| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of Virtual Boy games article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find video game sources: "List of Virtual Boy games" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
| Archives: 1 |
 | List of Virtual Boy games is a former featured list. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page and why it was removed. If it has improved again to featured list standard, you may renominate the article to become a featured list. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
I see no good reason to tint it red. Wikipedia has a standard skin which gives the site a universal professional look. If we coloured each page based on the subject, we'd end up no better than a MySpace website. The red pixels are discussed in detail on the Virtual Boy article, so colouring the table provides no purpose here. ed g2s • talk 10:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- For god's sake it's just a stupid color. It's not like the entire page layout is changed. Stop being so anal. -- SeizureDog 11:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a standard skin[...] I'm sorry to put it this way, but that's bullshit. Nowhere in the Manual of Style there is a prescribed colour for tables. The CSS class=wikitable is there to help users to make tables look good without quickly and without need of much XHTML knowledge, but in no way editors have to use it. If you cared to spend more than five minutes looking at the current Featured Lists, for example, you'd find many instances of tables using various colours. At this point your objections start giving the impression that you have personal issues against this list, so I'd recommend you to just let this issue go and take care of more important issues affecting the encyclopedia. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 14:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
-
ed g2s har proven on many occasions that he hides behind a supposed "policy" when in reality their is non. Not only with this article, but with many other articles in the CVG space of Wikipedia. And as per.
Run, there is nothing about your claims in the
Manual of Style, so you are yet again wrong with the claim you have brought up ed g2s.
Havok
(T/
C/
c) 15:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- The whole point of having a manual of style is to keep style consistent across the project. Colouring every page in a subject specific hue serves absolutely no purpose. ed g2s • talk 11:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- You also misunderstand the purpose of defining style in a stylesheet instead of in the document. The classes are not just there to "help users .. make tables look good .. quickly". Separating style from content allows users to run their own stylesheets if you don't like browsing Wikipedia under the default skin. It also assists third parties who want to reuse our content under a different style, something that Wikipedia fundamentally encourages (e.g. Answers.com). If, for example, I browsed Wikpedia with a green skin, and had tables set to a blue, the pink table would look absolutely hideous.
ed g2s •
talk 11:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Going by the tangent, I see. We were not critizing having a Manual of Style, but rather pointing out the fact that the MoS does not enforce or encourage a consistent table layout across articles. If you're so concerned about consistency, the best place to get a discussion started on the topic is over at the Village Pump, not here. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 12:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Or you could give a good reason as to why the table should be coloured, as I have given several good reasons why it shouldn't be. ed g2s • talk 14:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Because the editor who created the table wanted it so. It's a wiki after all, what better reason do you want? There's nothing in the MoS or default CSS prescribing table layout in Wikipedia. As I said, if you're worried about consistency go and get consensus for it first, otherwise stop wasting your (and people's) time. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 16:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Not everything on Wikipedia is monochrome ed_g2s. Just as a simple example, is there any reason why the video game infobox has a lavender theme to it? As for your example about a pink table suddenly looking "hidious", I don't see how it would. It just look different. -- SeizureDog 00:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- By using a custom inline style you take away a third parties ability to choose how the table should look in their project. The whole point of Wikipedia is to create free, re-usable content. What may be just about acceptable on the website under the monobook skin, won't necessarily somewhere else. In the face of these reasons, "because the editor wanted it so" is not much of a defense... ed g2s • talk 00:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'll point out that your version was scattered with "background-color: #eeeeee"s as well. The table still had color in it either way. -- SeizureDog 01:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Tinting it red was awesome, this was one of the neatest looking list on Wikipedia, now, it is just the same as most other lists, also before you could see each game with crystal clarity, now it is just a boring list. Also my third point, having the color the way it was also gave the common viewer of this page an insight into the color scheme of that which was Virtual Boy. Information has been lost, part of Wikipedia is having a standard, part of Wikipedia is also being diverse enough to in rare cases have some leeway. Too bad in this case, information has been lost. Just my humble opinion. --
Kirihari (
talk) 17:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- No verifiable information was lost. In case you were not aware, the list was in jeopardy of losing its featured list status mainly as a result of the coloring of the table and all the unverifiable information present (plus a shoddy lead). Read Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Virtual Boy games/archive2 for details. MuZemike 18:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- Tinting it red was awesome, this was one of the neatest looking list on Wikipedia, now, it is just the same as most other lists, also before you could see each game with crystal clarity, now it is just a boring list. Also my third point, having the color the way it was also gave the common viewer of this page an insight into the color scheme of that which was Virtual Boy. Information has been lost, part of Wikipedia is having a standard, part of Wikipedia is also being diverse enough to in rare cases have some leeway. Too bad in this case, information has been lost. Just my humble opinion. --
Kirihari (
talk) 17:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
3D Tetris, at the very top of the list, is shown to have been released in Japan and North America, under different names. However, underneath the section that tells the release date of 3D Tetris in Japan, it says it was not released there. One of those two pieces of information is wrong. Does anyone know which is correct, and if the game was released in Japan, on what date? Vgcap 3:50, 26 July 2009 (EST)
I'd like to invite anyone contributing to this list to take part in a discussion we are currently having on the
Talk:List of Nintendo 64 games#Removal of Alternate Titles and Number of Players where we are discussing the use of keeping alternate titles in the "List of...games" some have suggested that they take up too much space and that other columns could seem to be "useful only to fans", and other things that have been mentioned that, and other 'List of' talk pages. I think the alternate titles may be better as
| Wikipedia Main Title | Year | Developer/Publisher | Regions released | Number of Players |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1080° Snowboarding | 1998 | Nintendo/Nintendo | JP, NA, PAL | 1-4 |
| 64: Tenshi no Yakusoku | 1999 | Altron/Altron | JP | 1 |
|
AeroFighters Assault |
1997 | Paradigm Entertainment/ Video System | JP, NA, PAL | 1-4 |
|
Michael Owen's WLS 2000 RTL World League Soccer 2000GER Telefoot Soccer 2000FRA |
2000 | Silicon Dreams/ THQ and SouthPeak Games | NA, PAL | 1-4 |
Please come and give your opinion, and hopefully keep these type of concerns from arising again and again at each "List of" pages. ( Floppydog66 ( talk) 21:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC))
Missing title
Wasn't Papilon Country Golf released for VB? I'm compiling a list and afaik it is out there. Chopper Dave ( talk) 21:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Merge to Virtual Boy
I believe that this should be merged. It's not that long, so it doesn't really need to be separate. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- List of Virtual Boy demos could be merged to this article to make it longer. -- Mika1h ( talk) 23:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Having the complete list of games on the main Virtual boy page wouldn't take much space. It would also really drive the point home about how brief the Virtual Boy's lifespan was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.97.133 ( talk) 04:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
The main list heavily relies on GameFAQs sources, which are listed as unreliable at
WP:VG/RS. Is there another reliable source available for this data?
czar
♔ 01:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
The source issues in this list are really bad... GameFAQs is the primary concern, but there are others. I brought this up about three months ago at WT:VG, but there's been no movement sense. I'm taking this to WP:FLRC, hoping maybe that might stoke some fire into getting this addressed. Red Phoenix build the future... remember the past... 22:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of Virtual Boy games. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081012231623/http://www.gamefaqs.com/portable/vboy/data/563918.html to http://www.gamefaqs.com/portable/vboy/data/563918.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of Virtual Boy games article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find video game sources: "List of Virtual Boy games" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
| Archives: 1 |
|
| List of Virtual Boy games is a former featured list. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page and why it was removed. If it has improved again to featured list standard, you may renominate the article to become a featured list. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
I see no good reason to tint it red. Wikipedia has a standard skin which gives the site a universal professional look. If we coloured each page based on the subject, we'd end up no better than a MySpace website. The red pixels are discussed in detail on the Virtual Boy article, so colouring the table provides no purpose here. ed g2s • talk 10:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- For god's sake it's just a stupid color. It's not like the entire page layout is changed. Stop being so anal. -- SeizureDog 11:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a standard skin[...] I'm sorry to put it this way, but that's bullshit. Nowhere in the Manual of Style there is a prescribed colour for tables. The CSS class=wikitable is there to help users to make tables look good without quickly and without need of much XHTML knowledge, but in no way editors have to use it. If you cared to spend more than five minutes looking at the current Featured Lists, for example, you'd find many instances of tables using various colours. At this point your objections start giving the impression that you have personal issues against this list, so I'd recommend you to just let this issue go and take care of more important issues affecting the encyclopedia. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 14:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
-
ed g2s har proven on many occasions that he hides behind a supposed "policy" when in reality their is non. Not only with this article, but with many other articles in the CVG space of Wikipedia. And as per.
Run, there is nothing about your claims in the
Manual of Style, so you are yet again wrong with the claim you have brought up ed g2s.
Havok
(T/
C/
c) 15:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- The whole point of having a manual of style is to keep style consistent across the project. Colouring every page in a subject specific hue serves absolutely no purpose. ed g2s • talk 11:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- You also misunderstand the purpose of defining style in a stylesheet instead of in the document. The classes are not just there to "help users .. make tables look good .. quickly". Separating style from content allows users to run their own stylesheets if you don't like browsing Wikipedia under the default skin. It also assists third parties who want to reuse our content under a different style, something that Wikipedia fundamentally encourages (e.g. Answers.com). If, for example, I browsed Wikpedia with a green skin, and had tables set to a blue, the pink table would look absolutely hideous.
ed g2s •
talk 11:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Going by the tangent, I see. We were not critizing having a Manual of Style, but rather pointing out the fact that the MoS does not enforce or encourage a consistent table layout across articles. If you're so concerned about consistency, the best place to get a discussion started on the topic is over at the Village Pump, not here. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 12:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Or you could give a good reason as to why the table should be coloured, as I have given several good reasons why it shouldn't be. ed g2s • talk 14:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Because the editor who created the table wanted it so. It's a wiki after all, what better reason do you want? There's nothing in the MoS or default CSS prescribing table layout in Wikipedia. As I said, if you're worried about consistency go and get consensus for it first, otherwise stop wasting your (and people's) time. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 16:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Not everything on Wikipedia is monochrome ed_g2s. Just as a simple example, is there any reason why the video game infobox has a lavender theme to it? As for your example about a pink table suddenly looking "hidious", I don't see how it would. It just look different. -- SeizureDog 00:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- By using a custom inline style you take away a third parties ability to choose how the table should look in their project. The whole point of Wikipedia is to create free, re-usable content. What may be just about acceptable on the website under the monobook skin, won't necessarily somewhere else. In the face of these reasons, "because the editor wanted it so" is not much of a defense... ed g2s • talk 00:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'll point out that your version was scattered with "background-color: #eeeeee"s as well. The table still had color in it either way. -- SeizureDog 01:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Tinting it red was awesome, this was one of the neatest looking list on Wikipedia, now, it is just the same as most other lists, also before you could see each game with crystal clarity, now it is just a boring list. Also my third point, having the color the way it was also gave the common viewer of this page an insight into the color scheme of that which was Virtual Boy. Information has been lost, part of Wikipedia is having a standard, part of Wikipedia is also being diverse enough to in rare cases have some leeway. Too bad in this case, information has been lost. Just my humble opinion. --
Kirihari (
talk) 17:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- No verifiable information was lost. In case you were not aware, the list was in jeopardy of losing its featured list status mainly as a result of the coloring of the table and all the unverifiable information present (plus a shoddy lead). Read Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Virtual Boy games/archive2 for details. MuZemike 18:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- Tinting it red was awesome, this was one of the neatest looking list on Wikipedia, now, it is just the same as most other lists, also before you could see each game with crystal clarity, now it is just a boring list. Also my third point, having the color the way it was also gave the common viewer of this page an insight into the color scheme of that which was Virtual Boy. Information has been lost, part of Wikipedia is having a standard, part of Wikipedia is also being diverse enough to in rare cases have some leeway. Too bad in this case, information has been lost. Just my humble opinion. --
Kirihari (
talk) 17:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
3D Tetris, at the very top of the list, is shown to have been released in Japan and North America, under different names. However, underneath the section that tells the release date of 3D Tetris in Japan, it says it was not released there. One of those two pieces of information is wrong. Does anyone know which is correct, and if the game was released in Japan, on what date? Vgcap 3:50, 26 July 2009 (EST)
I'd like to invite anyone contributing to this list to take part in a discussion we are currently having on the
Talk:List of Nintendo 64 games#Removal of Alternate Titles and Number of Players where we are discussing the use of keeping alternate titles in the "List of...games" some have suggested that they take up too much space and that other columns could seem to be "useful only to fans", and other things that have been mentioned that, and other 'List of' talk pages. I think the alternate titles may be better as
| Wikipedia Main Title | Year | Developer/Publisher | Regions released | Number of Players |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1080° Snowboarding | 1998 | Nintendo/Nintendo | JP, NA, PAL | 1-4 |
| 64: Tenshi no Yakusoku | 1999 | Altron/Altron | JP | 1 |
|
AeroFighters Assault |
1997 | Paradigm Entertainment/ Video System | JP, NA, PAL | 1-4 |
|
Michael Owen's WLS 2000 RTL World League Soccer 2000GER Telefoot Soccer 2000FRA |
2000 | Silicon Dreams/ THQ and SouthPeak Games | NA, PAL | 1-4 |
Please come and give your opinion, and hopefully keep these type of concerns from arising again and again at each "List of" pages. ( Floppydog66 ( talk) 21:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC))
Missing title
Wasn't Papilon Country Golf released for VB? I'm compiling a list and afaik it is out there. Chopper Dave ( talk) 21:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Merge to Virtual Boy
I believe that this should be merged. It's not that long, so it doesn't really need to be separate. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- List of Virtual Boy demos could be merged to this article to make it longer. -- Mika1h ( talk) 23:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Having the complete list of games on the main Virtual boy page wouldn't take much space. It would also really drive the point home about how brief the Virtual Boy's lifespan was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.97.133 ( talk) 04:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
The main list heavily relies on GameFAQs sources, which are listed as unreliable at
WP:VG/RS. Is there another reliable source available for this data?
czar
♔ 01:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
The source issues in this list are really bad... GameFAQs is the primary concern, but there are others. I brought this up about three months ago at WT:VG, but there's been no movement sense. I'm taking this to WP:FLRC, hoping maybe that might stoke some fire into getting this addressed. Red Phoenix build the future... remember the past... 22:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of Virtual Boy games. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081012231623/http://www.gamefaqs.com/portable/vboy/data/563918.html to http://www.gamefaqs.com/portable/vboy/data/563918.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)