Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 35

message: I was wondering if anyone would be willing to create a version of this template that displays the boxart by default.  takes up too much space in some cases, but the hidden version hides the boxart. SharkD (talk) 04:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|Infobox VG Hidden}} 

message: Would the table of weapons at Counter-Strike#Firearms in CounterStrike be considered a "list of weapons", which would fail WP:GAMECRUFT? --Silver Edge (talk) 06:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say yes unless (as usual) some of them are mentioned in external publications etc. Seems unlikely - and thus these tables are usually removed. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 06:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if it were mentioned in external publications, it would still be WP:GAMEGUIDE material. SharkD (talk) 07:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: False. WP:GAMEGUIDE means that instructional material is not allowed, and listing guns and their features is not instructional. However, I don't think the list is exactly necessary. In other words, you can get away with having it there, but the folks at WP:GA and WP:FA probably won't be happy. --Teggles (talk) 07:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Within the WP:VG project, we've got a bit more detailed guideline at WP:GAMECRUFT - basically if the information is only of use to someone that plays or will plays the game, its not appropriate to include.  Much of the CS article is in bad shape (shouldn't have map lists (map types, fine) as well). --MASEM 08:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Only of use to someone that plays or will play the game" is completely subjective, and frankly, it doesn't need to apply to this list. Let's say one is researching what the most common guns used in violent games are. That list will be useful. --Teggles (talk) 09:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But, their stats wouldn't be useful. SharkD (talk) 04:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:GAMECRUFT, Unsuitable Content #2 (lists of items) and #3 (excessive detail) kinda says "that weapons list should not be there for any reason whatsoever." Ong elvin (talk) 08:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A list of weapons is not "excessive". That guideline (not policy) does say exceptions are possible, and considering guns are a central part of Counter-Strike, it wouldn't be uncalled for. As I said, it's unnecessary and I suggest removing it, but you could make a case if it's really wanted. --Teggles (talk) 09:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, exceptions are possible, but I don't think this is one of them. User:Krator (t c) 12:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yeah, there are exceptions I guess... but they're not "exceptions" unless they're few and far between. Besides, saying that guns are central to Counter-Strike is like saying guns are central to INSERT ANY FPS HERE, so I always consider such arguments to have no point. As I see it, such arguments should never be taken into consideration. Related arguments which should also be ignored since they are central to the genre rather than the game: Monster lists since monsters are central to an RPG (or any game really); and descriptions of the elaborate Rock/Paper/Scissors system, especially in RTS or Tactical games. Ong elvin (talk) 13:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though there are guidelines to exclude and include content in articles, these guidelines have some loopholes in their wording as we all know. I think the underlining question to all the guidelines is "Is the information encyclopedic?" To the uninformed reader, the list may not provide that much information, and the phrase, "there are different types of weapons that provide various ways to attack opponents. Examples include... (short listing)" may provide the same amount of information as the table. Though the list is up to interpretation as to whether it falls under a specific guideline/policy for inclusion or exclusion, in the end we must think of the average reader and what they expect from an encyclopedic article on a video game. My two cents. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, my response was going to go somewhere along the lines of Guyinblack's did: to the average reader, this info is somewhat unnecessary and would only benefit readers actually interested in the game material, such as gamers. In the end, this list should be removed.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 17:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It is important to recognise the status of links such as WP:GAMECRUFT. To use this example here, it should not be understood as "Thou shallt not write weapon lists". Rather, it's more like "Weapon lists have proven to be deleted over and over again for the same reason, so let's put that reason here to warn people and make sure we don't waste our time". User:Krator (t c) 22:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:WEIGHT should be considered here. By adding more content that is exclusively known to actual players, we shift the tone of the article away from the NPOV needed to make it accessible to all readers. Do any reliable sources document every single weapon in the game, and if so, do the sources establish enough prominence for the article to dedicate a whole section to list every single item in the game? If the information does -- in exceptional cases -- meet WP:V and WP:NOR, WP:WEIGHT is still a significant factor into sorting out what is "excessive" for articles. --Scottie_theNerd 00:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Counter-Strike#Firearms in CounterStrike]] 

message: * Category:720p HD games 
* Category:1080i HD games 
* Category:1080p HD games 
These seem like unneeded categories to me. All next-gen games run in 720p, and only a handful actually run in 1080p. Currently all of these categories are completely empty aside from the 1080p one, which has false information in it anyway (three of the four games listed on the 1080p category are NOT native 1080p (only Virtua Tennis 3 is).  SeanMooney (talk) 09:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, they're excessive, unnecessary. Even if the categories were being used on all applicable games, games have never been (and never will be) classified by their resolution. Ong elvin (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1080p HD games category 

message: At Talk:List of locations in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars#Requested move, we're currently discussing a new name for the article, since it's no longer a list of locations. This article is also the current focus of Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Cleanup, so any help is greatly welcome. Thank you! Taric25 (talk) 02:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Déjà vu? User:Krator (t c) 02:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I know. "Wasn't he just here?", right? But still, we do need some help. Any offered is welcome. Thank you! Taric25 (talk) 02:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of locations in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars]] 

message: The "xxxx in video gaming" links are going to automatically be removed in many cases. See the discussion, here. SharkD (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Our article guidelines used to say to avoid surprise links whenever possible, but they don't seem to have that now. Who removed that? Pagrashtak 17:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[Date] in video gaming" links 

message: Due to some ever so fun wikilawyering, I am in need of some comments in order to establish a number consensus. The articles in question are Meta Knight and others are within the merge tag within this revision of List of Mega Man characters. Even if you don't really care about the issue, can anybody that reads this just comment, so I don't have to do this five more times? Just to keep it together, please just comment here. TTN (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't really say anything about the Mega Man characters as I'm not particulary interested in that series but Meta Knight is kind of pointless, I can really see this getting any kind of significant development detail, the character itself its obscure at best and its only a secondary character in most entries (exept for one in wich he was the main antagonist) in a series that while popular its not prominent enought as to having enough out of universe information when dealing with secondary characters, a simmilar situation to what we encountered while trying to source secondary Devil May Cry characters, all of wich are now merged. - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I get some more people to comment? I'm also adding Waddle Dee and Kracko to this list. All of these people that are reading consensus so literally are annoying. TTN (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some merging comments requested 

message: I was thinking that perhaps we should rename "Category:Xbox 360-only games" to something along the lines of "Games exclusive to the Xbox 360". The current title just seems somewhat unencyclopedic, and it is not cohesive. So what is everybody's opinion concerning this issue? - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a CFD a few months ago about the Nintendo DS-only category, which resulted in no consensus. hbdragon88 (talk) 08:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Caribbean - you're correct about the naming, it is clunky and could do with something more intuitive. Please stick at it because there is support for changing to a "better" name.  I'm fully in favour of your suggestion  but  as HB mentioned above, name changes of "only" categories doesn't seem to have gathered enough momentum to make the change happen at the moment. - - X201 (talk) 09:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Rename them "Category:___ exclusives" (i.e. Category:Xbox 360 exclusives). You're right that the current titling is just awkward. clicketyclickyaketyyak 01:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I'd prefer something a little more formal like Category:Xbox 360 exclusive games or Video games exclusive to Xbox 360 but anything would be better than the current name - X201 (talk) 09:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Category:Xbox 360 exclusive games sounds good to me, with a redirect from xbox 360 exclusives. clicketyclickyaketyyak 16:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Aye,  "Category:[platform] exclusive games" sounds good. If you open a discussion at CfD, let us know. -- Sabre (talk) 17:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, "Category:[platform]-exclusive games". Pagrashtak 17:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  hahah, ya, Pagra is grammatically correct. Better use the hyphenated version. I can't believe I missed that... Does it need to go up for CfD? Can't the page just be moved? I quickly looked over CfD and it seems to be about renaming articles that have inappropriate names. clicketyclickyaketyyak 17:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposing renaming category 

message: Over at WP:FILM, I noticed that they have a Future-class designation for all future-release films.  Perhaps we could employ this designation here and other as-of-yet-unreleased video games?  --Son (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why, though?  The Class rating is for how good the article is- a Stub-class article is a stub, a Start-class article rates a start, etc.  "Future" isn't a measure of article quality. --PresN (talk) 06:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. It's especially unnecessary considering that future video games are tagged with  in any case. "Future" does not indicate whether the article is at Stub, Start, or B-class, and thus is not indicative of the article's current status. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree..."Future-Class" is not a measure of article quality, but  how can an article be given a proper assessment if the product hasn't been released yet?  --Son (talk) 06:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are references, the amount of information present, the quality of the writing, and so on and such forth. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it can't be GA or FA (fail the comprehensiveness requirement), but there's really nothing stopping it from being Start or B class. So no, no need for a Future-class, IMO. --VPeric (talk) 09:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Duke Nukem Forever is a GA. --Mika1h (talk) 10:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm surpised that such an article has been passed as GA. Are they forgetting about stability? Ashnard Talk Contribs 19:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the GA commentary, (back in early this year), technically the article was stable - no media had come out about the game since 2001, and back then, DNF was still to be done "when it's done".  That all changed yesterday, so I'm actually going to put this up for GA delisting.  --MASEM 19:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would presume that to be an exception to the rule, not the rule itself. For now, the rating system appears to be sufficient.--CM (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Has it changed that dramatically?  All I knew was that it was a trailer...nothing more...no release date that I read. hbdragon88 (talk) 07:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future-class article? 

message: I just noticed there are five articles which are listings of video games under this Wiki project, basically "List of video games: X-X" where X is an alphabet (e.g. List of video games: D-H). Why are there such lists which require manual maintenance when a Category would do a much better job? Jappalang (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Categories only show articles that already exist. Lists allow the addition of entries that don't have articles and need creating. - X201 (talk) 22:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of video games: X-X 

message: A discussion is taking place here concerning whether "Characters of/in..." articles should be featured articles or featured lists. As this is rather relevant to this project (Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, Characters of Kingdom Hearts, Characters in Castlevania: Sorrow series), I thought it prudent to leave a notice here. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 18:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character FAs to FLs 

message: Forwarding this article to the greater CVG community on whether or not this passes WP:WEB or not. hbdragon88 (talk) 07:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does, it is frequently cited by other notable and reliable sources.  Google News - hahnchen 11:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Shacknews]] 

message: Would somebody who knows what they're doing take a look at the deletion page? I updated the closed AFDs and between my edit and the last one a massive chunk of deletion information has suddenly appeared slap-bang in the middle of it. I'm assuming that this is part of the WP:FICT discussions about how deletion should be the last option and alternatives should be explored first, but it doesn't seem to be hooked up in the right place. Someone another (talk) 12:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, someone left part of  floating around (either adding an article to wrong place or copying and not completing it) and caused the AFD instructions to be transwiki'ed instead. --MASEM 14:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I was looking at the diff but couldn't see how I'd clipped anything except the closed AFDs which were moved, I thought that information might have belonged on the page since the project's various departments seem to be being clarified/moved/updated. Someone another (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Deletion]] 

message: I have greatly improved the Wurm Online page and I believe it is due for reassement, please take a look. There is still no section for combat as I am awaiting infomation on that subject. --Mollsmolyneux (talk) 20:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you add it to the list at the bottom of the assessment page an editor will reasses it. Someone another (talk) 21:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wurm Online 

message: I recently removed from the VG-GA list an article which had been merged to a Pokemon list. At least three on the ex-GA list have also been merged. should some sort of new section be added to it to list these articles? --Lenin and McCarthy  |  (Complain here) 03:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, common usage has been to just remove articles that no longer exist from the list. --PresN (talk) 17:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The GA list 

message: I know that there had already been discussions on this, but I see new articles popping up with platform listed as "PC". I do agree that the PC is not a platform. Rather, the relevant OS is. Shouldn't we users discuss this and agree on a consensus so that it can be established as a guideline? speaks rohith. 15:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, PC tends to go hand in hand with Windows, thanks to IBM. Its only recently with this Games for Windows malarkey that "Windows" is becoming more the focus of the platform than the PC. However, look on the side of games boxes: they mostly all say "PC CD" or "PC DVD ROM", putting the platform as the PC, not Windows. -- Sabre (talk) 15:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the meaning of "Platform"? It's something on which the game runs. There are PCs around the world that run on countless OSes and they are all PCs. But will the game run on each and every one of them? No. Most probably on Windows. Some might even run on Linux. This is why I say that Windows or whatever OS it runs on must be the platform, not PC. See also: WP:VG/PC game. speaks rohith. 20:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Hey, I actually agree with you. You just asked for a discussion on it, I'm (failing at) playing Devil's advocate. -- Sabre (talk) 20:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I agree, PC is really generic and doesn't specify a platform. PC just means that the game has been released for computers, it doesn't give the reader any information on what exactly it was released for (Windows? Mac? Linux even?). Come to think of it, PC isn't even a platform in the first place, it's just a machine that happens to run Operating Systems. .:Alex:. 20:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, Sabre. Anyway, can this be debated upon and the consensus turned into a guideline? speaks rohith. 19:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PC a platform? 

message: *Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wii System Software --Son (talk) 16:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion discussion 

message: I was doing the List of american football games and List of volleyball video games when I see that the lists are diferent from each others.
So, how should I make the new lists ??
Table
Some lists have a table with 7 columns
Title | Developer | Publisher | Release date | OS (Operating System) | Engine | License | Notes
List of free first-person shooters
Others have a table with 5 columns
Title | Release date | Console(s) | Developer | Publisher
List of american football games
And other have a table with 4 columns
Game | System(s) | Publisher | Release Date
List of cel-shaded video games
And other have a table with 4 columns
Title | Description | Platform, Developer, Year Released
List of Tetris variants
Division
Some are divided by platform
List of adult video games
Others by name
List of cel-shaded video games
And others by developer
List of graphic adventure games
And by Sub-genre
List of platform games
Name
Some has "Chronology of " in the name
Chronology of baseball video games
And others has "List of"
List of adult video games
Information
Some has a description
Chronology of computer role-playing games
Rjclaudio (talk) 01:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Video game lists by genre]] 

message: I brought this up a while back when the rehaul of the template was being done, but it was on the tail end of it and got overlooked/ignored. Its only a minor change, but I want to bring it up anyway. When the rehaul got done, we lost most of the (s) on the column headings. Considering that some games are developed by multiple companies (eg, StarCraft: Ghost, Supreme Commander or Left 4 Dead), are often published by more than one company in various locations across the world or for different formats (eg, Half-Life 2, Max Payne, Freespace or Final Fantasy VIII), and many game articles here put more than one person in the designer section, can we change these three columns to reflect this? Going by the film equivalent template, they should be changed to "Developed by", "Published by" and "Designed by", so that either one or more can comfortably be accomodated, and in my view that looks better than sticking a (s) at the end. Simply having it as "Developer", "Publisher" and "Designer" is ignorant of the potential for multiple necessary entries to these columns and should be addressed. -- Sabre (talk) 19:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer having the (s) at the end. Having "Developed by" makes it look like you're trying to complete a sentence, which conflicts with the table-like format. SharkD (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't understand what you mean, exactly. SharkD (talk) 04:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: He means that if there is a single entry, it won't display an "s" a the end, but if there is more than one it will. Seems like a nice idea, but probably too much work for too little gain - I certainly don't know how to implement something like that. But we need to work something out, whether its a conditional syntax, adding (s) to the end of appropriate columns or changing it to "Developed by" etc. -- Sabre (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The question is "conditional on what?" We could add additional parameters for "plural developers", "plural designers", and so on, or parameters for "number of delevopers", etc., or we could change it to have "developer1", "developer2", "developer3", and so on. But as it stands, there is nothing we can do to determine whether the 's' should be included or not. Anomie⚔ 15:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm definately starting to think that a conditional parameter would be far too much trouble. The same problem could be solved by a minimum of adding 9 characters into the code (ie, 3 "(s)"). -- Sabre (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no current software mechanisms that would be able to detect the presence of  tag or anything else that would indicate multiple people for the same parameter. The easiest solution is to make the fields read "developer(s)" etc., similar to what is done at Template:Infobox Officeholder. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Do we have enough consensus for a change? Judging by the comments here putting in "(s)" to the publisher, developer and designer fields is more preferable than the "developed by" style, so shall we go for that? -- Sabre (talk) 17:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it sounds reasonable. Considering the alternatives, it seems to be the only real viable option. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: A sandbox version is here. Its based on the current coding and shouldn't have any effect on how the template operates: I only changed the labels. I've added "Distributor(s)" to the columns being changed as well - I forgot about it earlier, probably because its not used much, but where it is used its usually got more than one entry. -- Sabre (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I've shoved up an edit protected request for this, based on the sandbox above. -- Sabre (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template: Infobox VG]] - minor wording change. 

message: I am unclear as to whether (or not) this topic would be improved by adding information on | Gamebrix which is a new Web 2.0 online toolset for the easy creation of animations and casual games, both as individuals, and collaboratively in teams. As a Web 2.0 technology, there are no downloads, plugins, DVDs or CDs required; Gamebrix technology is entirely server-side; only a browser is required. Games can be exported. No traditional programming is required, i.e. no Java, PHP, ActionScript or C++.
Frankatca (talk) 17:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends whether or not it satisfies the notability criteria. Are there any independent reliable sources which discuss Gamebrix? Una LagunaTalk 17:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Web 2.0 Game Creation Toolset 

message: I am experimenting with its format, making it a table and a text-only version (for copy/paste). As far as I know, the only way a list can become a good or a featured list is to include some critical comment for every item, a gracious presentation and reliable information. Both list of best-selling video games and the franchise list have reliable information, but are pretty plain. While this is good for the "outside" (gaming forums just copy/paste the information in their discussions, just google for "List of best-selling video games" to check that out), it leaves the article rather thin. By converting it into a table, we add extra necessary information like first release date and franchise introduction, leading to a better Wikipedia article.
I would like to hear opinions about both formats. Ideally, I would like to keep both (to please both Wikipedia standards and to continue spreading its usage in other places), but I fear that would not be accepted. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of best-selling video game franchises]] format 

message: Further to this discussion a while ago that kind of ground to a halt, can we reach a decision now? To summarise, the current preferred way of displaying a release date in the VG infobox is by using :Template:vgrelease, which produces the familiar NA July 5 1996 style. The way consensus was heading (according to X201's recap) was towards three-letter country codes where appropriate, which helps avoid these problems:
*EU is a political entity, European Union, rather than the geographical one, Europe, that is intended.
*NA implies "not applicable" or "not available" as much as "North America". NA is also the Country code top-level domain for Namibia, as well as many other things.
Personally I'd still be in favour of spelling out the names in full for clarity's sake, especially for North America, for which I can't think of a good three letter abbreviation (besides NAM which is also a country code for Namibia), and to avoid possible Australia/Australasia confusion. Thoughts? Miremare 23:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For three-letter codes, have a look at ISO 3166-1 alpha-3, IOC country codes, FIFA country codes. I see the main problem is the lack of official standards for region codes, and having it coexist with a country code system. Jappalang (talk) 03:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Region name abbreviations part 2 

message: I just boldly put my own suggestion for a redesign in place. Note that I in no way want to force this look upon you guys, but from experience actions like this are quite effective in generating consensus and improvements. It's not a big departure from the previous design (it only includes the to do list, and excludes lots of transclusions) in terms of design. Feel free to edit, but I do have a request: keep the length of the page below or equal to the length of the infobox. User:Krator (t c) 19:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's too short and doesn't include all the necessary information and links.  Yet is also too wordy due to the layout of the text.  I'd much rather prefer something along the lines of User:Guyinblack25/Sandbox, but don't really see any inherent problem in the current (previous) layout. - hahnchen 19:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I just boldly merged Alex's and Krator's versions together as it seemed too empty. There are still some syntax errors, like how the subheading bars are underlapping the sidebar, but I think it's more useful this way. I like GuyinBlack's version even more, but I'm trying to throw other ideas at the wall to get more people to edit the page, rather than just wholesale changing it. --PresN (talk) 04:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the mix between Alex's and Krator's designs look good. It provides the necessary information without overloading a reader with too much information. One suggestion comes to mind though, maybe adding in a heading in the main intro space just to improve readability. I'll add it in and see what it looks like. If you guys don't like it we'll get rid of it. My one complaint is the statistics box at the bottom. I don't really think it's necessary and it looks a bit out of place with it in it's own section like that. But that's just me. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It is too wordy.  I like the sandbox versions which break down the project into smaller chunks. - hahnchen 15:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So uh.. has anyone got any ideas of what to do next? .:Alex:. 18:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we should ask ourselves what we want the new design to do and then build from there. Because ultimately the page will serve a function, and the design will have to accomplish that function. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 18:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Well I think the main aim is to make it look more asthetically pleasing, but we want it to be more user friendly. Easier to navigate. I also chose a similar colour scheme to the VG portal in my design as I thought it would be a good idea to link the two together. .:Alex:. 19:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Using the "real thing" as a testing ground leads to much faster consensus making. The differences are not big enough to make any "real" difference in reader experience. User:Krator (t c) 16:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page redesign 2 

message: Excuse guys, but I want to bring this up for special reasons. I request for maybe a policy to prohibit special mentions of a game's ranking and percentage on Gamerankings, because the webmaster manipulates the scores so a certain (or should I say favorite game "TLoZ: Ocarina of Time") game would be on top. I have proof. If you go and see Super Mario Galaxy's page's history, we can see he makes 100% scores from famous groups, such as Gametap, not value and put as many low scores as he can, in order to put Galaxy under Ocarina of Time. He didn't even putted EGM's score and he switched high scores for lower scores to lower the decimal percentage. Also, there are many missing reviews from games such as SM64 and others. In other words, the games that receive higher scores than OoT would not have all reviews and have most lower reviews, so the webmaster would be satisfied with OoT on top. I don't know, but this was already discussed on the SMG article, told to someone to bring this up, and I think this is the right thing to bring up.    --Mr.Mario 192 (talk) 05:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See here - the consensus seems to be that including GR/MC rankings are not appropriate (GR and MC overall averages and links are fine).  --MASEM 06:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The SMG article's talk page is full of conspiracy theories like this one - please don't believe them or spread them. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 07:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually if you go back and read the many previous discussions, you'll see that theres many holes picked in these "theories" so they're NOT fact. Stabby Joe (talk) 13:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gamerankings 

message: Request here, as an update to my archived update proposals a few months ago (which didn't take). This alyout is much less crufty and easy to follow, and if the project decides to update the look and feel of the template in future it only means updating the top two lines. Chris Cunningham (talk) 11:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me, I'm for it. Certainly much easier to see what the code is than the current version. -- Sabre (talk) 13:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template: Infobox VG]] markup cleanup proposal 

message: With a new main page FA nomination system in place, I'm bent on getting my ancient VG FAs on the main page. But first, I need to get them up to current standards. I could use a glance to see if anything needs cleaning or trimming (i.e. excessive plot summaries). I made a post like this earlier but didn't have the time to effect true cleanups.
*Mystical Ninja Starring Goemon - Does the plot need to be trimmed further?
*Chrono Trigger - Ditto; I've always wondered if CT in general looks too crammed or busy as well.
*Chrono Cross - Removing anything from the plot summary would sacrifice comprehension with this one...
*Chrono series - Not an FA, but as a topical article, could it become an FA? It'd just involve taking important excerpts from the game articles and tastefully arranging them, but that sounds too easy for some reason.
Any advice is appreciated, as I'm going to be intensively examining these articles. I will be leveraging a nomination with pictures of the cartridges. If a Game & Watch console can be used for Donkey Kong, and an image of real life Spartan armor for Halo, then the rest of us should be damn well able to take a picture of a game disc or cartridge. The issue of copyrighted pictures on the main page is an issue begging to be pushed since it was never decided through a formal policy discussion. Someone needs to call WP:JIMBO on it. Zeality (talk)
:Sort of off topic, but what's this "new main page FA nomination system" you speak of? — Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Requests are limited to dates under 30 days from now and five at a time. There have been complaints about it since Wikiholics always edge in to fill the 5 requests, and a proposed system of merit hasn't been implemented yet. The old system was just posting a request on a giant page that dated back to 2004. These three I've mentioned pretty much ended up at the bottom of the list as old requests before the system was changed. Zeality (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glances for cleanup 

message: Should/does WP:GAMEGUIDE apply to external links? What role should external links play in an article? I think there should be a WPVG policy page on external links, like there is for sources. This issue is discussed here as well. SharkD (talk) 02:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: EL's should be included only if the material at the site would normally be included in the article if it were featured, but otherwise not included due to technical or copyright reasons.  Game guide materials should not be included due to this if all the link is doing is providing info on how to play the game.  --MASEM 02:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong. EL's should be included only if the material at the site would normally not be included if the article were featured, because the material would contradict WP:NOT. These are then subject to all the criteria in WP:EL. Rule of thumb: fansites are always, always, always not to be included. User:Krator (t c) 13:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think MASEM is right. Material not included if it were a featured article is already covered by the disclaimer, "but otherwise not included due to technical or copyright reasons." Also, the statement, "Any material not included if it were a featured article", is too broad as it embraces a lot of junk material that would normally be excluded. Please, let's clear this up, as I would like to add the text to a WPVG policy article. SharkD (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quoting from WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided:1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. Krator is correct, as shown by this quote from WP:EL#What should be linked:3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.4. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews. Anomie⚔ 01:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Krator said, "ELs should be limited to sites with material that violates WP:NOT." And, point 3 supports/is the source of Masem's view. SharkD (talk) 07:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: We should come up with a standard set of links we want to see on each video game article, official links obviously, and beyond that do we want to use the moby games template? or a metacritic link? etc.Something standard that a reader would expect to see on each article. Beyond that, links to truly unique stuff (not just reviews) could be evaluated on an article by article basis.--Crossmr (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: MobyGames is somewhat OK because it has lots of detailed information that is pertinent but not necessary for the article to become featured. It also has stuff like reader reviews and sometimes shoddy game descriptions which I would generally rather avoid. MetaCritic is an OK reference, but I don't think it should be used as an EL. I don't think coming up with a list of links is a good idea. If it's a long list, then users will be tempted to list all of them. Also, there are few sites which are pertinent to all games. SharkD (talk) 07:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: You should definitely NOT do this.  You should only include external links that meet the WP:EL criteria for that specific article.  Nothing, except an official site, gets an automatic pass.  While most of their links are fine, some of the game articles have links to basically useless/placeholder Moby Games pages.  That should never be done.  Again, absolutely nothing should be an automatic external link that is not an official site. 2005 (talk) 09:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link policies 

message: Metal Gear Solid has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Andersen (talk • contribs) 07:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metal Gear Solid FAR 

message: So I've started the welcome template at  that welcomes new users to our project. Add it to the talk pages of new users who have contributed to video-game related articles. Use  ~~~~. JACOPLANE • 2008-01-2 23:09
—Preceding comment was added at 23:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Welcome message pt. 2 

message: There's an IP who's been giving me problems; he actually went by the name of User: Valoem when he was a user. Basically, what he's doing is rewriting information in the "Tournament" section of Super Smash Bros. Melee that I had omitted for irrelevance when I rewritten the article. I reverted his edit, asking him to discuss before making changes; but, unsurprisingly, he reverts me then fails to give a valid argument for the content of his edits. He's actually accused me of vandalism and has placed a vandalism tag on my talk page. After basically rewriting the article and vastly improving it, I feel really insulted by this. Please can someone join the discussion, because I do not what to do anymore except engage in a futile edit war. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 16:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to bore people but User: Logan GBA reverted his edit, and then he reverted his/her edit, cititng "possible sockpuppet" as a reason. Ashnard Talk Contribs 17:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  This sounds like a good reason to request the article be given semi-protection so that only registered users can touch it. --Bishop2 (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  Aside from that, you might want to take to it ANI now that the IP has degraded into bad faith/personal attacking. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I agree, I was just going to suggest taking it to ANI, but Melodia beat me to it (darn edit conflicts!). I've left a comment on the SSBM talk page though, I'll try to help however I can. .:Alex:. 17:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I feel like I'm morally obligated to help seeing as sockpuppetry is involved. I've dealt with 2 users in the past that have done extensive sockpuppetry for a period of about half a year and I don't want that to happen again to anyone, if I can help it.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 18:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I need some further advice. User: Alphazealot has posted many quotes on the SSBM talk page from Major League Gaming which apparently assert Smashboard's relevance. However, the writer of the sources are himself, on what may be a blog website; I don't know. Moreover, Ken Hoang, the bloke they keep trying to put in the article happens to be a member of their forums, the site which Alphazealot has a strong affiliation with. Actually, I think this user is a gamer at these tournaments. Furthermore, this site that he comes from apparently are linked to Smashboards in some sort of tournament coalition going on. There's a whole distortion of neutrality here and I'm trying to look for answers. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 17:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Update: the user's just admiited that he's a moderator on Smashboards forums. It can't be counted as a reliable source now, can it? Ashnard Talk Contribs 18:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It shows his viewpoint is biased but that may or may not invalidate the sources. Might need to consult WP:V.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 18:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just posted a question about it now. Ashnard Talk Contribs 19:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a moderator on the website for the same reason that I'm a published journalist, because I'm an expert on the competitive side of SSBM (this is AZ, to lazy to sign in). If you don't consider the articles written on MLG, the largest tournament organization in the US, to be credible then explain why. These are articles that I'm paid to write and that require my editors review before they are published. It is NOT a blog. View www.mlgpro.com and if you think any of their feature articles, which is what the articles I write are, are not credible sources on competitive gaming, then explain why.  Furthermore, Ken could care less about Smashboards, all he does is attends tournaments around the country to win money. Saying that just because someone is a member of a website means that they are biased makes...well just about everyone whose every been to a forum biased. Ashnard, its becoming apparent to me from seeing this that you know almost nothing about competitive gaming, be it Smash, Halo, CS, WoW, or otherwise. One last thing, I'm a member of just about every forum that has anything to do with Smash, and I can tell you Smashboards is the largest of these. I'm biased towards Smash, not towards smashboards.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.107.215.205 (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't make this personal—I'm just ensuring that sources adhere to guidelines. As for reliability, I'm not rating it by the credibility of the website, just about genuine issues of neutrality and bias, which consequently dents reliability. As for "bias" claim, well it does if they're supposed to be providing a reliable source. As for my knowledge on tournaments, I don't pretend otherwise—I'm not the self-proclaimed "expert". Ashnard Talk Contribs 23:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It sounds like there is a conflict of interest issue involved here, as a number of these editors are closely associated with the topic of the article. There is nothing wrong with that and it doesn't mean they can't contribute, but it does mean they must be extra careful to ensure that they are improving the Wikipedia article and not just trying to promote their group. WP:COI has much useful information on the subject, and the people at WP:COI/N might be able to give some more advice if the issue cannot be resolved by the people involved. Anomie⚔ 05:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I would like some clarity as well. MLG, which is an authority on professional video gaming, should be a legitimate source for articles and reference about professional gaming. Why would an article, or quotes from an article, that was edited, paid for, and hosted by MLG, be inadmissible as a source? I have already proven through numerous sources on the SSBM talk page that MLG is viewed as an authority on professional gaming/tournaments (sources being: ESPN, Gamespot, MSNBC, EGM, Nintendo Power, there is even an wall street journal article I haven't dug up yet). I feel Ashnard is using his opinion that I'm biased towards Smashboards as a reason to discredit using anything written on MLG's website as a source.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphazealot (talk • contribs) 22:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your doing this thing again when you're lumping yourself with MLG. I'm disputing the issue about using you, who is a moderator at Smashboards, as a source to gauge Smashboard's relevance to Super Smash Bros. Melee and the pertaining tournaments. Ashnard Talk Contribs 23:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: A quick review of the situation
*The articles in question are 1) http://www.mlgpro.com/?q=node/165239&query=node/165239&pagenumber=1 2)http://www.mlgpro.com/?q=node/44016
*The specific problem Ashnard has with these articles are there brief mention of Smashboards within them. He believes (I suppose) that Smashboards was ONLY mentioned because I'm also a member of that specific community and therefor the articles that were written, paid for, and published by MLG are not credible sources. 
*I claim that my membership in that community is irrelevant. As published work on a credible authority on professional gaming, my membership at Smashboards has no impact on the article or its content. The content and reference to Smashboards would exist by anyone who was writing an article about competitive Smash. 
*This is evidenced in an article written by Nintendo Power, which references Smashboards and MLG. The scans for these articles are listed in the SSBM talk page.
*Article 1 was written by a different author on MLG. Article two was written by me.
*I've already gone ahead and proven that MLG is a credible authority on competitive gaming with numerous links to third party articles citing and reporting on the league (again, check the SSBM talk page, I've already mentioned sources here like MSNBC, ESPN, and Gamespot reporting on MLG).  
*When it comes to tournaments, MLG is more of an authority than Nintendo Power (which reports on Nintendo). Ashnard believes NP to be a better source.
*Writers for NP have accounts on Smashboards. Hate to break it to you.
*To me it seems as if Ashnard is choosing to ignore articles written on MLG simply and only because I'm also a member and moderator of Smashboards. He has done nothing to show or prove, other than noting that I'm a member of that community, that my articles are biased in any way. I've already pointed out to him that in 50+ articles written by me as an expert on Smash for MLG that only a handful (I think 4) have ever had a reference to Smashboards. 
*I personally do not care about the content and judging whether it should be used in the actual wiki or not. What I'm upset about is that Ashnard is claiming that what I've written cannot be used as a source, something that has to happen before you can even judge whether something is relevant to an article or not. As an author I feel I must defend my work upon scrutiny. 
view:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Super_Smash_Bros._Melee for the full discussion. 
For those to lazy to go there, here is the exerpt from the Nintendo Power article (as copied from someone who had a lot of time, the scans are located on the SSBM talk page): "Though much can be said about the game's bells and whistles, Smash is what it is partly because of its rabid fan base. Smash players comprise a passionate, community-oriented array of gamers that spans the globe. They all have their own nicknames, rules, and strong opinions about how the game should be played. And though Smashers are generally very competitive, the community thrives because of the excitement and good nature of its members. "Smashers approach the game seriously but with a healthy amount of humor and goodwill," notes Jason Rice, a Smash vet and tournament organizer for Major League Gaming. "Because of SSBM and Smash Boards, I've got friends all over the country that otherwise I would have never met and I'm very grateful to be a part of it."
Most Smash players consider smashboards.com - an unofficial website started in 1999 by a 13-year-old fan named Ricky Tilton - the hub of the community. Today, the site has almost 20,000 registered users and receives millions of hits each month. "I still remember the first person who tried advertising his tournament on the forums a few years ago," recalls Tilton (known in the Smash community as Gideon). "I simply glanced over his post thinking, 'Yeah, right, people are going to trust some random user on Smash Boards and fly across the country to a video game tournament!' Amazingly, however, it succeeded!"
Smash tournaments were born out of the desire of fans not only to show off their skills, but to see what other players around the world were doing in the game. During the early days of Smash tournaments in the US, the competitions were conceived and organized unofficially, using the smashboards.com forums to promote the events. Today, larger organizations such as Major League Gaming have included Melee in their offerings, and Smashers can now play for big prize money all around the world. The competition can be fierce, but those involved in the Smash community know that it's all in good fun. And it should be. How seriously can you take yourself when you're pooping Kirby off the edge of Mushroom Kingdom in a Yoshi egg? Fun is the nature of the game, and the affectionate fans know this well. "We're Nintendo fan," exlpains [sic] Rice. "We love the characters in the game and the individual gaming worlds that each of them has come from.... In comparison to other gaming franchises and companies that are relative newbies, we're players who were raised on Nintendo characters."
Not to say that Smash players are softies - hardcore Smashers are capable of feats in the Melee world that can blow the minds of even the game's creators. And it doesn't matter how long you've been playing Smash - there's always something new to see. "Playing in tournaments and being involved in a sommunity that loves the game as much as I do keeps the game fresh," explains Rice. "There's always someone showing up to tournaments with a new trick to learn or tactic to master." SSBM continues to evolve as players explore its deepest secrets. As Tilton puts it: "[SSBM] is never the same, no matter how many times you play it. There are always new situations and variables to deal with each time you play."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphazealot (talk • contribs) 01:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow; slow down people. Krator, no offence, but I'd appreciate if you could hear from my side before consensus is reached. To your questions:
*I omitted the content as irrelevant because at the time, there was no evidence to prove otherwise. These sources weren't raised when I omitted the content.
*I'm only doubting the reliability of Alphazealot's souces, coming from his position at Smashboards. Here they are , and 
*After reading the sources at Nintendo Power, I don't dismiss the content as irrelevant; they have proved otherwise, and I agrred to using a Nintendo Power source.
*Alphazealot has misconstrued the situation; I have never speculated that he is intentionally embellishing the truth, only that his position invalidates the source. A user at Wikipedia: Verifiability has concurred.
*I don't care whether you believe yourself to be impartial, it doesn't matter. I'll use a sports analogy. If England were to play Germany at football *cough*1966*cough*, you could never have a German ref at all, because of his position in nationality, regardless of how neutral he believes himself to be.
*I believe NP to be a better source because it is has more of an external position to Smashboards, seems more reputable, and uses real names as opposed to forum names.
*I have stated that the NP source should be used.
*Alphazealot is misinterpreting the situation by incorrectly inferring from semantics alone. When  say biased, I mean biased position, which it is.
Overall, they may mention Smashboards briefly, my quarrel is using a site moderator to assess the relevance of that site as a source. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 11:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I hate to drag peole further into this tedious affair, but they also want to include Ken Hoang in the section. I have no doubt that he is notable in his own right and to the tournaments. But that section doesn't document the history of tournaments; his link to SSBM is only indirect. The section is only reporting the link between tournaments and SSBM. Any ideas? Ashnard Talk Contribs 11:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could an outsider please read the content within the said links and tell us if you believe the content is an unreliable source? The point I'm making is that my position as moderator does nothing to discredit my work as a source. Ashnard, what your essentially saying is that we should call into the question the content of anyone who has written anything based solely on their affiliation with certain groups and not their knowledge, expertise, and experience. I guess we should double check the political affiliation of any historian and make note of it before their work is used as a source, or actually, we shouldn't use their work as a source because they are biased toward whatever party they are a member of. 
*I began writing articles for MLG in 2005
*I became a moderator at Smashboards in 2006
*NP writers have accounts on Smashboards, specifically the person who wrote the NP article on SSBM
*Therefor if you invalidate my work as a source, you must also invalidate theirs, especially since one of the articles you linked to was written prior to me becoming a moderator. *Since the NP writers are members of Smashboards their work is obviously biased and they must only be mentioning Smashboards because they want to the promote the website, not because the website happens to be the hub of the Smash community and any journalist writing about competitive Smash would have to know about Smashboards.
*Where have I said that Ken Hoang must be in the tournament section? I've asked why he shouldn't be, and I've shown sources that link his relevancy to the tournament community, but I haven't demanded he be added to the section. I only push for the importance of a tournament section, the contents within the section can be decided by whoever. I simply have a problem with my work being brushed over as a source because I'm a moderator at some website. Even if you say I am biased, or that I am writing from a biased position, that isn't enough to discredit my work as a source. There are more sources other than NP that have commented on the Smash community and also mentioned Smashboards. Alphazealot (talk) 14:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why have you only told us now about the NP journalist? By my logic, that too would invalidate the source. By the way, I have never stated that anyone was trying to advertise Smashboards, this is an assumption that you've made, and you're clearly assuming bad faith. It seems that too much depends on this to you, so it's best listening to external parties. I may have to interrupt again if you misrepresent the debate again like you have before. Ashnard Talk Contribs 18:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The NP journalist joined Smashboards for the sole purpose of investigating his story and reading up on SSBM. To date he has only made...I think 3 posts, all contained with the thread pertaining to the article that was written 2 years ago (in one of these posts he says it is NP policy not to post, yet he needed to contact the founder of Smashboards and it was the quickest way to do so. He also mentioned that NP writers troll Smashboards). I know by your logic that it would invalidate the source, yet I think you'll be hard pressed to find people who want to discredit NP as a valid source for video games. If any other author saw that his work were being scrutinized like this they too would care very deeply and would want to defend it. You have also yet to point out instances of bias within any of the articles. Please, find quotes or examples of bias within any of the material I have written. Find examples in my writing where I mentioned Smashboards where it wasn't in line with what any other journalist would do. Admitting the existence of Smashboards and its importance to tournaments is not a crime and is not biased, its simply the truth (again, a truth noted by other third party sources, not just myself).Alphazealot (talk) 21:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: As per the advertising comment: I made that comment because it is the logical conclusion of what you claim, which is that my bias 1)makes my journalism inadmissible as a valid source [NOTE user: Krator has said the sources appear reliable] and 2)I'm pushing for Smashboards to be in the tournament section because of this bias. I might as well ask then, what, if any, reason do you think I have for wanting to include a mention of Smashboards in the tournament section? I have nothing to gain from its mention and I'm also not pushing for it to be mentioned, others are however and they want to use my work and others as sources to validate their claims. Do you claim Smashboards is not the hub of the Smash community? Do you claim the website is not the primary location of those who participate in Smash tournaments? Do you claim that Smashboards is not the largest Smash community in the world? Do you claim that Smashboards has absolutely no impact on tournaments and the Smash community? Alphazealot (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yet again you fail to understand any part of what I've said. I have never said that you made any biased claims; I am commenting on your position. As for Krator, he made a judgement from your misrepresentation of the debates, and before my response. Since the sources have became available to me, I have no longer disputed Smashboard's relevance, so why ask these nonsensical questions? By the way, don't assume that I am assuming bad faith, because I've never accused you of ill inetntion. As for Nintendo Power, if the NP editor's membership is as brief and pragmatic as you makeout, then it may still be valid as a source (unlike yours; in my opinion). Ashnard Talk Contribs 21:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Krator actually went and viewed the sources and made a decision based on content and reliability and I think anyone who follows the links to those sources would arrive at the same conclusion. You make an assertion that my sources are invalid based on one point (my membership within a community, not myself being a moderator of that community since many articles were written before I became such), yet you do nothing to back this point up and show that my work has been compromised because of this. I understand what you are saying, what I'm saying is that you cannot invalidate a source based solely on the claim of bias, you have to prove it.Alphazealot (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Please explain what about that invalidates my work as a source, especially when the contents of the articles have nothing to do with Smashboards aside from very brief mentions (where mentions were appropriate). Also, please explain why you still believe the one source written by author Brick on MLG to be irrelevant. It has been pointed out to you before that "It shows his viewpoint is biased but that may or may not invalidate the sources." You still need to invalidate the source based on something within the material. You are going after the author of the material and not the material itself, which is my problem. I also hope you cross check every other author with the same scrutiny for which you've look over my work. If I had decided to remain quiet the entire time and not post you wouldn't even know many of the things you do. It all started because someone noted they had seen things on MLG referencing Smashboards and I came in and provided links along with a wealth of other knowledge.Alphazealot (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are starting to aggrovate me as you're putting so many words in my mouth. You just don't seem to have the capacity to grasp what I'm saying at all. I never said that Brick's work was irrelevant. As for "You are going after the author of the material and not the material itself, which is my problem." If you don't know what's wrong with that then there's really no hope. Ashnard Talk Contribs 22:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're only point of contention then for invalidating my work is that I'm a member of Smashboards. So, I guess to clear it up all we need is someone else to view the sources in question and comment on whether or not they feel they are reliable. Please view: WP: COI and note that: "Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias. Be guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, try to identify and minimize your biases, and consider withdrawing from editing the article. As a rule of thumb, the more involvement you have with a topic in real life, the more careful you should be with our core content policies" and that pertains to people editing the wiki, not the source material (IE bias alone is not an acceptable reason). Also, does this mean that the article titled "Greatest Competitive Games of All Time: SSBM" is a valid article? If so then none of my material is even needed as the material within that article is evidence enough for what the original user wanted (the person who wanted links about Smashboards from third party sources).  Alphazealot (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What? That's about editing, so what has it got to do with this debate about sources? Ashnard Talk Contribs 22:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If people who are close to a subject may edit the actual wiki than surely sources that are written by people with similar conflicts of interests can still be used. An endorsement that a person can edit a wiki despite bias is also an endorsement that a person can write an article on a professional gaming site without bias. Also note I edited my last post with a comment about Brick, you probably missed it.Alphazealot (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Slowdown about Brick; is he a member at Smashboards? Ashnard Talk Contribs 22:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really know. I would assume he does but at the same time I've never seen him post at Smashboards and I don't know him personally. MLG, which runs Smash tournaments, creates tournament threads on Smashboards. Since they are the ones creating the threads, people who work at MLG obviously have accounts there, exactly who and how many people I don't know. Alphazealot (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It seems like he is; but maybe not—"Brick" is a generic name. He's only posted six times though, which is probably negligable. Ashnard Talk Contribs 22:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I seriously appreciate the input, Krator. I just find it hard to believe that as an encyclopaedia that relies upon reliability as its core value, that we should allow a site moderator to gauge the relevance of his own site, especially when better sources are out there. It doesn't help either that my views on the subject have been seriously misrepresented into half-truths and words that I haven't spoken. Ashnard Talk Contribs 00:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also remember, this not an issue of citing one's self, but of neutrality. The fact that it is Alpha' himself adding his own source is not the issue, but his position at Smashboards. Ashnard Talk Contribs 14:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need help over rampant IP 

message: What does a protocol for musical instruments have to do with a video game? Joepnl (talk) 00:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I daresay because a lot of games in the past used MIDI. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be interested in seeing what the technical article on the MIDI protocol itself has to do with the fact that many games used MIDI synths to generate music.  This might be more interesting for music games, which used MIDI not only for the music itself, but to coordinate several pieces of hardware.  But for most games, all it does is generate music and sound effects, and at best it just needs a link to the article describing the MIDI concept, but not the technical specifications article directly. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to take the template off that page then, or take it up with whoever put it there. I do agree, it's kinda weird seeing just this one... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and pulled the template, as well as one category from the article itself (MIDI 1.0 is not video-game music).  I also recommended that the page be renamed to MIDI 1.0 or MIDI 1.0 protocol (note caps and lack of definite article), to match naming conventions. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[The MIDI 1.0 Protocol]] 

message: Just notifying everyone that I've created a peer review for Klonoa: Door to Phantomile: Wikipedia:Peer review/Klonoa: Door to Phantomile/archive1. Try to offer advice! Thanks. --Teggles (talk) 03:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Klonoa: Door to Phantomile]] peer review 

message: Does anyone mind if I change the Archive pages to the format of /Archive # instead of the current /archive#? This would allow to have the archive box be automatic. I will personally move all of the pages, and move any links from the old pages to the new ones. I'll also nominate the old pages for speedy deletion, and update the bots' settings. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Will you use any leading zeroes? User:Krator (t c) 19:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No. There can't be for the auto archive box to work. Is there a reason? MrKIA11 (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would this affect the archive bot? - hahnchen 20:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason is that Krator is a robot, and considers 10 to come between 1 and 2 alphabetically. What's this about speedy deletion, though? If you move the page, you'll just leave a redirect. Pagrashtak 20:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh. So does it matter? Never mind about the deletion, not sure why I said that. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  User:Krator (t c) 21:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the harm in leaving the redirects. Pagrashtak 20:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant does it matter whether the numbers have leading zeros? MrKIA11 (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Non-robot Krator, any reason you're asking about the leading zeroes? Pagrashtak 21:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive pages 

message: I would like to get more eyes to review the proposed version of Notability (fiction) beyond what those participating on the current talk page have provided.  This is not to get consensus for it yet, but to make sure there are no major issues with it before going to that step.  Please address any concerns on WT:FICT.  Thank you. --MASEM 18:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please review proposed WP:FICT guideline 

message: I'm proposing that Insurrection (StarCraft) and Retribution (StarCraft) be merged into StarCraft (series), as the two add-ons are minor products that I'm struggling to establish full independent notability for and therefore believe that they are best covered as integrated parts of the StarCraft series article. I thought I'd post here to try and get some views from people disconnected from the undergoings in the StarCraft articles, but can give useful VG-related advice. Please, offer your opinions on this at the StarCraft (series) talk page. -- Sabre (talk) 10:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for opinions on a merge. 

message: I'm not sure if this is the right place, or the right way to do this! So sorry if I'm doing this in error!user:TTN keeps reoving Other villains in Sonic the Hedgehog (games) and Other characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (games)‎, without waiting until the dicussion is mafe about if and how the articles should be merged, there are also other article proposed for merger! Anyways, I believe the articles would do much better being merged, but not as TTN is doing and the article they keep replacing List of characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (games) with is weak and really not a merger at all. Also my problems with the merger are that what they propose is that the first half of the article is nothing but links to other articles, and the rest are a few chracters, that theu personally believe to be notable! If the articles are merged into one, also, it will end up being too long, that is one of the rasons it has been seperated into Other villains in Sonic the Hedgehog (games) and Other chracters in Sonic the Hedgehog (games), maybe any information could be merged into them two, with the main characters having their own articles, and List of characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (games) serving as a bridge between them all! as I said, I believe a merge could be of benefit, but no the way TTN is going about it! Cream the Rabbit, Blaze the Cat, Silver the Hedgehog, Rouge the Bat, Eggman Nega and Babylon Rogues could easily be merged with other articles: Villains and Other characters, , E-123 Omega should aslo be merged with E-Series (Sonic the Hedgehog), Chaos (Sonic the Hedgehog) is as important a enemy as Doctor Robotnik and Chaotix should have any associated cracters merged into it and then it could even be merged into other character. What TTN is doing, doesn't help with anything to do with real-world significance, only with condencing the articles into one! there really is too many rambling articles on singular chracters (many of which TTN has singled out); and they should be trimed and seperated into Villains and Other characters, the Main characters that are notable enough to have their own articles should also be sorted out! That leaves two seperate articles for 'bit players' and however many seperate main chracter articles (how many are there of those anywayas?), and the article we are discussing on now should be used as a bridge for all Soinc the Hedgehog related chracters within the games, this would make the whole video game related articles better, of the Comic Book/other related articles I know nothing of though. but I'm sure they need tidying up! TNN propsed that all one game chracter should be removed, compleatly from the articles, meaning only Nack the Weasel from Other vilains survives, while Eggman Nega is in two, so are the Babylon Rogues, but they can't be in a merged article?I put this here, only because I belive it would be better for others interested in Video Game articles, other than Sonic the Hedgehog fans, to have a say about this subject! (Sorry if this isn't very well written, it's taken from my 'discussion' with TTN)  Doktor  Wilhelm  16:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Report TTN if he keeps it up. He's been given enough warnings about blanking content and blanking images off list articles. Anyway, my view on the whole matter is: some list articles could use some condensing. People seem to think character lists should be "catch alls" for every character ever, but that's not reasonable at all. There is notability and other factors that determine what goes on lists (and articles in general), which should be followed. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the merge discussion is still going on, I don't see why TTN thinks he should be redirecting all the articles before it ends. He is assuming just about everything should be in list form, and no character articles should exist. While character cruft does run wild on Wikipedia, some character articles should be fine. Many times he doesn't explain what he is doing in the edit summary, so that's part of the problem as well. Plus he's blanked images off articles for no good reason as well. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The two lists are the articles being forcibly merged and redirected, not the single characters. The lists were redirected before the discussion because there is no point in them. The first list has all one game characters besides one, which was merged, and the second list was half and half, and those have also been merged to the main list (in an old revision). The merge tags, which encompass only the secondary characters, came afterwards. He seems to agree with merging most of them anyways. Still, this is just another overprotective fan that doesn't understand, or want to understand, our policies and guidelines, so it's going to be messy either way. In regards to the comment about images, I only remove images if they are of trivial subjects or if a group image(s) will work in their place. TTN (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While I do agree with merging the single character articles, I believe the subject would be better of with two list, rather than the one! And I am sorry if TTN believes that I am "just another overprotective fan", but all information on one subject can't be put into one single article, otherwise one day wikipedia will just be one article, reading: "EveythingThe Universe!", just because the real world is a better reference for eveything!  Doktor  Wilhelm  21:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles about sonic the hedgehog chracters 

message: This article was recently created.  I was suspicious and Googled it up, nad learned that there seems to be no translated name.  Can someone who knows Japanese look to see what the game's title is and move the page to the Japanese one until it gets translated. hbdragon88 (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Pokémon Ranger 2]]