Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 30

message: Getting some use out of my tool.  So here are the external link evaluations for the active task forces:
* Video games - Featured articles (228 items)
* Video games - Good articles (388 items)
* Silent Hill (31 items)
* Suikoden (1 item)
* Grand Theft Auto (24 items)
* Devil May Cry (10 items)
* Command & Conquer (43 items )
* Nintendo (832 items)
* Template:Pokeproject (only first 500 page)
#GREEN are status link, typically redirects, tend to work fine if left.  
#YELLOW are warning for the link.
#BLUE indicated the problem is remote.  
#ORANGE, these are links in need of attention, there status has been elevated using heuristic detection.  
#RED, the server sent back a 4XX message, indicating a dead link.
I've programmed in a javascript enhancement (only tested on Firefox) that has build in searches that can recover ~20% of dead links.  It also provides an interface to submit those changes to WP.  If you find a link that shouldn't be listed at the read/orange levels or the other way around please notify me.  —Dispenser 19:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Christ, so much of Frank Klepacki is 404ed. Here's hoping there are Wayback replacements. I'm glad I made the article when I did... 67.65.112.167 06:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link checker 

message: Could someone with an interest in SNK vs. Capcom: Card Fighters Clash please take a look at List of Cardfighters Cards. This list would be simple enough to complete, to an interested party. I have prettied it up but know nothing of the game itself. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 20:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Cardfighters Cards 

message: Link (The Legend of Zelda) has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.  --carelesshx talk 21:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An obvious concern is that the lead image is rationale-less (new word?) and is about to be deleted. How could this not have been addressed if your nominating it for FA review?Ashnard Talk Contribs 21:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this is a review, it was featured long ago. It might become unfeatured. Andre (talk) 21:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My thoughts on the matter still apply. Sorry for the mistake. Ashnard Talk Contribs 21:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FURG added to the image. I really don't see any other (controllable) problems, see my comments at the FAR. Giggy Talk | Review 22:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, that doesn't change the fact that it's an inappropriate image for the beginning of the article, as it is not his most commonly recognized form, nor his most current. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 00:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Perchance his initial appearance or his Twilight Princess appearance? The hand-held cartoonish Link seems almost like a separate character. The most logical seems to be his Super Smash Bros. Brawl appearance. I don't know if it makes sense to anyone to use an out-of-series appearance as his default, but Nintendo makes the SSB characters look their most recognizable because they are making an out-of-series appearance. In a Legend of Zelda game they can make Link look like whatever they want (and have), but in SSB he has to look as much like "Link" as possible, so people looking at SSB Link never think "Is that Link's nephew?". Thoughts? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Johnny's assessment on SSB appearances, and I'd say that also applies to Mario, Luigi, Peach, Bowser, Yoshi, Samus and Kirby (and to a lesser extent, Fox McCloud and Falco Lombardi).  Nintendo has evidently taken great pains to make those models look as much like the definitive characters as possible, and at least from my own experience, it worked - I instantly recognized the characters and would have no trouble recognizing them without text.  While I can say the same for most of the in-series appearances of those characters, Link does have some ambiguity throughout the series, and someone looking at his Windwaker appearance for the first time might not recognize him at all, since his appearance is so radically different from other games in the series. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 07:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Link (The Legend of Zelda)]] 

message: Mall Tycoon and Mall Tycoon 2 are very short, would anyone object if I merged these two into a new article, Mall Tycoon (series)?  --Cvgjunkie 01:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Mall Tycoon (series) should be created seperately.  We generally have an article for each game, and one for the series.  For an example, see Age of Empires Series; we also have Age of Empires, Age of Empires 2, and so on... Giggy Talk | Review 01:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can do that too, but I ask because it looks like Railroad Tycoon (series) was created by merging some short articles together, if you look at this version you will see infoboxes and screenshots for two games that look like they were merged in, and there are no separate articles for those games.  --Cvgjunkie 01:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, yes, I misunderstood.  By all means, include info from the two separate articles, but don't redirect them or anything.  Sorry :) Giggy Talk | Review 01:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mall Tycoon series 

message: It's been over a year since I first pushed for this article to make featured, and I never was able to pull it off. It's apparently a lot harder to write an FA article for a really bad game than a really good one. Anyways, I obviously can't seem to do it myself, so I would like someone else to polish it up and try to get it featured. All the information is already there, it's just the little things that keep holding it back. Little things that I'm apparently blind to. So...any takers?--SeizureDog 07:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be wise to throw it in the FAC queue and then see what comes up and let others (ie myself) help to fix those edits? I looked through the last FAC comments and it seems you got most from the Jan 07 one. --Masem 14:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did some edits.  Take a look and see if you think they helped. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 17:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good.  I rewrote one sentence ins the beginning as well.  It gets a bit tiresome to hear E.T. blamed for the crash when Atari's financial problems and that of the industry began before it.  --Marty Goldberg 19:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that the Gameplay section should be condensed somewhat.  There's a lot of info in there that may be too specific for an encyclopedia - might fall under game-guide material. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I welcome you to try your hand at it. Atari 2600 games are tricky because they're so simple that it's easy to be too general (and have only a sentence or two) or too detailed (and still be able to desribe every aspect of the game in under a page).--SeizureDog 23:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried my hand at cleaning the gameplay section. It should be expanded to give a feel of what these screens are supposed to be, and sources should be cited for it. After that, it can probably be expanded and rearranged as needed. TTN 00:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, TTN - I actually also worked on it at the same time, and we ended up hitting an edit conflict.  I condensed it a lot more, though - removed mostly game-guide material and kept it to a general synopsis. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I went ahead and nominated it. Comments welcomed of course.--SeizureDog 23:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (Atari 2600)]] for FA 

message: It is my belief that if a game is released on multiple platforms under the same title (unless the games are completely unrelated, like  and WWF Superstars (Game Boy) and WWF Superstars), these games should be contained in the same article, even if gameplay is significantly different. Also, updated versions of a game (such as Gold or Collector's editions) should be included in the main game article, unless differences are so great as to make the game unrecognizable. It is a simple matter of explaining the differences. Is this a guideline, and if not can it be? I started thinking about this after taking a look at the vastly overpopulated :Category:Rayman. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was discussed about a month ago. The status quo is what you describe, all versions into the same article unless there are major (with major meaning more than just better graphics, sound or extra levels) differences that warrant a separate article. - X201 07:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The Nintendo DS and Game Boy Advance versions of Rayman Raving Rabbids should be merged together, as they are a completely different genre to the Wii and PS2 versions. Rayman 3's GBA article can be merged. The Nintendo DS version of Over the Hedge should be separate, at it is noticeably different in genre to the console games, and is noted as having greater reception. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multi-platform releases in one article 

message: A three day old account (Mayor_mike_haggar) has nominated three articles for deletion and by a staggering coincidence all three just happen to be about videogame journalists. What's the process for reporting suspected bad faith AFDs? - X201 11:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:ANI?  Unless you think it might be a sockpuppet, then that goes to WP:SSP. --Masem 12:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk to him first.  Tell him what he's doing is wrong.  WP:AN or WP:ANI (I forget which) if he persists. Giggy Talk 02:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad faith AFDs? 

message: For what it's worth: I believe there have been several breaches of WP:CIVIL in this thread.  Not really worth going into details at this point, but I would like to advise you all to tone it down a bit, for future reference if nothing else.
* I do believe that Ashnard took things a little too personally in this discussion, and thus made himself prone to stepping over the WP:AGF line, though I don't agree that he was outright assuming bad faith on your part, Onikage725.  It seems that this was as much a misunderstanding of each other's motives and tactics as it was any assumption of bad faith on anyone's part.
* Likewise, Onikage725, you seemed to be taking parts of this discussion rather personally, thus making it all too easy for you, Ashnard and ZXCVBNM to start sniping at each other.  For future reference, if you find yourself starting to get riled up on a topic like this, it's always a good idea to step back for a moment before you hit the "Save page" button, and consider whether what you're replying to was in fact a personal attack or just a strongly worded statement.
* 125.236.144.164 (the IP that said that Onikage should learn how to use Google): Please refrain from making statements such as this.  You can (and are encouraged to) point out information about Google hits and what not, without making personal remarks about other editors.  Personal remarks like this can, in some cases, breach WP:NPA, but more importantly, they usually only serve to get people mad at each other and further inflame an already heated discussion.  I will say that your post was otherwise very informative and helpful to the discussion - just some advice for future reference.
Hope this helps. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He should learn to use Google properly, his misuse of it created confusion. It's the same as suggesting someone should learn about flooring if they want to edit the flooring article. --125.238.147.251 04:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is the same, it is rude. Phrasing is important, and telling someone that they "need to learn how to floor"... well it's hard to imagine anyone taking that any way but offensively. It could easily be true, but there are better ways to put it, and Wikipedia discussions run on civility. Arguments should be won by factual merit, not by attempting to point out flaws in another editor. In other words, attack logic, not people. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did find that condescending. I appreciate the correction to my error, but "learn to use Google" is a bit much (and I must admit I miss the analogy, as I wasn't editing the Google search article). I forgot the quotation marks. I'm human, I make mistakes. That aside, the info was enlightening and I revised my stance on the matter. I also took a similar tone with ZXCVBNM and Ashnard, so for what it's worth I apologize for any offense caused on my part. Onikage725 09:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too; no offence guys. I shouldn't have made it personal and specuclated about users' reasons. Thanks for that, KieferSkunk. Ashnard Talk Contribs 10:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, glad to help. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I didn't mean to appear angry but I guess exclamation points make a difference...--ZXCVBNM 01:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, I didn't think you were angry. I was being crabby. Hence the apology. Onikage725 00:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikiquette

message: Could I get some help here? The VAST majority of comments are made by new users/SPAs, possibly socks, so I'd like some people who actually know some wiki-policy and whatnot to give their opinions here.  Thanks, Giggy Talk 02:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart Campbell (video game journalist)]] 

message: Unfortunately, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) clearly goes against our project's current naming standards; i.e. foreign-language titles articles (even video games) are to be located at their most common English translation. It says nothing about who does the translating. We need to either accept this, or propose a new guideline. My suggestion: 
*Any article on a video game originally produced under copyright in a non-English language is to be located at the official title it was originally released under, until such time as an official English title is announced, by either the copyright holder, or a representative thereof. If the language of origin uses a non-Latin alphabet, the article should be located at an appropriate transliteration.
*If more than one official English title is announced (such as between NA and EU markets, or ports/updates), the title released first is to be used unless it is overwhelmingly recognized by a new title (as in Beastorizer vs. Bloody Roar).
*If the game has yet to be released it should be always be known at the official "working title".
*If no official title in any language has been announced (pre-release), the article should follow standard naming conventions, even if an unofficial "working-title" exists (i.e. "The Something Project", or "Something Sequel"). Foreign-language video games not under copyright that have not been given an official English title should also follow normal naming conventions.
I have proposed it for acceptance, please comment  there.
~ JohnnyMrNinja 10:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, WP:NOR and WP:V take precedence over the naming conventions. It says nothing about who does the translating, but fan translations violate Wikipedia's core content policies. We can just boil down what you wrote to "Don't use unofficial titles unless they can be sourced and are significantly more common than the Japanese transliterated title."  Andre (talk) 20:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video game naming conventions 

message: Related to this, as one can see on my present test page at User:Masem/CrazyTaxiSeries that putting all the infoboxes for all the games does some funky things with the page.  The CVG infobox template page says the template's recommended, but it's not required.  My thought is that if there are multiple games with notably different release information (more than just remakes), that I could make a table, columns for each game (sans boxes images only because, like with discographies and TV shows, a list or table with images is not recommended per fair use), and rows for each major callout.  It wouldn't take the space that each separate box have and through off the rendering like multiple infoboxes do presently. --Masem 16:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Use  ♦TH1RT3EN talk ♦ contribs 17:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Boo-yah! Perfect. --Masem 17:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question: Multiple infoboxes on one page

message: As I've not yet moved it into place, I'll ask if anyone wants to comment on my CT page now - I've incorporated all the elements I believe are necessary to give the series its notability (did you know Richard Donner was going to be part of a CT movie!?) but eliminated the need to really describe the game further in individual game pages.  I'm missing a few references (mostly gameplay - easy to fix).  The page is (still) currently at User:Masem/CrazyTaxiSeries; thanks! --Masem 23:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Informal Peer Review

message: I've moved the series article over to the main namespace, and posted the merge discussion request.  I'm offering it up as a game-by-game basis in one common discussion area, as per above. --Masem 16:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge Up

message: I'm trying to complete the List of Square Enix games but I wondering what layout I should use. Should the games be ordered by chronological order or alphabetical order? I like the chronological one, but for it to be perfect and make sense we would have to list every annual releases separately (FF1 for NES in 1987, FF1 for MSX2 in 1989, FF1 for WSC in 2000, etc. instead of a single FF1 row). The list would be very long in that case, so perhaps the alphabetical order is better (to have all releases of one game in a single row). Thoughts? Kariteh 17:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's ways to make sortable tables. Help:Sorting.  As default, I would use Chronological. --Masem 18:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I would prefer to have lots of separate tables (so as to have the headings always close to the information) rather than a single huge table with the headings stuck at the top, but this Sorting function does look nice. I'll try it. Kariteh 12:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Chronological, as the category takes care of the alphabet. BTW, great job. It's leaps and bounds from the pre-Kariteh days. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 04:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. So, should we keep all releases of one game in a single entry or separate them? Separating would make the tables quite longer, but grouping makes the Square Enix table devoid of many Final Fantasies; it kind of hides the fact that Square Enix re-released tons of them. Kariteh 08:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The best way would be to separate releases, as it would make it a much better reference point to people unfamiliar with the series. Perhaps they bought a GBA game in 2006 (Final Fantasy V Advance), they might not understand that it came out in 1992, and may just not find it. Also, this would give it further weight in the classic "Wouldn't this be better as a category?" that always seems to pop up. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 03:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of (company) games 

message: Just a heads up, the "Videogame Style Guide and Reference Manual" is available as a free PDF. We might want to incorporate some of the information into our article guidelines. JACOPLANE • 2007-08-11 22:20
:There's also a wiki page, see the full index. JACOPLANE • 2007-08-11 22:25
::Videogame? No thanks. Why is it favorable to use broken, less popular English? --Teggles 07:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have a guidelines page with most of this information listed.  Can we incorporate any additional missing info into this? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. That was where I was going to aim it. - X201 08:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know where those guys got their info, but "video game" is definitely correct. It can be said both ways, but "video game" is two words, and it doesn't have to be shortened like other words, (e.g. carpool).--ZXCVBNM 22:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Videogame Style Guide and Reference Manual 

message: I worked a bit on the Creatures in the Metroid series article a while ago, suggesting it be broken up and such. However, as I recently looked through it, I noticed that
:1) People were deleting everything that wasn't a boss, and
:2) Game strategies are all over the place, and are pretty much unavoidable.
:3) All this stuff is non-notable and has no real-world basis.
So, this should probably be moved to Wikitroid as was Items in the Metroid series. It needs the extra information and help.--ZXCVBNM 03:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there are no objections, so I'll move it.--ZXCVBNM 22:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought, it's way too big for me to move by myself. Anyone there?--ZXCVBNM 22:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been busy, but good call. The article can then be redirected to the main Metroid article. — Deckiller 23:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Judgesurreal777 22:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Could you guys look at these articles? I was thinking of pulling a Ghostbusters (franchise) with the remaining fictional articles that probably cant stand on their own and building up the Metroid (series) article. 
** Phazon
** Chozo
** Galactic Federation
* Dark Samus
* Ing (Metroid)
* Kraid
* Luminoth
* Metroid (species)
* Metroid Prime (creature)
* Mother Brain (Metroid)
* Ridley (Metroid)
* Space Pirate (Metroid)
I think they would go well in the series article. Judgesurreal777 23:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I have to imagine that Ridley and Metroid have the potential to stand on their own, but the rest can probably be merged to the series article or to a general character article if there is enough information on the characters as a whole. TTN 23:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Ridley (Metroid) should stay, as he's featured in many games and is Samus's archenemy, sort of like Lex Luthor is to Superman. He killed her parents, etc. Dark Samus, Metroid Prime (creature), and Phazon should be merged into the series page, Ing (Metroid) and Luminoth should be merged into MP2, the rest to the series page (except Metroid (species))--ZXCVBNM 19:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metroid Creatures transwiki? 

message: I found the same error in two articles (Space Wars and Cinematronics) - namely that the link for Larry Rosenthal leads to a baseball player.  (I am 99% sure they are separate folks.)  In any case, my main question is whether talk about the problem can / should go on the respective talk pages, or do you video game folks like to keep all the talk to this one page?  That is what seemed to be implied on the Space Wars talk page.  Benthatsme 04:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the issue seems specific to those two articles, might just want to bring it up on their talk pages. If you think it's a situation that other articles could benefit from discussing, then it's a good idea to bring it here to the project talk page. Also, if you leave a message on the article talk page, but no one responds, discussing it here is a good way to just get attention when not a lot of people are watching that article. -- Ned Scott 05:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Either way is good. Article talk pages are more relevant, while this page gets more eyes. You can do both or either. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I made the change on those two pages, and made notes on their talk pagesBenthatsme 22:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to talk about articles 

message: I believe similar vehicle lists have been deleted in the past. Should this go to AFD? I wasn't sure. RobJ1981 09:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not? It appears to violate WP:NOT's point on collections of indiscriminate information, in addition to being unsourced and unverifiable. NeoChaosX  (talk, walk) 14:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not unverifiable, as the games themselves can be the source for that, but delete it anyway per WP:NOT. Miremare 14:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok it's in AFD now. RobJ1981 15:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: For what it's worth, the AFD is turning into a blitz on other video-game list articles, such as List of cars in the Ridge Racer series and List of Cars in Project Gotham Racing 3. --Oscarthecat 19:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So? What makes those articles worth keeping? --Mika1h 19:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps nothing, perhaps they're completely unworthy of keeping.  Such article do have a tendency to survive AFD's though, see the repeated nominations of Talk:List of Battlefield 1942 mods --Oscarthecat 19:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mods lists are different; they're lists of things that actually exist in the real world. Lists of in-game items are not. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I've nominated both of those car lists mentioned by Oscar. Frankly I don't see the purpose of these game vehicle lists. Many have been deleted in the past: I don't see these as special exceptions that need to be kept. RobJ1981 19:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Aircraft of Ace Combat]]

message: See Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)#Need someone with GameInformer March 2006 issue Nil Einne 15:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Need someone with Game Informer March 2006

message: Fire Emblem (the series) is currently up for review at the general peer review. It has been nominated as part of an effort to get it to Featured Article status. It hasn't gotten many comments, so any reviews would be appreciated. Infernal Inferno 19:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's only had an automated "peer review", but as you will probably know, this isn't the most helpful of methods. Ashnard Talk Contribs 23:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fire Emblem at general peer review 

message: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_12#Category:Legends_of_Wrestling: several very broad video game categories are in CFD now. The last time they were in it: one person commented, which lead to a no consensus (which lead to a default keep). Also: I was wondering if anyone could update the deletion section on the project page? I tried typing in 3 new AFDs to the section, and I couldn't figure out the instructions. It kept telling me to subst the page, but when I did that: it did the AFD template which goes on the article not the deletion section. The AFD's are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aircraft of Ace Combat, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Cars in Project Gotham Racing 3 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cars in the Ridge Racer series. RobJ1981 00:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Several things in CFD, and a question

message: A user has put an edit protected request on the Infobox template to add something called a hCalendar Microformat. Their project page is here Wikipedia:WikiProject Microformats I've read it and can't work out what benefit it is to us or anyone else. Would have been nice if they'd informed us of what it was and that they were going to do it beforehand. - X201 21:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is something to do with the discussion imediately above, and the bot request that I made. However, I can't make head nor tail of that project page, so I could be wrong! Miremare 22:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's so that outside applications can distinguish data on WP and extract it. I said "I think" at the start of this sentence though.  - X201 09:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is correct.  It has nothing to do with the discussion above.  — madman bum and angel 16:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit protected on Infobox

message: Hi! I was thinking about starting a new task force dedicated to the universe of Beyond Good & Evil. See the proposal here. Currently there isn't much information on wikipedia about this topic, but if the task force is created that could change very fast, bringing in material from another wiki dedicated to the subject. --MrStalker talk 11:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would read the discussion above about Goomba inclusion and much of the discussion at Writing about fiction. The "world" of a single game, even one that may have been critically praised, is going to be very difficult to write out-of-universe style.  I think a worthy goal of getting a good BG&E game page is worthwhile, and maybe a page to list characters, but I really can't see how many more pages there would be that would require a task force. --Masem 13:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New task force proposal 

message: Further to the above post about 31 December, it was suggested at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Video game release dates request that the Template:Infobox CVG itself be modified with "#if" to automatically place games with suspect release dates into :Category:Video games with suspected incorrect release dates. Anyone savvy enough to carry this out? Miremare 16:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll make an  request.  — madman bum and angel 16:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox CVG template 

message: There does not seem to be much activity on Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Animal Crossing, so I'm thinking we should abolish this task force. Agreed? JACOPLANE • 2007-08-18 03:46
:I'll abolish you!!  But seriously, I think specific series WikiProjects or task forces are just a bad idea in general; look at the failure of WikiProject Nintendo Wars and WikiProject Kirby Dream Land for instance.  Actually, I really can't comment that well; seems that The Elder Scroll and the Mortal Kombat ones are swimming well enough. hbdragon88 04:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As are WikiProject Final Fantasy and the Devil May Cry Task force.  It's hit or miss, really, depending on how serious the creators are. --PresN 04:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm.  Games factor in there too.  I think Nintendo Wars was doomed as you could count the number of localized games on one hand (AW/2/DS and Battliion Wars), which makes for difficult article creation.  The games of the Kirby franchise seem comporable to Final Fantasy and The Elder Scrolls, but the project seemed to only be pushed by two editors, DisasterKirby and A Link to the Past. hbdragon88 05:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kirby's Dream Land project was more a fault of a fall-out between separatists and mergists - because we didn't see eye-to-eye, a couple of editors were not interested in cooperating within the project (I believe they left for the Kirbypedia on that one Kirby web site). If more people were interested and not so antagonistic towards each other, I think the project could manage by itself. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animal Crossing task force 

message: I have proposed that the expanded versions of Pokémon Red and Blue (Pokémon Yellow and Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen) be merged into the main article. Please discuss on the talk page. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger of new versions of Pokémon Red and Blue 

message: Over on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Platform game, someone asked for an animated screenshot, so I created an example, :Image:Super mario world.gif. Took about 5 minutes to make with the right tools. The thing is that the image is 3 megabytes (1.6MB as a thumbnail). What do people think, is this too big to include in an article? Does anyone know of a way that animated gifs can be further compressed, or would it be better to use png or something? JACOPLANE • 2007-08-18 23:23
:There are definitely things you can do to help. Remember, GIF is a 256 color format, and, while it can eliminate redundancies between frames and offers some RLE compression, it's not going to be able to do that very well if your source is   32 bit. When you record the video, it should be a 1:1 scale with no filtering or interpolation effects on. When you record, you should record in raw, uncompressed format. When you convert to GIF, make sure to use a global palette and not a per-frame palette, and make sure its optimized to use a transparency mask, and crop to dirty rectangles. 
:No matter what you do, some sequences are going to be pretty big. SNES games are about the limit of what you're going to get a decently optimized GIF of. Older games like NES and such you'll have much better results. Frogacuda 01:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current size - even 1.6MB, is much too big for an article - remember, we provide information for everyone, even dial up users ;)  It may also go against print philosophy. Giggy Talk 01:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sound and music extracts are also against print philosophy. If it's too big, just link it as an inline text link like you did in this section. Kariteh 08:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Print philosophy?  What's so great about Wikipedia is that it's not print.  We can do things traditional print encyclopedias can't.  In general, I think animated images, when used judiciously, can greatly enhance an article.  But, yeah, at 1.6MB, it is probably too big to use directly in the article.  But a link to it would be great. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 12:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This image by Frogacuda is only 330K, and is being used in Platform game now: :Image:Wonder boy platform.gif. JACOPLANE • 2007-08-20 16:47
I made a really low quality image at Supreme Commander, very small too. Using Paint Shop Pro animation thingy. User:Krator (t c) 23:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: While animated gifs certainly enhance an article, you're really stretching fair use guidelines Corpx 06:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animated screenshots 

message: Since it's been a while since the last update, I thought I'd remind everyone that I've uploaded the latest version of the CVG Infobox maker. This version finally generates the correct year, genre and stub categories since we dropped the "computer" part in titles. Feel free to let me know if you see anything that needs fixing. Thanks! --ADeveria 11:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, thanks for the fixes! Marasmusine 15:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: CVG Infobox Maker Update

message: Out of all things video games you don't have a WikiProject on tbe Super Mario series? The very character is the longest lasting video game character (next to Donkey Kong of course) for 26 years! Surely since you have the Ledgend of Zelda (Link) series WikiProject I would think you would have the Mario series WikiProject too. I'm sure that there are plenty of Mario fans and willing contributors who are ready to start on a project of this subject. Think of it, you could have the games, the characters, walkthroughs of the games, development, the creators, etc. because as we all know the Mushroom Kingdom is a HUGE one. So why can't we put it as one of our priorities and upgrade the quality of all the articles in this area to FA standard and get our moustached friend featured? I think it's worth it. Mario is, after all, one of the driving forces behind Nintendo and would to the world of good to the Nintendo Project as well as Video Game Project too. What do you say? If you all accept, could someone put it on the To Do list? Thanks in advance.
Please excuse my lack of Wiki code as I don't know it very well.
Mush Man 10:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd think so, but even the zelda project has very few active contributors. I've noticed that the more you divide a wikiproject, the fewer people are actually involved. That in mind, I see no reason why not to try it out, although I personaly wouldn't attach myself to it. I'm not sure how to propose a project or task force, however, but I'm sure one of the other regular editors here could help you out. DurinsBane87 10:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, be aware: From this line:  "Think of it, you could have the games, the characters, walkthroughs of the games, development, the creators, etc. because as we all know the Mushroom Kingdom is a HUGE one." Games, development, and creatores are notable, major characters can be noted out of universe but see the discussion about Goombas above.  Walkthroughs are NOT appropriate for Wikipedia inclusion.  And again, like the Goombas, while the Mushroom Kingdom is "HUGE", you need to have out-of-universe references for this.  You may be better off looking to see what The Nintendo CVG Sub-project is doing and work with them, since the Mario games would be bounded by this one (and they have subtasks for other games). Masem 10:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, I see. Thanks for your quick responses. Sorry for the walkthroughs point. I do read rules, but not extensivly. I still think that since there is a Zelda Project there should be a Mario one since Mario is bigger and more well known than Zelda and Link (but I'm not comparing them in quality. Zelda is quite good too, although I've only recently got into it). Apparently, Mario is as well known, if not more so, than Mickey Mouse. That's an achievement, though I'm not sure if the source is completely relible. You see. I will also post this in Nintendo Project because it also belongs there too. If any mods could respond I'd be greatful to see your point of views too!
Mush Man 10:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While this isn't an AFD, reading WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS might be useful. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been doing some more looking around and I find it hard to believe that the Mario article doesn't even have GA status amd it's not on Wikipedia Version 0.5! Let's try to get this project off the ground so that one day, Mario will be on Wikipedia v1.0! What do you think?
Also, I read the article above and I agree that there shouldn't be an article on every single Mario character in existance. But the quality of the Mario related articles should be improved. And, sorry, I feel the need to express my opinion here, but I am very surprised that there's an article on EVERY single Pokemon. Wow. Do they have all the characters from the cartoon and games too? And I'm almost sure Mario is more well known than Pokemon. I would just like the quality of the Mario related articles so they are up to scratch.
I just want to add that I've done a bit of Mark-Up on this page so it's clear on where the posts start and finishs. If you wouldn't mind, if someone could put a line under their posts when they've finished just to make it cleaner. The code is < hr > but don't type the spaces (I only did because if I didn't, it would put a line there). And if you have a really important point, don't be afraid to make a sub heading. To do this, surround your heading with 3 =s. Thanks in advance. I also place (Active Topic) after the topic name as I think this topic still needs some attention.
Mush Man 06:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Pokemon no longer have their own pages, it's broken up as 10 to a page.  Turns out that even the Pokemon project eventually had to acknowledge that most of them aren't individually notable.  --PresN 14:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Quick question? What's with all the horizontal lines? - X201 11:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The colon indentations are supposed to be used to distinguish between posts, not horizontal lines. Ashnard Talk Contribs 11:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the Pokemon - Mario compare subject, I just said it's hard for me to believe that every single Pokemon gets a page or a spot on Wikipedia. My arguement is not to write an article on every single Mario related character, but to improve the quality of all Mario related articles and maybe make a few necissary ones. I believe that quality wins over quantity. And it is quite true. But rather than disputes about some little things, can we get some action? I'm a free user as you should see and I don't know who would be the one to present my plan or idea to. So I'm posting this publicly in the hope that some people who knows the ropes can use them to improve a substantial part of the Nintendo and Video Game articles. I can't do it myself, but in numbers, we can improve the quality of the Mario related articles.
Please don't remove the lines. I inserted them to indicate the different posts of the people. Without them, it's hard to distinguish where someone starts a post and where the next person takes over. Please leave them alone. Thanks.
Mush Man 11:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but those lines are extremely distracting to other editors. I just tried formatting it a little better for you, but those lines are unnecessary, and stop removing your signature. It's there for a reason. DurinsBane87 16:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Since this conversation is more NES than VG, and this conversation was started in two places, please take the rest of this conversation to WP:NES. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 18:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject - Nintendo - Super Mario Series? 

message: :Category:Video games based on films needs to have it's subcategories gone through, as it's getting cluttered. In my view: things with 0-3 contents probably should go (some exceptions could exist I guess). Small categories aren't helpful for navigating in my view. This is also a form of overcategorization.  RobJ1981 06:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anyone want to help with category cleaning?

message: Something I forgot to mention! Articles using the CVG template which feature the dates 31 December or 1 January have been included in :Category:Video games with suspected incorrect release dates. There's not as many as I thought there was going to be, but anyone who wants to help sort them out, please do. Also please try to find a correct date if possible rather than just removing the day and month, although obviously this will often not be possible. Magazine review dates can be broadly useful, for example a game reviewed in October 1992 could be given a date of "late 1992" which is better than simply "1992". Cheers then, Miremare 00:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release dates 

message: List of Final Fantasy media is being proposed for demotion here. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Final Fantasy media 

message: Reference Page                                                                                            	Aug 6 2007                                                                                                	Aug 25 2007
VG Essential articles                                                                                     	                                                                                                          	225/693
VG Featured articles                                                                                      	92/228                                                                                                    	76/229
VG Good articles                                                                                          	134/388                                                                                                   	120/408
                                                                                                          	                                                                                                          	
Command & Conquer TF                                                                                      	15/43†                                                                                                    	13/72
Devil May Cry TF                                                                                          	5/10‡                                                                                                     	5/12
Grand Theft Auto TF                                                                                       	2/24†                                                                                                     	8/39
Silent Hill TF                                                                                            	8/31†                                                                                                     	3/15
Suikoden TF                                                                                               	0/1                                                                                                       	0/1
Visual novels TF                                                                                          	                                                                                                          	20/84
                                                                                                          	                                                                                                          	
WikiProject Halo                                                                                          	                                                                                                          	35/102
WikiProject MMO games                                                                                     	                                                                                                          	149/550
WikiProject Pokémon                                                                                       	233/515 *                                                                                                 	314/495
WikiProject Legend of Zelda                                                                               	                                                                                                          	12/26
WikiProject PlayStation                                                                                   	                                                                                                          	66/211
WikiProject Square Enix                                                                                   	                                                                                                          	117/281
                                                                                                          	                                                                                                          	
FA Nintendo articles                                                                                      	                                                                                                          	
11/23
GA Nintendo articles                                                                                      	                                                                                                          	
18/56
‡, †, and * denote that an inferior scanning method was used.The numbers are given as linkrot / suspected.	‡, †, and * denote that an inferior scanning method was used.The numbers are given as linkrot / suspected.	‡, †, and * denote that an inferior scanning method was used.The numbers are given as linkrot / suspected.
I had selected the VG WikiProject since dependent on many constantly changing online sources.  The scanning method was changed to use the references from the wikilinks on the talk page.  In this most recent scan I've updated the software providing more information on the redirects links, improved the dictionaries, and a tweaked the scoring system.  And the JavaScript interface has seen some adjustment, though still not complete yet.
Between the two scan we can see some improvement.  However, the lead digit should be near zero.  Dead links are a citation problem and should be treated as such.
I'm still look to improve the interface, so feedback is appreciated.  —Dispenser 22:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Got the Silent Hill pages done and added more scans of wikiprojects.  —Dispenser 16:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Halo 2 is nearly done, I'm searching for some similar pages to replace refs. Should be done by Monday, and then I'll start wacking the others at WP:HALO. David Fuchs (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead external links 

message: Just recently a  tag has been placed on this article's page.  I figured that I would post a note to this effect here so that those who would know appropriate sources/references for Graeme's work can add them to the article in order to verify his notability, and ultimately keep this article from being deleted.  Thanks.  --Craw-daddy | T | 10:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you know how to, you could reference from the external links on his page. I know the first is from his own website, but you could use the other site to establish notability and his own site to verify what's in the article. You should also be able to use this: Amazon profile. Thank you. Ashnard Talk Contribs 10:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Graeme Davis (game author)]]

message: # Has there been/would there be use for a PC Game requirements template?  While I know the Infobox CVG template has a "requirements" field, this is usually too small for most modern PC games, and these have usually taken to a table within the body of the article to report these, specifically including the reported minimum and recommended fields.   I would figure such a template would account for older games where there's only "recommended" versions, and where other things are lacking (certain video cards, etc.)   Furthermore, I would recommend this be a template that could be hidden/rolled-up, or have an option for such a version.
# In doing the Crazy Taxi series article, in which I use the hidden CVG infobox template, I got to thinking, would it make sense for other game series articles to include, via a hidden CVG infobox, the infobox details, with the game page using the non-hidden version?  The Crazy Taxi case is special (as I'm still proposing deleting non-notable game pages and grouping them there), but take a series like Ratchet & Clank (series), where each game is notable and there would still be a separate page for each game.  This would help for someone researching the series to see dates, platforms, developers, etc on the single page without having to click too far off.  The only problem I can see that I've yet to figure out is that to avoid having two separate places to edit the info in the infobox.  I tried a couple transclusion approaches where a subpage of the game article would have all the fields but not the actual template name , so that in the game page I could use the non-hidden infobox, and in the series page, the hidden version, but that didn't work, and I'm struggling on the WP documentation to see if that is at all possible.  If there is absolutely no way to do this, I would not even recommend this approach, but if it can be done, I think there's some value to it.  --Masem 17:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea to me, but don't call PC specifically, let other platforms use it too! Miremare 20:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm assuming you mean other platforms like Mac and Linux, etc., as consoles pretty much have fixed requirements that can be easily captured by the current Infobox (eg., an Eyetoy game requiring an Eyetoy camera can easily fit). --Masem 23:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, those and older computers too. Miremare 00:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd argue that the proposed template should only be used if it is unreasonable to fill in the existing "requirements" field in the CVG infobox.  Example: "Zork"'s requirements should likely fit in the CVG box, the first Doom maybe, and BioShock, definitely not (though if a representtative subset of the reqs can be put there, the better). --Masem 01:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking more about older multi-format releases where the system requirements for various platforms (mostly only memory requirements, but still) tend to clutter up the infobox if listed. Especially early 90's releases when there were so many active 8 and 16 bit platforms around. Miremare 02:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The list would expand if Physic cards become a significant gaming addition, for example, but for the time being, I don't know what else could be added that incorporate older games too.  All parameters would be optional and like infobox, will not display if not entered.  To be pretty, if a recommended requirement is the same as the minimum (like OS for example), using a recommended parameter set to "same" would colspan the details of minimum into req.
Am I missing anything obvious here?  I'm thinking this is a good thing to wrap my head completely around templates.  I'd follow a format as the :Template:ArticleHistory would do, where the first platform fields would all be followed by "1", and then "2" for the second, and so forth, ignoring any non-filled in numbers. --Masem 14:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds good. I'd go with that, there's nothing I can think of that you've missed out. Miremare 17:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some template thoughts 

message: Doom has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Ashnard Talk Contribs 19:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doom FAR 

message: People looking to write "series" articles have occasionally noticed that while there are several Good Articles about series, there aren't any Featured Article about a series yet to serve as a model for the other articles of the same kind. However, Mana (series) and Kingdom Hearts (series) have now been nominated as Featured Article candidates. This is a unique situation in the project's history; please help comment, fix, vote, etc. at these two articles' FAC entries. Kariteh 22:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone wants to copy-edit Mana (series)? That would be nice. Kariteh 14:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Series" articles FACs