Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 76

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 70

←

Archive 74

→

Modification of "Video games notable for negative reception"'s inclusion criteria

Talk:List of video games notable for negative reception - The list has grown unruly due to the inclusion of video games based on low reviews only, forgetting the spirit of what games are actually "notable" for their negative reception. We could use some further input on this. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

That list is just a shit article, nothing can be done to save it. Originally, the article was at List of video games considered the worst ever which had a clear criteria for inclusion, it moved to this wishy-washy "notable for negative reception", and has been in a hole ever since. This 2007 AFD shows reasoning for moving the article back to worst ever. Here are my comments from 2007 regarding why the list is unmaintainable - Talk:Video_games_notable_for_negative_reception/Archive_2#The_renaming_has_gone_all_horrible.

The reason why the article was moved from "worst ever", is that there are always users wanting to put in their own pet hates. If you see my 2007 comments, you'll see that I had to argue for the removal of Devil May Cry 2 and Fable (video game). Look at it now, it includes Game Party, the seventh worst reviewed Wii game on Metacritic! Wow! - hahnch e n 14:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree in spirit (if not intensity) with Hahnchen. The problem is deciding what makes something notable in that context. "Worst ever" is a clear benchmark that can be consistently applied. As it stands the list is a bunch of cherrypicked and subjective quote mixes from reviews. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

In my removal of a bunch of games, Game Party was kept because from my experience, it's one of the games blamed for the casual games flood. It's not the worst game ever, but it is SO a game with a ton of negative reception, more so than most games on the list. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 17:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

David, that's not a problem really. As I mentioned in the discussion there, games in the list should have references demonstrating notoriety in the industry for being a bad game. Ala E.T. for example. This precludes simply having bad reviews. "Worst ever" is much more subjective and denotes some sort of possible ranking for "worst ever". The current article title is good as it is, it just needs to be followed. I.E. games *notable* for negative reception, not games that recieved negative reception. That's the very reason I called attention to this over there in the first place. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

If you think "worst ever" is more subjective, you're doing it wrong. Allow only games which have been described by reliable sources as the worst game of all time. I've looked further through the talk page archives, and here are some other discussions - New Format, Call for Consensus, and Requested Move. I think the failed Requested Move was when I decided to abandon any hope of salvaging the article, having a short clearly defined list clearly offended many of the editors (with some suggesting that the short list aught to be deleted), and the talk page quickly descends into whether or not The Golden Compass is bad enough. - hahnch e n 18:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Because we'd need to find an arbitrary criteria for what "enough" examples of people calling it the worst ever. If we enforce a criteria where editors have to establish that a game is notable for its negative reception, it'll be fine. With Game Party, you seem to think that the massive negative reception it raked in due to its nature and the stigma it carries as one of the first of its kind, the "casual game that is ruining the industry". Only the Imagine games, Petz games, and Wii Sports/Play/Fit/Music have even remotely similar reception. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hahnchen, that's not much of an argument and I can easily pose the same thing back to you - if you think it isn't more subjective, you're doing it wrong. "Worst ever" is much more subjective - both in wording and context - than "notably bad reception". And your criteria is no different then the critera we're already stated, i.e. "Allow only games which have been described by reliable sources as notably bad reception in the industry", sans "worst". You've actually presented support *for* what we're talking about, not against it. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

If a reliable source describes a game as "worst ever", then it should go in. There should be no discussion needed, I don't see how you've managed to cram in subjectivity on our behalf. On the other hand, you have absolutely no criteria for what is deemed "notably bad", and how that is different to "bad". The whole conversation here has been triggered by people having no idea what the list is about because it is so badly defined. If you seriously believe that this is an argument for what you are pushing, you have clearly misunderstood it. - hahnch e n 22:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I love how your criteria is the exact opposite of the recipe for a 200kb article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Or you've clearly missunderstood. You're not saying anything different than is being said by us, same exact thing, same exact critera sans "worst". And you can throw assumptions about people all you like - I'm *telling you* how the conversation started and why, and what the purpose is. Simply responding back with statements equivalent to "Well if you think this way you're a doo-doo-head" and regurgitating the same critera we stated as well, doesn't really lend much credence. References of "worst games ever" are usually lists of games by an author based on their opinion - the very definition of subjectivity. That's easily seen as well by the fact they games on the lists vary per author. Games that recieved universal notability in the industry for being piss poor, i.e. a rep - is not subjective. There is a common ground however, as some "worst games" authors try and augment their material with industry related reception material such as this. So nobody is stating you can't use worst games articles as references in the current scheme - which is the very reason we're trying to spell it out for people. However, there's a *reason* why the article gained notoriety when it was called "Worst games ever", and why the second afd (in contrast to the first one you pointed to) set the renaming to this. You can strongly disagree with the reasoniong, and tell people they "just don't get it" because they don't agree with you, but that doesn't make it fact, nor does it make it a more authoritative position. We're looking for common ground and substance here not "You have a differen't opinoin, so you don't get it." --Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you joking? Yes, of course the list is going to be comprised of references to subjective pieces, that was never the issue, and given a list of this nature, was blatantly obvious. What makes the "worst ever" criteria workable, is that our editorial standards are clearly defined, and objective - did a reliable source decry the game as worst ever? This is in great contrast to your undefined "reputation" argument, you have not clarified the difference between "notably bad" and "bad", the whole discussion here is because there are no defined standards for that list. On the talk page, you have editors arguing for the inclusion of Wii Music and Wind Waker. This is no different to the dire straits the article was in in 2007, my 2007 comments are as relevant now as they were then.

You link to a ephemeral Kotaku link from 2006 to cite the list's notoriety. Not only is that trivial, but it's also from a time when the list was entirely unsourced, and editorial standards were not applied. Was Dangerous Vaults described as the worst ever game by any reliable source? The second AFD said nothing new, the article's naming wasn't discussed at all. The participants seemed to believe that there was some clearly defined criteria for the list. The existence of the discussion proves otherwise. - hahnch e n 17:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Not joking any more than you seem to be with the humorous pseudo analysis satements. You've just admitted the lists are subective and then make *the same criteria statemens we proposed* while stating "undefined reputation". Once again, simply having a statement at a reliable source stating the game is terrible is not enough to make it "notable" for being terrible. It must include why it's viewed widely as being notable for being terrible, which has been said over and over again in contrast to your ridiculous "you have not clarified the difference" statement. Games get bad reviews every day, references must demonstrate why this game is notable for it's bad review - per the article title. And on the contrary, the Kotaku article shows public coverage and opinion on the need to define notability. As does the second AFD, where you incorrectly state "nothing new" when the entire AFD is full of affirmations on the need for demonstrating notability for being bad including a statement in relation to the title with regards to a keep vote and another suggestion for changing to "noted" (which isn't a bad idea). While you may be under the assumption the participants were missguided in their belief, others do not. Once again, coming from the assumption that those who do not agree with you "are mistaken" or "missunderstanding" does little to enhance a position. Likewise that's flawed logic that because the AFD exists it shows it's undefined - all it shows is a single person (the proposer) didn't understand it, while the unanimous AFD vote of "keep" felt it was defined at the time. Once again, becuase you don't agree with their logic does not make your position have any more weight - which seems to be a common problem with your viewpoint here. We have editorial standards, not "objective standards" - that's what consensus is for. Once again, we're trying to gain a common ground and establish a consensus agreeable to as many people on the project as possible. Either you want to find common ground and actually read and understand said common ground, or you want to keep going around in circles making statements about what you think people are thinking and saying. I'm more interested in the first rather than the latter. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

"You've just admitted the lists are subjective" - you cite that argument like it's an admittance of failure. It's just that at no point did I ever suggest that opinion pieces, the reliable sources an article is based on, were objective. I have no idea why you chose to argue such a ridiculous angle. Opinion pieces are by definition subjective, what was the last objective review your read?

I've been very clear on this since the beginning. You can not define the difference between "notably bad" and "bad". Whereas you can clearly define games that have been considered worst. The AFD you point to does not consider the alternative as suggested here, the participants do not discuss whether or not there is a defined criteria for inclusion, but then - AFD isn't exactly the right forum for discussion. And your Kotaku crutch shows nothing but that one of the editors thought the article was worth 5 minutes of your time, that its unsourced ventings on Dangerous Vaults were pretty funny. At any point here, does anyone suggest we revert back to that?

In the end, it boils down to the fact that you don't have editorial standards. If you're still trying to define your standards years later, it probably isn't the right way to go. - hahnch e n 21:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Page could stand a move just to get away from the utterly loaded term, "notable". Compare List of films considered the worst. Nifboy (talk) 23:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Y'know, that's exactly what I proposed - using various categories of bad video games. Though, I guess it still focuses on bad films rather than video games notable for negative reception. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

"Worst ever" is a moving target. As new games come out, someone rates a new game as the "worst ever" and therefore the target is constantly moving if we use that specific term. Indeed, if you really get down to it, there could only be 1 "worst ever" game by what the context of "ever" means.

This is not an endorsement of the current name or list contents as the list appears to be cherry-picked names. FE: Several items list "10 worst games" and yet not all 10 are on the list.陣内 _Jinnai 01:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, those were my problems with "worst ever" as mentioned above. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 05:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

No, there can be more than one "worst ever" game. We can accept a plurality of opinion. When games progress, they usually get better - so "worst ever" is fairly static. Regardless, a clear objective criteria such as "worst ever" would cut the list down, and allow for every entry to be clearly sourced. Compare this with editors arguing over how a game is "notably bad" versus "bad". - hahnch e n 17:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It escapes me as to how the phrase "worst game ever", which is used so flagrantly by reliable sources alike, will reduce it better than objective discussion. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 17:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not used flagrantly at all, not by anything approaching a reliable source anyway. Whereas currently, people are arguing for the inclusion of Wind Waker, which would pretty much justify the inclusion of any game, ever. - hahnch e n 21:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure such a list, under any name, could be created without cherry-picking entries or, essentially, crafting arbitrary criteria such that the result is the same. If nothing else, we have to separate Comic Book Guy-esque hyperbole from, I guess, "genuine" loathing, and most publications tend not to dwell on bad games very long. Nifboy (talk) 08:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Hanchen. The problem with the current format is that the subjectivity must be dealt with by Wikipedia editors i.e. Wikipedia editors determine whether or not a game is "notable" for a negative reception. For this reason the article is essentially original research. The only way for it to be in keeping with the policy of "notability" is to include any game with more than one negative review, which is obviously ludicrous. bridies (talk) 10:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

At what point does "having a negative review" turn into "being notable"? That's absolutely not the point held by anyone supporting the current name, and if anything, closer to the side supporting the name change. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 16:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Not entirely sure if this is directed at my comment but per Wikipedia guidelines "notability" rests on coverage in multiple secondary sources. So if "notable for negative reception" means anything at all, it must be multiple (i.e. 2 or more) sources demonstrating negative reception, negative reviews being an obvious example. bridies (talk) 10:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Nifboy pointed out "List of films considered the worst" as an example. As has previously been argued, a list's title should clearly define what is included therein. "List of songs in Rock Band" will naturally include all on-disc Rock Band songs; "List of Nintendo 64 games" will include all games released for the Nintendo 64.

"Video games notable for negative reception" is not so clearly defined. The title suggests, firstly, that the games listed are only notable for their negative reception; this is simply the result of poor wording. More critically, the title is wholly up to interpretation, which leads to unnecessary amounts of Talk page deliberation. "Notable" is a word constantly in flux throughout Wikipedia, even within policy articles. And "negative reception"? Does that mean "below 60 percent" on GameRankings or Metacritic? Does it means "below 40 percent"? Does it mean that one or more sources gave it their lowest possible score, even though another might have awarded it Game of the Year?

Consider how the title "List of films considered the worst" defines the article. It states that subject must be considered the worst, and since this is Wikipedia, it must be so considered by reliable sources. Therefore, a subject can only be included if a large number of reliable sources consider it the "worst". Films considered the worst is a fairly lean list, and it backs up its claims with over 100 reliable references, which suggests that the approach is working. Why not steal their idea for our article, and move "List of video games notable for negative reception" to "List of video games considered the worst"? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I would also support such a move. bridies (talk) 10:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, I would support such a move. I don't have the time to drive it forward right now, but I would back any attempts to do so. - hahnch e n 21:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no, that title isn't any better, and if you look on the talk page, you'll see there's consensus to do the exact opposite and move the film article instead. "Considered the worst" is inherently biased and unencyclopedic.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Meh. I say delete the whole list. Any attempt by us Wikipedians to set a standard for "notable for negative commentary" (should be notorious btw) or "condiered (among) the worst" could easily be slapped with no original research violations and neutral point of view violations.陣内 _Jinnai 23:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

"The problem is deciding what makes something notable in that context. "Worst ever" is a clear benchmark that can be consistently applied. As it stands the list is a bunch of cherrypicked and subjective quote mixes from reviews." I think the reasoning behind the earlier name change was that "Worst ever" resulted in an even more cherry-picked and subjective list. SharkD (talk) 01:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Media listing in infobox/digital distribution listings

Note: Reposted from Portal talk:Video games to get more responses. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC))

Are there guidelines for media listings in infoboxes? Most games have CD/DVD/Bluray, and that's fine, but when people put "Steam" as a media, it doesn't work (especially when a game is available from multiple services), and some articles have "Download" while I would think "Digital Distribution" might work better. Maybe some guidelines when dealing with digital distribution of titles under the media section, as well as when adding comments about digital distribution to games. Do games need a comment saying "released on Steam" or the like? Should DD release dates be listed in the infobox? (GTA 4 Lost and Damned has this, but there was a significant delay between DD and boxed). Lonyo (talk) 19:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I also have a problem with the likes of Steam being mentioned as a media format, "Download" would make a lot more sense to casual readers who do not know what Steam is. If it is important that the game was available from Steam, e.g. if it was exclusive to the service, then this can be mentioned in the article, provided it is cited properly. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Steam isn't appropriate. That's like instead of saying DVD-DL for Xenosaga I you say Playsation 2 disc. Steam is a program. Specifically Digital Distribution. This is not quite the same as downloading. FE, I can download content from my external HD to my CD without ever connecting to the internet. Therefore until we get something better, ie Digital Distribution software to distinguish Steam from a direct link.陣内 _Jinnai 23:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a little easier to simply write "Steam" instead of "Download (Steam)", "Download (GamersGate)", "Download (GOG)", etc. Though I agree it's not as logical. SharkD (talk) 01:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Requirements dispute

I'd like a third-party view on the requirements field over at Half-Life: Opposing Force. I've got a new guy changing the system requirements to some lower ones (not to mention putting them in such a way to make the infobox look a lot less healthy and organised), claiming that the minimum system requirements given by the developers on the game's page on Steam are innaccurate. He instead cites Planet Half-Life, a fansite that's loosely associated with GameSpy. I would go with what the developers say on an official site to what is said on any fansite, regardless of its affiliation with a usually reliable source, but this guy begs to differ. He's also done the same with Half-Life (video game), changing the requirements to something different than given by the developers, though I've not reverted over there. We're both at the limits of WP:3RR on OpFor here, further reverts by either of us on that particular article aren't advisable. -- Sabre (talk) 22:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Quickly looking at the situation, I'm pretty sure I would go with the developer's stated requirements over any others. --Torsodog^Talk 22:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict): I'll add my three reverts to your side if needed (just used up one). As you say, Valve or the back of the box are the most reliable. Especially since, as PC Gamer UK, pointed out, the minimum requirements of most games are wrong anyway, so lowering them is highly suspicious to me anyway. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 22:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Those Steam requirements are different to my box copies from 1999. Common sense should be used when using reliable sources, Windows 2000 or XP wasn't even released when Half-Life and Opposing Forces came out. --Mika1h (talk) 23:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe not, but they'd get updated to show that they still work with modern operating systems. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 23:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, the 2000/XP stuff is the stuff being reverted by us. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 23:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Mika1h, what are the requirements on the back of the box you have? I looked up a few versions of the OpFor box online, but none of them had requirements on the back. -- Sabre (talk) 12:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

From the top: Half-Life (Game of the Year edition), Opposing Force, Blue Shift: [1]

Stick with those or Steam. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 17:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd say that the Steam ones are still the better ones to go for, especially since Steam is the primary means of distribution for Valve games now. Since they're lower, the core system requirements on the box aren't appropriate for the Steam version, but a computer with the core requirements as listed on Steam would run both versions. -- Sabre (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

After thinking about it, I second Sabre. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 18:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

He's still at it, stubbornly reverting away. As I'm an involved party its not appropriate for me to use admin powers here to protect the page or what-not but this really is going too far. -- Sabre (talk) 12:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I've linked him here in case he really hasn't noticed, but I don't expect anything to come of it. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 13:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The system Requirements are the same as Half-life!!why are you putting up STEAM Requirements? alot of people don't use STEAM to play this game Half-Life: Opposing Force it an OLD game it's 10 years old now!, it's now so old that you don't need STEAM to run it. and by the way steam don't run on Windows 95/98 and this game Half-Life: Opposing Force was made/designed for Windows 95/98. 1:45pm EST ,2 November 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loserjay10 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

(sighs) Now I'm regretting linking him here. I think it's obvious he's not going to listen to reason. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 18:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Well wait, he makes an interesting point. If the requirements on steam are the requirements needed to run the game PLUS steam, then I think an argument can be made for the other lesser requirements before steam was released. --Torsodog^Talk 19:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought Steam was internet based and so ran with any computer (I've never used it). --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 19:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we should go with the Steam requiriments. However, we should look into what Torsodog said.--Ace Oliveira (talk) 19:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I did a little digging, and the steam requirements seem inflated compared to other sources such as GameSpot and AllGame. I think we should use the requirements as stated in these reliable sources instead of the steam ones. --Torsodog^Talk 20:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact that those two sources differ from each other doesn't exactly help our situation, the Allgame ones are lower than the ones given by GameSpot. While both sources are usually reliable, they can't both be right. That's why I went for the Steam ones: they're as given directly from the developer, without going through third-parties. -- Sabre (talk) 20:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Then how about straight off the box? A box shot at MobyGames also shows lower requirements. The requirements according to steam now are undoubtedly higher than they were when the game was originally released in 1999. For whatever reason, I don't know why. Personally, I think we should go with the requirements as they were when the game was first released. --Torsodog^Talk 20:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I say Steam or back of box. Not sure which. Was there a patch that increased minimum systems requirements (doubtful)? --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 20:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi guy's it's Loserjay10 again ( just to let you know I'm new here I've just joined on oct 31st), why do we have to go thought all these discussions about just editing the system requirements? why is it so hard to contribute to the Wikipedia society? i should just quit helping/expanding Wikipedia because is it's so extremely difficult to put the correct information in! because i put in the time consuming work of imputing the correct information and then people just undo your work. OK look at the half-life (video game) system requirements they are correct! and the Half-Life: Opposing Force system requirements are the same, both games have the same engine GoldSrc and system requirements are the same Half-Life: Opposing Force is just a expansion pack!. The same goes for Half-Life: Blue Shift as it's just another expansion pack. goosh what a headache this is.

First of all, for the love of god, don't put everything in bold again. Secondly, sign your posts. Thirdly, it's because it violated policy (or something), so we needed to discuss it. Don't be discouraged, just read our debate and throw in your own opinions. Everyone is allowed to. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 21:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

i prefer it to be in bold because I'm the main reason there is this Requirements dispute, please don't change my bold text, i want it to be in bold.

All it's doing is annoying me and don't delete SineBot's signature, for crying out loud. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 22:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

This dispute is mostly my fault; I really should have brought it to discussion much earlier, my failure to do so there created something of an edit war. The issue isn't that its violated policy, as Thejadefalcon suggested, rather that there's a problem with different sources saying different things regarding the same issue, and a disagreement over which one should be presented in the article. You say that you'd put in "time consuming work" finding out this stuff, I can sympathise with that—we were all new once. Though likewise, look at it from my view: I'm the one responsible for researching and writing the current version of the OpFor (and other HL1 expansions) article, and when an unexpected and unexplained change comes to something in that article, a change that appears contray to what the sources I've been using to write the article have said, I should question it. It might initially seem like a headache, but this is how Wikipedia deals with content disputes: we open up a forum for it, bring in outside uninvolved people and form a consensus through discussion. I'm going to have to agree with Thejadefalcon on the bold thing, it is somewhat off-putting and just not "done" with talk page messages. But please, don't be discouraged; I'm rather hating the idea of being the evil Wikipedia admin who scared off inexperienced new users only trying to help (had similar experiences when I was new). We certainly hit it off on the wrong foot, but lets try and resolve this peaceably: in any case, constant reversions on the article aren't good for business.-- Sabre (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, hadn't meant policy, but what you said. Anyway, Wikipedia always starts assuming good faith, but every now and then, some things will be disputed like this. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 23:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we can use the back of the box as a source. I think images are considered original research. Anyway, please Loserjay, use better grammar.--Ace Oliveira (talk) 23:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we can. Images of the back of the box are hardly OR. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 23:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I re-read the article and yeah, images are not original research. I say we use the back of the box as a source then.--Ace Oliveira (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem (though you did seem to be getting confused as to whether or not to post your original comment). --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 23:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok guys what did you guys decided on?, i'm still saying that using the system requirements from back of the box is the most accurate/correct way of doing this.Loserjay10 (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression you were using fansites? And we've decided Steam or back of box. I think Steam is better though. As Sabre said, they're given directly from the developer. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 18:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Back of the Box is my vote.--Ace Oliveira (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I also vote back of box. Who knows how often these new "requirements" per steam will change in the future. --Torsodog^Talk 21:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Back of the box. SharkD (talk) 04:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I vote back of the Box also, so the decision/vote is unanimous( I'm putting the back of the box system requirements), thank you everyone for taking the time and giving your opinion.Loserjay10 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC).

MobyGames paid Wikipedia?

Why is mobygames so special it's allowed to be on so many game articles?

WP:VG/EL says MobyGames can be added but 1up, GameSpot, IGN, GameSpy can't. Can somebody explain to me what is so special about it?--Lorson (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I raised this same query here. Does this help? --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 23:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Moby Games's purpose is to catalog games in a neutral manner in the same way IMDB indexes movies; the other sites lists are companies that provide editorial content on games, meaning that they are not neutral. Furthermore, there are many sites like IGN, etc. that if we were to allow them like ELs, we'd effectively have to include the vast body of other gaming websites that we consider reliable. This just unnecessarily expands the body of links there. --MASEM (t) 23:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

But we don't use IMDB on every movie page (or as far as I can see, anyway). So what's the difference between a page that needs it and a page that doesn't? --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 23:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

MobyGames has their own user reviews, that's not neutral. And gamefaqs doesn't have editorials on any specific games. So why is it special?--Lorson (talk) 23:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

GameFAQs, I think is not generally allowed because... I forgot. Sorry. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 23:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless you can come up with a reason, I propose to continue adding gamefaqs external links to every page that has moby links on them. Otherwise all mobygame links should be removed. But I won't start doing either until everyone is happy.--Lorson (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

~~For a redlinked user, you're surprisingly awesome. :P~~ I know there's a reason for GameFAQs, but I'm getting sleepy, so I can't remember what I was told, sorry. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 23:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

check page history to find out--Lorson (talk) 23:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed loads of times already, check the archives. JACO PLANE • 2009-11-1 00:08

Per Wikipedia:External links, "some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy."

In short, the link should provide extra content beyond what a normal Wikipedia article provides. Mobygames typically provide staff credits and extra screenshots. However, this is not a free pass for all Mobygames pages. If the page does not provide anything extra, then there's no reason to include the link.

For example, Q*bert does not have a Mobygames link because the all the screenshots are basically the same and most of the staff is mentioned in the bulk of the article. Maniac Mansion: Day of the Tentacle on the other hand does include a Moby link. But the page offers a full listing of the game credits and many screenshots. All which are absent from the Wikipedia article. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 00:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC))

Why would credits be copyrighted? --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 00:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

They're not, but usually for most modern games, the credits are 100-peoeple strong. You don't add credit in the game in this case, only the key people, and can let Moby take care of the rest. --MASEM (t) 00:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. Sorry, got confused. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 00:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Echo what Guyinblack25 said. Not all MobyGames articles merit links from our articles, just ones with more information than our article includes. Credits aren't copyrighted, but we don't include very many screenshots for most games. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 00:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Credits and screenshots from mobygames and other games sites should be copied to the Wikipedia article (you can't copyright them) and cited when other better sources can't be used, which makes having these types of external links completely redundant. And I have read the archives which shows owners of the site have spammed Wikipedia a lot, and people are still doing it. So we can either have the site be spammed endlessly with no limit, or ban it from the external links section, a long with all other links of this nature.--Lorson (talk) 00:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

alexa.com says that 20% of their traffic is from wikipedia, and 19% from google. This is proof they have done an absolutely amazing job spamming Wikipedia.--Lorson (talk) 00:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I've never even heard of Alexa, let alone seen a link on Wikipedia to it. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 01:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm still of the opinion that MobyGames rarely has enough content to justify linking to it. Nifboy (talk) 01:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

@ Thejadefalcon: Alexa Internet. He is saying that according to Alexa, 20% of mobygames' traffic... Also, I've always wondered why so many articles link to mobygames. I don't really see the need, and I don't have links to it in the two FA video game articles I have authored. --Torsodog^Talk 02:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't use them either. But I can see the argument for using. I do admit that they are overused on Wikipedia though, and the half our articles probably don't need them.

Lorson- Unfortunately, WP:NFCC limits the number of screenshots we can use in a single article. Because most games are copyrighted, their screenshots are copyrighted also. This makes them "non-free media", which requires a "fair use rationale" to be used on Wikipedia. Each screenshot must significantly increase the reader's level of understanding about the topic. Typically, this amounts to about one or two such images included in our articles. Many Mobygames pages have far more screenshots than we could ever insert.

That being said, enforcement on our project's external links policy is a bit lax. Reevaluating and tightening them up some certainly wouldn't hurt. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 03:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC))

That's good, because the link I gave earlier has me wiping out a user's entire edit history, which made me feel bad. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 09:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

If its credits and screenshots you're after with Mobygames, then Allgame does much the same, with the added bonus of not being user-generated, having an editorial process and being considered a reliable source. Just throwing it out there, but I'm with Nifboy on this one, most of the time it doesn't have enough content to be worth linking to. The existence of a template to make these links easy probably only encourages people to add the links without actual consideration to their value. -- Sabre (talk) 11:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC

I suppose it would be a good idea to come up with a general guideline somewhere that reads linking MobyGames is probably a bad idea. It just doesn't add a lot, and even if it would, we are very, very strict with linking things like fansites or IGN pages. For the type of stuff it offers, I can't see why it would warrant an exemption from that strictness. User:Krator (t c) 20:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Well right now the page is listed under "acceptable external links" on WP:VG/EL with the exact phrasing, "*If the page contains substantial information that is relevant but not necessarily encyclopedic in nature, a video game's page at MobyGames or the Internet Movie Database may be added on a case by case basis." I have yet to see a Mobygames page that actually met this description. Nifboy (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

MobyGames has an editorial process as well. They don't just take submissions without review. For instance, they frequently require sources when updating things like game platforms, reviews (published, not user), credits and so forth. SharkD (talk) 06:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I've now suggested downgrading MobyGames from "appropriate" to "inappropriate" over on WP:VG/EL. Nifboy (talk) 01:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

...Aaand done. If you're feeling bold, go ahead and start kicking out bad links. Nifboy (talk) 05:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You might want to wait a little while longer before making that change. SharkD (talk) 07:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I felt it was a bold change. Nifboy (talk) 07:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Consensus and consensus building, with regards to changes of policy and guidelines, is never a bold process. That being bold page has more to do with encouraging everyone to be part of the editing and contribution process. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 07:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I felt this discussion was consensus enough that MobyGames needs to be linked to less, and our guidelines should reflect that. I'm too paranoid thanks to good suggestions going "inactive" and/or archived after a week. Nifboy (talk) 07:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal

Well there seems to be an agreement that mobygame links are only appropriate in a few rare cases, and they should all be removed because

MobyGames only provides screenshots of a few older games that other competing sites do not. There is nothing else unique about the website, in that it has nothing that other competing websites do not provide.
The website has been spammed over a very long period of time by owners of the site, making most of their traffic come from here according to alexa.com. Which means most of the links were added by spammers without a second thought, and not because they are a unique source of information.

Where it can be used:

MobyGames can be used as a last resort as a source for credits and other game data. For example it would be better to use World of Spectrum, as a source for spectrum games instead of mobygames. Any other information can that is only available on mobygames can be used as source. By doing this, there is no need for it to be in the external link section too.
If screenshots are copied from mobygames, it should be noted only on the image description page.
Box art from MobyGames should not be used as they all have very large invasive watermarks. (I already found about 40 and added watermark template to them)

I think we should remove them from ALL external link sections of ALL articles as owners of the site have been spamming Wikipedia for years with it so about 99% of them are likely to be inappropriate anyway. Using the external link finder, I found the mobygames.com link spread across 6599 different articles (im guessing most are in the external link sections), so we will need a robot editor to delete them all.--Lorson (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

How do you know it's the owners of the site that are spamming it? There are people who go around checking this sort of thing, you know. Assume Good Faith. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 14:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

This fact was established back in 2007, exact edit is here. And discussion about it is here.--Lorson (talk) 14:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, point taken. However, that was two years ago and I've never seen Flipkin. What's likely happened is that some people have seen the templates and added them to pages which don't have them, therefore chaining the effect. Besides, you appear to be in the wrong place now anyway. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 14:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

So? That is just a side-effect from all the mass spamming that has previously taken place. And the fact you've never seen these editors again is because they use multiple accounts to spam it as shown in the discussion in 2007.--Lorson (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

If you have any diffs or concerns about sock puppets, take it to the relevant authorities. Socks have nothing to do with what we're discussing. Anything can be spammed, regardless of what it's meant to be used for. Concerns that it's the owner of the site spamming it have no merit in this discussion. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 14:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Well you aren't showing how it is unique from using other game websites.--Lorson (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Umm... look up, read what others have said? --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 14:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and I've just summed it up.--Lorson (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Others have not summed up a complete removal of it from every page as you are pushing for. And frankly I'm having a problem with this attempt to railroad this through on the project by a new user who themeselves was spamming useless links to GamFaqs. It smacks of agenda and conflict of interest. Consensus above, as Thejadefalcon was referring to, is for removal of external links from pages where a link to Moby does not add anything. That is done on an individual article by article basis. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. You said it more diplomatically than my sleep-deprived mind could. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I added them for the same reason mobygame links were added, but people were reverting some of my edits. So Wikipedia allows users to spam its website freely with over 6000 links, then check if they are all suitable afterwards? Then I assume you won't mind if I put gamefaqs links in over 6000 articles then?--Lorson (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

No, we won't mind in the slightest. You will, though, when you're banhammered. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 16:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not at all helpful.--Lorson (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Neither was your grandstanding on spamming 6000 links or your continued posturing in lieu of actual further discusion by members of the project. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I was merely pointing out how that would get you blocked. That would class as helpful information to me. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 16:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Would the 6000 (or how ever many I can add before I get blocked) gamefaqs.com links I added be reverted?--Lorson (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) This whole thing is getting a bit out of hand, IMO. Mass spamming of gamefaq links and mass delinking of mobygames links don't seem to be the best of solutions to any problem, considering the case-by-case nature of these external links. --Torsodog^Talk 16:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

MobyGames links were not added on a case-by-case but spammed by the website owners. But editors above have suggested they be removed on a case-by-case basis. Makes Wikipedia sound link a free advertising website to me. Where is the page that says "Stick links to your website on every page you can, and we'll sort through it all afterwards"?--Lorson (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually read this this time. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 16:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Given your objection to the mass spamming of mobygames links, your spamming of gamefaq links to articles seemingly indiscriminately is a bit odd... Two wrongs do not make a right. --Torsodog^Talk 16:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Neither do three wrongs, if you're curious. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 16:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow. Are you implying something that I am just not getting? --Torsodog^Talk 16:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It was basically saying, "don't spam other links either." --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 16:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Or to put it another way, don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I already stopped adding them last week and have discussed it here since.--Lorson (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

So, is the basis of your proposal, "My site can't, so yours can't too?" Because that's what it's beginning to seem like. SharkD (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Partial removal

Would anyone mind if I removed the mobylinks in external link sections placed by users who have spammed them across multiple articles which shows they weren't added on a case-by-case basis?--Lorson (talk) 16:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

How do you know if they spammed them or if they went through the articles earlier and simply added the lot in a single go. I've done that sort of thing before. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 16:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Adding a lot in a single go means they weren't added on a case by case basis. I can only remove ones added by users who's edits only involve adding the links if you want. So for example if you added some, I wouldn't remove them.--Lorson (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Not necessarily. It might mean that they were looking at a ton of articles in one go and found the MobyGames links worthy for all of them and mass-added them. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 17:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Well of course they would if that was their only reason to edit, aka spamming.--Lorson (talk) 17:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

(head slams into keyboard) "It might mean that they were looking at a ton of articles in one go and found the MobyGames links worthy for all of them and mass-added them." --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 17:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

If the editor hasn't done anything else it's very unlikely they did it for the benefit of Wikipedia.--Lorson (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe not, but assume good faith and check it. Once this is all over, I'll use our decision to base what I do with the guy who I reverted all edits for. I wasn't aware of the MG template at the time (or even MG) and assumed it was advertising. Now, if that's what the consensus is, I'll go back and re-add them in on a case by case basis. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 17:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Check what? Past discussions have shown there have been a string of accounts doing it, these are the type of additions I will be reverting. A pattern of these spam accounts was established, these are the ones that can safely be removed.--Lorson (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, just assume good faith. If you think someone is a sock, report them. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 17:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Then I will be removing links added by spam only accounts in several days (to give anyone else a chance to respond if they are not happy), and will also revert my own edits before I do.--Lorson (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You will likely be blocked if you do this. Please use Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam to report what you feel is potential spam and let them deal with it. --MASEM (t) 23:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Do we have a WikiProject for everything? Anyway, yeah, do what Masem says. Always report to relevant authorities. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 23:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I know we have WP:FAITH, but given past actions with mobygames and single-purpose accounts, i think its more likely were dealing with bots and thus I'd say if its the case they are almost all linked via spammers, we should probably ask for mobygames to be added as to the spam-blacklist as this appears to be a reoccurring problem.陣内 _Jinnai 04:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Two points: 1) This is just speculation until someone presents proof us with that this is in fact what is being done. If someone wants to do a detailed analysis (as was started in 2007) and share it with us then fine. 2) None of what has been discussed so far has anything to do with the proposed rewording of WP:VG/GL. I think this is a separate issue and should be discussed. I find the original wording to be fine, regardless of what is done with the existing links. SharkD (talk) 01:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Battletoads

In case you haven't been following my enormous Dragon magazine thread above, I've been adding blurbs on reviews to just about every retro game the magazine reviewed in its "The Role of Computers" column - and we're talking a whole lot of games, and I'm about 30 game away from being done. :) Now, for the most part, I've received a warm reception for this, with a thanks and requests for more and a barnstar or two. But after adding a note on Battletoads, I was reverted as in one person's opinion this contribution to the article was "non-notable". What do you all say? Have I just wasted many hours of my time on something that should have been considered non-notable from the start? Consider just how many of these articles have existed - for years in some cases - with not a single citation to a source, and now I have added one (a large percentage of them). Let me know if I should even bother finishing this project off! BOZ (talk) 15:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, that was me. I did it because I for one never in my life heard about such magazine. Also, you seemed to find necessary to mention in the articles the names of "Hartley, Patricia, and Kirk Lesser" which I also can't find a reason for, so the whole thing seemed to me like someone wanting to get their friends' names on the article. Maybe I am wrong, but let's see what people say. About you comparing it to cracked.com, at least cracked.com is mentioned as a source for the claim of the game being among one of the most irritatingly hard games ever. --uKER (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I personally never heard of both Dragon and Cracked XD Jokes aside, I should think BOZ was correct on citing the name of the authors of the column, it's usual practice in citing references, yeah? To be fair, maybe cracked.com's claim on the game being "among one of the most irritatingly hard games ever" should also be cited properly; I see none over the article. — Bl ue 。 15:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

All it takes is to follow the link in the prose to Dragon (magazine), and ye shall be rewarded with newfound knowledge. I've also linked it in the ref to make sure you can't miss it. Nifboy (talk) 19:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I would surmise that a long running magazine would be a lot more notable than a joke website, so it seems like a good idea to keep adding the citations. And you're supposed to mention the author who had the opinion.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't even realize Cracked even counted as a reliable source until now (though they did have a magazine of their own at one time).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for GLaDOS, Pong Toss! Frat Party Games, and Wario

I know it's a lot of peer reviews, but if anyone could give a review for any one of these three, that'd be great! - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I've had Pong Toss on my watchlist for a while now, and have been meaning to go through the article. If I'm not too busy this week I'll post some comments. I wouldn't hold your breath though. :-\ (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC))

I'll try to look over Wario.Abce2|This isnot a test 00:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It'd help if you linked to the articles in your post so that it's easier to reach for lazy people such as myself :) Gary King (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

...Perhaps! - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick comment, the FUR for File:WarioShake.JPG should probably be revised in light of File:Wario.png. Or replace the former image with the latter. Anomie ⚔ 23:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Atari 8-bit discussion

A lengthy discussion about the Atari 8-bit family has been occurring at its talk page, spanning two threads: Talk:Atari 8-bit family#Atari 8 bit line has got not the "most powerful graphics of any 8 bit computers of their time" and Talk:Atari 8-bit family#Edit warring. Assistance would be appreciated, as the discussion turned ugly (in my opinion anyway) and it does not seem like things will reach an amicable end if it continues this way. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC))

Licensing for non-free OGV

I have an OGV video file of gameplay footage to replace File:Pac-man flicker.gif in Pac-Man (Atari 2600). I've never messed with non-free video files on Wikipedia before. What licensing should it use? Is {{Non-free game screenshot}} sufficient? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC))

I would assume it's the same rationale as the image you're replacing. Feel free to just copy the Fair-Use rationale content from the existing image. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I've seen {{Non-free fair use in}} used for a few videos, that might be more appropriate than a template specifically built for screenshots. -- Sabre (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I uploaded the video with {{Non-free fair use in}}. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC))

Cite video game

This template has been for some time in serious need for revamp. I have a proposal up for atleration to bring it more in line with core. Template talk:Cite video game#Revamp of cite video games template. The problem though is there are still some unique items in video games that need specific citing because unlike other works, video games are non-linear so the fields for such reflect that imo. There is no "easy" equivalent to cite video's time or cite book's page #s.陣内 _Jinnai 06:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Attribution-Ubisoft

You may not be aware of but would probably be interested in Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Attribution-Ubisoft 3. Implications would be the deletion of all ~800 Ubisoft images uploaded on Commons. Jean-Fred (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the ambigious legal status of Ubisoft images rears its head again. -- Sabre (talk) 19:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It's really starting to look like this "rtc" is on some sort of crusade. If he really thinks the email is invalid, why doesn't he just contact Ubisoft and ask them instead of making nomination after nomination (with insults to those that oppose him)? Anomie ⚔ 00:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Commons:Deletion requests/File:Star Ocean 3 - Character select.jpg hasn't even been officially closed yet. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 10:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Exile series naming

I recently started to clean up the Exile (video game) article a little bit and realized that the naming conventions of the articles are really confusing. See, there's Exile (video game), which is a series article about the old action RPGs. It's mostly known as XZR, but the two English games were called Exile. I don't plan on ever making stand alone game articles, though, because there really isn't enough readily available info.

Then there's Exile (video game series), which is ANOTHER series article about shareware games with Exile in the titles. There's also Exile (arcade adventure), but that poses less of a problem because it's clear about which one it is. What should we do about the two different series articles, though? ?EVAUNIT^{神の人間の殺害者} 17:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

How about Exile (1988 video game series) and Exile (1995 video game series)?_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Naming - series vs. first game

A question that's come up a few times at Kingdom Hearts (series) - should that article instead be at Kingdom Hearts, which is right now for the first game in the series? I tried looking at the naming conventions listed from the project page, and I'm not quite sure what (if any) guidance in this situation is provided. (Brought it here as being more likely to have eyes.) Opinions requested, thanks! umrguy 42 04:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The answer is in the "Disambiguation" section, and yes, it should be moved to "Kingdom Hearts".--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for the move. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC))

Won't this effect quite a few articles? Just of the top of my head from articles I've been working on, Star Wars: Rogue Squadron and Star Wars: Rogue Squadron (series) is another example. Personally, I think the series' article should have the parenthetical.--Torsodog^Talk 15:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This was discussed on the Mass Effect talk page a while ago. It was continued here. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for the replies. I had looked in the Disambiguation section, but couldn't quite make out what they were saying. I'm going to take a stab at re-wording it to try and make it more clear here in just a minute. umrguy 42 16:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Are there three or more Kingdom Hearts games? Is there one other non-video game item in the Kingdom Hearts series (Book, DVD, Comic, Stage Show, Tea towel, etc)? If yes to both questions then the series article should take the primary name and the game article should be the disambiguation name. - X201 (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)\

StarCraft

I suppose I should ask whether the same should be done for StarCraft and StarCraft (series), though that's going to involve a lot of link changes throughout Wikipedia. -- Sabre (talk) 16:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

StarCraft meets that criteria as well.陣内 _Jinnai 17:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, it seems silly to me to direct StarCraft to the series article instead of the game article. Though I have no proof, I very sure that most people who are searching "StarCraft" are looking for the article on the game, not the series. Changing these article names seems counter-productive. --Torsodog^Talk 17:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

If you have no proof, all you have is an opinion that goes against consensus. You can't just say you don't want to do that because you "think" your right. If that were the case anyone could ignore any rules. If you want to say most people when referring to StarCraft do associate it with the 1st game, you have to back that up with independent RSes or convince the wider community that the long standing guideline should be changed.陣内 _Jinnai 17:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Obviously this is only my opinion, as I stated that I have no proof already. Furthermore, I'm not suggesting we "ignore" anything. The reason I voiced my opinion is to start a discussion about possibly changing the guideline or making special exceptions. As for my argument: Common sense should lead us to the conclusion that the first game in a two-game series where the second game is still unreleased is more popular than the series itself. --Torsodog^Talk 18:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Deindent because I'm not sure quite what to respond to. I think Masem's comment from the last time this issue came up is on the money, however subjective it might be:

Or considering an easier test, if you ask yourself the hypothetical question, "What do you think about that (name) video game?" and you have to answer "which one do you mean?" then the series is most significant. --MASEM (t) 16:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, StarCraft meets X201's second criteria, but not his first. There is one game, one (two?) expansions, and a sequel. Likewise, StarCraft fails to meet Masem's criterium. No-one I know, looking for StarCraft II, is going to have the issue of "what's the name of StarCraft II?"... I.e., I'm in with Torso with this. Perhaps a formal RFC may want to be initiated at WT:NCVG. --Izno (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

X201's first criteria: three or more games. Lets see: StarCraft, Brood War, Insurrection, Retribution, Ghost, StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty, StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm, StarCraft II: Legacy of the Void. I count eight. If we don't count the released ones then we still have four, five if we count Ghost as that's as complete as its ever likely to get. Disregard expansions, we still have three. Honestly, Masem's criteria is too subjective; it will differ from person to person and over time. It ultimately boils down to which is a better page to introduce the reader to the StarCraft topic when they search for "StarCraft": the game article, a second-tier article which focuses primarily on the game with bits connected to the franchise it created, or the series article, a first-tier article from which all others branch out of that covers the franchise. -- Sabre (talk) 19:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Masem's criteria are dependent on the ask-ee's personal knowledge, not general knowledge. Just because a hardcore StarCraft fan might think of the original game as more important doesn't mean that a person new to StarCraft would not think of StarCraft II as more important.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

My argument has nothing to do with putting any more importance on either article and everything to do with practicality. Personally, I know very little about the series, but considering there are only 2 main games in the series, one of which has yet to be released, common sense seems to indicate that StarCraft the game is being searched for by readers more than StarCraft the series. Making them jump through an extra hoop to find the game instead of allowing them to simply type in the game's EXACT title seems very impractical to me. --Torsodog^Talk 06:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said, it's only one click to get from "StarCraft" to "StarCraft (video game)". On the other hand, everyone who's looking for the other StarCraft games, spin offs, books, competitions, etc. will have to first navigate to "StarCraft (series)" and then to the relevant page, which is TWO hoops.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

crazy idea

Here's a crazy idea: how about we just let the primary contributors decide? I think it's much better to leave games with their original names and use (series) to disambig. But some people appear to be all for shoving their brand of conformity down other's throats with this rather bullshit view of where the "consensus" came from. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The main reason to get everyone on the same page is so that we have consistency across Wikipedia in how these things are done. It's going to cause a lot more confusion if we have Kingdom Hearts pointing to an article on the series and Katamari Damacy pointing to the first game in the series. True, readers will probably be able to figure it out, but if you were to try to come up with a table of contents, there'd be no consistency to the structure at all. It makes sense to decide on the best convention and put it in our guidelines, so that new editors know what the accepted structure is and what the notable exceptions to the rules are.

My two cents: I'm in favor of naming series articles as "Game Name (series)", because it's more consistent with series where the individual games don't necessarily follow the names of the series itself. (For example: Panel de Pon, Tetris Attack and Planet Puzzle League are all part of the Puzzle League series, but the name of the series itself has nothing to do with the names of the first two games in it.) To name the series article as "Series name" without the (series) identifier would lead to inconsistency in these cases. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The series is inherently more notable than the first game in it, because the series CONTAINS the first game. Not to mention that the series page is a disambiguation of sorts to the other games, which the search-er may not know about. For this reason, placing the first video game in the series under the non-disambuated name can generate confusion from anyone who doesn't look at the tiny link on the top of the page, and lead to the series page being completely neglected along with any other games in it besides the one that's non-disambiguated.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Arguments can be made either way. Personally, I think that the series article should contain the parenthetical, as it is essentially a term we made up, while the game is named that with 100% certainty. Another option is to get rid of the parentheses all together and just use the "Game series" format. --Torsodog^Talk 03:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I think it's better when all series articles use the parentheticals. SharkD (talk)

It's not a term "we made up", it's the series title and developers refer to it as such. When the series title is different from the first game, there's no need for disambiguation. Statistically speaking, if the series articles are parenthesized, people who are searching for a later game in the series get directed to the original game first, and require a second, or a third click to reach the page they want. If people are directed to the series article, they will only ever need to click once in order to reach any article in the series.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

We did not "make up" what a series is. That idea has been around for some time. What the series is called, is usually decided when the 2nd game is created; no ifs, ands or buts. If it has the same name, but a numbered title then it is from the same series. Movies used this long before video games were ever concieved and books before that. Furthemore, navigation issues are also as important, if not more important, than what most people will "think" because first, its hard to know what people think and second, even if you do know what people think, they might not know of other games existance and would not nessasarily know that if you have a disambig at the top (believe me, people can be that stupid). However, if your first page is a series page, naturally if they are thinking of the first video game, they'll look for a link as opposed to the other person.陣内 _Jinnai 07:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

We can't just coddle "stupid people", though. We need to have some reasonable, good-faith assumption of a basic reader's ability to read English on this pedia. If the reader has trouble reading a disambig at the top, or the phrase "This game is the first game in X series" (where the series is linked), then frankly, that's not really our problem. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think that any series article that meets the criteria I mentioned above, should be at the plain name and not differentiated with (Series) and the first game should be disambiguated at (video game) or equivalent. The series page only needs an otheruse template and all confusion will be removed. People who want the series article go straight to it and the very first line of the series article directs people who want the game article straight to it. {{otheruse}} - X201 (talk) 12:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to finish off this discussion by saying we should go with Fuch's idea then. I really don't think it's a great idea to enact this policy throughout the encyclopedia without exception. --Torsodog^Talk 13:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not without exception. You've shown no reason why, FE, StarCraft should be exempt except some gut feeling and that's how it is currently, which aren't viable reasons.陣内 _Jinnai 20:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Conformity will be difficult as long as WP:NC promotes the use of the common name over disambiguations. The other thing to remember is that we're naming these for the non-gaming general public who may need to research these games. A gamer is going to have no problem quickly figuring out if they're at the wrong page, but a non-gamer can easily have difficulty. This is not to say that it is always the series name that is most common, as there are probably some series that have ignorable sequels (eg Crazy Taxi). But I remind everyone that regardless of which is most common, a game and series sharing the same name need a hat note to distinguish between the two, so the difference will be seen quickly.

To provide basics, I would say the series article never will stand the chance of having the common name until there are at least 3 games (including seperately published expansions) in it, but this itself is not the end-all of determination. Fuchs' advise of letting the primary contributors decide is completely fair, and if there are significant disputes (someone, for example, insisting that when people say Guitar Hero, they're "obviously" thinking of the first game and not the series as a whole), they can be brought here or at Requested Moves for further discussion if the talk page is not doing it. --MASEM (t) 21:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Um, no, making the policy ambiguous would be a complete waste of time for everyone involved. There needs to be a policy in place that people can refer back to. Asking the contributors of the article what they would do does not make sense. As I said, different people have different ideas about which game in the series is more important. Since the series article functions as a gateway page to the rest of the series, it should not be the one that is disambiguated, per X201, Jinnai, etc.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it should be made unambigous. If a situation arises where somehow the series is almost unheard of by the same name, compared to the game, we can deal with that through WP:IAR once enough evidence has been shown.陣内 _Jinnai 19:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The way I see this is that if people are referring to the series, they are likely to say "Game X series" not simply "Game X". If I had it my way, we would just name the series articles "Game X series", thus avoiding this absurd argument all together. --Torsodog^Talk 19:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

If i had my way I'd be doing a lot of stuff differently too.陣内 _Jinnai 20:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

There's no difference between "Game X (series)" and "Game X series", so your point is moot.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly my point. In my opinion, since most people refer to game series using the word "series" after the game's name, it makes sense and seems natural to disambig those articles with the paranthetical. --Torsodog^Talk 20:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, you got something to back that claim up?陣内 _Jinnai 22:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know what kind of proof you are looking for. To me, this just seems like using a bit of common sense to rectify a seemingly needless argument. That's really all I have to offer. Take it or leave it, I guess. --Torsodog^Talk 23:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Prove your own first, imo. :| --Izno (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't have to until you give evidence. Status quo wins by default. If you can show some significant RSed evidence, then I will go through the effort.陣内 _Jinnai 22:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Er, the status quo is the mish-mash of choices, soz... you have just as much need to prove that we should change how it works around here to your choice of guideline. --Izno (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Not really. It clearly states when there are 3+ games plus at least one non-game (article) then, if the series is the same name as at least one of the games (usually first), the series should be the main name page and the game should be disambiged from it (IAR can still trump it under extreme circumstances, but we're not talking about those circumstances. Anything less than that and you should have individual article pages, ie no series page.
About the problem that might have is when a game has say 7 games in where at least 1 game is the same name as the series and no other related media that's article-worthy, ~~ie even sourcable~~ .陣内 _Jinnai 00:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Were you looking at WP:VG/NAME?... Did I miss it, if it is actually there? --Izno (talk) 04:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

outdent

(outdent) its there.陣内 _Jinnai 20:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is still disagreement about this, anyway, and from what I can tell, it was ZX that added that to the policy based on the last time this came up. Only one person agreed with him then, and no others commented on the proposal that placed that in the guidelines. I.e., there's only a very weak consensus for that rule. I'm going to again suggest that we actually have an RFC (here or at WT:VG/GL) that lays out our options in order to determine which has the most support. It is disagreeable to me when only 2 (3, counting yourself) support a hard and fast rule. --Izno (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a pretty complicated policy. Do we have to spin around in our chairs three times and recite all Al Pacino films in reverse chronological order? SharkD (talk) 06:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm good for coming up with a way to simplify it which doesn't destroy the core principle: that this is designed more with the idea of an encyclopedia for general research use rather than gemers, which generally means, unless the game is so historically significant that any mention of the name automatically assumes that it is the game and the series is almost an afterthought among gamers, non-gamers alike, the series pages should be the primary search and games should be disambiged from the series.陣内 _Jinnai 07:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Pinball

This project has been talked about a few times, but nothing has ever been done with it. I think the question whether pinball can actually be considered a video game is the underlying issue. One previous discussion suggested merging/redirecting the project to the Arcade task force, which I think would be the best bet. Thoughts? MrKIA11 (talk) 15:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Uh, duh. Wow, why didn't I think of that? Drop a note on the Arcade task force talk page and see if they're active first. --Izno (talk) 19:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Review them FACs, folks!

Collective plug for the two articles we have at WP:FAC right now, folks—Arbiter (Halo) and The Beatles: Rock Band. The latter especially needs comments regarding the non-free images, the former just reviews in general. Thanks in advance. FAC pages: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Beatles: Rock Band/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Arbiter (Halo)/archive1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Star Fox (1993 video game) to Star Fox (video game)

This has been brought up before, but it really needs to be moved. The idea that we need to disambig between these two subjects is silly - one article is lauded as one of the best Super Nintendo games, one of the first 3D games, and still considered a classic. The other is considered one of the worst Atari 2600 games, did nothing innovative, and was rarely noticed. Its only claim to fame is that it shares the same name. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm just a grunt on this project but I agree. I also don't think the Atari 2600 game is that noticeble (sorry for the mangled english).--Ace Oliveira (talk) 21:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

There is also an article for a Spectrum game under Starfox, and I think this game should also be considered in this renaming. My suggestion is for the SNES game to go to "Star Fox (video game)", the Atari game to go to "Star Fox (1983 video game)" and the Spectrum game to go to "Starfox (1987 video game). I am making a wild assumption that the majority of people would expect to see the SNES game when searching for either variant. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I moved both the Star Fox articles to where they currently are from Star Fox (SNES) and Star Fox (Atari 2600), though I didn't really consider that the more important of the two should be at the straight (video game) title, so I'd support a move to Star Fox (video game). However the Spectrum game is "Starfox" rather than "Star Fox", so I don't think we need to disambiguate further in the title, and it has DAB hatnotes to the others. Miremare 23:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

N-Sider: RS?

Is N-Sider a reliable source? The Mario article, which I'm trying to get to GA, references it several times.--Mario777Zelda (talk) 21:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Screenshot of the menu system for new Dragon Quest games

We could use a screenshot for the new menu systems as they are fundamentally different from the old menu systems and its not very easy to describe how they differ with text. The two versions that have it are Dragon Quest VIII NA/EU release and Dragon Quest IX Japan release. Preferably in action showing how it can be used graphically, like equipping an item and/or showing the item icons.

Since I don't know how to screencapture on the PS2 I can't do this and I'd rather not take screenshots from another site, watermarked or not, for added fair-use compilations.陣内 _Jinnai 03:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Overuse of review boxes in Reception sections

The box like the one in this section is crazy. It takes up about 75% of the screen's width when viewed on a 1024x768 resolution, which is really the smallest resolution we should be supporting. I'm on a 1920x1080 screen and it still looks ugly. I've seen review boxes of this size on several articles, and it's all because of the {{Video game multiple console reviews}} template which was created just recently, in January 2009—just look at the articles in this list. Can we do something about this? I'm usually pretty in favor of using stuff like infoboxes to show a summary list of key facts about the article, partly because I often browse Wikipedia on a mobile device so it's nice and handy, but at a certain point we start moving into territory where we put more focus on template boxes than prose. I've always liked the review box to only be one column; frankly, I think that a template should always be consistently the same width, and only its height should vary.

From what I understand, there has been some contention in the past about review boxes, such as how many aggregated results and reviews we should include. I'll just throw out my own thoughts on this one; I feel that two aggregated scores, preferably Metacritic and GameRankings, should be included, and then reviews should only be included if they are also used in the prose somewhere. I think the latter point is particularly important as it can possibly help boost the prose while cutting down on reviews in the review box. Maybe we could integrate it into the template's usage guidelines?

Also, I think that in most cases, we only need one review for each platform that the game is on, and only if the different versions have noticeable differences between each other, AND these differences are mentioned in the prose. Gary King (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Note- since the above revision, I made 2 quick edits to make it only "way too big", instead of "absurdly large". This doesn't really get past the issues GaryKing raises above.--Pres N 19:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

That is absolutely unnecessary. I'm looking across and seeing basically the same score on all platforms save the N-gage, so this is the type that the standard review box can be done with, denoting what the reviews are for in the specific sections.

Personally, I think we need a larger discussion on how to use these review boxes. They should not be replacements for MetaCritic/GameRankings, listing out every possible review for every possible platform the game was on, but instead an appropriate cross section to help support the reception section. --MASEM (t) 19:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Right; the review box should only be used to give readers a glance of how well the game has been received, not be used as an index of all scores available for someone to look for a particular review. I think that these review boxes usually have lots of scores, especially for popular games, because they are easy to add—they make new editors feel like they are contributing something, since it's easier to find reviews and scores, and add the review box to link them, than it is to write actual prose. I think that we should just nuke the template, and instead continue to promote the format of writing scores like "80% (PS3)" to indicate the platform, instead of creating a new column for each one. I'd like to do this partially because aesthetically, I think that it looks better to have the box thin at all times, rather than having its width change based on how many platforms there are. Another problem with the template is that it usually has some empty cells, which encourages readers to add scores into those boxes, so when this template is used, ultimately all cells will be filled in all cases, and they will eventually end up looking something like the first example I gave. Gary King (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, the review box in some recent FA video games, such as this one, is pretty big, too. It looks ridiculous. This is what happens when you feel compelled to fill in every cell. This reception section consists primarily of the reviews box; look at the article in 1024x768 resolution (just shrink your browser) for full effect. This box is not as bad, but it's still pretty big, especially for a GA; the same goes for this GA. Gary King (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

While this template is obviously utilized in some very ridiculous ways, I don't think getting rid of it all together is the best choice. It isn't completely useless. I think I employ it effectively in both this FA and this FA without being overblown. --Torsodog^Talk 20:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Which is why I didn't link to every article that uses this template as an example. The examples I gave above the the worst of the worst, which really is not all that bad, but it will get worse over time. One particularly notorious example is the FA one I gave above, which was promoted less than a month ago. Also, the reason why the boxes in those two articles are thin is because the games are only available on two platforms, not on half a dozen like some are. Despite that, however, the review tables used in your articles still work like a spreadsheet; it's not very intuitive in terms of giving the reader a quick list of facts. I think the eyes and the brain work best when information is presented in one column so we can just read from up to down in one sweep.

I assume you want to keep the box because if all the scores used in those articles were in one column, it'd be too long, is that right? One option would be to collapse the box; it would only show the box header "Reception" by default, which I don't think is very appealing or noticeable, but perhaps we could resolve that by just showing the aggregated scores when the box is collapsed, or something like that. Gary King (talk) 20:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the box in the above example it would be a lot slimmer if we'd simply use a "/" instead of prose "out of".陣内 _Jinnai 22:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah that's a decent way to improve it. Another way is to get rid of star images in the box. Gary King (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The citations add considerably to the bulk. Is there something we can do to put them somewhere else so that they don't make the table so big? SharkD (talk) 00:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

If its not in the prose there isn't much that can be done. If it is, then it could be argued the info is already in the body.陣内 _Jinnai 06:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if the font-stretch CSS property could be used to make the text narrower. SharkD (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that only works for supported fonts, and I don't believe Wikpiedia uses one. Gary King (talk) 21:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Test: This text is normal. This text is wider. This text is narrower. I don't see a difference in Firefox. SharkD (talk) 19:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the boxes should be gone. Most of the time, they just encourage people to make a list of reviews instead of prose, and even if they do include all of them in prose, it was decided to leave scores out of the prose, and this seems like a copout. We aren't metacritic. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I would be fine with removing the boxes altogether, if only all Reception sections used the same format so it was easy to find what I was looking for. Unfortunately, that is not the case, which is why we have the boxes in the first place. I think that at the very least, the first step should be to remove the {{Video game multiple console reviews}} template as it essentially encourages filling out the fields for all consoles. Gary King (talk) 21:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the boxes are OK, if steps can be taken to reduce their size. SharkD (talk) 05:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The boxes can be abused sometimes, but overall they are helpful. And considering how limited video game articles are in terms of free-image selection, most aren't all that cluttered in the first place. --Torsodog^Talk 06:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The review box at Spyro (series)#Music is also particularly large, due to multiple platforms for each game. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 09:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Series article - table or prose?

Got into a disagreement with an IP over the conversion of Touhou Project from prose to table format. Pointed him at Wikipedia:When to use tables, which the IP then edited. Seeking a third opinion on both pages, since I think the table looks terrible but the IP insists it's more informative. Nifboy (talk) 00:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

While I can see what the IP is trying to do I prefer the prose style of the article. I can see that as there are a large number of titles in the series that a table could be seen by a few as easier to navigate and therefore simpler to find specific information. However, if this game series can have a table outlining all the games then we run the risk of series with far fewer titles getting tables on the basis that this article has one. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 00:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It depends on the information-to-be-tabulated in-question. If these series with fewer titles have data that can be compared then tables are required.174.3.111.148 (talk) 06:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the information is on the page for comparison, purely to inform. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 12:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I say go with prose. Now that I think about it, I think Jak and Daxter (series) should probably be swiched to not using a table. Alot of the plot was cut out, so now a table looks odd. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 00:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think prose looks better. I would personally never use a table to display this type of information. In general, when doing web design, tables should be used sparingly. Gary King (talk) 02:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Web design is web design. This is an encyclopedia and information comes first. Tables should not be used sparingly if they need to be used. Tables should not be used at all if they should not be used.174.3.111.148 (talk) 06:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

And the table doesn't need to be used. That's my entire argument. Nifboy (talk) 08:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that Wikipedia is a website, right? "Web design" basically refers to presenting information in the most logical manner possible, which in an encyclopedia is doubly crucial. Gary King (talk) 18:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

No, wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and information comes first.174.3.111.148 (talk) 20:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

... did you actually read that comment? --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 20:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes I did.174.3.111.148 (talk) 00:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You could create a separate table of names, but leave the descriptions as prose. SharkD (talk) 04:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If the point is just to bring attention to the titles, then the prose version works fine when bolding the game names. I actually prefer bolding the game names in that format, even though it is discouraged in WP:MOS; I prefer to invoke WP:IAR here. Gary King (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I would almost always have a prose section to describe each game in the series briefly with links to that game's main article if needed. A table in addition to this is helpful only when there's more details than just game name and release date. For example, I have such a table in Guitar Hero because of the number of platforms the series has covered, but I would not use one for Ratchet & Clank since that has been pretty much one platform per game (with two exceptions). --MASEM (t) 18:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I ran into a same disagreement with this IP on systems science article, see also here. I always use prose in this kind of matters, and always have in the 1000+ articles I wikified in the field of systems science. I think there is no ground for the IP's claims that tables are "more informative". In the matter of the systems science article the tables the IP wanted to initiate, see here were even inconsistent, inefficient and didn't combine with illustrations. -- Mdd (talk) 08:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not necessary to combine illustrations with the table. The number of articles you wikified may need change; your boast of achievement really has nothing to do with article improvement. See wp:soapbox. My edit was consistent, and your feeling of inefficiency is unlogical.174.3.111.148 (talk) 20:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Tables aren't good when the amount of textual data greatly outnumbers the amount of tabular data. SharkD (talk) 05:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

List of Xbox 360 games split proposal

As the list is getting very large I am proposing to split it into two or three smaller lists so that those people on a slower connection can still have the page load reletively quickly. Currently for me it takes over two minutes on a 2meg connection, so for those accessing on dial-up it must be a nightmare. I think if the page were split it would encourage more people to use the list, and ultimately Wikipedia as they will not get as impatient and leave. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a section above about the exclusive column. It should probably go. That would help out with some of the issues of the article. RobJ1981 (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to point out that the 360 list is not the only that takes ages to load. List of Wii games is infact for me even worse in that regard. --Mika1h (talk) 20:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Removing the exclusive column didn't help much- it went from around 115 KB to 109 KB. Still pretty big. --Pres N 21:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I noted on the project page that it is possible to create a split article and use transclusion to keep a master large one if people still need to sort on the thing as a whole, as we've done for the Rock Band DLC stuff. --MASEM (t) 00:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Statistics

I update both the traffic & article statistics pages, but my question is if anyone minds that I flipped the axes on the traffic statistics page tables. This makes it much easier to edit, and allows us to make the table sortable if wanted in the future. I want to nominate all the images that were being used as column headers for deletion, but not if we're going to flip the axes back. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's harder to edit, as now the table will become wider and wider each month and stretch the page, and it's harder to add new columns of data by hand. But it doesn't matter much. Also, be careful of, "Note that dates marked with an asterix (*) have incomplete data (though this was taken into account when generating the charts). Also, the data for some of the task forces reflect the fact that they were at one point WikiProjects or task forces of other projects besides ours. Finally, several task forces and WikiProjects at some point became defunct." SharkD (talk) 05:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought about the fact that it will become wider, but I think the table should be limited to 2 years; so when the stats for January of next year are added, the column for January 2008 will be removed, because is data from that far back really important anymore? And I meant to ask you, when it says "Note that dates marked with an asterix (*) have incomplete data, what does that mean? The second part of the note still holds true. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think stats going further back than two years are important. Otherwise, why record stats at all? "Incomplete data" refers to the fact that stats.grok.se has frequent periods of downtime where no data are recorded at all. SharkD (talk) 14:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyone interested in Casual Gaming news? Two articles need updating or merging.

From the recent RealNetworks News, it appears GameHouse is merging with RealArcade to create one big company. Theres a lot of changes which might require the RealArcade article to redirect to GameHouse. Anyone with me on this or what? JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 00:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Spoiler Warning Discussion

A discussion is underway at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 55#SPOILER ALERT disclaimers discussing whether spoiler alerts should be added to all articles that cover a fictional topic or if spoilers should be removed by removing all plot summaries from all articles, except for any sentences that can be sourced to secondary sources only. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, for the love of... added by an IP address too... how many times am I going to have to tell someone this? I'm amazed the topic's gone on as long as it has... --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 05:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to even try to comment on that behemoth unless it becomes absolutely necessary, but the option of removing all plot info that comes from the primary source but can't be verified by a secondary source is ludicrous. If we did that, we might as well just not cover fiction at all. --Torsodog^Talk 06:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd comment further, but I'm sleepy, I've ruined what little happy I had by trying to calm down a friend and this hasn't done me any good, so out of fear of being really tetchy and getting blocked for it, I'll just say that I support keeping Wikipedia just the way it is in this case. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 06:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jade. The idea of removing the plot sections is, well, excuse my languague that may offend others, but that idea is retarded. That's horrible idea. Why are we even listening to an IP address. A lot of IP addresses do good, but if they want to do things like this they could just register.--Ace Oliveira (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

A lot of plot can be sourced to secondary sources. A lot can't. I appreciate trying to source more plot info, but that would effectively kill our coverage in a good percentage of cases. I'm not really that surprised spoilers have flared up again; I was in the trenches for that dispute (what was it? A year-and-a-half ago? Longer?) and it really only came to a close by attrition. Still, we've been better off with it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings might work work if it was a really small thin banner that didn't disrupt much. We aren't going to remove our content though. That would be like removing that Luke Skywalker is Darth Vader's son. If you don't want spoilers, then don't go on an online encyclopedia that strives to give coverage on everything about the subject. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, the spoiler alerts were just little italic text that read "Warning: Spoilers ahead". It's really innocuous, but the overall decision from the big debate last year (or whenever it was) was that they were unnecessary and didn't really help the articles. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't around last year, but I can certainly say that I wouldn't like having that on my screen. It's common sense that, if you come to an encyclopaedia, there will be spoilers. Mostly in the Plot section, but elsewhere if required. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 17:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how some basic italic text would be any more annoying than regular hatnotes and "Main article:"'s and such. It doesn't have to be visually distinct, like a banner or something.

But man, the spoiler argument annoys me, especially on gaming forums. We've seemingly reached the point where saying there's a grass level is a spoiler. --gakon^{5 (talk / contribs)} 21:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be annoying no matter how unintrusive it may or may not be because, unlike the notes you mention, spoiler warnings aren't helpful in the slightest. Anyone who comes to an encyclopaedia and doesn't expect it to explain things, clearly once had a doctor that gave them a lobotomy instead of a nose job (or whatever). --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 01:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with regards to warnings; it should be obvious that a section labelled "Plot" may or may not actually detail the plot of a work of fiction, surprisingly. And as people in this debate have mentioned, showing a spoiler warning on classic literature, etc. is just goofy. I meant from a visual standpoint more, but I wouldn't be too offended if they somehow resurface. I'd rather they not, though, if only to spite people who complain about spoilers ;) --gakon^{5 (talk / contribs)} 01:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

As long as spoilers are kept in sections within the article, and not in the lead section, I think the current system is fine. --Taelus (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Just went to the Fable II talk page and noticed an old conversation on the subject of spoilers.

I see there are some spoilers in the character section. Might want to warn the readers about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.38.132 (talk) 17:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
You're on an encyclopaedia. It's Wikipedia's job to explain things. While we do try to limit spoilers, there's usually not much we can to do and searching Wikipedia for something will tend to spoil it. I read Star Trek XI's plot before watching it because I knew it would be on the site. The problem is the same with any encyclopaedia in the world. If you can spot a really major spoiler [expansion: outside of plot section and unneeded where it is], then by all means, point it out and we'll see if we can fix it. Otherwise, leave it as is. Besides, after a game or a film or whatever is out for a certain period of time, no-one cares about spoilers. I've seen people complain about The Phantom Menace spoilers, but that's been out for years. BioShock spoilers are also a bit non-spoilerific nowadays. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This makes me ask exactly what articles we'd put the spoiler warnings on, anyway. All of them? That's a bit silly because, as I said, some things have been out for years. If you don't know by now, then you weren't paying attention (if it was a major thing) or you probably came to look up the plot of the show/film/game/whatever. So would a time limit for warnings be acceptable? But then, same problem. How long should spoiler warnings stay up? Two months, six months, a year, four years? No matter what number you choose, it's going to annoy both the people who think it's too long a time and the people who think it's too short a time. As far as I can see, the majority of Wikipedia is very happy the way things are on this front and the majority of people I see complaining about it are IP addresses, who likely don't know about Wikipedia:Spoiler. Why change a good thing? --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 18:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

A brief history for the whippersnappers

Anyone interested in the history, I went back and looked it up, because I was sketchy on the details myself. Basically, the spoiler issue was around for a while. The whole concerted attempt for/against spoilers began around May 2007, but blew up around late August 2007. Partly the issue was that spoiler warning had essentially reached a sort of baroque period—people were tagging fairytales and using them on talk pages[2]. There was a bit of grass-roots removal of spoiler tags, generally on a case-by-case basis, but a few agitators on both sides sort of brought it to the fore by September. On one side you had people like Tony Sidaway, (me), Kusma et al, and on the other side Nydas sticks out as one of the biggest pro-spoiler perps. Jere7my attempted to forge a new guideline around Sept 14, but ultimately consensus never materialized for it. Some of the arguments for and against were in my opinion rather bizarre; at one point pro-spoilers types were quoting a San Francisco Chronicle editorial which said that spoilers were "immoral". By the time I ended up auditing spoiler warning usage by September 19, there were at most 2000 usages of the tag, and only around a dozen mainspace usages of the tag at any given time.[3]. Things died down ever so briefly, but the template was nominated at TfD on November 8, and was deleted November 14[4]. Ultimately, the deletion review upheld the original decision[5] and bam-no more spoilers. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Elika (Prince of Persia)

I've been keeping an eye on this since the merge proposal, and while I initially opposed...now I'm not that sure. It meets the third-party coverage aspect of notability easily, that's a given: there's a lot of discussion on this character. But all the discussion is solely in regards to reviews for the game, and there's not much impact outside of it. The other issue is that it's still three paragraphs, that really could be combined together into a subsection still, and even though I dug around I have not been able to find much to indicate enough expansion to deter from that.

So I'm leaning towards a merge, but as the discussion has since died I'm bringing it here to see what everyone else thinks before any action is taken.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Graphical projection in video games

I'd like to expand this article to cover all the various types of graphical projection used in video games. My question is, is this info scattered around the wiki; and where can I find the individual bits? SharkD Talk 03:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:Video games by graphical style is a good start: First person (video games) and Fixed 3D in particular seem especially relevant; several others are tied to Graphical projection (see {{views}}) and thus are sucky articles in general. Nifboy (talk) 06:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Main pages heads up

Grim Fandango on Nov 11th. This should not affect the effort to get Planescape: Torment on the main page on Dec 12. --MASEM (t) 02:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This calls for another round of headbanging and empassioned "nonoNONO"s in the style of Saavedro (for those unacquainted with the series, :30 of this vid will do wonders... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Masem, are you friends with Raul654? GamerPro64 (talk) 03:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yay, the Casablanca of video games hits the Wikipedia front page! But how many front page Masem articles does this make now? Masem, stop being so damned good. -- Sabre (talk) 11:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It did, however, kill Chrono Cross's bid. :( --Pres N 14:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. At least Cross was released both JP and NA, so this February or whatever, we'll try for a 10th anniversary English release. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 04:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh hey, I just noticed this thread now. :) Yeah, I did see how Grim Fandango just squeaked by to be more than a month before Dec 12! That should help to ensure the 2 points for anniversary date. Right now I'm just waiting for a free spot to come up so I can slide in - not as easy as it sounds. :) Oh yeah, that's too bad about Chrono Cross - no way they're going to go for another video game article one week after another one, but hopefully better luck with its next anniversary! BOZ (talk) 02:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a bump here. I can't tell if this will be a target for vandal hate or not but we'll know in about 8 hrs. Also, Zeality, I'll recommend as I think I did before that you should probably get CC on the pending TFA requests which at least show your intent to nominate so that there can be coordination with other VG articles, moving it to the main TFA/r page once a spot opens. --MASEM (t) 16:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Raul just moved Grim Fandango to Nov 12 - ack! :( I hope that doesn't scuttle my attempt to get Planescape up there, but maybe I will beg and plead and see what happens. ;) BOZ (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, no wait - you know what, that's still just outside of a month, because it won't be within a month. I think. :) BOZ (talk) 12:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

BOZ. Try switching to decaff. ;-) - X201 (talk) 13:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Heheh! :) BOZ (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

A quick update, the usual ONOZ ANOTHER VG TFA is on Talk:Main Page#Not another video game!. Nifboy (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

They're going to love me then. ;) I'm just waiting for William III of England to get promoted to the queue, so I can swoop in - hopefully I will be quick-reflexed enough. :) BOZ (talk) 00:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

LGBT characters in video games rewrite

This article is in serious need of a rewrite. Almost all of the content is OR or uncited, and any attempt I've made to trim OR ends up being confusing. As it stands, the article is an original research essay, and the only way to fix it is wiping it and starting anew (though saving important facts found in the article). - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this important enough to actually merit an article? The only notable facts I can think of are better off put in their character articles. Otherwise it just seems like flagwaving. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 04:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

If it had citations, I could see it as an acceptable article, but covering the general instances, with appropriate examples of course. But as it's currently an ORfest... --Izno (talk) 05:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The article sounds like it could work just as well called "List of..." which makes it pretty unencyclopedic. Just because there are more straight characters in video games doesn't mean that all the non-straight ones should be listed regardless of notability. It would work better as a category for character articles. Combine that with the lack of citations and I don't think it's viable.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I would look to see if any academic essays have been published on such a theme (probably not something with much if any coverage in mainstream magazines). If so, the article should be based on those; otherwise I agree it's pretty much miscellaneous original research. bridies (talk) 06:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, not to compare them, but there's also an LGBT in Japan article. While it's a region, the importance of covering LGBT demographics has always been greater than covering heterosexuality - it's not like there's much heterosexuality controversy or stuff like that. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to improve the article, I think it should be moved to LGBT in video games instead.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, because there are more things to discuss than just LGBT characters. Plus, as it is, the article feels like WP:IINFO. Only the more notable/controversial characters deserve mention. --gakon5 (talk) 07:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Gakon. The current article is just a big, unsourced mess. And there are more things to discuss than just characters, like Gakon said.--Ace Oliveira (talk) 11:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not totally sure. From a brief skim through the article, some things seem better put here than in the section on the article to do with the game, but I also get the feeling it might do better as a simple category. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 13:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

(od)I think the idea of LGBT in video games might be the better location for the information (along with any additional things), PLUS possibly a category for character articles. umrguy 42 19:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Umrguy42. Suggesting the alternative title LGBT themes in video games. BlazerKnight (talk) 01:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:Vgy

May I ask why we are still using {{Vgy}}? All it does is produce a piped link to 19xx or 20xx in video gaming. According to precedent,similar piped links such as [[19xx in music|19xx]] and [[19xx in television|19xx]] have been removed from the project, not to mention the consensus that dates shouldn't be linked at all. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I was never a fan of this template, and as you said, dates shouldn't be linked at all. I think we should take it to WP:TfD. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

There are over 1000 articles that use it, though. Should we have someone remedy the situation with AWB? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Easier to just delink it at the template level. –xeno^talk 22:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I work a lot on baseball articles, and {{by}} is also still used. --Torsodog^Talk 21:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Then it should go too. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)