Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 18

message: A user has recently moved the Luigi page to Luigi (Mario) without any discussion whatsoever.  What's more, none of the links were changed.  Even on the disambiguation page that was created in the process.  I brought the subject up at WikiProject Nintendo, but I feel that it should be mentioned here too.  -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 02:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I don't care particularly about the move, although I wouldn't have made it myself.  If people are OK with this, then you need to do a  at Luigi and then move the disambiguation page in its place. - Hahnchen 03:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this completes the trifecta of major Mario naming disputes (Mario, Bowser, and now, finally, Luigi, although Peach also had a somewhat less controversial article name change). Nifboy 05:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but the Mario paged was never moved.  -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 02:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Luigi]] page moved. 

message: I came across this AFD for a mod I know nothing about and someone spouted the useless keep vote of "But there's loads of nn-mods on Wikipedia.  Look at these!"  Well now, these nn-mods have all been prodded or AFDed.  I've removed prods on some that I know to be more notable than the article suggests, but the nominations have been on the whole incredibly lazy.  I've removed prods on Science and Industry, Hostile Intent and voted on Dystopia (computer game), Firearms (computer game) and the stupidly notable Rocket Arena. - Hahnchen 04:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm very annoyed that someone tagged Dystopia as AfD mere hours after I marked up as a CVG article. Was this guy just waiting for anything to come along that he could afd? I hadn't even had a chance to insert all the awards and links that irrefutably prove it's notability. It won Game of the Year at the Independant Game Festival for crying out loud! The Kinslayer 11:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think one or two people are being extremely over-zealous in marking stuff for deletion. The reasoning seems to be 'The article isn't finished, and I'VE never heard of it, so it should be deleted.' The Kinslayer 11:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The second pointer in nominating an AfD clearly states: Consider adding a tag such as {cleanup} or {disputed} instead; this may be preferable if the article has some useful content. In the case of at least two of the above AfDs, this hadn't been done, not even giving people a chance to fix the 'offending' problems. The Kinslayer 12:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Wicketthewok seems to be the main culprit for the lazy AfDs. He certainly seems to have stirred up a couple of hornets nests with AfDs recently! He is very over-zealous with deleting new articles within a couple of hours creation, citing non-notability and lack of sources as the reasons, even though he usually deletes the articles before the person had a chance to add the links! Just letting you all know to be careful when your creating new articles, as this guy will probably delete it! He's also fond of quoting wiki policies chapter and verse, but seems to conveniently forget ones that provide arguements against deletion, such as the one I quoted further up the page.The Kinslayer 10:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed,  Wickethewok was completely in the right to nominate any article that does not have meet Wikipedia:Verifiability or similar policy / concern. WP:V says "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." -- Ned Scott 09:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The issues been resolved, and I wasn't attacking him (as I stated on his talk page.) I was just expressing concern over his nominations. But since it's been resolved, lets all just move on now. The Kinslayer 10:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some random AFDs and prods 

message: see Wikipedia:Navigational boxes →AzaToth 12:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, please explain what you're talking about.  It's a proposed guidline for nav boxes.  "Per request, nav boxes" doesn't tell me what you're looking for here.  --PresN 13:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Per request, nav boxes 

message: List of best-selling computer and video games is currently suffering an edit war that has lasted around 2 weeks already. WhiteMinority believes VGCharts should be used to reference sales information in the article, while A Link to the Past believes it is not a reliable source. I would appreciate some members from this WikiProject to drop by and give an opinion here to try to settle the matter, as I don't want to call for a mediation. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 18:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What extensive options do we have besides VGCharts? --Tristam 03:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For every game, we should find an article in a reliable source stating the game has passed the 1m mark in the european, american, japanese or worldwide market. -- ReyBrujo 04:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is not easy. -- Steel 10:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but put it this way, are shipping figures the same as retail sales figures? No. Therefore shipping figures should not be used to get numbers for the best selling computer and video games. WhiteMinority seems more concerned with trying to provoke Link by reverting his edits and accusing him of vandalism than he is with the quality of the article. The Kinslayer 10:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: There must be someone on Wikipedia with access to the NPD Funworld sales data. Just like we're using the magazines project to collect information on which users have access to which reviews, we should as a project try to find people who have access to this data. Some other portential sources: , , , japan. It sucks that all this stuff is not just open and out there, but at least if we know who has access we can start using this data to properly source our articles. jaco♫plane 11:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not someone on Wikipedia, as that would be original research and no reliable source. For japanese titles, it is easy to track which titles are best selling, as there are three independant trackers Dengeki, Famitsu and Media Create. For others, we need to rely on press releases and sites like GameSpot and IGN. The important thing is getting a reliable source stating the game sold over a million copies. No need to get exact numbers, just knowing 1m copies have been sold should be enough for us. -- ReyBrujo 16:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of best-selling computer and video games 

message: Why are the lists slightly different in format? All are a list in alphabetical order, but that's about the only thing that is the same with them. On the Xbox 360 list: List of Xbox 360 games, there is *'s and FP by games meaning certain things, along with release dates for games that aren't out. At List of GameCube games, there is a list of cancelled and Europe games at the bottom. Other game lists have small differences as well. Shouldn't all lists be in the same format and have the same exact things?  I think all should be the same, since they are the same type of list: a list of games for a certain console. RobJ1981 22:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. The subject was brought up before, but the subject drifted towards the non-platform lists, and no clear consensus was reached on how to format the lists based on platforms/consoles. Personally, I would suggest including only the title and the regions the game is released in, probably in a list format rather than a table. Adding alternate titles given for games in the list would seem like a good idea too. I'm not sure if publisher/developer information is significant enough to add in these rather large lists, and perhaps release dates should only be shown on a chronological order version of the list, as exists for the GameCube. Not that I care much either way, but I do agree they need to look the same. --ADeveria 23:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A partial attempt at making List of Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis games more useful (like List of SNES games) was deemed far too time-consuming to be practical. Nifboy 02:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Computer and video games lists issue

message: Is there a list of genres that should be used for new game articles?
If I asked this in the wrong place, please rudely shout at me and don't give me a link to where I should ask it.
--Dinoguy1000 Talk 18:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, why would anyone shout at you, it's perfectly fine to ask your question here. For the genres, see: :Category:Computer and video game genres. Hope that helps. jaco♫plane 18:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was meant to be a joke, you know, the whole self-deprecation thing... Regardless of the unintentional confusion, thanks for the link! --Dinoguy1000 Talk 06:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acceptable genres 

message: I've been involved with some edits of EDGE magazine's article. Another contributor very strongly disagrees with my opinion that the article is POV and makes uncited claims, with regard to the foreign language editions of the magazine, see the talk page. I'd be grateful if others in the CVG project could get involved with reviewing the article's contents, rather than me getting into an edit war. --Oscarthecat 20:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for mediation on EDGE magazine article 

message: * Ninja Gaiden 2 (Next-Generation)
* Ninja Gaiden 2 (Xbox 360)
Anonymous user engaged in reversions regarding these name differencies. I think this need more experiences WP:CVG member to clarify. --Ragnarok Addict 21:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would vastly prefer a year attached (a la Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 game)), and bar a name change that's where it should ultimately end up, but since we don't have even that, I'd go with the console. Nifboy 00:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I always seem to mix up Gaiden and Garden.  I concur with Nifboy in stating a year rather than the time-subjective "Next-Generation" and this will change when PS3 comes out - next-gen would be the eighth generation. Hbdragon88 00:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game name 

message: I was thinking it would be cool to have a mascot for the WikiProject. Perhaps someone could create an image of Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan playing video games? This is the character that is the mascot for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga and the Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit. I know, it's very esoteric. Perhaps we could organise a contest? Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games/Mascott contest ?? We could take submissions and then finally vote. Or is this a stupid idea? jaco♫plane 04:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I say no to that idea. A mascot isn't needed, and would just distract from people editing. RobJ1981 04:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How would it distract people from editing? I think that it might actually improve the project by community building. It would be good for marketing the project to newcomers I think. jaco♫plane 05:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People should want to help the project, not be attracted in by the mascot. The whole contest thing is the distraction. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to do random contests to create a mascot for a project. RobJ1981 05:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, if someone were to create Wikipe-tan in a video game setting of appropriate quality, I don't see why we wouldn't use her. But a contest is simply out of the question. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone already has. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The only way a mascot would distract editors is if it were a Lara Croft lookalike.  Still, not sure if it's a good idea.  I don't think there can be a good avatar for a category as broad as CVG.  -- Solberg 07:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who would be distracted by a Lara Croft look-alike??  -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 07:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Straight up, no.  I don't see anyone coming up with a mascot which doesn't involve stupid cutesy japano-characters. - Hahnchen 00:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If not Wikipe-tan playing a video game, who else?  Would the caterpillar or the Gnu (also seen here) look better playing video games?  Wikipe-tan is better than the alternative, methinks.  Besides, Wikipe-tan doesn't have to be in "cutesy" pose, just look at her logo for Counter-Vandalism Unit. What's cute about that? --DavidHOzAu 01:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that Wikipe-tan is a cutesy japano-character breaks your argument. - Hahnchen 00:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: IMHO, you should ask Kagura to draw a mascot for you. Ashibaka tock 19:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, have two versions of Wikipetan (as seen in this image) playing against each other seem to be nice.L-Zwei 05:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it can add to the discussion, the joypad we use as a logo doesn't really appeal to me, and probably doesn't even mean anything to the young generation, who never saw a white joypad, let alone with two buttons. I thing a mascot is a cool thing to have, as wiki, and the projects, are comunity-driven efforts, and not result-driven kolkhoz. Maybe Duke Nukem would be good, as it's not too "cutesy japano-character". Oh, and the term is "Moe".--SidiLemine 11:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "The young generation"? How old are you, Sidi? Because that's clearly a six button Super Nintendo controller, and the snes was popular into the late 90s...  -- Bailey(talk) 20:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I think it's a Gravis PC GamePad. jaco♫plane 20:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand corrected. I always thought it was sort of a non-literal intertretation of the SNES gamepad, but it does more strongly resemble the Gravis controller. I guess that explains what happened to start and select. :-)  -- Bailey(talk) 20:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CVG WikiProject mascot? 

message: I seem to remember there was a discussion here about cover galleries in articles not really being fair use, anyway, I have come across a few articles that contain them, for example NBA Live series. I know this article is about a series, but is it really necessary to have every single cover of every game there? It even has four different covers for NBA live '06! Surely this violates fair use in a big way. Timkovski 22:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that gallery should go ASAP. I'd do it myself, but I can't be bothered to go through and tag all those images as orphans right now... -- Steel 22:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Galleries 

message: Hello.  Could someone please "adopt" Panzer General and neutrally review the edits for vandalism, spam, and NPOV.  Thank you.Wikist 00:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please Adopt and Audit Panzer General

message: Lakitu is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 02:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Lakitu]]

message: :Moved from Wikipedia talk:Gaming Collaboration of the week
Sorry if this request is off-topic or otherwise unsuitable for this section, please redirect me accordingly.  Over at talk for the article for Motorhead  a dispute has erupted.  Basically we had for some time the article for Motorhead, a videogame, which had a For-template link to Motörhead, a heavy metal band.  The heavy metal enthusiasts argued that the roles should be reversed, I argued against.  After an AfD nomination  (in itself a rather dirty "trick"), User:Freakofnurture  performed the move "Motorhead" -> "Motorhead (video game)" and created a dab page at Motorhead (after he first populated it with a #redirect to Motörhead).  What happened next was that there has been kind of a revert war  going on between the dab and the redirect.  Apparently, the heavy metal people have joined forces, so before I go any further (or not), I'd like to hear what the rest of the CVG community feels about this.  --Frodet 21:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You would get a better response at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer and video games. Thunderbrand 01:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah. Motorhead should redirect to Motörhead, which should have a dab notice at the top of the page to Motorhead (video game). Common usage VASTLY favors the band. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with the move.  I can't believe that some users who were pathetically trying to compromise to save their own petty decision actually thought a disambig page would be the best idea, where the disambig was the worst possible solution in each case.  Go go compromise groupthink. - Hahnchen 16:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Could you please elaborate since, in my head, there really shouldn't be an issue with dab at all, ref. eg. Ardal vs. Årdal.... --Frodet 16:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally don't care too much about the page move, but the suggestion and implementation of a disambiguation page at Motorhead was totally ridiculous. You're forcing everyone at the Motorhead article to waste another page load and click again, it was a pathetic attempt to try and keep the video game article visible and baseless cries of undue weight, when having a link at the top of the Motörhead article was enough.  As I said, I don't care about the page move, what I do care about are when people decide to go for the worst possible solution in some compromise scenario like a disambig page, one of the worst examples of this can be seen at be bold.  To Liftarn and the others who proposed a disambig page, do you really think Ralph Macchio should be a disambig?  What about Ken Watanabe? - Hahnchen 16:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - the dab page is not the best solution - I did not implement it, though.  Yes, I was enforcing it based on the what was set up by the mover.  What I reacted to was the "sneaky" way this was done, without any real consensus or a call at Wikipedia:Requested moves.  I consider myself neutral as I have never played neither Motorhead nor Motörhead, hence why I ask here.  But why a redirect and not (a move of) the Motorhead (video game) article to Motorhead?  --Frodet 16:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unusual request  

message: There are a lot of emulators with articles on Wikipedia.  see List of Emulators.  Recently, there have been proposals for deletion of a few of the Nintendo Console emulators(see for example iNes, FCE Ultra), but given the large number of emulators with articles (Not to mention the Redlinks), I felt it would be important to open up a discussion on where to draw the line as regards emulation software.  Certain examples (like Bleem! should clearly be kept, although they could clearly be improved, but others might not qualify.  So I'm here seeking some thoughts on where to draw the line, so forth.  So share what you feel.   FrozenPurpleCube 22:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SOFTWARE seems good, although software included with a Linux distro is a lame standard we really shouldn't use with peripheral software like emulators. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I can agree with applying WP:Software as emulators really don't receive that much published attention.  How much though, do you think is the absolute minimum necessary? FrozenPurpleCube 22:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can safely say that just because an emulator exists isn't reason enough to have an article on it. Existence and availability are totally different from notability. Surely there are reviews of emulators that can be cited to prove notability? As WP:Notability states:  'a subject needs to be of sufficient importance that there are multiple reliable secondary sources, independent of the subject, on which we can base a verifiably neutral article without straying into original research.' Nearly all these emulator articles utterly fail this, as well as other Wiki guidelines and policies. The Kinslayer 08:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, citing rules like that is not convincing to me, for reasons I've already mentioned.  It troubles me a lot.  But instead of getting into that, I'll just say that for the vast majority of emulators, I must say, I'm completely unaware of any reviews more significant than "here's this cool emulator here" or a release on some website that is nothing more than the changelog.  This is particularly true of console emulators, which is something of a less formal environment than most.  It really doesn't get the kind of formal attention that say, automobiles do.  Does this mean Wikipedia should have no information whatsoever on them?  I can't say that appeals to me.  I can't imagine how that improves Wikipedia at all.  FrozenPurpleCube 14:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The rules are there for a reason. You can't apply the rules to only the bits you want, and I don't really care if you have a problem with the rules, because I don't, and I intend to use them to highlight my point, which is, those ARE the rules (regardless of whether you like it or not), so how can we fit emulators into that frame? Obviously it can't be done in the most conventional sense, because as you say, emulator communties are too informal. So we have to to adapt. I stand by my conviction that just being listed for download on a couple of meta-emulation sites is not sufficient notability in itself. The Kinslayer 14:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there are reviews at sites like Zophar's Domain and ClassicGaming.Com, which have been standard emulator resource sites since 1996 and 1997 respectively.  Zophar even goes so far as to categorize by "Best", "Good", "Promising" and "Not Worth The Download".  --Marty Goldberg 14:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there we go then, that's two places we can use. The problem here is that it can easily turn into a 'if it's not mentioned on them, it shouldn't be here' which may not be the best situation. But a least we've got a starting point. The Kinslayer 15:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Sigh, yes, the rules exist for a reason, but reasoning and discussion exist for a reason as well. Why?  Because the rules simply aren't appropriate in every situation.  Your own statement covers that, and I agree, the conventional standards don't work for emulators, particularly console ones.  And BTW, every emulator I saw you nominate is mentioned on Zophar's(and at least one is also on Classicgaming.com).  FrozenPurpleCube 15:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd like to say that most of my noms for speedy deletes were upheld today, and I feel that most of these pages have been set up as either ads, vanity pages or, in a couple cases, set up to compare the emulator unfavourably to another emulator specifically. I agreed with Mister Manticore that we'd take the discussion here and try to reach a group consensus on what standards we should be setting for emulators (how do we define notability etc etc) The Kinslayer 22:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The best compromise I can think is the one Manticore suggested (I think) on one of the AfDs, which was rather than having 70-odd (random number) articles with three sentences about them, compile them into lists of emulators by system. We could then have articles about the TRULY notable emulators. The Kinslayer 15:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: No, I'm afraid three or four people contributing on a subject that covers at least 90-odd articles isn't enough for me to think we've got enough people to have reached a decision.  Especially since some of the people have only chimed in once to cite some already established policy, without replying to comments on why that policy might not be quite fair.  I'm just not sure how to get some real discussion going.  Considering the PITA that was resulted in over a dozen undeletions from those cookie articles the other day though(or the earlier Esoteric programming languages thing), I'm inclined to advocate patience and thought rather than act improvidently.   FrozenPurpleCube 03:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I do like the idea of a list though. Because emulator use is in most cases illegal, is it not ? Sure, if you have a legitimate bios to make them run, you are kinda ok for personal use. But that's just a technicality IMHO. The risk exists that Wikipedia might get some copyvio complaints. I hate the idea of having Wikipedia lack information but in case of illegal software... The less we have the better. A list with links to other sites would be informative and not too risky IMHO. Renmiri 04:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, besides the fact that reporting on something criminal is rather different from actually doing the thing, emulation is NOT illegal in and of itself.  I don't know of any emulator being found criminal at all, though I suppose it could happen.  In any case, relatively few emulators require an actual BIOS to run, and even then, those haven't been the subject of any of the discussion here, or anywhere that I know about, solely because they might require a copyrighted bios.  Now if there is a wikipedia page that talks about getting copyrighted ROMs, proposing that for deletion is another matter.  But it's not like we go around deleting pages like Abandonware or The Pirate Bay just because they might be "risky" in some vague sense that they could be misused.  As arguments go, this is relatively weak.  FrozenPurpleCube 05:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An emulator itself is certainly not illegal.  For emulators that require a bios image (and there are some, but they're more commonly computer emulators), it is the bios itself that would be illegal to have and not the emulator.    Even then, there are some bios's that have been released to the PD, and others that have been reversed engineered and provided in PD format.  Such is the case with the Vectrex for example, where the owner has released all roms (including the bios) in to the PD.  Nintendo is the only one that I'm aware of that took an "emulators are illegal" stance, but has since corrected it since they couldn't prosecute anyone.  They even tried prosecuting hardware based "famiclones" (NES's on a chip) but couldn't win that because they were produced with reverse engineering and couldn't prove otherwise.  (I believe it was against someone selling them locally to NOA in Washington in fact just a few years ago).  Their official stance on emulation is still very negative, i.e. "emulation promotes piracy therefore it is bad".  --Marty Goldberg 14:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emulators 

message: I think we should merge no importance with low importance. Then we would have low/mid/high/top, which I think is plenty. I find it very difficult to say an article has "no" importance whatsoever. Also, other projects like WPBiography don't have this "no importance" category. Another reason is that the AWB plugin I've been using to rate/prioritise articles doesn't have support for "no importance". Anyone disagree? jaco♫plane 08:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, if an article truly has no importance, shouldn't it just be deleted? jaco♫plane 08:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not certain, but I think to actually merge the two, you need to take it up wiht the Version 1.0 project, who made the rating system to start with.  Personally, I agree that I don't like slapping on a "no importance" tag.  I prefer to not use that tag, basically treating not having a tag as the same thing as no importance.  I propose rather than merging no and low, we just don't use no, getting us the same result. --PresN 13:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice edit summary :) Anyway, I actually think we're the only project that has a "no importance" category, see: :Category:Articles by importance. No "no importance" there. So I think that we don't really need to take it up with the Version 1.0 project since they're not using this anyway. jaco♫plane 13:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I support their merger. I agree that an actual "no importance" article would equal a deleted article (in which case, there'd be no talk page for the tag to be on...). EVula 18:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with the statement that "no importance" implies that the article should not even exist on the wikipedia. But that's an issue of semantics. If the 1.0 editorial team has use for it, then we shouldn't worry about it too much. Like other editors have mentioned, I've just been ignoring the difference between "low" and "no". Effectively they are synonomous; almost all things in the "low" category are such minor topics(e.g. various minor video game characters, or minor games that have made no impact in their genre) they will never see inclusion in version 1.0. —Mitaphane talk 00:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: To further the argument, Mathbot would, I assume, classify articles of No-Importance as not ranked for importance - Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Computer and video game articles by quality statistics. I'll change the template so that articles marked as No- are put in Low-Importance. Pagrashtak 01:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I've updated the template, but only with respect to the category. The template will still display No-Importance, but will be categorized as Low. It would be possible to force the template to display Low when No is used, but I don't think it would be worth muddying up the code for that at this point. For now, I suggest leaving the display and switching No to Low if you run across it and feel like updating it. Or, someone could request a bot to update it if he feels it's important. Pagrashtak 01:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Importance -> priority change implemented. Should we rename the associated categories? --tjstrf 06:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah.  We should aso run a bot to change all the cvgproj headers from "importance" to "priority" as well. Hbdragon88 21:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Low importance / no importance article assessments 

message: Could a couple of people please come and give their opinions in this? At the moment it's just two or three of us debating back and forth, and I think some fresh opinions are badly needed. The Kinslayer 17:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Trenches]] 

message: I've known about this for a bit, but it's really eating me up lately. This page's history only goes back to July 29, when the page was moved to archive old discussion. The rest of the history is here, at Archive 13. Is it too late to fix it? I know, I'm an admin and I could probably fix it, but I'm one of the lazy admins. Also, I tend to mess up fixing cut and paste moves sometimes, and don't want to make it worse. Comments? Thunderbrand 14:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What eats me up more is having the history all on one page.  Really, why can't we must move pages over instad of cut-and-paste archiving?  If I'm looking up an old discussion, I hate having to look through 5-6 archives.  I'd much rather try to hunt through my own contribus to find which archive page I put the discussion on. Hbdragon88 22:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just that we should probably keep it consistant, as per Wikipedia:How_to_archive_a_talk_page#Controversy. From archive 1-12, they were cut and pasted, and 13 was moved, and the rest are also cut and paste. Thunderbrand 23:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page's history 

message: I am just notifying you that I am putting a few cvg-related stubs up for deletion since their categories are empty or nearly empty.  Please voice your opinion on the SFD page here.
*no template / 
* / 
* / 
* / 
* / 
~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 17:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  various stubs up for deletion 

message: Yes, it's still alive! I took a wikibreak, and it seemed to have deteriorated--but I'm back! I was thinking of removing the inactive notice, reply if you have an objection. Primate#101 01:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I mildly object- one person does not a wikiproject make, and you're the only person who's active in the project.  That said, go ahead if you wish, it doesn't really bother me. --PresN 14:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Tycoon Computer Games 

message: I've got some work to be done on the CVG by year categories.
#remove interwiki links. Most or all of them are automatically covered in , if not, please add them to it.
#add it to the parent year in software category (don't worry if it doesn't exist yet, I'm making them).
See :Category:2000 computer and video games for an example. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  need some help with CVG by year again 

message: Donald Duck has appeared in the category today. The actual article merely lists video games he has been in. Should it really be part of cvgproj? My opinion is not. Yes he is a game character but it was secondary to why he exists, if you have any comment please add them to  the talk page - X201 12:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, just in case anyone cares, the Unassessed catagory now only has articles from F through U, which still encompanses around 3700 articles.  So, drop on by, assess some articles!  Link is in the to do box on the main project page.  --PresN 14:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Donald Duck doesn't belong in the CVG project. His games do, that's it. Articles that just mention video games briefly, certainly aren't a part of this project. RobJ1981 17:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Unassessed computer and video game articles - Donald Duck 

message: BZflag has been removed as a Featured Article, due to...well, being a B class article that no one cares to fix.  This means that the only CVG related article currently at Featured Article Review is Link (Legend of Zelda), though it looks like it's going to pass.  This has been your daily Featured Article News Update. --PresN 17:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BZFlag removed as FA 

message: Apparently the article Doom clone has been killed. This is completely absurd; it was a fine article on an important subject, and tons of pages link to it (there are now a lot of dead links instead). Any administrator who can figure out why it was deleted, or better yet, would be willing to simply restore it? Fredrik Johansson 21:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if someone had bothered to remove the WP:PROD tag that wouldn't have happened. Just ask an admin to restore it. --tjstrf 21:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Doom clone]] deleted 

message: Just a piece of blatant project publicity about the fact that The Magazines Project now has over 200 individual magazines listed, and the size of the list is increasing (almost) daily. It now covers the last 12 years of video gaming and has articles available on everything from trade shows to French computer games.   - X201 22:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Magazines Project - (Blowing our own trumpet)

message: I'm cross-posting this at the CVG Magazine Archive, but thought the wider WPCVG community might benefit from it.
Now that Computer Gaming World is changing their name, the entire back catalogue of first 100 issues' worth of CGW articles has been posted for free download at FileFront, here. It's a pretty huge collection of free content, and provides both interesting historical information and an accessible source of facts for articles that touch on its subject matter. Personal computer game will be received some new citations from this source, and I hope it helps improve some other articles as well.
Unfortunately, these are extremely large PDF files - Issue 1 alone is fourteen megabytes. I'm downloading them all now, though, and would be happy to start a torrent if necessary. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 06:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Computer Gaming World archives available for download 

message: Since before there was discussion about how to clean up the large amount of WikiProject templates on talk pages, I thought you guys would be interested in the proposal at Wikipedia:Mini Talkpage Template for the additional templates (like featured article, good article, peer review, etc). -- Ned Scott 09:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page template stuff 

message: Here are just some: various King of Fighters characters, Mario Kart: Double Dash!!, various Mega Man articles and much more. If you want a more complete list, see :Category:Articles with large trivia sections. RobJ1981 21:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it's an ongoing problem - arm yourself with an anti-chuff cannon and set about it :) --Charlesknight 21:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: What a mess. I've seen articles bad like that before though. For some shooter games, there is huge lists of every single weapon. People fill articles with way too much cruft. RobJ1981 21:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You like trivia? Check List of King of Fighters: Maximum Impact characters. 52 trivia items in 10 trivia sections. -- ReyBrujo 01:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I thought I should probably bring to mind the Chrono Trigger and Chrono Cross articles here. Both of them not only have "plot" sections that are massively long, but for some reason an enormous amount of in-game character quotations have "cross references" going down to where, ordinarily, external link references would go. Given the huge plot text, this results in the references section being way, way too large. I'm going to go through and get rid of those cross references (we don't REALLY need an entire section devoted to ingame quotes like "What's going on Lucca? WHERE IS SHE?"), but the plot text itself will still need some extensive paring. It looks like several other articles like Final Fantasy IV also have this inane plotlinking. Seriously, if someone REALLY wants to read each and every quote that a character makes during the course of a game, can't they just play the game itself? It seems to be of limited value to fill up entire article sections with this stuff. Ex-Nintendo Employee 11:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See, the difference between what we're talking about here and CC and CT is that FIFA Street 2 was half-filled with a list of all 100+ soccer players in the game (before I whacked it), while CT and CC are featured articles, and held up as examples of what all cvg articles should look like.  Also, what are you talking about?  There isn't a section in CT about quotes.  Please do not go about hacking apart featured articles, you will be reverted. --PresN 13:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see what you meant.  You meant that every ref that was to the game itself should be removed.  Ironically, the editors at FAC felt that not referencing the plot meant that it was OR.  Since you deleted 20ish references, I've reverted you.  Please do not do massive edits to a featured article like that without at least discussing it first. --PresN 13:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  PresN is correct. DO NOT REMOVE those cross references. Those were put there in response to citation needed tags during the FA and GA process. The cross-reference section is not a quotes section and is indeed part of what makes the CT and CC articles worthy of being Featured Articles. Renmiri 13:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  " No, PresN is not correct. There is absolutely, positively no reason for each and every single plot-related dialogue quote to be referenced within the article itself. Someone who wants such a deep focus on the plot can read a guide (which Wikipedia is not). If you don't feel that the cross-reference section is a "quotes" section, then simply don't fill it with quotes. Imagine how disturbingly large every single game plot section would be if we did that to them all. A short summary of the plot is all that is neccesary, no matter how well-liked the game is- a massive, guidelike list of events and quotations, on the other hand, is not. Come on, do we seriously NEED to reference things like "Look, Crono! Your cat's running away because you haven't been feeding it!" I don't know how something like that got to Featured status, but there's no reason we can't pare down the un-needed pieces to make it better. Ex-Nintendo Employee 16:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, lets see why it passed FAC, shall we?  It was only the beginning of August.  Here's a scattering of quotes from the nomination- "The Story section needs to be more comprehensive, and shouldn't be rushing itself quite as hard as it is"  "I know you're probably concerned with length, but being comprehensive is more important than length. Don't try molding the article to fit some imaginary standard of length. The only standard of length is that it cover everything important and do it with clarity without going into the territory of detail that only fans would look for."  "'Do you mean for the story? I can dig up some script references'.....'Some for the story would be good, yeah'"  "You don't come to an encyclopedia if you don't want comprehensive overviews."  I respect that you feel that the plot section is too in depth, and that there are too many game references.  I do not respect the fact that instead of starting a discussion, you went and removed all of the references to the game.  Yes, anyone can edit wikipedia, but for FA class articles it's usually a good idea to tell people about major changes to the article before you do them.  --PresN 16:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And yet, despite your lovely quotes, references to people's cats still remain. Oh well. Honestly, if you want to turn Chrono Trigger into a vast repository of random facts and quotations about Chrono's pets, be my guest. I have parakeets to feed. Ex-Nintendo Employee 16:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just got back from visiting my birds, and look at that! A slew of new replies. Hey Renmiri, I'm not missing ANY "points" here- I just happen to disagree with you. You'll notice that I've stopped bothering with the CT article- I know that the little group that's huddled around it would immediately jump to its "defense", no matter what unencyclopedic minor content one attempts to pare down. It doesn't matter that quotes about a cat, random dialogue about the gate Keys and other fudd aren't really "citations", they're just fluff- fluff that puffs up an article's size and makes it interminable to wade through. Despite all the self-congratulatory back-patting going on here, the fact remains that you're sitting on an article filled to the brim with minor, unencyclopedic quotations. Remember, just because someone disagrees with your point of view (as I do) doesn't make them either stupid, nor does it mean they're "missing any points". And for the record, I haven't seen any evidence that the dialogue about Chrono's cat food helps give the article any level of succinctness. That's my two cents, and I'll go away now and leave your group to ponder over what next to do with your gargantuan puffy article. I'm sure more back-patting will occur, and a few rounds of "Oh, that darn Ex-Nintendo Employee." Have fun! Ex-Nintendo Employee 21:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, what you said toward the end proves that you missed my point. Also, the term "missing the point" was not in response to disagreement; it was in response to the fact that you did not (and still have not) addressed the issue of why the references are being used (which would therefore be the point). I stated that the reference with the cat in the dialogue provides evidence that the scenerios mentioned at the end of the plot synopsis actually occured, and were not just OR statements. That has nothing to do with succinctness, nor is it a quote section — again, they are direct references to the text to prove that the synopsis is not speculation or false. — Deckiller 02:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: To give an example we should follow, The Lord of the Rings, a featured article on an exceedingly plot-dense trilogy of lengthy books, currently has a shorter plot summary than Chrono Trigger or Final Fantasy IV. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As we both know, secondary source plot analysis are often published by self-published sources, which are currently even more discouraged than primary source citations. :) Also, I checked, and the only time the word "cat" is used is in the citation that happens to have the subject of the cat in it, despite the reference being used for a more general reason. — Deckiller 02:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: A project for trivia? I certainly hope that doesn't exist on Wikipedia ever. Trivia is a problem on Wikipedia now, and a project for it wouldn't help matters. The only useful trivia project is one that is used for cleaning the sections, not helping promote it. People need to realize Wikipedia is for encyclopedia content, not every little trivia note that they think is useful. In my opinion, trivia sections should be completely banned from Wikipedia altogether. They seem to be just sections for random things that don't fit anywhere else. If it's useful: add to the article itself. If it's not useful: don't add it to the article ever. Wikipedia isn't a fan's guide for every little detail. RobJ1981 23:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you may have misunderstood my point, I was refering to the idea being coined where trivia would move to a project completely separate from Wikipedia in all regards, like Wikiquote is for quotes for example, or gaming guides to one of the separate gaming Wikis for example (technically if all trivia should be banished from Wikipedia - wouldn't the Department of Fun's Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense sections all be ripe for MfD? I'd hope not! ) --tgheretford (talk) 00:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I see two fabulous ideas here: First, the WikiProject: Trivia integration, whose sole aim would be to hunt down trivia sections, integrate what they can in the article, and sort the interesting, relevant, sourceable facts from the basic fancruft. Second, the Wikitrivia. That could be a great place for all the fanboys and fangirls to breathe a little, and rave about the subject of their passion in very tiny, but oh-so-amazing detail. Any support to these two? Does anyone know where I can post the idea for the wikiproject?--SidiLemine 11:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, you go here. Note you have to create a new account for the Meta Wiki site, from what I gather. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a fan of the script citations either: it inflates the references section, making it difficult to pick the real references out. I think the overall mess can easily be remedied with a single citation, such as the game itself or a link to the full game script (and there are plenty). This was, in fact, suggested during the FF4 FA nom. Since this may mean that a single source is bloated with an entire cross-referencing alphabet, you can always consider the versatile "Ibid," which takes up far less space than the quotes themselves. --Tristam 17:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Too much trivia on several video game articles

message: After cleaning up some redundant information, I noticed the page needs help. It just seems like a cluttered list of North America and Japan releases. I think a split should be made, or the list should be in a table of some sort by year to make it look neater. RobJ1981 21:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Chronology of PlayStation 2 games]] is in need of help

message: Is it appropriate for this title to be considered a good article? FullMetal Falcon 22:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Too many bulleted lists, and not enough references.  It's a very good B-class though, wouldn't take it too much to get to GA.  Also, we don't decide if it's GA class, WP:GAC does.  Though I and other CVG editors review articles on there sometimes.  (I try to avoid CVG articles, I'd feel biased.) --PresN 00:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[F-Zero GX]] GA?

message: Can someone figure out what this is and what should be done with it? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My eyes!  It should be deleted, as Tron ni Kobun is the japanese name for The Misadventures of Tron Bonne, a much better article. --PresN 00:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Tron ni Kobun]] 

message: Hi! I am TrackerTV from subproject WP:PCP. In the past 2 months, we have received 2 inquiries concerning a name change. The first came from me with no consensus. The second came from User:Atomic-Super-Suit, which mentioned PCP is a drug (as an abbreviation). Would you, our parent, support a name change for three Projects:
*Pokémon Collaborative Project (WP:PCP) to WikiProject Pokémon (WP:POKE, WP:WPP as dab link at top, WP:PKMN dab link at top)
*WikiProject Digimon Systems Update to simply WikiProject Digimon (no shortcut change)
*WikiProject Legend of Zelda series to just WikiProject Legend of Zelda
I think all Projects should be held by a standard name, and should meet naming conventions so they are not mistaken for a guideline page or anything else in the Wikipedia namespace.
Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 05:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOT a bureaucracy, last I checked, and, really, who cares? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Two people appearantly.  -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 06:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Shouldn't this be at anime and manga? We've got more manga and anime articles than video games articles. Highway Grammar Enforcer! 09:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no it shouldn't. You have approximately 440 Pokemon articles under CVG, far less than that which would fall under WP:MANGA. I believe the name change unnecessary, btw. --tjstrf 16:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Because WP:MANGA primarily defines its involvement in an area by the original media. We cover things which were originally Japanese manga, Japanese anime, and Japanese light novels, and their derived works. This means we don't cover Pokemon, because while Pokemon overlaps with our "jurisdiction" in content, but it is not based on a light novel, manga, or anime series. Similarly, we don't cover Battle Royale because (despite its manga adaptation) it was originally a normal Japanese book, not a graphic novel or anime. --tjstrf 23:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How bureaucratic. Why not just cover the subjects to which your tools are well-suited? We could really use the help with the largely anime-based articles at WP:PCP. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the most recent discussion the project had on the subject here, you'll notice that I don't exactly agree with the current standards. Personally, I believe the scope should be expanded to include subjects such as Manhwa and published manga based on other licensed properties for the sake of standardization, but I got shot down. --tjstrf 07:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The name PCP 

message: Hi all. I am currently working on renaming a whole bunch of Japanese history articles to their more proper spellings, using macrons. One of the more common examples of this coming up in video games (as many of you are probably aware, and many of you may not be) is in any name that involves "ryū", meaning "dragon." Technically speaking, "ryū", representing "ryuu", is a different spelling and hence a different word from "ryu". What I am getting at is to ask your opinions and policies towards the renaming of such characters as Ryu from Street Fighter and Strider Hiryu. Let me know. Thanks. LordAmeth 13:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From WP:MOS-JA: Article titles should use macrons except in cases where the macronless spelling is in common usage in English-speaking countries. In other words, the vast majority of CVG articles won't have macrons (including aforementioned examples), because I don't know of any English translations that keeps the macrons. Nifboy 16:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, so it's called a macron. I did not know that. Utterly off topic, anyone played Ōkami? ;) Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macrons in Japanese names. 

message: I've been trying to use the Manual of Style (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)) to dictate my work on infoboxes in the CVG project, however I've been receiving a lot of annoyed users about this (well not really, but several reverts). I have my date display preferences set for dates in the dd MMMM yyyy format (e.g. 16 October 2006). When users put release dates of games with a subject year (1998 in video gaming for example), it screws up my date display. Is there an official guideline I should follow regarding this? I don't want to get on other user's nerves regarding this. Alex 23:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought we all settled on what is at the main page. Thunderbrand 00:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry bout that. Misread the page. Alex 05:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subject dates? 

message: While I'm thinking about it - what's the justification for not using flagicons for the release dates instead of the ISO TLDs for country designations - is it accessibility? I'm just curious - don't wanna screw up any actual policy when I'm so passionate about this project. :) Alex 05:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there was ever really a discussion. I just use the TLDs because little images are annoying. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The previous discussion was archived here. jaco♫plane 11:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flags in infobox 

message: I have been adamant in removing information is feel is bordering on being a game guide from Classes in World of Warcraft. Could anyone help me define what is to be kept and not? Do we allow information about how many % in armor a spell gives and things like that? I have tried to keep the article as clean as possible, but it's an impossible task. Any help much appreciated. Thank you. Havok (T/C/c) 10:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the main page of the project. Item statistics and lists of minutiae are not encyclopedic. Andre (talk) 01:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then could someone help me clean it up, seeing as I get flamed and reverted when trying to remove information like this. Havok (T/C/c) 11:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding information considered game guide-ish 

message: I once nominated this for the GCOTW, but it lost out to some crap like Dead Rising or some minor Final Fantasy character.  It then got lumped together with the advergaming article, although the concepts are fundamentally different.  Still, better late then never, I've made a bit of a start with the article, and would like others to help expand it.  I've left empty section headings as a guidline although you don't have to follow those, it'd also be appropriate to move some of the history of in-game advertising (static ads, such as sponsorship in sports games or crazy taxi) into the lead, and move some of the lead into the section on dynamic ads.  I've also written nothing on concepts such as the virtual advertising islands you get in overrated chatrooms such as second life.  I don't normally announce new articles here, but this is a big concept in advertising and gaming, and rates pretty highly in terms of importance I believe.  It's been a misplaced redirect for so long, I hope we can finally sort it out. - Hahnchen 04:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[In-game advertising]] - Expand and Improve 

message: I've noticed that the titles of video game articles are very inconsistent, many have game subtitles in the article titles and many do not.  Which one is preferred?  Local discussions have taken place in a variety of places, with various outcomes, but there should be a site-wide standard. Personally, I think that all video games that can only be told apart by subtitles should use subtitles (such as The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask) and others that can be disambiguated by number (where the number is the primary distinction, such as Xenosaga Episode II: Jenseits von Gut und Böse) should not include the subtitle.  Opinions? —Mets501 (talk) 01:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really see this as an issue. Yes, we could change the Xenosaga articles to just the numbers and not the German subtitles, but why? The subtitles are right there on the game's box. Thunderbrand 14:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the standard is to use what the box identifies itself as. People are going to have different conventions regarding the use of subtitles, sequel numbers, etc. To keep it simple, we might as well use what the game calls itself and call it a day. —Mitaphane talk 15:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video game subtitles in article titles 

message: For some reason, Super Mario 64 is up for featured article review again. It's already come through a previous FAR and a removal candidacy, but for some reason it's not very well-liked. It was one of the CVG project's first featured articles and I think it's still a great article, but I guess everyone might not agree with me. Please weigh in on the FAR page. Andre (talk) 01:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Super Mario 64'' review 

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. Andre (talk) 06:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:{{ucfirst:Nintendo franchises }}