Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 29

message: Who here believes that ideally, the lead image should be from the most recent primary game (for example, New SMB Bowser versus Brawl Bowser)? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What if the most recent incarnation doesn't define the character as a whole? By this method, the Link lead image would be the Link from Phantom Hourglass. Ashnard Talk Contribs 18:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: (EDC) I think that'll depend on context.  I think the most recognizeable image should be used, which might not necessarily be the most recent.  For example, if Bowser's overall design were to have changed significantly in Super Smash Bros. Brawl, such that an average reader not familiar with the game wouldn't immediately recognize him as Bowser, I'd default back to a previous game's rendering as the lead image for Bowser's article, and then include the newer screenshot as an example of how his design has changed.  It's not an exact science, though - generally speaking, more recent images are better, as they represent the current design of a character, setting, etc.  But there may be cases where a character's original design may be preferable over the more recent. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: No, you should use the most recognisable image, not just the most recent.  For Bowser, I'd actually go for the Paper Mario one, had it not been disgustingly watermarked - :Image:PMTTYD Bowser.jpg. - hahnchen 18:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is his Paper Mario look the most recognizable one? Three games certainly haven't overwritten all of the others. TTN 18:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think it probably should be more recognizable, not most recent. As for the Bowser image: stick with something from the main Mario series. RobJ1981 18:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I just thinks it sticks to the old school stylings from 16-bit era Nintendo artwork. I think Mario should have a similar lead image to the face shot in this absolute classic.  - hahnchen 18:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, it's not an exact science - personally, I'd say any image from Super Mario Bros. 3 onward would probably be just fine - I'd probably go with his rendering from Super Smash Bros. Melee. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Paper Mario series is supposed to be a whimsical deviation from the main series. Although I favour the Paper Mario Bowser personally, one can't use that for the context that it's in and the fact that the lead image is supposed to be representative of the subject in general — which that image isn't. Ashnard Talk Contribs 18:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Another thought on this: I think we can all agree that if you saw ANY image of Bowser from any of the SMB games, you'd instantly recognize him.  His image has been pretty consistent throughout the series.  At which point, you have to ask, "which of these images is MOST like him?"  And that's one that many people would probably disagree on.  Again, I think his 3D rendering from SSBM is probably the best, most representative image of the character, but I know others would probably disagree with me on that.  I still maintain that most recent isn't necessarily best, but if the most recent image is one that everybody likes over others, then that's when I'd consider changing the lead image.  Make sense? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary images 

message: What does everyone think, another AFD nomination? It's went through 2 from the talk page (I believe 3 though, not sure why the other isn't listed). Let me point out a few examples from the article: Bully Special Edition — special case, dodge ball, comic book. and Ultimate Spider-Man Limited Edition  — includes four characters biographies, an interview with Stan Lee, a making of video, tips and trick and a special edition Ultimate Spider-Man comic book. The package has a Venom theme.  Why exactly should people even want to care about this? All media has special editions, a whole list of them doesn't seem notable to me. DVDs have many special and/or collector, limited editions: no list here (that I know of). Same thing with CD's and so on. This is simply trivial listcruft/fancruft in my view. Yes, video games have special editions, it doesn't mean we need to list each and every one of them. If anything: put the notable information on each article, and leave it at that. If someone wants to nominate it, feel free. I've had problems nominating articles that have went in AFD before, and I'm not sure why (I follow the steps correctly and all that). RobJ1981 18:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your sentiment on this.  Special editions should be mentioned briefly in the main articles, but otherwise their info should go into a subwiki. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I share KieferSkunk's sentiment, but everybody else overwhelmingly voted to keep the article during the last AFD. hbdragon88 23:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not something I'm interested in, but to my surprised nearly every entry is referenced. That's pretty good for a list article. Passes WP:V anyway. If it goes to AFD I'll probably vote to keep. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 18:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sourced or not, it's still crufty and trivial. When you think about it, you can source just about anything on Wikipedia. That doesn't make it a acceptable article always. RobJ1981 18:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In response to Hbdragon: opinions can change. Currently (on this page alone): 3 to 1 is the tally. If someone could AFD it for me, then we will see how it goes. Frankly, I've seen very little improvement (besides the sourcing) in the article since the last AFD. Lists like this one, belong on a gaming wiki only in my opinion. RobJ1981 05:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see in the article history that it's been nominated for deletion four times and has failed each time.  I still think the information should be called out in the individual articles, but it appears that the consensus has consistently been to keep the article and to continue to improve it.  As one of the arguments for keeping it said, it's not an indiscriminant list of information - it's well-focused and sourced.  I don't think it's likely that another AfD is going to accomplish anything. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Out of interest, how many times would it need to succeed the AFD process, for you to accept it should be kept? --Oscarthecat 18:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of video game collector and limited editions]]

message: Just to let everyone know that List of video games by genre was deleted through AfD here; shame it wasn't put on the list of video game deletions. I don't know which way I would have !voted, but it's possible more specific video game genre lists will be nominated. MarašmusïneTalk 19:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of video games by genre

message: I just noticed this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Animal Crossing. Currently there is a grand total of six Animal Crossing articles (from what I see). Is it really necessary to have a task force about it?  I see it as unhelpful, and it could possibly encourage others to make more smaller taskforces. If people want to fix the small group of articles: fine, ask here. From what I've seen: small and broad projects/task forces end up dying after only a short period. RobJ1981 05:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw that, there's only one editor in that task force so far.  It's up to him to get it going, give it some time, but I don't have much hope for it. - hahnchen 13:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Animal Crossing task force

message: I've submitted Super Nintendo Entertainment System as a Featured article candidate. Please talk a look at the article and give your input. Is it worthy of being the third video game console FA, joining Nintendo Entertainment System and Wii? Anomie 00:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Overall form looks good, and it appears to have good citations.  I think it needs some copyediting, though - there are a few weasel-phrases and possibly POV statements in there.  Nothing terrible, though. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, give me details! I just did a quick read-through looking for weasel words and POV, but everything I found was supported by the sources cited. I'm probably too close to the article to see it. BTW, if you put "Support" or "Oppose" in front of that, it would make a good comment for the FAC page. Anomie 03:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally think that the History section reads a little bit like a news story.  It covers the history well, but it feels sensationalized when I read it.  I'd probably reword a few things, but I don't have any specific examples at the moment.  When I have more time, I'd be happy to do a little copyediting. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: You should place your comments on the FAC page. --Mika1h 14:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, sorry. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Nice work. If Nintendo 64 were a Good Article, we could have a nice Nintendo console Featured Topic with this, Nintendo Entertainment System, and Wii. Kariteh 22:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Super Nintendo Entertainment System FAC 

message: The debate was sparked over the removal of car and track lists as per WP:NOT. The data has since been converted into general paragraphs, but the change has been rejected by one editor and several anonymous editors who insist on being allowed to write the article as they see fit — targeted to LFS players. I have repeatedly suggested that they seek more experienced opinions from WP:VG, but they seem content with counting their own straws. Additionally, one user has rejected the fact that LFS is under the domain of the Video games WikiProject, refusing to acknowledge that LFS is a video game, instead claiming that is a racing simulator. Despite sim racing being considered gaming, and despite the game categories removed and the WP:VG banner on the Talk page, no response has been gained regarding this inconsistency. Instead, the anonymous editors are continuing the debate and are considering arbitration.
Additionally, User:E dog95 has gone an editing spree on all sim racing articles and removed all mention of "computer game" on the basis of his opinion that simulators are not games.
I don't think it's necessary to go that far, especially when there are plenty of experienced editors here who can offer their input. Whether the LFS editors like it or not, LFS is under WP:VG's scope, and I kindly ask editors to comment on the debate to avoid going through the arbitration process unnecessarily. --Scottie_theNerd 04:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I replied and offered my input.  In a nutshell: I agree that the tables of info don't belong here, but rather on StrategyWiki or some such, and just because it's a racing sim doesn't mean it's not also a video game.  Look at Forza Motorsport and Gran Turismo - those are racing-sim games.  What makes this one any different? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once we reach a consensus on that, we will need to undo the changes made by User:E dog95 on all the simulation articles. --Scottie_theNerd 06:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some simulations are games, others are not.  In general racing sims, such as this one in question is undoubtedly a game, it is primarily intended for recreation.  On the other hand, a flight simulator used by the armed forces to train pilots obviously isn't a game.  I actually AFDed Forza 2's list of cars, so in general I don't like really long useless lists, but Live for Speed doesn't actually have too many cars, so I don't think it'd be that big a problem listing them.  I just wouldn't bother listing all the specifics such as weight distribution and horsepower.  I would list the tracks, there's not a large amount of them and I think making links out of the tracks helps us to WP:Build the Web. - hahnchen 19:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure about the merit of leaving the lists up. As others have pointed out, even though there's a small amount, it still doesn't add anything. If there were only, say, three choices of cars, mentioning them wouldn't be an issue, but there's a good dozen that does add an unnecessary amount of padding. The same scope of information can still be presented in a readable manner through paragraphs, minus the track distances, weight balance, and other technical aspects. --Scottie_theNerd 23:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Scrottie.  The last thing we need is more listcruft around here.  If users are persistently putting it back, take them to WP:AN3. Giggy UCP 00:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Listing the details of each car is in direct conflict with the Article Guidelines and qualifies as "indiscriminant list of information" - it's definitely detail that isn't needed anywhere on WP, even if the article wasn't within WP:VG. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Input required on debate at [[Live for Speed]] 

message: As part of the Notability wikiproject, I am trying to sort out whether Hades Nebula is notable enough for an own article. I would appreciate an expert opinion. For details, see the article's talk page. If you can spare some time, please add your comments there. Thanks! --B. Wolterding 13:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not claiming to be an expert on whether things qualify as notable or not, but I would hope it is or a lot of our other articles on 80s games are going to be in trouble! It's backed up with sources from Zzap!64 and Your Sincliar, which were notable magazines of the time. Seems fine to me. Miremare 15:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I also think that something being 20-odd years old and still being remembered gives it a notability boost of sorts. Andre (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expert review: Hades Nebula 

message: This user keeps on pointless removing cover art and replacing it with his own.  It usually goes from Xbox 360 -> Playstation 3.  I doubt he actually works for Sony, but myself and some other editors have warned him on his talk page about this, yet he continues to do so.  Articles affected include Army of Two (video game), BlackSite: Area 51, Def Jam: Icon, Assassin's Creed and more.  This guy has an agenda and I wouldn't put it past him to resort to sockpuppets.  If anyone here could just delete the offending images, or just block this guy, that'd be great.  I'm probably going to file 3RR against him. - hahnchen 21:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the easiest thing to do is to go through 3RR - he already violated that in the first of those articles.  If he continues to do so, he'll be blocked for longer periods of time.  As for the images: I don't really see anything wrong with either the PS3 or 360 version of the box art, so long as the box art isn't fake and has valid Fair-Use rationale.  So it's not really vandalism per se, but it does appear that he's making those changes without going through consensus discussion. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Keep an eye on [[User:Maniac20]] / Box art issue

message: People are having a dispute over some content on the Fighting game article. Several people (including myself) have deleted a section from the article, and it keeps being added back. Someone accused me of working for "NAMCO, TECMO and SEGA" for removing irrelevant links to external sites. Read Talk:Fighting game to see what I'm talking about. Could people please offer there opinions on the subject (on the Talk page)? It is not an ad for Kwonho, and it could be a decent article otherwise. JohnnyMrNinja 06:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute on Fighting games 

message: I have propsed new stub categories for Atari, Take Two, Ubisoft, and Sony Computer Entertainment. See the proposals here.
I have proposed the following stub category name changes (see the proposals here):
* / :Category:Warcraft stubs to  and :Category:Vivindi Games stubs (keeping a Blizzard template for Blizzard games, that go into the Vivendi category)
* / :Category:The Elder Scrolls stubs to  and :Category:Bethesda-Softworks-stubs
* / :Category:Doom stubs to  and :Category:Id-Software-stubs
* / :Category:Rareware stubs to Template:Microsoft-videogame-stub and :Category:Microsoft videogame stubs
* / :Category:Maxis stubs to  and :Category:Electronic Arts stubs
JohnnyMrNinja 23:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added proposals for Activision, THQ, Disney Interactive, SCi/Eidos Interactive, and MS-DOS game stubs. I do plan on (slowly) populating them if they are created.  JohnnyMrNinja 07:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New stub proposals and stub renaming proposals 

message: Can some people keep an eye on Marvel: Ultimate Alliance for changes? I have it in my watch list (again), because of people re-adding game guide content. I've told them not to do it (one in the past, one recently), but I somehow bet others will re-add it. The section is known as future: and it describes how to get special endings by doing certain things. It's certainly game guide content, not suitable for here. RobJ1981 05:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article would benefit greatly from a damn good walloping with the game guide hammer, even with the above removal. And that list of voice actors has been mentioned on the talk page for two weeks with no reply or action. I'd condense it myself but I don't know about Marvel or which of the actors are particularly notable. Anyone? Miremare 23:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: An article to watch

message: Okay, I think it's ready to be nominated, but I don't know whether I should put it in the assessment requests. Other users before have advised me not to go through this process if I want a proper assessment and I'm unsure whether that's the place to go for GA nominations. Please will somebody advise me on what to do? Ashnard Talk Contribs 17:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want the article to go to GA review, all you have to do is make it a good article candidate.  Go to the Wikipedia:Good article candidates page and follow the instructions at the top ("How to nominate a page"), placing your article at the bottom of section 6.1.7, "Games and related articles". With any luck, someone should review it soon.  Nall 18:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've just done that now. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 19:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fire Emblem got to GA. I just want to sincerely thank the users that answered my queries. Let's hope this is the first of many more good FE articles. Ashnard Talk Contribs 21:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Fire Emblem]] GA nomination. 

message: I'm proposing a new whose duties would include:
#Discussing proposals for CVG title guidelines
#Proposing article moves
#Announcing article moves
#Reporting article moves (that is, by having a "moves by date" section, and any CVG-related moves would be listed, regardless of if they're good moves or not)
Anyone interested? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would you need a task force?  Why not just create a new section at WP:CVG in the style of the new article announcements and the deletion announcements. - hahnchen 22:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's true. Just create a new subsection of the project. Andre (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article titles taskforce 

message: Can I get some input on pages such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements/May 2007 and Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Deletion Archive.  The brainless monotony of maintaining these just means that no one can ever be bothered to update our new article announcements or deletion lists (an editor has even ened the text for the past deletions instead of moving them across.  I can never be bothered to maintain these archives, kill? - hahnchen 22:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't delete the archives, just slap  on them and stop archiving. Andre (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just like using the word kill.  But yeah, that's what I meant, stop archiving. - hahnchen 23:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I regluarly go over the deletion archive to check for re-created articles, and I'm happy to continue maintaining it. As for 'smallened instead of moving them across'; as I mentioned here, I'm archiving all those over 1 month old (so I'm a few days behind at the moment). MarašmusïneTalk 08:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Been bold and just "killed" the articles with the tags. It will at least create some more discussion. IMHO, participants in this project have better things to do than bot-like tasks - and even bots have better things to do. There are more effective ways of checking for re-created deleted articles than watching for blue links in a list of red ones. An AWB plugin that checks the log should be easy to write, for example. --User:Krator (t c) 23:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pointless Archives

message: Wikipedia:WikiProject Age of Empires, couldn't figure out which [edit] to click on to add it. ~ JohnnyMrNinja {talk} 05:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I just stumbled across a new project 

message: Characters of Final Fantasy VIII is a featured article, yet contains no screenshots, relying entirely on artwork and cutscenes. Since the game is notable for using realistically proportioned characters and body language, this seems like an oversight. Your comments would be most welcome at Talk:Characters of Final Fantasy VIII#Problems with this article.--Nydas(Talk) 16:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screenshots versus artwork 

message: I came across this today, it's a list of AO rated computer/video games. It seems to be listcruft and/or fancruft to me. If no one objects, I might AFD it. RobJ1981 06:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With supposed video game related violence etc. being a re-occuring topic in media, the list seems useful and relevant. (Not sure about the article title tough - it doesn't mention "games") The Merciful 08:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Just commenting - it would probably be better as a category, but if that happened we'd need to make a category for all ESRB ratings, then categories for all worldwide game ratings. But that is probably too many categories. So if it is kept, keep it as a category. ~ JohnnyMrNinja {talk} 09:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: JohnnyMrNinja, I wish you hadn't said that - someone will probably go and do it now! But that's probably the worst, most undescriptive article title I've ever seen. As The Merciful says, it doesn't mention games, and "AO" is a completely meaningless term until you click the link. Something like List of AO (Adults Only) rated games would make more sense if it survives an AFD. Miremare 17:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I thought it read "AO-related", and that it was referring to an MMORPG. :P  Definitely needs clarification. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put it up for deletion. RobJ1981 10:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of AO-rated products]]

message: I was wondering why do the articles have to have japanese titles following english titles. They're long, with japanese characters first and then an romanization. They're an eyesore and honestly I don't know what purpose do they serve. Not to mention most of the time the romanization is exactly the same as the english title, with the only difference being the obvious japanese engrish pronunciation. Is there a way to incorporate this info into the infobox or superscript link to the bottom of the page?  Blueshirts 21:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with putting it into the infobox is that it's fairly long and would add several lines to the infobox's height. Also, some games only have Japanese names (e.g. BS Zelda no Densetsu) and any translation, even a literal one, is unofficial and sometimes debatable. In the case of pages located at the Japanese name it could be confusing to see the Japanese name in the title but a translation in the introduction. The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages moves the translation details to a footnote so that's another way to go. GarrettTalk 03:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Probably the same reason we have original language titles after most things not originating from an English-language country.  See Germany, Athens, Ong Bak, etc. the original language title is an important part of the article, even if it's the exact same (as in the case with a lot of Japanese language titles) the MOS doesn't seem to mandate it, but it's been in practice in many, many articles.  ColourBurst 16:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Japanese titles

message: Hello, could I have some advice please, I'm trying to add a new image for the infobox of Paperboy (video game), as currently it features the opening screen and doesn't look right. Questions:
*It's first and foremost an arcade game, does that mean the infobox has to contain an image of the cabinet, or can I use a videogame box instead?
*The best image I've found is for the Apple II system, but it's on a messageboard at , is this going to cause problems with fair use?
Any help appreciated. QuagmireDog 12:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can use any of the game's releases to illustrate it, it doesn't have to be the original arcade cabinet. As far as I know, the picture you've pointed to would be OK to use, but don't forget to include some fair-use rationale specifying who owns the copyright etc. Miremare 13:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I've uploaded the image and provided (hopefully) enough fair use spiel. QuagmireDog 13:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although suitable, I do feel that the most appropriate leading screenshot for Paperboy would be an arcade cabinet, to illustrate the unique handlebar controls. But in general, box art is fine, even for games that were initially arcade. - hahnchen 15:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Google turns up several cabinet images showing those handlebars. Anomie 15:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paperboy box art, couple of Qs 

message: This has been mentioned a few times above, but the likes of Marvel: Ultimate Alliance's "voice actors" section and articles like Runescape gods are just not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Unfortunately, as long as the the editors of articles like Runescape gods are falling over each other to type Keep! Keep! Keep! at ALL its AFDs we're unlikely to ever get rid of these non-notable irrelevances. No one can credibly claim that this is a subject worthy of an individual encyclopedia entry, or provide sources to satisfy WP:N, or realise that Runescape being notable doesn't mean everything in it is notable, but the articles remain because there are so many fanboys intent on it. This seems to me to be a problem which tends to be overlooked with video game articles (which appear to attract cruft like crap attracts flies), and I think it's to the detriment of Wikipedia. Not to mention the endless articles full of game guide content. It seems whenever these are removed they get put back again, either straight away or gradually. I'm fully expecting people to disagree with me, but meh. If only there was a policy specifically stating what's notable and includable for a video game... So yes, getting to the point, is it possible to propose one, would there be support for one, and if so what should be in it? Miremare 19:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be great if you include the articles that are practically novelisations.  I'd love to have VG specific guidelines as to what not to include. ~ JohnnyMrNinja {talk} 19:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the difference in fancruft terms between RuneScape gods and Characters of Final Fantasy VIII?--Nydas(Talk) 19:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: RuneScape gods doesn't contain any out-of-universe information, Characters of Final Fantasy VIII does. I don't know if there is enough real-world information available about RuneScape gods but if there isn't, the article isn't notable. --Mika1h 20:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Characters of Final Fantasy VIII gets the meat of its out-of-universe content from a single source. Is the difference between zero sources and one source the difference between deletion and featured?--Nydas(Talk) 08:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it gets it from a lot of different sources, articles and interviews. And all of these meet the criteria set by the official guidelines at WP:WAF#Secondary information. Kariteh 08:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are other sources, but the core of the out-of-universe information is taken from one article, referenced 17 times. Such an article probably doesn't exist for RuneScape, but you could use dialogue fragments, subscription figures, reviews, the manual, the official site etc to build up the references on RuneScape gods. Would it still be deletion-worthy if you did?--Nydas(Talk) 08:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not actually too bothered about RuneScape Gods, but would vote to delete.  But you're going to get a lot of "Other shit exists" keep votes given we have categories such as :Category:Warcraft characters and Characters in Devil May Cry.  You may laugh at the idiot kids that amuse themselves with the shit that is runescape, but it does have an absolute assload of players, probably more so than Devil May Cry. - hahnchen 20:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...which thus makes it notable (finishing off the comment). Giggy UCP 08:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course you should know that Characters in Devil May Cry is based on Characters of Final Fanatasy VIII, so we are kind of going in a circle there, and the page development took care of fancrufty pages such as Vergil (Devil May Cry) its not really like we just wanted to have a page to list characters and say how "cool" they are, not to mention we added as much Out of Universe as we could find based on suggestions made by Deckiller. -凶 08:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need less cruft 

message: Over at Beautiful Katamari, there's been an editing mini-war going on, specifically over the inclusion of the Wii version in the lead and infobox.  Quick history: Namco-Bandai announced BK for 360 and PS3 early this year, PS3 recently has been dropped, and while the industry rumor is that the Wii version has been taken up over the PS3, there has been no official N-B announcement of this (the 360 version remains the only officially announced one).  We have a section on these Wii reports in the body of the article, which to me is ok as they're all cited, but people are continually trying to justify the Wii version as being "confirmed", and thus should be included in the infobox and lead.   A similar deal is happening with Apollo Justice: Ace Attorney where there's an issue that despite an official trailer (though linked through youtube, so a possible copyvio), there's an issue within including a France TBD release date in the info box. 
My personal take is that if the developing/publishing company has officially announced a platform, a release for a given country, or any other details for a game, it should be included in the infobox and lead, but if not, despite having strong rumor or close sources saying that it's in development, it should not be included -- basically, the infobox should be telling me the best and correct known-to-date information about the game, and should not include speculation even if it is well sourced.  I'm just trying to see if there's precedent for this from before to put the editing wars to rest. --Masem 16:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the Infobox should only include official, confirmed information.  If the Wii version is being talked about, but has not been officially announced by Namco-Bandai, the Infobox should not include it and the article should mention that it is still being "talked about". — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to include in Infobox for future games... 

message: On Talk:Characters of Final Fantasy VIII#Problems part 2, I've argued that we should mainly use the in-game names of the characters. See Talk:E. Honda for similar dispute. To me, it's terribly in-universe to use a character's 'full' name, especially if that name rarely or never appears in the actual game(s). --Nydas(Talk) 20:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a large difference between an article title, and a heading within an article. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 21:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm struggling to see how it's in-universe when it's the opposite of the informal norm in the game. The other thing is, these characters aren't just characters within a video game, with manga/merchandising etc. etc. there's more to it than that. I just typed 'FF8 Figures' into google, within seconds I get this store with each character listed with their surname. I'm really not seeing why this article is crippled by the inclusion of the names the developers created. QuagmireDog 21:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with QuagmireDog. The key is to consider not just the initial video game but also all related merchandise. It's also important to make the difference between Japan and English clear when necessary: for instance, Kefka's official English name is only "Kefka", and has never been referred to as Kefka Palazzo, although "Cefca Palazzo" does exist in Japan. What I've just said is totally unrelated to FFVIII, but since we're on the main project's page I though I'd note it. Kariteh 22:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Spin-off merchandise is not key. Using it over in-game stuff is an example of the in-universe perspective giving undue weight to unimportant information. It's misleading and inaccurate. The game dialogue isn't 'informal', it's just written like that (probably so player-chosen names take prominence).--Nydas(Talk) 07:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The game dialogue is informal. It's focused on discussion between teenage characters, what do you expect? Instead, the last names are used in all manuals, game guides, some promotional material, and merchandising (of course it's "spinoff", anything not part of the game is "spinoff" - it's still official work). Now... how is that unimportant? Simply mentioning the last names - which are not trivial from the promotional and merchandising aspect - is not undue weight. --Teggles 07:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: "Using it over in-game stuff is an example of the in-universe perspective giving undue weight to unimportant information." - what is this, a joke? This is the exact definition of a real-world perspective. It shows that the last name is important enough to be covered outside of the game's plot. Want to see coverage in merchandise?  --Teggles 08:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, and promotional material? This is very difficult to look for, but...  Oh, and there are 491,000 uses of "Squall" without "Leonhart", and there are 117,000 uses of "Squall Leonhart". --Teggles 08:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If Final Fantasy VIII was an action figure franchise with a spin-off video game, then you would have a point about the merchandise. Just because something is 'official' or 'canon' does not overrule the need to use common names for navigational purposes. The official website doesn't use them in this way. Stating that the situation is informal because they're teenagers strikes me as original theorising; I could equally say that they're soldiers, therefore I'd expect much more use of their surnames.--Nydas(Talk) 12:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The promotion and merchandising is a part of Final Fantasy VIII as a whole. It is evident that the names have importance to it because they are used constantly throughout it. I think you have a hard time understanding that the content of a game is not the only information we cover on a game's article. It's simple: last names are used commonly in an important aspect of the game's coverage, an aspect that is equally important as plot. If you can't understand that, I'm wasting my time, and I'm not going to compromise. --Teggles 19:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: By the way, the addition of a last name does not obstruct navigation. Not only are full names commonly used (about 1/5th of the time), but the first name is still there, and it's right where first names normally are. If I know him as "Squall", do you really think I'm going to be confused when I see "Squall Leonhart"? Perhaps "Sailorman de Farlius Village, Squall", but not "Squall Leonhart". --Teggles 19:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The articles have four paragraphs about the merchandise, versus dozens of paragraphs about the plot, design, reception, etc. There is nothing about the advertising or promotion. I agree that articles should contain more than just game content, but the weighting of the content should reflect the real world importance. Action figures, sticker albums etc are not that important compared to the core work. The game presumably sold millions of copies. How much merchandise was sold? --Nydas(Talk) 08:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not getting the point. The merchandise and design-related work both hold the last names in importance. If these two factors of are discussed in the article, then they are important. Hence two important factors of the game use last names, even if they are less important. We have every right to use them because of that. Using a last name is not putting undue weight on an in-universe perspective. It's a tiny amount of weight. Calling it "undue" is fucking asinine. I don't know how much merchandise was sold, but the Final Fantasy VIII soundtrack sold at least 300,000 copies in Japan. The merchandise is bound to have sold a lot because of that, and also because of the mass range produced. --Teggles 00:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree with using last names per se, just using them for article and section titles. It's misleading, since people (especially non-games players) will get the impression that the names are widely used in-game. If sales figures are unavailable, consider that the game was reviewed in hundreds of published sources. How many published sources reviewed the action figures? The soundtrack is probably the highest profile spin-off item, but does that use the surnames?--Nydas(Talk) 08:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I'm not sure about Final Fantasy VIII, I think the reasoning should apply to Characters of Final Fantasy Tactics; using "Orlandu" instead of "Count Cidolfas Orlandu" might be clearer for readers. Kariteh 10:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Full name or in-game name?

message: is ugly as hell. Since all I get is bitched at when I try to cut down a bloated, ugly template, could someone please fix it? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's ugly how?  I mean, it looks OK to me...I'll play around with it a bit, but I don't see many problems. Giggy UCP 03:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The characters mentioned in it are all equally major.  I see the problem when compared to other templates...but I don't know what you can do about it (I'm not too great with templates). Giggy UCP 04:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if this is any better, but I gave it a shot... Giggy UCP 04:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: That template is a mess. When there's that many character pages, use a list of character page link. Tighten the links some more, nav templates should be linking tightly related articles, not so much as a "see also". -- Ned Scott 04:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus it links to several articles multiple times, or to lists that happen to have characters on them. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you suggest we change it to a list?  Or just dump the character information on lists, and only leave the games on the template? Giggy UCP 04:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Giggy's change is a definite improvement, but if you still have a problem with it I've come up with a few alternatives.  I put them on my user page to avoid cluttering up the CVG talk, but they might be closer to what you're looking for. Nall 06:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All of those alternatives are far superior to what we have now, please do change over to one of them. Andre (talk) 06:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm up for the "very minimal". Giggy UCP 08:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree with the "very minimal", without any "characters". Navboxes should link to articles, not sections. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 21:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in favour of any of them. They're all better than the original. - X201 07:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm willing to make the change to the navbox as soon as I'm sure there's a consensus.  I'll make a post at the Smash Bros. talk page to see if I can get some support for shortening the template, and invite some people to come to this thread. Nall 05:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navboxes once again 

message: This is currently being reviewed for GA, however, there's a problem concerning the name. In the West, it was named just Fire Emblem as it was the first Western installment. However, this is the same name of the series to which it belongs, causing confusion when referring to it as just "Fire Emblem". So now it's called Fire Emblem (Game Boy Advance), which the The Rambling Man has deemed unsuitable for problems concerning amiguity etc. So, how can this be tackled? Should it be moved to the Japanese name, the rough Japanese translation, or anything else? Thank you. Ashnard Talk Contribs 09:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what you have told us Fire Emblem (series) for the series and Fire Emblem for the game itself seems the logical way to go. With a dablink to the series on the game article. Look at Shining Force as an example - X201 10:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Final Fantasy appears to be a counter-example though. I don't know much about Fire Emblem, but when a fan says "Fire Emblem", does it more likely refer to the series or this GBA game? Kariteh 10:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved Fire Emblem to Fire Emblem (series), and proposed a move for Fire Emblem (Game Boy Advance) to Fire Emblem (discuss). In-line with Street Fighter (series), Final Fantasy (series), Mortal Kombat (series), etc.  ~ JohnnyMrNinja 10:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a thorny issue. Street Fighter, Final Fantasy, and Mortal Kombat are all the first installment of their series, unlike Fire Emblem which is the 7th or so. Kariteh 10:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the first product officially named Fire Emblem in any language, correct? I've also requested that Final Fantasy (video game) be moved to Final Fantasy (discuss). ~ JohnnyMrNinja 10:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasn't the Fire Emblem anime released in North America as simply "Fire Emblem"? Kariteh 10:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I just assumed looking at it that it was another OR translation like Fire Emblem: Ankoku Ryū to Hikari no Tsurugi and the other games. Was this the first usage of Fire Emblem then? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 10:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was the first usage as a title. Technically, there was the item first though. That gives us four different entities (the item, the anime, the GBA game, and the series in itself), so maybe Fire Emblem should be redirected to the series article. The article encompasses the other entities in its content so it may be the most useful for readers. Kariteh 11:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't the item the Faiā Emuburemu of the title, and Fire Emblem a translation? I'm wondering if the English phrase Fire Emblem was officially used before the anime. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 11:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The guidelines for Japanese says to use the English spelling over Romaji if available. I don't know whether the item in the series is spelt in Romaji, in which case we'd spell it Fire Emblem instead of Faiā Emuburemu; or in Katakana or whatever else, in which case I think we could spell it in Japanese words ("kishi no something"? I have no idea lol) in the pre-English games articles. Either way, I think "Fire Emblem" being a redirect to the series' article would perhaps be the most useful for readers. Kariteh 11:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to assume that you made sense there. I also noticed :Image:Fe2box.jpg says clearly Fire Emblem, and I agree with "being a redirect to the series' article would perhaps be the most useful for readers". I've withdrawn the rename request, and I've moved Fire Emblem (Game Boy Advance) to Fire Emblem (video game), as there are no other video games with official English titles of Fire Emblem. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 11:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Four items, so maybe disambig page? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thanks for the speedy adjustment. Ashnard Talk Contribs 12:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually what was done was bad, as from what I've read at the naming guidelines implies that a plain name should not redirect to a disambig 'style' name. Fire Emblem currently redirects to Fire Emblem (series) -- I fail to see why it shouldn't be the other way around. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 13:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying that Fire Emblem (series) should renamed Fire Emblem? Ashnard Talk Contribs 13:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a sticky issue and I'm not too happy with how the Final Fantasy pages deal with it either. Because of their length, the series as a whole is probably a more common thought than the first game in the series. I certainly don't like how the unparenthesesed (is that a word?) article title redirects to one with parentheses. The best solution I can think of is that even though most series articles use "(series)", for the ones that apply, the series article can be without the "(series)" and put the eponymous first/whateverth game at "Foo (video game)". Axem Titanium 14:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have to agree. The series should reside at Fire Emblem, which can have a disambiguation saying this is about the series, if you would like the game known as Fire Emblem see Fire Emblem (Gameboy Advance). This method would get rid of future confusion, existing confusion, etc. Although then it would sort of break the pattern that Final Fantasy will be about the series, Final Fantasy II will be about the game, etc., so it's not a perfect fix. Any method would really help one side and harm the other. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Fire Emblem (Game Boy Advance)]] naming.  

message: Currently I know of these (which I've done some on, so far). I havent played all of them, and I'm not expert on all either, so any help is needed.
*Marvel: Ultimate Alliance: This was mentioned before a few times. As of now: the many issues I see are the plot (could use some condensing or better wording in my view). As well as the versions section: seems cluttered and just jammed together in my view. Lastly: the characters box needs work. It should be notable characters only, not just a massive list of everyone.
*Mega Man Battle Network: This (along with most others in the series, which are listed in the template at the bottom of the articles) need sourcing, and condensiing at parts. Some have huge plot sections, while others have huge gameplay sections. 
*Tony Hawk's Pro Skater: This (along with most of it's sequels) need a lot of list cleanup, gameplay additions and more.
That's all I can think of right now. Feel free to add some, if you want. I will try to help with other articles listed here also. RobJ1981 05:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A few more:
*The Ooze- Unsourced, very small sections.
*Dr. Robotnik's Mean Bean Machine- Stage by stage details: not sure if they need condensing or not, but it looks like clutter to me. A version difference section could be added, if there is enough differences. I wasn't sure if they are too much alike or not. RobJ1981 17:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of articles in need of cleanup

message: Unexpected but not unwelcome. If anyone happens to be free this Thursday, please join the anti-vandal patrol. Anomie 02:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Super Nintendo Entertainment System]] to be [[Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 2, 2007|August 2's Featured Article]] 

message: Okay, here's one I haven't seen an agreement on yet: What should be included in the Platforms section of the Infobox for a game that has been re-released (not ported) on an alternative platform?  For example, an arcade game like Galaga that has been re-released in multi-game collections for consoles, as well as made downloadable on Xbox Live Arcade and Virtual Console.  Right now, the Galaga article lists ALL of the platforms Galaga has been made playable on, but I think it should only list the platforms that it was created for or officially ported to.  In other words, I think Galaga should list:
*Arcade
*NES
*Commodore 64
...as its platforms, since the game was officially ported to those.  But it should not list the PS2, Xbox, Xbox 360, Wii, or any other device where it has simply been re-released or emulated, because that causes confusion as to the game's creation.  Instead, these systems should only be listed/mentioned in the "Ports and Re-releases" section.  What do you all think? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What would concern me is that you might be making an unecessary distinction between the two for the purposes of the infobox. The difference between a port and a re-release is pretty specialised knowledge that most editors probably won't be aware of, especially if they don't read the entire article, the result of which is likely to be endless good faith additions to the "ports" list which you'd have to keep reverting. Personally, I'd include both ports and re-releases in the infobox. Miremare 21:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arcade game re-release platforms in Infobox? 

message: It's been protected because of edit warring, over a see also link. The see also link (Microsoft Points, a similar online currency) is relevant, and does no harm. There is a discussion here that needs more input: Talk:Wii_Points#Microsoft_Points.3F. RobJ1981 21:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wii Points]] article

message: There's a lot of articles I've seen that use the above phrasing as part of the reception.  Certainly no problem with the MetaCritic or Gamerankings insertion, but I would think that there's some point after the NA release of a game that the MetaCritic and GameRankings scores aren't going to change much, and as long as the citation includes accessdate, any changes that do occur after that aren't terribly hard to deal with.  Thus, the "As of this date,..." lead to these looks way out of place since it's no longer present but a past event, and I certainly wouldn't add it to an older game article that lacks such a reception section but does have aggregate scores.  (Game sales are different, I'm only considering the reviews).  
On the other hand, a game that's just been released will likely go through a lot of aggregate ranking changes as the reviews file in, and so it makes sense to use "As of this date..." to describe the meta-scores.
So the question is: how soon after a game is out should one stop using the "As of..." statement (if the consensus is to stop using it after some time)?  I think its somewhere between 1 to 6 months after the NA release, edging closer to 2 or 3 months.  I'm not saying that exactly 2 months past release of a game that someone must go through and strip that line, but more that if I do find an article with it and it fits the above, I'd likely remove it. --Masem 15:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why NA? Kariteh 15:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For English-language releases, MetaCritic and GameRankings are significantly weighted on the NA market.  Yes, Euro and Aussie ratings get there, but if there's a significant delay between NA and EU/AU release, the additional inputs from EU/AU don't have enough impact to bump the number give or take a few percent.--Masem 15:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: has an accessdate field for this reason ("Accessed on YYYY-MM-DD"). I don't see a reason to muddle the prose for the sake of redundancy. Nifboy 15:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "As of MM-DD-YYYY, MetaCritic gives this..." 

message: I'm proposing something for some of the GTA gangs. Firstly, I'm proposing that the main gangs get their own page, but also that a new template is introduced on all of the gangs. I've tried and show what I'm on about here in my sandbox. I know the article is a little short, but I plan on expanding it in my sandbox. Is anyone against some of the gangs having their own pages, after all, the main characters have their own pages, so why can't the gangs? (I probably would of request that all characters and all gangs could have their own pages, but that'll probably be straight away rejected!) Davnel03 17:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shall I go ahead and do it as I'm guessing no one is against this seeing as no one has replied back? Davnel03 07:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should only create articles for gangs that are notable. And when/if you create those articles, be careful to stay away from game guide information and original research. I'll look at the pages to see that you understand what I mean. DurinsBane87 08:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes but I'm planning to extend it and try and find more information, so that none of the info is original research. Can I create a page for the Leones, and then try and find sources, and go from there? Davnel03 09:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would strongly recommend against creating an article now, and instead suggest you focus your efforts on making List of gangs in Grand Theft Auto series not suck. Nifboy 11:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'm going to put the template in for every gang and set it out like how it is in my sandbox. If it's bad, we'll come back and discuss on the talkpage. If we feel that seperate pages are necessary, we'll discuss and come to some sort of consensus. Davnel03 12:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at how it looks so far.... Davnel03 13:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ridiculously crufty. It was AfD'd a while back for similar edits. In-universe and crufty, like I said.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 16:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think we need a consensus for what I've done as it's pretty clear that some people disagree with it.
=== Support - The Template Should Stay ===
*Write your name underneath here if you believe the template should stay as in this version.
=== Oppose - The Template Should Go ===
*Write your name underneath here if you believe the template should go as in this version The reason given by User:Klptyzm in the edit summary for wanting the template to go is: crufty out of the wazoo; reverted. A bit of WP:FICT as well.
* Oppose Anybody with decent, if not minute, knowledge of the Wiki policies pertaining to this situation knows the article shouldn't be like this, and every editor who has edited the article since it was last AfD'd certainly knows that the article shouldn't be like this. I feel going through this process is completely unnecessary, as well.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 21:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for Grand Theft Auto gangs 

message: *Write your name underneath here if you believe the template should go as in this version The reason given by User:Klptyzm in the edit summary for wanting the template to go is: crufty out of the wazoo; reverted. A bit of WP:FICT as well.
* Oppose Anybody with decent, if not minute, knowledge of the Wiki policies pertaining to this situation knows the article shouldn't be like this, and every editor who has edited the article since it was last AfD'd certainly knows that the article shouldn't be like this. I feel going through this process is completely unnecessary, as well.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 21:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppose - The Template Should Go 

message: *This might not be the best way to resolve something like this, but I feel that it needs to be resolved. Davnel03 20:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Comments 

message: Is anyone other than myself tired of TTN's anti-discussion attitude and his overall attitude? I'm tired of him taking bold to the level of boldly ignoring everyone who disagrees with him. And on top of that, he has this idea that if people don't constantly return to the talk page to restate their position on a merge, their opinion has either changed or doesn't matter anymore. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, that seems like a personal attack to me...or am I missing something here? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 21:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is how the user acts. And it isn't personal attack regardless - I am attacking his actions and attitude on his actions, not the user himself. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Link, you may want to be aware that there is currently a Wikiquette Alert against you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try to resolve your issues with that user. Don't come here to try and instigate a bitching session. As for your second post, that's nonsense: you're not attacking the person but attacking their actions — like the two things are separate and the actions have no relation to the character of the user. Ashnard Talk Contribs 08:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TTN 

message: So I decided that I am going to give everyone involved in this project indian burns until they cry and listen to my demands.
...Well, demand - bring it back!
#People argue that if something is of no priority, it shouldn't be here. Here are flaws in that:
##Generally, people view priority assessment as within the VG realm. It can be of high priority in some other realm, but no priority here.
##Priority just says which articles are of greater priority to make great.
#Being able to find articles with no priority also adds the ability to either reassess if possible or Prod/AfD it. Without them immediately visible, this is impossible.
#And the coup de grâce - people still use it. Just because we no longer acknowledge it as a part of article assessment doesn't mean everyone else got the memo. Having a separate category can only help in either changing these articles of no priority to low priority or to Prod/AfD them instead.
I see no reason why category creation would hurt that bad. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should probably shift toward a more universal 1.0 viewpoint in assessing articles. Isn't that the point? Andre (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. It's like determining which film should be put into a time capsule - we won't assess how important a film is versus how important the Declaration of Independence is. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No priority - bring it back 

message: Sorta inspired by the issue of visual novels, I was wondering if there's any interest in forming a "CVG Genre Task Force".  If you look at the pages linked of Video game genres, there's a drastic difference in quality of style and approach; some are mostly lists, while others are really good (Platform game is a GA, for example).  I think a Task Force to help set common approaches for these articles can help a lot, including defining what should be in a genre article, helping to set up categories to avoid having to have lists and lists within article bodies and the like.  And since there could always be potentially more genres in the future, this would help to set up guidelines for those articles.  Any interest in such? --Masem 04:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Somehow I get the feeling that this would just further sub-divide the video game project and make things a lot harder for everyone or end up like the GCOTW as a dead project that had few members or involvement. Besides in games that can be defined in more than one genre then we still have a problem as then it wouldn't be just one project's focus and there would be potential for conflict. I believe it is better to keep things the way they are with task forces devoted to certain game series and to manufacturers not specific genres. Xtreme racer 06:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not what I am suggesting - going that way would, as you say, splinter the CVG project too much.  I'm saying that this task force I'm proposing would need to clean up the pages that describe what the genres are, and possibly including other general pages within CVG that don't fall within a specific game, series, or manufacturer's existing task force.  These are the types of articles that someone that is researching CVGs in general will hit first and right now they're in a sorry state. --Masem 13:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sort of in favor of the idea, if only to have a centralized place to shuffle all the lame "zelda is an rpg" debates off to. That and our genre articles were in really bad shape last time I looked at them (after looking at a few, Adventure game isn't too bad, but the rest, eugh). Nifboy 07:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Task force for game genres 

message: Please, please, please assist on the article on Rival Turf!. Comradeqsp keeps restoring inaccurate, nonsensical information to the article. Every time I revert the user's changes, the user reverts again and vandalizes some articles I have created, including one on the video game The King of Route 66. Please monitor these articles for changes and if possible, expand them with valid content. Cheers. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have a problem, message this user. I noticed on the user's talk page that you did not message him. I personally do not have enough info on the game or any authority to really do anything to help you out, but if this user keeps vandalising you can ask an administrator within this Wikiproject to block this user. guitarhero777777 04:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, there are already four vandalism warning on their User talk page. I have placed another in regards to Rival Turf! (as I looked at the history and Jtalledo is correct), but this editor's entire edit history appears to be vandalism, so I have listed them at Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And now they are blocked. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assistance required: [[Rival Turf!]] 

message: Around the beginning of July, the Jak 3 article was tagged as having an inappropriate style to it.  Since then, several people have worked to bring it up to an acceptible standard.  I think it looks pretty good now, but I wanted the opinion of a discerning individual who works for Wikiproject Video Games. If it is acceptible, let me know so I have the guts to remove the tags.  Thank you. Larrythefunkyferret 04:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The intro needs to be improved (and expanded).  The plot summary also needs to be massively shortened as noted.  Fair use needed -   .  However, I don't think it needs the tone tag, since that seems ok to me.  Fix up the other stuff though :) Giggy Talk | Review 04:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've replied on the talk page. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't it have a "media reception" section? Just cite some reviews which can easily be found on Game Rankings. Ashnard Talk Contribs 08:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I would like your opinion 

message: Hello. I have recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liero as merge all. However I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject to perform the merge myself so I'd appreciate it if someone from the project can take the time to do it. Thanks, Pascal.Tesson 00:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with merge 

message: For the Guitar Hero series games, we've gotten one article through to a GA (Guitar Hero II), but one of the comments that we've since followed was that the inclusion of the soundtrack makes the article scope too broad and should be in a separate article.  While we've done this, and there's definitely a good argument for doing this as the rest of the GHII article reads easier, there's another point that unlike, say, Metroid or Zelda where the music is mostly background music, the music in GH games as well as nearly every other music game is actually the core of the gameplay, and thus moving it to a separate page is removing one of the intents of the articles.  We're debating this for the other GH games, but there's a couple ways to argue this:
*For some music games that have a "short" soundtrack (PaRappa, Elite Beat Agents), moving the tracks to a separate article really doesn't affect the scope or size of the article, and makes for a rather short secondary article where it's not needed.  But for music games with larger soundtracks (most GH games, Amplitude/Frequency, SingStar, etc...) there is a size issue.  There's no fine line of when a track list is too large to be moved out from an article that I can think of, which makes determining whether to move such soundtracks out of articles difficult.
*One could argue that for music games, the sound track is equivalent to a level list, and though while most lists of levels are not wiki material, they are for music games (eg they met the notability test); but even more so, because they are just "levels" one can argue they can be moved to a separate page without affecting anything on the main page since the gameplay section describes what happens on these levels on a generic basis.
I'm seeing if there's any input from other CVG members the approach that should be taken for music game soundtracks in general. --Masem 16:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinions is that the song lists should be compiled into one article for the entire series. For example, List of songs in the Karaoke Revolution series. So I think we just need a List of songs in the Guitar Hero series and add the first game's soundtrack to it.--SeizureDog 20:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussed above -- see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Music games and their track lists. Andre (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dealing with soundtracks in music games 

message: After a couple of months' work I've put the article up for FAC. Please have a look at the article; any feedback will be greatly appreciated. UnaLaguna 12:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Star Wars Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast]] is a [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Star Wars Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast|FAC]]