Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 22

message: Ok, in line with the "Computer and Video Game" moniker, I've started a list of chapter titles, please help fill this out before we move to a concensus. This list needs to include markers for handheld systems and arcade I belive. Also we need to make sure that all catagories are inclusive of top platforms outside of the U.S.!
Mainframe gaming (????-198?) -- covers Digital (Adventure), MIT (Zork, SpaceWars), etc... as many of the early arcade and PC games originated and/or were developed from these platforms
Pong Era (196?-197?) -- covers the first home game systems
2600 / Colecovision / Intellivision / Odyssey (1977-1983) -- covers 2600, Colecovision, intelivision, etc...
Apple II / Atari / Commodore / IBM / MSX (197?-1986) -- covers PC 1st gen pc gaming - Apple // series, C64 series, Sinclair, RadioShack CoCo, IBM-PC, etc...
Master System / NES
Amiga / Apple IIgs & Mac / Atari ST / DOS / Sinclair / X68000 (1986-1992?) -- covers PC 2nd gen
Genesis / SNES / PC-Engine
Macintosh / PC gaming (1992-1996)
Jaguar / N64 / PlayStation / Saturn / 3DO
Macintosh / Windows (1996-current)
Dreamcast / Nintendo GameCube / PlayStation 2 / XBOX
PlayStation 3 / Wii / XBOX360
(title list started by: BcRIPster 18:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For computer and video games as a whole category, this seems pretty appropriate, except I would make sure to include handhelds:
Game Boy (and Pocket) / Lynx / TurboExpress / Game Gear (1988-1998)
Game Boy Color / Neo-Geo Pocket Color / WonderSwan Color (1998-2001)
GBA / GamePark 32 / N-Gage / Zodiac (2001- )
PSP / DS / Gizmondo / GP2X (2004- )
But for the console wars article, where a lot of this debate comes from, I wouldn't necessarily include Mac/PC or Mac/Win as really right now I don't know of many significant games being released on Mac OS X.  Also, the PC Vs Mac war was never about gaming, nor are these systems considered "consoles" by gamers today.--Crossman33 22:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, it is kinda complicated, but either it's this, or staying with the current system, changing back to the awful "bittage/generation name" system, or going date-based.  I would throw out the bittage/generation name system because it's too arbitrary.  Besides, we can explain the names in the actual article itself.  The current system isn't too bad, but is also somewhat arbitrary, although it could be acceptable with some minor changes.  I think we should hold a poll over what to use.  Our options:
1. Current system as it is
2. Group all names in title w/ years
3. Date-based, years only
Please state any other options if you have any in mind, and then we should hold a poll.--Crossman33 02:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's start a new index/title list 

message: *I vote for 2. Gepstein 18:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll

message: Should some Wii games be in both of these cats: :Category:Wii games, :Category:Wii-only games?  I was wondering, because of the note on the top of the Wii-only cat that says all the articles in that cat belong in Wii games as well.  My opinion is: I don't think so, it's a form of overcategorization (to me at least). What does everyone else think? RobJ1981 18:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they should be in "Wii-only games" - it's logical that they are also Wii games if they're Wii-only. --VPeric 18:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the need for Wii-only. Just put em all in Wii-games. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 18:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Category question

message: I need some help with .  I fixed it so that the start-class spiel goes inside the box, but now the thing has "Runscape" outside of the box.  I copied from the cvgproj template to try to fix it, but I can't... Hbdragon88 09:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a go and got close see this version. It looked OK on the Template page but didn't quite work on the discussion page. I've restored it to how it was before I had a go at it. Will try again later, in non-work time - X201 12:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks to both of you.  Parser functions was making my mind go screwy...also, lol at misspelling runescape and runscape. I didn't catch that. Hbdragon88 21:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template help 

message: I've been considering adding Awards sections to several of the older classic games articles from the NES and SNES eras. However, there is the issue of whether certain awards are of merit. I was thinking about criteria that might qualify an award (or conversely, disqualify).
Meritable qualifications:
Is awarded from a verifiable printed/published source and should be preferably cited.
Can include publications that can be considered under first-party control (i.e. Nintendo Power, Official PS Magazine, etc.), but only limited to console games.
Includes awards that based on popular vote, sales, and/or usage statistics.
Disqualifications:
Is awarded by a single person/entity, particularly including editorials.
Is awarded by a publisher or developer of games, if not a console game.
Award is immaterial, non-sequitor (sic) to the intrinsic or monetary value of the game (i.e. the Milk Farmers' Association of America Award goes to Burgertime!)
Awards might definitely fit under trivia, but I wanted to know other gamers' feelings on the issue.
Sanjiyan 21:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Award sections 

message: somebody should archive this page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.117.168.53 (talk) 01:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  archive 

message: As of now: there is 6370 computer and video game stubs! This is the biggest class of articles currently for the CVG project (start class is second with 4541 currently). Since I'm bored with just assessing, I'm going to go through stubs: improve them, change them to the proper class (when needed) and so on. There is many articles that are very borderline and just need a little bit of work to be at least a start, while there is others that need alot of work. Anyone want to help out? See :Category:Computer and video game stubs and :Category:Stub-Class computer and video game articles for full listings. RobJ1981 15:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably a good time to kill some unencyclopedic articles, as well. I just proded Abandoned ship as it described a generic feature in many games. This is really indiscriminate. But some of them just can't be helped unless they are deleted. For instnace, how would you expand Nintendo Puzzle Collection? Hbdragon88 05:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The games in it should be described : plus a link to the game article as well. So a Dr. Mario section: with a link to the full article, and a small description. Repeat for the other games, and that's the article (in my opinion). RobJ1981 20:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stubs are getting big, anyone want to help?

message: I was doing some assessing when I came across this article: Architecture of The Elder Scrolls. That title, to me, screams original research. The page lists many references, but upon inspection they are all from the same site, http://til.gamingsource.net/, not exactly something I would call a reliable source. I'm not very familiar with The Elder Scrolls series so I wanted to get a 2nd opinion before I prod or AFD it. —Mitaphane ?|! 23:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It freely mixes fan-guides and primary sources (which are reposted at the fansite) in its sources, so yeah, I think it ought to go. Nifboy 01:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second (or third) that. I forgot it even existed. I would have done something about it a long time ago if I did.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit me  §  Contributions ♣ 01:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, about that site, yes, most of the information is OR and fan fiction, though some info about the story and events is true. Anything that comes from that site that is not about the story is total fan fiction.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit me  §  Contributions ♣ 01:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You know, I would have thought it uncontroversial. Oh well. Nifboy 15:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research? 

message: Hi, I've tried to find something for definite on this subject but come up empty handed, could someone take a look at the Zombie Zone page for me?
The game is part of a pretty large and ongoing series known in Japan as The Oneechanbara, but this particular game has been released in PAL territories as Zombie Zone. I recently changed the article name to reflect this, but the article creator has changed it back and labelled this as "tampering". I thought that it was strange to have the Japanese title when an English-language one was available.
The English-language version was released by a small Italian publisher, 505 GameStreet, with an advertising budget of about £0.37, hence the lack of reviews to cite. Another of the series, which is the same game but with two additional characters, is being released in Europe by another firm (a trading-arm of the Japanese publisher) as Zombie Hunters, making no reference to either the original Japanese name or Zombie Zone.
Whilst I've always taken it as read that it's preferable to have the English-language name, some guidance on this matter from the CVG project would be appreciated for future reference. Cheers QuagmireDog 23:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Might want to go look at the WP:ANIME talk page, as there's been plenty of discussion over there about this issue. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 00:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The only "real" naming convention is "Use whatever's most well known in English". If whatever passes for an "official" English name is neither well-known nor consistent (as seems to be the case based solely upon the above information), then it's fine to stick with the Japanese. "Official"-ness isn't much of a consideration: I still prefer Doukutsu Monogatari over Cave Story, but that's how it is. Nifboy 00:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming conventions - English language vs Japanese romanization (sp?) 

message: Since not a lot of people seem to be aware of it, I'd like to give a shout out about the newish Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games/Assessment.  Currently it's used for people to request for someone to look at an article and assess it, aka give it a rating and possibly a short list of pointers.  If interest grows, it is planned to include a formalized A-class assessment, similar to the MilHist's A class subgroup.  So, come on by!  Nominate an article!  Assess one!  I'll at least look at any nominated articles, so you'll get more feedback than you get at Peer Review these days.  --PresN 06:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CVG Assessment 

message: I come, again, about the same article; this article has experienced much strife, mainly edit warring. The current issues with said article are: lack of sources and content disputes. I bring this up again because I feel that this page needs to be assessed now. It's experienced a low (or no) amount of attention, recently, yet this is, possibly, one of the most warred-over video game pages. Frankly, at this point, I don't really care what happens to the article, as long as it's reasonable and thought-out. I just feel this article needs to be assessed. Just look at the archives of past discussions and you'll know exactly what I'm talkin about.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit me  §  Contributions ♣ 06:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might not want to hear this, but I think this is a sign the article should be deleted. The problem with this article is the same with many of wikipedia articles about minor fictional groups/characters; the sources, outside of the game's story, don't exist (WP:V). Edit warring will continue because there is no definite sources that will tell you every single detail of a fictional gang in the GTA series. All this article could ever hope to be is an interpretation taken from all the game stories (WP:OR).—Mitaphane ?|! 03:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to agree with Mitaphane here. The fact that the info's unsourced to begin with already made it a prime target for AfD; the edit-warring you're describing means that this article needs to be put out of it's misery soon, and the namespace salted. NeoChaosX  (talk, walk) 03:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, as far as sourcing is concerned, I'm quite confident that this info can be sourced by the Brady Games' strategy guides; plus, as for edit warring, as of now, it's only been a select number of people, and, I can personally say that, even with sourcing, they might still try to get their incorrect viewpoint across on the article. It's not even really large amounts of info; It's really just the names of the gangs people war over because of said incorrect viewpoints. Plus, the gangs can be classified as characters under WP:FICT. The only major problem is, once again, people's incorrect viewpoints. Go check the respective talk page archives to see what i mean.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit me  §  Contributions ♣ 03:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of gangs in Grand Theft Auto series]] fiasco 

message: Why a "Computer games developed by BioWare" frame on a page about a non-BioWare game?
The Witcher uses BioWare's Aurora engine, but is developed by CD Projekt, not BioWare.
87.250.174.76 23:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[The Witcher (computer game)|The Witcher]] – BioWare 

message: I'd like to request some help in sorting articles in  into the appropriate subcategories, namely  and  if applicable for that company (or other applicable categories). Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 13:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Computer and video game companies 

message: Magnetica has been moved to Shunkan Puzzloop, despite the former being more appropriate. And the moving user edited Magnetica, preventing it from being moved back. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magnetica 

message: I've come across what looks like an attempt to hijack :Category:Computer and video games and move it to :Category:Video games.  This name change and its effects on it child categories would be massive and I couldn't find any discussion of it on WP:CFD or here, so I started to revert it.  However, as I started doing reverts, I noticed more than one person doing the edits, so I have to wonder did I miss the conversation, or was my first impression correct? Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Up there, under 'Project name'. Marasmusine 23:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still needs to go through CFD for teh categories though, even with the redirects you've been putting in place.  Not everyone who might be interested will have been watching here or the talk page on the Computer and video games (now Video game).  As it is now, this change has the appearance of an attempt to make a change by stealth.  I don't care which name is used, but considering the large number of articles and categories this affects, it needs to be widely discussed not cabalized. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Serves me right for trying to be helpful, s'pose. I'll not touch anything more until a concensus has been reached. Perhaps BcRIPster will be up for organizing the CfD. Marasmusine 00:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't blame you, now that I'm able to see where this is coming from, I doubt if this will generate any controversy, but the lack of a CFD caused me to wonder if someone was trying to vandalize things, especially when the the redirecting of :Category:Computer and video games to :Category:Video games was done by an anonymous IP. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was not a blind effort, the change of the master articles name from "Computer and video games" to "Video game" did go through both discussion and a vote. The idea to change catagories came as a result of that change. After reading the CfD page I'm concerned about the burden of adding this tag to the hundreds of CVG catagory pages, unless I'm missing something here. BcRIPster 01:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the idea was to sweep this across all usages to correct the mixed use of terminology... hence the revision of the Video game page itself. I have changed the CfD from speedy to regular though and added the qualifier regarding a possible super-catagory of "electronic games". BcRIPster 03:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Standardising in the body text is OK, but the main article should at least cover the different terminology before doing so.  Alai 05:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then please feel free to help us do this in the main article. There is a discussion of the revisions to be made going on, on the video game talk page.BcRIPster 03:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible category hijack? 

message: I dunno what happened, but the :Category:Game covers is messed up. Everything is kind of lumped together now. User:ONUnicorn did something to it (), but I dunno what to do. Thunderbrand 02:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed it and marked :Category:Game covers for speedy deletion as it is redundant to :Category:Computer and video game covers. As soon as the backlog catches up the categories will be taken care of. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 13:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. It was worrying me a bit. Thunderbrand 16:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game-cover category messed up 

message: Hi everyone. It seems we need some moderation in the PSP article, as we have one user accusing the other of owning the article, another one accusing one of being an idiot, and it's generally taking up far too much bandwidth (precious...). If someone would like to step in to arbitrate, it would be much appreciated. Arkhiver 10:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moderation on the [[PlayStation portable|PSP]] article needed

message: Final Fantasy weapons is another good example of listcruft that should be put on a fan wiki. Why should it be an exception, just because it's a popular series?  Weapon lists, item lists, vehicle lists and so on are still the same: cruft that belongs elsewhere. Anyone want to comment about this? Wikipedia isn't a collection of information (which is a guideline that seems to be ignored quite alot when these lists get made). Can some sort of guideline be agreed on about lists?  In a section above, there is several Zelda listcruft articles as well. This problem doesn't seem to be improving much. RobJ1981 21:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go here.  We're working on it.  The Gameplay of Final Fantasy article they're talking about in the Cruft Removal section was started in user space just a couple of days ago, and stuff is getting merged in right now.  --PresN 23:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, remember that there are numerous other issues on Wikipedia other than listcruft. Things take time. — Deckiller 00:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Listcruft discussion

message: :The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Add  # Support  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
====Game====
# Support If someone was to say "I like Mortal Kombat", I would think they were talking about the game, and not the series as a whole. Generally, I think people tend to add the word 'series' when they are talking of such. I think people would be more likely to say "I like the Final Fantasy series" rather than just "I like Final Fantasy". As such, I expect the article on the series to include the word 'series' in it.--SeizureDog 17:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That debate doesn't seem to be very helpful. It's confusing, and I'm not quite sure what was decided. However, I feel that disambig pages should be handled on a case by case basis, and only when there are three or more links to include. However, most of these really only have the game then the series. I'm not entirely against disambig pages with just two links, but that doesn't seem to be Wikipolicy unless the two articles are equally well known. Arrested Development is one of the very few two link disambigs I've seen.--SeizureDog 02:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I always though the naming policy for games was to give it the name that is listed on its cover. For example: Red Alert is Command & Conquer: Red Alert and not Red Alert (game). In that light, the answer would seem to be redirect to the game when if it was specifically named that at one point (e.g. Final Fantasy, Metal Gear, The Legend of Zelda, etc. ). —Mitaphane ?|! 06:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I would agree there. The (series) articles are best used when every game (or most) in the series follows a similar format, so you don't have to repeat the same information every time for the gameplay section.--SeizureDog 01:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Game to main
*:Bomberman (1983 game) → :Bomberman — See above. —SeizureDog 20:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Disambig to main
*:Final Fantasy → :Final Fantasy (series) — Likely the most controversial of any of these moves. —SeizureDog 20:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the main article be for the series or the first game? 

message: :Add  # Support  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
====Game====
# Support If someone was to say "I like Mortal Kombat", I would think they were talking about the game, and not the series as a whole. Generally, I think people tend to add the word 'series' when they are talking of such. I think people would be more likely to say "I like the Final Fantasy series" rather than just "I like Final Fantasy". As such, I expect the article on the series to include the word 'series' in it.--SeizureDog 17:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: # Support If someone was to say "I like Mortal Kombat", I would think they were talking about the game, and not the series as a whole. Generally, I think people tend to add the word 'series' when they are talking of such. I think people would be more likely to say "I like the Final Fantasy series" rather than just "I like Final Fantasy". As such, I expect the article on the series to include the word 'series' in it.--SeizureDog 17:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Game

message: #Oppose [game], sort of not sure. There are some cases where the entire series is obviously more notable than the games they originated from. I'm also sort of concerned about something else: in the case of, say, Final Fantasy, what is the proper name for the series? If the series is actually called Final Fantasy, why should it be moved to Final Fantasy (series)? With a parenthetical disambiguator in a title, we would still be acknowledging that the series was just Final Fantasy, and the franchise is obviously (I hope) more notable as a series than as a single NES game. This argument could be applied to other cases, too. Voretus 21:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Series

message: I disagree with SeizureDog's assesment. I've found "I like Final Fantasy" is usually talk about the series, if not a specific game in the series that isn't the first (VII for instance). Frankly I don't care much which way this goes, as long as there is a standard. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 17:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That debate doesn't seem to be very helpful. It's confusing, and I'm not quite sure what was decided. However, I feel that disambig pages should be handled on a case by case basis, and only when there are three or more links to include. However, most of these really only have the game then the series. I'm not entirely against disambig pages with just two links, but that doesn't seem to be Wikipolicy unless the two articles are equally well known. Arrested Development is one of the very few two link disambigs I've seen.--SeizureDog 02:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I always though the naming policy for games was to give it the name that is listed on its cover. For example: Red Alert is Command & Conquer: Red Alert and not Red Alert (game). In that light, the answer would seem to be redirect to the game when if it was specifically named that at one point (e.g. Final Fantasy, Metal Gear, The Legend of Zelda, etc. ). —Mitaphane ?|! 06:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I would agree there. The (series) articles are best used when every game (or most) in the series follows a similar format, so you don't have to repeat the same information every time for the gameplay section.--SeizureDog 01:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Multiple page swaps requested per discussion here in which it has been determined that the main article space should be for the first game and not the series. While not as fully clear, it was also mostly determined by the conversation that articles with multiple (3+) pages of the same title should have the main space for disambiguation. Also, it's entirely possible that I'm missing a bunch of articles that also need to be moved, as, quite unhelpfully, there is no category for video game series.
:Game to main
*:Bomberman (1983 game) → :Bomberman — See above. —SeizureDog 20:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disambig to main
*:Final Fantasy → :Final Fantasy (series) — Likely the most controversial of any of these moves. —SeizureDog 20:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pages to be moved taken from the WP:RM request 

message: I posted on the talk page of List of Wii titles days ago, and got no response. Maybe some people here can help clear this up. Should it be titles or games?  It was moved to titles by another editor, because Wii Music isn't a game. I read about it, and it's indeed a game. Should the article be back as games in the article name?  What about List of Virtual Console titles (and it's related pages)? I see no proof there is any non-games for the Virtual Console at all. As per other system/console lists: all are listed as games. What does everyone else think about this? I was going to just change the article back to games, but I decided to ask her first. RobJ1981 20:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be changed to games, as per "List of (N64, Nintendo GameCube, Virtual Boy...) Games".  They're all titled that.  --PresN 22:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Games for a system list: List vs Titles name discussion

message: I noticed that the Nuvola image that is a universal CVG symbol is PNG and needs to be SVGized. At the same time, it is not polished and modern. Some ideas:
*Take the Mega Drive 3-button controller and make it into a new CVG logo, but make it silver and not black.
*Create an outline of the iconic Nintendo 64 controller.
*Stylize the outline of the Dreamcast controller.
*Re-design the existing Nuvola image to a dog-bone SNES design.
*Create an outline of the PlayStation controller.
Just throwing around an idea. TRKtv (daaaaah!) 05:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm utterly against the use of the N64, Dreamcast, and Sega Mega Drive controllers. I think what best represents gaming as a whole would be a joystick, even though it is not in use. The next best alternative would be the Dual Shock design (best selling, I think) and after that the NES controller; just because of its d-pad invention. --Teggles 03:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absoulutey No for the DualShock. I think the SNES controller is the best pic, either that or the NES. N64 would be acceptable. TJ Spyke 04:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: As Teggles says, the Atari 2600 joystick controller is clearly the most iconic to video games as a whole in my opinion.--SeizureDog 19:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: W00t! Commander Keen :D Fond memories there. Funny though, I never knew about that controller. I notice the image has the "bumps" reversed though. --SeizureDog 20:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New logo ideas 

message: I want to join forces with you to make some good first person shooter articles.
Games include:
*America's Army
*Battlefield 1942
*and many more.
If you are interested please tell me.
--Destructo 087 22:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course! Just join and go. That's CVG! TRKtv (daaaaah!) 22:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: These articles of course, already exist, but if you'd like to work with us on improving them, that's good!  If you want any help with something, let us know.  SubSeven 08:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Person Shooters 

message: I want to build and start referencing the article Oasis (computer game), but after checking WP:FOOT and getting ready to start using the "<ref>" tags, I've noticed there's another method being used for the article's single citation, using a "" tag. I dunno if it's because I'm blind but I didn't see that in the footnote how-to - will it cause a problem if I re-align that citation in a "<ref>" style and continue in that vein? I'm aware that changing from one form of referencing to another without consensus is a no-no, but I'm waiting to start work on this article and not sure what to do. Any suggestions appreciated. (I'm unfamiliar with referencing, this will be my first attempt).
- 07:42, 6 February 2007 QuagmireDog
:I say go ahead and convert it to <ref> tags.  I don't think it's a problem, since there's only one "ref" there right now.  --PresN 16:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it would be either, my only motivation for doing so is "I can figure out how to work this version", rather than "my way is better" or some other arrogant thought. Thanks, I'll see if anyone else has an opinion and if not start in a couple of days. QuagmireDog 12:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done :) Hopefully I'll be able to pick up speed and get the hang of referencing - it's one of those jobs with CVG articles that could be done repeatedly for an overall benefit. In the meantime I'll try to build this article up more and get the hang of images too. QuagmireDog 02:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing with footnotes: changing from one format to another 

message: I'm considering sending this to AfD as original research and fancruft, but just wanted to get someone elses opinion on it first. Thanks very much, The Kinslayer 11:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't strike me as original research. It's not as well cited as perhaps it could be, but articles on items and abilities are not uncommon.  Compare Items in the Metroid series which was also nominated for deletion, but kept after consensus was reached as to its significance in the Metroid series. -- Exitmoose 00:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Opinion requested on [[Soul Unison]] 

message: Hudson Soft has posted a note asking readers to help improve Hudson related articles. Check here. While I see nothing wrong here, note that such public calls usually bring as many helpful as vandals, so if you can, keep watch in the articles they have listed there. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 01:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Keep watch in Hudson-related articles

message: As I looked at both Wii Play and Wii Sports, the games sections seem like a "how to play the game" guide. Wikipedia isn't a guide, shouldn't all this information be removed?  The Wii has unique controls: but that doesn't mean each game article for Wii games should list the controls. Gaming sites are how people learn how to play the game, as are instruction booklets. In my opinion: Wikipedia shouldn't be an online instruction booklet/how to play guide. What does everyone else think about this? RobJ1981 05:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Katamari Damacy has a section on controls. Ultimately it's a matter of how significant the controls are to the game. In the case of Wii games, the controls are much more significant than mere button mappings (Pretty much ALL the reviews cover how the controls work and "feel"). Nifboy 06:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: They definitely should be trimmed, but don't burn yourself out over it. A lot of times with articles about TV shows I'll wait to make major edits after a popular season is done or during an episode break, when all the fanboys have gone home, since sometimes if you do it in the middle your efforts are wasted. Not to say we shouldn't do anything at all, but just saying it's a bit expected for the short term. Also, you get a much easier picture after a little bit of time for what is notable and what isn't. -- Ned Scott 06:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose, but it still seems like a how-to guide, that's not the point of Wikipedia. The Wii has been popular since it came out, and shows no signs of slowing down (yet at least), so it will be a while before fanboys go home or whatever the case maybe. Isn't it better to eliminate the problem before there is many Wii games with it? If it's settled now: then we don't have to clean them up later (when it's very out of hand).  RobJ1981 06:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're not quite getting what a "game guide" is (a lot of people have trouble with it). I looked at the Wii Play page, and yes it's a bit instructionish, but most of what's there seems fine. It just needs a bit of cleanup, not the full-fledged cutting your first post seems to imply. Remember, these are GAMES after all, and an article about a game should talk about its gameplay. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wii]] game articles are turning into guides

message: Why not have a standard link to the game's entry on GameFAQs as a method to discourage people populating an article with guide like data? Just a thought... BcRIPster 14:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because A- links are for useful information, so a standard link wouldn't be appropriate, since sometimes there's nothing there, and B- that wouldn't discourage people from putting in game-guide info in the slightest.  --PresN 16:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guide/FAQ issue... 

message: Sorry if it's not appropriate to post this here, but there don't seem to be a whole lot of editors, let alone adminstrators/moderators keeping an eye on the Gran Turismo (series) set of articles.  Gran Turismo 4, in particular, is repeating history wrt to criticisms, and I seem to be the only editor there who remembers the previous history and so I risk getting into a two-person edit war.  Plus it's nice to have second or more opinions.  Hayter, who handled the previous round, appears to be inactive now, and another possible candidate I contacted has not responded.--SportWagon 19:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking for Responsible Gran Turismo Moderators 

message: Back in December I proposed a merger for three fair use templates, Template:Game-cover, Template:Boardgamecover, and Template:RPG-artwork.  I made an effort to publicise the merge on the villiage pump and various places that deal with fair use templates.  After a lot of support on tfd and a lack of opposition elsewhere I attempted the merge on January 15.  Post-merge I've had two objections, one of which said that I "should have brought up the merge with the various projects that manage those covers" (which I thought I was doing when I informed WikiProject Fair use).  The merge has been reverted by the person who said I should have brought up the merge in more places.  So here we go... IF ANYONE FROM THIS PROJECT CARES ABOUT THIS MERGE PLEASE VISIT Template_talk:Game-cover#Merge AND JOIN IN DISCUSSION THERE. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use template 

message: Does anyone know why the Infobox template has been Protected and Admin only since October? No reason for it was placed on the talk page and no maintenance template added to the template page? There's a discussion on the Template discussion page if anyone has anything to add. Thanks - X201 23:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a high risk template used on nearly every video game article. It's protected against collatoral damage, simlar to  or whatever. If you want to edit it, add  and outline what you want. Hbdragon88 00:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Vandalism on that template means vandalism on over 15000 talk  thousands of pages.  Kind of a problem waiting to happen.  --PresN 05:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: CVGInfobox Template Locked

message: In the most recent discussion over the issue of fair use and screen shots, it was suggested that I contact BradPatrick for any legal guidance for Wikipedia on the issue. This morning, much to my dismay he has indicated (and I am paraphrasing) that he does not feel that this is a discussion for him to become involved in, and that the editors should continue to work towards a consensus.
Let that sink in... Ok, so I will take this over to the village pump Wikipedia talk:Fair use
page to have a bigger discussion as I believe after looking at a number of templates, this is a bigger issue than just video game screenshots, and copyright of photos on Wikipedia. See you there.BcRIPster 18:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, I think it's time for the Foundation to come in and start establishing some really solid rules here. This is far, far beyond the scope of what editors should do. This is a legal issue. The "Elimination of Fair Use Rationel on Promotional Photographs" - where a majority voted against outright removal of all promo photos - shows how much we clash with the Foundation in this sticky issue.  They want totally free, and most of us don't swing that far. Hbdragon88 22:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of screenshots allowed (revisited) 

message: Man, it feels like ages since I've logged into my Wikipedia account. Anyways, I was on so I went to see what the article for the bit Generations looked like. Basically this is a seven-game series Nintendo has put out in Japan on the GBA. The games are all very simple in design, graphics, and controls. A couple of the games have articles, but I think they might be better off all in the same article, as the games can be described in just a paragraph or two each. This would also give the main series article itself more substance.  Thoughts? -- gakon5 02:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It seems that all of the relevent game articles are currently stubs, anyway. -- Exitmoose 03:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm on it. It's midnight anyway, so there's not much else to do. -- gakon5 04:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging the bit Generation games into one article 

message: The creator of this article keeps insisting that it deserves an article, even though it's only 1 small paragraph and is already covered in its entirety at Wii Channels. I redirected the page, but he keeps acting like i'm deleting it and won't listen to reason (I even explained that redirecting is not deleting, and that the page offers nothing different than the Wii Channels page). He doesn't seem to want to discuss it on his talk page or at the Wii Channels talk page (where I told him to discuss it). If anybody could help (advice on how to deal with him, some of you maybe talking to him). TJ Spyke 04:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say... put the article in AFD. If it gets deleted: not a big deal. A new channel doesn't need an article just yet. If the channel becomes alot more notable later, then it can get re-added. As of now: it's discussed just fine on the Channels article. RobJ1981 04:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Everybody Votes Channel]] 

message: I just recently started Wikipedia:WikiProject Pinball, and am in the process of adding an appropriate banner for it to the existing set of pinball pages.  At least in pages dealing with specific machines my plan was to replace the existing CVG banner with this new one.  I don't know yet if WPB will ultimately become a task force or child project of an existing one, but for now it seems less confusing to anyone editing the page to only have one project to look to for information, and at least right now it seems that the new project is in a better position to provide the kind of topic-specific assistance an editor would need.  So I'm going to move forward with it, but please discuss it with me as soon as possible if I'm somehow stepping one someone's toes.  Thanks, Fractalchez 04:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't replace the banner. A lot of articles fall in multiple projects- anime games in WP:ANIME and WP:CVG, game developers in WP:BIO and CVG, and so forth.  As Pinball does not fall entirely within CVG, but instead overlaps it in places, consensus has been that both should be left there.  --PresN 06:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, unless you mean just on articles that are about actual pinball machines, not pinball video games?  If that's the case, go right ahead, those aren't really video games, in my opinion.  Just leave the template if it's a pinball game that you play on a computer or console.  --PresN 06:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm sorry, that is what I meant: pinball machines and anything that is pretty much exclusive to the physical pinball world (tournaments, terminology, etc.).  For anything else dual banners, I agree with consensus, seems optimal.  While we're at it, can you direct me to any past discussion on this?  I attempted to find it but wasn't successful.  Much thanks for your help.  Fractalchez 15:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Pinball 

message: I have a collection of about 100 Atari 2600 games. Drop me a note on my talk page if you want a picture taken of one of them. Royalbroil T : C 16:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Atari 2600 images

message: The Wii Play article is now protected due to edit warring over the cover art.  Since when was it dictated that all cover art, be it albums, books or games should be the American version?  The PAL (Australia/Europe) cover art (:Image:Wii Play Europe.jpg) was uploaded in October and used in the article infobox, the American version (:Image:Wii Play.jpg) was uploaded in December and instantly tried to displace the original. Every time a user tagged the image was Orphaned, it was quickly reinserted into the article. With Wii Play's latest release, America is going insane over the pile of mediocrity which it inevitably is, but it's also led to the escalation of the edit war and a subsequent page protection because of it.
I'm generally relaxed with my cover art, I'm usually OK with the art uploaded. For example, Yoshi's Universal Gravitation is back in its original place, yet the game art is American. I've left it like that because I didn't see an overriding reason to get rid of it. The GTA cover art is British, the GTA3 cover art is American. To me, there's never been an overriding "all cover art must be American" rule on Wikipedia, across any of its projects and scope.  I hope it hasn't started applying here to CVG space.
On the Wii Play article, we've seen some generally pissy behaviour from both sides.  User:Timkovski has thrown the word vandal around quite a bit and User:TJ Spyke shifted very easily from his "Don't change until dispute over" to "Don't revert until dispute over" when it suits him.
For me, there are no overwhelming arguments on either side, and I'm quite open to foreign box art as mentioned above.  But what I don't take kindly at, is that cover art images are being removed just because they aren't American.  In the end, protracted arguments with no overwhelming arguments such as article naming, Wikipedia just uses the original/first article name, such as gasoline.  In the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, it states for spelling, "If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoke conflict by changing to another".  This is the kind of attitude I take towards cover art issues.--SeizureDog 01:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that as long as the image is properly sourced, has a fair use rationale, and isn't too big, then whatever version is fine. Thunderbrand 22:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the issue at hand here, is that should we have a high level, "Use only Region-X artwork" rule, or the current laissez-faire attitude.  Should cover art be replaced because it is not from America? Which is what had happened, and might still happen at Wii Play and Kororinpa. Switch it around the other way, should I start replacing American art with European art?  I personally wouldn't, given my stance outlined above, I'm OK with gasoline and aluminium, but others want to. - hahnchen 00:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that if a game is popular in both Europe and America, then we should just have little votes and use the prettier image. For instance, I personally like the cover art for the Euro version of Wii Play bettter than the American release. I do think that if the cover art is the same we should generally use the American version's though, simply because ESRB ratings are so less distracting than PEGI, OFLC, and others'.--SeizureDog 01:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it can be decided in a civil manner then great, otherwise I think a No one wins approach may be better. Something along the lines of a cropped version of the game logo (assuming that that's common to the disputing regions) with the actual different covers in the article. Or smaller versions of both/all covers instead of a single cover. - X201 12:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Additional Ladies and gentlemen, I present the compromise candidate User:X201/sandbox I like it and you never know, it might stop the squabbles. - X201 12:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It breaks for me. See screenshot.--SeizureDog 12:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about now? Two images side by side was what I was aiming at and can be fixed by combining the pack shots into a single image. - X201 13:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Why not just stick to the original european cover?  If we're going to have a split cover approach, do the project's guidelines want amending to reflect this preferred approach? I guess I'm concerned that we're going start having this on other titles like Wii Sports too. --Oscarthecat 14:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally can't stand having images that don't fill up their infobox space. I don't mind it as much with the alternate sizes I gave (200px), but I'd still rather just have one game in the infobox and alternates elsewhere.--SeizureDog 15:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oscarthecat,SeizureDog I agree with you both, but there doesn't seem like there's much chance of a civil accepted conclusion to it on that discussion page at the moment. - X201 15:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: OK people, let's see where you stand on this. European / Americas / Combined cover art needed on Wii Play article.  State your preference and one-line reasoning below.
European - it's a game written in Japan, American cover adds no improvement over original European cover, unclear to me why needs changing. - removed, proper place is article's talk page, as suggested. --Oscarthecat 17:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I started this thread here to get a wider view on the issue.  And to attract a different audience to those who may have just driven by to the Wii Play article due to its current unrepresentative American popularity in the wake of its release. - hahnchen 10:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cover Art question - [[Wii Play]]

message: how do i request for this new game
Inuyasha: Secret of the Divine Jewel
to be added to the project? just came out not too long ago and well it hasnt been claimed yet. if anyone else can request it then that would be great. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maverick423 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any video game is pretty much automatically in the project. Just add  to the top of the article's talk page. Thunderbrand 22:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  how do i