Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 39

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

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

→

Video games of unclear notability

Hello,

there are currently about 220 articles in the scope of this project which are tagged with notability concerns. Based on a database snapshot of March 12, I have listed them here.

I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged into an article of larger scope, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability.

If you have further questions, please leave a message on the Notability project page or on my personal talk page. (I'm not watching this page however.) Thanks! --B. Wolterding (talk) 11:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I've done about 15. User:Krator (t c) 14:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

What's bothering me about all this is some of these are notable at least, just in need of cleanup. And frankly the list format used here is terrible, because after an article has been cleaned up it doesn't get its mention removed from the page right off, you have to go back and do it yourself. Which is especially troublesome given we're dealing with a backlog that extends to last year...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added third party sources to a few pages in the list. I agree with Kung Fu Man in that there are articles tagged here that are most likely notable (E.g. games released for PlayStation 2, SNES, etc.), and are just in need of cleanup and expansion. Perhaps some sort of guidance is needed for WP:VG that suggests using {{refimprove}} instead of {{notability}} for games that were released on a mainstream console. It's unlikely now that a licensed game will not have had some coverage. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Not all the articles on the list are necessarily video games, however. There's quite a few on characters and other misc stuff (one of the first on the list, 'open tibia servers', doesn't seem to be notable, for example). A lot of the games can probably be fixed pretty easily though; Burnout is on the list for example... A pretty helpful list in general however. Bridies (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The list is definitely useful and it does help identify problem articles easily. My concern is that editors tagging for notability could be taking a more appropriate course of action with articles about actual games. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I've gone through some of the list and added sources to some, cleaned up others and prodded, prod-2'd or AfD'd some. Are we keeping a list of progress on these anywhere centrally in a similar way to Krator's list of the 700? Gazimoff (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Further to this, I have created Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Assessment/Notability for us to be able to centrally check off articles as we go Gazimoff (talk) 09:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

I recommend that we decrease the age of threads to be archived to 7 days. Does anyone agree/disagree? MrKIA11 (talk) 01:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Given the current rate of discussion may be a good idea.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

How about 10 days? Though it lets thing get a bit cluttered, it'll help ensure topics don't get forgotten too quickly. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC))

That works for me. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Consensus sought for spinout articles

Contributions are sought at WT:FICT#Guidelines and consensus, to try to determine whether the inclusion of spinout articles without real-world coverage has consensus support. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

NAA RSS feed

What exactly is the limiting factor for the RSS feed? Is it time (articles created within x hours) or number of articles (x newest articles). Either way, can it be changed to include more articles? It seems like the feed has to be checked every hour or a new article will be missed. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

When I created the feed, I tried to use a larger number of articles, but I had problems getting that to work with Feedrinse, the site I used to filter out the video game-related articles. Anyway, it seems the RSS system seems to have changed, so now I can only get the Special:NewPages to display the latest 500 new articles. Before I managed to get bigger feeds. Feedrinse filters out any article that contains either "Infobox CVG", "videogame", "video game", "Infobox VG", or "computer game". JACO PLANE • 2008-03-24 17:55

Oh, ok. Thanks for explaining it. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone want to try this site. It would allow us to have multiple feeds combined, so it could have the first 500 new pages plus the second 500 pages and so on. I just can't seem to get it to work. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I found another tool that discovers new articles: [1]. It seems that the database is down for the English Wikipedia for the moment, here is an example from the German Wikipedia: [2]. Hopefully the DB will be back up for en: soon. JACO PLANE • 2008-03-27 15:13

Move request: video puzzle game to puzzle video game

Please see the [puzzle game talk page]. We need to show there's a consensus before asking an admin to do it. (Apparently, puzzle video game already exists... as a redirect to video puzzle game.) Randomran (talk) 07:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

done. thanks for checking in, guys. you'd be surprised how much a quick comment can help! Randomran (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Need some help with sourcing for List of songs in Guitar Hero (FLC)

I am trying to get List of songs in Guitar Hero as a featured list, and everything about it seems ok in the current review save for one aspect: the game has two songs ("Trippolette" and "Graveyard Shift") that aren't accessible unless you use a device like a GameShark to access them - this information is found on numerous forum boards and blogs, as well as on a page that was created by the supposed author of one song ... but all of these are dubious reliable sources. The most reliable source I found mention of them was Kotaku, but that basically (Following the links) pointed back to the author's page. I have been pointed that the Summer 2006 Gameshark code book has the code to unlock one, which at least gives me a printed source to work from, but if anyone has other sources to be able to provide, that would be helpful. (I'd also need the Gameshark codebook reference if anyone has that.). I'm tempted to remove the songs as well, making the rest of the article fine for sourcing, but I feel that its doing an injustice since its apparent those songs exist, its just that because of the difficulty unlocking them, they haven't been covered by even minor press. --MASEM 13:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Kotaku is listed on WP:VG/S, so it should be fine. If you really want a printed source, I'm sure a discount bookstore like Half Price Books might have that particular volume. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 13:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC))

Yea, I guess that one could be included, since they comment on the style too. --MASEM 14:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

How to write a video game article

This has been a side-topic in a couple different discussions. Anyway, I figured I'd give it a go too. I took some ideas from User:Zeality/GuideWIP and User:Hbdragon88/vgimprove, and tried to expand on them. I've worked up a draft at my sandbox, and would really appreciate some suggestions, criticism, and general input. Feel free to make edits to it and expand/improve as you see fit. Hopefully this is something that can get done relatively quickly with enough people working on it.

One question I had was if there are any restrictions to screen captures of Wikipedia articles? I assume that because the content is under the GFDL, it can be copied in this fashion. I'm also assuming that any non-free images in the screen cap would be indistinguishable and could not be used to reproduce fakes. If that's the case, I'd like to add in at least one, maybe another.

Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC))

You could use some ideas from my recent draft at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Layout for the organisation section. I also have User:Krator/VG tips. User:Krator (t c) 20:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to incorporate some of that in. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC))

It's starting to shape up better now. I think the weakest part is the "Writing the article" section, specifically the "Writing style" and "Writing tips" subsections. Any other input and comments would be appreciated. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC))

I feel the "Writing the article" section is quite decent at the moment, but avoid using "present day". A game made in 1980 would not be "present day" when the article is read in 2025 (precise language as stated in WP:DATE). The example "the game is set in present day New York" could perhaps be changed to "the game is set in New York of the 1980s". The examples for out-of and in-universe styles should also have the (encouraged/discouraged) suffixes. I strongly feel the Misconceptions section should also have similar encouraged/discouraged examples. A short section on citation templates and examples (probably video game, web, journal, book) on how to use them in the article would be nice. Jappalang (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try to incorporate that in as well. Also, please feel free to make any adjustments and additions you'd like. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC))

A section about citations has been added. I'll try to standardize the examples and tips later. In the meantime, more comments and suggestions are welcome from anybody. Feel free to make any changes you think would help. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC))

Infobox reworking

I believe that we should add two new fields to the infobox VG, for games in a series, ie The Settlers. The fields should be "followed by" and "preceded by" or something along those lines, rather than having a category box in the bottom of the page. Because personally speaking I believe that it would work so much better! (and also, I am not wanting to remove the category boxes from the bottom fo articles, I think we should add these fields whilst keeping the category box, so if for example; person A is trying to The Settlers IV, he doesn't have to go from The Settlers II to The Settlers III etc.) What do you think? Philbuck222 (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This has been asked for before, but generally disagreed because while it is easy for some series to include, other series that have expansion packs before the next version number increase is difficult to plot this way: should "Guitar Hero II" be followed by "Guitar Hero Encore: Rocks the 80s" or by "Guitar Hero III"? On the other hand, it is highly suggested that navboxes should be used for navigation between entries in a game series. --MASEM 21:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You do bring up a good point, spinoffs make it a complicated issue. Philbuck222 (talk) 08:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

How would this work for in a series like Metal Gear Solid? Chronological order? Order by date of release? Do we include spinoffs of the game? Do we include video game novelizations? and so on.. Strongsauce (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I would imagine that for series like Metal Gear it would be Release Date. (At least that is what I would prefer if i was a regular reader). Philbuck222 (talk) 08:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose the change. Navboxes already present this information in a greater context and usually without debate. I see no compelling reason to add this to the already-large infobox. Pagra shtak 15:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Twinking edit war

Lately there has been a lot of conflict at the Twinking article. In perticular, there has one IP user (or he's choosing not to sign in, I can't tell for sure) who has been constantly bringing up the same thing on the talk page. He keeps claiming the same "facts" but doesn't not provide sources for any of them. I hit him with every Wikipolicy and guideline that I can think of, but it doesn't seem to be doing any good. Can someone please help me resolve this? The discussion is at Talk:Twinking#POV edits. Thank you. --Eruhildo (talk) 05:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You are probably talking about 66.227.231.91, a quick browse trough his contributions reveals a tendency to post POV on articles, there appears to be a obvious conection between the anon and User:Mattelot based on the edit patterns and this edit. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's him. What course of action should I take if I can't resolve this by talking it out? I hate blocking people if I can avoid it. --Eruhildo (talk) 07:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure a block is actually justified in this case, yet. For the edit in question, neither version is sourced, and both versions seem acceptable to me. The edit war is over the choice of wording, and that's POV both ways. The best step to take right now is to find a good source and base the wording on what can be cited. Then, assuming that there is still an edit conflict, it at least establishes who has yet to meet the burden of proof. Alternatively, simply incorporate both wordings to reflect that there is no apparent de facto definition. I'm not sure what you meant by throwing policies at him, but from the discussion page it looks like you were asking for citations from him, while not providing any yourself. While I'd agree that his approach is unfriendly and unilateral, that doesn't give you a free pass either, I'm afraid. Ham Pastrami (talk) 13:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much the whole article seems to be original research. Bridies (talk) 13:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I need to take a cool down. I keep assuming I'm right and he's wrong, but it's not like I have sources either. I think I'll take a break from it for a while. Thanks for your help. --Eruhildo (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Disclosing of copy protection

With respect to PC titles, I had proposed the addition of a "copy protection" field for the VG infobox, but that apparently wasn't accepted. To me, and anyone else who might be conscious about the consumer rights issues behind some of the more invasive types of copy protection (ahem StarForce), the type of protection used is an important fact but one that is a bit awkward to bring up out of the blue, in prose. I also considered a category but this seems like non-defining criteria. The problem is, if it's not an infobox field or category of some sort, it's usually omitted from the article, because as I said it's awkward to just make a mention of it out of the blue. I'll continue doing that but I hope the community can come up with a better solution. Ham Pastrami (talk) 13:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Something like that sounds like it could fit in well enough in the "Development" section. Do you have an example of one that is out of the blue? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC))

VG Barnstar question

Just a quick question. Should the {{Barnstar VG}} be listed on the Wikipedia:Barnstars/Topical or Wikipedia:Awards by WikiProject page? I noticed it wasn't on there and wasn't sure if it just hasn't been added yet, or if there was a special reason why it isn't there. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC))

You've just doubled the length of the "what links here list" on it. :) - X201 (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

One question. What's a barnstar? Gazimoff (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

An award for editing, see WP:STAR - X201 (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

So I assume that's a yes to adding them there? :-p (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC))

Yep. I've added a doc subpage to it with an example. - X201 (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool, it has been added to Wikipedia:Barnstars/Topical and Wikipedia:Awards by WikiProject. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC))

Category:CRASH Smash Winners

I spotted this in the new article announcements section. This category is a very bad idea, CRASH was a very important magazine for the Spectrum, but we should not categorise games by their critical response. The Crash Smash was awarded to games receiving over 90% in the publication, this was not particularly rare as you can see from the category. Having a category for Crash, means we should have categories for all major publications, I do not think this is a good idea. I am not opposed to a List of Crash Smash winners article, if needed, but unless there are serious arguments for keeping this category, it's probably going to end up at CFD. - hahnch e n 18:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't think of a reason to keep it, and as you've stated there is no reason to categorize games by critical response. I also don't see much reason to have a "List of Crash Smash winners" either. But then again I don't see why there should be a 2001 Webby Awards. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC))

Go ahead and put it up for CFD. Otherwise some magazine fans are going to get inspired to create many Category:Insert-Name-Here Magazine Award Winners. Jappalang (talk) 00:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with reasonings above too, so have proposed it for deletion via CFD process. --Oscarthecat (talk) 09:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Forum sources

I also have a question: if the developer posted in the forum - is that regarded as an, at least, acceptable source, as long as it is certain he is the dev? diego_pmc (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that is fine. Strongsauce (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:SPS, "forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable." Normally you wouldn't want to use the developer as a source, except to quote the developer about something. If it is a significant thing said, it probably will be published on an independant site. If is is something wholly non-controversial, you might ignore the policy, but forum postins as sources should be extremely rare. 2005 (talk) 23:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

To add on, if it is the developer posting on their official forum, and there is proof the poster is the developer (usually a title, or staff section detailing which nick is who), then he might be considered a reliable source for development information. Posters on other forums without verifiable identities are not likely to be reliable (anyone can claim to be a developer). Jappalang (talk) 00:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as Jappalang said: WP:VG/S (at the bottom of the 'fansites' section). Bridies (talk) 02:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, agree with Jappalang and Bridies. Just be careful when using them and make sure you cite them well. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Question

I was just curious, WT:VG, if a video game localized by Nintendo were to use a name as the game's series, despite there being another name for the series in Japan (and this name not being used over that other name at all in any English games), would you consider that official documentation that Nintendo considers that name to be the series name in English? - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm really a stickler for "English wikipedia, English localized names" such as the case of SaGa vs Final Fantasy Legend. If later English items refer to a game series by a certain name though, then they override the others. However the game is still referred as Earthbound (I checked your contrib history to see what you might be referring to ;P). Look under "Jeff" on this page. It's also mentioned here. Given Brawl's the latest reference and this is from Nintendo themselves, nobody can argue with it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I didn't want to mention the series, since some people might let their bad judgment get the better of them. I totally missed that EB mention too in the second link provided. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

4X strategy game: requests for copyedits, feedback, etc.

A group of editors have added a lot of good information to the 4X game genre article. I've tried to clean it up and provide better references. I think it could use a second or third pair of eyes. There's probably typos and stuff. Plus it would be helpful to identify any other weaknesses in the article, to guide further edits. Randomran (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look when able. Kudos to writing an article on a video game subject, by the way: it seems our essential linking articles suffer from a lack of attention. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Halo Wars

Since alot of info has been released since the initial Halo Wars article, I think a team should help bring it up to date.-- King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 23:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Since the recent theme here appears to Be Bold, you're welcome to give it a shot yourself. If you run into any problems or get stumped, just post back here. Also, we're working on a new guide to writing VG articles. It's still in the drafting stages, but I think it could still be of help to new editors. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC))

GA Nom backlog

A lot of you guys probably already know this, but the GA Noms are backlogged right now, particularly the video game section. Yesterday, I reviewed an article that had been queued for around 3 weeks. I just want to encourage everyone to take the time to review an article. Thanks, and see you around. -- Noj r (talk) 03:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to, but looking at some of the comments on the talk page "should never have been passed" etc., getting involved will probably do more harm than good. Particularly as everyone seems to have different standards, if it's not wrong by the GA project then it's probably wrong by the article nominator.. "that isn't necessary to pass" etc. Nah. Someone another 14:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You shouldn't be afraid of making a mistake with GA's : there's several checks in place that can help. If you try to review something and not sure if it meets or not, you can let that be known on the talk page of the article, or you can asked for a GA second opinion from someone experienced in GA reviews. If you fail an article that the editor felt was good, they can take it to GA Review where it gets a larger evaluation. GA Sweeps are "periodically" performed to check the quality of GAs. Mistakes are good: they are a learning process; the only point that will get you into problems is if you are overly stingy or overly lax on what you fail or pass over repeated reviews. --MASEM 14:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Which is what bothers me, how am I supposed to know unless an experienced reviewer double checks the article, it's history and the reviewer comments? They might as well do it themselves and save time. I've spent a good deal of time looking over the page, looking over nominations and DH2O's guide, and the only impression it's left is one of a minefield where every action and statement goes against something somewhere beginning with WP:, someone's sensibilities or 'the norm' for the GA project. Reviews of subjects I was looking at brought up problems that didn't even register, or went through when I thought they would fail. It's a nice idea, but I can live without feeling guilty and additional headaches. Someone another 15:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

If that's how you feel, that's cool. You shouldn't do anything you're not comfortable with. But just to emphasize the point again—Masem's right; it's ok to make a mistake here. We've all done it before and will continue to do it again. So if it's something you or anybody here would like to do, Be Bold and do it; it's one of the best ways to learn sometimes. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

Another piece of advice is to participate in FA reviews - here, you're one voice among several, and you'll get the feeling for what GA is looking for. Or participate in Peer Review which is also backed up (not just in VGs). --MASEM 15:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll think on what you've both said. Sorry my first comment looks like an out of the blue downer, been itching to help with the backlog and felt cheap for not doing so. :( Someone another 15:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

No worries, we all started out there before. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

I was looking at this myself as well and I'm still nervous about helping out. The great thing is that I know with assessments and FA work that I can make the occasional mistake and the VG people won't bite my head off :). I'll try to help out with peer reviews as well as getting more assessments done. One thought though, Someoneanother, would you like to team up to work on the GA backlog? --Gazimoff (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we take one of the FF music articles each? There's two there, they're both good quality and some have already passed GA, meaning there's a good comparison available. It'd be a chance to get our brain-boxes onto the right track without some 'holy cow' faults. :) Someone another 16:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! Gazimoff (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Take your pick, I'll do the other one. If PresN wants to kill us he'll have to catch us first XD Someone another 17:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I've grabbed Final Fantasy X and marked it as On Review, if you want to grab the other one. And yes, we can always flee if he comes after us! Gazimoff (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Rarr, I'm coming after you! Really though, thanks, both of you guys did a great job reviewing the articles! --PresN (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been busy with my own FACs, so I haven't been active at GAN like I usually am... my suggestion to new reviewers is to pick high-quality articles that are similar to good article candidates to review; it's much easier to see the GA criteria in effect than to just check an article against the list. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. Someone another 17:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, didn't expect to see such a big turnout. Kudos to Someoneanother and Gazimoff for being bold. Now I had a question: How often should wikipedians be allowed to review articles? Since I have already reviewed one the other day, I felt at least a minimum of a week should pass before considering reviewing another. Is there any precedent on this or is it simply a personal matter? -- Noj r (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Occasionally I get off on sprees where I review the entire backlog at once. There's no reason not to review as many as you feel like, but if you're just starting off I suggest getting a feel for the process and for the criteria. If the article has issues and needs to be put on hold, I tell them to ping me at my talk page when they feel they've finished the changes; that way I can keep track of my noms' status a little easier. If you have the time to do good reviews for all, then the follow-up isn't too big a deal and you can do plenty of noms. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. I too am new at reviewing GA articles. Since I want to become a better contributor, I decided to be bold, help with the backlog, and review an article. However I did not want to overstep my boundaries as a wikipedian. With that out of the way, however, I think I'll review another article soon in the very near future. -- Noj r (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Nintendo DS vs. PlayStation Portable console war

Isn't the Nintendo DS vs. PlayStation Portable console war article redundant? It's basically repeating information found in the Nintendo DS and PlayStation Portable articles and there is already a Console wars article. --Silver Edge (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, it should be merged into the general article, otherwise we will soon end with a Xbox 360 vs. PlayStation 3 vs. Wii war. - Caribbean~H.Q. 12:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Console wars. xenocidic (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The same could have been said about ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, but it reached FA. Obviously, this not as fleshed out as the re-rating article was at first, but the topic has potential. The article was created on the 20th, so it wouldn't hurt to give it a week before merging. Maybe it could be expanded into something more substantial. If not, then it can be merged. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC))

I doubt there is more relevant material outside of the one already covered in the console articles, but nevertheless if we are going to give it a chance to develop before merging we must begin by changing the current title, what is with "war" anyways? the term "competition" (as long as that will undoubtly make the already long title) is a lot more accurate. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right, but it won't hurt to see if this can go somewhere. The term war shouldn't be that problematic. Numerous online and printed reliable sources have referred to console competitions as "wars". For another title, how about "Seventh generation handheld war" or "Second handheld war" (taken from the Console war article). (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC))

Well, it doesn't seem to have been touched in about a week and hasn't made much progress. I guess it's time to merge it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 01:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC))

Yep, go for it. xenocidic (talk) 02:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Requesting 2nd opinion

I am currently reviewing the article Mega Drive for GA status. However, half of the references used appear to be highly unreliable. I almost quick-failed the article per criteria (1), but after checking the SNES article I noticed that there are questionable references in there as well. And its an FA! As a result, I felt it was fair to get the opinion of others in this matter rather than brashly fail it. The GA review is here. Thanks for the help everyone. -- Noj r (talk) 05:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Judge the article on its own, not by other article's failings. You can refer to the essay Other stuff exists for the whys. GameFAQs are straight out unreliable for use as citation sources. The same goes for MobyGames. Fansites are also out. Personal websites would qualify as reliable sources if their authors are acknowledged by industry sources as experts in the field. If Home of the Underdogs is used as a citation source, the citation must not have a link to avoid linking to copyright material as discussed in an archived discussion (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 37#Underdogs links under attack). Jappalang (talk) 06:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The SNES article isn't a failure. I was using it to find out what kind of sources are acceptable for a console article, and I discovered some questionable ones. To be frank, I didn't want to be rash with the Mega Drive article if more leniency is granted towards console article references. As it stands now (thanks to your advice), I truly believe half of the references are unacceptable for reliable referencing and thus fails the quick-fail criteria (1) of a GA nom. Anyway, anybody else got 2 cents to throw in? -- Noj r (talk) 07:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sidenote: I did not mean the SNES article failed, but rather its failings, in other words, its inadequacies for having reliable sources. The older FAC process tended to be more lenient than the current ones in light of new policies and guidelines. If you are daring, you might want to present the SNES article at WP:FAR, although it is well advised to raise the issue at its talk page first. Instead of quick failing the Sega Mega Drive article, you could give its contributors a week to rectify all the unreliable sources (only) if you believe they can find reliable sources within that time.Jappalang (talk) 07:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

If lack of reliable sources is the only reason you're holding off on passing the article, then I would give the editors a week to fix that. They may not be able to fix that in a week, but best to give them the benefit of the doubt. If there are more issues, like being poorly written, lacking fair use rationale on images, and/or inaccuracies, then it would probably be best to fail the article. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 13:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC))

It meets the Quick-fail criteria as there's citation banners and "citation needed" tags, so it should definitely be failed regardless. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 15:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

All added by me today in response to the GA report on the talk page. You can't quick fail it just because I acted on the GA report and marked the parts that were deficient. - X201 (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I obviously thought that these were added before the nomination. To be honest, I don't see much point in tagging these until after the GA nom if it fails. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 15:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I put the review on hold so that they can at at least try to get some reliable sources. The thing is, the article is GA material, besides the questionable references, it just had some minor quibbles. Anyway, we'll see what happens -- Noj r (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

IRC?

The last time I was logged in (and the time before that), there were no users that are chatting at this channel (#wikipedia-en-vg) even though this WikiProject offers it. Do we have any plans to populate the channel of some sort? PrestonH 02:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I am on the channel at most GMT-sane times, but usually the only one. DHMO drops in at aussie times (and we tend to chat when I'm up early), and Jaco is there every once in a while as well. User:Krator (t c) 11:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know there was an IRC channel for the project. I'll be in the channel when I have the time. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Peer review of Ninja Gaiden (2004 video game)

I have done a major brush up of the article and put it up for peer review. Please take a look. Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Official blogs as reliable resources

I don't know if this has come up before or not. But while reviewing Warhawk (PlayStation 3 game) for GA, I noticed some of the sources listed were from blog.us.PlayStation.com, which I believe is SCEA's official blog. Do official blogs qualify as a reliable source? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC))

Blogs are classified as self-published sources (WP:SPS), so the restrictions there should apply to corporate blogs. Jappalang (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is WP:SELFPUB that would apply in this case. xenocidic (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that clears it up. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC))

beatmania IIDX articles

I've begun work on some Beatmania IIDX articles for all the versions like the DDR articles (since IIDX is just as big as DDR and thus deserves it). I've started my work with IIDX GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLD for starters. I'm going to try get that person who started the DDR mini-taskforce to start a Beatmania IIDX taskforce, but if anyone else wants to help, that'd be great. ViperSnake151 21:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Traffic statistics, again

Please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Traffic statistics. JACO PLANE • 2008-04-3 15:08

Wow, very nice Jaco. There have been pretty steady increases in the number of views all around the project. That's very encouraging. Is this something that will be updated regularly? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC))

I'll update that page every month, at least if the traffic tool doesn't go offline. JACO PLANE • 2008-04-3 15:23

Question: should I add any other pages to the traffic page? Perhaps the Newsletter page (I really hope this will be a successful endeavor, btw)? Also, when we see that pages like the Suikoden task force consistantly have under 50 views per month, should we have a discussion about the viability of such a task force? JACO PLANE • 2008-04-3 21:56

Portal

One thing that becomes clear when looking at these statistics is that we should probably put some energy in keeping Portal:VG more up to date, since it is the most viewed page in the entire project. JACO PLANE • 2008-04-3 18:42

What did you have in mind? Adding more Featured articles to the que, and updating the Current events section? Or are thinking more along the lines of a redesign? We could add in the collapsible FA and GA lists like on the Project page. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC))

Yeah in any case I need to update the Featured article list, since the current list is no longer up to date. The current events also needs a definite overhaul. Maybe the portal should be redesigned, do you have any ideas? JACO PLANE • 2008-04-3 19:34

I liked the idea, so I went ahead and added in the collapsed FA and GA boxes --PresN (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

What should be included when updating the Current events? Obviously the high profile stuff, but do we have any guideline as to what that should include, or just what ever sounds reasonable? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC))

Back in the day when there was still a VG-current events page, I made a page that lists current-events sources here. That might be useful. JACO PLANE • 2008-04-3 20:15

Cool, that'll be helpful. How does updating on a weekly or bi-weekly basis sound? And we should probably get a handful of editors to contribute in case one of us is too busy or on a break. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC))

Basically we should update whenever there is a notable story. Here's an example of the old VG-current events page. Of course, that page was more detailed so more stories could be added, but as long as there is a reliable source to back up the story and the relevant articles have been updated to reflect the new information, it can be added. JACO PLANE • 2008-04-3 20:53

Hey Guy, this will put another feather in your cap, make use a Featured Portal :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Essential articles

We need to do a much better job with our essential articles. Especially "General" and "Genres". These are the articles that the rest of the video game category rest upon. We ought to get a few of them to GA status, and reduce the number of stubs and starts. These should be front and center of our portal. Randomran (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely. The essential articles was set up a long time ago in the hope that we would be able to release a WikiReader. If we could get a number of articles up to GA-status, then I'm sure we could find a publisher who would be willing to publish the book for us. I for one would love to have a WP:VG core articles encyclopedia in print. JACO PLANE • 2008-04-3 22:38

Talking of genres, you're not gonna believe what literally just got delivered - Guinness World Records Gamer's Edition 2008. It contains details of pretty much all of the main genres and the original games for each. For instance, Utopia is described as the first god game. Nothing's covered exhaustively, but there's interviews, hardware, genres, individual games etc. It describes RuneScape as the largest free MMORPG. It reckons Street Fighter II was the first game to introduce combos to fighting games, 500,000 arcade cabinets of the game were sold.... Frigging jackpot! :D Someone another 10:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow oh wow. That's gold. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

And would be a wonderful addition to the magazines project, hint, hint. - X201 (talk) 10:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, it's a 250 page book *dies*. I'll try at some point when I've got the time, it's why I bought the thing. Someone another 11:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I know. I'm still recovering from the wiki linking on issue 80 of Edge- X201 (talk) 11:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that does sound like a jackpot. It sounds like it could be used to boost our "history" articles too, which are pretty essential. Randomran (talk) 14:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a very cool book. I picked it up this week too and it's much better than I thought it'd be. So don't worry Someone, you're not alone of that sizable en devour. :-p Also, Next Gen posted some of the content on their website here. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC))

Any thoughts on restarted the collab of the (rather than week) fortnight to do some essential article work? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we should actually build a task force. There's lots of task forces for individual games or series. But no task force for our essential articles. Nobody's building our backbone. Randomran (talk) 14:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There's definitely a lot of editors supporting the idea. But we somewhat put it off until we got the VG Newsletter off the ground. We hope the newsletter will keep everybody more connected so the multiple departments and collaborative efforts won't die out. Masem set up a talk page and first draft for the newsletter. We're shooting for April 9th as the first date, and feedback would be appreciated. After it's up and running, we'll probably going to cleanup inactive projects and taskforces and then start the article collaboration. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC))

That seems like a sensible way to go about things. Either way, I hope that a task force devoted to some of those backbone genre/history/basic conceptual articles will be in our near future. Randomran (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

New article announcements

Another thing that becomes clear by looking at the traffic stats is that the "new article announcements" page is really taking off, probably mainly due to the efforts of MrKIA11, who has been amazing in maintaining that page. He could probably use some help. I've created a RSS feed that filters out video game-related articles that you can add to Firefox as a live bookmark. That way whenever you have nothing to do you can easily update the new articles page. JACO PLANE • 2008-04-3 22:52

First of all, thanks. I try to update it as often as possible, as it only takes a minute or so with RSS feed. The main way I could use help is if someone could figure out a way to increase the RSS feed size, as 500 pages are created more often than I am able to update the list. It is currently limited by the fact that only the last 500 articles can be filtered, but if someone could find a way to combine multiple feeds then it could combine the first 500 pages, the second 500 pages, and so forth depending on how large the feed should be. I found this site, which can combine multiple feeds and would work great, if it worked. For some reason I can not get it to recognize that I put in my e-mail address. If someone could try this site to see if they can get it to work, that would be great. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Your work's much appreciated, the more active individual sections of the project are, the more contributors and readers will be attracted to the project. Excellent stuff. Someone another 12:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup requested for Insaniquarium

Hello, I'm not a member of this WikiProject, but I'd like to request someone with more experience with video game articles take a look at this article and edit appropriately. Perhaps you could add this to your to do list in the cleanup section. The article seems to have too much "gamer" info and reads like a GameFAQs faq/walkthrough. Any volunteers? Thanks. ~EdGl 22:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

eek. I've watchlisted and will try and help out a bit. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've removed a lot of gamecruft and decorative fair use images. Some info about development/reception/anything but gameplay! would be good. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've had a quick poke. At the article that is.. oh never mind. I own the game so it'll be a lot easier for me to fix up, there's a gamedev.net interview with Flying Bear and other sources, I'll stick it on my things to do list and fix it up at some point. Someone another 11:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, looks really good now, thanks! Consider that a barnstar-equivalent compliment ;) ~EdGl 14:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

We do our best :) The information is there for some improvements so it should get better in the near future. Someone another 15:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice work, SA. I might leave it to you now...I haven't played that game in, like, 3 years...(good times though!). Good luck; EdGl! Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyrighted trailers linked in articles

Are they allowed? I tried to remove one from Tom Clancy's H.A.W.X. but got reverted and accused of vandalism. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

If put under the external links, I guess they can be borderline accepted, although I personally I don't like that sort of usage. Far better that they are used for some sort of reference purpose (very dependent on the type of trailer, conventional trailers aren't good for that but ones like development commentary are) and linked in the reference footnote. They certainly have no place in the article after a game is released unless there is some encyclopedic value to that aspect of the marketing for the game. -- Sabre (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Key addition to what S@bre said. The link to the trailer should not be a copy violation. In other words, the trailer must be uploaded to the linked/cited site by authorized sources of the copyright holder or the holder themselves. In the H.A.W.X case, IGN should be okay, but I doubt the trailer adds substantial information to the article. Jappalang (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

EarthBound revamped, requesting PR

Revamped the EarthBound article and have initiated a peer review. I want to take the article to GA and later, FA. You can help here. Thanks. -- Noj r (talk) 01:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look sometime today or tomorrow. It's nice to see one of the older games going towards FA. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 15:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Greatly appreciated. -- Noj r (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It was a pleasure to do; nice article. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 19:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You might as well go straight to FA. Any problems that will be fixed in the GA waiting period will have to be fixed for the FA queue too. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 06:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't just yet. You should never really send it to FAC knowing that there are lingering issues. Stagnation is to be expected at FAC, but it may still be opposed outright by people who will want sales data and more info from the Japanese media. Anyway, there's no rush. But saying that, I don't see any problems with the article once that info is added. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 12:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Coordinator

Does this project have a coordinator? I work for a major video game magazine and would like to interview someone about the work being done here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.117.171.163 (talk) 14:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, thank you for the consideration. Unfortunately, this project does not have a coordinator or leader of any kind. The work done here is a collaborative effort among editors to improve video game related articles. Though I'm sure there are several long time contributors that would be willing to answer whatever questions you may have. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC))

Thank you for your resonse. Which long-term contributors do you feel I should contact? 16:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.117.171.163 (talk)

Well, a somewhat large number comes to mind. Also I'm not entirely sure which are currently active. I'm sure they'll see this posting and respond here. The major project contributors check this talk page on a regular basis. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC))

What are you talking about, Guy? We all know I run the show with my puppet strings ;) *sarcasm* --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Pick me Nigel!;). Sorry if I seem funny, but have you got any way to authenticate your position? Which "major video game magazine"? etc. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 17:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to stick my hand in the air but I think I qualify as 'newbie' here :) --Gazimoff (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Im not sure what the normal procedure here would be, but I would suggest making a user account and on the talk page(or indeed your ip talk page), and ask some questions in a similar way to how the Signpost works, such as here. John.n-irl (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Your best way of contacting someone would be via Special:EmailUser, for example, I can be contacted by Special:EmailUser/Krator. Some people to contact that would fit the bill are (of the above) Ashnard, David Fuchs, and Guyinblack. I would be open to it as well. User:Krator (t c) 08:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Jacoplane is active and as been around here for a long time. I'd recommend Deckiller too, but I don't know how active/reachable he is right now. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC))

Help requested On EarthBound

It has come to my attention that the EarthBound article is in dire need of information regarding the Japanese release of the title. I am requesting that anyone who has said information that they please bring it to the Earthbound article talk page. Also, if anybody that speaks Japanese could translate these Weekly Famitsu articles (September 23, 1994 and October 7, 1994) located here, I would be very grateful as they speak about game's commercial success and the magazine's score for the game. Thank you very much. -- Noj r (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Noj r, if you don't have any luck finding someone who can read Japanese here, you can always try Wikipedia: WikiProject Japan. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 08:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I just might do that. -- Noj r (talk) 19:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Is "video games" misleading?

I just had a small disagreement (quickly resolved, I think) that was due to a misunderstanding of the term "video game". Someone thought by video game, I was excluding text-based games. I've heard before that some people think of "video game" as excluding "computer game". I know we have our own agreed upon terminology that is working out well... but for people who are not part of this project, and come at our articles from a different perspective, they might be mislead by using "video game" as the naming convention. I'm particularly thinking of articles like strategy video game and puzzle video game, or the stubs templates. This particular person was confused because they approached a video game article as a fan of table-top role-playing games. I figure I would mention it with people more experienced / smarter than I am. I imagine this is an old issue, and there's a reason we do it the way we do it? Randomran (talk) 22:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I second every word (being the other part of the disagreement ;). The term "video game" indeed intuitively seems to exclude e.g. MUDs. For older guys like myself it may also mean "an electronic game NOT played from a computer". Video inevitably brings visuals to mind, so perhaps something like "electronic games" would be a bit better (thanks to Randomran for this creative solution)? Especially when distinguishing role-playing games from computer role-playing games, introducing the idea of video gaming is difficult to accept (in RPG environment we often refer to cRPG, but some of the computer games are not video-based, but e.g. text-only). Pundit|utter 22:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I class a video game as any game that requires a video output displayed on a monitor, pda, mobile phone or TV. This encompasses text-based games that use a screen to output information to the user. Simple, but clear :) --Gazimoff (talk) 00:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The varying usage of "video game" was why, for a long time, this project was the Computer and Video Games project, and our articles were set up accordingly. Then we basically decided this was a lousy way of doing things and decided "video game" is a better name for an all-inclusive category. See, for example, the vote to move the article Computer and video games to video game, and the discussion just above it. Nifboy (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing your view is wrong. What I'm saying is simply that for most readers such an approach may be misleading. While within the project after some discussions your understanding of "video" is totally fine and can be agreed upon, we must remember that Wikipedia is read and used by average Joes who will not come here for clarifications. As in everyday language "video game" is a phrase that was used for non-computer electronic games, and as "video" means typically "relating to images" (to be exact, as Collins English Dictionary has it, relating to or employed in the transmission or reception of a televised image), in case of role-playing games that are entirely textual the name is anti-intuitive. On the other hand, the term "electronic game" seems not to have this flaw. Thus, I'm suggesting "electronic game" instead of "video game", because it does not require caveats and explanations whenever it is used ;) What do you think? Pundit|utter 00:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I rarely see the phrase "electronic game" used in a context outside of small handheld devices (see Handheld electronic game), so I think it creates more problems than it solves. Nifboy (talk) 02:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I am cetainly not smarter than you and thats where you looking for answers from but I have an idea. It sounds as if there is even a conflict with the fact that the word video game excludes computer games, one of two things should happen. Either maybe we should rename the name of the project or someone should branch off from the VG project to form one that focuses mainly on CPU games. Only a suggestion, pay no mind if anyone thinks it's a bad idea.-- King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 03:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is not with the exclusion of all computer games, but some of them. However, your remark is another proof that video and computer games can be perceived exclusively. I think the best thing that comes to my mind at the moment is just being flexible and allowing different names in different contexts. The whole discussion started from computer role-playing games and in this context the word computer is just traditionally used, and also "video" is particularly unfortunate because of image-less games. While in case of most games you describe the word video is just fine, elsewhere it may be less obvious. I'm just suggesting less uniformity, that's all. Pundit|utter 03:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suggest not considering the technical reasons for differences between electronic and video games, but the near similarities that one would go about in creating articles for them, such that it makes sense to keep them under the same purview. Both have a gameplay, likely a development section, likely a reception/sales section, and possibly a story section. The approach in terms of which sections are required and preferred are the same, though obviously what you can get for a handheld portable game is vastly different for what you can find for a modern console game. But still, the key point remains that these articles should have similar structure, and that is advice as part of this project we can give. This doesn't mean a task force underneath the project can't hurt for specifically handheld electronic games or other similar subdivisions, but I think they all should remain under this basic Project. --MASEM 03:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

While I have been looking at articles written about computers game, they just aren't as good as the articles we wright for games on 360 and PS3 etc. I think that for a while maybe we should focus on the computer game side of the project.-- King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 03:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Checking in. Didn't mean to start a big mess. I definitely don't think we should separate video games and computer games, because they have far too much in common. Someone who visits a page about Tetris or Action Games wouldn't want to be forced to visit two separate articles to gather the broad information they're looking for. I think the naming thing is tricky, but I understand why it is the way it is. It's not ideal, but I don't think it's broken either. Randomran (talk) 05:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm also NOT for changing names everywhere, but I'm advocating more flexibility. If you want to write e.g. about Zork or Moria it really makes no sense to call it a video game. It is anti-intuitive and confusing. As you apparently have agreed on a particular terminology, I believe it is totally understandable if you stick to it, but just don't rewrite history ;) In particular, keep in mind that other groups and projects (e.g. Wikipedia:RPG) use terminology a bit differently. For me, as for a person mostly into traditional dice-rolling and narrative RPG, the phrase computer role-playing game is totally clear and commonly used (often abbreviated to cRPG). If you call these "video role-playing games" I don't think it will be as obvious. Maybe it is just the matter of different turfs and thus I am just pointing to the fact that applying your terminology everywhere perhaps is not always the best idea. Pundit|utter 16:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree: Zork and other kinds of interactive fiction are video games, and major publications treat them as such (see: [3], [4]). Nifboy (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. Indeed, "computer game" is used in context of Zork less frequently than "video game". Still, I have my reservations - does the name "electronic game" cause controversies? Pundit|utter 19:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because it is virtually unused in sources, and any widespread use of it on Wikipedia would be a Wikipedian fabrication, which is not allowed. User:Krator (t c) 01:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is used over 2 million time in the Internet, but of course it proves nothing about reliable sources coverage. You persuaded me to a much broader understanding of video games. By the way, an interesting discussion on these distinctions can be found here. Still, I insist on the historical distinction between RPG and CRPG, easily proven by different available sources, even in different languages. Please, note also, that a phrase "video role-playing games" brings much less results than "computer role-playing games". As a result, I believe that the phrase "computer role-playing games" is much more established and perhaps in context of RPG it is better not to change the already historically developed term, especially if just because of terminology assumed mainly for the purpose of Wikipedia standardized editing. So, I'm suggesting uniformity of terminology, but making an exception to CRPG, because of the different naming tradition present in the discourse of this field. What do you think? Pundit|utter 01:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

To use a geographical analogy, calling RPGs that use software Computer Role-playing Games is like calling Zimbabwe Rhodesia. Things change, we've got TES4 on distinctly video game consoles, moving along from when the term was first invented where RPGs were almost exclusive to the computer. User:Krator (t c) 01:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you're fully fair in what you've just wrote. Even by the sheer amount of magazines and journals, the traditional RPG are doing quite well (I'd actually think there are more publications about them than about CRPG as a separate genre). Surely, computerized versions are popular, but sticking to the established name instead of introducing an artificial category of "video role-playing games" (practically not used by anyone) is not particularly helpful, either. Pundit|utter 02:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Web page archives for dead pages?

Where can I go to find a decent archived copy of a link that has since died? The few archive things that show up at the top of Google when I search "web archive" all link to the same program which never gives any helpful results. I want to get an old archived version of this link at Blizzard Entertainment's site, which has since been taken down, and a version of the Steam statistics page for February 2008, but I can't get hold of archived versions of either. -- Sabre (talk) 13:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Archive.org, in a nutshell. The only con compared to google's caching is that it's not as fast; there's a lag of almost six months for most stuff to be archived, so you may have to wait. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the one I'm referring to, its no good because the two links have only expired within the last two months. How do I access the Google cache? -- Sabre (talk) 14:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Google doesn't have a cache for the first page. You won't find a cached version of the second one because of the way it's set up (flash app). User:Krator (t c) 15:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there any other place to get an archive of the first page? And surely there's some way for the second one: I can get an archive back for August 2007, and the page still uses the same setup. Although as David Fuchs said, it might just be a matter of waiting six months or so. -- Sabre (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The august 07 page shows January 2008 data. User:Krator (t c) 15:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not the bit I need for the reference though. I need the information contained in the "View detailed statistics by game" section. -- Sabre (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Images from magazines

This might be a better question for the Video Game Images talk page, but I figured this would get a broader range of input.
Anyway, I was wondering if anybody knows what copyright tag would be needed for an image that was scanned from a magazine or book. Nothing that would feature a model or any real-life person. But say there's a development photo that shows the wire frame from motion capture, or a diagram illustrating gameplay mechanics. Something that I haven't seen on websites and would be great to include in an article. What kind of licensing tag would that need, or is there even one for such a purpose? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC))

I presume it would fall under 2D or 3D arts just like concept arts and renders. Check out Image:Freelancer Bretonia City Concept.jpg and Image:Karas Nue CG.jpg. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. Jappalang (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a fit. Thanks. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC))

Just double checking. Is this acceptable use of the tags? Image:WS-WiiRemote Example.jpg in Wii Sports#Gameplay. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC))

Hmm, since the image consists of a screenshot and original illustration, you might also want to add the screenshot licensing to the 2D licensing. The image will then be covered by two licenses, and a FUR for each use. Jappalang (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

is 16 articles enough for a category?

Hi! I would like to know if 16 articles is enough to have a category named Category:Paradox Interactive games, or should these articles be categorized in the bigger Category:Video games developed in Sweden instead? Thanks. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It is enough for me. The WikiProject Albums, for example, state there is no minimum requirement for categories: if a single article can be categorized with it, it can exist. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

16 should be fine, especially if they are all from the same developer. Personally, I think a category should have at least 5 or 6, but that's just me. I don't believe the VG Project has any guidelines for categories. We normally look at them on a case by case basis. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 12:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC))

Several Wii lists that could be possibly deleted

List of Wii games (North America) and Multiplayer Wii Games don't appear to be that notable in my view. I don't see why there needs to be a region list for Wii, when the main list is just fine and not broken. If it's not broken, it doesn't need fixing. Plus the North America list is just redundant of List of Wii games (which is long, but that really isn't a big issue). The multiplayer list was just a test article, and no one has cared to expand it. What does everyone else think? RobJ1981 (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Well get rid of the multiplayer one, it looks like a test article like you said. Also i agree any game released in North America is recorded on the main article, kinda pointless having a seperate article. Salavat (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible Featured Topic

With Zelda II: The Adventure of Link passing GAN today, I was looking at the navbox for the zelda games, and noticed that currently of the 13 articles listed in the "main series" section of the box, 8 are GAs and 3 are FAs. That only leaves The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past & Four Swords and The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords Adventures as neither GA or FA. With these articles made GA+, there would be a complete Featured Topic. Something to think about. --PresN (talk) 21:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems like The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker is already being nominated for a Featured Topic. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 22:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking into it, it seems someone nominated the topic on March 27, and removed it a few hours later when it was pointed out that it needed Four Swards and FSA. I guess not all of the tags were removed from the articles, I'll fix that. --PresN (talk) 22:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's clear something up before we do this; is there such a thing as the "main" zelda series that would differentiate them as "Thee" Zelda games and not have to include the LCD games, the Tingle game, crossbow training, etc. Do we have a reference that establishes these games as the main ones? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

If we go with the topic, we need more FAs. (I'll get to [[Link's Awakening]] again when I get around to it!) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Current rules are 20% of the topic needs to be FA, rounded up. 20% of 13 is 2.6, or 3 FAs, which we have. Not that more FAs is ever a bad thing! I'd also like to point out, since he hasn't jumped into the discussion yet, that most of the recent work on the group has been done by User:Gary King. --PresN (talk) 23:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this is fantastic—brings back so many wikimemories looking over these articles. I've been on break for a while, but I'll probably come back to help with this if it's needed. Pagra shtak 23:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe featured topics need a main article, so with The Legend of Zelda (series) that makes 14 articles and not 13. But I think the LCD games, Tingle game, Crossbow Training, CDi games, etc. should be included too considering there is (infamously) no official timeline or document that says which game is canon, non-canon, which is a prequel, a sequel, etc. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 11:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd forgotten about The Legend of Zelda (series), but it's GA, so oh well. --PresN (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Pro Evolution Soccer / Winning Eleven

Why is there separate articles for Winning Eleven and Pro Evolution Soccer? Aren't they basically the same video game series? --Silver Edge (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Describing the Winning Eleven one as an article is a bit generous Silver Edge. But to answer your question, Yep they are the same thing, licensing differences aside. Suggest merging usable stuff from Winning Eleven in to the Pro Evo article. - X201 (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of MSP/PSN/Wii Shop costs and WP:NOT

WP:NOT#DIRECTORY states:

Sales catalogs, therefore prices of a product should not be quoted in an article unless the price can be sourced and there is a justified reason for its mention. Examples of justified reasons include notable sales of rare collectors items, prices relating to discussion of a price war, and historical discussion of economic inflation. On the other hand, street prices are trivia that can vary widely from place to place and over time. Therefore, lists of products currently on sale should not quote street prices. In addition, Wikipedia is not a price guide to be used to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices of a single product across different countries or regions

Now, when it comes to our articles on XBL, PlayStation Network , and Wii shop titles, it may be that the inclusion of, even if "funny money" points like MSP and Wii Points, could be seen as failing the above policy. Certainly this would be more the case if it were a full list of available games from that source (since the games are competing against each other), but on the otherhand, new downloadable content costing could be seen as useful for add-ons. (I'm running into a problem now with List of songs in Guitar Hero II, which is why I'm bringing this up; here we have several DLC items so it could be seen as a competing list of products).

So I'm proposing that we need to eliminate the inclusion of what downloadable content costs, unless that there is more to it than just the reporting the cost. Cases that would be acceptable: the mention of the cost of DLC for GHII (in its main article!) as due to the complaints of the DLC's high cost; the temporary cut in price of Undertow due to the XBL outage. Alternatively, we could just eliminate the reporting of costs (outside the above cases) for standalone products, but DLC that adds-on to a game, since it is not competing for anything else, can be included. --MASEM 13:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Completely agreed. User:Krator (t c) 13:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

What about when used to show a price difference in types of content? For example the List of Virtual Console games (North America). Though it isn't setup like this, what about stating in the lead something like "pricing varies by the system the game originated on. For example, NES games are generally 500 Wii points while Genesis games are generally 800 Wii points." Not every price is listed, but the general idea is still conveyed. How about that? Or is this blurring the line too much? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC))

I noticed that before putting this comment together, and my take on that specific list is that I don't believe any of those are sourced, a requirement of the NOT phrase above. Mind you, if there was a source that stated that directly, including it seems reasonable, but there is a bit of SYN engaging specific to that. However, I can also see leaving that in, and by comparison, saying that new games on XBL are typically 400-1000 MSP, gamerpics 100-200 MSP, etc. as long as it is not a comparison between specific titles/offerings. So I would modify what I'm saying above to only exclude the mention of price in conjunction with a specific product (whether alone or in a list); the price of a generic glass of products can be left but should be sourced. --MASEM 15:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the prices of XBLA games and DLC are fixed (and do not fluctuate the way a "street price" would, as intimated in the above policy guideline), I see no reason to exclude the price from the articles. xenocidic (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

At first glance of lists like the XBLA and Virtual Console ones, I'd agree with you because the price seems like harmless information meant only to inform. But WP:NOT states "Wikipedia articles are not: Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business." Listing the price for each individual title turns the list into "a resource for conducting business", even if that is not the intention. I think the middle ground would be to state a generic guideline for pricing in the lead along with proper sourcing. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC))

Also, consider, what is the difference between saying a game costs so many points on XBLM, and saying a game costs so many dollars through Steam, and then further saying a game costs so many dollars through online purchasing at Best Buy/Amazon? (I'm sure there's a logical fallacy in there, I'm just throwing out the ideas). Also, per the "funny money" idea, while the Wii and XBL titles would be ok, the PSN store would not be able to have this since they use real dollars, and this could also seem as a bias against it; if one system can't have it, then the rest of the systems should not. --MASEM 15:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose my reasons for arguing against this are that no one has really complained about it (kind of a non-issue, isn't it?). We should follow the spirit of a Wiki rule and not the letter. The fixed prices inform the readers and I'm sure that many readers would be confused if they were excluded. xenocidic (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I get what you're saying, but we can't really ignore the policy just because it's more convenient. The VG Project and similar projects are often seen in a less than positive light because of the subject matter of our articles. Because video games are for kids right? It's because we've adapted and tried to adhere to the guidelines that we have 70+ FAs and 180+ GAs. Not many projects can claim that.
So while I see your point, I feel it is best to be proactive about this matter. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC))

None of these arguments justify including something as variable and irrelevant as prices. 1) They change; 2) they vary by country, venue, etc.; 3) they simply are not encyclopedic content. While obviously people try to keep things fresh, this just isn't appropriate content for a reference work; leave it to the game magazines and websites. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

While I agree prices are pretty irrelevant, I feel there are some exceptions. Something localized like List of Virtual Console games (North America) could include a statement like "pricing varies by the system the game originated on. For example, NES games are generally 500 Wii points while Genesis games are generally 800 Wii points."

Though it does mention two of the prices, it only does so to illustrate how and the fact that games are priced differently. Of course I think the general rule of thumb should be to not include prices, but I believe there are a few exceptions that qualify as encyclopedic. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC))

I've included some language to this end in the guidelines that general reporting of prices should not be included. --MASEM 21:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

For my part, I don't know why Wikipedia is always trying to be so much like other encyclopedias, when it can be so much better. xenocidic (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone an IGN Insider?

I would love to get access to their articles about the Legend of Zelda games for the Philips CD-i. I'm building up this article, and references are very hard to come by, and it could be crucial. Thanks! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC) CD-i games based on The Legend of Zelda series http://insider.ign.com/teasers/316/316803.html

This isn't from IGN but there's a long and interesting article about these games on [5]. Information from it could probably be used. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Nintendo GameCube Preview Disc

Well, after three AfDs, there has been no effort whatsoever to source any claims of notability. The only claim of notability that exists can also apply to every Official PlayStation Magazine demo disc that OPM has released. Can anyone assess this article in any way? Perhaps make it notable, something which no one who voted Keep on the AfDs (with very few exceptions) have been able to do? - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link to the article in question Nintendo GameCube Preview Disc. --Oscarthecat (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I see that all AFDs have been no consensus. Perhaps a suggestion to merge would help? I see no reason why a short description couldn't be on the Nintendo GameCube article. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

But would it qualify as a merge? All that needs to be merged is that a demo disc was bundled with the Nintendo GameCube at one point. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

A partial merger is still technically a merger. The article doesn't really say much, so like you said, not much needs to be merged. It wouldn't hurt to mention some of the demos and features of the disc either. IGN thought it was certainly notable, so might as well include the notable info. They have three articles that mention it. [6], [7], and [8]. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 00:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC))

Nintendo bundled it, so it was news. What games are on the disc is completely non-notable. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Launch of VG Newsletter

FYI- For those that may not know, we have been working on getting a monthly newsletter for the VG Project ready for distribution. Discussions have been taking place, and will continue to take place, on the VG Newsletter talk page. Since this will be an ongoing effort, suggestions/comments to improve it are welcome and encouraged.

The newsletter will aim to help keep members up to date on the efforts of the VG Project, encourage participation, and offer lesser known editing tips. The current plan is to have the first edition go out on April 9th, and be distributed to all members using the {{User WPVG}} tag. For further editions, editors will have to signup to receive it on their talk page. Further details on how to sign up will be included in the newsletter. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 00:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC))

Redirect pages

Just out of curiosity, should redirects be stamped with the VGproj template on their talk pages as non-articles? --AeronPrometheus (talk) 02:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No. Redirect pages shouldn't even have talk pages, unless there was something there before. xenocidic (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 03:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

VG Project newsletter: 1st edition

FYI- The first edition of the monthly VG newsletter is done and transcluded below. Here's the link to the April edition page.

Members interested in signing up to receive future editions on their talk page, should enter the following wikicode #{{user0|(your username)}} on the member sign up section.

Questions, suggestions, and comments can be left on the newsletter talk page. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 01:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC))

Category:Video game companies of the United Kingdom

Hi! Do you think Category:Video game companies of the United Kingdom should be organized in subcategories (for England, Scotland, Wales, and maybe Northern Ireland) or should it remain as a single category, considering there's currently only 9 Scottish companies listed and 1 Welsh one? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm personally of the opinion that it should all be in a single category for the UK. We don't have categories for developers in Bavaria and developers in Saxony, nor do we have them for developers in Tennessee and developers in Alaska. While I'm fully aware that the political structure of the British unitary state differs from that of the many federal nations, I don't see the need to localise the categories to that extent. -- Sabre (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd class it as the UK. and leave it at that. Anything more is overcategorisation Gazimoff (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Moved from discusion with the same name below.

Category:Video game companies of the United Kingdom is being depopulated in favour of new seperate Category:Video game companies of England, Category:Video game companies of Scotland, and Category:Video game companies of Wales categories. Despite the fact that this may possibly have a political motive (the creator of the Scotland category makes much ado about being from Scotland on his user page) the net result is every article bar 10 will end up in the England category, with nine in Scotland and one in Wales. To me this seems a highly unnecessary and ineffective split, for apparent reasons of size, of a category that wasn't particularly large anyway. The user who is actually changing all the articles around (not the user who created the new cat) doesn't seem too interested, or bothered either way, though continues to do it. So I just wanted to see what other people think before deciding whether to go to CFD. Cheers, Miremare 20:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

At the very least, Category:Video game companies of Wales should be deleted. Having one article in a category hardly seems worth the strain on the server. I'm not sure about keeping the England and Scotland one though. I don't know whether or not they'd actually be useful. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC))

I still fail to see why any of the categories other than the main UK one are needed, other than for pushing a political viewpoint. This is an international version of Wikipedia, and ought to be treated as such, and for other users categorising by only the UK makes far more sense that pushing the categorisation to such a local level. With only ten articles in the non-English categories, its simply overly bureaucratic. -- Sabre (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ooops, I didn't notice this previous discussion, thanks for the move. :) Miremare 21:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with having only one category. I've continued to use the England/Scotland categories for a bit because I was waiting for User:Andrew22k to perhaps defend his position here (I notified him of this discussion on his talk page), but he hasn't said anything yet so maybe he has changed his mind or reluctantly agrees. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yea i agree i forgot to comment here i've been busy the only reason i made a category for Scotland was because i thought 9 articles was enough and i didnt make an English category as it there was too many articles and Welsh or Northern Ireland i could'nt find any.Andrew22k (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

In The Groove (Series) & In The Groove 2 Article Brushups

It was a few weeks ago that I brushed up said articles, but just tonight found out about WPVG, so I thought I should alert you guys to the changes, which mostly boils down to a lot of clarifications and simplifications (stuff I'm often told I'm good at). I'm going to do more work on it within a week. I'd speak more at length, but it's 1:30 in the morning, I'm tired, and I'm something of a Wiki-newbie. I'll read the rules and regs tomorrow to improve my understanding of how WPVG works, and figure out how to get that WPVG banner onto my userpage - I'll be more than happy to help clean up all the In The Groove-related articles. --AceOfHeartsDX (talk), 1:27, 10 April 2008

Welcome. Thanks for the introduction and taking an interest in the project. If you'd like to put the VG banner on your userpage, simply put the wikicode, {{User WPVG}}, in the desired location on your page. If you have any questions about editing video games or Wikipedia policies and guidelines, please feel free to post back here. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC))

Those articles could use all the help they can get. Good to have you aboard, I'm currently working on the Dance Dance Revolution articles so feel free to ask me for help if you have a question. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for Interview

I am a Georgia Tech research student studying the Design of Online Communities, and I would like to interview some members from this community regarding your experiences in editing Wikipedia. If you are interested in helping out my research, please contact me through my Wiki Talk page. Thank you! Midas7g (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for taking an interest in the project. If I may ask, is this related to a similar question posted above? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC))

This is not related to that request. I am a student trying to find individuals to interview, anyone from new users to the experienced, well-established members. Midas7g (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. We'd be happy to help in anyway we can.

Two more questions though. Do you have a limit to the number people you can or would like to interview? I'm sure there are probably several editors that would be interested. Also, are there any age requirements? I believe some of our editors (including some major contributors) are under 18. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC))

I have no limit to the number of individuals I can or would like to interview. My minimum requirement is at least three, so the more people willing to help, the better the results will be. As for age requirements, I would prefer individuals who can agree to the consent form (on my user page) so 18+ would make things easier. This doesn't mean there is a strict 18+ limit, it just means that using those particular results in my research would involve a little more than just "click here to agree." Midas7g (talk) 00:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Crazy Taxi (series) merge proposal

Obviously not many people are aware, so some more comments would be good: Talk:Crazy_Taxi_(series)#Merge. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

For a second there I thought TTN had returned until I looked at the date and found that the proposal was nearly two months old. It isn't without precedent; Namco Museum games are all on one page. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

True, but CT was an individual, notable game, and wasn't merely a collection of games like Namco Museum was. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Structure for a vapourware video game

I'm taking it on myself to do the long-needed rewrite for StarCraft: Ghost, but I'm having trouble thinking of an effective structure. I can't see that the traditional structure for released or in-development games would work, and I'm not getting any decent pointers from looking at the histories of the other two classic vapourgames, Duke Nukem Forever and Team Fortress 2 (which incidently are no longer treated as vapourware). Anyone got any thoughts on how best to structure the article? -- Sabre (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... that's a tough one. Personally, I see vaporware as software that has yet to be released. Until they officially announce it has been canceled, I would treat it like any other unreleased game. With that said, I would maintain the traditional video game article format. Describe the gameplay and story in terms of what is proposed, and try to have the article focus on things from a development point of view. I would also change "Trouble with development" to simply "Development", and split the development info if possible; like Team Fortress 2#Development (maybe have a subsection for delays and problems). But that probably depends how much information is available on the the actual game development, and not just the problems they encountered. You may have already tried this, but hope this some. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC))

DNF is still vaporware in my eyes until they announce an actual date. Anyway, I'm still wondering on how to fix proseline on that article. It used to have a separate history and development timeline that I pulled together into the history of the game. I added plot and reception on the presumption that it will be released someday, based on what they have released and how the community has reacted to DNF.

As for specific data to Ghost, I'm curious to how much of it is actually sourced. New and changed units resemble game guide information and it sounds like it's entirely rumor-based. Lead contains far too specific information that should be put into development. It needs a gameplay section, but I dunno how good of a section it would be if all it consists of is "Ghost retains the same gameplay style as its predecssor" (if that's the case). hbdragon88 (talk) 23:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hehe! I know what you're referring to with "DNF", but the first thing I see is "Did Not Finish". Which I suppose is appropriate. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Useful article for games within last year

Next-Gen article listing the top 100 selling games of the last year (based on NPD #s), including sales numbers. Always useful to have for a good game article. --MASEM 21:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I was gonna put the data up for Halo 3's sales when I saw the article mention on Halo.Bungie.Org, but then I found out it was redundant. :P Oh well. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't hurt to have multiple sources for the same content though. It'll only strengthen the article. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC))

Listing every official site of every country in the world in External links

Hi! I would like to know whether it's allowed to list every official site of every country in the world in the section "External links". This concerns OGame in particular. I thought that listing only the English-language official site would be enough, and I believe my point of view is backed up by Wikipedia:External links#Non-English language. However a user disagrees and claims that I'm "trolling" and that I "don't know the subject". Since I don't really see how knowing the subject more would make these links comply with the External link guidelines, I'm asking for a third opinion or more here. Thanks. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 07:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Since we are the English Wikipedia, only English-language ELs are going to even be relevant to English readers, and all other language links can go into their respective wiki pages on the other language wikis. However, if say we have a video game developed by a Japanese company, then the Japanese official website should be listed as well as other suitable English-language links.--十八 07:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be idiotic to list every one of them because all of the sites contain links to the other languages. User:Krator (t c) 09:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I look down the list and it strikes me that only one of those complies with the external links policy at all. The two reviews should be used as references in a reception section, so they don't need to be in the external links, the tools are essentially spam that are there for fans, not encyclopedia readers. As for the official sites, you do not and should not have the links to every language the site is in, you only need one. I would pick "www.ogame.org" over "www.ogame.us", as it does contain the links to all the other languages across the top - making it more useful for non-English readers - but get rid of every link to the other language listed there. -- Sabre (talk) 09:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

~~I'm thinking we should add something about this to WP:VG/EL~~ Er, nevermind that, the VG guidelines already state "Only the English version of the page should be included if there are multiple languages. If no English version exists, then the official page in the language of the country of first publication should be provided, but indicate that the site is in a foreign language.". The links on OGame are rather silly and should definitely be removed. JACO PLANE • 2008-04-11 09:30

Wow that is pretty ridiculous (or funny). Definitely remove all but maybe American/European sites. Strongsauce (talk) 10:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like User:Anubis1055 has severe ownership issues with the article, as well. Someone might need to talk to him about that. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 11:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with User:Juhachi about "official English site" and "official original language site". But that's just my opinion. And yeah, there's some major OWN issues there... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 11:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

As per WP:VG/EL they should be removed, this page needs a serious amount of work, and even then I cant see it being much more than a stub. John.n-irl (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we could stand to diversify, while at the same time preventing link spam. The best compromise I've seen is "official English site" and "official original language site"/"official home country site". We shouldn't bite the contributors from other countries who are trying to improve things. Randomran (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The first thing is only English links should be there. 2005 (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Completely false. See Wikipedia:External links#Non-English language content and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Non-English-language sites for the relevant guidelines. -- Quiddity (talk) 03:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

However, in this case, neither of those two apply. The existance of the international site removes any justification for the use of the other sites, and none of the three points under Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Non-English-language sites are relevant. - Sabre (talk) 09:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read the two guidelines you linked to. The first says such links can exist when "an official site is unavailable in English", and since there is one obviously the score of non-English links should not be linked. The second ssays when "when the webpage contains key or authoritative information found on no English-language site", and since it is, once again the guideline makes clear a score of non-English links are not called for. So, as stated above, my statement was completely true. 2005 (talk) 10:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If there are "visual aids such as maps, diagrams, or tables" at a foreign language site, that aren't available at the English language site, then it is completely reasonable to link to that location. Therefor, your generalist statement that "only English links should be there" is false. Possibly you were only referring to this specific diff, but the way it was phrased implied that all non-English links were forbidden. -- Quiddity (talk) 05:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I never said that or implied it. We are talking about a specific article with 25 or so similar links. 2005 (talk) 05:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Kotor 2 deleted content discussion

I write Lightsaber forms and force forms section to gameplay of Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II The Sith Lords. But it several times cutted by User:EEMIV, with trivia reason... Can somebody help me? --Beyond silence 23:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, frankly, the content you added was considered (at least by EEMIV) to be trivial game-guide information - the sort of information that would be more useful and interesting to someone reading a strategy guide. Please see WP:GUIDE and WP:VG/GL for policies and guidelines on what should and should not be added to game articles. In general, WP is not meant to be a source of strategy guides - game articles should focus on a general synopsis of the game, its history and development, its reception, etc., but going into detail about specific characters and their attributes, specific moves, weapons, etc., is almost always too much detail for an article meant for the casual reader. (Remember that the various forms of lightsabre and Force use that you listed will mean absolutely nothing to someone who isn't intimately familiar with the game or series.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This section isn't content advises how to play! But it's a important gameplaye element... --Beyond silence 09:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

How is it important to list all the different kinds of light sabers and Force techniques/styles by name? Wouldn't the phrase "This game includes eight forms of Lightsaber and six unique styles of Force" (or something similar) added to the main body of the article suffice? A phrase like that not only makes more sense to the uninformed reader, but it can be integrated into the article in such a way that it adds depth to the body and makes the article more interesting, while at the same time covering a potentially important gameplay element.

Put simply: Yes, pointing out that the game includes a lot of different lightsabers and Force styles can be important. But going into depth about what specifically all those sabers/techniques are is not. As I mentioned, the average, uninformed reader doesn't have any knowledge of the specifics about the Star Wars universe (heck, I'm a Star Wars fan and even I didn't recognize those names). But knowing that there are a number of unique offerings in the game will help to pique the reader's interest, and if they want to learn more about those specifics, we can point them to an online FAQ or (preferably) another wiki (like StrategyWiki) where this level of detail is perfectly fine and appropriate. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Translation help needed, maybe?

I found a forum post that translates a recent issue of Famitsu for the new spinoff of the Ace Attorney series; the game info is not that exciting but what is the development information that follows the article that explains why the spinoff (score!). I have found a forum post where someone has made their translation of the text, but obviously that may or may not be a reliable source. Since I doubt there will necessarily be a english-based interview, what can I do to include the translation or something comparable for the article? --MASEM 23:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I had a look and... that is not Japanese. The magazine the poster bought was the Chinese version of Famitsu, so you would need a Chinese translator. I can say the forum poster has the rough gist of the text correct. You can simply use the Chinese source as is, as Wikipedia allows foreign sources if no English equivalent is available (again provided they are reliable, which in this case Famitsu Asian version passes) — WP:VUE. Personally I find the situation of quoting foreign magazines is the same as that of any English magazine. Jappalang (talk) 02:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Merging two stub pages: Graphic adventure game and Point-and-click adventure game

Every once in a while I make my rounds through the various video game genres articles... and I come across the Graphic adventure game and Point-and-click adventure game articles. There's a pretty old merger proposal here, but I think it's a good one and one I agree with. Rather than BOLDly merge, though, I wanted to get some feedback. These two stubs have been hurting for contributions but nothing has happened for a LONG time. Maybe if all the information were at the graphic adventure game article, it would be easier for people to contribute? I think a merge is the easiest solution in the short term, that will make a split viable in the longer term.

Please keep all discussion at the talk page for Graphic adventure game Randomran (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot folks. Hopefully this article will be a friendlier place to collect information on the subject. Randomran (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Picture format - whether or not to include upscaling

There is currently a discussion going on at Talk:Grand Theft Auto IV#Picture format about what formats should be in the info box. The game has a native resolution of 720p and an upscaled one of 1080p. Some editors want just the native one there whereas others, such as myself, think both should be written up. At xenocidic's suggestion I am asking here for any opinions on the matter. John.n-irl (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that only the native resolution should be in the infobox, as otherwise we would need to include every possible resolution that it could be up(or down)scaled to. Perhaps the ability to upscale could be mentioned in the body of the article. xenocidic (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Xenocidic, the native resulotion is the one made by Rockstar to be fited to the consoles. Jørgen88 (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Its the resolution the game is running in, put not necessarily output in. John.n-irl (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

A console like the Xbox 360 is able to run any of its games in whatever resolution the user has selected as their desired output resolution (480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i, 1080p, etc.). It can and will perform any possible combination of scaling either up or down. Listing these as "supported" resolutions is meaningless, so I would agree with Xenocidic and others that only the native resolution should be listed. --Slordak (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I was aware that wasn't quite what upscaling was, there is a difference between upscaling and just displaying something at a resolution it wasnt designed for. Similar to showing a DVD on a HD tv at "HD" resolution without upscaling produces a very different image to one which is upscaled. John.n-irl (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If you show a DVD on a fixed-pixel display (such as an LCD HDTV/monitor), by definition, the image is scaled to the native resolution of that monitor when displayed. This is regardless of what resolution is fed to the device, so the difference lies only in where the upscaling is done and the quality of that operation. For a game, either the game is rendered in the higher resolution, which makes a real difference, or the image is simply upscaled somewhere (in software, by an A/V receiver, or at the end by the fixed-pixel HDTV, etc.) Since we're not talking about actual rendering at a higher resolution, it's called upscaling. --Slordak (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok my mistake, however I would like to point out if you play a dvd on a HD tv with a normal DVD-player, and compare it to one played on an upscaling player(in my case a PS3), there is a difference between the images. So im slightly confused by your explanation. Off to read some more websites on it. :) John.n-irl (talk) 20:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

True. There's no doubt that the quality of the upscaling which one device performs may be significantly better than that of another. It also helps in some cases to do the upscaling close to the source data itself, where additional contextual information may be available (such as telecine/pulldown flags on DVD discs). The scaler in the Xbox 360 and most upscaling DVD players will be significantly better than the one built into lower-end (and even many mid-range) LCD displays. --Slordak (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the explanation. John.n-irl (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I thought I'd add something to this as well: Technically, there is a significant difference between "scalers" at each end of the operation here. If you send a 480p signal to a 1080p LCD TV, the TV "upscales" that image to display in its native pixel space. It just does this by extrapolating the pixels in the source image to the target display area, and this produces resolution artifacts even on the best displays. However, the 360 and any other good DVD player that can display DVDs in HD resolution will actually render the image in the target resolution. This allows the MPEG renderer to do whatever rounding of edges, area filling, smoothing and sharpening it deems appropriate, and the image it sends out doesn't need to be upscaled by the TV. So while it's still not the same quality as a Blu-Ray/HD-DVD at 1080p, it is generally much higher quality than a lower-resolution signal being upscaled. I thought I'd discuss the difference, since the term "upscaling" doesn't really apply when you're talking about the source creating a higher-res image. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this field is one of those that made it in without any discussion before the template was protected, so as long as it remains, and its use undefined, it's entirely up to the editors to make the most of it. Challenger 1983 (talk) 00:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we get a motion to change this parameter to something clearer? I raised it previously but got only one reply from Challenger 1983. "Picture format" links to aspect ratio, but the infoboxes are showing display resolution instead. Not only is the link misleading, but as raised above, it seems to be encouraging warring over native and supported resolutions. I propose the elimination of the "picture format" parameter, and either:

insert a "Max. resolution", or
"Native resolution".

Both of which links to display resolution. Jappalang (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and requested a change to the Infobox here. Jappalang (talk) 03:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

A "Native resolution" parameter is now available in the Infobox. Jappalang (talk) 03:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is much better and actually useful than most previous implementations. Challenger 1983 (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit needed for Guitar Hero (video game)

Can I ask someone to do a good copyedit of Guitar Hero (video game) for prose language as part of its FAC? I am too close to the article to see anything that might be out of place. --MASEM 12:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look and see what I can do, as time allows. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've done a copyedit, although I might have missed some elements. Please feel free to revert as needed.Gazimoff (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Campaign (gaming)

I just redirected this to Campaign (role-playing games). Surprised there wasn't an article on it - we have random map and death match. The current redirect doesn't really discuss as well as possible - anyone interested in creating an article? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I didn't realize that was exclusively an RPG thing. When I think of "campaign", I actually think about RTSs and the single player mode. You usually play a "campaign" of several levels linked in some kind of storyline. Just my 2 cents. Randomran (talk) 01:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's my point. I was surprised there was nothing on it, so I redirected it to the most relevant thing at Campaign (it's mentioned there, but no article) for now. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That page itself can probably be simply renamed to Campaign (gaming) since there's not much there that seems that specific to RPGs. I've never actually heard the term "campaign" used in an RPG (sidequest, or storyline seem more relevant), but they've been used in strategy games forever. -- Prod (Talk) 02:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"Campaign" has been used in Dungeons and Dragons since the 1970s to describe the adventures played. It is more widely used there than in computer games (until the time table top gaming is eventually overwhelmed by computer stuff). They have not been in strategy games "forever" since strategy board games tend to be completed in single sittings. Jappalang (talk) 02:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I second the proposal to rename back to campaign (gaming)... and to throw in a token mention for strategy games. If you can't figure out what to put in that section, just attach a one-liner like "Strategy games often involve an extensive single-player campaign" and tag it with a request for expansion. People love requests for expansion! Randomran (talk) 14:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/Campaign - will get to work on this and try and put it at Campaign (gaming) some time soon. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Music and party video games

I have noticed that the genre of Music and party video games has yet to be given an article. This is an problem because many of the games we have under the Music genre are actually Music and party.

Example: Guitar Hero 3 and Guitar Hero Aerosmith

King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 14:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I was just looking at this article too. I've never heard the term "music and party". I've more commonly heard these all described as "rhythm games" anyway. I think most of the research supports that. Randomran (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of it being "music" or "rhythm", that genre and "party" genre are two very distinct genres that should not be mixed. There are music games that aren't party games, party games that aren't music, so trying to combine the two is not a clean approach. There's no problem listing both genres in the game article, but making a new genre that combines them is a bit OR-ish as well. --MASEM 14:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

here visit this external link http://www.gamestop.com/musicparty and you will learn more about the difference of a rhythm game and a music and party game. King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 17:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like they just put two genres together in the same place. They have mario party along side guitar hero. I think this is "Music" and "Party", not "Music and Party". Randomran (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That's my take too. It's just a catchall, mind you, entries have a lot in common to both, but they are two separate genres. --MASEM 19:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Kingrock, please stop changing the Guitar Hero games to this "Music Party" genre. You are using a single data point (Gamestop's website) which as we've noted above is just a category that includes both "Music" and "Party" games. Google search does not have any video game genre called "Music party" (though there is a game that is called that), and all the other reliable websites only list Guitar Hero and the like under "Music/Rhythm". You need to provide verifiable information to make this change. --MASEM 20:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that video game genres are measured by one thing, gameplay. Whether the game's content is based on music or is played at parties is not relevant for this form of categorization. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixing a bad + old = bold rename: music video game and rhythm video game

From what I can tell... a good three and a half years ago, someone moved the rhythm video game article to music video game with no research and no real consensus. See this old discussion on the music video games talk page where the guy merged basically by himself.

The article has a pretty lousy focus, involving any game where the player makes noise -- like SimTunes and Otocky. My intuition is that this should be a "Rhythm video game" article that focuses on Guitar Hero and DDR.

Fast forward...

On the music video game talk page, someone said the "music video game" name is based totally on the intuition of the editors. They the "music game" genre is still emerging, and there are far more references out there for "rhythm game". This is probably a violation of WP:no original research.

But because this has been the status quo for more than 3 years I don't want to do anything bold without first getting more feedback. I think this should be renamed back to "rhythm video game" with the appropriate focus. But really, I'm all for anything that is compatible with what all the references out there say.

Please, please check in at music video game and offer your two cents. Randomran (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I posted my objection to that old move back in Sep 2007. Good to see that other editors are also cognizant of the flaw in it. You definitely have my support to move the title back. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Redirects to sections not functioning

None of the redirects to sections in articles seem to work anymore. For instance, Protoss should redirect to Species of StarCraft#Protoss, but despite being set up to do so only takes me to the top of the article. Does anyone know why this is? Has there been some sort of update to the site's code? -- Sabre (talk) 11:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That is weird. I don't know. The only thing I can think of is if the page is very long and takes a while to load, then maybe the browser gives up on going to the anchor because it hasn't loaded yet. I remember that's happened to me a few times on Characters of Kingdom Hearts, but it never happened with any regularity. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC))

What connection speed/web browser are you using? The anchor works fine on Safari v2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It also works fine with IE --76.69.166.224 (talk) 23:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC).

This happened to me briefly last week, it may be related to some of the software changes going around, perhaps you should try contacting a developer. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be a problem now but next time it happens you should view the source and see if <a name="Protoss" id="Protoss"></a> is in there. If it's not then it may be one of the site developers tweaking/working on the underlying code. Strongsauce (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem's gone now. Bizarre. -- Sabre (talk) 10:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

NAA RSS

Is it broken? MrKIA11 (talk) 01:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:Japanese voiced video games?

This category is heavily incomplete, but someone removed one or two articles from it some time ago saying the category isn't particularly useful (can't remember which article it was, sorry). The person didn't send the category to WP:CFD though. What do you think, should the category be completed or it isn't worth it and should be sent to deletion? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see any encyclopedic value to this category. It's interesting to know, but seems like a trivial detail to organize articles. What does everyone else think? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC))

I think it's been established we don't really care for "Category:Games with X feature", and this is one of those. Nifboy (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I too see little value in having this category. Its "importance" is on Japanese games with dual sound tracks and English subtitles, which is dwelving down to minute details. Does it describe the games or their associated entities? Were the games created just to have the language tracks in mind? What makes it stand out from a game/video with three sound tracks and eight subtitles? The article attached to the category, Japanese voice option video games, appears to be a mix of original research and synthesis. The category would likely consist of trivial, intersective, and arbitrary inclusion criterion. Axiszen also appears to be an SPA for the purpose of this category. Jappalang (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I prodded the article Japanese voice option video games as non-notable original research, and, assuming the prod is going to be removed, I think it should be followed up with AfD. And I would also agree with deleting the category under discussion here for reasons stated by Jappalang. --Craw-daddy | T | 21:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Why are we rushing to delete this? In this situation, I believe the solution would be to create a parent category called Category:Video games with voice acting in it since not too many games feature this and it's a recent innovation brought about by the forward-thinkers at Sony. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sony was the first company to use a voice actor in a video game? Source? xenocidic (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

My last post there was a huge joke. I've only contributed to Nintendo articles, dislike Sony, don't caer about voice acting, and I suggested something similar to this when it came up [9]. hbdragon88 (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The category should probably be put in CFD. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The PROD's gone, take the article to AfD. -- Sabre (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I replied to the article's creator about the reasons I prodded it on the talk page. Thought I'd point out some of the issues as I saw them there before it went to AfD. As is, I see the article as nothing but synthesis, opinion, and original research. --Craw-daddy | T | 12:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated the category for deletion here. Please discuss. --Craw-daddy | T | 17:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated the article Japanese voice option video games for deletion here. I feel that it is non-notable original research (emphasis on the "non-notable" in terms of the AfD). Please discuss this too. --Craw-daddy | T | 22:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Sources in Mega Drive

Hi. I asked this question over at WP:VG/S, but I haven't received any reply, so I'm putting my question here to speed up the process. I've been working on the Mega Drive article for a little while now, and sent it to peer review. The peer reviewer had a couple questions about two sources used extensively in the article, and said he was not sure himself if they were reliable sources or not. The first is source 10, at the url http://www.skillreactor.org/cgi-bin/index.pl?megadrv . While it appears to be someone's report on the Mega Drive with a personal touch, the person who wrote this information has sourced his report, making this a tertiary source. It has proved to be invaluable, and I hope it can be deemed reliable. The second source is source 12, http://www.consoledatabase.com/consoleinfo/segamegadrive/index.html . Console Database provided information that I was unable to source otherwise, and I believe it is reliable. However, the reviewer suggested I ask here to be sure. Thanks for your time. Red Phoenix (Talk) 23:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't look at the second link, but the first link is a bit iffy. Though it sources its content, most of the links are dead or look like they are privately owned fan sites. I've no doubt the information is probably correct, but I don't know if it would qualify as a reliable source. You can always take them to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for a more definitive answer. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC))

Thanks, I'll do that. Red Phoenix (Talk) 18:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Need some eyes over at Naruto: Ultimate Ninja Storm‎

The article Naruto: Ultimate Ninja Storm‎ is in severe need of some extra eyes to look over the article. Currently the article is a horrific mess that reads more like and advertisement, and anon users are constantly adding speculation, linkspam, and undoing most attempts to clean up the article. I've made some attempts to clean up the article, but anons seem to work faster than I am. Could some fellow WPVG members keep an eye on this article and help with the cleanup? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is Naruto after all. I suggest putting in a semi-protection request. That will stop anons from editing. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well the work User:Mika1h and i put into the article seems to have slowed down some of the anon edits. However, I will consider that if the cruft/speculation-adding gets out of hand again. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 03:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Game Informer

I just got my new Game Informer today and I was sitting at my table thinking, @!#$ I could make a great article out of this. Maybe it could list the topics dicssed in the issue, the games reviewed, etc. I need some advice. I'm not sure if it might meet some problems that would have deleted or not. I need as much advice as possible. King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 19:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you want to write an article about a specific issue of a magazine? Bad idea. User:Krator (t c) 19:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

But think of the possibilities. have you ever recived an issue? King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 19:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you'd find many third party sources about a specific issue of a magazine. Basically all your sources would be the magazine itself as a primary source. Also, no third party sources would bring up notability problems. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm familiar with gaming magazines (particularly Power Unlimited), but the best way to incorporate the information in a magazine on Wikipedia is to list it at the VG magazines project, and to include all information on the relevant articles, and create stubs. I try to create stubs and make edits from my morning newspaper every now and then. Yesterday's paper brought Arijan van Bavel, Angaangaq Lyberth, Dick Berlijn and Peter van Uhm to Wikipedia. That's what you can do with your Game Informer issue as well. User:Krator (t c) 19:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify/point, Krator means add an entry to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Magazines#Game Informer. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

THanks, I will most likly make stubs King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 19:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You seemed to have gone ahead and made an article about a non notable issue of GameInformer anyway. In the future please do not add these kind of articles as they have very little use to anyone. Instead try to add content to the video games that they cover on their respective pages. Strongsauce (talk) 12:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

After being asked to look at this aticle on my talk page, I redirected the issue article the main magazine page; however, I am not opposed to it instead being redirected to a list of issues. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not a plausible search term, and therefore cannot be kept as a redirect. Dorftrottel (canvass) 18:46, April 17, 2008
- Considering thet Kingrock created it in good faith, it is a plausible search term to some and there's no harm in allowing him to keep his contributions here public as a redirect accomplishes the same thing as a delete, but has more benefits. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  - Nobody doubts that Kingrock acted in perfectly good faith when he created that page, but I don't understand how this leads you to logically conclude that it's therefore a plausible search term? And what exactly are those "benefits" you are talking about here? Dorftrottel (criticise) 19:16, April 17, 2008

I agree with Dorftrottel on this. Individual issue are normally so totally non-notable that a redirect even is inappropriate. We'll end up having a list of the issues of every publication. Please don't start edit-warring over it. GRC, let it go. But dortruffle, you cant really replace a speedy tag once removed in good faith by someone other than the author--you need to take it to RfD, where in a case like this it should get very quick action. DGG (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)