Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 33

message: The article is up for FA here, and so far so good but I need some fresh, good editing eyes to help copyedit the text as per suggested by the most recent comment. Thanks. --MASEM 23:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll see what I can do tomorrow from what was said in the FAC. Bit too tired now, but I'll definitely help. Crimsonfox 23:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need some copyedit help with [[Crazy Taxi (series)]] 

message: Hi. there is a game I used to play in school about 15 years ago and I cant remember the name of it. It had graphics, but you had to type in commands (get the book, move left, etc.). All I remember from it is that it began in a jail cell and you had to break out of it. The cell had a bed, a shelf with books, and a window that you escaped out of. There was also a gulch at one point where you had to run to jump over. Does anyone remember this game?  Thanks!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.203.245.146 (talk) 03:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What system was this on? Miremare 22:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since he played it in school, I'm assuming it's a PC game, perhaps DOS-based, given the time (1992). Pagrashtak 14:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You might try asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing instead. Pagrashtak 14:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  old text & graphic game 

message: A few people say a list of playable characters should be on the article, and others say it shouldn't. See that talk page for the discussion. RobJ1981 15:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Help needed with [[Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games]]

message: MOHA is being reviewed for GA. I thought it was good enough for nomination and nominated it ages ago. It has just been reviewed and there is info at the talk page. I addressed all the minor stuff, but I'm not really dedicated enough to fix the other stuff. The article needs some people to address the GA issues. Good luck! --Simpsons fan 66 04:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should be prepared to address points yourself on an article if you nominate it for GA. I really haven't got time to help right now; sorry. Ashnard Talk Contribs 13:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MOHA 

message: I wanted to give the heads up, as the AFD result is merge. The debate closed a few weeks ago. The talk page has activity, but I'm not so sure how much merging (if any) has happened. The note on the top says the list can be re-nominated if the merger isn't done promptly. RobJ1981 13:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of Japanese Nintendo 64 games]] needs to be merged into [[List of Nintendo 64 games]]

message: OK, don't keelhaul me here, but can I ask if the current system for logging deletions is actually worth it? The list never represents the real volume of VG related deletions, and I don't add them myself since it seems like such a faff on. 
Would it actually harm the project if we just had an area to throw internal links to VG related AFDs/Prods/CFDs etc and removed them once they were done? That'd mean moving away from cataloging but towards actually letting project members know, at a glance, what's going on.
As with the GCOTW discussion above, the project's strength (to me) and priorities lie with our own individual tastes in games but with a common interest in discussing problems as they arise and dealing with things as they pop up. Being able to let other project members know where the deletion discussions are without jumping through hoops seems like a win-win. Someone another 23:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We just need a category for video games in WP deletion sorting, this will make the whole process way more effective, and allow all the twinkle deletors to choose "video games" immediately as a cat. User:Krator (t c) 11:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A simplified deletion section for the main project page? 

message: FYI: Article has been nommed for deletion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tonka Rescue Patrol#Tonka Rescue Patrol if anyone's keen on establishing notability. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 00:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Tonka Rescue Patrol]]

message: There is some unnessacary harsh attitude going on there about adding the category "Nintendo DS games". I've created a topic on the talk page to discuss, but I would really apprecitate a third party or two to help sort out this matter. If you want to know what's been happening, check the history of the article, the discussion has been going on there between two editors (which was really not the place for it). I appreciate any and all help. Zemalia 15:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In short it's the "Game system X only" category dispute again. - X201 16:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unfortunatly... its getting a bit out of hand though. Zemalia 16:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need help in resolving an issue on [[Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days]] 

message: I came across :Category:Genre hybrid games the other day, and I was wondering if it's too broad of a category? Many RPGs are action and RPG, Mario sports games blend sports and action, Super Paper Mario has RPG and platform aspects and so on. RobJ1981 23:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nowadays, almost every game is a combination of multiple genres (adding RPG elements to everything is popular, for example), making them all "genre hybrid" games. As such, I think the category should be deleted. --VPeric 11:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put it in CFD, if anyone wants to comment. Here's the page: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 13#Category:Genre hybrid games.RobJ1981 18:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about a category

message: I've probably helped quite a few people but also frustrated quite a few people with my attitude, and for that I am sorry. I hope that you all continue editing Wikipedia and enjoy doing so, and keep up the good work. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ( You will be missed, I'm sure. We never interacted directly, but I always saw you as an excellent editor. — H2O —  05:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: *sighs* Ah, man, ALTTP, not you too (after Thunderbrand, Deckiller, missing a few others). Who else will create the lists of fancruft that I like to spin through to delete? (e.g. I sent three Destroy All Humans! character articles at Orthopox 13‎ deleted) hbdragon88 08:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we've never really seen eye-to-eye, but I've always respected you as a decent editor. This Wikiproject will be worse off without you. Bye.Ashnard Talk Contribs 09:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Second what Ashnard said - and Wikipedia would be a boring place if we all saw eye-to-eye anyway. Hope you decide to come back sometime, Link. Miremare 15:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Salutes* You will be missed. Thanks for your contributions, and I hope that some time in the future you decide to continue your work. Una LagunaTalk 20:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *sigh* This wikiproject is like a giant tetris game, and another bottom row just disappeared.--Clyde (talk) 23:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your metaphor...can be disturbing.  It implies that the VG project was about to face its game over, and only ATLLP's leaving prevented it from happening. hbdragon88 06:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You misinterpret how far I intended to go with it. Think more of the structure and physics. This project is a huge dynamic structure. Core members make up the lower rows and when they leave other newer people must fall in to take their place. Its a sad circle. That's all I meant by it. CM (talk) 04:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bye 

message: I previewed Ratchet & Clank: Up Your Arsenal and made a few edits. I would like if another member or two also previewed the article to make sure all is in order there. Aquzenn 01:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ratchet & Clank Peer Preview 

message: Here's yet another article hanging on the edge because of wikilawyering. I'm sure most of you know that the Pokemon are currently being merged to lists (though the process is sort of dead for some reason). Bulbasaur is being held up due to essentially one user refusing to accept that the article is not up to standards. It fails WP:FICT, and it's only assertion of popularity is shared by eleven other Pokemon, so there isn't even a possibility for improvement. There are currently some sources that pretend to assert notability, but they fall quite short. Anyways, we just need a quick number consensus, so if a few people could comment here, that would be appreciated. TTN 20:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bulbasaur

message: – old discussion
I've archived the old discussion, as it was mostly hammering out the template particulars, but I'd like to restart the discussion on this template in general. Pagrashtak 15:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Testing it) Looks cool, and it certainly saves a fair amount of time. What about publications that aren't coded in, are those taken care of by the revs? David Fuchs (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, it certainly saves space:  But what about Electronic Gaming Monthly? Or does that go with 1UP? David Fuchs (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, is there any particular reason it has to be that shade of purple too? It's kinda distracting... :P David Fuchs (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there rev1–8 parameters for other reviews. An example is on User:Crimsonfox's page as "Unknown Magazine 100 out of 100".Also, I know this is a minor detail, but is there a way to add some padding around the table so it isn't right next to the text of the article? Mainly for aesthetics and consistency; images, and the current review score tables have that. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't see that, added in a slight margin. David Fuchs (talk) 17:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: True, the review can be summarized in prose and that is the normal practice in many video game articles. However, the review scores also provide supplementary information to the overall reception of the games. They also help to provide a quick overview of the critical reception. Besides, I don't see how the numbers are arbitrary. They provide an overall subjective score to a game provided by an independent reviewer. I think the table is a good idea and standardizing it via a template is an even better idea. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How are arbitrary, contextless numbers useful supplementary information? We don't do this for books or movies, and we only do it for albums for a couple well-recognized sources. No, no, a thousand times no. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: May I ask how the review scores are "arbitary, contextless numbers"? (Guyinblack25 talk 05:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

text: How about now? I made it closer to grey, while still keeping a slight tint. David Fuchs (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be my monitor but that looks nearer to green than grey. Additional not that I'm saying there's anything wrong with the colour - just saying that it's not grey. The green dosen't look too bad. - X201 19:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's slightly green because the tint for the publication-score is a slight green-grey, it's just lighter so you don't notice as much. David Fuchs (talk) 19:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The template is so wrong.  It has a whole list of reviewers that people will have to look up codes for when they use this table.  So for each row, users must give an attribute for publication, an attribute for score and also a reference.  So why have we got this template again?  And why the colours?  Take a look at some featured articles, such as Devil May Cry, Age of Mythology and Perfect Dark.  They all use the same colours, and they're not the ones you've just picked. - hahnchen 01:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it reduces the amount of code by roughly 1/2, and would standardize the appearance of the tables across games. David Fuchs (talk) 02:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think it's no harder to use than a template like the ArticleHistory for talk pages. Besides, it's not like people have to use it. They could just as easily use the wikitables that have been used for review scores. Some other editor could came by and update the table much like the reflist template has been done with the div tags on the references tag. (Guyinblack25 talk 05:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should get rid of the list of review sources, and leave the thing dynamic.  You should stick with the colours used in other score boxes. - hahnchen 18:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dynamic how? Can you eloborate? (Guyinblack25 talk 18:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As in, remove the preset variables, and let the editor do the formatting. - hahnchen 19:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean like the unnamed rev 1-8 parameters, but just have more? (Guyinblack25 talk 20:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template for VG reviews 

message: The article Fiolina Germi has been nominated for deletion (here) on grounds of non-notability, but looking at the article, it seems to be one of many, many such articles on characters from this series. Here's the relevant template:
I can't bring myself to look at every one of these, but having viewed a selection, I'd be surprised if any of them meet notability requirements. There seems little point just nominating (or indeed deleting) one of them and leaving the rest, so what's to be done? Someone on the AfD discussion suggests withdrawing and taking it to the King of Fighters talk page, but unless a merge is what's intended (and would that solve anything?) there seems little point. A massive all-encompasing AfD perhaps, though those don't tend to go down too well... Any ideas? Miremare 19:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about merging them into a character list? Pagrashtak 19:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read my mind Pagrashtak. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that going to affect notability? I have no idea about this series or the sources likely available, so I can't really offer an opinion on that right away, but it seems unlikely in theory that merging all these would result in an article that asserts notability. Miremare 19:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They should just be redirected to the main article. With a series like this, there is no real reason to give specific coverage to the characters. They are not special, and they are just new ones created in each new installment. Their details can be covered in the single game articles, and a general section can be placed in the main article. TTN 19:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely a list of King of Fighters characters does not violate any of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Notability can be established with enough reliable third party sources on the characters. Consolidating all the characters into a single character list will pool whatever available sources to help establish notability. Truthfully though, I don't know what the amount of available sources is. I also must admit that all the articles as they are now don't qualify as articles. But I believe that trimming the excessive in-game content away and merging them together can create a respectable list. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if TTN is right (he might be, I've only looked at the AFD article, really, so I can't say), merging into a character list would be a good first step. When the list is done, it can be merged into the game article if need be. Pagrashtak 20:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree.  Most of those do not appear to maintain enough notability on their own, but a couple of categorized lists may make a good alternative.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 00:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It should be pointed out that Angel (The King of Fighters) and May Lee (The King of Fighters) are both GAs. Also, many of the articles don't work for a merge because The King of Fighters is a crossover series, with most characters having either started in the Fatal Fury series, Art of Fighting series, or something entirely different (such as Athena Asamiya's first game being Psycho Soldier); some characters have been in over twenty games, including other crossover games such as Neo Geo Battle Coliseum and the SNK vs. Capcom series. Even if a list is created, the majority of characters would need stand-alone articles regardless.--72.204.47.232 18:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they are GA, then they don't need to be merged. Just because they are in a crossover series doesn't mean they can't be still categorized by multiple series. That can be stipulated in the list lead paragraph. The characters could even be divided by their original series. Unfortunately, even though a list would limit the amount of character information and images used, if that information in the original article is limited to only a character description and/or list of appearances, that doesn't meet the requirement for out-of-universe content.Some characters could probably stand on their own, but without the sources to provide real world content they'll need to be merged. Merging the separate articles is a way to pool resources to find out if they can stand on their own. Like in the merging of the Kingdom Hearts characters; turned out there was enough content to get the Organization XIII characters article up to GA. (Guyinblack25 talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 18:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I rethought my opinion. While I do believe that most, if not all of the characters deserve their own articles, what we have now is crap. I think cleanup would be best, but maybe it would be alright to just merge them all and recreate individual articles later. However, the current list really isn't set up to take a merge.--72.204.45.94 07:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Myriad nn King of Fighters articles 

message: Just so anyone who may be interested is made aware, I have just tagged a myriad of Xenosaga articles for WP:OR WP:SYNTH and various WP:MOS issues such as in-universe writing and gameguide style.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 00:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw, and thanks, I've been meaning to get to it. Also, I was wondering if anyone could create an in-universe character template infobox for the series since I'm not too good with them. If not, I guess I can try in a bit. I'm currently looking for help with improving the articles if anyone is interested. ^.~ Zemalia 00:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've thought things over a bit and I'm sure you've noticed Tcaudilllg's fairly "spirited" attitude. I'm thinking that the best way to deal with that situation is to do so per WP:NOFEED. So, in the interest of making everyone's life a little easier I'd say it would be best to let him get bored and leave before any of the OR gets taken away.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 01:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't had any trouble with him so far and I hate to turn people off from contributing to making Wikipedia better.  Working with people calmly is better than plain ignoring, IMO. He probably just hasn't been taught right.  Zemalia 01:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xenosaga FYI 

message: GameFAQs has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Life, Liberty, Property 11:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And that's getting shot down fast, apparently. 216.37.86.10 15:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GameFAQs featured article review 

message: I recently put StarCraft: Brood War through assessment just to see what needs doing in order to get it to good article status. However, one issue put forward by the assessor is cutting back the plot details some more. I'd like someone - preferably without substantive experience of StarCraft and thereby unbiased - to go through the plot section of StarCraft: Brood War#Plot and try to get each episode section down to a couple of sentences in a similar style to StarCraft#Plot. Another editor and I cut the plot back somewhat substantively before putting the article into assessment and although I know it can be cut down further still to meet requirements, I can't see what to cut down. -- Sabre 15:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting someone who can fine-cut plot details with impunity. 

message: Template:RuneScape Wikia Link is up for deletion, it's used solely in the RuneScape article. Note that Maple Story is using strategy wiki links in the same way - in the article body. I'm no expert on category/template issues so could some project members who are take a look and provide some guidance? TY. Someone another 19:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:RuneScape Wikia Link up for deletion - more experienced opinions please 

message: When is it too much, that it falls under game guide content? Mushroom (Mario) is a big example of excessive detail. The item is indeed important, but I don't see why each and every mushroom should have a section. From the max mushroom item on the page: It is very rare and very expensive, but it is useful for some of the battles, particularly the final battle. Information like that, leans towards game guide in my view. However most of these item articles probably could be deleted because they are game guide content mainly. :Category:Video game items and :Category:Video game items seem to have many articles that are just being cluttered. RobJ1981 18:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm of a few minds about this. On one hand, the mushroom is probably one of the few items that could perhaps deserve its own article, but either way it's waaay too detailed and crufty right now. For items in multiple games (Hookshot (device)) it also makes more sense for an article. The majority? (I'm looking at you, Totemizer, and all the crap in that universe), should prolly go to afd or be merged. I myself will probably start with some Zork stuff. David Fuchs (talk) 20:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A question about articles that are leaning towards game guides

message: Should they be in both the games category, and the other category? Example: many games in :Category:GameCube-only games don't have the GameCube games category in their article. I remember a previous discussion about this determined that games should be in both. I've been adding the category to some articles, however a user reverted many of my changes months ago: [], scroll down a bit to August to see his mass category removal. I didn't even notice this, until I checked the history of an article today, and noticed he did quite a lot. I don't see any new consensus on this issue here, so should I keep re-adding the category? If that's indeed the case, I would like some help (as it seems like there is a lot to do, besides just the GameCube games). In my view, a game exclusive to a console should be listed for both categories: the console and the console-only category. RobJ1981 07:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Until we come to a consensus or find a way of categorizing the "Exclusive" games in an easy to use way, the secondary categorisation rule applies WP:SUBCAT#Secondary_categorization_rule. - X201 10:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, having the article as a member of both categories seems to make the most sense and agrees with WP:SUBCAT#Secondary_categorization_rule, as noted.  -- Slordak 17:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay thanks. Now it's just a matter of putting all games in both categories. I'll work on the GameCube category, as I started doing that yesterday. RobJ1981 17:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we get a bot to maintain this? Editors who aren't aware are going to keep removing these. The bot would just have to look for Foo-only categories, and add the Foo category if it's not there. Pagrashtak 17:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. Perhaps a bot can do this. For future reference, if I do see people remove it...I will point them to this discussion. RobJ1981 18:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about games exclusive to a certain console

message: I would like to request some assistence in critiquing the The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion article in the article's talk page. SharkD 10:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion

message: Should this be sent to AFD? There is already a D & D list sorted by platform. I don't see how settings are that notable (as this is the only game list I see sorted this way). It appears to be list/fancruft to me. Thoughts? RobJ1981 14:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, it doesn't bother me. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 14:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The games seem to make quite a big deal of which setting they're using, but we don't need more than one D&D game list; a single, sortable one could include setting, platform, year of release, and whatever else. Much more useful all round. Miremare 15:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would indeed be useful - I would favour a merge into such a list. No need to AFD this one before that happens though. User:Krator (t c) 15:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll make a start on it then. Miremare 16:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed with Krator's suggestion (was about to make it myself). --MASEM 18:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of Dungeons & Dragons computer and video games by setting]]

message: I just wanted to point you guys here. We have something of a disagreement on the appearance of the article. I and another user think it looks fine, but a user has raised the issue that it looks too much like a game guide. J-ſtanTalkContribs 15:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Star Wars: Battlefront II]] 

message: Macintosh has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Kaypoh 15:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:FAR|FAR]] for [[Macintosh]] 

message: I've been trying to explain to people why a page on Ike from Fire Emblem shouldn't be created. The rationale people seem to be creating is for the sake of practicality/convenience as they feel that there should be a page since information on Ike is on two separate lists: List of characters in Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance and List of characters in Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn. I've criticised their reasoning as illegitimate since they are paying no attention to WP:N. The main pusher, User: Wikada, is getting emotional and throwing around various accusations. I'd just like it if anybody would provide an extra opinion since this user doesn't seem to pay attention to what I'm saying. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 16:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, how forgetful of me; the discussion is on Talk: List of characters in Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance. Ashnard Talk Contribs 16:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute about page creation 

message: I have taken to using eStarland to establish the worth of certain games in the secondary market. For an example of my use, see Bust a Groove. My rationale for using the site is that they have consistant prices for used games (which is a major problem when trying to use sites like eBay as a guide) and that their prices are quite conservative. I know of no better alternative to cite game worth, but I figured I ought to ask the project before using this system too heavily. Of course, this wouldn't need to be used on very many articles, just those in which the value of the game has either stayed the same or risen above its original MSRP. So, is it acceptable?--SeizureDog 16:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's often ok to mention a game's high value, especially in approximation ("it constantly goes for over $100" or similar) but an exact value shouldn't be said. I don't think a retail site like that should be used as a source, though if one must be, Amazon is better IMO because of its relative trustworthiness and "big name" as a place for commerce. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 17:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem: "constantly" is a weasel word. Amazon completely fails to work because its used games are user sold, and are just as much in flux as eBay is. I might find a game selling for $20 one day, and $80 the next week. Attempting to establish an average price would be OR.--SeizureDog 04:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if listing a secondary market value would be in the interests of a Wikipedia article. The only time I can see a justification for it is if a game is notable for its price, such as being a rare collector's item. --Scottie_theNerd 13:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's what I was trying to get at, which is why I gave the "over $100" example. But a lot of games aren't particularly collector's items, just rare, but that rarity IS often notable, I'd say. To say what it goes for at one RETAIL site, though, isn't something we should be doing. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 14:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For us to consider a game as rare, we will need the appropriate sources indicating the facts and figures -- and often those also include a price. Using an external site to establish the worth of a game seems too much of a venture into WP:OR. --Scottie_theNerd 14:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't using external sites to establish various facts what Wikipedia's sourcing policies are all about and exactly what WP:OR requires? -- Anomie (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That comment of mine wasn't worded very well. I was thinking more of why we would be mentioning price in the first place. --Scottie_theNerd 17:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it gives a tangible number to the game's demand. Simply stating that the game is "rare" or "valuable" is pointless without a number to back it up.--SeizureDog (talk) 03:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Establishing secondary market value 

message: This article is currently at GAR (WP:GAR#Call of Duty 2) - the main reason was a lack of broad coverage.  I was wondering if anyone could take a quick look see and give some suggestions.  Cheers, Dihydrogen Monoxide 04:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Call of Duty 2]] 

message: How useful are these series articles (such as Halo series, Total War series, Half-Life series) in practice? Is it a good idea to have one if the series is deemed notable enough with sufficient real-world impact, reception, etc on the series? (as Halo series tries to do). I'm mainly thinking in terms of the StarCraft series here, whether I may be able to move the mess that is StarCraft universe to StarCraft series and rehaul it to something akin to Halo series when I'm done with my current SC commitments. I was simply going to put StarCraft universe up for AfD once I'd made its content completely redundant through my redos of other articles until I noticed the improved styling used in Halo series. 
Consider this a move for creating a debate on the point, I'd like some discussion on the pros and cons of such series articles. -- Sabre 11:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm leaning towards distinguishing between game series with non-game media (e.g. books, film) and series that are exclusively based on games. I don't think it would be accurate to compare the StarCraft universe, which contains novels, to the Total War series. We should also consider game series that are not primarily known as games, but are based on more popular media (e.g. Naruto or Dragon Ball). --Scottie_theNerd 13:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its probably to widely varied to say one way or the other. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[insert title here] series" articles 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GDI technology of Command & Conquer has been relisted. If you participated in any of the below, you might want to give it a look.
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soviet technology of Command & Conquer
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allied technology of Command & Conquer
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nod technology of Command & Conquer
:Thanks, Pagrashtak 22:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GDI technology of Command & Conquer relisted at AFD 

message: I believe this category is becoming much too stuffed. It's basically impossible to find what you desire in here. I propose a system (not unlike that for the game covers) of subcategories, once for each system. A few have already been created after all. N. Harmonik (talk) 21:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds sensible to me. Miremare 22:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category: Screenshots of video games|Screenshots of Video Games]] 

message: Well, I've been trying to locate some out of universe information for the characters and have come up empty.  I think all the pages under Category:Xenosaga characters, e.g. KOS-MOS,  should be merged into their appropriate lists.  I would definately need some help though, since I've never merged anything before.  Can someone please help or supply an opinion? Zemalia (talk) 06:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to get it set up (make sure that there is consensus/nobody is going to revert them), and I'll go ahead and merge all of them. TTN (talk) 23:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It's pretty simple, just follow the instructions at WP:MERGE. The hardest part is copyediting the resulting merged article to combine whatever information is useful from the old articles. Don't skip this step though, unless the result of the merge discussion is that there is no useful information to combine, or your "merge" ends up being a sneaky delete. The idea is to improve the whole collection of articles rather than just to press for wholesale deletion. Anomie⚔ 12:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Xenosaga mess... 

message: Basically, I'm thinking about attempting a Featured with this, but the article's going nowhere unless this information can be found. Does anybody know of any sources detailing some development info? Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 18:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would try using one of the web archive sites, and look back at the old Japanese site. I think the creator answers questions and stuff. TTN (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 15:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Development info for [[Super Smash Bros Melee]] 

message: Turd the Borg is adding excessive, and often unneeded cleanup tags to several VG featured articles. I've reverted a few and left him a note that it isn't helpful. He also seems to be removing content when editors revert his tags. Some other admins might want to keep an eye on this. Here's an example of an article he overloaded with cleanup and fact tags. Pagrashtak 23:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it hilarious that after he added all those tags, he nominated Music of the Final Fantasy series for GA, although the article has practically no refs, it has cleanup tags (which he didn't add) and is need of a major rewrite. --Mika1h (talk) 23:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's not responding to user talk page comments. Although he throws in some good edits every once in a while, I am no longer assuming good faith with this user. Would anyone support a block if he continues adding these tags in what I take to be a disruptive fashion? Pagrashtak 15:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are just weird edits - half the ones I scanned through are reasonable tags or even appropriate modifications, but then the other half seem on the verge of WP:POINT. I would consider dropping a personalized message on his talk page and explain that a lot of what he's asking and so forth should be discussed on talk pages first, that many of his contributions are welcome, blah blah, but many are also very disruptive and that should he do this again without discussing or providing discussion (and lack of edit summaries), he may be blocked from editing. --MASEM 15:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I left another note, warning him that he is being disruptive, which could lead to a block. I was prompted by this jem of an edit, which I would appreciate if someone would care to revert if they agree that it is not a helpful addition. I've been reverting enough on that article. Pagrashtak 17:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Also left a note at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Turd the Borg. Pagrashtak 17:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: This is getting stupid. His recent spurt added a "This article needs additional citations for verification" tag to an article with 86 references]. The above Zelda edit is simply ridiculous. He's also randomly coming along and creating sections with no content, flagging them as stub sections and disappearing. I can't see any sense or pattern to his editting at all, it's as though he's gone to one game page, tagged it to death, clicked a link, tagged that page to death, clicked another link and winded up on a healthcare law article. And then to completely confuse you, he thenperforms a reasonable edit. I know that some people feel that Wikipedia policy is tough, but this guy seems to have taken that feeling to heart. If he can't be convinced to stop, I'd support a block for disruption. - Sabre (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With regard to the healthcare law, he found that page because it's one of the seven articles listed on my user page. He made an edit to each of the seven back-to-back. Pagrashtak 18:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: His 2nd and 3rd edits were to use templates on his user page, and his fifth edit was to warn a vandal. Straight after that he makes poor quality edits to the featured VG articles. This is not the typical editing pattern of a new user. - hahnchen 18:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. His knowledge of the proper use of several different types of templates and tags suggests he's been on Wikipedia for some time, possibly as an anon. I'd like to assume good faith and would hate to suggest he's using a sock puppet, but it's still a possibility. Though some edits are disruptive, others have an real basis and purpose. I'm trying to get a discussion going with him on Talk:Final Fantasy in case others would like to try talking to him. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blocked for Wikipedia:Username policy  violation by MaxSem. Pagrashtak 21:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New user adding excessive cleanup tags 

message: I am new to this project, and I see that you have no COTW [I may be wrong]. Why not start a COTW? Lex94 Talk  Contributions Guest Book 19:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We had one, but it is inactive. See Wikipedia:Gaming Collaboration of the week. Pagrashtak 19:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:CVGCOTW]]

message: The regular editors insist on having a "newest releases" section. It's both clutter and turning the article into a news release. I've reverted it off, but they claim the consensus is there (which they've used as an excuse in the past). This is simply a matter of the regulars claiming ownership in my view. What does everyone else think? RobJ1981 (talk) 19:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That articles can be kept up to date is a good thing of course, but this does seem a little excessive. Not to mention a little like advertising for Nintendo. Miremare 20:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I agree. I'd say it falls under a couple of points on WP:NOT. I've commented on the talk page. Let's see if we can explain this to them. (Guyinblack25 talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 20:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More specifically, WP:NOT#NEWS, #ADVERTISING, and #DIR. There was another thing, but I can't seem to find it...Dengarde ► Complaints  20:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just trying to make it easier for people to find the updated information. --LN3000 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 23:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We realize the edits were made in good faith. It's obvious you're not trying mess things up or make destructive edits, but it is not within in the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia. Please understand, that is the consensus of Wikipedia. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Newest releases section on [[List of Virtual Console games (North America)]]

message: For example Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/ ( Game name here ) 
*Something like that 
It sounds reasonable to me what do you think? 
Make a concensus.
--Storkian aka iSoroush Talk  21:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe Wikipedia was originally structure in a similar way before the categories we know today were implemented. The main argument against it was that it limits what articles can be subcategorized under. For instance, something like Music of [video game name] could only fall under video games and not under a music one. Same thing with something like GTAIII, it could fall under VG but not controversy. It sounds like a nice organized idea, but I believe that the amount of smalled headaches it could and would create outweigh the advantages. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I have absolutely no idea what this proposal is. Pagrashtak 22:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  All Video Games Subcatogorized in this WikiProject? 

message: I was looking through the articles in this category, and it seems to me that many of these articles are really only Start-class. Perhaps we should reassess a lot of these. JACOPLANE • 2007-11-20 17:42
:I had similar thoughts a while back on the discussion page for the cleanup department. I think the project needs to stricten its assessment of B-class candidates. It just seems to be used rather too casually for articles not really deserving of it and those that are perhaps are not far off good article status. Take this revision of a character article and it's current revision after a major overhaul. Both are rated as B-class, although the first is simply a compilation of "cruft", referenced only to the game's manuals and novels, whilst the second is an attempt to move the article in the right direction in relation to WP:FICTION with commentary on design and reception. In my view the first draft should never have been classified as B-class. -- Sabre (talk) 18:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I've been assessing articles my standards are much higher than most B-grade articles are. When I assess articles I use Mitaphane's criteria, as listed here. Una LagunaTalk 18:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a suggestion that applies to this somewhat. I noticed that the organization guidelines for video game articles only outline what is recommended for game articles. Perhaps outlining the organization format for character articles, setting articles, music articles, etc would help give structure to some of these B-class articles. I believe giving all types of game articles a structure will help with the enforcement and application of the assessment process. Some general ideas were compiled on the Clean up department page. Perhaps these could help create some additional organization guidelines. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite a few potential GAs there that just have no sourcing. Ultimately, this cat would be very empty... Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 22:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing wrong with that, so long as articles are appropriately rated. Besides, I'm sure it wouldn't take too long to repopulate, and hopefully with better quality articles than what's in there now. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:B-Class video game articles]] 

message: Xbox Live Arcade games are spread out on several articles, and one list would probably be the best route to go. See Xbox Live Arcade#Xbox Live Arcade games for the Xbox 360, List of Xbox Live Arcade games by date and Upcoming games for Xbox Live Arcade for the mess. The Virtual Console (another gaming download service) has one list for it's games per region. I don't know a lot about Xbox Live Arcade, but if the games are for all regions then one list is all that is needed. If not, various region lists (similar to how Virtual Console lists are setup) should be the way to go. RobJ1981 (talk) 07:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: XBL games come out on the service but they can be region locked and unlocked at various times (I'm not aware of any that have yet). That said, you're absolutely right there can be one table instead of the 3 pages; regions can be handled by footnoting or if there are more execptions of region encoding, adding a second date of releases for a region. The table, of course, should be sortable.--MASEM 13:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead (After prodding by RobJ :-) ) and created List of Xbox Live Arcade games that combines the various lists, using sortable tables (though the date sorting is still funky). I'm asking for input for replacing at Xbox Live Arcade. --MASEM 19:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Xbox Live Arcade mess that needs to be fixed

message: Has anyone noticed :Category:Warhammer 40,000? It's filled with many articles (and subcategories) that need to be deleted or merged. For some reason, many of the articles have an unneccesary dab suffix, like Weapons and equipment of the Tau Empire (Warhammer 40,000). (As opposed to what other Weapons and equipment of the Tau Empire?) I'll help tackle it after the Warcraft deletions start dying down, but if someone wants to start in on PROD/AFD now, feel free. Please note that some articles (like the W&E of Tau up there) have had PRODs removed already. Pagrashtak 17:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OMG, this will be like a full time job there is so much junk! :) Anyone who wants to help, step up! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is gonna be a busy weekend for me, but I'll start on some. DurinsBane87 (talk) 19:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I was just about to suggest that. One possibility is a "races of" page instead of each race getting a seperate article. Unfortunatly, it's going to mean alot of material cutting. I don't even know where to start. DurinsBane87 (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Starting with a pure copy-paste merge excluding obvious gamecruft, then listing for WP:VG/C, would be a good start. User:Krator (t c) 19:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Good point, thanks. That's totally correct about merging, but there are quite a few articles that don't even look like they are worth a merge (I've PRODded a couple). Pagrashtak 19:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: There's actually a wikiproject just for 40k (Wikipedia:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000).  I dropped them a note after reading the notice at Board and table games.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chunky Rice (talk • contribs) 23:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I should have figured. Anyone ever notice that a narrow fiction WikiProject usually equals cruft? A good reason to clamp down on them. Pagrashtak 15:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: .....and that would be because those articles have extensive real world notability and referencing, and those other articles don't; all they have or are going to be are in-universe things. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive Warhammer articles 

message: When does it leans towards game guide content (and/or listcruft, clutter)?  Here's a recent example: Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles#Gameplay. I'm sure there is more though. In general, shouldn't listing levels just be avoided? RobJ1981 (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any sort of level list is game guide material, as they do not add anything to an encyclopedic overview of the topic. Just cut any that you see. TTN (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Listing levels/weapons/maps etc. doesn't actually add a whole lot of information unless they go into totally OTT detail anyway. Once you've listed them then you have to stipulate which enemies appear, what weapons are available, who's the boss.. it's never ending. Details like like level lists are exactly the kind of information included as part of FAQs on GameFAQs. If readers want these specifics they can find them there.Someone another (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about level information in articles

message: A documentary about how the video game industry came to be. Could be used as an additional source for multiple articles. Tv-schedules « ₣ullMetal ₣alcon » 01:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rise of the video game 

message: Can you help me tell if Crysis 2 violates policy. I don't really see how it violates CRYSTAL or NOTABILITY. Thanks! Marlith T/C 06:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it wouldn't come for years though... Marlith T/C 06:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crysis trilogy 

message: Hi, I have put up a request to rename :Category:Descent: FreeSpace to :Category:FreeSpace series for the reasons listed at the Categories for discussion page here. However it seems none of the admin or frequent traffic there are interested in this request, so I am putting a heads up over here since the main VG page has only a section dealing with deletion requests. Jappalang (talk) 01:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category for Rename - [[:Category:Descent: FreeSpace|Descent: FreeSpace]] to [[:Category:FreeSpace series|FreeSpace series]] 

message: If you take a look in this category, you will see yet another host of stubby in-universe articles. We should look at this one too. Someone nominated ten of them for deletion, and that's a good start, but there is still a lot to do. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Convenience links: :Category:The Elder Scrolls | Wikipedia:WikiProject The Elder Scrolls Pagrashtak 05:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Category:The Elder Scrolls

message: I'm an avid game player. I play Star Wars Galaxies and Second Life. I nominate those two for a side project that I can start on. The Second Life article is extremly slanted in its opinion and Star Wars Galaxies and be expanded.
CrazySain (talk) 02:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't need permission or anything, if you want to improve the article, go right ahead! Just remember, don't add excessive plot details or a description of how to play the game. Pagrashtak 05:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK great, thanks a little new to projects :-) I'll start on the Second Life articles CrazySain (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination For 2 Side Projects 

message: I'm encountering some odd opposition on this FAC. I would appreciate any commentary or criticism regarding certain novel presumptions regarding "FA notability"; scope of topic and substance of topic have no bearing on the FA-ability, so long as reliable sources covering the subject in all its major details are there, correct? I am, as ever, confused: individuals demanding something beyond the possible on the basis of personal laws instead of policy always frustrate me. Please, any commentary would be welcome. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Elder Scrolls IV: Knights of the Nine|''Knights of the Nine'' Featured Article Candidacy]] 

message: An editor has called to question the use of Joystiq on the Frank West (Dead Rising) page. This source has been used on featured articles as has similar "blogs" such as Kotaku. Could I please get some assistance with explaining to him how Joystiq and such are  considered experts in the field of gaming and that they do have editorial processes and aren't simple blogs such as a blogspot or livejournal? Thanks. I'm getting too hot to deal with this.... Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Joystiq isn't the problem source, as nothing from it is being used (though the misunderstanding is my fault). It's an extension of gaygamer.net in a MTV online only video that does not represent any kind of critical review. This provides a fairly comical overview of the game, but that is about it. TTN (talk) 23:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You removed the information sourced back to Joystiq which is why it isn't being used. *rolls eyes* Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I already clarified that the content that it is sourcing was not necessary (trivial, not about the character) for the article, which is why it was removed. I didn't even look at the site. TTN (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would disagree that the way that the "dress up" aspects of the game and how they relate and are taking advantage of Xbox live is a out of universe aspect of the character of Frank West. The availability and continued developement of costumes for the character even after the release of the original game is content which should have a place in the article. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I too am curious as to the status notability/verifiability of Kotaku (and other "blogs"), as I wanted to use the site as a source, but chose not to. In fact, I would like to see a list of video game sources in the portal, listing their status regarding notability/verifiability. The general rule of thumb I use is that the site features news, reviews and articles/editorials, as well as multiple writers who don't use pseudonyms. SharkD (talk) 22:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with you up to the pseudonyms part. When I published a magazine back in the early 90's one of our Editors did not want to disclose she was a female because she wanted to avoid all the sexist BS, so we all elected to use pseudonyms to accommodate her. Sometimes there may be good reasons for aliases.BcRIPster (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I made a start at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#List. Go ahead and add everything you see, I think this will be a useful addition to Wikipedia - thanks for the suggestion. Especially in the area of open source games and foreign language sources, this could add be a useful source for many editors. User:Krator (t c) 23:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sourcing concerns

message: Halo 3 is up for FAC again, seeing as no meaningful comments came up last time... show up! David Fuchs (talk) 00:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Halo 3]] 

message: A few times I've tried to remove some unhelpful categories from character pages, but I always end up reverted by fans or anons. For example, Wario is currently in the following categories:
*:Category:Fictional baseball players
*:Category:Fictional basketball players
*:Category:Fictional football (soccer) players
*:Category:Fictional golfers
*:Category:Fictional racecar drivers
*:Category:Fictional tennis players
Just because a character has appeared in a golfing video game doesn't mean he's a fictional golfer. Bagger Vance of The Legend of Bagger Vance is a fictional golfer, as is the title character of Happy Gilmore—these characters are defined by golfing. Wario is not. Does everyone agree that these categories are not helpful and should be removed from Wario and related characters? Pagrashtak 19:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. If part or all of a character's profession/hobby, which is related to the plot/story of a game, is related to a sport or some similar then yes, they belong in that category. But various characters that appear in a party-type game should not qualify for that. Per the general guidelines on WP:CATEGORY, "An article will often be in several categories. Restraint should be used as categories become less effective the more there are on any given article." and "An article should normally possess all the referenced information necessary to demonstrate that it belongs in each of its categories. Avoid including categories in an article if the article itself doesn't adequately show it belongs there." (Guyinblack25 talk 19:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right.  Mario is not a fictional submariner just for taking to the sub pop in Super Mario Land. - hahnchen 23:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Noticing that Guyinblack25 has removed the categories from Wario, I've followed suit and removed similar categories from other Nintendo characters. Pagrashtak 18:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unhelpful categories 

message: Shouldn't  be redirected to ? Also, for a game just released like Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games, should the template use the "type" parameter since it is not yet released on the DS? Maybe there should be an explanation on that... « ₣ullMetal ₣alcon » 03:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: transcludes  rather than redirecting to it because it is hoped that when it becomes feasible,  will become a generic template rather than implicitly assuming that games are video games. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This should be documented on the template page then. Pagrashtak 18:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I have a related question. Which template should I use for games which haven't reached v1.0 yet, but have had several working releases already (such as many open source games)? I felt that the Future Game template wasn't completely applicable. SharkD 04:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Future video game 

message: This article has been labeled as a stub and I would like it to be re-evaluated because it has been expanded since it was given the stub label. I would appreciate any improvements that you make to it. Thank you. Jecowa (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a job for our assessment department, but it's still a stub, and is headed for deletion. Pagrashtak 22:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the info on the assessment department. The article is a bit shorter than when I though it might be larger than a stub. I didn't realize that forums were a bad place to get positive and negative opinions on subjects. If such things were acceptable, would this have been at the "start" class of computer video game articles in your opinion? Jecowa (talk) 06:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they were acceptable, yes. But they are not. User:Krator (t c) 11:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's highly likely that this will be deleted, so I wouldn't recommend spending too much time on this. Ashnard Talk Contribs 16:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Odd how WP works sometimes. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Active pause system]] 

message: I'm in discussion with the guy who added the details regarding the recently released trailer for Deus Ex 3. I don't consider the information encyclopedic, but the author of the section disagrees (See the discussion here). Thoughts? Una LagunaTalk 22:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that level of detail smacks of original research and gives the subject undue weight, a violation of WP:NPOV. Maybe a short blurb about how a number of symbols appear would be good, but not that laundry list.  I'd point the user in question to the treatment of the GTA4 trailers as an example of how it should be handled, asking them to pay particular note to the presence of citations. --jonny-mt(t)(c)I'm on editor review! 01:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trailer details at [[Deus Ex 3]] 

message: Recently, there's been a trend towards removing or drastically cutting down on the usage of images in articles on characters.  While the issue is currently video game characters, it could imply that most other fair use images could possibly be on the chopping block as well, such as screenshots and the like.  I've opened a discussion about this at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free content#Character images and lists.  This has fairly important repercussions; if the recent trend is affirmed, then many of the images in current character articles need to be deleted. SnowFire (talk) 19:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image policy: Character artwork and screenshots. 

message: After doing a little research: I found out that Go! Go! Minon and Mr. D Goes to Town are the same game. Which game title should it be under? Go Go is the original name for the Japan release, while Mr. D is for the North America release (which hasn't been released yet). RobJ1981 (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At first glance I would say the North American title should be used as that's the English language name. Is the game going to be released in other regions with either title? Miremare 00:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Miremare. Discussion on the talk page for WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines resulted in this guideline, which indicates that Japanese names should be provided for English games, not the other way around.  Given that Mr. D seems to be an actual upcoming video game per its presence on IGN, et al., I'd suggest merging Go! Go! Minon into Mr. D Goes to Town, noting the Japanese name in the new article, and leaving the former article link as a redirect. --jonny-mt(t)(c)I'm on editor review! 00:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Which title to go by?

message: Theres currently an edit war on Fox McCloud, people are redirecting/merging it and reverting it back and fourth to the point where it's full-protected (Ends 01:11 December 7, 2007). The discussion is on Talk:List of characters in the Star Fox series, so I was hoping you guys would help them come to a consensus. Dengarde ► Complaints  01:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Fox McCloud]] 

message: Does anyone like sonic?Evadog (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sonic the hedgehog