Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 81

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 75

←

Archive 79

Archive 80

Archive 81

Archive 82

Archive 83

→

Archive 85

FYI- The recent changes previously discussed have been made to {{VG reviews}}.[1] Articles that used the previous aggregators (Game Ratio, MobyGames, GameStats, and GameTab), will have to use the new custom aggregate parameters. So please update your articles accordingly.

I'm updating the documentation right now, and will add content from User:Masem/vgrev to better explain the template. The only outstanding issue is the G4/X-Play one (read the past discussions for details). We can probably further trim the predefined reviewer parameters (some which I question are reliable sources), but I lack the time or energy to pursue it right now. If any one else wants to keep the clean up effort going, please feel free. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC))

Thanks for your efforts, Guy. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I nominated List of Final Fantasy video games at FLC almost 2 weeks ago, and to date it has gotten only one support and a few comments. Would anyone mind swinging by to comment/vote on the nomination? --PresN 17:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It has now passed, thank you to everyone who came out and nitpicked! --PresN 00:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Nintendo_GameCube_controller#Merging_WaveBird_in Please share your opinion on this matter. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Would anyone mind if I just self-assessed Burnout Paradise to B class? I asked for some assistance here with assessments but looks like everyone's kinda busy with GANs and FACs. --Teancum (talk) 11:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a B-class to me. I don't see why not...--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Another editor has already begun an assessment, so I'll have to go through them.

I support B now. Was mostly nitpicking to have it improved more while you are at it. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  19:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been asked at Talk:Burnout Paradise‎#Assessment to provide release dates for the DLC. Rather than flood the article with 10 different references for DLC releases, would a xbox.com DLC synopsis page work, as seen here. --Teancum (talk) 18:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I propose to add the following guideline to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (video games)#General:

8. Articles covering exclusively video game topics (Video game programmer) or covering topics from only video game perspective (Video game design) should be named to include "video game" instead of just "game".

—  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  13:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Oh no, Not a wall of text again... I wish to know the naming convention for VG industry related articles. Sorry, if my question is somewhere in the archives, but I searched them and the closest discussion I saw was this. I read the VG naming conventions, which clearly states:

1. Do not disambiguate unless a naming conflict exists;

2. Never make a disambiguation tag longer than necessary.

Here is the list of articles and lists I am thinking of (I may have missed some):

Current pages with game:

Game art design, Game design, Game development, Game programming, Game programmer, Game studies, Game testing, List of indie game developers

Current pages with video game:

Video game developer, Independent video game development, Video game director, Video game producer, Video game publisher, Video game journalism, List of video game companies, List of video game developers, List of video game publishers, List of video game industry people, List of video game websites

Here are arguments for naming articles game:

• WP:PRECISION
• WP:PRIMARYTOPIC
• WP:NCVG, the two points from above

Also, opposing arguments for naming articles video game:

• All these articles are only about video games, so calling it "game" is ambiguous per WP:TITLE "Precise – Using names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously.".
• WP:BIAS and WP:UNDUE towards other types of games players.

In all fairness, this is nitpicking; BUT I want to achieve some level of consistency between all or specific groups of articles. My preference is renaming "..video game.." → "..game.." for the articles listed above. Does this sound reasonable to other editors? —  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  15:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If the topic is solely related to video games then that should be made clear by the title, 'game' is a very broad term indeed. Getting too worries over an extra word here and there will make things a lot more complicated than they need to be IMHO. Game development is just about video games and that should be clear from the title, for instance. Someoneanother 18:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If the articles are specifically about video games, then their names should be changed to "Video game ____". "Game ____" can refer to other types of games, e.g. "game theory".--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm in the "game" camp unless there is a conflict. In that case, lengthen it to "video game". — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm for videogame everywhere. Since you know games, such as The Settlers of Catan are developed too, and they aren't videogames. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Headbomb; it seems a bit narcissistic to believe that the rest of the world automatically thinks of video games when they see "game" as an adjective. Terms like "game design" feel like insider terms to me, if only because video games are implied in the context of where the terms are used. Even if there are no page for general game design, testing, etc., I think that we should strive for a title that is precise rather than broad unless we want other types of games to be included in the article. —Ost (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Using "video" part definitely removes ambiguity and biasing. Clarity is definitely gained; I agree with that. All these articles are purely video game based and any new material about other game types would be seen as "messing articles up". I was basing my opinion largely on VG naming convention, which apparently may need revising. I suppose there is no real need to keep things short just for the sakes of keeping things short. As I said, consistency over nitpicking.

If some more editors agree with having "video game" prefix instead of "game" prefix in industry and topic related articles, could this be called a consensus and "officially" put in the naming convention, so that no more issues arise and admins can refer to this when moves/renames are requested/done? —  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  21:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

"Video game" sounds like the appropriate term. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC))

i like consistency and think we may as well say "video game". afterall this is the videogame wikiproject and not the game wikiproject. there's a reason the project decided to be 100% clear... Shooterwalker (talk) 02:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

disagree: I'm a full-time game programmer - and neither I, nor my colleagues call outselves 'video game programmer'. The reason for that is that "video" is an obsolete term dating back to when computers that people used for playing games were almost always connected to TV sets - or perhaps were game consoles (also connected to TV sets). The Wiktionary definition of the word "video" is:

1. Television, television show, movie.
2. motion picture stored on VHS or some other format.
3. (dated) VHS.

...none of which applies to games on the Internet or games on a cellphone or on a PC monitor. In the modern world, "Video games" tend to imply console games.

Ergo, all of this conversion from "Game <whatever>" to "Video game <whatever>" is wrong both from a language usage point of view - and from a practical usage point of view. If you wish to make a distinction from board games, then "Computer games" would perhaps be a better choice. SteveBaker (talk) 03:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It is quite interesting that you draw conclusion from the term "video" alone. If we wish to quote WT, there is a perfectly fine definition of "video game":

"A type of game existing as and controlled by software, usually run by a video game console or a computer, and played on a video terminal or television screen. Controlled by a paddle, joystick, joypad, mouse, keyboard, or a combination of any of these input devices."

What I wish to have is consistency first and unambiguity second. Such names may be in conflict with everyday usage. The article content does not actually contain "video game <whatever>" and instead contain "game <whatever>". The argument is only about the article title. If I understand you correctly, your argument is about "video" part being wrongly used here. However, my understanding was that VG Project had settled long ago that "Computer game" is a subset of "Video game". In fact, the WP:NCVG states that "video game" is preferred over "computer game". —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  12:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

---

I requested RfC to have a bit more broader inputs on the matter before I add anything to the policy or rfm any pages. —  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  13:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm still in the camp of using "game" and only "video game" when a clash exists. I don't think it's "insulting" traditional games. After all, when I tell people I'm a game programmer, they don't say, "Oh, really? What type of board games do you program?" Really, a lot of these terms apply only to video games, and further disambiguating them where it's unnecessary is just cumbersome. I'll go by whatever the final consensus is, but I don't think tacking "video game" on every article about them is necessary. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 21:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

As I said, the perspective here is about consistency and less about bias. And I do not agree about this being "cumbersome". Perhaps slightly less aesthetic; but definitely more unambiguous.

Does not seem there is much outside input on the matter. I am still cautious about basing move requests based solely on opinion of vg members. (Also bump against bot who may or may not be smart enough to not touch rfc'ed sections.) —  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  11:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I'm outside input! :P. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I requested moves on Talk:Game development#Requested moves; perhaps this shall generate more input. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  19:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Using "game" and "video game" interchangeably is confusing. Let's just stick to "video game" and only use "game" when referring to a blanket term. The "video" part simply means "any display technology".--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes I still agree with that. It is important to be the same as muh as possible. This is the video games wikiproject after all. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The RfM (Talk:Game development#Requested moves) is now on 5 days. I would appreciate any final input from editors so we can hopefully reach a consensus by then. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  13:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Other relevant WP-space articles on this are WP:TITLE and WP:COMMONNAME, which call for using "game" rather than "video game" wherever that's the language people actually use, and adding disambiguation using parentheticals should it become necessary. —chaos5023 (talk) 00:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that their is no picture of the CCP on Wikimedia. I was wondering if anyone who has one, could upload one. I wanted to put the picture of it onto Classic Controller#Classic Controller Pro 2 and List of Wii games that use the Classic Controller. Thanks! Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The FAC Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nathan Drake (character)/archive2 has been open since April 28th, and has only garnered one comment. I would appreciate anyone here adding their input. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 23:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons (UBLPs) aims to reduce the number of unreferenced biographical articles to under 30,000 by June 1, primarily by enabling WikiProjects to easily identify UBLP articles in their project's scope. There were over 52,000 unreferenced BLPs in January 2010 and this has been reduced to 35,715 as of May 1. A bot is now running daily to compile a list of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.

Your Project's list can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Unreferenced BLPs. Currently you have approximately 142 articles to be referenced. Other project lists can be found at User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects/Templates and User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects.

Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

For StarCraft, I'd like to add two external links to official demos

• Windows Starcraft Demo
• Macintosh Starcraft Demo

S@bre has reverted this edit, stating We aren't here to do Blizzard's promo work for them. Is there a policy against linking to official demo links? WP:ELYES, it states that An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work, if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria applies. Are the demos not to be considered a copy of the work, in this case Starcraft? Smallman12q (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not exactly a copy if it isn't a full version. There's not really a point to put it on the article. Maybe if you didn't have screenshots of the game in the article, it would be helpful but the article fully conveys the game in a whole without the use of a demo. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

So links to demos are frowned upon...is there some kind of a policy/guideline link for that? I thought it would be convenient to list the two demos...Smallman12q (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly frowned upon but a good many times, the site which hosts them violate copyrights of the games which is frowned upon. Not haivng demos in an article is no real policy but a rule of thumb for wikipedians who edit video game articles. Besides that, the article is featured, I don't think a demo could explain it any more clearly than is already stated. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 00:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

A link to the starcraft demo would prove invaluable to those who wish to try out the game after reading the article. Otherwise, perhaps a brief guideline/policy dictating the rationale behind the exclusion of official demo links should be created?Smallman12q (talk) 00:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Generally speaking, if it's on the official website, there's no sense linking directly to it since we link to the official website anyway. Nifboy (talk) 00:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

My concern is that despite being a featured article, there is no mention that a demo is available. I figured the easiest way to let people know that an official demo does in fact exist would be by creating links to those demos. If someone could appropriately edit the article to indicate that official Mac/PC demos exist, then I would consider the matter resolved.Smallman12q (talk) 02:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I would think that the majority of people will put two and two together giving that the game has been released for 12 years now. Remember wikipedia =/= google. Salavat (talk) 03:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, a google search for starcraft demo doesn't list either of the official demo links. Not all video games have demos. I don't understand the rationale behind the exclusion of links to official demos...Smallman12q (talk) 11:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It comes down to the fact that Wikipedia is primarily an encyclopedia. Its purpose is to educate readers on any given subject, not to post links to mods, demos, etc. The idea behind a gaming article is to find out about its development, history, reception, etc. As far as "Official" links to demos, I don't see why there needs to be a link from any official websites. The Google search you posted above gives links to both the Mac and PC demos in the results. Official site or not, the demo is the same. --Teancum (talk) 12:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is indeed primarily designed to educate readers. As such, and the fact StarCraft is a featured article, there should be some mention that an official PC/Mac shareware demo exists. I don't see how making readers aware that a demo/shareware version exists conflicts with the purpose of the article.Smallman12q (talk) 13:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll be honest - I'm not opposed to mentioning demo releases in articles. That being said, if that info is added it should be mentioned in the prose of the article, under the Development or Marketing (or Development and marketing) headings, and written in prose. The statement should cite a published source. That source needn't provide a download link for the demo per say, since as you mentioned it's more important for users to know one exists. Sending the user to a published source that mentions a demo release is enough to prompt the user to Google search for the release. Ideally the source would also have a link to the demo, but that's not necessary. --Teancum (talk) 13:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

So I couldn't merely cite the official two demo links?Smallman12q (talk) 13:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me you could, though citing and using material from an article discussing them would add more value to the article, so should probably be preferred. —chaos5023 (talk) 13:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The article is has Featured Article status, so in order to keep that status it needs to cite a reliable, published source -- not just demo links. --Teancum (talk) 14:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Do you mean to say a 3rd party source? I don't see how the game's publisher, Blizzard Entertainment, which hosts the demo link sites can be considered an unreliable source...Smallman12q (talk) 14:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? WP:RS makes room for using self-published sources for information on themselves. How is citing a demo link to demonstrate the existence of a demo, and perhaps its characteristics if discussed there, not a more reliable case of that, since calling a demo published by a company "self-published" is kinda wrong? —chaos5023 (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to lend a sledgehammer to this discussion by pointing you all to the first few sentences of the "Expansions and versions" section. There's no need to add any mention of it to the development section, its already covered. -- Sabre (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Demo in external links is unnecessary because the full game is released and the EL already contain game's website. Navigating to demo page is not Wikipedia's problem, it is Blizzard's. A mention/rephrasing in development section is welcome. However, as StarCraft is FA, it should be among the lines of: "The first playable demo was released on <date>[secondary source] and is still available from Blizzard's official website[primary Blizz source].". —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  15:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the benefit in not making the links available. As Sabre pointed out, the article does mention a demo at the start of StarCraft#PC_expansions, but it does not provide a date.Smallman12q (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

If you can find a date with a good reference for the original demo release, do add it to what's there. I couldn't find one when I was writing it, so I had to omit it. -- Sabre (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused as to the correct interpretation of loomings.

At sclegacy they state that Episode Zero is the StarCraft demo campaign which can be found here. (Episode 0 is called Loomings). However, the Precursor Campaign which is pointed to has 5 maps+tutorial, whereas the demo has 3 maps+tutorial.

The wikipedia article states that Comprising three missions and a tutorial, the campaign acts as a prequel to the events of StarCraft, taking place on a Confederate colony in the process of being overrun by the Zerg. This is true of the shareware demo release of loomings, but not of the current one which has 5 missions.

The article needs to distinguish between the demo which only had 3 campaigns+tutorial, and the prequel entitled Loomings which has 5 campaigns+tutorial.Smallman12q (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought it does make that differentiation. The sentence after "Comprising of three missions and a tutorial, the campaign acts as a prequel to the events of StarCraft, taking place on a Confederate colony in the process of being overrun by the Zerg" deals with the 5 map "precursor campaign" which is the exact same thing with two bonus missions: "In October 1999, Blizzard Entertainment made the prequel [the demo] available for the full game as a custom map campaign, adding two extra missions and hosting it on Battle.net". They're both called Loomings ("Episode Zero" is something made up by SC Legacy), the downloadable custom campaign version is simply an extended version of the demo campaign, made dependent on the full game rather than wrapped up in its own executable. -- Sabre (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

On a second read, it does seem a bit more clear. Smallman12q (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that we have {{Rareware-stub}}, which sorts articles into Category:Rareware stubs. Are there more templates like this for developers or is this a carryover from an old task force? If it's the latter, should the template be merged into {{vg-stub}} and the category deleted? —Ost (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, according to past stub template merged, stub templates/categories need to have at least 30 entries, and this has 21. So, I support the merge. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 18:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I had a list somewhere of quite a few VG-stub templates/categories that could probably go also. But yes, I would support upmerging. Perhaps if I get time, I'll nominate the whole bunch for WP:SFD. –MuZemike 21:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's where a list of stub templates are: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Templates#Stub types. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC))

Just asking, yes there are 21 stubs in that category but has anyone checked for Rareware related articles which are stubs but are not designated as such? I'll do a quick runthrough its games list to see which games need the stub template, and which don't. It's just a precaution before a hasty merger. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Before I do so, will anyone double-check after me to see if the ones I mark as stubs to be stubs? (These will be my only contributions for today, by the way). I don't want to accidentally label an article incorrectly. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the good idea and the effort. I guess I was overall interested in what the criteria was for having the stub templates and categories, but it seems that we have precedent for a number of them. If the Rareware articles that you tagged are deemed stubs, the class will need to be changed to stub on the talk page, too. I don't really care if the template stays, but I do feel that articles like Jetpac were already rightly assessed as Start class. Others may disaggree, but I'd rather the template remain with appropriate scope than to increase its use to justify keeping it. —Ost (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd say Jetpac is no longer a stub (decent length for a VG nearly 30 years old, enough references to verify subject): the tag should be removed. –xeno^talk 16:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I completely overlooked the talk page ranking. I'll go back through the pages and remove the tags from pages ranked start or higher. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I undid my damage but there are still plenty of stub/start articles out there that I really don't want to work on. However one game in particular, Miremare. It looks poorly done and is ranked start versus other games which looked better than it. Is there any way to demote the game? Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd support changing the Mire Mare article into a stub; I had trouble finding information in reliable sources. —Ost (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to add Giant Bomb to the sites of the VG review template? The staff used to work for GameSpot back when it was in its prime. It is a very popular website among the hardcore gamer crowd.

To be clear, I'm only talking about staff reviews, not user reviews. Here's the list:

http://www.giantbomb.com/reviews/

sdornan (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• Is this for a single instance, or for lots of articles? You can already use custom parameters "rev1" and "rev1score" per Template:VG reviews#Code (about 2/3 of the way down the code). If it's more of a multi thing it's already a situational source per Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Situational sources, which states "Reliable for reviews and news content submitted in the site's blog by the site's own editorial staff. Do not use the user contributed content from the site's article/database section for citations.". That being the case I'm against creating a parameter for it, since its too easy for users who do not know better to add user reviews. --Teancum (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• Users who don't know better could do that with any reliable review site. It should not be difficult to tell the difference between staff reviews and user reviews. You can even tell if it's a user review just by looking at the URL. I agree though that you can just use a custom parameter for Giant Bomb. Reach Out to the Truth 05:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I recently commented on how horribly written the tone of SSF4 and removed some implied information and other information that wasn't really necessary to have. A user name UKER said instead that my version was horrible and reverted it. Just so i don't go through an edit war i would ask for your opinion on the subject. he believes that Sentence connectors such as "eventually" and "Supposedly" help the article, but i don't think he knows about neutral tone. If anyone can help both sides, it would be great.Bread Ninja (talk) 01:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting how you keep mentioning the word "supposedly" as a fallacious argument against me, since nobody in its right mind would defend its use in an article, and it certainly never ever came up in the discussion. I do insist however that you're wrong on "eventually" harming a sentence's neutrality. Also, I'd appreciate it if you stopped baselessly underestimating and patronizing me. Thank you. BTW, here I leave the link to the discussion you forgot to link to. --uKER (talk) 03:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't take it personally, ever. that's all i have to say.Bread Ninja (talk) 03:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It would help if you didn't make baseless speculative remarks about myself not knowing what neutrality is. --uKER (talk) 03:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It's in the header. i wasn't talking about the discussion mainly, just the article.Bread Ninja (talk) 03:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about now? --uKER (talk) 03:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok i sense hostility.....so all i can say is that i was talking about the article. my sentence is clear as dayBread Ninja (talk) 03:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

None of these edits really matter because they are all speculation/original research. The fact that it was "supposedly" the game doesn't make any difference - if it cannot be proven without original research, it doesn't belong in the article.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

it was already resolved so yeah.Bread Ninja (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyone want to take a stab on telling me how I can cite this Media Create information as a reference? « ₣M₣ » 02:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Use:
<ref>{{cite web|url=<URL>|title=<Title>}}</ref>
That's the most basic syntax. Anyway, it being a forum, I'd seriously doubt its validity as a source. --uKER (talk) 03:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

You don't. Neogaf is not a reliable source. You need to cite the data directly, and find out if and where it was actually published. - hahnchen 12:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

? Also, isn't Media Create also a magazine? So if you found out the details like issue and page #, you could source that. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 16:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Its a book by Media Create called 2010 Video Game Industry White Paper ( i think i linked the right page). Salavat (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please close some of the old Peer Reviews? They aren't really active now and I think some have been open for 2-3 months. GamerPro64 (talk) 22:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I happened to be browing the Strategic Simulations, Inc. games category, as I notice Frecklefoot has been doing some work there. I noticed a number of articles in there which were lacking cover images, if anyone wants to add some: Broadsides (video game), Buck Rogers: Matrix Cubed, Clash of Steel, Cosmic Balance II, Demon's Winter, Fantasy General, Fighting Steel, Gary Grigsby's Pacific War, Great Naval Battles, Imperialism (video game), North Atlantic '86, Panzer General, Panzer Strike, People's General (tiny version), President Elect (computer game), Prophecy: The Fall of Trinadon, Red Lightning (video game), Star General, Steel Panthers (tiny version), Storm Across Europe, The Cosmic Balance, Tony La Russa Baseball, War Wind, Warhammer 40,000: Chaos Gate (tiny version), and Waterloo (video game). I also added the WikiProject template to several articles in that category, since they did not have it. BOZ (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You might want to add the "cover=yes" parameter to the WikiProject template so the articles go to this: Category:Video game articles requesting identifying art. --Mika1h (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's an enormous category... but I guess maybe that will help eventually? BOZ (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

For a while now I've had the feeling that Category:Video game articles requesting identifying art needs to be split. It needs to have its long term residents filtered out. - X201 (talk) 08:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated List of Nintendo 64 games for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.) GamerPro64 (talk) 00:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Cheating in online games comes in two types, using a hack program or something similar, and "exploiting" the game. There are two articles, cheating in online games and exploit (online gaming), but they have some overlap because exploits are often considered cheating, even though they technically aren't. As such, many are listed in the former article when they would also belong in the latter. So, I think that either cheating in online games should be pared down, or the two should be merged.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I would think that since an exploit is something anyone who has the knowledge can do with what is given in the game, it's different from cheating, which would require some sort of external program, etc. Rather than merging them for being similar, it's better to make sure the examples are correct. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at the cheating article, there are several examples where exploits are cheats. I for one support the merge. --Teancum (talk) 00:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Weak support. It seems to me at this moment that exploits are such a closely related concept to cheating that discussing exploits outside of the context of a discussion of cheating is almost nonsensical, which argues for a merge. I feel like there may be valid arguments against this, but I don't think "exploits are something anyone can do", which is a species of "it's not cheating because the game allowed it", is one. —chaos5023 (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that they should be merged because what many people would describe as cheating is hacking and exploiting. I wouldn't say that using things like cheat codes is "cheating" because the game allows it. So in my opinion the only real form of cheating would be hacking and exploiting, so they should be one article. GameSlayerGS (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Noticed it while cleaning out older revived character articles, and I think something's gone a wee bit awry here. Thing is, should it get merged into Tony Hawk or the game series?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't revived; I created it from scratch. I think it should stay because he is arguably the most important character of the series, and it talks about the character's development and how the real-life Tony Hawk was involved. You may wish to see the peer review. Tezero (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's still a fictional character that doesn't really matter. All the information is better served informing the larger work in the series article or the respective game pages. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there enough coverage and citation than it should stay. This could easily be expanded. Tony Hawk has appeared in many games, I'm sure someone can put some more info on there.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

If someone can actually write a decent reception section beyond the two miscellaneous bits current there (only one of which is about the character itself), then I'll change my opinion. But as of now it does not assert notability. I'm really getting tired of this "it's appeared a lot, therefor it must be notable" attitude. We go by sources. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

While it would seem like a good idea, I think it would work better in Tony Hawk's article, or the game series article. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 20:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. To me it's analogous to wanting to write an article about Pac-Man (character): you could, and you would be justified in attempting to do so, but the end result would be 90+% a repeat of the series article. There's just too much overlap. Nifboy (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I definitely think this should be merged into something. No need for this article. --Torsodog^Talk 21:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there not a reason this cannot be in Tony Hawk, the BLP? –MuZemike 22:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I figured this could be an unusual subject, but not to the extent that people are demanding a merge. I'm currently looking for more reception. If it just doesn't work, I'll just merge this article into Tony Hawk, Appearances into the individual games, and Conception and creation into a development section for Tony Hawk's Pro Skater. Tezero (talk) 01:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The thing isn't just the reception: it's what do you really say about the "character" in the article? There's nothing truly separating him from Tony Hawk, and not enough to say to warrant an article and discuss the subject.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The same could be said of any character in Category:Fictional versions of real people. The article talks (it should be expanded more to be complete) about the character's appearances. He isn't always the protagonist, and it gives, for example, a summary of his appearance in Tony Hawk's Underground. Tezero (talk) 13:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

That category is a terrible example, namely because a lot of its contents are character articles that really should go. Case in point: Adolf Hitler (Marvel Comics) has more picture than article. Almost none of them have any real substantial material in their articles period, or are articles that shouldn't be in that category, such as I Love Lucy. Tony Hawk the video game character isn't a stand alone subject: it's the man as he portrays himself in the games. That's all, and a engorged appearances section wouldn't change that.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. There's very little content on the page beyond "Tony Hawk is used as his own avatar in the games named after him". That's really just about it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

All right, everyone's made these points, and I've had no success in finding sources with actual opinions of the character beyond just that he exists and is well-known. I'll start the merging now. Tezero (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I hope this is the correct place to post this. I think Call of Duty: Black Ops needs a few more eyes on it. Fansites and speculative original research are being touted as reliable sources for the upcoming game. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

If anyone wants to redo that Gameplay section, this was the information. « ₣M₣ » 18:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

A user has been adding to the article Sephiroth, info about replica clothing company releasing coats based on him. However, while the first site appeared to be unreliable for being user edited, the second one does not bring author's name, is it reliable?Tintor2 (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

[2] "NewsletterArchive is a website that aims to archive and make available to the public all email newsletters. It will rely on user contributions for its content." No mention of checking for validity. So, I'm pretty sure it's not. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  23:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Halo 3: ODST/archive2 needs your comments! (I'd hate for it to get archived... again.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I've suggested some minor changes to the article guidelines regarding images and I would appreciate any comments. --MrStalker ^(talk) 09:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to inform everyone, Star Wars: Rogue Squadron will be tomarrow's Today's featured article. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Huzzah! --Torsodog^Talk 20:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll watchlist it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

That's awesome. It was a great game (and is a great article), it's about time it got on Wikipedia's main page. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Both Double Dragon and Double Dragon (series) should be pagemoved to Double Dragon (video game) and Double Dragon respectively, as this is consistent with how other VG series are done, and it seems to disambiguate better. I'd boldly do it myself, but I want some endorsement or discussion first since admin actions are required here. –MuZemike 23:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised this has not happened yet. Video game articles upon video game articles have been changed to this format, these articles are behind on the update. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

We've had this conversation before. There are many articles that still use the (series) tag and there are many articles that use the (video game) tag. Personally, I think the series tags should be used. I don't think there was a discussion that ended in a consensus about using either one though, so I don't think all articles should be changed either way until their is. --Torsodog^Talk 23:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It has been discussed several, _Resident_Evil_(series)" title="Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 56">several times before.

I believe no "real" guideline has emerged. The best we've come up with is to address it on a case by case basis with the following things in mind:

• If the series has expanded beyond a few games and into other media (e.g. novelizations, films, spin-off titles, etc.).
• The articles' primary contributor(s) think it's a good idea. (Not sure where this came from, but it stand to reason that the primary contributor(s) has researched the topic more than others.)

Personally, I think the most common name should take the lead, which essentially amounts to a series' notability expanding beyond that of the first game. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC))

Another one

I won't waste time placing this in a separate section, but I just noticed Magnavox Odyssey Series was created, which is separate from Magnavox Odyssey the console. Assuming we're keeping the series article, should we move the series article to Magnavox Odyssey and the console article to Magnavox Odyssey (video game console)? –MuZemike 22:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The same thing was apparently done for PlayStation (console) and PlayStation. Though I'm still on the fence as to what the best practice should be. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC))

I've updated the new article announcements list after not being updated for a while. (There are probably more out there, which I'll try and find on Special:NewPages when I get time.) A lot of these articles are in rather bad shape and need help.

• The first thing I notice that many of them are not assessed try and add the following on their talk pages:
  • {{WikiProject Video games|class=Stub/Start/etc|importance=Low/Mid/etc|cover=yes (if applicable and needed)|screenshot=yes (if applicable and needed)}}
• Try and make any corrections/fixes to these articles if you can. If you have AutoWikiBrowser, then that would be a plus.
• If the article needs to be moved, please do so. If any other major editorial actions are needed, try and assess them.

–MuZemike 23:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

What about needs-infobox=yes  ? I'm halfway to clearing out that category and it'll need repopulating soon. - X201 (talk) 08:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, why not? I forgot about the new template implementation now supports that. –MuZemike 13:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm on the limit of a 3RR regarding this [3] addition of speculation regarding the name of the next GTA title. The IP user's stance is that because the website is checking the story then the rumour should remain in the article. Could someone else check it please and see what they think of it. Thanks. - X201 (talk) 08:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

What even makes the citation he is using reliable? かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 13:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't reliable. But nothing in the 3RR exemption list lists that as an acceptable reason for me to break 3RR - X201 (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The citation is unreliable: it states the source of the info is probably faked. Removed the info again and notified the IP. Jarkeld (talk) 13:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

We really need to create some uniformity between lists. Looking at several of the more prominent ones, I'm seeing...

1. PSP has three columns that deal with multi-player information.
2. PS3 has a column for trophies and one for whether or not the game is exclusive.
3. Saturn, Master System, Astari 7800, and Mega Drive has number of players.
4. 360 has Exclusivity.
5. Atari 2600 has genre and comments about the games.
6. N64 has number of players, ESRB/ELSPA ratings, genre, and Japanese alternate titles.

Basically, there ain't no law governing these lists, as clearly not one list follows a uniformed structure. If any two lists share the same design, it's either coincidence or due to the same people making both lists. I think it'd be prudent to figure out what the necessary perimeters are for lists so we do not have these unnecessary "useful" columns/information. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure noone will mind if these lists get edited to a better layout. I think guideline proposal should stem from these lists should they be redesigned. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  14:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It could be a good exercise to determine if there are some pieces of information that are rarely notable or should usually be included, but I don't see this as a major issue. I'll refer to my comments from when specific format was discussed in April, but basically I don't think that is matters much if lists across articles vary, since MOS is concerned with internal consistency within articles. I don't have a problem with the status quo where the editors maintaining each lists get to determine what information is suitable for inclusion, although I could see the benefit of a best practice guideline that could help editors to make those determinations. —Ost (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

For those interested, some test formats were created in a previous discussion. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC))

[4] [5]

Here's an odd reception bit: apparently website MyVoucherCodes.co.uk conducted a poll with 1438 and 978 british men and women respectively on what video game characters they found attractive based on a series of images, and posted their results. However something feels really iffy about this and I'm not entirely sure this is reliable at all...can anyone shed some more light on this? If it can be used it would boost a few articles, though if it's just rubbish they're better off without it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Since they are (as GamesRadar points out) basically a self-promotion machine, I wouldn't take any sort of credence with their methodology or results (especially since the list was apparently preselected for voters, and we don't know how the voters were selected.) I'd say not reliable. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Also consider they were "shown a series of images", so there was already a limited selection. It's unlikely that, say, Aya Brea was included, for instance. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Only 10 characters is a pretty small selection. Given the huge amount of game characters versus the small amount of, say, Hollywood stars, I'd think that a poll like this would be inherently unreliable, especially pre-selected.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Alrighty, was just checking. Everything said here more or less reflects what threw me off about the whole "poll" myself.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

This new article, Arabian's Lost ~The Engagement on Desert~, needs some help. I'm not sure if it is notable. I'm only sure that the title isn't right. Any help that someone can provide is appreciated. I'm not a video gamer; I figured someone here could determine the validity of this article and/or clean it up. — Timneu22 · talk 15:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the title isn't right, and yes, the the game is likely notable, being a PS2 release. –MuZemike 14:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I've just noticed CydeBot removing Category:Video games featuring female protagonists from a bunch of articles [6] and noted with some dismay that I didn't notice the discussion in time to opine.

Personally, I think that video games with female main characters are still quite rare and deserving of a category. Or perhaps a list. In any case, on the suggestion of the closing admin, I've brought it here for further discussion.

I think that "Category:Video games with female main characters" or something similar addresses the inclusion criteria concerns nicely. –xeno^talk 20:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a usable category. It counters one of the objections made against "Video games featuring female protagonists" Jarkeld (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I can see little encyclopaedic value from the category as it is. Only a small portion of articles was/will be tagged with this unless a lot of work goes into it. Protagonist is highly ambiguous. There are games with male/female choices or with a selection of very many characters. I fully agree on closing admins reasoning based on editor input. "Category:Video games with female main characters" is better choice but it still does not clarify who the main characters are and only broadens the scope. I suppose I do not object (too much) to the creation and clear definition of a new category; I am instead worried about the effort, quality, and bias of populating it thereafter. Will we get animal protagonists or protagonists in special suits too :P ? —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  20:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Some games have the choice of Male/Female, and some have more then one, etc. Really, the category is not needed. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 21:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with protagonist being so wishy-washy, but I admit i probably am basing this on my systemic bias of RPGs and other video games with strong central storylines. I think a category like: Category:Video games with only a female main character or something that makes it clear games like Fallout 3 or Dragon Quest 4 can't be listed there would be fine.陣内_Jinnai 21:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a huge fan of this category for the dilution reasons above, but if the category were created, I would think that you would want "player character" somewhere in it. Games can have main characters and protagonists—at least depending on the definition of the terms—that are not the player character (e.g., Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time) and using a broad phrase like "main character" is inviting for vague entries. —Ost (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I was going to continue discussing it at CFD, but the conversation unfortunately took a less than stellar turn and I couldn't be chewed to continue. There were a number of problems with the category and I don't see how it's possible to nullify them all. For instance:

• At the most basic level, does a game happening to have a vaguely female collection of pixels or polygons actually dictate the level of the reader's interest? How many are going to rush out and play foo since it's a platformer with a female player chara?
• There is an unavoidable element of the subject of how women are portrayed in games, which is not something that can be distilled down into yes/no. Do any of these sources talking about the portrayal of women give a tinker's cuss about the likes of Super Cauldron? Is Lara Croft a +ve for being a strong independent woman or a -ve for having started out with beestung lips and plastic tits to excite 12 year olds?
• Video games are not passive, which is why there are so many shades of grey in something which at first glance looks black and white. Another problem with this category is that we are collectively supposed to somehow define criteria for inclusion with a massive amount of factors. For instance (if I'm interpreting this wrong please correct me), Jinnai has suggested that Fallout 3 and the like should be prescribed against in favour of games with strong narrative and a well defined player character, say something like Heavenly Sword. The problem with that is we're left trying to categorize video games as if they're films or books. They're not, a great number of games have little plot or characterization to speak of.
• There are wildcards like Castlevania: Portrait of Ruin, where two characters are controlled at once, one male and one female. Grell and Falla has players switching between a male and a female character. Trine has three characters which get switched between, one is female.
• Games from several different genres/types (kart racers, beat 'em ups, fighting games etc.) from beyond a certain point of time (say the early 90s) typically feature no main character and at least one female character to select. By discounting games of this type again we would be presenting false data, if there is no main character and a female option is available then by definition the player can turn it into a female player-character game.
• There are numerous games where the gender of the player character is moot, or there is no player character as such. This is again different to books and films. Even if all the above issues somehow vanished, if a category for games with female characters stands alone then it gives out the false impression that "these games, out of XYZ games in total, have female player characters", in order to get any kind of handle on what that category represented we would have to construct other gender/less categories to sit alongside it.

The practicalities of such a category are in no way simple, ultimately anyone wanting to do serious research in this area would have to do their own research using their own criteria. Someoneanother 22:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Note, my criteria wasn't based on strong narrative, i said i'm just more familiar with games like that. What i did say is that the main [player character] would have to be female and only female whether its an rpg, a platformer, or an RTS. If the gender is not stated in-game or by someone on the production staff or it is unclear whom is the main player character after discussion, then there is no need to include them in the criteria.

As to your other questions, I can say yes to the first point, it doesn't matter as we aren't trying to define types of females here to the second point and the rest i already addressed.陣内_Jinnai 23:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected regarding regarding the main character, though I disagree that there are a wealth of players out there who actively choose games by the gender of the main/player character (if it's even applicable). However, the narrow category definition does shut out games which do not fit in with the one/main character definition (which is plenty) and does shut out Fallout 3, which goes back to the problem of trying to define a non-passive medium with a passive criteria. A player creating a female Fallout 3 character and who only plays with that character (or starts again with another) is playing a game with only a female main character. Someoneanother 23:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Classifying characters by gender is unnecessary. Sexual orientation is do-able, since it is still rare in games and a controversial issue. However, simply because a character is female does not merit a special category. It's just not rare anymore and the issue of sex appeal can be placed in Video game controversy without any category whatsoever.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I would say this would be better as a list, but I see it causing even more problems than a category as WP:OR applies to a list and i see it failing that.陣内_Jinnai 14:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

http://www.ign.com/videogame-villains/index.html

This is a list to provide a bit of reception to 100 characters, but I don't think I could cover them all. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 01:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

An interesting read, particularly with no less than 3 characters from the original BioShock listed. I'll probably find a use for the zombies part in the list I've been working on - so thank you! Someoneanother 00:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

{{cite manual}} apparently got put up for deletion recently, and this is actually a bit of a surprise given there's been no actual indication to this previously until I started doing some article maintenance. Bringing this to everyone's attention here as this template is used in a lot of our articles, and losing it or even getting it directly redirected to {{cite book}} per the current suggestion will probably end up affecting a few GA or higher articles one way or another.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It makes sense considering a manual is a type of book. I don't see how cite manual isn't a sawed-off version of cite book.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if it matters, but manuals aren't always a books; they may be only available online, such as those for Wiiware or other downloadable titles. Additionally, one minor issue I can foresee would be if "manual" isn't included in the title of citations, using cite book could look like a game was being plugged into the template instead of a manual. —Ost (talk) 17:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I've always used {{cite book}} for game manuals as opposed to {{cite manual}}. –MuZemike 18:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I should note that the title issue is only applicable in a situation where {{cite manual}}s are converted to {{cite book}}s; the minor issue would be moot for new citations. I'm fine with whatever consensus is in the TfD, but thinking of digital manuals got me playing devil's advocate. —Ost (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think much issue will result. {{cite book}} works for most situations and fields. Might as well have just one template. Someone can hard-code their own refs if that matters. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

If they are only available online for downloadable titles, then no I wouldn't delete it. But other than that, I've always used {{cite book}} when citing actual manuals. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 20:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

For online books there is a format which you can insert PDF or the like. The only real issue is when the manual is online and then it would need to be converted to {{cite web}} or in a few cases, the manual may be a part of the game itself in which case {{cite video game}} would need to be updated (it does anyway though since it wasn't updated to comply with cite core fields.

The deletion isn't an issue; it should be noted though that a bot shouldn't change the entries to {{cite book}}, but instead redirect allowing users to go through and give a chance to move to other appropriate templates.陣内_Jinnai 22:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

If some people can comment on Talk:Ninja Gaiden (Nintendo Entertainment System)#Alternate gameplay screenshot and just say which screenshot would be better and more informative to readers (my proposed replacement is in Imagebin, though I uploaded what's on the article right now), that would be appreciated. It's one of the last things I'm trying to get addressed before I take a second attempt at WP:FAC. –MuZemike 17:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I've uploaded 5 more gameplay images onto imagebin which hopefully addresses the "lighting" issues noted on the talk page. –MuZemike 21:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please explain to me what happened to the article about the video game webcomic Ctrl + Alt + Del? It seemed to have been deleted and I can't find any discussion to why it's gone. --VitasV (talk) 13:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It was unfortunately deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ctrl+Alt+Del. The article is currently a {{userspace draft}} at User:TheChrisD/Ctrl+Alt+Del if you'd like to try to improve it to alleviate the concerns of the AFD (basically ensure that it meets WP:GNG). –xeno^talk 13:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

There's not many references besides criticism of the comic for being bad. Not much more important than the other million bad webcomics out there.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Recreated, with references from some offline sources. There are still more out there that I have not used. Gary King (talk) 08:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Does the recreated page need to be at Ctrl+Alt+Del (webcomic)? In the past ot was at Ctrl+Alt+Del with the computer concept at Control-Alt-Delete. A simple hat note seems to surfice. and if not the Ctrl-Alt-Del page should at least have a link to the web commic.--76.66.190.253 (talk) 03:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

That's going to need to be ironed out as there is "Ctrl+Alt+Del"-like articles that are all over the place. Each article needs verifiability first and then standardization based on what the common terms are (easier said than done, of course, and I think some discussion will be necessary). –MuZemike 05:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there another way to do them for wikilinking a Book? Like this. I'm just concerned that giving it its own section is kind of cluttering the ToC. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 20:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You could use a navbox, such as in {{Pac-Man series}}. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

As I suggested to Headbomb before, use {{Wikipedia-Books link}}. Gary King (talk) 23:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I hate that template... writing Book:Chrono series directly would be a much better solution IMO. The navboxes seem to settle as the favoured option however. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Not all articles have navboxes, and short articles are more likely to NOT have navboxes AND a "See also" section. Gary King (talk) 01:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Adding missing navboxes isn't a hard thing to do. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Not all articles have an appropriate navbox. Gary King (talk) 01:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I've been using {{Wikipedia-Books link}} in "See also" sections. Though I do see the positives to including it in a navbox.

Regardless, I don't think such sections are clutter. If the table of content is cluttered, {{TOC limit}} can be used. Plus "See also" sections are within the layout manual of style. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC))

Today I found out that Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within is at GAN. When I was about to put it up on the to do list, I saw that it didn't have the {{WikiProject Video games}} tag on its Talk Page. Should it? GamerPro64 (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

No it shouldn't. but it is somewhat based off a video game, so it could be in films based on video games.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there a wikiproject/taskforce for films based on movies? Anyway, I doubt it needs VG banner. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  20:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

No there isn't but there is a banner for it.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It should be in the project's scope due to its direct relation to the video game medium. For example: Resident Evil: Apocalypse. Tezero (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The difference with Resident Evil is that the Final Fantasy movie had absolutely nothing to do with any FF video game since they are all set in a different universe. On the other hand, Resident Evil has characters and settings from the series. IMO, it doesn't require a WP:VG tag.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It has Cid. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really sure that counts per se to be honest...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I would tag it as low-importance. I see enough minor threads that connect to video games: heavily based on a video game series, produced by a video game company and its staff, and the financial failure greatly affected said video game company (I believe Sakaguchi left because of it and it delayed the merger with Enix).

I do see the argument against inclusion though. Doesn't seem like that big of a deal since it has the Square Enix banner on the talk page. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC))

After looking at the Space Invaders game articles, I believe that most should be redirected to List of Space Invaders video games. However, I'd like to get more opinions on this before I start rocking the boat. Here is the full list of articles this relates to:

The gameplay for the majority of these games is basically the original Space Invaders with a few changes. I don't imagine development would be well documented since the games originated in Japan and each game built on the progress of previous ones. As far as sources goes, a small number have some third-party sources, but most that do only have maybe 3–5. Most every source I could find is already used in the video game list, though I suspect that some content and sources could expand a few list entries. The few that could probably survive as a stand-alone article are Space Raiders (video game), Space Invaders Extreme, and Space Invaders Get Even. Template:Space Invaders will more than likely be unnecessary if most of the above are redirected. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC))

Space Invaders Extreme 2, too. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't do much of a search for that one. But if it's got enough sources to establish notability outside the first SIE, then sure. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC))

Since there is a quality list available and most of these have had limited work on them, I'd say cool beans, except for Space Invaders Extreme and Space Invaders Extreme 2, which have a lot more promise. Someoneanother 17:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi everybody... Last week the VG guidelines were detagged from being a guideline by a good faith passerby. I think this is a bad idea. This has been a guide for video game articles for a long time and not just a guide for the project. If this becomes another essay then it will be harder to keep our standards up. But I am ok with talking about it. I don't think there will be consensus to remove it but i am also ready to look for compermise. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not quite follow what you are opposing. There were two changes. 1) [7] by Gnevin where {{subcat guideline}} got changed to Category:Style guidelines of WikiProjects. And 2) [8] by Jinnai where previously joined reference and link guidelines were separated and expanded. You undid both changes. Jinnai reverted you per WP:EL for his additions and I believe he did not notice the style guideline tag. Do you object to both changes or only the de-tagging? —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  22:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Category:Wikipedia topic guidelines, the category created by the subcat guideline template, is now up for deletion. This is the result of discussion related to Wikipedia:Subject-specific guidelines, an attempt to clean up the MoS and related guidance. At the very least it would be nice to put a banner back on the guideline, {{guideline}} would suffice. Nifboy (talk) 23:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It is just about the detagging by Gnevin. I'm ok with the compremise by Nifboy. But I want Jinnai to have a chance to speak up and to see if consensus has changed about this guide line. I am in no hurry and think it is worth talking about. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The changes I made were to comply with WP:EL and use current practices. EL has different crtieria than WP:RS and the previous wording made it seem as though one would have to look at the latter for criteria when dealing with external links. In some ways EL is more lax, as it allows for items that wouldn't meet RS, but in others it is more stringent as there is almost no reason to cite someone's personal webpage, unless the article happens to be about that person.陣内_Jinnai 00:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I take it that Jinnai's change (Ref/EL clarification) is not contested then and can be restored? The detagging of the guideline should wait until discussions run their course. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  01:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes I made a mistake about the external link stuff so you can re-add it. I was looking at the guideline tag at the top and wanted to talk about that first. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks to all. Unless anyone wants to bring up detagging I think we are good now. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

This [9] is the citation that is being used to verify the IGN review score for Red Dead Redemption. The problem is that its the wrong score; depending upon where you are in the world when you view it. That link is to the IGN US site that gave the game 9.7, UK users following the link would be redirected to IGN UK and see a score of 9.8 and our Aussie friends would get IGN AUS and also see 9.8. Lawd knows where anyone in Germany, Holland or anywhere else would be redirected.

My point is: Should we make it madatory that review sites like this - where anyone wishing to check a reference will be diverted away from reliable data to a source that whilst reliable would be "wrong" - should be cited via an online page archiving system? - X201 (talk) 08:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

But you can still see the other scores listed under the "main score". --Mika1h (talk) 08:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Didn't see that. My mind had blotted it out and assumed it to be part of the advertising guff down the left side. - X201 (talk) 09:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The score in the sidebar is not important. The review score for the review that you're reading is always on the last page of the review. That score will remain consistent no matter which regional version of the site you use. Reach Out to the Truth 05:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

What do we do when citing {{Cite video game}} when developer= and publisher= are the same? It looks really weird, e.g., Tecmo. Ninja Gaiden. (Tecmo). Nintendo Entertainment System. (March 1989) "..." Although technically correct, I can find no style guideline/mention on this. Would be nice to clarify in the template. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  23:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't fill in publisher.陣内_Jinnai 01:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I have been noticing that there are 3 articles up for A-class assessment right now. Its not that many. However, there's a lack of reviewers for A-class article's lately. With evidence being the Nintendo DSi being up for the assessment since February. Should there be changes to the process to get the reviews done quicker or something? GamerPro64 (talk) 01:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

IMO I think if 2 weeks have gone by without anyone posting, I think a notice should be posted here. The other idea is to have a bot run anytime that secion of the page is updated (once a day) to inform those who do reviews on their talk page.陣内_Jinnai 01:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Who are the ones who do reviews? —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  01:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I've been reviewing articles for A-class for a while. Others would be User:Teancum and User:Taelus. However, anyone can be a reviewer. GamerPro64 (talk) 02:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

While anyone can do a review, it's best to familiarize yourselves with some the basics of the guidelines. If you feel you're not up to it, try a WP:GAN first.陣内_Jinnai 03:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

A general rule that I follow is to point out just about every issue (grammar, spelling, layout, sourcing, and image use) I come across, no matter how small. Of course, don't be a jerk about it, but A-class articles should be pretty close to FA-quality. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC))

1. Nintendo DSi - 1 or 2 (not sure how well GamePro64 went over stuff with the 1 line comment (hard to tell).
2. Barbarian: The Ultimate Warrior - 1 more reviewer and cleanup of the article itself.
3. Dragon Quest - currently needs 2 more reviewrs (everyone over at WP:DQ has helped with this articke so we can't do much.陣内_Jinnai 00:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

A user disputes the artworks being used for both and Super Mario Galaxy (here) and Super Mario Galaxy 2 (here) articles. The images in question are the cover artwork released by Nintendo without any branding, logos or rating body symbols on them. User:Link floyd's argument centres around the platform neutrality section of the image guidelines. With their argument being that because SMG is a single platform game the platform neutrality guidelines should apply in reverse and that the artwork shown should have logos and branding on it.

Personally I think this is not in the spirit of what the guidelines set out to achieve. The primary principle of the guidelines was to stop disputes over the "nationality" (platform or geographic) of cover artwork with the guideline either advising a platform neutral version or the use of the artwork from the developers home country.

When I uploaded the SMG2 artwork (the SMG 1 artwork was uploaded by Calamity-Ace in 2008) I was doing it for two reasons; firstly to match the logo and branding free SMG 1 version and secondly to help prevent any nationality issues by adding a version without ratings logos - which can cause uploads and changes for flimsy reasons. Personally I think if we can get a "clean" artwork for any title I think we should use it (does less branding /logos help the FUR situation?). I think the stability of the SMG and GTA IV covers shows it is a good idea. - X201 (talk) 08:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason that you can't have platform/region neutral artwork if it is available. The artwork itself is the subject of commentary and means of identification, not the millions of logos and brandings placed all over it for retail purposes. This is done by some other articles, despite being platform exclusives: Halo 3, Empire: Total War, Gears of War 2 being some examples. The way I see it is that if there is an entirely clean version of a game's box art available, use it. -- Sabre 11:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

That's the intent when we wrote it. A brand-less image is the best you should use because the branding aspects are otherwise the same across games on the same platform, and a brand-less images focuses on the art production values for the game. --MASEM (t) 13:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

X201, did you notice the random star? Nintendo altered the artwork in March. [10] compared to [11]. I cannot find its finalized artwork without branding, so that's why I uploaded it. :P « ₣M₣ » 13:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The presence (or lack there of) one element while 95% of the art remains the same is not a valid reason to replace a brand-less image with the final box art image; the art style and the like is all still there. --MASEM (t) 13:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

In the case of the SMG 2 artwork it was the opposite. I changed FullMetal Falcon's branded version for a non-branded one. FullMetal Falcon hasn't reverted or complained about it. It was another user who seemed to have the problem with branded artworks so much so that he also changed the Monster Huinter Tri cover as well (since reverted by FullMetal Falcon) - X201 (talk) 14:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I would say that there is such a reason: accuracy. An encyclopedia should have what ACTUALLY is the box art, not what almost was. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Except in rare cases, we're including box art for purposes of identifying the game to the image of the game's cover. I have zero doubt that someone is not going to recognize the real game cover (which has the added star) after seeing the star-less prerelease image. If it was significantly different artwork in the brand-free version over the branded version, I would agree with using the branded version, but we're talking one small element that is changed and not in any way that seems critically important (as opposed, to , say, if they were trying to get rid of the whole "U R MR GAY" thing from last time around). --MASEM (t) 15:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't spot the extra star when I uploaded it. To behonest it took me a couple of looks to understand what FullMetal Falcon was pointing out regarding the other star. The main point though, is that so far, no one seems to have an issue with using branding/logo free art on any article if it is available. - X201 (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

My main problem is, it is still the wrong cover. If we present the pre-release cover as the real one, then we stop being encyclopedic; we cannot use images that are not correct just to maintain a preference. The fact of the matter is, without the star, then it is not the cover; no matter how small the difference, we should always strive to present correct information to our readers. However, I think an unbranded cover, if identical to the release one otherwise, is always preferable. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this. We should use the ACTUAL cover, not a cover that is very similar to the actual cover. --Torsodog^Talk 17:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, that was easily rectified. Now, may we return to the point in hand, rather than the minor difference between two versions of box art?-- Sabre (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I've always uploaded "cleaner" versions of box art wherever possible; it's simply an aesthetic choice, but considering it fills the same role as another non-free image (and in general can be smaller in resolution, and doesn't contain trademarked/copyrighted logos and wrapper text) it's generally superior. In terms of fair use, no one cares, and in terms of WP:NFCC you can make a good case that it's as strong, if not stronger. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I too prefer cleaner versions of the box art. For me, the box art is about depicting the themes and imagery from the game, and the various rating stickers or generic branding bands detract from that. I wouldn't replace any art though, unless I'm debranding a multiplatform title. - hahnchen 20:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The cover is for identifying the game and commenting on its art, so since cleaned up versions don't show what country it is from either, the versions without all the distracting markings are better IMO. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, my issue with this is that the images shown on the articles are NOT the actual game covers and looking everywhere else in wikipedia and just using common sense, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be. Wikipedia articles about books, music albums, movie posters, magazines, etc, show the actual cover of whatever they are about. Why should video game articles be any different?

To me it's just silly to go arond fishing for a "clean" image to substitute the real game cover when the box art is already as clean as it should be. That's the real box art, the one everyone is going to see pretty much everywhere, and therefor the one that should be included in the wikipedia article. Is your issue with the box art that it includes the console and company logo and the ESRB or CERO or PEGI rating? Those are standards included in every single video game cover for every console since the beginning (or since the mid-90s for the rating, anyway). If it doesn't have the Wii logo on top, then it isn't a Wii game box art. Call it promotional art, game art, or something else, but don't call it box art. And if that is not your issue, then it's just a matter of your own personal preference and then, well, all I have to say is that it makes much more choice to me to include the real box art. But I don't think that's how these things are supposed to go, is it? ^^

Anyway, what I'm saying is that for the same reasons that this movie poster has all the usual movie poster stuff, and this book cover has a quote from The Times, and like these lots and lots of other examples, for the same reason those images weren't changed or edited, these video game covers shouldn't be either. And I don't see any strong, real reason why they should be.

What I'm saying might not sound to you like it is "in the spirit of what the guidelines set out to achieve," but to me they clearly state that "If the game was released for multiple platforms with a similar cover, only one cover image should be used; if possible, a cover without any platform-related logotypes should be used by editing the cover picture in order to create a platform-neutral picture" and "Where different cover designs are available for different regions, the one from the region in which the game has been developed should be used. If the game's original release is not in English use the cover from the region in which the game receives its first English language release, unless another English language version has been uploaded first in which case don't change it". Then the changes I made to both SMG games are justified since the game wasn't released for multiple platforms, so there's no need to remove any of the platform-related logotypes and there's nothing about the ratings and other stuff there; and since in the case of both SMG games the first English release was the North American one, that's the version of the box art that I reverted each image to.

Anyway, maybe I should have brought the issue here or to the articles' discussion pages before changing the images but I didn't think it was such a big deal, I was just following what I think the guidelines say and what my common sense told me. And maybe I'm taking this too seriously...Link Floyd (talk) 01:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The box art is used to represent the game, not to show the box art. There's a subtle difference. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Though its been up since May 10th and it has comments on it, not that many have been saying Keep or Remove that much. Can somebody review List of N64 game's FLRC? GamerPro64 (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

My first VG FA failed its first FAC because it wasn't sufficiently copyedited, and the second one almost failed. I'm going for FA again with this one and as such would appreciate any such help in terms of wording, etc. Tezero (talk) 05:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Attention everyone. I would just like to inform everybody that if an article is a Good Article, the {{good article}} tag must be added in the article. GamerPro64 (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Neat, but I'm sure a bot will take care of this in practice. Otherwise, its a rather extensive task. -- Sabre (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah definitely a task that a bot should handle. A bot currently handles the {{Featured article}} template. Gary King (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a heads up, a few more eyes over at Talk:StarCraft II could prove useful. It seems that one of the fan forums would like to put in a criticism section dedicated to the lack of LAN play, thus we're likely to get a build up of people unfamiliar with quite how Wikipedia is supposed to operate on this stuff as the discussion gets underway. I think there's only a couple of experienced peeps with an eye on the article, so a few extra WP:VG members to help ensure the discussion results in something consistent with quality standards, WP:NPOV and WP:V would be helpful. -- Sabre (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Additionally your input as to what to do with the criticism would be good, although the article is currently full protected. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 23:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I think this page should be moved to one of the English names as "Everybody's Golf 4" is name of the game only in Japan. Thoughts? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 07:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Every article in the series is called by the Everybody's Golf title. The Japanese release always has the title in both Japanese and English. The original name is Everybody's golf, the rename was for the North American release. The article is caterered for by enough redirects, meaning no chance of anyone going to the wrong article. - X201 (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Why do so many templates use "VG something" instead of full "Video game something", like {{VG reviews}}. Is there a particular reason or has noone just bothered to change this? —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  15:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I would think that if the "VG" doesn't actually appear on the page, it would simply be a case of brevity. umrguy42 15:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that was just the style when they were first created. File size and space concerns use to be real on Wikipedia, so abbreviations were the norm. I don't think it hurts anything to keep it abbreviated, but I see the logic to a using a more accurate title. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC))

Jinnai created {{Video game reviews}} as a redirect in March, so the longer name can be used if it seems appropriate. —Ost (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The current peer view seems to have halted on improvements so now it needs an assessment. Stabby Joe (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey I was wondering if anything on Dragon Ball Z was covered or if there may be the need for a task force. Any help on this would be appreciated.Tetobigbro talk 06:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you interested in the anime/manga or just the related video games, or both? ?EVAUNIT^{神になった人間} 07:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Mainly games, such as the budokai and budokai tenchaichi series.Tetobigbro talk 19:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the Anime and Manga project has a Dragon Ball taskforce. Tezero (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The Beatles: Rock Band is set to be TFA on June 4, 2010.yeah, it's another one from me, I don't know how this keeps happening.... --MASEM (t) 16:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Dammit Masem you are monopolizing the Main Page >:( Gary King (talk) 05:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I am aware that this project is very conservative about adding or removing top-importance articles. However, I propose that this person's importance be lowered one notch because he is notable only within Sonic the Hedgehog (series), Sonic Team, and Prope, none of which are top-importance. Tezero (talk) 22:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The man is important, but not of top importance to the industry. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 20:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Support. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  20:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree here.陣内_Jinnai 23:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure he'd get a passing mention in at least one top-article. So this sounds reasonable. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC))

As I stated a few months ago, I have been attempting to improve and clean up articles relating to the Mega Man franchise. There are several articles I have personally called into question regarding notability as to whether they deserve their own articles or if they should be merged into an existing and more notable article. However, because the Mega Man Task Force appears to be inactive, I would like some more opinions. Here are the articles in question:

1. Mega Man (DOS game) – An extremely obscure (and apparently awful) PC game released in North America in 1990. Some reputable sources mention it from time to time. Suggestion: Merge to List of Mega Man games
2. Mega Man III (DOS) – Same as above. Suggestion: Merge to List of Mega Man games
3. Rockman Strategy – A Chinese-exclusive PC game. No references. Suggestion: Mega Man (original series) or List of Mega Man games
4. Rockman Complete Works – The name of Japan-exclusive PlayStation remakes of the first six Mega Man games. The limited content of the article is generally mentioned in the article for each game itself. Suggestion: Merge to Mega Man (original series) or List of Mega Man games
5. Mega Man X Collection – This article contains original research and no references. Unlike Mega Man Anniversary Collection, this compilation is a North American exclusive. Suggestion: Merge to Mega Man X
6. Rockman EXE WS - A Japan-exclusive WonderSwan game based on the Mega Man Battle Network series. No references. Suggestion: Merge to Mega Man Battle Network
7. Rockman EXE 4.5 Real Operation - A Japan-exclusive Game Boy Advance game based on the Mega Man Battle Network series. No references. Suggestion: Merge to Mega Man Battle Network
8. Rockman EXE Battle Chip Stadium – A Japan-exclusive arcade game based on the Mega Man Battle Network series. No references. Suggestion: Merge to Mega Man Battle Network
9. Rockman EXE The Medal Operation – A Japan-exclusive arcade game based on the Mega Man Battle Network series. No references. Suggestion: Merge to Mega Man Battle Network
10. Rockman EXE Phantom of Network – A Japan-exclusive mobile phone game based on the Mega Man Battle Network series. No references. Suggestion: Merge to Mega Man Battle Network
11. Rockman EXE Legend of Network - A Japan-exclusive mobile phone game based on the Mega Man Battle Network series. No references. Suggestion: Merge to Mega Man Battle Network
12. Personal Terminal (MegaMan) and PET (Mega Man) - A plot/gameplay aspect of the Mega Man Battle Network series. No references. Suggestion: Merge to Mega Man Battle Network
13. Style Change - A gameplay aspect of the Mega Man Battle Network series. No references. Suggestion: Merge to Mega Man Battle Network
14. Double Soul - Same as above. Suggestion: Merge to Mega Man Battle Network
15. Cross Fusion - Same as above. Suggestion: Merge to Mega Man Battle Network
16. Neo Arcadia - A plot aspect of the Mega Man Zero series. Some script references. Suggestion: Merge to Mega Man Zero
17. Cyber Elf - Same as above. Suggestion: Merge to Mega Man Zero
18. Rockman Theme Song Collection - Could be merged into a new article titled Music of the Mega Man series
19. Remastered Tracks Rockman Zero (series) - Could be merged into a new article titled Music of the Mega Man series
20. Remastered Tracks Rockman Zero - Could be merged into a new article titled Music of the Mega Man series
21. Remastered Tracks Rockman Zero IDEA - Could be merged into a new article titled Music of the Mega Man series
22. Remastered Tracks Rockman Zero TELOS - Could be merged into a new article titled Music of the Mega Man series
23. Remastered Tracks Rockman Zero PHYSIS - Could be merged into a new article titled Music of the Mega Man series

Okay, so if anyone has any comments in regard to my suggestion or if you have more suggestions, please make them. Depending on what is agreed upon, certain Mega Man templates and categories can probably be dissolved as well. Thank you. ~ Hibana (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Hibana, I agree with your suggestions.

• Item 5 - suggestion to merge Mega Man X collection into Mega Man X.
• Items 6-12 - Merge to Mega Man Battle Network.
• Items 18-23 - create a new article titled Music of the Mega Man series.

I believe all these changes would add to the Mega Man series - both with organization of articles, and the ability to search for this particular games' topics.

--Gbeeker (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

No comment on the rest, but Rockman Complete Works should be merged and redirected to Mega Man Anniversary Collection. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 21:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree as well with everything you suggested.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• None of these merges seem like a problem, with one exception: Mega Man X Collection. That article has potential to become decent, just by at least adding some reviews and eliminating the OR-saturated "Controversy" section. Plus, WP has articles for tons of country-exclusive games. Tezero (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Seconded - I'd say all the merges are a good idea except Mega Man X Collection. It has enough notability and reliable sources to merit its own articles. --Teancum (talk) 03:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
• I checked the articles and these seem like good ideas. In the future someone can split the articles when they're ready. Shooterwalker (talk) 06:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The above merges sound reasonable. One suggestion though: the games could also be redirected to List of Mega Man games.

You might also want to see if User:PresN has any free time to help on a music article. He's our resident video game music expert. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC))

Gah! JohnnyMrNinja, why would you suggest that? Not only is Rockman Complete Works a completely seperate compilation from Mega Man Anniversary Collection (even though MMAC is an upgrade in some respects) but the resulting "merge" is just a redirect to MMAC with no information on RMCW. I don't care what anyone says. I'm reverting this change to RMCW's page. It's just plain wrong, and Wikipedia is all about being correct. - Snip3rNife (talk) 16:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I've got some free time this summer and am trying to get The Real Adventures of Jonny Quest to FA. While it's not a VG article, WP:VG is kind of my "home" and school of thought, and I would be happy to copyedit some articles in return for some glances at Jonny Quest. It's a mammoth article, but it's been copyedited several times since 2007. I'm hoping to make it utterly iron-clad for the next submission, as its size makes FACs messy affairs. I've got time to help four articles; I've got a WP:PR to this effect but I don't seem to be getting any takers for trade. Some examples of my copyediting: System Shock, Byzantine cuisine, His Band and the Street Choir. Some examples of my total article writing: Chrono Trigger, Chrono Cross, Radical Dreamers, The Real Adventures of Jonny Quest, Frank Klepacki (bit outdated). I copyedit using a hardcopy and reading it backwards for heightened effectiveness. Let me know if you'd like to get a mutual thing going! ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 03:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to take you up on this offer for Lara Croft, but I don't think I have the free time to reciprocate. :-\

I'll see how busy this week is for me and get back to you. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC))

I'd love to use your help with Popotan, if you don't mind the genre.陣内_Jinnai 05:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd appreciate any help you could give with Sonic and the Secret Rings, though I already mentioned this in an above section. Tezero (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

If you could take a look at The Final Fantasy Legend, I'd be extremely grateful. I'm planning on recycling some of the text for the latter two games in the series so they'll flow together well.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll get started on Popotan, then Sonic and the Secret Rings & The Final Fantasy Legend, with Lara Croft hanging out there as a possibility. ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 17:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Your services are greatly appreciated. Tezero (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Finished Popotan and will get started on Sonic tomorrow. ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 18:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I know that article needed some help.陣内_Jinnai 23:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I gave Real Adventures a light copy edit with some hidden comments inserted to areas I felt needed attention. Let me know if any of the comments need clarification. Hope it helps as the article is already in good shape. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC))

Thanks! I'll do Lara Croft after those other two, probably by the weekend. ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 22:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Just chiming in that I wrapped up Sonic and the Secret Rings. Moving on to The Final Fantasy Legend. ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 03:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Finished The Final Fantasy Legend, so calling it a night. ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 06:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I am about to make an article on a certain video game, but after some thought, I realized that the only source I really have so far is the game. Is it ok or even really possible to cite games as sources?Tetobigbro talk 17:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources are allowed on Wikipedia, and we do often use the video game as a source.

However, an article that relies solely on primary sources does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. Sources that are independent of the video game (like previews, features, developer interviews, and reviews) are required to establish an article. I suggest research using sources listed here WP:VG/S before creating the article. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC))

Sorry if this is old news, but it's something of a 0.0 to me. The Amstrad CPC Resource has an alphabetical database of Amstrad Action reviews here, which would be useful enough to know that sources actually exist for foo (they also have databases for Amtix and another mag). However, an online magazine called CPC Oxygen, specializing in Amstrads, has the full 117 issues of Amstrad Action online for viewing (see the 'Amstrad Action' button on the left). So, it's possible to both look up where the review is hidden then dive straight into the relevant issue. Someoneanother 00:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello everybody, I've been making additions and what I consider improvements to Krome Studios Melbourne over the last weeks back in December 2009. Unfortunately there is a now a situation I would describe as the beginning of an edit-war. As I am coming from the German Wikipedia and am not accustomed to politics here (and as non-native speaker lacking some rhetorical skills as well) I would really appreciate if (a) someone could look at the article's history and give his opinion about what is going on and (b) give some advice on how to resolve the situation and proceed in this matter. Thank you in advance -- Make (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I am revising Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire and Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri articles following the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. There are more details on the discussion pages of those articles. I'd be interested in any comments you have.

Thank you.

Vyeh (talk) 10:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

They both suffer from usual video game article syndromes — too much in-game/gameplay/guide information and not enough development/reception. The gamecruft should be trimmed. Also, you can look in [12] for more reliable sourcing/information. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  20:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if you're inclined to, but the two would probably work better as one article. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 09:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Typically combining two such articles makes the whole topic stronger and more focused. The exception would be if there's just a mountain of reliable sources on the expansion. Then I'd say it's notable enough to remain a separate article. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC))

Merger is complete except for changing Alien Crossfire into a redirect. (I am waiting to see if there are additional objections.) Please make your comments at Talk:Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri#Merger proposal Vyeh (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Redirect done. Merger completed. Vyeh (talk) 12:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

We seem to have a lack of response for out 3 titles on A-class assessment and I know other WikiProjects (notability WP:Anime since I help out there) lack enough active reviewers to do proper A-class assmentents so I'm wondering if we could go out to them and see if any of them want to pool resources similar to how we do with the WP:MIL PRs.陣内_Jinnai 05:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Or, we could just dump A-Class and move onto Peer Review and FAC. I don't see why a level between GA and FA is necessary anyway. - hahnchen 19:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

PRs don't help much for high-quality GA articles. School Rumble's quality scared off such reviewers. FAC obviously is currently, and should remain, better, but there are times when going through A-class can help, especially when their is a failed FAC attempt with little info on what to fix.陣内_Jinnai 23:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Seconded - it can't hurt to have more reviewers, and certainly when it comes to ones outside the Wikiproject which bring a unique look on our topics. I think lots of folks (myself included) don't feel comfortable being the first to review an article for A-Class, and on top of that, there's only about three of us that do any assessments at all. Honestly it's getting pretty tiring. I try to make sure anything up to B-Class is assessed within three weeks, but anything I put up for assessment takes much longer, so often I self-asses articles up to B.

Long story short, yes, we need help with A-Class assessments, but we also need help with any assessments whatsoever. My feeling is that if you nominate an article for Assessment/GAN/FAN you should also review one. I'm not going to point fingers, but I can think of a few users who are notorious for nominating all of their articles for GAN/FAN and never reviewing any, or only reviewing at about a 1:10 ratio. I understand that they want their articles reviewed and promoted, but so do the rest of us. --Teancum (talk) 13:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This has been a problem of the VG project for some time now, and is rooted in a larger problem: project participation. A real solution, however, has never really come about. If this frustration is shared by most members, then we should dedicate the time to finding a working solution that will last. None of this starting a thread and let it just fade away. I'm talking about a (probably lengthy) discussion that we keep going everyday until we have something. We've done it before with good results: previous discussions led to our current importance scale. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC))

I try to review this project's GANs whenever I nominate one. Now, however, the first GAN is currently being reviewed, the second one received several comments from me on its peer review (so I don't know if I'd be the best one to review it), and the third one is mine. I think just putting a notice at the top of our section at the GAN page that says something like "In the name of keeping this backlog small, please review an article after nominating one" would be at least somewhat useful. Nothing trumps the direct truth. Tezero (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Nice in theory, but a lot of people are scared off by reviewing, especially at the top-tiers of FAC/A-clas because the quality of these articles is assumed to already be quite good (else why would you be asking for such a high level review) and as such many feel daunted, justifiably or not, by the task of reviewing such a high quality article.陣内_Jinnai 23:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I think this issue is a mix: some people aren't comfortable doing the work and others are more involved in their own work.

While we can't do much about those that are on their own path, the people that aren't comfortable doing the work are the untapped potential here. If we could encourage their participation through quid pro quo or mentorships, I believe that will help alleviate our workload. Because really, most of our work is manageable if handled by a group. The workload of everyone involved decreases the more editors are helping. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC))

Not a bad idea. Somewhere, maybe, we should have an advertised link somewhere to the "What is a good article?" and "Manual of Style" pages to make sure that users realize that anyone can review a GAN as long as they know what is GA quality. Tezero (talk) 15:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Best places would be on the project page and on the checklist.陣内_Jinnai 12:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated Nintendo Entertainment System 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. –MuZemike 19:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

We currently have two seperate articles for the third Professor Layton game at different titles. We have Professor Layton and the Unwound Future and Professor Layton and the Last Time Travel. Other than a different title both appear to be almost the same. I am not sure if one title is wrong or if this may be a case of a different title for America and Europe though I am sure that we only need one article. Can someone look into this and determine which if any of these titles is correct and redirect the other article.--76.66.182.26 (talk) 05:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I redirected Professor Layton and the Last Time Travel as it used to be a redirect, until someone made it into a copy of Professor Layton and the Unwound Future (5 May 2010). Jarkeld (talk) 08:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that we take a bit of a preemptive approach, using a list of games that are expected to be announced and seed them with redirects to appropriate prequel/series articles unless there already exists a wealth of information about it. A game's announcement at E3 without any other info to support it should not rationale to create a new article. Sure, many newly announced games at E3 will get immediate coverage in detail, that's fine, but if all they're saying is "here's a sequel for 2011 release", there's little we should do about that. --MASEM (t) 14:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

We definitely don't need 10 stub articles with two sentences... "Blank game is a sequel to blank, and will be released in late 2011. It was revealed at E3 and no information is known about it." _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, it's a good opportunity to take advantage and get a good start on some articles which have more verifiable information out there, such as last year with Metroid: Other M, Super Mario Galaxy 2, and New Super Mario Bros. Wii. –MuZemike 14:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Certainly many games will be announced first time at E3, and have subsequent coverage with sufficient detail to go into articles. (To me this requires at least some description of the gameplay and/or some aspects of the development process beyond "Studio Awesome is making this game"). But I'm worried about the ones that will remain stubby for several months only because of being announced at E3 with no followup until a few months before release. --MASEM (t) 15:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Temporary E3 taskforce, yay! - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

How about a temporary hidden Category for games announced at E3 so that those willing to help could find them easily and then file/merge/edit them accordingly rather than just leave it up to the person who originally finds the article. - X201 (talk) 09:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The category won't work for all of the games, because some will be deleted repeatedly, at slightly different titles. I think that The New Age Retro Hippie has it right. A task force that is just shut down for most of the year. This will be a great way to make sure that WP is on top of all of the current facts while keeping the wacky fanboy rumor articles to a minimum. Then shut it down, and next year will be even easier to deal with, because we'll have a clear record of which problems we encountered this year and how they were handled. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 09:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

OK. But don't tie the name to E3 and then we'll be able to use it for GamesCom as well. - X201 (talk)

Trade show task force? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 09:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

That has a nice ring to it :-) - X201 (talk) 11:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Also be on the lookout for fakes, GTA V, etc - X201 (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd say Kingdom Hearts 3DS is exactly the type of stub Blake mentioned above. I assume we're simply redirecting them? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 03:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC))

Hi. I have a few questions. I regularly edit film articles, so I'm not very familiar with the video game articles, its MOS, etc. I'm revamping the article Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light, which is in dire need of help. I am working on it in my user space and it's about ready to be published, but am wanting to know a few things before I do. I am wondering since all the other Tomb Raider articles use British English, should this one (e.g. artifact → artefact)? The other question is will some one glimpse over my work and let me know if the MOS is correct (section headings, etc) or if it really matter at this point, since the game hasn't been released thus not a "full" article? Also is it normal practice to include the cost of the game, considering it's a download only game? Thanks. Mike Allen 05:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I've edited a couple of things and left links to the reason why in the edit summaries. I'd say stick with British English. Good article. - X201 (talk) 08:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the project Mike, the article's looking very nice. Someoneanother 00:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I just found about this game yesterday and looked at the Wikipedia page and was disappointed to find nothing about the game. So being a long-time fan of Tomb Raider I thought Lara should have a bit more respect than that. Lol. Should the dates in the article be in BrE too? I think British dates are formatted like this: 14 June, 2010? Mike Allen 01:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep for the dates as well (day month year) - X201 (talk) 08:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.  :-) Mike Allen 21:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I have one more question. Is the word "Co-Op" supposed to capitalized like that? Mike Allen 22:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Typically speaking unless single-player gameplay is a long section it is lumped in with the root gameplay section, and I'd change "Co-Op mode" to simply "Multiplayer" --Teancum (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed and thanks. Is it in the norm to make "Character" sections into prose or bullet lists (a la "cast list" on films)? Mike Allen 01:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Prose. In video games articles it's almost unheard of to use bullet lists anywhere in a good article. --PresN 03:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

That's wonderful news. I strongly prefer prose.  :-) Mike Allen 03:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Just throwing this out there for the Tomb Raider fans. Lara Croft#References now has a lot of sources that could be used for the separate game articles. Good articles status would not be out of the question for most of the games if an editor or group of editors would like a collaborator.

Full disclosure though- I work very slowly now, but will make an effort to keep up if an effort is put forth on the articles. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC))

Anyone with a stock TE stick, would you be so kind as to take a photo of it and upload with a free license? Ham Pastrami (talk) 09:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

What about this one on Flickr, its free to use (i however prefer this Marvel vs Capcom version). and may i ask what "TE" stands for? Salavat (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It appears that it stands for "Tournament Edition", but that's just based on some Googling. —Ost (talk) 19:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah well thanks for that not knowing was annoying me. Well anyways heres your Street Fighter IV TE stick image, hopes it is what you were after. Salavat (talk) 03:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that should do it. Ham Pastrami (talk) 07:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Having been reverting new users who have a single purpose account and sometimes anonymous IP addresses for months now, who keep reinserting the game bit about certain game sites, I wondering now if there is a reason to allow them to list things like that. They aren't connected to the company that made the game in any possible way, but do make money off other people's games, by ad banner revenue(some sites might also charge, I'm not certain). Age of Kings, Age of Conquerors, and Microsoft Ants are the articles in question. Links to Voobly and others have been added to them dozens of times, and always reverted by myself or someone else. The most recent person to add links started a conversation with me on my talk page [13], so I decided to seek more input on this subject. If their claim that over a thousand real people a day played the game, despite it being more than a decade old, was true, would that make it notable enough to link to in the related game article? Dream Focus 19:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Dream Focus, we are merely trying to make the article of more use to those who still play this game. As of now, it only links to GameSpy Arcade which has virtually zero Age of Empires activity despite being the official server. Allowing the addition I made would point new players in the right direction and enable them to join the community. Kutcherovec (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Do the links in question lead to a site which lets you play the game legally? If the sites host the games in violation of copyright law, then unquestionably we cannot link to them. If they are legal, that is one thing, but we must do nothing to help criminals make money from breaking the law. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Voobly actually hosts or endorses illegal downloading, so there shouldn't be that issue there. The AoC article only has the official MS [external link], so it can definitely have 1-2 unofficial communities/sites as well. If Voobly is one of the largest (active) communities -and- it has further research material (not just map downloads, rankings, forums, or whatnot), then it can certainly go into the article. Also, I highly doubt that "directing new users to play the game/join the community" will ever be a valid reason to include external links. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  20:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an ad space to promote the "best" webpage related to a topic. If the best webpage happens to be a reliable source then you use it as research. Otherwise let them find the community through google Shooterwalker (talk) 06:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I would agree, I don't think linking to a generic community page offers any value. Specific things at a site may be able to go in to an article as a reference as long as they fall under Wikipedia verifiable and reliability guidelines. But Wikipedia itself is not a directory and does not exist to direct people to community sites. Not does it exist to help people with the game. I also have a problem with the intended paragraph "However, one of the most popular ones are Voobly.com and Gameranger.com. Despite the constant development of new games, there are still thousands of people playing online and also many tournaments being held in the world. The community currently resides at the international centre AoCZone.net. " which contains a ton of statements that would need to be provided with verifiable references to be allowed. That includes voobly and gameranger being "one of the most popular ones", and the "thousands of people playing online", as well as some sort of verifiable reference that Microsoft's pointing to GameSpy has been subverted by aoczone. Not to mention again, where a community "currently resides" is beyond the scope of an encyclopedic article on the game itself. We do not exist to support communities. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 06:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Official game sites require you to log in and prove you own a legal copy of the game. If thousands of people are trying to use the same ID code for a game, they know they have pirated copies. With unofficial sites that don't checked that, piracy is going to be rampart. I don't think Microsoft wants their games played on any unlicensed sites. I don't believe you can legally play their games on any site they have not approved. So we'd be linking to illegal sites. Dream Focus 17:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

In any case, there does not appear to be any useful research material on the sites anyway. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  18:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me start by saying I have disclosed that I am a moderator at a game forum. I came to Wikipedia because a member of my forum reported that my forum did not have an external link in Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri and Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire, but the other three of the major forums did. Over the last couple of weeks, I have done some research and discovered that a competitor planted the external links for Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire and even placed links to two of the other forums (presumably to create cover). (You can see the discussion page of either of the articles for more details.) I think external links should be limited to official sites. I do believe that existence of a community with 1000 users 10 years after the game came out does speak to "reception" and a case could be made for a citation.Vyeh (talk) 22:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes other sites have more information than the official sites. Sometimes sites have the official staff visiting the forum and discussing things with people, and a significant number of people there, plus interviews with people related to the games, and other information compiled, such as Age of Kings Heaven. But none of these do, so the hell with them. Dream Focus 00:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me put this bluntly. This is encyclopaedia. External links are there to further reader research. [14] [15] [16] [17] are nothing short of blatant advertising. Will these links be accepted in a FA or worthy as references? No. So, unless valid objections are raised, I propose to remove these four and return to improving the actual content. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  01:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

We were talking about the links added to the Age of Kings series, none of those links were mentioned before. I went ahead and looked at them. First off, Apolyton does list a lot of information, although with their crappy interface its hard to find it, and a lot of the links are now broken. It provides maps and scenarios for the game, which would help anyone interested in it enough to look up information on the Wikipedia about it. The forum civfanatics [18] might seem like just a common fansite, but it is still active, and has encyclopedic information about the game, including how to modify it to add to it, customize it, and extend its playability. The original game saved everything in .txt files so it was very easy to read through and change things. One thread I see has gotten over 20 thousand views! While not as popular as it once was, there is plenty of information someone curious about the game, would find useful there. External links are there for people who wish to seek out more information about a topic. The link to the post at [19] serves no purpose at all, and I see no reason for it being there. Dream Focus 02:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the four links mentioned by Hellknowz, I also propose getting rid of the Gamespot link, [20]. The Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines specifically mentions the video game's page as Gamespot as an inappropriate external link. I actually cleaned up the external links a couple of weeks ago, eliminating broken links and the more egregious self-prmotion. In terms of my forum, I could provide a very useful resource, The SMAC Academy at Civilization Gaming Network, but I think it is better to use those resources for citations. It is much simpler using the bright line of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines. I happen to be an active participant in the civfanatics forum and I would have to wonder how Dream Focus concluded civfanatics had encyclopedic information. Apolyton's creation subforum certainly has more information about modification and customization and I have just given the reference to reference articles on my site (the articles on the Scenario Editor and Alpha(x).txt editing are reference works for people creating modifications). I believe there is a lot of room for abuse and I have documented the case for one forum on the discussion pages of Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri and Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire, where one forum put in its external link three times for Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire (and the second time, put in a bunch of other external links as "cover.") While I respect the idea that external links are there for people who wish to seek out more information about a topic, the example I cited shows that it is easily abused. I believe that it would be far superior to cite information that meets Wikipedia's standards and let interested readers follow citations if a particular paragraph or section interests them. I hope I am not getting anyone angry. Having actually cleaned up the external links, I saw how a lot of them were just promotion and having reviewed the history of one forum planting its link (they even had a forum thread where they discussed it), I saw the potential for abuse. For the articles I am dealing with, I believe the best solution is to restrict the external links to the official sites. For other articles, this may not be the best solution.Vyeh (talk) 05:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You mention your link to a newly created Wiki which says on its main page [http://www.civgaming.net/wiki/index.php/Main_Page "This page has been accessed 150 times." Not a lot of information or contributors there(I only see one person and one IP address. If it ever grows though, it'll be a notable link. Someone who failed to get a link to their own stuff, shouldn't be erasing links to other people though, that seems like bitterness to me. Dream Focus 12:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Old location: Civgaming.net - SMAC Files: SMAC ACADEMY. After seeing WikiPedia, I ordered MediaWiki and ported the SMAC Academy from html to wiki. If you go into the articles and follow the comment threads, you will see plenty of discussion. I hope I haven't irritated you because of my position on external links. I came to WikiPedia because of complaint that WikiPedia wasn't treating my forum fairly. There is a danger that an aggressive forum (I assume you have read the discussion page of Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri or Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire) can create the misimpression that they are the largest/most active by adding external link that says so. If you prefer sending people to the old link, I have no objections; however, my point is that in a very specific case (WePlayCiv/WePlaySMAC), there is abuse and the only way I see to prevent abuse is to be very strict with external links. As I said, I hope you are not angry. My position is fairness and I see the external links as an avenue for a new (only a year and a month) forum to misrepresent its standing. Can we at least agree that the history of the WePlayCiv link as I have documented on the discussion page of the those articles is abusive? I could have played the same game with external links. Instead I have chosen to raise the issue here as well as on the discussion pages of those articles. By the way, I looked at 20,000+ view thread. It is fun/garbage thread 1000 way you know you played Alpha Centauri too much! and is one of the least likeliest threads to find WikiPedia suitable information. So, if I have done something that has offended you, I apologize.

Vyeh (talk) 12:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I just saw Dream Focus' recent addition. I am new here, but isn't that the kind of personal attack we are suppose to avoid? I have been upfront about my conflict of interest. As I said, I could have played the same game and gotten my link in. I really don't understand what I have said other than to express my views about external links as they applied in the two articles I have an interest in. I did not look at Voobly and I don't express an opinion on that matter. My only opinion is that external links are open to abuse. I have only been at WikiPedia for a couple of weeks. If I have breached some standard of decorum, I apologize. I have disclosed my conflict of interest here, in the discussion pages of the articles and in my user page. To suggest that I have hidden motives seems like a rhetorical device. I find that the statement, "Someone who failed to get a link to their own stuff, shouldn't be erasing links to other people though, that seems like bitterness to me," is wrong on many levels and would be sanctioned in my forum. First, I did not fail to get a link to my stuff. My link would have remained for quite some time if I didn't raise the issue of fairness. Second, I never erased anyone's link, except for broken links and stuff that was clearly useless. What I have done is raise the issue to get the input of other editors. Finally, I am not bitter. As I said, if I have done something that offends you, I apologize. i don't understand what I have done other than raise an issue and point to a case where an external link was abused. As I have made clear, I have no opinion on Voobly and I did not mean to upset you by implying that the Voobly link shouldn't be there. I don't know enough about the facts.Vyeh (talk) 13:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me. That came off wrong. The thread I mentioned was to show how many people can be viewing a topic. Searching through old topics when the game was first out, would probably show other topics getting thousands of hits as well. To avoid confusion we really should keep discussions of Voobly(which makes money through ad banner or whatnot) separate from what's at the Alpha Centauri pages which are fan run things that don't exist primarily for profit. Alpha Centauri links should be discussed on those pages I think. Dream Focus 14:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• http://www.weplayciv.com/ that you mention, doesn't just have a forum with over 16 thousand post for the Alpha Centauri game, but also has a main page for news, maps, mods, and whatnot. [21] I'm going to change the link in the article to [22] though, since that list everything they have, not just the forum. Dream Focus 14:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you have to be careful about judging a forum by the number of posts. Apolyton has 88,000 posts in its active forum and 292,000 posts in its archives. My forum has 20,000 active posts and another 25,000 in archives. CivFanatics has 9,000 posts. In terms of ad banners, WePlayCiv and CivFanatics has them. Apolyton and CivGaming (mine) do not. View count does not show how many people are viewing a topic. Everytime I open a thread to read a new post, the view count goes up by 1. The 20,000 view thread had over 200 posts, which might mean that there were 100 people following the thread (minus the automated bots). I had edited the link to point to their downloads section, which had original scenarios, art and references, but that was changed by the forum moderator seeking more traffic. I have no objections if you change the link. I will be watching to see how long it stays. And I will be happy to take this conversation to the discussion pages of the articles.Vyeh (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

So the verdict is? I am trying to unite Age of Empire community. In my opinion information about multiplayer in Age of empire is wrong, becouse major community is in Voobly. Voobly is good page. Reason why is voobly banned is becouse there is some users, who are breaking rules on this website. But voobly dont have responsibility of these users. I am trying to unite aoe community and keep wikipedia actual. Becouse Microsoft dont support Zone for aoe and none playing in Gamespy. Please consult this things. Kutcherovec (talk) 16:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I was just wondering if there should be a category for 3D games (the illusionary kind). We have already Category:Video games with 3D graphics. What it should be named? --Mika1h (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

If you mean the type of 3D used with glasses, stereoscopic 3D, then something like Video games with stereoscopic 3D graphics I suppose. Ham Pastrami (talk) 09:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Mika1h (talk) 13:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to let everyone know, the Pending Changes trial (formerly "Flagged protection") starts in a little over 24 hours from now. I have went ahead and gave the "reviewer" userright to a few users whom I know can be trusted with it; if anyone else feels they meet the standards of WP:REVIEWER, you can request at WP:PERM or let me or another nearby admin know.

Currently, the following relevant articles are listed for "Pending Changes":

• RuneScape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Super Smash Bros. (series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

If anyone else have any other suggestions for "Pending Changes", feel free to recommend them here. Preferably, they should already be semi- or full-protected, and biographies of living people (particularly the more important and highly-watches ones) may also be a good idea. –MuZemike 22:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I assume it would be a good idea for reviewers to watchlist the four articles above? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC))

I would think so-- I think it'd also be a good idea for anyone who's just got the permission to check out the testing lab so you can try out the tool before you use it on the English Wikipedia. It's a bit confusing to get the hang of so practice wouldn't hurt. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 18:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I have the SSB article on my watchlist and noticed that {{pp-semi-indef}} was removed last week for being expired. As of now the page is still protected. Should protection remain (and the template restored) or should this article be opened up and taken out of the trial? —Ost (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like that person made a mistake in removing the template, because it is still locked. However, if this is going to be flag-protected, then I'd just leave it off for now. –MuZemike 21:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it was a good faith removal since the template had an expiry parameter set, but I don't know why it was set to that date if the protection is indef. But leaving the template off for Flagged seems like a good plan; that may have its own icon template anyway. —Ost (talk) 22:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Some other articles we can possibly add as the trial goes on:

• Halo 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Halo 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Halo: Combat Evolved (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Xbox 360 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• PlayStation 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Pokémon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Battletoads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (remember the "Wii remake hoax"?)

–MuZemike 21:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Question. Should we really be worried about Battletoads? I don't think that anyone will vandalize the article. GamerPro64 (talk) 22:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I think so. Battletoads has been a 4chan thing for ages, and I feel that flagged revisions is a great way for us to allow people to contribute to the article while disallowing vandals from overtaking it. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 05:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully 4chan is not watching (since we're tucked in a pretty unwatched corner of the encyclopedia), but lately they have been engaging in randomly but very coordinated attacks on single articles, which about 99% of the time leads to semi-protection. We also cannot forget other websites who may also be in on this such as encyclopedia dramatica, funnyjunk.com, and the like. –MuZemike 06:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

World of Warcraft might be better suited to seeing the side-grade into pending changes semi and WotLK fully unprotected. WoW was just recently unprotected... that didn't work. WotLK on the other hand was protected way back because of April Fools that a bunch of people took seriously when they shouldn't have (or were vandals...), which would make WotLK seem in-line for a trial of temporary unprotection to see if that would be true. --Izno (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The Pending Changes queue has changed and has been updated. The plan is to "slowly roll-out" new articles to PC-protect every day. World of Warcraft and RuneScape are to be PC-protected from the start with World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King on Day 2, Super Smash Bros. (series) on Day 3, and Wii on Day 4. Future articles also listed may go up, but I recommend we leave a few semi-protected VG articles out of it (i.e. keep them semi-protected for the trial) as some sort of a "control group". –MuZemike 17:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Should we pick an article to be part of the "control group" so that we all know what not to touch? GamerPro64 (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

That would probably be a good idea. –MuZemike 17:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced, as I said above, that WotLK still needs protection. It would make an interesting control group to see what happens when we unprotect an article, too. Oh, and the list hasn't been updated that you linked to. I saw only RuneScape on day one. --Izno (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

O.K. I got an idea. We do not unprotect Xbox360. A main reason is because a lot of people, in my opinion, were pissed about the E3 conference yesterday. Also, Lich King should be unprotected. Can't hurt to try it. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and unprotected WotLK and switched out that article for Halo 3 to be placed on pending changes tomorrow. If vandalism does resume on WotLK, then we have a good case for Level 1 pending changes. –MuZemike 01:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Correction: That's been changed again to World of Warcraft (the main article) as, for some odd reason, it was completely removed from the original list of articles planned for pending changes. The WoW would make more sense as a replacement for the WotLK article as they're both the same series, are semi-protected, and are both highly-trafficked. –MuZemike 02:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI- I believe we are expected to leave notes at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue about the status of the protection.
Do we have editors that are familiar with the articles that can give accurate notes? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC))

I already did that. –MuZemike 01:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

(also posted on Talk:RuneScape) I do intend to change the protection level from semi-protection to Level 1 Pending Changes on RuneScape when the software gets turned on, which should be shortly (unless another admin beats me to the punch, that is). –MuZemike 22:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto IV could be a good candidate (either in the test or as a control) it still gets vandalised on a regular basis; along with the regular Bosnian/Eastern European against concensus changes and has been in and out of protection more time than I can remember. Thanks for the userright by the way, only just found out that I have it. - X201 (talk) 11:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Another update: Some additional articles have been lumped into Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue#Day 1, including World of Warcraft, which is now PC-protected. Super Smash Bros. (series) is set to be PC-protected on Day 2. Wii is the next video game article in line, which will be PC-protected on Day 4. –MuZemike 16:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Should we put up the to-do list to see if it should still be semi-protected? GamerPro64 (talk) 17:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been working on creating articles for the games being re-released to Microsoft's Game Room service, and in my work, I've come across a question I can't quite find an answer to. With Game Room and Nintendo's Virtual Console, what is the appropriateness of including their re-release in the infoboxes? Should that only be for the game's initial release, with a "Ports" or "Re-releases" section covering whatever services the game has subsequently been released on? I'd like to hear what the WikiProject's opinions are on this, and thanks! --McDoobAU93 (talk) 04:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The infobox would get pretty bloated if you had a section for every port.Asher196 (talk) 19:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that ports and re-releases are suited for prose and expansion section, but not infobox, which tends to grow too large anyway. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It depends. Virtual Console is, in all intents and purposes, reselling of NES games, not porting them. It's not like they are Wii games, they are still NES games, just in a new format. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering if I could trouble a fellow editor with AWB. Basically a few years of different naming conventions created a few redirects for our older games. Now that it looks like we're sticking with "(video game)", I thought some clean up should be done. Here are some redirects that I'm hoping someone could update in the article space.

• Defender (game) → Defender (video game) (See Special:WhatLinksHere/Defender (game))
• Defender (arcade game) → Defender (video game) (See Special:WhatLinksHere/Defender (arcade game))
• Spindizzy (computer game) → Spindizzy (video game) (See Special:WhatLinksHere/Spindizzy (computer game))
• Cauldron (computer game) → Cauldron (video game) (See Special:WhatLinksHere/Cauldron (computer game))
• Asteroids (game) → Asteroids (video game) (See Special:WhatLinksHere/Asteroids (game))
• Asteroids (computer game) → Asteroids (video game) (See Special:WhatLinksHere/Asteroids (computer game))
• Asteroids (arcade game) → Asteroids (video game) (See Special:WhatLinksHere/Asteroids (arcade game))
• Donkey Kong (arcade game) → Donkey Kong (video game) (See Special:WhatLinksHere/Donkey Kong (arcade game))

Not that big of a deal, but the OCD person in me is bugged by things like this. :-p (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC))

If we've agreed that "video game" is the proper term, should we re-name video game lists like List of Harvest Moon titles and List of Donkey Kong games to match that naming convention? -- Nomader ^(Talk) 00:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I would say yes, but let's see what others have to say. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 03:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC))

Is there a particularly compelling reason to do this? WP:NOTBROKEN suggests that we shouldn't bother. Reach Out to the Truth 04:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I might be a bit OCD like Guyinblack, but I feel that having a standard naming convention can really help lower confusion about articles. If even one article uses "xxxxxxx (arcade game)", people might mistakenly think that the naming convention should be "xxxxxx (Xbox 360, PS3)" for other articles. It shouldn't exactly be priority #1 for the project, but if someone with AWB comes along with a bit of time on their hands it wouldn't hurt. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 06:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

In agreement with ROttT. In reply to Nomader: But the articles aren't at those locations. They're at the latter locations. The only time a person is likely to see those "computer game" names is if they edit the relevant articles or are redirected, in which case it will be a one linear beneath the title: "redirected from x". Sure, fix 'em if you come upon them in your editing, but there isn't a real reason to fix these as a specific task. And we probably shouldn't, per some old guideline lying around. --Izno (talk) 06:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, completely misunderstood what was going down here. Yeah this isn't very important at all, nothing that should be tasked out. I need to read a bit more carefully next time. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 07:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, to reiterate, this is not a big deal. It's mainly a task for someone with some free time to kill. So please feel free to disregard.

However, Nomader did bring up a point related to the naming conventions of our lists. Should that break off into its own thread or should we continue the discussion here? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 13:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC))

I threw it up in a new section, figured it should be discussed seperately. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 13:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Can someone with the proper clearances examine the importance level on the DOTA article: Talk:Defense of the Ancients#Importance

Right now, it is rated low, but it appears to be spawning a genre at this point, and the mod itself is equivalent or greater in popularity to counter-strike, which is a high importance game.

I laid out the case in that link, but I'll lay it out briefly here. I am advocating that the article be either Mid or High -- I think High is more appropriate, but maybe there's extra review required for that:

Facts justifyign DOTA as a mid or high importance article: Many spinoffs are being made based upon it: 1) Valve is making a spinoff game, and most valve games end up extremely successful. 2) LoL (league of legends), is the #3 or #4 most played PC game now according to xfire and gamespot, and it's a spinoff game (old DOTA author works there) (consequently, LoL is mid in importance within the VG project) 3) There are numerous other less popular or early development stage spinoffs such as Demigod, Avalon and BLoodline Champions, and a variety of clones in China. Some other random facts -- DOTA 6.54 had over 5 million unique downloads on playdota.com, and a lot of people are sharing files over networks or playing at LAN cafes, so that's likely a lot lower than the actual active user count -- that's about as popular as WoW globally, at least at that point in time. Additionally, if you go to google trends and compare 'DOTA" to "Final Fantasy", you'll see that they get equal search traffic and thus have roughly equivalent global popularity, and FF is consider 'high' importance by definition in the rating guide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.3.187 (talk) 09:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the rationale for it to remain low importance is good currently. As you say yourself, it appears to be spawning a genre at the moment. However in the long-term it might just be a blip which remains obscure, thus by definition low importance. Secondly, being made by Valve doesn't assert importance. Thirdly, popularity isn't what determines article importance. Article importance is defined by whether the article is general knowledge, an obscure topic, or a topic which forms the basis for all information etc etc. (See WP:VG/A for the importance scale definitions.) Whilst DotA is popular amongst a group of gamers, and its developers have moved on to make a professional game based on it, it is yet to be seen whether the mod and game will be able to elevate themselves out of obscurity and turn into a well recognised industry genre and series, which spawns future games and series. Personally, I would stick with low importance for now, certainly not higher than mid importance. Hope this helps, --Taelus (Talk) 11:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

DotA has a small cult following attached to it and has spawned enough remakes or whatnot. I am not sure if whole TD genre spawned from this or not, but it certainly made it much more popular. As a predecessor to this genre, this may be Mid. Although, as a stand-alone level/mod, it's low. In any case, I don't think anyone will be offended and nothing will really change from making this Mid. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I can summarize my argument with this graph from google trends that shows the growing and immense popularity of DOTA relative to other topics that are I believe all of high importance. While we shouldn't, as you say, set importance only by popularity, cultural impact and overall importance ARE related to this sort of thing, which is why at the very least it should be mid:

http://www.google.com/trends?q=DOTA%2C+Final+Fantasy%2C+Counterstrike%2C+Madden&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0

Longer version: It doesn't have a "small' cult following -- it has a global active player base similar in size to WoW and has had that level of play for about 3 years now -- there are articles at high and mid that were popular for way less time but are considered 'classic' -- I hardly think DOTA will be forgotten a year from now given it's been here about 6 years now, and with(Global) popularity for three. Also, to clarify appears, how about we use the term IS. LoL IS an existing game that is heavily based upon it that is doing very well. Heroes of Newerth IS an existing game that is a clone of it and is very popular. Avalon IS a poor clone of it that did reasonably well in Korea. Several chinese games only played in China which I dont know the name of right now directly 1:1 copied the mechanics and characters. Demigod IS based loosely on the mechanic set and was a big production (not a commercial success though). That's all in the past year and a half, so while we shouldn't call it high because it's not a 'proven' genre, that's still a new genre that is gaining traction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.3.187 (talk) 09:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, I feel like there is inconsistency here to the other huge mod, CS. How is counter-strike a high importance game under this logic? There's been a few clones of it, and one is very popular in china (cross-fire). I agree CS should be high importance, but if CS is high, dota should be mid -- it's less deep along the popularity curve -- came out a few years later, has greater user counts now than CS, didn't get in-housed directly* and has a smaller pro-gaming scene -- clearly CS is farther down, but high vs low?

*(instead the two creators now work for Valve and Riot Games respectively -- in-housing and retailing fuels the possibility of reviews since reviewers only will touch retail boxes for the most part), —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.3.187 (talk) 09:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The issue here is that most of the other things cited have established their high importance through notable, reliable sources, and by holding their positions over time. I don't know that this shouldn't be higher importance down the road, but there hasn't been established, time-tested proof that merits a high importance rank. I wouldn't be opposed to revisiting this in a year or two, but for now the fact remains that no published sources have been brought up that cite it as spawning a new genre, yet that's very much the case with something like Counter-Strike. --Teancum (talk) 12:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

---

I think that it should be raised to Mid importance, as per the "critically acclaimed and wide sub-culture effect" part. It's still not High importance, unless of course you can find a source that states it created or had a huge impact on the genre.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

An IP asserts notability and has unmerged the article from its place in Street Fighter (where it was merged with what I see as a consensus from the discussion at WT:WikiProject Video games/Archive 80#I don't believe this is notable; the IP claims it was not one). Halp? --Izno (talk) 06:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It also appears the IP has un-redirected an article similar in status and quality to Hadouken: Shun Goku Satsu. Thoughts? --Izno (talk) 06:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Where was the consensus to merge Hadouken again? –MuZemike 06:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Never mind: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadouken (2nd nomination) is a place to start. (I am involved, so I obviously cannot do anything admin-wise here.) –MuZemike 06:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

From my talk page:

I checked, and there's no concensus. So, the article was merged without concensus. That being said, I'm not going to lose sleep over it, if you want to re-merge, go ahead. I'm done here. 190.222.81.141 (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Did I just say I was done? My bad. One more thing: if you do want to merge them still, I would advice to do it in the Ryu article instead of the main SF one, and I would also suggest to merge the Shoryuken and Tatsumaki Sempukyaku articles as well. That's it. Now I'm done. 190.222.81.141 (talk) 07:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Shrug. Looks like consensus to me in multiple places. The IP seems to be done with it, either way. --Izno (talk) 07:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Since multiple characters in the Street Fighter series and outside of it use the energy fireball move, it should stay redirected to Street Fighter.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm interested in uploading an image from a video game under a claim of fair use. The image I want to upload is a specific detail from the game and as such I thought I'd just crop out the portions of the screenshot that were unnecessary to the topic of the picture. Obviously since this is just a single detail from a full screenshot it will be too tiny to be easily seen (or bear a caption) on Wikipedia. So now I'm wondering if I should upload a blown-up PNG and use it as-is or whether I should upload a true-size pixel version and let the image protocol here resize it for me.

I tried to check out examples on Wikipedia generally and I see full screenshots that have been reduced (ex. TLoZ1) and screenshot detail pictures that have been enlarged (ex. Samus Aran). Looking through the archives here briefly, the only thing I could find was this 2006 suggestion regarding screenshot ratios (which seems to have been ignored). So what is WP:VG's official stance on this? Is there a preferred size, resolution, etc.?

Thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 01:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

What is the specific detail that you want to show? Ham Pastrami (talk) 05:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Game characters for an article related to them. -Thibbs (talk) 07:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

In accordance with the non-free content criteria (3b), the image needs to be of minimal extent of use. If the image to be uploaded will be used as a normal thumbnail image, then I would set the highest width of the image to 300px, which is the highest default setting for thumbnails (according to Special:Preferences (under "appearance"). –MuZemike 05:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

OK Sounds good. Thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 07:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

As someone who reviews images routinely at WP:FAC, the general rule of thumb I use for non-free screenshots is trying to keep the overall resolution under ~.1 megapixels—easily calculated using a megapixel calculator, if you don't feel like doing the multiplication yourself. In practical terms, that's roughly a 300 x 300/400 px image at 72dpi web resolution. There's no hard-and-fast rule, though. If an image has to be larger to actually serve a use (for example, if certain important elements are simply rendered too small so as to be useless) and the fair use rationale is compelling, than a larger screenshot can be uploaded. Blurry, upsized photos are rarely useful for anything, especially as they degrade and misrepresent the work; cropping is fine from a fair use standpoint, as long as it's not manipulative (that is, you aren't "transforming" the work into something else that would otherwise unnecessarily infringe on the copyrighted work.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah OK that's great. I'll have to bookmark the site. Thanks for all the help guys. I'm certainly trying to keep IP concerns at the forefront of my consideration. -Thibbs (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm currently tweaking the gameplay section beyond what is described in the demo and adding more stuff as I play the game (I just got mine two days ago), but if anyone who has progressed further than me, please improve the article. Thanks. --Eaglestorm (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Is anyone up for a challenge, and/or looking for something to do? :) How about seeing what you can do for G.I. Joe (NES) and G.I. Joe: The Atlantis Factor - those articles could use some love! BOZ (talk) 12:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks to those who've had a look at these. :) BOZ (talk) 02:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Just thought I'd bring up that there is a debate of the article's current title. Sarujo (talk) 10:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Could someone give their two cents about this situation? There is a debate about what the Kefka article should be called. One side claims that Kefka Palazzo is his official English name, and the other side (me) claims that Palazzo is only his Japanese surname and has never appeared in English materials. I will seperate my description in two sections, a "Personal attacks" and a "The actual arguments used" sections to try to provide an objective account of what is happening.

The personal attacks

• Some time ago, I asked a question about the name of an article at [23]. Ten days later, since there was no answer, I decided to correct the article's name, being WP:BOLD as recommended by Wikipedia guidelines.
• Then, out of nowhere, someone reverts my edit, says it was "without question the dumbest decision" they've ever seen on Wikipedia.
• I then proceed to revert the revert, calling the previous user a troll. Admitedly I could have avoided using that term and I agree that I'm a bit guilty here. I also tell him his comment was insulting and pointless.
• A third user chimes in and reverts, saying "You don't do radical changes like this *before* discussing, blast it!", even though I did open a discussion on the talk page and only acted after ten days had passed without any answer.
• I then politely ask the third user to explain himself, even putting a "Thanks" in advance at the end of my post.
• Meanwhile, the second user calls me an idiot and calls my actions uneducated and foolishness.
• And they also called my initial article name change "hasty" several times, even though, again, I opened a discussion first and only acted ten days later after no reply had been given to it.

The actual arguments

• The second and third users claim that the full name "Kefka Palazzo" appears in Dissidia.
• I claim that the full name "Kefka Palazzo" doesn't appear in Dissidia. Only "Kefka" seems to appear.

Thoughts? Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 11:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• If the personal attacks are an issue, I would take it to WP:DISPUTE. --Teancum (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd recommend WP:WQA before heading to dispute resolution, personally. An informal talk with the idea of calming things down from there would be more ideal. -- Sabre (talk) 23:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The personal attacks are nonsense, you've been just as rude as me and Kung Fu Man so don't try and act the victim. Yes my "idiot" comment was a bit far, but to be perfectly blunt, your actions were uneducated and foolish. You are wrong, plain and simple. Don't say it to be mean, I say it because it is the truth. You used faulty logic to support your stance, citing that the credits and website don't mention his full name, when no one has their last name given in either place. His full name is given as Kefka Palazzo in Dissidia's museum, I'll even snap a picture of it if you don't believe me. Final word: his last name is English canon as well, drop it and move on. The Clawed One (talk) 06:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Re-read my post. I'm not acting like a victim, I even said I did call you a troll once and shouldn't have done so. However, again, I politely asked a question first, waited ten days without any answer, and only acted then based on my knowledge. You then suddenly jumped in and said it was the "dumbest decision ever". I then called you a troll once, and you proceeded to call me idiot and stuff multiple times in what I guess is retaliation. Asking a question before doing something and waiting ten days to act (which is what I did despite what Kung Fu Man claims) is not dumb, it's what Wikipedia recommands (WP:BOLD). Next time I guess I'll try reading your mind or call a seer or something instead of waiting ten days to get a reply. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 07:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You make a big deal about waiting ten days for a reply. I frankly don't care if you wait ten months before making the edit. It doesn't change the fact your decision was ill-informed and foolish because you didn't do enough research before making a decision. By that logic, any proposed edit becomes valid if no one replies to the proposition. Doesn't work that way, your proposal was misinformed and you made a dumb decision. Being bold is not a blanket excuse to edit however you like, use some common sense, do some research and don't act on your own. If you didn't get a reply after ten days, why not come here? If you had come here before instead of waiting for this mess you could have saved everyone a lot of hassle. Moving the page was very stupid, it doesn't matter how long you waited you were wrong, and now are whining about this ordeal for no real reason. In either case its over now, so as I said drop it and move on. The Clawed One (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Since the edit war looks fairly fresh, I suggest both sides of the disagreement disengage for a while. Errors were made on both sides; however, it is time to move past them. After a few days, revisit the issue on the article's talk page and finish the discussion before any action is taken. Such actions without consensus among the involved parties can be construed as violations of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, which in turn can lead to blocks (regardless of who is right and wrong).
In the future, please keep WP:CIVIL and Wikipedia:Assume good faith in mind. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC))

I agree with Guyinblack25 above. Both sides made mistakes in handling this dispute, and I similarly recommend both sides back off for a bit and then return with cooler heads. Sometimes discussions start up weeks after its start after some inactivity, though that does not happen often. We have the bold-revert-discuss cycle for a reason in which bold edits can be challenged; we just need to get the "discuss" portion right. –MuZemike 14:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Honestly I don't think you guys get it. He says Kefka's last name is not mentioned in English materials. He is incorrect. The debate is over, there is no more discussion to be had, so yes I had planned to back off because the discussion is over. The Clawed One (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

We do get it Clawed. However, the factual accuracy of the discussion has no bearing on Wikipedia's civility policy. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC))

Can I just offer a quick, fast ending to this hogwash? Does someone have the manual or game on hand and a camera or scanner? If so just upload a shot/scan showing it saying his full name and call it a day. I lack all three at the moment, and didn't even realize there *was* a discussion on that talk page that long. But that's going to be the simplest way to resolve this bull without people making themselves look silly in the long run.

Sheesh.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This matter can be quickly and easily resolved. But a discussion between the involved the parties is still recommended to mend fences and prevent further disputes related to the matter. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC))

King's Field is a Japan-only release and because of that when King's Field II was released in the West it was renamed simply as King's Field. And when King's Field III was released in the West it became King's Field II.

According to the guidelines we should use the title of the English language release. At least in the Final Fantasy series the misleadingly titled games were renamed to back to their original titles but these games never had re-releases. So, should they be moved to their Western titles or leave as it is to reduce confusion? --Mika1h (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

My first impulse is to put a hatnote on the first game; something like "For the game released in the US as King's Field, see King's Field II". Nifboy (talk) 00:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree. The guidelines are all well and nice, but sometimes you have to bend the rules in favor of common sense. After all, if you put KF2 at King's Field, then what are you going to name the first game's article? King's Field 0? King's Field (Japan)? Either one is more confusing than just naming it according to the original names and putting a note that they were renamed later. --PresN 00:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Theoretically you could use King's Field and another article King's Field I. It does cause a lot of mess though with redirecting. Might also want to head over to WP:COMMONNAME as they may have a better solution.陣内_Jinnai 05:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Or you could just disambiguate them as "King's Field (**** video game)" and "King's Field (**** video game), however, I think leaving them in their Japanese order is better.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I am here to ask if anyone is willing to work on Ninja Gaiden. It is currently GA status, as well as A-class status. However, I found problems and am willing to contest its status. When I asked the editor, Jappalang, he said that he doesn't really care for it anymore and I should ask if anyone should take the job of working on it. [24] So, before I do the GAR, does anyone want to take the helm? GamerPro64 (talk) 00:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am only interested in the 2-D Ninja Gaiden games. That reminds me that I need to get to Ninja Gaiden III: The Ancient Ship of Doom shortly, to finish off cleaning and polishing the NES trilogy articles. –MuZemike 02:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of them, I honestly believe that Sigmas 1 and 2 need to be merged. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I have started the GAR. So if anyone wants to fixs the problems, here's the link. GamerPro64 (talk) 22:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I think Simon Belmont, with all the notability he's been getting since he first appeared, I believe he should have his own article. If so, be happy if someone could start one and I'd be happy to help contribute to it. --VitasV (talk) 09:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You can start one yourself in your Sandbox and then move it to the mainspace when it has reached a decent standard. - X201 (talk) 08:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, Nintendo DS and Nintendo DSi have ongoing discussions on their talk pages about merging DS Lite and DSi XL. « ₣M₣ » 22:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The article on the original DSi is pretty much complete. If the merge does occur, to anyone that wants to maintain a high level of completeness, there is not a lot to write about on the DSi XL. « ₣M₣ » 18:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, long time lurker here. Just a small heads up on Japanese soundtrack articles. To prevent the deletionists from targeting these articles, I think we need to treat these articles like "real" album/single articles. This includes adding charts positions whenever they are available. Cuz yes, many soundtracks do enter charts in Japan. I don't speak Japanese but here is what I do to find the charts position of a given CD:

1. Go to http://www.oricon.co.jp/.
2. Click on "CD" above the blue search box. Type the title of the CD and click on the button.
3. Click on the album you're looking for in the search results. The red number next to "過去最高" is the album's charts position.

Example: "Kiss Me Good-Bye" reached #6 on the Japanese charts.

If you can't find the CD you're looking for in the results, here are a few other ways:

• Try typing the title of the CD in Japanese instead of English (you can find it at http://vgmdb.net/ for instance):

Example: 0 result for SaGa Frontier Original Soundtrack; 1 result for サガフロンティア　オリジナル・サウンド・トラック.

• Try searching for the CD's catalog number on Oricon via Google:

Example: Googling "SSCX-10003" site:http://www.oricon.co.jp/ yields 1 result.

• Go to http://www.oricon.co.jp/search/. In the box below "曲名に", type the title of one the CD's tracks instead of the CD's title (you can also find them on http://vgmdb.net).

Example: Searching for the track Vamo' alla flamenco to find the Final Fantasy IX Original Soundtrack.

I hope this helps! :) Moldavian Sax (talk) 11:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

These are good suggestions. I've used a few myself with mixed success. To expand on this some, a regular google search using Japanese kana is a useful tool for any Japanese-based video game element: music, designers, or even the game itself. I turned up some good bits that helped either round out or finish articles like Super Mario 64 DS, Music of Kingdom Hearts, and List of Space Invaders video games. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC))

This is so helpful, you have no idea. --PresN 14:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

A new version is up for up for discussion.陣内_Jinnai 14:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Here we go again… --Izno (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Would like input from project members on whether this controversial source can be used on WP. Tezero (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking at the writers page and it does look like the site is actually a regular video game coverage site that happens to use blog in the name (ala a brand name) vs. an actual blog page. They appear to have a staff, have regular articles and news, etc., what would be expected from a typical industry site vs. a literal single person blog. That doesn't clear it for notability though, and in relation to your statement at the FAC discussion, the fact it appears in other articles does not prove notability or reliability. It just means it's usage in those articles should be questioned as well. Reliability can be proven however by contacting the site's head and questioning whether there is an editorial oversite process for the articles. In most cases we want resources to be both notable and reliable, but if nothing of more notability is available an allowance is made as long as it's still proven reliable. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Some IP is removing series from the template in question. I don't understand his/her rationale for it since they are all Sega developed/published series. I have tried to communicate by leaving comment on user and template talk pages but he hasn't replied. --Mika1h (talk) 20:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'm against the inclusion of individual video games articles rather than series articles. I believe that it should be for the purpose of navigating articles about franchises, not intellectual properties. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm fine with that but I don't think he is removing them because they aren't franchise articles. --Mika1h (talk) 22:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure everyone can see the FAC from the to-do list, but it's inactive and I don't want it to get closed because of that. Whoever has time to come, please do. Tezero (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• Currently pursuing a second copyeditor per FAC comments almost exclusively from Jinnai. Tezero (talk) 15:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Currently there doesn't seem to be an agreement over whether Kingdom Hearts: Birth By Sleep should have a colon in its title. While I believe the colon should be used, I can't find anything in any MoS that handles colon usage. So, since the editors involved appear not to have discussed the issue at length (at least not that I've seen), and I don't want to see this turn into an edit war, I'd like to hear what the community has to say regarding this matter. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

See TITLE Subtitle above. Reach Out to the Truth 16:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

If you feel its not enough you can seek a 3rd opinion at WT:NAME or WP:MOS.陣内_Jinnai 17:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be just a punctuation issue overall. So adding the colon is best in my opinion. Just like Crisis Core: Final Fantasy VII. Also it's not like it will do any damage than what it might do in the future. THe problem i do see is, if we change it to have acolon then we will have to change the other kingdom heart titles that have sub titles on them aswell, like Kingdom hearts 358/2 days and kingdom hears coded.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone please take the history from Kirby's Epic Yarn up until the edit after this and move it to Kirby (cancelled game)? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I got it right. I opted to move to Kirby (cancelled video game) to disambiguate a little more. –MuZemike 22:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a follow up to a previous discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 81#Space Invaders games.

Per the comments made during the last thread, I redirected the articles to List of Space Invaders video games and used the content and sources to expand the list. The remaining articles, some of which can probably remain separate, are:

To the point, I have questions I hope others can help with.

• Space Invaders Trilogy: I'm unsure about one of only the reliable-looking sources I could find for it. The website is TechRepublic, but I've never used it before and thought others could chime in on its reliability.
• Should Pepsi Invaders and Prize Space Invaders be redirected as well? I think the prize game should be redirected, but I'm unsure about the Pepsi game. I know I've seen sources here and there, but I don't recall anything substantial about the development.

Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC))

Is Pepsi Invaders the first advergame? It and Chase the Chuck Wagon have the same release year in the article on the subject, so that may provide some notability. Tangentially related, is the unsourced sentence This is the first ever home video game to feature product placement advertising in the game itself--Pizza Hut logos to be exact. from Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (arcade game) untrue or in need of wording to exclude advergames? —Ost (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if it is the first or not. Regardless, I've found little outside the number of copies produced, where it was released, its rarity, and who programmed it. Any notability there is spares in my opinion since it's a derivative of the original Space Invaders. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC))

The title has Google hits, but most sources don't look reliable for Wikipedia. I also tend to agree that the sparse coverage lends itself to a merge, since if it isn't verifiably notable. —Ost (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

If you guys want, I can track down the programmer and do a full interview on the development etc. and publish it. I'm borderline on merging or not merging, as it's kind of small to remain on it's own. But it is also notable on it's own as an advertisement game and for it's collectibility. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

If we can get a developer interview, I'd put the time in the article. A reception/legacy section shouldn't be too difficult to piece together. But a development section just doesn't seem possible right now. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC))

Any word on the reliability of this TechRepublic source? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC))

Looks like a direct reprinting of a Taito press release. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. But I couldn't find the original press release from Taito or the developer. I posted at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to get further opinions. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC))

Some one moved the survival horror article to survival horror video game. I am requesting it be moved back, which I think is proper protocol for contesting a move. If anyone wants to look it over: Talk:Survival_horror_video_game#Requested_move. bridies (talk) 06:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Seems odd. I went to the disambig page and found no articles about movies or books which was the point of the rename. We should probably move it back and create a diambig link at the top that says This article focuses on the video game genre. For more about films and books, see ... Shooterwalker (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

For quite some time, video game lists have kind of gone by their own sort of naming conventions. Lists that are strictly video game lists and not media lists tend to be sort of a potshot at which name they use. Some examples:

• Titles: List of Star Fox titles, List of Harvest Moon titles, List of Need for Speed titles
• Video games: List of Wario video games, List of Dragon Ball video games, List of Final Fantasy video games, etc.
• Games: List of Donkey Kong games, List of Bomberman games, List of Mega Man games, etc.

I think we need to say which standard we're using for video game lists and then we should re-name all video game lists to fit the standard. Personally I think we should use "video games" but I'm not really too hellbent on keeping that, so if someone wants to do "titles" or "games", we can discuss it. You can see all of the video game franchise lists here. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 13:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we should use "video games". "Games" implies that it includes video games and other types of games. "Titles" is a bit too open-ended, implying any type of entry. In cases like that, we should probably use "media". (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC))

I watch this page for any opinions about Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. So I am pretty neutral as far as other issues. My 1 cent is that "video games" is the correct usage. While I think "computer games" distinguishes games like Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri from the old games that one saw in the video arcades at the mall, most people do no consider the PS2 et al platforms to be computers."Games" can cover sports, e.g football. Vyeh (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with everything Guy said. Gary King (talk) 05:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I also prefer "video games," unless the lists are expected to include other games or media. —Ost (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

"video games". I have lengthily voiced why before. In summary: consistency. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, I never understood why some lists are named "List of *** media". I've never heard someone say "Disgaea: Hour of Darkness is a Disgaea medium" or "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within is a Final Fantasy medium". I think these should be moved to "List of *** products" or something. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 07:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe the intended usage of "media" in this case refers to "products", as in the different types of media the franchise has been released on. For example, Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within is a Final Fantasy spin off in the film medium. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC))

Media is not necessarily video games, and can include books, movies, board games and whatnot. If there is nothing other than video games, the page doesn't need the title "list of *** media" and can be "list of *** video games" instead.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Media lists are especially good when there aren't enough items to warrent a specific list of video games. So I think we can all agree that the consensus here is to move all of the pages to "List of XXXX video games?" -- Nomader ^(Talk) 20:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Maybe give it a day to see if anyone else chimes in. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC))

I agree with "List of XXXX video games. I still don't understand how "List of XXXX media" is the best name for media articles though. The first thing that comes to mind when reading "List of Final Fantasy media" is that there is something called a "Final Fantasy medium", which might be somewhat understandable but it sounds really awkward IMO (news media, mass media, ...Final Fantasy media?). Plus according to a really technical definition a list of FF media would actually just list the physical types of media FF appears in, like this:

• The FF media are cartridges, CDs, DVDs, books, etc.

instead of actually listing the names of the products that these media carry:

• The FF media are FF: The Spirits Within, FF: Unlimited, FF Ultimania Guide, etc.

I think "Products" sounds much clearer. Should I open a new discussion section since this is kind of unrelated (er, totally unrelated actually) to the "List of XXXX video games" debate? Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 07:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem with using products is that you're then expected to list out things such as action figures or other things that aren't really particularly important to the list you're trying to make. Media (communication) is at its most basic level, "tools used to store and deliver information or data." This means that comics, games, and movies all qualify while things such as action figures don't. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 16:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Nomander. Products implies every kind of product. Media implies every kind of medium. Video games implies only video (and computer) games. At each level it is more broad than the last. If we want to only list media such as CDs, video games, DVDs, etc. then we should use "List of XXXX digital media" and media in itself implies print and sonic (radio FE) as well as digital.陣内_Jinnai 19:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I had never considered that title: "digital media". Sounds like it would make compiling some lists much easier, though I worry it would encourage cherry picking. Something to think about I guess. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC))

No one should be expected to list things like action figures. Action figures are not notable. We're discussing article names but let's not forget WP:N. There can be some short statements like "Action figures have also been released." but I don't see why anyone should list every barcode of every action figure ever released for a series. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:N covers guidelines for whether a subject is notable enough for its own article, not inclusion in a list. Even, redlinks can be permitted in lists. That is why it is important to set the inclusion criteria of a list with its name and description. WP:TRIVIA should be excluded from lists, but just going by WP:N can be overly restrictive. —Ost (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Even though notability doesn't cover lists, WP:SALAT does and listing of products, which includes stuff like action figures and the like for a product originally released as a video game could easily qualify as "too broad".陣内_Jinnai 19:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't notice that part in SALAT and I think that that's your interpretation of "too broad" unless I skimmed past it. You may be correct and do fine keeping a list limited to it, but I think it's easier to name them appropriately to avoid confusion. We have articles on the Burger King Pokémon container recall, so I do not think that it's implausible for a toy to become notable. —Ost (talk) 21:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Toys are a grey area and a slippery slope. Not so much for other lists, but within a single list. If you include one, you're expected to include them all. And most lines of toys based on video games are poorly documented by our reliable sources. I've avoided some media lists for the same reason: every comic and soundtrack related to a franchise is difficult to track down.

Regardless, I believe Ost has the right idea. Properly define a list's scope from the start, and the process should avoid most pitfalls. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC))

So it looks like there's consensus to move them to "list of xxxxx video games"-- for featured lists, do we have to move anything special or do any odd edits? I'm not too experienced with this whole moving business. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 00:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

These, yes. I think (and perhaps a new section down at the bottom to garner renewed interest) a discussion on some appropriate types of list qualifiers could be added to the guideline. This wouldn't be all-encompassing, but might be stuff like discouraging (game) and use (media) only if you intend it to be for all forms, including print.陣内_Jinnai 23:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Featured lists are a good place to start, but every list should follow the same convention to avoid further confusion. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC))

I'll be making a topic at the bottom of this page about which moves need to be moved and about possibly adding a note to the naming conventions for video games about lists. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 03:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed that many infoboxes do not include exhaustive lists of ports in the platform section. As an example, the Super Mario Bros. article mentions the arcade version in the article, but not the infobox. The 1942 article lists many ports in the article, but lists only arcade in the infobox. Even the infobox template page itself skips the platform section entirely in the instructions. What belongs, and what doesn't? Thanks! - superβεεcat  18:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably because of space and weight issues. The other reasons may be that those were not released in English (or in the original language if not English) or the items might be prone to adding without proper sourcing and are hard to verify. Maybe if there was an easy way to hide ports it might be okay.陣内_Jinnai 19:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Still not seeing it - Super Mario Bros. was a big arcade hit, and the NES version of 1942 was definitely successful. I doubt that infobox lists really impact weight. I see some articles, like Bonk's Adventure that list a lot of platforms, and others, like Pac-Man which only list arcade. Is there any rhyme or reason? If there isn't, this project should really consider developing a guideline. Personally, I think an exhaustive platform list would be fine, especially if it could be collapsible, but I don't want to start adding platforms if they'll be reverted. - superβεεcat  19:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No, an exhaustive list is not fine in the infobox per the guidelines on large lists and the guidelines of the project. Prose in the body is always preferred, which is why we have a Ports section in most cases, especially with a game like Pac Man. In most cases if the infobox is in relation to an arcade game (i.e. processor info, etc. because it's describing the hardware it ran on as well) we try and stick with just the main platform. Other more generic game infoboxes a small listing is ok, but again if it's a game that's hit a lot of platforms then only the main platform is listed. That's a general rule with all lists in the body of the article as well, if it can be said in prose instead of a list, then it's preferred. As I mentioned previously, look at some of the articles that have passed GA and FA status for example, using other articles that have not passed this or haven't been brought up to standards doesn't always provide a valid example. With SMB, I would move most of those platforms out and let them stay in prose in the body (which is where you said the arcade version is currently listed), since it's on just about every Nintendo platform. Let me just say I appreciate you asking all the questions you've been asking regarding this type of thing. Most newer people usually just go and do sweeping changes without bothering to find out what the guidelines are or if there aren't any listed, what the WP:Consensus is at the project. Oh, and on an aside I would disagree regarding SMB - SMB was not a popular arcade game, in fact most people have no clue it even existed. It was far more popular and influential in it's Famicom/NES format. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the input! Alright, I'll leave the platform sections alone, though I still think a very clear guideline of what goes in and what doesn't should be formed into a policy and posted prominently... somewhere. I think at least some newbies would read project specific (and in this case, template specific) guidelines if they exist somewhere. I'll post in the template talk page about that specific issue. I do think, however, that the infobox could provide a list of ports in an easily-viewable collapsible list in addition to the prose in the main article. Platform could refer to the original release (or releases, if designed for multiple systems contemporaneously), and then a new "ports" section, collapsed by default, could list (and link to, if appropriate), other versions. As far as SMB arcade- I can't really find any info on popularity, but I do remember it at every arcade growing up (it was the reason I begged for an NES). In any case- thanks for the great guidance. - superβεεcat  21:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I've avoided listing ports in the infobox (Bubbles (video game), Pong, Q*bert, and Robotron: 2084). I think it needlessly bloats the table and the tangential nature is irrelevant to the purpose of an infobox. For the examples I listed, the subjects of the article are the arcade versions. Everything in the article focuses on the original arcade version: gameplay, development, reception. Ports are simply mentioned with little in the way of development and reception specific to the. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC))

The way I have it on Lemmings ("Amiga, various") with a subsequent section on the shear volume of ports, seems to be a wise way to go for a massively ported game. --MASEM (t) 23:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Has anybody else noticed that the review box is missing its outside lines and looks a right mess? I just noticed in Geneforge that a line's missing separating two of the reviews as well. Someoneanother 13:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks fine for me. Could it be a similar issue to the one posted at WP:VPT#Problem with singles table? —Ost (talk) 14:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the issue either. It might be a browser issue. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC))

No issues in Firefox as far as I can see. SharkD  Talk  19:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Unexpected, I will kick my browser accordingly, thanks. Someoneanother 23:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Per discussion above about Template:Franchises by Sega and my recent edit at Template:Nintendo (diff), I think there needs to be a project discussion about what franchise templates should consist of. I was under the impression that they should contain links to major series articles, not individual game articles-- however, I'm more than willing to hear the other side of this issue and I invite commentary from the project to sort this issue out. It's rather minor so I'm not too worried about it or anything. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 03:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Is Shane Bettenhausen really notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia page? His article is pretty much a stub and judging by his resume, I really don't think he warrants one, but I need everyone else's input before nominating his page for deletion. Jonny2x4 (talk) 06:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:PROD as well as WP:BLPPROD (specifically for unsourced BLPs) is also available. But yeah, let's see if there is possibly any sources here before going that route. –MuZemike 06:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the page was nominated for deletion two years ago. Nobody has made an effort to improve it since then and now it seems to be an bigger stub than it was back then. Jonny2x4 (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

There's a dispute going on here over whether they should be listed as 3DS games. While the reference clearly shows Reggie answering in the affirmative that these games are games for the 3DS. If I could get some input on the discussion here, that'd be great. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's assume there is a Russian video game named Mordal Wombat featuring Shaolin monks. Main hero of this game is a fictional Chinese man called "Лю Кан" (romanization: Lyu Kan). According to our transliteration rules, direct romanization of these Russian letters is Lju Kan or Lyu Kan. However, if this monk was a real Chinese person with a real name, it would be written as "Liu Kang" according to the rules of Chinese romanization (Chinese names are romanized with Wade–Giles). Actually, Liu Kang and Lyu Kan are one Chinese name. In the real world they are just two analogues of the same thing, Romanized and Cyrillic spelling respectively. However, we are dealing with a fictional character. How, then, to name an English article about this character? Should we stick to his fictional nationality or to direct romanization of Russian letters? What Wikipedia rules say on this matter? Thank you. :) -- deerstop. 18:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Mordal Wombat? That sounds a lot like Mortal Kombat, but that is definitely no a part of the series. Where exactly are you seeing this conflict? Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 02:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

"Let's assume" means "There is no such game really". ) Just a hypothetical case. -- deerstop. 10:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Then you use WP:COMMONNAME, the name that appears more often. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

So, doesn't fictional nationality truly matter? -- deerstop. 11:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Provided there's proper sourcing, you can include the proper national name in the article. But the article name should use the most common name, which should also be included in the lead of the article. Common names are used to aid in finding the article and reduce confusion. It's the same reason we use coyote rather than canis latrans. Technicalities can cause confusion among laymen. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC))

Thanks! -- deerstop. 11:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear Eng-Wiki users! This girl think that we (in Russian Wiki) should use nonexistent names of Mortal Kombat characters, resorting to transliteration from Japanese, Chinese, Korean, etc. (believing that these characters are persons of these nationalities). However, Mortal Kombat is a USA game series, and in territory of Russia this series extends in English too. It means that these characters are known only under English names for Russian people. But there is a conflict in Ru-Wiki with this girl and some people who believe that we should use Japanese/Chinese/Korean transliteration of these names, according to prospective origin of characters. I think we should not. We don't know these characters under Japanese, etc. names, but we know them only in English. There is many people who believe the same as me, but one of Japan fans has closed this discussion, having persuaded one of admins to sum up discussion in favour of the Japanese names. Now he refuses to open discussion and to discuss it with new people. Though it is many people against this decision, and they have challenged it. Even some other admins believe that my position is correct. We, certainly, should use English transliteration? Seems that it is necessary to call Jimbo... :D --Coolak (talk) 08:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Moreover, there is a reliable source in Russia - it's a game magazine named "World of Fantastic". This magazine use English-translated names too! It supports my position even more. --Coolak (talk) 08:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

On the English Wikipedia, we try to use the most commonly known name of a subject. The common name should be the article title, and used most frequently in the article prose. If there are reliable sources that mention national names, then there is an argument to include it. But I would not mention a national name more than once. I think that would confuse things.

I have no idea what the Russian Wikipedia page for article titles says, but I think that what ever that pages says should apply. However, I don't think we should dictate guidelines on other Wikipedias any more than others should dictate our guidelines. Friendly suggestions back and worth seem fine though. :-) (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC))

This page only says that we should use most common names, and that rules of articles about persons don't concern to characters. Unfortunately, some users have begun holywar because of it. Even admins can not help us. --Coolak (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

If things have gotten that bad, Admins are suppose to jump in. They should restrict editing to the impacted pages if things are unmanageable. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC))

One of administrators has summed up discussion in favour of the East names, but his "decision" was challenged by me and my side was supported by many people. We have resulted a lot of arguments and the facts, and rules are on our side, but the group of users persistently tries to close discussion in their favour and not to allow it to continue. Administrators avoid this discussion. --Coolak (talk) 20:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

If the administrators are not dealing with the issue, then I'm not sure what help we can offer. We would normally take the issue to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, which apparently has a Russian equivalent. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC))

In Russian, it's "Users' noticeboard", not "administrators'". --Coolak (talk) 10:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

A glitch has just been discovered in Super Smash Bros. Melee which allows you to play as Master Hand and it actually works. You see about it here: http://kotaku.com/5577690/the-super-smash-bros-secret-that-took-7-years-to-unlock Could we please have in some way added to the article about it? --VitasV (talk) 02:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I've seen the video already and would declare it irrelevant. We might as well add that you can jump the flag pole in Super Mario Bros. because of the video. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Heh. The flagpole in SMB is so iconic, I could see that mentioned. - superβεεcat  03:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it could be worth mentioning. I just tried it, and it worked. (Although I used the way described on the SmashWiki, not the video. The video's way wouldn't work.) _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 03:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, I don't really feel it's too notable of an incident. By exploiting a glitch in the game, you can play as Master Hand-- I feel that it needs to be covered in a more reliable source to make it even marginally notable, and even then I'm not sure if it needs to be added to the article. Things like this and "UR MR GAY" in Super Mario Galaxy aren't really necessary to be added-- they're just fancruft. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 06:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It's hardly 'just been discovered'. [25] seems to point that people knew about it at least a year ago. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I mean, great I'm glad it's there, but it's a glitch. Should we divert coverage to it at all? -- Nomader ^(Talk) 18:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Another playable character is hardly "fancruft" and comparing this to the UR MR GAY is ridiculous. A sentence mentioning this playable character is easily warranted. --Torsodog^Talk 18:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I do think that in some situations, mentioning a glitch can be warranted, such as with the more famous one in the Paperboy arcade game, which everyone played with during the height of the game's popularity. This one is borderline because it seems the glitch was discovered a long time after the game was popular. Still, an additional playable character in any game might be an important enough glitch for a (very) brief mention, if well sourced. - superβεεcat  19:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe add it to the Mr. Hand paragraph in Super Smash Bros. playable characters? Seems like it might fit in there as a quick 1-sentence mention. --PresN 19:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... have any notable sources outside of Kotaku mentioned it? Kotaku isn't always considered reliable per WP:VG/RS: would the Gametrailers video be enough to cite it? And I agree, I don't think it should be listed as a fully playable character but a mention would be alright (the game glitches in almost any scenario you play as master hand in so I don't really feel it was an intentional playable character by any means-- see this page). Also, Torsodog, I apologize for calling the glitch fancruft; I was trying to put across the point that I wasn't sure if it was notable enough to warrant a mention in the article. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 21:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be an emerging issue with GameZone.com conflict of interest edits. I've had a previous run in with a user about it, back in March, (which resulted in a cross email from the Editor in chief), but I've noticed a resurgence in the past few days (I'm only aware of edits to pages on my watchlist, there may be more). The edits all take the same form - the paragraph starts with "GameZone" and mentions the journalist's name and the type of content in the first line, continuing with a long paragraph mainly consisting of direct quotes from the article, with a bare ref to the appropriate article at the end. This, and that the accounts all seem to be single-purpose, suggests there's something more than just fans of the site adding it as a source. I'm aware GameZone is listed as a reliable source (though all the evidence is literary based), just wondering if action should be taken. Thanks! Fin©™ 12:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks marginally usable. No mistake though - its UNDUE on one reviewer's words, barely NPOV, and excessively long. It should not be pure QUOTEs, only useful information should be kept, possibly something that can be used later in development/reception section when the games come out. I suggest action taken is a proper edit of these, and notification of user(s) about this discussion. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I use GameZone quite a bit when it comes to the older racing games I sometimes write about-- often, it's one of the few sources that write about the games and I really do consider the website reliable. That said, there is no excuse for someone who works at GameZone.com to be pushing links when they're only marginally relevant. I agree with Hellknowz in that these quotes should not be allowed and that maybe we have a WP:COI problem here. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 13:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

GameZone is certainly considered a reliable source, it is merely a matter of cutting down the text walls into usable information relevant to the article. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 14:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Just want to point out the concern I have is that there's a conceited attempt to add GameZone.com content, not that the content or ref may be not be reliable (side issue). Thanks! Fin©™ 15:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

All of the writing looks incredibly similar between accounts. Perhaps a sockpuppet investigation is in order? --Teancum (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I remember Falcon's original report to ANI, which didn't seem to get much attention, and being very disappointed that a staff member of GameZone felt it necessary to spam WP (IIRC they stated that GameZone wasn't being used) as well as the tone of the editor's email. GameZone is used on WP, Like Nomader I've cited it many times myself, often for more obscure games (like the Geneforge series for instance). GameSpot and IGN have Alexa scores of 2**, GameZone is 8***, it's no real wonder that it isn't used in the same fashion. This might be a well-meaning member of GZ's community, or it may be another attempt to increase GZ's presence on WP, but those accounts are obviously sockpuppets or working in concert and shouldn't be emboldened, the more it continues the more poorly it will reflect on the site itself, which would be a shame. Someoneanother 22:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, the GameZone staff member who was the focus of the original report had a couple more goes at adding GZ material after removing their association from their userpage before stopping again on the 2nd of June. This is definitely no coincidence. Someoneanother 23:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I really think this should be addressed-- maybe someone could send an e-mail to the GameZone staff about it? I really appreciate their reviews of some of the older Game Boy Advance games I sometimes write about, and adding random quotes and reviews to articles is not the way for them to increase their reputation. This kind of behavior just can't be tolerated. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 23:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

If nobody else does anything I'll take this to SPI, or ANI, or somewhere (not that I know what the hell I'm doing, same old).. don't intend to let misguided actions get in the way of our ability to use GameZone as a useful source and for the site to legitimately gain traffic through being used on WP. Someoneanother 10:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

(PS not sure if it would be advisable to contact GameZone off-wiki, without checkuser proof or whatever they may think we're being confrontational or trying to victimize one of their staff/fans, which we're not so again it would be a real shame to stir up that hornets' nest). Someoneanother 10:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Point taken, I completely agree. However I really don't think we need to worry about it too much. I think we should just monitor his edits in the future as it seems he hasn't edited any articles since June 2nd. If he pops up again we should address it here and then report the problem to the necessary boards. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 04:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm being clear as mud as per usual. What I mean is that it's fishy that the GameZone writer had a couple more stabs at it then stopped editing, only for a sock drawer to fly open a few weeks later. Even if it isn't the same editor, there's definitely some socking or meatpuppetry going on with the other accounts. I'll try and figure out WP:SPI now.. Someoneanother 15:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't conclusively say that they're all sockpuppets (though I suppose if they're all editing from a company IP, it's the same difference?), but there's definitely something dodgy going on. SPI's probably the best place for it (I think?). Thanks! Fin©™ 14:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Update: The three other accounts have been confirmed as sock puppets, twice as many again have been uncovered by the checkuser. I don't know whether that's it as far as the SPI is concerned in terms of what to do with the accounts' additions to articles. Someoneanother 16:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Is that really confirmed? Do you have a link to the request for checkuser? What a shame. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 03:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the link's here, I'm also saddened that it's come to this. Someoneanother 05:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

... that's disgusting. I'm not really particularly happy with GameZone right now for different reasons as well: they recently updated their site and I can't find any of their reviews before the current generation. Have we begun to look through the sockpuppets' edits to see if any of their contributions are still live? -- Nomader ^(Talk) 21:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I popped through their contributions and removed their edits. Thanks! Fin©™ 16:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I would have got around to it within a day or two, but was in no hurry to dwell on something so negative. Someoneanother 19:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)