Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 17

message: I've come to the conclusion that the "stages" and most of the "weapons" sections in all of the Soul Calibur characters were copied directly from the in-game description (such as this edit back in February(!)). Since I only have access to SC2, could someone check a few random pages and figure out what else is directly transcipted from the games so we can remove them? Nifboy 01:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Soul Calibur mass copyvio?

message: I spend a lot more time reading wikipedia than I do editing it... sometimes I find articles about video games, or topics related to games such as game characters or websites.  I was wondering what the policy is for adding games to WP:CVG.  Is it OK for me to just go to the discussion page and add the CVG template, which would adopt these articles into this wikiproject?  Or do they have to meet some kind of criteria first? - New User 10:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games pretty much explains everything. Thunderbrand 14:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adoption policy? 

message: All right, take a look at this modified cvgproj proposal. WikiProject images are of equal size and individual projects can rate importance separately. I've deactivated the NAMESPACE check so that class and importance display here - this is purely for illustrative purposes. This will temporarily place this page into categories in which it does not belong, but I will remove this after discussion.
The base template:

An A-Class article of low importance to WP:CVG that falls under the scope of WP:Nintendo:

A B-Class article of low importance to WP:CVG, of mid importance to WP:Nintendo, and high importance to WP:Zelda:

Are these better? Worse? I know they look a little rough, I just drafted these and I'm tired, but I wanted to get them out for feedback as to whether this is a step in the right direction. Consider this a proof of concept demonstration for now; I'll clean them up tomorrow. Pagrashtak 04:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it does address one of my complaints in a way, but I still think it is a bad idea to blend two different projects, regardless of their parent/child relationship, into a single box. Just making the individual project listings bigger won't solve it (and yes, I know how frustrating it must be for you for me to say that it was one of my complaints, then complain further when you addressed it...), as then we just have a big mass of icons that are going to get muddied together. Simply having different templates for the different projects that an article falls into isn't really that bad of a thing. (one additional thing you didn't cover is the fact that the CVG to do list is largely irrelevant for most of the articles that this template would be placed on) EVula 05:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But that todo list already exists on the talk page, so that doesn't really have any impact with this proposal. Pagrashtak 05:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh... yeah, I totally knew that. Not like I'm tired and should have gone to bed about half an hour ago or anything... Pfft, what on Earth would make you think that? *cough* EVula 05:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I feel the same way. This just sounds to complicated. Havok (T/C/c) 08:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how it's too complicated. I definitely don't think that slapping loads of different project banners is the best idea. Perhaps easier, but definitely less elegant of a solution. I think this modified proposal is almost what we want, and we should discuss for a while longer and see if any other major objections come up. We should not expect to have a perfect solution that will work for every single article, but we want something that works for 99% of all articles. Sure there will be exceptions, but for something that falls out of the scope of CVG but in the scope of Warcraft, you can always just use the old template no? jaco♫plane 10:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't see the point really. So what if there are an extra box on the talk page? And, like I stated further up, what about the things that don't only exist in the gameverse? Pokemón isn't exclusively games f.ex. Havok (T/C/c) 12:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what I meant is that if something really falls out of the gameverse then just use the separate Pokemon template (and no CVG template at all). But for pokemon video games use the CVG template. Personally I dislike seeing several different wikiproject templates on talk pages, many articles these days have a whole screen of templates before the actual talk page begins. jaco♫plane 12:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I agree that every article should have one consistent quality rating (disagreements should be handled via discussion and consensus, like any other debate on Wikipedia), but I think that forcing the smaller WikiProjects to use a larger project's priority/importance rating would somewhat hamper the subproject's workflow. Perhaps as a compromise, only the text (and not the color-coded box) corresponding to the smaller project's rating would be displayed. However, the appropriate categories, for both quality and importance (remember, though, that the quality rating should be consistent) for each WikiProject involved would still be added. That way, the smaller project can have Mathbot's auto-generated worklists, and the template would be less visually cluttered. — TKD::Talk 03:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think that at all.  The scope of the smaller projects are no way as encompassing as WP:CVG obviously.  Surely, they would just be as well served with their own Essential articles page.  Having 3 ratings such as that one above just looks confusing.  I also don't think the images for the subprojects should be as large. - Hahnchen 15:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am partially in agreement; I think the smaller subprojects would benefit more from a centralized list of articles (that can be, most importantly, organized) than the automagic listings. Additionally, the only subproject that is listed by MathBot at all right now is WP:WPHALO, which currently has no assessments at all. Nifboy 16:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I would've thought that more projects were using it than that. I stand corrected. I helped set up the template for WPHALO, but the long story short is that many of the articles within that scope are in a pretty bad state and are in dire need of merging and/or condensation on such a massive scale that it's pretty overwhelming, and no one has had the time to get around to it yet. So it was kind of pointless, at least in my view, to begin to rate articles when about half need to be merged. I agree with the smaller images, by the way, and don't really have a strong attachment to the text, if others find it pointless. I still think, though, that if a smaller project wants to use the bot's style, then the category infrastructure might be useful, especially in cases where all of the articles will fit on one bot assessment page. Maybe it's just the programmer in me that doesn't like a static "essential articles" page, which needs to be updated whenever the tags on the talk page change. But I guess that, if it's not really in use right now, it's a moot point, and we could revisit it later. — TKD::Talk 16:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Modified proposal

message: I just created an archive for the new articles page the other day. I created an archive for announced articles created in august and moved on to september. Was this how this was intended to be done?? I just want to make sure this is consensus. jaco♫plane 21:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I think that was pretty much the idea.  Good job! --PresN 00:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article archiving 

message: Where a release date just consists of a year, I can see the advantages in making it, say, 2006 rather than just 2006.  This is what the project's guidelines indicate here. 
However, where it's a full date, the guidelines here are a little ambiguous. Should they be September 13 2006 or should they be September 13 2006 ?  If the latter, then user date preference formatting doesn't work. 
I'm of the opinion that if just a year is specified, then format 2006 should be used.  If a full date is available then September 13 2006 should be used.  This would mean the project's articles follow the WP:DATE guidelines too, rather than having their own rules.
Could we have a discussion on the pros/cons, reach a concensus, update the project's guidelines page, and then work to ensure all the project's pages follow the same guidelines ? --Oscarthecat 19:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been wondering the same thing myself lately.  I like your suggestion of just using the year when a full date is used, and the game-specific year tag when just using a year. — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it, it allows auto formatting to work and saves having disputes about international date formats, plus the full date is an already accepted policy for the rest of WP. - X201 21:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Year in subject, we should also try to reduce the "surprise" of the link if possible, by specifing the link like this: "The Legend of Zelda was released in 1987" rather than "The Legend of Zelda was released in 1987". Pagrashtak 16:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: As we appear to have a consensus here, I have updated the portal's release date guidelines, see diff here. --Oscarthecat 06:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date formatting, eg Release Dates 

message: I've been working on the article Empires: Dawn of the Modern World and finally got the nod as a GA. I wanted to imporve it further (perhaps up to FA) but I didn't know where to go (I already looked into the suggestions of the person who gave me the GA nod). I just had an archived peer review a little while back, and there really isn't anywhere else to go for the kind of scrutiny I need (the CVG peer review is pretty backed up as it is). Any suggestions?--Clyde Miller 20:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Taking something to FA requires a lot of effort, especially if you're doing it single handedly. Also, this game doesn't seem that popular (correct me if I'm wrong, not a PC gamer myself) so finding resources might be difficult. If you're really determined, submit a proper peer review (which is likely to get more attention than the CVG one). To be honest I'd suggest browsing the encyclopedia and finding another article which you like the looks of and start all over again on that. -- Steel 20:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I'll keep a tab on Empires, but I'm not sure there is enough out there to bring this up to FA. I'll weigh my options. I'm actually rather surprised it got this far considering how few people helped me and how unknown the game is. Thanks for your help.--Clyde Miller 22:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ya know I kinda realized something. I think I might go for the peer review. The least that'll happen is they say the article is at it's highest potential or sucks beyond all belief that it has no chance at FA (probably the latter; just kidding). You've given me a lot of help, and I am quite grateful for it, but perhaps there is someone out there who can still help improve it. If that's possible to any extent, perhaps my best chance of finding them is on the Peer Review. I'll think more and see if you have anything else to add. Haste makes waste (man that sounded old fashioned).--Clyde Miller 01:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Here's an easy one: add fair use rationale to the images. And fix this: :Image:Edotmwbox.jpg states as part of its rationale "The image is of a lower resolution than in real life." (!) Pagrashtak 15:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait I'm confused. What do you want me to change? The image size or the summary? --Clyde Miller 20:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fair use rationale. Saying "The image is of a lower resolution than in real life." is somewhat silly, because real life has, I suppose, infinite resolution? Pagrashtak 20:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Taken care of. I'll start doing the rest.--Clyde Miller 22:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advice on my Next Step 

message: I don't normally canvass for votes, but since this seems to have been done a few times in the past on this page...
There is a requested move for Game over -> Game Over with currently only three participants voting; I at least would be interested in seeing the thoughts of a few more people interested in gaming.  Input would be appreciated over at the Talk Page, which sets out the arguments.
(Side note: Game over doesn't currently have a cvg-proj tag, but should?  I assume so, but I'm not a member so it'd feel weird adding it.  Any other improvement to the article would also be appreciated.) SnowFire 21:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Game over]] move. 

message: The Time crisis articles need significant work to bring them upto Wikipeida standards - I have made a start but would appreciate all and any assistance off gamers looking for some additional articles to stick on their watchlist. As a start, can someone find out if it's VSSE or V.S.S.E which is the organization featured in the game as various versions are used across and within articles.
--Charlesknight 21:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've only ever seen VSSE, but I can see why V.S.S.E would be correct for an acronym. - X201 21:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Time Crisis]] 

message: On the project page, under "Organization" it says:
:"Image gallery: If there are a lot of images, a gallery may sometimes be helpful."
Should we revise this statement? That seemed to be written a long time ago, before the fair use policy was enforced. Image galleries are pretty much a no-no now. Thunderbrand 15:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Leave it there, image galleries are fine on a CVG article, if they are commented upon in the text, or are necessary to display some aspect of the game.  Whereas putting a gallery of 12 images in for no reason isn't that helpful, a handful of screenshots at say Ozma Wars is fine. - Hahnchen 00:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that article seems OK, but the Project Gotham Racing 3 page has 12, and seems like overkill. Maybe revising the statement to keep the screen gallery to a low number. Thunderbrand 00:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the PGR3 image gallery is overkill.  I would probably go for a screenshot of the title screen, a few gameplay shots, and the track editor.  Suggesting a low number of screenshots for galleries would be fine. - Hahnchen 01:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image gallery on project page 

message: If you are interested in the Dragon Quest series in any way, please join the WikiProject Dragon Quest! The current project page is only temporary; with a quota of five members I will create a proper project with a proper page. I do not believe that the WikiProject Computer and video games serves as an effective umbrella for the Dragon Quest articles, which number over 30 and still require more. The endless backlogs and massive scope of this project necessitates a more specific WikiProject, I believe. Given the deplorable state of most of the Dragon Quest articles (just compare them to the Final Fantasy articles) I hope some of you are interested in joining me and making this project a reality! --Tristam 02:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Join the WikiProject Dragon Quest!

message: I've just cleared out all the politicians and pundits out of :Category:Computer and video game critics and have moved it to the parent CVG category. The category is for those who write computer and video game criticism, much in the same way :Category:Film critics is for writers of film criticism. As for moving the category, a critique has really nothing to do with ratings and censorship, the previous parent category. So unless a politician writes an actual review/critique (meaning they, *gasp*, played a game), they should not be in that category. Perhaps they should be moved to something like :Category:New media opponents. For now I have moved them to :Category:Computer and video game censorship and ratings. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 15:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video game [[critic]]ism and those critical of games 

message: I came across the :Category:Level Editors while doing some related editing.  I immediately recognized that it was misnamed (the word "Editors" should not have been capitalized), so I initiated an action to have it renamed (to :Category:Level editors).  To make a long story short, one editor objected, mainly because it didn't include level designers, just software applications.  Now we need some input on what really to rename the category to.  The current sugggestions are:
* :Category:Game-editing software
* :Category:Game editing software
* :Category:Game level editing software
* :Category:Level-editing software for games
:Category:Level editors is currently off the table (which I still favor because it is very intuitive).  Please chime in at the discussion, Category rename: Level Editors. Thanks, we need all the input we can get! — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like :Category:Level editors as well. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 16:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I made my comment there some time ago. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category name, need suggestions

message: I've been really wandering about this one, and I could use some advice. The article for Dragon Warrior was previously called Dragon Quest (video game) (since Dragon Quest refers to the series), but has since been changed to the current Dragon Warrior. I'm aware that the game was originally published in North America as Dragon Warrior, but the series is now referred in all regions as Dragon Quest. Naming the article the outdated Dragon Warrior moniker is like naming Final Fantasy VI as Final Fantasy III. Furthermore, the series is strongly rooted in Japan (it gave birth to the Japanese RPG), and I'd actually prefer the Japanese cover in the infobox, since it's much more representative of the artwork of the series (done by Akira Toriyama. Of course, the article's introduction would explain the name change and there would be a subsection discussing localization in North America, but I strongly feel the article should be renamed back to Dragon Quest (video game). I also think that the Quest name should replace the other Dragon Warrior article names, and that :Category:Dragon Quest/Dragon Warrior should simply be renamed to :Category:Dragon Quest. What do you guys think? --Tristam 21:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The series, sure, but when have DW1-4 or DW7 ever been released in English as Dragon Quest? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm fairly sure English-speaking gamers in the US vastly outnumber Japan-savvy or import-minded English-speaking gamers outside of the US. I don't have any qualms with referring to the series and cats and such as Dragon Quest, as that is indeed now the most common reference in English to the series as a whole, but we shouldn't be referring to the games which have only ever been released as "Dragon Warrior" in English by any other name. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proper name: Dragon Quest (video game) or Dragon Warrior?

message: Am I the only one who doesn't like this category name? I'd much prefer something like "Exclusive Wii games" or "Wii exclusive titles" or something along those lines. Does anyone agree? --Tristam 03:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to change it, you'll need to also change :Category:GameCube-only games and other similar categories. Pagrashtak 05:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heck, I didn't even know that those categories existed.  And yes, I hate them.  Surely organising the games by the systems they appear on is good enough, why do we need to point out exclusives? - Hahnchen 17:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I agree. I think more input is necessary; a large consensus would be nice here. --Tristam 22:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If you want those categories gone, you will have to delete :Category:Single-platform software and all its children. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wii-only games?

message: I recently created the List of level editors.  It is now up for deletion.  If you are in favor of keeping it, please voice your support on the deletion discussion.  Of course, if you are in favor of deleting the list, no furhter action is necessary on your part. ;-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List up for deletion

message: Hi. If you still have work to do tagging talk pages and assessing articles, my AWB plugin might be of interest to you.
The plugin has two main modes of operation:
*Tagging talk pages, great for high-speed tagging
*Assessments mode, for reviewing articles (pictured)
As of the current version, WikiProjects with simple "generic" templates are supported by the plugin without the need for any special programatic support by me. I've had a look at your project's template and you seem to qualify.
For more information see:
*About the plugin
*About support for "generic" WikiProject templates
*User guide
*About AWB (AutoWikiBrowser)
Hope that helps. If you have any questions or find any bugs please let me know on the plugin's talk page. --Kingboyk 12:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! I was looking into doing something like this. Looks like someone already beat me to it. —Mitaphane talk 21:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tagging talk pages and assessing articles

message: I've made a proposal for improving the MobyGames developer template.  Please hop on over and join the discussion! — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we need to merge the two together.  Create a template claled  and have optional paramaters for the developer id and game id. Hbdragon88 01:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although, you have between 1500-2000 moby game transclusions to update. And you'll need an optional whale parameter. Pagrashtak 03:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say just redirect moby game into moby and we'll eventually get it sorted out.  Once it's orphaned, it...dies. Hbdragon88 03:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, personally, I like the seperate templates.  Parameters make getting the template to display correctly tricky.  What I proposed hasn't been discussed at all here. Look at the discussion to see what I actually proposed. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: MobyGames developer template proposal

message: I've updated Portal:Current events/Video gaming so that the days are automatically added. I've also added a little current events box to Portal:Computer and video games which links to the current events page. This current events page hasn't really gotten off the ground, and if it doesn't soon do I think that we should disband it, since it's pointless having a current events page that isn't updated often. We'll see, perhaps with the new functionality it will have people working on it. jaco♫plane 02:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current events 

message: Some editors think that only notable games deserve articles; others think that only non-remake and non-port games should have articles; whereas a few think that all games should deserve articles. Thus, should some sort of standard be created on if separate videos games merit separate articles? Perhaps a Wikipedia:Notability (computer and video games) guideline?--TBCTaLk?!? 05:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking about that the other day as I came across the Madden NFL & Twisted Metal (both games that have their series condensed into one article). Considering how many sequels video games get, I would say this would a pretty worthwhile thing to setup. Mitaphane talk 06:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Let the content dictate the format, with an eye for reducing direct observation of the games whenever there isn't other content to support it. For example, Resident Evil (video game) covers all the remakes because there isn't a lot to say about the remakes without repeating the description of the first game. Should there be a massive controversy regarding Deadly Silence, for example, it could be split into its own article. We don't necessarily need an article for every SKU. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Here's an example of why we need a guideline: The editors on Worms (computer game) feel that none of Worm games deserve seperate articles, whereas the editors on Mario feel that all of the Mario games deserve seperate articles (including all the remakes and ports). Any thoughts on this?--TBCTaLk?!? 07:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing really to contribute to the overall discussion. Just noting that I believe Worms Armageddon is notable enough for its own article and that subsequent sequels (yet to debut, or perhaps Worms 3D) should be separate. These were popular games. --Zeality 12:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Worms series could do with separate articles too, but it just depends on the content of the article.  If too much information is on the main page, then it'll naturally be forked.  What notability guidelines may be useful for are questionable cases such as cancelled games, unprofessional fan games (and adobe flash crap), or those  meaningless drivel straight to video budget releases which get no attention in the gaming press.  I don't think it'll make much difference to the articles that could be merged/forked, and it would be too much difficulty to enforce a strict guideline over these issues.  I think that right now, the system is working OK. - Hahnchen 15:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability guideline?

message: I'm trying to make a fair use icon for video game covers, anyone with artistic talent that wants to contribute would be appreciated! You can see my first poor attempt to the right. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great job on the pic. Unfortunetly the only drawing program I have right now is Microsoft Paint, so I don't think I'm of much help.--TBCTaLk?!? 07:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just something cobbled together in Inkscape. It's free software, so you can use it. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  fair use icon for game covers 

message: Though I think I've mentioned this before, I'd like to remind everyone that all Ubisoft screenshots are under a free license (see commons:User:Avatar/Ubisoft). I also remember that CyberSkull proposed the creation of . Any thoughts on this?--TBCTaLk?!? 07:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made a prototype at User:CyberSkull/Template:Ubisoft-screenshot. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: So I presume that Ubisoft screenshots could be used outside of article space for things like Portal:Computer and video games, right? Also, does this extend to the coverart of their games? jaco♫plane 02:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Portal use would be fine. As I understand it, cover art does not qualify, only screenshots. Two caveats: it's not clear whether this applies to user-created screenshots or all Ubisoft screenshots. I'd stick with user-created shots to be safe if you're claiming them as free. Also, Ubisoft appears to want to reserve the right to revoke the license in certain cases. If this is true, we're back to fair use with all Ubidoft screens. Pagrashtak 19:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ubisoft screenshots

message: Lair (video game) is under vandal attack. Any chance that someone could keep their eye on it?  I've already reverted but it was attacked again.- X201 11:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added appropriate templates to their pages. Phorenzik and the 152 IP were both given last warning templates. 217 IP was given a second to last warning. The moment they do it again, list them here and kiss them goodbye. --Zeality 12:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit. I added the protected template, and I'll request protection from Deckiller. I suppose they can still register to do it, though. --Zeality 12:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reverts and the protection. I've never been in a vandal attack before, it was like reading the manual whilst trying to land the plane. - X201 12:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to watch the pages that the article links to. I just removed goofy claims that the PS3 Sixaxis controller is biodegradable. —Mitaphane talk 00:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Admin help needed

message: There has already been discussion of creating a Dragon Quest subproject as a sister to the Final Fantasy project. Now we're discussing creating WikiProject Square Enix to cover all the corporation's games. Please see this relevant discussion and place any opinions or objections you may have. Thanks. ~ Hibana 15:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikipedia:WikiProject Square Enix is now underway. ~ Hibana 02:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Square Enix and more

message: Does anyone mind if we get rid of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games/Noticeboard ? It seems to me that most questions should be raised on this talk page or in a CVG:Peer review. Nobody seems to be paying attention to it, so people who post there will likely receive few responses. jaco♫plane 08:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Might as well. I personally never use it. Thunderbrand 14:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't know there was one, until now. - X201 15:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Other projects use their notice boards more. CVG shouldn't lose it, just because it's not used enough. People should just use it more, instead of just deleting it. RobJ1981 16:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We also shouldn't have it just because others have one too. There's more than one way to have things on a WikiProject, and we should go with our own flow instead of trying to imitate things that aren't working for us. This is kind of like the child-WikiProject thing that I posted about below, about creating things before there's a need to use them (or when there is no longer a need). -- Ned Scott 16:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Jaco, I think you suggested this once before and I supported it. Just slap a tag up there saying it's inactive and suggest this page instead. Pagrashtak 19:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noticeboard 

message: Is it a good idea to use automatic archiving on this page, like is done for WP:AN?? Like that we don't have to worry about manually archiving the page. jaco♫plane 22:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really hate that archivng method, I'd really prefer to move the whole page over - I did that for /archive13 - but nobody else seems to suscribe to that philisophy, so maybe. Hbdragon88 16:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok I guess I won't implement it then. jaco♫plane 02:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving with bot 

message: I would really appreciate some feedback on my points in these AfD's, which to me seem a huge abuse of the term "game guide". If everyone disagrees with me then so be it, but I would just like to know if its not a couple of people going loony deletionist or if the consensus is that sub-articles are hurting Wikipedia more than the gain from people visiting them to reference their information.
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Awards in Battlefield 2: Modern Combat
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ranking system in Battlefield 2: Modern Combat
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Songhua Stalemate
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dalian Plant
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Wall (Battlefield 2 map)
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strike at Karkand
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Table of ranks in Battlefield 2
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battlefield 2 Awards
Cheers. Remy B 03:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have to agree with the nominations of those articles. -- Ned Scott 04:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the nominations as well. After all, note that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information--TBCTaLk?!? 05:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And what's all this about "loony" deletionists? We deletionists have feelings too... --TBCTaLk?!? 05:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think I'm a loony... --Charlesknight 15:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to break it to you, you are. :P *hug* Havok (T/C/c) 07:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles up for deletion as "game guides" 

message: I noticed the CVG tag on some talk pages of pinball articles, so I've started to tag others. I consider pinball a form of it. What does everyone else think? RobJ1981 06:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on the type of pinball. Older versions of pinball are made from wood, thus aren't technically either a "computer" or a "video" game.--TBCTaLk?!? 06:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm in reference to the ones with electronics, sounds, music and so on. RobJ1981 06:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then yes, it does fall under WP:CVG.--TBCTaLk?!? 06:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is pinball considered a computer and/or video game?

message: WikiProjects connected with Computer and video games:
* WikiProject Computer and Video Games (parent project)
**WikiProject Arcade games (almost inactive)
** WikiProject Digimon Systems Update
** WikiProject The Elder Scrolls
** WikiProject Halo
** WikiProject Machinima
**  WikiProject Mortal Kombat
**  WikiProject Nintendo
*** WikiProject Pokédex (inactive)
*** WikiProject PokéNav (inactive)
**** Pokémon Adoption Center (complete)
***** Pokémon Collaborative Project
****** Pokémon Adoption Center 2
***  WikiProject The Legend of Zelda series
*** WikiProject Nintendo Wars
** WikiProject Sega
** 19px WikiProject Square Enix
***  WikiProject Final Fantasy
** WikiProject Tycoon Computer Games
**  WikiProject Warcraft
OK, let's sort this out. I'm thinking of deleting the WikiProjects Pokédex, Pokénav, and PAC, and merging PAC2 into the PCP, so that the PCP becomes a direct parent of WP:NES, along with the LoZ one. Nintendo Wars articles would simply merge into WP:NES, with the Mario Project (if any) being a child of WP:NES. WP:FF would be merged into WikiProject Square Enix. myTrackerTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 16:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pokedex, Pokenav, PAC, and PAC2 should be kept for archival purposes.  Move them under subpages; don't outright delete them or merge them. Hbdragon88 17:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On a related note, I think Machinima should not be considered a daughter WikiProject of CVG. Pagrashtak 19:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No disagreement here. In the absence of any objections from the rest of the project, I've removed the CVG parenthood. — TKD::Talk 09:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Err... why would PCP be a parent of WP:NES if WP:NES covers a much broader group of articles?--TBCTaLk?!? 19:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I propose archiving Pokedex, Pokenav, and PAC1 at either Nintendo or PCP, whoever wants it, and removing it from the list.  I'd leave PAC2 as a sub of PCP, it's active and that the way PCP and PAC2 see themselves.  I'd take Machinima off the list entirely, but I'd recommend holding off on that until they're done discussing it, they've proposed removing themselves as they have only 1 article in common with us.  I'd recommend asking Sega, Nintendo Wars, and Tycoon if they're even alive, because it doesn't look like it, and if they aren't, archiving them here/remove them from the list.  Other than that, I'd say keep them as they are. --PresN 21:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I got a reply from WikiProject Sega, and the creator of the project said "No reason. I just discovered it one day, and thought "heck, why not?" Perhaps this Wikiproject should be labeled inactive, not many people have joined it... --DavidHOzAu 01:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just an idea I had, and nothing formal. Perhaps for dead WikiProjects we can throw out all of the useless WikiProject stuff (Look at all the useless things on Wikipedia:WikiProject Sega) and move them to a subpage. That way if there are some people who are looking for some sega specific templates they can look there. They don't have a whole WikiProject, with seperate guidelines/peer review/talk page templates/rating system, etc .. just a simple page with some useful things. Is this something we want to do for all dead WikiProjects?? Note: I'm not saying we should transform active WikiProjects to this format, only the dead ones. We could include it in the  like this:jaco♫plane 12:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it. Nifboy 15:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Awesome, I like it as well. -- Ned Scott 20:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I got this response from WP:Tycoon- "Everyone on this WikiProject is inactive. I am Iuio, the last active member on the project. You have the go ahead to merge this project with WikiProject Computer and video games. (Iuio 07:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I have no problem with merging Nintendo Wars into this, I know I posted there a couple of times but I wasn't a regular member and it appears to be dead now. TJ Spyke 19:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And with that, it's over, as TJ Spyke was the only person to post a non-spam/cvg message in months there.  So, I'll be starting a new section down there to restart discussion. --PresN 21:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back on track 

message: I recently substantially cleaned up the Doom 3 article, which was rated as Start-class on the assessment scale. I'm convinced that the article has improved substantially since rating, but I'm clearly too close to the current revision to rate it accurately. How would one go about asking for a re-review of the article? Captainktainer * Talk 17:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You would add "|peer-review=yes" to the end of the template, so that the statement within the double braces reads "cvgproj|class=start|importance=mid|peer-review=yes".  This would change both the appearance of the banner and alert those who are engaged in the review process to know that you are requesting that it be reassessed. I've gone ahead and done it for you, so you can go to the page and see what it looks like. Badbilltucker 18:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My thanks; you were very helpful. Captainktainer * Talk 18:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to request a peer review, there's more to it than that. Check out WP:CVGPR for the details. If all you want is for someone to rerate the article, just post a request here, I suppose. Or, if you think the article is good enough to qualify for Good Article status, go to WP:GA and follow the nomination procedure there. Pagrashtak 19:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And that's only if you (like you said) don't feel comfortable rerating it yourself.  Doom 3 is a popular game, so it'd be a good idea to get someone else's thoughts, but for an unpopular game I gauruntee that whoever rated it looked at it for 10 seconds at most. --PresN 20:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for speaking out turn there, Pagra, and thanks for the clarification.  Badbilltucker 22:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rating revisit - how does one go about it? 

message: The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords DS into The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass. 
The whole premise of this, that there was ever a Four Swords DS game in creation, is false. 
If you look in the link in this articles references, this is what is stated in an interview with a Nintendo higher up:
GI: Will there be any connectivity with the Nintendo DS?
Aonuma: No there won’t be any connectivity with the DS. We do have another Zelda game up and running on the DS, but unfortunately, because our goal is to get this one done by the end of the year we can’t focus too much attention on that one.
GI: Is that Four Swords DS?
Aonuma: No, it’s not Four Swords. Actually, the interview that I was talking about a DS Zelda and Four Swords, I was explaining that with Four Swords we worked with two screens, and because of the experience we had with working with two screens we could easily adapt a system like that with the DS and do different things with it. But I never said that we were actually developing Four Swords for the DS.
In light of this, I believe this article belongs in the development section of Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass. Please contribute your thoughts on the Four Swords DS talk page. Judgesurreal777 22:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger

message: I've overhauled the Portal:Computer and video games. It's currently in CVG Peer review, so please comment on how it could be further improved so that we can make this a Wikipedia:Featured portals. jaco♫plane 07:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal CVG 

message: I've made my first tentative steps into using AWB, in this case to go through CVG articles and convert , for example, [198X] wikilinks to [198X in video gaming|198X]. (I'm catching everything from 197X to 200X). It seems appropriate to do this for both CVG infoboxes and the main text.
If anyone has any objections please let me know. Marasmusine 22:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you know about this (Release dates)?.  198x in video gaming is only being used on articles that only have a year in them, not in articles that have a day month and year. Otherwise it screws up the user date format function. - X201 08:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't noticed that. Back to doing it manually then :> Unless I can improve the pattern matching - I'll need to learn some more regex syntax. In terms of the 'avoiding surprises' guideline, I'll restrict the substitutions to CVG infoboxes as well, rather than the whole text. Another thing I thought of was to make sure that 'keyboard' and 'mouse' in the infobox 'input=' section links to [Computer keyboard|keyboard] and [mouse (computing)|] respectively. Again I need to learn more regex syntax. Marasmusine 12:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: That wasn't as hard as I thought actually. It's now ignoring years preceded by months :> Marasmusine 13:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  19XX in video gaming 

message: I need help here: Marvel: Ultimate Alliance. On the page is a list of confirmed and unconfirmed characters. By each unconfirmed, a note saying "rumored" is by it. Unconfirmed and rumored mean the same thing basically, there isn't any reason to be redundant. When I changed it, it was reverted back with no reason. I even mentioned it on the user's talk page, and the talk page of the article to no response at all. I'm not really sure what to do at this point. I know if I change it again, it will probably be reverted. But it simply looks stupid as it is now. RobJ1981 23:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps report the user? The list of confirmed and unconfirmed characters definitely needs to go. --Tristam 15:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Could I get some help?

message: Maybe it's just me, but my version of Just Cause (bought in the UK on the 25th Sept) is buggy as hell! Examples include spinning almost endlessly on the front whell of a bike when turning too sharply, guns not making sounds, traffic vanishing until the game is reset, 'invisible' helicopters and the list goes on. Are there any sources for this, since the first release of this game feels unfinished and should be noted in the article, but because it's based on my experience, would it be Original Research to just say so? (Oh, and the instruction manual is riddled with spelling and grammatical errors.) The Kinslayer 12:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be OR but if enough people suffer from it I'm sure it will be reported somewhere and then you can cite it. What platform was it for? I've had some trouble with the PC version, Securom played up but support sent me a new .exe, The only in-game problems I've had are some wrong textures (sand on roads, etc) and the speech for some side mission starts going AWOL. - X201 12:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It was the PS2 version, I've also had texture issues. On some metal shipping containers, as I looked left and right while facing them, the colors swtiched between red and blue. Also had an 'inside out face' type gltivch caused bhy certain camera angles near walls. Other issues (though maybe not bugs) were delays between NPCs making a gesture and the associated speach being heard, and significant delays with the pop-ups from collection missions. The Kinslayer 12:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just Cause looked crap, it looked like a mix between Far Cry and Boiling Point: Road to Hell.  If it really is that buggy (like Boiling Point was), then reviews will obviously pick up on it and you could easily source it. - Hahnchen 14:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It not crap, just rather buggy. Now I think about it, I'm sure Gamespots review mentioned some of the bugs. I'll do some hunting round tongiht when I'm home from work. The Kinslayer 14:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great game and great fun, gets better with time. Very enjoyable, But probably a bit too much to ask of an ageing PS2 - X201 15:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Very true, I was thinking the same thing. I reckon that stuff is worth noting in the article, the only problem being finding sources to cite that say it! The Kinslayer 15:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I can't really find any journlistic sources for bugs, but a google of 'Just Cause bugs' returns a lot of forum results with bug discussions, including the ones I mentioned. WOuld these be OK to cite? Also, since the spelling mistakes are in the manual for all to see, could I just cite the manual as the source of the spelling mistakes? The Kinslayer 16:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've found a review that mentions some of the bugs and it's a well established often quoted site. I'll put the details and a link on Talk:Just Cause (video game) - X201 17:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just Cause - Buggy As Hell 

message: I must be retarded or something, since I decided, for no reason I can fathom, to get MegaMan Battle Network 5 up to at least GA status. I don't currently have any print game magazine subscriptions, however; could someone help me flesh out the Critical Reception section with something other than IGN, Gamespot, and Gamespy? If someone who doesn't care about the game, even, could scrounge up old issues of Edge or Famitsu or EGM or something, just that would be helpful. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are print suorces required?  You said that Super Princess Peach was almost GA-worthy, and that relied on IGN, Gamespot, and Gamespy...oh, well I guess there was Morgan Webb, but there's no website citation for that bit. Hbdragon88 19:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's what I'd be willing to pass on GA and then there's what I'm satisfied sending to GAC. I'm inclined to be more lenient for other people's work. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that a GA doesn't need print references, but for FACs, I insist on them.  Even more so for earlier games.  Sadly I don't have anything to help you guys in my print collection being that they're mostly PC related. - Hahnchen 23:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Print references for [[MegaMan Battle Network 5]] 

message: Bishōjo game is now up as a Featured Article Removal Candidate, so it needs some lovin' if it wants to keep that star.  You can find the discussionhere. --PresN 16:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FARC

message: I'd like to start up an Assessment Department here in WP:CVG. This department would serve two purposes: to assess CVG articles upon request and provide a reviewing system to define A-Class articles. Assessing articles as Stub-, Start-, or B-Class would be just as it is now — you mark the talk page and move on, no paperwork. GAs and FAs would still be identified through their respective channels. The rare GA that is approaching FA-Class would be listed under the "Requests for A-Class status", where it would undergo a sort of mini-FAC. This would bridge the gap between GAs and FAs, which are both reviewed for quality. Additionally, the scrutiny of the A-Class assessment might actually lead to improvements that result in an article good enough to be submitted to WP:FAC. The other half of the page, Requests for assessment, is simply a place for editors to list articles they would like assessed, whether because they are unsure of how to rate it, or because they feel they are too close to the article to give an accurate assessment, as was the case with Captainktainer and Doom 3 a few sections above. If you would like to see an example of this system in progress, check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment. Pagrashtak 00:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a good idea to me (I was thinking something similar myself the other day :). Why not set up a prototype so we can discuss the precise layout and process. You can add it to  if you like. jaco♫plane 01:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think a department for it is needed. Alot of assessing is needed, but people just need to work on it more. It seems like only a few others, (besides myself) actually rate articles on a regular or somewhat regular basis. Last time I checked, over 4000 articles still need to be rated. It will take a while, if more people aren't willing to help the cause. RobJ1981 01:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I have to admit I haven't really been assessing articles myself much. Still, I think the discussion of what an A-Class article is exactly is one worth having, since it seems rather vague to me at the moment. For requesting assessments, perhaps we could just add them to ... That template is linked to from pretty much every CVG talk page so it has a lot of visibility. jaco♫plane 01:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: IMHO, having this group be proactive would be cool, though I don't know what level of formality is necessary. I have seen some good assessments, but also several that (once you go look at the user page) seem to be written by students anxious to feel powerful in the un-policed Wikipedia world at a time in life when they feel powerless in the academic world. The symptom of this is an arbitrary, formula-driven evaluation with an occasional emphasis on condescension, sometimes at the expense of really informative non-POV articles. As a former trouble-fomenting student I can empathize, but I don't think it's actually good for the 'pedia. The "usual crowd" from here (which includes several students!) would do a more balanced job. Coll7 01:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about a new talk page for assessment? Don't emphasize it being a big thing, just a second dedicated talk page. That way it's just as useful, but doesn't sound as cool (which, in this case, would be the desired effect). -- Ned Scott 03:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: As a trouble-formenting student, I'm in favor of just setting up a page (talk or otherwise) where ratings can be discussed and such.  Nothing too formal, but it would be a neat idea. --PresN 18:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, yeah, we still have 4000+ to rate, but remember, while that's a lot, that's down from 6400+ at the beginning of September when I helped point it out.  2400 in a month isn't half bad at all.  I will admit though, I've not been as hard working on it as I should. --PresN 18:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creation of Assessment Department 

message: Alright, bringing the discussion back to the bottom.  Here's where we stand:  Subprojects Sega, Tycoon, and Nintendo Wars have all been declared dead by the last people to contribute to them.  Therefore, the proposal as it stands for those three it to archive them at something like WP:CVG/Tycoon, thus turning them into a sort of work group area, and remove them from the list of subprojects.  Additional proposals have been made, by me and others, to do the same to the crossed out pokemon projects, and to add a line to the cvgproj template box for article pages that were under these project that "such and such a page is supported by the (Sega) work group" or some such.  See the "Back on Track" section above for details.  Anyone have any comments?  By which I mean, anyone object? --21:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The work of the retired Pokémon projects has been taken up by the successor project. Their old templates are adapted or deleted, their pages are redirected, they never had any relevant subpages or workshops or anything, and their talk pages are moribund. Little more has to be done with them. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Subproject discussion part 3

message: Just an FYI, I've created a userbox for the CVG barnstar. You can find it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games/Award userbox. EVula 06:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barnstar userbox 

message: The PC game cover category;  has been empty for a while now, can we delete it? Timkovski 12:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't that the template which is used on Special:Upload? If so it's not wise to delete it yet. jaco♫plane 20:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean't the subcategory of PC game covers rather than the parent category of gamecovers in general. There was a thread on here a while ago requesting people not to put images into it, and now no-one has for a while, if it is removed, no-one will. I don't think it is linked to from Special:Upload, that's just the main  category. Timkovski 22:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it would be a good idea to get rid of :Category:PC game covers now that we have emptied it. I'll nominate it immediately. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the deletion section or just go to WP:CFD. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PC game cover category 

message: I've just noticed that the infobox usage instructions over at Template talk:Infobox CVG are different than the ones that are this article page. All the discussion about the template now seems to take place here, would it be worth clearing the the template talk page and directing all questions and usage instruction to this page? - X201 19:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just saw that too, and I have it on my watchlist. Also didn't know that Template:Vgrelease exists, although it was created after our discussion. I'm not sure about clearing the talk page, but we could put a note at the top mentioning this talk page. Thunderbrand 21:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox CVG

message: Just wondering what the modus is behind FAs making the front page. I didn't bother asking at the request's talk page, since it's a wasteland. Is it truly arbitrary and up to Raul, and are CVG articles generally sparingly featured on the main page? --Zeality 21:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure it is just up to him. Majora's Mask is gonna be on the main page on Oct. 1. Thunderbrand 21:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A little of both; Raul has said that he tends to keep similar FAs apart. Nifboy 21:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Front page FA

message: Update:  BZFlag, Link (Legend of Zelda), and Bishōjo game are all up to be de-featured.  I know that no one really cares about BZFlag or Bishojo game, but some support for Link would be appreciated.  AMiB and Crazyswordman are helping, but they need more.  Also, while they're no one's favorite articles, the other two need lovin, since no one wants that former featured article list on the main page to get any longer.  --PresN 05:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I was just mostly being critical. :/ - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Being critical is helping :) Raising our standards is key to better articles. -- Ned Scott 06:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll help! What can I do ? Renmiri 13:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Head on over to FAR and pick an article (or 2, or 3).  Check out the objections- for example, Link needs more citations, consistant citations, and needs to be more comprehensive in general.  Then, ummm... fix that.  Discuss it there.  Oh, and while FAR isn't a vote of any kind, FARC is a vote in the same sense that FAC is, but don't be saying keep just because you like it, only keep if you really think it's Featured quality.  --PresN 18:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured Article Removal Candidates