Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 34

message: I suggest adding one or more of the following from :Template:Infobox Software:
#latest release version
#latest release date
#latest preview version
#latest preview date
This is useful for open source games (or games like Battlecruiser 3000AD) where content is added post-release or over a lengthy period of time, or for games which haven't reached v1.0 yet (such as Vega Strike). SharkD 03:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Template:Infobox VG]] - Latest release 

message: A Purpose specifically oriented for boxart should be added. Maybe something like "The image is being used for no purpose other than to identify the subject of the article" (copied from :Image:CivIVboxshot.jpg). Also, if you could provide some example rationales for images that aren't low-res, that would be great. SharkD 03:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Template:Vgrationale]] - Purpose for boxart 

message: I've had images removed from Turn-based strategy, citing an invalid fair use rationale for that article. Could you clarify the rationale in this regard? Thanks. SharkD 03:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you point to an edit or an image that has been removed?  Likely the image was tagged by BetaCommandBot, which is charged to make sure all non-free images on WP meet WP:NFCC, specifically having rationale and licensing, and making sure WP:NFCC#10c is met: having the exact article name the image is used in present in the fair-use rationale for the image. --MASEM 15:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This and this edit (one of the two times it was called "spam"), both by User:Frecklefoot. SharkD 04:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The images that I checked do require a fair-use rationale to explain their purpose on the page.  This can be done a couple of ways, one way is through the use of the  template.  There is no reason that once they are properly rationaled, they can be included on the page (screenshots of turn-based strategy games on the turn-based strategy game article is fully appropriate).  Though I do wonder how Monopoly is considered turn-based strategy - not that it isn't but that stretches the definition. --MASEM 05:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification. The images were not removed because they were lacking a proper rationale in their pages; they were removed because the user thought their use in a genre article was improper. RE:Monopoly - Note that turn-based game and turn-based strategy were, for a lengthy period, merged into a single article. That may explain why Monopoly was listed. Also, it's a game of strategy (though I prefer to reserve the term, TBS, for strategic wargames). SharkD 22:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Template:Vgrationale]] - Genre rationale 

message: Several other WikiProjects have outreach departments where major developments in project organization or policy are announced to participants. I think something similar would be beneficial for this project as well. For example, several participants have recently started Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Cleanup, which is a fantastic idea, but needs widespread participation to be truly successful. I think we should advertise such drives to people listed in :Category:WikiProject Video games members. Anyone want to help me get this started? JACOPLANE • 2007-12-2 01:00
:I'd like to see this initiated, but it would be a major job.  We'll probably need a bot on board and whatnot - but it sounds like a good idea :) Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 02:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree it's a good idea, but a bot will be needed to advertise to the hordes of CVG cat'd peoples. David Fuchs (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outreach department 

message: I'm having trouble with a few I.P.'s on virtually every Sonic the Hedgehog game. He keeps adding every level onto the article, and reverts me when I remove them. I've explained my actions in the edit summary several times, but have gotten no response. I'd appreciate some help with this. DurinsBane87 10:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mind naming some specific titles? I'll see what I can do. NeoChaosX  (talk, walk) 11:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really, just pick ANY of the game articles. It's a series wide thing. Like 8 or 9 games, at least. They're not a problem right now, But i'm sure they'll be back. Just pick a game and check the revision history, you'll see it.  DurinsBane87 11:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I just checked your contributions list, and good lord. Have you tried talking to this person through their talk page? I know since they're hopping between so many IP addresses that it might be useless, but it's worth a shot. I'll add some of these to my watchlist and keep an eye on them. NeoChaosX  (talk, walk) 11:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure I left one on ONE of the I.P.s, but I didn't notice it was more than one till like 5 minutes ago, because the number's were so similar. I followed up on the latest two with messages though.  DurinsBane87 11:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just started to see what you're talking about on the Sonic Blast for Game Gear article.  I came over here to see if there was any mention of this history and sure enough, there it is.  What's up? --Bishop2 14:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's happening on pretty much EVERY Sonic game article. The actual I.P. keeps changing, but I still suspct it's the same guy. Any chance we could get them all temporarily protected against I.P.s? I think even if it was just for a few days it would kill the problem. DurinsBane87 15:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sonic Series 

message: Given that the new company is called Activision Blizzard, should we merge Activision and Blizzard Entertainment into that article or start a new one? JACOPLANE • 2007-12-2 17:40
:I would personally say a merge with a nice, well cited, history section. Otherwise, down the road, they're going to end up being merged from three to one, and that's even more of a pain. Zemalia 17:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aye, merge them with a concise history section detailing both companies. I'm convinced by the following comments, keep Blizzard and Activision, simply make sure its all put into past tense when the merge of the companies is fully complete. I also doubt that the logo will remain the same, given the incorporation of Blizzard into the company's name. -- Sabre 21:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Square Enix. And yes, creating a single article with the best of both worlds and redirecting both Activision and Blizzard Entertainment to the new article is the correct solution. -- ReyBrujo 21:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, delete that. This is a new company, with a brand new history. Blizzard Entertainment and Activision should stay as articles, while a new one is created, just like Square Enix became a new article but the individual company articles stayed (changing everything to past tense). -- ReyBrujo 21:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Merging it outright is going to cause a lot of problems though.  There's a lot of content on the Blizzard page (Controversies, titles, corporate culture) that just would not fit on an Activision merged page, but shouldn't be lost though.   I agree with ReyBrujo as well. --Marty Goldberg 21:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding your deleted comments, one option is to move the Blizzard/Activision-specific text (if there's too much of it) to a "History of Blizzard Entertainment" or "History of Activision" article. SharkD 00:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: An interesting point under Blizzard's FAQ: see point 2. If they are keeping their original name then I'd imagine that they may still be publishing using the name Blizzard Entertainment, much like under the old arrangement with Vivendi. I don't think we're going to be seeing "developed by Activision Blizzard" on the box of StarCraft II. Also bear in mind that according to that FAQ the merge won't be complete until mid-2008. It could be a long time until we see some major changes in the works. -- Sabre 22:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It would get complicated if we merged every defunct company article. Companies are bought and sold all the time. What if EA would buy Activion Blizzard? We would merge all info to EA article? It would make no sense. --Mika1h 23:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Oppose any merger. With other mergers, we just create a new article (like how both Namco and Bandai kept their articles when they merged to from Namco Bandai, same with the Square Enix merger). TJ Spyke 00:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, no merger should be done; if one of the companies was sufficiently small to have only a stub or less on WP, then it would make sense, but not with Activision and Blizzard. --MASEM 00:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also oppose any merger for exactly the reasons stated by Mika1h & Masem. Create new article for new company and past tense and link "old" articles. - X201 14:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I see where you're coming from, but I currently oppose any merger until we see in action whether or not Blizzard will opt to keep themselves a separate credited developer, i.e. "Rare" after they were essentially absorbed into Microsoft.  However, I think this is definitely something we need to keep an eye on and revisit in the future... --Bishop2 14:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Activision Blizzard 

message: Should games like those on the Virtual Console have only their original reviews? Ratings or just comments, should the new reviews be mentioned at all? « ₣ullMetal ₣alcon » 18:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless there's a huge difference in ratings, I don't think it deserves much of a mention. Maybe just a "... the Virtual Console rerelease was..." type of ending to the reception? David Fuchs (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The usual approach for this is to just mention it on the existing game's page, e.g. Defender, Pac-Man, Tapper, Bomberman, all of which have been released on Xbox 360 Live Arcade. --Oscarthecat 21:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about the way F-Zero X mentions it? « ₣ullMetal ₣alcon » 01:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-reviewed games 

message: Can some people help me keep an eye on this? Several people keep adding a section for upcoming games, that isn't from a reliable source and is just original research. They claim it's alright, because the site has guessed the upcoming games right several times already. The information isn't useful for the article, and the sections just encourage off topic posting such as this: Talk:List of Virtual Console games (North America)#November 26. Saying the new releases are crappy, has nothing to do with the article. RobJ1981 23:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1)The site hasn't guessed anything. Like most decent sites, they have a Nintendo rep. One of the editors of the site started reviewing VC games a few weeks ago and got their Nintendo rep to give him the PR release a couple of days early so he can have a review ready for Monday morning. So he's not guessing, he's using the info from the official PR release Nintendo releases on Monday, the only way he could be wrong is if Nintendo changes their mind at the very last minute. This editor also posts at NeoGAF, where he reveals which systems that weeks games will be for (he also posts hints at what the games will be, and sometimes posts the exact games, like he did this week and a couple of weeks ago). I have shown that he is reliable, and you are not the boss of the article Rob (and it's bizarre how you think someone calling you stubborn is a personal attack). I just hope you don't violate 3RR (you are at 3 reverts for it). TJ Spyke 00:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not at 3 reverts. The 3RR violation occurs after the 4th revert in a 24-hour period. I'm currently at 2 for the timeframe. RobJ1981 01:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research on [[Talk:List of Virtual Console games (North America)]] 

message: These 4 articles: PlayStation Portable System Software, PlayStation 3 System Software,Wii System Software and Xbox 360 System Software are useful, but I don't see them as encyclopedic. They are just lists of everytime the system was updated. I'm considering putting them in AFD, but I'm not sure what reasoning to give. Thoughts? RobJ1981 01:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are system software articles needed? 

message: Hi everyone. I'm pretty new to Wikipedia, and interested in joining the video games project. I have many fond memories of Atari ST games in particular, and have noticed that there are many well known, or 'considered classic' ST games which do not have articles yet, so my plan very loosely is to work though List of Atari ST games, create articles where it seems needed, and try and expand stubs, contribute screenshots, etc for other games, so long as that's ok with everyone. I've already created my first article here: Archipelagos (computer game)
I've added the Video Games WikiProject userbox to my userpage, as it said that anybody could, but wasn't sure if there was any more proper way to join this project, or announce my intention to get involved. I'm still pretty new at doing any kind of editing on Wikipedia outside of the reference desk though, so let me know if there's anything I should be doing differently. Thanks :) --Monorail Cat 22:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's about it. You might want to familiarize yourself with the various subpages of this project like the Article guidelines, Assessment department, Cleanup department, Magazine archive, and the Peer review. In addition to those there are the standard guidelines and policies of Wikipedia we have to adhere. It's a lot of info to go over, but worth skimming through to know where to check for what. If you have any questions about editing video game articles this is the place to do it. Welcome to the project. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi Monorail Cat, welcome to WP:VG! Nice job on the Archipelagos article - I remember the game (or at least being quite confused by it) on the Amiga back in the day, so it's nice to finally read what it was all about! Anyway, I've also noticed the lack of many ST game articles so I'm glad someone's come along to put it right - if you need magazine sources for any ST games let me know, I've got most issues of C&VG and The One from around that time. Cheers, Miremare 22:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want to also check out the Atari taskforce. They are members of the VG Project that focus primarily on Atari related articles. I don't know if it's still active, worth checking out though. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hi folks 

message: I've redone Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/to do, which is used in . So now the template lists all current peer reviews, current articles that have been accepted by the cleanup department, current FACs, as well as some other tasks. When adding a new peer review or FAC, please also add it to the template. JACOPLANE • 2007-12-4 15:54
:I'm thinking we could add GA candidates to that as well - WP:AWNB does something similar.  On the other hand, they'd all be clumped together at GAC...I dunno, any thoughts? Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 06:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since they're listed in one section at GAC and also at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Good articles, let's not bother trying to keep up with another duplicate list. Pagrashtak 16:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the subject of GA/GACs, while looking through the recent GAs, I have to wonder how a gameguide article like Warhawk (PlayStation 3 game) got to become one. Either the reviewer is a fan of the game or he/she doesn't know the guidelines the project has established. Should some sort of guidance on a game-article's style be introduced in the VG project template?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.4.136 (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, 'tis a bad article, but the GA guidelines are clear enough; the problem lies with the reviewers. I suggest taking Warhawk to WP:GAR; I'm currently in the process of weeding out bad vg articles from the GA archives via the Sweeps, but that'll take a while. David Fuchs (talk) 23:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  todo reorganisation 

message: I'm trying to help with a new game article called President Forever 2008 + Primaries (Political Game), but I'm not sure what a more appropriate title would be for the article. The additional classification via the bracketed (political game) isn't necessary, there's not going to be another article with this game's title, but what about the plus sign?Someone another (talk) 06:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, dump the Political game - it's not needed.  As for the plus sign , I would create redirects where it's replaced with "&" and "and".  Otherwise, a + is a common symbol and ok to use in article names. --MASEM 06:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Someone another (talk) 06:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: Two weeks ago Pagrashtak had asked why do we have  and .  The reason is due to a (mostly enforced) former policy that attempted to ensure that navboxes remained small.  The former policy has remained uncontested since July, the history tag was temporary, was contested, and for whatever reason it seems to have stuck.
For what I can say about  is that it attempted to fix the problems that were practically non-existent and doesn't fix the problems that our ex-policy addressed.  —Dispenser (talk) 13:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While it is good to have small navboxes, it is better to have organized navboxes. While going through all the video game navboxes, I noticed that on most of them it is hard to tell which links are games, which links are spin-offs, characters, movies, etc. That's where  comes in. The problem with  and  is that they don't have the hide button, which does discourage bloated navboxes but I noticed many VG articles that have many navboxes on them that are uncollapsed and take alot of space. Also, when it comes to VG navboxes, there really isn't much you can bloat them with, since most of VG articles are getting deleted and merged now. —TigerK 69 (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  VG Navigation groups, again 

message: Why are Bastila Shan, HK-47 and T3-M4 still separated from the respective lists? Are they more "notable" than the other characters from those games? — Raffaello9 | Talk | 16:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't imageine why either of those are kept, unless some RS can be found for them.  If you can't find any sources, you might want to PROD or AFD. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 23:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: Please add a video game screenshot (particulalry a high-res one) to :Wikipedia:Use rationale examples. Thanks. SharkD (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For what reason? Also, we don't use high-resolution screenshots unless they are free content, in which case they have nothing to do with that page. Pagrashtak 15:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screenshot rationale 

message: A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Political game, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy).  You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of Political game.  SharkD (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The author of the article wasn't a registered user, so I thought I'd post it here. SharkD (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Here are the reasons I proposed deletion (copied from the deletion template): "Topic already covered by Government simulation game. Games covered here but not in that article haven't established notability." SharkD (talk) 02:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: A partial merger might also be appropriate (wherever reliable sources can be found). The list of non-notable games really belongs in DMOZ, not here. SharkD (talk) 02:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please report video game-related deletion proposals at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Deletion. Thanks, Pagrashtak 15:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political game 

message: *Wikipedia:WikiProject Warcraft
*Wikipedia:WikiProject Dragon Quest
*Wikipedia:WikiProject Arcade games
*Wikipedia:WikiProject Artix Entertainment
*Wikipedia:WikiProject Pinball
*Wikipedia:WikiProject Strategy games
*Wikipedia:WikiProject TimeSplitters
*Wikipedia:WikiProject Castlevania  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobJ1981 (talk • contribs) 08:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inactive Projects

message: I know Meta Knight and King Dedede are going to be a hassle to keep redirected because they are major characters, so I could use some additional comments at Talk:List of Kirby characters#Merge to assert a number consensus. Currently, there is nothing to assert notability, though there is a chance that it is out there if anyone wants to dig deep for it. TTN (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The articles currently contain no real world information, but you might be able to dish some up.  Look at stuff like Cortana and Arbiter (Halo) (both GA) - information from the voice actors, designers, etc. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 00:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I get some more opinions? There is currently a stubborn editor that does not understand our fiction guidelines trying to keep King Dedede. TTN (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have cited some more sources about voice actors, and I am looking up at the moment his voice actor for Kirby Air Ride. It is too notable to be merged, he is kirby's version of Bowser. This fact separates him from most of the characters in the game. FangzofBlood 23:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Voice actors do not establish notability, and notability requires objective evidence. Your comparison is completely subjective. Add sources if you believe it to be so. TTN (talk) 23:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took mention about how the voice actor for King Dedede, has taken up parts in the Pokemon anime. I found that a fun fact to include for some "real world" information. FangzofBlood 00:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an original connection that has nothing to do with the character. TTN (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Original Research is defined as research with no citing or backed evidence. I have citing. Both the Pokemon and Kirby franchise are owned by Nintendo. FangzofBlood 00:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless, your point is irrelevant to the character at large. As it is now, the article demonstrates no indication that it satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Naturally, if sources are found, then the article can be recreated at a later date, but the article as is should be merged. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 00:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still, this mean that Bowser (Nintendo) fails also, due to it being presented in the same format. FangzofBlood 00:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply because other articles exist that are similar to yours does not mean that yours is notable. The issue at hand, which you have not addressed, is rather simple: provide sources to satisfy WP:FICT, and every editor here will be more than happy to let the article stand. If not, then the article should be merged. Dodging around this isn't helping the situation. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 00:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see the issue now that is causing this. WP:FICT wasn't really adapted for video games, we really need to come up with a proper guideline for video game related articles, maybe a listed set on the front page. To tell you the truth, almost all video game character related articles fail in some way. FangzofBlood 01:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meta Knight and King Dedede 

message: Just a heads-up that I've nominated Cortana for WP:FAC here. David Fuchs (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ...speaking of [[Cortana]] 

message: It seems that everything really important here is related to the discussion over WP:FICTION, and , as it appears there is no agreement on anything, I am trying to urge some sort of at least temporary compromise. I'd be glad if anyone could suggest some wordingt here. DGG (talk) 02:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, there needs to be an official stance posted by this WikiProject on what is and is not WP:FICTION and WP:NOTE. I suggest a list of requirements. FangzofBlood 00:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  guidelines 

message: Can I join? Check out my page, read it, you will see why I think I should be on this WikiProject. Uzumaki Dude (talk) 22:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games#Participants, you need only add  to your user page. Though technically that isn't even required. If you find a video game article you'd like to edit feel free. I'd also suggest looking over the Project pages for suggestion in editing such articles. If you have any questions, here's a good place to ask. Welcome to the Project. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a word of caution—you user page mentions you like cheat codes, but please note that Wikipedia is not the place for cheat codes or game-guide content, such as detailed descriptions of how to play the game or lists of minutia and statistics. Pagrashtak 22:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Join 

message: I would like to say something about how people are using WP:FICT is being abused for mass deletions. WP:FICT has recently been disputed and is "not set in stone". Recently members have been using it as a scapegoat to delete articles, which I find in repulsive. FangzofBlood 23:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FICT is built off of WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, and certain points of WP:NOT. Even without it, those condone the removal of content that does not establish notability. WP:FICT and WP:WAF just deal with fiction specifically. Anyways, only certain points are being disputed at this point, so the tag really shouldn't be there anyways. TTN (talk) 23:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It also says at the top "This page is considered a notability guideline on Wikipedia. It is a generally accepted standard that all editors should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." I am doing this in good faith, and I wish to not push it beyond. FangzofBlood 23:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The key aspect that is under issue there is the fact that many people do not try to use the other methods described on the page (tagging, merging, or transwiki) before calling for an AfD.  If an article is tagged for being non-notable and no action is taken after some time, then the article can be brought to AfD, but lack of notability is not a criteria for speedy deletion, nor should it mean an immediate trip to AfD save in extreme cases where the editor is reasonable sure, by good faith, that notability can never be established for a topic.  --MASEM 23:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another issue is that some people refuse to use common sense and acknowledge when articles have no merit, and simply argue and obstruct the process anyway. I'm not referring to anyone specifically, but I am tired of hearing of procedural abuse and the keepers getting no "credit" for their role in recent arguments. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The transwikiing in particular is one avenue that I have not seen a lot of these zealous deletionists pursue. SharkD (talk) 04:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About [[WP:FICT]] 

message: I found the link which King Dedede was one of the most requested villians for Brawl. FangzofBlood 23:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good source. Now, what is it for? SharkD (talk) 00:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this satify you? 

message: This article is a mess.  I'm not sure if can even be kept.  Googling "gold edition" brings up multiple instances where this is true, where the original game is bundled with an expansion, but it is my impression that that is not enough for Wikipedia.  Examples I can off the bat see are Rise of Nations, Painkiller, Civilization II...that's about it.  PROD, AFD, or leave alone and clean up? hbdragon88 (talk) 05:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is true (I have the Age of Empires gold edition for instance), but I don't think it's notable, and is probably better discussed in the individual article. AfD. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 05:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just put it up on AfD in response to the comments here. Marlith T/C 05:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Gold edition]] 

message: A while ago I noticed that Template:Infobox VG was no longer using the preceeded by/followed by fields, apparently due to editors "abusing" the feature by adding unrelated or barely-related games to those fields.  I have to ask, isn't that a bit extreme?  I would think the best solution would be to trim the offending uses out, rather than cutting out a useful and relevant bit of functionality from an infobox.  (Or to paraphrase, aren't we cutting off our nose to spite our face?) -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 10:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, agreed. When translating Supreme Commander to :nl:Supreme Commander, I noticed their infobox had the fields - as well as an expansion field. It's quite nice to have. User:Krator (t c) 11:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly disagree. The infobox is already large, and the games that would go in these entries are often ambiguous (do spin-offs count?), often have a tenuous connection, and just lead to unnecessary conflict. The navboxes typically already list these games, and in a broader context. I see no reason to add them to the infobox. Pagrashtak 16:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a "Me too" for what Pagrashtak said above. I concur on all points. - X201 (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think this information would be much more useful to have in an infobox rather than ESRB-like ratings and release dates in five different countries. In fact, I previously wrote about this on this very page. User:Krator (t c) 22:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, then that's an issue that needs to be sorted out on the individual pages.  The purpose of this project is to establish an informative and well-written collection of articles about video games.  If we stopped trying to do anything that was difficult we'd never get there.  Sure, there may be some complications that may arise, but so long as the template clearly explains the intended use of the fields clearly then it won't be that much of a problem.  The benefits far outweigh the drawbacks. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 01:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox VG and the preceeded by/followed by fields 

message: The other day I radically changed the Body Harvest article - it was written like a FAQ, with extended lists of enemies, worlds and weapons. Ofcourse, not suitable for Wikipedia article. My changes were undone by someone, who, according to the history page, worked excessively on the article. Ofcourse I could tell the user what's right, but he'll won't believe me. Can someone here show me the right guidelines for videogame articles? --Soetermans (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edits were perfectly fine, per WP:WEIGHT, and WP:NOT#GUIDE. Ashnard Talk Contribs 17:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The guidelines for video game articles are at WP:VG/GL. Miremare 18:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Body Harvest 

message: I dont know if this is the right place to ask,but do you guys accept the Moddb site as a Reliable source?.I recently Edited the C&C Renegade page,and added a mod section bout 3 Renegade mods,but where removed by a user,who says i need a notable source,and not the main site of the Mod itself.So do you guys consider www.moddb.com as a notable source??user:Theta123
:The editor-written content on that site is reliable, the user-submitted content is not. Which specific article where you using? User:Krator (t c) 22:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moddb is reliable to establish facts about those mods, but is wholly unsuitable for establishing the notability of said mods.  In order to justify including a mod you'd need some kind of third-party independent coverage (such as mentions in a gaming magazine) or the mod winning an award.  (Moddb awards count) -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 01:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... I can't find any use of anything other than pseudonyms on the part of their writers, and their staff page seems not to be implemented. Are you sure they're reliable? SharkD (talk) 04:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Their article sections all have "Add New" links in their site map, suggesting all their content is user-submitted. How do you tell editorials apart? SharkD (talk) 04:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As with user-submitted content, often you can't.  However, since a number of the users are the mod creators themselves, it is permissible to consider information from mod creators about the facts of the mod reliable. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 10:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ModdB as reliable source 

message: I think that one of the guidelines for Wikiproject: Video games should be to refer to products released in the northern portion of the Western Hemisphere as "North American" rather the "U.S.", "US", or "United States". I have nothing against the US (heck, I live here), but I feel it is inaccurate to refer to the whole North American market as the "US" and I have noticed many pages within the scope of this Wikiproject that do that very thing. Does anyone object to this guideline being added? Thingg (talk) 03:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with certain exceptions. The game Rock Band for example, is being relesed in Canada almost one month after the US version so it would make more sense in that case not to use North America and to mention the two countries sepertaly. In most cases though I don't see a problem with this idea. --70.48.108.72 (talk) 03:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I meant to say that if there are differences between the countries of North America, then obviously use the term "US". However, I think that in most cases, it is safe to use North America because most games/accessories release in the US/Canada/Latin America at the same time Thingg (talk) 12:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I proposed this standard alongside Template:vgrelease almost a year ago, and I actually did it for many articles (back when everything just used a U.S. flag). I also proposed this: There needs to be "PAL region" instead of just Europe. PAL region includes Australia and New Zealand, who often release games on the same date as Europe. If this isn't the case, then "Australasia" should be used instead of just Australia, as Australia and New Zealand ALWAYS release the games on the same date. --Teggles (talk) 07:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: To tag along, what is the recommendation for NTSC/J releases outside of Japan? NTSC/J in Japan are purely Japanese products (in interface, contents and language). However South East Asia also utilizes NTSC/J while possibly having Chinese or English languages, as well as different contents and release dates. Are there any recommendations on the branding of South East Asia NTSC/J? Jappalang (talk) 08:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Use a new code to represent SE-Asia? Ong elvin (talk) 10:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ? Jappalang (talk) 11:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  avoids a redirect. Anomie⚔ 13:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: First, I agree with using the term "North America" as opposed to "The United States" or "The Americas". Second, as for Asia, I'm fairly sure that most countries have different release dates then Japan, but I always thought that was because, aside from maybe Korea, possibly, most countries in Asia are in the PAL or SECAM region (If there is a SECAM in Gaming). <BR> As for PAL, I think we should probably separate those countries only by Europe/Australia. Australia usually gets stuff shortly after Europe, and most Europe releases are done simultaneously in every country. Theres also the issue of some of the PAL/NTSC Countries in South America and Africa, but I know nothing about those. Dengarde ► Complaints  10:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even better piece of advice: the only time a non-primarily-English-speaking-country's release date should be mentioned is when the game came out first for that country (this follows what the Films project does for movie release dates), unless there some other notable aspect to itself release in a different country.  If anything, this needs to be applied to the infobox to keep the infobox short, it is not as important in the prose to follow this, but we don't want to basically have a long list of release dates for every country in the world. --MASEM 14:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem I tend to have is that the sources use "US", and whether they are actually referring to US or they really mean "North America" is unclear. Anomie⚔ 13:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "North America" not "United States" 

message: Well this dispute needs some outside intervention and so far this hasn't happened, so I've decided to alert the project about it. See the discussion here. .:Alex:. 16:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the original poster in that discussion. Images should be excluded from lists, unless the copyright holder has created a montage of characters. Images are OK in articles about the character. SharkD (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment for [[List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas]] 

message: Circlestrafing had the prod tag on for over 5 days, and the tag was removed while I was considering pulling the trigger. It does have no sources that support it's inclusion as an article, and I don't feel it should remain an article without reliable sources. The other articles linked in the above template are in the same situation except one, Rocket jumping which appears it may have two reliable sources, but they're not easily accessible. Without enough reliable sources to support all of the content in these articles, they should be trimmed of original research which would result in no article for all of them but one. Of the rest, they have all had the unreferenced template for over 6 months. So my inclination is to AFD all the unreferenced articles. At best I believe enough reliable sources could be found to merge them all into one article on "Specialized movements in first-person shooter computer games" or something similar. I'm posting notice here to see if people are willing to find the necessary reliable sources to support that, or if they should proceed to AFD. Since they've all been unreferenced for so long, I kind of view this as their last chance. :) Have fun all. - Taxman Talk 23:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead. I fail to see how the articles are even remotely notable (I'm using that term loosely here)in the first place. The articles themselves are poorly written and seem to mainly be a list of games that the particular "jump" has been in. .:Alex:. 16:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I kind of like the pages, personally. The animations are cool, too. SharkD (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The rocket jumping one in particular seems to be well-sourced. A lot of the same sources could probably be applied to circlestrafing. At the very least, they should be merged into Specialized movements in first-person shooter computer games, as the topic seems to be well-covered in secondary sources. SharkD (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Game Jumps]] and related articles 

message: Has there ever been a proposed guideline for the notability of computer and video games? When I created My Hero (video game) my article was slapped with a speedy deletion tag, A7, although it clearly didn't meet any of those criteria for being a video game. Not only that, it was a widely distributed game for a widely distributed games console. Still this led me to wonder - are all video games that have been released to the world at large on a major platform notable? I think they should be in theory, but there is a lack of online reliable sources in this case.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 19:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The deletion tag was probably added too hastily. SharkD (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The user who added the tag probably thought the article was a hoax (due to the funny title). SharkD (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I would argue there are some cases where it's not so much the individual game that is notable but the series that is more so or that grouping the games into the series would provide a better article.  I did suggest this with Crazy Taxi (series) though there was consensus against it.  Swordquest is an example of 3 separate games (Atari 2600 games to wit, but still...) where one article makes much more sense than three.  It's a rare, but not impossible, case. --MASEM 20:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. That doesn't apply to my case though as I do not believe it's part of a series.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 20:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: That .01% didn't save Tonka Rescue Patrol.  Very hard to fanthom, but no review sites touched it. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability of actual video games 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:Current fiction}}]]