Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 16

message: hi i can't figure out how to join the project can some one tell me on my talk page. Mr Roboto 15:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stick  on your userpage to add a userbox. This will add you to the relevant category. Hut 8.5 15:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Help me join

message: I'm trying to draw some attention to the biographies of Tim Schafer and Ron Gilbert. I think I got them to a point where they are showing potential. Could someone add them to the project and rate them? Schafer in particular is a very significant figure in the game industry. Technitai 18:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biographies 

message: One user has decided that fan translations are not notable and should not be discussed in articles on video games. He or she is therefore removing this material from Radical Dreamers. I have no idea what the official opinion of this project is on this subject, but it would be nice if people would stop by Talk:Radical Dreamers to weigh in on the subject. — BrianSmithson 09:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that if the translation itself conforms to WP:V, it should be included. I would just revert it and start a discussion about it on the talk page, then get more people involved in the discussion. Havok (T/C/c) 11:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: If a game has become popular enough that some dedicated fans have decided to make a translation of it themselves, then I would say it's notable within that video game article; it is a good example of how popular the game has become (FF II, FF III, FF V, and MG2: Solid Snake are some translations that come to mind). As to the issue of WP:V that Havok brought up, if the translation is finished(no crystal ball stuff) and has been mentioned on a few fan sites then I'd say it meets the criteria for verifiability. --Mitaphane talk 19:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are fan translations notable? 

message: I've done some more work on Game Boy recently since about a week ago-- I've changed the format a bit, added some more on technical attributes, a few images, and a few other odds and ends-- but I'd feel better if other people were checking my work.  Can some of you take a look at my changes and make sure everything is sound?  This is sort of a personal project of mine, but I'd appreciate the comments, revisions, or additions of others.  I Jethrobot 17:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Game Boy]] Help! 

message: Take a look at this.  It's a gigantic task, but I'm trying to knock down that unassessed count (currently at 6445).  I took off about 100- everything in here that started with . through 9.  If anyone wants to help, please do! --PresN 00:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm game. I went through many articles A-D that I'm familar with. I'll try to knock out more as time goes by. --Mitaphane talk 05:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Count me in-- though, this is definitely a long-term project.  I Jethrobot 06:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I was planning on contributing more to this project, and this looks like a good place to start. Oh, and another thought - why not get a bot to rate all articles that are stubs as Stub-Class? They are doing it in that music albums project. VPeric 08:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been rating some articles today and plan to continue to help out. The total really needs to go down alot. RobJ1981 18:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Edit - Turns out A class doesn't require hitting GA first.  So...I reverted it.  For those who don't want to look it up, A class is basically anything from GA to FA class, that hasn't actually passed FAC yet.  It doesn't have to have passed GAC, just be an article that would if it was submitted. --PresN 19:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You could do either one, based on your preference.  It's long enough to be a B-class (I didn't read it, just looked), but personally, I won't give a B-class to anything that doesn't have a reference.  I'd personally rate it Start, therefore, but you could rate it either way.  It's all subjective.  --PresN 19:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd lean towards Start-class, based on the lead being two sentences with a lengthy parenthetical comment. Nifboy 22:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I rated it as START. Two hours later someone else re-rated it as B. As you say, subjective - X201 09:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey I'm in. The ratings sometimes seem to blur though. I've done a few, and I'll do more later.--Clyde Miller 02:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unrated Articles

message: At what point to fansites become reliable enough to use as sources? Obviously some random geocities site made yesterday isn't reliable, but I've seen the likes of Smogon and serebii.net being used as sources for featured article Torchic, so clearly they're considered reliable.Disclaimer: I'm not planning on using a fansite to source any article I'm working on. I've just noticed a small conflict on an article, which I don't edit myself, over whether a particular fansite is a reliable source. -- Steel 00:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally speaking, I'd say you can cite them for out-of-universe facts (release dates, merchandise info, etc) but not opinions or in-universe "facts" (frequently meaning speculation). I use the same general rule when pulling info from GameFAQs. Nifboy 13:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I second Nifboy's opinion. Using Tekken Zaibatsu as an example, they often report offical information the comes straight from NAMCO when comes to details about Tekken games(their release, changes made, the designer's inentions, etc.). However, the site is also filled with complete speculation about the story in Tekken, which really shouldn't be surprising given how little detail NAMCO goes into about Tekken's story. As long as you stick to details about the game and not the story, you should be fine. --Mitaphane talk 20:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fansites 

message: Currently there is a straw poll on Template talk:Mario characters on whether a few articles should be added back, such as Birdo and Waluigi, or if the template should be kept it the same.--TBCTaLk?!? 02:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mario characters template

message: Reviving the discussion (sorry if this is a faux-pas). I guess the logical thing to do would be to create a sub-page on WP:CVG listing users and issues of certain magazines they have. Separate lists of content in those magazines can be supported elsewhere on the page (most magazines list content in backissue listings, but we will have to make a point to document every game reviewed). Then, as editors write, they can stop in to check if the topic in question is covered in a magazine and move from there by asking an editor for information. How's this? --Zeality 03:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit: I found the old NP Archive link. To avoid TOC bloat, I think we can put headers by year. --Zeality 20:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit again: I'm going to stop for a while, but I've got the general template up with NP#1 as an example. --Zeality 20:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made some comments on the layout at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer and video games/Magazines. It would also be useful if contributors can note down whether they have a scanner, and the dates of publications for the issues. - Hahnchen 01:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A Magazine Project

message: An anon user,  is currently replacing all mentions of the GameCube Optical Disc (currently a redirect to the Nintendo GameCube article) with the erroneous MiniDVD. A GCN disc is not a miniDVD, the formats are completely different. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I've just discovered that there is an article there, but the anon redirected it to the GCN article. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Restored this back to the talk page. I don't want to act out of turn, but I think it was a little too soon to archive it. Note, the page I'm discussing is currently at GameCube Optical Disc (Talk page). --SevereTireDamage 04:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops, you're right. Sorry 'bout that. :) RandyWang (chat/patch) 04:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GameCube Optical Disc 

message: Since I'm not sure what I want to do here, I thought I'd throw the question out here; right now all FAs are being nominated for Wikipedia:Version 0.5. I've included more than half of them, but aren't sure what to do about the rest. Here's the short list of things that have not been decided one way or the other:
*Bishōjo game
*Bulbasaur (Torchic is out as too obscure)
*Final Fantasy VIII (Note: 6, 7, and 10 are already in)
*Final Fantasy X-2
*Katamari Damacy
*The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask (Wind waker, Link are in)
*Shadow of the Colossus
*Wario
Articles that 0.5 have thrown out as too trivial include Torchic, Lakitu, and BZFlag. Any opinions one way or the other about including these? Also, if there's any not-FA articles we absolutely must have in 0.5 (we already have the main Computer and video games article and Nintendo), make sure to nominate them by Thursday. Nifboy 18:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shame that MM is FA, but OoT isn't; that'd be the natural choice. If X is in, it seems natural to include X-2, as I imagine readers of X will want to learn more. FFVIII sold 8 million copies (I think, been awhile since I checked), so it seems like fair game. Katamari Damacy is a cult hit, but I have no concept of its notability. That's all I can offer so far. Oh, almost forget -- I have to be completely shameless and ask about Chrono Cross. --Zeality 18:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FAs for version 0.5

message: This might be the stupid question of the day, but is there a credits page for each game to add the names of people who worked on them? Gastaman 21:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only time people who worked on games tend to get mentioned is if the person who worked on it is a significant figure in Video Games like Shigeru Miyamoto,Peter Molyneux etc. Long IMDB style credits lists aren't really needed. But if it's something of importance, like Rob Hubbard's first piece of game music (Thing on a Spring) then a credit to him would be fully merited. But like everything Wiki, there are no hard and fast rules just a number of people saying "Yay" or "Nay" - X201 21:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we should be listing the entire credits list like say Moby Games does.  Making a note of the creative directors and leads of the projects may be notable in the text say, Ken Levine for BioShock, but I don't think the dev team section there is that helpful or encyclopedic.  It's like listing the cameramen in a movie. - Hahnchen 18:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Credits

message: Hi, should the article on the PlayStatation 3 be rated low importance (if so, why) or is it just valdalism. I've posted something on the PS3 discussion but havent recived any replys Pjcard 11:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At the moment the PlayStation 3 is just another console, it hasn't done anything of any significance, it hasn't changed the way games are played, it hasn't opened up gaming to thousands of people who never played video games before. It's just more of the same with bigger bells and whistles. - X201 13:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not that the PS3 is just another console, it's that the PS3 hasn't been released yet, as such, it is hard to know anything about its final impact on the world. Without it being released, there is also little information which isn't from Sony press releases. When we know the impact and find out just how notable it becomes (big seller, big flop?) then it can be rated more appropriately, but at this time low importance is correct, the WII should also be rated low in my opinion, but I haven't checked... Altair 16:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, as far as Wikipedia:Version 0.5 is concerned, there's no sense in including an article that's going to change very rapidly in the months following its release. Nifboy 16:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think theres a bit of wooly thinking going on here; whether its a big sucess, big flop or otherwise it is the sucessor to the highest selling line of consoles in history (PlayStation 1, PSONE, PlayStation2) so of course its going to make a mark. Surely the world wide interest, billions of dollars spent developing it and the cell and even sonys arrogant behaviour regarding it all make this an important page of console history. Whether it flops or not hundreds of games will be made for it. Whether it flops or not it is one of the first Blu-ray players on the market. If it was a huge flop surely that would make it even more of an important story as it could sound the death-knell for sony. I aggree with Nifboy, however, that it would make sense to wait until it is released before including it so that the content settles down a bit. And also I agree with Altair that the information on the console comes almost entierly from sony and it would make sense to hold off and wait for more 3rd party information on it. Having said this wouldn't it make sense to remove the low importance rating and just wait until its released to decide on what it should be. 81.137.243.44 10:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Playstation 3

message: A survey has been called at Talk:Xbox 360#Straw poll - Games list, to determine which games should be used in the Game library section of the console. It is possible this survey could be used as precedent for other consoles, so it has been added to Wikipedia:Current surveys. Everyone is welcomed to voice an opinion there. -- ReyBrujo 05:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xbox 360 game library survey 

message: Hey I was working on a little known game engine (Titan 2.0) and I had, without thinking, added a CVG tag to the talk page. After looking at other game engines for content ideas, I realized two things. First of all, almost no other engine had a CVG tag, so I got rid of the one on the page I was writing. Is that right? I don't know if engines are part of CVG. Second, since no game engine has been brought up to GA or FA status (almost all are stubs), there really is no model for these articles. Most of them are improperly formatted and don't have the right tags or an info box. I'll start adding tags but I need to know whether or not engines should get a CVG tag. Thanks. --Clyde Miller 17:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would add tags to them, since game characters get them too. See Doom engine, Quake engine, and Unreal engine for others (which have no infobox). Thunderbrand 17:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I looked into those. Source Engine has a pretty good article too (doesn't have an infobox either). --Clyde Miller 17:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding Game Engines 

message: Maybe you know already but there is a rather involved survay going on at Talk:Xbox_360#One_more_straw_poll about whether or not to include a full hardware specifications list or an alternative such as paragraphizing with or without every detail. This will likely have implications for other articles as well... RN 00:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xbox 360 & hardware specifications survey 

message: :Category:PC game covers is being used as a dumping ground by editors who don't know better. I need some help in moving the items to their appropriate subcategories.  accepts 3 platform arguments at this time. Just click show on its usage. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I sorted as many as I could. The only ones left have generic covers with no tell-tale sign of platform and/or are associated with games that have been released over multiple platforms. Thunderbrand 18:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I sorted through a vast number of them by looking at the article the image was on. Now the only ones there are the covers for games that don't have relevant information on their corresponding articles; mostly games which only have a series article, and a few odd Japanese titles. Nifboy 21:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  cleanup [[:Category:PC game covers]] 

message: After failing to find Wikipedians who would collaborate with me, I have decided to work on the AdventureQuest article on my own.
I have rewrote the lead section and am currently working on the Gameplay section, writing a subsection a day.
If you wish to collaborate with me on this article, please leave a note on the article's talk page. If you play AdventureQuest and wish to become my Wikifriend, leave a note on my talk page as well.
While collaborating on the article, we will discuss how to improve the article on its talk page. I would appreciate suggestions for how to structure the article.
I will need someone to help me with the layout of the screenshots. I'd like all of them to be aligned to the right. I have uploaded six screenshots in total, and will add them to the article as I add their respective sections.
Hopefully we will successfully turn this messy article full of fancruft into an article with useful information, offering a broad coverage of the game. Once I've completed my rewriting of the article, I will post a request for feedback on it. Perhaps we could even improve AdventureQuest to Good Article status!
--J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nominate it for the Wikipedia:Gaming Collaboration of the week now, and I think you might stand a good chance of it being chosen. There's only one nomination at the moment and no one seems at all keen about it. - X201 17:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did done fix yourn image alignment/sizes/placement.  You may want to edit the captions (if they be wrong). — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for helping me with the images, and adding the infobox. I'll continue working on the article for the next few days and nominate it for Gaming Collaboration of the Week after that. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm working on the [[AdventureQuest]] article. 

message: Discussion may be found here. JimmyBlackwing 17:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Bishōjo game]] nominated for [[Wikipedia:Featured article review|FAR]] 

message: User:4.140.15.244 at first suggested in the body of the article that the sections on the modding projects should be removed, and has now started blanking that section despite my attempts to start a discussion on the talk page. At this point I'm bumping up against WP:3RR, could someone please help out here? BryanG(talk) 20:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war developing at [[Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords]] 

message: I don't know how to merge or redirect, so could someone do this for me? These need to be merged (or redirect the GBA page to the regular Road Rage page): The Simpsons Road Rage (GBA) and The Simpsons Road Rage. The GBA version is just about the SAME game (with only a few small differences): there is no need for a seperate page for it. The Simpsons games box will also needed to be updated: since it lists both Road Rage games. Why in the world was the same game allowed on the Simpsons games box in the first place?! Multiple versions of games don't get seperate pages, but somehow Road Rage got away with it for a while. I posted this on the Simpsons project talk page as well. RobJ1981 01:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add  to the gameboy version article and add  to propose the merge. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It all depends on whether the game in question are ports or independently developed. I don't know if the GBC Mario games in this instance are ports/remakes of the N64 ones or if they are just each a Mario sports title on their own. In the case of The Simpsons I think all of them came out at the same time and the GBA is a version of the home console (I'm not saying with certainty because I haven't read a review of the GBA to compare it to the console). Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The GCN and GBA games (Power Tennis/Tennis and Toadstool/Advance tour) have different titles.  I think that substantially separates the two. Hbdragon88 19:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mario Golf and all those aren't ports, so they obviously need seperate pages. Simpsons Road Rage for the consoles and GBA, are the same game with the same title. There is tiny differences, but not enough to qualify for seperate articles. RobJ1981 20:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I need some help

message: :Category:PC games has bloated up to over 140 articles. Last time we managed to get it under 80 articles. So I'm gonna need more help in clearing it out. Personally, I really want this category gone as it is grossly inaccurate. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved some and will move a few more after writing this. Would there be merit in creating a Misc category to file the weird stuff like PC Booter titles away in?  They're not really DOS games because they bring their own operating system with them. - X201 08:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fine to me. Last I read the PC booter article, the definition was a little vague, it seemed like it could have been DOS on some and not others. I wouln't object to leaving PC booter games there for the time being either. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To confuse matters further, some games are both PC booter and DOS. Ace of Aces being one of them. I'll add the DOS games flag to them but leave the PC games flag because of the PC booter situation. I've sorted 30 so far, picking them on a random basis to get the bulk down, I'm now going to work through them in alphabetical order. - X201 17:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've sorted everything up to, and including the letter K. Anything that's left in A-K now is either a PC booter, being played on an ancient mainfrane, IRC, or just plain unclassifiable. - X201 18:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm... that would be like classifying Star Fox Adventures as a SNES game because a previous iteration of the game ran in SNES. Most MU* I know have been ported to PCs, some even to Windows. -- ReyBrujo 18:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, I don't follow your analogy. If it's been ported to another platform, it should be categorized as such. But the fact remains that some of this stuff did not originally run on a "PC". Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:PC games]] bloated up again. 

message: Link (The Legend of Zelda series) has been put up for Featured Article Review, so if you want to help improve it to current FA standard, its there! I'll try to help out too. Judgesurreal777 00:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Link

message: Personal computer game is now up for CVG peer review for the second time, since I've largely rewritten the article but honestly don't know where to go from here. Despite being on review for some weeks now, nobody has provided any feedback.
Please suggest some way to improve the article. I haven't a clue how to continue improving it, but I do want to see it up at GA status at some point in the future. And maybe I'll go review another peer review article when I have the time.. :) Any suggestions?Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 13:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just at a glance, it desperately needs references. -- Steel 13:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added another three, but I'll get onto this more seriously tonight. Thanks! Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 04:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A request for peer review 

message: I just created the List of level editors for those who are interested.  Please edit and expand.  Enjoy... — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, FYI, I recently created the List of Electronic Arts games because it is sorely needed.  It's barely populated right now, but I am slowly adding new sets of games.  Please feel free to visit & expand or disambig links.  Thanks! — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FYI: List of level editors

message: Bishōjo game is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality.  Sandy 00:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Bishōjo game]]

message: Link (The Legend of Zelda series) is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality.  Sandy 00:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Link (The Legend of Zelda series)]]

message: BZFlag is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality.  Sandy 00:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[BZFlag]]