Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 8

message: Recently, the color for the infobox was changed by Larsinio. I asked what K1Bond007's feelings were on the subject, and I changed the other fields. Now it is back to the way it was before (reverted by Hahnchen), but a couple fields are still off-color. I think we should have a discussion before this results in an edit war. Thunderbrand 00:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: yea sorry about that. I got all excited from the console cvg template.I think we shoudl have that conversation.. I think purple is a weird color to choose as a template that is gonna be on like 10000 pages. But thats me --Larsinio 01:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, don't worry about it.  No, I just thought that the purple looked good.  I mean, I've worked on a few CVG articles of late, and always liked the infobox the way it was.  Larsinio's original change meant that some boxes had 2 colours in and kind of looked stupid, so I reverted it.  I then spotted that someone had cleaned up the bits larsinio missed out, so reverted those as well.  We've had the infoboxes with the darker blue shade since almost the beginning of the cvg infobox, and I think it works.  It's good to have the colour distinction between the 2 columns, it makes it clearer.  With a lighter shade like larsinio suggested, the box fields seem less distinctive. - Hahnchen 03:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I like the purple. But yeah, I don't really mind either. Jacoplane 09:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So should we just leave it alone for now, or possibly have a vote? Thunderbrand 14:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text: might as well settle the issue, unless anyone else has any other color schemas... --Larsinio 15:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Fredrik you want to draw up a sandbox of what you mean? --Larsinio 17:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This still needs to be decided, I say have a vote until January 1st. I vote for white/grey. --Larsinio 22:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really mind what color, but I prefer the bluish color it is now. Thunderbrand 23:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template: Infobox VG]] colors 

message: A good article on a computer game should have a section on critical reaction to it.  People must agree with this right?  However, as I pointed out in a FAC for a music single, all the reviews were from random online source, whilst ignoring the NME, Q Magazine and Rolling Stone.  The same seems to be for games, most seem to cite Gamespot and IGN for their reviews, for me a good computer games article has to cite more mainstream sources than that.  I would much rather have a quote from Edge magazine, PC Gamer or Famitsu than some semi professional website review which to be honest, most people don't care about anyway.  And on any computer gaming FAC from now on, I'll vote oppose until mainstream reviews are cited.  I know it's nigh on impossible to find a review for some 1994 SNES game, because everything is out of print, I don't care, if it's a FAC, it should be special.
I was wondering if anyone here has a large backlog of gaming magazines that they could pull review quotes and scores from?  Whereas with current games we can farm quotes and scores from Metacritic, it's the older games that Metacritic doesn't cover that we need a wikipedian's magazine collection to reference.
I personally have quite a backlog of PC Zone magazines, although I stopped buying them about 3 years ago, still I have a backlog of a good few years in there.  However, PC Zone has one of the greatest websites of a gaming magazine, they actually archive their reviews.  On the PCZ Website, click on Reviews and then Review archive, and you'll have access to reviews that appeared in print going back many years.  The first copy of PCZ that I bought had X-COM: Interceptor review in, which happens to be online.  However, not every review seems to make it, so if a review you need isn't there, you can msg me.  And if you have any magazine collections that you wouldn't mind referencing, you should list them here. - Hahnchen 14:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I have a large number of EGM issues, all the way back to November 1999, uninterrupted. If anyone wants me to look up a review, ask me as well and I will be glad to help. Thunderbrand 15:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: GameSpot & IGN are mainstream. And yes, I do have a bunch of old Nintendo Power if you want. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 15:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they are mainstream.  But just as pitchfork and theonion AV guide are, their reviews don't hold the significance and respect that long running established magazines like NME and Rolling Stone.  Gamespot and IGN may be gaining in relevence now, but compared with the print magazines I mentioned, like Edge Magazine and Famitsu, their views are not perceived to be as authorative.  But another point, is that these print magazines have been going on a long time, and have reviews of games which can't be found online.  Your nintendo power magazines, when do they stretch back till?  I also think I have the complete list of reviews from Nintendo Magazine System for 1994 (I think), but whether it's wise to put up a review from an "official" magazine is another factor. - Hahnchen 16:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I've been using the meta-review sites Game Rankings and Metacritic. They're excellent resources for getting a general overview of critical reception, and they factor in print sources.--Muchness 17:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I like metacritic.  But it would still help if we have a list of people with print review "libraries" to source from.  I mentioned metacritic above, but these collaborative review services have only been around for a few years, I mean, I tried looking for reviews of Kingpin: Life of Crime there and Requiem: Avenging Angel and had no success.  Metacritic also only point out a small snippet of text, and whereas the snippet is a good summary, it doesn't provide you with much depth.  Having users with magazine collections would just be another bonus to any article, and would lift wikipedia up above metacritic and gamerankings. - Hahnchen 17:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, sorry, missed the ref to Metacritic upthread. Game Rankings has listings for Kingpin and Avenging Angel btw. But I take your point, it would be a useful resource. It might also be worth checking local libraries to see if any of them archive back issues of gaming magazines.--Muchness 18:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: GameStats  is pretty good too. Here are  at GameStats and  at GameStats. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 13:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical reaction in computer games 

message: The article on Ken Kutaragi (Sony Computer Entertainment guy) is undergoing a major edit war. It was previously locked, but the conflict is still not resolved. In fact, there are all sorts of accusations flying around. Would be helpful if some other editors came in and helped mediate the situation. Jacoplane 03:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Same guys seem to be in dispute over at Talk:Xbox & Talk:PlayStation 2. Jacoplane 03:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ken Kutaragi mess 

message: I've made a simple template for tagging game media to a category, . Just put in the category you want as the parameter. Example:  would result in an image being put in Category:Final Fantasy media and the image would then properly sort with it's PAGENAME. I've already tagged my FF uploads with it. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Media]] 

message: It's been moved off the COTW template and consigned to the "inactive" category.  Is it dead?  Is anyone here willing to carry it on?  I had been looking to nominate a few things for that, but I wouldn't want to administer the whole thing, yet.  But if enough people here are willing to put effort into the thing and get it going again, I'd be onboard. - Hahnchen 17:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not seeing what you're talking about.  Its on the collaboration template as gaming (stubs), and on the WP:GAMES template I use on my userpage...and is currently some Sims game. --Syrthiss 17:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, posted the wrong link, thanks for pointing it out, I meant the Wikipedia:Computer and video games improvement drive - Hahnchen 17:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I see.  Yes, looks dead to me.  I'd offer to help, but most of my involvement in even the GCOTW ends up being copyediting and filling in links (which of course I am willing to do wherever) because I don't know lots of the games that get nominated well enough to write content. --Syrthiss 17:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I think it is pretty much dead. No one really updates it. Thunderbrand 19:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, what would people think about having the dead IDrive merged with the COTW?  So instead of just having stubs qualify for the COTW, we can have big articles qualify.  Because I was thinking of nominating Computer and video games for improvement.  This would require at least a small team to rewrite and organise, and would require comments from others.  It's not a project that I'd like to take on my own, but personally, I don't think the main article on computer games is any good. - Hahnchen 19:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should have two collaborations a week: one that is a particular game or game series, and one that is related to gaming (genre, company, console, series, gamepad, etc). Also we've been having several COTW's that wind up winning but no one really does anything to them (this week's The Urbz for instance). --Larsinio 19:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's the kind of thing I was doing with the iDrive anyway, having nominated Machinima and wanting to nominated Computer and Video games.  But the community isn't able to support both collaborations, then it be able to support both for the near future either. - Hahnchen 20:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I haven't been that active on Wikipedia for a while -- I'm getting settled in after a move, and my new job leaves me with less free time -- but I'm trying to get back into things. I was sad to see that this new venture had died in my absence, so I've pruned the nominations and overhauled the page in case there is any interest in starting it up again. If not, then no harm done. --Pagrashtak 02:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is [[Wikipedia:Computer and video games improvement drive]] dead? 

message: I've finally gotten around to overhalling the Tekken character page and have added individual articles for each game. BTW, why did the game links have redirects in the first place..? Its extremlely lazy, and if people are going to do that, you shouldn't make the links at all. Also, about the Guilty Gear video game article, someone sems to have loafed again, and made a useless link for Johnny that redirects back to the main article for some sick reason. Please, guilty gear experts, could they construct a proper article for the link..?-MegamanZero 20:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerning ''[[Tekken]]'' 

message: I created a new hardware stub template. hardware-cvg-stub. Template:hardware-cvg-stub. I started adding all the applicable pages to it, but I need some help. Also we should update the stubs with GPL pictures that are tailored to it
:Recently I have been going through the cvg stub category and sorting them to more specific ones. The hardware one will do nicely. Thunderbrand 22:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Having previously gone through the 2000+ CVG stubs myself for this purpose, I salute your efforts and will join in too. ADeveria 23:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Great idea. I know a few pages in need of this. Kil 15:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Hardware stub template

message: There's a discussion going on here that should be of interest to this wikiproject. It's regarding the verifiability of content found in video games. This has also become an issue in the candidature for featured article of Majora's Mask. The outcome of discussion could have big implications. Jacoplane 03:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifiability of video game content 

message: Any want to help sort :Category:SNK characters by last name?  it's a mess. --Dangerous-Boy 18:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. I'm already working on overhalling the SNK articles anyway. -MegamanZero|Talk 19:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  SNK characters sorting 

message: Sigh, I guess we all knew this was coming. Please help improve the article, as I'm likely to insert extremely POV edits :( Jacoplane 06:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Made some corrections and expanded it some. I don't think it was POV -at least your edits. K1Bond007 07:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Family Entertainment Protection Act]] 

message: Going through the CVG stubs, I'm coming across a lot of articles that I can't put into any stub categories. Most of them are articles pretaining to software and computer code, such as  CryENGINE, Famicom BASIC, DromEd, and others. Should we create a new stub? Thunderbrand 22:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: something like  . Would cover like any engine builders and such. GO for it you da man --Larsinio 22:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well first, I guess we should propose it here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. I'll do it later. Thunderbrand 05:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good, been thinking of this very thing myself...I like the  name for consitency. --ADeveria 17:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's silly that we would need to go through that whole process to create new stub templates. As if we as a WikiProject can't be expected to have some common sense and create good stub categories. It almost feels anti-wiki to me, and I'm inclined to think that we should just go ahead and create any stubs that we as a WikiProject feel are necessary. Well, not really, since that would go against WP:POINT, but still... Jacoplane 18:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've written a rant about this on the stub sorting page. Jacoplane 18:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I thought the Stub-sorting project was merely advisory, and that any Wikiproject could make whatever stubs they want. They'd just like you to let them know first for naming suggestions, but letting them know after the fact is okay, too. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New stub? 

message: This is the current GCOTW. Some consensus is needed on the table design, so that we can proceed with actually filling the data. It would be best if this was done soon, so as to leave enough time on the collaboration for actually filling the table. Jacoplane 11:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please comment on [[Talk:List of MMORPGs/Temp]] 

message: I've posted a temporary version of the Infobox_CVG template at Template:Infobox VG/temp, as well as an example on the Talk page.  The intent was to eliminate the need for sub- and meta-templates (see WP:AUM), cleanup the table's wiki format and generally just make it nicer to work with.  The new version still hides all the optional fields, and I even added an optional "footnotes" parameter - just in case it's needed sometime.
Since the main template is protected, one of the admins among you will need to copy that code into the live template.  If you have any problems, please feel free to contact me. -- Netoholic @ 22:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and made the changes and unprotected the template until the changes get ironed out. One thing I don't really like is how the column bar moves depending on the information in the box. Example: Doom (notice the "Release dates" line) and then compare with Grim Fandango. ?? Can we get that set somehow so it's the same? Also I disagree with the use of a footnotes field. I believe we discussed it and came to the conclusion that those are pretty bad. If not here, it was the Arcade WikiProject. K1Bond007 23:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I fixed the "Release date(s)" field so it doesn't line-break.  Are all the plurals ("(s)") really necessary?  The footnotes field was just a "catch-all" - something to help for the one-off cases.  -- Netoholic @ 00:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. The footnotes field is -always- misused so that's why we've never implemented it. It usually ends up being a huge block and defeating the purpose of the infobox, so I really object to adding the field. The "(s)" deal has come up before - if the WikiProject wants it changed, then I can live with that, but until it's discussed again, I'd rather just leave it for now. I guess the same goes for the footnote field. K1Bond007 02:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, don't put any nowrap in infoboxes. It leads to all sorts of layout problems. Long strings will stretch out the box far into the article. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The single nowrap was on the row header which will never be longer than the words "Release date(s)" and the entire infobox will never be more than 22em on any particular article.  I don't understand this concern. -- Netoholic @ 04:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Infobox_CVG version 

message: Can someone get  unlocked? I have some revisions I wish to make to it, and I don't know the channels to go through. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 13:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I unprotected it. Thunderbrand 17:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If Cyberskull can remind us here when he is done, lets reprotect it and add it to the template section in protected pages (where it wasn't listed currently).  It shows up on a ton of pages. Do you agree? --Syrthiss 17:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I dunno. It was only vandalized once and the reason for protecting it was because it is a "high-risk template". Only one count of vandalism doesn't really make it high risk. Thunderbrand 17:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm done. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locked template(s) 

message: I suggest a 'Distributor' field be added to differentiate between groups publishing a CVG (including IP owenership, advertising, paying the developers and probably more that I can't think of), and groups merely producing boxes or providing bandwidth for it. Anyone? --Tom Edwards 15:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What would an example be? Thunderbrand 17:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Valve and EA and Introversion and Pinnacle off the top of my head. --Tom Edwards 17:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't really mind. As long as it is optional its OK with me. Thunderbrand 17:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

text: It wasn't right, but it's working now. :-) Seeing as there can be a distributor but no publisher, should we make the publisher field optional? --Tom Edwards 10:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support making the Publisher field optional. That would also make more sense for games in :Category:Fanmade computer game remakes and sequels. Jacoplane 11:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Optional sounds good to me :) --Naha|(talk) 17:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, what's up with the cell width? It seems to be split down the middle, which is wasting space and screwing up alignment. --Tom Edwards 10:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distributor field for infobox 

message: User:Nv8200p is blanking and removing all screenshots from videogames articles, he balnked Playstation and Xbox articles. The argument is screenshot is not compilant with fair use.
:Personally this should have been discussed prior to just removal. Screenshots have been argued in the past and everytime a general consensus is that they're okay to use. Excessive amounts of fair use images is the problem here. PlayStation 2, IMHO, had far too many in the screenshot gallery. I think, until an agreement can be made, that the screenshot gallery should be limited to no more than 3 rows. Xbox was fine. I don't know what brought this on. They should have, at the very least, cited some sort of policy/discussion with screenshot images prior to removal - but they didn't. K1Bond007 20:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Also gathering from previous discussion, he's in cahoots with User:Borgqueen, and they're blanking and removal of images without discussion of concensus and disregard for articles is troubling. Perhaps a nomination for WP:CN is in order..? -MegamanZero|Talk 20:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think User:Nv8200p is a "clueless newbie," considering he has been wiki a admin September of this year. While I agree that there should not be "excessive" screenshot galleries in any article, I also agree that there should be discussion prior to removal.  I think there was good intention here, it just caught us all by surprise! --Naha|(talk) 20:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I had to deal with such nonsense regarding the overzealousness of image placement in the KOF articles recently. However, he, being an admin, makes such actions unaccepttable, any more so (due to his administrative status), and not discussing deletions and blanking over a concensus with other editors is clear path to WP:EW, which is something I hope very much to avoid. -MegamanZero|Talk 21:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed --Naha|(talk) 14:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The idea that we have a weaker fair use case for screenshots of PS2 games in the article PlayStation 2 than in the individual game articles (or elsewhere) is utter nonsense. Regardless of quantity. Fredrik | tc 14:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed --Naha|(talk) 14:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Screenshots prohibited?

message: Can we add articles into the infobox on the front page without asking permission of some sort? I'd really like to add Diablo II: Lord of Destruction into there as it has been marked for cleanup for ages. Rob 13:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Err...what do you mean exactly? Thunderbrand 16:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He means in the CVG project infobox that is on the main project page on the right hand side. --Larsinio 16:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Template:Gamebox contents to be exact. I never really looked at it in depth before - I didn't know it was that manual, there's some out-of-date stuff on there! --Pagrashtak 18:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: As far as I know you can add and remove articles from that template till your hearts content! I've done so several times in the past and never been met with any opposition. Of course, add articles in the proper section and only remove articles once they have been properly dealt with - copyedited as asked for etc. One thing I have noticed though ..ther have been some articles listed on there for months.  We really need to work at improving them and getting them out of that template and getting new articles listed on there so they can more easily be brought to the attention of the Project members. --Naha|(talk) 18:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just removed some out-of-date entries. I'm confused about the expand section though. I looked at a few articles listed there; they were stubs, but I was expecting to see the  template. Shouldn't an article have a request for expansion to be listed there? --Pagrashtak 19:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup Articles 

message: http://www.dfulmer.com/project/handheld_evolution/
:"Note: Each portable system links opens up a new window to external site: Wikipedia."
Very, very cool :-) Well done guys and girls! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Check this out! 

message: A couple of points here:
#There's currently only one ELSPA rating image (); would it make sense to add more? (Nintendo has some images.)
#If it would make sense to add more, and they were to be used in infoboxes, picking a decent size will be a bit tricky since ESRB/CERO/PEGI ratings are all in similar boxes, whilst ELSPA will just look weird: . Any suggestions?
I know that these are fairly trivial, but I feel it would make sense to agree before going and doing it wrong. --Dave2 16:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, they look awful on small scale and weren't designed to be used on that small scale. And if left big, enough they, um, steal the show. And if you start cropping them, we might as well ask what's the point of using images at all, since they aren't the real images then, just the cropped ones - we could achieve better results with CSS if you want some kEwL results. 11+! Not that I think it's a good idea or anything =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's an idea. Shame a div would be a bit more work than I can be arsed to do (to make it line up properly), so as to be able to give it a decent border too :P --Dave2 12:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ELSPA Ratings 

message: I've been wondering if this project should cover game series templates.  I've noticed that there isn't no formal guideline - Template:Metroid series looks radically different than Template:Mario Kart series.  The MK template is what seems to have caught on - the type on the side, and the games listed like so.  Or should it be left to consensus with the individual editors?
i'd also like to ask qabout a particular template.  I recently created the Template:Mario Golf series for Mario Golf.  I found out that NES Open Tournament Golf stars Mario.  Should NES Open Tournmant Golf be mentioned in the template, as a side mention, or not even listed at all? - Hbdragon88 02:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, all of them look quite different. I don't really mind. It kind of "personalizes" each one, you could say. I dunno about the mario golf thing. It wouldn't hurt to give it a link. Thunderbrand 20:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game series templates? 

message: Hello there. I have a question about existing CVG stub templates. There are two types of stub templates for games, by genre and by company. Are you people of CVG Wikiproject OK with this? I mean, if there is, say, a platform game from Konami, it can be marked with  or , or both. So if you look through  you may not see this game because it's marked with  only.
On the other hand, the whole lot of CVG stubs is sitting nicely in the subcategories (with ~130 articles in the main category), which may be due to combined use of genre and company templates.
So, what's your view? If it's all OK, I'm going to inform WP:WSS about this, and add company templates to the stub types list. If not, some action like replacing all company templates with the genre templates may be needed. Conscious 08:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Im not sure we need many more company stub templates. I've been reducing the stub count in the cvg-stub category recently and I have rarely used company templates. Thunderbrand 15:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should they be eliminated completely, then? Conscious 15:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my mind? Yes. Most of them can be filed under platform, action, fict, adventure-cvg-stub, etc. I would like to see what other people think though. Thunderbrand 16:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CVG stub templates 

message: I've made a start with cleaning up and standardizing these games. I've created a template and tidied up the Wonder Boy article, but I'm yet to do the rest of the games. Would appreciate any comments that people have on the article(s). Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs  14:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wonder Boy]] 

message: I'm working to help The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask become a featured article (see the discussion here. I just did a lot of editing to address some objections by Fredrik — I'd appreciate it if someone could copyedit the article, as I'm sure I've made some mistakes in there somewhere. Also, I'd like someone to help with the objections about the images. I think a shot of the close-up of Link's pained face when he puts on one of the transformation masks (Zora perhaps?) would both illustrate a transformation and show that MM is darker than most Zelda games. Thanks to anyone who can help. --Pagrashtak 06:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Majora's Mask is once again a featured article. It could still benefit from some image work if anyone wants to help tie off some loose ends, but it looks pretty good — thanks to everyone who helped. --Pagrashtak 05:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with ''Majora's Mask'' 

message: Can anyone with time help out with some wikibooks about games. Some examples:
*b:Sonic the Hedgehog 3
*b:Mario Kart DS
*b:Super Mario 64
*b:Sonic R
Thanks 86.41.154.140 15:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll look them over, and if anyone would like to, they could add some to the b:Super Mario World wikibook.  I cleaned it up a little, and I'll try doing some more in the future if I can. Chris M. 20:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikibooks 

message: What do you guys think of the Xenosaga articles/lists?  I'm still in the middle of cleaning them up and all (still a lot of work to be done...and I don't even want to get into Xenogears!). Deckiller 02:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd probably be better off nominating specific articles here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games/Peer review. Jacoplane 02:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xenosaga 

message: I know that Xenosaga lists may have somewhat detailed plot explanations, but do you feel that detailed plot summaries and whatnot are not appropriate for the characters/events of Xenogears?  I'm really torn on this issue. Deckiller 16:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xenogears plot information 

message: For a while I have been wondering where did these two go: TheDotGamer and Pie4all88. TheDotGamer left a message on their page, but that was way back in August. Pie4all88, creator of the GCOTW, seems to have completely dissapeared, last edit in September 05. Maybe add them to Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians? Thunderbrand 18:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe try to email them first? Jacoplane 18:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case it might be a good idea to go through the list of participants and see which users are still contributing to CVG articles and which are not. The list is getting rather long. Jacoplane 18:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I was thinking about the list. I'll email them. Thunderbrand 18:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking we might remove the list altogether and simply ask users to add a category to their userpage. That would remove the clutter from the project page. I've created a userbox (I know many people hate these) that adds you to :Category:WikiProject Computer and video games member. Personally, I feel this is a better solution than having the list on the Project page. Jacoplane 21:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The category should be named :Category:WikiProject Computer and video games members — categories like this should be plural. --Pagrashtak 17:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I changed it. I think the cache needs to update first... Thunderbrand 00:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: NOTICE: Everyone who just added themselves needs to edit their user page to be included in the renamed category. Thunderbrand 00:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Can't email TheDotGamer because they didnt specify an email. Thunderbrand 18:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I presume this is the same guy. Jacoplane 21:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't mind the userbox. Thunderbrand 01:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nor would I. -ZeroTalk 20:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing wikipedians?