Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 6

message: Hi folks,
I just wanted to let you know about a list of votes for deletion on articles related to games.  You can find the list here:  Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Game-related.  This isn't exclusive to computer and video game-related deletions, but those make up more than 90% of the items.
Since you're interested in improving Wikipedia's coverage of game-related topics, you might want to monitor this list.
If you find the list useful, please also help to maintain it by adding new items and archiving old ones.  Thanks!
Cheers,
-- Visviva 16:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion list 

message: Could we make it a Wikiproject guideline to link to the Gamerankings page of a game in its external links section?  That way, instead of having to mention individual reviews or criticisms/praises of the game, we can just direct the reader to a collection of reviews for the game.  I think this would be a good guideline to add although I don't know where it would fit in the Wikiproject...Amren 06:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This has already been suggested (please see /archive5#GameRankings or similar). It was concluded that reviews being inherently subjective points of view, they should be referred to in the External links section of articles and do not belong in the  template. Grumpy Troll (talk) 11:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Gamerankings

message: Do we need separate subcats of CVG by platform for very similar platforms?  The example I had in mind was :Category:BBC Micro games and :Category:Acorn Electron games, which I would propose combining.  Although they were architecturally sufficiently different that most games didn't run on both unmodified, in practice almost all the same games were available for both and the exceptions (at least, the exceptions among games sufficiently notable to deserve articles) were so rare as to merit specific mention in the article to that effect.  It just seems pointless having two categories that should contain exactly the same articles: the discrepancies at the moment currently reflect failure to categorize on our part rather than the games not having been produced for both machines.  (And besides, if it's worth distinguishing these two it's also worth distinguishing :Category:BBC Master 128 games, which would be yet another category of almost-exactly-the-same articles.) —Blotwell 08:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Computer and video games by platform]] 

message: Can we delete that second line from Template:Cvg-stub? It makes it inconsistent with every other stub type, and each time I see it in the corner of my eye I think the template is up for deletion or something. Besides, putting it up for expansion or nominating it for COTW is usually done by somewhat experienced Wikipedians that don't need to be reminded at each stub article they come across. Coffee 23:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the second line of this template is unimportant. Stub article have to invite to expand article, not putting it to work for others users. If I can expand this article I will do that, but if I don't know nothing about article subject I won't put it in WP:GCOTW just because "I want they make it for me". I'm about deleting this line. Hołek ҉ 15:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the second line should be ditched too. — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I just up and removed it. Since the break down of the stub template into others, I don't think it makes much sense anymore on its own. It really doesn't matter to me, though. K1Bond007 21:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did this also for Template:Cvg-corp-stub. Hołek ҉ 09:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cvg-stub 

message: Not to detract from the ongoing discussion on fixing the terms for games, but I've been experimenting with a footer to link all the video game industry articles.  If you like, pop on over to my sandbox to see what I've been doing.  I'd appreciate any input.  But please put any comments on the Talk page, don't modify the templates directly.  Thanks! — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To tell you the truth, I think I'd have to go with monotone. The rest are somewhat distracting, too big or have too much white space. I'm gonna take a crack at this later. If I get anything good, I'll link it here or add it to your sandbox. K1Bond007 18:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I like Monotone, though could the blank lines be half height somehow to make it more compact?  This may be Pandora's box, but adding the History of computer and video games and Genres would be good, too.  Cool idea as part of the overall get-organized effort.  Coll7 01:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I think Horizontal Colorful Compact has the best layout, but I don't like the colors. I made a modified version here. I'll also add it to your page if you don't mind. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I think it looks nice, but isn't that extreme? I mean if you're looking at a game, do you need all those "off-topic" links? I could see links to lists of other: game releases by the same publisher, games released the same year, and games of the same genre. Why would someone looking at Dig-Dug's article (for example) would want to know about Game Design or Hand-Held games? --Greyhawk0 07:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the footer is only meant to be placed on generalized articles, not specific game ones. Amren (talk) 13:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Video game industry footer

message: The CVG WikiProject page mentions how Rocketjump is an example of an article that's too specific to exist...however it appears to have been brought back in to re-existence. Should the article be deleted again, or have we come to the point at which it's become acceptable? I've noticed a Grenade-jumping article too, which should probably meet the same fate. -ADeveria 12:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The basic problem back then was that it was an article about rocket jumping in Quake, which is far too specific to merit a separate article. But as the article now demonstrates that rocket jumping is a feature found in many games (and provides interesting information), it is worth keeping. Grenade-jumping is simply a duplicate and should be merged with it. Fredrik | talk 15:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done =) ··gracefool |☺ 03:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Done. Don't be afraid to be bold, if you get it a bit wrong someone else will tidy it up. ··gracefool |☺ 22:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rocketjump article

message: I've just had someone highlight the weird category system for games: Some games are under Computer and video games>Computer and video game companies>Company name while others are under Computer and video games>Computer and video games by company>Company name games. This is strange and unnecessary - shouldn't the two be merged? I expected them all to be under Computer and video game companies - that is more like what other categories do. Computer and video games by company is redundant, since it does (or can do) exactly the same thing as Computer and video game companies. This would also replace the clumsy "Company name games" categories with "Company name" (this is especially clumsy with categories like Midway Games, which should be Midway Games games). In general, having one instead of two would make things a lot easier to manage (and easier for the reader to browse).
I suppose the only good thing about the current scheme is that "Computer and video games by company" makes it clear that you can browse games by company. However, after merging you could just use a hard redirect to Computer and video game companies, and have the best of both worlds, right?
Any objections? ··gracefool |☺ 03:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, merge the two categories under Computer and video game companies. — Frecklefoot | Talk 13:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screwed up categories 

message: Do we have a list of useful templates for video game articles outside of the (really useful) stub messages and our (very cool) infbox?  Two that I know of come to mind: the video game industry template (which has limited application) and the MobyGames template, which only I seem to use.  Are there any more?  Should they be listed on the front page as well? — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: consoles and history off the top of my head. Both are limited. K1Bond007 21:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I added Template:GameFAQs. It is similar to MobyGames, but because of GameFAQs URLs, it's not as easy to use. --Greyhawk0 07:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, we do. See :Category:Computer and video game templates. On a side note, someone put it up for cfd. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: List of gnarly video game related templates

message: These categories are pretty ambiguous. Do they mean the first release of the game? Do they mean the first release of the game in North America? Do they mean every known release? See what I mean!
How about:
 Category:Game releases by year
 -Category:Game releases in <region> by year
 --Category:<genre> game releases in <region> by year (Optional Genre)
 ---Category:<year> <genre> game releases in <region>
So "Category:1995 adventure game releases in Japan" would be an example. It would be a sub-category of "Category:Adventure game releases in Japan by year", which would be the sub-category of "Category:Game releases in Japan by year", which would be the sub-category of "Category:Game releases by year".
Or just kill the whole categorization by year concept. --Greyhawk0 23:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is a title is listed per release per platform. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

text: They go by release in North America, all the ones I come across. I don't see why we have to recat. them and add categories for Japanese release. That would kind of be for the japanese wikipedia if they do that. Thunderbrand 02:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

text: This has come up before. They should be categorized by first availability regardless if it's NA, Europe, or Japan. After that it may be reasonable to list per platform or whatever. Example being Final Fantasy VI. It's not that ambigous. K1Bond007 03:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Speaking as a library science grad student with a strong interest in categorization, there's absolutely no reason to conflate release date with genre, and doing so kind of defeats the point of the categorization system, which is designed (in part) to allow postcombination searching (multiple, broadly conceived categories that can be made more specific by combining the results of one category with the results of another: to look for adventure games released in 1988, you'd compare the contents of :Category:1988 computer and video games with the contents of :Category:Adventure games, as opposed to creating a single :Category:Adventure games released for MS-DOS in 1988 by Sierra comprised of six 1.44-inch floppy disks, or some such thing). As for what release year to use: use everything that's relevant. There's no real reason not to, since the article itself should clarify what the dates mean, and its best for the categories to be inclusive, so that someone more familiar with, say, the European PlayStation release of Final Fantasy VI can successfully find the game by searching :Category:2002 computer and video games, as opposed to having to go by the original SNES release date (:Category:1994 computer and video games, BTW). Categorization should not take the place of a well-written explanation in the article, but should allow readers to access the article from a variety of different relevant entry points. – Seancdaug 03:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah, that's what I meant to say Seancdaug. ;) Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Ok, so scratch my idea. From what you are saying is that every single release of every game should be categorized this way? That almost sounds like it would be better done with a list (maybe we should start one in addition to the category?), which would have three extra columns: platform, region and date. --Greyhawk0 04:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The categories are not intended to provide information for people who are already reading the article. Release dates can (and should) be properly documented in the individual article. Placing an article in :Category:2000 computer and video games is not a substitute for a line that says "Dragon Quest VII was released on August 26, 2000" in the introduction. The categories provide entry points: if I'm interested in looking for information on games released in 2000, but don't know where to begin, the categories provide a means of navigating the otherwise daunting amount of information available here. It's an incredibly user-unfriendly way to present information in the way I think you're suggesting, but it's not intended to do so. – Seancdaug 07:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Also (new idea, make new section if worthy), from a scholarly approach it might be interesting to have a list of games where only the initial date would be referenced (enhanced remakes would be marked special and given a second entry). This would let someone see the appearance and evolution of video games by advancing through the years without the hassles of seeing the same game being listed in 2-5 different years. --Greyhawk0 04:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that this creates problems for users who don't particularly care to discriminate between initial and subsequent releases, and just want an idea of what games were release in a given year. The only way it could be done would be to subcategorize (something like :Category:2000 computer and video games → :Category:2000 computer and video game remakes, or :Category:2000 computer and video games → :Category:2000 computer and video games in Japan), and that creates a whole new host of problems (duplication of information, overly granulated categories, managing the categorization process itself) that we probably cannot (and do not want) to deal with. The simple fact of the matter is that categorization cannot easily do what you want it to do. This is really the sort of thing that needs to be handled in the articles themselves. – Seancdaug 07:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally, I'm not entirely sure what "hassles of seeing a game listed in 2-5 different years" you are referring to: from a category-browsing perspective, you only ever see an article listed once per category. From an article-reading perspective, the article itself should provide the context to understand the categorization, and it should only do that if the reader is interested in using the category system to browse for related works. – Seancdaug 07:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  <Year> Computer and video_games categories 

message: I've made a variant of the  tag for use by the CVG project, :
Comments? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: hmm, wouldn't it be better if we used  and an addition to  ? Sort of only "As you have contributed to computer and video game article(s), you may wish to check out Wikipedia's WikiProject on Computer and Video Games." This could be also be used to invite other than newcomers. wS;✉ 13:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Welcome! 

message: Could someone please weigh in at Talk:List of Wario games and help determine an appropriate criteria for inclusion on List of Wario games? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 12:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silly edit war 

message: Do we have a WikiProject Notice template??  I couldn't find it if we do. ParallaxTZ 16:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll make one at . Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Notice template? 

message: I have noticed that according to your standards, only box art can be used as the info box image.  However the Final Fantasy series of games have their logos in the info box.
Are the logos acceptable or not?  I bring this up beacause Final Fantasy VI is the only article with box art for an info box image, and it looks jarring compared to the info boxes for the other FF games.
:My opinion is that box art should be used without exception... unless of course the game never had one, in which case official art will have to suffice (BS Zelda), or, failing that, the title screen (BS Zelda: Kodai no Sekiban). Logos should instead be used on the series page or "characters in game X" page, or, if the logo itself is of especial mention, somewhere else within the article itself. But that's just me of course. ;) GarrettTalk 16:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion (which should come as a surprise to no one) is that it should be determined on a game-by-game basis. I continue to fail to see what is so vital about box art that it needs to be the standard, and I feel that there are numerous game articles that are harmed by the rule. – Seancdaug 18:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

text: For the most part, all games should use boxart. Final Fantasy may be the only exception to the rule in my opinion. There are multiple versions of boxart out there (US v Europe v Japan v ??), and the games have been released/remade/renamed numerous times and have a number of different box covers in that respect. In my opinion, it may be more suitable to show the logo for the game, rather than an editor-chosen box cover. K1Bond007 22:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't feel really strongly about the subject, but it's worth mentioning that the Pokémon wikiprojects, despite the split boxcovers for the paired Pokémon games, have just included both images. When you've got a choice between two boxcovers, I don't see why you can't include both (see Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire for an example). - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 22:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've actually tried that once or twice, but it's been shot down each time simply because it gets unwieldy. Take Final Fantasy VI, for instance: it's been released four (soon to be five) times. Trying to cram five boxcovers into the relatively small space of the infobox isn't really pretty. The benefit of the logo is that it generally encompasses most of the distinct releases, without giving a misleading impression to people who, for instance, are more familiar with one of the rerelease of a game than its original version (particularly true for the European audience, since none of the first six games were released in Europe until the PlayStation remakes). The logo identifies the game across numerous different versions, while the box art is specifically associated with one particular version. – Seancdaug 23:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is for the limited cases, where you've got two (or maybe three) images. Cramming all the different covers FFVI has had into an infobox is probably a bad idea. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Pretty much all games should use English language box art. In the case of Final Fantasy games, Japanese box art or both English and Japanese box art can be used. I do not see why a logo should be used. Andre (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yeah. Nobody's arguing that Japanese box art should be used (save in situations where foreign-language boxart is the only boxart). But in the case of FFVI, for example, there are at least three English-language boxarts I know of, and possibly more. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I think that we should use whatever image is of the highest quality. Of course I would prefer the english box up there. In the case of the Final Fantasy games here, I would lean towards the logos in this case. I am against using screenshots in the infobox. As for computer games, I don't mind using the application's icon either. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Final Fantasy series and the infobox images 

message: Is there a perferred format for game series templates, such as those at the bottom of games from many game series? Are there specific template styles that are more worthy of emulation than others? I'm trying to build Template:Dragon Ball games and while I'm reasonably sure I have all of the games, I'm not completely happy with the presentation of the list. Any suggestions or anyone want to put on a pair of sturdy gloves and want to take a pass at it? JRP 02:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Game series list templates

message: Since Wikimedia now allows for ommiting optional fields in templates I would like to think about adding the following optional fields to Template:Infobox VG:
*Version
*Date
This is mainly for computer games that receive updates, as most of  applies to the computer games as well. That's just my thoughts on the matter. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is true. I wouldn't mind it, as long as it doesn't mess the code up. Thunderbrand 15:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It shouldn't. With this feature optional parameters don't need to be present in the template call for it to work properly, at lest that is what my experimentation shows. Parameters not used by subtemplates must be used though. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Thinking about it, I think below the engine. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the entry still looks a bit bare or out of place... Perhaps a date of version release (a la the Software infobox) will help it look a bit less empty? I'm also thinking it might look better lower down in the infobox, as it's not a particularly pertinent piece of information, perhaps between the System Requirements and the Media fields. – Quoth 01:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I've added what I think it should look like into the Hitman infobox at Hitman (computer game). I think this should be implemented using another optional 'version_date' variable that appears when it does in the Hitman infobox. Any comments? – Quoth 03:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Prettymuch, yeah. I dunno the wiki page for the feature, so I made an example in my Sandbox. Please take a look at the code. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  new optional fields for cvg infobox? 

message: Could we add a white border to the left of the infobox so level 2 header lines don't touch it? This may require removing the "infobox bordered" class. Fredrik | talk 15:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ?? But then you wouldn't have a border on the left side at all. It'd be invisible. Am I understanding this? K1Bond007 03:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd have two borders (using nested divs or tables): the outer "invisible" and the inner a regular border. Fredrik | talk 11:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The style element overrides the class element in a tag, so just making the adjustment there should do it. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox border