization.

Thing is, you are apparently working from the assumption those names are pronounced according to English phonetics. While it's often the case in Japanese games, that's not necessarily true (it could also be the French name "Vincent", for exemple). The Japanese pronunciation, even if it's obviously an approximation, is additional information in that regard.

Besides, the examples you just produced are from Final Fantasy and the series is well-known for its unusual pronunciations (see above for "Zell Dincht" and "Aerith Gainsborough"... and "Tidus" still puzzles gamers). Erigu (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Would that change anything? Would you change what you are used to pronounce the word and start pronouncing it differently? Vincent is an English name BTW and the FFVII game is using the English pronunciation of it, even if you want to argue it could be used in French, look at the Japanese pronunciation and the French pronunciation at the linked page to see it yourself, if it is pronounced in the French renderization, keep the romanization, on the other hand, it would be redundant in the French wiki to include it. If this is the French wiki, and Vincent is in English, then keep the romanization. Also, I am not arguing to ditch the romanization as a whole, I am stating if it is not different from the English common usage or common guess, do not include the fairly redundant info. For Tidus and Tida, it is fairly obvious that it is out of the common sense to guess the correct pronunciation and including the romanization would be reasonable. For Aerith, you might want to argue the Su and Th but it is simply a Japanese habit to do so. Arguing regular readers could not read the katakana is also funny, if the readers cannot read the katakana due to not knowing Japanese, would they even bother to try to understand this at all? What sort of info would it tell them? How to pronounce in Japanese? That should not be wikipedia's concern. I am saying, if it follows the normal English phonetics as a whole, do not include the redundant data, if it is not, include it, maybe the IPA should be as well, since it is so much different from the English phonetics. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 19:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget to mention "Balthier/Balflear". Thing is, the kana pronunciation is still information as WP:MOS-J puts it - being redundant and stupid just does not cut as the reason for removing romanization, especially when the game is developed in Japan and, as Jinnai said, most English speakers do not read/speak Japanese. What's the IPA having to do with Japan-developed games, I wonder? — Blue。 19:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Would that change anything? Would you change what you are used to pronounce the word and start pronouncing it differently?

Yes, I'd rather take the intended pronunciation into account, personally.

For Aerith, you might want to argue the Su and Th but it is simply a Japanese habit to do so.

I was actually referring to the character's last name. ^^;

if it follows the normal English phonetics as a whole, do not include the redundant data, if it is not, include it

My problem with removing the romanization when the name appears to follow English phonetics is (at least?) two-folded:

1) You'll generally only be able to argue it appears to follow English phonetics, according to your own experience of that kind of Japanese approximations. I could see arguments stem from that.

2) Currently, the romanized spelling is already removed for redundancy in the case of ("actual") Japanese words and names (except for contemporary Japanese full names, as they're generally "switched" from "last name - first name" to "first name - last name" in the body of the article). That would make two different motives for such a removal, and confusion might arise.

(actually, if it were up to me, I'd never remove the romanization, not even for "unchanged" Japanese words and names, precisely to avoid any kind of confusion... but hey ^^;) Erigu (talk) 20:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I propose cutting down this article and merging it with MMORPG or possibly World of Warcraft. I was trying to go through it, reference it and delete unverifiable content but it's becoming clear that this is going to leave one or two sentences. Sources: [14][15]. I notice that there seems to be no mention of twinking in either the MMORPG or WOW articles, yet still someone felt the need to write a whole article elsewhere. I thought I'd post here first before putting up merge tags, as I'm not quite sure of the best target article. bridies (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It would be better if its merged with MMORPG. But Bridies, why would you think of merging it to WOW? GamerPro64 (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Because the only sources I can find (i.e. those linked above) talk about it in the context of WOW. There are a couple of mentions elsewhere, but I literally mean mentions, there's very little information to be gleaned and it's not necessarily clear that they're even talking about the same thing. bridies (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Use this custom Google search (listed at WP:VG/S#List) to find this result. It's not just WoW. --Izno (talk) 17:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

MMORPG it is then. bridies (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Twink is an old MUD and tabletop term that was later imported into MMOs as well. If you merge it to MMORPG, please make sure this is mentioned. - MrOllie (talk) 11:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It can only be mentioned of reliable sources are provided to support such claims. bridies (talk) 00:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you assuming it doesn't? I'd say that's not propoer procedure to assume it doesn't, especially as I also agree and such terminology would likely be in the offline kind. I would strongly oppose any merge/redirect that did not include use in tabletop and offline video-game RPGs on that basis.陣内_Jinnai 05:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Assuming what doesn't what? I'm not proposing to AFD anything; the policy you're looking for is WP:BURDEN. bridies (talk) 09:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Although on reflection it could be merged to Role-playing game, which seems to cover both table top and video games. bridies (talk) 10:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That's fine...and before could also be seen as applying to merges as well as many people use AfD (inappropriately, but it's none-the-less it's not enforced) for merges.陣内_Jinnai 22:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Unrelated to the merge discussion above. Anyone care to contribute at Talk:Twinking#Reverts? I am getting nothing but incivility and bad faith accusations. Also keep an eye on the WP:VG sources page as the other party tried to uninilateraly add the source he is citing; DaveFuchs has reverted him. bridies (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

We need some help here. He is persistent in removing verifiable information and indeed, there is quite a bit of incivility on the talk page. --Izno (talk) 15:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I am about to post at Witiquette alerts. Not sure if that's the best route, but certainly I'm not going to debate with or revert him any more. bridies (talk)

A general shout across the board, mainly to people that hoard interviews or print sources, but the GA-article could use some added reception and development information. It originally had a large chunk of both sections torn away because they had less to do with the character and more with the series itself. And as it stands I've got my plate full enough, to be honest. x_X--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to help out, but my plate is full right now too. If there's no immediacy to this, whoever ends up working on it drop me a note down the road and I'll look through my sources at home. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC))

Has anyone played I, Robot (arcade game)? I'm planing on working on it, but since this was a commercial flop, I'm screwed in the Gameplay department. GamerPro64 (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

MAME is your friend. --Mika1h (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I have some print sources that describe the gameplay along with reception. I'll try to dig them out sometime next week. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC))

Thanks GiB. I might need them. As for MAME, Mika1h, it looks too complicated. GamerPro64 (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone confirm that this is a reliable reference? It might help me with the Gameplay section and stuff. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I would say no because I cannot find anything that shows the website is reliable; that is, no evidence of fact-checking, oversight, and accuracy. MuZemike 15:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I need a good web reference (since Gib is helping with book refs) that has nothing to do with IGN.com (I found three refs to I, Robot's name and its sad) so can someone please find one for me? GamerPro64 (talk) 04:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I put two on the talk page: an old review and a patent on the terrible controller they used for the game. I couldn't find much. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 08:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget Killer List of Videogames. They often have info about the game's hardware for development and gameplay descriptions. I typically avoid the scarcity and trivia info though. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC))

Sorry for not answering in this section, but I'd like to bring the issue up again since it wasn't solved: A major part of the article Good-Feel was copied from the Super Mario Wiki article of the same name. In the Mario Wiki, the article was written by me. It was copied by a user to Wikipedia without giving proper attribution. The Mario Wiki uses the GNU-FDL as its license, and there are problems to copy such materials since Wikipedia replaced the GNU-FDL with a CC license. I have no prolem with making the text available under the CC license as well if that is allowed, but only with proper attribution, which is currently not the case. How can that be done when the article was already created months ago? And then there's also the article Yakuman DS, copied from Mario Wiki without any attribution (but not written by me). --Grandy02 (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

They're just stubs, I really don't see why you would want the material attributed to you when it is liable to be re-written anyway. I mean, if someone copied a whole article, I would probably add something on the talk page, but for articles this small, I wouldn't bother.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is short, and I wouldn't have bothered if the author based it on the Mario Wiki article or copied only a sentence, but the problem is that everything was copied word by word starting with "The company was founded." No, I'm not narcissistic, but I just want things to meet with Wikipedia's guidelines. If someone copied around 100 words unchanged without attribution from IGN or another big name, I bet that wouldn't be tolerated. If it is alright, I'd write in the Good-Feel article under References something like "This article incorporates information from the Super Mario Wiki" (as well as in the Yakuman DS article), and case is closed. Okay? --Grandy02 (talk) 09:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You might want to take this someplace higher up, such as one of the Village Pumps. SharkD (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You could just put the attribution on the talk page instead.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Since it isn't that much text, I don't think this needs to be discussed at the Village Pump. I think I will put a hint in the references list or maybe on the talk page tomorrow. Thanks for your answers. --Grandy02 (talk) 17:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone think Doomguy can be developed into an actual article at all? I won't turn this one into a merge discussion. TTN (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards merge, because I'm not finding a whole lot for any of the names for the guy. Plus the article is a mess.

BFG 9000 still has the possibility of being fleshed out if someone works on it while we're on the subject, just a matter of getting folks to work on it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like both can be merged. BFG has remained a stub for god knows how long.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

BFG9000 is sustainable with its current little pool of sources. The sources for expansion are out there, it only needs work from someone willing to put the time in - thats the only reason its still stub-like. Doomguy on the other hand, I'm not as sure. I had a lookie around and really didn't turn up much. It seems that they don't tend to write about nameless, personality-less and silent player characters like this. -- Sabre (talk) 18:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Side comment (and agreeing with Sabre on both fronts), the lack of name and subsequent attention makes an interesting parallel to Gordon Freeman, who has gotten quite a bit of recognition over the years despite being both personality-less and silent.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Needs more eyes. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed that the majority of articles related to Atlus are rated Start-class or lower, and several are just stubs. I haven't seen any other discussion about this, so because of the amount of work needed to improve all these articles, I would like to propose forming a task force named the Atlus Task Force. The scope of this task force would include any articles about Atlus, the products it has made (games only published by Atlus wouldn't be included), as well as characters created for an Atlus-made product. So, if you have any suggestions or would be interested in helping out, feel free to comment. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 05:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The project size is large enough for a task force; I would suggest that you be able to find 3 or 4 editors to work on this with, though. --Izno (talk) 05:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Would it be okay to let others know about this through the talk pages for Persona 3 and Persona 4, since those articles receive more attention? Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 06:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about the talk pages, but contact the editors who use those talk pages directly is a good idea. --Izno (talk) 06:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I've contacted a couple of editors who have contributed a lot to those articles, and while I wait for their responses I'll look for any other editors who are interested. In the meantime, here's a WIP of the task force page, and I'm also working on a userbox at User:Heavyweight Gamer/User ATF (though I need an SVG of the logo - GIMP doesn't support SVG). Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 09:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Count me in. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Video games/Atlus should do fine. --Izno (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Heavyweight- Just a heads up, Inkscape is a free program that can create and manipulate SVGs. Also, there are a few graphically savvy editors (*cough* Fuchs *cough*) here that might be able to create the SVG for you if you ask them nicely. :-D (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC))

I'll help out somewhat.陣内_Jinnai 16:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Count me in, but my experience with Atlus is limited to a handful of SMT games. I'd love to help collaborate where I can, though. --gakon5 (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I can join.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I've created some premade citation templates of the most commonly used sources, including GameSpot, IGN, and 1UP.com. This can be found over at User:MuZemike/Templates. If anyone wants to use them for reference and to copypaste in articles for convenience, please go ahead. Many of the entries have already been filled out, just fill in the blanks where needed (the entries with nothing after the equal sign). Cheers, MuZemike 05:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

First off, very kind of you.

Second, I have a question about the use of the |work= and |publisher= parameters. This is something that came up at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of The Legend of Zelda media/archive1, but it's something that's bugged me a for while as well. Does a website count as a work, and are the work and publisher parameters intended to be used in the same as the journal and publisher parameters in {{cite journal}}?

Mainly asking so we can get some consistency with our citations and include the proper method in guidelines. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC))

I've noticed that Reflinks uses the website or the name of the website at the publisher when adding information. Perhaps asking User:Dispenser why the tool does that would shed some light. I don't think I use the work parameter too often, although I believe I have used it more to point to a specific section of a site (like Retromodo on Gizmodo). I also tend to change the publisher to the entity at the bottom of pages if it specifies one near a copyright. But basically, I'm with you; I take my best guess from the template documentation and prior uses. Clarification would be great. —Ost (talk) 18:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The work field should NOT be used for the website's name. The work field is italicized, so I have no idea what it should be used for, but certainly not for the website's name. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I did that because that's what the template's documentation is leaning towards, and I have seen from criticism from articles brought up at FAC and FLC that this is not used. MuZemike 18:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It's been a while since I looked at the documentation. I remember it referring more to a select group of published items. I interpreted the older version as using "work" to mention that you cited something like one book out of a series of them (like encyclopedias or media franchises).

Here are some examples I've used the work parameter for:

• Example 1- GameTrailers presents ScrewAttack, with GT as the publisher and SA as the work.
• Example 2- GameSpot's The History of Final Fantasy lengthy feature, with GS as the publisher and the feature as the work.

Not saying those are the proper usage, those are just how I've used the work parameter. I've mostly avoided it because it never seemed to be adequately clarified. But if it keeps coming up at featured content reviews we should get it clarified. Would Wikipedia:Citing sources be the place to check? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC))

Or, alternatively, we could start an RFC as to how it should be used, as this is not limited to just video game articles, obviously. We could start one either here or there. MuZemike 20:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Admittedly, this is a view slanted by my own output, but generally among VG FAs I have found that websites use the publisher field. While I suppose work could be considered better, depending on your view, the italics are against any style guide I'm aware of. If using the cite web template for a news article from a publication, I use work (same for {{cite news}}. Examples being pretty much every FA I've worked on: Halo Wars, Super Columbine Massacre RPG!, Myst V: End of Ages, yada yada, as well as every other article that uses websites. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I use {{cite news}} when citing a news article from a publication that happens to be on the web. I tend to use work= more often with the news template than with web, in which case I use it to identify the publication (e.g., The New York Times). If it's true we are using publisher instead of work with {{cite web}}, are we only doing it because work is automatically italicized? —Ost (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Before an RfC, should we ask at WP:CITE? —Ost (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Given the scope of the template's usage, a general forum would probably be better than here. WP:Citing sources sounds like as good a general talk page as any, unless we want to go to the village pump. Anyone care to do the honors? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC))