Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 80

Mistwalker is based in Honolulu [1] [2] and Hironobu Sakaguchi lives there too. [3] [4] However, Sakaguchi is Japanese. Does this make Mistwalker an American or a Japanese company? Note that the Mistwalker article claims that the company has a studio in "Japan", but I can't find any reliable source to confirm this. I can only find sources for the Honolulu studio. Thoughts? Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Neither. That is, I wouldn't bother giving it an explicit nationality. But then, I'm headache-averse. Nifboy (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Or both, a Japano-American (something tells me that's not the right terminology) company. Where's the company registered, Japan or the US? -- Sabre (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The US trademark for the business name was assigned by Mistwalker Co. Ltd. of Japan, to Sakaguchi.[5] The original (abandoned) trademark application was also filed by Mistwalker of Japan.[6] Ham Pastrami (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, so I guess it's clearly an American company now. It's kinda the reverse of Sega which was founded by Americans in Hawaii but is now a Japanese company. Nifboy, I think it's useful for completeness. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 12:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Um, no, getting a trademark doesn't transfer the country of origin. The trademark was granted to "Mistwalker of Japan", so that makes it a Japanese company that has the bulk of its operations in America. --PresN 16:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

PresN is correct about the trademark. Companies often get numerous types of trademarks in multiple countries, sometimes even ones they don't conduct any business in just in case.

I'm not certain, but I want to say that the country where the headquarters is located determines the country of origin. I recall a number of American companies have moved their headquarters to other countries to take advantage of more corporate friendly and less strict laws. But then again, that may only apply to US definitions and not other governments. Anyway, maybe this can point someone more competent or tenacious in the right direction. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC))

Sakaguchi lives in Honolulu where Mistwalker has an office. I guess we need to find if Mistwalker still has an office in Japan. The website for Japanese trademarks doesn't disclose addresses :( Google Maps gives one hit for Mistwalker, in Honolulu. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 11:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The address of Mistwalker Japan is provided in the original trademark filing linked above. At this point the burden of evidence is on the argument that they no longer have that office. Ham Pastrami (talk) 11:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I just did o_O [7] [8] Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you asserting that a failed search on Google Maps is proof that Mistwalker has no Japanese office? Does this mean Nintendo is an American company too?[9] If you don't have any sources that plainly state that the Japanese office was closed/moved, then the office still exists as far as the record is concerned. One of Sakaguchi's blog entries seems to confirm this -- note the first and last lines: I'm staying in Japan. I have a big meeting for the new project today ... I should go to the office. Work is waiting for me.[10] Ham Pastrami (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I just took a look at the two trademark pages Ham Pastrami posted earlier. Both list the country of incorporation as Japan. It looks like the US government recognizes the company as a Japanese one. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC))

I changed the article to reflect this. Thanks! Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 11:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

THere's much contreversy going on regarding the retail release and the "hacked" release of this game. Someone from an IP in Italy has been making edits to the UbiSoft games in question, deleting the sourced references to the game being successfully cracked and placing information that is contrary to this. Just a heads up.--Txredcoat (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion information about a game being cracked or not or when or by who is totally irrelevant in Wikipedia. It's not really encyclopedic information. Over 99.9% of video games get cracked by hacker groups anyway. NeoGenPT (talk) 06:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. In fact, it's probably MORE relevant if a game DOESN'T get cracked (and it's reported at RSes). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 07:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Until a reliable source indicates that the game has indeed been cracked it's not encyclopedic information. Of course, this is a bigger deal than normal pirate releases due to the copy protection uproar, so it could be placed under "reception".--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The reaction here is a bit head-in-the-sand. The game is clearly noteworthy as a centerpiece of ongoing controversy over DRM. Not only have sources talked about it,[11][12] Ubisoft themselves have released statements[13] attempting to deny the crack's effectiveness (and in so doing, they have provided confirmation of its existence which voids any counterclaim about it being a rumor). This amount of coverage doesn't happen for your average crack. The discussion itself has already garnered coverage and is probably the single most notable thing about this game yet, irrespective of the crack's efficacy (the attempt itself being notable), and it's one of the few topics in games that relate to real-world context. So saying that it's not encyclopedic information just seems disingenuous and I'd have to wholeheartedly disagree. It's one of the most encyclopedic topics we can have in a game article. Ham Pastrami (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Just following up on an archived discussion that went nowhere. Any thoughts on edit notices for some of our other project pages, similar to the one used for this talk page. The ones I had in mind are:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Requests

  "This page is frequently backlogged. To assist editors in fulfilling your request, please include web sources. If you are unsure what sources to use, the Video games Project has a page of reliable sources frequently used by project members."

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources

  "This page reflects the consensus of the Video games Project. Please refrain from making changes that drastically alter the meaning of the guideline. If you would like to make such a change, please start a discussion either on this guideline's talkpage or the project's main talk page. Minor grammatical and spelling fixes are allowed without discussion and encouraged."

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines

  "This page reflects the consensus of the Video games Project. Please refrain from making changes that drastically alter the meaning of the guideline. If you would like to make such a change, please start a discussion either on this guideline's talkpage or the project's main talk page. Minor grammatical and spelling fixes are allowed without discussion and encouraged."

Good idea? Pointless idea? Comments would be appreciated. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC))

I think it's a good idea.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. --PresN 16:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I would remove the "and encouraged" from the end of the notice, it's superfluous. Of course it's encouraged, it's Wikipedia! Otherwise, I agree.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 12:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC))

I didn't see anyone listed as having it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library/Electronic Gaming Monthly, so I'm asking here. When searching for information on the SNES US release date in publications from 1991 (since there is a strong suspicion that the August 13 date quoted on various websites is inaccurate), I found mention in an old forum post that EGM's November 1991 issue gives an in-store date of August 23, 1991, on page 162. Can anyone with access to this issue verify? And if you feel like dropping me a {{cite magazine}} with the appropriate information, that would be appreciated too. Anomie⚔ 18:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

A Nobody (talk · contribs) usually has EGM issues hanging around, he might be of help. -- Sabre (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can get access to full issues of EGM through my university, but only from 1993 to the present. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Scapler, do you have the April 1993 issue where it tells you how to unlock Nimbus Terrafaux in Mortal Kombat? Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello! I have all of the EGMs from June 2007 through January 2009, i.e. the last two years or so worth. Unfortunately, I do not have any from the early 90s. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't have that issue, so this may not help much. On page 62 of the August 1991 issue, it stated that the system would be in the US in September 1991. Of course, this may have changed after it was printed.

Here's the citation if you decide to use it.

{{cite journal| journal = Electronic Gaming Monthly| title = Super NES Video Game Buyer's Guide| publisher = Ziff Davis| page = 62| month = August| year = 1991| issue = 25}}

(Guyinblack25 ^talk 00:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC))

Just as heads up, MSGJ has proposed expanding the infobox's name to the full Infobox video game, which I don't have a problem with, but I thought should be known. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

MSGJ also moved {{vgratings}} to {{Infobox VG/ratings}}, on the basis that it is only used for that, so it should be a subtemplate, but I'm not sure if I agree with that. If the template was called internally, it would make sense, but it's not. This already causes thousands of redirects, and the number will continue to increase unless we start typing {{Infobox VG/ratings}}, which is long as it is, but will become even longer if the above proposal is accepted. And if having a subpage is the consensus, it would also make sense to move {{vgrelease}}. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to comment on Template talk:Infobox VG to keep discussion in one place, and suggest others do as well. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The article about FreeSpace 2 states that online multiplayer is available through PXO; it was possible to play on PXO, now with the new open source version of the game, multiplayer is only available online through FS2Net. My question is: should the article be left as is and considered to be an article about the original game or should it be changed to also include what the game is like with the open-source version? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GameSlayerGS (talk • contribs) 20:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The answer is neither, it should state that it *was* playable through PXO and is now only playable through FS2Net. If you can, try to source it as well.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

hi I've been wondering if anyone can help me on the .hack series articles. The one i really want to work on is making .hack//G.U. into .hack//G.U vol.1 Rebirth. the article is way too big, and it's easier just to fork out vol.2 and vol.3 into different articles. Bread Ninja (talk) 15:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

From what it looks like, a split is entirely unnecessary. Most of the article is simply an unreferenced character list and would be better off removed since it violates WP:GAMECRUFT - especially when it comes to the "minor characters" section and cast list.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The entire article is unreferenced. Every article about the franchise is unreferenced. So your not proving much of a point. Still, your not looking at it the way i am. Forking out information so that the article could appear more stable and allow more edits to be done would be beneficial.

i can't see how 3 notably different games could be in one article.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Through m:Mergism. See Holden Commodore for a Good Article (WP:GA) that is a result of merged parts. Merging helps prevent needless redundancy/duplication/repetition. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I fear i am not bing taken seriously. You simply cannot compare a series of games to a series of cars. it's like comparing a series of books to a series of toys. The game's plot, gamplay, new characters, and features differ significantly from eachother. just because they are related does not mean they all have to fall in the same article. Look at Assassins Creed or Final Fantasy. At least remove vol.2 and 3 until vol.1 is made properly, then make a vol.2 and 3 article when more sources are found... and this article is no way near GA status, keeping vol.2 and vol.3 isn't helping it get closer to GA status, Plus the article holds one to no sources at all. Removing such content would not be completely out of line as you think it is when you tried to use m:Mergism. Bread Ninja (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The idea behind merging content doesn't ever have to be a permanent solution. It's often simply to collate related information in one place, until there is sufficient quantity to warrant splitting. I used the Holden as an example simply because I'm familiar with that article being a good merge result. (I don't think I've ever edited any .hack article).

In the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Using_Wiki's you mentioned deleting .hack wiki links, but you didn't give any example links (to our articles, or to the external-wiki in question), so I was looking around and trying to determine which you were talking about (out of http://dothack.wikia.com and http://dothack.neoseeker.com which I found via google). I don't have time to look into this further though. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

And some games simply work better as a group. If three games can only really make a great article when combined, why not combine? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

CD-i games from The Legend of Zelda series is a good example of 3 games that work well as a single article. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Quiddity, please focus on the subject. EL is not sources. but still, like I've said before. Something like that could work much more sufficiently if the article had sources. this article holds none. it could simply be assumed as OR and remove it.

New Age Retro Hippie the problem is that, the article is not doing well at all. you cant compare a feature article or a GA article to a Stub just because you believe the same concept applies. If that were true, then the Project .hack games such as .hack//Infection.hack//Mutation .hack//Outbreak .hack//Quarantine considering they reffered to volumes as well. Magata Sanshiro that article actually could be forked out into three. there's sufficient amount of info to do so. Sorry if I'm not seeing the point.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Bread Ninja, I think many are suggesting keeping the article as one because of the lack of sources. Splitting and merging topics is not solely decided by how they fit together, but also by notability and third-party sources. I believe that once sources are found, a real decision can be made. Until then, we're all just theorizing.

The games were released in the US and are only a few years old. I'm sure gaming sites covered it to an extent. I suggest working on the article in its current state to build the separate games. Another avenue is to create subpages in your userspace to draft the separate articles. If the separate games have enough sourced content, then splitting the article would certainly be warranted. Until then, the lack of sources is a compelling argument against splitting. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC))

Very well, this idea is much more satisfying.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, just flagging this article up for a little attention in case this helps with consensus building. There has been an edit war over whether to include a cited quote that the game's storyline may involve Nixon's Government. Initially it was removed for being uncited, but since being cited it has been removed as indiscriminate information.

The talk page discussion can be found here: Talk:Metal_Gear_Solid:_Peace_Walker#Nixon_reference

The source can be found here: [14]

Thanks in advance, --Taelus (talk) 16:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

As one of the concerned editors, it seems Whitmore 8621 is using WP:IGNORE in justifying his edit and he doesn't want to give up, and telling me to stop it as he has done several times in the talk page, his edit summaries (either his or an IP sock), and even on my talk page three times have sent him skidding over one of WP's no-flyzones. Blanking his own talk page doesn't help, either. He has continued his unilateral behavior despite a warning from Taelus. It's seems editing the article and protecting it against any edits (even mine) has become an obsession with him, and further questions his mental capacity as a Wikipedia editor. --Eaglestorm (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe that adding information to video game pages regarding what voice track(s) are included on the game by region of release would be useful to readers. Probably the region of initial release (if non-English speaking) and English-speaking regions would be included, like with release dates.

Some examples (being in NA, I am unsure of voice options on the EU versions of these games):

• Xenosaga: Japanese (JP), English (NA)
• Atelier Iris: Eternal Mana: Japanese (JP), Japanese and English (NA)
• Muramasa: The Demon Blade: Japanese (JP, NA)

Currently, some articles contain at least part of this information, though where it is located is not standardized (Jak II mentions voice tracks in the lead section, Atelier Iris 3 under Voice Talents, and Star Ocean: The Last Hope in the lead section and under International Version and Reception).

It would also be helpful to indicate if games are unvoiced, although guidelines would likely need to be worked out regarding whether this information is obvious. For example, I think most readers would probably assume the original Legend of Zelda was unvoiced. However, until recently, I was under the mistaken impression that Shin Megami Tensei III: Nocturne was voiced, like the other Megami Tensei games on PS2; adding a specific mention that the game is unvoiced would clear this up.

I am unsure where in the article this information would best be placed should other editors agree that its inclusion would be useful; the infobox is already fairly long and some games could have quite a few entries (I think one of the Jak and Daxter games had five or six options in the North America release). Sharac (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... I have to disagree. Unless it was brought up as an important difference in a review, it really shouldn't matter if different languages are included in different regions, so long as the experience is the same. I feel that this kind of information could just be added into a gameplay line; "Video game has no voice acting", or "Video game features an English cast of voice actors, although a Japanese version is available in-game". The dates of releases of these different voice tracks should also correspond with the releases of the different versions, so I feel it would be kind of redundant to list both. Either way, I don't think it's a very major problem as long as it gets mentions in articles where necessary. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 09:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Nomader. I think the layman would assume that a game released in a specific region would use a language prevalent to it. Adding anything outside that would require a source to demonstrate some notability. Like a reviewer expressing happiness for the inclusion of a Japanese language track in a North American release or vice versa.

I also think that voice acting is typically not integral to understanding the topic. Again, if that aspect receives coverage, then it should be added in. But I don't think it should be a default in video game articles. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC))

Nomader, I agree that a line in the Gameplay section would be sufficient to cover this in cases of no voice acting or multiple audio tracks; since most games from other regions are released in NA with English voices only (I think), but still a large minority are released with dual audio, and even a few have no English dub, I think that mentioning this only in cases where the game is not English-only in English-speaking regions would be fine. Most games have a Characters section that mentions the voice actors, but no indication of whether the original voice actors for a game made in a non-English-speaking region are present in English-region versions of the game; the layman would likely then either assume that all languages of voice actors in the game are present, or that only the English-language voice actors are present, either of which is a false assumption for many games. Also, due to a lack of standardization in Characters sections, if only one language of voice actors has been listed (perhaps due to an editor only being familiar with one language's cast, although knowing that others do exist), the layman may be given the false impression that this is the only voice track that exists; a single line in the Gameplay section could easily clear up such misconceptions, while not being so long or intrusive that it distracts the reader should they be less interested.

Also, regarding the dates of release, I did not mean that release dates for the voice tracks should be included; rather, I was saying that I thought it would be useful to include information about voice tracks in English-speaking regions and the region of initial release, the way that release dates are included for these regions. However, I agree that a simple line in the Gameplay section in cases that are not English-only would be more useful and less intrusive.

Regarding notability, I think that considering the popularity of voice actors (see Voice acting in Japan), and that both that page and Dubbing have sections regarding video games, a single line indicating that a game has multiple audio tracks or is unvoiced, whether a reviewer happened to mention it or not, would not be too much. -- Sharac (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Cauldron (video game)'s GAN is currently on hold pending a copy edit. Could I trouble someone for a copy edit? The article is rather short. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC))

If anyone would like to contribute: Talk:First-person shooter#Planetside not oldest FPS. bridies (talk) 04:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there anyone here who wants to take a crack at rewriting this? I don't even think it's salvageable. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

it's just a list article. sources can found easily. just use the same source the other articles have. the real article i think should be AFD is chronology of PlayStation 2 games and list of playstation2 games with HD.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I never said deleted. I said rewritten. The article is one of the worst, messiest lists of video games I've seen on Wikipedia. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I would if I had time. I think we should come up with a certain format that every List of [platform] games follows. I find that it doesn't make sense for each page to have a different format. What fields should be included, and in what format should they be presented? Also, should non-English games be included, and should there be dates for non-English releases? Should it follow the same rules as the infobox, where non-English dates are only presented if they were first? And should the games be divided by letter, or grouped as one large, sortable table? Just some questions that we should throw around, but I think a uniform method would be good. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

you said you don't think the article is salvageable. hint, hint. AS for format i think it's fine to just make it alphabetical order, and remove the flag icons. Other than, it's fine. it's not the worst thing, messiest list on Wikipedia compared to the other 2 i mentioned. Bread Ninja (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: also remove small comments like "greatest hits" and "box editions" Also we don't need a separate row for the same game with just different label like i said before with the whole greatest hits thing. Bread Ninja (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

1. To MrKIA11, I feel that we should do: all games, regardless of region; alternate English title; regions released in; and developer/publisher. I think that separating by letter would be ideal, too.
2. Well, yes, I said that. But I also said that I didn't propose deletion. Your hints come off as "watch as I shove words into your mouth to make my statement right as rain". Am I to understand that an unsalvageable article cannot be completely rewritten?
3. I'm not comparing this list to obscure lists that shouldn't exist. The PS2's releases are slowing, so this is the perfect opportunity to fix the article up. The article is in disarray; similar to the DS list, I have no idea how complete it is. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

for #2. your taking it personally. i know you didnt propose deletion, but your basically saying it could get deleted. All i said was the ones i think deserved deletion were those two articles. So I'll just say this....be civil.

for #3, i know "you" aren't, but i was. Anyways, we could make this list all about which ones released in English. It would be easier to handle.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_PlayStation_2_games&diff=347758847&oldid=347758674

^^ here's a link to show you what i think is a good idea to fix the article and reorganize it. tell em what you think.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

For #2., I'm making an appropriate reaction to someone who is summing up my response in a way that I've specifically stated is incorrect. I'll say this: Stick to facts instead of "hinting what the intent of my post is".

I've never approved of removing Japan-only releases. Games like Osu! Tatakae! Ouendan and Mother 3 are definitely more notable than many English releases. It's more important to reduce how much unnecessary information that could be found in the respective game's article, only sticking to the most base, important facts like I listed above. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Uhm......no you didn't, your assuming that i assumed what you meant. just because i bring up a topic, it doesnt exactly mean it's going against yours. i knew what you meant, i just defended it a little more in case someone wanted to delete it. and no, reasonable responce, doesnt equal correct response in Wikipedia.

and no, notable article doesnt mean we cant remove it from the list. I'm just saying we can make it exclusive to english. look at List of manga.

It's not much of an assumption when you said "the real article i think should be AFD is chronology of PlayStation 2 games and list of playstation2 games with HD." Who mentioned deletion? The statement you made suggests that I proposed that the list of PS2 games be deleted. Nothing wrong for responding to a statement that clearly made implications. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

you see, i said "I think" not "you said". please hold yourself from assuming.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is a possible setup that we can use as a working copy. I spent a lot of time on List of PSP games, which I personally think is a good setup, although now I think the last 3 columns shouldn't be included. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

My two cents - we should not remove non-English releases. Just because we are the English Wikipedia does not mean we should give preference to English games; it nearly runs afoul of WP:NPOV. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope we can truly reach a consensus for these lists. As everyone else says, they are in horrible condition. Whatever format is decided, I suggest we turn it into a template to standardize the look and make input easier. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC))

You misunderstand. I'm not saying jsut because we are editing the english wikipedia, that means we remove all that isn't english. i'm saying we should move the article to list of playstation 2 games that have released englsih because we are running out of space. Also, it would be great to remove some fromt he lsit that dont have an article.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I like the setup you presented MrKIA11 except for the alternate title and alternate publisher. i think the alternate title is unnecesary and more than one publishercan go in the same box.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The second option is one large, sortable table. Each entry only has 1 developer and publisher. I think the alternate title is necessary to avoid edit wars over EU vs NA vs AUS titles, with the primary title matching that of the game's article. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

There are better things that we can do besides creating an incomplete list. The list of manga is the way it is for two reasons: one, there are way too many mangas to create a proper list, and two, because we'd have to have a "man in Japan" to actually do the research to make a complete list. We have the information on import video games at the reach of our fingertips. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I also like the style that MrKIA11 has shown, prefering the first option that splits the list down alphabetically. This way would be much easier to split down into smaller chunks when the list becomes too large to sustain on one page. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm a fan of sortable tables, which can have anchors for the start of letters, but I understand your point of lists being split. I still think sortable has greater benefits though. Also, should only the first release date/developer/publisher be listed? Or does someone have a genius idea as to how we can relate them across columns? I've never tried having rowspan cells in a sortable table, but that might be an option if it's possible. I think we should decide on one of the 2 options first, as that will effect some later decisions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not possible unfortunately. MediaWiki's table sorting is rather basic and doesn't split rowspans when sorting.

I will point to how we do the Rock Band DLC lists. You can have smaller lists ("List of PS2 Games (A-J)", etc.) when then can be transcluded into a single large list for those that want to fully compare with sorting options. --MASEM (t) 23:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think List of PS2 games is big enough for that yet, but are the separate pages sortable tables also? Or just the compilation page? MrKIA11 (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. --MASEM (t) 00:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Playing with that concept, why not just have the separate pages as subpages? That way, readers will only go the main list. So for the list of PS2 games (assuming there was consensus that it was too big), the main page would stay the same, but the data would be move to List of PS2 games/A-M and List of PS2 games/N-Z, and they would both be transluded as is in the complete list of Rock Band DLC. Unlike the DLC lists, where someone might want to actually see only a single year, I can't imagine why someone would only want to see half of the PS2 games. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is a comparison for the pros and cons of each:

Please add your thoughts to it. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

How about this setup? I don't think we need to list the regions in a list article. Further information would always be on there own respected article. The only thing we put is if there ever was an English release.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Adding my two cents. I've never been a fan of sortable tables. I think it's limits our ability to optimize lists and has mainly been used for comparison shopping. Dividing lists into sections, whether they be alphabetical or something else, makes content easier to digest IMO.

I see the point to the "English release" column, but I think it over simplifies it, mainly in favor of making the column easily sortable. Listing the separate regions seems fine to me, and readers can drawn whatever conclusions they want from it, like an English release. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC))

to be honest, i think it's trivial to list the regions it came out, as long as there is an english release, it should be ok. simply to leave it as yes or no. but listing regions seems to be something you can just look up in the main article.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Elaborating on why I think it oversimplifies things, I think English release can refer to either an English language release (like an English language is available regardless of region) or a release in an English speaking region. I believe a release in an English speaking region is the spirit of the column. I may be splitting hairs here, so I'll certainly defer to what others say on this matter.

However, the you comment made about finding the regions in the game's article makes me question whether such information should be removed entirely. One of the reasons these list have become so cumbersome is because there's so much information in them. Maybe further trimming is order. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC))

your over thinking about it. region is not necessary to list in the article. I intended the englsih release to be both English release with no specific Region. As for the second part, that is basically what i believe. these regions seem more better suited in there own respected article rather than having it on a list.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I question whether we need anything other than Title, Developer, Publisher, and Original release. Basically, I suggest we examine turning the list more into a navigational list rather than an informational one. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC))

that's basically what most list are meant to be. an informational list would be too long.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

We have some informational lists like List of StarCraft media, List of Space Invaders video games, and List of Kirby media. I think we may have been trying to emulate those too much in the past. The problem has always been that most platform lists are too long to provide meaningful information for every entry. The more I think about it, the more I'm in favor of removing the region column or anything like it all together. Let's see what others think. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC))

The difference between those lists and the list we are talking about is that those list you used as examples are about specific media.

Something like list of ps2 games in general is different than a list of kirby media or starcraft media.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Which is probably why previous attempts to standardize the platform lists have been so difficult. We followed the wrong model. Minimal columns sounds like the best format to me. But let's see what others have to say. Two people isn't enough for consensus on something like this. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC))

I would definitely support a sortable, but simple graph-- I think something along the lines of what Bread Ninja made above would work great. To be frank, I've always felt that WP:FLC supports sortable lists when possible. I think it's just fine for our game lists to be in chronological order as they are now, but sortability is a necessity for console lists. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 23:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I am under the impression that MegaDriver may fail the notability criteria under WP:MUSIC. The band has played for Video Games Live and claims to be "the first video game metal band", but this lacks any independent coverage. Your thoughts? Shawnc (talk) 03:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The article claims that they appeared in the media and on television. If you can find those references it would be notable.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Any objections to this? He is the fourth-most popular video game character in Japan, and articles such as this by 1UP have named him one of video gaming's greatest characters, and the character does have enough appearances outsite of the main Metal Gear series to argue iconic status further. If the public is putting them on the same level as Pikachu, Mario, Master Chief and Lara Croft (all of which are high), should we not too?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree Besides sources, his importance has extended to being a third party character in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. Not that that takes precedence over your source, it just seems obvious. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 15:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to bump up articles to high or top without more research. The reception content present in the article is not very compelling. I'm sure there's more content out there, but I'd feel more comfortable seeing and evaluating it before agreeing to a bump. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC))

Yeah there's a lot more, it's just not been cited yet (Case in point, this bit from Famitsu). And at Subzerosmokerain, that's actually the second crossover game he was in, first being DreamMix TV World Fighters.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Guyinblack-- to give an idea why, I'd compare Solid Snake to Mario, Sonic, and Master Chief, the latter three which are all rated as high-priority. Mario is considered the face of Nintendo and more recognizable than Mickey Mouse today; he's mentioned in mainstream publications often. Sonic is the face of Sega and is famous for its competition against Mario back in the day, and he's commonly mentioned in mainstream publications. There was an article about Halo and the importance of Master Chief as a character in TIME. I love the Metal Gear games as much as anyone, but I think it's important to reserve high priority for characters that are gaming icons, not just important characters; one could argue that Snake is a gaming icon, but I think he's too much on the cusp to bump up. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 23:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This is an off topic remark but just to say that Mario cannot be more recognizable than Mickey Mouse. Mario is a 28 year old character mainly known by the video games in which it features, while Mickey Mouse is 82 years old, and has a much broader audience than just video game players. It appears in video games, movies, tv shows, advertisements, cartoons, books, comics, etc... And now returning to topic... carry on fellows. NeoGenPT (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I misspoke-- Mario was more recognizable than Mickey Mouse to children during the 1990s. It's cited in a book in our Mario article. Believe me, I love Mickey Mouse as much as the next guy-- I would never trash Mickey's reputation without a citation. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 08:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

since jinnai told me to bring it up here and in WT:VG, i brought up yet another .hack article proposal.

Basically what i am proposing is to split the list of .hack characters into two articles, List of Project .hack characters and .hack conglomerate characters. you can see the discussion here.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Because this also heavily involves anime, it this is also being brought up at WT:Anime.陣内_Jinnai 17:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Quick question. Would Tokyo Mew Mew be part of this project? It has a Video game section in it and there's no articles about the video games. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally, no. There really isn't much information for the video games, even if there are two games (one RPG and one puzzle game) they really wouldn't even deserve a stub. However, characters like the Mortal Kombat series characters and Lara Croft are part of the Wikiproject Film, so logic would consitute, yes. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 01:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This particular IP address user 70.68.123.129 seems to be consistently setting video game article dates back in time for some reason. I spotted it on Super Mario RPG and reverted, but his list of edits seems to be growing. Can anyone stop him and sweep his edits with a bot maybe? NeoGenPT (talk) 07:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I warned the IP about it personally. Ping me if the IP continues. –MuZemike 08:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I sweeped the edits list and still found a few of his/hers edits that had not been detected and reverted them. Also, a new edit appeared today which I already reverted. Seems this fellow didn't get your message. NeoGenPT (talk) 06:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

There was a batch of updates done by this IP address again, which resulted in its blocking. I think all have been reverted except for The Legend of Zelda (video game) and Super Mario Sunshine, both have other edits on top already. Can an admin revert them to the last good version? NeoGenPT (talk) 06:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I took the liberty of creating that stub, since there was no summary of the series like there is for the other FF series. I basically just summarized the release history and gave a very short description of the series. If someone could give it the infobox treatment, and made sure I didn't say anything stupid, that would be nice. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I performed the merge of Book:Final Fantasy and Book:Final Fantasy series. I took some liberties in the naming of articles (otherwise it looked pretty ugly), and I tried to keep the "in game" chronological order of things. I also decided to slash the developers and games engines from the books, and articles about gameplay, character designs, and spinoffs.

Anyway, I'm pretty happy with the result, but I'm also not used to contributing to VP:VG, and I'm far from being a FF expert. So feel free to change stuff as needed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

What's the situation with using sections of animation (specifically animated gifs) in video game articles? User:NeoGenPT has added a few to older video game articles; are animations considered necessary or even allowed under the NFCC, with regard to general video game articles? More specifically, with regard to Desert Strike: Return to the Gulf, since I removed that one. It would be nice if someone more clued up on the non-free content criteria could clarify. The only other place I can remember seeing an animated gif is platform game which lost its GA status due to among other things violating the non free content policy. bridies (talk) 12:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Limited use of animation can be useful to illustrate hard to describe gameplay elements. I think the way animation is used on Door Door is very effective. - hahnchen 20:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

That is a cool animation. By the way, Bridies pointed me out that I might not have my rationales in order, can someone point me to a couple of images with well created rationales that I can study as example? NeoGenPT (talk) 06:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

In the case of Desert Strike, one could argue something like "scrolling movement is fundamental to the game and is difficult to describe in words and impossible to show in a single screen shot. Thus the reader may require an animation to fully understand the scrolling mechanic and thus the essentials of the game." That would go under the "purpose of use" section: you should provide an explicit justification of why the non-free content needs to be in the article and in the case of gifs why it needs to be an animation. You also need to provide details of the resolution and why it can be considered "low". If you're taking shots straight from the game you might need to reduce the resolution using some kind of program. Again I'm sure someone better informed can clarify that one. bridies (talk) 07:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Expanding on the Desert Strike animation, I think bridies is on the right track about the scrolling animation. The camera rotation is described in detail in the "Development" section, but I don't think it's that easy to visualize from words alone ("camera travels on an elliptic curve... [with] momentum"). Others may or may not disagree. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 12:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC))

Playing Devil's advocate for a little, one could argue that almost every video game screenshot could (and should) be deleted because they do not show anything that could not easily be described in prose. And I would even extend the point to video game covers, which are put in place for the sake of identification, but doesn't the name, publisher, date of release and the rest of the info provides that? So where do we draw the line exactly? NeoGenPT (talk) 04:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the consensus is that video game settings, mechanics, graphics etc are not "easily" described in prose. But in any case, that is what the rationale is for: a case-by-case argument that the screenshot is needed because whatever it shows cannot be adequately described in prose. With regards to animations, there are far fewer of them on Wikipedia and as such there isn't the same consensus behind them. I think that it's harder to justify the need for an animation over a screenshot, particularly in the case of graphically simpler games (as 16-bit era games like Desert Strike tended to be). Nevertheless, I do think an argument can be made for including the animation in the Desert Strike article as I wrote above. bridies (talk) 14:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as one of those chaps tearing down other people's image choices at FAC... it really just depends. In film articles I or other editors have successfully defended the use of <30 second video clips (Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, Star Trek: First Contact, American Beauty). The difference is that video game reviewers often take for granted certain elements that we could use for illustration; in many cases there's not the threshold of critical commentary that we need.

On another side, it should be fairly easy to defend the use of a few frames, given that there are millions, billions, an almost infinite combination of frames for a video game depending on player actions. Thus taking one or two or ten or twenty frames is not a significant chunk. Basically whether its a GIF or a video you just need the rationale to be very strong. I believe Giants: Citizen Kabuto does a good job of a compelling rationale for an animation. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm.. that means that for all purposes and intents, the larger part of the decision to keep or delete derives from the rationale and not the picture itself, or its quality, or its contents. So, instead of doing destructive work like removing or marking pics for deletion, why doesn't the community work (constructively) on improving the rationales? I ask this because it is noticeable that there's a larger number of people more focused on just eliminating pictures due to policies a,b,c, than on trying to keep them and/or improve their rationales. NeoGenPT (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily, if the picture/animation/whatever is not justifiable then one wouldn't be able to provide a rationale. The "quality" (i.e. resolution) of the image is also important (see above) and I don't see how a third editor is supposed to provide that part of the rationale if they don't know the source or resolution of the image. That at least requires a bit of technical know-how that the average member of the community may not have; certainly I don't know how to do it. And yes, cleaning things up just requires time and inclination I don't often have. bridies (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Like many things on Wikipedia, there's simply more work than the volunteers here can handle. As bridies points out, not everyone can do everything. We have a task force for images, but again, it's a large work load for a small group of editors.

Expanding on what bridies said above, keeping images on Wikipedia is dependent on the content of the image and the rationale explaining why that content is important.

• Not all images are equal in their encyclopedic value. I suggest everyone reading this to check out Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-09-22/Dispatches if you haven't already, specifically the section about "Minimization". This gives a good explanation about how to evaluate images for inclusion (in others and your own articles).
• The rationale should be related to segments of an article's text. If an aspect of the game is mentioned in the "Development" and "Reception" sections, then you'll more than likely want to include a picture to aid in comprehension. If the image depicts content not even mentioned, then the rationale will be weak and may require the image's deletion.

(Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC))

A few of these images are useful, however animations for the title screen and the like are not. If an animation genuinely helps a player understand gameplay in a way that words have a difficult time describing, I very much welcome it. But I don't think we should animate for the sake of animating. NeoGenPT's additions to some of the articles are helpful. I actually understood 100% of the gameplay in Bouncing Babies due to the image, which I don't know that prose could have described accurately. Prince of Persia (1989 video game) also has a very useful animation, though it's rather long. The middle "room" in the animation is plenty to show gameplay, and the animation in general helps to clarify the then-complex animations and gameplay. In general I like the idea of adding animations, but only in the way of demonstrating unique gameplay. I'd prefer NeoGenPT uses his talents for the games that could really use an animation, as I'm sure there's quite a few. --Teancum (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I see your point of view, and I did create a couple of animated title screens, which I will revert back to single screenshots again soon. The idea came from World of Spectrum where they have animations for the ZX Spectrum's flashing title screens. On another topic, one thing I didn't know is that one could say in the rationale for an animation that the "portion" used is an x number of frames, I see that working with movies because they have a specific length, but videogames have no fixed number of frames, they're virtually infinite. So to be accurate the rationale would have to say that the animation is using x frames from infinite? NeoGenPT (talk) 13:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

For screenshots, I normally say: "A single screenshot of the game, a small portion of the commercial product." I'm sure something similar would work for an animation: "[X] frames of animation, a small portion of the commercial product." Decent fair use rationales rarely come under malicious scrutiny. And if they do, we can normally give further explanation to expand and strengthened the rationale. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC))

As long as you're providing a license and decent fair use rationale, you probably don't have to worry about anything else; your rationales will only come under serious scrutiny at WP:FAC. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Are Template:Vgrationale and Template:Video game cover fur good templates to work with when dealing with video game images? I actually just found out about these two templates and they seem simpler to use than trying to create my own text explaining the purpose of the image and why it wont affect the copyright holders and etc. Does the text produced by these templates holds up against scrutiny? NeoGenPT (talk) 08:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't dealt much with them, but I'd say the game cover template is fairly strong. I've read a few complaints against them saying that they are too generalized to be adequate FURs, but I think that was at an FAC. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC))

Based on my experience I don't think the "purpose" options for the screenshot template would pass GA either; I think I have used templates in the past and had to expand them at GAN. Also they would be less useful for animations because there's no option for that under the "type" or "portion" parameters. bridies (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I made this animation a while ago, and it passed FAC. File:SupCom ZoomAnimation.gif. User:Krator (t c) 12:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Considering the $10 bounty expires soon, I think that some people need to pitch in and finally improve the game's article to FA. It only needs a few more plot and gameplay citations to make GA, and it should be easy to reach FA considering how large it is already. The problem is, I can't find the game's script to cite anywhere.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I started work on it... then stopped again. I've been really lazy about this. I'll try and pitch in this week, but since my spring break is turning out to be less-than-restful, I'm not sure how much I'll be able to do. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It's really about time to get it over with once and for all. I'm surprised it didn't reach FA after all this time. Speaking of sound samples, I don't get why the ones in the article were removed. I thought they were informative and were mentioned in the article.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Free time is rather sparse, but I can try dig up more print sources if needed. I recall stumbling upon a number of articles while researching for Miss Croft. Not sure how much it'll really add though. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC))

I'm just concerned about using so much of what is there. I think it should probably be significantly rewritten in portions, not to mention it lacks a real reception and development section (as to the sound samples, I removed them as I was unable to find reliable sources supporting the contentions made with them.) Either way, this should probably happen on the article talk page. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been trying to find time to work on this, although I was looking at the more modest GA-by-August on the Reward board. I'm looking at working on the reception section, which as David points out is short on substance despite the tables and numbers. bridies (talk) 10:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't know how, but User:MrStalker pushed the bounty expiration date to June 13th, 2010. GamerPro64 (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess that means there's no excuse for me not to work on it now :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

For real. I think this is something a small group of use should seriously attempt. As long as we manage our time properly, this can be done in time. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC))

• I'll dig through my print sources for previews, interviews, etc. Email me if you're interested in what I find. I'll also copy edit as best I can. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC))
  • I'm not sure what will turn up for previews, but LexisNexis and Proquest are bound to turn up some good mainstream dead-tree newspaper reviews. I'll try to get those and integrate them this week or next at the latest. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll look around the internet as much as I can. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

"Beyond Good and Evil" has a fair number of false positives, from what I can tell; damn Nietzche! :3 --Izno (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

What!? GamerPro64 (talk) 20:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

He means search engine's are turning up a lot of material not related to the actual game (i.e. Nietzche's work of the same name).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

And then you have to deal with some (but very few) search results of the second Xenosaga game... I'll also throw my two cents into Beyond Good and Evil. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Including the publisher or year published in search terms should help. Gary King (talk) 05:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reason why PlayStation 3, a featured article, has a {{cleanup}} tag on it? –MuZemike 20:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I untagged it. From what I can gather from trawling the page history around the date the tag was added, the user was concerned with the clutter on the page caused by images. No information was provided on the talk page to clarify the exact concerns, and since the date of tagging general clean-up has been done to the article anyway. I would say it's fine, any minor issues can be taken to the talk page without needing a clean-up tag on the page, as it has no issues which leap out at me, and is indeed as pointed out FA class. --Taelus (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, following up on the discussion about the animations, I wanted to ask the community what are the general guidelines in what regards to adding sound samples to video game articles. I have produced a few short sound clips for some video games, usually the theme tunes that are recognizable by those who have played the games. So, like the animations are provided to show specific hard to describe elements of the video game, what are sound samples supposed to show? And what are the optimal sound quality settings (bitrate, stereo/mono, etc) that should be considered as for it not become a "high res" sound sample? I only know that the sound samples should be no longer than 30 seconds and in OGG format, so if anyone can shed some light on the subject, it would be much appreciated. NeoGenPT (talk) 07:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

They follow the same principles as any other non-free content. Wikipedia:Music samples gives a more focused guideline.

Generally, keep these things in mind:

• It can't be there just for show. Like an image, the audio sample should be discussed in the article.
• The more unique or different it is, the more likely the audio will need a sample to aid the description in the article.
• Sample length should be 10 percent of the piece, with a max of 30 seconds.
  • So the sample for Kingdom Hearts' Dearly Beloved is 7 seconds because the piece is 1:13. 1:13 = 73 seconds. 73 ×.10 ≈ 7.
  • Kingdom Hearts II's Passion passion, on the other hand, a only 30 second clip because its length, 5:59, is over 5 minutes.
    • To clarify, 30 seconds is 10 percent of 5 minutes (5:00 = 300 seconds. 300 × .10 = 30). Anything over five minutes in length can only have a 30 second sample.
• The sample should have a low bit rate around 64kbps. I think I did 60kbps for the KH samples above. So long as its well below CD quality, there shouldn't be fair use issues.

Hope that helps. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC))

• CD-quality is, in a general approach, 1411 KBps, 16 bits per sample, 44.1K samples. MP3s and most modern lossy codecs (that stuff you buy off iTunes) is 8 bits per sample, low complexity, between 128KBps and 320KBps. As Guy mentions, 64KBps-96KBps is a good target (it's generally internet radio standards.) However, unlike most areas, finding a defensible rationale for sound samples for games is rather hard. I included one in Halo 3 Original Soundtrack, but there there's specific discussion about portions of the music, instruments used, and some reception to same. Putting it in main articles is generally harder. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Geez... I am shocked! That really throws me off what I thought I could do... 10% of the track really? That 7 seconds sound sample shows me nothing but 5 or 6 piano notes, if I was reviewing the article that has that sound sample I would argue that it's so short that it's useless and might as well be removed. Even amazon and other online shops provide 30 seconds previews of tracks and I'm sure they are not violating any copyrights. Thinking back how the old 8bit video games had like 20 to 30 seconds long intro tunes that just looped over and over, I guess I could only produce samples 2 to 3 seconds long? And that is if there are sources talking about the game music itself, or any specific properties other than just saying that it was good or bad. I guess that means no game before the 32bit generation consoles will ever have sound samples in the articles, apart from maybe a couple of special cases. That is shockingly sad... NeoGenPT (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's Wikipedia. Free doesn't come easy when you're writing about topics that are inherently non-free. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC))

Wait... that means that if I was to produce a sound sample for a free game, then I would not be bound by any of these limitations? I could simply put in the whole track(s) at high quality? If no, then why not? NeoGenPT (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Bear in mind that free doesn't necessarily mean not copyrighted though. -- Sabre (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

True, that was a glitch there, I was thinking of "free" in the broadest sense, and that can be deceiving. So for non-copyrighted games (if any exist?) there are no boundaries? NeoGenPT (talk) 19:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's what free-as-in-public-domain means. See e.g. File:Wesnothmusic.ogg on Commons, a full track from the GPL'd The Battle for Wesnoth. Nifboy (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

it really depends if the music sample is important to the article. the sample must be notably important in the article. I rarely see any music samples anymore thoughBread Ninja (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, for all the articles I've written that are explicitly about video game music, I've only ever added samples to 2 - Music of the Katamari Damacy series and Music of the EarthBound series. It's just hard to justify them in most cases, as few interviews/reviews really get down to the level of detail on a specific song that you need. --PresN 19:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

What they said. Per WP:NOTREPOSITORY, media must be relevant to a topic to be on Wikipedia, typically by way of being described in the article to some extent. The enforcement of this was lax before, but has steadily increased the past few years. I'm sure the tightening of that drove away a lot of editors. But since this is Wikipedia's playground, we have to play by their rules. :-| (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC))

Three more examples that I could justify sound samples: GLaDOS, LocoRoco and Infamous (video game), given that the sound aspects were discussed in sources. But, for example, I couldn't justify any in Okami, BioShock, or other FA titles simply due to lack of info on sound. --MASEM (t) 03:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought a sample would have been beneficial and justifiable in ToeJam & Earl. bridies (talk) 15:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you guys are aware that the GDC has just taken place in San Francisco, along with the Game Developers Choice Awards and Independent Games Festival.

The official GDC flickrstream is entirely free use - available under a Creative Commons Attribution license. This is a treasure trove of photography which can be put to good use on Wikimedia projects. It contains photographs of many notable, and some not so notable luminaries from the video games industry. Here's Will Wright[15], Sid Meier[16], Cactus[17] and Yoshio Sakamoto[18]. There are many others, as well as photos from the show floors and award ceremonies.

I don't have the time to do it myself, but we should copy across as many useful images as possible onto Wikimedia Commons. If someone wants to make a start, I suggest using commons:User:Flickr upload bot. - hahnchen 20:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been picking out a few images that might be of use to the articles within my influence, make sure you place any images you upload in this category so we don't get any repeated files. Shame they never went near the LucasArts or Telltale Games alumini... -- Sabre (talk) 20:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Missed all the good Bungie talks too, 'cept for Marty. Oh well, some nice images to supplement, at least. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I am in the process of trying to create specialized notability guide lines for video games. Since there currently is no guidelines in place it is ambiguous (especially in the case of independent games) what constitutes notability. I implore your help in deciding the specifics as to was will of will not be used to judge a video game's notability. Thank you.--Marcus Brute (talk) 06:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

What are you, specifically, proposing to add to the existing standard of "multiple non-trivial mentions in reliable sources"? Is there any recent example that should be notable, but isn't under the existing standard? If the answer to the first question is "I don't know yet", the answer to the second is "I can't think of any", then I believe this discussion is unnecessary. User:Krator (t c) 12:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Trust me, this is a bad idea. Whatever is not already covered by WP:N likely falls into WP:WEB. --MASEM (t) 12:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to echo the two above and say that this isn't really necessary... --Izno (talk) 12:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Same, I don't see a need for this. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Really, all games are notable, because they get reception from sites like IGN and GameSpot. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It's safe to say that any licensed game is pretty much notable. Keep in mind that there is a common sense element regarding remakes/multicarts/games who received little or no coverage in that some merges are possible. –MuZemike 16:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with sentiments echoed above. A SNG for video games is unneeded instruction creep. If there's enough reception to make a decent-sized section about the game, then by all means go for it, but I'm not sure what exceptions to the general rule we need. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you guys already forgotten about the problem of free software's notability? NeoGenPT (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I hate to be negative about that, but I think the problem with free software's notability is that it's just not notable. That's not Wikipedia's fault. The encyclopedia has to draw a line of inclusion somewhere. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC))

Agree. Other guidelines already cover most of what we do. However, I think it should be pointed out that we'll reach a point one day (who knows when though) when we need to stop giving every licensed game the benefit of the doubt. Until then though, what we've been doing should suffice. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC))

Guys, guys... just go back to the top and re-read every reply posted after Marcus request... has there been anyone here who reached out and said "Ok, lets think about this for a second, what specifically could we change?". No one reached out at all, and instead everyone instantly said it was a bad idea without even thinking twice. If he was saying that he wanted to commit suicide I would agree with all your replies, but he just asked for some input. I know that people that have embraced a specific set of rules and methods are always opposed to changes, but lets give it a chance to at least see what he wants to propose and maybe who knows if it will not be actually better than what we have currently? If in the end it is not better, then just archive it and it's done with. What have you got to lose? NeoGenPT (talk) 18:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a moot point. If the people behind VG don't get behind a proposal for an SNG on video games, then there's no reason to continue working on it. It's unlikely to generate anything which isn't, as already mentioned, already covered by WEB or N.... --Izno (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree it looks like we're ganging up against him. And I hope this doesn't discourage him or others from posting ideas here.

However, I know I gave it some thought, and I'm sure others did as well. The only benefit I see is presenting parts of several guidelines together in one place. The general notability guideline has served us well and any supplement that was needed we've addressed in our project guidelines: proper sources to use, things to avoid, etc.

While I concede that it might benefit us, I think it perpetuates the idea that video games are different from any other topic on Wikipedia. While we can argue semantics about how each topic differs, they all still have to comply with Wikipedia's rules. And to be honest, I believe I started writing better articles once I approached video games as a run-of-mill topic. Each article should describe the topic and its history (development and reception in our case), and establish notability while complying with the manual of style.

I think a better approach would be to revise or expand our project guidelines to address any unanswered questions about notability. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC))

There are about 2-3 items that could be used for: indie games, non-English games, spinoff/sequals/expansions/remakes, and serious games.

The first two and last are likely to have harder time meeting the GNG on a quick glance by native English readers of what make up a majority of Wikipedia. Use of major awards is a good way for the first two and widespread use in industry or teaching in academics for the latter. the second grouping would be a way to be more restrictive, especially the bolded one. Remakes of books, even compilations, generally don't get new articles and so remakes of games should generally not. Obviously exceptions exist, but this is for the general rule.

If it doesn't do that then it's not worth it.陣内_Jinnai 20:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Y'know, I had been thinking about the possibility of a video game specific notability guideline, but I can't remember now what I thought could have been expanded on. I do think that somewhere (perhaps just in the guidelines) we should emphasise that games fall under the WP:PRODUCT notability guideline - many articles that end up at AfD could be handled with a merge or redirect instead. Marasmusine (talk) 10:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

As with articles, WildBot also goes through books and creates problem reports on their talk page (with details on the cause and effects of these problems, and what to do to fix them). There are currently 4 videogames-related book that needs cleanup. If you click on "problems" and don't see something like this, then the problems have been taken care of.

• Book:PlayStation 3 (problems)
• Book:Pokémon (problems)
• Book:Sinclair ZX Spectrum (problems)
• Book:Video game (problems)

If someone could take a look at them, that would be great. If you have any questions, just ask. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Had a look and fixed the issues that the bot came up with per what I thought was rational. Others welcome to tell me that my choices sucked! :] --Izno (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

i wont be on as much as i want to be for this week. so i wanted to ask help for 1up and IGN reviews for the games the .hack games please.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

nevermind about IGN, i already added in there score. but 1up still needs work and i'm leaving in a few minutes...so if anyone can help it would be great.

the games are .hack//Infection, .hack//Mutation, .hack//Outbreak, and .hack//G.U.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Can someone with a AWB or some other automated tool update the headers on our archives. Everything before Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 79 uses {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}}. The newest ones, 79 and 80, use {{aan}}. The switch would provide extra navigation through the archives. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC))

  Done Actually, the first 34 used {{atnhead}}, and 70-73 used {{talkarchive}}. Anomie⚔ 23:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Awesome. Appreciate it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC))

Probably a little early to annonce this, but Iridion 3D will be March 29's TFA. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Just wondering, does anyone care to help me improve the article? I don't know what's wrong, but once I know I can fix it.Abce2 (talk) 01:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, the gameplay section should be written in Inverted pyramid style, not as a list of gameplay features. Start with the absolute most general things about the game (first/third person perspective, basic character actions and objectives), and work your way towards more specific stuff like SPECIAL and VATS. That's the one big issue I see. Nifboy (talk) 02:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll get to that as soon as I can, which may be tomorrow.Abce2 (talk) 03:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I spent a lot of time cleaning all of the references in this article up and wikifying where I could, but the one-a-day IP edits that mess things up got annoying. I would recommend requesting page protection with the rationale that you cannot get the article to Good Article Status unless the page is protected. Also, be warned that some users may fight you over major changes. I'll try to watch for anything I can do on the side. Hopefully things go well. This article is so close to Good Article status. --Teancum (talk) 18:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I've noticed that the website Translated Memories is being used as a source on a few Silent Hill articles, especially in Silent Hill 2. The problem is that it is an unofficial fansite. Does this make it unreliable? Kaguya-chan (talk) 14:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't cite the site itself, but cite the book that's translated on the site instead. (the book is a reliable source, the fansite is not).--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you! Kaguya-chan (talk) 14:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Cite the book, but provide a link to the translation for accessibility, especially if it's what's being relied upon. Nifboy (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll be shortly trying to expand a couple of TurboGrafx-16 game articles, and I was wondering which type of image is better to use – what is actually on the boxart (e.g. File:BlazingLazersBoxArt.jpg) or the cover on the manual itself (e.g. File:Bonkadventure.jpg) which clips the border that is normally displayed on many (not all) boxarts of the earlier TG-16 games. Thoughts? –MuZemike 20:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say the boxart, since that is probably the most identifiable thing to most readers, which is the fair use rationale allowing them to begin with—that the user can tell that they have reached an article on the desired subject. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree- box art is the standard to use, and I see little reason to deviate from that in this case. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC))

a box cover is usually good for games in general instead of game consoles. unless the iamge is about a game specifically, then yes, a boxart would be good. but game console in generally usually use the actual game console.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a category that is being considered for deletion, but I think it's an notable category that needs to be preserved. More and more games are going to use this form of DRM, and it's important to categorize games based on that. Please go to this page and make a statement about it. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 13:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This site is apparently dead, as it now directs to a talent agency. This screws up a lot of articles on my watchlist, and so others should start looking at archiving or replacing these old cites. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The latest archive of the site that the Internet Archive has is August 22, 2008; I've found that most of their articles prior to that can be pulled up. --PresN 20:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Any easy way to get a bot to find what articles are using it as a reference so we can hopeful web-citation them ? --MASEM (t) 20:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems there aren't that many: about 150 or so. Dancter (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey there. :) Does anyone have any sources they could add to Dungeons & Dragons: Tower of Doom? It's been needing them for a while, it seems. Thanks! BOZ (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Dude that's a tough one. I think Jappalang may have the Retro Gamer issues about SSI, which covered some D&D games. I've got a backlog of things to do, but I can do a search of it when I look for I, Robot sources for GamerPro64. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 01:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC))

Hmm, didn't even realize it was SSI since it was so different than their computer games. :) BOZ (talk) 03:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a Capcom scrolling beat em up, not SSI. I'm pretty sure Retro Gamer have done an article on it, but I don't think I have that issue. - hahnchen 10:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I have the RetroGamer issue which has a 'making of' feature for both the D&D beat 'em ups, it's @ 6 pages long. I've got another source somewhere, I think it's in the retro section of an issue of GamesTM (RG's sister magazine). I hope to use them in the fullness of time but have been meaning to for months, so no promises.. Sources definitely exist, however. Someoneanother 15:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Cool - anything you can add, whenever you can add it, would be kickass. :) BOZ (talk) 23:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the SSI logo on the infobox image and figured it might be mentioned there. I think Retro Gamer did another article about it, either a "Classic Game" or "Retro Revival" feature. My memory is fuzzy. Allgame reviewed it also.[19] (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC))

Hadouken I don't believe is notable should it be nominated for deletion? Dwanyewest (talk) 04:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Redirecting it to Street Fighter would be a better option I think. bridies (talk) 04:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I would definitely endorse a merge to Street Fighter - without the unreferenced "In Popular Culture" section, of course...--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Update: I have merged the article; I included the free image rather than the screenshot for fair use reasons.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that this is even notable enough as a section. I would recommend a simple redirect. It's doubtful any reliable sources could be found on this. --Teancum (talk) 11:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

If Hadouken is not notable, and Hadouken! is, then it should redirect to the band, and not the parent game. You'd have to sort out incoming links though. - hahnchen 21:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The move is notable, but... it definitely does not deserve its own article. Maybe we should put it under the first SF game, since that's where it first appeared (like Test Your Might in the first Mortal Kombat). When I say that, remove the trivia section and only say things like what it does and who does the move. Bare minimum. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what the precedent is on this, but the series article seems most appropriate here. Technically, the move was probably popularized and most commonly associated with SF2? Gary King (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I just think that the series article is bad enough without extra stuff cluttering it. But I mean, I haven't contributed to any good or featured articles... so it's really at the veteran editor's mercy since no policy or guideline says anything on this besides WP:N, and even then, its about the creation of articles not the content of them. Basically my two cents, it is most appropriate to put it in the game it started in. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The move is used throughout the series, so it only makes sense to include it in the series article. However, it might be merged into a section in the article itself titled "Common gameplay elements". And, related to the series article, the table should probably be split off into Table of Street Fighter characters or simply moved to the List of Street Fighter characters (which I'm not sure should be called "list of" because of the wikilinks or simply "characters of").--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Well for Mortal Kombat the table was removed altogther but that's besides the point. Yeah, I could live with someone putting it under a "Common gameplay elements" section. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 02:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I invite you to come participate in a peer review of Portal:Speculative fiction. You can see (and participate in) the discussion here. Thank you for your time. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the Nintendo 3DS is going to be an unusual device to classify. It's a successor to, and therefore independent from, the Nintendo DS/DSi line, so I'm not sure how this is going to fit in the handheld section of the History of video game consoles (seventh generation) page. Even then, this is apparently an eighth generation device (and the first, at that). Such a page doesn't exist and is in fact salted. I'm just curious as to whether we can shoehorn this in as a seventh generation console, or in fact make a start on an eighth gen page? Handhelds seem to be consistently be ahead of consoles within the scope of these somewhat arbitrarily defined generations. --.:Alex:. 16:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone defined "8th generation" yet, and classified the 3DS as within it? It's ok to have the 3DS page, but until it is properly classified, there's not much more you can do with it right now. --MASEM (t) 19:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Generations mean a new type of system, so the 3DS would fit that category. It's not a model of Nintendo DS but a different console.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily true. The generation bit is only flipped until industry experts assert that point. Given that historically this term is based on the home console and not the portable one, it is speculative to presume that the 3DS is going to be an 8th generation console. We need to wait and see if that term is used to describe the 3DS. --MASEM (t) 22:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, there doesn't appear to be any real precedence for this. The DS is considered the first entry into the seventh generation, and the announcement of this system generally fits the cycle of handheld generations. Even though the big three companies have said that their current home consoles will last several years longer than past consoles, some such as Microsoft are calling projects like Natal "the birth of the next generation of home entertainment", I'm beginning to wonder if we're going to see some form of overlap with the next gen? Just wondering, is all. There also seems to be some disagreement on the article as to what it should actually be classified as. Should it be seventh gen, or omitted for now? --.:Alex:. 22:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

As is it one day old news, and a year from release, it doesn't have to be classified as anything yet. --MASEM (t) 23:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Masem. We strive to chronicle video game history here, not write or report on it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 01:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC))

List it as seventh generation for now. If any good sources say that it is 8th Gen, then I guess you can classify it as that. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 00:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Why? This is not how it has worked in the past. Everyone realizes that the numerical "Nth generation" designations came from Wikipedia, right? Why are we waiting for reliable sources, when the sources that use the terms rely on us? Check the archives. This was always original research. At best, it was based on an obscure numbering system (which would be undue weight, anyway), synthesizing a framework based on interpreting statements about "next-gen" platforms in comparison to existing ones. I still strongly disagree with it, but this is currently the unchallenged consensus. Dancter (talk) 02:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

While we may have popularized numbered generations, it never should have happened. To be honest, I think we're lucky the video game media went along with it. Otherwise, we'd probably have to rename our articles.

That being said, the industry shouldn't rely on us to do anything other than chronicle what happens because adding our two cents is not what Wikipedia is about. Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:OR, we should remain neutral on the matter until the industry makes a determination. My guess for why they haven't yet is because they don't know much more than we do.

There's no hurry for the information here. That's what sites like IGN, and Edge are for. (Guyinblack25 ^talk)

Specifically I was wondering where I could find someone with great writing skills who would be willing to rewrite Command & Conquer 4: Tiberian Twilight which is a mix of gameplay and outdated sections with little structure and frankly looks like a mess at some points. Unfortunately, I lack the necessary skills to do it myself (even if I would love to), so I wonder whether someone else might be willing to accomplish this task and where to ask if not here. Regards SoWhy 13:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I LOL'd after reading the first paragraph of the gameplay section, it's written like a review. It needs some attention, all right.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Before I send these to CFD for a formal discussion I thought I should check in here and see if anyone has an explanation for why these exist? Or if this has been discussed before.

• Category:Video game sequels
• Category:Video game prequels

To me these categories are basically saying "list every game that was part of a series but not the first". I would think that this is redundant with Category:Video game franchises. Ham Pastrami (talk) 07:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Video game sequels may be redundant, but prequels are less common and are of more interest. We have a Category:Prequel films category. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

But when you add "spiritual sequels" to the list, that encompasses pretty much every video game series. Overcategorization, perhaps?--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Then we simply define the category better so as to not have spiritual sequels; the prequels list now seems to not have that many articles in it. 18:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently Iridion 3D is today's featured article. Like always, nobody tells me about these things :\ Since it's a relatively obscure article, any extra eyes are appreciated. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yo, I mentioned it being on TFA a while ago. GamerPro64 (talk) 00:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

That's what you get for announcing it way earlier :\ I don't pay attention! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

When discussing features of a game belonging to a genre, must the article being cited also specifically mention the game being part of the genre in order to warrant inclusion? This question is being raised here. SharkD  Talk  14:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

No. (for sub-genres and more obscure classification) If the reference clearly identifies the features that belong to that sub-genre. —  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  15:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like original research to me. I haven't got time to read the RTT page right now, but generally I would say yes. Certainly to include a game in a genre article you must surely have at least one source saying the game belongs to that genre, or was otherwise influential upon it. bridies (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Once one source is found placing a game in the relevant genre other sources could be used which don't necessarily do so. But then one would have to be wary of WP:SYNTHESIS. bridies (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

To mention game in genre article as an example of that genre, Yes.

To mention game having elements of particular genre/sub-genre/gameplay, No. The source only needs to identify the game having these elements. —  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  16:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but I don't see why you would bother to comment upon a game in a genre article unless there was some statement to be made about its importance or influence. I don't see how just describing gameplay elements would be worthy of a mention. Again I suppose it's too vague to make a blanket decision on and consensus would have to be reached over individual statements/sources. bridies (talk) 05:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that answered most of my issues. But I have another question:

If a game is cited more often as (super-)genre A than sub-genre B, does that mean that the game should no longer be called B in the article? SharkD  Talk  07:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I posted some more questions here. SharkD  Talk  07:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Is the template to be removed from articles that are 1) merged into another article and redirected, or 2) information relating to video games moved to another article and leaving non-video game information?

And second question: if the template is removed, will it impact any lists or stuff that is automatically updating? Should anything else be updated besides removing the template?

I browsed through project pages and searched the archive a bit but did not manage to find a clear answer. —  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  21:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

For stuff that is merged, it might make some sense to leave it there but change the class to redirect. For articles that no longer have any VG-related information whatsoever, just remove it. It won't break anything. –xeno^talk 21:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I go through and remove assessment banners from redirects on a semi-regular basis via WP:AWB (if you put in redirect-class it goes into Category:NA-Class video game articles instead). Articles that are no longer about video games should also have their banners removed. Nifboy (talk) 01:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I just took a look at these two pages—Universe of Kingdom Hearts and List of worlds in the Kingdom Hearts series—and can't help but feel they are redundant. The use the same sources, the out-of-universe is very similar, and I would even go as far to call the list of worlds page a replica of what the universe article use to be. I'm quite certain the list should be the one to go, but I'm not sure what policies apply in this odd case. Redirect? Merge? Deletion? Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC))

The list of worlds is an expansion of what the Universe is. Although it seems like the Creation and Reception sections are similar, the other sections are different. I think a redirect would be fine. The Universe article sums up the worlds nicely, and has no need for expansion. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

wasn't it originally part of the universe of kingdom hearts article and then splitted? But the basic idea is the same. it could trimmed then merged. it's not a bad idea, but it would be difficult to enforce it.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The worlds listed in the universe article was condensed to smaller sections 2–3 paragraphs long during its GAR, which was in August 2009. But the list of worlds article was created from a redirect in November 2009. That's the odd part, it's kind of like a split, but not really.

Either way, the content is basically game guide material, that's why it was condensed in the universe article. The fact that the list popped up a month after the content was trimmed and has been frequently edited makes me think deletion should be considered. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC))

It has potential, why not just try to fix it up first?Bread Ninja (talk) 16:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Because of two reasons:

1. The out-of-universe content is redundant to the content in the universe article.
2. The remaining content is essentially game guide material.

(Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC))

what do we do about reception?. i don't think all of the left over information is game guide material. Bread Ninja (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

All of the creation and reception was stole from the Universe article just so it could stay and not be AfD'ed. There really is no need for the article. The Universe article says everything that needs to be said. In-universe info is just fluff. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 17:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It just came to me. Wikipedia:Content forking was the guideline I was thinking of. I would call this an example of unintentional content forking, which is discouraged and makes content unmanageable. The pages can't stay separate. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC))

Bump- Any thoughts about deletion, or is redirecting enough? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC))

Strong kill it with fire. The "List of worlds" article was split with no discussion (as far as I saw) at some unknown point and it's been a blight on the Kingdom Hearts topic ever since. It's completely unnecessary ever since we helped turn the original "list of worlds" article into "Universe of". It has to go. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion it makes sense to merge the following articles:

• Game artist → Video game art (both short) Not enough related material for merge.
•  Y Level designer → Level design (already proposed for merge since Nov 2009)
•  Y Game tester → Game testing (both short)
• Game programmer → Game programming (although long, contain paraphrased sections) This shouldn't be merged.

•  Y Game designer → Game design
•  Y Created Game art design

(Previous discussion. Note that articles have not substantially changed since then.)

Upon looking more closely, the article pairs in essence cover the same information. I believe 4 good articles are better than 8 mediocre articles, especially for these intervening topics. I know editors invested time to separate these into two articles. However, they are High importance, yet still remain below C. I believe consolidating the information will improve editor ability to increase quality. I would volunteer to merge and clean these up if the community thinks it's beneficial. —  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  19:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The only two that might be able to stand separate are the programming ones. Agree that the rest should be merged.

If you can improve the articles, then by all means please do. The project members here are stretched rather thin, so our higher level articles tend to fall by the waist side.

I suggest though that you seek some reliable sourcing for the articles to strengthen your argument for merging. I've found that tends to fend off article fans that disagree with such actions. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC))

I've voiced support for merging these articles and other similar ones before, so here I am again to agree with any merger. bridies (talk) 13:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree. There's relatively little info for these industry articles anyhow, and there's no reason not to cover the occupation with its paired subject. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I have now merged the Level designer → Level design and by large copy-edited it. Content-wise, the level designer article contributed only 3-4 paragraphs. I believe this merge is constructive until the "level designer" section grows enough to warrant its own article. —  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  17:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I have also merged Game tester → Game testing. Game tester after copy-edit had two and a half useful section, the remaining information belonged in the game testing in the first place as it did not deal with profession but the field in general. —  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  15:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, I merged Game designer → Game design due to low relevant content about profession itself. Most of information was moved to Game design or Game development instead, where it was more relevant. The remaining stub belonging to tabletop games was unsourced and confusing. I made game designer into redirect for now, but this might be opposed, especially by tabletop project. —  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  21:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I have created Game art design article and filled it with development relevant information. It is sourced, so notability or OR should not be a problem. I did not touch/merge Game artist and Video game art articles, because they talk about general game artist profession and about art from video games (like machinima) respectively.

I did not call the article "Game art development"; it seemed more appropriate to call it "design", as art is an artistic process. ← I recognise that statement was just my original research point of view—so suggestions are welcome. —  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  15:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd certainly call your edits a step in the right direction. Thanks for giving these high-importance articles some much needed attention. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC))

Is anyone up for a challenge, and/or looking for something to do? :) How about seeing what you can do for G.I. Joe: Cobra Strike - that article could use some love! BOZ (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Bueller? :) BOZ (talk) 12:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Heres a review from allgame [20]. Salavat (talk) 12:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks - someone added that to the article. :) BOZ (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• List of Forza Motorsport cars
• List of Forza Motorsport courses
• List of Gran Turismo courses

Somebody worked really really hard on these lists but I thought we had consensus against this type of list because of WP:NOT#IINFO. I seem to recall that the previous examples were to the effect of "List of vehicles in X" and "List of weapons in X". Is this the same case? Axem Titanium (talk) 02:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little more lenient when it comes to a series article, as a car/course list boils down to a character list, a la Super Smash Bros. (series)#Characters or Punch-Out!!#Characters. Gran Turismo and Forza are the premiere racing titles for their respective platforms, so there's a teeny bit more notability for these particular articles. I'm not saying it should be removed or kept, it's just that we should consider this the equivalent to a character list article, similar to List of characters in the Soul series. --Teancum (talk) 04:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm extremely wary of comparing cars to characters. In reference to Smash Bros characters, I could maybe see a merge into the series article for the cars, but the courses are literally the exact same case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of multiplayer maps in Halo 2. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the main difference between the maps on halo and the courses and cars is that they are real, compare it maybe to a list of wrestlers featured in one of the many wrestling games. Salavat (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

We've been trying to cut down on those too. I don't think we need such lists: wrestlers, cars, or anything similar in video games. I always ask myself three questions when I determine my threshold for such content.

1. Does it help give context to the layman?
2. Does it provide too much detail that only a player would care for?
3. Are there sources to back up the content and establish notability?

Really, the only reliable third-party sources I saw in the above three lists were these two:[21][22].

The prudent thing to do would be to tag the pages with either {{Notability}} or {{Refimprove}} and start a thread on the talk pages. If there's no response or improvement, then AfD would be the reasonable next step. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC))

Agreed -- tag the articles. If no improvements are made within a reasonable amount of time then put it up for AfD. It's interesting that you mention that the cars would be okay, but the courses not so much, as I feel the other way around. Courses can be easily maintained, whereas a car list would list several hundred vehicles over the course of the series. (Gran Turismo 4 had 500+ cars alone). I feel that if we were to keep these articles that a precedent should be set based on parent notability. Both Forza and GT are highly notable games in the racing genre, but a list of ... oh say ... courses and cars for Viper Racing would not hold up because the original game isn't of very high notability. I know that because a parent is notable doesn't mean a child is, however they end up being directly related to the series article and are split for reasons related to WP:SIZE. Even though I'm aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF, it feels sortof nitpicky when we keep lists like List of songs in Guitar Hero World Tour. I'm not complaining. I find those lists useful, and they follow WP:FIVEPILLARS -- "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers."

I'd say one thing all of these articles are lacking is prose. Prose would be a good place to establish the notability of the list itself, and would make it more than an arguably indiscriminate list. --Teancum (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

On the list of GH/RB songs, there is a well-documented correlation between songs being releases for those games and subsequent boosts in music sales of those songs - eg there's a real world effect of being in the video game - that it, it now becomes of interest for non-gamers to be able to follow this. For cars and tracks and most anything else you could list out from the gameplay side of a video game, I don't see a similar connection occurring. --MASEM (t) 18:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about i thought everyone went out and bought an Audi R8 after seeing it on Forza :). Salavat (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

These seem like a good candidate for a transwiki to a Wikia or gaming wiki. Despite the effort, this is the wrong place - the author should have submitted it to Gamefaqs or something. Not the other editors' problem if they didn't figure out the policy first.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

RE: Masem - I suppose the difference is that there's something tangible with GH/RB songs - however the correlation there is easy because songs don't cost 40,000 USD a pop. --Teancum (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Zxcv and others—a game is notable, its recreations are by a general rule not. They should of course be mentioned in the article, but unless there's some atypical coverage, I don't think it matters much. In the interest of preserving info, transwiki is most likely the best option. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

We, as a project, are too afraid of lists. We're so afraid of being tarred with the brush of triviality and cruft, that we will omit encyclopedic information. Why do we have featured track lists for Guitar Hero II, track lists in In Rainbows, yet spurn track lists in other video game articles? The lists in those examples, aren't arbitrarily strung into some second rate prose, but they stand alone, because they are a succinct, yet comprehensive way of describing the subject.

There is a difference between List of Quake levels and List of Forza Motorsport courses. The former lacks any real world context, and is just a vessel for the fictional narrative and gameplay, which if adequately described, will describe the levels to a suitable extent anyway. The latter, is a simulation video game, featuring real world tracks, mapped in meticulous 3D detail. Unlike Quake, where the levels are a vessel, in Forza, they are the game.

I've come across this before, in discussing Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games. I argued, that as an officially licensed Olympics video game, it should actually include what events are represented. It still doesn't, I got apathetic, but I think it makes for an uncomprehensive article.

I understand there is a line between WP:NOTDIR and being comprehensive, but I think editors in the video game space have been on the wrong side of that line, dismissing every list as if it were List of Ratchet and Clank 3 weapons. I also understand there are size constraints, but if the guys at WP:ALBUM can list every track proudly on 69 Love Songs, then so can we. - hahnchen 02:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You're using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to justify the inclusion of these lists. Half the courses in the list are fictional, and not notable enough for inclusion. If the "meticulous mapping" of the real life courses is notable, it would simply justify a section in the article, not a game guide. In the same vein, you could argue that every single game deserves a "car list", a "track list", or a "gun list" (the guns are from real life, aren't they?)--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You need to actually address the argument I'm making, because the other things that exist in my example, are featured articles. Are you suggesting, as per OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that they are irrelevant and should be taken to AFD? I've alluded to our knee jerk dismissal of lists with the red link to the List of Ratchet and Clank 3 weapons, and you've done exactly that. The specific gun itself is not intergal to the experience, it doesn't matter whether you're using an MP5 or an Uzi to drive the experience along. Whereas in a simulation game (the clue is in the genre), the whole point of the game, its reason for being, is to simulate reality. It is important, not just for the a gamer that is engrained in the culture, to know what is being simulated. One can sum up what the game entails by listing what it aims to simulate, just as one can sum up DJ Hero with its featured set list. A definition of the game is not a guide, it is not a how to. - hahnchen 12:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is the massive amount of work to do and too few to do it. Though I'm skeptical about every such list. I do believe some could establish notability and real-world content. I don't think sales jumped for cars, but remember reading that brand awareness increased for several cars in the Gran Turismo series. It stands to reason that the same occured for in other high profile games. I know that auto magazines frequently report on the video games and probably add a new perspective that's absent from our video game sources. So some of the car lists might be able to be cleaned up.

However, if the articles are not going to get the attention they need to shine on Wikipedia, then I see little alternative but to treat them as any other unreferenced, poorly-written wiki page. That's unfair, but we just don't have the people to handle our article load as we'd like. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC))

They should be tagged before being taken to AfD. As you said, auto magazines/sites often report on racing simulation games, so it's possible the articles meet inclusion criteria. Tagging them is the fair thing to do. Besides, saying that cutting out three articles will lighten the workload is a bit far fetched. Just because one person doesn't have time to work on an article (though in truth it's that they don't have the interest to do so) doesn't mean others won't when prompted to do so. Tag em', give them the appropriate time to be referenced, and if they don't improve bring them to AfD. --Teancum (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that deleting the articles will make things easier. I'm saying that articles, lists, and project initiatives that lack attention are a symptom of a less than necessary number of experienced members to address the issues. Also, you're quite right that interest is a big part of it. This whole issue has been a problem for some time now, and one I don't think is going to go away. :-\ (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC))

User:Vaypertrail has nominated Half-Life 2 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if this sounds tedious and repetitious, but we really need to find a format that fits all of the Video game lists. The PlayStation articles are the ones that are in really bad shape. The 360 one uses this thing with it's exclusive table, saying, yes, no and "console"??? Anyways, these articles need some attention. The main problem these list have, is names of video games that dont have an article. I would suggest reformatting these to very similar format that the List of PlayStation 1 games (which i may later argue to remove the "1" in the title). Another thing to do is remove Trophy section and exclusivity.

For Publisher, which is always the hardest thing to decide, we just make one Publisher section, then we add the original publisher and the publisher that's licensed for English (if the game was originally published in another language, for example:Japanese). Released date, i suggest we do the same thing except for the English release, we only add the very first English release date.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with the notion that we have to format all of the lists the same. Style guidelines urge consistency within an article, but that style does not have to be carried across similar topics—I've seen the example used that red uses color and blue uses colour. Some commonality or guidelines may help readers and editors alike, but lists are used for various reasons in video game articles and I'd be hesitant to remove editorial discretion in determining relevance for columns/information. —Ost (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Color-Colour is more of a regional thing, i would know a little more on that. And i think they do need to be consistent, there's no real reason why each list has to be unique. trophy and exclusive sections are already deemed trivial, and multiple region release and publisher an issue.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I still disagree; we can have guidelines that say certain information should be included or excluded in specific lists (e.g., lists of games for a console), but we do not need a specific format for all lists related to video games. Enforcement would be unwieldy without templates and I don't think that lists are always as similar as you suggest—unless you are talking about a specific subset of video game lists. Also, I'm unsure what your concern is with "names of games that don't have articles"; does this mean you don't like seeing the red links or that games should be removed from the lists. —Ost (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

the first sentence sounds like your agreeing with me, but contradicting yourself. And no, I'm not talking about ALL list, just list with the same category. And if there is no article for the game, then there is no proof that the game exist. that's why we should remove the red links. if we're going to make list in a "certain way" that would be the same as making them in a specific format. and you have yet to help me understand why game list articles sharing the same format is a bad idea. normal articles in the same category do something similar with a few exceptionsBread Ninja (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad that you're not talking about all VG lists, as that reigns in my thoughts a little. If you think I'm agreeing, there is a difference in our semantics. You said that you wanted to "format" all the lists, which to me implies deciding how the columns will be laid out, etc.; I suggest having general guidelines to say what information should be included or excluded—regardless of the list's format—for situations where certain data has been deemed essential or trivial. But the guidelines should would not limit editors from including additional information that has not been specifically excluded, which I picture the formatting doing. Furthermore, red links may suggest that game is not notable enough to have it's own article, that it is improperly linked, or that a redirect has not been made for it; it does not mean that the game does not exist or even that we can't know that it exists. The lists simply need references to document that the information meets WP:V, something with which many lists are sloppy. I'm fine with removing the link if an article will likely never be created, but I don't think that that means the game should be removed from the list unless the just for games with articles. —Ost (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you give an example? like what does unique enough to allow there articles to be different?Also, i suggest we remove them anyways, and not because i don't like seeing red links. But then again I'm going by a different list. it's like they're there just so people can make the article more than to help the list.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what type of example you're looking for from me, maybe because I'm still not certain what subset of lists you want to work on. I'd be as inclined for you to show me a category with lists formatted similarly or the specific lists you're targeting. I'm also curious as to what would happen to lists the reside in multiple categories.

But now the biggest problem to me is removing games without individual articles; this would reduce completeness of the general lists unless their scopes were explicitly reduced to only include certain games (in this case, those meeting WP:N and having an article). Regardless of editors' motivations for including the red linked games, having a game published for the Wii would fit inclusion requirements for a general list of List of Wii games. The information should be verified, but I don't see why it should be excluded if there is no individual article. —Ost (talk) 19:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. WP:CLN lists an advantage of lists as being a place where redlinks can be added so that they may be created later. Also, they are a list of video games, not one of lists of games with Wikipedia articles, so I would oppose removing redlinks. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree, or at least i don't agree they should be red links. and i'm simply targetting the list of console games, such as PSP-PS3-PS1-gamecube etc. it feels too promotional and loses the focus of the list. Anyways, you really haven't helped the argument, you just give your thoughts without helping me understand why i should really pay attention to what you have to sa/y. WP:REDLINK ask to use them whenever it was intended to be created, we just can't add red links just because it exist outside of Wikipedia. if someone just put's a random red link of a game s/he's heard and didn't intend to make an article, (or maybe believed there was an article about it) then yeah, the redlink could've been pointless. that's why i say remove them for now, any of those that are currently being planned or made, they can be added.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to proceed when criticism is being dismissed as unhelpful and irrelevant while your argument boils down to "I don't like red links; I think that the current lists look promotional; I think that other categories have standard formats for their lists." On the other hand, the arguments that you don't think deserve attention have provided some guidelines to show that at least some red links are preferable, rationale for keeping all games in the list to make the list complete (with no prejudice for or against red linking), and reasons why the formats don't have to be the same. The lists may benefit from increased clarity by having a clearer scope, but if site guidelines and others' good faith opinions aren't important enough for you to pay attention to a discussion that you initiated, I don't see much point continuing this dialog. —Ost (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

we arent here to promote, and yes, some red links are preferable, but we simply cant make a red link for every game we hear and jsut put it ion the list, we have to be sure there's enough information on it, or at least recommended in a project to be created. Also, and what clarity would that be? it's a table of video games, there's no difference in them, they all mett the same basics, anything in detail like adding extra column is just trivial. A specific format wont be so hard.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, i woulde ask you agian, please, please give me an example as to why specific format would not work for such things. Which articles would be damged? which ones would remove important info?. i understand not everything has to be exactly the same for certain articles, but as list articles such as video games, i do believe that it will be more beneficial.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The things I like to see in lists are basically the same as what you see in most infoboxes for video game reviews: Title, Developer, Publisher, Release date, Genre, Platform. Here's a format I suggested a while back (genre is missing though). SharkD  Talk  23:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but there are so many release dates right now, i say change release date to "original release date" and any other release date is unnecessary. Platform is not necessary either, list of video game articles have already been split.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I would say that we should include both the original release date, and the first English release date, if applicable, in the lists. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 02:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well maybe the original release date, then original "english" release date aswell, because there are many different release dates for the same language, just different region.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Can some people take a look at Game Boy and the ensuing edit war that's been going on now for some time regarding how the cartridge is inserted at File:redgameboywithgamegenie.jpg (despite the discussion at Talk:Game Boy#Game Genie - Cartridge is facing the wrong way)? As far as admin-related stuff is concerned, I'm not comfortable doing anything here because I've significantly contributed to the article in the past, and I've made some recent (unrelated) reverts, as well. Thank you, –MuZemike 13:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I would say that a different picture should be used as the easiest solution. Rather than debating over the usage of an image with apparatus being incorrectly used, and debating if that is confusing/of interest to readers, using a picture which has the correct usage would just improve it in all ways. It's not a particularly suitable image anyway, it looks a bit blurred on my widescreen resolutions. Do we have any members able to provide a new picture? --Taelus (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

There's already a picture of the Game Genie. I think leaving this picture out and using the Game Genie pic in the relevant article does not detract at all.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I concur. There's no reason to have such a misleading picture on Wiki in the first place. FluffyPug (talk) 09:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI- File:Pong.png is up for deletion at Commons. I bring this up here because the deletion of this can affect several other similar images on Commons that may need to be moved over to Wikipedia under a FUR.

Just to clarify, this is not a call to arms to save the image. If it doesn't belong on Commons then it doesn't belong on Commons. However, input would be appreciated to help determine this. Commons is quite a different beast than Wikipedia, so please keep that in mind. Many of the policies and guidelines we follow here don't apply at Commons and vice versa. For those interested, here are Commons' policies and guidelines. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC))

Hadronic Matter An overview

An example of a book cover, taken from Book:Hadronic Matter

As detailed in last week's Signpost, WikiProject Wikipedia books is undertaking a cleanup all Wikipedia books. Particularly, the {{saved book}} template has been updated to allow editors to specify the default covers of the books. Title, subtitle, cover-image, and cover-color can all be specified, and an HTML preview of the cover will be generated and shown on the book's page (an example of such a cover is found on the right). Ideally, all books in Category:Book-Class video game articles should have covers.

If you need help with the {{saved book}} template, or have any questions about books in general, see Help:Books, Wikipedia:Books, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, or ask me on my talk page. Also feel free to join WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as we need all the help we can get.

This message was delivered by User:EarwigBot, at 00:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC), on behalf of Headbomb. Headbomb probably isn't watching this page, so if you want him to reply here, just leave him a message on his talk page. EarwigBot ^{(owner • talk)} 00:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Can an admin recreate Gears of War 3? It's been accidentally revealed on Xbox Live (links are refs). Thanks! Fin©™ 12:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I have unsalted the article. However, none of the deleted versions of the article look anywhere close to acceptable, so I'm leaving as a redlink for someone to recreate properly. Of interest, I note [23] and [24] as pretty heavy sources from the get-go about this. –MuZemike 14:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Done! Thanks! Fin©™ 15:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm having some trouble understanding some of the format of the heavy rain article. and the one i need most help is on the character section where instead of voice actors, the article says the person is "played" by a person. Masem linked the term Player Character but even so, the term is meant more for the player. If player character is referred to such terms as a player choosing a character, as the article says, then it makes it trivial.

but i have a feeling the person is using the word "played" in a different way. can some please help me out on this?Bread Ninja (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it means the actors did more than voice acting - see the ref it had: [25]. Apparently they did voice acting, were modelled after and did motion capture.

I'm pretty sure Player Character is just that - character played by the player. It's one of those more-or-less obvious terms that doesn't need linking.—  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  20:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

the term is still a bit vague even after adding a link and reference, i think they should just sayed that they were voice and modeled by the actor, rather than the person is played by that person. especially on an RPG video game, the idea could be take ndifferently.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I took the liberty to clarify the section.—  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  21:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

thanks alot.Bread Ninja (talk) 01:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm wondering if WP:CRYSTAL applies for just announced video games. Konami official announced and released a teaser trailer of Saw 2. An editor made the article (though it's not sourced) today, and I was wondering if I should merge it to Saw (video game) or is the standalone article ok? Of course I will be sourcing it. Thanks.  :) —Mike Allen 00:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the standpoint is if there is significant coverage in reliable sources, then it isn't deleted by WP:Crystal. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 00:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Announced games don't fail CRYSTAL. That said, I don't like creating a sequel article, keeping the information in the first game or series article, until some more fundamental details, such as release dates, development, gameplay aspects, etc. are more available beyond the announcement. But that's personal preference. --MASEM (t) 00:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I certainly agree that until notable details are available for an unreleased sequel, it should reside in the prequels article. It also desperately needs a source. —  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  01:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I work on film articles and we don't make articles until the film has started principal photography, since pre-production can halt, stop, etc. Obviously this is different for video games, since the "filming" is like developing the game (which has already been started for this game, since a demo was released to IGN). The main source (primary) is from a press release, all the other sites are just reporting off of that. IGN has written an article about their experience with the demo. I have added all of this to the article, I don't WHY the editor that started the article didn't provide sources. Personally, I think all that information can fit in the original game article nicely until more information is available. I've already written a sequel section for it, just haven't clicked save yet. I see the Gears of War 3 article has began.. and it's just two sentences and the sources are mainly just reporting on that one event. Disregarding WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, what should I do? Thanks. —Mike Allen 01:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, personally, I would keep it separated now, since there are sources. This will save the hassle later on to recreate. Besides, disregarding WP:POV, It will probably not be cancelled and, while it won't be massive success, it will be released.—  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  01:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Well.. the plan was to redirect the article to the "Sequel" section of Saw the game, not delete it (thus just reverting when more news came out). I'll leave it as is.. maybe no one will AFD it. That was really my concern. Thanks. —Mike Allen 02:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see here. --NaBUru38 (talk) 00:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The information about the game is in this link. Information has been updated.

--XOTERS (talk) 01:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I've suggested that the list be renamed list of zombie video games, which is what it used to be, but under a different name. Also, I would like to split out the ghost and vampire game lists into separate lists, and sweep away all the minor classifications like mummies and revenants. Discussion would be appreciated since there's a backlog going back to late 2008 in articles to be split. Someoneanother 00:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Ehh, the entire list is full of original research...(is Sonic's "Werehog" really a werewolf?) I think that Category:Zombie video games fulfills the same purpose and new categories like Category:Werewolf video games could be created, while the list itself is deleted.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The lists could be a lot more at-a-glance informative than categories, and I'd be delighted to put the work in if I'm allowed to break these down into some more clear-cut lists. The problem here is that the list's scope was thrown wide-open, werewolves were folded in (they're not even undead), the list has lost its purpose altogether and been left wide-open for OR and drive-by dumping of dross. If it were simply a list of zombie games, as in the Romero zombies readers will be thinking of, drive-by editors would have less cause to shove in random games and readers would get what they came for. Likewise the ghost and vampire games would be the same - you're either a vampire/ghost in the game or they're the primary antagonist/enemies. There's a hell of a lot of games like these out there, waiting for articles to be created etc., and I want to get stuck in, but not when thing I'm working with is so fundamentally broken. Someoneanother 03:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

If these were split and cleaned up, it could actually become useful. It does require the work be put in though; if you are willing to do it, I would support it. Werewolves in a list of undead things is frankly just inaccurate. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 04:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a decent idea to me, id so go for it. Salavat (talk) 06:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all for the feedback. I'm editing BOLDly and peeling away the less relevant content, aiming to get the zombies list back down to just plain normal zombies and get the ghosts and vampires ready for their own space. The werewolves are gone and the category for them is in place. Any further comment or glances at what I'm up to would be most welcome. Someoneanother 16:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

(remove indent) We now have List of zombie video games, List of ghost video games and List of vampire video games. They all need considerable work (as do the articles listed within them) but it's coming along nicely. Someoneanother 03:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

 

Category:Band-centric video games, which is under the purview of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to try to finish up some loose from a previous discussion. {{VG reviews}} was recently updated with some changes from the discussion, but I think more fine tuning would benefit us. Please give your thoughts to the below discussions. Or start your own subsection for another issue that needs discussion. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC))

Currently, the template supports up to eight such parameters. This may be a trivial matter, but I think this is too many. The review table is often unnecessarily bloated with scores. I think limiting this part to 5 or 6 custom parameters would block off bloating the table with custom reviews. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC))

I'd go with five as a nice number. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Five works for me. Reach Out to the Truth 20:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep six at least. If it's an old game, and none of the parameters fit, you're going to have to go all out using custom fields - you want at least six. I'd keep all eight, unlike the predefined parameters, there's no suggestion that they need to be filled. - hahnchen 20:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. 6 at least that's pushing it, but it's just to be on the safe side. Subzerosmokerain (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

6 is good here. --MASEM (t) 13:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to agree with any change at the moment. I'd like to see some examples first of articles that currently use the maximum to gauge how they would be affected. SharkD  Talk  15:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

None come to mind, and a random search of the 1000+ articles that transclude the template didn't turn up an article that used more than 3 of the custom parameters. If I had to guess, those most likely to rely completely on the custom parameters would be older regional computer games like those released only in Europe or the US during the 80s. They were covered by the media, but not by anything that is defined in the template. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC))

Well, I used 7 here: Avernum (series) but that's because I was grouping all games in series and it's an indie game that doesn't get much mainstream coverage. I suppose if I split that into 7 separate templates... hehe. —  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  17:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I'd never thought to use the template like before. However, I don't think it provides the same overview as it does for an individual game because it fragments the scores and games in the series. Of course the information is all there so it does serve the purpose, but I don't think it does as well for a single game.

This would have been a good article for the Template:VG series and remake reviews that was recently deleted. :-\ (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC))

G4 is a TV channel that airs X-Play, a TV show. The X-Play website is under the g4tv.com domain and the only reviews I found there are from G4TV. However, Teancum pointed out that the X-Play show actually does the reviews. If this is the case, then G4 should be removed. I couldn't find anything on the G4 website that stated this though. Anybody else have more luck or can otherwise confirm this. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC))

It seems like while X-Play does the reviews, G4 is the host of the majority of their other content. I'm somewhat torn about which to keep... I'm leaning towards G4 though, just because it's still the umbrella group doing the review. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

If we can confirm that they are infact the same as Xplay reviews then yes. If the review scores are different, then no. Subzerosmokerain (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd keep G4 over X-play, given that they are the "publisher" of the work.

I just checked out some of the site's reviews,[26][27][28][29] and the authors are listed as G4TV staff. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC))

Well, every X-Play Mortal Kombat written review redirects to G4TV, so I guess they removed X-play themselves. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 14:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Should we remove X-Play from the template then? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC))

Unfortunately, Yes. In this particular review, it says in-text that Xplay did it, [30] but one review isn't verifiable enough to say so. So Remove X-Play, and keep G4TV. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The issue arises of when the review is from. X-Play is originally from TechTV and it wasn't always the only review show on the channel so caution would need to be taken with when the review is from. I'm also skeptical of the evidence even if I think it's unlikely that G4 employs review staff specifically for X-Play as that seems frivolous. I think more data needs to be collected and a date needs to be set for when the transition took place. UncannyGarlic (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Do we have any way to obtain said timeline? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC))

One of the ideas still up in the air was adding custom aggregate parameters. Personally, I think one, maybe two, is all we need. Mainly because their just aren't that many reliable aggregate gaming sites. On top of that, there was talk of removing some aggregate parameters: Game Ratio, GameStats, and GameTab. I got the feeling that GameRankings and Metacritic are what most people prefer to use. Removing the lesser used parameters will clean up the template and better conform to the project consensus. Adding in the custom parameters will still allow editors to include the others though. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC))

Concur. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The others do get some use, but they could be converted to use custom parameters if necessary. Reach Out to the Truth 20:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Remove all aside from Metacritic and GameRankings. Allow one custom field. - hahnchen 20:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, keep GR and MC. Let's have 2 custom aggregate review parameters to be on the safe side. The rest can be in prose if found. Subzerosmokerain (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer to limit to GR and MC only. Can someone provide an example of another aggregate service that would cover titles not in GR/MC (to support that need?) --MASEM (t) 13:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Anything in the past decade will probably be on all the sites. Older games like Dragon Warrior II and Faxanadu, however, are not on Metacritic[31][32] or GameRankings,[33][34] but they show up at GameStats.[35][36] Admittedly DWII only has the separate Famitsu scores, so it's not really much of an aggregate score. But it's more than MC and GR offer. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC))

I agree we shouldn't be ignoring older games for more recent ones. It'll only harm reviews. As for Famitsu, it isn't an aggregate score, but a composite score.陣内_Jinnai 05:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess the question is better asked: Before GR and MC, were there any other aggregate sites? --MASEM (t) 05:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the GameRankings was the first to launch, followed by Metacritic and the others. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC))

It sounds like there's agreement to remove the aggregate parameters besides MC and GR. The issue still in the air is how many custom aggregate parameters are needed. I'm leaning toward one myself. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC))

I'd go with one. Aggregates are nice, but their utility is naturally limited anyhow, so having more than one or two is generally redundant anyhow. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's agreed we need at least one, but we want to be on the safe side, just one more wouldn't be a detriment to the template. Two just to be on the safe side. (Although it wouldd be an extremely rare occurance). Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Go with 2 for now. If, down the road, we see that the 2nd isn't being used we can remove it without much hassle.陣内_Jinnai 22:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I say 1. Editors should add original reviewers, not dubious aggregators. —  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  01:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jinnai, two for a while, and then we'll come back and discuss to delete the second one later. Aggregators are not extremely important but when considering things like the case stated above, better safe than sorry.(We can all at least agree 8 custom ones is too much). Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Looks like there's support to bring the number of custom parameters down to 6, but SharkD and H3llkn0wz brought up some valid concerns. Would 7 be the magic number to make everyone happy?
• I'd say that there's a good argument to remove X-Play and keep G4. The only issue is if the template usage in articles needs to be tweaked to switch the X-Play score information to G4?
• There's support to remove all aggregate parameters save from Metacritic and Game Rankings. We look to be split between 1 or 2 custom parameters. It sounds like two would be the easier choice to manage long term though.

Any comments or thoughts about the summary thus far? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC))

Sounds good to me on all points --Teancum (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The G4 issues still seems murky. I'll move forward with the custom and aggregate parameters once this discussion gets archived. I'm somewhat at a loss at how we should proceed with the G4/X-Play parameters. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC))

These two lists List of video game companies and List of video game publishers have some serious issues.

Firstly, both lists have pointless alphabetical sectioning and have no table sorting.

Secondly, List of video game companies should be separated into developers and publishers; having entries in both lists for companies like Blizzard. There already is the publishers list, so that means making the developer list. Indie companies can live in List of indie game developers. Casual companies will have to do with main list or be moved later on if there are enough of them.

There are a LOT of other minor issues. I am willing to sort the articles out. But I need to be clear where to put stuff. Are there any objections/suggestion? —  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  23:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. Just move List of video game companies → List of video game development companies. Though personally, I'm not a fan of sorted tables. If you can make it work go for it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC))

And lose the flags. A country column would look much neater. - X201 (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen, to keep articles up to status, I suggest a cleanup program similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject Films' cleanup listing. It would organize the articles that are FA, FL, and GA/A status while at the same time there would be collaborations to improve the articles with the most problems. Comments? GamerPro64 (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Note WolterBot's automatic cleanup page generation, which makes pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Square Enix/Cleanup listing. It only runs once a month, though, and was broken in January/February. --PresN 19:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Do we have a centralized version of its listings for the project? I think simply having that page is best. Editors can check every month, and if they want to start a collab, start a thread here. Less muss and fuss. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I looked and we don't have anything like that. Does anybody want to make to make a listing? GamerPro64 (talk) 01:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I found this list while searching through Internet Archive, and I think it might contain numerous Nintendo Power reviews that even the magazine scanning project doesn't have access to. Unfortunately, because the magazine project doesn't have these, I can't verify that they're the reviews Nintendo Power featured in its print edition. Can anyone verify it? It would be a huge help. As a note, online reviews are sometimes the unedited original drafts of reviews that later appeared in magazines, so slight differences are okay. 70.106.207.99 (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting, as normally nintendo.com have their lists in PDF form. –MuZemike 22:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Pass, though while we're on the subject I just found a site called Retro Mags who have a lot of Nintendo Power magazines on file, one just came in handy for something I thought would have to remain uncited. Someoneanother 01:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If you search these reviews, Metacritic lists them as promotional descriptions provided by the developer, so I think they come straight from nintendo.com, and not from Nintendo Power. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 01:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• I think that may have been a mistake on Metacritic's part; I don't think a developer would have written this to advertise its own game. Plus, this Blast Corps review is strikingly similar to this thing from that list, so there's reason to suspect that these may be reviews, rather than ad blurbs. 70.106.207.99 (talk) 04:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Huh, then the thing to do is find out where the heck these come from. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 04:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Well according to its site help it seems to be something called "Nintendo Power Source" [37]. Salavat (talk) 15:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Here(May 4, 1995) - Nintendo Power Source, an online edition of the country's most widely read video game magazine, debuts on America Online (AOL). - X201 (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Then it looks like these can probably be called legitimate reviews. Thanks, guys. 70.106.207.99 (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Among the side projects I've been working on recently is cleaning up and expanding Halo 2, my first FA. Looking at it now, it's rather poor writing, filled with minutiae and woefully inadequate development/reception sections. If anyone wants to help, that's great, but this is just a reminder to other FA authors to look at your older articles and keep them clean, up to date and functional. Use dispenser to check for dead links (there used to be a dead video game FA linkcheck, but I think it's dead[38]). Better to clean them up now than go through the ordeal of an FAR. </rant> Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

<shameless newletter plug>For more information about maintaining FAs, check out our newsletter feature.

That and other past features can be yours for the low low price of nothing. Simply check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter. :-D </shameless newletter plug> (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC))

There are two pages for video game articles with links, update monthly: Essential articles and Popular pages. We could setup one for FAs if we wanted to, but I'm not convinced that many look people look at the lists. —Ost (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I seem to have found myself in an edit war with Headbomb over {{Wikipedia-Books}}, and would like to start a wider discussion to get some consensus on the issue. Headbomb added the box to nearly every (if not all) Half-Life related articles, with the view that it "should definitely be linked on the articles strongly related to it, since it's highly-relevant". I however, contest this: I think its only needed on the centric articles that hold the topic together, where the reader would benefit from a link to one of these books to link it all up, but not the more peripheral ones such as characters, expansions, fan productions, etc where adding that link does little more than act as a less user-friendly navbox to {{Half-Life}}. After some thought, I'd say the appropriate articles for this template would be Half-Life (series), Half-Life (video game), Half-Life 2 and possibly Locations of Half-Life and Characters of Half-Life, rather than putting it on every article.

Given that there are books for other video game topics on WP, knocking out some sort of rough idea to how we should link to these books in the articles would be useful. So, to what extent should these book templates be used? Should the template be used on every last article that is included in the book, or should it be more limited to only the more centralised articles? -- Sabre (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

My reasoning is essentially that all articles that are strongly-associated to the book's topic should have the link to the book. For instance Book:Large Hadron Collider contains the some physics articles such as supersymmetry. While supersymmetry is definitely topical to the book, supersymmetry isn't strongly associated with the LHC, and so that article doesn't link to the book. Other articles such as LHCb and LHCf are not only topical, they are strongly related to the LHC, and these link to the book. I'm applying the same reasoning here. The characters of a series are definitely strongly associated to the series, and so should link to the book. For articles like Still Alive, I'm much less sure it should link to the book, mostly because I don't really consider Portal to be part of the HL series.

I'm essentially treating this as the equivalent of a portal link. If "Portal:Half-Life" existed, it would be linked on these pages, so to me, this tells me that the book should be linked from there. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty sure, like he said, the book link only goes on the main subject pages. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 18:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

in List of .hack characters, Haseo has the option to marry or to reveal affection to any character depending on how the person played the game, i undid a IP's edit because he put that Haseo rejected Atoli over Shino, which is favoring over one character rather than the others. i already undid his edit twice due to not being able to undo one edit unless i undid the other. can someone help me on this?Bread Ninja (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I put a hidden comment there explaining that either can be chosen depending on how you play the game. Hopefully, people read it, and don't add it anymore? If not, then expand on the content explaining that. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

it was already clear when i undid it, but i guess this works too. Still i wish it wasn't something like "according to me".Bread Ninja (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It may be clear to people who read edit summaries in the history, but not to somebody just coming to the article. If content is constantly being changed wrongly, there should be a hidden comment explaining why things are not that way. For example, the List of Pokémon Adventures characters. People are always changing Blue to Green, and vise versa, because of the translations of the Japanese sources calling the rival Green, while English sources call him Blue. Because of this, there is a hidden comment stating not to change it. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 18:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Your best bet is to track down some reliable sources that talk about how the character interactions are driven by the player. My initial thought is that the information should be worked into .hack//G.U. and that the appropriate section of article should be pointed out in the list's comment. —Ost (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I do agree with this. If there is content on the subject already, people won't be tempted to add it, because it is already there! _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 18:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I recently created Outrage Entertainment. On the MobyGames site, it says OE developed Red Faction II (maybe I'm not reading this right however). However the Red Faction II article says it was developed by Volition (and published by THQ, who owned OE). Can anyone shed some light here? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

http://www.mobygames.com/game/red-faction-ii/release-info - looks like they did the Windows port. - hahnchen 21:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

A user recently created the long titled version (originally Wikipedia:Books/Pokemon). I notice there is a lot of duplication (100%?) with Book:Pokémon so I wonder what is the best option here. Does this books have a different-enough scope to stay, or should it be merged/redirect with Book:Pokémon? Right now I'm leaning towards merging and redirecting to Book:Pokémon. WP Pokémon and the creator contacted. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Definitely merge (or just AfD). It does not look like the author has a clear scope in mind. It is either a duplication of existing entries or irrelevant ones, such as Game Boy articles or Experience point.—  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  13:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Delete - The "one for Pokemon news" doesn't make any sense. It doesn't even have the newest games, HeartGold and SoulSilver, and Black and White. I say just outright delete it. It serves no purpose, and is not even a good search term. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

K, sent to MfD so things are a bit more formal. I've copy-pasted the above comments so you don't have to "re!vote", although feel free to update your comments. Also the option of userfying the book is out there. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

A lot of people don't even know that the Online print archive exists, so I thought I'd remind everyone: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library/Online print archive. I think that the earliest reviews on there are from 1994/1995, and the latest are from 2005.

Recently, the archive's undergone major expansion, and, in an attempt to build awareness, I've been putting reviews from it into articles; for example, see here (I was signed out at the time). However, I've only been inserting one review (or, in FF VII's case, a few reviews) into each article; more reviews are available for each game. So if I've added a review to an article you're editing, note that you can find more in the archive. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Also, if anyone is looking for reviews that aren't on the list, I can help; I'm pretty good at navigating the old, broken indexes. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I have done some expansion in the article Mega Man Legends, expanding reception adding conception, refs, etc. However, I think the article needs to be renamed to Mega Man Legends (video game) as there is already a Mega Man Legends (series) article. Additionally, the article only has one PC review of the game and I could not find any other. Does anybody know of a PC review that could be added to the article? Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 00:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I propose to create a task force for game development topics. The scope includes–in essence–everything from {{Template:VG Industry}}, except game types:

• Game development/design/profession/etc. articles;
• Topics, such as, rights, outsourcing, development tools/software, etc.;
• To a bit lesser extent—Notable producer/designer/programmer/artist/etc. articles and associated lists/categories;
• To a lesser extent—Developer/publisher company articles and associated lists.

The majority of industry and development topics fall in Top and High priority categories; however they have experienced some neglection during past years. I expected that there would be a task force or even a project dedicated to this already; but it seems not—all current task forces are geared towards franchises and companies. I recognise the strong indications of less editors wanting to work on the booring industry articles. Also, archive search only turned up this proposal; and–browsing through archives–I fell off the chair at page 43.

I think it is of benefit to these articles, especially–game development series, that more knowledgeable editors contribute (hopefully). The industry isn't too well documented and is extremely subjective and case-by-case basis; so personal in-sight on talk pages is essential here for deciding the direction of article research.

So—are there any interested editors? —  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  19:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you believe this is a topic big enough to become a task force?Bread Ninja (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I can draw a weak example parallel with filmmaking taskforce on Films Wikiproject; and even though movies have been around forever; video games have already overtaken them. Whether there is a decent number of willing editors, is another question.

I am rather afraid of there being too many related articles to the topic, such as, industry people, game companies, indie companies, etc. My incentive is to collaborate to improve the core industry articles to GA/A; most of which have been at Start level for ages. —  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  20:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This is certainly a weak area in our article scope. However, given the make up of our members, I'd gather that most of us lack the necessary knowledge to be truly helpful. I think it might be easier for project members to focus on game developers (people and companies) rather game development as a whole. Fuchs, PresN, and a few others have made some good head way in this area. Their articles can be used as a template for others to follow.

Also, I have a feeling that once the lower level articles are fleshed out, the higher level ones will be easier. I remember using the separate Final Fantasy articles to research and source the series article, and I learned a lot about Vid Kidz from working on Defender (video game) and Robotron: 2084. I'm sure once I do Stargate (video game) and Blaster (video game) the company article will be easy.

How does altering the scope of your proposal sound? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC))

I acknowledge the fact that editing articles on people, developers and such is certainly easier and more "fun". Having to reference every single sentence because each author has a different opinion, and having it all end up sounding like total OR—is painful. I am happy to gear the proposal towards individuals and companies if that means seeing more support and improvement. But I still would like to see the development/design/production/profession series within the scope.

So; does scope of "VG industry developers, publishers, notable individuals and development topics" sound more appealing? —  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  15:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd certainly help out where I can. I have a number of print sources that include profiles and interviews with individual and group developers. Though I'm pretty bad about doing things in a timely manner. :-p

And again, I think starting here will making branching out easier, though admittedly it's the more time consuming path. I know some developer interviews discuss game theory, process, job descriptions, and other aspects of development. So I believe proper sources will surface for the articles that deal specifically with game development. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC))

I created most of those articles, but most were unsourced simply because they are so hard to source, especially to Wikipedia's standards. I'm interested and will help where I can, but probably won't be much help. :S — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 17:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be best if we wait a little longer until we decide to make this task force. although it sounds like a good idea, it doesn't seem like it will get much attention.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd join, though to be honest I'd probably only be working on the people side of things, not the concepts articles. --PresN 18:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I am glad the proposal has not been met with opposition. And motivating even a couple of editors (including myself) is better than not. I fear though that not many more people will express immediate enthusiasm. Of course, waiting a bit longer to see if any new suggestions pop up. Also, shameless bump against any trigger-happy archiving bots. —  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  20:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Given relatively few supporters, I will withdraw my proposal for now. It will not make a significant difference for article quality if so few editors are involved. Perhaps in the future. Thanks for comments. —  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  13:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello everyone, in case you don't read or see the project header at the top of this page, Halo 3: ODST is at WP:FAC. It's currently in the "older nominations" category, and I'd hate to have it fail due to a lack of reviews, so if anyone has extra time to look the article over and comment, I'd be much obliged. The page is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Halo 3: ODST/archive1. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I am planning to do a thorough cleanup of StarCraft professional competition. However, it has many issues including massive amounts of lists, short player bios that may not be appropriate, and a lack of information regarding viewership. I can certainly add content, but I'm unsure on the best way to reorganize the article and what information to remove. Additionally, should a list of starcraft tournament champions article be created, or should the information just be removed as unencyclopedic? Any help would be appreciated. I can certainly do the edits, but I am unsure of what direction to go in. Regards, NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 01:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

 

Hello folks,

I gave a try at translating to English fr:PeaceMaker from the Wikipedia in French, where I was its main editor. The article was brought to AdQ (~FA) a few months ago. As I am not a native speaker, it most certainly needs some proofreading (though, probably, the wording is too bad it would need major copy-edit :-).

Please notice the couple of images the publisher agreed to freely licence. It would be great if you could help diffusing them where they would be relevant.

Cheers, Jean-Fred (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I moved it to PeaceMaker (video game). —  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  21:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

There is currently a content dispute over the reception section of this article. I have already asked for input at the Pokémon projects page, but so far it has only been a two-on-two back and forth argument. I would like to get perspectives from those who have not edited the article over on the talk page. Thank you and かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that Category:Screenshots of video games should officially be split into subcategories for all the consoles, just like with Category:Video game covers. There are already some subcategories but any file that's sorted into them still has to be put in the parent category as well. I'd tinker with the template to get it to behave like the one for "Video game covers" myself but it's completely locked. N. Harmonik (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd tell you to put an {{editprotected}} tag at Template talk:Non-free game screenshot, but you've already done that and were directed here.

This sounds reasonable enough to me.

Can we get some more input so we can have an actual consensus? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC))

• Support - Are there any disadvantages? MrKIA11 (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

  What about screenshots where we're not sure if it was PS3 or X360? –xeno^talk 23:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

  Those can remain in Category:Screenshots of video games. I'm sure we have even more weird scenarios: arcade screenshots taken from emulators running on computers for example.

  This change will mainly trim duplicates between the main category and the specific platform category. I believe this is in line with WP:DUPCAT. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC))

  Actually, we can just put multi-platform screenshots in all the subcategories that they fit, just like with game covers. Example: File:Bioshock_2_boxart.jpg. N. Harmonik (talk) 02:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

  I thought of that too, but then realized that a screen shot has to come from a single platform. So the question is: should we place it in other categories on the sole reason that the game was released on multiple platforms? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC))

  Yes but many game covers on this site actually had the parts that indicate the platform simply edited out. N. Harmonik (talk) 03:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

  And that works for game covers. However, there tend to be differences between how platforms handle graphics: lighting, textures, draw distance, detail of object models, etc. We can't crop such content out of a screenshot. If it came from a specific platform, it stands to reason that the category labels on it should reflect what it is.

  If there's enough support to categorize screen shots by multiple platforms, then let's do it. But I think we should fully discussion what the outcome will represent. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC))

  Well, the outcome should be that video game screenshots would be easier to navigate around. As long as the category stays as it is now, people will have great difficulty finding what they're looking for. I think there should be subcategories for screenshots for the consoles that have subcategories for covers. Sixty-seven in all currently. N. Harmonik (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

  Makes sense. Though I think the video game covers setup should be used as a template rather than an exact model for some of the reasons stated above.

  Though four people is a small consensus, I'd say that coupled with a lack of opposition is enough to move forward with the proposed change. Putting a single screenshot in multiple platform categories should require more discussion and input though. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC))

  Perhaps if there are indications as to what platform the particular verison of the game is for, like button prompts and vast graphical differences, they should be put in their specific platform's category. As for the ones that aren't as revealing...that will possibly depend on how many files are in the parent category when all the others are subcategorized properly.

  More discussers, please! N. Harmonik (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Logical. The current system impedes navigation. Improved categorization should help. --Doink9731 (talk) 23:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Sounds OK to me too. SharkD  Talk  03:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I know how to change the coding around in the template to make it work like the one for Video Game Covers. It's posted at the discussion page for it. If only the template could be unlocked somehow for that... N. Harmonik (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd say there's consensus to move forward with the change. Just place the {{editprotected}} tag at Template talk:Non-free game screenshot again and provide a link to this discussion so the admin can read it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC))

Well, the changes to the template have been made so we can start categorizing screenshots better. I'm fairly certain there are a still a few wrinkles in the coding to iron out though... N. Harmonik (talk) 03:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Do the new categories match up with the pre-existing ones? Or will we just have to move them over? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC))

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'new categories' but I think Category:Screenshots of video games has to be moved to Video game screenshots for the template to work properly. N. Harmonik (talk) 04:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The code in the template will create templates named differently than what currently exists. For instance, {{Non-free game screenshot|ZX Spectrum}} will add the image to Category:Screenshots of ZX Spectrum games, which differs from the current one, Category:ZX Spectrum game screenshots.

The code that does this is [[Category:Screenshots of {{{1|video}}} games]]. To match the current categories, the code would have to be [[Category:{{{1|Video}}} game screenshots]] and the main category, Category:Screenshots of video games, would have to be renamed as you said.

To make a long story short (I know, too late), we should decide which naming style we want to use: "[INSERT NAME] game screenshots" or "Screenshots of [INSERT NAME] games". (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC))

Hmm... On one hand, most of the other screenshot categories go like "Screenshots of [INSERT NAME]" rather than "[INSERT NAME] screenshots". On the other hand, it might be more of a hassle to move the mutiple platform-specific subcategories instead of only the parent category. N. Harmonik (talk) 06:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

If other categories use the "Screenshots of [INSERT NAME]", then I guess we should follow suit.

Are there any bot operators or AWB users that can help us out with the switch? The category tags would need to be removed and the new parameters would need to be added.

For example, the file File:Nightshade 3.gif would need the following changes:

• Remove [[Category:ZX Spectrum game screenshots]]
• Change {{Non-free game screenshot}} to {{Non-free game screenshot|ZX Spectrum}}

Any takers? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC))

I've done the images in Category:ZX Spectrum game screenshots, Category:Amstrad CPC game screenshots, Category:Commodore 64 game screenshots, Category:Mac game screenshots and Category:SAM Coupé game screenshots. I didn't touch the others in subcategories or with different naming schemes, but I could certainly do those at a later date. I think we should now decide on a proper naming scheme. We seem to be currently using "Screenshots of [platform] games", "[Platform] game screenshots", and "[Platform] screenshots". Should we continue toward "Screenshots of [platform] games" as {{Non-free game screenshot}} currently uses, or use one of the existing naming schemes? Reach Out to the Truth 20:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help.

I think "Screenshots of [platform] games" follows the trend of other categories: Category:Screenshots of Mac software, Category:Screenshots of films, Category:Screenshots of television, Category:Screenshots of machinima, etc. I'm inclined to follow it.

Once we empty the old categories, we can put them up for deletion. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC))

I'm for it fully. It will make it easier to track screenshots this way. If such a category doesn't exist (from using the parameter in the {{Non-free game screenshot}} template), should we just go ahead and create those categories? –MuZemike 18:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd say create the category only if it makes sense and adjust the parameter otherwise, since the category link will put the page in the category even if the actual category page hasn't been created. We would like to know the red-link categories to evaluate them, but I would think some categories would turn out to be typos of actual categories. —Ost (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Update- The new category pages for the recently emptied categories have been created and the placed in the relevant high-level categories.

• Category:Amstrad CPC game screenshots → Category:Screenshots of Amstrad CPC games
• Category:Atari 2600 game screenshots → Category:Screenshots of Atari 2600 games
• Category:Commodore 64 game screenshots → Category:Screenshots of Commodore 64 games
• Category:Mac game screenshots → Category:Screenshots of Mac games
• Category:SAM Coupé game screenshots → Category:Screenshots of SAM Coupé games
• Category:ZX Spectrum game screenshots → Category:Screenshots of ZX Spectrum games

Reach Out to the Truth- Willing to tackle some of the Category:Nintendo screenshots? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC))

I'll start later today assuming I don't forget. Reach Out to the Truth 15:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Update- Here's more to the list of empty categories and their replacements

• Category:CD-i screenshots → Category:Screenshots of CD-i games
• Category:Game Boy Advance screenshots → Category:Screenshots of Game Boy Advance games
• Category:Game Boy screenshots → Category:Screenshots of Game Boy games
• Category:Game Boy Color screenshots → Category:Screenshots of Game Boy Color games
• Category:GameCube screenshots → Category:Screenshots of GameCube games
• Category:Nintendo 64 screenshots → Category:Screenshots of Nintendo 64 games
• Category:Nintendo DS screenshots → Category:Screenshots of Nintendo DS games
• Category:Nintendo Entertainment System screenshots → Category:Screenshots of Nintendo Entertainment System games
• Category:Virtual Boy screenshots → Category:Screenshots of Virtual Boy games
• Category:Wii screenshots → Category:Screenshots of Wii games

Also, I noticed we have a number of arcade screen shots. Any issue with creating Category:Screenshots of arcade games? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC))

Nope. –MuZemike 23:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. I was surprised we didn't have one yet. Reach Out to the Truth 00:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I've done some Category:Sega screenshots!

• Category:Dreamcast screenshots → Category:Screenshots of Dreamcast games
• Category:Game Gear screenshots → Category:Screenshots of Game Gear games
• Category:Sega Master System screenshots → Category:Screenshots of Sega Master System games
• Category:Sega Mega Drive screenshots → Category:Screenshots of Sega Mega Drive games
• Category:Sega SG-1000 screenshots → Category:Screenshots of Sega SG-1000 games

Say, should there be screenshot categories for 32X and Sega-Mega CD games? There is a cover category for the latter.

And as for the Sega Saturn, should it be Category:Screenshots of Sega Saturn games, like Category:Sega Saturn games or Category:Screenshots of Saturn games, like Category:Saturn game covers? N. Harmonik (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I've already created Category:Screenshots of TurboGrafx-16 games and is starting to place images in there. There should be some images in Category:Screenshots of arcade games even though the category hasn't been created yet. –MuZemike 16:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I just created the arcade category today and placed a few more images into it.

In regard to the Sega categories, I'm also a bit confused as to which one we should use. I guess we should use the official name. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC))

Just completed adding all TG-16 images into the TG-16 screenshots category (there weren't very many of them as most relevant screenshots came from arcade ports, and not to mention many TG-16 game articles are still redlinks). As a thought, shouldn't we just create a separate subpage (like under Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Video game images) to track the progress of subcategorization of all these images? –MuZemike 18:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

And another question: regarding List of TurboGrafx-CD and PC Engine-CD games, should we have a separate category for TurboGrafx-CD games, or should we just lump that into the TurboGrafx-16 screenshot category? –MuZemike 18:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

We have a similar situation with Category:BBC Micro and Acorn Electron screenshots. I see the reasoning behind it and a category for TG-CD/PC E-CD. But my thought is that if there isn't enough for separate categories, then they can go to the into the generic Category:Screenshots of video games. I think Category:Screenshots of Virtual Boy games may be another case that the category has so few files in it that we may have to delete it.

As far as creating a subpage, I don't see the harm. To be honest, I don't see the benefit either. could you ellaborate more on what you had in mind? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC))

I noticed that some images use {{vgss}}. Do we need to keep this now that the licensing template does the same thing? It doesn't look to be widely used: Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Vgss. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC))

{{tl:vgss}} does accept more parameters, but I suspect it will be rare to need more than three. All the pages currently using now use {{non-free game screenshot}} for that, with only one platform platform specified. The vgss template could be removed from them without causing any harm. Reach Out to the Truth 02:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Any opposition to deleting it? I think it would qualify for {{Db-t3}}. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC))

Tagged for deletion. Can one of our super helpful AWB users remove it from the images listed here? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC))

  Done Removed from all image pages. Reach Out to the Truth 16:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Here are some loose ends that should be sorted out.

• What to do about the Sega categories? Should they include "Sega" in the names?
  • Dreamcast or Sega Dreamcast
  • Saturn or Sega Saturn
  • Mega Drive or Sega Mega Drive, etc.
• Should we create a category for Windows PC games? If so, what should it be called?
• What about games on Apple computers?
• Are there any categories that are under-populated and should maybe be deleted?
• We have categories for the PS2 and PS3, but not the original PlayStation. Should we create it as Category:Screenshots of PlayStation games?

(Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC))

And another thing: should there be separate screenshot categories for games that are specifically for WiiWare, PlayStation Network and/or Xbox Live Arcade? N. Harmonik (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

April 24th's TFA will be Space Invaders. I have other engagements that day and may not be able to get to a computer. Help keeping things tidy would certainly be appreciated. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC))

Note: Reposted from Portal talk:Video games to get more responses. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC))

Currently, there are two different portal images, depending on how the portal template is called. Which one would people prefer? I'm not watching this page, so it would be great if you could comment at Template talk:Portal#Case duplicates. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I responded on the linked page. But I'll also response here; I prefer #2. My reason is that it is easier to immediately understand what the image depicts in #2 than in #1, since #2 is larger because the handles on both ends of #1 make the image smaller. Gary King (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Your siply relying on the image, that can be fixed, still #1 stands out by the text. the image is really not important despite being slightly smaller.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The image plays a big role in quickly identifying the portal. I thought that capitalization in portal names should be consistent across all portals. If they prefer to capitalize each word, then I'm all for it. If only the first word, then fine, too. But the image is what separates each portal apart. Gary King (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

i actually think the first one is much more suitable.

TO be honest, if we are going to have to go by image, i still say the first one, it's not too different from second or third, but has more colorBread Ninja (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I vote second image. --Torsodog^Talk 20:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I say second because that icon is used everywhere and easily identifiable. "Games" can be capitalized as well to stress it out. Third is out - what in the world is "VG"? —  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  01:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

How does one go about pursuing renaming a task force? Basically, I'm interested in proposing that the MU* task force be renamed the MUD task force, for reasons that the MU* article goes into; basically, contrary to what you'd expect from a * wildcard, MU* is actually an exclusionary term meant to distance a set of game servers from "mainstream" MUDs, where MUD is an inclusionary term that's happy to encompass all sorts of virtual worlds, which winds up making MU* a subset of MUD. Which is like, whatever, apparently that's how the TinyFolk are determined to have it. The task force should, naturally, use the name of the more inclusive term, it's just that when it was named, people who know what a * wildcard is looked at it and said, oh, MU* is the more inclusive term. Which turns out to be wrong. Anyway, what sort of process am I looking for here? —chaos5023 (talk) 07:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Assessment/Requests doesn't have a large backlog, but there are a few A-Class requests there. I usually don't feel comfortable being the first to review any A-Class requests, but would be happy to look over the article again after one person votes to promote the articles. No A-Class requests have had any comment made. Additionally, it'd be great if someone could assess Burnout Paradise for me so that I can get it ready for GA class. --Teancum (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

What do A-Class assessments require? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Assessment says, "should be agreed upon by two independent reviewers". _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 20:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

So do we just start a talk page thread, or is there a special location (sorry for being so dense about this, just want to be certain I understand the instructions :P) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Lately, we've been doing A-class reviews like this. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I have found the instructions on how to proceed with an A-class assessment. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 21:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Step 4 says "A coordinator from the project closes the review". Does that mean that this project needs coordinators? GamerPro64 (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the "coordinator" is just to make sure that the two reviewers are being serious, and can be trusted. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 21:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Nah, we follow the "basic" method. You just start a thread on the talk page, and say whether you think it's A-class/what should be done to get it there/improve it. Same as is done for regular assessments. The only change is that for A-class assessments, it takes two reviewers agreeing that it's A-class for it to be promoted. --PresN 21:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see category Category:Video board games and contrast with article video board games. The category is used for video games that are either based on real life board games, or that feature board game-like play. The article itself is for real-life board games that utilize DVD's or other TV-based media as part of the gameplay. I acknowledge that there is justification for such a video game category, but wonder if maybe a rename might help remove some confusion. On the other hand, I don't know what to suggest for a rename. Dawynn (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that the category's name should be changed to Category:Board game video games.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Should be proposed at WP:CFD. –xeno^talk 12:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Greetings! I'm trying to salvage the Wikiquote page on The King of Fighters from a deletion discussion, but I need help from knowledgeable people to properly source the quotes to the correct game versions. Any help would be appreciated - cheers! bd2412 T 04:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Not to deflate your work, but I think the people voting to remove there are right in that these lines are wholy unremarkable for WQ's purpose. Sourcing is only part of the problem and not going to fully solve that. --MASEM (t) 04:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I've taken out a lot of what was originally there - probably close to 90% of it. What remains, I think, is mostly borderline quotable, but enough so that it might be of interest to the community of fans of the game looking up a cleverer than usual turn of phrase. bd2412 T 04:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I think per WP:SNOW you are going to lose the deletion discussion, so you could salvage the KOF article you created by doing what my IP stated on there. Move the entire article to your sandbox and find references for them later. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 13:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, the deletion discussion is not about Wikiquote's "The King of Fighters" page at all, but about the 29 pages on individual "The King of Fighters" characters - which should and will be deleted. bd2412 T 03:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The deletion debate has ended, and the entry has been kept. I would appreciate any help that anyone familiar with the games could provide in sourcing those quotes to their correct editions. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that many of the infoboxes waste space on the left because all of the requirements are jammed into one column span. Should we fit everything into two column spans instead? I have a before-and-after example here. —LOL ^T/_C 07:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

When I first read the title I wondered what the argument was. :) Your version looks neater to me. - X201 (talk) 08:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks better to me. --Torsodog^Talk 13:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Your version is very good. I'd agree with that change. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 13:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

What they said. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC))

Indeed, looks much better. -- Sabre (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Ill sixth that, looks good. Salavat (talk) 04:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The code is here. An admin will have to edit {{Infobox video game}}. —LOL ^T/_C 11:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

While we're at it (if only for sake or argument, that is), is there anything else that we can get rid of while we're talking about infoboxes? I say that because many infoboxes on VG-related articles (also many other articles elsewhere) draw out too long and mess up the layout of many articles – at many times sandwiching the text between images and long infoboxes (i.e. You cannot put an image to the right wherever the infobox is present, and you should not put an image to the left and sandwich the text between the image and the infobox). In a nutshell, infoboxes should not be the substitute for writing actual prose. –MuZemike 06:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

A lot of the stuff can be collapsed with {{Collapsible list}}, which helps. Gary King (talk) 07:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Do collapsing lists and collapsing infoboxes interfere with the various types of screen readers used by people with sight problems? - X201 (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

See WP:COLLAPSE. They are acceptable in infoboxes. Gary King (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The way I see it: everything discussed in an article does not need to go in an infobox, and things not discussed in the article body really should never appear in the infobox (I'm looking at you, people who want to add version numbers and resolutions.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You can't go to that extreme. On that line of thought the infobox template might as well be deleted altogether because no info on it needs to be there, with only the box cover images being salvaged because they can be placed on their own without an infobox around it. NeoGenPT (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of people on WP who think that way, actually. See WP:DISINFOBOX as a for instance (and note, I completely disagree with the notion). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem with infoboxes (as with all templates on wikipedia) is that there are too many people who mindlessly or carelessly just fill in parameters because they are there. I agree in part with WP:DISINFOBOX, but then again video games don't have the same issues as, say, an infobox about a World War in conveying complex ideas in a reductive manner. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion I think infoboxes are great. They allow me (and other readers) to grab the gist of a long article in a matter of seconds. Sometimes I check on wikipedia articles looking for quick info, and reading through an extensive article is not what I'm looking for. I'm looking for quick statements that say A, B, and C and I don't wish to take more than 30 seconds getting that info. That's why I personally love infoboxes. But that's just my own opinion on it. NeoGenPT (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

COuld you contribute a litttle more on the subject rather than opinion?Bread Ninja (talk) 20:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I am busy writing an article about the Facebook application Friends for Sale in one of my subpages to fill out one of the red-links on the Zynga article. I have played the game myself, although I'd prefer researching for third-party sources rather than to rely on my in-game experience, in-game forums and the like. It has been popular enough before Zynga took over control of the game.

Can you take a look at it and evaluate before I move it to the article namespace? I'm somewhat unsure of some stuff I wrote there, especially the genre of the game. Alexius08 (talk) 11:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

it looks a bit odd. you don't need to say "Zynga has announced that it will be available in ire;and" or whatever it was, sounds like a newspaper. Try saying "it has been confirmed that it will be available in ireland" critism, i think that could be in a reception section.

Also business model seems more like gameplay, or what not...Do you know another article of similar topic that you can compare with?Bread Ninja (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

FameLeague sounds to be another Facebook app with a similar concept. I've tried to pattern the new article after FarmVille. Alexius08 (talk) 02:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

as for friends for sale, i would say expand it by giving it reception.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I already moved the article to the mainspace. Alexius08 (talk) 12:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello everybody, I am from the German wikipedia and not sure how processes run in your wikipedia. Maybe what I did was foolish? But here is my case: From the discussion for deletion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trains (video game) I concluded that there was no mention of the software in any respected source at all. I found a 1984 article with a review via Goggle books and asked for a Deletion Review: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 April 22 Maybe someone can look at it? Thank you --Make (talk) 01:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe Tron Bonne deserves her own article. Over the years, there seems to be enough coverage of her including her being featured in numerous Capcom figure series. Any chance we could have one of her? --VitasV (talk) 10:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

If you are volunteering, then just make an article in your userspace. Then ask us if you think you have found enough material to cover notability. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 13:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I would but if possible, could maybe someone start one and then I can maybe help? --VitasV (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Have we come to a conclusion regarding what disambiguating phrase to use for terms specific to video gaming? I thought there was a discussion about this a few months ago, but it looks like nothing came of it. I'm talking about articles like Health (gaming), Spawning (video gaming), Buff (computer gaming), and Micromanagement (gameplay), where the disambiguating terms are all different. More terms can be found in Category:Video game gameplay. Gary King (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Caution is called for, because a lot of what one might think are video gaming terms have a broader scope. Health (gaming) is an excellent example; its dab is appropriate because it's shared between tabletop RPGs and computer/video games. In other cases, though, it seems like we have some trouble deciding whether "computer game" and "video game" are parallel categories or whether one generically encompasses the other. From their respective articles, though, it looks like there's some consensus that "video game" includes computer games rather than being limited to consoles specifically, so probably that would be the right dab to use except when a topic is truly specific to computer games or some other subgroup. Micromanagement (gameplay) I would say should either be Micromanagement (video gaming) or Micromanagement (gaming); re the latter, I could argue that Rolemaster is a sterling example of a micromanagement-based tabletop RPG. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Computer gaming is a subset of video gaming, so it shouldn't be included in the disambiguations.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't really get that. If a topic is only relevant within the subset, shouldn't its dab be scoped to the subset? I mean, it would seem very odd to me if we were to move Wizard (MUD) to Wizard (video gaming). —chaos5023 (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

There are probably few terms that are specific to computer gaming that don't apply to video games in other consoles, so this is probably not usually a problem. Arguments could probably be made that those terms also apply to other consoles, anyway. Gary King (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Sensible enough. So yes, scope to the relevance of the article, but (video gaming) is much more likely to be the true relevance than (computer gaming). —chaos5023 (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I really don't see many terms that apply ONLY to computers, or that couldn't be added to console games. And then there's the argument that consoles are also computers of sorts (example, Linux used to be available for PS3 fat), which makes the "video game" umbrella term easier for everyone.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. OboeCrack (talk) 13:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Mega Man needs to help i made an inbox but its sloppy so anyone who can improve would be useful Dwanyewest (talk) 21:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Given that the release rate of songs will potentially be much slower for the PS3 and Wii, and will be staggered over different periods, it could make interesting reading to see how long certain songs take to come out after the initial release compared to others. Is there any reason not to have the release dates in the columns for each console? Rob Sinden (talk) 15:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The Ikari Warriors article states:

"Ikari Warriors was the first to use rotary joysticks: those which could be rotated in addition to being pushed in eight directions."

This is incorrect. SNK's TNK III was released in 1985, and also used rotary joysticks (the same Seimitsu/SNK LS-30 that Ikari Warriors used, but with a different style handle). See the Ikari Warriors discussion page for details / possible sources – MaximRecoil (talk) 00:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC).

Hello. I've recently been making improvements to articles in the original Mega Man series. While working on Mega Man 7, I've had no luck finding a reliable release date for the game in PAL regions. GameFAQs lists it as March 1995 (like the Japanese version), which is hard to believe considering all the other games were released in Europe much later, and Mega Man 6 was not published there at all. If anyone has a reputable source, such as a UK magazine (Computer and Video Games, Edge, etc.) that lists the actual month or even better the day it was released, it would be of extreme help to me. Thanks. ~ Hibana (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Link, here you go. I expect GameSpot is a reliable source. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 02:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Problem with that is Gamespot = GameFAQs for release dates. Salavat (talk) 07:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, GameSpot uses the release date information from GameFAQs (which like GameSpot is also owned by the same company). In general, we have allowed the use of release information from GameFAQs for this reason. –MuZemike 15:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been told that my use of GameFAQS for dates on obscure Famicom games is incorrect...is that policy wrong? ?EVAUNIT^{神になった人間} 16:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:VG/RS#Situational sources: "[GameFAQs] Should only be used for release data. Release data on GameSpot/GameFAQs (the database is shared) comes from three sources: company press releases, research by staff, and user submissions (which are reviewed by a staff member and should be sourced)." Nifboy (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The original issue was not anyone doubting that they can use GamFAQs as a reliable source, its just that the hibana doubts its accuracy and is looking for a source elsewhere to either confirm or disprove GameFAQs. Salavat (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't use GameFaqs as a source, it is not good enough. Here's a comment I made in 2006 regarding the release date for Kiss: Psycho Circus: The Nightmare Child. GameFaqs says August 2000. The developer homepage (as well as Wikipedia) says July. Other articles I've worked on have displayed similar disparities, Ballistics received its US release in November 2001, but GameFaqs claims it was in October 2001. These aren't big differences - but if you're going for featured quality, you should get it right. Hibana is doing the right thing in searching for a better source. - hahnchen 22:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Some release data on GameFAQs/GameSpot is from the publisher. Some is also from volunteer contributors such as myself. Sources should be provided when submitting data so it can be verified, but not all sources would be considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards. And sometimes trusted members like myself don't have to provide any source. For new and recent releases, the dates are probably from the publisher and therefore reliable. For older games like Mega Man 7 though, the dates could have come from anywhere. Reach Out to the Truth 19:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes they dont even have a real release date though, they just have place holders until the real official release date comes in. so what about those?Bread Ninja (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be a regular issue for us? A lot of articles use GameFAQs or GameSpot for release data, which our sources page says is ok because they are at least reviewed by a staff member. If this isn't always the case, I would find it hard to justify using them as a sole source for release information without knowing for sure that the release date wasn't submitted by a "trusted" user. —Ost (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

for example, kh birth by sleep is set to release in north America in summer, but no other date has come in. gamespot has put place holders, originally dec 31, and then sept 30. so they have ignored the gamespot/FAQs and kept the original one from the producers themselves.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Future release dates practically require a cite to an official press release, for that reason. Past release dates are only a problem if there are conflicting sources, such as the NA release of Super Mario Bros., which currently says "By March 1986" to account for its test market release in 1985. Nifboy (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

That's fine if you check for conflicts for every past release date in another source besides GameFAQs/Spot, but I doubt that this is always done. If the expected practice when using one of these sites is to find another to corroborate the data, then we should add that to the guidelines. Unless they start giving the source of the release date, all release dates seem suspect of being unreliable (even if the majority are actually correct). —Ost (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

link Here is a link to Gamervision, I think it is all right for a release date source, at least it corroborates a 1995 PAL release, however it is unspecified on the month. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Mega Man 7 certainly wasn't released in the UK in March 1995. From looking through Super Play archives, I can see that there was a preview in the March issue, and the game featured on the Japanese and Import charts for a few issues after that. Had it been released in the UK, it would not be on the import chart. The game did not get a UK review until Issue 38 - December 1995, although the exact date of release is not clear. - hahnchen 19:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks you, hachnchen. That's a little bit more assuring. I suppose I could keep the release date as simply 1995 until something more concrete is found. ~ Hibana (talk) 19:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)