Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 87

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 80←Archive 85Archive 86Archive 87Archive 88Archive 89Archive 90

Adding OnLive to articles

Hi everyone,

A relative newcomer to Wikipedia, CallumMousehold, has been adding OnLive to a small number of articles. They were, however, not sourced and as such I had to revert his edits. I welcomed him and left a message on his talk page regarding proper sourcing. In his reply he mentioned the situation regarding OnLive's status: is it a form of digital distribution or a whole different platform altogether? And whether or not it is acceptable to add it other Wikipedia articles is another issue. Any thoughts.

And yes, I could've started this discussion on the OnLive talk page, but chances are I'll get more replies here and probably by some experienced Wikipedians of course ;-) Thanks for the input and feedback! --Soetermans. T / C 20:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to mentioned that I did find an old discussion from almost two years ago, but without a definitive outcome. --Soetermans. T / C 20:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
It was also (very recently) discussed here. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, OnLive is not a platform as in, computing platform. Games are applications that run on a platform. OnLive does not run games, it proxies them from the platforms they actually run on to the end-user. It's cloud gaming. It should not be listed in |platform= nor in prose in a list of platforms. That said, writing "BioShock was released for Microsoft Windows, Linux, and is also available via OnLive." is an editorial decision on case-by-case basis. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
That's arguable. Again, I must point to the above recent discussion; the issue was controversial enough that User:Teancum suggested a RFC. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I assume you meant "That's arguable" about OnLive not being a platform. I guess it is my interpretation. I just don't see where OnLive is defined as a computing platform. It's a "platform" alright (cloud computing platform, digital distribution platform, any term you may encounter), just not a "computing platform" per definition and what the infobox uses. I guess an RfC on whether OnLive is a platform couldn't hurt. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't really have a definite opinion on the matter; I just wanted to make it known that the issue has not yet been given a clear-cut "yes" or "no" answer. I'm glad that the RfC was opened below, as it will allow this debate to finally be put to rest. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Is OnLive a Computing Platform?

Relevant discussions: March 2009, January 2011

Is OnLive to be considered together with other computing platforms for the purpose of listing them? Or more generally – how do we (re)classify OnLive in terms of platforms/systems.

For a recent example: "Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood is a video game for Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360." versus "Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood is a video game for Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 3, Xbox 360, and OnLive." This also includes {{Infobox video game}}'s |platforms= field.

  • Not computing platform. "Platform" may have many meanings depending on context, but here it is computing platform as used by the {{Infobox video game}} and when listing with other computing platforms. OnLive itself does not run video games, they have dedicated servers (with required computing platform/OS, such as Windows or XBOX360) for running the games. Since OnLive cannot directly run a game, then it is not a computign platform, rather an interface/medium/proxy/could gaming platform between the servers and the end user. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Storefront, not platform It is a "dumb" client service, running games on a virtual client that is running the PC or 360, modified enough for Online's network play. This is, effectively, no different from Steamworks-enabled games, or games from GOG that have been updated to play on Vista or W7. As such, OnLive should not be mentioned in games that it supports, but certainly a list of games provided by the service is appropriate. --MASEM (t) 23:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


  • Not a distinct platform yet As I expressed in a previous discussion, I don't believe that OnLive qualifies as its own distinct platform based on what we've seen so far. However, I say this without prejudice as to the possibility of it obtaining platform status if and when the pieces fall into place. I generally disagree with the statements that it is not a computing platform, or that cloud computing is equivalent to the current feature set of Steam, but I don't find either of those statements particularly relevant to whether or not OnLive is a distinct platform, so will not pursue further discussion on those points until the situation makes them so. Ham Pastrami (talk) 06:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Not a platform yet I would say unless places such as allgame, IGN, GameSpot, etc start listing OnLive as a seperate platform it cannot be classed as a seperate platform. Salavat (talk) 07:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Not a distinct platform It seems like OnLive belongs to something that could be classified as the thin-client gaming platform. I would therefore not classify it as a separate platform, just as a Dell PCs or Nvidia equipped PCs are not separate platforms. But I don't see any problem adding a generic platform (such as thin-client/ cloud/ on-demand gaming) to the list of supported platforms. Labongo (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Not a platform, solely for the reason that reliable sources don't report it as such. Technical analysis above is original research - Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth. If reliable sources started calling it a platform (or for that matter, a weapon of mass destruction) then we'd call it that here, regardless of how inane the definition might be. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 04:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Store - Not a platform Its the same as Valve saying that they're not going to give the Steam client away free, instead you have to buy one of their own brand PCs that has the client installed on it. - X201 (talk) 08:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair Use images for 200 video games courtesy of the Smithsonian

This isn't a topic I generally work on, but this looks like a good opportunity: tere's a vote going on now for the "most artistic video games" for a Smithsonian exhibition; 80 of 200 entries will be chosen. (See [1], site at [2]) In order to vote, you get to see (and can readily save) a fairly high-resolution screenshot of each game. Because these screenshots, as entries in the contest, are irreplaceable single cropped frames from a major contest for recognition, they should be amenable to Fair Use claims. I think it would make sense for those interested to divide up the workload (it's organized into five eras and by game console system) and each post Fair Use images from one segment. Wnt (talk) 22:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm not 100% convinced that just because the Smithsonian institute is publishing them, that makes them free. I know when I prepped our article on it (The Art of Video Games) that several of the games has "pending" image licensing. We need to be 100% sure of the freeness here for these. Yes, it would be awesome if it were the case but... --MASEM (t) 22:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I doubt they are free. The point is, you can write a legend for each individual image which says, this was the entry for a Smithsonian competition. It makes a strong Fair Use claim. The images would still need to be uploaded here rather than to Wikimedia Commons, unless the Smithsonian got a much broader license than I expect. Wnt (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I see what you are saying. I would still consider each on the merit of the images we may have for certain games. Often we're selecting an image to maximize the discussion of a gameplay element that is otherwise difficult to discuss in text alone. For example, case in point, Heavy Rain's image used in the voting shows much less than the image we have in place already. I would encourage editors to review the list at the article I've got above, and consider if the image used by the Smithsonian voting is a better replacement if one is just trying to show artwork. --MASEM (t) 22:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I guess what he means is that we can use high-res images for articles instead of typical low-res ones.陣内Jinnai 01:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
You can possibly justify a higher res image, but right now if the only thing you can say about the game's art is that it is featured in this gallery, that's not likely going to pass muster for NFCC. --MASEM (t) 02:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't think the Smithsonian contest really changes anything with regard to NFCC. Unless the Smithsonian screens are themselves considered individual works of art, those images aren't really crucial to the article. It would only strengthen FUR if the image was displayed alongside a discussion of the contest in the article. However, this could still be questionable since, again, it isn't the images themselves that are being voted on. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Japanese text in Pokémon Black and White

I want to raise the age-old issue of excessive Japanese text within an article. A few days ago, I removed a whole bunch of Japanese text from the Pokémon Black and White article, as I thought it was highly excessive throughout the article. I feel there is absolutely no need to have this appended to every fifth word, especially when most of the names in the article are, for all intents and purposes, exactly the same in English. I of course left the original Japanese title of the games, as that is perfectly acceptable.

Anyway, User:Ryulong wasn't having any of it, and reverted it with no reasoning. As you can probably guess, I reverted it back to Japanese-less state, because I honestly think having it in the Gameplay section of the article really is completely unnecessary and over the top. Ryulong then left me a message on my talk page basically implying that absolutely anything Japanese in origin is permitted to have Japanese text appended to it, presumably including the names of gameplay features in a "Gameplay" section (a huge misinterpretation of the guideline IMO), and suggesting that I'm trying to "whitewash" the existence of the original Japanese version. User:Blake responded, saying that he isn't aware of any other articles that do this. And really, neither am I, which is part of my reasoning for reverting it in the first place. And if there are articles that do this, then why does this not apply to articles for games made in France, for example, or other countries? It seems to me that only games that are Japanese in origin ever feature this.

Ryulong made a fair point about the sources being Japanese, although now that the game is out in less than two weeks and there are various official English language websites for the games, this is laughably easy to change (and should be changed, as obviously English-language references are preferred when avaliable) and is not really a valid reason against the removal of Japanese text. I'm not even sure why having such an emphasis on the original Japanese release, as the article originally did, is so important anyway. The developers are on the record stating that they design the Pokémon games for worldwide release, and go to great lengths to ensure that the names will be suitable for other languages.

Further reverts occurred, with Ryulong stating that the text "provides cultural context" and is "useful". I strongly disagree. Ryulong added a bit about the origin of the name of the region within the game ("Isshu"), which I think is perfectly fine, as it is discussing the origin of the name (which actually is providing context). Simply appending katakana to various words is not acceptable, in my view. I seem to recall a big debate in the early years of Wikipedia, when many articles had Japanese appended to almost every word, and the result of it was that we draw a line; only original titles and character names would generally be permitted. It is completely unnecessary, impedes readability, encourages people to add more unnecessary text, and frankly, does anyone care how generic names/terms such as "Random Match" or "Battle Subway" are spelled in Japanese? I'm most certainly not trying to "whitewash" the games' Japanese origins; I really do fail why this is important to the article, and why so much Japanese text should be present in the article in the first place when no other article does this. What are other peoples' views on this? --Dorsal Axe 15:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Why not discuss this on that article's talk page? Its a case by case issue after all, and those involved with that article will be more likely to see the discussion that way. Dream Focus 15:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Because we are wondering what the overall consensus is for showing the names from the country of origin for all video game articles. Is it relevant to a certain degree? To what degree? What should have their Japanese text shown, and what shouldn't? Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
To provide cultural context, the subject's title from its country of origin is included in the lead section. Anything going into detail about the differences in naming between regional releases (such as frequent instances of "[name], known as [name] in Japan, ...") is not allowed in prose as it is excessive information. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a literal translation project for subtitles of foreign-language terms, and the English Wikipedia deals with English versions of games. This does not mean that the original names are forbidden everywhere, though: in an article about a list of characters, for example, it is okay to list the characters' names from their country of origin because it is the subject the article is concerned with. Prime Blue (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this entire issue being mediated upon at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Video games developed in Japan (with discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#WP:VG/GL mediation)? –MuZemike 16:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not entirely familiar with that issue, but from what I can tell, that dicussion seems to be more specifically about the romanisations that appear next to the katakana. Perhaps I'm mistaken though.--Dorsal Axe 16:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
That's ridiculously excessive. I love the Japanese language, don't get me wrong, but if this was an article about something from Germany or Saudi Arabia or something, I doubt we would put so many templates in it. Nomader (Talk) 17:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Make your point noted there then.陣内Jinnai 18:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, great Dorsal Axe. Make a discussion in the one place that it doesn't make sense.

The Japanese names (either the actual names within the Japanese language or the Anglicizations thereof) should by all means have a place in the prose of Pokémon Black and White and any page where ever it damn well makes sense to have Japanese text. The items in question are regarding game mechanics for which all references are currently in Japanese and for the Japanese version. Removing "Cギア" when talking about the "C Gear" (name the same in both games) is pointless. Saying a particular feature has a different name in the original language it came out in is relevant to the article and it is currently the only name that is reliably sourced. All this discussion is showing me that this entire god damn WikiProject has a stick up their ass when it comes to Japanese text. If the subject is Japanese, the article by all means should have Japanese text. The same goes for Russian, Chinese, Arabic, French, Spanish, Vietnamese, Khmer, Bengali, Malayam, Swahili, etc.

Also, Dorsal Axe is making it seem like I have been repeatedly edit warring over the content at Pokémon Black and White when only two edits took place that concern this thread.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

  • There is no reason to have translations in an article for every proper noun, simple as that. Why is important for English readers to know what game mechanics are called in another language, exactly? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
    Since when was it unnecessary to include the original non-English names in a topic for which the original langauge is not English? It's not important for English readers but it does improve the article by providing more information that English readers would have otherwise been unaware of. They're new mechanics and I don't understand why such content has not been featured on previous games in the series. Surely it would provide more information relevant to the article if other gameplay mechanics in these and other video games were shown to have names in the Japanese version that are named similarly or radically differently.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
    If we were talking a game that was only released in Japan with no official English release, sure, spelling out all the proper names from Japan with translations is fine. But when it receives an official translation in the West, the original names rarely provide any encyclopedic value for en.wiki readers. There may be something to discuss (eg the name of the game Okami, the original Japanese name for Phoenix Wright, etc.) that would make the translation necessary, but otherwise they get in the way of comprehension for a topic that is no longer limited to Japan and its culture. --MASEM (t) 19:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
    That's just utter bullshit, especially when the names were on the article for the duration of its time as being without an English localization. Just because a game suddenly gets an English release does not mean that the Japanese names are removed, and especially when several of the English names that are being purportedly featured are not reliably sourced (I know that the Battle Subway, Royal Unova/Isshu, Feeling Check, and Pokeshifter mechancics have not been mentioned by NoA, NE, or NAus yet, and therefore have no English names to overwrite the Japanese ones).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
    Ryulong I really suggest you tone down your rhetoric. Everyone here is well-aware of your views of this project and its practices, but biting off people's heads here only undermines the mediation going on and is in poor form besides. As you pointed out, at one time there were no official English names, but that is no longer the case. As an English language encyclopedia the English translations or given names take precedence; this is not just WP:VG but MoS and article naming project-wide. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
    What's going on here has absolutely nothing to do with the mediation concerning romanization. I have never come across this issue on other pages because, for one thing, most other proper nouns for concepts in other languages will have their own article and therefore make it completely unnecessary to include the original language name of the item in question. The fact that the English Wikipedia is never going to have an individual article on the Battle Subway or the C-Gear means that the information concerning the original Japanese name should be located in the article on the subject. Just because an official translation is made available does not mean that the original name should be left out of any discussion on the subject.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
    The Good Article Brain Age 2: More Training in Minutes a Day!, even in light of the fact that the Japanese name is not translated to the English name, does not include the Japanese name because it is exceedingly long. Providing romanization of content throughout the article is similarly excessive. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
    Would you look at the number of proper nouns currently appended by Japanese text in Pokémon Black and White#Gameplay? It's nothing at all like that other page which by all should have the Japanese name in a format that isn't a pointless footnote mixed in with the references. On Black and White, it's six items spread out amongst eight paragraphs of prose.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
    If it's appropriate to do it with six, it would be appropriate to do it if the number of proper nouns to be romanized was egregiously large in count. There's no point - English readers do not need Japanese text for every single thing in the article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
    They don't need it but we can give it to them anyway and there's nothing in any of the policies of Wikipedia that says we cannot do that.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
    Actually, not every reader will have the right browser or font support to show all the kanji characters, and to blind /screenreaders, it will be a mess of noise. We should avoid the use when they don't offer anything for the reader. --MASEM (t) 22:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
    (ec)I still contend that as long as Nintendo has provided an official english translation, which is there intent and meaning in the West, what these elements were titled in the Japanese version are of no importance to the average reader. If it were a case of a game that never got an official translation, then the Japanese term makes sense since that's how we can show the verification of why a term was named that way. Or as I've mentioned above, if the Japanese name or the translation has facts of interest (why things were selected in that manner) then we should mention that. Otherwise, the English name provides all that is needed for the average reader. --MASEM (t) 22:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
    What about in cases where the Japanese and English names were the same? Surely including the name in Japanese text would improve the article. And since when have we ever catered to the "average reader"?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
    When Wikipedia was established, and making sure we don't violate WP:GAMECRUFT. The case has always been that we need to explain the article in an amount of detail that a person with no prior knowledge with the subject could comprehensively learn about that subject. That's why we put basic information in the beginning of lead, to inform those who have absolutely no knowledge about the article (info, such as, it is a video game, a character, a genre, etc.) As for language packs, i'm in that boat and as it stands, all of the information discussed looks like white empty boxes to me. Not very helpful even if I were looking for the Japanese translation. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
    The original names of a handful of items is in no way cruft or as someone else pointed out a directory listing or any of the other things on WP:NOT.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
    The inclusion of romajinized words is definitely cruft. By the nature of the content - content that serves to help a small niche of people - it is crufty. And in response to your question, Wikipedia has always and will always be catering to the average reader. As Subzerosmokerain pointed out, the content is designed for people who want to learn about the subject. Romanization of random proper nouns is irrelevant to them. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not "romajinized words" so ignore the discussion on WT:MOS-JA because it has no bearing on what I did. What I have added back into the article twice were the original Japanese names which just happen to have romaji but that is not the crux here. Dorsal Axe removed the katakana (and their romanizations) from the entirety of the "Gameplay" section on Pokémon Black and White (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). When talking about the "C Gear" for the first time, I put back in "Cギア" (and "Shī Gia"). When talking about the "Battle Subway" I have put back in "バトルサブウェイ" (and "Batoru Sabuwei"). When talking about other new gameplay mechanics for the first time that are not discussed anywhere else on the project, I put the original Japanese text (and their romanizations) into the article because Dorsal Axe removed them feeling that they were not relevant to the article, something a majority of you video game editors seem to feel when it regards anything that isn't English and you feel takes up unnecessary space.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia, and your proposal is something that, as you said, is not covered in guidelines or policies. Combined with the fact that your proposal for katakana in the article's prose is unprecedented to use non-English translations in the article's body, we have every reason to disagree with you. We do not include Japanese words in the article body for the same reason why we do not give tips or control guides in articles. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Arguably, right now, as Pokemon B&W is not out in the West yet, any terms that are based on the Japanese game should be given the kanji/romanization unless the English name is confirmed by RS. So, for example, I assume that "Battle Subway" is a best-guess translation of "バトルサブウェイ" / "Batoru Sabuwei" - which sound close, but it is original research. But as soon as the game is out in the West and we can verify through the game/reviews that it is called that (or possibly some other name), the original Japanese name no longer matters for en.wiki - barring unique circumstances that the translation is discussed further in the article. --MASEM (t) 00:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
For the record, "Battle Subway", "Pokéshifter" etc. have been officially confirmed.--Dorsal Axe 15:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Do you have any idea what I did on the page? Do you have any idea how articles outside of this walled garden are treated? In every page on a Japanese subject, Japanese words are included in the article prose, particularly if they aren't covered anywhere else. None of the edits I did on Pokémon Black and White (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) are forbidden by any policy or guideline on this project. And I have no idea where you're pulling any of the other things you say I did wrong from. It's not unprecedented. It's not forbidden, and in fact it should very well be promoted as something that improves articles from beyond the insular thoughts of this WikiProject. And the translation is not original research. バトル is in Japanese dictionaries as "Battle" and サブウェイ is in Japanese dictionaries as "Subway". Why is it that whenever the translation is brought up someone states that it's original research when it's just common sense? And Masem, if the names are the same, that's just more reason to provide more cultural context by showing the original Japanese name.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Does it really matter? It will be some way for less then 2 weeks, and then we won't have this problem again for half a decade. Blake (Talk·Edits) 00:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Why is there a need to remove completely relevant information from the article? I've turned some of the "known in Japan as..." things into footnotes, but it's going to be completely unnecessary to do that to the things that keep the same name.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I think it needs to be reiterated that this is a very non-serious discussion that you are taking very seriously, and as such, I suggest that you reduce the number of ad hominen attacks in your comments. Will you please explain the necessity for why we should list the Japanese names for proper nouns in this article? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Including the Japanese text improves the quality of the articles by providing more information concerning the original release of this particular video game. By merely providing the official English names of these items, it provides a disservice to the reader, be he average or advanced.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I think if the gameplay elements aren't important enough to be listed at Gameplay of Pokemon, then it isn't important enough to show the original Japanese name. Blake (Talk·Edits) 00:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
That's real BS. The game hasn't been released yet and there are no reliable sources concerning anything other than the official Japanese announcement of the features and their incorporation in the Japanese releases of the games. In a couple of weeks when the games are available in most of the Anglophone world they may very well be important enough for coverage at the other page. The English website seems to cover the C Gear now. Perhaps sometime this week they'll reveal the other items and be ready for coverage on the gameplay page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I will have you know that my initials are BS... Well, for now they can be there, since thats the only information can be verifiable. I meant once the English name is known. The Japanese names don't give the readers any valuable information. If it was talking about it in detail, like in Gameplay of Pokemon, then it is important. But if it's a short description, we don't need to give it WP:UNDUEWEIGHT by displaying something as trivial as variations of the name. Blake (Talk·Edits) 01:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Appending a non-Enlish proper noun or term of art with its name in the original language is most certainly not giving it undue weight. The Japanese version came out first, so there should be no reason not to provide information about its release.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
We have policies here that describe what articles are to contain – the differences in language releases whose importance you keep stressing is not part of it. And even if there are no English language names available yet, there is not a single reason to include katakana as well as its romanization for almost every single term in the game: "it provides a disservice to the reader", "it's useful" or "it damn well makes sense" are non-arguments (it is a pity I even have to explain that). I am fully aware that you think an article's quality is directly proportional to the amount of nihongo templates it contains, but please keep this view to these plot-only descriptions dealing with non-notable characters – elsewhere on the English Wikipedia, we tend to write articles that are actually informative and not centered on the alleged sanctity of the Japanese language. If you are so keen on the Japanese meanings of objects, either learn the language and edit the Japanese Wikipedia, or just work on specialist wikis where people generally tend not to care. Sorry if that sounded rude, but with the abundance of foul language and insults you keep introducing, I guess it is the best way to make you understand. Prime Blue (talk) 13:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Bringing up another article I work on and the use of Japanese text on it and claiming that the subject does not qualify for coverage on Wikipedia is an ad hominem attack if I ever saw one. Whatever the fuck you think is going on at that page is not what I am trying to do to another page. These proper nouns should be appended with the original name, and that is almost what is entirely going on at the other article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain that the level of profanity coming from you over something as trivial as Japanese text on Wikipedia tells everyone that you are way too invested in this. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

My vernacular does not mean I am invested in anything. I am just confounded by the fact that the majority of WP:VG editors seem to think that anything outside of the information regarding an English language release of a video game becomes redundant or something violating WP:NOT.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
It is not our responsibility to make your argument for you. As it stands, you have no legitimate argument in favour of including Japanese names for proper nouns. So many times I see you arguing that it includes more content, which, by itself, is a violation of the indiscriminate content guideline. We are not here to make articles bigger, we're here to make them better. What makes you think that WP:VG does not regard Japanese release information as important? Does covering the release and development history of, in this case, Pokémon Black and White's Japanese release not qualify as a strong enough attempt to represent a subject's worldwide release? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Ryulong, we've already seen that you can't catch a grasp of Wikipedia's notability guidelines when you argued for red links to blatantly non-notable video game composers. The fact that something exists or is part of one or several productions does not make it notable. If you actually read Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), you know that these plot-only character pages don't have a place here – you're just lucky nobody cares enough to bring them up at AfD. Can't blame anyone to make a connection when the pages you frequently edit suffer from the same glaring problems, oozing Japanese characters from every pore. Whenever you argue for including all that Japanese-related trivia to actual articles, you just throw around nondescript "should"s and "shouldn't"s rather than pointing out policies or guidelines – quite frankly, because you don't have any backing you up. Wikipedia is neither a a complete exposition of all possible details, nor an indiscriminate collection of information. Everyone here is on the same page about this being completely inappropriate, yet you, being you, continue to go through the wall with your head. How you lasted several years here with that attitude and profanity is beyond me. Prime Blue (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Um, please focus on issue at hand and not the editor. If there is a legitimate concern for Ryulong's behavior, this is not the venue for that. --MASEM (t) 21:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
That last edit to Pokémon Black and White, Prime Blue, is to add the Japanese name in a footnote section to remove the text from the main prose. I have yet to see anyone say anything wrong about that. And the notability of a handful of musicians is different from the notability of a fictional character. And including the original names of proper nouns and terms of art from another language is not a violation of WP:NOTDIR or WP:IINFO, no matter how many times you say it is. But still, this has nothing to do with the issue at hand so it would help to stop making ad hominem attacks.
New Age Retro Hippie, I just find that WP:VG consistently has some sort of preference to avoiding relevant information when it comes to Japanese names of things, namely that a difference exists and that said difference is either irrelevant or said difference's Japanese language name is irrelevant to cover. Including this information still falls under the "The inclusion of Japanese titles can enhance a video game article by providing additional cultural context." tenet of this project's guidelines, even if it is not a game title but a proper noun within said game.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
It is very irrelevant to provide the Japanese name for Subway. There is no critical commentary on its Japanese name, there is not even mention of its Japanese name that you would find from reliable sources. The guideline that covers the inclusion of Japanese titles is clearly referring to game titles, not proper nouns. Why does it fall under it if they are not titles? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, to unfortunately bring up a sore subject, WP:MOS-JA proscribes including Japanese text for the first time a subject with a relevant Japanese name is brought up on a page. And including the Japanese name for "Battle Subway" would indeed be relevant concerning it's a new feature in the game that is being described and up until sometime today there was no official English name for it. I should not keep having to find conflicts between this WikiProject's guidelines and the guidelines at WP:MOS-JA every time I do something that I would do normally on every other article I have ever edited that concerned a Japanese subject matter.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
And that could be the issue here. I think I speak for many of us that consider a video game developed in Japan but officially released internationally with official translations is no longer a "Japanese subject matter" for purposes of en.wiki. A game that only comes out in Japan (such as Catherine or Oeundan) even if can be imported, or has unofficial fan translations, is still Japanese, but as soon as has a wider release, it's an international topic, and on en.wiki, we treat those topics in a manner appropriate for English readers. --MASEM (t) 22:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I should also point out that your arguments all hinge on the rather myopic view that "those people" at WikiProject Japan are any more "right" than "we" are, or that their guideline is any more infallible or more enshrined. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
But why should this text which was relevant when it was concerning the game in Japan suddenly become irrelevant when the game has an official English localization?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
It used Japanese names because, at the time, it was a Japanese subject. Now, it is an international subject, with an English focus due to the project's focus. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

That still does not explain why the article cannot contain these Japanese release terms alongisde the now English adaptation terms.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Because they simply aren't relevant, and nobody cares about them. If the subject isn't notable enough for in depth coverage like at Gameplay of Pokemon, it isn't notable enough to display the history of its name. Blake (Talk·Edits) 23:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
As I asked, why are the Japanese names suddenly irrelevant with the pending English release? And you cannot say what will and will not be notable in the English release of the game, because right now there are no English language reliable sources describing these features (which probably would not fit in the topic of the gameplay article). All you can do is say that these features exist in the game and give them the names.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Because Japanese names are only necessary for inclusion when it is primarily a Japanese subject. It is an international subject of Japanese origin. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
And? Japanese is still Japanese.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Ryulong, i do believe using japanese name is good, but the name of the gamemodes isn't really necessary if they both practically pronounced the same and have same meaning. stuff like that is most significant with names of fictional or real people.Bread Ninja (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
A subject that was once exclusively Japanese does not mean that it should have equal representation of Japanese and English for the game terms. The Japanese name is part of reliable coverage, where Japanese names for game modes are not. "It's Japanese" is not exactly an argument. As it is, you are not even resorting to arguments of necessity anymore, merely saying "it's useful". I'm sure that David, Masem, and others can explain to you just as well, if not better, why we shouldn't include content just because it is useful. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Um, I'm fairly certain that there are probably items covering the Japanese game mechanics (not game modes) in Japanese, which would be in reliable sources. And I am fairly certain that a subject that was once exclusively Japanese should still retain some sort of semblance of its history as a Japanese release as well as incorporate information from its international releases, rather than only keeping the title and leaving the rest of the page save for characters or locations devoid of Japanese.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Again, I am confused as to the significant amount of content that covers the Japanese release in the article does not qualify as coverage of the Japanese release. Please stop acting as if our stance is that we should abandon mention of the Japanese release. An objective observer could tell you that it is clearly not the position of anyone here. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
What you are proposing Ryulong is in direct violation to the parent guideline of MOSJA you are using to base your conclusions on. Per MOS:FOREIGN "Foreign words should be used sparingly."陣内Jinnai 01:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I've never even heard of MOS:FOREIGN before, and I've never heard of it being applied to anything before. And even then, on Pokémon Black and White there are only five or six Japanese terms (outside of character names within a later section), so I would say that's sparingly enough to fit within the MOS.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure that MOS:FOREIGN has been applied to things before. As to your argument of how it applies, it is only seldom given the limitations. Under your proposal, you suggest all proper nouns have Japanese names included. Therefore, in the context of proper nouns, it is being used constantly. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
It's only being included for proper nouns that aren't mentioned anywhere else, as per WP:MOS-JA, and this edit reflects that.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
While the shortcut MOS:FOREIGN is new (as of this month), the section has been there since at least 2007. Nifboy (talk) 01:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Free screenshot templates?

Are there free-image templates analogous to the {{non-free game screenshot}} template? An editor had changed the {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} tag in this image to {{non-free game screenshot|Atari}}, presumably to put it in the category Category:Screenshots of Atari games. I undid this and replaced {{non-free game screenshot|Atari}} with [[Category:Screenshots of Atari games]], but if there's a template I should be using instead of categorizing it directly, I'll be happy to use it. It may be a moot point with this particular image, since it's flagged to get moved to Commons, but in general this would be handy to know. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 07:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

If something is on Commons, then the only licensing tags on it should be Commons templates. Any template there wouldn't affect the categories on Wikipedia to my knowledge. So simply adding the category to the Wikipedia version of the page is probably the easiest thing to do. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC))

The subject of linking (in the External links section) to IMDB has been brought up before but nothing of recent, and I've seen several users adding such to VG articles.

The older consensus seems to be against these (and I'd agree to that), but I want to check what that is before removing the links I'm seeing. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

For me it's a case-by-case basis. If the cast is particularly notable I could see it possibly being a valid external link, but 90% of the time this link is added it isn't needed. --Teancum (talk) 14:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok, so the case I saw was on Portal - now since both Ellen McClain and Johnathan Coulton have notoriety outside of VGs, this would make sense. Similarly for something like Kingdom Hearts II or Brutal Legend. But if its a game of the usual VG actors doing VG work (common for most import JRPGs) then I would tend to ignore it. --MASEM (t) 14:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
These links have been added to many of the Pokémon species articles, and the user adding them has used them as a source to add voice actor information. I know they aren't supposed to be used as a source, but I don't know what to do, because I was using Bulbapedia as a source for that previously. I am not sure which one is more reliable. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Neither. Bulbapedia is a Wiki, and therefore unreliable, while imdb is based off of all user contributed information, so it's also unreliable. Nomader (Talk) 15:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

(Rough) guidelines for image names

When I look in the various video game image categories, I see a lot of images which have really odd filenames, many of which probably need to be moved, which I do a little of that. Anyways, I was wondering if we really had any "naming guideline" of sorts with our images; more specifically, what a filename for a boxart should be vs. what a filename for a screenshot should be vs. disambiguating and all the stuff inbetween.

I take a very simple example of how I believe files should be named and laid out in articles: for the article Sqoon, there are two images, the boxart, named File:Sqoon boxart.jpg and a gameplay image, named File:Sqoon.png. Both images start with the title of the game, in which the gameplay image gets simply the name of the game (as it's the main point of information should somebody look up that filename) while the boxart image gets the name of the game + "boxart" at the end to disambiguate. I know in other articles, the opposite applies (in which I have also done myself).

Any comments on how we should be naming such images would be appreciated, and it would be helpful to me should I get enough time to sit down and do some "image cleanup". –MuZemike 04:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with making a guideline for images. I also think that it wouldn't hurt to have a specialized image task force for video games that would allow for discussion of image inclusion standards. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Another point for discussion is "When is a name too long?" should File:Nflqbc2000.jpg be changed to File:NFL Quarterback Club 2000_cover ? -X201 (talk) 10:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, we do have WP:VG/I, but that's been a ghost town for a good while, now. –MuZemike 04:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh snap, there's one already? Huh. Too bad more people aren't interested in image collaboration! - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Well judging from my watchlist, we have a few people who whittle away at the image problems for this project. I know that two people to contact about this would be User:Salavat and User:N. Harmonik, both of whom have constantly showed up in my watchlist editing images and moving them to different file names that I've uploaded. Are there anymore Wikignomes that edit mostly WP:VG images that we could bring to this discussion? It'd really affect them the most. Nomader (Talk) 08:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I've added the image cats to my list of categories that I dive into when I'm looking for something to do - X201 (talk) 09:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Remember that only sysops can move images, so there won't be many of them who can. However, it doesn't stop regular users from asking a sysop to move an image or from using the {{Rename media}} template on the images that need renaming. –MuZemike 08:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
BTW, we could always have a bot tag every image that is on a page with a VG template. This way we could know what we're dealing with. Template:WPVG will automatically tag an image as File-class, and they will appear in Category:File-Class video game articles . ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 10:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I've always gone with "File:Moto Racer Coverart.jpg" for the box art and "File:Moto Racer Screenshot.jpg" for the screen. Or not if I'm being lazy. I'm not really too partial to whichever we choose, but because we each have our own way of doing things, I doubt a bot will be much help in this. Nomader (Talk) 11:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

A bot would be no help in moving (or rather, a bot shouldn't rename files based on variables). Rather, a bot would be useful in categorizing all of our images. Currently we have some of our images categorized, just the ones that an editor has remembered to tag. We should probably run a bot to do this regardless. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 11:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh whoops, sorry I misunderstood what you were getting at about the bot stuff. Yeah, that would work out just fine. Nomader (Talk) 12:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Good, if no-body objects I will set up a bot request when I return. Now I will stop distracting from the topic of this thread. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 12:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Back on topic then- I think some standardization in our file naming would be nice. It would add a layer of professionalism to things, and make sorting images easier.
I typically add some descriptor to every file I upload. I start with the topic name it applies to and then what it is for: gameplay, cover art, concept art, music, etc. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC))
I think that's great. When I first started with WP I expected each image page to be like a mini article. That's how other encyclopedias are, like Encarta. You click on the image and you get a separate page or a popup with tons of descriptive text and links. On WP were pretty much have "This is a featured article, on every detail of the subject's existence, with more context than you can handle. And over here is a picture of SOMCherf17.JPG, and some lovely links to the Creative Commons." We should put some lines down about giving proper context to images. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 21:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Could I get some comments at Bot Requests? To tag the images we need to create talk pages for each one, which needs community support. I'm pointing to this conversation as community support, but maybe someone else should drop a note there too. The other option is to tag the image page itself, but that's non-standard... ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

See BFRA at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Snotbot 2. Reach Out to the Truth 17:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

And, Category:File-Class video game articles is full-up. 23K images locally hosted, holy crap. Anybody want to propose image naming guidelines? I do think that long and descriptive titles are beneficial for both editors, and for google search results. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 09:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I've been helping out with the Great Backlog Drive and having seen some of the naming travesties there, I agree. Long names above abbreviations every time. - X201 (talk) 10:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
"File:{{PAGENAME}} coverart.jpg" for the coverart, "File:{{PAGENAME}}.jpg" for a non-coverart image, and "File:{{PAGENAME}} xxxxxxx.jpg" if you need a third image. Image names can never be "too long" IMO and it's useful to be consistent with the name of the article. I think naming the first non-coverart image just "File:{{PAGENAME}}.jpg" is good because, if you want to add a second non-coverart image, you'll have to come up with a name that isn't dictated by the guideline, which means you'll have to really consider whether it's necessary to add the extra fair-use image at all. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 10:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
How would {{PAGENAME}} resolve when an image is used on more than one page? SnottyWong babble 21:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure "{{PAGENAME}}" in this case simply means "the page's name", i.e. the game's title. It wouldn't resolve because it's only being here used as pseudocode. You can't actually use {{PAGENAME}} in file or page names, and referencing the file in the article using {{PAGENAME}} would be too fragile. Reach Out to the Truth 05:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Right. It would still be on a case-by-case basis as to what the title of an image should be. –MuZemike 08:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I just mean if you have an article called "Final Fantasy XV", you call the image "File:Final Fantasy XV.jpg". If you have an article called "Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex (video game)", you call the image "File:Ghost in the Shell Stand Alone Complex (video game).jpg". If the image is used in multiple articles, you just give it one name out of the possible ones and don't mind the fact it's used in multiple articles. What's the problem in doing so? Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 10:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
That sounds like a good general rule. There seems to be a lot of agreement here. I think the next step would be to draft a guideline or update our existing ones. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC))

Strongest Oppose possible: Sorry i didn't chime in earlier as when i saw this earlier it hadn't come to the point of solely using the article name.

No one here clearly thought this thing through. There are many more problems beyond the multiple article issue. I'll just go over two. This proporsal assumes there will only ever be 1 image an article; something that is almost never the case. The seemingly obvious answer some might say, numbering them, comes into problems because images are reordered, deleted, modified, etc and a number doesn't add good disambig info. It can also cause issues like File:Persona 3 2.jpg. That imo will just confuse things more than help them out. Finally, if the article name changes, are we going to have to change EVERY LAST FILE? That's seems counterproductive and a waste of time since many articles are created here with Japanese names or working titles. There needs to be another way of handling this that doesn't rely on using the article name.陣内Jinnai 20:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

  • I don't think it NEEDS to be the actual article name, because yes, there are JP/EU/NA name differences(Puzzle Bobble/Bust-a-Move comes to mind) and beta names. This shouldn't be a huge problem and as long as the name makes sense and isn't "xxxx sequel logo". As for multiple images in an article, I think it should just have a descriptive name after the game's name. For example, a character group image could be called "xxxx characters". For other things, like multiple gameplay images, things like File:Tww dekuleaf.png should probably be "Wind Waker Deku Leaf", and File:Tww explosion.png should be "Wind Waker explosion". The guidelines shouldn't be too strict, but I agree, the names should be as descriptive as possible without being too long, or using abbreviations. Blake (Talk·Edits) 21:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
    • On the first point, that only works when the translations are similar. Many games have singnifigant name changes. In addition (video game) isn't part of the title; its a disambig extention. Read WP:TITLE.
    • As to the descriptors, well that can still cause problems. What distinquishes a screenshot of a character from a production model of the character? What if there are multiple images of the same character? By this point if you go and say "just use descriptors" you're basically saying there's no fixed rule. Finally there would need to be a way to distinquish between a desciptor and a name because it wouldn't always be clear where one ends and the other begins otherwise.陣内Jinnai 21:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Jinnai, you clearly didn't read this thing through. I took your first issue into account in this post. Your second issue is a non-issue, as this is all just a rough guideline, not hard science. If the article name changes, then we'll have a slight discrepancy and... who cares, really? The name would still be recognizable and that's all that matters. If there's an image named "File:Dragon Warrior IV coverart.jpg" in an article called "Dragon Quest IV: Chapters of the Chosen", I doubt the minor discrepancy would make the project collapse on itself. The only point of this guideline is to avoid unreadable names like "File:165493214616.jpg". Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 10:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
        • I understand that, and that's fine as other projects do similar things. My point is that:
          1. It shouldn't be based on article titles, but rather the games' or characters' names. That's totally different from an article title and considering there are a number of articles with multiple games in them, we shouldn't treat all articles as monolithic 1 article=1 game mentality.
          2. We should use something like parentheses to separate descriptions and try to have basic rules for indicating standard descriptors that can be expanded on in a case-by-case circumstance such as (video game cover), (alternate video game cover), (screenshot), (video game animation), (video game gamplay video), etc.陣内Jinnai 14:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Nintendo Power July/August 1989 issue #7

The issue about a lack of a title has come up at the FAC for the feature Dragon Quest. I asked those who have it listed in their library, but have not heard back from them and its used for some major info. If anyone has access to it, please tell me the title, or better yet add it (ref #71). Also the next few issues for Dragon Warrior will probbaly be needed as they also lack titles and I wanted to bring that up to FAC.陣内Jinnai 19:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I have those Nintendo Power issues myself; I'll post more information about what I have at Talk:Dragon Quest. –MuZemike 05:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

PAL region merge?

I was alarmed to find a template at the top of PAL region stating that there was a deletion debate after a nomination for deletion, and that there was consensus to merge it into PAL. However, the link to the deletion debate is a redlink, and there doesn't seem to be any such source for it. It was added by User:Pillow2011, who has also been removing links to PAL region in articles (see [3], [4], [5]). He removed a fair use image of a Mii with no explanation (see [6]), He has also been removing other content from other pages with no explanation (see [7] [8] [9]) including protection templates (see [10]) and cleanup templates ([11]). I'm not really sure what to do about this-- I don't really do this sort of vandalism control business. Can someone maybe contact the editor, or WP:AIV or whatever it is you're supposed to do when you stumble across this kind of stuff? Most of the things happened to video game articles so I've decided to post this up here, sorry-- this isn't really my cup of tea. Nomader (Talk) 10:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Hes doing it again. We revert this, right? Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Honestly, I have no idea. We should really list release dates based on what the reliable sources tell us-- if they say "Europe", we should say Europe, but if they say "PAL", we should say PAL. We really need administrator involvement here though if he keeps put up AFD-deletion merge tags and the such. Nomader (Talk) 13:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Quick request

Can a few extra people add StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm to their watchlists please? There's been an amount of IPs and other driveby edits over the last few weeks trying to create an article that is little more than a painfully inappropriate plot regurgitation of the parent game. There's no real-world information available for the expansion yet, beyond the title and race it features. It was agreed at the recent repromotion of the good topic that now is not the right time for an article and that it would be better covered in the series article or the parent game article. I'd appreciate a few extra eyes on to keep it that way until Blizzard actually starts talking about the expansion and we get some proper meat to put an article together. -- Sabre (talk) 16:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

On a related note, we really need to create a rule like WP:FILM has for when to start a media article. Unfortunately we don't have a clear demarcation like the start of principal photography, but as it is WP:CRYSTAL isn't very useful. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, I think that while a general guideline should be made defining when an article should be made, exceptions should be made as well - like in the case of Kingdom Hearts III, which is far off from being created but has a fairly decent collection of information/reception (in spite of its complete ambiguity as to what it actually is). - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 11:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject triple crown

Something I tried in the past was to get us a Special edition WikiProject triple crown. I made three attempts to get this done, but it never happened. That being said, I hope that posting here will get things going again. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC))

Editors

This is a list of the editors that meet the criteria: start and nominate a Did you know? and be a major contributor to a good article and a piece of featured content.

These are the ones I am aware of. If you are not on the list or know of someone missing, please add them with the appropriate content links for verification. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC))

*cough* --MASEM (t) 18:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
*sneeze* *sniffle* *choke* -- Sabre (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Updated the list above. Also, to anyone who is listed- please feel free to change the articles I listed to something more to your liking.
Masem and Sabre- you two should probably apply for the regular triple crown to make sure you're included in the project crown. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC))
I was about to comment that I have 4 video game-triple crowns (not all nominated as such), but then I see that you only have Gary King at 1, and I refuse to believe that he only has 1 video game one out of the 40+ total that he has. Looks like he has more like 10! And Deckiller definitely has a video game triple crown or three in there somewhere. --PresN 18:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I based that on the listing in the special triple crown section, which only listed one set of entries that apply to the Wikiproject's topic. But yeah if you have others, go ahead and switch them out for what you'd like displayed. I'm certainly proud of working on certain articles (which I just changed), and the listing was based on what I saw a year ago. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC))
I don't really understand what we're doing here, or why this information needs to be recorded; however, in the hope that it's helpful, I'll contribute my "stats". I recently single-handedly brought Terra Nova: Strike Force Centauri to GA; I was the main editor of Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss (FA); and I did, at one point, get a DYK on the front page, but the article has since been merged and redirected. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to say that I qualify, but the only FA I have under my belt, Katamari Damacy, isn't up to snuff anymore. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
The purpose is to get a special award for the project as a whole and the involved editors. Since our project has such a high output of quality content I figured a little recognition was in order. After three unsuccessful attempts on my own, I hope that we as a project can get this off the ground.
To interested editors- If you think that you qualify, then nominate yourself at Wikipedia:Triple Crown/Nominations, where the contributions will be verified. I'm not sure how previously listed content is evaluated, but nothing is lost by asking User:SMasters, who apparently oversees the triple crown now. Those that qualify will get a triple crown award and the project crown award should it ever get made. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC))

Oh, I always that was for the same article! Well, in that case (my best work, as I have many GAs and DYKs):

–MuZemike 21:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It's the Four Award that requires it all to be for the same article. Reach Out to the Truth 00:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
My current goal is to get Characters in Ghost Trick: Phantom Detective featured (though I won't cheat and do a featured list!). - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Just a side note, I'm pretty sure you would qualify for this award as well Retro. You have a DYK with Glass Joe, a featured article in Katamari Damacy and a good article in Donkey Kong Jr. Math (among others). Nomader (Talk) 03:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, it's technically qualifying, but the article's not up to FA quality. I'm planning on cleaning it up or delisting if I cannot. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I can see what you mean, the "Sequels" section needs quite a bit of work just for starters. Nomader (Talk) 08:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a note on my feelings on the matter-- I completely support this proposal. Anything that can give more positive eyes towards WP:VG is always a good thing in my opinion. That said, we may have to take the graphic design of the award into our own hands if we want to get the creation of it made. I'd think the best way to go about this is to lay out the proposal, list the people who already qualify for it, and then go from there at WP:CROWN. Guyinblack, good call on this one. Nomader (Talk) 03:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to get the ball rolling-
  1. We need an image that basically swaps out the middle crown in File:Triplecrown.jpg. How about a gold and jeweled version of one of the controller images? Any thoughts or objections?
  2. Those that don't have a triple crown should nominate themselves for one. I think a larger number of editors for the project crown will equate to greater cause for its creation. Here's the list so far:
FYI- There are several levels of triple crowns depending on if you have 1, 2–4, 5–14, 15–39, etc. sets of articles. For example, Gary King has the Genghis Khan edition because has over 40 each of DKYs, GAs, and FC. Even though I have a lot of FC and GAs, I only have 2 DYKs, so I have the imperial edition because I have 2 sets of articles. So make sure you receive list the appropriate number of articles to receive your due recognition. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC))
I definitely support File:Gamepad.svg. If there was ever a symbol representative of our project, that would be it, and I think it's the cleanest of the three. Side note-- when I got the imperial triple crown, they never removed me from the normal one. Can I just go ahead and delete myself from the original? Nomader (Talk) 17:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd say so, that's just a procedural change, not a substantive one. --PresN 17:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not a big fan of the idea of awards as an incentive for quality editing, but, if it helps the VG project gain respect/exposure, I'll nominate myself for a triple crown in the next few days. I only apply for 1, though, because article creation and DYKs aren't things I do very often. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not so concerned, except about the DYK info. That kind of content requires creating a new article, usually via spinout, which we shouldn't be promoting just so someone can get a special "award". I've never been able to post something for DYK because it requires a new article or substantial new content quickly updated for an existing article. That's not something everyone can, or should, try to aim for.陣内Jinnai 21:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, there are quite a few notable articles that are sorely under-developed. Even an article that is only a few sentences could develop into quite the beast. In terms of fictional characters, there are many characters that fit the notability criteria that do not have articles yet. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Also, I can't in good faith nom myself because my FA is not FA quality; I would not want to win such an award and then have it go to FARC. Honestly, I think that it's only featured due to it being nominated back in the days of FAC-leniency. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
As Retro Hippie pointed out, a DYK can be an expanded stub. My second DYK was Computer Bismarck, which already existed. I just turned it from a four sentence stub to a full GA very quickly. That approach worked well for me because I often draft articles offline. So this is by no means a call to create a lot of articles to get more DYKs, just us trying to get recognition as a project. We do good work and I think our editors deserve to be recognized for it. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC))
I realize the intentions are good, but I think that it'll just cause people to edit so they can get on that because it highlights a particular style of editing. Those like me who edit bit-by-bit or take an already existing, but poor quality article and bring it up can never be recognized as such in such a way. I personally don't care, but others might and feel they have to go out there way to get recognized just to have their articles in this special category when DYK doesn't have anything to do with quality.陣内Jinnai 02:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
We all work at our own pace, some of us slow, some of us quick. I feel this could be a good incentive to get new editors into working towards a goal, and it only requires one DYK, one GA, and one Featured content. I feel that at worst, our users don't do anything and keep editing like usual, and at best, try their hands at writing new articles (which we always could use), get involved in other areas of Wikipedia, and help show off our project. By no means is it a requirement to submit yourself for this award or to work towards it, and I can completely understand your caution about it. On a note about DYK, though-- it does require that every paragraph contain at least one source. I wouldn't call it "quality", but it's a good way to make sure that editors at least on a basic level meet WP:V. Nomader (Talk) 08:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Well as I think it still promotes people creating small start-level articles just to create them so they can get on the list, I'd prefer if it would focus on featured list instead of DYK. There's no way any kind of editor should feel put off with that since it doesn't matter at what point you started editing an article and doesn't prejudice against certain types of editors (other than those who don't strive for quality, which the current proposal already does anyway and imo for good reasons).陣内Jinnai 00:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Section break

Just posting here to make sure that discussion doesn't slowly wither and die like it has in the past about this. It looks like we should contact SMasters about this, at least per the WP:CROWN page. Anyone have any objection to me leaving a note? Nomader (Talk) 15:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would object with you telling Smaster. Also, please link this disscussion to him to let him know how serious it is to the project. GamerPro64 (talk) 18:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Leaving a note sounds like a good idea. At the very least, I can't see any reason not to leave one. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
If part of it is just getting a project-specific triple crown, that's something easily rectified with Photoshop... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I will be more than happy to create the special edition project TC for you. No need for you to do the graphics. I have listed the process in my reply to this query on my talk page. Once it has been awarded, should other members of your project qualify later, they can still apply and they will also receive the award and will be credited for it, so no one will miss out. For individual TCs, please apply for them individually. We look forward to seeing your nomination. Cheers. – SMasters (talk) 02:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt response, SMasters! I'll go ahead and list out the nominations as you instructed on your talk page. Nomader (Talk) 02:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've nominated everyone in the initial list User:Guyinblack25 put up, but I didn't put up the supplemental ones that he mentioned didn't have the original triple crown. If someone wants to put themselves down, feel free to add yourself at Wikipedia:Triple Crown/Nominations. Also, if you don't want to be listed for the project's award, feel free to remove yourself. I'll be contacting each person I put up in the list to let them know about the nominations in case they have objections. Nomader (Talk) 08:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

If you have a direct credit on your talk page, please provide the link and this alone will be sufficient. Saves you having to do the DIFFs. Thanks. – SMasters (talk) 02:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Honestly now, the work I do for all of you. That's hopefully sufficient enough so it can be awarded. Nomader (Talk) 10:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

PD-text logos

So what is the threshold for deciding that a logo is {{PD-text}}? I get that File:NintendoLogo.png is just an oval and a word in a simple text. File:PS-b logo.png is a slightly atypical text, but I think it would still pass muster. But Sega? Just because something is made of lines does not mean that it is a simple geometric shape. Surely this would qualify as original? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 01:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks like a typeface design to me (and the Commons rationale even says it was made from a font), which would not be copyrightable. The test is not how complex the typeface is, but that it represents text, which this logo is plainly doing. An even more vivid example is File:Google.png -- the varied shading and coloration still does not change the fact that it is text. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
It is made with a font that is based on the original logo, which has been their logo for four or five decades. Everything I have ever seen says words in generic typefaces aren't copyrightable, but this isn't generic. It is more like line art that spells their name. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 04:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
The font is based on the original logo which is still just a typeface for the English alphabet, which has been around for the last 1400 years, give or take. "Generic" is a meaningless word in this context (or more precisely: it means whatever you want it to mean). "Line art" in the shape of English letters are English letters and are not copyrightable for that specific reason: they are not considered sufficiently original works under the definition required for copyright protection. Ham Pastrami (talk) 05:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to let the project know that the WPVG Newsletter current draft still needs a Feature (i.e. writing a Featured List or new article announcements/article requests) and a Featured Editor. With the Newsletter set to go out at the very beginning of next month, and progress towards getting these in would be great. –MuZemike 03:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Partner peer review for Battle of Fort Sumter now open

The peer review for Battle of Fort Sumter, an article within the scope of the Military history WikiProject, is now open. The Military history WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Partner peer review for Mike Jackson now open

The peer review for Mike Jackson, an article within the scope of the Military history WikiProject, is now open. The Military history WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Ping

Reviews needed here, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tatsunoko vs. Capcom: Ultimate All-Stars/archive2. Don't want it closed again for lack of reviews. Seems like the last fac closed due to lack of source opinions. Thanks, « ₣M₣ » 18:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

FAC reviewers needed

I'd like to highlight the above comment by Fullmetal Falcon, and mention that the FAC for Link's Awakening has also stalled. Both articles are in serious need of reviews; Ultimate All-Stars, in particular, is in danger of being failed again due to a lack of reviewer interest. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (video games)

Posting here as there it seems we have a final draft before this gets promoted. This is based on the GNG, WP:VG/GL and common practices, If anyone has any comments please feel free to discuss them there.


NOTE: When this is promoted, the section on the relevant sections of guideline the guideline will be removed/summarized and point to this.陣内Jinnai 19:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll have to review it sometime this week, if I have time, given my busy schedule this upcoming week plus articles to work on plus reviewing GA nominations (shameless spam) plus regular admin/CU stuff. –MuZemike 08:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
While not staff, as a regular user I had a chance to look this over and it looks great. --Teancum (talk) 18:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Seems pretty solid, but the bit about translations and patches digresses from the topic at hand (video game notability) way too much:
Patches that fix bugs or balance issues are rarely notable; similarly translations are even more rarely notable. Mention them only to the degree that they help understand the game's reception and impact, or offer new content. If a game has been officially translated into English, use the English translation as the standard for the article.
The bolded parts are completely unrelated to video game notability. Firstly, patches are not video games, and the guideline specifically states that it does not cover "elements of a video game". The rest of the bolded material pertains more to VG/GL than this guideline. I suggest that you keep it cut-and-dried:
"Video game translations are rarely notable enough to warrant their own articles. When a translation has been significantly covered by reliable third-party sources, information about it should instead be placed in the relevant parent article."
Or something like that. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Can you keep post the discussion on the talk proposal's talk page? I'd like to see what others say. I'm not really opposed to it, but just want to make certain no one else feels patches should be kept.陣内Jinnai 03:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

I've been developing the Campus Party article, it was noted as low-priority, but being the only one editing I'm concerned about COI. Anyone interested in helping out? - Deniz (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation/titling issue with Wizards & Warriors

We have the following "Wizards & Warriors" articles which I'm not sure they are titled properly:

Is that correct titling, or do we need a separate dab page to eliminate some of the confusion? Something tells me they are not titled correctly as they are right now. –MuZemike 03:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the video game articles should be named Wizards & Warriors (1987 video game) and Wizards & Warriors (2000 video game). Wizards & Warriors should be a disambiguation page or redirect to the 1987 game. --Mika1h (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Video games Triple Crown

I, SMasters, am pleased to award this special edition triple crown to WikiProject Video games and its hardworking members. – SMasters (talk) 09:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Your Majesties, thank you for all your hard work. This award is for the project itself. Copies of the award will be presented to:

Well done! What a grand effort. When more people qualify, you can add them on the nomination page for inclusion. Warm regards – SMasters (talk) 09:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, SMasters! Nomader (Talk) 19:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Is it too late to get such an award? I'm still planning to make a Featured article of reasonable quality >.> - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Speaking of which, would anyone be interested in helping to promote Glass Joe to GA and/or FA? :3 - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
i doubt that these awards are exclusive.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
You can nominate yourself at anytime on the nomination page. Just make sure to specify that you're asking for the WP:VG award. Nomader (Talk) 19:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, I opened a peer review for Glass Joe, if anyone would be so inclined to comment. :3 - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Great job, everyone. It's great to see the project get recognized for its hard work. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Most projects put this up on their front page along with the names of the recipients, to motivate more people to contribute. When more people qualify, just put in a new nomination and a copy of the award will be given out. I should add that if this is the first time that you are going for this, you will also qualify for the regular triple crown as well, so you should put in two nominations. Self-nomination is encouraged. Once again, congrats to all, and well done! – SMasters (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
That's a good idea. Anyone want to find a place for it on our main page? I can't think of a good spot for it. Maybe a new "Awards"-style section could be added? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd think that it'd be best put underneath the "Participation" section where our barnstar and our userbox is already listed. I know that I forgot some people in the original nominations, so feel free to add yourself (or I will in a few weeks, most likely unless there's an objection). Thanks for all the help everyone, and peace out (I'm off for a week). Nomader (Talk) 05:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

GDC week == Free content photos!

As usual, with GDC on hand, their official Flickr photostream [14] uses lovely CC compatible licenses for uploading to Commons. --MASEM (t) 17:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Excellent (as usual). If you upload photos, make sure you throw them in the GDC 2011 category, and see if the people in the photos have their own cats as well. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah yes, of course. Forgot about that. Thanks for the heads-up. Reach Out to the Truth 18:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

And though GDC is over, you want want to look through this master list of Gamasutra articles that summarized the various lectures as there's a wealth of dev info in these. [15] --MASEM (t) 16:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Moving Category:BBC Micro and Acorn Electron screenshots

Should have mentionned this sooner... At Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 25#Category:BBC_Micro_and_Acorn_Electron_screenshots, I requested that Category:BBC Micro and Acorn Electron screenshots be moved to Category:Screenshots of BBC Micro and Acorn Electron games. We need lots of people's input on this matter so don't hesitate to head on over and discuss. N. Harmonik (talk) 11:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Your collaboration infrastructure up at TFD

Editors here may want to look at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_March_6#Template:WikiProject_Massively_multiplayer_online_games.2FInvite, where two templates belonging to your MCOTM have been nominated for deletion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

You know what's useful?

Series articles for two or three games. Those are really helpful. That way we can take the small amount of information and copy it around in several places. It is impossible to speak of the over-reaching elements of, say, the whole entire Infamous (series) in just two articles. And there is no way that the extensive coverage in the article Deus Ex could be handled better in, say, a navbox. I propose that as soon as a game is made, a series article is created. We could have Angry Birds and Angry Birds (series), talking about all the over-reaching character arcs and plot devices. Of course, if they release so much as a licensed party hat, it becomes Angry Birds (franchise). ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 20:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

You know what's even more useful? Sarcasm. --PresN 20:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Party hats are pretty useful. To respond to a weirdly sarcastic post that struggles to get its point across properly, an article can entail a series article if necessary. It should not be dependent on the number of games but to the need of a series article. For example, if a few games have so many recurring gameplay elements as to make the gameplay sections particularly large and redundant, a series article could be more than important. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Your usage of the Angry Birds series is a pretty bad one, by the way, considering they're making a cartoon of it. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Rock, Paper, Shotgun & Old Man Murray

Some of you might find interesting: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/03/02/old-man-murray-deleted-from-wikipedia/ --Mika1h (talk) 23:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Already working on trying to rectify it (talking with closing admin). --MASEM (t) 00:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm somewhat concerned about a reaction against Old Man Murray and RPS-related articles as fallout from this. For instance, the RPS article itself was cut back significantly, despite as far as I can see, the information in it being cited to primary sources in a manner acceptable with guidelines on usage of primary sources. Similar edits—some valid, some questionable—have been made to the articles on individual contributors to the site and other things associated with them. -- Sabre (talk) 02:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
THIS is the issue I'm having more and more with Wikipedia. I feel like Wikipedia is trying to be more than it ever can be. Unless it ended up being a closed-user system it will never hit the standard of reliability it claims to strive for. On the inverse the "world" sees several sources as reliable that we seem to nitpick about. We end up getting kicked in the butt because we don't accept a particular source or set of sources that are largely accepted, making us look like the bad guys. Now we can try to justify things all we want about reliability, but we aren't a real encyclopedia and never will be. We're just a nice place to get centralized information that tries its best to be factual. What I'm getting at is that if we continue to drive off those who would use and ultimately help this site end up picketing outside its doors. Instead we've repeatedly burned bridges. I know my rants won't change anything. The greater part of veteran community will shrug this off. But the fact is that if Wikipedia is not serving the world in a way the world needs it to then maybe we need to look at how we're doing things. --Teancum (talk) 03:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I think it boils down to why are we doing over half the stuff we do here; if we're just "Wiki-website" and not "Wiki-pedia", then what purpose do we have here. I mean, perhaps I grew up differently than most others, but I tend to be more goal-oriented and have a leaning towards making something good and worthwhile. And perhaps I am the one should pack up and leave if the general consensus is that quality and accuracy are both completely irrelevant here, because that is what I feel like sometimes. This all reminds me of Threshold and everything associated with that mess; I mean, if people don't care about anything, then why have "caretakers"? Until, that is, someone starts complaining about crap in an article about his or herself, like I had the liberty to deal with recently with a longtime renowned scholar named Frances Fox Piven; there is also a person named John Seigenthaler who felt a similar way, when it was thought that he conspired to kill John Kennedy. But nobody apparently cares about any of that, anyways, since it's teh Internets. –MuZemike 04:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
... Ok... This is all very interesting, but it doesn't exactly have anything to do with the potentially misguided removal of information I posted about. -- Sabre (talk) 12:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Anyone to start a Wiki-RS-pedia with content policy of only sourced material? :) Ah... perfect world. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The Old Man Murray deletion is covered in this week's Signpost. Reach Out to the Truth 16:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Isn't there a "Featured in signpost" template that can be added to the article talk page? I'm sure I've seen one before. - X201 (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

IP/new user vandal attacks

A handful of pages are getting hit by IP and new users doing stupid vandalism on targetted pages (Heavy Rain and Metal Gear Solid 4 for examples) in short order. I'm putting these at semi-prot for a day when I see them. --MASEM (t) 21:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone I've been working on pages with mentioned that it looked like 4chan organized a bunch of vandalism on video game related articles...Sergecross73 msg me 01:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
4chan confirmed. Thread was deleted, but Google kept enough info to lead me to the culprits. See Google search (third hit) and Mario Party's article history (which came from the search result. Given the evidence I wish we could ban these IPs. --Teancum (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
When it rains, it pours. I always knew that 4chaner were targeting Wikipedia. Is there anyway to see if there is 4chan activity involved in the so-called Transformers deletion patrol? Sarujo (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Retronauts

I've decided to make a project out of scouring every Retronauts podcast to find every non-trivial mention of a video game. If anyone would be willing to help, it'd be great if we could split them in, say, series of 10 podcasts for each person; as I can see, Retronauts is fairly unrepresented, despite featuring a number of reliable people. A bonus would be if there were any non-trivial mention of fictional video game characters that a contributor to write down who says what about them. Anyone interested? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 10:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

That's very tempting, but I barely have time for everything else on my plate—on and off wiki. :-\
Are you going to edit the actual articles as you find them or post a list somewhere in your userspace? (Guyinblack25 talk 15:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC))
Well, I will edit the articles, but it's not required that those who assist will have to. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Please help on Taito Legends 2

Not exactly a hugely important article, but Taito Legends 2 has some issues with factual accuracy that could use a looking-at by some people who might know more about it than me. The two areas I'm most concerned about:

  • The article lists a bunch of "unlockable" games, but doesn't specify which versions of the distribution they appear on. I've verified that the PC version doesn't have any of them, but I don't know anything about the other platform releases.
  • The article also states that the PC version uses StarForce copy protection and has compatibility problems with Windows Vista and 7. There was a lot of buzz on various forums about this before the PC version was released, but I haven't found anything corroborating it AFTER the release. There may have been more than one PC release with different DRM schemes. For my part, the PC release that I have (which appears genuine) doesn't have ANY copy-protection on it that I can see, and it most definitely did NOT install StarForce on my system. (I know how to check for it.)

I put a {{disputed}} tag on the article for the time being, but I'd like it if we could get some more eyes on this thing. Would be helpful. :) Thanks! — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

List of role-playing video games

It took me the better part of a day, but I've combined the lists of console and computer role-playing video games, which was one of the last hold-outs from when we had two separate RPVG pages.
1974-1985 · 1986-1987 · 1988-1989 · 1990-1991 · 1992-1993 · 1994-1995  · 1996-1997 · 1998-1999 · 2000-2001 · 2002-2003 · 2004-2005 · 2006-2007 · 2008-2009 · 2010-2011 · Unreleased
As you can see they are now in two-year chunks, as opposed to 5 or 10 previously. This is the reason I changed from "Chronology" to just "list", because two years isn't much of a chronology, and the tables are sortable anyway. I broke a few refs in the process, and there is more cleanup I need to get to. I made a "Country of origin" field to avoid any JRPG issues. I had to shuffle the pages around, so I left permanent links in the summaries. I needed to add more pages than were there, so I built on old up-merged lists. I am obviously not finished cleaning up but the pages are usable and I am tired. Have a look, and they are stable now so feel free to help cleanup. I am especially happy with the TOC, which though it will work better when all the anchors are in place and the individual lists are sorted properly. I am leaving this note here because otherwise I figure people might freak out, if I don't explain what happened. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort here.陣内Jinnai 02:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Great vid by CliffyB

Via YouTube. From GDC 2011. Might be great for the element-type articles rather than series, but so far it's excellent. --Teancum (talk) 20:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Pending changes for WP:VG

How would people here feel about using pending changes on some of our at-risk articles? Some clever people on the internet have banded together to lower the average user rating of Dragon Age II and then repeatedly add that to the article. It was protected, but then nobody was editing it to reflect reviews and such. This is the sort of thing that WP:PC is made for. It may be that WP decides to go a different direction with PC, but for now we should use it. Other articles like 3DS would benefit for similar reasons. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 04:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for FAC reviewers

Flow, Dragon Quest, The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening, and Tatsunoko vs. Capcom: Ultimate All-Stars are all lingering in the "older nominations" section of FAC, which means that they can be removed at any point due to lack of reviews. Please come by any/all of them and leave a review! Don't worry about making it a "strong" review, whatever that means, or about whether anyone will judge your review- these articles need all of the pokes they can get! --PresN 23:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Holistic Design

Are there any sources for Holistic Design? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Attn: WikiProject!

Apparently, Satoshi Tajiri has "died". Watch the page, etc. « ₣M₣ » 04:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't scare me like that! - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Animated images

What is this project's opinion on the use of animated images? I've been contemplating using more animated images for games noted for their animation, but I wanted to get input from other members of the project. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

You mean a movie or animated gif? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 03:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Animated gif, as used in Ghost Trick: Phantom Detective. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I know one that I uploaded doesn't move in thumbnail form. Sarujo (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

GIFs have oddly poor compatibility on wiki (sometimes they won't loop, or don't move as thumbnails as Sarujo said.) That said I don't see why you couldn't use an animation provided your rationale was strong enough. I'm pretty sure Giants: Citizen Kabuto passed FAC with an animation (not sure what happened to it since then.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 12:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. Just wanted clarification for an article I'm working on. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 12:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I've gotten videos through FAC as well (Star Trek III/Star Trek VIII) so a few frames shouldn't be an issue. It's just a matter of if you can distill something down to just one frame as opposed to multiple ones, but the advantage for us is because there's an unlimited number of possible frames in modern video games the "portion used" will always be infinitesimally small. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Image of Wii Remote being held sideways

Could someone take a picture of someone holding a Wii Remote sideways (with the picture similar to this, but obviously with hands instead of the Wii Wheel)? Thanks. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Snazin Smith

The article Snazin Smith has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Long term unreferenced biography of a living person. No indication as to why this video games voice actor is notable. I've added one credit as a reference but that's not enough to satisfy the general notability guidelines or the notability guidelines for entertainers.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. CharlieDelta (talk) 08:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Coming to a main page near you

For this month's video game-related article coming on the main page, Final Fantasy XII will appear on March 16th. Expect the obvious. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I like how the article barely says anything about Matsuno's role in shaping the game. SE will be pleased. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
That plot really deserves a choppin' too, but it's still not a half-bad article :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

What is "Legacy"?

I would like you to comment at Talk:Crush the Castle. Thanks. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

all things inspired or have given influence to notable person or their work, or whatever else notable. like hypothetically digimon was influenced by pokemon. sometimes works within the same line of media when it comes to the very first. such as the first game in the series influenced a series. or soemthing like that.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Heads up - all URLs at MajorNelson.com about to break

Link - They're switching from an ASP.Net CMS to Wordpress (PHP) which means every reference we have with a majornelson.com URL is going to break after the move. Anyone good with bots? Maybe there'll be an algorithm we can use to replace the URLs. --Teancum (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussions on reliable sources

As a heads-up, we still have some discussions on the status of sources that would probably benefit from some more comments. Prime Blue (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

MAME

I keep adding a reference to Stuart Campbell's criticism of the emulator project, but it keeps getting deleted by an IP user who claims that it's spam. As I have explained on the article's talk page and my edit summary, Campbell is a professional writer cited on other Wikipedia articles. I just want more discussion about this, so it's not just back and forth between me and one user who wants to delete cited criticism. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Genre article proposal: Post-retro

I propose work be done on an article covering more modern games that hearken back to earlier generations (ie, Bit.Trip Beat to Pong, Mighty Jill Off to Mighty Bomb Jack, and Super Meat Boy to "Nintendo Hard" games). Such an article can also cover throwbacks in series to their older games, like Pac-Man Championship Edition DX and Space Invaders Extreme. I got the phrase "post-retro" from this book. Comments? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Hm, interesting idea. Would there be enough examples to make the article notable? GamerPro64 (talk) 03:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I believe so, yes. I will compile games that are described as "retro style". - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
You would probably have to find more information on post-retro itself too.Bread Ninja (talk) 05:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. A term and concept described by one author does not warrant an article. Before it could be done, there would need to be scholarly consensus outside of Wikipedia that "post-retro" was the name for these games. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, x2. "Post-retro" is cool and all, but I don't think it is yet a notable term for these games. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, it doesn't have to be that name, it could be whatever is discerned as the most common name to describe games like it. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I think it'd probably be best if the "modern retro" section of retrogaming just be expanded instead and make post-retro a re-direct. Nomader (Talk) 19:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps; one thing that could help strengthen it is chiptune, which is very commonly associated with modern retro gaming. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

How exactly?Bread Ninja (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's not really that disconnected at all; it's one of the key facets of this kind of game. It's used in Tetris DS, Mega Man 9, Picopict, VVVVVV, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World: The Game, and others. Chip music is basically retro music when discussing this kind of thing, and is pretty much essential for most retro-style games to accomplish the style. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
you're nto exactly helping yourself in this situation. just verify "everything" you have said. and then come back.Bread Ninja (talk) 12:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd prefer if your contributions to this discussion weren't "stfugtfo". - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 17:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
i'd prefer you, take this more seriously. what you provided was original research. So until you verify everything, then we can take it mroe seriously. one source isn't enough to use the genre.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
OR is to describe my personal research of games, not reliable sources that I've read in my experiences as a gamer. I would request that you respect the fact that I have been here for nearly five years longer than you have, and have far more experience with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I do not need you berating me and telling me to effectively not speak in a discussion. I am aware of what is original research and what is not. This is not. Such a proposal requires extensive scouring that would require quite a bit of time - effectively searching every review of every retro game, checking for any common descriptor for the theoretical genre. I do not come here with one source, I come here with the knowledge of many sources that I do not have. I am free to discuss this matter for as long as I please, with or without sources; if you plan on returning to this discussion, I expect that you do with a respectful candor instead of the dismissive attitude that you have taken. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
For clarification, I am going with "Modern retro gaming" for this proposal, including additional sources that use different phrases but mean the same thing. Modern retro is used to describe Dark Void Zero in an interview by Gamasutra. [16], Siliconera and 1UP.com refer to it as modern retro [17] [18], Video Gamer describes this kind of gaming as "modern retro gaming" [19], Nintendo World Report makes multiple references to modern retro, calling Bit.Trip Beat and Bit.Trip Runner modern retro [20] [21], Gaijin Games its chiptune music as "modern retro" [22], IGN describes Bubble Voyager as "modern retro" [23], GameSpot describes Droid Assault as modern retro [24], Official Nintendo Magazine refers to Bit.Trip Runner as modern retro [25], 1UP.com refers to Rocket Knight and Bionic Commando Rearmed as modern retro [26], Team Xbox describes "modern retro" as a group of games [27], Hardcore Gamer called it "practically its own genre" [28], Eurogamer also refers to BCR as modern retro [29], Gamasutra refers to Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light as modern retro [30], Developer Phure Studios refers to one of their games as modern retro [31]. We now have more than enough sources to verify an appropriate name, but also that it qualifies as a genre of games. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
you'll have to provide sources to verify what you say. otherwise i can't trust you, and just because you've been here longer doesn't give anyone a reason to believe everything you say instantly. i treat you the same as everyone else. If you don't bring sources, how is anyone suppose to believe you? you're not asking for respect, i haven't insulted you. You're trying to justify Post Retro, maybe you should make an article on the genre in order to make sure it's notable for inclusion to video games speculated to be such. you only mentioned one book, and the rest can be seen as original research considering you didn't bring any sources. You realize you're asking for trust where trust isn't needed and shouldn't be asked for. just bring sources to what you claim is true. why is this so difficult? overall you're being unreasonable here. the way you said things, didn't give me enough confidence to trust you.
and you can't say you'll be discussing this without sources, this isn't like deleting an article or merging it. this is more on actually including a genre that might or might nor be notable enough for inclusion.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, assuming that I'm acting in an untrustworthy manner is pretty much assuming bad faith, isn't it? Am I understand that you violate the AGF guideline with everyone you meet? This is a community; I do not brush off other users who make claims by saying "I'll believe it when I see it."You've just now insulted me by saying that by nature I cannot be trusted. It is entirely inappropriate in a community to respond to other editors with a lack of trust; also, how can I not say it? I just did, did I not? The reason I brought up the topic in the first place was because I had a level of certainty that such a genre exists, as I have proven above. Clearly, we are not operating on a mutual level of trust that I assumed that a community should act on, especially between two established members of said community. I suggest that you modify your attitude and learn to be less dismissive and more trusting of your fellow editors. Accusing me of making my own original research because you assume me to be lying about the extent of my knowledge of these sources' existence is entirely insulting, and I think you need to stop and think about why. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

asking for trust where trust can't be asked for is what i'm saying. Even if PresN or someone has said the same thing you've said, i still would've asked for verification. Don't act like you're insulted, that only boosts a level of ego. Be mature and take my comments how they are. And not everyone here has that level of certainty you do about the topic, and not everyone should trust you automatically just because you were here longer than most. And i wont stop and think about why you're insulted, only people with big egos ask for unreasonable things, and here in wikipedia, we ask for verification to any claim. we don't ask trust on the user and say "we believe you" though it can happen, but just because it doesn't always happen that way doesn't mean it's assuming bad faith. I've already said, there's not enough room for you to be asking for trust in this situation. I assume you have sources, all you have to do is present them. not that hard.

you provide something new that we don't know about. why not verify it.

How you defended chiptune article being relevant made it seem like a half-baked defense and also sounded a lil too subjective for anyone to really consider it fact, no matter who said it. So maybe you can reword a few things, such as providing some information, wouldn't be so hard. Let's not act like i'm the bad-guy here. you initially started this as "stfugtfo" if i recall correctly, and you still choose to act insulted rather thn going along with it. so you're being uncivil and unreasonable. Why is it so hard to provide sources? i know i shouldn't assume you don't have any to verify what you said earlier, but it's in the corner of my mind since you've avoided for quite sometime. not saying that i automatically assuming that's the case, just that the possibility is there.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

We assume trust in users constantly, because that is what we are supposed to do. Assuming that people are lying is one of the perfect examples of what WP:AGF exists for. You are assuming bad faith, there is no denying this. You can go on and on about how we're not supposed to trust one another, but how do we verify that people are not lying about the contents of a print source? Should we scrutinize any inclusion of a Nintendo Power review because we cannot personally verify its contents? I could go onto any article and purport that Game Informer disliked the game, and there would be nothing to scrutinize because there exists a certain level of trust between editors that editors are not acting in bad faith. By specifically not trusting that I am telling the truth, you are assuming bad faith in my actions. How can you not trust that I have sources, yet assume that I have them? That's a complete contradiction.
Defended? I didn't defend, I explained. I used my knowledge in the area to point out how common it was to see chiptune music in that kind of video game. Nothing in it was opinion - it was entirely the fact of chiptune's use in many video games. The only thing I started with "stfugtfo" was accusing you of berating me and being difficult, responding to my comments with "find sources". I think it is uncivil and unhelpful to block discussion. As someone who has created hundreds of well-sourced articles, including articles that are not necessarily notable at first view, I do not need to be told to "find sources". I am well aware that sources will be needed eventually. I am not, however, disallowed from discussing the subject at hand until I find sources, which you seem to be attempting.
It is not uncivil to be insulted when someone acts dismissively. Also, besides the fact that I provided more than one dozen sources only 20 minutes ago, I also explained that writing a genre article, especially one that doesn't exist on Wikipedia, requires extensive source searching. So yes, it is hard to provide sources, harder than the average article. You readily admit that even if you don't want to assume bad faith, you are. I didn't look for anything because I was waiting for more people to comment, and get some more input, and because I was working on other articles at the time Bit.Trip Beat, Bit.Trip Void, and Impact of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami on the video game industry. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
like i said you can't ask for trust where trust shouldn't be asked for. And if there is no reference in those examples you said, then it would have to be verified or be challenged for removal. Same for this situation.
don't make this difficult. just show the sources, and we'll be good. and despite not needing to be told, that itself isn't the problem. you have choices, and you chose to over react because you think someone is questioning your skills and ability to source and if someone does then you still have to be civil instead of getting trigger-happy to say whatever you want.
you constantly talk about yourself more than the actual situation. Problem is you take it far too personal and that is just ridiculous and immature.
like i said, this isn't a subject you can say whatever and we believe and no one should be asking for that. When i asked how it was connected.


^^You pretty much provided same information you already said. How does this NOT sound like an opinion?


^^this also sounds highly subjective. you're not providing any source or anything or at least a mention of something specific to go on. All we know is that you used "your" knowledge not anything itself.
I asked you to provide a source because the way you've said these wasn't exactly reassuring (and coming from you shouldn't really be the reason to be reassured too, unless you were a source itself). Assuming bad-faith? i think the very first person to assume bad faith was you with that slander of yours. For someone who likes to sling WP:AGF around, you sure seem to break the rule as well when dealing with bad faith. Look at the discussion, nothing concrete has been given other than one book. You provided a Wikipedia article on chiptune that mentions nothing related to post-retro or any retro gaming itself to verify this genre despite another editor specifically asking for sources outside of Wikipedia. All there is a list of games, which i question the sources that were given.
Also you say you are well-informed. not all of us are. It's also courtesy to us by providing us that information. and I'm not talking about hear-say situation. like actually give us reliable sources. And it's not just me who asked this. I'm just the only one who said you should provide information. Most of us in this discussion have already said so.
this also isn't that strong of a genre, and inserting it with other games might be considered original research. We have nothing to go on and you only provided a book. most of us already agree one book isn't enough and more information is needed. whether you find it an insult or not, you'll have to provide more information. assuming bad faith? it's not. but i don't care anymore.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, hopefully, I won't be seeing any reply from you again in this matter. Did it ever occur to you to actually read what I say? Or to observe that not only did I write an entire paragraph that contained 15 different reliable sources that refer to several video games as "modern retro", but in the last reply that I made to you, I pointed them out in very plain English? If you aren't going to actually contribute to this discussion and respectfully pay attention to what others are saying, then I'm glad that you do not care. To even a random bystander of this discussion, it is painfully obvious that the book mention was absolutely NOT the only source. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 17:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
i really could careless how useful you thin my comments are. And when you constantly and egotistically act insulted over asking for something because you assumed something, you can't help but tune most of it out. whatever i out in here is a contribution. Respect goes both ways and you have not even attempted to respect me, not even initially. So ask what you can give back. And I'm talking about other video games that fit into post-retro or modern retro video game but aren't exactly confirmed as one or described as one by official sources. And we've also said that Post-retro or modern retro itself would have to be verified. Although mentioned constantly a study of it has to be out there (assuming there is). Basically enough to make an article of it which was said initially in the discussion.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
...I already provided exactly that. The book reference gives analysis of the genre, and there is no guideline or policy that requires a developer to verify the genre. The fact of the matter is that the only reason to not trust another editor is to believe that they are lying, which is a blatant violation of AGF. As much as you believe that we shouldn't trust each other without references, we would not be able to use any magazine or book source without an online, reliable excerpt for us to physically view - but we clearly do. No matter what you or even many Wikipedians believe, Wikipedia IS about a certain level of trust. My request for trust was certainly nothing even remotely unreasonable, so it comes off as you making a policy of simply assuming that anyone who lacks direct proof is lying. Regardless of all that, I have provided more than enough references to not only demonstrate a common descriptor for the genre, but one reliable source that demonstrate its use specifically as a genre of games. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 17:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I trust editors to a degree when it comes to their opinions and goal in the discussion. not trusting editors would come when someone tries to bring facts without sources and refuses? stop implying everything has to do with lying, asking for sources isn't mean i dont trust your word, but to help everyone else be just as informed. ASking to take your word for it is the problem. For the video games described as modern retro can be tagged as modern retro, but the ones that aren't described as modern retro but can? that's the problem. if we are going to put modern retro for article we think fit the genre, than we might as well make an article to at least avoid some accusations of original research.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The entire point of this is that, in discussing the potential contents, you were dismissive of any discussion occurring. I did not rush to find sources because I knew that they existed as well as other distractions - I never "refused" to find any sources. There is no problem in using modern retro as a genre name. If they are not called modern retro, we do not include them as a modern retro game. But is that not true for platform game? If no one calls Mario a platform game, it is not a platform game, correct? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Be more blunt and less vague. potential contents? when we AfD an article do we keep it because we assume it could be notable and wait until it is or do we provide sources to keep it? I'm not asking to rush to look for sources, but when i asked for more sources and come back, i assumed finding the sources would be like a quick second or two. You over reacted. as for platform games, they at least have an article.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
"Modern retro" has no article because it has no article. A lot of very notable things didn't have articles before they had articles. Having an article has nothing to do with verifiability, and doesn't refute my argument that a game that's never called a platform game being called a platform game is OR. We won't have any problems with OR with this as long as we follow the most basic rules of genre articles. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
first sentence makes no sense. in the beginning modern retro itself was questioned. so maybe an article should be made first. many genres are placed that fit the description but never officially called or described as such still placed under that genre without question. we could remove all of them. but i would be more accepted to add modern retro as a general genre if it had an article rather than case by case.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
It makes perfect sense. What was the point of saying that platform game has an article? Just because you can more easily define what a platform game is than a modern retro game is does not mean that it is any easier to place in an article - every genre must be sourced. No matter how obvious that a game is one genre, it's not obvious to uneducated readers. But I digress, I am currently working on an article; however, it is slow moving due to the above mentioned recent articles I've been working on as well as real world business. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

if you're going along with it, then don't bother arguing about it. because an article helps define the genre. unlike chiptune, that did not mention anything about modern retro. I really don't mind how long it takes.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Deus Ex

Currently, Deus Ex is an article about the Deus Ex series; the first game in the series has been moved to Deus Ex (video game). This strikes me as unnecessary. It is sensible to assume that typing "Deus Ex" would lead to the article about the game of that title. The series as a whole does not seem to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, in this case; someone looking for that would reasonably be expected to type "Deus Ex series". I think Deus Ex should be moved to Deus Ex (series), and Deus Ex (video game) to Deus Ex. Any objections? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I dunno. Seems to me that all three Deus Ex games have a fair share of notability, and in the end, I imagine a lot of people will search for Deus Ex to refer to the new game as well. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
The series article serves to disambiguate, so to replace it with an individual game article there should be a convincing case that the original game is in fact the primary topic. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
It seems like over the past year we've been standardizing on having the series page be at the name and the game be at (video game) if they're the same. --PresN 02:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with this practice; I thought that it was traditional to put series articles at "*title* (series)". Either way, I don't see how an argument could be made for the Deus Ex series, which is rarely covered as a whole, being the primary topic here. That it even deserves its own article is debatable; that's a topic for another argument, though. Beyond that, all games in the series have non-overlapping names (Deus Ex, Deus Ex: Invisible War and Deus Ex: Human Revolution), and distinct informal nicknames (Deus Ex, Deus Ex 2 and Deus Ex 3). There's no reason to assume that someone is looking for IW or HR when they simply type "Deus Ex". JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
There is no Deus Ex 2 or 3; as such, it is not unlikely that they will not be referred to as simply "Deus Ex". There's really no reason to move this. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
This is case that, at the present time, the first game has more notability than the series (most people are unaware that was even a second game, and while the 3rd game is around the corner, it's still rather quiet). If the 3rd game is a huge success, I could possibly considering putting the series article at the main DX name, but right now, the first game makes the most sense. --MASEM (t) 05:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I checked out Wikipedia:Naming conventions (video games) to see if we had a rule for this, and we have this: "If a video game series has a naming conflict solely with the first game in the series (e.g., Final Fantasy), the series page should reside at the primary name if the series possesses a minimum of 3 video game articles as well as at least one other unrelated video game or related media item. Otherwise, the first game in the series should occupy the primary name, and the series article should be disambiguated with '... (series)'." Seems pretty clear-cut; they're making a third game but there's no other elements to the franchise, so the series article should be at "Deus Ex (series)" and the first video game should be at "Deus Ex (video game)". --PresN 06:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

You mean that the first game should be at Deus Ex? That's how I took the quoted text. Anyway, that sounds good. It seems like kind of a complicated move, however, so if someone else wants to take care of the edit histories and what-not, I'll deal with the (probably numerous) redirect issues. I'm worried that I'd screw something up if I tried to move them myself. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Whoops, yes, the game should be at "Deus Ex". --PresN 06:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Moved everything around, should be good now. --PresN 18:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll hit the redirects immediately. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
This is actually going a lot better than I'd expected. It seems like no one bothered to fix the redirect issues caused by moving Deus Ex to Deus Ex (video game); most articles are still linking to the former when they discuss the first game in the series. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
For additional articles beyond the 3 games, there is Project Snowblind and JC Denton. Refer to {{Deus Ex}}. I'm not sure what the intent of the guideline is. Why would an "unrelated" item even be part of the series/franchise? Ham Pastrami (talk) 07:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Revisiting naming convention

Maybe we should take this opportunity to examine the purpose and usefulness of series articles in general. Series articles shouldn't be just disambiguation pages. It was mentioned above that people who come to Deus Ex might be looking for any of the above games, but that is what hatnote links are for. I think series articles should only be at the main title when

  1. It is probable that a significant number of people are as familiar with the series as a whole (if not more so) than the first game in the series. Final Fantasy is a good example of this. While undoubtably most gamers know that Final Fantasy 1 exists, many today only know it in relation to later games, and the series as a whole. They know the game because it started the series. While no gamer would be confused as to why Final Fantasy 1 could be located at Final Fantasy, most likely they were looking for the series or a more recent game.
  2. The series article should offer a unique perspective on the series itself, and not just be a glorified navbox. Deus Ex (series) is a navbox. There is (currently) nothing to be learned on that page that can't be more easily and comprehensively learned by reading the few articles themselves.

We should direct people to what they are looking for, in both subject and content. Arbitrary guidelines based on numbers are not helpful. It is possible that people are looking for the other games, but certainly none are as notable as the first (yet), so hatnotes should suffice. There is no useful content to be found at the series article, so Io don't even see a need for it. Each game is very different, made by different people, and all of that info is (so far) much better explained in the articles. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem with that is it is very open to being subjective and more often lead to pointless debates, especially for newer titles. You might have a point about Final Fantasy being an exception, but what about Persona? A lot of people when they mention Persona may be talking about the series, the original or remake of Persona 1, Persona 3, the most popular one, or the anime or manga.陣内Jinnai 04:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

How are leaks dealt with?

There have been various leaks for the new Mortal Kombat (2011 video game) which reveal quite a bit of information about the characters but i'm not too sure any of the information confirms playable characters or otherwise. Would it be wise simply to remove all the information leaked from the article and only add confirmed information or work around it? Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

If they are not from reliable sources, strike them, no question. If RSes are reporting on the leaked information, make sure its specified as such ("Industries rumors suggest that..." or the like). --MASEM (t) 17:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
So if the leaks are reported by a reliable source, it's okay to have the claims but not state it as fact and make sure to use a qualifier in the sentence? What about mass removal of the information? I think an uproar and major edit war could occur from removing some people's favorite characters from the roster list. I don't want to sound like i'm owning anything here but I want to make sure the article is up to Wikipedia standards, not fan standards. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 18:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
If the leaked information is not given by reliable sources, it should be removed, even if that means mass removal. --MASEM (t) 19:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
What Masem said. Treat it like a regular rumor with proper attribution to a reliable source. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC))

"Dariusburst"

Let's bring this back. Last time on the show, we talked about WP:COMMONNAME and how it may relate to this title.

It really doesn't. I don't get why "Darius Burst" being the redirect is such a problem.

This isn't some mere trademark issue, "alternate name", romanization, or whatever; it is an integral part of the game title that has been destroyed. It is quite clear what the title is on the box, so there is absolutely no reason why it should be changed. You tell me about "common English", yet that is exactly what these journalists chose to ignore in the first place.

Besides, quite a few sources started using "Dariusburst" when it was announced for being released in some other country, whenever that may be. Despatche (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Per the previous discussion, it looks like the consensus was to use Darius Burst based on the common name guideline you linked above. This decision was based on the fact that most gaming journalist referred (albeit incorrectly) to the game as "Darius Burst" with a space and capital B. Which still looks to be the case. Sorry, but per guidelines, I don't see a good reason to use "Dariusburst" as the page name. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC))

Prototype 2 image

Does anyone think this image doesn't meet fair-use guidelines File:Prototype2.jpg? It appears to have an insufficient fair-use guideline, no real source among other things? --Tærkast (Communicate) 13:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Aside from missing source material, etc, and lack of detailed fair use rationale, it seems to be purely a promotional image and not serving any critical purpose. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I've put it up at FFD --MASEM (t) 15:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:Super Smash Bros. fighters

Should the characters which are redirected be in the category? Join the discussion here. Blake (Talk·Edits) 01:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

World of the Living Dead

Hello there. Could anyone look at this article and the associated discussion at Talk:World of the Living Dead? Thanks for any help/comments. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

With about a week until the end of the quarter, we still need the "Feature" and a "Featured Editor" sections filled out for the WPVG Newsletter. If there are any volunteers on what to write about for the feature or who should be featured, please help out. That would be appreciated. –MuZemike 13:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually working on a feature about the reference library this very moment. I'm about half way done and it should be posted to the draft soon. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC))
Done. You might want to look it over for errors or possible expansion. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC))
The draft looks fine... and I feel like Guy is overdue for an interview... (that goes for you too MuZem.) That said I've poked one of our other compadres, we'll see if he's got time, and I'll jump on that if we proceed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Some one else to keep in mind: User:Gary King. I think I asked him at least two times, but he was too busy. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC))
Gary's a great choice, if he had the time. He does a great job of making obscure-ish articles with great quality. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I've snagged Gamer for this one, although Gary is another one we need to poke whenever he's free :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Gremlins (Atari 2600)

Gremlins (Atari 2600) is a fairly new article in need of citations. I added it to this WikiProject. BOZ (talk) 23:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

GDC talks up

Everyone should review the various talks, slides, and other materials from the GDC 2011 conference are now available at the free section of the GDC Vault. [32] .--MASEM (t) 03:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Impact of the tsunami on the gaming industry

I think that it would be good to create an article detailing the industry's involvement with or its response to the tsunami - for example, Ryu Ga Gotoku Of the End, MotorStorm 3, and Zettai Zetsumei Toshi 4: Summer Memories were cancelled or delayed because of potential blowback from the themes (the former is about zombies in Japan, MotorStorm has strong destruction elements, and the latter is about surviving a city as it falls apart). We also have the rumours of Satoshi Tajiri dying in the tsunami which were picked up by reliable sources, as well as industry people and companies such as Mastiff donating assistance and relief to the recovery project. Anyone interested? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

If a quality article could be created about it, then sure. Want to start a draft? Blake (Talk·Edits) 23:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe there is enough to make a worthwhile article of it, but if there was a larger article on impact of the tsunami on creative arts, not only VGs but TV, etc, etc, it could easily fit into there. --MASEM (t) 23:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, I don't think Japan has as big of an influence in those fields. It would probably end up being undue weight. Blake (Talk·Edits) 23:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Collecting sources and checking individual contributions; I figure that there will be some impact, due to how many major companies reside in the area. I guess we'll find out then, eh? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
The website ScrewAttack wrote that anyone buying their game, Texting of the Bread, their money would go to the American Red Cross. link. GamerPro64 (talk) 23:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Capcom lowered the price of SF:4 on the iPhone from $4.99 to $0.99 and also pledged to donate the proceeds.[33]LedRush (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I also found that some online games Final Fantasy XI, XIV, and Metal Gear Online are unplayable because of this. another link. GamerPro64 (talk) 00:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Although this is starting to become a forum-like thread, I think this is a good reason to ignore the rules for a bit. Sega is donating all proceeds from sales of its Sonic and Football Manager series games on iOS to relief efforts, as shown here. --McDoobAU93 02:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
User:New Age Retro Hippie/Tsunami impact - Made a draft. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Looks good. With a solid lead, and more examples, it might work. Blake (Talk·Edits) 01:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I think Peace Walker was affected as well. Somebody posted a link to Konami's Twitter page, where it said some servers hosting DLC were put down for the moment.--Eaglestorm (talk) 01:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Retro Hippie, just checking to see if it's OK for other users to hop in and contribute to your draft. Got some ideas for the lead paragraph I'd like to try. --McDoobAU93 02:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Anyone feel free to make any edits to the article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Article now in the mainspace as Impact of the 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami on the video game industry; I deleted the cross-namespace redirect above. –MuZemike 17:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Impressive. I just read about this earlier this morning on MSN and there's already a fleshed out article here. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC))
Retro Hippie- be sure to nominate this at Template talk:Did you know. Anytime a new article gets put together so quickly, it should get a chance to be on the Main Page. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC))
I thought about it, and Bit.Trip Beat as well, but I don't think of myself as good enough of a judge to fulfill the current criteria of having to review other DYK nominated articles. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
If you've ever reviewed an article for GAN or FAC, then I don't think it's that different. You review the content against pre-determined criteria. I still say go for it, but your call. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC))
I'll try. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I reviewed an article; will you check to make sure I didn't miss anything? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Looks good to me. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC))
Damn shame though that the article is up for AfD; I wouldn't feel comfortable about having an AfD on the front page. Well, at least I can try with Bit.Trip Beat and Bit.Trip Void. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Update The result of the AFD was no consensus. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

List of SingStar songs

I'm not that familiar with music lists, but I think that the following could be better organized.

Thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 20:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC))

Dear god! Its gonna need more than organization. There may have to be splits to make individual ones for single games. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Music Video Games

Please comment at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Music Video Games here, Wikipedia:WikiProject Music Video Games has been nominated for deletion at WP:MFD. Thank for your time, regards JJ98 (Talk) 06:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Are GameFaqs release dates always reliable?

I just noticed a user adding a lot of release dates sourced to GameFaqs. WP:VG/S says that GameFaqs is reliable for release dates as they come from company press releases, research by staff, and sourced user submissions. However a search in the archives of the talk page seems to suggest that the site doesn't have editorial staff. Where has this user-submitted 1983 release date come from? While 1983 is correct in this case it still appears to be unsubstantiated, and as the editor is adding GameFaqs cites for so many games from this period, I thought I'd better bring it up here. Miremare 15:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought for editorially created content (like the info pages) Gamefaqs is a RS. For user created content, it is not.LedRush (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and this, from the Gamefaqs site, indicates there is editorially oversight:
"GameFAQs was purchased by CNET in the summer of 2003, but is still operated independently. GameFAQs and GameSpot share the same game database, some material is displayed on both sites, and its users access the same message boards for games. However, all GameFAQs editorial/approval/administration is handled by the GameFAQs staff, and vise-versa."LedRush (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Information is sometimes submitted by users, but is checked by staff. So a staff member believes that the user-submitted date is correct. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Taking the letter "N" at random, I've looked through GameFaq's pages for the system in question here, and comparing to World of Spectrum, I found the following discrepancies:

Also there's Nightmare (1986), right year but wrong developer. I only noticed this when trying to figure out which of the two text adventures named Nightmare and released in 1986 this was supposed to be, so there could be other similar errors, I just wasn't looking for them. If user-submitted data is checked by GameFaqs staff as they claim, they do a pretty bad job. Miremare 19:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked at your examples, but I know that the last time someone brought up discrepencies, gamefaqs was right and the other site was wrong. Have you checked to see who is right in the above discrepencies?LedRush (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
World of Spectrum is pretty much the acknowledged best Spectrum resource on the web ("not just the best Speccy site on the Web, but arguably the best retro resource full stop" - Retro Gamer"), the content isn't user generated, and all print sources for reviews, and even just mentions, of the game from the time are cited and linked to when available. As for my own experience, I've never noticed an incorrect date or developer in my extensive use of the site, so I'd certainly trust it over GameFaqs. If you're still not convinced that GameFaqs are in error, look at the Napoleon at War WoS link and compare the six 1986 reviews linked to, to GameFaqs uncited date of 1996. Miremare 19:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The Staff of Karnath has also been changed to 1985, with a GameFaqs cite. It's easily citable to 1984. Miremare 08:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone checked the respective GameSpot pages to see if both sites list the date incorrectly? It might be that the database entry is incorrect. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC))
They use the same database. If one is incorrect, the other is incorrect. Reach Out to the Truth 17:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
GF/GS database is the same as any other reliable source - sometimes, just like RSes like the NYT they make mistakes. We don't throw everything out because of those exceptions.陣内Jinnai 18:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
It's not really a question of the number or errors, though 6 errors out of 36 is pretty poor. The point is they don't appear to be checking user submissions for accuracy, and that supposed fact-checking is the only reason we allow dates from GameFaqs to be cited, isn't it? Miremare 21:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
That's a small and select sampling. I believe we already mention to check older dates (the ones that are usually less reliable) with other sites. Those other sites also have reported different wrong dates too for older games so are we going to say every site that isn't reliable? It's seems to me you want to simply target GameFAQs here because they have a similar level of accuracy as the rest of the web, which for older games is a far than perfect. I also believe they are suppose to label their user submitted ones to differentiate from those they or developers post.陣内Jinnai 23:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes but the level of accuracy isn't the point, the point is their apparent lack of fact-checking; fact-checking being the only reason we allow GameFaqs as a reliable source for dates, with it already being considered unreliable for anything else. The question is, what justification is there for considering it reliable for dates? If you think it's just an older games thing and that it's fine for newer ones, then maybe we could draw a line somewhere, but it's just demonstrably not reliable for things that far back, and a lot of WP articles on older games have had their dates changed to fit with GameFaqs in the last couple of days. That's the reason for my concern, rather than a "targetting" of GameFaqs. Miremare 00:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I think for older games its a lack of fact checking by every reliable source out there; singling them out is bias. The error rates for older game release dates are on par with IGN, Gamespy and even ones like Wired when they've done articles.陣内Jinnai 00:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
It's not at all biased to single out sources made up of unchecked user-contributions, it's what we already do with every other user-generated site. It seems that GameFaqs only got a reprieve on the dates thing because of a claim to check contributions for accuracy. I don't know about IGN/Gamespy, do they take user contribs? Miremare 01:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
GameFAQs isn't "user generated". Sure lots of it is, but not everything, specifically the data page. The others do the same level of checking as GameFAQs except that users cannot submit the info; in addition that user submitted info is labeled as to whom contributed it so if there is no label, its not user submitted. In addition, like I said, they do check the user submitted info so its not something anyone can just edit.陣内Jinnai 05:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
If there's no user label then fine, but in the case of old games - every single old game that I've seen on GameFaqs - the data on the data pages is submitted by users, with a list (usually one person) of contributors. Miremare 07:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
A bit off topic, but does the site allow for a way to submit corrections? The reason I ask is that if the site is considered overall reliable, then it might be better to fix the problems we find than create a list of exceptions for such publications. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC))
Supposably if you have an account you can submit a request. And from what I've read their user submitted data is checked with the same editorial process that goes on for other Gamespot material (remember they share databases with them).陣内Jinnai 04:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I would not have put Gamefaqs, or any other tertiary source onto our RS list. Wikiproject Film relegate IMDb (a similar resource) into the "questionable resources" bracket. It's just lazy. There is no way of backing up any of the dates on Gamefaqs, you don't know whether it has come from a press release, or some guy just pressed the go button - unlike Wikipedia, it doesn't address sourcing. Take my only GA, Ballistics (video game) - it sources the North American release date to a press release published by the developer - 2001-11-06, yet Gamefaqs gives 2001-10-22. Sure, it's not a big gap - but it's still wrong. - hahnchen 21:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

If reliability is based on 100% accuracy, we're screwed. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Maybe, or maybe the press release is wrong. Don't say it can't happen because Nintendo has the wrong that for their NES release.陣内Jinnai 21:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Great, 2 straw men which fail to address the point made, but I'll generate some new thought nonetheless. When you believe a mistake is made by the New York Times, a reliable source that produces its own content and has bylines and is accountable, you let them know, and they'll print a correction or give you the correct sources. You know where that information comes from, and that publication will vouch for it. You let Gamefaqs know about their incorrect information through their contributor scheme, and it'll just change the data. You have no idea whether that data is correct, it'll just change, and unlike corrections in newspapers, you'll have no indication. - hahnchen 23:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I realise that it's inconvenient for an RS to become an un-RS, what with alternative sources having to be found and all, but while no RS is going to be 100% accurate, I believe we should expect a much higher level of accuracy than I've seen of GameFaqs so far. I think due to the nature of the site it should really be doing something extra special to earn its RS status for dates, especially given that we don't consider it reliable for anything other than dates. But again, I don't think it's the number or percentage of errors in any particular sample that is the major area of concern, but the indication that verification of data is being done poorly, if at all. And as Hahnchen says, we don't know what sources GameFaqs have used, or the quality of source that they will accept. Miremare 17:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Last call for comment on the use of Romaji

See Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Video games developed in Japan#Should the romaji version of Japanese videogame names be included in Wikipedia articles? for a discussion. —22:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

While I know it's a lot of content to dig through, I encourage editors to check out the last two threads to see what changes would be made to our article guidelines; otherwise it's essentially being done by an external force. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
It's not immediately apparent—though it is mentioned—in Breakpoints 13 and 14, but the proposed changes are at User:Ryulong/JAVG —Ost (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Where to suggest group collaborations?

Just wondering but where can I suggest group collaborations for particular game articles? There are a number of articles which I believe could be improved. --Victory93 (talk) 02:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Collabs happen at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Collaboration of the week. It generally only happens with High or Top importance Stub, Start, or C-class articles. Blake (Talk·Edits) 03:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
If you have a specific article that you want people to work on with you, just post it here. Please do intend to work on it yourself as well, though- just posting articles that need work isn't helpful at all, since there's thousands of them. --PresN 06:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Two which I believe should be worked on as they seemed to be important titles at the time, Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire (video game) and Killer Instinct. --Victory93 (talk) 09:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
This, Retro Hippie's suggestion below, and our numerous inactive task forces make think we need a better way to initiate collaborations. Some of my best times on here have been working with a group of editors on one or more articles like Kingdom Hearts and Maniac Mansion. And the work went by much faster than anything I've ever done on my own. Anybody up for brainstorming? (Guyinblack25 talk 16:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC))

Improving articles to at least B class based on Metacritic average

Anyone interested in working on improving all 90+ rated games on MC? I think that'd be a great way of improving articles based on where the likely interest lies. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Interesting idea. Can anyone think of a way to monitor progress? Perhaps a huge template that encompasses the relevant article names and quality ratings, like with our Essential articles page? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
That'd be a good idea. Perhaps we should have a template of the games with 90+ on Metacritic and allow people to claim them (one at a time of course)? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Just make a subpage with a list of all of the games, let people put their name and a checkmark on them when they're improved, and slap one of those progress bars up top like we have on the main vg project page. --PresN 06:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I would recommend adding a minimum number of reviews on MC to the criteria. I think there's a handful of small titles that get just enough reviews to get a MC aggregate but these are from small, unreliable sources. 10, maybe 15, would be at least the lower end to assure that we've got a notable enough game that should have priority for quality. --MASEM (t) 21:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
A good point, although unlike if using GameRankings scores that is much less likely to be an issue considering they don't seem to do much "after the fact" reviews in the scores unless it's a particularly notable game. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, how many articles 90+ MC score do we have at GA, A, or FA status already to weed out some of the articles? GamerPro64 (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Wow that's a lot of games with a 90+ score.[34] :-\ (Guyinblack25 talk 21:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC))
Roughly 250... --PresN 21:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Only 26 are 95 or higher, though. --PresN 21:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Pretty much we could just set it up to list them all in order, maybe colour-coding to make specific consoles stand out. And I'm finding that a lot are already to the state of GA/A/FA; I'm checking them out one-by-one right now to make the list. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Reduced to 199 by removing GA/FAs and multi-console releases. User:New Age Retro Hippie/Metascores - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I removed four five because two three were GAs and two were FAs. GamerPro64 (talk) 00:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
If anyone needs review sources while working on these articles, be sure to check WP:VG/PA. I noticed that many of the games in question were already listed there. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Coolios. I reckon I'll whip up the subpage for people to use and choose from. Here's hoping that it gets a lot of attention so that the articles are blazed through relatively quickly. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I linked/marked the quality of the first 25 or so items. --PresN 03:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot to point out that I had made a subpage: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Video games by Metascore. Thanks though - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

XBOX 360 Indie titles

Are they notable enough to warrant their own articles? TheBigJagielka (talk) 02:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Depends whether they get significant coverage in third party sources. Most video games are considered automatically notable because there SHOULD exist reviews for them. If they aren't the kind of game to get reviews from most sites, then you have to display it. Blake (Talk·Edits) 02:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, these are also independently developed titles in a special section of XBLA I believe; I believe that they are put up for the cheap and many are mediocre, which means that a large number of indie 360 articles lack the notability. I think the best approach is to view these games on a case-by-case basis. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I've put together a basic article for Apple Jack (video game). If it's still there and not nominated for deletion in the future, I will add to it. TheBigJagielka (talk) 03:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
If you think it will work, then add to it now. If it is a better article, it will have less of a chance to be AfD'ed. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Indie titles would be notable by the same GNG criteria as other video games, including indie games for other platforms. If such article were to be taken to AfD, editors would be applying same standards as for other games/articles. As much as I've seen, it much harder for indie games/companies to survive AfDs due to the lack of major source coverage. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The shortcut displays an older version of this page

Something that's been bugging me lately- when I use the "WT:VG" redirect to access this page while logged off, it displays an older revision of the page. But if I then click on the "Discussion" link at the top of the page (so that the url uses "wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games" instead of "wiki/WT:VG") the current version displays. I think that the shown revision is normally User:MiszaBot II's last edit to the page. I previously asked elsewhere, but those pages look to have low levels of activity. Also, the editors here typically have their ears to ground about technical project details. I thought it might be a caching issue, but now I wonder if it is related to pending changes. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 15:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC))

Does it display the current version when you wp:purge the page? Reach Out to the Truth 15:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I thought that fixed it at first, but the problem kept repeating when used the redirect. I noticed that when I purged, I did so to the target page, not the redirect. I also found that this url displays the current revision: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:VG. Very weird. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC))
Testing for myself, I see the same results. I was also thinking pending changes because it differs based on login status, but I don't see any immediate evidence of it. I purged the redirect and I now see it updated when not logged in. —Ost (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
But then I had to purge it again to get it to show my response. I don't notice this behavior on other shortcut redirects. —Ost (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
WP:VG/PA and Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library/Online print archive. Jimmy's last two edits are missing in the redirect version. Accessing it through http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:VG/PA works fine though. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC))
Hm, okay. Based on these comments I think this is a problem with the Squid caching. Reach Out to the Truth 16:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Is this something that can be fixed? I just noticed this with WP:FA and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates too. I'm sure the more I dig, the more I'll find. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC))
(edit conflict)x2 There's a purge discussion on WP:VPT that discusses a MW update in Feb that may be related. —Ost (talk) 16:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
That problem was fixed, I believe. Like I said, this looks like a Squid problem. Since Squid only serves pages for anonymous users, most people who know about the village pump will never notice this. A new VPT thread should help gain some insight into this problem. Reach Out to the Truth 16:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough, and a subsection moved to the purge section also mentions redirects. —Ost (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Do you think I should I post it under the Purge section or create a separate one? (Guyinblack25 talk 17:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC))
I posted at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 130#Redirects not displaying current revision. Thanks guys. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC))

Prototype 2

I'm wondering now whether it should even have it's own page, instead of a redirect to the original game's article. There really isn't any sources at the moment, and it could always be recreated once more info becomes available. Thoughts? --Tærkast (Communicate) 10:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Sequels should start in the original game's article and be spun out when needed. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC))
Done, although I think there might be some protests.--Tærkast (Communicate) 16:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Can I start up my perennial bleeting about how we need to write a section based on WP:CRYSTAL and the film guidelines offering bright lines about when a sequel is allowed to be spun off into its own page? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't see why not.--Tærkast (Communicate) 19:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

User:KnowIG

I have just discovered that KnowIG has been indefinitely blocked and has a GAR up for Lula 3D. Anyone want to finish the rest of the review? GamerPro64 (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Well considering no progress has been made on the article I recommend a delist. --Teancum (talk) 04:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Number of reviews in Final Fantasy XII review table

The documentation for Template:Video game reviews says "Not every review score in existence is needed." and "The scores should not be repetitive." Do you think the current table in the Final Fantasy XII article complies with this guideline? Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

No. In particular as all the scores are hovering at the same point, you only need a core set (to me, being Eurogamer, Game Informer, 1UP, IGN, Gamespot, and Gamespy). There's also the problem that few of those reviews are discussed in the body of the article, thus making them pointless additions to boost the table size. --MASEM (t) 19:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree, way too many. I typically try to keep the number of reviews below six and make sure the different regions are represented. Computer and Video Games, Edge, and Eurogamer satisfy the European region and the others minus Famitsu satisfy the North American region.
I avoid mentioning scores in the prose, but I think commenting that a number of publications gave the game a "perfect score" would be an exception. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC))
Looking at those scores (ignoring the A rating at 1up because I cannot find what that means, FE is A top rating or A+), there's multiple 8/10, 9/10, 10/10 as most of the ratings. You can just use 1 for those. The others GameInformer, PSM3 and Famitsu can each be listed indivisually; i'll note that while Famitsu is a perfect score, its division is not the same as the rest so it should not be consolidated. That would leave imo:
  • 1UP - A
  • GameTrailers - 8/10
  • Gamespot - 9/10
  • Eurogamer, Gamepro or Gamespy - 10/10 or 5 stars (imo Eurogamer as a clear European perspective)
  • Famitsu - 40/40
  • GameInformer - 9.25/10
  • IGN - 9.5/10
  • PSM3 - 9.4/10
That's 8 reviews + the 2 meta reviews. Still a lot, but the game was well reviewed. 10 reviews still reflects the broad coverage.陣内Jinnai 17:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:Class A article up for deletion

{{Class A article}} has been nominated for deletion. As this wikiproject uses A-class as a quality rating, I thought I'd let you know. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 07:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

FACs need attention

Our two FACs, Resident Evil 2 and Cloud, could use more reviews. RE2's been up since the 18th and has received only one review, which was brief and inactionable; Cloud's been up since the 20th and has been given only cursory suggestions. More substantial input is needed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

<plug value="shameless"> Don't forget about Miss Croft. A new addition to the FAC list. </plug> (Guyinblack25 talk 14:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC))
<suggestion class="unheeded">Guys, you should really try and stagger the video game FACs so they don't bunch up. Then there's no way busy chaps like me can get to them all!</suggestion> Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
If only... I held off nominating Lara Croft for over a month because there were already three nominations. When I noticed that it dropped to two, I jumped at it because I don't think I'll have free time in the coming months.
Some coordination would be nice in all areas of the project, but I doubt we'll ever do it because we work well enough in our current somewhat disorganized way. :-\ (Guyinblack25 talk 18:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC))

Template:Resident Evil series

Either I am colorblind (brightnessblind?) and this is an actual improvement, or we are dealing with a vandal. Consistent reverting without explanations despite repeated notices imply the latter. Opinions? Prime Blue (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

NPD making sales data even harder to come by

Be aware that the NPD group is warning those that have access to its data to not publicly reveal the actual figures it gives [35], meaning that unless a game hits the top 5 for a month or NPD decides to grace us with the figures, we're going to have a difficult time getting these numbers. (And remember, VGChartz remains unreliable). Something to keep in mind in reviewing articles on more recent games and looking at their lack of sales figures... --MASEM (t) 13:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Game journalism: It hath sucketh, it currently sucketh, and it promises to sucketh that much more. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
There's serious doubt this will have any major effect on those with good sales figures, but not the top 5. Those company's will still want to crow about it more often than not. Also there is now serious dispute about how they measure sales comparing it to tracking music CDs and ignoring itunes.[36]陣内Jinnai 14:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, the point of the linked article is that NPD Group is telling those that actually get the data that they shouldn't make it public, even if they want to crow about it. There's certain things that they probably can't stop, like these numbers at shareholders' reports, but what's already been rare data to collect is going to get even rarer. --MASEM (t) 15:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Not to mention the big games weren't going to get shafted anyhow. But now a vital outlet for objective information about games that didn't sell as well, etc. won't be available. Hell, a year or two ago we were getting all these numbers showing how music video games were on the decline and how their sales numbers weren't that favorable--I doubt we'll be able to make such inferences now if the main sources are closing their taps and prohibiting those people with access from sharing any info. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Given its fault in the way it tracks sales by ignoring digitial sales, I'd say even if that data wasn't withheld, we could not use it to draw such conclusions.陣内Jinnai 17:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
True, but something is better than nothing. I feel like beating my head against the wall when we can report the exact amount of downloads and sales a single had in Western markets, but cannot be sure of even the top five best-selling games now. I hope Gamasutra doesn't take any pressure, as its Saling the World feature is one of the few good sources now. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
IIRC "Sailing the World" is based on Amazon sales data which, maybe not the most unbiased set, is a reasonably good indicator. Also, for games with leaderboards, I hope that Gamasutra or a sister site will follow in similar tracks to estimate sales of retain product like GamerBytes does for downloadable titles. --MASEM (t) 21:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure if it's from Gamasutra, based on sales figures from Amazon, you can use it in articles, as long as you describe it as such. Speaking of this, Sega Sammy Holdings used to post a lot of their sales, but I'm not seeing that anymore. Tezero (talk) 04:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

TBA

Can we do something against these? Lately, they have started proliferating from infoboxes to article tables and prose. One of the most ridiculous uses so far is this old revision of Super Mario for Nintendo 3DS, where basically everything from release date, to ratings, to the people involved became "TBA" – the least of which will actually be announced. It makes a whole lot more sense to just leave these fields empty than slap these arbitrary and meaningless markers on them. If anything, it makes articles look like press releases – we might as well put "Stay tuned!" there. Prime Blue (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Since our infobox does not display empty fields for most of them, the only TBA that should be included is for the release date. I would remove the rest as unnecessary - either we know or don't know. --MASEM (t) 18:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I do remember a time when there were loads of TBAs in numerous future VG articles, which were quite annoying. I suspect there are still a few. Release dates, as Masem said, I think are okay, but the rest, not really.--Tærkast (Communicate) 19:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I hate it when I see "It is not yet known if blahblahblah" or "Blahblahblah is not yet known". If we don't know anything about it, then why is it worth saying? The only place TBA should be are tables like List of Nintendo 3DS games where it would look silly without anything there. I just reverted an IP who added "TBA" to Super Mario (3DS)'s "release" field. It works just fine without it. Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, to be truthful, the release date is one of the few things that will "be announced"; everything else is generally known if not revealed to the public, and thus not an announcement (making "TBA" stupid). This of course also applies to "TBD". I have no problem with omitting it for release date in the infobox if that's the editors' choice, but I would caution against removing it if it already there. On all the other fields - go wild. --MASEM (t) 19:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Masem, you shouldn't have reverted that IP imho. Not only is the release date clearly going to be announced (and thus not WP:CRYSTAL) but if there is no placeholder, a.) the article is less informative than it could be (because even "they still have to announce it" is useful information) and b.) it will probably be seen as an invitation to add some speculation because readers will not think "ahhh, it's not yet announced but they thought about it" but "oh, it seems they forgot to add it, let me add it". Granted, "TBA" will probably also make some people add some speculated dates but far less so than if they genuinely think we forgot it completely. Regards SoWhy 20:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I would be more open to it if it actually meant something, but "TBA" is just as helpful as an empty field – that a release date will be announced (or relayed by other outlets) sooner or later is pretty much a given, you don't need a "TBA" to tell you that. To prevent release date speculation from being added, commenting the field out (<!--{{vgrelease}}-->) seems to be the most effective option. Prime Blue (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Which is why I again say "Leave it to the first editor". If he includes it, don't remove it. If he doesn't include it, don't add it (though certainly add more narrower dates when available). That, and for release platforms (if this is not announced when the game is) are the only two fields in the info box that should be treated like this because these are very critical elements for video games. All other fields, editors should be free to remove extraneous TBA/TBDs from fiels where the data just simply isn't know right now. --MASEM (t) 20:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I just removed "CPU: TBA" from the infobox in the Nintendo 3DS article. It's completely pointless. No information is being conveyed, and saying what is basically "we don't know yet" seems awfully counter-intuitive. Not to mention that we may never know what CPU that thing has... I think it's only generally acceptable for release dates to feature "TBA", as it is the only thing that is guaranteed to be actually be announced at some point. Besides, it's much neater and more pleasant to look at when the infobox isn't plastered with "TBA" everywhere. --Dorsal Axe 20:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
TBA can actually give info, especially for translations. If a company has announced a translation is imminent, but not a date, TBA does convey the info that the translation is coming baring something unforeseen out from left field.陣内Jinnai 21:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree based on these grounds as well, especially the translation aspect. Sergecross73 msg me 12:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Can I chuck the totally useless "RP" from the infobox Ratings field into the mix as well? - X201 (talk) 09:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I would think that follows from the above. --MASEM (t) 12:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Overcategorization

Sorry if this is the wrong place to post this, I've never interacted with a Wikiproject before and the structure is a tad overwhelming.

I've noticed a few games being added to what strike me as absurdly overspecific categories recently. Categories are cool, but I think it's getting excessive - is there really a need for a two-article Category:Video games based on the John F. Kennedy assassination which is the only subcategory (and member) of Category:Video games set in 1963 which is a subcategory of Category:Video games set in the 1960s? Considering there are only a handful of games set in the entire decade of the 1960s, why are there categories for individual years? Likewise, how much good is derived from the single-article category Category:Video games set in Yemen? Some guy (talk) 02:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

One user has been creating a lot of these categories recently. See here. Gary King (talk · scripts) 20:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Any thoughts on preserving/removing the changes? Would I be better off at category discussion pages? Some guy (talk) 22:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Citing iFixit

Please see WT:VG/S. « ₣M₣ » 21:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Getting an image from Flickr

How does one go about getting an image from Flickr?

I'm looking for an image of Neneh Cherry for the Lara Croft article, but the only one on Commons (pictured) is quite bad in my opinion. I found some pictures of her on Flickr that are labeled with the CC license that would be good. What steps are involved in getting one on Commons? (Guyinblack25 talk 18:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC))

[37] is the easiest way I've found. --MASEM (t) 18:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Remember that a CC license is not sufficient for using a Flickr image on Commons. It needs to be released under a CC-SA or CC-BY-SA license, allowing both commercial use and modifications. See Commons:Flickr files for more details. Regards SoWhy 18:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
There are no good pictures there [38]. Flickr's advanced search makes finding these images easy, just tick all the boxes under CC at the very bottom. Maybe someone that took a good copyrighted image can be persuaded to release it. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 19:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I've usually had good success with this strategy- just send the picture owner an email on flickr asking if they can mark it as CC-by-SA instead so that it can be used in the WP article. Usually they only marked it as copyrighted 'cause it was the default, not because they actually care where it is used. --PresN 19:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
OK. I'll give that a try.
Are there any other image hosting sites that have CC-SA/BY-SA licensed images I can search as a back up? (Guyinblack25 talk 19:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC))
Don't tick the last box actually ("Find content to modify, adapt, or build upon"). Commons doesn't required it and you generally don't need to crop the images. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 20:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes it does, CC-ND is not allowed on Commons. See Commons:Flickr files. Regards SoWhy 20:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I contacted someone about one of their photos. Here's hoping. Thanks for the info guys. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC))
Wow- I got a quick response and the photographer switched the license to CC-BY-SA. User:Flickr upload bot is going to upload the photo to File:Neneh Cherry 2008.jpg. Thanks again guys. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC))
Indeed, the Flickr Web Tools are even more convenient IMO. You forgot to validate the upload though.
(And thanks for adding the relevant category). Jean-Fred (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Admin neded

A user has done a copy and paste whilst moving Mark Rein to its new location of Mark Rein (software executive). Could someone with admin privileges sort out the edit history please? Thanks. - X201 (talk) 12:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. All history should be retained appropriately. (thank goodness it followed the same format as one of the "complex" cases for history moves) --MASEM (t) 14:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks - X201 (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Funniest. Thing. Ever!

I just found out on Kotaku that Metacritic is now rating individuals. Would that be allowed for the respected article? Example. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

WTF?
I want to say that this goes without saying, but... Please no review templates in biographies. (Guyinblack25 talk 03:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC))
"GameSpot reviewed Cliff Bleszinski positively, praising his graphics..." Reach Out to the Truth 04:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, not precisely. The individual's score is an aggregation of aggregations of review scores. It is not in any way claiming to judge the person himself. If presented accurately as such (for example by using the original story at Gamasutra and not Kotaku's sensationalist headline), it might be considered factual data about the person's history of published works. Ham Pastrami (talk) 07:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't think we need review templates on any article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Straight-out absolute no. There is no way to know what an individual worked on in different games judging from their title. This would only promote a view that games are entirely "their" work. For game reviews, where actual critical commentary is provided, numbers are okay – but for people? No. Stick to actual awards and interviews. Prime Blue (talk) 09:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Person's ratings
Aggregate rating
Aggregator Rating
GameRankings 38.54%
Metacritic 43.20%
Reviewer rating
Publication Rating
IGN D- (see me after class)

I applaud VG industry as the bold pioneer of assigning scores to people; because we all know how well that works in the education system... oh wait. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, hopefully it doesn't come to making us write common sense down somewhere regarding its use (or recommended lack of use.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
It's certainly not as if Metacritic was a bastion of fine video game journalism. It's certainly a great way for us to track down sources, but it's basically all about the worst aspects of our industry, like giving too much weight to scores or being used as the scale for raises for employees. Plus, the whole fact that it only gives coverage of reviews with scores is awkward and basically forces any reviewer to adhere to a score set if they want any exposure. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, I think we have all accepted long ago that video game journalism sucks in general, and we're muddling along the best we can :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry, if a review doesn't have a score they assign it one anyway: [39] --Mika1h (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

...aaaaand they disabled it, citing incomplete credit databases. [40] --MASEM (t) 02:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if it had anything to do with us discussing and (more or less) mocking the idea? :3 GamerPro64 (talk) 02:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Probably nothing to do with us in particular, pretty much the whole web was against it. However, one other feature I learned about, and I'm not sure if this is new, but they also (still) have scores by company.[41] The argument against individual scores was that there was incomplete data about the person's role in development, and it's true we don't know exactly what each person did. I don't think this argument applies to a development company (which is collectively responsible for the games it produces). Is it still a bad idea to aggregate scores by company? Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Ugh, GameFAQs credits. Those things are a pain to contribute, near impossible to correct, and don't take into account the fact that different people can share the same name. Reach Out to the Truth 03:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

...aaaaaand they're disabling it for good. [42].
There's a good attached interview for this article with the cofounder of MC on ratings and the VG industry. I wonder if there's a good article we can make about this controversy (its more than just MC that's at fault). --MASEM (t) 14:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

All depends on how much coverage this fiasco had about it. GamerPro64 (talk) 04:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Gamepro/G4TV/VGChartz Spam

Just thought everyone should be aware - Reddit recently discovered a load of spam from G4TV, Gamepro and VGChartz/Gamrfeed. Apparently the spam included FaceBook, Twitter and Digg too, so it's not unreasonable to think Wikipedia was targeted. There's been problems with VGChartz spam/COI stuff in the past, continue being vigilant! Fin©™ 14:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

This is even being covered by reliable sources [43][44][45][46] so we can mention this in the respective articles. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 17:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
While VG Chartz spam is certainly bad, G4TV and GamePro spam could actually have some merit to it, seeing as how they are both reliable sources. :p - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
It appears a lot of the GamePro spam at least was "Top X Peripherals" and the sort of bad filler stuff we usually wouldn't use as a source anyhow, and as you say VGChartz is considered unreliable too. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_87&oldid=1168671185"