Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 24

message: The current guideline suggests that navboxes not have multiple sections, and that templates instead be split when sectioning appears to become necessary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Hyperspacey 10:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not agree. If it is necessary to have multiple sections, these should be clearly labelled. Only when the template gets as large as the Mega Man template, should they be separated into different templates. Relevant non-game articles within a videogames template should be separated into a different section, so users can never mistake such articles for videogames. The template's purpose is to ensure good navigation between articles and more importantly, to ensure that the user can never get confused. Clearly labelled sections will prevent this. Your template proposal does not. Wolf ODonnell 14:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i agree with AMIB on this. if an article has sections that hold a lot of information, the sections probable deserve there own template. (An example would be sonic games, which started off as one big template with lots of sections and now has four templates without any lose of information.) - El cid the hero 14:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, since this could unnecessarily split up a navbox with only a few sections. Resident Evil's navbox was recently split up into three navboxes, which clogs the end of the main series page and limit's navigation between one part of the series to another within articles. This problem could be fixed with a simple sectioning (similar to this older edit). -th1rt3en 16:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm torn; while it does hinder navigation between branches of a franchise, it's not all that hard to just go to the core page and then continue from there. And I fail to see how the three RE navboxes "clog" the main page anymore than the one would. I think I'm going to go with the current guideline (split). ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 19:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's of course not that hard but then they could just go to the Category page to navigate, which would then negate the purpose of even having navboxes to begin with. And by clogging I mean adding extra unnecessary space to the page, more so than if they were combined into one sectioned template. -th1rt3en 19:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree with the "they could just go to the category" excuse. First of all, scrolling down to the navigational template is much less of a hassle than going through numerous subcategories, hyperlinks, etc. Second, not all viewers—especially newbies—know the fuction of categories on Wikipedia, making it much more difficult for them to navigate.--TBCΦtalk? 21:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Wolf ODonnell. When non-game articles are in the navbox, some sort of sectioning is needed. --- RockMFR 21:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The "just go to the category" excuse is unacceptable. If we rely on this, we might as well get rid of the Template altogether. Wikipedia is not about looking good. It's about portraying useful information that is clearly presented in a logical, methodical manner. Wolf ODonnell 22:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  You misunderstood me, that's what I was trying to point out. Navboxes were implemented to make it easier to navigate between related articles, which is what unnecessary splitting of navboxes would hurt. -th1rt3en 23:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Exactly. So, sectioning the navboxes is key. Wolf ODonnell 11:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Idea- link to appropriate other navboxes/ master pages within navboxes? If there's a series of "Mega Blastood" movies, link to the "Mega Blastood Movies" page in the navbox for the games, and vice-versa? Hyperspacey 23:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: As far as I can remember, AMIB stated reasons of: it allowed fancruft and was visually appealing. How getting rid of sections would prevent that is beyond me. After all, if someone wants to add fancruft, they'll do it. Wolf ODonnell 11:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Having one template with four lines is much more simple than having four seperate one lined templates.--TBCΦtalk? 08:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here's an idea. How's about we define what sections are allowed and how big these sections can be? This would prevent AMIB's fears of fancruft and navboxes getting too big. We can define size as in a minimum number of links, with appropriate exceptions. Wolf ODonnell 11:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That could work, but might end up being too specific for some navboxes. If we leave it up to the average editors, perhaps we can have a new cleanup template: something like this. -th1rt3en 18:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with sectioning over splitting as well, because if we do splitting, we'll eventually run into the problem that there's a movie of some game but there's no other branching off of it. So we put the movie one in its own template and the games together? That doesn't make any sense to me. Plus, separate templates is a lot more work to maintain, as stated above. Navboxes getting too big and fancruft aren't going to be solved by splitting, assuming that the same links go on the sectioned ones as the split ones. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: well i understand these sorts of fears for Mario, but a vast majority of games do not seem to have this sort of problem, and would be unlikely candidates for cruft. Additionally, should cruft occur what is wrong with removing it and then discussing it with the contributor? We shouldn't sacrifice usability of the encycolpedia because of misuse - that's akin to not having articles because they'll get vandalized. I agree with those people who are saying that it breaks the continuity of games in a franchise when they are split up, as with the Sonic templates. i look up Mean Bean Machine and have no way to directly go to Sonic the Hedgehog (16-bit)? That just doesn't make sense, the person then has to go, "well maybe i'll find it on the main sonic page" and for a modem user that could take a while. Usability is severely compromised by splitting up sections. That said, i do agree that non-game related articles would be best placed in another template because for many of the lesser known games it would be irrelevant to have links to other media (e.g. Mario Tennis is unlikely to be the next page someone wants to look at after reading about the Mario movie). -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 18:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Yes, AMIB, but don't forget that this was because there were no guidelines to say what could or couldn't go into the template. With no guidelines, anything goes. If you only provided a rule that navboxes couldn't have sections, you'd still have the same problem. People would still put an insane number of links into the navbox. Wolf ODonnell 16:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: In my opinion, yes, because it destroys the purpose of the navbox. One triple sized navbox is smaller than three single sized navboxes stacked together. And just because we can allow certain sections doesnt mean we would allow all. I still suggest creating a cleanup template for bloated navboxes ♦TH1RT3EN talk ♦ contrib 19:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i don't understand why you think someone made the argument, So three lines is a snarl of links, but one line is too simple.  but as for your example of RE, the current template is just as bad, if not worse than the bloated version in ur diff.  How did we go from 14 games down to 6?  We're doing a disservice by not including those other games. If you then split up those other sections, like Soundtracks, into their own templates, they can be included on the main page and soundtrack pages (no bloat on the video game or character pages).  If it's decided that the soundtracks aren't notable enough, then that specific navbox can go up for TFD.  I have no problem with including multiple templates on certain articles.  If the lists are unexplained or poorly explained, the fault isn't with having the list, it's with explaining it properly, which is something that can be easily fixed. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 19:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: A three- or four-lined template could be a "snarl of links" if there's absolutely no indication whatsoever of what the reader is supposed to be looking at. For example, this was the Resident Evil template that you were forcing on us for a while. The way each line is divided up apparently suggests that they're all supposed to be grouped into different sections. But, what sections, pray tell? Am I supposed to be psychic? Are you blatantly assuming that every single reader will be familiar enough with the series to know why Outbreak would be on a separate line than Code: Veronica? Also, remember that on lower screen resolutions a single line could become two. These problems could all be entirely taken care of with simple sectioning, such as this, and it still only takes up four lines (There's a little extra vertical dead space in this example, but I think that can be removed). MarphyBlack 21:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The thing here is, we don't section it so it would contain only games, or we section it with side-headers. I agree with MarphyBlack on the basis that we can't automatically assume that people know what they're looking at. I must say, though, that splitting into separate templates is a horrible experience, having known where things were before and then having to use categories to navigate. I call on it being inconvenient. - Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 21:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sectioning needs to happen. Why should things such as "list of characters" just be jammed in with games? An "other" section doesn't do any harm, and helps navigate much better. RobJ1981 22:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Do you an example of a game series so large that it needs a sectioned template, but has no series article or comprehensive list article? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If by "large" comparing to Resident Evil series, than  and  (compared to a rough sectioning example and the original version) for example. Sectioning would also allow links to just be game titles (Duke Nukem, Duke Nukem) rather than article titles (Duke Nukem (Game Boy Color), Duke Nukem (character)), which was also in the RE template. ♦TH1RT3EN™ talk ♦ contribs 21:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: List of Sim games for the Sims, and sectioning the Duke Nukem template would add more wasted space than those notes require. (Plus, I'm not entirely sure why the relatively minor handheld games are in the Duke Nukem template at all.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Noted, though the issue might exsits again. However, if there were no sectioning, the Sims template would look like this. There's still the matter of adding clarification to the titles, for instance the films in this version of the RE template actually wastes more space than if there was a section header. ♦TH1RT3EN™ talk ♦ contribs 21:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sectioning

message: I'd also like to add that there are many other issues currently being disputed, not just sectioning and upcoming games. This includes:
*Should characters be in the navboxes or should navboxes be only limited to games?
*If there's a seperate template guideline for video game articles, why aren't there any for other subjects? 
*If video game templates are standardized, wouldn't that mean other navigational templates must be standardized as well?
*Is Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Navboxes an actual guideline? How can it be if consensus has only been determined by CVG members?--TBCΦtalk? 07:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there anyone else who thinks that WP:CVG can't form consensus on how video game articles look? I don't think there's actually any dispute here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it has recently been brought up somewhere that wiki project editors shouldn't think they own the project, and CVG sprang to mind. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 08:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where, and in what context? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't recall. Might have been MOS talk, or Navbox talk, etc. A wiki-wide style talk, within the past week. I'll look for it tomorrow if you'd like. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 08:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia_talk:Navigational_templates#Video_Game_Template_Discussion?--TBCΦtalk? 20:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Trying to standardize all video game templates just won't work, ever, partly because of inevitable differences in the structure of the series themselves, and partly because of the inevitable ego conflicts that standardization efforts tend to create. Aside from all that, you'll always have the series/franchises that, because they extend beyond the scope of video games (Pokémon springs readily to mind) are exceptions, and don't fit neatly, or even messily, into whatever guidelines had already been determined. Very broad guidelines are likely to help somewhat, but start getting too detailed and it'll all fall apart. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 19:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed; differences between various video game series merit the use of templates with different structures.--TBCΦtalk? 21:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed as well. There should be a style guide that's suggested for use, but not anything beyond that, as long as it doesn't violate wikipedia's guide for navboxes. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also agreed. One strict standard would not for every navbox. Any guides should be used as an idea to work around and towards to make a conforming style rather than a strict rule of style. -th1rt3en 23:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other issues

message: Please see here (wanted to reach a larger audience to gather consensus). - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy over Zelda merges 

message: The Video games project sorely lacks a subproject for open source games! I'd like to help out creating one. Where to start? There's a category at :Category:Open source games that could serve as base. --Himasaram 03:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion: a taskforce is a better route to go. RobJ1981 12:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I sort of agree, but if you think you have something, go here and see if others agree with you.--Clyde (talk) 15:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open source games WikiProject 

message: Special:Contributions/71.247.35.250 and previous similar IPs really want to create a "Games with post-credits scenes ('stingers')" category. I think the problem is that too much games have stingers (virtually all RPGs ever). Discuss. Kariteh 07:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a similar category for movies with post-credit scenes which was quickly shot down by CFD.  I can't imagine it would be any different for this one.  It's not enough of a defining characteristic to be categorizing by.  --SubSeven 17:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would make a good list, though. Probably would get deleted still, unfortunetly...♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 17:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-credits scene category 

message: Torchic has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Torchic FAR

message: Commodore 64 has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
LuciferMorgan 02:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Commodore 64 FAR

message: This article has only ever had one edit and that in March 2005. It needs attention as the poor thing is abandoned. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Articles. --Bduke 08:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could nominate it for next weeks colaboration of the week if you want. Mattyatty 14:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eek. That's a lot of characters. If someone wants to pull a Suikoden on it, they're certainly welcome to. Nifboy 14:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[John Dekker]]

message: There are several inconsistencys in the format of the "media" section of the infoboxes on DS game pages i want to ask about:
*Why do some DS articles list the cartridge size in bits, but some in bytes?? One example is Metroid Prime Hunters, which list it as a 1 gigabit cartridge, yet Final Fantasy III (Nintendo DS) lists it as a 128 MB Cartridge, both of which are the same size.
*Some list giga/megabit as Mb/Gb, some write it in full
*Furthur confusing things, some pages list them as Flash cards (e.g. Clubhouse Games), some as Game paks (e.g. Bomberman Land Touch!),  some as game cards (e.g. Pokémon Diamond and Pearl), some as a DS card (e.g. Jump Ultimate Stars), some as just cartridges (e.g. Star Fox Command) and some as just cards (e.g. Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time), and i dont even know if thats all of them, I havent looked at every single DS game page.
*Some pages for games which information on the cart size just list it as a game card (or one of the above alternatives) yet others do not have a media section.
*Another slight problem is that some of these link to the page explaining what a cartridge and megabit/megabyte is, some do not.
Shouldn't they all be consistent?Mattyatty 16:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's all because of the nature of what Wikipedia is. Probably best to consult the DS article -- and its sources -- and use that as a guide on what to fix up. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 17:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I feel all console/handheld system games should not have anything entered in the "media" section at all, unless it differs from the standard media. Same for input and system requirements. What's the point in constantly adding the same information about something that is virtually always the same for all situations? Anyone who wishes to learn more about the cartridge/disc/whatever used for a particular system can find out about it on the article for that system. --ADeveria 18:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DS cartridge question 

message: I've cleaned up 2 of our maintenance templates,  and . For  I've refocused it into being in line with the main  template, and for  I've recreated it more in line with the other transwiki templates. Are there any others that need work? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I've also nominated  to be renamed to . Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maintenance templates 

message: I don't think there's any set criteria for what constitutes a character in these articles. For instance, many articles list bosses as characters. I was hoping that one could be set up. Anyone interested in working on it? - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well... to be notable for a list page: the boss should be an end of level boss for one thing. A mini-boss (partway through the level or such) isn't always notable in my opinion. End of the game boss/bosses = notable. If the character has been a boss in a few games, that's certainly list worthy as well. Other than those, I'm not sure what criteria there could be for listing bosses. RobJ1981 04:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if a boss is a character - ie, Ganondorf, he should be included. But Moldorm (from ALttP, LA, and TWW) wouldn't be. Bosses without personality, backstory, etc. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria for bosses in list of character articles 

message: Are Globox, Murfy and Ly the Fairy notable enough to have them in separate entries? — Canderous Ordo 20:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From Murfy: "Murfy is only a minor character, so nothing is told or known about his background, family, or even about his race". Self explanatory. Rayman is now a decade old and still kicking, so I'd expect to see a character list somewhere, but judging by the standard of writing in the Murfy article I doubt there's a great deal to actually say about them, once the unsuitable material is cut. QuagmireDog 01:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. When i have time i'll create a list for these characters. I'm also uploading several screenshots from Rayman 2 to Wikimedia Commons. — Canderous Ordo 00:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rayman characters

message: Hello. Myself and others have been working tenaciously to improve the status of List of Wii games to FL-quality. As of current, the list is comprehensive, listing all titles in all regions together. The current debate is whether to keep the list as is, or to split this list up by region and into different pages as seen in List of Virtual Console games. I am presently neutral on the topic, but leaning towards splitting the article.
Pros
*Easier to read as less stuff is present
*Would be able to encompass various differences between regions not already present(i.e. different names, publishers)
*Would be able to add a ratings column (ESRB, PEGI, CERO)
*Would be able to re-add Australia (we took it out to save space)
Cons
*No longer comprehensive
*Splitting article means less collaboration as different editors are working on different pages
*Some articles may be updated more frequently than others (esp. NA vs Japan)
*May hurt FL-chances as no one list is complete
I look forward to your input on the matter. For everyone's convenience, please direct your comments here, at the List of Wii Games Talk Page. Thank you. -Digiwrld1 22:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comments: Splitting List of Wii Games by Region

message: I'd appreciate some advice on what to do regarding the Rule of Rose external link and its constant facelifts.
I'd done some work on the article.. yesterday and noticed there seemed to be a lot of activity over the fansite link. I thought it might blow itself out and carried on. Today I thought I'd try to reduce the pressure by clearing up the external links (some were unnecessary, others were actually sources for citing), so the fansite link could stay without the ELs being bloated. I left a message on the talk page and pointed to it in an edit.
Lo and behold, one response from one contributor, another anon ip has gone ahead and flipped the wording straight back. The issue seems to be the wording of the external link - someone wants it to read 'largest fansite in existence' whereas the rest of us seem to want to word it simply IE 'fansite and forum' without the needless vanity. 
The ip who did this has two spambot messages and one warning about blanking a userpage on their talk. What's frustrating is that it's not the link itself that's the problem, just the wording. The fansite gets the coverage anyway, just that someone has decided to be bloody-minded about it and flip the bird. What can I do about this? QuagmireDog 01:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would put on his talk page why the description isn't allowed with the links to WP guidelines and warn him about why it shouldn't be reverted, as well as maybe a 3RR warning if he has been reverting it a lot. Then if he still reverts, report him to WP:AIV. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 02:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Another user reported him/her and a moderator has issued a small temp. block since the ip has also been spamming at least one other survival horror game page, I'll use the 3RR template when the spammer resurfaces and start the ball rolling again. QuagmireDog 18:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rule of Rose external link - spamming type stuffs 

message: So, Gaming.wikia. I'm not exactly sure what it is (besides very undeveloped), or what purpose it serves beyond open-source noise. But hey, I thought it'd be worth mentioning. Nifboy 07:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I too completely fail to understand the purpose of this.  Is it performing some sort of Digg-like role for games?  Or what need exactly is this expected to fulfill?  Surely we don't need a duplicate of Wikipedia, or a duplicate of Gamefaqs, and there are already lots of gaming news and review sites.  -- Slordak 19:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It just looks like a Digg-style gaming site, which is ok, but I don't know why you'd want such a site to be a wiki.  Why would I want to edit someone's brief blurb pointing to some gaming-related link?  --SubSeven 05:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gaming.Wikia 

message: Hi guys, hoping you can help me with an issue. The Total Chaos games are a series of Amiga Chaos remakes. Team Chaos are the programming group behind them. The latter page makes no assertion notability for the group, and only discusses the games in the series anyway.
Yesterday I put up a proposed merger tag (Team Chaos into Total Chaos), but two new users (Amiga fans, judging by their names) are repeatedly removing the merge tags (along with some other edits) before any proper discussion has taken place.
Rather than put the merge proposal tags up yet again, I thought I would raise it here. On another note, the article itself is in a horrible state, mostly comprising of 'Rules of the game' and there's no independent references that I would call reliable. Marasmusine 09:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for assistance with [[Team Chaos]] and [[Total Chaos]] 

message: Hi everybody. Work is finishing up on Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, which has sprouted up from a list of in-universe character miniarticles to an article with full out of universe perspective. I believe this is a concept and format we should adopt for all our "Lists of..." articles while merging all but the main one or two protagonists (and maybe a couple antagonists, depending on how much out of universe information is available). Your thoughts and opinions would be appreciated. — Deckiller 16:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well; I'll contain this concept to the Final Fantasy WikiProject then. — Deckiller 16:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characters of Final Fantasy VIII 

message: An inclusion criteria for  has been proposed at Template talk:Sonic games#Proposed inclusion criteria, with an introductory preamble at Template talk:Sonic games#Shadow III: Son of Shadow.  You are cordially invited to discuss the proposal. —davidh.oz.au 00:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comments at {{tl|Sonic games}} inclusion criteria 

message: I recently changed the Box art for Final Fantasy XII (Image:Ffxiicase.jpg) to the original Japanese version since the main text on the Japanese box was in English, so I thought the original should be used.
 
It was reverted with the reasoning: "Please note that the North American cover is used in place of the original Japanese cover because this is the English language Wikipedia and readers would be more familiar with cover art released in English-speaking countries."
I believe that the original Japanese box should be used because:
*This is the original box.
*The main text on the Japanese box is in English.
*The American cover art is used ONLY in America, Europe and other regions also use the Japanese art, not the American.
*The majority of the world is not American.
Rather than get into an edit war i decided to post here to get your opinions. Mattyatty 09:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your reasoning is sound, although you may want to also mention this at the Final Fantasy Wikiproject. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, use the most common graphic available. Combination 03:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The debate has continued at the FF WikiProject here. Axem Titanium 21:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final Fantasy XII box shot 

message: Rather than getting into an edit war, I will bring it here (and maybe WP:RM). A user moved Kororinpa: Marble Mania to Kororinpa. I moved it back , but then he reverted the move. Any thoughts on where the page should be? TJ Spyke 11:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My two pen'th. Most common name, Kororinpa. Redirect from the Marble version. - X201 11:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Additional: After a quick search it looks like it's Kororinpa everywhere in the World and was only renamed for it's NA release. So that leaves us with the fact that it was released everywhere else before NA under one name and in NA last under a different name.  Speaks for itself really doesn't it? - X201 11:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's go with Kororinpa. First came out in Europe with that title. - A Link to the Past (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that the original location for the article was Kororinpa, and not Kororinpa: Marble Mania as the user above suggests. - hahnchen 17:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Kororinpa: Marble Mania]] 

message: Could someone add some additional comments here? Thanks. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review of Kirby's Dream Land 

message: The infobox on most games has space for one image (such as the one for Head Over Heels (game)). Assuming both are available, should it be taken up with
* An image of the cover art 
* A representative screen shot?
I feel that as the article is about the game itself, the screenshot (i.e. the closest thing to a representation of the game we're able to directly show as part of an article) is more important. It struck me as risible that Head Over Heels (game) had the cover art (nice though it is) in the most prominent position, and no screenshots until the end of the article, two or three screens down.
Yes, cover art can often look prettier than screenshots as the main image in an article (case in point; Star Raiders). But we're not in the business of prettifying articles at the expense of the content. Are we?
Simple question; is there a rule of thumb for this?
Fourohfour 14:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screenshots vs. Package shot 

message: With the exception of GCN, which IGN states to be a "minimum of 250,000 copies sold". Would anyone want to help find a source on this? If anyone can find both a list of all Player's Choice titles and a confirmation that a PC title is defined by selling 1 million copies, that'd be great. I've seen boxarts that say "Player's Choice Million Seller", but we need better sources. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't it be used anyway as it is a WP:SELFPUB?  The box art claims it's one million.  It is relevant, not contentiuos, not self-serving, does not involve third-party claims, and it is reasonable to say that Nintendo affixed that medal onto the box. Hbdragon88 22:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't prove, though, that it HAS to be one million to count. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 22:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think that it's not too much of an assumption to say that "Player's Choice Million Seller" means exactly that. There may not be a stated criteria to say that all PC titles are million sellers, but the logo is self-explanatory. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like I heard that the number needed to be re-released as a Player's Choice is different for each console. I'm also not sure if they mean that it's sold a million in America (for our Player's Choice games) or Worldwide. Major difference there. Personally, I'd like for a source telling me how many units need to be sold to qualify for the Japanese-only "The Best" series of budget priced re-releases for PlayStation systems.--SeizureDog 05:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Call to arms - help find a source that says that a Player's Choice title must also be a million seller 

message: Speaking of video game characters...  the actual article on video game character is of, well, questionable worth.  I've proposed a merge over at it, but it's linked to by a large number of articles thanks to being used in templates like , plus it's currently listed as "high priority," so I figured others might be interested.  SnowFire 18:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video game character article. 

message: Members of this project may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Super Monkey Ball project and portal. The Super Monkey Ball Portal seems very likely to be deleted given its extremely narrow scope. However one option for the WikiProject pages would appear to be for them to become a subproject or taskforce of another larger project, such as this one. Would you mind considering this possibility and commenting upon it. Thanks, WjBscribe 22:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Related MfD

message: As some of you may know, there's been some discussion regarding the number of WikiProject banners on article talk pages. There are three projects underway that attempt to "reduce the clutter". The first, of course, is the "small" option - see Small option for more info. The second is , which hides all the banners in a one-line box. As has been discussed on that template's talk page, this option has the disadvantage of hiding all WikiProject banners, which defeats one of the purposes - to recruit new members. The third option is , which addresses that issue by reducing each banner to one line (with the option to view the full banner).
Now the reason I'm bringing this up is because adopting this third option requires a small alteration of a WikiProject's banner - to add the "nested=yes" parameter. I'd like to determine consensus within this project around the change and see if we can move forward with it. I've put together a sample of your banner with the new option coded in (code). As you can see, there would be no change to the banner if the "nested" parameter isn't there. If it *is* there, the banner would be part of the "within the scope of the following projects..." box.
Several projects have already implemented this option, including WP:MILHIST, WP:LGBT, WP:ALBUM, WP:AVIATION, WP:India, WP:FRANCE, and WP:CCM.
Thoughts? Concerns? Would going ahead with the alteration be okay? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd still rather see small options (for 2 to 3 WikiProjects) and Project mergers and task forcing, but I have no major objections to this. A better option than WikiProjectBanners. -- Ned Scott 04:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small alteration to your project banner 

message: Hello.  A few others and I have been working on nailing down an inclusion criteria for  and its other compatriots. A Link to the Past helpfully pointed out one glaring oversight, and I have drawn up another inclusion criteria that addresses his concerns.   However, it would be nice if as many editors as possible participated in this discussion because I think my proposal of applying any sort of inclusion criteria on templates might be charting interesting new territory in the navigational template saga.  You are cordially invited to discuss the proposal.  Thank you. —davidh.oz.au 10:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for more comments at [[Template talk:Sonic games#Totally new inclusion criteria]] 

message: Wtf? Am I the only one seeing mass unreferenced game guide cruft? What do the masses think?--Clyde (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. RTSes tend to accrue that kind of junk. All I can suggest is that you go ahead and remove redlinks and merge and redirect. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Rise of Nations: Rise of Legends already has way too much game guide info in it. Adding more game guide info doesn't really make me happy. Is there such thing as a mass AFD?--Clyde (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest redirecting anything not worth merging. The AFD is just going to tell you to take a bunch of bad articles and make a bad list article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I'm worried that there is some editor or some group of editors that put a lot of work into these and will get seriously mad if I just redirect all their work. Perhaps there is some way of putting up a notice so the editors can know about this. Perhaps they could even discuss or help with it. However I'll start by removing red links.--Clyde (talk) 01:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest pointing them to WP:WAF and WP:FICT, as a start. Sometimes all you can really do is just dive in, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well I redirected the places, but I left the characters. I'll try to compile them into a list later.--Clyde (talk) 02:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well you look to be an anti-cruft Lieutenant, so do you have any ideas to decruft this without anons and new user's going balisitc if this goes to AFD?--Clyde (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The key is to use only use AFD as a last resort. Plus, merges must always be followed by redirects, not deletes. People hate it when their information is removed entirely, so the key is to use two resources: other wikis and redirects. The information should be moved to the appropriate Wiki, and then the information should be consolidated, with redirects to preserve edit history per the GFDL and simple courtesy. An article about the vehicles of starcraft and the characters of star craft are good; eventually, these two articles (and more if needed) need to attain an out of universe perspective. — Deckiller 00:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay AFD=Bad. I don't know enough to make this out of universe, but I think a good starting point might be consolidation and redirecting. So maybe characters should be list of characters, but what about the others? Factions, species, locations? And what about the Universe part? Gameplay of StarCraft seems to just be in-universe unreferenced game guide material.--Clyde (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For characters, the best advice I can give you is to follow the concept of Characters of Final Fantasy VIII. For FF8, only the two main protagonists have articles, and the rest are in that article. When possible, the article talks not just about the plot, but how those characters were developed, received, and merchandised. A general article, like "World of StarCraft" is good, but I don't know much about StarCraft. I'll have to take a closer look. — Deckiller 00:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: For factions, all those faction and organization articles should be merged into their respective race. So the Protoss council thing would go into the Protoss article. — Deckiller 00:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems 

message: Could someone take a look at the history of Rise of the Kasai? I think there was an article there before it's speedy deletion (might have been vandalized first). Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Rise of the Kasai'' 

message: Please comment on the debate which is taking place on Category talk:Formerly Japan exclusive video games. Kariteh 15:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Delete.  As noted, any Japanese game which is released in Japan and then later released in the US is a "formerly Japan-exclusive" title.  Hence, there's really no point in having such a list. -- Slordak 16:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Formerly Japan exclusive video games]] 

message: Can someone tell me why we have templates such as Template:Wii-screenshot, Template:C64-game-screenshot and all the other system-screenshot templates in :Category:Video game media templates?  It would be a lot simpler if we used a system such as Template:Game-cover, in which the editor specifies which category it falls in.  I really am not a fan of all these different templates and different images, they should all be standardised to the WP:VG game controller to make recognition of category easier.
If others here agree with me, we could set the ball rolling for more heavy botwork to sort this out.  What do you think? - hahnchen 18:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A Load of Useless Templates

message: I was bold and moved the tycoon games project to a task force of our project in an attempt to revive it. I hope I changed what was needed, please help if I didn't. Greeves (talk • contribs) 21:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That project is long defunct.  Might as well kill it off. - hahnchen 22:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Tycoon Games 

message: I've invited JackSparrow Ninja to assert the web site's reliability (the site being ). After he's done so, would anyone care to comment? - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Notability doesn't enter into it, unless it has an article. Reliability is typically the issue, when using a website as a source. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: User:JackSparrow Ninja. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I've seen JackSparrow commenting on and linking to User:JackSparrow Ninja/Source reliability like it was some kind of semi-official body or guideline, when most of it is either slander or half-truths.  He's not listed any of TSA's positives for The Hylia, nor has he bothered listing negatives for Land of Legend.  To be quite frank, they're both just fansites and I wouldn't mind them all purged.  On the other hand, I'm not too bothered if we leave the references in, although I'd take a reference to Official Nintendo Magazine and IGN over Land of Legend any day. - hahnchen 19:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Land of the Legend discussion 

message: Please view Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Assessment#Requests for A-Class status for the first nomination. Hopefully many more will follow! — Deckiller 16:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First A-Class request up 

message: Please add your opinion to the discussion currently taking place on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Final Fantasy#Banning spoiler warnings completely. Kariteh 22:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as a clarification: spoiler warnings are handled on a case by case basis. In the case of the Final Fantasy WikiProject, the decision is with those editors who work on the Final Fantasy project. The project does not badger other projects around about this issue (unless it's an unassociated article without a wikiproject and most of the editors are against the tags), so it should not be vice versa. — Deckiller 22:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banning spoiler warnings on the Final Fantasy Wikiproject 

message: I have been going through and renaming articles with (game), (computer game), (arcade game), and others to be (video game) in an effort to obtain consistancy of titles like (film) has become. My logic is as follows:
*(game) is too vague. It should be used for articles like Tag (game).
*All arcade games are video games, but the ports that arcade games get are not covered by the former; (video game) covers everything. Same logic applies to (computer game).
*(video game) and (computer game) can be treated as synonyms, in which case (video game) is better as it is shorter.
Multiple video games with the same name are a case call:
*If released for only one console, use it (e.g. E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (Atari 2600)) (Note: People are seeming to not realize there are multiple games named E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, such as one for the GBA.)
*If multiple releases we made, or if both titles were for the same system (probably PC), then use (YEAR video game) (e.g. Air (1977 video game)
*Other formats may also be used per discussion at the articles themselves. (e.g. Aliens: The Computer Game (Software Studios), Air (visual novel))
I've tried to bring up discussion on the subject before, but there didn't seem to be much opposition, just people wanting a standard. Anyone else who wants to help is free to.--SeizureDog 09:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree. Marasmusine 10:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand the logic for E.T., if it's the only E.T. video game why it can't use (video game)? I would understand it if there was another E.T. game released in 1982 for a different platform. --Mika1h 12:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If released for only one console, use it (e.g. E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (Atari 2600)).  Under that logic then, not all (arcade game) titles should be moved to (video game) then, since not all were ported to other platforms.  Just to make that clear.  Likewise All arcade games are video games is not a true statement.  We just got done discussing this  here and correcting that Video_game_console here.  Only games that generate an actual video signal (i.e. raster display) qualify under the actual definition.  Vector games would not qualify, unless "video game" is being used under the broadest (and incorrect) generic terms.  --Marty Goldberg 13:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly what I said in the first place. :| Except you say to drop the "video game" when using the year. --SeizureDog 04:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think everything sounds great standards related.  I just completely disagree with the splitting hairs part on definition of video - its not splitting hairs.  This is an encyclopedia, and correct terminology has to be used.  The matter of what a "video" game is by definition was already decided in the courts and a matter of fact.  (I'm not aware of any any previous court cases or patents being defended with regards to film vs. video as a term).  As I've said previously, I realize its gone on to be used (incorrectly) in the generic sense for almost any electronic game.  Common useage does not equal correctness (i.e. just because people commonly refer to vector monitor games as "video" games does not mean its correct), however popular vernacular must still be covered here as well.  As such, most definition entries include both.  --Marty Goldberg 14:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Common usage tends to define correctness. Court decisions tend to resolve issues of patent or trademark, not issues of terminology. That said, I'm not saying it's a good idea to refer to individual vector games in particular as video games, but, like the "computer and video games" silliness from before, it isn't a mistake to include vector games when referring to video games collectively. I don't want to go back to the CVG madness with "video and vector games." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Please do NOT disambiguate by system such as E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (Atari 2600), I'd much prefer (video game) or (computer game) instead.  It makes it a lot easier for the layman to get to, as they might not know on which system the game was released on.  Other than that, I don't see it as a big deal, I usually use (computer game) and if 2 games have the same name, than I disambiguate by year. - hahnchen 18:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you objecting to my system, or Mika1h's? I was simply trying to reflect and codify existing practice. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was objecting to seizureDog up top.  I understand what you were trying to do, I follow the disambiguate two games of the same name by year rule. - hahnchen 19:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said, E.T. would use (video game) but there are another games with the same title (but nobody's bother to make articles for them yet). And people certainly remember which system a game came out for more far easily than they do the year. --SeizureDog 04:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with A Man in Black's initial proposal. Problem is.. I see a computer game more for a computer, and video game for console (PS, PS2, Xbox, etc.). Calling, say, The Sims a video game, just doesn't equate for me, really. Disinclination 23:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Project consensus is strongly against making a distinction between computer and video games, AFAICT. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Project consensus is that the top level is video games, which can be subdivided into computer games, console games, arcade games and such, and then subdivided from there by system (Windows, Dos, PS2, etc.)  Ergo, calling something "Game Name (computer game)" is like naming it "Game Name(console game)", so we'd rather either call it video game or go all the way down to individual system (if necessary). --PresN 15:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PresN said it better than I did. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  (video game) naming consistancy 

message: I ask once more, can somebody involved in video gaming look over every single article on Soulcalibur characters and do something about the  tags there? Thank you. >Radiant< 17:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not an SC fan, but I finally located an article that had one of those tags on them.  Kill them.  A "Character analysis" section without a single citation is a textbook violation of WP:ATT. Hbdragon88 03:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Character analyses have been removed. That entire section of Wikipedia needs a lot of work. — Deckiller 01:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soulcalibur 

message: I think it should come back. Reason? Some people say that being of no importance in cvg means that it shouldn't have an article. However! Not all articles that are of no importance to the cvg spectrum only fall under cvg. And just by being associated with cvg does not mean it's of importance to it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think low covers it well enough (it's not as if there's a huge diff between low and no), and changing it to "low-priority" removes that impression that we shouldn't have an article on it. Hbdragon88 03:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If it's of no importance to the VG project, then why would it be in it in the first place? I request an example to back your logic.--SeizureDog 05:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with SeizureDog. If something is not important to this project, it should not be tagged as being in the project at all. --- RockMFR 05:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But just because it's not important does not mean it doesn't fall under the category of video games. Anyway, this discussion is irrelevant, since it's not even no importance anymore, but no priority. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Essentially, yeah. WP:1.0 will (eventually) be generating automated lists based on project assessments, and a no-importance assessment doesn't really fit there. Nifboy 13:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People, we're not even discussing importance - it's been relabelled as priority. An article can be on Wiki and be no priority to the VGproj, and yet in the spectrum of the VGproj. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No importance category 

message: Shouldn't the Dedicated video game consoles template be added to the video game history pages? I believe that it used to be on the now-defunct comparison pages. Bevinsky 11:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Dedicated video game consoles 

message: The VG PR has a problem. We have several games that are up for regular Peer review, but they did not show up in the bottom section of the VG peer review. Also, the Serious Sam II PR was archived, yet it still shows up on the VG PR page. What is with the breakdown and how can it be fixed?--Clyde (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The answer is blindingly easy- the articles don't show up there automatically.  Never have.  The way to fix it is to place/remove them from the page as they are placed/removed from the PR page.  Also, update the VG gamebox. --PresN 22:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow I am stupid. I should check my brain to see if it is still there....--Clyde (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review|VG PR]]