Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

They both suffer from usual video game article syndromes — too much in-game/gameplay/guide information and not enough development/reception. The gamecruft should be trimmed. Also, you can look in [1] for more reliable sourcing/information. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  20:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Having been reverting new users who have a single purpose account and sometimes anonymous IP addresses for months now, who keep reinserting the game bit about certain game sites, I wondering now if there is a reason to allow them to list things like that. They aren't connected to the company that made the game in any possible way, but do make money off other people's games, by ad banner revenue(some sites might also charge, I'm not certain). Age of Kings, Age of Conquerors, and Microsoft Ants are the articles in question. Links to Voobly and others have been added to them dozens of times, and always reverted by myself or someone else. The most recent person to add links started a conversation with me on my talk page [2], so I decided to seek more input on this subject. If their claim that over a thousand real people a day played the game, despite it being more than a decade old, was true, would that make it notable enough to link to in the related game article? Dream Focus 19:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me put this bluntly. This is encyclopaedia. External links are there to further reader research. [3] [4] [5] [6] are nothing short of blatant advertising. Will these links be accepted in a FA or worthy as references? No. So, unless valid objections are raised, I propose to remove these four and return to improving the actual content. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  01:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

We were talking about the links added to the Age of Kings series, none of those links were mentioned before. I went ahead and looked at them. First off, Apolyton does list a lot of information, although with their crappy interface its hard to find it, and a lot of the links are now broken. It provides maps and scenarios for the game, which would help anyone interested in it enough to look up information on the Wikipedia about it. The forum civfanatics [7] might seem like just a common fansite, but it is still active, and has encyclopedic information about the game, including how to modify it to add to it, customize it, and extend its playability. The original game saved everything in .txt files so it was very easy to read through and change things. One thread I see has gotten over 20 thousand views! While not as popular as it once was, there is plenty of information someone curious about the game, would find useful there. External links are there for people who wish to seek out more information about a topic. The link to the post at [8] serves no purpose at all, and I see no reason for it being there. Dream Focus 02:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

In addition to the four links mentioned by Hellknowz, I also propose getting rid of the Gamespot link, [9]. The Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines specifically mentions the video game's page as Gamespot as an inappropriate external link. I actually cleaned up the external links a couple of weeks ago, eliminating broken links and the more egregious self-prmotion. In terms of my forum, I could provide a very useful resource, The SMAC Academy at Civilization Gaming Network, but I think it is better to use those resources for citations. It is much simpler using the bright line of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines. I happen to be an active participant in the civfanatics forum and I would have to wonder how Dream Focus concluded civfanatics had encyclopedic information. Apolyton's creation subforum certainly has more information about modification and customization and I have just given the reference to reference articles on my site (the articles on the Scenario Editor and Alpha(x).txt editing are reference works for people creating modifications). I believe there is a lot of room for abuse and I have documented the case for one forum on the discussion pages of Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri and Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire, where one forum put in its external link three times for Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire (and the second time, put in a bunch of other external links as "cover.") While I respect the idea that external links are there for people who wish to seek out more information about a topic, the example I cited shows that it is easily abused. I believe that it would be far superior to cite information that meets Wikipedia's standards and let interested readers follow citations if a particular paragraph or section interests them. I hope I am not getting anyone angry. Having actually cleaned up the external links, I saw how a lot of them were just promotion and having reviewed the history of one forum planting its link (they even had a forum thread where they discussed it), I saw the potential for abuse. For the articles I am dealing with, I believe the best solution is to restrict the external links to the official sites. For other articles, this may not be the best solution.Vyeh (talk) 05:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

• http://www.weplayciv.com/ that you mention, doesn't just have a forum with over 16 thousand post for the Alpha Centauri game, but also has a main page for news, maps, mods, and whatnot. [10] I'm going to change the link in the article to [11] though, since that list everything they have, not just the forum. Dream Focus 14:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

Hibana, I agree with your suggestions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have nominated Nintendo Entertainment System for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. –MuZemike 19:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

–MuZemike 21:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From my talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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