Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 13

message: *My view on the matter is that I simply think they're intrusive to page layout, they are ideals derived from a social site (something wikipedia is opposed to), they're logicially unnecessary, redundant to our already competent headers and TOC's and many of our readers, I believe, are already knowledgeable on the subject anyway (or else they wouldn't insist upon the insertion of cruft and over-elaborate material). I support they be banned from video game articles. I also utterly refute any claim that the removal of the template would make the encyclopedia less  acessible to anyone and if it does I would require substantial evidence to support this baseless claim. -Randall Brackett 19:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Views on spoiler tags: needed or not needed in video game articles? 

message: A request for comment has been started at Wikipedia:Spoiler warning/RfC with a structured discussion page on Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/RfC.  The debate is structured for the purpose of providing a quick overview of the arguments, and there are ways to submit opinions on solutions as "straw poll" like sections, regular discussion, and individual statements from the frequent debaters. Your views are velcome. --GunnarRene 05:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comments: Spoiler tags 

message: I'm pretty new to the Wiki, and have started climbing this rather steep learning curve in regards to exactly how things should be done here. Haven't even created my User: page yet. :-)
I'm looking to concentrate soley on the Ultima Online entry, as (a) I have several years experience playing and writing about the game, and (b) it's really the only game I have extensive knowledge about anyway.
There's a small amount of trepidation, as I don't want to step on other's toes. I decided a short while ago that contributing to Wikipedia was a good thing to do, and contributing to the UO entry would be a great place to start. I've edited parts of that entry already - but I certainly don't want to come off like some guy who appears from nowhere and starts adding content for no apparant reason. I've poked about the site a bit, and I guess I'm looking to get an idea of what constitutes 'protocol' when making changes to an established entry. Point me in the right direction?
--Ghosty Twofish 15:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mainly, take a look at the guidelines in the 'help' link to the left, and if you want to make any huge, sweeping changes/additions, suggest them on the talk page first. You'll get a feel for it pretty soon. --InShaneee 03:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Houdy.. 

message: The Fair use criteria page has been updated with a statement that images that do not comply are subject to deletion. Images uploaded before 13 July 2006 require a notification and a seven day grace period, but new images can be deleted immediately. Although the policy covers more than just this, one important point is that images claiming fair use that do not have article-specific fair use rationale are now subject to deletion. I've just gone through my uploads and added fair use rationale to any images claiming fair use, and I suggest everyone does the same for their uploads or fair use images on important articles. If you want a list of what you've uploaded, go to Special:Log, select "Upload Log" and type your username in the box. Pagrashtak 18:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds pretty good. -Randall Brackett 18:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Policy sounds fair enough, but 48 hours? Sheesh, even though I'm a compulsive wiki-addict, it doesn't mean all editors are. Not everyone's going to visit Wikipedia every two days, it's not enough time for notification and argument. It should have stayed a week for all future images, too bad the debate is already closed. --SevereTireDamage 06:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New deletion criterion for fair use images 

message: Following after the brain-destroying , many game series have navboxes that are growing ever-larger, including every single article in the game's associated category. While this comes naturally from having so much subarticles for every single game series with two games and three fans (but that's a rant for another day), these templates are huge, usually hopelessly ugly, destroy any use of Whatlinkshere, and tend to crowd the bottom of game articles.
Many of them even include every single character appearing in a category, including dozens of characters ( is probably the worst).
Some examples:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
* (why does a one-line template have a hide option?)
* (augh the hugeness)
*
*
*
*
*
* (why does it have a line to link to "related game series," three of which don't relate to this series?)
*
*
*
*
* (the hugeness makes me cry)
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Not all of these are as bad as I describe above, but I'm also listing these here so they can be catted and possibly standardized at some point.
What can be done to slim these templates down? Should they be slimmed down? Am I insane? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh. Huh. We have :Category:Computer and video game navigational boxes. Well, still, a lot of these are huge and ugly. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navboxes 

message: Several days ago, an admin fully protected Template:Gamebox contents as a high-use template, probably not realizing it's our to-do list. I left a message on his talk page, but he hasn't responded.  Can an admin here unprotect it? --SevereTireDamage 06:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's now semi-protected. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, it's appreciated. --SevereTireDamage 19:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Gamebox contents 

message: I've voiced some concerns on the RT4X talk page about the article's content. "RT4X" is a term coined by a dev team to describe their (not yet released) game Sins of a Solar Empire. In my opinion, the article is a recreation of SoaSE promotional/marketing material, with no demonstration that the term is in notable usage outside of the promotion and discussion of SoaSE. As such, it falls short of WP:NEO, WP:RS and WP:NOT. I've suggested a redirect to the SoaSE article; your opinions are appreciated. --Muchness 09:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RT4X

message: There are currently twenty articles covering the storyline of StarCraft, blow by blow, not counting the two game articles and the character articles.
Does some intrepid editor want to help me clean up this mess? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are your thoughts on the best way to approach this one? --Revlob 11:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Write two paragraphs about each race's storyline in each of the StarCraft and StarCraft: Brood War articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:StarCraft storyline]] 

message: I was browsing the Star Control 2 pages again today when I realized that some of them sounded vaguely familiar, and I realized why-- some of them contain information directly copied (save for minor edits made by later users) from this page, the pages this page cites, and possibly others:
http://starcontrol.classicgaming.gamespy.com/otherraces/
http://starcontrol.classicgaming.gamespy.com/scsaga/races.htm
Also, some of the information may also have been copied from the SC2 manual.  I'd look into this more deeply but I'm busy so maybe someone else can take a whack at it.  
-- Solberg 05:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I played the game so I can verify the information but it'd take a while and I'd probably have to look up reputable sources for the info I forget.  The problem is I'm not sure to what extent the COPYVIO goes yet.  Again, like I said, I'm busy and will look more into this later on.  Just a heads up notice for anyone who also played the game (if you haven't, I truly recommend it) and can start the process.  It may also be prudent to merge the articles of "lesser" races like the Gg that simply aren't discussed in great detail.  -- Solberg 07:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bleh Star Control 2 

message: Hi. I'm not a member of the wikiproject computer and video games, but I probably should be and will be. I started working on the article Empires: Dawn of the Modern World, a forgotten RTS game. I've added a lot onto it (even a few times as the anon 71.194.70.153 because I was too lazy to sign in), but I'm not really expiernced with writing computer game articles. Who should I ask or where should I go to find out how to improve it? Thanks to whoever answers this. --Clyde Miller 20:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest to add an overview section, and generally sections with more narrative style about the game, including gameplay, campaigns, and so on. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 20:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Empires: Dawn of the Modern World]] 

message: Could someone please help me over at Talk:Solid Snake?  and a newly-registered user are tag-team edit warring over any attempt to put any image but a promotional render from MGS4 in the infobox, arguing that we should use the newest design no matter what. I've tried arguing that we should use the most recognizable design, I've tried arguing that we should use the design used in nine games now, but no luck.
Can someone help me out here? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've commented for you. Personally, I believe that the image of "Old Snake" ("Old Spice"?) should be placed in the article text as an example of his character's revision, while the infobox should include the more common image of "Young Snake." I'd advise all parties to avoid edit warring and potentially violating 3RR (you're pushing it pretty close, guys). RandyWang (raves/review me!) 08:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Old Snake image was going to be in the article either way; that much wasn't controversial. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, quick reply (I saw this on RC patrol :O ). Agreed, but it seems like a very silly argument when the best compromise I could think of wasn't really a compromise. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 08:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bread is still arguing that we should use the MGS4 image after that game comes out. I don't know how much more clear I can make "It's a variant design that only appears in one game." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a farce. I suggest that, if this situation isn't defused reasonably soon, that it be taken to RfC regarding LiquidSnake's behaviour. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 09:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Solid Snake]] infobox 

message: Can someone create a template-thingy like we have for game articles AfD'd on the main wikiproject page for articles proposed for Featured Article status?  I have no idea how, but seeing as there are currently 4 up (WoW, Chrono Trigger, FF6 and FF8), I think it would be cool. --PresN 18:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The most appropriate place to notify people is probably the CVG Noticeboard, though it hasn't gotten much use lately. Alternatively, this very talk page seems to attract some attention nowadays. --SevereTireDamage 15:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think bringing it up here is probably the best course of action, at least for non-AFD stuff... there are so many AFDs we might as well just keep them all to the Deletions page.  But yeah, the Noticeboard would be a great place to keep stuff like that (FAC, FARC, maybe DRVs). -- gakon5 19:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed FA's

message: There has been a proposed move to move Sega CD to Sega Mega-CD/Sega CD, and the issue of the rather awkward hybrid name has been brought up again.  After a protracted war on the Talk:Sega Mega Drive page, the article was finally moved to Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis.  I wanted to bring the issue here because it shouldn't exist - we should pick one name and stick with it.  How awkward is it to type Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis and having to pipe that link in?  I would rather do Sega Genesis so I would only have to write it out half the time.  Same with the Sega CD. Hbdragon88 07:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is pretty ridiculous. Unless I missed it, though, no one actually cited hard numbers to determine which "system" was actually more popular worldwide (though I strongly suspect it was Mega Drive). Not that I want to open up another can of worms, but was this ever taken to RfC or other arbitration? --SevereTireDamage 11:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well yeah, the Google test has problems.  And while the Mega Drive probably is more popular - as it was the name in all territories except the U.S. - I think the "Genesis" defenders made a persusasive argument, saying that just naming it the Mega Drive would confuse U.S. readers.  This resembles the gasoline title war, except that it appears that that war was solved without RFC or Arbcom involvement (but I'm not sure). Hbdragon88 16:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sega hybrid name 

message: I'm making a strong effort to greatly improve the Super Metroid article and I wondered if anyone might be interested in helping. I've done a lot of work on it in the past, but it had become very jumbled up and full of stuff that was totally off-topic both for the article itself and for Wikipedia. It breaks my heart to see this article with a B classification; my goal is for it to be in tip-top shape.--QuasarTE 09:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Super Metroid 

message: There is discussion ongoing at Talk:Resident Evil about the role of dab pages when disambiguating between a game and the series named after it. A third opinion would be appreciated. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Resident Evil]] 

message: Wario has been nominated at FAR, here. Please leave comments. Highway Return to Oz... 18:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wario]] 

message: People here might want to check out gamestudies.org, which appears to be a peer-reviewed scholarly game journal. Browsing a bit, I was able to find articles on The Sims, Grand Theft Auto, Halo: Combat Evolved, Lara Croft, Counter-Strike, and others. The CS one is particularly interesting in that it covers behaviors during multiplayer — the type of stuff that traditionally has not been well-sourced or has been outright deemed unverifiable here on Wikipedia. There's a lot of interesting material to use. — TKD::Talk 00:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An online peer-reviewed [[ludology]] journal