Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 23

message: sorry for dropping them at the same time but i got some freetime =)
anyways i remember this game that was ganna come out i think for PS2 that had to do with dating and fighting. you took the girls on a date and then you had to fight a monster or something . think it was called white blade or something with the word blade in it for the PS2 i just cant remember it. it looked cool but i never heard from it again. Maverick423 23:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another question 

message: I am arguing for Seiken Densetsu to be moved to Mana (series) on the common usage argument (SD is used only in Japan, while Mana is used in North America and Europe). SE has also referred to games in the Mana series as Mana games, implying that the series is "Mana". Please comment. - A Link to the Past (talk) 11:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. Mana is the name of the franchise outside of Japan, and I don't understand why anybody would oppose it. TJ Spyke 08:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I dunno how I missed this. I disagree with the move, mainly because SD3 wasn't released here, and the first game in the series wasn't called anything Mana here. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move debate. 

message: This is in AFD currently, because it reads like a game guide. Anyone care to comment about it, in the AFD? RobJ1981 11:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of Kirby magical items]]

message: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computer_and_video_games#Requested_articles. In the next few days, I plan to do some of the requests (and check to see if the articles are worth making or not). Anyone care to help? RobJ1981 08:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are alot of CVG stubs that need work, but requested articles are important as well. RobJ1981 00:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested articles is getting a bit big

message: Need an extra set of eyes watching User:Cydebot's contrib history tonight, especially on templates. Try to keep track of anything it breaks, as it is going to be editing pretty much every page in the project. --- RockMFR 05:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahahahaha...Cydebot has already pretty much crowded out my watchlist, as a majority of it is video games and templates.  I'll be checking though. Hbdragon88 07:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Forget that, they've been renamed now. - X201 09:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extra set of eyes on Cydebot's cat changes, please 

message: Template:Super Smash Bros. series is wrong. Smashing Live isn't a video game. I've changed the template a few times: and people change it back for no reason. Is there a reason people like to have incorrect templates? RobJ1981 06:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the soundtrack for a video game, and it's no longer linked anyway. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A soundtrack still isn't a game. My edits were just fine, but I guess people just can't deal with change. RobJ1981 06:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: What about this Template:Duke Nukem series. Duke Nukem character article shouldn't be listed at the bottom: again, not a game. If anything, the link at the top of the template should be to the character itself. RobJ1981 08:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many templates already have lists to characters, creatures, villains, etc.  It just so happens that Duke Nukem only has one majro character, and lacks a "list of" that would be put in place.  Those are still within the video game context - they are relevent to the video games - and I don't see any reason why to axe them. Hbdragon88 23:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: And another Template:Resident Evil series. When it clearly is a video game template: movies and other things shouldn't be listed (unless the template is called something else, or the template is divided into different named sections), period. RobJ1981 18:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Template:Pikmin series is also wrong.  I would fix them myself, but I don't feel like fighting over it again, and justifying something clearly isn't a game. RobJ1981 18:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It's misleading and obviously wrong just to throw in anything game related, and label the template "video games". Templates should be decent accurate navigation tools (like categories are). RobJ1981 04:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone care to comment?  My Resident Evil template edit was reverted for no good reason. When the template is clearly called Resident Evil video games: movies and so on should NOT be listed or should have a clear note by it. Simply leaving it as it is now, isn't helping. I dont see why certain people don't understand this. RobJ1981 04:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Issues with an incorrect template

message: Can somebody help me out with this anime-licensed article? One user, , insists on adding characters to the article without showing any sources to prove those claims. I'm talking to this person on their talk, but they don't respond and judging from this edit., it seems "source" to this person means "the character is in the anime, thus they will be in the game". I'm about to start issuing vandalism warning at this point, but I'd like some other suggestion on how to deal with this user. NeoChaosX  (talk, walk) 07:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues with [[Naruto Shippūden: Gekitou Ninja Taisen EX]] 

message: Is there a place where you can list articles that need to have links fixes? For example, Nintendo GameCube Disc has a ton of links that need to be fixed (like changing GameCube Optical Disc). TJ Spyke 01:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you asking about red links, or links to a redirect?  If the latter, you should be able to visit "GameCube_Optical_Disc?redirect=no", and then click "What links here" on the left.  However, do note that Wp:redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken provides some guidelines for possibly leaving existing links in place.  Presumably the concern here is that the way the name of the media format is inconsistent between articles and needs to be made consistent? -- Slordak 19:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link fixes 

message: Does anyone know any sites that have good developer and publisher info? I've been looking for info about RFX Interactive for awhile and I just cannot find anything. And that's not the first time I can't find any info on a smaller company. DreamingLady 08:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Developer info

message: Article Creation and Improvement Drive: Electronic sports --141.24.43.104 09:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electronic sports in Article Creation and Improvement Drive

message: I saw a citation on one article somewhere (unrelated to the CVG WikiProject) which used an Amazon review as a source, but you could also use them to describe the gameplay. I'm guessing that because these aren't professional reviews we're talking about, they don't count as sources? UnaLaguna 06:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's like citing GameFAQs; there's a kind of editorial filter, but still don't cite it. Nifboy 06:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amazon is a reliable source? 

message: I was wondering if anyone could take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Star Fox (series). No one has replied since I posed it back on Sunday. Thanks. Thunderbrand 01:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request 

message: Hello, all! I was just wondering where I could go to put information on the retraction, hubbub, and subsequent replacement of 1UP's NWN 2 review? I'd think it notable enough to merit some mention somewhere, given that there are enough sources to give an adequate outline of the events as they happened: , , , 
,
.
Someone might disparage the Joystiq and Kotaku cites given the bloggish design of their sites, but it seems the RS clause discouraging blogs is as regards their generally self-publishing nature and their lack of editorial oversight, concerns which I don't really think apply here. That said, I'm all for precedent. Whatever Wikiproject CVG; the afficionadoes over at WP:RS or WP:V or WP:FAC; or Jimbo by some magesterial editorial fiat, have declared, goes. I'm willing to drop this issue if the sources are put into any sort of question.
Source concerns aside, it just feels like the material would be discursive anywhere I might like to put it—1UP, NWN 2, VG journalism, whereever.
Thoughts? Comments? Suggestions? I'm all ears. Thanks! Geuiwogbil 07:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1UP's NWN2 review saga 

message: Hi there. Have a look at what we've done with List of Wii games, it's now a sortable table and looks, IMHO, much better than similar list of games that we have, so I propose to change the other lists to something similar. But before I start I'd rather ask if I'm the only one that thinks that this is a good idea or not, so here I go. Are there any objections or can the table be improved further? --Conti|✉ 15:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Brilliant. Only thing I can suggest is narrowing of the Exclusive column to stop the dates breaking over two lines. Other than that it's great and will probably be much copied in the future. - X201 15:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Having recently finished overhauling the GameCube and Xbox 360 tables... I'm personally exhausted.  Is the sorting really that important?  Do people really sort on anything besides title?  -- Slordak 17:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can very easily see myself sorting by developer or date for quick easy reference or comparison. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 17:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow @ the ability to sort by column.  VERY impressive.  SubSeven 10:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow, I'm glad that the impressions are positive, but I cannot take all the credit; there have been some very helpful people (ContiE, Telvin3D, just to name a couple) who have contributed greatly and given much input to make the list what it is now. So if anything I am indebted for all of their help and time. I'll try to help update whatever lists need to be whenever I have the time. Thanks for everyone's input. Digiwrld1 00:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of games 

message: There was a short discussion on the video game console page a while ago about the definition of a video game console as stated on the page. I checked back recently to find it still hasn’t been resolved so I have decided to come here for some input. The definition currently reads:
"A video game console is an interactive entertainment computer. The term is used to distinguish a machine designed for consumers to buy and use solely for playing video games from a personal computer, which has many other functions, or arcade games, which are designed for businesses that buy and then charge others to play."
With the release of the seventh generation consoles this brings the definition into dispute. The current generation consoles (PS3 and Wii especially) have many more features than to play games, yet the definition claims that video game consoles are "solely" for playing video games. Technically consoles as far back as the PS1 would not be games consoles by this definition, as the PS1 had a CD player.
I suggested to move to a definition that said that their "primary function" was to play games, but it was commented that this might make alienware PC's games consoles by this definition.
Does anybody have any ideas? Mattyatty 18:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think nailing it down to a single definition would be difficult. It may be easier to say "originally consoles were X, but in more recent generations they can also do Y". - X201 19:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The other issue is that "entertainment computer" really doesn't adequately describe earlier, non-cpu based consoles.  --Marty Goldberg 20:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: How about something like "dedicated to playing games made specifically for that system". I do think the "primarily" is fine, myself. And incidently I believe all CD based systems had CD player functions. Certainly the Sega CD did. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 23:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Change "solely" to primarily marketed for playing video games" and go on to explain how "since then, videogame consoles have gone on to add playback support for non-game media such as audio CDs and DVD movies." It's a little awkward, but you get the idea. GarrettTalk 04:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, and it should also be clarified that, despite being referred to as "computer entertainment systems", consoles like the PlayStation 2 are not considered to be computer game platforms. GarrettTalk 04:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again though, none of those cover early consoles which had no CPU or RAM (i.e. a "computer").  Likewise all games were built in to these systems, so "dedicated to playing games made specifically for that system" doesn't cover it fully either.  --Marty Goldberg 00:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video Game console definition 

message: A very large number of articles about elements of this game have recently been created by User:Avrillo. I don't think that they are notable on their own, and should probably be merged into the article on the game or deleted. These pages are-
*Noble Houses of Veruna
*Ulasem 
*Zhon
*Taros
*Lokken
*Kirenna
*Thirsha
*Garacaius
*Kaluen
*Aidenfel
*Dernhest
*Heldain
*Buriash
*Elsin
*Aramon
Please could someone with knowledge of the policy and subject matter merge, delete or cleanup these articles as appropriate? It is also worth noting that this user is still working on the articles. I have not made contact with them, because this isn't a side of Wikipedia I am involved with much. J Milburn 12:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These are definitely AFD fodder.  All of these should probably be changed to redirects or deleted altogether.  At first glance I'm not sure whether any of the content should be merged.  It is worth salvaging?  I'm thinking not but maybe someone more familiar with the game could comment.  For now, I will drop this user a line to let him know not to waste his time creating any more doomed articles. SubSeven 10:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Total Annihilation: Kingdoms]] 

message: Has an article about an expansion pack ever reached GA? Is it even possible? On the same note, is there a really good article about a series of games that is a good model?--Clyde (talk) 05:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Legend of Zelda (series) and Air (series) are Good Articles, so you might want to start there. I don't think there have been any expansion packs. The reason for this is probably that they have less content and a smaller audience (not everyone buys them or, in the case of multi-platform games, can even get them) and thus there's less to write. Certainly it should be possible if it's well written, thorough, and has lots of references. An expansion that significantly overhauls the original game content and balance (e.g. Gothic II: Night of the Raven) would probably have more to write about than one that merely adds a few cars or missions or whatnot. GarrettTalk 07:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Quite frankly, there aren't any good articles on expansion packs: Almost all of them are merely lists of new features. I wouldn't mind merging them on principle. Nifboy 07:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sure it's possible. It's simply too hard for some people to do, and expansion packs usually don't get as much attention as the original game. Still, as for "Reception" and "Development", they can have their own sections. Only "Gameplay" and "Synopsis" might have a chance of ending up in lists or very short sections. Lists should be avoided at all costs. But with a proper link to the same section of the original game's article, it's not going to be a disaster if "Synopsis" and "Gameplay" are a tad short. Even a short article can be good, as long as it has a good amount of references, is well written and covers everything noteworthy.DreamingLady 10:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the case of gameplay or synopsis, is it good to add something like a  or a further information of the orginal game to the expansion pack, or should I just add a link of the orginal game in the first sentence to gameplay or story?--Clyde (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would probably suffice, unless the expansion changes the feel or balance of gameplay significantly (e.g. an RTS expansion adding a new resource type). As for story, it should be possible to say something like "ABC continues the story of XYZ by adding the backstory of 123 and adding more missions to 456's storyline". GarrettTalk 19:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick Question 

message: This week's Wikipedia:Gaming Collaboration of the week was Prima Games. It's been rather a poor show, to be honest, very little activity. Appreciate any help others can offer in improving what is currently a rather shabby article.   Thanks, --Oscarthecat 09:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm gonna do some on it tonight.  But I didn't reckon on the total lack of information available for a publishing company as compared to a game.  NPD actually track game guide sales, so it'd be good to hunt some of them down. - hahnchen 10:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow, there's a lot of ground to cover. I seem to recall there being controversy over some particularly erroneous guides; IIRC that's what made them start releasing their so-called "web updates" (which is in reality a way to satiate customers by providing pages with corrected information). I think it was Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas that was the first, as two crucial secret-hunting maps were completely wrong. I'll dig that info up later if I remember to. Certainly I think they were the first to do that, unless you count that Final Fantasy web help thing. GarrettTalk 10:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You could try their old name (it was Prima Guides or Prima Publishing or something like that). Anyway, I'll see what I can find on the weekend. GarrettTalk 08:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GCOTW a big letdown this week 

message: Forgive me if this discussion has already taken place, I haven't seen anything too conclusive on any of the individual gaming WikiProjects, but what policy, if any, exists on creating pages for video game soundtracks or official arranged albums?  I say this because some articles (Final Fantasy X albums and Wild Arms albums) group all game-specific soundtracks on one page, while others make seperate pages for each one (Final Fantasy VIII Original Soundtrack and FITHOS LUSEC WECOS VINOSEC: Final Fantasy VIII).  In other words, is there any reason why, say, Final Fantasy VII: Original Sound Track, Final Fantasy VII: Reunion Tracks, and Final Fantasy VII Piano Collections aren't in the same article?  Is it a notoriaty thing, or is there some other specific reason why they should or should not be brought together?  
Merging would not only remove cruft, but take 2 or 3 articles that aren't even B-class and put them some place where they could get edited together.  Plus, it cuts down on navbox size, AND all albums can be accessed from the main game's article and FFAlbums template with one clean link. Nall 20:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say merge 'em, though you might want to mention it over at WP:FF or WP:SE (or both) before you do it.  They'll almost certainly agree with you, though.  --PresN 03:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I was just using the Final Fantasy Pages as an example, since there's more albums for them than on any other particular series, and I certainly don't want to start sticking articles together if people had already decided it was a bad idea.  It's just a solution I thought would cut down on the ever-growing navboxes and the continuing controversy of their formatting.  I tip my hat to whoever decided the Final Fantasy X albums should be on one page, it just seems better all around. Nall 05:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Game albums

message: As one of the more active WikiProjects, I figure it might be good to mention the WikiProject reform proposal that's currently going on. We touched on this topic a while back and took some less-active daughter-projects and made them task forces of CVG. This proposal might help us further strengthen our organized efforts when dealing with broad and narrow WikiProjects. -- Ned Scott 05:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject reform 

message: I thought that there was a clear consensus that we would not create articles for games that have not yet been announced. But apparently I was wrong. In previous AfDs for unnannounced games that are likely to be announced some time in the future there was overwhelming consensus to delete. Was there a discussion about this that I missed somewhere? JACOPLANE • 2007-02-27 17:36
:With anything that has yet to actually happen, writing an article about it can be tricky. In a good deal of cases, probably most, it's a good idea to just wait for the game/event/whatever to happen and then make an article. However, sometimes we do have enough verifiable information about these things, and it is somewhat safe to have an article about it. It's all about sources and keeping speculation down and all that. -- Ned Scott 21:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles on unnannounced games? 

message: The various computer and video game stub templates are now up for discussion for renaming at SFD since you have by and large finished with the category renames.  The one stub category that you didn't change over is also up for a rename. Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub templates up for renaimg at SFD 

message: A Link to the Past just moved Clubhouse Games to 42 All-Time Classics.  He claims that it is more popular there and it also came out there first.  Is there any guideline for this America-vs-Europe debate? Hbdragon88 20:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen no guideline about it. Maybe I missed it?  The more popular name makes sense (as long as he has proof it is indeed the more popular name). RobJ1981 23:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For some reason the CVG has suddenly broke out into the America vs. Europe war.  There was recent edit warring on the cover art for Wii Play, for instance.  Yoshi's Topsy-Turvy was moved to Yoshi's Universal Gravitation (the European name).  Then there was Brain Age vs. Brain Training, Trace Memory vs. Another Code, and now this Clubhouse Games vs. 42 All-Time Classics. Hbdragon88 00:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do wish video game companies would stop releasing games under different titles in UK and the States.  It would certainly save a lot of meaningless squabbling over here. -- Exitmoose 01:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the move to Yoshi's Universal Gravitation does not apply because it was moved becuase it was also used in Japan as well making it the most common name overall. That is not the case here so there is no reason to move it. --69.156.206.121 03:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I gotta say I find it funny. But my suggestion is: take the name that is the best translation of the original Japanese name. It may not be a solution for every case (like Touch Detective), but it is a proper guideline for most. Also, technically, we would then be using the most commonly used name. DreamingLady 06:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Many were only renamed for the North American region because of legal issues (Mega Drive, Lylat Wars) or because of the marketing department (Thunder Force IV became Lightening Force: Quest for the Darkstar--the typo is Sega's, not mine). Otherwise those games would have definitely carried the original name. So yes, I'd say if it has the same name in Japan and Europe but a different one in North America the former is probably the one to stick with. GarrettTalk 07:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Also bear in mind that often the North American/European names have nothing to do with the Japanese name, or even an NA/EU game being released as a different name. The Japan-focus rule doesn't apply well at all. --Scottie theNerd 09:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Didn't I already say it wasn't going to work for everything? Also, I said "best translation", meaning that it still doesn't have to be a good translation, just what comes closest. If it's possible, I'd say we follow that guideline. If it's not possible, we could use the name of the game in the continent it was first released in (not Asia ofcourse) or that best represents what the game is about.DreamingLady 07:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page moves again 

message: It has been suggested (not by me) that these two articles be merged, just like how the menu-driven Snatcher and the mouse interaction-centered The Curse of Monkey Island are both covered by the wide definition of an adventure game. I'm bringing it up here so it can get wider visibility, as it's a fairly major issue. See Talk:Console role-playing game#Merge discussion for the debate. GarrettTalk 07:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as the discussion suggests, these are definitely two different breeds of RPG's. The unfortunate problem is both of the articles lack sources (though they definitely exist out there). I'd look for sourcing covering the difference between the two types, rather then trying to merge the two to fit one encompassing genre. —Mitaphane ?|! 04:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[console role-playing game]] and [[computer role-playing game]] 

message: I understand the reasons for re-naming many of the categories recently, but for the WikiProject itself I always liked "Computer and Video games" better.. -- Ned Scott 07:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It also would have been nice to have had a little heads up on that for those of us that were not tracking the cat discussion. -- Ned Scott 07:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, it's not a big deal, but just doesn't seem.. as snappy.. oh well :) -- Ned Scott 08:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project name 

message: Hi, I have recently noticed that someone has been removing the Katakana renderings of various characters' names from Japanese-made video games from their respective articles. In most cases, only characters that are supposed to be of Korean nationality have had the Japanese renderings of their names deleted. The reasoning behind this activity, as far as I can tell, is that since the character itself is not of Japanese nationality according to in-universe information, then the Katakana is irrelevant regardless of what the character's real-life origins are. Personally, I think that since the characters are properties of Japanese companies and presumably had their names written in Japanese in the original literature, then the Japanese name spellings at least deserve some brief mention within the related article. I have tried discussing this with the editor in question in the discussion page of one of the affected articles (Talk:Hwang_Seong-gyeong), but he/she seems unwilling to compromise. I bring this up because, despite searching through various Wikipedia guidelines and naming convention articles, I could not find a specific guideline that applies to this situation. Any insights and advice on this subject would be greatly appreciated. Shabby 19:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO it depends if the name itself has an origin. For instance, many Koei games are based on Chinese history, so in such cases Katakana are kind of irrelevent. Same with games where the characters names are already English - Sakura Wars 5 for instance. And of coruse, there's the case of Trusty Bell with Chopin...just my opinion though. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 21:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose what I'm wondering is wether or not the Katakana rendering of a Japanese-made (Japanese-made meaning being the original creation and property of a Japanese creator or company) character's name should appear somewhere on the article even if the character itself is not Japanese. Take Mario for example. The first sentence of the article states his name followed by the Katakana rendering of his name in parentheses despite Mario being ostensibly Italian. Is including the original Katakana rendering of a Japanese-made video game character in the article (even if the character is not strictly supposed to be Japanese) standard operating procedure for Wikipedia? Shabby 05:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese transliteration of non-Japanese names 

message: At present, just about every article on a Soulcalibur character has an  tag and is listed in :Category:Articles which may be unencyclopedic (easiest found via that category). Since I don't see the problem with covering characters from fighting games in Wikipedia, I removed a few of those templates, but was reverted with no further comment. Perhaps someone from the Wikiproject could look into it. >Radiant< 09:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just picked Taki (Soul Calibur) at random. The first sentence is OK. After that, "Biography", "Weapons" and "Stages" need to be rewritten in an out-of-universe style per WP:WAF. "Character analysis" appears to be entirely original research and should be either sourced or removed. "Trivia" sections should be avoided in general. In general, the article appears to be a datadump of information which is of little, if any interest to people not already familiar with Soul Calibur, which no indication as to what (if any) influence Taki has had beyond the game itself. If the rest of the articles are like this, I would recommend the in-game information be removed and they are merged into a list. (That all reads rather harshly, I'm aware. Please nobody take it personally; this would be a very good article for a Soul Calibur guide, but isn't a good article for a general encyclopedia). Cheers --Pak21 09:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad someone else is echoing my thoughts! I'd been uming and ahing about this pages for the past few days myself, and I agree if they are going to be kept, then they need substantial re-writing. The Kinslayer 10:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, it would be easier to redirect everything to a Characters in page. When and if (iff!) a character's description grows without incorporating too much in-universe info it can be re-split. GarrettTalk 19:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they are a copy and paste from GameFaqs, it should be checked to see if they were added by the writer of whatever it was on GameFaqs first. After all, it's not that unlikely that a FAQ writer would just copy and paste what they've already written and put it on Wikipedia. Of course, if the FAQ just copyed and pasted info from an official bio, then it would still need to be removed.--SeizureDog 03:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second removing the Character Analysis sections. I think CVG article guidelines state that overly detailed gameplay descriptions should be avoided, and the character analyses can be considered as such. And yes, the character entries have certainly gotten bloated and are probably due for heavy trimming. A little uniformity would also be a nice touch. Shabby 04:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soulcalibur 

message: Should articles with (computer game) and (arcade game) in them be moved to (video game)? E.g. Black & White (computer game) vs. Black & White (video game). I think the majority of people agreed that computer games are still video games, so it seems we should make them consistant. However, this is unless we want to disambig title by platform (when they're only on one) instead. Take a look through :Category:Atari 2600 games, and you'll notice just how inconsistant we are here. I see (arcade game), (video game), and (Atari 2600) about equally. Granted, some articles, such as Pac-Man (Atari 2600), are for a specific console and should stay, but many could do just fine at (video game). Of course on the flip-side, I wouldn't mind having those (video game) articles be at (Atari 2600), just so long as we have a standard. --SeizureDog 09:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest changing all to (video game) considering our new rules unless there are multiple articles of the same name. From what I've seen this can be for different platforms, in which case the platform could be put in parentheses, but it could also be a different game with the same title, in which case it should probably have the year released in parentheses. I think I've also seen the developer name used to differentiate, but the year would probably be more helpful. --ADeveria 16:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, there's been a bit of confusion on what to do with Air (1977 computer game) and Air (game). I previously tried moving the 2nd one to Air (visual novel), but it looks like they might need to be Air (1977 video game) and Air (2000 video game) respectively.--SeizureDog 17:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Personally, I'd have to lean towards the standardization myself as well. BcRIPster 22:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well yes, I think that we all like standardization, but do you have a preference as to which standard to use?--SeizureDog 06:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think arcade games, while of course most are still video games, have a bit of a different stigma attached in that the whole way you have to pay for them. And there are plenty of arcade games that aren't video games -- Ski Ball and Pinball for starters. You do have a good point though, and I agree there should be a bit more consistency (like all films are tagged with (film) and not (movie) )♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I considered that myself, but I checked some of the earlier years and if seems that all of the articles in those categories are video games. Skee ball for instance, is just under :Category:Arcade games (none for the year) and pinball games have their own :Category:Pinball games. The number of non-video game arcade games in the year categories is slim to none.--SeizureDog 15:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, and skeetball, ticket, gallery, and crane games, etc... should really be under something like Electro-mechanical games anyways, I would think. BcRIPster 22:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that doesn't take into account that the old, old school versions of arcade games such as skeeball were probably done without electricity or even perhaps mechanical parts. --SeizureDog 06:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More aftereffects of the "computer and video games" to "video games" moves 

message: Also, is there any real reason why the categories in :Category:Arcade games by year exist? It is the only platform to get special treatment in this way, and seems like it needs to be merged into :Category:Video games by year. This however, will end up being a rather large task, as many articles have categories for the both the arcade year and a different category for their video game year. E.g. Soul Calibur II has both :Category:2002 arcade games and :Category:2003 video games. We'd have to check articles like these and replace both with :Category:2002 video games--SeizureDog 09:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think arcade games, while of course most are still video games, have a bit of a different stigma attached in that the whole way you have to pay for them. And there are plenty of arcade games that aren't video games -- Ski Ball and Pinball for starters. You do have a good point though, and I agree there should be a bit more consistency (like all films are tagged with (film) and not (movie) )♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I considered that myself, but I checked some of the earlier years and if seems that all of the articles in those categories are video games. Skee ball for instance, is just under :Category:Arcade games (none for the year) and pinball games have their own :Category:Pinball games. The number of non-video game arcade games in the year categories is slim to none.--SeizureDog 15:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, and skeetball, ticket, gallery, and crane games, etc... should really be under something like Electro-mechanical games anyways, I would think. BcRIPster 22:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that doesn't take into account that the old, old school versions of arcade games such as skeeball were probably done without electricity or even perhaps mechanical parts. --SeizureDog 06:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The arcade categories

message: Animals in computer games -> Animals in video games
Multiplayer computer games -> Multiplayer video games
Pinball computer games -> Pinball video games
Puzzle computer and video games -> Puzzle video games
Real-time tactical computer games -> Real-time tactical video games
Strategy computer games -> Strategy video games
WOSlinker 15:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some categories that may need renaming

message: There is a move request to have the Kirby article be for the video game character. Fromwhat I have seen, at least one of the oppose voters is voting against it just because it's a video game character (one of his comments was something like "it's a video game character, no one will remember him in 15 years). Just thought some of you might be interested in voicing your opinion. It's at Talk:Kirby#Requested move (2). TJ Spyke 11:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kirby move 

message: The articles on these journals require a listing of an ISSN. Can someone help me find this information? Keesiewonder talk 02:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure you don't mean ISBN numbers? I found two magazines for Sega Pro (Sega Pro Master Volume 1, Sega Pro Master Volume 2). It wasn't a monthly magazine, but rather a regular series of guides. So each one had a different ISBN number. I can't find anything on Mega Power. TJ Spyke 04:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks; I'd noticed/wondered about that too. Whomever created the articles, though, clearly thought they were journals. If no-one objects, I may edit the articles over to reflect their book status. Keesiewonder talk 12:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Sega Pro is very much an old UK games magazine.  If you want articles on the books, I suggest something like Sega Pro Master. - hahnchen 13:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Understood, thanks; I'd seen that link in my travels too. All I need are the ISSNs ... (Does anyone have a copy of these magazines?) Keesiewonder talk 13:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Sega Pro]] and [[Mega Power]] 

message: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought GamePro was a respected publication with some decent features (like the Chrono Cross interviews). But check this review out. There's one just like it for Goemon's Great Adventure. They appear to be user-written, and seem to feature little evidence that the author had more than a passing interest or played the game more than a few minutes. The reviewer utterly and completely misses the fact that FFC has new cut scenes and horrible load times. Has anyone else encountered this, and can we write off reviews like this as...well, stupid? Looking back at Goemon's Great Adventure's GamePro review, the guy makes some vague, passing criticisms; it too seems to be user-submitted. His criticisms of the game are also way out of line with the general gaming press's. What gives? --Zeality 06:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GamePro is not the best game magazine out there (I stopped reading a long time ago), but I can find bad reviews in every magazine and website. Sometimes it's the magazine/website, sometimes it's the individual reviewer. TJ Spyke 06:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A question and comment. First the question: what exactly does this have to do with articles on Wikipedia?  You didn't say anything such as "should we not list GamePro reviews in articles?" or so on. My comment is: just because GamePro's reviews aren't liked, doesn't mean they shouldn't be listed. They have been around a while, and it's notable. All reviews are opinions, and just because their reviews are hated doesn't mean it's something to be left out of Wikipedia articles (if that's the case you are trying to make). RobJ1981 06:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm wondering if we should use them; I'm currently writing a critical section for Final Fantasy Chronicles. I've no doubt that they pay certain people to review, but come on, "UNCLEDUST" and a one paragraph memorandum failing to note any new features of the game? At least on a case-by-case basis, I think the reviews are toast for FFC and GGA, and I'll be wary of GamePro in the future. If someone can confirm that "UNCLEDUST" or "THED-PADDESTROYER" are accredited employees of GamePro and competent reviewers, we'll be getting somewhere. But if more eloquent reviews from less notable sites are going to be challenged in CVG articles, these abysmal one-shots by anonymous posters should be left out as well. I guess we need some insight here on how their review system works. --Zeality 07:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I just don't use/mention reviews I can't use. Simple as that. I often times cannot use GamePro reviews, though I always check.DreamingLady 10:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With the game being a compilation of other games, publications may not have decided to give over their columns to it.  As Spyke has mentioned, there are crap reviews in every publication, especially if Dave Halverson is involved. - hahnchen 13:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: In relation to pseudonyms like UNCLEDUST or whatever, GamePro has always used clown names for its staff.  It's their attempt to be hip cool and irreverent, like a Disco Vicar. - hahnchen 17:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: There's no real need for this, I think going on a case by case basis is fine.  In this case, the GamePro review is obviously not that good. - hahnchen 21:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GamePro Reviews = Suckage? 

message: Quick summary: Navbox with characters, Navbox without
*User:A Man In Black removes characters from the Template:Guilty Gear series navbox.
*I revert him, he reverts me. He says that characters don't belong in vg navboxes. He cites some new guideline on navboxes
*I say fine, but ask for him to at least split the characters out into a seperate navbox for the character articles, pointing out that every game series used as an example in that guideline also has a navbox for their characters: :Template:Mario characters, :Template:Zelda character, and :Template:Metal Gear characters.
*He says those kind of navboxes are being deleted at TFD and doesn't want to waste his time. Suggests I bring it up for discussion (and here we are).
So, is everyone against having character navboxes or something? Personally, I find it annoying as hell to try to browse through all of the characters in a series if I don't have a navbox to help. Lists and categories are ugly and require more steps. Is there any real reason that character navboxes are unhelpful enough for us to delete/not create them? I can understand for some series that might not have more than 5 or so character articles, but for games with large rosters, such as fighters, I think that seperate navboxes need to be created to help aid in navigation and that the responsibility of creating such should rest on whomever is removing such information from the main navbox. I mean can one really argue that :Template:The King of Fighters characters is somehow not helpful if :Template:The King of Fighters series is?--SeizureDog 06:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I'll direct you to United States#Navigation. Hell, any country, state, or even city generally has a huge section of navboxes at the end. And really, they're at the end, so does it really matter how large it is (to an extent)? It's not as though it hinders the reading of the article itself, since you're not going to see them until you're through.--SeizureDog 07:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that's a train wreck. What an excellent argument to continue using categories instead of templates for these things. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I just don't quite understand why games are being allowed to have navboxes and characters are being objected against. The same logic applies to both groups, as both games and characters for a series usually have their own categories and/or lists. I mean are we supposed to delete :Template:Metal Gear series just because :Category:Metal Gear games also exists? Also, this whole removing of "under development" games from navboxes is really stupid. What exactly is the logic for this anyways? Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots is sure to be a highly looked for article, but if you check the navbox you'd think that we don't even have it. I mean seriously, it's like we're trying to hide these articles from people and make them check the category for the one article not in the navbox. This sort of thing isn't helping people nagivate Wikipedia.--SeizureDog 10:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To me, if an article exists, it belongs in its respective series navbox. If the article doesn't have enough content, it should be put up for AfD first, then removed from the navbox if it's deleted rather than being removed first. I've yet to receive a response from User:A Man In Black regarding this move. --Scottie theNerd 11:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking that we should probably repeal that guideline for a little while and have some more discussion on it. I completely missed out on it the first time around and there seems to be multiple instances where A Man In Black's implimenting it is causing complaints. In my opinion, navboxes should be handled more on a case by case basis instead of these "standards" we have to follow. Hell, is there even a Wikipolicy/guideline for navboxes on the whole? or are we the only ones that have anything for them?--SeizureDog 12:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't help but agree here. I don't see why game navboxes are ok, but character ones aren't. Either they should both exist or neither -- I don't have a problem with them being seperate, though, but they should both at least exist. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Scottie. If an article SHOULD exist and a navbox exists for that series, it should be in the navbox. Navigational templates are meant to help the reader navigate to related articles (and help to bypass the terrible category system that is entirely useless to the reader). --- RockMFR 23:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Often I find that articles removed from a navbox aren't even tagged for deletion, yet the reason for removal is often the reason why it should be deleted outright. --Scottie theNerd 06:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character navboxes. 

message: I created the article List of places in Total Annihilation: Kingdoms by merging content from 14 separate articles (12 of which were up for deletion).  I will perform as much cleanup and improvement as I can, but my knowledge of the game is at present limited to what I've read in the main TA:K article.  So, any assistance would be appreciated.  Thank you, Black Falcon 00:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of places and characters in Total Annihilation: Kingdoms 

message: People at the WP:CVG have barely been doing anything with this, and if a lot more people submitted more deserving articles and voting on them, a steady increase in quality could be seen. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of participation in the Gaming Collaboration of the Week 

message: I believe I've mentioned this article on here before. It just seems to be a dumping ground for terms and anything that doesn't fit in the other Xenosaga lists. I'm very tempted to AFD it, is there a good reason to keep it?  It seems like cruft to me. Throwing together many things just because they "don't fit in other lists" isn't a good reason to have a list page. Xenosaga is popular: but does it really need every detail listed on Wikipedia? RobJ1981 21:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was originally a junkyard for some in-universe stuff, merged by . Might be worth getting his input. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On a relate note: List of Pokémon items seems like a good example of listcruft as well. Pokemon has lots of items, but do they all need to be listed (or any for that matter)? It leans towards a game guide in my opinion. Not a guide on how to play: a guide on items which is crufty. RobJ1981 22:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You AfD'd the article just over a month ago, and it was agreed by several users that a a few months should be given to see if work can be done. There is no rush; there is a lot of work to be done on Wikiepdia, and forcing editors to repriotirize their todo lists will only harm the project. — Deckiller 01:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: List of Pokémon items is also a junkyard. I don't have any great desire to see it kept, despite being the primary author. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A new idea is being proposed at User:Seraphimblade/sandbox2/2 that is applicable to this discussion. — Deckiller 04:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't afd the Xenosaga list, someone else did. As for the Pokemon list: I see no evidence it's been in AFD, I'm nominating it. Hopefully it doesn't turn into something like this: Recurring weapons and items from The Legend of Zelda series. An absolute joke: the list was put in AFD with no consensus, and attempts to clean it aren't helping much. And now there is suggested splits for it? Wikipedia is turning more and more into a crufty item guide. It's too soon to AFD it again, but I think that's what needs to happen in the future. RobJ1981 15:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a bold solution to fancruft in the works at User:Seraphimblade/sandbox2/2, and one of its test subjects is going to be the Xenosaga lists and some of the Final Fantasy lists. The Xenogears lists, which are in an even worse state, will soon follow. — Deckiller 06:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of terms in Xenosaga]]

message: A quick look at it brings up a knowledge bank of the game sufficient for its own Wiki. We need someone who has decent knowledge of the game to remove and/or rephrase information in a more palatable form in accordance with WP:NOT. --Scottie theNerd 22:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup requested: [[Vanguard: Saga of Heroes]] 

message: I ran across TrickStyle a while ago and noticed that the entire article seems like it might have been taken from an instruction manual (see diff), but I can't find any the manual online anywhere. If anyone owns this game or knows of a good instruction manual database, please check this out. Thanks. --- RockMFR 22:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio check at TrickStyle 

message: The user JackSparrow Ninja has been continuously adding this fan site to Wikipedia as a source, despite that it fails WP:ATT. I ask for assistance in keeping it off of Wikipedia. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um. What fansite? What articles? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I assumed it was self-explanatory by the header, but I was in a hurry. , and in numerous The Legend of Zelda articles. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Land of the Legend