Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 36

message: I just assessed Films based on video games, which seems a really important article, and is in a poor state. A little notification here in the hope someone familiar with the subject can't hurt, I thought. User:Krator (t c) 20:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't Movie tie-in (video game) equally important article? It's basically its counterpart. --Mika1h (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Films based on video games]] 

message: I came across Comparison of Lemmings ports and References in Lemmings level names recently, and I was wondering if both should just be redirects or be put in AFD?  The comparision page is useful, but I'm not so sure about it's encyclopedic value here. The references article: a very trivial list that probably should go. RobJ1981 (talk) 02:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've prodded the referneces one, but the comparison one seems to have merit.  Possilby merge with the main Lemmings article? hbdragon88 (talk) 08:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What would be necessary to say about references in level names is discussed briefly in the article (referenced even) but need not merit more discussion (can be heavily OR).  The port comparison one is a bit heavy for main article inclusion, and presently lacks any references.  Maybe the first table alone would be appropriate (no need to discuss what features are or aren't present, nor the clones). --MASEM 10:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lemmings list articles 

message: Ignoring the above section, the articles need to be condensed. The current lists (List of characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (games), Other characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (games), Other villains in Sonic the Hedgehog (games)) are full of one game characters and other trivial ones. That's all compared to this version, which contains only the recurring characters in a trimmed down state. If people can please comment, and just state that that one list is more preferable than those three, that would be great. TTN (talk) 13:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sonic the Hedgehog characters 

message: Instead of a cluttered long list, a prose should be done for all wrestling video game articles. See WWE_SmackDown_vs._Raw_2008#Roster for a good example. Anyone care to help out? RobJ1981 (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I need some help condensing lists into prose 

message: I was wondering if an able editor here could do the Good Article nomination of Halo (series). It's been languishing in backlog hell for a while, and as I'm a significant contributor to the article I can't do it meself. Cheers, David Fuchs (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take a look. Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solicitation for VG review 

message: User:FMF asked me on Talk:List of Final Fantasy media to create a template that could be used across all video game lists. The results can be seen User:Axem Titanium/Sandbox2. Any feedback would be appreciated. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  General template for video game lists 

message: In the spirit of the previous split between multiplayer game and multiplayer video game, I think this one has been long overdue. A strategy video game article is basically embedded in the middle of an article about strategy board games. Concepts like "real time" or "4x" or "artillery" are simply irrelevant to board games. We have a separate category for strategy video games, so I see every reason to have a separate article. So I've pulled out the computer game section from strategy game to create a new strategy video game article, and added a few references and new pieces of information. I hope we can build on this. Feel free to leave any comments or concerns here and I will try to make changes as needed. Ludologist12 (talk) 04:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how the issues related to strategy games somehow take a right turn when it comes to video games. Also, your claim that lots of sources claim that strategy games can be discussed as a purely video game phenomenon needs to be backed up with sources. SharkD (talk) 05:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't need other sources that "claim" anything. There are just lots of sources that DO it: Video game articles from video game sources discuss strategy video games and not board games. They're talking about different phenomena with statements that don't apply to each other. (e.g.: "strategy games can be real time" is plainly false for one, while true for the other. "strategy games have no element of luck" is plainly false for one, and true for the other.) That's what supports the need for a separate article. Compare perspective (graphical) with perspective (visual). There's no need for a source that proclaims they are separate issues. Sources just discuss them separately. 65.95.156.135 (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Strategy game]] and [[Strategy video game]] 

message: This is a call-to-arms, of sorts, for people to fix up the Mega Man article. I feel like such an important character to video games should have a much better article than what is currently up. I tried calling attention to it on its talk page, but no one has replied. I've done a small part; I "prosed" up the "Abilities" section, which used to be a list, but of course, much more is needed, such as sources and references. I'm afraid I'm not too knowledgable about the Mega Man universe so I can't really add information per se, but as far as organization and other miscellanea I'll be glad to help with, if time permits. Thank you.  ♣ Bishop Tutu  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 04:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixing up the [[Mega Man (character)]] article 

message: Good grief, did some software company patent the term "game" while I wasn't looking?  Never before on WP have I seen such an egregious misassignment of article titles!
When looking at these articles, ask yourself, "Is there anything in this article of what existed and what people knew about games and gaming before 1970?  Would any of the current content still be there if we could revert it that far back?"
* Game development
* Game localisation
* Game producer
* Game tester
* Game testing
The above articles make no mention at all of their subjects outside of the realm of computer and video gaming, when clearly the concepts they purport to describe are equally applicable to board games, card games, wargames, etc.
* Game design (probably should be Video game design or Game design (Computer and video games))
* Game designer
* Gameplay
The above articles all pay only cursory lip service to the non-computer aspects of their subjects, while focusing almost exclusively on the video gaming aspects.  They typically describe concepts from a computer or video gaming POV, and use examples from those realms only.
* Game
* Game artist
* Game balance
* Game club
* Game mechanic (the most NPOV treatment I've come across)
* Game theory (this one suffers from math geek POV rather than video gamer POV)
* Gamer
The above articles are the few I found beginning with the word "game" that actually do at least try to cover their subjects from a non-computer POV, but most of them could still stand an infusion of traditional gaming information.
Now I know that for some articles (such as Game artificial intelligence), it doesn't make sense to discuss the subject from a non-computer realm; and I also know that I'm fighting an uphill battle here, since most WP editors are computer geeks, and most computer geeks are video gamers(-:citation needed:-) - but I'm hoping someone better at this than me would be willing to take the bull by the horns and make the necessary movements to ensure that these articles appropriate for all gaming contingents, and not just the computer geeks.  71.126.99.212 (talk) 06:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To me this is unnecessary, at least for most of them. I feel it's safe to say that when someone sees "Game artist," "Gameplay," "Game design," "Gamer" (especially), etc., they won't be thinking about board games, which is the only possible name someone could confuse it with. It seems like your viewpoint on this seems to be in a very miniscule minority. I haven't seen all of these articles, but I think a few of them may need to be deleted, if not just taken care of in some major fashion.  ♣ Bishop Tutu  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 06:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so sure we can throw the anon's concerns away that readily.  Ok, the NPOV issues are a different issue, but lets consider that some of the articles s/he presents as VG biased really aren't limited to VGs, such as game tester or game design.  I suggest we get some input from other (traditional) game projects like WP:WPBTG to determine if there should be a more general article where these are, and if so, move the existing ones to, say, game design (video gaming) and so forth (as it's never commonly called "video game design".  --MASEM 06:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've left them a note inviting them over. I'll get the drinks, Masem can you sort out the nibbles? - X201 (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks to X201 for pointing this out on WP:WPBTG.  I agree with the IP user; there's definitely a systemic bias in wikipedia in favour of computer-based versions of things - which Klptyzm expresses above.  It's understandable - all wikipedia's editors are at least going to spend some time at a computer - but it's something that we should keep an eye on, and avoid where possible.  I'd add  to the list.  I tried recently to get it made generic, but was only half-successful.   Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: With respect to Bishop Tutu, I'll have to disagree with him (I'm assuming "him", apologies if I'm wrong here and I'll fix it).  There are plenty of people who earn their living designing boardgames.  (Likely not as many as those associated with video games, but that might also be because video games require a larger number of people to handle all the programming, graphics design, etc, etc.)  I'm sure that many of the articles mentioned above can be improved and/or split into relevant articles for boardgames/card games/dice games/etc and video games.  The Game designer article likely falls short on the mention of notable game designers such as Larry Harris (game designer) (designer of all five Axis & Allies games, the first one celebrating 25 years), Sid Sackson, and many others.  The existence of many large annual (primarily non-video) gaming conventions points to the overall importance and popularity that this subject has.  So, in a few words, yes, there seems to be vast room for improvement.  --Craw-daddy | T | 09:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, the omission of Sackson there was one of the things I already saw fit to correct, and one of the things that drove me to post here (A Gamut of Games was like a bible for me growing up). 71.126.99.212 (talk) 13:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: My opinion is that trying to include all possible definitions of a game into each and every article that has the word "game" in it would result in a number of  candidates. The anonymous user's suggestion that the game theory article has a "math geek POV" completely misses the point. Game Theory refers to a specific academic discipline, and it has a very different idea of what a game is than most of us do. Likewise, if I pick up a book on Game Design, I can be pretty sure it's going to talk primarily about video games. That isn't to say articles can't be written about e.g. Board Game development (or the History of American football, which could also loosely be called "game development"), but I think game by itself is too broad a premise to build anything on. Nifboy (talk) 11:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I can't speak for all those articles, but I can definitely say that Game theory is fine as it is, since it's actually a branch of mathematics to begin with. Even if it weren't obvious at first, one only needs to follow the links to some of the games described and have a quick browse. As Nifboy said, Game theory is an academic pursuit. Ong elvin (talk) 11:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: As for the other articles being disputed, I would agree that there is definitely a systemic bias towards using video games. I think the articles should be heavily edited to be more generic to games as a whole, with subsections for video games, sports, board games, card games, etc. as with the Game article. Ong elvin (talk) 11:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Since when does "Game" mean  exclusively "Video game"? 

message: Hey everyone, I need another opionion about this article. I've been working on trying to make this notable since its removal. The deleted version of the article was made on this user's page but it appears he has left Wikipedia. It has undergone vast improvements  from when it was deleted , and I was wondering if the article as it is now is good enough to be included with the main article  again. I have requested feedback for the article here  and was told to raise the matter to people more knowledgeable about gaming. I haven't merged the history as Elipongo kindly suggested yet as I was wondering about everyone's thoughts on the matter. Thanks in advance! :) Sake neko (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Samurai Shodown Characters 

message: Is this necessary: Template:DeadRising ? Dead Rising is one game, so this seems a little too broad to me at least. RobJ1981 (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems a bit overkill to me. Normal practise is to have a nav box for a series of games (or game that has quite a few articles about it). I've only just created one for the Buzz! series and there are 11 games in that series. - X201 (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say it's overkill.  Two articles can easily be put into a "see also" section.  Or the whole wiki markup for the template could just be copied to the bottom of the article instead. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 15:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I doubt it was even necessary when all the DR articles were in existence, let alone for two. Someoneanother 19:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm using Firefox and I'm viewing that template just fine. It doesn't look like the JPEG you provided. --Silver Edge (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do see it, and playing with the browser width, it seems to be an issue only with the links that start with a left-parenthesis "(". Not sure what to do about it. Nifboy (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the problem also in Firefox. I tried adding/removing a sidebar to see how that affected it, and I get spillover both with and without the sidebar, but in different parts of the text. Pagrashtak 03:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe I've fixed the problem by using . Pagrashtak 03:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me. Awesome. Nifboy (talk) 11:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Yeah, good job. --Mika1h (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template question 

message: Might as well ask here without starting a new discussion. Are any other Firefox users seeing the text flow over the right side of the template in Template:Might and Magic series? This is how it displays in my Firefox: . Other browsers (Explorer and Opera) display it just right. Is the navbox not optimised for Firefox or where is the problem? --Mika1h (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm using Firefox and I'm viewing that template just fine. It doesn't look like the JPEG you provided. --Silver Edge (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do see it, and playing with the browser width, it seems to be an issue only with the links that start with a left-parenthesis "(". Not sure what to do about it. Nifboy (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the problem also in Firefox. I tried adding/removing a sidebar to see how that affected it, and I get spillover both with and without the sidebar, but in different parts of the text. Pagrashtak 03:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe I've fixed the problem by using . Pagrashtak 03:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me. Awesome. Nifboy (talk) 11:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Yeah, good job. --Mika1h (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another question 

message: When I went to edit: I noticed several L games (that are only visible when you edit the page only). Can someone fix this? There might be more, I'm not sure.. I only checked that section, as I was wondering why the Legend of Zelda game for the Wii wasn't listed. RobJ1981 (talk) 12:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *That page has some size problems. Splitting in two might be necessary. User:Krator (t c) 13:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen bigger game lists, and they haven't been an issue. RobJ1981 (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Fixed. It appears to have been a reference tag formatting issue. Jappalang (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help needed with [[List of Wii games]] 

message: I'm thinking that we should split off the song lists and common gameplay elements into separate articles like on the Guitar Hero articles, that may make them a bit easier to understand. ViperSnake151 03:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a lot of people on Wikipedia that feel DDR games don't deserve specific articles for each game, let alone two. Even if they were viewed favorably I would disagree that a whole page needs to be devoted to just the song list when it can fit comfortably in-line with the rest of the article. For instance Dance Dance Revolution (Computer versions) is an article I created (One of the first of many I will be added to this category of games) and in it I simply made the wikitables collapsed by default as to not distract from the rest of the article. And all you need to do is click Show and you've got the full song list, right there in the article. It makes a lot of sense to embed the song list like this and that's the format I'm going to be carrying with the new articles I add. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 10:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  For the DDR mix pages... 

message: I've nom'd the above article at WP:FAC. Comments are of course welcome. David Fuchs (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening]] [[WP:FAC|FAC]] 

message: I've just put ZX-Poly into AFD. The thing dosen't actually exist and is just a conceptual idea by it's creator.  - X201 (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ZX-Poly - AFD 

message: The editors of this project might be interested in the thread I started at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Deal with "game guide" content more directly. Pagrashtak 19:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not a game guide 

message: There is a conflict going on, that involves several pages now: Frank West, Dead Rising and Characters and Story of Dead Rising. In my view, there was a consensus reached here:Talk:Dead_Rising#Frank_West_merge, however a few people don't want to accept it and have been edit warring. Then they used the characters and story page to just have a redundant copy of information in the Dead Rising article. I'm considering putting the story and characters article in AFD, if the redirect wont stick. Dead Rising was one game, and all plot/character information is described fine in the main article. There is no good reason to move content at this point. The plot for Dead Rising is a bit lengthy and should be cut down a bit, not moved. RobJ1981 (talk) 23:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a huge mess that has lead a good article (Frank West) being merged and merged again into a really awful article. Present information at the place where it is best presented. This place can differ for each subject and isn't necessarily the main article. Going to do an ad hoc assessment of Dead Rising to give the debate more structure. User:Krator (t c) 23:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: And in other people's judgement, the result of the discussion was no consensus to merge. This canvassing needs to stop, Rob. Thank you. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Notifying WikiProjects is generally not considered canvassing, though, and sometimes even encouraged. The description of the discussion could've been more neutral though. User:Krator (t c) 15:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some have argued that notifying the WikiProjects of fictional subject in particular is a type of canvassing that leads to keeps or no consensus on AFDs of said articles about fictional characters or locations.  As departed user Larry laptop put it, no WikiProject about real things would defend the non-notability of a scientist, but that a WikiProject on fictional things will defend it to the hilt. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a large difference between notifying WikiProject Runescape of some Runescape gamecruft for deletion, and notifying WikiProject Video games of that same problem. We're not all keep-happy fanboys here, to bluntly state it. User:Krator (t c) 20:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help needed with Dead Rising/Frank West 

message: Hi all. I've been writing about the development of this series a bit, and could do with some help on musical related stuff. Basically, if anyone could find any interviews or info about the music development for the original (Age of Empires (video game)), it'd be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 06:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Found something (although any further help is appreciated). Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 05:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''[[Age of Empires]]'' 

message: I've recently noticed some articles not having both the main category and the "-only" category. Example: Kirby Air Ride had just GameCube-only games, so I had to add the GameCube games category to it. Can someone run a bot to fix the ones that need a category? I brought this up before, but I'm not sure if a bot was ever run. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: AWB'd the GameCube-only category. --MASEM 20:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have time for the others? :Category:Single-platform software is where they can be found. RobJ1981 (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll put it on a to-do list for myself.  If anyone else has AWB access, I can explain how to do it.  (Basically, load up list of pages in the non-exclusive category, then have it skip any that include the exclusive list; all that is left should get the category which is better added manually in the right place in the cat list than relying on AWB's category adding) --MASEM 16:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This should now be taken care of for all the -only categories listed. --MASEM 00:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  System/System only categories (again) 

message: The link for the Infobox Maker seemed to get lost during the VG:Project front page re-vamp. So I've put it at the bottom of the Infobox documentation, seemed like the best place for it. - X201 (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deveria's Infobox maker 

message: some help is needed with the No more heroes (video game) page. Techo (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any cleanup tags, and there is no edit war apparent from the edit summaries—can you please be more specific as to what help is needed? Also, it makes things easier if you provide a link: No More Heroes (video game) Pagrashtak 17:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No More Heroes 

message: Sephiroth BCR brought this up here a while ago, the discussion is now archived here in the VG talk archive and the original FAC discussion here in the FAC talk archive. The discussion died down before coming to a consensus regarding the current FAs, but the two FAC were moved over to Featured list candidates.
Anyway, with Characters in Castlevania: Sorrow series now a Featured list, I feel there is a discrepancy among the format video character articles have taken. Mainly because articles like Characters of Final Fantasy VIII and Characters of Kingdom Hearts are Featured articles even though they follow a similar outline and design. The only real difference that I can tell is that FFVIII and KH have a merchandise section that relates to the characters. The reason I bring this up is I think a standardize position needs to established for future articles or lists that will or already do follow a similar design.
I would like to eventually bring this back up to the FA discussions, but hoped to get some input from the VG Project before doing so. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 22:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character FAs to FLs again 

message: Hi, I've been working with unassessed articles recently and giving them appropriate ratings, and I was wondering if it would be appropriate for the project to have a list-class and featured-list class similar to other WikiProjects, such as WikiProject Rock music, and have a category for these articles.  With the number of lists in this WikiProject, I thought this might be a clear, concise way to organize lists. Also, I think disambiguation pages should have a category in order to keep them organized.  What do you guys think? Redphoenix526 (talk) 00:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification of Lists and Disambiguations 

message: I did a google search and didn't seem to find any reliable results. Should this be sent to AFD or no? RobJ1981 (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Easily fails WP:WEB.  I've gone ahead and tagged it as such; give the article some time to see if it improves, otherwise, AfD it. (and sorry I didn't get back to you on this, been busy at WT:EPISODE :-P) --MASEM 14:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't say "easily". The website has been discussed by notable websites such as The Escapist and Gamasutra. Also of note is its constant use as a source by gaming websites, and its 523,000 Google results. --Teggles (talk) 09:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no opinion on whether NeoGAF passes WP:WEB or not, but since those two articles you linked are about a large donation made by members of that site's forums and not about the site itself I don't think they really contribute towards passing the criteria. Anomie⚔ 14:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no, as far as I know, articles talking about NeoGAF. You can find several articles talking about rumors or confirmations originating there, but that is not enough. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Anomie, the two articles are strongly related to the website. They are covering a project held by the website. WP:WEB specifies "the content itself", and a project held by the website can only be considered content. ReyBrujo, I just linked you to two articles that discuss the website. --Teggles (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There must be thousands of sites that have received coverage for a single event in their whole lifetime. The article talks about the event, not the site itself, so you ironically could have an article for the event, but not the forum ;-) Anyways, the criteria says "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." The donation is a single published work, we require multiple non-trivial ones. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the first sentence, that's quite irrelevant if the resultant keeps adherence of WP:WEB. Anyway, you're misinterpreting the criteria. You don't need multiple published works (of the website) to be covered, you need multiple published works that discuss the website's content. --Teggles (talk) 11:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we disagree on the guideline interpretation. Even with your interpretation, we can agree the article should have been deleted years ago, and should have only been brought back after the charity event. I guess an AFD will help solve this. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 13:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Masem suggested to give the article some time to see if it improves. It fails web, and I doubt that will change now, in days or even weeks from now. So I personally don't have a major issue with it going to AFD now (if anyone nominates it). Otherwise I'll nominate it when I have more free time. RobJ1981 (talk) 15:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I came across this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NeoGAF. The result was no consensus, and it took place in 2006. Since then, I see no evidence the article has improved. I could be wrong though, as I havent checked each and every contribution after that AFD took place. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NeoGAF&diff=186829630&oldid=63123472 --Mika1h (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability of [[NeoGAF]]? 

message: Hellgate: London needs some cleanup, and it doesn't seem like many other editors care about cleaning it up, just adding to the article.  Please, come by and help, if you can. ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 09:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hellgate: London 

message: See the edit history of Bully (video game). An editor is claiming there should be 2 infoboxes, one for the original game and one for the port. The port has a few new things, but overall: it's basically the same game. An editor is claiming it's misleading to put the port information in the infobox. I've tried to explain things to him, but he just reverts for no good reason. From the articles I've seen, there is one infobox for everything. See Resident Evil 4 as one example. One infobox works just fine in my view. RobJ1981 (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the multitude of different versions of Donkey Kong can cope with one Infobox, I'm sure Bully can. There should be leeway for two Infoboxes in certain other cases where there is exceptional merit for two. Bully is not an exceptional case. - X201 (talk) 14:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree, you only need one infobox for a game, ports included. Unless the changes are so drastic that it requires another infobox (in which case it probably has notability for a separate article), only one should be used. The port in question does not need a second one. The standard VG infobox is more than capable of covering the original platform and ports/multi-platform games if organised properly. Resident Evil 4, The Orange Box, StarCraft, Halo: Combat Evolved are some of the many good examples of how it is easily dealt with. -- Sabre (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: If need be, you could always use  to avoid clutter. ♦TH1RT3EN talk ♦ contribs 16:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying that this is a hard-and-fast rule, but it seems to me that if a port or different version of a game is important enough for a second infobox it should probably have a separate article. If not, one infobox should suffice. Pagrashtak 16:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should a game article have 2 infoboxes? 

message: The style of the VG Infobox has been changed. Template_talk:Infobox_VG#CSS_class is worth a read. - X201 (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Infobox has been changed 

message: Is there really a need for this article? There already is the  History of video game consoles (seventh generation) article. --Silver Edge (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge then redirect?--CM (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cumulative 7th generation consoles sold]] 

message: Spore is a massive game, but is a whole article on it's development necessary? I'm sure this article was made to make the main article look better, but I think it's a bit too much. RobJ1981 (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion was a bit much too, but that's now an FA.  And...there's a one paragraph "stub" for ESRB re-rating of Mysims. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think it's a bit much. The question comes up: yes, it's possible to write a 50kb article about it but why would you want to? And who would care? No offense to the people who worked on it but I feel like it's a waste to say in 100 words what can be said in 10, if you know what I mean. Even as said article admits, "the events passed by with little notice from the public at large". I would sincerely push for at least trying to cut down the info and merge it back, in the interests of conciseness, for both Elder Scrolls IV and Spore. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If there really is that much content out there, I don't see why we shouldn't have it. No reason not to cut down, but keep as a seperate article. Dihydrogen Monoxide 11:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm tempted to AFD it. It seems like excessive detail that isn't necessary. RobJ1981 (talk) 12:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see where you're coming from, but think to be considering deleting a well written and referenced article will ruffle some feathers. I think I would abstain from voting, only because I'm too torn between too detailed vs. we have bigger fish to fry.--CM (talk) 14:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "I don't like it" is never a reason for deletion, and if there are reliable sources for it, we should not stand in the way, after all, the Development and Re-rating articles for Elder Scrolls Oblivion is top notch. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I never said I didn't like it. Just because some similar articles exist, doesn't mean every game should instantly have development articles. RobJ1981 (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that, I'm justing saying that if references support it, we should welcome it. I imagine more and more will pop up as wikipedia grows and matures, and the main game articles are high quality. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Development of Spore]] 

message: Ran across this during a run through Special:Random.  Does anybody have access to Japanese magazines, any reviews or dev info?  If not I think it should be deleted. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What's wrong with leaving it as a stub?  It seems to be part of a popular franchise - B-Daman.  Regardless, Google came up with an IGN review, so it'll do for the time being. - hahnchen 11:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Super B-Daman: Battle Phoenix 64]] 

message: If anyone would like to save some video game images from deletion, see Special:Contributions/Project FMF. A lot of the images he's been tagging are box art, and would meet Wikipedia's non-free content criteria if rationale was added. I've done some, but there's a lot there if you look through the whole history. If you add rationales, remember to mention the article for which the rationale applies and wikilink it, to prevent a bot from auto-tagging the images as non-compliant. If you aren't sure what any of this means, feel free to ask me, another VG admin, or someone from the VG images department and we'll fill you in on the details. If an image you want to save has already been deleted, contact the deleting admin (or me if you want) and explain that you want the image restored so you can add non-free rationale and we can restore the image. Pagrashtak 04:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Last 500 image contribs - go nuts guys. The ones with a "top" alongside them haven't been touched since he tagged them, so they need rationales. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 07:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Small additional - Make sure to check the bottom of the image page to see if the image is used on more than one article. If it is it will need a separate rational for each article that the image is used on. - X201 (talk) 09:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Or removed from the second article if it does not meet Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. Pagrashtak 16:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Can we get more editors addressing this issue?  Hundreds of images have been tagged and deleted already. - hahnchen 01:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Case in point, look at all the deleted (and soon to be deleted) images at User talk:Thunderbrand.  Rationale a few if you have the time. - hahnchen 02:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got his page on my watchlist and try to get a few whenever I see it pop up. If there are any other inactive editors who have uploaded a lot of VG images, say so here and maybe a few of us can keep watch. Pagrashtak 05:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See this one as well, User talk:Hibana.  This is fucking ridiculous, FMF has just tagged hundreds of images within a couple of hours using scripts, it is impossible to keep up. - hahnchen 11:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: And another - User talk:Timkovski. - hahnchen 11:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Though the source of the image is normally wanted, only the proper licensing tag and fair use rationale are required. If we know the source, list it. If not, then I wouldn't worry. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did you get 300x300 from? I've just uploaded :Image:Flink.jpg, at 349×480, I'd classify that as low resolution.  Given that I've downscaled it from 300dpi.  As Guyinblack mentioned, sourcing is not as important as getting the license, copyright holder and rationale right.  It doesn't matter who scanned the image, but who owns the rights to it. - hahnchen 11:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I read it here: Template:Non-free use rationale# note-1, but it's actually talking about "raster image"... No idea what that means. Kariteh (talk) 11:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Raster images are normal digital images composed of pixels. Jpg, bmp, gif, and png fall under this definition. As far as the 300x300, this is the first I've heard of that, but there it is. It says it is a rule of thumb, and to explain why if it is larger than those dimensions. To me this says that there can be some exceptions. I didn't find too much reasoning why those particular dimensions are the requirement either. Basically it sounds like another safeguard against copyright infringement. A 300x300 image would print out very small, especially if it was 300dpi, and thereby reduce its reproducibility. I'm sure there's leeway on this, So long as images don't go over 300x300 too much and are 72dpi. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as virtually all game cases are oblong in shape, 300x300 will be an impossibility anyway. - X201 (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the 300x300 is mainly to keep the image under .1 megapixels. So long as images are around this, we should be ok. 250x400 yields .1 megapixels and 300x330 yields .099 megapixels (Guyinblack25 talk 16:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: As noted above, I believe the guideline is specifically to prevent cases where one can print a photo-realistic version of the original from the image.  It's not some magic number (e.g. 300x300) that causes the problem, but rather when one gets up to a DPI level nearing what professional printers use.  I believe we can refer to images as "relatively low resolution" even if not strictly 300x300 or less (which seems arbitrary and too low).  In any case, I've tried to salvage at least some of the images which have been tagged, but there are still so many...  --Slordak (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You weren't kidding about there still being so many. It took me over 40 minutes just to do less than 20 images. This is definitely an uphill battle. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Seems a bit counterproductive attempting to lower resolutions to make it "unprintworthy" since we have to give them a nice link to the original (normally high res) version as a source if it was got off the net. -- Sabre (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It does seem a bit counter productive, but since we don't have to give the original source it's not that big of an issue. It's probably just an issue of Wikipedia legally covering its own butt. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  VG Images that need saving 

message: Could someone add an 'infobox' attribute to the template? The films project does this and it would be the same approach as the 'cover' and 'screenshot' parts.Quickmythril (talk) 09:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely something useful! Greeves (talk • contribs) 04:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 06:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Video game articles without infoboxes 

message: For purposes of tracking redirections of game characters and elements into lists, I've created two templates that should be useful:
* - This is for fictional characters that have been redirected to a list entry.
* - This is for fictional elements (other than characters) that have been redirected to a list entry.
These templates populate the categories of :Category:Fictional character redirects to lists and :Category:Fictional element redirects to lists.  Both templates support an optional parameter to indicate the game/series that the character/element belongs to, eg  would sort the redirect into the category :Category:Sonic the Hedgehog fictional character redirects to lists, which then would be a sub-cat of the former.  This also allows this sub-cat to be included in a more general category for the game/series (eg. :Category:Sonic the Hedgehog or even more specifically :Category:Sonic the Hedgehog characters) as such that the list of redirected articles can be found easily from these.  --MASEM 22:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This should help for all the Halo character merges I did... thanks! David Fuchs (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: How are you supposed to use the darn thing? I tried putting it in the Samir Duran redirect, I put it below the redirect code and the text doesn't display (but shows in the preview before I save it). I put it above and it displays but the redirect doesn't work. -- Sabre (talk) 09:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Have a look at what he did for Sergeant Johnson. Jappalang (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: But the text doesn't show up. Seems a bit pointless having the text if it doesn't show up when looking at the standard redirect page (ie, not through previews or past versions). -- Sabre (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I will look into it, I think it's something on my template end with include-only and noinclude.  Best I can tell , the fix will not require any changes on your end.  Also, note that the series-specific pages should also be tagged with , since this is more admin-related than user helpfulness. --MASEM 15:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  doesn't show up unless you are previewing it too. I think that's how it was originally designed. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Should we tag every single redirect to a character list, or just the "correct" or main variation? The wording on the template implies that the redirect the template is on is the one that should be used in articles as it is the "correct" one. In practical terms (since that didn't make sense to me and I doubt if it makes sense to anyone else), :Category:StarCraft character redirects to lists currently contains all the primary redirects to the characters, many of which were articles themselves before being merged. Do I add common misspelling redirects - such as Ulrejaz - and variations-on-the-name redirects - such as General Duke - to that category as well? -- Sabre (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would presume the one with the longest article history. Nifboy (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, I would agree, I'd use  to make the redirects from the alternative name to the correct one, and then the correct one to the merged page; the idea being that possibly in the future, the merged info may be broken out again back to that page, this still leaves the redirections from alternative names pointing to the right place. --MASEM 16:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates to help with tracking redirections 

message: *  -  -  -- 
It's frankly rather strange that our templates look and occasionally act differently from all the other ones. Since the point of infoboxes is to streamline and provide a unified presentation of information, I suggest we drop the borders and garish colors and go with a look more along the lines of , and any of the other media infoboxes, et al. --David Fuchs (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the colours can be kept. They seem soft enough for that, and I don't think there's anything wrong with using a subdued colour to distinguish it. Shades of blue seem fine if you ask me. Ong elvin (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Beyond colors, there's simple organization and actual code. David Fuchs (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Indeed it does; I hadn't noticed that before. But that infobox appears the most similar to the other film/book/et al infoboxes, so I'm not sure how much we'd want to change. David Fuchs (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: In addition: I suggest for both appearance and actual guts that we swap out the current infobox vg with the code from Thumperwad's superior version David Fuchs (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Seems good to me! Although perhaps the "(s)" could be incorporated into the wikilinks, like they are currently. -- Sabre (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What are the opinions for "platforms" to be moved to the top field? This would allow abbreviations to be declared right at the start of the infobox fields, and allow differention of platforms in the fields for developers, release dates, etc without making the platform field in the current scheme redundant for multi-platform, different development group or year of release games. Jappalang (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I still think that developer and publisher should go first. Platform should be moved up simply as its too far down, but I disagree that it should be the first one. -- Sabre (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved 'platform' up a bit, and wikilinked the (s). See [version]. David Fuchs (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to standardize templates 

message: Wikiproject Sega is going on a upwards spiral so get somewhere, maybe a few Sega fans could join and help? Gaogier Talk! 04:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there's definitely scope for a Sega project, Wikipedia must host a shitload of Sega fans given the "extensive" articles on Knuckles the Echidna et al.  You need to remove all fair use images from your project page though, they can only be used in the article space with acceptable rationales. - hahnchen 13:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually it is. You just contradicted yourself: to derive means to get something from a source. You got the idea from something else so it is a derivative.  ♣ Bishop Tutu  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 03:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately Klptyzm is right. The similitudes are very obvious making it derivative work and, therefore, licensed under fair use (since technically, Sega owns the copyright to your image as with all derivatives from Sega properties). You should do something much simpler, maybe a blue ball with two eyes or something so simple that, even though you obviously based it in something, it is so simple that cannot be copyrightable (something that you could have drawn it by hand in less than 10 seconds is hardly copyrightable). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 04:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: As I told you in your talk page, it may be. I am not copyright expert (just worked in the copyvio section of Wikipedia for a year long), but it is much safer than the original. It still may be considered derivative work in strict law terms. You could try asking at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions to be sure, anyways. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: To answer this and all future questions: it is impossible to have a picture of sonic, in any form, on your WikiProject page. User:Krator (t c) 20:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject Sega 

message: Hi,
I've been trying to improve the Quake 2 article, but someone reverted my last edit (made on the 20th of January). I asked for an explanation but they only gave one which I consider to be inadequate, then just ignored my questions after that point. I don't want to edit war on this but on the other hand, I don't think there was anything wrong with my edits that were reverted. Someone suggested I ask for help here. Can anyone help with this? I really think the Quake 2 article needs some work. I'm willing to do it, it's just frustrating when people come along and revert without being even willing to discuss why. Thanks. Ben 2082 (talk) 16:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can understand the reasoning for removing the screenshots of mods: they're only ever needed if the mod has substantial notability (and in most cases it would have its own article for that screenshot to go in). Reverting the inclusion of the reception section, on the other hand, I can't understand. Reception sections are the best place to establish full notability for a product. While the one you wrote was not first-class quality, it is certainly a start for a very important section in a video game article. I'd certainly put the reception section back in, but be prepared to put a lot of work (and references to reviews) into it, as well as removing mention of fan-run sites like "tastyspleen.net" (or whatever it is, all I know is it doesn't belong there) to get it up to scratch. Take a look at some of our Featured and Good articles on games on the main VG Wikiproject page for an idea of how to properly create a great reception section. -- Sabre (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your help. I can accept what you're saying about the screenshots. What annoyed me was the way that guy just removed everything I did, including the reception section, with no explanation. It's just rude. Personally I'll get over it and just get back to editting but that kind of rudeness would put a lot of other people off editting stuff on here. With that Tastyspleen.net thing, I did wonder about putting it in. But the thing is, if you used to play Quake 2 online ages ago, and then you come back to it today, that site is a really useful one for helping you find a game online- something that you would have serious difficulty doing otherwise. Considering how many people used to play Quake 2, it's not exactly unlikely that a lot of people will come to the wikipedia article hoping to find information on how to play it today. I mean, I've seen people asking questions about it on the talk page. Is there any other way I could work this information into the article? I just think it would be useful to a lot of people if that information was there. Of course on the other hand I totally understand that there need to be rules though. Anyway, thanks again for your help.Ben 2082 (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If it passes the criteria, perhaps as an external link?--CM (talk) 02:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving the Quake 2 Article 

message: Hello all. It looks like Nintendo have posted an official English translation of the name of Fire Emblem 1,  Fire Emblem: Ankoku Ryū to Hikari no Tsurugi. I was just wondering whether an article move to the English name is warranted now. Wikipedia: Naming conventions states that Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form. The problem is that barely anyone will know this new English name, and that a break in the trend from other Fire Emblem games could be confusing for readers. Any ideas? Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 16:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How about, leave it at the original most know by name and slap a redirect on the new name? - X201 (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I decided to be bold and follow your suggestion. Thanks for the advice. Ashnard Talk Contribs 20:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible page move 

message: Just noticed this edit on Xbox 360. I took a look at the source,an interview on 8bitjoystick.com, that was used to support the assertions made in the edit. However, I haven't heard much of the reliability of this website, and a look around the site shows that it's a blog, which are usually not reliable (with a few exceptions) per WP:RS and WP:V. A look at Special:Linksearch indicates it is linked at very few places (and none as a reference), so I undid the edit. However, the person who added it keeps adding it back, asserting that since the interview is with a Microsoft "insider", it's still reliable. So, can anybody vouch for or against the site, and can "insider" interviews on sites like these count as reliable? NeoChaosX  (talk, walk) 23:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you're apparently wondering why, one of the links explains the interviewee: http://www.8bitjoystick.com/archives/jake_confidential_xbox_360_red_ring_of_death_source_responds.php  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dibol (talk • contribs) 23:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I've seen this same report on Kotaku, labeled a rumor, so I dunno if it's credible or not. As for the site, I cannot say, much of the video game industry news leans against "insider" information and rumors. The information in question should be rewritten as a "possible" explanation to a factual problem. Kinda like talking about how Elvis died or something. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: Changed wording to keep source & meet Wiki guidelines. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Well it seems to ME, that if a source isn't considered reliable, then it's not reasonable to go off info from the site -- how do we know they aren't making it up, or that their so-called insider person isn't, as that's the very definition of reliable, that we know they aren't. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The source isn't good enough.  How is that info credible, when the source is a disgruntled possible-employee?  And phrasing it as "some claim" is not a get out of jail free card, you can't just link to unsubstantiated material under the guise "some claim".  "Some claim" that Hilary Clinton is a lesbian, it shouldn't be included in the article. - hahnchen 00:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: You can say all you want about how "close" it is to being a reliable source because of who the person claims they are, but the fact of the matter is these blog posts are still not reliable sources. The blog posts are unverifiable - there's no way to check that this anonymous person is telling the truth about what's going on Microsoft, or even if they are an ex-Microsoft employee. Wikipedia:Verifiability is policy that must be followed, and these sources in no way verify the claims it's supporting - per policy, it should be removed. There are no exceptions just because someone claims to be an "insider" who supposedly is closest to the "truth" on a blog. NeoChaosX  (talk, walk) 00:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: All this is showing is that some users are willing to hide behind Wikipedia policies to cause ad hominen arguments. All I've seen not only on the XBox 360 page, as well as The Matrix Online is that whatever closet skeletons said topic has, it's constantly swept under the rug because of the "There's no reliable sources" card.  I stated repeatedly that there could have been reliable sources, but no action was taken whatsoever by said outlets interviewee approached. If you're doubtful about him telling the truth, fine. Try emailing the guy yourself if you bother trying to find his email address.Dibol (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is about reliable sources.  Don't give me ad hominem bullshit, ad hominem would be attacking you.  Why is the source unreliable?  Because he's a disgruntled anonymous ex-employee.  His claims do not rise above rumour, and certainly aren't strong enough to hold weight. - hahnchen 17:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: There "could have" been reliable sources?  That isn't good enough.  How can anyone possibly verify his credentials or his motivations?  How is emailing him going to be of any help, I could just be emailing you and wouldn't know the difference. - hahnchen 17:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  8bitJoystick.com a reliable source? 

message: I'd like to use some posts by Jared Newman, a journalist who's work has appeared in Wired and The Escapist, would his experiences of Urban Dead be considered reliable enough? They would be a big help. Someoneanother 00:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say yes, following the doctrine that is present in WP:V, which reads (paraphrased), that self-published sources by experts who have previous published work in the field can be used with care. It doesn't take much to be considered an expert (someone knowledgeable) in the field of reviewing video games, but it does take much to get your work published by reliable sources in the field of video games. User:Krator (t c) 12:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers :) UD's plot is minimal but the complexity of player interactions is where the thrust of the article is, having several 'survivor diaries' to use as sources is a real shot in the arm. Someoneanother 19:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliability of a blog written by a journalist with published work? 

message: Template talk:Command & Conquer series#Cleanup, additions and other assorted issues. Help needed. Thanks. --MrStalker (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for additional opinions 

message: Just to let you know I've archived all the deletions up to and including December 2007, and moved January 2008 to the freshly vacant archive. Someoneanother 23:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion archive archived 

message: I recently came across this review. Should this board game be mentioned in the Age of Mythology article, in a separate article, or nowhere at all? dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 00:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as there is a Doom: The Boardgame article, you can create it as a stub article under the board games wiki-project if there is material to go about it. Jappalang (talk) 03:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Board games 

message: In 2008 in video gaming and all the "year in video gaming" articles found on , the North American release dates for games are listed when some games were released in other regions, such as Japan or Europe, prior to being released in North America. So shouldn't a game be listed with its Japan or Europe release date if it was released in one of those regions before being released in North America? Take Super Smash Bros. Brawl for example, it was released in Japan on January 31 2008, but the user who made this edit believes it should list its North American release date instead, which is March 9 2008. Am I wrong in believing that the original release date should be listed instead?--Silver Edge (talk) 04:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So a game doesn't exist until it's released in the US? and the Buzz games I've been playing for the last three years have all been a figment of my imagination? First Published date is king. - X201 (talk) 12:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OTOH, this is the English Wikipedia and not the Japanese Wikipedia, so covering only Japanese release dates is unlikely to be helpful to our readers. IMO, as with most things it depends on the situation which release dates are worth mentioning; for a console or an extremely notable game, there is probably reason to mention all three of the Japanese, North American, and European dates instead of picking one arbitrarily. Anomie⚔ 13:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I'd agree with X201, the original first release date is more important than just the US release date. It creates a bias otherwise. List the first release date, regardless of what country the release date corresponds to. -- Sabre (talk) 14:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2008 in video gaming 

message: Hi,
I'm working on improving the Quake articles and I've noticed that on youtube there are a few official trailers and adverts for them. Would putting links to these movies be against wikipedia rules? I think they'd be pretty useful for illustrating to people what the games are like. The movies I'm talking about are the following: ,  and . Thanks for your help. Ben 2082 (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If I happened to see any of those links added to an article, I would remove them and give a  warning to whoever added them. There are only three ways linking to a Youtube video is acceptable: either the uploader must be the copyright holder, there must be credible evidence that the copyright holder has given permission to upload the video to Youtube, or the video must be public domain. Anomie⚔ 20:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking to Game Trailers on Youtube 

message: Are lists necessary to list all the characters for fighting video games (and generally most games with many characters)? A prose looks much neater in a majority of cases. I've seen many game articles (for games that feature many characters), and there is only a minority that have lists and tables for them. The recent problem is with wrestling games. They have huge rosters, and people insist on lists because they are "neater" and "the way articles have always been done". People refuse to accept change, and assume the default standard is the best. See WWE Smackdown vs. Raw 2008 and this discussion:Talk:WWE_SmackDown_vs._Raw_2008#Roster_-_list_or_prose.3F. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List/prose question 

message: Anyone else find it odd to have the list in the category? (not to mention MOS issues and stuff) dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 04:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, yeah. Split it off into a list article. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Split. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Cooperative video games]] 

message: In deathmatch_(gaming) article, there's a section stating that the game Sniper was the source from which "Novel NetWare" originated. I believe this to be incorrect; I played "Novel Netwars", a multiplayer space shooter in DM style, which would make sense. Novel Netware has nothing to do with gaming and the sentence doesn't make sense.
Also, I'm thinking about prolonging the part of the article about the concept of deathmatch, especially mentioning some fundamental changes to the principle, such as adding death penalty for suicide, which (without the penalty) used to be a way to quickly get to powerful weapons in Doom, spawn-protection (implemented in Unreal Tournament, which is an important game in this genre), Last Man Standing and Team Deathmatch variants. But being new to Wikipedia, I'm asking if it is a good idea.
:... "I'm asking if it is a good idea." Yes. In fact, it's really good that you want to edit this article - articles not about specific games tend to get overlooked a lot. Good luck in editing, and feel free to ask anything here when needed. We're pretty nice folk here. User:Krator (t c) 21:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deathmatch article probable typo and possible improving 

message: While looking at Virtua Fighter (series), I noticed that every character thats ever made an appearance has their own articles. In all honesty, I don't really think the game is important enough to have a page for every character. I mean, all the pages are are a rundown of their past and a trivia section, and most, if not all of them, don't site any references or have any real-world info. I think they might even fall under WP:NOT#GUIDE. I'd suggest merging the articles into either Virtua Fighter (series) or List of Virtua Figther Characters. The articles in question are:
*Akira Yuki
*Pai Chan
*Jeffry McWild
*Aoi Umenokouji
*Lion Rafale
*Sarah Bryant (Virtua Fighter)
*Shun Di
*Goh Hinogami
*Lau Chan
*Lei-Fei
*Brad Burns
*Kage-Maru
*Wolf Hawkfield
*Jacky Bryant
*Vanessa Lewis
*Dural (Virtua Fighter)
*El Blaze
*Eileen (Virtua Fighter)
Just thought I'd see what you'd all think about this. Dengarde ► Complaints  07:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If any substantial real-world information can be found, they could be merged into a Characters in the Virtua Fighter series or List of Virtua Fighter characters or whatever, else they can probably be covered in very short sections in the individual game articles. -- Sabre (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 11:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as these currently are nothing more than plot summaries, I would say that redirecting all of them to the main article would be best. If we want, we can also merge each section to its respective game under a plot section, and just place a cleanup tag. TTN (talk) 13:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For once, I agree with you. Since they're really just plot summaries, I'd go with either merging the summaries of all five games to their respective articles, or merging them all into one. Having a page for every one of them is extremely unnecessary. Dengarde ► Complaints  21:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Keep all as individual articles as they concern notable elements from notable series with many editors willing to work on and many readers interested in their content.  Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly is it that makes them so notable? Like I said, all the articles are doing is summing up the plot, which can be easily done is the game articles themselves. Theres no need to have them all as individual articles. Dengarde ► Complaints  21:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They are familiar to millions of game players around the world, appear in notable games, appear in notable secondary source magazine publications, strategy guides, etc.  Thus, they have notability to millions of people in the real world with reliable sources readily available for them.  Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I've been able to remove the minor ones pretty easily. The only ones that'll be really annoying are Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat, while the second tier games don't really receive more than the usual fan complaint. TTN (talk) 13:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Could you link to it, please? Dengarde ► Complaints  04:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Do NOT do that.  Please do not.  People will vote keep on the principle that so many of them should not have been nominated at once.  Huge AFDs result in nothing but flared tempers and "no consensus."  And AMIB will bring out his TRAINWRECK FROM WHICH NO CONSENSUS CAN EMERGE line and picture if that happens... hbdragon88 (talk) 08:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I really doubt it would pass as myself and others would surely vote keep.  Plus we are still attempting to determine if the injunction would prevent such actions now anyway.  Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characters in the [[Virtua Fighter]] series 

message: There's a lot of things in :Category:Unassessed video game articles that are in fact assessed with WP:VG. What is the problem here? User:Krator (t c) 14:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have an example? Anomie⚔ 14:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I did a lot of that.  I assessed about 60 articles in a 4-hour stint and someone else took care of the rest.  I'm working on assessment and other stuff at WikiProject Sega now, but I am glad I could help out this project.  Redphoenix526 (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  VG Assessment category 

message: A Bemani task force of WikiProject Computer and video games has been proposed; feel free to comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Taskforce for Bemani. --Coredesat 01:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed task force for [[WP:CVG]] 

message: Is it a notable source? I'm curious because it reports certain community activities that the professional gaming press doesn't. Zeality (talk) 05:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Like most sources where you even have to ask, I'd say "it depends". Its "about us" page is fairly self-explanatory; the site is made up primarily of freelancers, and they like accountability, but that's as far as their editorial policies go. As for whether it's a WP:N-notable website, its AfD is also self-explanatory. Nifboy (talk) 07:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All right; thanks. I've got it referencing the retranslation of Chrono Trigger along with a note from Siliconera; I'm hoping that's enough third-party support. What about links to OCReMix composer profiles? Someone tried to add game profiles to the Chrono articles, and they've been appropriately removed. But, what's the ruling for examples like these? Zeality (talk) 07:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OCRemix, although it contains a fairly comprehensive database of the composers whose songs have been remixed, has three things going against it: Its "composer profiles" are little more than directory listings (example), it's not a complete directory (only composers with remixes are listed), and the profiles are set up principally for the purpose of finding mixes on OCR. As such I'd remove them. I looked at a sampling of articles and think there are too many external links on them even without OCR. Nifboy (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Destructoid 

message: Eggerland - Departure to Creation and Eggerland (Famicom Disk System) are two examples. Freewebs and Geocities are the primary source for these articles. From what I can see, both are just detailed fansites. I've went through others, and they are either stubs or starts at best. Many need screenshots, reception sections and more. I've started to work on some, but I could use some help. RobJ1981 (talk) 12:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eggerland articles need some work 

message: Myself and TTN have proposed a merge of Marth (Fire Emblem) at this page. A couple IPs are starting to hurl abuse at me and are being blatantly uncivil. One changed my sig to say "Ashnerd" and then proceeded to call me "Assnerd". Help would be appreciated. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 13:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Warn and report the IPs if they don't stop. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  May need help at [[Talk:Fire Emblem: Ankoku Ryū to Hikari no Tsurugi‎]]