Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 82

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 80

Archive 81

Archive 82

Archive 83

Archive 84

Archive 85

After some modifications I moved a page I had sitting around my User space into Article space. It's titled Video game graphics, and is meant as a brief survey and jumping-off point (as well as possible merge destination for some of the smaller articles) on the topic of the same name. Most of the material is copied directly from the child articles, so there's unfortunately nothing new and substantial that didn't exist before. There are also almost no references. I would appreciate it if people were to take a look at it and add stuff that is relevant as well as referenced. SharkD  Talk  03:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I recall reading a section on the wiki website that addressed a compilamtion of video game magazines that other editors had access too. I recall a substantial amount of articles from EGM on FMV graphics between 1996 and 1997. There were also a bit around 1994 (ie the whole SNES prolonging its life by updating graphics). What might be an idea is to see how many editors actually have access to these sources, i imagine there is a substantial information there that could help that article. Just some stray thoughts on the matter. I certaintly think this could be taken further with a broad involvment by the communiuty if they wanted to involve themselves. Ottawa4ever (talk) 11:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a great overview article and idea; nice initiative! —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

As pointed out, it really just needs really good sources, and some major thought at how to organize it (since it's not just a progression from A to B but also branches into unique styles [cell shaded, FMV, etc.]). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I may be able to help out with a couple of sources that I saw in some old video game magazines that I have. I'll post on the article's talk page when I find them. –MuZemike 20:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like our WikiProject ad is redlinked on the project page-- does anyone know what happened to it? -- Nomader ^(Talk) 03:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It got CSD I8'd by Fran Rogers for some reason. Im to lazy to look what I8 means though. Salavat (talk) 05:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any CSD I8... but F8 says that it would be an identical copy on Commons. Only I can't find any. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 06:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh well thats just what it says on [1], maybe ask Fran Rogers to interpret. Salavat (talk) 08:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The I8 makes sense because the File namespace was called Image back in 2007, and the file was indeed present on Wikimedia Commons at the time. See commons:File:Qxz-ad31.gif. There is a file description page and an upload log entry. There's no image though, and nothing in the deletion log. So what happened to it? Reach Out to the Truth 15:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Now that was very odd. I did a Google search for the filename and found it was still available at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Qxz-ad31.gif. So I purged the page on Commons and it magically reappeared. Apparently MediaWiki screwed up somehow and couldn't find the image, and whatever processing is done for a purge fixed it. Anomie⚔ 17:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Strange indeed. May be related to the outage? –xeno^talk 17:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Well it wasn't appearing on the frontpage of the project for me still even though I could see it on the commons page-- I changed the prefix from "Image:" to "File:" and it seemed to clear things up. Oddness. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 21:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It was showing up for me here after I purged the commons page; I wonder if a purge would have fixed it for you? Anomie⚔ 02:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably would've, my mistake in not doing one. I guess it's alright to have changed the prefix but if you want to change it back to the "Image:" tag, I won't stop you. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 05:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

No big deal; I wasn't trying to criticize you, I was just wondering whether a purge would have done it. IMO, changing "Image:" to "File:" is one of those kind of edits that isn't usually worth doing in most cases unless you're editing that section of the page anyway, but by the same token there is no point in reverting it either if someone does do it. Anomie⚔ 17:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The review can be found here. GamerPro64 (talk) 23:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Before I get too far into the weeds fighting off what I consider an improper edit: Should a moddable video game's infobox reflect only what is possible out-of-the-box / officially provided?

Case in point is Left 4 Dead 2, a user is claiming that the game goes up to 24 players, though Valve specifically designed and advertized this game as up to 4-on-4. 24 players can be achieved by changing a cvar within the server, but this, to me, is like saying you can tweak this dial in your computer to make it go faster but you're breaking warranty for it. Because it is not an official statement of the game's capacity, it is false to include it in the infobox, though if there's notable mention of this facet, it can be placed elsewhere in the article. --MASEM (t) 02:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

To me that's the point where it goes out to fan wikis and fansites, we can't describe games according to what modders/players saw off and tinker with, unless of course it's something that the press cover as you said. It certainly doesn't belong in the infobox though. Someoneanother 03:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Someoneanother summed up my thoughts exactly. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC))

Agree that only officially released info should go into infobox, and any additional notable changes/tweaks/hacks are suitable for prose only.—  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with HELLKNOWZ. If its commented a lot by reviewers (such as the Hot Coffee mod) it can go in the lead, but the infobox should remain about official releases unless the article is about the mod itself.陣内_Jinnai 16:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to be boring but yet another agree. Original un-modified product info only. - X201 (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If by "official" we mean "non-fan" then I agree, too. However, some details are neither official nor fan-related. For instance, TOSE "ghost-developed" thounsands of video games but the company's name often doesn't appear in the game's credits and the publisher often doesn't acknowledge the company's participation. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 08:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess this is case-by-case, but publisher's info is just as official as developers. I think there is a pretty clear line between "either developer or publisher said so" and "someone else said so". Someone else is not necessarily fans either, it can be a well respected site or magazine. But as far as information goes, that is not "official" anymore.—  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated Project Mirror Magic for deletion at AfD. Your comments are welcome. Brambleclawx 18:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Could an expert in online subscription services re review the article for Gametap please see the talk page on the article for my concerns this article seems like it needs a rewrite. The content of the article does not reflect the current model of the service JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 06:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Might help to link to GameTap. Ham Pastrami (talk) 09:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I should post this at the AFD talk page but the Girl gamer article was nominated for deletion. The nominator however doesn't seem to have carried out step 3 and I think consequently the discussion was not added to the AfD log and hasn't been closed despite going on for 10 days. And may not even be valid. Is there a way to fix this? bridies (talk) 11:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Listed on today's list of AFDs. –MuZemike 16:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Japanese video game romaji issue has come up again. I suggest having the discussion at one point. I suggest having the discussion in WT:MOS-J as it was there last time.

For reference last time this was discussed.陣内_Jinnai 17:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The linked discussion has nothing to do with the issue at hand, Jinnai.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 17:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Admittedly I tl;dr much of the old discussion and don't currently have an opinion on the matter, but a cursory glance shows that SoulCaliber—which you gave as an example—was contentious, so I wouldn't think that it has nothing to do with the current issue. I quote Jpatokal before a reply from you, "I do agree that, for the specific case of Soulcalibur, re-romanizing the kana of an English word is fairly pointless[...]". —Ost (talk) 18:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The only reason that "SoulCalibur" was contentious is because someone thought that the romaji were supposed to be written differently. That discussion was not an issue as to whether or not the romaji name should be included. The only reason omission was suggested because of the (then) confusion as to whether to write it as Sourukyaribā or 'Sōrukyaribā.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I think its the same idea here. Ryulong has done that with a couple other articles related to the article that recently brought this up which just re-romaji the word, ie pointless.陣内_Jinnai 18:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "re-romaji". Template:Nihongo has three primary parameters: the first parameter which is the English parameter (which may or may not include Japanese words), the second parameter which is the kanji and kana, and the third which is the romaji. Unless parameter 1 and 3 are identical, there should be no reason to omit either.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

To take an example from and old edit: "Final Fantasy" is not identical to "Fainaru Fantajī", but it seems obvious that the Japanese is just an attempt to render the English "Final Fantasy" in Japanese phonetics. The current consensus here is that it's pointless to include such "respelling of English with a bad Japanese accent". This seems to be the case quite often, BTW. The "Sōrukyaribā" example mentioned above also seems to fall into this category; see Bendono's point #4 in the originally-linked discussion. Anomie⚔ 15:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not meant to be "respelling of English in a bad Japanese accent". It's showing how the Japanese text, which not everyone can read, is supposed to be pronounced. The current consensus here as you call it is in direct opposition to the superseding Japanese manual of style.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

That sort of attitude is why some people think the entire MOS should be taken to MfD. On topic, how exactly is it useful to be told that "ファイナルファンタジー" is pronounced as "'Final Fantasy' with a bad Japanese accent"? Anomie⚔ 04:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not a "bad Japanese accent". It's to show the reading of the Japanese text, which happens to be Fainaru Fantajī. Sure it's meant to be read as "Final Fantasy" in English, but that doesn't show anyone how the Japanese text you're sticking right next to it is read as in Japanese, the game's original language.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, why the hell is "Fainaru Fantajī" absent from every fucking FF page on the English Wikipedia?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It's "missing" because you're going against the established consensus here, obviously. But as I don't really care, I'll leave you to your profanity and edit warring. Good day. Anomie⚔ 13:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that I also think the romaji is overkill. Katakana is intended for Japanese to accommodate foreign words via its regular phonemes. It seems like overkill to include the Japanese pronunciation for words that are intended to be pronounced in English or any other native language.

On another note, please remain calm in the discussion Ryulong. Foul language immediately followed by asserting your position in articles is not the best strategy to accomplish what you want. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC))

I have to agree with Guy. We're first and foremost the English encyclopedia, and while it can be important to include the original release titles for Japanese games, we don't need anything beyond that. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not a "original release title" thing. This is "how is this non-English language supposed to be read" thing. I apologize for my language, but adding the romaji to all of those pages is not going to hurt anything when it comes to building an encyclopedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from Ryulong, but I have to agree with David and Guy on this one as well. I feel that there's no point in listing a direct translation of the Japanese if it's the exact same as the English title: the reader can assume that the Japanese name is the same as the English if there's no romaji. I'm sympathetic to the point you're trying to make, but this is an English encyclopedia and unless the Japanese name differs significantly, I think it's just fine not to list it. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 20:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I should also point out romaji is often highly contentious, and considering there are rarely if ever reliable sources for the pronunciations... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

@Nomader: This is not an English encyclopedia/Japanese encyclopedia thing. This is an issue of what the katakana say, period. No matter where there is Japanese language text on the English Wikipedia, unless the translation and romanization are the same, {{nihongo}} should be filled as {{nihongo|English|Kanji/Kana|Romaji}}. That is what the guideline for all Japanese text on Wikipedia states, and that is how every WikiProject that deals with Japanese text (except for WP:VG) treats it. There is nothing special about this particular project's scope that makes it such that the romanization of Japanese text should be omitted if it is similar to the anglicization of Japanese text (or the japonification [if that's a word] of English text).

@David: Romaji is never contentious because WP:MOS-JA has a very explicit guideline as to how it should be treated on the English Wikipedia. The only "contentious" thing that occurred was that someone thought that soul (ソウル s[ō|ou]ru) is pronounced intrinsicly differently from sole (ソール s[ō|oo|o-]ru), and should have different romaji (this was in the big discussion initially linked by Jinnai, and there was no actual decision).

@overall: I'm aware that this is an English language encyclopedia, but there is absolutely no reason why including the romaji when it is romaji of English (or English-like) words makes the encyclopedia worse. And there was no reason why the text had to be absent from every single main FF series page (X-2 and Crystal Chronicles had romaji in the leads) and a handful of the DQ pages, other than for some sort of reverence of these two franchises.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

If it were so non-contentious there would be very little debate over it in WT:MOS-JA yet that is not the case as the archive history shows.陣内_Jinnai 16:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI- I looks like a compromise is being reached at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#WP:VG/GL#Non-English games. Since the discussion has boiled down to a smaller number of people, I think a few extra opinions would help avoid further conflict. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC))

Unless I'm misunderstanding the conversation there, the so-called "compromise" is "Thibbs #2". But that hardly seems a compromise as it completely gives in to the MOS-warrior demands and adds a pointless question-mark link. Or is the "compromise" that they won't demand changing WP:VG/GL as long as we ignore it?

Personally, I still think the MOS needs to be MfD'ed, as there are too many MOS warriors who seem to think they should be able to control everyone else and don't mind stooping to WP:FAITACCOMPLI to do it. But that'll never happen, so I'll just do my best to ignore them. Anomie⚔ 06:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not a very helpful attitude. Some of us are trying to come to a consensus which will hopefully avoid this issue even being an issue in the future, but attitudes like this are not helpful in the least. Threatening to take the MOS-JA to MfD is not helpful, either, and it would be quickly closed as a WP:POINTy nomination. If you'd like to help, you're welcome to join in. If not, please keep the snarky comments to yourself. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 08:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Should we invite other projects that are effected by MOS-JA like WikiProject Anime to the discussion so we can get more outside opinions? Nomader ^(Talk) 16:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, though some of us (like me) are already aware of it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Are we allowed to photoshop cover art images to remove unappealing details? I ask this because of [2] (see also [3] circa July 2). Megata Sanshiro (talk) 08:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

If it makes it closer to the original, physical artwork (since scanned images can lose details and colours can alter, etc) I've no problem with it. Obviously it can't go overboard, we can't allow any changes to the essense of the original artwork. The uploads of this guy that I've looked over seem reasonable, they just make the images clearer and more presentable. -- Sabre (talk) 08:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Sabre, there are some (e.g., File:KOTOR_II.jpg or File:Mirror's_Edge.jpg) changes beyond basic enhancements. I am uncertain of this, but doesn't removing ESRB notices and such constitute content alteration? After all, the box art is the copyrighted work by the publisher, including all the notice/logo/etc placements. So those should not be removed, unless I am wrong.—  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The way I see it, they don't matter. The ratings logos change between regions anyway and are basically slapped on before release, so I see no harm in getting rid of it if we can do so. The bit of concern in my mind is the image itself underneath, the bit that's been done properly by the artist; that should remain unaltered in any major way. Its that artwork that is used as the means of identification, rather than the logos on top of it. -- Sabre (talk) 09:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The image's content should obviously not be changed in any way or manner. If the removal of logo does not impede copyright or alter the content, then there should be no problem with removal of that, in fact it would be preferred. As I said, I am unsure what constitutes copyright violation. After all, if I made GTA or Manhunt, I would want it to display 18+ (gore, violence) just to attract more teenagers.—  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

If only all publishers were like Rockstar, we wouldn't have this problem anyway. They release a lot of their cover artwork without ratings logos etc. - X201 (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The main issue here, I think, is that the edits in question are not technical enhancements or merely cropping the logos out of the image. The artist is deleting the logos and then filling in the deleted region with what he assumes should be there. Where this might be a problem is that we are taking what is now modified art, with original elements, and still passing it off as the game's cover art, which the publisher might take offense to if for example they consider the photoshop job to be of low quality or otherwise harm the game's image. Fair use doesn't allow you to misrepresent the work in such a way. These particular edits are very straightforward and seem reasonably well-done, but as a general rule I would consider it safer to either leave the ESRB stuff on or just crop them out. Litigation seems unlikely in any case, as any bad photoshops will probably be reverted instantly anyway. I think the bigger question is whether we want to accept modified art with original elements as being acceptable replacements for cover art. Ham Pastrami (talk) 12:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree on this statement. The only rationale change we can do on a cover image is cropping, not replacement of presumed details. --MASEM (t) 12:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree as well. Cropping is fine, but I'd don't know if we got expert image advice on removal via manipulation during the lengthy discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines/Archive 2#Guidelines - Possible conflict with WP:NOR. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC))

Regarding WP:NFCC and our fair use rationales, we are not allowed to use images that have not been previously published. In regards to transformative (and derivative) works, it's possible to say that alterations of a serious extent could be considered violations of NFCC. I would never say that cropping violates copyrights or WP:NOR, because it's a matter of reducing information from what is already known. Adding information that we do not necessarily see is, in my opinion, original research, and in most circumstances should be explicitly disallowed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright, here goes. The video games naming conventions has a section on lists that states:

1. A list article's title should accurately describe its content.
2. Lists should be named "List of..." (e.g. "List of Final Fantasy titles").

Per the discussion currently at the top of the WP:VG talk page, I think these naming conventions need to be more detailed and enforced. I therefore propose that the section be changed to the following:

1. A list article's title should accurately describe its content.
2. Lists should be named "List of..." (e.g. "List of Final Fantasy video games").

1. Lists that contain only video game titles should be named "List of XXXX video games".
2. Lists that contain all forms of media (e.g. video games, TV shows, comics, mangas, etc.) should be named "List of XXXX media".

I don't think that the proposed change I've written above should be the exact form of the new guideline (I'm sure someone can write them better than what I just whipped up), but I think it's important that we standardize our list names so we don't have confusion about inclusion guidelines per our previous discussion. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 03:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I still think having one for digital media may be appropriate if the media is all digital and the only non-digital items are incidental or not easily verifiable.陣内_Jinnai 04:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I think digital media is kind of cherry picking. Video games and comics tell a story; soundtrack CDs don't. In what case should we list CDs but not comics? Besides, what is an 'incidental' comics? As long as it's official it should be notable and verifiable. Usually the media that are hard to verify are the Japanese exclusive ones, but one who wants to complete a list of media about a Japanese series should be prepared to deal with Japanese sources IMO -- there's no way around it. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 06:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think Jinnai may be onto something with digital media. I feel that the soundtrack adds to the experience of a game-- imagine Mario without its background music, or Halo without a classical score. I'd like consensus about digital media though from others in the project before we add it to the naming conventions. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 13:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

In regard to the proposal at the start of this thread, I can't think of any changes and am happy with what's there.

Media lists can be difficult to work on because many need to include obscure titles. I agree that "digital media" would make them easier, but I also worry that such lists will have its own pitfalls. For example, would a digital media list include a TV series or film? What if the film was originally released on VHS or the TV series via an analog signal? Would it be weird to include a direct to video film that was released only on DVD but not an earlier VHS one? Does this also mean that we could do "printed media" lists as well? I think we should iron out such details before suggesting "digital media" lists to our editors.

Jinnai, can you elaborate more on your idea; are there series that you think would be good candidates for a digital media list? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC))

These questions are why I think it's cherry picking. Media lists might be difficult to work on but there's no reason to leave out obscure items just for convenience's sake. Might as well name the lists "List of verifiable XXXX media" or whatever. Again, if you're dealing with Japanese franchises, you should expect to have to deal with Japanese sources. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 06:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

While we're waiting for Jinnai to elaborate a bit more, I think it's also important to note that other articles like List of Game Boy Color games would be effected by this addition to the naming conventions as well. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 03:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I would think that the only type of games for the Game Boy Color would be video games. So the distinction would be unnecessary. Though I see an argument to rename them for the sake of consistency. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 03:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC))

One could argue that the Game Boy Camera could be considered a game, so I suppose it would have to be changed. Still, I'd rather move as few articles as possible but it looks like there might be a whole lot of moving involved with the amount of lists that we have right now. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 04:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Consoles and handhelds could have their own discussion. It might be a different problem altogether if we want them to be consistent. For instance, the DS has tons of cartridges that aren't games -- cooking guides, travel guides, ebooks (100 Classic Book Collection), etc. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 06:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The GB camera would be a grey area, but I'd still consider it a video game. What makes it that different from other peripheral games like WarioWare: Twisted!? The DS titles like the ebooks and guides are another story. Dare I say we use "List of Nintendo DS software"? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC))

"Digital Media" generally includes anything originally released in digital format that is media. For older films and such, if they were re-released on DVDs then they would be included here. If a video game has a number of older titles that haven't been re-released in digital format then, yes, digital media might not be the most ideal choice. The alternative "media" can sometimes for large franchises be almost as bad as "product" because those franchieses tend to release numerous print material. If the only reason to use media is to include book titles or 1-2 (usually) unnotable analog film then one should consider whether its really appropriate in all cases to list such media; in some cases it may be, but I would question doing so as default.陣内_Jinnai 22:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we can decide at a later point which franchise lists should be moved to digital media. For now, I've compiled a list in my userspace seen here about where various lists should be moved to. Nomader ^(Talk) 04:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The main moves listed on your page look fine to me. I only glanced at the other notes part though.

On a side note, making a proper Pac-Man list has been on my todo list for a while now. I'd be up for that sometime this year. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC))

My ultimate dream would be to have all of the major franchises up to featured list status, but I really shouldn't get ahead of myself. Hmm... alright. I want a little more feedback from other WP:VG users to make sure that the moves are all alright before I go ahead and start making them. Nomader ^(Talk) 03:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

In case you don't pay attention to the project todo (shame on you), Pathways into Darkness is at FAC here. Reviews and comments are appreciated; it's only around 1,400 words, so it's a pretty breezy read. Don't let length be a deterring factor! Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Just passing on that I've nominated Chrono Cross for August 15, its 10th birthday in North America. Thanks for stopping by if you take a look! ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 19:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If you could, please review the Birdo article here! - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I've added a release date paramater as it needed for any web citations. EDIT: It now actually links to the appropriate page (the only page listed as reliable on the RSes list) so this template should now be useful again.陣内_Jinnai 02:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted your changes per WP:BRD (and per "you broke several hundred current uses"). Since when is {{GameFAQs}} a citation template? I thought it was a template for formatting external links, which means it would need to conform to external link guidelines rather than citation guidelines. BTW, if you are going to make edits that so greatly change you would need to update all the uses of the template to make sure they haven't been broken (this template has 826 mainspace uses at the moment, FYI). Claiming that the page was always accessed "today" (via {{date}}) is certainly not correct behavior. Anomie⚔ 11:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. The template itself should never be used as a citation, but is acceptable for external links. There's no need for a date parameter. --Teancum (talk) 12:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how its acceptable for one and not the other (barring the date thing).陣内_Jinnai 19:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

How a GameFAQs link is acceptable for one and not the other? It's because links used as sources have to be reliable, while links used as external links need not necessarily be reliable but must be very relevant to the topic and must provide more information than the Wikipedia article. How the template {{GameFAQs}} is acceptable for one and not the other? Because citation templates should include a great deal more information than external links and the formatting is rather different, and often (as in this case) because the citation link goes to a specific page while the external link goes to an "entry" page. Anomie⚔ 20:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It would still be useful (far more so imo) to have one for citations. Having to reference tons of release dates can become tedius and unweidly with hundreds of gamefaq citations.陣内_Jinnai 22:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to create {{cite gamefaqs}} if you want; I recommend making it a wrapper around {{cite web}} instead of trying to do it from scratch. Anomie⚔ 00:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Just curious, but has there been official Talk anywhere on whether dates are good/bad for ELs? SharkD  Talk  03:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:EL#External links section says "access dates are not appropriate in the external links section", which seems to have been added after discussion at Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 22#Discrepencies with Layout guideline. Other discussions in that talk page's archives are probably also relevant. Anomie⚔ 11:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Since we seperate single review scores from aggragate review scores we should also seperate out composite review scores from single review scores for the similar reason we do aggregate ones.陣内_Jinnai 05:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Er, by composite, are you talking like Famitsu's usual breakdown? If this is the case, no I don't think it's necessary, as that's putting too much weight on the few sources that take that approach. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

By that standard I could say the same with aggregate scoring because there are only slightly more.陣内_Jinnai 15:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Aggregates are taking multiple different, independent-of-each-other sources and generating a single source. Composite rates (Famitsu's scores), while likely generated independently of each other, are really not disparate independent sources since they are all coming from the same publisher. Plus the number of reliable sources that use these is very few. IGN, and possibly GameInformer, are the only other two I would add to that, and a lot of time, the IGN score is the same for all three aspects (US, EU, AUS). It still gives undue weight to reviews that use this approach. --MASEM (t) 15:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Not really because like aggregate scores these scores take their scores from multiple sources to get a total thus basing in on more than one indivisual. By lumping them together, but seperating out aggragate scores, that gives undue weight to aggragate scores who use a similar concept except instead of combining scores, they aggregate them.陣内_Jinnai 15:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated the majority of Category:Lists of fictional characters by superhuman feature or ability in the above AfD discussion. As editors of a related project, your input is appreciated. --erachima talk 06:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

From what I've read, it has a ton of good reception for games, consoles, controllers, characters, etc. that could be of value. From a GamesRadar article, I can confirm that for characters, there's reception for Moblin, Toad, Doc Louis, Snake, Peppy, Eggman, Dracula, Donkey Kong [two of them!], Wesker, Dr. Wily, Kefka, Ganon, Bowser, Fawful, Mario, Samus, Link, Ridley, Earthworm Jim, Viewtiful Joe, the Koopalings, Mike Haggar, Little Mac, and others. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I have it, and would be happy to provide any information from it that you want. Just let me know! Esm8m (talk) 03:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I actually ordered it just now on eBay, but it'd be nice if you could help me "disperse" the information in it. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:DR#Ask_about_the_subject I am asking for help from the wikiproject with a dispute at Kilrathi. I could not find any sources on this article and thought it would be good to delete it but a merge would be fine. I would appreciate it if a few editors would help figure out what to do with this article. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

There is far too much original research and most of it is in-universe. i suggest something in between, merge what's really important and delete the rest that makes the article in-universe.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

There's also Kilrathi War which is essentially one-half of the Kilrathi article. Nifboy (talk) 00:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I honestly don't know how that worked out, the refs aren't specifically entered, and they aren't from a second or third party.Bread Ninja (talk) 00:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yah it aint pretty. Should we merge both articles into the series? Shooterwalker (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, merge what's really important, i can't see how merging it completely would do any good.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Brought this up on the talk page for the infobox. Some more opinions would be appreciated! Prime Blue (talk) 11:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned about how our VG character articles are being developed, taking Kratos (God of War) as the current example. Specifically, I'm worried about the "Appearances" section, which we do have outlined in the MOS as being of this type, but when you look at these sections for major characters that appear in several games, they needlessly duplicate the plot of the games themselves, and do little to summarize the work. The problem is is that our other features VG character articles , Master Chief (Halo), Arbiter (Halo), Cortana, and Flood (Halo), all share this style, and the other two are structured differently enough to be hard to compare against.

The problem is two-fold: first, the closest other type of character article where a character appears across many different works would be comic books, and from the few FAs for characters there, they don't have this format - they gloss over specific titles as separate sections favoring prose-amalgamation of a concise character in-universe history. Secondly, the above examples each only have 4-6 games to worry about, but if we were to try to apply the same to Mario or Sonic... I don't think we'd get anywhere.

In the case of either Kratos or the Halo characters, I would rather see such appearance sections started with one section devoted to the main game/series they are from, briefly reiterating key plot ideas but not at the level of detail that you would not normally find in the work's main plot. After that would be non-video games of the same franchise (like Halo's novels) followed by non-franchise works (like Kratos being in Hot Shots Golf or LBP). Again, the idea is not to reiterate what happens in the games in any depth but what the role of the character is in those games, using the game article to fully explain the plot as per needed. --MASEM (t) 06:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, examples are probably the best way to understand the issue on Kratos. This is the revision that precedes the entire rewrite; it is the same format employed used when it was promoted to GA, which is in turn taken from Master Chief, a long-standing FA. This is the new revision; of particular interest is the unsorced and badly-formated "Fictional biography" section, which removes all headers to form a single (and unsourced) blob of text. Then there is this version, which begins by ignoring MoS basics like WP:LEAD and goes on to remove most of the "Concept and creation" and "Merchandise" section, leaving the article lacking both "broadness" and suitable out of universe material. I am not going to keep reverting to the GA/MC format, its better for me to drop out of the issue, you guys get the last word. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been completely pleased the format for our character articles either. It's been my hope that Lara Croft could provide a new template once it (hopefully) makes it to FA. I tried keeping the fictional information to a minimum. I used a "Description" section to give physical details and a brief backstory. The video game appearances section dedicates only about one sentence for each game's plot. The film section also tries to minimize plot into a single sentence. The bulk of the section is production info. Other adaptations is even more devoid of plot as I mainly focused on the existence of related media and some production info. Is this what you had in mind? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC))

Yea, I looked at the LC article and that certainly is much better. If we work off the assumption that all individual games a major character has appeared in have plots that fill in the details, then we only need to give plot highlights if it drastically changes the character. Or when you think about how this applies to something like Link from Zelda, where nearly every incarnation is a "new" character to start with... Basically, a "per-game" approach to appearances seems to be too inviting to excessive plot reiteration. --MASEM (t) 15:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I just compared the LC article and the Link article, and I think LC is definitely the direction we should want to move. The Link article really seems to be small plot re-hashes in some sort of odd list form, and it doesn't really give me too much insight into the character. We should really emphasize that character appearance sections should be at most one sentence descriptions from each game. For a character like Mario, could we put his appearances into some sort of collapsible graph? Nomader ^(Talk) 03:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both Guyinblack25 and MASEM. Many of these articles are very repetitive and have focus on micro-details, not to mention the often poor spelling and grammar. Trivia and excessive links should also be dispensed with. As Guyinblack25 states, fictional information should be kept to a minimum, with consideration for the overall picture. In the case of the aforementioned example Kratos (God of War), the main focus should be on the character's personality and how they react on an intellectual/emotional level as they undertake their journey. Not great slabs of detail about the hows and whys of who they fight - this is oversimplistic and extended plot details can be found at each individual game's page (and even then brevity is best). With this example, I've gone with a section called History, which follows Concept and Creation and accurately tracks the character's journey without fannish overdetail. That's what I believe we should strive for: interesting but at the same time professionally presented information. Tweaks are fine but let's keep it at a certain standard. Spartancourage (talk) 03:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Nomader, I also just had a look and I agree. I think a great many of these game pages need a major overhaul. As to appearances, I suppose a graph is possible, but it limits what text can be placed. Sometimes 2-3 sentences are needed (as in the case of the God of War (series). Thanks Spartancourage (talk) 03:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Spartancourage- Unfortunately, focusing on a "character's personality and how they react on an intellectual/emotional level as they undertake their journey" is a tricky thing to do. Without proper citations to reliable sources, such content would be original research. Many of us have had such content removed from our articles during quality reviews for that very reason. Unless such analysis comes from a reliable source, typically a developer interview or blog, then we should avoid adding such interpretations. We've been added plot details because those are non-contentious and easily verified by the game. Anything past that is technically subjective and can vary from fan to fan. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC))

I'd still push for "less is more" if correctly formatted and worded. In having a hard look at Lara Croft, it could also do with a serious edit and reshuffling of the categories. While some characters are popular, that doesn't necessarily mean we should go to town on their article and create a novel. Some of the comic characters I checked out seem to use "Personality" as a cornerstone of the article. Spartancourage (talk) 03:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

What type of shuffling did you have in mind for Miss Croft? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC))

Man, it seems like I end up having to defend myself (or my work) in lots of these style discussions... it's not my fault that everyone copied an ad hoc style I kinda' winged back in 2007 :P

While I've been meaning to do some more cleanup and rehabilitation to Master Chief (Halo), as like many of my old FA's my access to sources, writing style, and focus have changed, I've kept to a similar formula for Arbiter and Flood (Halo) because I think it suits them. Characters like the Arbiter are limited in their appearances, so the structure makes sense—balloning size is not and probably will never be an issue, since it's most likely that the character has run its course in the franchise.

Lara Croft is to me a very bad exemplar for most other video game characters, because it's Lara Croft. She's highly discussed and stars in a series of mostly repetitively set-up games, the last few of which have been commercial failures or critically panned. She has a film franchise, and there's been a lot invested in real-world portrayals—she has iterations beyond video games that only a handful of characters have had or probably ever will. This is not the case with the vast majority of other characters. Link and Mario are another matter again—their appearances don't need a paragraph each because it's the same damn plot every flippin' game.

Remember that articles should be self-contained: people shouldn't have to navigate away to understand a character's importance to a work. Wikilinks are nice and all, but forcing readers to rely on them kills accessibility and proper web writing. While we should be keeping plot summary to a minimum, cutting content because it exists somewhere else in a different form is not a good reason by itself. My point is: quit with the "sky is falling" stuff. Not every article has to follow a boilerplate formula. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

That is a good point: a different format just works better for some articles. Like the Halo characters. Grouping the novels and video games together makes sense because that is how the franchise is designed. There's a bible to hold all the fiction together and any story related to the franchise fits in nicely. A character like Lara Croft is different because the different media are loosely based on the video games series, which has been rebooted. The structure of the appearance section should reflect this.

However, I don't think that's a reason to avoid limited plot details. Many stories can be summed up in 1–3 sentences with little detriment to the reader's understanding. I think character articles skirt a fine line because they are so integral to plots. But the plot is first and foremost an element of the game. With Lara Croft, I tried to establish her role in the plot, rather than give details about the plot.

In regard to being chastised, I wouldn't call it that David (though I get the impression that was a joke, I can never tell online). If you look at our past trends, we all just copy successful formulas (like every other writer on the planet) established by those that came before us. When Deckiller brought the FF articles to FA, every video game editor followed suit until a few years ago when excess fictional details became the new red-headed step child of the Wiki. Same thing with character articles, they all followed the example set by Link (The Legend of Zelda) when it was FA. But that article was delisted a year ago, and I think that's cause to find a new example to serve as a reference guide. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC))

Anyways, do we all agree that the third, lead-less revision is not what we are seeking? - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

No, there has been no agreement and the focus here is the overall discussion, not one person pushing for their version of one article. I'd suggest you go back to the relevant Talk page and address the points raised (which include poor spelling/grammar, gross repetition, speculation etc.) Spartancourage (talk) 03:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

At least the original revision is not missing the entire lead. And actually, the only person pushing for a version that ignores the most basic MOS standards is you. Maybe deslisting the article (it is currently unstable) is better, once my work is not linked with this mess you can go on and turn it into that without any sort of involvement from me. I will just sit here and wait until it gets redirected for lacking "broadness", "reliable sourcing" and appropiate out of universe material. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The games are fictional in-universe creatures, and as such we need to be careful about what is written. One thing the articles can't be are gigantic verbose repeats of the Plot. Yes, this is tricky, but with discussion things may improve. I again suggest going to the relevant Talk Page and addressing the concerns. Spartancourage (talk) 06:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Accepted formats come and go, the current one is replace once a new template comes forth and so on. What we can't have is a GA that defies even the most basic MOS "standards", especially when the GAC is accredited to two recurrent members of this WikiProject. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of how the plot should be treated in that article, Caribbean is certainly correct in regards to the introduction, it is now woefully inadequate; whatever the faults of the previous one, it conformed to the manual of style for introductions infinitely better than two single sentence paragraphs that defies the whole point of having a lead. I also can see no reason for what I can only describe as the butchering of valid, referenced content in the development and cultural impact sections. If you think that there is bad grammar or wording, then you fix it. You don't remove referenced material. -- Sabre (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yea, the only section that was a problem to me was the appearances section. All the lead, concept, reception, etc. is just fine, and we shouldn't be reverting to a version that kills those in favor of a lightweight Appearences section. --MASEM (t) 13:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. If the appearances section has been the only point of contention, why have the other sections been altered along with it? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC))

The lead has been expanded on, and now contains the relevant information in a logical flow with a grouping of examples of the influence of the series at the end of the lead. The remainder of the article is actually fairly solid, and avoid the gross repetition, poor writing, focus on micro-detail and speculation of the other version. The best of it has been pulled out and placed into a coherent order, with references retained, and all the while avoiding the repetition bugbear. There was no "butchering". As to cultural impact, is something is stated as being a parody of X, then fine. Unfortunately, without a source, it is simply speculation. Of course, other addition are welcome some long as it gels and the article (as all game articles should but don't at present) flows. Spartancourage (talk) 03:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

In fact, in having a hard "sentence for sentence" look at the lead at Lara Croft, it isn't too good. Mistakes, opinions, unsourced statements and information presented in an odd, clunky order that doesn't read well. Definately room for improvement! Spartancourage (talk) 05:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to disagree with the "mistakes, opinions, and unsourced statements" portion. I summarized the contents of the article, which sources every single sentence with a reliable source to ensure verifiability. However, if you have comments about the paragraph structure and writing style, you are welcome to post comments at Talk:Lara Croft. I will try to integrate constructive suggestions.

On another note- The issues in this thread seems to have become a hot spot. (Is there really a need for an exclamation point above?) Perhaps it's best to disengage for the weekend and renew the discussion. It won't get archived for 10 days anyway, so there's no pressing constraint. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC))

I'm sorry but I really think you need to cool your jets. Fast. The current Kratos article is now a giant mess that really needs to have content restored to it. The in-universe details were one thing, and could have been dealt with without this degree of overhaul, but as it stands what's left is not GA-material. I'm going to be bold and restore the non-IU sections: consensus is against you for that much at the very least.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think you need to cool your jets and examine the points mentioned on the relevant Talk page that I have taken pains to spell out on several occasions that the original poster has yet to acknowledge. In accordance with group wishes, the lead has already been expanded considerably. The previous version was far from GA, and I think it is time that perhaps some of the more die-hard fans/posters realized these articles can't be monumental fan pages. Study the changes, makes suggestions and try out additions. But please, no blind reverts back to poorly written and tremendously repetitive material. I will find more appropriate sources and images and add as I can. I'm sure they are out there.

Many thanks. Spartancourage (talk) 05:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to get familiar with WP:OWN...if you haven't noticed, the replies above are wondering why the article as a whole has had a wrecking ball taken to the sections that were, by all means, just fine, rather than just the in-universe content.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, study the versions and exmaine the edits I broke down. If someone wants to make a title change to a section, no problem. What I object to is the repeated insertion of badly written and repetitive information when I spent a considerable amount of time fixing the wording, avoiding repeition and gettingt the information ins a cohesive order. If you wish to help, do so by making suggestions/additions rather than trying for a blind revert.

Many thanks. Spartancourage (talk) 05:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, you're showing more signs of 'ownership' regarding the article than anything. Masem, Guyinblack, myself and at least one other person have voiced objections on the way this article is currently written. While it can be appreciated that you spent so much time on the article, the end result is detrimental for several reasons, amongst which include the removal of viable references and content (and yes, I read through your edits, it took a dang long while), and that generally such radical changes to a GA-class article is frowned upon, especially when the end result is looking nowhere near GA-quality. I'm sorry, but while you're trying to do good here you're going about it in completely the wrong manner.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

↑ That is the reason why I stopped editing the article after pointing to the MOS twice. The issue was originally the "Appearances" section, which is being discussed here, not the entire out-of-universe content. At its current state, the article would never survive a GAR. I suggest reverting back to any version containing decent lead, "Cocept and creation" and "Reception" sections and protecting tha article. Otherwise he will continue edit warring and pushing his revision, something that both Masem and me, who had the original disagreement, stopped doing already. Once that is done, I will restore the reception image, which I deleted after getting multiple "orphan notices" everytime that Spartancourage chopped the article. - Caribbean~H.Q. 09:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Unrelated note- Spartancourage, if you start a new line for your signature, please be sure to include colons ( : ) in front of it to match the indention of your comments. This will ensure the thread maintains any easy to read format. Thank you. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC))

Unfortunately much of what you are trying to present as "good" is far from it. You have also yet to acknowledge the many flaws in your version of the article, which is actually nothing more than a mass of repetitive game information in unnecessary micro-detail and complete with poor writing and grammar. Also heed the other points raised in the Edit Summaries. Headings can be changed, but restoration of poor material isn't really acceptable. I also not the one engaging in edit warring, as I have continued to make valid additions (such as the expanded but still succinct and flowing lead), which some more great source information to come (not to mention having made several comments on the Talk Page and encouraged debate, which is supposed to the Wikipedia way). The image you reference also adds nothing, as there is almost no notable difference between "before and after". Now if someone were to add an image of a truly different bonus costume - such as Athena or one of the humorous efforts - then that would be noteworthy as an image and could also have a nice caption explaining that various BC's are possible. That, or, as I am now sourcing, an image of early version of Kratos. Several are presented in the bonus material for God of War. I have also added an "In Other Media" section and more links. The current effort is far from lightweight. Spartancourage (talk) 06:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've watched long enough on this. The whole idea behind what is now the "History" section (which could have a better name IMO) came about when MASEM suggested it on the Talk page and to tell you the truth, I was pondering this idea before MASEM brought it up. So we changed the layout of the now "History" section and MASEM trimmed it down nicely. The whole idea was to talk about Kratos's story rather than say he was in this game and did that, then he was in this game and did that, and so on. With the set up Caribbean H.Q. had, the section seemed more appropriate for a series page than a character page. After MASEM's trimmed down version, the page was more or less fine with the exception of a few minor tweaks here and there. Then one day, IP 125.7.71.6 came along and completely overhauled the page to a lesser version of what the page is now and not even close to be considered GA anymore. The page needs to go back to pre-125.7.71.6's overhaul and then fix from there. That's my opinion on the page overall.

Now Spartancourage, you keep reiterating about micro-detail. If you don't want micro-detail, the whole History section could be summed up in two paragraphs, but then we wouldn't get much of the character or story so some micro-detail is needed. One of these micro-details is the blades. You keep reverting edits about them yet they are apart of his character. I mean, they're a small enough mention that they can be kept and won't hurt the article in any way. Also, that image you were referring to does have noticeable differences. Now yes, there isn't a complete character redesign from 2005 to 2010, but there are differences between the two. The biggest being the Golden Fleece of course. But with that aside, you'll notice a developmental difference in the tattoo. In the original, it was much wider on his chest and there was more of it on his left arm above his elbow. In the current image, the tattoo is thiner and doesn't have the tattoo that is above his left elbow. There's also differences in the loin cloth, the belt, and the forearm guards. This image has more significance to the page than an image of David Jaffe. I mean seriously, what significance does a picture of David Jaffe have to this article? Of course he should be mentioned on the page because he originally created the game and character, but an image of him is completely unnecessary.

One final note, like Kung Fu Man said, it looks as if you're showing signs of ownership of the page. Yes your edits are good and well thought out, but don't go about it as if your way is the only correct way. JDC808 (talk) 21:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for speaking up. No, it has never been my intention to "don't go about it as if your way is the only correct way". Feel free to check out the points I've raised on the appropriate Talk page which address the many flaws in the previous version. Yes, "micro-detail" is a big issue, and while some editors mean well they can go a tad too far. One editor tried to describe the colours on the Blades themselves, another tried to emphazise how in one game the character has more fire than lightning powers and still another described the events of the game minute by minute complete with poor grammar and spelling, such as "once he lossing his sword". I tend to zoom in on things like this and weed them out. Again, I have no issue with changing titles, only people trying to retain inferior content. I have continued to add to the page to make it more noteworthy, and would argue that it is now far closer to being truly "good" than it was before. I have added another link on the development of Kratos, and added the Jaffe image as the Lara Croft article has a similar image of a co-creator, and Jaffe himself made an enormous contribution. What we can also add is a nice colour image of another Kratos prototype, as this would be truly different, and not just another image of the same character with a few cosmetic changes. I will also add some more quotes from the design team about character development. I would also suggest moving this to relevant Talk page. Spartancourage (talk) 05:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Now those micro-details you mentioned are ridiculous to mention. As for the David Jaffe image, I personally don't see any significance to have it, but whatever, it's not a big deal. Right now, I see the History section, aside from a few minor tweaks here and there that may or may not need be done, is pretty good. Now the concern, at least on my part, turns to the rest of the article which could use expanding in some areas. JDC808 (talk) 06:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm going to try and find another image and some more quotes. It would be great to find a quote that actually states the Simpsons pun is a direct GOW homage and therefore not speculation.

Regards Spartancourage (talk) 06:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

<start rant> This is starting to get out of hand, so a few things-

• Work together. Everybody has something to offer here:
  • Veteran editors are more familiar with acceptable practices related to policies, guidelines (manuals of style in this case), and quality criteria.
  • New editors can offer a fresh perspective that can lead to improvements. As Wikipedia's barriers of entry gradually increase, the new editors that stick around are likely to be more dedicated, injecting vitality to efforts.
  • Edit warring goes against the collaborative ideals behind Wikipedia. If you can't come to an agreement, disengage for a bit to collect your thoughts and seek dispute resolution.
• There is a middle ground here, so please go find it.
  • Caribbean- not every one of Spartancourage's edits was bad. My main concern for him is his lack of knowledge of our style guidelines: undue weight, lead section, in-universe and a few others. Focus on the positive aspects of his contributions to pull out the parts that really improve the article and build from there. If need be, create a draft somewhere that you both can work on instead of just reverting back and forth.
  • Spartancourage- You have good enthusiasm, but you need to redirect it to other areas. Your comments and actions can easily be construed as rude, despite your desire to help in our common goals. Caribbean worked hard on that article to get it to Good article status, and it was deserving of it; not just in my opinion, but in Wikipedia's opinion. To call that version "far from GA" and "not good" tells me that you didn't look hard enough at the article to find the good parts.
  • Both versions in this dispute are not perfect. It may take some time, but I think an improved version be achieved from those two.
• Spartancourage- Please don't remove another editor's comments from a talk page. While conditions do exist to do so, my comment did not meet those conditions. Given your relatively short editing history starting this month, I recommend reading up on Help:Using talk pages and the related pages linked in it.
  • Again, please maintain proper indention to improve readability.
• Article concerns:
  • Given Kratos' unique appearance, the God of Worf pun is obviously derived from God of War, as the old picture illustrated. Though it may be thin, I'd say that statement is non-contentious and could go without a source. However, proper sourcing has been one of the reasons our articles do well at quality reviews. It is never a bad idea to err on the side of caution for sourcing. But I wouldn't fault another editor for including such a non-contentious statement.
  • Content involving living people typically has more restrictions that must be considered. File:DavidJaffe.jpg does not meet Non-free content criteria #1 (no free equivalent). Since Jaffe is still alive and kicking, it is possible to obtain a free picture of him. As such, the non-free image should be removed from Wikipedia.
  • The number of non-free images should be kept to a minimum per Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. That's just a hurdle we have to cross given that our topic of choice is predominantly non-free media.

While project talk pages like this are meant to aid editing in all its forms, constant back and forth opinions accomplish little. In the long run, they can become detrimental. Please find an amicable solution that works in the spirit of collaboration. <end rant> (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC))

No problem. We seem to be getting there now. Two other editors (JDC808 and Salamurai) have made valuable additions and I'm adding new material as I find it. As to the Jaffe image, by that logic it would mean the image of the co-designer at Lara Croft would also have to be pulled, correct? There's a nice shot of Kratos' bonus costumes that can easily replace the Jaffe image if necessary. I'll also try and find a source for the Simpsons image. As to pulling your comment, sorry about that. I thought that was a technical note for me and could be pulled when read. Spartancourage (talk) 02:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The image of Jaffe is from a copyrighted source. The one of Toby Gard in the Lara Croft article is one that has been freely licensed by its author. Given the nature of our "free encyclopedia" objective, we don't use copyrighted images of people if it is still possible to create a freely licensed image (ie, they are still alive), and we try to keep the amount of copyrighted images used generally to a minimum. -- Sabre (talk) 13:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Quick question regarding edit. All the sources I have list Ocean Software as the developer, and in some cases the publisher. I'm using various Amiga magazines however, and I checked the Mega Drive version of the primary source which indeed mentions "a High Score production" and not Ocean Software. Ocean appears to have been a European company so it would seem it was responsible for the Amiga conversions but not the original console game. Is anyone familiar with any of this? The primary source isn't enough in this instance (although I don't have the box art) because it isn't clear whether the company is "High Score" or "High Score Productions". bridies (talk) 06:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

A couple of the back covers of the Mega Drive covers also mention a Granite Bay Software, [4], [5]. Salavat (talk) 03:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I checked the game again and Granite Bay Software is in the copyright notice i.e. "Copyright Electronic Arts and Granite Bay Software" and so would seem to be the developer. Not sure what "A High Score production in association with Mike Posehn" (original all in CAPS) is all about. bridies (talk) 03:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Well i know that MobyGames is generally not reliable but they say "High Score Productions" developed the Mega Drive and SNES version (despite the granite bay software on the megadrive version) and they say ocean software developed the game boy version. Allgame.com also say "High Score Productions" developed the Mega Drive version, but say Gremlin Interactive did the SNES version. All very confusing. Salavat (talk) 04:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Allgame credits the Megadrive version to High Score Productions, which is what the highlighted edit has switched the developer to. The fact that a staff member's name was also included in the edit suggests to me that the anon. editor could well have been involved in the game's production. The MD version came first, IIRC, and I believe this is an American game. Gremlin is listed as the developer of the SNES version, they're a British company (behind Monty on the Run and Jack the Nipper etc. etc.), as are Ocean who were the go-to guys for movie license games on UK computers and were also responsible for developing/publishing adaptions of arcade games like Mario Bros. and Space Gun for home computers. So yeah, Ocean were involved in at least some home computer versions but they weren't the original developers, suggest citing with allgame. Someoneanother 22:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The anon is just quoting the message from the game's intro which says "A High Score production in association with Mike Posehn" (Mike Posehn being the guy responsible for the original Desert Strike and who it seems moved into the background for the sequels). I think it is clear that Ocean was responsible for the Amiga conversions (and years later a PC version) and this is easily verified in the Amiga sources I have. The problem is that Granite Bay Software is still unaccounted for; this is the company on the copyright notice. Given the lack of information on both possible developers and the fact that Desert Strike was both developed and published by EA, I wonder if they both weren't transient EA subsidiaries. bridies (talk) 05:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

According to this Mike Posehn was credited for programing the Mega Drive version. Salavat (talk) 07:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

According to this unsourced wikipedia entry on [6] Desert Strike: Return to the Gulf is by by EA's High Score Production group which could be a lead to backing your idea of a subsidiary. Salavat (talk) 07:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Heres an entry on High Score at CLG wiki. Salavat (talk) 07:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

and heres an interview with Mike Posehn at Sega-16 stating that he created Granite Bay Software which is now a digital photography company. Salavat (talk) 07:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Going on all that I think High Score (Productions) must have been an in-house EA developer and Granite Bay Software an independent representing Mike Posehn's involvement (in that interview he says he wrote "every line of code" for the various games). This would explain why Granite Bay Software is mentioned separately in the copyright notice (High Score isn't, which suggests it's really EA). Posehn mentions a software company he started being bought out by EA well before Desert Strike was produced, but if Granite Bay is now doing software for digital photography this was presumably some other company. bridies (talk) 10:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The way i read it was that Granite Bay was just Poshen's company, he says in the interview that he has moved to photography software, so it would be his company per what the link on his website [7], just changed focus from video games to photography stuff. Salavat (talk) 11:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the article to say that EA both developed and published the game, development being done in association with Mike Posehn. I didn't mention High Score by name because based on the semantics in the primary source it really seems to me like it should be High Score, not High Score Productions. That said if anyone wanted to add it in based on the Allgame source I wouldn't oppose it. I updated the article to say that Ocean was "responsible for" (sources variously credit it as developer and publisher) the computer conversions and ditto with Gremlin for the SNES version (its logo is on the box art used for the article, presumably its the SNES version...) bridies (talk) 13:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Per the recent discussion I went out and created the projects first citation template. This one wraps with {{cite web}} so there shouldn't be any major issues with using it as a reference. It is up on the template page.陣内_Jinnai 19:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

No offense, but why do we need a specific cite template for GameFAQs. Why isn't {{cite web}} enough? It certainly doesn't speed up the work, since with {{cite web}} you can just paste the URL, and {{Cite GameFAQs}} requires finding the ID and copy/pasting it. --Teancum (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Why do we need templates for ELs? It's the same basic setup.

It does speed things up in that often people leave out the publisher and accessdate. This template work work without an accessdate and automatically adds the publisher. Furthermore, you don't have to worry about accidentally linking to the wrong page. Finally, its a lot of excess code and lists with release dates, especially for obscure games (moreso Japanese ones), will have gamefaqs or other similar sites often used as the the common site because of ease of access.陣内_Jinnai 20:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Please don't fill in the access date with {{date}} if a date isn't specified. It becomes inaccurate and misleading after 24 hours at most. Anomie⚔ 21:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Done.陣内_Jinnai 21:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Who cites GameFAQs? It's only used to cite dates, per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Situational_sources, and you could just cite to GameSpot, which has more information and has the benefit of looking more reliable. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I've used the site a few times. Though the two sites are suppose to share data, there are a few times I've found release dates on GameFAQs that were absent from GameSpot.

In regard to the template itself, it's limited usage makes me think this is not a good idea. But I'm having a hard time finding a reason to think this is a bad idea. I guess try it out for a while. We can delete or tweak it if needed. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC))

I often use GameFAQs. Many games are deemed by GameSpot not to be worthy of inclusion there, in which case GameFAQs almost always has them. Tezero (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys, wanted to get some further opinions here before I take a hatchet to it. The Omgpop page is looking like a big directory of games available at Omgpop (i.e. an advertisement) vs. an actual article on Omgpop itself. An anonymous IP (who I'm suspecting works for Omgpop because of an advertising edit they had tried on the discussion page there) even tried adding direct links to every single game today. I'm thinking the entire games section can be axed and summarized by a simple paragraph on the genres and types of games offered. The plethora of individual games really don't need special mentioning unless they're notable on their own in some way to the Omgpop brand I would think. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 00:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds perfectly reasonable, as it is the game section highlights that they're virtually all clones anyway. A proper section looking at them collectively would be a lot better, and if anything the inclusion of an officially licensed Missile Command should be given more prominence anyway. Someoneanother 06:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I did the trimming and tried rewriting everything to bring it more up to code. Way to much advertising and user guide type material in it. Still needs a ton of references though. Should be interesting to see if the reverting/disruptive editing starts up again now. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 06:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Guys, I could use some help. An anonymous IP is trying to force through a number of changes to the edits when previously explained they violate Wikipedia:NOT#GUIDE, WP:OR, advertising, etc. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 05:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

An user has been making good faith edits to this article, in particular a section on "Fan Contributions"[8], linking to various fan sites and fan sequels. The sources for such are primary only. I contested this material, linking to the appropriate policies on the talk page. The editor feels that these websites stand on their own merit and has reverted. I have gone into a little more depth on the talk page, but was hoping that some other interested editors could comment (I have offered the possibility that one fan site in particular might be appropriate in the ELs with concensus). Thanks! Marasmusine (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

A couple years ago each year of E3 had its own article, but it was decided that all of the articles be merged into the History of E3 article. The last couple years now have their own article with a lot of information (in my opinion more than necessary). I think each year should either have its own article, or else keep every year in the History of E3 article without separate pages for each... but certainly not both. Thoughts on the matter? Miles Blues (talk · contribs) 17:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed; I've been wondering about that too. Maybe there's a little more to be found about the recent E3s, but I think it's kind of arbitrary how the last couple have their own articles. Tezero (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Tezero. I don't have much of an opinion either way, but summarizing it all in one would be the best bet (also, it's less likely to dissolve into mentioning fan's favorite games and such.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't mean to be annoying, but I really don't want it to get closed because of inactivity. Please vote or add some comments. Tezero (talk) 17:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

This may seem obvious, but, let me check. In Limbo (video game) the single screenshot used presents a scene that is never in the game though captures the key elements of the art style and presentation. The image was added back in March, likely when they were getting ready to release, but now that its released, there are a lot more screenshots out there and ones that are truer to the player experience. Thus it makes no sense to provide a screenshot that is no longer in the game, even though it probably at one time it was an official press kit item.

Thus, in general: if it is clear that an old presskit photo clearly shows a part of the game that has been changed significantly or removed, should we replace it with an appropriate up-to-date one? --MASEM (t) 23:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless there's a dramatic change in the old shots and the final product (thinking of, for example, the jump from Mac RTS to console FPS that was Halo: Combat Evolved, or the real-world to cartoony change of Team Fortress 2) that simply mentioning that it's from the development is fine. Unless those aspects are erroneous, it's adequate to use older shots. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss screenshots just for that reason. They can provide visual context for the development section, if the shots are somehow relevant as such and do not otherwise run afoul of NFCC. I'd suggest moving the screenshot in question to reduce the potential for misleading the reader. It should definitely be noted in the caption that the screen is not in the final game. Ham Pastrami (talk) 05:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

An editor has split the Namco Bandai Holdings article to Bandai Namco Group. While I'm not a business expert this seems fairly redundant to me as a reader. I have started a discussion and would like others to offer input on whether this is a good idea or not. Talk:Bandai Namco Group#Cause for split. Ham Pastrami (talk) 05:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

There is an especially problematic IP continuing to add soapboxing nonsense to the page. I continue to revert him, but I think I've hit my 3RR limit in the past 24 hours. I dropped a "please stop" note on one of the IP's talk pages, but he still continues to undo me. He's hopping IPs a bit, and so the page might need semi-protection, but a rangeblock (I'm unsure how exactly ranges work) might also do it. Help? --Izno (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think 3RR applied to blatantly unhelpful stuff such as vandalism or this. I've been thinking myself how to deal with this. IP hopping means a standard block wouldn't work, and I'd rather a more experienced admin familiar with the process dealt with a rangeblock rather than me. But I'm also not too keen on the idea of protecting the talk page with the game's release in three days, given it would stop any productive IPs or new users who might need to use the page. However, I think that we might have to go down that route.

I'm amazed we've not got the seemingly standard rude message from the IP concerned accusing us of being on the payroll of Activision Blizzard, being in cahoots with morally bankrupt industry media and suppressing the Truth^tm yet... -- Sabre (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm surprised I've not gotten it yet either. As for 3rr, it's an edge case, I think. It's not really vandalism, but it certainly isn't meant to aid in building the encyclopedia. I was also not too keen on protecting the talk page, release soon or not.
More then anything, I just thought a couple other watchers might do good. --Izno (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

They're probably meatpuppets. It would affect way too many users to be effective. (The range would include (excluding the 99.xx) up to 134217728 IPs) NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 03:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone have the May 2010 edition of Game Developer magazine? I'm given to understand there's a substantial postmortem analysis of Tales of Monkey Island in it. Gamasutra have a sizeable bunch of extracts that can be used, but having access to the full article would be quite useful. -- Sabre (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Sent to you (An Island of Details Ron Gilbert. Game Developer. San Francisco: May 2010. Vol. 17, Iss. 5; p. 27). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that was the wrong one (though it might have stuff there you can use too.) The proper one is ("Tales of Monkey Island", Emily Morganti. Game Developer. San Francisco: May 2010. Vol. 17, Iss. 5; pg. 20). Sent, as well. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'm an idiot, and just sent all that to Guy instead of you, Sabre. I don't think I've got your email address... shoot me a mail and I'll reply with attachments (god I'm loopy today). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright, got it all. Thanks for that. -- Sabre (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we should establish a convention for some titles and subtitles, namely those that are written as "TITLE Subtitle" by the official sources. It's a recurring problem for some foreign games (Japanese especially). Take Kingdom Hearts Birth by Sleep for instance. There are three different spellings:

• KINGDOM HEARTS Birth by Sleep (official sources)
• Kingdom Hearts Birth by Sleep (Wikipedia)
• Kingdom Hearts: Birth by Sleep (gaming websites)

As you can see, official sources distinguish the title and the subtitle by writing the former in all caps and the latter normally. This distinction disappears on Wikipedia due to our guidelines on capital letters (KINGDOM HEARTS Birth by Sleep becomes Kingdom Hearts Birth by Sleep). Most review gaming websites use a comma to separate the title from the subtitle. Personally I think we should use a comma too. Some might think this comma is "not official" but I believe it's more a matter of convention than officialty. Official sources tell the reader where the title ends and where the subtitle starts with caps, and we should give this same information in some way, whatever way it is.

It would be different if the official sources did not convey any difference between the title and the subtitle. For instance Super Mario Galaxy is always written as Super Mario Galaxy and not SUPER MARIO Galaxy, and so we should not use Super Mario: Galaxy in that case.

Thoughts? Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 08:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME, Jonathan makes a good argument for Birth by Sleep. IGN consistently labels it without the colon:[9][10][11]. GameSpot does as well:[12][13][14]. A few other sites use the colon too: Eurogamer and Edge. Though I'm a little hesitant of such a switch when the game isn't even out in English-speaking regions yet.

Regardless, the title without the colon should still be in the lead to avoid confusion. Something like "Kingdom Hearts Birth by Sleep (also known as Kingdom Hearts: Birth by Sleep)". Official titles should be in the article for some level of factual accuracy. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC))

WP:COMMONNAME#Standard English and trademarks - all of them should use proper captialization unless they are acronyms which are widely used. So no matter what is used, we would always use Kingdom Hearts not KINGDOM HEARTS. As to the colon or not, there doesn't seem to be any consensus among the guidelines.陣内_Jinnai 16:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Just use the colon, it makes it clearer and easier to understand where the subtitle starts. It does not really change anything else. GameSpot's and whatnot usually don't care enough to pay attention to such details. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I second the motion to use a colon for subtitles. The lack of a colon is simply a design decision, and that doesn't make it any less of a subtitle.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Not to pile on here but I think using the colon for these kind of things is the way to go. I think usually we should defer to what most websites refer to the game as for specific punctuation notes. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 20:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

On a side note- I wish more members piled on in discussions. Consensus normally builds faster when people voice opinions, even if it's a simple agreement. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC))

I don't think that asking people to contribute on the WT:VG talkpage will do any good... if they aren't posting here chances are they might not be checking in here either. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 21:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

On that note, I agree with using a colon—and I admittedly tend not to post if I agree with the direction that consensus is trending. I also didn't speak up because we tend to use what sources say, I'm not sure if introducing the colon is against WP:COMMONNAME because of the sources, and I'm not familiar with international approaches to subtitling. But personally, I see the colon as a convention to separate the title and the subtitle. —Ost (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I think WP:COMMONNAME is flawed in the sense that common english name would be difficult to find if the name originates from another language. Official names are the best as titled, and then mention the common name as a redirect or mentioned in the beginning of the article.Bread Ninja (talk) 00:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

There are exceptions, but generally you have an uphill battle if an official english name exists. You have to show how independant RSes use the non-English name (and make cetain you are cherry picking sources or it will likely backfire on you.陣内_Jinnai 02:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I could only see that if there was more than one official English name, which in that case it would have to be the most official common English name. i simply don't see it as a big argument. Either way, the colon should be placed anyways as the rest of the kh games with subtitles that have/will be released in english territoriesBread Ninja (talk) 18:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that colons should be used for subtitles. Dashes for taglines I suppose. But we don't include taglines in article names do we? SharkD  Talk  19:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

What about Fire Emblem: Shin Monshō no Nazo ~Hikari to Kage no Eiyū~? The correct title of the article should be Fire Emblem Shin Monshō no Nazo ~Hikari to Kage no Eiyū~. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 08:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't speak Japanese, but I would guess that "Shin Monshō no Nazo" is a subtitle and "Hikari to Kage no Eiyū" is a tagline. Thus, in the page name it should appear as Fire Emblem: Shin Monshō no Nazo, and in the article text it should appear as Fire Emblem: Shin Monshō no Nazo - Hikari to Kage no Eiyū. SharkD  Talk  19:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Did we reach a consensus on this topic? I'm asking because Kingdom Hearts Birth By Sleep was being moved back and forth without discussion. It's move-protected for the moment, but obviously no decision has been made as to which title should be used. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 01:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Reading the comments, I'd say most everyone is in favor of using the colon for Birth by Sleep. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 02:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC))

...Now someone moved the Fire Emblem article to Fire Emblem: Shin Monshō no Nazo: Hikari to Kage no Eiyū (two colons) @_@' Megata Sanshiro (talk) 07:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Tildes are deprecated unless an exception can be made through a consensus.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Good, then move it and add the colon. - Donald Duck (talk) 00:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay then. Since this talk page gets more attention, and I don't think there's any disagreements about this, I propose that the following be added to WP:NCVG under Games:

• Titles with a subtitle should use a colon (":") to distinguish the title from the subtitle, even if trademarks encourage otherwise (e.g. Kingdom Hearts: Birth By Sleep instead of Kingdom Hearts Birth By Sleep). If a title has more than one subtitle, only one colon should be used, appearing before the last subtitle (e.g. Star Wars Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy instead of Star Wars: Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy).

Is this acceptable? Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 10:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little hesitant to go with this wording. But I'm at a loss to come up with any thing better. Maybe "Titles with a subtitle are encouraged to use a colon..." rather than "should use"? Or is that getting too wordy? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC))

honestly, whatever consensus says. the colon appears occasionally in some English sites, so it can be used as English common name. "encourage using colons when English sources are available" or something like that.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to let the project know that Crackdown is scheduled to be on the Main Page as Today's Featured Article on July 25. Expect higher-than-normal vandalism and all that good stuff that day on that article. –MuZemike 23:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it too late to poke fun at Masem for having another TFA? :-p (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC))

I have been looking around articles just for subtance when I noticed articles like Pokémon HeartGold and SoulSilver and The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages only have one boxart even if they are two individual games. Is this just laziness or is there logic behind this? Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It's intentional. The rationale is based on WP:FAIRUSE and a basis that both covers are unnecessary unless they boast notable differences. —Ost (talk) 16:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

However, on the talk page for Zelda, it was decided that the two should be kept. This was a year and a half ago, so it was changed at some point. And really, as I said there, they ARE two completely separate games, they just are on a single page for the sake of keeping down the duplication (this is a completely different situation from Pokemon games where the two have minimal differences). There certainly is no reason to only have one -- they DO 'boast notable differences'. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I've played both Seasons and Ages and the only similarity is the main character, and some items shared between the games. Same with the coverart, Seasons has the staff and the red background while Ages has the harp and the blue background, pretty notable difference if you ask me. The Pokemon games... i've also played both, besides game exclusives and the coverart itself, there's no real difference between them. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't played the games in a while, but I thought that gameplay was similar except for the items and the hook (manipulating time or seasons). The plots are different but connected so that you needed to play through both games to fully complete them, so they're more than loosely related independent games. I appreciate wanting to identify the game both games and I don't really care in absence of fair use concerns, but I'm still not wholly convinced of see the need for two covers in this situation; harp vs. staff doesn't seem too different than Charizard vs. Blastoise. —Ost (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah the plots are connected -- as well as the development, etc, which is why they share a page -- but they are still almost as different from each other as they are from Link's Awakening. Playing both is emphatically NOT playing the same game twice. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but their covers are also not all that different, the games were released at the same time, and the plots are basically part of a larger story. The article is essentially for the Legend of Zelda Oracles of Ages and Seasons saga and not a particular game. I still don't think that another cover adds any important information to the article; I understand the points and I'm fine if consensus is otherwise if it fits policy, but I don't agree that both covers are necessary. The plots of Pokémon Emerald and Pokémon Platinum differ from their parent versions, but their covers aren't in their articles. —Ost (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say that it is best to err on the side of minimal fair use. This of course still carries the same idea that images should convey as much information as possible.

• Pokémon HeartGold and SoulSilver for example only has two fair use images. If the second cover conveyed notable information not available in other images, then I would say there's a good argument for two covers. This, however, is not the case as the Gold and Silver art only depict different pokemon. This is a case of too little extra information to justify another non-free image.
• The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages has a stronger argument because the box arts feature more information related to the two games' differences. However, this argument is weakened by the number of gameplay screen shots that already illustrate some of those differences. This is a case of too many non-free images to justify another one.

All that being said, I don't think there will be a straight-forward rule for this issue. Common sense based on minimal non-free media usage and maximized information conveyed should be applied. On another note, when we have one box art for two games, we should use a caption in the infobox to inform our readers that they are looking at one of two similar covers. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC))

The Mega Drive article currently has the three regional logos listed.

It is in typical protocol with the other Featured Articles on video game consoles.

The NES and SNES articles feature their two regional logos, and even the PS3 article goes further, to feature the old and new PS3 logo.

J Milburn however has marked the Mega Drive article with the non-free template, as he feels all three logos do not have sufficient justification for being there.

The only solution make the article lack in completeness; remove the JP MD logo since it has the least justification for being there, or remove all three logos to keep the nuetral view point.

I suspect the JP MD logo to be {{pd-textlogo}}, similar to the SNES logo. Anomie says that in his opinion, it is a {{pd-textlogo}}"I personally think it's probably {{PD-textlogo}} since it is just an M and a D and it's not really more complex than the W-thing at the top of File:Best Western logo.svg which the US copyright office officially ruled three times as insufficiently original." If that is the case, we have instantly solved this problem. However, no one who would know for sure has gotten back to me on that as of yet.

We have tried to argue that since the logos were used concurrently, for the three different regions that the brand identification use is why they're there.

The article also has a sourced statement, "each region has its own peculiarities and unique items," so the article talks shortly about the differences in region and branding as well. Does anyone have any other ideas?--SexyKick 22:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Did he give a reason. Otherwise I'd be bold and remove it and discuss it presenting the reasoning given here for other feature articles. I would look up those ones and check what, if any, problems arose and the reasons given to justify their usage.陣内_Jinnai 01:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

He didn't give any specific reason, just that having all three together was wrong, even though each of their individual use was justified. I already asked Anomie, and the issue never came up for him. I will look into the other two featured articles.--SexyKick 01:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, well, in all of the featured articles, at least one of the logos happens to be a {{pd-textlogo}}, so I suppose that probably has something to do with it. If only I could find out if image:JP_MegaDrive_Logo.gif was a {{pd-textlogo}} or not. Or the even less likely image:GenesisLogo.png They're both only marked with TM, though other iterations of the Genesis logo are also marked with (R). It's even possible that none of them are copy righted Logos. This says that Sega and Genesis are registered trademarks of Sega, and this says that Sega, and Mega Drive are registered trademarks of Sega. Then there's this box art for Japan...I can't read it.--SexyKick 18:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

At the very least, File:GenesisLogo.png could be removed as it is already featured in File:GenesisComplete.png, File:Genesis Model1 High Definition Graphics.jpg, and File:Genesis power base.png. No need for the image to appear four times in the article. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC))

I noticed while editing today that all the video game character articles have had their category sorting removed. Is this a policy change? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• I've opened the following Requested Moves topics, to merge more (often moribund) video game projects into the main project as task forces/working groups, to be consistent with almost all other game-, franchise-, genre- and platform-specific video game projects, which have already merged here:
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Adventure games#Requested move
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Age of Empires#Requested move
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Halo#Requested move
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Koei Warriors Games#Requested move
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music Video Games#Requested move
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject PlayStation#Requested move
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Square Enix#Requested move
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Xbox#Requested move

— SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 07:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to get some advice about discussing the online fan community in Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri (examples of other video game articles that discuss their online fan communities would be particularly helpful). Recently, an IP user who put in an external link for a fansite forum half a year ago added one of its subforums to a note about the modding community. While that edit isn't troublesome, there has been some recent discussion in that fansite forum in a thread titled WPC links in Wikipedia SMAC(X) articles strategizing on how to get that fansite forum mentioned in Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, which indicates that there may be more edits. Thank you. Vyeh (talk) 09:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, completely forgot to link to this from here! Opinions there would be very welcome (some things have already been discussed in the same section). Prime Blue (talk) 15:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Varga Árpád: I wonder if it would be possible to come up with WP:GAMER, a WP:BIO subdefinition for gamers? It would be nice to have in cases like this. If written, it should probably (in my opinion) be written such to include only the top of the top -- maybe 25 to 50 persons ever, at most. Just a thought. Herostratus (talk) 04:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

We have several media lists as Featured Lists, but they all use different layouts, tables and conventions. I think we should discuss standardizing these lists so that non-FL lists can be improved more easily. Additionally, I think sales information should appear in the lists, because 1/ this is important reception information, and 2/ while sales figures are sometimes not available, it's rare that a series has no sales information at all for all of its installments.

Note that List of Final Fantasy media is currently undergoing FLC, but this discussion shouldn't affect the outcome much since this is about layout rather than content, and sales figures for the Final Fantasy games can easily be copy-pasted from the individual articles. (I'm sure I'll change my vote to Support by the way.)

So what do you think of the following table:

Title and details	Original release date(s)	Platforms	Shipment or sales figure(s)
[Title] Developed by [Developer]. [Other details. This should be as concise as possible. If a fact is not important in the evolution of the series, it probably doesn't need to be mentioned.].	JP: [Date] NA: [Date] PAL: [Date]	[Platform] ([Year]), [Platform] ([Year]), etc.	[XXXX] copies [sold or shipped] (as of [Date])

Unlike the various templates currently used, this table and slight variations of it are adapted to both video games (including games with large number of re-releases) and non-video game media. Examples of use can be found at User:Jonathan Hardin'/Sandbox along with possible standardized headings (subheadings, especially in the "Video games" section, don't have to be standardized). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan Hardin' (talk • contribs) 12:41, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts?

I'm a big proponent of Template:VGtitle. I think it does a really good job of highlighting what's most important in the list-- the title, the game's main release dates, and its further release dates, and sales information can be added into the notes. To be honest, the FF series is a large exception-- many games in many large franchises completely lack sales information from reliable sources, and as such it's risky to make the sales portion such a large part of the list. As an example of that, List of Digimon video games, which is currently up for FLC, has no reliable sources from which to gain the entire series's sales. A game won't be noted for its sales unless it reached the NPD numbers which are usually only the top 20. I agree though, that what goes in the notes section definitely should be standardized. Right now we have very different standards for what should be included in different FLs and it should probably be all worked out and fixed.

A few suggestions if we decide to go with this graph form:

• Currently, VGtitle has a "|ref=" parameter which can be used to reference a whole column of release dates without having to source each separate region. I think it'd be a good idea to include it in this one as well.
• I'm not sure if I like the release dates format in your graph. When there's a number of releases for something like Donkey Kong or Space Invaders, the number of systems and references can really add up quickly and it can be hard on the eye to decipher a plain list like the one you included. I think the standard should be set at something like what's seen in current FLs like at List of Donkey Kong games, where the release years are listed in a column with the release consoles next to them.

I think you don't have a bad design-- but I'm not sure if the problem is in the template that we already have. I think the problem is what we put in it. Nomader ^(Talk) 01:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I disagree with Final Fantasy being an exception. Most of the examples I used aren't FF titles, and I just found sales figures for 11 Digimon games.[15] I think the real exception would be a series that has absolutely no sales figures at all; by definition, the fact that a video game series is a series means that the creators had enough success to develop and release more than a couple of games. Since sales figures generally do exist, I believe they deserve their own cells in whatever table we use. These cells will in many cases be marked "n/a", but they are still an efficient way to present the information that does exist and to see it at a glance. While I agree that there's nothing really bad about VGtitle, I think the design above is an improvement because:

• it is more compact (the left cell on VGtitle is much larger than necessary and there's a lot of empty space on the right);
• it is more in line with the standard table style used throughout the rest of Wikipedia (artist discography articles, movie franchises, etc.);
• VGtitle in its "other media" mode only allows for one release date;
• Identifiers (catalog numbers, ISBNs, etc.) and publishers should be indicated for all other media IMO (our Halo and Kingdom Hearts media lists show them, as do all artist discography articles), but there's no room for them in VGtitle.

With regard to referencing regional release dates with a common source, we could probably use a Template:Float as Moldavian Sax recently did in DigiCube discography (I never saw that trick being used anywhere else but it seems like a great trick!):

[1] JP: November 21, 1992 NA: November 20, 1992 EU: November 24, 1992

This being said, Template:Infobox video game always did fine without "|ref=" and without Float. As for the Platforms column, I guess we could keep the current "Date – Platform<br />" format, although I think the format "Platform (Date)" works well for series like Halo. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 09:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I can see the value in a table format like this, but I think you'll find that you run into a similar problem that I had when trying to turn it into a template for standard use. I couldn't find a way to completely remove unused columns without breaking it. Also, your implementation uses unspecified widths for columns, which is a pet peeve of mine because during implementation on an article/list with multiple calls to the template, the columns won't line up on the page, making it unpleasant to look at IMO. Hopefully you'll find a way to get around this. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I have created a template for the table, Template:VGmedia, and one for the entries, Template:VGmedia entry. I have included an option to keep the remaining columns at the same size when a column is removed (it adds a margin the size of the removed column so the others don't take up the free space). I think I will go ahead and try this model on a List of Xenosaga media, then we'll see if it's usable or if it needs tweaking. Suggestions are welcome. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Done! Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 09:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I like it. I understand the desire to keep extra "details" short, but is there a way to make an optional larger details box, should the need arise? Perhaps underneath the entry, like with Template:Video game table. Otherwise, it looks really nice. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I was wondering if there was someone familiar with Cave Story who could help trim the plot section? I wrote it earlier today but I've been having trouble identifying what can be safely removed without hindering understanding of the plot. Feel free to just take a stab at it. I'll rescue anything that seems particularly vital. Thanks, Axem Titanium (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Should unreleased games have year categories like Category:2010 video games or Category:2011 video games? User:Bovineboy2008 believes they shouldn't and I disagree, see discussion. He has been removing these categories from several game pages. Other opinions? --Mika1h (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This is how it is in the Film project, I don't see why it would be any different here. A video game that isn't released can't belong to a year until it is released. Sure we have reliable sources that support a projected a release date, but until it is released, saying it is a 2010 video game or 2011 video game seems to violate WP:CRYSTAL. BOVINEBOY2008 16:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that this is would fall under speculation since the title is unreleased. Release dates can change and development can be delayed. Including an anticipated release date in an article is one thing when it is properly sourced, but a category is pushing it in my mind.

To put it another way, nothing is really lost by not having the category. But the chance of misinformation exists by having the category. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC))

The category is there because we have a reliable source saying it's going to be released in 2010. If you remove the category, why not the date from the article too? --Mika1h (talk) 17:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That's why I prefer using Category:Upcoming video games. A compromise might be to use something like Category:Video games to be released in 2010. BOVINEBOY2008 17:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The difference is the article should be saying something like "the game is scheduled to be released in 2010" while the category is saying "This game was released in 2010". BOVINEBOY2008 17:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The text in Category:2011 video games reads: "This category lists video games to be first published in 2011." 2010 category could have that text too. --Mika1h (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Right, there aren't any yet in 2011. BOVINEBOY2008 17:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Correct, because you just removed them. I could just as easily add them again. --Mika1h (talk) 17:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand. The are no video games that have been "first published in 2011". BOVINEBOY2008 17:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You omitted the important part: "to be first published in 2011" --Mika1h (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

No, you aren't reading it correctly. Let's have some other opinions shall we? BOVINEBOY2008 17:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I actually like the upcoming category.

Also, when it is mid-year like now, what should the category say? "Video games first released before {{CURRENTYEAR}}-{{CURRENTMONTH}}-{{CURRENTDAY}} and to be released later in the year." Wouldn't that complicate things? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC))

How am I reading it wrong if you use the same phrase yourself on your own category: Category:Video games to be released in 2010. Following that logic shouldn't we have ones for platform categories too: Category:Games to be released for the Xbox 360 and genres: Category:Games to be first-person shooters. Since it's all can be changed on moment's notice. --Mika1h (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion: If there is a firm date - not just the year or quarter, but an exact month and day with the year - then we can classify the game as a game for that year; at worst, the release date may change but likely not by much if that is the case. If all we have is a year or quarter or the like, then we shouldn't classify it as any year categorically, since those are likely to have the most variability to change and by the highest degree. --MASEM (t) 17:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really in favor of such a practice, but could see this being a suitable compromise. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC))

I'm not sure if I care if the year categories exist, but if so, they need to be precisely defined if they; the complication that Guy brings up isn't isolated. Personally, I don't like "to be" because it sounds definitive and I don't like "scheduled to be released" because it could be interpreted to allow titles to remain even after being released, canceled, or delayed. So far the only phrase I can think of that would encompass everything would be Category:Unreleased video games currently scheduled for release in 2010, which is a mouthful and plagued with WP:RECENTISM. I think that the issue becomes more convoluted if we come up with date precision requirements that lead to a category like Category:Unreleased video games currently scheduled for release in a specific month in 2010. I suppose that the pages don't have to be named exactly and that the page can explain the category, I'm not sure it's worthwhile to have categories that need detailed inclusion criteria. —Ost (talk) 20:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

If this argument is solely based on WP:CRYSTAL, then it is pushing the guideline a bit beyond the limits. Articles are only placed in categories if there is verifiable information on its release date. By the logic mentioned above, one might as well remove working titles (after all, there is no guarantee it will be released under that name), or articles about unreleased works in general since everything pertaining to them is subject to change. Any other bases for the category removal? Prime Blue (talk) 00:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm struggling to understand how Crystal applies. By the same reasoning as above, Category:2012 in sports should be deleted because there is no absolute guarantee that the Olympics will take place in 2012, it could be cancelled for numerous reasons; like a global epidemic or terrorism or World War 3. - X201 (talk) 10:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, where exactly is that guideline of the film project, Bovineboy2008? It seems to follow the same categorization for verifiable future dates as all the other Wikipedia projects. Prime Blue (talk) 13:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This (WT:WikiProject_Films/Categorization#Films by year / upcoming_films) is all that I could find that referred to it. I've searched for further discussions but it yielded nothing. - X201 (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I was mostly trying to point out that these categories can be taken different ways: should there be categories for only unreleased games or should they be mixed with released games for the year? Does a cancelled game get removed from the category or are does it remain because it was scheduled to be released in the year? The answers to these questions could be the simple, but I think it invites people to use indiscriminately if they don't know the intended purpose. Using the sports example above and looking at 2010, it seems entries can be mixed and—though I did not know of an example to check—I expect that a recurring event that was cancelled would remain in the cat as notable for not occurring. —Ost (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

There is also another major problem with using WP:CRYSTAL. If there is a firm release date and we remove the catagory based on the fact that we think that the date may change our actions will be based on unsourced speculation something that our crystal ball policy does not allow. I think the schedualed to be release idea is a good idea though since we don't need to worry about crystal balls and it can easily be updated if there is a problem.--76.69.166.72 (talk) 18:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The defence of why Crystal applies in this situation is deafening. - X201 (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Masem's idea, though I'd limit it to the following year. In video games, 2 years is far too long to have any firm date that isn't likely to change. There's a lot more than can go wrong than creating a film.陣内_Jinnai 18:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I would just stick to using Category:Upcoming video games. SharkD  Talk  03:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the current year categories should be for released games only and then sub-categorize Category:Upcoming video games in years (and maybe quarters, but not months), similar to how films are categorized. I think that it should cover all bases so to speak and go in line with crystal. --MrStalker ^(talk) 21:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

We're still waiting for someone to state how the status quo is out of line with Crystal - X201 (talk) 10:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

CRYSTAL applies because usually all we have on these games is a rough date, typically a year or a quarter of a year, and that point is set months and months before that given date. The game industry - unlike the film industry - is very fickle to changes in schedule and the like, and delays are more the norm than the exception; and thus the industry loves to use the loose dates to avoid commitment. Thus, if a game's only been given a rough timeframe, it is CRYSTAL to assume anything about that being the actual release of the game - that is the target the devs and publishers are heading for. That's why when an actual date (day and month and year) is thrown out there for release, now we have a reasonable assurance that we're beyond the point that delays could happen (though there's still the off-chance they could - but now this is the exception case and not the norm) and we can classify the game as being released in that year. --MASEM (t) 14:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Masem - X201 (talk) 15:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

After reading all of the above I'm in favour of a hybrid of some of the above ideas. If a game has a release date with a day month and year then it can be added to the category for that year and be present in the Upcoming Games category until it is released.

Games that only have a Q4 2010 or January 2011 style date should be placed in the Upcoming Games category and (as per WP:DUPCAT) in an Upcoming games Scheduled for 2011 sub-category. - X201 (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. I don't think a perfect solution exists for this issue, but this sounds like as close as we can get it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC))

I support this as well. BOVINEBOY2008 17:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I still don't think WP:CRYSTAL applies here, but I approve of this solution. Neat compromise! Prime Blue (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Any objections to going with the above method? I'll leave it a couple of days, and if not, I'll add a note to the Article Guidelines page and create the Cats that are needed. - X201 (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I've created the 2010 category and will create the 2011 one when I find a game with a cited release date. I've also added the following to the Release Dates section of the Guidelines:

When categorizing an unreleased video game, please add it to Category:Upcoming video games. If the game has a release date that is a full date that contains day, month and year and a citation from a reliable source then please also add it to the appropriate year category e.g. Category:2010 video games. If the game only has a month and year and a citation please add it to Category:Upcoming video games and Category:Upcoming video games scheduled for 2010. In all other cases just add the game to Category:Upcoming video games. - X201 (talk) 09:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I've just found out that GameDaily's contents will be merged with Joystiq, so a lot of sources do not work anymore. We'll have to wait and see what happens, and I reckon a big ol' fix will be in order. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 11:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You have a source about the topic? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

[16] - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, this ruins quite a bit of references over the span of video game articles. What is the mode of action that's supposed to be taken now? Remove all of the content originally attributed to GameDaily? Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd try standard dead-link rescue using web.archive.org first. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with looking for archives if the links break, but do we know that they won't have redirects in place? —Ost (talk) 20:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that the articles on GD will be moved to Joystiq. We'll just have to wait and see. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

So far they haven't; I've spot checked a couple and cannot find them at all. Could they be, yes, but given the number of times GD is used for VG character articles, we need to get archiveurls in the references stat. --MASEM (t) 20:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I still don't understand the rush; we have plenty of other articles with broken links that no one bothers to fix. And just because the link is broken doesn't mean that the article didn't exist as a reference. Moreover, the Wayback Machine tends to be months or years behind in getting archives posted; it's likely archives for newer pages won't be available. It would be nice to get archiveurls, but I don't see it as a priority. —Ost (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

There really isn't any rush. Technically, we can still leave the dead links per Wikipedia:Linkrot. This, however, is a how-to-guide rather than a policy or guideline so I'm unsure how Wikipedia officially views the issue. It think the main issue is that it looks bad at quality reviews and reviewers may call for the information to be removed. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC))

If we know that this will happen, maybe we can ask ThaddeusB (talk · contribs) to run WebCiteBOT on all VG-related articles and create WebCite entries for those soon-to-be-dead links? Regards SoWhy 20:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The links are already dead (you get directed to Joystiq). That said, it looks like archive.org has captures of articles up to around early 2009, and take Ost's point above, the remainder between that point and when Gamedaily officially merged just may take some time. I think there's still a possibility of a bot to go through each ref with a gamedaily.com URL, seek out the latest version at archive.org, and make a URL from that, until such time (if) Joystiq posts the old GameDaily articles. --MASEM (t) 20:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Annoyingly enough this will end up affecting a *lot* of character articles: for a long while there GameDaily was one of the biggest contributors of character reception, especially for female characters. This might sink more than a few in turn.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

appears to be back up. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

In discussing reliable sources, if a web site with editorial oversight uses this editorial oversight to verify the accuracy and quality of a review, would the contents of such a review be usable? Of course, not to the same standard as an official staff review, but in the event that a game lacked reception, such a thing could act as a viable substitute. Example:

RPGamer, Final Fantasy XII reviews

It features three staff reviews, and three reader reviews [though oddly enough, Adriaan has written many reviews as RPGamer staff]. Clearly, RPGamer does not have a system of allowing anyone to add their reviews. In this case, let's say Adriaan does not have credentials of his own. Does the approval of RPGamer make his opinion reliable? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 12:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Theleftorium has recently put a lot of work into Bart's House of Weirdness, one of the earliest Simpsons-related video games, and nominated it for GAN. Can anyone have a look at the article and see how else they can improve it? BOZ (talk) 13:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

some of the sections need to be split. and more expansion on them along with more refsBread Ninja (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Found this: [17] - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Are game modes notable enough to be mentioned in gameplay or so? I'm having some difficulty in this because i've seen some Korean games having a lot of this....Bread Ninja (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

A good overview of game modes can be provided, though if the number of modes is quite high, summarizing the general types of modes is a better idea. For example, I'd mention all the TF2 gameplay modes, which there's about only 5-6, but wouldn't go to listing out every MW2 mode which there is about 20-odd. --MASEM (t) 21:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This should be interesting. --MASEM (t) 21:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hilarious, some of those featured articles are in a dreadful state. --Mika1h (talk) 22:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the author did some normalization: I know like Grim Fandango's article is shorter and doesn't cover as much, while I suspect he's filled in the gaps on other articles that were lacking (in the "other" area particularly). Anyone know where on WP besides here would be interested in knowing this (appropriate) reuse of WP material? --MASEM (t) 22:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

[18] - There's some Game Boy game reception in here. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This IP (68.39.61.160) has a habit of adding JP/SK detail (publisher, release date, ratings etc) to games not developed there (which, according to various guidelines, shouldn't be done). They continue to do so despite multiple warnings from me. Just wondering if something can/should be done, I'm getting tired of reverting. Thanks! Fin©™ 14:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

IGN is going from a fractional 10 point scale to a 20-point scale (that is, 7.0, 7.5, 8.0, etc.) starting ASAP. They will not change old games (unlike when 1UP switched) but all forward game reviews will use a star scale. [19]. There should be no effect on WP. --MASEM (t) 22:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought that the reviews seemed different. Thanks for the heads-up. GamerPro64 (talk) 23:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so it's more like GameSpot's rating scale change than 1UP's change. Makes sense, and it's good to know they're not retroactively changing any scores. Reach Out to the Truth 02:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I work with a lot of old Game Boy and Game Boy Advance articles, and I've noticed that the links to many of GameZone's reviews of these games have been removed and I've had to use archive.org in order to see them (see Urban Yeti as an example). What I've also noticed however, is that the page which linked to their staff information has also been removed (see [20] to look at the original page). I can't find any sign of an editorial policy on their website, and I was wondering... is GameZone.com still a reliable source for newer games? I'm wary of recommending a website as a reliable source when it has no objective editorial policy that I can see. To be clear, it has sources to back it up as a reliable website (see here), but I'm just a bit uncomfortable with regular usage judging by how its changed of late. Nomader ^(Talk) 02:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

In the Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, someone added some material sourced by www.eeggs.com. Is this a RS? Vyeh (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say not. They're user-contributed, and sometimes entirely wrong. Reach Out to the Truth 17:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

As the original poster of the link, the reason why I did this was because, as the faction is an Easter Egg, a link would be needed to prove its existence. In terms of the reliability of the source, whilst I accept what the usuer says about user contributed, in this specific example, I can assure you that the information included in this case IS correct, and it was the most reliable source I found, as the other examples were gamer forums and Yahoo Questions. --Billydeeuk (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

If eeggs is the most reliable source you can find for a statement, is it even worth including in the article at all? Reach Out to the Truth 22:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm at a loss with this one. The first two games have enough notability to merit their own articles, and I suppose the third game could be a stub. The problem is that I don't know that there would be enough content for a series article at that point without it also being just barely start class. Thoughts? I'm a huge fan of the first two and thought this would be a fun project, but looking into it we've got an utter mess on our hands. --Teancum (talk) 14:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, anything that anyone has as far as print sources for these games would be MUCH appreciated. They're going to be tough to flesh out, but I'm sure the content is out there somewhere. --Teancum (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking at the Terran Confederation article. I cleaned out some gameguide stuff about military rank and feel that the rest of the article should be merged. There are no independent sources and it's pretty short anyway. Please check in at Talk:Terran Confederation with your thoughts. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. User:Bloodios keeps uploading game covers that are contrary to the video game image guidelines, and edit-warring on articles such as Final Fantasy XIII despite warning on his talk page. I would like some help or advice as the user does not communicate. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin, and that he reverted - yet again - the Valkyre cover after blanking your warning message (eg he was notified), I've blocked him for 31 hrs. --MASEM (t) 21:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

He's at it again. - X201 (talk) 08:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I left a note on his talk page, trying to assume good faith and all. Let's see if he changes... Megata Sanshiro (talk) 08:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

He's really at it again despite my explanatory note that he removed from his talk page :/ Megata Sanshiro (talk) 08:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

So Nintendo Entertainment System was just delisted from FA status, and I am asking the project to see what assessment it would fall under. My recommendation would be B-Class or C-Class with B being my first preference as it is fairly developed and has quite a few RSs in there. To say the least, I think it needs to re-earn GA status and go through a couple more reviews before considering FAC again. Thoughts? –MuZemike 15:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Here be the archived delist discussion for lazy ones.—  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll note that, despite the delist, the article has had some improvements, but it still has a ways to go before it can get to FA again. –MuZemike 13:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

C-class. It has several referencing issues (some are marked, most aren't) and several tags. That is hardly b-class material with all of those items. It's still a quality article and thus far beyond start-class.陣内_Jinnai 22:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look at Template talk:Infobox video game#Individual field discussion at a list of {{Infobox video game}} fields that are under discussion. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Details here --MrStalker ^(talk) 17:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The IP is using proxies to bypass his first block: [21] Check for 211.161.159.74:8080 Megata Sanshiro (talk) 12:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

New link --MrStalker ^(talk) 16:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Details here. --MrStalker ^(talk) 20:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI, an article of your wikiproject, Special attack was redirected to Superpower (ability), an article not under your wikiproject. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 06:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I redirected it there because the first line claimed they were synonymous and both articles had much the same (unverifiable) content. Someone prodded it after something like 3 years of having an unreferenced tag, which was removed with the same old "clearly notable, very important" with no attempt to address the concern. I think it's pretty obvious superpowers are to be found as much in video games as they are anywhere else. bridies (talk) 07:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

And I should also point out we still have Combo (video gaming), Signature move, Fatality (Mortal Kombat) and perhaps more covering the same thing from every redundant angle one could possibly think of. bridies (talk) 07:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The Combo is an integral part of the gameplay of fighting games. The article is not showing WP:Howto but stating a notable part of a particular genre such as camping would be in first person shooters or turn-based strategy in RPGs. Signature move... well it is a signature move but you can associate many fictional characters with a signature move. The fatality, I sort of have a bias with that. But Notability for that particular part of Mortal Kombat gameplay isn't very difficult to discover, i've seen reception for Fatalities practically everytime I look up Mortal Kombat news articles. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 14:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

And the combo is amply covered in the fighting game article. The combo article itself is a vast spinning out of redundant in-game information. The fatality article is similarly awful, being a few miscellaneous points sourced to actual research (which should be merged into the relevant articles) badly failing to justify yet more mass collating of redundant primary information. bridies (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and a "signature move" and a "special attack" are the exact same thing. bridies (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Combo is amply covered in its own article. There are parts of Combo that should be removed (such as the infinites section) but the rest can easily be referenced. I'm aware Fatality (Mortal Kombat) is poorly referenced, but calling it redundant in comparison to Superpower is unnecessary, the article is getting better and just like Wikipedia, all articles are improving little by little but are showing improvement. It's pretty much generalizing with calling signature moves and special moves the same thing, they are related and can be the same thing (such as Sub-Zero (Mortal Kombat) having the ice-ball for his signature move and special attack) but with characters like Ryu (Street Fighter) can potentially have three signature moves with his Hadouken, hurricane kick and shoryuken. How can you possibly identify only one as a signature move? Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 02:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Combo is a mass of redundant, unreferenced, in-universe information, almost totally lacking any real world context or commentary, as is fatality. You can pontificate about how easily it can be referenced, how important it is blah blah, all moot. Your off the cuff analysis about what a signature move is or isn't is also moot; what is relevant is that the article also consists of unreferenced information almost entirely about video game special moves. Funnily enough, those three moves of Ryu are discussed in some detail. bridies (talk) 05:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The Mortal Kombat article was the exact same thing that you called the Combo article until various editors and I finally put some effort into it. It all matters that an editor will work on it. Already you see that the article is suitably referenced, continued work like that and Fatality (Mortal Kombat) will at least be a B-class. I know what I said about the signature moves is OR, I was using an example. But that policy is about putting those types of statements into the articles, not in discussions so don't try to reinforce your argument by using Wikipedia policies on arguments. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 22:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Nevertheless we are still talking about what the article content is or should be, so WP:OR is perfectly applicable. And Mortal Kombat is a whole series, a massively successful series at that, not a game mechanic; the analogy is totally arbitrary and inappropriate. If I could be bothered to merge both fatality and combo right now I doubt there could be any argument against it. bridies (talk) 05:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking into bridies's rationale I can see his reasoning. It does fall very easily under WP:GAMEGUIDE -- but rather than a redirect I would suggest a merge of similar articles to Signature move. Fatality (Mortal Kombat) might have enough significant coverage from reliable sources to pass the general notability guideline, but other articles -- if sourced at all -- will either be sourced from unreliable sources or use trivial mentions from reliable sources. Merging more articles and providing redirects after the merge will better serve readers on the overall mechanic of special moves. Anything more than an overview is not necessary for Wikipedia, and fails WP:GAMEGUIDE --Teancum (talk) 13:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I just completed/cleaned up a bunch of assessments over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Assessment/Requests. I have two articles I'd like to get assessed in return if anyone has time (they're on the list). Star Wars: Battlefront II, and Jet Moto (video game). Also if anyone feels comfortable, Blaster Master needs a second opinion for A-Class. I have already supported the article here. Thanks. --Teancum (talk) 20:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Done the first 2.陣内_Jinnai 01:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• I've left comments on your talk page. --Teancum (talk) 02:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Note to other editors, as I strongly disagree with given assessments, I am requesting a reassessment of both articles. If current assessments stand that's fine, however I have given justifications on both talk pages, Talk:Star Wars: Battlefront II#requested assement, and Talk:Jet Moto (video game)#assement clarrification. If another reviewer feels the current assessment should stand, please elaborate as to why. I can't fix these articles otherwise. --Teancum (talk) 06:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyone wanna do a copyedit of GLaDOS? I just rewrote most of the content, and I plan on giving it a GA push soon. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The Jon Van Caneghem article was recently rewritten in a very promotional tone (diff). An IP account has also been crediting Jon Van Caneghem as a developer and "brainchild" on a number of gaming articles in contradiction to in-game credits (contribs). May be an issue worth keeping an eye on. --Muchness (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that and took a stab at re-writing it, removing the POV and gushing. Take a look and see if it satisfies. I also added more game credits, since only three were listed. But a list is rather NPOV. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 04:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, your edits were certainly an improvement. Looks like Azikate is another account that engaged in these edits. I will probably remove a lot of those mentions by name in the lead sections due to problems with undue weight and sourcing. It's standard practice to refer to publishing companies solely by their name rather than any individual(s) within the company in the lead section of VG articles. --Muchness (talk) 12:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone has been speculating here about Atari releasing NWN 3, using what appears to be flimsy evidence. Does anyone know more about this? 24.148.0.83 (talk) 10:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion it should be removed per WP:CRYSTAL pending confirmation from official sources (i.e., a publisher or developer). Also, a better place to mention it would be the Neverwinter Nights (series) article and/or the Neverwinter Nights#Sequel section, rather than the NWN article's lead. --Muchness (talk) 11:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 12:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi! The current articles treat the Chocobo series as a part of the Final Fantasy series. However, it is not actually a part of it; Square Enix treats it as a distinct franchise. See http://www.square-enix.com/jp/ , at the bottom of the page, where the main Square Enix franchises are listed. Moreover, when you think about it, the Chocobo series has very different gameplays than Final Fantasy, largely different staffs and a younger, different fanbase. And also quite simply it doesn't have "Final Fantasy" in the original titles of its games. It is similar to Kingdom Hearts in that while it does features Final Fantasy characters (or creatures in this case), it is an original franchise. It even has kind of its own (loose) continuity, with characters like Shirma and Croma who are recurring in it but have never appeared in the main Final Fantasy series. So I think all relevant articles and lists should be corrected to separate Chocobo from Final Fantasy. The two Chocobo games that were released in English as Final Fantasy Fables games should still be mentioned in the Final Fantasy lists for completion's sake, like the Final Fantasy Legend games. I asked at WP:FF, but they are opposed to the change because I am "taking this a bit too seriously." Thoughts? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 12:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a sub-series that's part of the overall FF IP. Chocobos are distinguishing characters not only in their own series, but in the rest of FF as well. It's like how the Wario games, while their own series, are still connected to the Mario games. Tezero (talk) 06:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys, killer7 has an FAC going on right now and User:Tony1 (I'm sure you've heard of him) suggests that a fresh set of eyes take a look at it. Any takers? Thanks in advance. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I've nominated GLaDOS for a peer review here, and it would be great if I could get some input/assistance! :D - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI,

• (Move log); 01:19 . . ArtistScientist (talk | contribs) moved Talk:GoldenEye 007 to Talk:GoldenEye 007 (1997) (This game is being remade. There are now two games with this exact title. They must be differentiated.)
• (Move log); 01:19 . . ArtistScientist (talk | contribs) moved GoldenEye 007 to GoldenEye 007 (1997) (This game is being remade. There are now two games with this exact title. They must be differentiated.)

IMO, the original should have the main page, and the new one be disambiguated. AS also moved GoldenEye 007 (2010 video game) to GoldenEye 007 (2010). -mattbuck (Talk) 01:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Propose a move back to the original titles. I think the consensus would be to overturn the moves. bridies (talk) 07:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed. The standard is that the original keeps the title, and sequel/remakes get years. This was also done incorrectly, as just saying (1997) is not enough. It would have to be (1997 video game). I have restored both moves to their original locations. --Teancum (talk)

What about a GoldenEye 007 series page? Also, you need to put (2010 video game) at the end, it can't only have the year. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I think with only two games that are very similar to each other, a series article would not make sense. I have to agree with bridies that, since the N64 version is the main game, GoldenEye 007 should point to there, while (2010 video game) pointing to the Wii version; if necessary, (2010) and (1997) can be redirects to the respective articles.

To take it a step further, I'd be in favor of merging the two articles, but I'm afraid I'd be fighting an uphill battle there. –MuZemike 18:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

If there were a series article, it would make sense to include Perfect Dark in it. Also Timesplitters maybe. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Attention ladies and gentlemen. Tomorrow, August 15th, Chrono Cross will be that day's Today's Featured Article. GamerPro64 (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

At least it had a picture, even if it's of a guy who produced it. — Blue。 15:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not "a guy who produced it". It's the guy who produced it, assembled the development team, personally asked (his friend) Yuuki to do the character designs, and created the game's unique battle system as the game's battle designer. Oh and he personally did the menus too. Lol-kitas (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm thankful the picture wasn't removed from the nomination. I utterly fucking hate that "no copyrighted images on TFA" rule. ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 00:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I like getting the quarterly newsletter with updates... but haven't got one for a while. Did some looking around and noticed one was supposed to come out the first week of July but never did. Is the newsletter discontinued? Miles Blues (talk · contribs) 05:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

To my knowledge, no. If there's a problem with the newsletter and Guy isn't able to work on it as much, I'd definitely be up for working on at least the next issue time permitting. Nomader ^(Talk) 07:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This is in part to a couple things:

• My lack of Wikipedia time
  • Real life does not afford me consistent amounts of free time for Wikipedia anymore. My main contributions to the newsletter were coordination and feature writing, which I just don't have the time to do anymore. I'm surprised at what I'm actually able to still do to be honest.
  • My apologies that the newsletter has been a casualty of this.
• User:MrKIA11's hiatus from Wikipedia
  • He has focused on his real life and should return in September.[22]
  • As many know, MrKIA's work with the project made things run very smoothly. His updates of the deletion and new articles made updating those sections of the newsletter rather easy.
• User:ArticleAlertbot's downtime, which begun in July 2009 and has continued til now.
  • Article bot made updating certain parts of the newsletter very easy. Without it, the "Changes to Featured and Good content" and the "On the Main Page" sections are difficult to keep track off.

Essentially, this is kind of the perfect storm of events to throw off the newsletter. I believe, like most things within the project, if a decent number of people carry a single load, each one doesn't have that much pressure on them. If a number of editors can ban together, then I'm sure the newsletter can get going again in some form or fashion. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC))

I'm having lots and lots of trouble finding any reliable sources for the development section of Jet Moto (video game) (and its sequels), but I have found several sites of ex-developers where they give a personal retrospective on the game's development. I am not looking to push the articles to GA class, as I just don't know if there is enough material to do so, but I wanted opinions on using these folk's web sites. I realize they are not published sources, but they are from people who worked on the game. Also, if anyone has anything in the way of print sources for the Jet Moto games, I'll take whatever you have. --Teancum (talk) 12:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi! These sources are perfectly fine. Virtually all development sections everywhere in Wikipedia are partially or entirely based on developer sources, since they're the ones who know best about the games they created. Secondary sources are only necessary for notability, reception and potentially controversial points. What would be problematic is using reviews in the development section or the developer's words in the reception, things like that. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 13:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The issue with self-published sources is that whoever's producing them could literally be anybody, however if you've got the staff members' own accounts then great, go for it. Would highly recommend webcite to back up anything self-published just in case. Although magazine sources from that time would be great, looking at the reviews you've already found I'd say there's no reason not to go for a GA attempt. So long as all the bases are covered and a reasonable amount of reviews are used for the reception it doesn't need to be exhaustive. Someoneanother 20:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I hadn't thought the Jet Moto (video game) article was far enough along yet. Thanks for the kind words! Dave Fuchs is going to look into a few print sources and get back to me, so I think I may have a bit more to add yet. I'll try to back up what I can, then get possibly go for a GAN with the first Jet Moto game. --Teancum (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Once a development section is in place the major stumbling block for GAs with older games is a lack of reviews, sometimes leaving article writers with no sources which actually reviewed the game at a time when it was 'current'. That's not the case here. I would suggest removing the info and cite #11, moby games, however. allgame has some material on the game here, a full overview and review as well as a credits list. Although a reviewer may well pick up on a few tiny things like that mobygames cite, if it were something I'd been working on I wouldn't hesitate to nominate it. Good luck. Someoneanother 22:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I recently merged The Fast and the Furious: Drift and The Fast and the Furious: Super Bikes into The Fast and the Furious (arcade game). My question is, should I keep the separate links on the template? Since they're all going to the same place, I figured I should just delete the two now irrelevant links. I don't know what policy is, though, so I'd like some advice. Thanks. Nolelover (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I typically anchor to sections when I've got merged articles. In this case, something like The Fast and the Furious (arcade game)#The Fast and the Furious: Super Bikes, then use a pipe character | to set up the link Super Bikes. I know there's no mention of the PS2 game in the template (looks like there's not an article for it), but that might be something to look into as well. here (PS2/Xbox) is info on the cancelled game, and here is the released game (of the same name) that came out for PS2/PSP. --Teancum (talk) 15:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

So you link to the specific section? Will do. And are you saying there's another video game besides this one? Wondering if it's not just the same game cancelled and un-cancelled... Anyway, should I go ahead and create it? Nolelover (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

From what I understand the released game and the cancelled game are two "different" games in that there were two different developers, but I would say that mentioning the cancelled game in the Development section of the one that was released would be sufficient. --Teancum (talk) 15:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering about the notability... Anyway, thanks for the answers. Nolelover (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Notability applies to articles, not to statements within articles (verifiability is the standard). Assuming that there are reliable sources for the merged games, I would leave them in the template as it gives the reader a complete list of games. Vyeh (talk) 19:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, when I said notable, I was refering to whether or not the cancelled game should have it's own article. I was against that. That said, the template links have been modified. Nolelover (talk) 19:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If I may chime in, I believe that they should not be linked to. Navigation templates are for finding articles, not games. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

That's fair, however if a reader assumes there should be an article, they'll expect a link. Unfortunately IP users have no knowledge on Wikipedia's inner workings, so when there is no strict policy I'm of the opinion that we should cater to those folks to avoid them messing with templates, articles, etc unnecessarily. After all, what is an encyclopedia if it doesn't make it easy to find what you are looking for? --Teancum (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Retro Hippie, and I did the same thing with Template:Space Invaders. I've operated under the assumption that templates are navigation boxes and should focus on directing readers to existing articles. The search function can aid readers in finding specific bits of info. A full listing of games can be mentioned in article prose about the series or as a stand-alone list. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC))

It does kind of matter, in a sense that, if there SHOULD be an article but isn't, making a navboxc with everything isn't a bad idea. A good non-VG case is Template:Bach cantatas, but I dunno if such cases apply for video games. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Guy on that one. We have lists and categories to get a complete set of games. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I would say that notability would come into play per Wikipedia:Red link. If the topic is not notable for it's own article, then it is not notable for a red link. The guideline also recommends against red links in navboxes. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC))

I've proposed some additions to {{VG reviews}} for use on 8-bit home computer game articles (as opposed to the primarily contemporary sources currently supported) at Template talk:VG reviews#Older publications. Please leave any comments there. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I have proposed a merge of List of unreleased Dance Dance Revolution video games into List of Dance Dance Revolution video games at Talk:List of Dance Dance Revolution video games. As usual AetonPeryton is acting like he owns the music video game articles and no one can touch them, so I would like a third opinion on the proposal. Thanks. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I added my opinion. though, i don't see much of an argument.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I believe that there is a mistake in this article. The article says "1080° sold 1,230,000 units in total". But the source indicates that it's the US Charts, and not the world charts. Moreover, VGChartz says that 1080° sold 2 million worldwide, and approximatively 1,23 million in the US. I have other arguments if you are not convinced, but I'm french so it's quite difficult for me. 95.176.47.164 (talk) 15:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

VGChartz is deemed a unreliable source to Wikipedia so the original source being used right now is good, unless you have another reliable source that shows that 1080° Snowboarding sold more copies. GamerPro64 (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know but the source says that it's the US sales. Moreover, if you compare the figures presents in the source with the VGChartz figures, you realize that it's the American sales (the example of Mario Kart 64 is strikking). Yes, VGChartz is not very reliable, but between 5 million and 9 million (I speak about MK64), the difference is large ! And, in any case, the source says that it's the US sales. 95.176.47.164 (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The IP is correct here, the Magic Box site (reliable) source is the US top sellers list. I've fixed the article as necessary. --MASEM (t) 17:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you ! 95.176.47.164 (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The article Digital marriage has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references found no published support for the phrase "digital marriage" in the context of this article. fails WP:N and WP:V

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to take Lara Croft to FAC in the near future, but think an extra pair or two of eyes beforehand would improve the article's chances? One concern is the recent addition of File:Pp-laracroft-changes-1.jpg, which I believe does not comply with Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria 3a (Minimal usage). Aside from that, my main concerns for FAC are prose quality and flow.

Any help with the article would be appreciated, as a lot of work has already gone into and I'd like to see it make FA one day. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC))

I would say that the image's inclusion would destroy its chances of being featured. In all intents and purposes, these are nine fair use images, meaning that each portion of the image should have a fair use rationale.

But hey, even though I'm not great at prose and flow, I can take a shot. Once it's featured, you should totally help me with GLaDOS [it even kinda takes from the setup on Lara Croft! ;) - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The image definitely fails 3b. The problem I have with it is that it's not likely to be an actual image released by Eidos but rather a gallery of multiple images, which would indeed also make it fail 3a, unfortunately. --Izno (talk) 00:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated PlayStation 3 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 "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 00:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Would anyone happen to have this? It includes some information on Balthier, such as the fact that he was to be the main character of Final Fantasy XII. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I do. The Time Extend article does state so about Balthier (although there is not much information). Let me know what I can do for you (maybe shoot you an e-mail with the relevant parts?). Jean-Fred (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sure; my email address is [snip]. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

All right then. I will try to do this tonight or tomorrow (make sure to ping me if I forget). (I removed your e-mail address out of spam concerns). Jean-Fred (talk) 10:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Facepunch Studios (2nd nomination) is set to be either closed or relisted tomorrow, and I would prefer to have it closed, one way or the other. Can a few of ya'll jump in and provide some input on the matter? Currently there are two keep votes which do not cite policy as to why it should be kept, and a delete vote by me citing policy. I don't necessarily care whether it's kept or deleted, I would just prefer to keep relists to a minimum. Thanks. --Teancum (talk) 12:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:XBLASummer2010 -- I originally voted for a delete, but I update the template to include all the summer of arcades and related topics. Please seem my rationale at the TfD and provide input. The 7 day discussion is up soon, and I'd rather have it or lose it so it doesn't make the articles look bad. Here's the template as it stands:

{{XBLASummer2010}}

Again, input is what I'm looking for. Even if I get tons of deletes, that's fine. I just want to get this TfD closed so that it doesn't have a mx tag on the articles. --Teancum (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Could anyone take a look at Dungeon crawl? It's horribly bloated in placed and in terrible shape generally, and needs a huge trim of the original research. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 04:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I've spotted two accounts (Xchadnessx and Iiprotocolii) whose only purpose seems to be to add review links to the DualShockers website. I've asked on WP:VG/RS for an opinion as to whether DualShockers is notable or not but as yet have received no comments. Is this worth keeping an eye on? - X201 (talk) 10:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Additional: Have just noticed that usernames are the same as the Xbox Live account names of the DualShockers Editor-in-Cheif and its Senior Contributing Editor (Link) - X201 (talk) 10:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Site looks very bloggy to me. If it's obvious spam (and this one seems to be), it might be better off at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam. Prime Blue (talk) 10:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Not quite sure what exactly happened here. The IP seems to be offended by the use of the abreviation 'JAP'? They said something on the talk page, but I can't figure out what exactly it's trying to say. Anyone wanna help figure this out? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that he finds the abbreviation to be, basically, "Jap," and the message means that it should be written in full since it is the country of origin. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone moved the note with the full Japanese to the bottom of the article, probably because of its length, hence the call to T:Ref. The IP should be reverted. --Izno (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Used a footnote there to preserve the readability of the article. It seemed to me like that individual was offended by the abbreviation as well (though it is hard to make out with the broken English), so I changed it to the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 country code "JPN". Prime Blue (talk) 20:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Jap: "Jap is an English abbreviation of the word "Japanese." Today it is regarded as an ethnic slur" Megata Sanshiro (talk) 21:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Can I get a few hands at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Assessment/Requests? Normally I don't mind taking care of most of the assessments, but I have a bunch of articles I recently put up for assessment, I've assessed on for A-Class (and need a supporter) and could use another to look over the first A-Class nomination as well. All of my requests are B or C class requests, so if you don't feel comfortable assessing A class articles, these might be better suited for you. Also, its courtesy that if the article doesn't meet the requested class that a review is left on the talk page. Thanks much. --Teancum (talk) 00:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• I handled a few, although I would appreciate the eyes of an experience editor in the GA/FA arena to take a look at Dragon Quest which has been in the backlog since May. ---Taelus (Talk) 07:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

When in a situation where box art exclusively consists of a logo, is it acceptable to crop it for the infobox? Like here: Before, After « ₣M₣ » 14:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Fits with NFC policy (minimal use). --MASEM (t) 14:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Question, why isnt the North American cover being used? Salavat (talk) 14:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

How can you tell it isn't the North American version? Besides, it's in English, so it's perfectly acceptable. It isn't talking about a strictly North American version of the game. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I only asked because the North American version looks a lot better with its artwork then the just the logo. Salavat (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The game was first out in Japan, thus we use the Japanese cover art. --MASEM (t) 14:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:VGIMAGES: "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". --Mika1h (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

this is the japanese cover, the english cover would be the one with the characters so, i agree with Salavat, why isn't the english one in? the english one use to be there, and for some reason it was remonved and replaced. the article has had some wide freedom, so i suggest users pay more attention to it. Also simply because it released in japan does not mean we use the japanese one, it's an unwritten rule in the manga and anime because manga and anime originated from there and is famous, but RPG games did not and are not famous for it in japan independently. so we should use the English cover, not the japanese one.Bread Ninja (talk) 08:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. An English cover art should be used per WP:VGIMAGES. Frεcklεfσσt, you seem to assume putting cover arts in articles is only for decorative purposes, but it's not. The English cover art of Dissidia: Final Fantasy has the characters of the game on it and so it is much more useful than an empty logo with nothing around it. The English cover art removes the need for an artwork of the characters in the Characters section. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 09:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

What happened? I use to remember the video game articles have the English cover art in them! I somewhat remember that Logo Images are a no-no, but now I see most video game box arts have been deleted and now replaced with the logo image instead!

EDIT: It seems both Dissidia and Final Fantasy XII articles had their boxart speedy deleted, and was replaced by the logo. If I'm not mistaken that's against the WPVG policy on boxarts. — Blue。 09:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a bit of a predicament. Who was the one who removed them? It's highly likely this is done by the same person.Bread Ninja (talk) 10:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

[23] [24] Megata Sanshiro (talk) 10:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems it was a vandal after all. hopefully we can regain the images for dissidia and ffXII. but this should be mentioned in WT:SE as it would gain more attention there.Bread Ninja (talk) 10:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Zeupar keeps deleting the plot section of this article, saying "Deleted irrelevant section about the frivolous plot of this game". Thoughts? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 10:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I kept that section in my last edit (made prior to this topic) of that article. Please, try being more observant in general and especially when reverting other's edits. However, I still think that a plot section isn't necessary in articles on Sonic games released for the Mega Drive and the Game Boy Advance since the plot of said games isn't too complex and, as noted in video games article guidelines, "it can be lumped in with the gameplay". Zeupar (talk) 10:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Please try adhering to wiki etiquette by not edit warring, using talk pages, and filling edit summaries. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 10:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

You see the straw in my eye, and not the rafter in your own. Please, try adhering to wiki etiquette by giving a rationale to your reversions and staying on topic in talk pages. Your last edit didn't contribute anything to this topic. For the other people reading this: Could you state your opinion on this matter? Zeupar (talk) 12:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't played the game, but the storyline section sounds like a summary of short scenes before or after stages. It seems reasonable to treat a thin plot similar to how Super Mario Bros. 3 does it in the gameplay section. The story seems able to be written in a few general sentences about Sonic chasing Eggman and rescuing his friends along the way. As it is now, I see no motivation for Eggman, the changing tense is a mess, and it seems to give undue weight to minor points (e.g., "...and Knuckles won't let Eggman get away with this!"). —Ost (talk) 15:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Link - This was a course given at Williams College in the USA where several different developers came to talk about the art style of their games. I used it for Monday Night Combat, but Prince of Persia (2008), Mirror's Edge, Battlefield Heroes and Borderlands were all discussed, each with their own presentation given. If you're looking to expand the Development section of any of those articles, be sure to take a look. --Teancum (talk) 11:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool stuff, nice find. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as how AVGN is hosted on GT, that could bode well for it. But in addition to that, I was wondering if one was dealing with a specific issue that AVGN covers, if it would be appropriate to cite something said in his videos. For example, I'm considering including a mention from his Power Glove review in the Glass Joe article, in reference to him playing Punch-Out!! and being unable to beat Glass Joe with the Power Glove. This idea that Glass Joe is a good way to demonstrate the mediocrity of NES accessories is mentioned in several other sources, so I was hoping it could be used so I can strengthen that part of the article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

AVGN is like Zero Punctuation and probably can only be considered reliable within a place as a reviewer, but nothing further and there's a certain nerd factor to be considered there. If there are other sources that collaborate that the Power Glove is a POS, I don't see neither a problem nor a strong reason to include the AVGN review along side as a mention. --MASEM (t) 21:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

But alas, upon checking it out, it don't matter none anyway; since it is an early AVGN video, it's not hosted on GT. ~.~ - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Historically, we've tried to steer clear of including anything that the AVGN says because people will tend to reference facts about games that really need to be verified by actual sources (i.e. being able to place a bottle of beer in the back compartment of an Atari 5200 console, stuff like that, or even referencing to the AVGN that the door kills the player at the beginning of Dragon's Lair (Nintendo Entertainment System)). Sadly, there are also a lot of fanboys out there who like to write stuff like "ZOMG AVGN WAS HERE" stuff all over the articles on stuff he has reviewed. –MuZemike 03:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm having a tired argument with User:Bread Ninja at Talk:.hack//G.U.#.hack//G.U. description and .hack roots so I decided to present it to a wider audience. I'm arguing that .hack//Roots (which takes place first) is not considered a prequel to .hack//G.U. because it was released first, which does not fulfill the strict definition of what a "prequel" is (ie, a work that is released after a previous work, but takes place chronologically before). Axem Titanium (talk) 02:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Axem, you should know by now that prequel isn't that strict of a definition. it has other loose definitions (and you know that, you saw dictionary.com and webster also doesn't mention exactly the word "release"). That and i keep asking you to verify that G.U. is the sequel instead of Roots being the prequel. By verify I'm not asking for definition, I'm asking what reliable source saying .hack//G.U. is the sequel. But this isn't just about .hack//Roots-G.U., this also affects .hack//Sign-.hack verified that it is prequel. what did you find? It's reliable source vs. Original researchBread Ninja (talk) 03:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I got to agree with Axem Titanium on this one:

• [25] The Oxford English Dictionary says: "a book, film, etc., portraying events which precede those of an existing work."
• This book says: "in a multi-part work of fiction, an installment dealing with events that chronologically precede those of an already-published installment"
• etc.

A website whose reliability has always been in question and a primary source from the copyright owner do not trump common English word definitions that are well established and widespread in actually unchallengeable sources. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 06:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I've been trying to convey this very sentiment for a while. It's not a question of original research since it's a common English word with an accepted definition. A million reliable sources don't trump common sense. Axem Titanium (talk) 11:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I provided more than just one source though. and again, prequel doesn't necessarily need to mean it has to be "released" first. this is a matter if you want to follow the strict definition or not. Not whether .hack//Roots can be defined as prequel. That and the release dates are too close. It's more which is the common "definition" than the word itself. Either way, the term is used more loosely now, and i doubt all these sources calling it a prequel is just a fan idea.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Also Axem, the usage of "common sense" doesn't defend that much.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the common usage of the word prequel is "preceding something chronologically but succeeding it in terms of release order." "Predecessor" makes much more sense. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That's the last thing i requested in .hack//G.U. discussion page.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I would stick with "predecessor" for now. .hack/GU gets a first release in May 2006, but .hack/Roots says it started April 2006 and ends in Sept. The timing is so close that unless you have a person that created the work saying "prequel" its really poor form to use that term. --MASEM (t) 20:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm positive they have, considering .hack//Sign was mentioned as prequel to the .hack video games when news came out.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

So you also provided [26], which is a typical unreliable source, and [27], a review from RPGamer. Overall that's 2 unreliable sources, 1 press release, and 1 reliable source which happens to be a review. The reviewer simply made a mistake. It happens. You have 1 reliable source. Whereas I could post every reliable source from the web and Google Books that have a definition of prequel and they would all have a definition similar to that of Axem's, TNARH's, and mine. The arguments against calling it a prequel are simply overwhelming, regardless of one or two needle-in-a-haystack mistakes like the RPGamer review. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 22:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

ANN is situational, and if you can prove RPGamer made a mistake like a later review or a different review from another reliable source, than it's fine. though you're not getting the point. there are loose meanings, prequel CAN mean all Axem's, TNARH (though he contradicted himself a little) and yours but it doesn't matter. if there's another definition that isn't as strict as yours, it can fit in this situation.

Just because one of the definitions of the word is more common than the other it doesn't mean we ignore the other. especially if a reliable source supports it. though from whats going on, this is going more onto whether you want it to be called prequel more than whether it can or not.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

This argument seems really, really silly. I don't know anything about the games in question, but if the game was release first, it is by definition not a prequel. I really don't understand why there is an argument about this at all. --Torsodog^Talk 23:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Because a reliable source is calling one. and prequel doesn't strictly refer to it being "released" first. just that it was done by an earlier work.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Is the reliable source someone connected with the creation of the game and/or anime? If not, and they're the only ones claiming it is a prequel, that's really iffy right there. I would be ok if a majority of reviewers and journalists made that call, but only one is not a significant point. On the other hand, if it was the creator/developer/whatever, then its a reasonable statement to include ("Mr. G. Designer called this property a prequel of the other work") even if no other source confirms that. --MASEM (t) 23:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of sources calling it a prequel. but i'm looking for more sources at the moment. though i don't like the idea of common definition vs. reliable source.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

So one reliable source calls it a prequel? That isn't nearly enough to make this important enough to go against the definition of the term. Why is this so important anyways? Obviously calling it a prequel is controversial and a point of confusion. It seems like it isn't worth calling in a prequel on those grounds alone. --Torsodog^Talk 00:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

not exactly. not just one, and again Prequel doens't necesarily mean it has to be released first, only if it was done by an earlier work.Bread Ninja (talk) 00:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You didn't really answer my question. Why is this important enough to mention it and create confusion? Why won't you accept predecessor? --Torsodog^Talk 00:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

i did but Axem moved the conversation here after i proposed predecessor and the new age retro hippie said they both mean the smae thing, so it's more or less justifying prequel. but really, it can be called prequel easily, the meaning doesn't strictly mean it has to released first. but again, this is more leaning toward whether you want it or not, more than whether i can.Bread Ninja (talk) 00:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's another reliable source http://www.gamespot.com/pages/unions/read_article.php?topic_id=26227471&union_id=1147. Actually not so sure. it appears this one. Either way, alot of sources calling it a prequel if any of you bother to lookBread Ninja (talk) 00:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

...that's a GameSpot fan page that specifically says it took information from Wikipedia. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Just realized it before posting and i had to go somewhere. Ok but let's stay on the point here. I'm going to say prequel has a vague meaning and a strict meaning. .hack//roots falls in the vague meaning + 1 reliable sources and i know it doesn't help at all, but 15 other unreliable or undecided sources. the releases are only off by months, it's not so cut and dry as you may think. i would agree with this not being a prequel if it was at least one or two years time differences, but the times are so close for the development range to consider .hack//G.U. a full-fledged sequel. Plus .hack//Roots is in .hack//G.U..

But again, it all depends on you guys, not the meaning.Bread Ninja (talk) 05:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think "predecessor" works just fine as a term. As others have already stated, "prequel" implies that it was released after the first game. Honestly, I don't really think this is such a big issue... just use predecessor as Retro stated above. Nomader ^(Talk) 15:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

we don't follow implications. but it's more or less not even a predecessor now that Jinnai mentioned in the talk page.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Also i think it's more or less considered a prequel due to the .hack franchise mainly making the video games the main focus and the anime/manga/novels being just complimentary.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It's been a while since I've edited on Wikipedia so I was hoping someone could take a few days to remind me the basic structure of working on a GA so I can start a new project. Cheers. --Next-Genn-Gamer 13:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

How about Wikipedia:Good articles? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 13:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Lol sorry I had forgotten about the page. Sorry and cheers. --Next-Genn-Gamer 13:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

There are 3 notable Ken Levines on Wikipedia, I think making the Ken Levine page a disambiguation page would be helpful for navigation. 192.93.164.28 (talk) 12:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Filed a move request at Talk:Ken Levine (disambiguation). --Muchness (talk) 22:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

There are two box art covers (in seperate places) in the WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2011 article. Even though they are different, I wonder if it really is necessary for there to be two covers, and whether it meats fair-use guidelines.--The Taerkasten (talk) 13:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The PAL boxart can be removed because it isn't in the infobox and it's extremely similar to the North American box art. No need to have two in this article. Nomader ^(Talk) 15:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The project's sources list says "Should only be used for production credits; video game books have cited game credits from MobyGames."

In my opinion, a horrible move. MobyGames is completely unreliable for credits: They are all user-contributed, and while administered by the site's staff, they have so many horrible, horrible errors in there that this site should never ever be used. When they do not just happen to drop half of the staff or mislabel and remove task titles, their favorite error is mixing up acronyms for older games. Vampire Killer, for example: In the game's staff credits, all first names are shortened to the initial letter. For the music, "K. Yamashita" is credited, which is of course Kinuyo Yamashita. However, some not-so-clever soul felt this actually meant Kouki Yamashita, a director at Konami – and it was still sanctioned by the administrators, like many, many others.

A recent discussion re-enforced that references are only needed in the infobox for uncredited people/tasks (including unrecognizable pseudonyms) anyway. And for people credits in the article text, we can always use the staff credits of the game itself as a reference, which will always be reliable due to its primary nature.

So, my suggestion: Put MobyGames with all its erroneous credits lists to where it really belongs. Prime Blue (talk) 02:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I for one think MobyGames is a great source for game credits. Yes, it has errors, but it's incredibly accessible, unlike the game itself. Sure, the game itself can be used for credits, but how many people are going to go out and buy the game to check the credits? And who's to say the editor who added the credits from the game didn't make errors himself?

Yes, it has errors, like 99% of the websites on the Internet, including us. But the admins are quick to correct errors when they're pointed out to them. And, hey, they got all my credits right. : )

Part of the problem is that many developers have similar names (Keith Nelson and Keith Nelson; e.g. who's to say this Keith Nelson isn't the same as this other Keith Nelson? They're both credited for game programming). If they're two different people and it's pointed out to them, they'll fix it.

Errors happen, everywhere. It's a fact of life. But it's no reason to abandon a site completely, especially when many of their credits are accurate. MobyGames tries to be accurate, but the admins aren't omnipotent. I'll continue to use them as a source, even though a few of their entries are less than perfect. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I was pointed recently to Allgame as a more reliable source for game credits. I haven't had any issues with using that site, and in fact just from a usability standpoint it's much more reliable. It's not user contributed, either. I'd definitely say that MobyGames should not be used at all if the credits exist at Allgame. ---Teancum (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The same argument can be made for IMDb. Like MG, IMDb may be used as an external link on a case by case basis. However, they are listed as an unreliable source, even though user submissions are reviewed by the staff (according to the bottom of the IMDb pages). Vyeh (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Frecklefoot: There are much more accurate user-contributed and self-published sites out there that are not encouraged on Wikipedia – I don't see why MobyGames would be a special exception given their horrible track record. If it was just one or two mistakes here and there, I might be more forgiving: But they are more the rule than the exception, there are thousands of them. You can't rely on a single of their credits lists unless you check the actual staff credits of the game in question. Their whole contribution setup is also pretty lackluster, only daring users to make errors in their lists (another really nice one for Secret of Mana: according to MobyGames, Goro Ohashi was responsible for the "monster logistics" – yep, of course someone will have to take care of where those monsters are stored and shipped to...).

As to your second point: There is no need to get the game. For almost all of the bigger titles out there, YouTube videos of the staff credits exist. Then there are also great sites like the Game Staff List Association Japan whose objective it is to transcribe the staff lists exactly as they appear in the game. I'm not saying there are no errors on the latter site, or that we should use these as sources, just that the actual credits of a game are usually very easy to verify.

I do not object as much about giving MobyGames as an external link in some articles, as they do provide information beyond credits (such as packaging scans), but using it as a source: No. A no as plain as it gets. Prime Blue (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with cutting out any mention of MobyGames for any use beyond limited external links. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Each page in MobyGames contains a blog at the bottom and this not to be trusted at all. But above that is a review by an author who has no influence on the publisher, in other words it complies with Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources --Philcha (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That depends on who authored the review and if they are vetted by an editorial staff. If they reviews are user-submitted, they're just as unreliable as a blog. —Ost (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Even the images displayed are largely unusable because MobyGames watermarks their images with their logo. –MuZemike 21:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with removing MobyGames from References and External links. However, do note that the images are not totally useless; you can use http://www.tineye.com/ to retrieve the non-watermarked images, if they exist somewhere else on the web. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 23:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Use the images for what exactly? Uploading their images to Wikipedia would constitute a copyright violation. SharkD  Talk  21:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with using a source other than MobyGames for credits if one exists. But if there isn't any other source, their credits are better than nothing.

Each link to MobyGames in the External links section needs to be considered individually. Sometimes a link to it makes sense, sometimes it doesn't. I'm not in favor of outlawing links to MobyGames across the board. It has a lot of valuable content aside from credits.

I'm not in favor of using any of the user-contributed reviews. They are by random people off the Internet and are not reliable. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 23:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

A source will always exist in form of the actual game. If need be, the citation can also include the necessary staff credits in a quote. Prime Blue (talk) 12:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't remove it entirely as a reference: for several older titles, theirs is the only available aggregate score, and a good resource for more global reviews of a game.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Was already removed a while ago as aggregate source. See here and here. Prime Blue (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually no, it was not. All that was done was a ^{[clarification needed]} tage was added to it, basically as far as I can tell to determine what denotes and older game and when those aggregate scores would be viable.陣内_Jinnai 17:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

See the removal here. Prime Blue (talk) 14:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I will add that sometimes the game's credits can be vague as far as who did what. A good example of this is Super Punch-Out!!, where Charles Martinet is listed in the credits as "Special Thanks", where it was pointed out if he did the voices in the game or possibly something else. –MuZemike 17:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think MG is a good site for older or obscure games. Not sure exactly what is worth referencing though. I mainly use it (on a personal basis - i.e. not on Wikipedia) for stuff like screenshots and user reviews, as well as for its cross-linked database that makes navigation a whole lot easier. I look at its material more as being supplemental to Wikipedia than as being suitable as a reference. SharkD  Talk  21:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Got an interesting question: I'm going to go ahead and fix up Haunter's article to become a GAN, but to cite some of the merchandise my best bet would be to cite the commercials advertising the items in question. Is there a way to go about this?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Same as {{cite video}}? Anomie⚔ 21:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

This edit moved the article from The Saboteur (2009 video game) to The Saboteur, when there are three video games called The Saboteur and other articles that have saboteur in the title (Saboteur (disambiguation)). Am I missing something, or should the article have stayed at The Saboteur (2009 video game)? Geoff B (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

That issue aside, the page wasn't moved properly. It was done by cut-and-paste and redirect, not through the appropriate page move process that preserves article history. -- Sabre (talk) 22:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the c&p move and left a note on the user's page. Maybe best to convert The Saboteur to a disambiguation page or redirect to Saboteur (disambiguation). --Muchness (talk) 23:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located here.

All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Specifically, who or what? SharkD  Talk  22:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Who = Dalbster. What = C&P copyright material from IGN etc. - Follow the "here" link in Moonriddengirl's post for the full details. - X201 (talk) 08:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Can/should this article be reassessed? I think I've resolved most of the sourcing issues. SharkD  Talk  12:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone know of an article which highlights release quarters? There has not been a particular release date said for Mortal Kombat (2011 video game) so only "Q1/Q2 2011" is being put in the release area. However, Ips don't seem to understand that this is the same as putting "Spring 2011" or "March-May 2011" without the confusion of seasons in the northern and southern hemispheres. I just need to know if such an article exists to put these edits to rest. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

There's fiscal year. --Mika1h (talk) 22:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

That'll do. Thanks. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 15:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been noticing that a lot of Street Fighter character articles are underpar, especially in terms of reception. Not to toot my own horn, and in spite of the fact that a handful of reception I've found for Makoto has been weak, she still has more than almost every character. I'm sure there's gotta be a ton for Chun-Li; heck, I'd figure that she'd have the potential to be one of the strongest female video game character articles on Wikipedia, up there with Lara Croft and Samus Aran. We should totally fix 'em up! - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Continuing the discussion from here. The project's sources list currently says: "MobyRanks are aggregate scores from other publications, and are too new to have developed a user base of other reliable sources, however they may be acceptable for some older games.^{[clarification needed]}"

"Huh", indeed. At the moment, the MobyRanks are the only aspect that qualifies MobyGames as a situational source. However, I am not sure if these could be considered reliable. The MobyRank FAQ states "MobyRank requires a certain number of critic scores to be statistically accurate. There may not be enough critic score contributed for your favorite game. You may contribute rankings yourself and when enough are approved a MobyRank will be calculated.", confirming these to be user-contributed, albeit controlled by the site's staff. I can't tell if they have less mistakes in those than in the credits lists, but seeing some foreign reviews that might be a little hard to verify for the MobyGames administrators does not give me much hope.

In any case, we should either reword this to be more clear on when it is acceptable, or determine it as an unreliable source. Prime Blue (talk) 13:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

A couple of comments:

1. You're assuming MobyGames' staff are only able to speak English, but a quick look at the front page shows Swedish, German, Chinese and Japanese speaking users. It's not that hard to interpret numerical scores like 90/75/whatever, regardless.
2. MobyGames is not alone in taking user-submissions. GameStats does as well.
3. MobyGames only allows users to submit reviews from a pre-ordained list of sites. The list is pretty large, true.

That is all. SharkD  Talk 

Don't know, just got kind of a "if it's not spam, we'll accept it" vibe off of MobyGames with the credits thing. I don't have anything against using it if they have no errors in there and if we accept other user-contributed aggregate scores. But it needs to be reworded then, as people are completely left in the dark as to when it can be used at the moment. Prime Blue (talk) 22:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been using the Revision history statistics tool fairly regularly for curiosity reasons, and I've noticed sometimes it doesn't list major contributors, sometimes it doesn't list anyone (as per the link above). Where should issues like this be reported? --Teancum (talk) 15:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

See the runner at the bottom of the page: "This script is developed and maintained by Duesentrieb." –xeno^talk 15:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I created {{find video game sources}} so you can post a quick link to search results on Talk pages and so forth. Includes a link to Gwern's Google RS, a custom Google search engine. SharkD  Talk  22:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest making an optional parameter that allows a custom name to be used to locate sources? eg, we can manually strip off "(video game)" where used on such articles. --MASEM (t) 23:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean? See {{find sources}} for usage instructions, as the templates are otherwise the same. SharkD  Talk  23:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Ooop, its there. You may want to include a couple examples on the documentation (targeted at video games) to help out a bit. --MASEM (t) 23:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. SharkD  Talk  00:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

There is currently an IP edit warring against consensus established on the talk page, and protection of the template or a block for the IP would be helpful. Thanks. --Izno (talk) 23:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

There's a template I found relating to the Sherlock Holmes video games titled Template:Sherlock holmes series and was just wondering if it could be moved to Template:Sherlock Holmes video games. Just that the title it's in now is quite confusing and should be renamed to about the video games. Could anyone please do this move? --Victory93 (talk) 03:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. You may want to add the template to all the articles listed on it. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Did thanks. Didn't notice the arrow on the side which had move mainly cause still not used to the new look. --Victory93 (talk) 04:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

There is an image dispute taking place on this article, where one user wishes to include nine images, in spite of a severe lack of fair use rationales for any of them on this article. Could I please get a second opinion? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)