Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Arcade/Archive 1

message: I have a couple of ideas for footer templates for this here project.  What are your ideas?  Do we even need one?
The first idea here is a "timeline" sort of thing.  It'd let you browse games by year.  I think it'd be useful, but then we'd have to create a whole bunch of new lists of arcade games by the year they came out--right now the only list is alphabetical.  It'd look something like this here:
Years in Arcade games
Golden age of arcade games
1978 | 1979 | 1980 | 1981 | 1982 | 1983 | 1984 | 1985
Post-golden age games
1986 | 1987 | 1988 | 1989 | 1990 | 1991 | 1992 | 1993 | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004
Of course the links would point to things like "1986 arcade games" or "List of 1986 arcade games" instead of the years as they do now.  But, like I said, this would require us to make lists for each one.  Maintaining each list would be a bear.
Next, we could have a footer for games in a series, such as Donkey Kong.  We'd need a template for each series, which could get old.  Conversely we could just hard-code them into each article in the series.  For example (for Donkey Kong Jr.):
Legacy     	Legacy            	Legacy            	Legacy
Preceded by	             	             	Succeeded by
Donkey Kong	Donkey Kong Junior	Donkey Kong Junior	Donkey Kong 3
What 'cha all think on both?  Needed?  Ugly?  Stupid?  Useful?  Other ideas? — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:10, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
:I don't know Wikipedia's category system yet, but wouldnt it be possible to make a category for each year? Then make the 'release date' year in the infobox link to the category, and (tada!) you have an auto-maintained list for every year. Concerning the game series/legacy box: I think the template should include all games of the series. --Tjansen 12:19, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What about a game like DDR? Or Street Fighter II? I have seen a few info boxes contain a huge amount of data, so it could work, but I think you would want to make a special version for notable exceptions such as those.- Mee Ronn 09:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Footer templates

message: I added the arcade infobox to the Dance Dance Revolution article a few weeks ago, but the article deals with the series in general and not any of the particular games. DDR has (a lot of different versions), and several of them have individual articles. I thought it would be better to put it on the main article since the machine is virtually the same for each arcade version (aside from DDR Solo, which is technically a different series). The only infobox detail that would change would be the release date.
Also, the infobox currently has a picture of the machine, rather than a game screenshot (which is further down the page). I believe it should stay this way, since DDR is more recognizable for its cabinet design than its gameplay screen, and it gives a better idea of how the game is played.
--Poiuyt Man (talk) 10:12, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infoboxes in Dance Dance Revolution 

message: I've been experimenting with a footer to link all the video game industry articles.  If you like, pop on over to my sandbox to see what I've been doing.  I'd appreciate any input.  But please put any comments on the Talk page, don't modify the templates directly (but you can add one if you like).
The members of the Computer and video games WikiProject have alredy started weighing in, but it's still not too late!  Thanks! — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is now complete.  You can check it out at Template:Vg-industry (or look below). — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Video game industry footer

message: I've noticed that the user plaguing me on the Splatterhouse article continues to switch the info placed in the infobox regarding its release date. I initially had it listed as "November 1988" but he/she continues to switch it to "11/1988" and I am curious as to which format/instance is typically preferred/accepted? TheMonkofDestiny 23:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, my preference is to just have the year and no month, since release months differ from region to region (remember, Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia).  But, if you insist on having a month, my preference is to have the month spelled out.  One reason is that it's more legible: the user doesn't have to translate "11" into "November".  Also, date formats are not universal: in some areas the preference would be for the year to come first.  But I also think it looks better spelled out.  After all, 11/1988 is just a sloppy abbreviation and should only be used where space is at a premium (not a problem here on the 'pedia). HTH — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release Dates in Infobox - Preferred Format? 

message: There are a few arcade games in :Category:Pages needing an infobox conversion that have been tagged with . Someone should periodically check that category for any articles that fall under this project. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tagged a bunch more arcade games with . Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  infobox category 

message: Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Thanks a lot! Gflores Talk 17:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project 

message: To get more information about the games, you can get FAQs, Walkthroughs, and Codes from www.gamefaqs.com 70.111.251.203 03:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info 

message: I'd just like to get an opinion on something. On boxes that represent a series of games, such as the R-Type box, here:
Do people think the title looks better inside or outside the box? Personally, I hate it outside, but some boxes are done like this, so I thought someone might have a good reason for doing it. Spottedowl 11:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Series boxes 

message: Have we relaxed this policy? "It [the infobox image] should show gameplay, and not the title — the title does not help the user getting an impression of the game." R-Type and a few other games have recently been changed to show the title screen in the infobox. I think it kind of looks smarter, but I agree that gameplay should be shown. Some of the articles put a gameplay screenshot in the main body of the page, but doesn't that conflict with the 'one per page' rule of screenshots (whatever that is?) Spottedowl 12:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am guilty of Ignoring all rules in this case and always use the title screen in the infobox; to me there is no other logical place to put it and I htink it suits the infobox. Similarliy should movies use a a screencap in their infoboxes instead of movie posters? Many console games use packaging art in their infoboxes instead of screenshots, which has led me to think that its oka to use the title screen. I think seeing the  title screen does add some context ot the article and I would prfer to chnage this policy to stay inline with what other projects are doing. --Larsinio 14:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I assumed that the reason consoles used the box packaging rather than a screenshot is that screenshots are more difficult to take on modern consoles. Spottedowl 14:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: There are screenshots available on consoles, granted its not as easily accesible, but ive seen many articles (particular in the final fantasy series) that always use screen art as an infobox item. --Larsinio 14:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titles in infobox images 

message: Golden Age of Arcade Games has been nominated by Zzzzz to have its Featured Article status removed. Take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates and address any problems you can. Thanks! Pagrashtak 22:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? It has been a featured article. Are they using a time machine to remove it from history? :) Spottedowl 01:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Golden Age FARC 

message: Hey, I'm here to start helping out with anything arcade game-related.  I spent a huge part of my youth (mid 80s - mid 90s) in arcades, and think I could very helpful.  One thing I would like to see is an article focusing on the fighting game dominance of the arcades pretty much throughout the 90s.  The golden age of arcade games article ends pretty much right where this period began (minues a few stagnant years), beginning with the explosive popularity of Street Fighter 2 in 1991.  If not a fighting game-specific article, at least an article that deals with arcades in the 90s; there were other highly popular games during this time too.  NBA Jam was huge, and this was also the time when sit-down racing games really started to become big draws (Virtua Racing 4-player setups, Cruis'n USA), to the point that racing games and Dance Dance Revolution are essentially the only draws today.  Let me know what you think, I really want to write some discussion of this period, but I'd also like to get a consensus of where it should go first. Static3d 15:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joining in 

message: I noticed that there isn't any talk page tag to show that an article is part of WikiProject Arcade Games. Would someone be able to create one? For example, the talk pages for Donkey Kong (arcade game), Congo Bongo and Gotcha (arcade game) currently have this tag: 
This is inappropriate for Gotcha. The other two should have an arcade games tag as well. 156.34.215.142 14:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can build one, it's not hard.  I'll take a look at in a bit. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. 156.34.216.161 20:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Have you made one yet? : ) Yummy32 15:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page tag 

message: I started this project eons ago (okay, not eons, but a couple of years ago).  It initially had a great deal of interest and we made some great progress.  Lately, however, a rumor has begun circulating that this project is dead or inactive.  While the Talk page here seems pretty calm as of late, I wouldn't consider it dead.  Does anyone else feel it is dead?  Does anyone still care about this project? — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still interested in the project. Unfortunately my personal life keeps me from contributing a lot lately. Felsir 17:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Same goes for me. --elias.hc 11:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is anyone still interested in this project?

message: From WP:CVG/T: Regarding the migration from the Arcade infobox to the CVG infobox, there's discussion at Talk:Final Fight regarding using arcade flyers as the infobox box image. Currently, CVG guidelines only state that cover art be used in the CVG infobox, not taking in account games that were released first and/or primarily as arcade titles. I don't believe arcade flyers can be used as a substitute for cover art - arcade flyers are essentially advertising for arcade games. It wouldn't make sense if someone used an advertisement to represent a console game, so it wouldn't make sense to use an arcade flyer for an arcade game.
The logical equivalent of cover art for an arcade title is the arcade's dedicated cabinet, but that wouldn't look so great for an infobox. I suppose we could use box art for one of the ports, just like we do for multiplatform games, but that would discount the fact that some titles were released in arcades first. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what we've been doing is fine.  We decided that the title screen of an arcade game isn't a good representation of what the game actually looks like.  We've been using a screenshot of gameplay, which is easily obtained with emulators like MAME. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arcade flyers in Infobox CVG 

message: Similar to the WP:CVG we should have a template for KLOV links, shouldn't we? Or should there even be no links to klov at all? Because at first I kept adding a link to klov to pretty much any article and now I've pretty much gotten the feeling there's no valuable information for an encyclopedia on that site. Most of the times they've got screenshots - lots even (e.g. mslug5) but that's about it. Any opinion on this matter? --elias.hc 15:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should totally keep linking to the KLOV.  They've got much more information on each game than we do.  If it's not encyclopedic information, that's fine.  A site we link to only has to have more information on a topic, it doesn't have to be encyclopedic.  Encyclopedic information we can add to the article itself.  Yes, we should keep linking to the KLOV for each arcade game article. — Frecklefoot | Talk 04:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay good, how about a template then? The links look like this: http://www.klov.com/game_detail.php?game_id=12904 and although some include letter=m for games starting with m etc. that's obsolete, only the game_id is necessary to locate the game on klov. The template could include a link to the article about klov, too. --elias.hc 13:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Killer List of Videogames 

message: A request has been made at WikiProject Computer and video games talk to intergrate the subprojects' templates into the CVG header itself.  The newly integrated template can be seen here: User:Hbdragon88/Temp.  Although this project does not have a template, if any was ever created, it would be as a part of the cvg template.  Thoughts?  Objections? --PresN 15:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection here. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Integration with {{tl|cvgproj}} 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages: 
*User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
*User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
*User:Badbilltucker/Science directory
and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory.
The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. 
It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now put the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 00:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Directory 

message: Beginning cross-post.
:See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 00:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stablepedia 

message: Central processing unit 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.
Sandy (Talk) 23:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Central processing unit FAR

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: For discussion please see Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#WP:AG_.E2.86.92_Wikipedia:WikiProject_Arcade_games
Thanks,--Doug.(talk • contribs) 06:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on the discussion, I'm retargeting WP:AG to Wikipedia:WikiProject Agriculture.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 19:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortcut [[WP:AG]] has been nominated for Deletion 

message: Lets try and get this project up and running again. I'm currently working on a article about Pacific novelty. Its so far been very difficult to find out much, any help would be appreciated. --Hybrid360 (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This has probably been asked before, but how does this project differ from WikiProject Video games? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This project mainly focuses on video arcade games, while the Video games WikiProject focuses on console video games and PC games.  There is some history to this: originally, video games were defined on Wikipedia as "games played on a video game console", so the WikiProject was named the "Computer and video games WikiProject", which excluded arcade games.  So I started this WikiProject to organize (video) arcade games.  Eventually I, and several other Wikipedians, pointed out that video games are electronic games that use a video display as their main form of feedback, so that would include console video games and computer games and arcade games.  However, while PC games and console games still get a lot of attention from the (now) Video games WikiProject, arcade video games are largely ignored.  So this project does conceptually have some overlap with the VG WikiProject, it doesn't really in practice. Arcade games are video games, but few Wikipedians involved with the VG WP care much about arcade games.  Hence, the separate project. But we do share an infobox, which has extra parameters for arcade games. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 11:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, okay.  Might I suggest that we structure this project much the same way as WP:VG then?  We can adopt the same practices and guidelines, use most of the same templates, etc. - the only major distinctions would be in the scope of the project.  I haven't taken much time to read over the project right now, but it seemed to me that this project is in more of a draft state than the more popular WP:VG.  That might be part of why it's seen as inactive. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

text: What practices and guidelines did you want to adopt? — Frecklefσσt | Talk 12:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Inactivity

message: Hey, I heard this project is trying to get started up again. If there are some members interested, I've done a rewrite of Space Invaders and would appreciate a little help finishing it up. There are three main things left to do: finish up the "Re-releases and sequels" sections, maybe expand the "In popular culture" section, and rewrite the lead to reflect the new version. I left a lot of the older content (mainly sequel info and pop culture references) between hidden html tags at the very end of the article because I wasn't sure about some of it; specifically the music references. I figured if a couple of editors help out this it could easily smash through GAN, and after going through WP:PR, it'd stand a good chance of passing FAC. Any volunteers? (Guyinblack25 talk 04:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What I saw of the rewrite look good, but I can't help with the effort.  You might also want to ask at the Video game project. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 19:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What would be neat is if all the arcade info was filled out in the infobox, as then we could use it as the example for the infobox. There's a free picture of the cabinet here., and we can only use free images in WP space. Where does said information exist? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 08:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Donkey Kong (video game) has a complete infobox and was kind of the template I followed for Space Invaders. Though, I would like Space Invaders to be complete also. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I copied Donkey Kong (video game), but made a few changes (aside from the free image) because it didn't seem to use the fields available. Could someone take a look at the example here and tell me if I'm mistaken? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 01:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Space Invaders

message: It was mentioned above that this project was created because WP:CVG didn't cover arcade games. WP:CVG has been restructured, and now does support them. As this project is inactive, would any interested members approve of transitioning into a task force of WP:VG? This way the VG templates, categories, assessment scale, and other rescources can be fully used for this project, and it won't run the risk of MfD. It may also help revitalize interest. Thoughts? JohnnyMrNinja 20:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Anybody? (Guyinblack25 talk 20:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been a week... Is there really that little interest in this project? I propose moving this project to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Arcade and relabeling it the Arcade Task Force under WikiProject Video games. Anyone? JohnnyMrNinja 15:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Though I'm not a member, I think it's a good idea. As a task force, it would be easier to maintain interest without having to worry about the normal administrative tasks of a project. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the move over to a taskforce is sound.  As stated on that page, WP:VG covers arcade games just as much as console and computer games, so it makes sense for the Arcade Games section to operate as a task force rather than as a separate, overlapping project.  We'd be duplicating effort to try to prop up this project with the same guidelines, administratrivia, etc. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it'd be good to make it a task force under WP:VG, especially if it's not really that active and can benefit from being directly tied into the parent project.--十八 20:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

text: That's fine.  Since WP:VG supports arcade games now, this WP is kind of redundant.  Plus the WP:VG has many more members than this one ever did. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 12:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I count two of the active members agreeing to the move. Are the others aware of this discussion, or even still active? (Guyinblack25 talk 16:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: FYI- To those looking for sources for some of the older and more obscure arcade games, KLOV looks to have survived the Space Invaders FAC as a reliable source. Add to the fact it was also used in Donkey Kong (video game) (FA-Class). Hopefully this opens the door for more improvement to arcade game articles. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a list of arcade specific resources, or should we consider doing one for this group.  It might be worthwhile to compile a listing of resources that can be promoted for use in FAC articles to also establish their reliability status.  I know besides KLOV, system16 is a resources I often use for technical info for instance. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't see any at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. It wouldn't be a bad idea to add KLOV to that list. Is there anything to show reviewers the reliability of System16? (Guyinblack25 talk 15:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Killer List of Videogames as a source 

message: :Image:Coleco Donkey Kong.png has been nominated for deletion at WP:FFD
70.29.213.241 (talk) 06:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Coleco Donkey Kong.png

message: I recently did a rewrite of Time Gal, a laserdisc arcade game that is more well-known as a Mega-CD game. The development section is as good as I can get it, and I was wondering if anybody had any print sources that could expand on this rather obscure title? I feel I've already exhausted the web, and not sure if anything more is even out there. (Guyinblack25 talk 06:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time Gal 

message: Stumbled across this page today while working on Q*bert. Content from a game's release is hard to come by, but these should alleviate that. Be sure to cite the content with  and not link to the website to avoid copyright violations (see Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#Scanned magazines). (Guyinblack25 talk 23:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources anybody? 

message: It is my understanding that the Killer List of Videogames is considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. While it is a good site unfortunately it doesn't seem to have been updated in several years and it definitely has incomplete and in some cases incorrect information. Given the current situation I would propose that the status of the KLOV be ascertained and possibly another site be found as an alternate reliable source. Asmpgmr (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree with some of your points, I don't know of another site that is nearly as comprehensive. MobyGames doesn't do arcade games and I don't know of a similar site. A lot of it's info is mostly correct, so I think it's the best we can do for now. If you know of another site--and from your post it doesn't sound like you do--we should keep using it for the time being. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 23:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Arcade History - http://www.arcade-history.com/ - personally I don't think the layout is as nice as KLOV but it does seem to be updated. I have noticed that some people believe it is unreliable. If this is the case then I would be curious to know why. I just did a quick check of both sites of arcade games which are known not to actually exist: Antarctic Adventure (a console-only game), Alice in Wonderland (for some reason it is believed that there is an English version of Namco's Marchen Maze, there's not), Tank III (not on any official Atari list or the SEC info database) and the infamous Polybius. KLOV lists all 4 non-existent arcade games while Arcade History only lists Polybius. Besides Arcade History I don't know of any other sites besides MAME databases which of course only covers games which have been dumped and emulated. Asmpgmr (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just removed the unverifiable Powerpuff Girls entry from the List of arcade video games article. Clearly this was taken from the KLOV and is yet another bogus KLOV entry. Web searches turn up no evidence that such an arcade game by Konami or any other company ever existed and there are no pictures, videos or flyers of it either. KLOV should no longer be considered an authoritative source for arcade games, it is no longer updated and there are too many errors in its database now. Asmpgmr (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't go that far. Sure, KLOV has some bad entries in it, but no online resource is perfect. It's useful for the correct entries it has. I've found it an invaluable resource for years. Thanks for the correction! — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 22:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm noticing too many issues with the KLOV: there are many errors, games listed which don't exist and it's simply not updated anymore. Any info from KLOV needs to be verified against another source. Arcade History is updated and at this point seems to be more accurate than KLOV so at the very least it should be considered as a valid source of info for arcade games to be used along with KLOV. Asmpgmr (talk) 01:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

text: I have no quarrel with that. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 06:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  What do you think about the creation of a template for the Arcade History database similar to what exists for the KLOV ? Asmpgmr (talk) 19:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

text: I think that's a great idea. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 21:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Killer List of Videogames (KLOV) - should this still be considered a reliable source ? 

message: Hey, folks, I just finished up the List of Atari arcade games, a list that has been sorely lacking. Take a look and see if you find any omissions or errors. There are plenty of red-links, ripe for having articles written. Peace. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 22:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Atari arcade games

message: I've created Template:Arcade History which accesses entries on the Arcade History database. This template is analogous to Template:KLOV game and works the same way. Arcade game articles should probably link to both since the two databases complement each other. Asmpgmr (talk) 00:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. Seems like there ought to be an article for the Arcade History database now. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 20:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  New template for the Arcade History database 

message: Arcade games should have their own specific infobox. There is information to list which is applicable to arcade games but doesn't apply to console or home computer games and vice versa. With a separate infobox, changes to the VG infobox wouldn't affect arcade games and they could get rid of the last 6 fields which don't apply to console or home computer games.
Proposed:

Asmpgmr (talk) 16:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure this is a good idea. It sounds like it could lead to content forking because it suggests that articles covering games with arcade versions are to be strictly limited to the arcade versions. Many games have both arcade, home console, and PC versions so a general video game infobox sounds like the best solution to me. There is nothing specific to your proposed "Infobox Arcade Game" that couldn't just as easily be rendered in prose in the body of the article and frankly that would probably be less confusing for readers who might not know what a "twisty grip" or a "tank stick" is in the context of the version of the game they may be familiar with. -Thibbs (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think having the infobox with this sort of common data available at a glance is very useful. Also I'm vehemently opposed to any sort of dumbing down. Asmpgmr (talk) 16:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Explaining in prose (if it's done with intelligence) doesn't have to be "dumbing down". -Thibbs (talk) 17:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me ? Done with intelligence ? I've written numerous video game emulators and know more about this subject than you. I don't appreciate that comment at all. I've really had enough of you. Asmpgmr (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please calm down. That wasn't a comment on your intelligence. What I am saying is explaining the inputs of an arcade game in prose isn't always a "dumbing down" if it is done with skill. There are ways to make it read as a dumbed down article, but if it is finessed then you can make it read like a clear and insightful explanation. Honestly I'm certain that you could handle it because I do not think you lack intelligence in the least. -Thibbs (talk) 17:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please go away already. I have no interest in your subjective, non-technical and uninformed POV. Such a point of view doesn't help an online encyclopedia which should be based in objective factual information whatsoever. Asmpgmr (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

text: That's not an analogy, that's simply a non-technical POV. Anyway why do I have to repeat myself. I do not want to engage with you any further and will no longer answer any of your posts anywhere. You have become as frustrating as the user who ludicrously argued that DOS is a multitasking OS. For the sake of civility please do not continue to bother me. Asmpgmr (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for an arcade game infobox template 

message: *Namco Galaxian
*Namco Pac-Man
*Namco Galaga
*Namco Pole Position
*Namco Super Pac-Man
*Namco Phozon
*Namco Libble Rabble
*Namco Pac-Land
Why do these articles exist ? I realize that this information comes from System 16 and that information is based upon the listed games being in the same MAME drivers (except for Pac-Man and Rally-X which are separate drivers) but these are not true system boards like Namco System 1. I really don't think that Namco considers these actual arcade system boards. In most cases there are significant hardware differences between the games listed, for example Pac-Man and Rally-X have different memory maps and videos systems. All of the games listed in the "Namco Galaga" have different video systems, etc. Should these articles be deleted for technical inaccuracy ? Asmpgmr (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable arcade system board articles 

message: Hello, there is currently a discussion ongoing at WT:VG concerning whether or not articles on arcade games should have reception sections and, if so, whether these reception sections should cover only the original game or whether they may also cover reception of remake versions. The discussion can be found here. Please help us form a consensus on this by sharing your views. Thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 17:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Reception sections

message: I am interested in introducing a change to what seems to be an unstated convention for arcade game articles. The change has to do with the use of the "platforms" field in "Infobox VG". Currently the text at :Template:Infobox VG as well as the name of the field and the way it renders in the in-article infoboxes indicates that multiple platforms are expected if the game was released for more than just one. At the Style section of WP:VG/MOS, other indirect suggestions can be found (e.g. "When filling out the infobox for a multi-platform game, the platforms in the platform field should be listed in chronological order") that listing multiple platforms when pertinent is expected to be part of drafting all video game articles.
I understand that for classic arcade game articles it can be kind of messy and distracting to put in a giant list all of the half-assed ports and remakes the game has ever seen because due to their classic nature (i.e. both old and good) there are bound to be many more ports/remakes for these articles than for other WP:VG articles. And for this kind of article I think it is natural and fitting that the emphasis should be on the arcade version which was the original reason it became popular in the first place. So I'd like to change the convention by introducing something I've seen at a few arcade game articles that I think serves the purposes of the article while still adhering to WP:VG/MOS and the natural interpretations one would draw from "Template:Infobox VG".
The solution I propose is to add the word "Various" after the word "Arcade" when filling in the "platforms" field from now on. The word "Various" would then be internally linked to the section of the article that covers the ports, remakes, and rereleases. (An example of this solution implemented in an article can currently be found at Galaga). By using the word "various" instead of listing all of the ports and remakes we avoid messy bloat and we maintain the article's emphasis on arcade games while still listing all platforms as suggested by the WP:VG guidelines. If this sounds like a good idea to everyone then I'd like to modify the Donkey Kong infobox used as an example at WP:VG/Arcade#Infobox (and of course it would be modified in the article as well). Perhaps a brief explanation of the way that field is to be used for arcade game articles could be included as well if needed. So does this sound like a good idea? -Thibbs (talk) 15:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing no objections I've made the alteration(s). -Thibbs (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Platform(s) in the Infobox

message: I've proposed a comprehensive cleanup of WP:VG's inactive task forces (which would include merging this task force into the "retrogaming" task force), if you'll take a look czar ♔ 02:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't oppose this. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 13:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge this task force