Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 21

message: I noticed that this user has added an external link to the WOS website to very many pages in the past few days. It looks like a spammer to me, but I am not qualified to judge. So I am leaving a message here for the WikiProject to investigate and decide. Cheers! Royalbroil T : C 14:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out the talk page of the template he's adding: Template talk:WoS game. The site it links to distributes the games in violation of copyright, which is not allowed per WP:COPYRIGHT. The links would have to be removed. NeoChaosX  (talk, walk) 19:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In all fairness, the games linked to are not necessarily in violation of copyright.  The maintainers of World of Spectrum try very hard to collect the permission to each and every copyright holder and the games in question may also very well be there in agreement with the copyright holder.  Games which have been requested removed have been removed and will be so in the future if requested, typically Activision have denied re-distribution of their software.  Only reference material is available in such cases (e.g. for R-Type).  I have no knowledge of the user in question, but in many of the cases he has just replaced ordinary http links with a template.  --Frodet 13:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't that be similar to post torrent links to full game downloads using the common disclaimer that "if the copyright holder complains, they remove the torrent"? The copyright holder does not need to complain in order for the "copyright violation" to exist, it is there as soon as you breach the EULA, which usually forbids you to redistribute the full version of the game. I haven't checked the site (noticed the user adding templates, though, but sent  to TFD and forgot about this one), but if it does so, the links must be removed and the template deleted. -- ReyBrujo 13:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The torrent analogy is not a fair one. World of Spectrum actively contact publishers and copyright holders to get their permission, and most do give permission for the files to stay on the site. This page  shows who they have contacted or tried to contact and whether that person/company have given their permission for the files to stay. I'm sure you'll agree, this puts them far higher up the moral ladder than your average torrent site. - X201 14:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I must admit that I am impressed. I am firmly against the illegal use of emulation, and this site's hard work is a big step in the right direction. After reading through the site, I think that we should support it as well. However, perhaps we should only link to games that have been appoved (and not just not disapproved) and make sure to mention that it is a legal ROM in the link.--SeizureDog 15:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been following this debate, and although I don't have anything new to bring to the table, I do agree that SeizureDogs got the best approach. I mean if they have the permission, then there is no legal issue because it's in a white area, not a grey area like 'not being told they can't do it' is (unless of course we need permission from the website itself before we link to it!) The Kinslayer 16:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no problem linking to the website itself. See here. (Disclaimer: I am one of the secondary maintainers of WoS, and so will take no real part in this discussion). Cheers --Pak21 16:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That's not what I'm saying.  Firstly, my point was that there is a lot of content on WoS which is explicedly NOT in violation, eg. .  I am not condoning copyright violations.  Secondly, there is nothing wrong with a template, per se.  Links can be made to copyright violated material just as easy without a template.  If there is a copyright violation, the link should be removed, not the template.  With the template it is possible to get a cross-ref of the linkage and remove them on a per-title basis.  --Frodet 18:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you point out, links can be made without the template. A much better way to see what links would be to use Special:Linksearch. Cheers --Pak21 09:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User talk:WOSlinker]]

message: We've had the Essential articles page for a long time but other than just listing them we haven't really made a concerted effort to push these articles to at least GA status. There was a Workshop that was proposed but that never got off the ground. For the GCOTW only stubs can be nominated and they don't have to be "core" topics. I was thinking we should try to start something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games/Core topic COTF which would be based on Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics/Core topics COTF. I think having a collaboration once every fortnight is better than every week since there is likely to be more work which will go into these articles than in a typical GCOTW. Only articles that are High priority or Top priority would be viable candidates. Good idea or likely to be ignored like the Workshop? JACOPLANE • 2007-01-3 00:18
:I'm not sure if it's indicative of anything, but WP:CVG has seemed really quiet lately aside from two throwaway FACs. Anyway, I guess it would depend on the subject. It might be much easier to make star game articles than fix those daunting history articles up. But those are of top importance, so they would be a good place to start. Let's see if anyone else is reading. --Zeality 00:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Me, I've just been working on the last thousand or so articles that still need to be rated. I want to get it out of the way so it can be put in the good old "Done for now" category. Nifboy 02:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 800 left, we're almost there. --PresN 17:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Working on core articles 

message: Hi,
I recently discovered that article and was going to put it up for WP:AFD, but I thought I'd ask here first: do you think this article meets WP:N.--Carabinieri 14:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, delete the sucker.--SeizureDog 09:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Speaking as a Nova beta tester (and super-moderator of the Ambrosia boards), practically no plug-in for any of the EVs are notable. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, the article is at AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARPIA2.--Carabinieri 15:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[ARPIA2]] 

message: Im about to write a bunch of (hopefully) long articles on a few megadrive games I own and have completed which have not got any articles. Any quick advice before i start the long but enjoyable task of writing articles, though I know theres lots of help pages out there for this, but, some short easy tips to help would be greatly appreciated:) Fethroesforia 00:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games/Article guidelines page is the most important. Also, here are some more tips. Good luck! JACOPLANE • 2007-01-5 00:09
Thanks very much, theres at least 5 articles I am about to write, hopefully to a good standard, I have played them all to death so I know them inside out, thanks for the links:) Fethroesforia 00:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Assuming that they'll be completely new articles, remember to add them to the new pages section of the main project page so we'll know about them.  --PresN 16:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tips on article writing 

message: The game I am writing an article on, has about twenty different enemies and about 15 different ammo pickups, would I be right in thinking someone would object to each enemy having a (highly cropped) screenshot showing just that enemy? like...next to the paragraph on the enemy is a picture of it from in game? and the pickups also? Fethroesforia 15:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm thinking that may be too much.  --PresN 16:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: As many as is necessary, but no more. Try to use pictures in making a point, as opposed to merely cataloging and illustrating the game. Nifboy 16:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at Turok: Dinosaur Hunter. I recently overhauled it and it was promoted to GA. Screenshots of each enemy would be overkill and look unprofessional. Also, don't try and list each weapon/enemy. Here is the article before I worked on it: . Thunderbrand 16:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, don't do lists of weapons/enemies/levels, they end up going to the laundromat. Also, when images for multiple characters, etc, are needed, try your best to get a group shot. That's usually the best way.--SeizureDog 17:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image and screenshot use 

message: Since I spend a lot of time just browsing the Wiki, I find lots of articles that fall under the scope of this project, but don't have the template, so I add the cvgproj thingie and assess the article. However, I was recently thinking... just how much good does this do? Just because I flagged an article with the tag doesn't mean anyone will look at it (at least not anyone who didn't already plan on looking at it). So, is what I'm doing worthwhile at all, or should I just stop... thoughts? --VPeric 11:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the basic point is so that, if there's issues with the article, there's an easy link to here to come mention it to others interested in such articles. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose so... thanks! --VPeric 19:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding the template to articles... 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --^demon[omg plz] 05:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:{{ucfirst:Cvg-workshop-nomination}} 

message: In including of the Category:XXXX computer and video games, should only the year of the first version be added or all of them?
Consider: releases in different countries, re-releases, special editions, ports, enchanced ports (that don't have seperate articles), games of the same name that are functionally different (think any handheld version of a game based off a movie), and others.--SeizureDog 09:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I vastly prefer the first year only. I thought Final Fantasy III would be a significant-enough exception, but its remake has its own article, thereby eliminating the problem. Nifboy 09:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have only two things to say,  Battlezone Before and Battlezone after (look at the platform box in the template). I know which I prefer. - X201 10:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that the "released" section is still the same...which is more of what I'm talking about. --SeizureDog 10:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was trying to point out how the Infobox can get very messy very quickly when a lot of repeat information is added to it. The same goes for categories. My view is that on the whole it should be the first year of release. There will be some special cases where special conditions will apply like the long gap between the US and European release of Psychonauts, or the enhanced port of Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney to the DS but on the whole my opinion is that one date will suffice and the extra info can go in the article. - X201 11:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which of course begs the question: What qualifies as a "special case"? I knew that including every version was probably too extreme, but I do wonder about things such as the mentioned enhanced ports. Another problem: do articles that cover a series of games that don't have individual articles get the categories instead? Currently, Guilty Gear (series) has a bunch of console cats.--SeizureDog 11:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Looking at album articles, it looks as if they pretty much only use the original release date, no matter how many releases they got (even something like The Dark Side of the Moon which probably has gotten five or six releases), so I don't see any reason to do anything but the original, unless it's a full-on remake that doesn't have its own article. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 13:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If we're going to look at consistency, about half our FAs list 2+ years: most of the FF/etc games, Donkey Kong, and MGS3. The rest do not. In the interests of not making more work than we need to, I'm willing to call that "No Consensus" and leave them as-is. Nifboy 06:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's in the CVG's best interest to set a guideline from this moment on.  We can fix the other articles later. Hbdragon88 06:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm for first year only. --SeizureDog 07:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I would second this, while it will lead to some exhaustive lists of release dates (Super Mario Bros.!). I think it is important data, especially when the span between releases is significant (eg, Final Fantasy VI. BcRIPster 20:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why such info shouldn't be limited to the article itself (though it SHOULD be in the article). Final Fantasy I is not a 1994 videogame, even though Square released it and FFII on a cart that year. It's signicicant info, sure, but it's not nessesary to have it in the catagories as well. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 20:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First version published only or every version published? 

message: Hi, I've spent the last couple of weeks looking into this and I'm pretty disgusted at the arbitrary application of "linkspam" reversions in video game entries. It seems some of the more zealot wiki-cops pick and choose where to apply this rv, leaving entries to some sites while deleting others when they are added. Is it or is it not appropriate to make external links to review sites to reviews of the games? This could even be qualified by say... the site has to have been live for "x" amount of time in order to help reduce the amount of links to transient sites. Or something to that effect. 
This issue came to a head when after seeing the links on some game pages to sites like Moby, and DefunctGames, etc..., etc... I started adding links to reviews to a site that as been live for 12 years now, and all of the reviews are at the same URLs as they were when they went live (as a part of open disclosure I will admit that I am resposible for hosting the said site).
Anyways, a wiki-cop mass rv'd all of my additions as linkspam. When I challenged him about his arbitrary removal I was told "I do not have the time or inclination to go around cleaning up spam everywhere. When I notice blatant spam, I go and clean up as I see necessary, or pass on to higher authorities that can do mass-reverts. The fact a link is left does not necessarily equal approval of that link." This is not acceptable. Either external links to reviews are valid, or they are not. If you're going to strike "linkspam" then you better damn well strike all of it, or leave it alone if you can't be bothered with investigating if it is truly spam or not. Can we get a formal call on this? BcRIPster 22:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ideally, a link to the Open Directory entry for the game should be posted, and all external links put there. If not, a link to a meta review site like Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic or Game Rankings. Since they cover most of the reviews around, it prevents reviews from being used directly in articles. It is not as much spam as it is unnecessary. If there is a big renowned site offering content, there is no need for having smaller ones there. Yes, it sounds like we prioritize IGN, GameSpot, GameSpy, etc, but it is that way. There are few big sites and many small ones, and allowing a small one invites several other small ones to be inserted. And truly speaking, if all reviews of that site are like www.gamezero.com/team-0/final_word/snes/cybernator.html, then it adds very little to the article. I usually leave a small site review link if there is no big one there, but whenever someone begins adding a link to many articles, it raises spam alarms everywhere. -- ReyBrujo 22:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia's external links guideline explicitly says "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked." What reason do you have for ignoring this? --Pak21 22:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was an improper digression and I even acknoldged that to the person doing the rv. My issue was with his indescrimate nature of leaving many other clear linkspams of the exact same nature on the very pages he went out of his way to edit.BcRIPster 00:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me tell you what I usually do: from time to time I catch a spammer, either because he edits an article in my watch list, or through #wikipedia-spam. At that moment, the most important thing is to warn and stop the spammer, and while reverting his edits, I may cross articles that have already many inappropriate external links. However, my first priority is to stop him from continuing adding links, and more often than not, I forget to come back to those articles. If you believe an article has excessive amount of external links, you can add a  tag (as in ) so that the section is notified as troublesome. Thus I don't think he was approving those links, but instead he was just reverting your edits. Note that the rollback link administrators have make it unnecessary to check the article, so that (if he was an admin and rolled your edits back) he may have not been aware of those articles being polluted with many external links. -- ReyBrujo 01:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. That makes sense as well. So just out of curiosity, what does it take to become an editor in this capacity? I'm curious as I try to gage who is realy an editor around here. Also on your original comment on reviews on that site. They widely vary. The one you specified was one of the shorter ones that had been reprinted to web from the print publication. Alot of the early print reviews were shorter as it was published one review on a page with a number of photos taking up a portion of the page. A good many of the 95' and later reviews were more akin to this in length -- www.gamezero.com/team-0/final_word/playstation/wipeout.html BcRIPster 05:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You're looking at this in the wrong way: the editor who removed the link to your site was doing so in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines and so was improving the site. Criticising him/her for not doing more is highly unfair (and verging on a personal attack): as previously pointed out, everyone here is a volunteer. --Pak21 08:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, I believe general consensus is that each article is treated as its own entity. You can't say "but the other article has it!" or anything else of that nature. The admin is right. We're ALL volunteers here, noone HAS to do anything. If someone wants to edits a few articles on topics they enjoy and not even look for others -- why is that bad? Just because someone skips over one one violation and focuses on another does not grant it as a non-violation. Consider the proverbial speeding analody. A cop cannot pull over everyone who is speeding -- complaining you're going the same 15MPH over the limit as ten others will not make him tear up the ticket. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 22:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was less concerned about "this article is this way, so why not that article?", and more with consistency within each article. There isn't any. This wasn't a question about an editor picking one article over another, it was about discriminating over links. And to the point about meta sites... That's fine, but this is clearly not the majority of links to external gaming sites. If all articles consistently linked to proven metasites, then I think that would be a very useful thing. Although I do also like the Open Directory strategy as well. Also more directly to your analogy about a cop which is farscicle given the nature of the medium we are applying it against. This is more like someone who thinks he is a cop sending in complaints to the police every time he get's a burr up his ass about something he feels is wrong, and selectively issuing a citizen's arrest because "that guy made a u-turn in my neighbor's driveway".BcRIPster 00:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need people to act like cops and patrol for link spam and vandalism. Adding links to your website is viewed as link spamming. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise. Please don't take your anger out on the Wikipedian that caught you. Reverting spam is an acceptable way of removing it. This user was not checking each one of those articles for spam, but just clicking the "revert" button to remove your edits of self-promotion from them. Jecowa 15:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think if you read the other portion of this discussion above in an earlier subset of this topic that I do understand what happened, what the error was on my part, and I now understand how the rv was executed technically (a process I was unclear on until this event). My grievance is with the willy-nilly application of the rule. The only reason I made the *small handful* of initial links was because after extensively reading through a very large number of reviews in the Wiki, I saw that it appears to be standard practice on reviews to have external links to outside review sites, and many of those links are to minor sites where the link will likely be broken in a few years when the site goes off line. From that stand point, it seemed that it would be logical to follow form and help out. I see now that it clearly is just a case where editors live with inconsistent application of this rule based on what is convenient to them. I'm not going to be a party to the problem by adding an other links like this. But, just like most everything in Wikipedia, this is all a part of bigger issues that have nothing to do with the video game category, and takes away from the credibility of the service. In my mind, a comprehinsive article would link to *all* coverage no matter the size in an indesciminate manor, and it would likely do so via a tool like Archive.org rather than directly to external sites which will almost always change or fade with the passage of time. Until Wikipedia can consistently have true authorities on any given subject matter to help with articles, it really is just nothing more than the opinions of largely a bunch of high-school and college students who think they know everything running around pretending they have ownership of the site. I have faith that it will work out in the end which is why I'm trying to be involved myself, but the path down this road is a long one without a clear outcome. BcRIPster 18:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrary application of " linkspam " rv 

message: There is so much crap on the net about Executable files, i dont know what to make of many myself. Anyone interested in populating this category? Millions of people whant to know what all these thousands of diffrnt files are that hang around in the Windows Task Manager and WP can tell them without pushing trojan h programs into their faces. frummer 02:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure if this is the right place to request that. In any case, I have added a  template to it. -- ReyBrujo 03:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:Executable files]]

message: :Category:Computer and video games based on licensed properties is having a CfD and looks like it will be deleted. However before this happens I'd to do some sorting on it. What happened was that I created a whole bunch of :category:foo games and moved items into them. Someone came along and re-added them to the licencesd category and now I don't know what has been sorted or not. So I need some help thinning it out and sorting items appropriately. This category is in fact a rather nice collection of games that should be in their own series categories, so whatever help I can get towards that end would be great. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, most of the stuff was re-added by . Gonna need some help undoing the "add cat" mods. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  need help cleaning up Category:Computer and video games based on licensed properties 

message: Hi
I want to start a project here for older outdated video games that are somewhat forgotten. How do i go around getting such a project started?? and after its started how do i go around placeing the ad that says im part of the prodject on my profile??
Thanks Maverick423 21:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Maverick423. Out of interest, which games in particular would you want to add to such a project? Many retro games are already part of the CVG wikiproject. --Oscarthecat 22:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: What you propose to do is within the scope of this project.  See the project page to see how to indicate you are participant in the project. — Frecklefoot | Talk 23:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if you are serious about creating a subproject (we already have 12, but that shouldn't stop you) you might want to consider going here to see if anyone is interested in your idea. If nobody is, then you can personally work on improving forgotten games, and come here for dissucsion, instead of a subproject.--Clyde (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request Information 

message: I've listed on my User page the archive of gaming articles I presently have from the time I spent as editor at Games Domain. Those searching for reference citations may find what you are looking for in this large archive. The archive is only a small percentage of what Games Domain had in it's databases, however it can help when looking for published resources for reference. All articles were published at one time, although the demise of Games Domain has meant that the database (kept since 1994) is no longer available online. Please contact me via the "Talk" function on my User page for more info. Feel free to browse my User page and ask about the items I have listed. I cannot publish them in their entirety. Please keep requests succinct and precise. 
Austriancurls 04:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you thought about adding them into a new section at WP:CVG/M?  It's where others list the sources they have access to, so you can just do a browser search on the page and find who has the information you need. - hahnchen 18:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did actually, and looked there, but it looked like one big table which I couldn't make heads of tails of (some entries were all pasted in one or another column of the table without being separated out, etc. Either that, or I just didn't know what I was doing, as that could very well be, I'm new to this Wiki thing. I'll look again. Austriancurls 19:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived Gaming Articles 

message: I think Doom should be a Top priority article rather than High. After all, Cvilization and Mario are both Top class priority. Korodzik 17:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doom should be top-priority 

message: Lately I've been seeing a lot of linkspam popping up all over the place, and I didn't know if I should get rid of this one. Yes or No?--Clyde (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's got content relevant to the article. How does it hold up against the WP:EL guidelines? --Oscarthecat 21:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Remove it, links to cheat pages are linkspam and non-notable.  --PresN 22:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Better said, they don't contribute to the article itself. Don't forget the  links from this site. -- ReyBrujo 22:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linkspam 

message: I think there is a bit of a mismatch between the guidelines presented by this project and what's happening on the ground. Do we need to rethink how we are doing articles? or adjust the guidelines? or maybe everything's just fine and it's all in my head. 
Here's an example of where I see a mismatch. --Larry laptop 19:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia isn't a game guide, yet people make cruft articles for items and so on. Item lists, term lists (including glossaries.. in my opinion), vehicle lists, weapon lists, etc... are all perfect examples of articles that don't belong here. They belong on video game wikis and fan sites only. There is no reason Wikipedia needs these cruft articles. Encyclopedia, not a fan's guide to every little detail on a game. A popular series doesn't justify the cruft articles at all either. Nothing's in your head, the guidelines shouldn't be changed just because people love to do these cruft articles. RobJ1981 23:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  mismatch  

message: The List of PlayStation Portable websites seems pretty vain and non-notable. Anyone else think it should be put up for deletion? - ZakuSage 15:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tagged for AfD as of about two minutes ago (not by me, FWIW). Cheers --Pak21 15:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By me - it's a pretty clear breach of WP:NOT in three ways - it's purely a list of external links, it's a directory, and it's exists solely to describe the nature of those sites (that they are suitable for the playstation portable). --Larry laptop 15:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I've gone one step further and tagged it as CSD A3: "Any article consisting only of links elsewhere". Edit: and it's been deleted. That was nice and quick :-) Cheers --Pak21 15:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was nice and quick. Thanks guys! - ZakuSage 21:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this article meet requirements to exist? 

message: I note that you've gone ahead and added the Your Sinclair article to this project, which is a great thing. However, I'm concerned about it being rated as merely 'start' class, one step up from a stub. Myself and a few other editors have worked hard on that article, and I personally feel that it's worthy of B-class status. It includes a lot of information, much of which has footnotes and references - there are no 'citation needed' tags, and no need for any. It clearly sets out what the magazine was about, the kind of content it included, and what happened after it folded. 
I think it needs to be reassessed. If it still feels like a 'start class' article to whoever else looks at it, I would like to know why and what needs to be done to upgrade it. While I would never claim ownership of an article (WP:OWN, and such), I was the person who created it and I have a large number of edits, including an almost complete rewrite during the summer, and I feel it's better than just a 'start'.
Thanks --Stevefarrell 17:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah, it's definately much further along than start. It's probably actually 'Good' class if you ask me. But it needs to go through the process for that. And for future reference, the difference between stub, start, and B is so petty that most people don't really care if you go ahead and just rate it yourself.--SeizureDog 18:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Your Sinclair rating 

message: I'm not talking about the template, I'm talking about the games in the template. Mario Party 2 all the way through Mario Party 8. I noticed some cleanup did happen, but an editor changed it back (with no discussion). It's not notable to list all the mini-games in each game, that's the issue here. MP 2 through 8 have mass lists of games. RobJ1981 20:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are in the right. I'm deleting those lists right now. If the editor reverts again, you'll want to find an admin to help out. Those articles certainly shouldn't have lists. Have you left a message on the user's talk page or anything? Scepia 03:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The same editor has re-added the lists. Now I'm going to leave a message on his talk page, and if he continues this blatant cruft re-adding, I will go to an admin. It's not notable to list each and every mini-game. RobJ1981 20:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not 100% sure if this would violate any gamecruft rules, but maybe to settle this, we can create seperate articles for lists of mini-games. (i.e."List of MArio Party 2 Minigames", "List of Mario Party 3 minigames", etc.) guitarhero777777 02:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would violate cruft rules. Simply put, massive lists like that don't belong here. Scepia 02:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mario Party problems again

message: Hey well i was trying to start a new prodject to help out with Older and more forgotten games however i dont even know how to start the project. Yes i have read all the guidelines and everything however one of the pages lead me to the spot were i can start the project they just give instructions on what to do after you start your project but not instructions on how to acctually start one. can any one help me out?Maverick423 17:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't you post your idea before?  What you want to do is covered under this WikiProject, a new one isn't needed.  I doubt creating a new WikiProject will inspire people to find out more info on classic computer and video games.  What is your WikiProject going to do that this one doesn't?  Answer that and I might be able to give you some help. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Frecklefoot, a new project isn't needed. Just post what games you want to help improve, and others will help out. Projects of broad scopes don't need to exist. RobJ1981 21:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need Help guys! 

message: From the first days of October, articles of old games have received identical spamlinks that lead to the same warez paysite posing as free abandonware, at a rate that I would guess to be once or twice a day. The spam comes from anon IPs used only once each and tracked all over the globe, which I'm told indicates an open proxy. The URL varies, but the format has so far not. So far, at least 138 links have been removed, seven URLs blacklisted and an eighth submitted.
Please report all sightings, search for other instances and have the addresses blocked. --20:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another URL  found. Will be dealt with. --Kizor 12:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just deleted 11 more links to that site. The Kinslayer 12:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open season: Long term, IP-hopping linkspammer 

message: Since I haven't seen one yet, is there a template to notify readers that a game is being translated? If not, I created a test-template in my userspace (User:Tetsuya-san/Localization) regarding a possible acceptance. - Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 13:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template for game name localisation 

message: You folks are in danger of having a hole in at least half a dozen articles as on WP:TFD  (here)  is loosing the vote badly. You might think of putting some kind of project tagging on it ASAP. Best wishes. // <B>Fra</B>nkB 01:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The template doesn't look that notable anyway, seeing as how the things in it aren't very related to each other. Useless templates should be removed from Wikipedia. RobJ1981 01:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On top of that, only 2 of the 5 items are in the domain of WPCVG. No tear will be shed over  the loss of this template at WPCVG. —Mitaphane talk 05:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template on the verge of losing TFD 

message: The AFD is being reviewed due to its bad faith implications on the part of the nom. Commentary of the members of this WikiProject is requested. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 14:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like an unanimous "endorse deletion" is coming out of this. Hbdragon88 07:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ragnarok Online jobs]] 

message: When I can, I help this project by sorting the CVG stubs into categories.  Some are not easy... for example, Alien Crush describes a pinball videogame for the Turbografix-16.  There is neither a pinball stub category, nor a Turbografix-16 stub category, so in which category would a stub such as this be placed? New User 15:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: StubSense suggests  as not a bad possibility. Cheers --Pak21 15:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a pinball stub could be created, since there is many pinball articles that are stubs. If I knew how to make the stub (or suggest it somewhere), I would. RobJ1981 19:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have also seen several pinball stubs.  I would consider them more of simulation games than sports games.  After reviewing :Category:Stub categories, I didn't see a stub category for pinball games at all, regardless whether for computer and video games or traditional pinball tables.  If no one objects, I will just place the pinball computer and video game stubs in the simulation games category.  The only other option is to create a pinball stub category.  New User 20:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub Sorting 

message: BcRIPster has made a great, bold move in recommending moving Computer and video games to video game.  Then "computer game" would have a separate article.  He wants to correct the use of the term "video game" to "a game that uses a video device as its primary form of feedback," which includes computer games, console games, arcade games, etc.  I, for one, support this move, and hope others of you will too.  Hop on over to the computer and video games talk page and cast your vote on the survey.  Whether you're opposed to or in support of the move, please discuss it there in the sections provided. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A good move

message: I came across this today and it has a huge story and huge "historical accuracy" sections. Hardly anything on gameplay and so on. If anyone has played the game (or knows enough about it), could you condense the sections and add more about gameplay? RobJ1981 20:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Spartan: Total Warrior]] needs a bit of work

message: I'd like to propose a guideline for image file types: For systems that use indexed color pallets I would like to recommend that PNG be used for the screenshots. It's lossless and works well with pallets. We would be able to keep the screenshots at the original size with no loss of information or fuzziness of JPEG. Platforms this would cover would be things like Game Boy, Nintendo Entertainment System, Sega Genesis, Nintendo DS and other 8 & 16 bit systems. For 32bit and beyond home consoles I recommend JPEG and JPEG-2000 (whenever the wikimedia software will support it). Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CyberSkull (talk • contribs) 02:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds great to me. Should probably be put on the project page or somewhere for those less aware of the advantages of each type of image file format. --ADeveria 13:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image filetype guidelines 

message: Almost all the articles in that template are sloppy cluttered and cruft lists. I've done some cleanup on them, but they need alot of work still. I posted on this page about Tony Hawk a bit ago, but it seems like no one has fixed the articles much. I've never played any Tony Hawk game, so I wouldn't know what else to do. Some lists should stay I suppose, but they need some kind of format... not just a long list. RobJ1981 19:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shame on you for never playing a Tony Hawk game. Go pick one of the older ones up. They sell quite cheaply. But yeah, they do need to be cleaned up. I might work on the Tony Hawk's Pro Skater one someday since it's such an important game.--SeizureDog 08:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tony Hawk games still need alot of work

message: The article above is currently being considered for deletion. Please feel free to take part in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buyo (Inuyasha). Thank you. Badbilltucker 18:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you meant to post this in WT:ANIME. NeoChaosX  (talk, walk) 18:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So I'm stupid. Belive me, that really isn't news. Thanks for the correction, though. :) Badbilltucker 19:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Buyo (Inuyasha)]] being considered for deletion 

message: Jump Super Stars is in need of help. I posted on the anime project talk page in the past about this: and they didn't even seem to care. People in the project should care about the articles, but whatever.  The article has a mass of character and location lists that are just cluttered. A proper format is needed: but not new pages. That was tried in the past, and the regular editors of the article just re-added the content anyway. RobJ1981 23:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "People in the project should care about the articles" <--- Remember we're all volunteers, and certainly noone can monitor every page, nor have interest in everything the project encompasses. Bringing it up here is a good idea, but, if you think about it, why should we do it and not you? (not meant as an insult, just something to think about). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 23:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know much about the game, and I'm certainly no expert on making tables to format lists. The regular editors of the article (I'm assuming at least): should know about the game more and help, but they haven't. The second best place to try would be the anime project, but that failed before. Hopefully some editors seeing this section will help out. RobJ1981 20:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If by "didn't seem to care" you mean "didn't seem to want to have to redo things that were reverted", then sure, nobody cared. I put the lists into their own article and they were just merged back in. I tried.--SeizureDog 21:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I forgot you did make those list pages. Moving the problem isn't the complete solution though. Regular editors of the article don't seem to want change either, which is also an issue in this case. The page can't be fixed, if people don't want to accept there is a problem. RobJ1981 22:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another article in need of mass cleanup

message: So, I have been messing with this article lately. You can compare how the article looked like before and after I cleaned it up. I would like to hear opinions about which one is better, because there are a bunch of people (me included) that think the old version was abusive and others who think the old version was perfect. Thank you. -- ReyBrujo 05:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of Battlefield 1942 mods]] feedback 

message: Any comments in the Animal Crossing series RFC would be greatly appreciated.  
The editors are currently deadlocked about whether the game Animal Crossing should be listed on the Animal Crossing series template as "Animal Crossing" (e.g.,here) or as "Animal Crossing (GameCube) (e.g., here).  
I know it sounds trivial, but the involved editors are deadlocked after extended discussion, and we have not been able to identify a policy or guideline that clearly applies.  Please comment here with any thoughts.  
Thanks! TheronJ 14:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment: Animal Crossing series 

message: Hi, I've recently put Mega Man Zero (video game) up for peer review, but progress on its review has been very slow as of late. So I thought I'd just advertise it here. This is of importance to those working on the Mega Man articles, specifically the Mega Man Zero articles. Anyway, thanks in advance. Wolf ODonnell 14:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mega Man Zero (video game) request for review