This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 30 | ← | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | → | Archive 40 |
I just assessed Films based on video games, which seems a really important article, and is in a poor state. A little notification here in the hope someone familiar with the subject can't hurt, I thought. User:Krator ( t c) 20:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I came across Comparison of Lemmings ports and References in Lemmings level names recently, and I was wondering if both should just be redirects or be put in AFD? The comparision page is useful, but I'm not so sure about it's encyclopedic value here. The references article: a very trivial list that probably should go. RobJ1981 ( talk) 02:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Ignoring the above section, the articles need to be condensed. The current lists ( List of characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (games), Other characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (games), Other villains in Sonic the Hedgehog (games)) are full of one game characters and other trivial ones. That's all compared to this version, which contains only the recurring characters in a trimmed down state. If people can please comment, and just state that that one list is more preferable than those three, that would be great. TTN ( talk) 13:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Instead of a cluttered long list, a prose should be done for all wrestling video game articles. See WWE_SmackDown_vs._Raw_2008#Roster for a good example. Anyone care to help out? RobJ1981 ( talk) 20:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if an able editor here could do the Good Article nomination of Halo (series). It's been languishing in backlog hell for a while, and as I'm a significant contributor to the article I can't do it meself. Cheers, David Fuchs ( talk) 22:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
User:FMF asked me on Talk:List of Final Fantasy media to create a template that could be used across all video game lists. The results can be seen User:Axem Titanium/Sandbox2. Any feedback would be appreciated. Axem Titanium ( talk) 01:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
In the spirit of the previous split between multiplayer game and multiplayer video game, I think this one has been long overdue. A strategy video game article is basically embedded in the middle of an article about strategy board games. Concepts like "real time" or "4x" or "artillery" are simply irrelevant to board games. We have a separate category for strategy video games, so I see every reason to have a separate article. So I've pulled out the computer game section from strategy game to create a new strategy video game article, and added a few references and new pieces of information. I hope we can build on this. Feel free to leave any comments or concerns here and I will try to make changes as needed. Ludologist12 ( talk) 04:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
This is a call-to-arms, of sorts, for people to fix up the Mega Man article. I feel like such an important character to video games should have a much better article than what is currently up. I tried calling attention to it on its talk page, but no one has replied. I've done a small part; I "prosed" up the "Abilities" section, which used to be a list, but of course, much more is needed, such as sources and references. I'm afraid I'm not too knowledgable about the Mega Man universe so I can't really add information per se, but as far as organization and other miscellanea I'll be glad to help with, if time permits. Thank you. ♣ Bishop Tutu Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 04:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Can the deletion archive be... archived? Now that we're covering most if not all AFDs related to video games, it's going to be filling up a heck of a lot quicker and is already a fair old chore to go through. I could archive all December's prods and AFDs first, then it can be 1st Jan 2008 - onwards.
Could someone also explain how to add categories for discussion to the deletion list? Compared to checking the AFDs every day searching TFDs and CFDs takes seconds, but I couldn't add a category for discussion no matter which way it was turned. :( Someone another ( talk) 22:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I used it recently, once, to dig out the recent fictional videogame AFD, and that's it. Are you suggesting that the archive could be culled altogether due to never being used? Personally I would try to file things away if it's deemed necessary, but if nobody is going to use the archive then get the matches. <.< Someone another 22:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Good grief, did some software company patent the term "game" while I wasn't looking? Never before on WP have I seen such an egregious misassignment of article titles!
When looking at these articles, ask yourself, "Is there anything in this article of what existed and what people knew about games and gaming before 1970? Would any of the current content still be there if we could revert it that far back?"
The above articles make no mention at all of their subjects outside of the realm of computer and video gaming, when clearly the concepts they purport to describe are equally applicable to board games, card games, wargames, etc.
The above articles all pay only cursory lip service to the non-computer aspects of their subjects, while focusing almost exclusively on the video gaming aspects. They typically describe concepts from a computer or video gaming POV, and use examples from those realms only.
The above articles are the few I found beginning with the word "game" that actually do at least try to cover their subjects from a non-computer POV, but most of them could still stand an infusion of traditional gaming information.
Now I know that for some articles (such as Game artificial intelligence), it doesn't make sense to discuss the subject from a non-computer realm; and I also know that I'm fighting an uphill battle here, since most WP editors are computer geeks, and most computer geeks are video gamers(-:citation needed:-) - but I'm hoping someone better at this than me would be willing to take the bull by the horns and make the necessary movements to ensure that these articles appropriate for all gaming contingents, and not just the computer geeks. 71.126.99.212 ( talk) 06:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, I came here looking for information about card games, and created this section because I was shocked at how little I found when starting from Game design. I expected I might run into some dense theoretical discussion, but didn't expect the video gaming slant I found. While it may be true that afficionados of traditional board and card games are now in the minority, that alone doesn't make their subject matter unworthy of inclusion; and, if there were some decent content here, you might find that this minority isn't as "miniscule" as some presume it to be ( Catch-22, I know).
As a relative newbie to this, I admit I might have used the term POV inappropriately to refer to an article's slant or bias, but I still think that a good WP article should cover its subject from every angle from which it could be approached, and not reject or ignore some because they're not as popular; that's one of the reasons why disambiguation pages exist. Had I known that a separate Project on Board and table games existed, I would have posted this there, instead, but there's no way I would have found that out from these pages - which is exactly my point. 71.126.99.212 ( talk) 13:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Some pointers on this discussion, I personally do not have any strong opinions either way.
User:Krator ( t c) 13:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey everyone, I need another opionion about this article. I've been working on trying to make this notable since its removal. [1] The deleted version of the article was made on this user's page but it appears he has left Wikipedia. [2] It has undergone vast improvements [3] from when it was deleted [4], and I was wondering if the article as it is now is good enough to be included with the main article [5] again. I have requested feedback for the article here [6] and was told to raise the matter to people more knowledgeable about gaming. I haven't merged the history as Elipongo kindly suggested yet as I was wondering about everyone's thoughts on the matter. Thanks in advance! :) Sake neko ( talk) 03:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Is this necessary: Template:DeadRising ? Dead Rising is one game, so this seems a little too broad to me at least. RobJ1981 ( talk) 14:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Might as well ask here without starting a new discussion. Are any other Firefox users seeing the text flow over the right side of the template in Template:Might and Magic series? This is how it displays in my Firefox: [7]. Other browsers (Explorer and Opera) display it just right. Is the navbox not optimised for Firefox or where is the problem? -- Mika1h ( talk) 22:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
When I went to edit: I noticed several L games (that are only visible when you edit the page only). Can someone fix this? There might be more, I'm not sure.. I only checked that section, as I was wondering why the Legend of Zelda game for the Wii wasn't listed. RobJ1981 ( talk) 12:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking that we should split off the song lists and common gameplay elements into separate articles like on the Guitar Hero articles, that may make them a bit easier to understand. ViperSnake151 03:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I've nom'd the above article at WP:FAC. Comments are of course welcome. David Fuchs ( talk) 18:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I've just put ZX-Poly into AFD. The thing dosen't actually exist and is just a conceptual idea by it's creator. - X201 ( talk) 15:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The editors of this project might be interested in the thread I started at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Deal with "game guide" content more directly. Pagra shtak 19:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
There is a conflict going on, that involves several pages now: Frank West, Dead Rising and Characters and Story of Dead Rising. In my view, there was a consensus reached here: Talk:Dead_Rising#Frank_West_merge, however a few people don't want to accept it and have been edit warring. Then they used the characters and story page to just have a redundant copy of information in the Dead Rising article. I'm considering putting the story and characters article in AFD, if the redirect wont stick. Dead Rising was one game, and all plot/character information is described fine in the main article. There is no good reason to move content at this point. The plot for Dead Rising is a bit lengthy and should be cut down a bit, not moved. RobJ1981 ( talk) 23:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
What are you planning to do? I mean I they don't want to merge just tell them that you guys should work together instead of against each other... Historybuffc13 ( talk) 02:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi all. I've been writing about the development of this series a bit, and could do with some help on musical related stuff. Basically, if anyone could find any interviews or info about the music development for the original ( Age of Empires (video game)), it'd be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Dihydrogen Monoxide ( party) 06:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I've recently noticed some articles not having both the main category and the "-only" category. Example: Kirby Air Ride had just GameCube-only games, so I had to add the GameCube games category to it. Can someone run a bot to fix the ones that need a category? I brought this up before, but I'm not sure if a bot was ever run. RobJ1981 ( talk) 19:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The link for the Infobox Maker seemed to get lost during the VG:Project front page re-vamp. So I've put it at the bottom of the Infobox documentation, seemed like the best place for it. - X201 ( talk) 11:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
some help is needed with the No more heroes (video game) page. Techo ( talk) 16:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Sephiroth BCR brought this up here a while ago, the discussion is now archived here in the VG talk archive and the original FAC discussion here in the FAC talk archive. The discussion died down before coming to a consensus regarding the current FAs, but the two FAC were moved over to Featured list candidates.
Anyway, with Characters in Castlevania: Sorrow series now a Featured list, I feel there is a discrepancy among the format video character articles have taken. Mainly because articles like Characters of Final Fantasy VIII and Characters of Kingdom Hearts are Featured articles even though they follow a similar outline and design. The only real difference that I can tell is that FFVIII and KH have a merchandise section that relates to the characters. The reason I bring this up is I think a standardize position needs to established for future articles or lists that will or already do follow a similar design.
I would like to eventually bring this back up to the FA discussions, but hoped to get some input from the VG Project before doing so. Any thoughts? ( Guyinblack25 talk 22:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC))
Hi, I've been working with unassessed articles recently and giving them appropriate ratings, and I was wondering if it would be appropriate for the project to have a list-class and featured-list class similar to other WikiProjects, such as WikiProject Rock music, and have a category for these articles. With the number of lists in this WikiProject, I thought this might be a clear, concise way to organize lists. Also, I think disambiguation pages should have a category in order to keep them organized. What do you guys think? Redphoenix526 ( talk) 00:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I did a google search and didn't seem to find any reliable results. Should this be sent to AFD or no? RobJ1981 ( talk) 14:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Hellgate: London needs some cleanup, and it doesn't seem like many other editors care about cleaning it up, just adding to the article. Please, come by and help, if you can. ~ QuasiAbstract ( talk/ contrib) 09:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
See the edit history of Bully (video game). An editor is claiming there should be 2 infoboxes, one for the original game and one for the port. The port has a few new things, but overall: it's basically the same game. An editor is claiming it's misleading to put the port information in the infobox. I've tried to explain things to him, but he just reverts for no good reason. From the articles I've seen, there is one infobox for everything. See Resident Evil 4 as one example. One infobox works just fine in my view. RobJ1981 ( talk) 14:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The style of the VG Infobox has been changed. Template_talk:Infobox_VG#CSS_class is worth a read. - X201 ( talk) 18:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Is there really a need for this article? There already is the History of video game consoles (seventh generation) article. -- Silver Edge ( talk) 23:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Spore is a massive game, but is a whole article on it's development necessary? I'm sure this article was made to make the main article look better, but I think it's a bit too much. RobJ1981 ( talk) 02:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
On Wikipedia we have the articles, Turn-based strategy and Turn-based tactics. There was recently an edit war at Advance Wars: Days of Ruin over whether the game was a tactical or strategical game. Both strategy and tactical articles claim that Advance Wars is their genre. Turn-based strategy is almost the exact same thing as Turn-based tactics except for the (so-called) fact that: "Turn-based tactics do not feature resource-gathering, production, base-building or economic management, instead focusing on tactical and operational aspects of warfare such as unit formations or the exploitation of terrain for tactical advantage." I do not think that this is sufficient enough for a strategy game to be called a tactics game. Chess is a strategy game as well as a tactics game. Wikipedia is the only website on the net that claims a difference between strategy and tactics, therefore we need to delete the Turn-based tactics article and merge the content into Turn-based strategy. If there is no opposition, I will merge the articles together and redirect turn-based tactics to the strategy article. Comments? -- penubag 02:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
http://www.nintendo.com/whatsnew/detail/ZMgZp55bih7cC-9UG8nnXYT4JNlgLLbW And this link says otherwise that Advance Wars DoR is a STRATEGY game. But I'm all up for the merger. If it makes both sides happy, then I'm all up for it. It really is pointless to try and say tactics and strategy are two different things when they generally aren't. DeathMark ( talk) 02:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Merging the two articles is for the best. The differences between the two genres are vague as is, and combining the two into an inclusive turn-based strategy category will prevent further disagreements over what genre best fits a given game. Comandante42 ( talk) 03:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd far prefer genre article merges and improvement were the result of research rather than bickering, so long as there are several genres which reach beyond 'video game' there will always be disagreements. Only the other day I had to switch Battleships Forever's genre from real-time strategy to real-time tactics because of a review actually focused on its mis-labeling by the developer. (Reminds me, have to fix the article lead which still says RTS). Without taking a good long look, how do we know if a) they need merging at all, b) whether the term tactics has any currency and c) whether it would be better to merge real-time tactics to turn-based tactics instead? Let the editors so bothered about Advance Wars' classification do the legwork themselves, dig up multiple sources, discuss them properly and apply them to that article. There does need to be improvement on pretty much all genre articles and genre hierarchy articles (list of genres etc) and that'll take the project's input, but this isn't the right reason to instigate it. Someone another 14:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This edit was a little bit too bold. I can't say that I have much research on strategy video games to talk about the difference between turn based strategy and turn based tactics, but I know the distinction exists and is used very deliberately. Just because the distinction is fuzzy and controversial, it doesn't mean the distinction is non-existent. Ludologist12 ( talk) 05:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
(redented) Allow me to bring in some published sources.
Personally, while elements of tactics games are usually part of strategy games, I think we cannot simply classify them as strategy games. Like shooters, platformers, and fighters have been under the action umbrella but have distinguished themselves, so have tactics-only games. Jappalang ( talk) 13:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC
Ran across this during a run through Special:Random. Does anybody have access to Japanese magazines, any reviews or dev info? If not I think it should be deleted. hbdragon88 ( talk) 01:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello all.
I've been checking the entries Matchday, Matchday Soccer, Match Day II and Supermatch Soccer.
I have seen several strange contributions to Matchday_Soccer supposedly made by the author of the game, Jon Ritman. Of course I didn't think it could be him (I even wrote about it at Talk:Matchday Soccer).
But I've seen that a detail about the cover is absolutely true and (as far as I know) I couldn't find any information about it in the web: the cover of Match Day 2 uses a photo of Gary Lineker also used in other videogame of that time ( [16] Gary Lineker Super Star Soccer).
So I don't know what to do with it ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by El Pantera ( talk • contribs) 22:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
If anyone would like to save some video game images from deletion, see Special:Contributions/Project FMF. A lot of the images he's been tagging are box art, and would meet Wikipedia's non-free content criteria if rationale was added. I've done some, but there's a lot there if you look through the whole history. If you add rationales, remember to mention the article for which the rationale applies and wikilink it, to prevent a bot from auto-tagging the images as non-compliant. If you aren't sure what any of this means, feel free to ask me, another VG admin, or someone from the VG images department and we'll fill you in on the details. If an image you want to save has already been deleted, contact the deleting admin (or me if you want) and explain that you want the image restored so you can add non-free rationale and we can restore the image. Pagra shtak 04:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Video Game Images lists some good templates that can be easily used to add a fair use rational to the image description pages. JACO PLANE • 2008-01-18 22:53 The first few I clicked through were much larger than the 300 width/height maximum recommended for 'low resolution', does this just apply to screenshots or what? Someone another 12:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The main problem is that the images are not low resolution (less than 300x300 pixels). And while it is easy to add a FU rationale to most of them, it's often impossible to find the source of the image. Kariteh ( talk) 16:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Could someone add an 'infobox' attribute to the template? The films project does this and it would be the same approach as the 'cover' and 'screenshot' parts. Quickmythril ( talk) 09:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
For purposes of tracking redirections of game characters and elements into lists, I've created two templates that should be useful:
These templates populate the categories of Category:Fictional character redirects to lists and Category:Fictional element redirects to lists. Both templates support an optional parameter to indicate the game/series that the character/element belongs to, eg {{CharR to list entry|Sonic the Hedgehog}} would sort the redirect into the category Category:Sonic the Hedgehog fictional character redirects to lists, which then would be a sub-cat of the former. This also allows this sub-cat to be included in a more general category for the game/series (eg. Category:Sonic the Hedgehog or even more specifically Category:Sonic the Hedgehog characters) as such that the list of redirected articles can be found easily from these. -- MASEM 22:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
What is the standing of this WikiProject regarding reliable sources citing unreliable ones? For example, Tom's Hardware sister site, TG Daily, quoted VGChartz numbers in an article, same as Gameworld Network using VGChartz numbers here. A reliable source using unreliable numbers makes them reliable? How "deep" we need to go (for example, if IGN quotes GameSpot which quotes VGChartz). I revert those numbers when they are added to articles, and would accept when a reliable source uses those numbers, but I am not sure everyone here will allow with that. Thoughts? -- ReyBrujo ( talk) 00:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I thought it to be established that using VGChartz with inline attribution (e.g. "VGChartz writes that the game sold one million copies.[1]" instead of "The game sold one million copies.[1]") was ok. User:Krator ( t c) 12:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
It's frankly rather strange that our templates look and occasionally act differently from all the other ones. Since the point of infoboxes is to streamline and provide a unified presentation of information, I suggest we drop the borders and garish colors and go with a look more along the lines of {{ Infobox character}}, and any of the other media infoboxes, et al. -- David Fuchs ( talk) 22:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Standardise all three (be sure to do the sub-templates on General VG character! Otherwise someone will just come along and revert it because of inconsistency with the inuniverse fields) with code and colour - or there in lack of, the grey is far more preferable than the pale green used in the last attempt for the overall effect on Infobox VG - it works with the current structures of VG character and VG reviews, but not with an Infobox VG code similar to Template:Infobox Film. As long as thats taken care of, its absolutely fine by me. -- Sabre ( talk) 01:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Add {{
Infobox VG system}} to the list; the last time this was discussed, someone changed it to the proposed redesign along with {{
Infobox VG}} but no one ever bothered to revert it. Personally, I am neutral on this whole redesign issue so far. On a side note regarding {{
Infobox VG system}}, does anyone else think the combination of title
and logo
looks strange where the logo is or clearly includes the name of the system, as on
PlayStation 3,
Wii,
Xbox 360,
Dreamcast,
PlayStation 2,
Xbox,
Nintendo GameCube,
Atari Jaguar,
PC-FX,
Nintendo 64,
SNES,
ColecoVision,
Intellivision,
Vectrex, and maybe
Sega Saturn and
Sega Mega Drive?
Anomie
⚔ 16:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I haven't been following this small controversey closely, but I noticed that the lines in the infoboxes theat separate the sections are gone now and I was just wondering if there was a reason for that? I personally thought they made it a lot easier to read. Evaunit ♥666♥ 01:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Just as an update here, I've now pushed out the same style changes to {{ general VG character}} (which should really be renamed to something containing the word "infobox"). Chris Cunningham ( talk) 12:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikiproject Sega is going on a upwards spiral so get somewhere, maybe a few Sega fans could join and help? Gao gier Talk! 04:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I've been trying to deal with User:Gaogier regarding these non-free images on his project pages, but he seems to refuse to get a clue. Assistance would be appreciated, I don't want to 3RR over this. Also, could someone give me a second (and third, fourth, etc) opinion on whether his newly-uploaded image Image:PictureSonicWikiprojectSega.png is a derivative of Image:Shadow rivals.png? Thanks. Anomie ⚔ 23:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I admit i took a few idias from that while drawing mine but its not a derivative ir you. Gao gier Talk! 03:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
File:Hereimage.png Tell me that is simple enough? Gao gier Talk! 16:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
If i take a photograph of sonic on the case of a game i own is that copyright to sega and i cant use it on my wikiproject Gao gier Talk! 16:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
I've been trying to improve the Quake 2 article, but someone reverted my last edit (made on the 20th of January). I asked for an explanation but they only gave one which I consider to be inadequate, then just ignored my questions after that point. I don't want to edit war on this but on the other hand, I don't think there was anything wrong with my edits that were reverted. Someone suggested I ask for help here. Can anyone help with this? I really think the Quake 2 article needs some work. I'm willing to do it, it's just frustrating when people come along and revert without being even willing to discuss why. Thanks. Ben 2082 ( talk) 16:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello all. It looks like Nintendo have posted an official English translation of the name of Fire Emblem 1, Fire Emblem: Ankoku Ryū to Hikari no Tsurugi. I was just wondering whether an article move to the English name is warranted now. Wikipedia: Naming conventions states that Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form. The problem is that barely anyone will know this new English name, and that a break in the trend from other Fire Emblem games could be confusing for readers. Any ideas? Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 16:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for drudging up another old discussion, but did we ever come to a conclusion on this? The "Creating a new Task Force" discussion reminded me of it. ( Guyinblack25 talk 20:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC))
Just noticed this edit on Xbox 360. I took a look at the source,an interview on 8bitjoystick.com, that was used to support the assertions made in the edit. However, I haven't heard much of the reliability of this website, and a look around the site shows that it's a blog, which are usually not reliable (with a few exceptions) per WP:RS and WP:V. A look at Special:Linksearch indicates it is linked at very few places (and none as a reference), so I undid the edit. However, the person who added it keeps adding it back, asserting that since the interview is with a Microsoft "insider", it's still reliable. So, can anybody vouch for or against the site, and can "insider" interviews on sites like these count as reliable? NeoChaosX ( talk, walk) 23:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Paraphrase from link I gave out:
Here is their response:
Hi everyone. I understand the questions you all have. I hope you understand that it's a bit overwhelming to try and answer everything in real time. After tonight, I'm going to ask Jake (or Jacob?) to field your questions and funnel them to me for answers. Then we can do that in an organized way. But for now, I'm going to try and answer some that I thought were most important.
First, why the secrecy?
MS knows who I am. That's why I'm not concerned about self identifying to them in these postings with details only they would know, as some here have pointed out. The people who founded Xbox hw number 10. 1 left to go be the VP of manufacturing at Qualcomm, 1 left to go be the GM of engineering at Zune, 1 left after only 2 months in ‘99 due to conflicts with toddhol. He works on Surface now. The rest still work on Xbox. I am the only one who left the company entirely.
I am not concerned about MS knowing who I am. They are worried about me revealing their problems. Not the other way around. Plus, I have contacted every single attorney who has filed a lawsuit against MS and offered to help. Some have accepted, and that work is in progress. We'll talk about that in another post. It's very interesting, I just don't want a bunch of fan boys trying to hack my home PC (that I use for work). Harass my kids, call my house, etc.
Second, why now?
Well, it's not just now. I've been reaching out since before the product went into manufacturing. I left before launch. But many employees continued to contact me about the problems with the product and its launch. I did my best to help them figure out how to mitigate the problems caused my bad management decisions, and test the boxes right. Sometimes my ideas worked, sometimes they didn't. I then started to contact reporters. Sometimes it went no where. Sometimes, it resulted in a spectacular thing, like the ambush interview with toddhol just before MS admitted guilt. But still, it happened too slowly for me. That's one reason I'm doing this now.
When those articles were posted last July, I chimed in as a commentator. That's when Jake invited me for an interview. But I didn't see it then. It was only recently when I goog'ed "xboxfounder" on a whim that I found that old invite. So I contacted him to see if he was still interested. I sent him a current resume from my current work email account, and he believed me. If you guys don't, then tell me what you need to see as proof. And I will provide that.
Last: My motivation.
I have always been in a position to stand up for the customer. MS stopped me from doing that. They need to pay the price now. If you guys won't get together and make that happen, you have no hope for the future with them. It's not my fight, but I am here fighting. You decide what you want to do. And then do it!
Established facts: Ex-employee attempted to go through proper media channels, attempted to talk to news outlets, but attempts were for nothing. There's also the fact that Microsoft knows who he is and did not want the early problems to get leaked to the public. He offers to provide aid to parties suing against Microsoft due to the defective 360s. This is the closest thing you'll get for a reliable source other than whatever lawsuit proceedings there are on cases filed against Microsoft. Dibol ( talk) 00:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The claim this source makes has been made repeatedly by more reliable sources. I think the current mainstream hypothesis is that the symptoms are due to faults somewhere in the manufacturing/design process, i.e. on Microsoft's side. Many sources have discussed this, including mainstream Dutch newspapers after the Dutch TV show "Kassa" uncovered the original problem. I'd advice against using this fringe source, because these other sources are available. User:Krator ( t c) 13:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to use some posts by Jared Newman, a journalist who's work has appeared in Wired and The Escapist, would his experiences of Urban Dead be considered reliable enough? They would be a big help. Someone another 00:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Template talk:Command & Conquer series#Cleanup, additions and other assorted issues. Help needed. Thanks. -- MrStalker ( talk) 17:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know I've archived all the deletions up to and including December 2007, and moved January 2008 to the freshly vacant archive. Someone another 23:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I recently came across this review. Should this board game be mentioned in the Age of Mythology article, in a separate article, or nowhere at all? dihydrogen monoxide ( H20) 00:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone feel this is useful? I removed it, but got reverted. Pagra shtak 18:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
In 2008 in video gaming and all the "year in video gaming" articles found on {{ History of Video Games}}, the North American release dates for games are listed when some games were released in other regions, such as Japan or Europe, prior to being released in North America. So shouldn't a game be listed with its Japan or Europe release date if it was released in one of those regions before being released in North America? Take Super Smash Bros. Brawl for example, it was released in Japan on January 31 2008, but the user who made this believes it should list its North American release date instead, which is March 9 2008. Am I wrong in believing that the original release date should be listed instead?-- Silver Edge ( talk) 04:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm working on improving the Quake articles and I've noticed that on youtube there are a few official trailers and adverts for them. Would putting links to these movies be against wikipedia rules? I think they'd be pretty useful for illustrating to people what the games are like. The movies I'm talking about are the following: [17], [18] and [19]. Thanks for your help. Ben 2082 ( talk) 19:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Are lists necessary to list all the characters for fighting video games (and generally most games with many characters)? A prose looks much neater in a majority of cases. I've seen many game articles (for games that feature many characters), and there is only a minority that have lists and tables for them. The recent problem is with wrestling games. They have huge rosters, and people insist on lists because they are "neater" and "the way articles have always been done". People refuse to accept change, and assume the default standard is the best. See WWE Smackdown vs. Raw 2008 and this discussion: Talk:WWE_SmackDown_vs._Raw_2008#Roster_-_list_or_prose.3F. RobJ1981 ( talk) 20:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Anyone else find it odd to have the list in the category? (not to mention MOS issues and stuff) dihydrogen monoxide ( H20) 04:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Do sites like IGN/Gamespot qualify as reliable sources on release dates for unreleased games? I understand Amazon/Best Buy shouldn't be used. Should release dates only come from official sources? -- pb30< talk> 04:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
IGN/Gamespot are reliable here, sometimes more so than the developers. Keep in mind that Wikipedia writes according to the reliability of sources, and does not consider "officialness" at all. User:Krator ( t c) 08:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
In deathmatch_(gaming) article, there's a section stating that the game Sniper was the source from which "Novel NetWare" originated. I believe this to be incorrect; I played "Novel Netwars", a multiplayer space shooter in DM style, which would make sense. Novel Netware has nothing to do with gaming and the sentence doesn't make sense.
Also, I'm thinking about prolonging the part of the article about the concept of deathmatch, especially mentioning some fundamental changes to the principle, such as adding death penalty for suicide, which (without the penalty) used to be a way to quickly get to powerful weapons in Doom, spawn-protection (implemented in Unreal Tournament, which is an important game in this genre), Last Man Standing and Team Deathmatch variants. But being new to Wikipedia, I'm asking if it is a good idea.
I'm interested in knowing if the guides on GameFaqs.com can be considered reliable sources. I suspect the answer is no, but it would make writing gameplay sections for articles somewhat easier. -- Lenin and McCarthy | ( Complain here) 18:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
<--(remove indent) To use user reviews for sourcing the reception of a game to the market would be Original Research and/or Synthesis, both of which should not be used on Wikipedia. Even so, would you randomly select a review or two, or take an average of all the reviews? Basically, how would you choose which reviews to use on the article? Randomly selecting reviews could lead to (possibly unintentionally) an editor's point of view and taking an average would be OR and synthesis. These are some of the reasons not to use user reviews. I hope this helps. ~ QuasiAbstract ( talk/ contrib) 09:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Wow, after writing seven Good Articles I never knew that;). What I mean is that I don't think that you can use reviews from randomers. I could just write in what I thought of the game by the same logic. Only established, reliable sources can be used (IGN Gamespot, etc). It doesn't make sense to use anything else. Ashnard Talk Contribs 20:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
(←) OK, I'll concede the OR point. However, the question becomes should WE use user reviews like this? How verifiable are they? ~ QuasiAbstract ( talk/ contrib) 14:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Citing GameFAQs for any kind of "player response" statement is a really bad idea. User:Krator ( t c) 09:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
(←)There is an interesting case to consider here. Let's assume there's a game that gets positive reviews from all professional sources , but there is a known glaring bug or other aspect of the game that users are heavily complaining about, but there's absolutely no press coverage of it (rarely this is the case: there is bound to be a reviewer that at least comments on that issue, but lets assume the hypothetic case where there is not). We as gamers know this to be true, but as WP editors, we have to be somewhat blind to it. Now, as suggested, it seems reasonable to include user review summary scores, particularly if there's a large variance between those as the main "official" site review, but that doesn't address the point where users are finding the game to be bad. I think in this case, and only this case, we first assume good faith and can include a link to a user review or two to source the point (ideally, using "trusted" user reviews), but that should not be the end of it - editors should still be encouraged to look for sources. This way, instead of including the point about what was bad with the game, and then slapping a cn/or/fact tag to the point, adding the user reviews, even if not completely reliable sources, at least gives other editors the framework to understand the point that is being discussed, and may lead one or more editors to know where to find better sources. However, before an article can become Good, these sources have to be dealt with by replacing them or removing the statement altogether since it can't otherwise be verified. -- MASEM 14:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
(←)Using GameFAQ reviews as a "player reception" is an idea with an unreliable basis. Under what grounds do the player reviews in the GameFAQ section constitute a fair representation of the entire gamer population? Though Krator have pointed out those player reviews tend to be overly negative, I have to point out there are also the "fanboyz" elements there who give overly glowing reviews. To avoid WP:OR, one would have to be extreme in detail such as "In x player reviews on GameFAQs, y have found...", what purpose would that serve? If GameFAQ player submissions are to be accepted, what about GameSpot, IGN, and the other multitude of gaming sites' player reviews? What does GameFAQ possess which raises its player review section above all others? Jappalang ( talk) 23:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Over at the FAC for Link's Awakening, a reviewer has said of the original japanese translation provided in the lead "What earthly use is the Japanese script in an English-language text?" I was following examples such as Final Fantasy titles and Golden Sun, and I think that it makes sense to include the original title of a game, but what do you think? David Fuchs ( talk) 21:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
While looking at Virtua Fighter (series), I noticed that every character thats ever made an appearance has their own articles. In all honesty, I don't really think the game is important enough to have a page for every character. I mean, all the pages are are a rundown of their past and a trivia section, and most, if not all of them, don't site any references or have any real-world info. I think they might even fall under WP:NOT#GUIDE. I'd suggest merging the articles into either Virtua Fighter (series) or List of Virtua Figther Characters. The articles in question are:
Just thought I'd see what you'd all think about this. Dengarde ► Complaints 07:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Every character in every fighting game has received a similar treatment. Cleaning them up would be a massive project, with a great deal of resistance from fans.
As usual. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 13:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Make a huge blanket AFD nom of this one. It will pass. User:Krator ( t c) 08:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
to be honest, this stuff seems pretty harmless. unlike most 'fan' articles it's all well presented, totally objective plot summaries; crucially, there is no subjective matters being discussed without references and no personal opinions or agendas being pushed (although i haven't checked it thoroughly). i'm not opposed to cutting it down and merging it (or deleting it outright), but it seems like a lot of hassle to me Bridies ( talk) 01:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Along with the recent incident involving the necessary removal of the fansites from this page, I feel that this page needs a major overhaul; a couple of IP editors are preventing me from doing necessary edits to improve the quality of this article and because the page is so low-activity, no other editors have showed up to help resolve this matter. Basically I'm here to ask for editors to not only resolve this conflict but to help fix up this page. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 04:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Is uploading one image, so that it has all 3 different region covers on it allowed? For example, User:Chessage replaced Image:European Club Soccer Coverart.jpg with Image:World Trophy Soccer Covers.PNG. Thanks. Salavat ( talk) 02:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
So the best thing to do would be to find out which one was released first and upload that one? Salavat ( talk) 03:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a solution, thanks for your comments, im going to go change it back to the single cover when i get the time. Thanks, Salavat ( talk) 16:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
This list needs a lot of cleanup. As of now: it's just a massive list of everyone in the game. This falls under game guide content in my view. Bully is a popular and well known game, but that doesn't instantly make every character in it notable. RobJ1981 ( talk) 20:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
There's a lot of things in Category:Unassessed video game articles that are in fact assessed with WP:VG. What is the problem here? User:Krator ( t c) 14:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
There's now only four articles in the category. At the time of the post above, this was about a hundred. Seems something got fixed :) User:Krator ( t c) 20:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
A Bemani task force of WikiProject Computer and video games has been proposed; feel free to comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Taskforce for Bemani. -- Core desat 01:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I recently flipped through the current list of video game Navboxen and conducted some updates and code fixes. Some of the Navboxen weren't using the current Navbox template and some had coding errors which I scoured through and fixed. It wasn't a thorough job, I only updated templates that were visibly in need and plan on going through all of them to make sure the code is neat and tidy.
Another thing I did was remove all custom cell coloring and custom template sizing that I found. The reason I did this was because according to the template docs these stylings were "NOT RECOMMENDED", the all caps phrase having mysteriously disappeared from the doc since, however the note of discouragement remains. They also detracted from the clean feel of the articles as a whole and make them an eyesore in many cases as well as difficult to read in extreme cases. Especially when a custom styled Navbox butted up against a standard one. Some objected to what I was doing in regards to styling and reverted them back however after discussing my reasons with them they offered no further objections, with the exception of one. This person singlehandedly reverted, not changed back, reverted the changes I had made and in tandem reverted genuine changes that I don't believe even he was objecting to. This has since been rectified but I'm now curious...
What does everyone here think should be accepted and avoided when placing a Navbox?
In accordance to the docs, colors and custom sizes should go. I agree that they're not "illegal" but the spirit of the law is that they mismatch with each other especially if there are more than one on the page and would look a lot better and be more presenting to readers than treating them like a website with a color scheme. In addition, the technical side of things is that some of the color arrangements were unreadable on LCD and older CRT displays and custom sizing a Navbox to 75% of the page width would start to look bad real quick on computers running at a lower resolution, making the Navbox a pillar until they became unusable. But because of recent action-based complaints I would like to create an open discussion so that consensus can be reached on the matter. Please note that I'm basing this discussion on the video game templates only, not the entirety of Wikipedia templates that use these features. If you object to custom colors and sizes and off-standard styles say Object and give your reasons why. If you support the styles set and feel that color, size and other formatting is purely discretionary say Support and give your reasons why. Thank you. -- AeronPrometheus ( talk) 10:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Aeron has now started an ANI thread about me reverting his style removals at WP:ANI#Ned Scott's mass-undos on Navigational templates. If anyone would like to leave any comments regarding the situation please do. If not, no worries. -- Ned Scott 08:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Is it a notable source? I'm curious because it reports certain community activities that the professional gaming press doesn't. Zeality ( talk) 05:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I would call it reliable for sourcing relatively uncontroversial claims, but far from enough to establish notability. User:Krator ( t c) 11:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Eggerland - Departure to Creation and Eggerland (Famicom Disk System) are two examples. Freewebs and Geocities are the primary source for these articles. From what I can see, both are just detailed fansites. I've went through others, and they are either stubs or starts at best. Many need screenshots, reception sections and more. I've started to work on some, but I could use some help. RobJ1981 ( talk) 12:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Myself and TTN have proposed a merge of Marth (Fire Emblem) at this page. A couple IPs are starting to hurl abuse at me and are being blatantly uncivil. One changed my sig to say "Ashnerd" and then proceeded to call me "Assnerd". Help would be appreciated. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 13:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's try this again. The current Sonic the Hedgehog characters lists ( List of characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (games), Other characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (games), Other villains in Sonic the Hedgehog (games)) are full of one game characters and other trivial ones. That's all compared to this version, which contains only the recurring characters in a trimmed down state. If people could comment, that would be good. TTN ( talk) 23:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
TTN, after taking another look at all this stuff, I have to say (and I know Doktor Wilhelm's probably going to kill me for this in The Sega Project) I don't think this idea of yours is too bad at all, but the version you put up is so far scaled back as to be ridiculous. I took a look at the version you put up for discussion, and it looks like a lot of the information from the other pages about characters you kept has been really trimmed back. If this is to be the pages where these characters appear, then I think all of the information from the corresponding merger pages (as well as the images of each of those characters) needs to move over, too. Also, I think minor one-game characters from some of the later games (such as Sonic Rush Adventure, for example) should slide over, too, because we don't know if they may appear again (it's a safer bet against older one-gamers). I'll be honest, I though Silver the Hedgehog was a one-and-done, but obviously that wasn't the case. Finally, I saw that note on the suggested merge of even more articles into this list (of individual characters from the merger box) like Blaze the Cat, and I disagree with those. Those characters are major characters that have taken on larger roles and are notable enough for their own separate articles. So I'd say your version needs some cleanup to be a practical idea, but when does something on Wikipedia not need cleanup? Most things do. I can't support your idea until this information is integrated and cleaned up. Redphoenix526 ( talk) 17:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Us at wikiproject sega are taking this choice into our own hands, we will get back to you with our decision. Gao gier Chat! 19:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
i don't know enough about to sonic to offer an informed viewpoint, but the lists as they stand currently are headache inducing. furthermore, i don't see that a lot of these characters even need seperate articles: for example, someone mentioned 'blaze the cat' above. again i'm not familiar with sonic games after 1 and 2, but typing 'blaze the cat' into IGN and gamespy just brings up a few reviews of sonic rush; she's only mentioned briefly in these. typing sonic the hedgehog into gamespy article search yields 83 pages of results. her claim to fame seems to be she is a second playable character, along with sonic, in a game named after (surprise, surprise) sonic. on a sidenote, two of the references in the 'other villains' list seem to be broken links Bridies ( talk) 19:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 30 | ← | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | → | Archive 40 |
I just assessed Films based on video games, which seems a really important article, and is in a poor state. A little notification here in the hope someone familiar with the subject can't hurt, I thought. User:Krator ( t c) 20:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I came across Comparison of Lemmings ports and References in Lemmings level names recently, and I was wondering if both should just be redirects or be put in AFD? The comparision page is useful, but I'm not so sure about it's encyclopedic value here. The references article: a very trivial list that probably should go. RobJ1981 ( talk) 02:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Ignoring the above section, the articles need to be condensed. The current lists ( List of characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (games), Other characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (games), Other villains in Sonic the Hedgehog (games)) are full of one game characters and other trivial ones. That's all compared to this version, which contains only the recurring characters in a trimmed down state. If people can please comment, and just state that that one list is more preferable than those three, that would be great. TTN ( talk) 13:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Instead of a cluttered long list, a prose should be done for all wrestling video game articles. See WWE_SmackDown_vs._Raw_2008#Roster for a good example. Anyone care to help out? RobJ1981 ( talk) 20:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if an able editor here could do the Good Article nomination of Halo (series). It's been languishing in backlog hell for a while, and as I'm a significant contributor to the article I can't do it meself. Cheers, David Fuchs ( talk) 22:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
User:FMF asked me on Talk:List of Final Fantasy media to create a template that could be used across all video game lists. The results can be seen User:Axem Titanium/Sandbox2. Any feedback would be appreciated. Axem Titanium ( talk) 01:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
In the spirit of the previous split between multiplayer game and multiplayer video game, I think this one has been long overdue. A strategy video game article is basically embedded in the middle of an article about strategy board games. Concepts like "real time" or "4x" or "artillery" are simply irrelevant to board games. We have a separate category for strategy video games, so I see every reason to have a separate article. So I've pulled out the computer game section from strategy game to create a new strategy video game article, and added a few references and new pieces of information. I hope we can build on this. Feel free to leave any comments or concerns here and I will try to make changes as needed. Ludologist12 ( talk) 04:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
This is a call-to-arms, of sorts, for people to fix up the Mega Man article. I feel like such an important character to video games should have a much better article than what is currently up. I tried calling attention to it on its talk page, but no one has replied. I've done a small part; I "prosed" up the "Abilities" section, which used to be a list, but of course, much more is needed, such as sources and references. I'm afraid I'm not too knowledgable about the Mega Man universe so I can't really add information per se, but as far as organization and other miscellanea I'll be glad to help with, if time permits. Thank you. ♣ Bishop Tutu Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 04:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Can the deletion archive be... archived? Now that we're covering most if not all AFDs related to video games, it's going to be filling up a heck of a lot quicker and is already a fair old chore to go through. I could archive all December's prods and AFDs first, then it can be 1st Jan 2008 - onwards.
Could someone also explain how to add categories for discussion to the deletion list? Compared to checking the AFDs every day searching TFDs and CFDs takes seconds, but I couldn't add a category for discussion no matter which way it was turned. :( Someone another ( talk) 22:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I used it recently, once, to dig out the recent fictional videogame AFD, and that's it. Are you suggesting that the archive could be culled altogether due to never being used? Personally I would try to file things away if it's deemed necessary, but if nobody is going to use the archive then get the matches. <.< Someone another 22:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Good grief, did some software company patent the term "game" while I wasn't looking? Never before on WP have I seen such an egregious misassignment of article titles!
When looking at these articles, ask yourself, "Is there anything in this article of what existed and what people knew about games and gaming before 1970? Would any of the current content still be there if we could revert it that far back?"
The above articles make no mention at all of their subjects outside of the realm of computer and video gaming, when clearly the concepts they purport to describe are equally applicable to board games, card games, wargames, etc.
The above articles all pay only cursory lip service to the non-computer aspects of their subjects, while focusing almost exclusively on the video gaming aspects. They typically describe concepts from a computer or video gaming POV, and use examples from those realms only.
The above articles are the few I found beginning with the word "game" that actually do at least try to cover their subjects from a non-computer POV, but most of them could still stand an infusion of traditional gaming information.
Now I know that for some articles (such as Game artificial intelligence), it doesn't make sense to discuss the subject from a non-computer realm; and I also know that I'm fighting an uphill battle here, since most WP editors are computer geeks, and most computer geeks are video gamers(-:citation needed:-) - but I'm hoping someone better at this than me would be willing to take the bull by the horns and make the necessary movements to ensure that these articles appropriate for all gaming contingents, and not just the computer geeks. 71.126.99.212 ( talk) 06:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, I came here looking for information about card games, and created this section because I was shocked at how little I found when starting from Game design. I expected I might run into some dense theoretical discussion, but didn't expect the video gaming slant I found. While it may be true that afficionados of traditional board and card games are now in the minority, that alone doesn't make their subject matter unworthy of inclusion; and, if there were some decent content here, you might find that this minority isn't as "miniscule" as some presume it to be ( Catch-22, I know).
As a relative newbie to this, I admit I might have used the term POV inappropriately to refer to an article's slant or bias, but I still think that a good WP article should cover its subject from every angle from which it could be approached, and not reject or ignore some because they're not as popular; that's one of the reasons why disambiguation pages exist. Had I known that a separate Project on Board and table games existed, I would have posted this there, instead, but there's no way I would have found that out from these pages - which is exactly my point. 71.126.99.212 ( talk) 13:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Some pointers on this discussion, I personally do not have any strong opinions either way.
User:Krator ( t c) 13:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey everyone, I need another opionion about this article. I've been working on trying to make this notable since its removal. [1] The deleted version of the article was made on this user's page but it appears he has left Wikipedia. [2] It has undergone vast improvements [3] from when it was deleted [4], and I was wondering if the article as it is now is good enough to be included with the main article [5] again. I have requested feedback for the article here [6] and was told to raise the matter to people more knowledgeable about gaming. I haven't merged the history as Elipongo kindly suggested yet as I was wondering about everyone's thoughts on the matter. Thanks in advance! :) Sake neko ( talk) 03:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Is this necessary: Template:DeadRising ? Dead Rising is one game, so this seems a little too broad to me at least. RobJ1981 ( talk) 14:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Might as well ask here without starting a new discussion. Are any other Firefox users seeing the text flow over the right side of the template in Template:Might and Magic series? This is how it displays in my Firefox: [7]. Other browsers (Explorer and Opera) display it just right. Is the navbox not optimised for Firefox or where is the problem? -- Mika1h ( talk) 22:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
When I went to edit: I noticed several L games (that are only visible when you edit the page only). Can someone fix this? There might be more, I'm not sure.. I only checked that section, as I was wondering why the Legend of Zelda game for the Wii wasn't listed. RobJ1981 ( talk) 12:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking that we should split off the song lists and common gameplay elements into separate articles like on the Guitar Hero articles, that may make them a bit easier to understand. ViperSnake151 03:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I've nom'd the above article at WP:FAC. Comments are of course welcome. David Fuchs ( talk) 18:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I've just put ZX-Poly into AFD. The thing dosen't actually exist and is just a conceptual idea by it's creator. - X201 ( talk) 15:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The editors of this project might be interested in the thread I started at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Deal with "game guide" content more directly. Pagra shtak 19:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
There is a conflict going on, that involves several pages now: Frank West, Dead Rising and Characters and Story of Dead Rising. In my view, there was a consensus reached here: Talk:Dead_Rising#Frank_West_merge, however a few people don't want to accept it and have been edit warring. Then they used the characters and story page to just have a redundant copy of information in the Dead Rising article. I'm considering putting the story and characters article in AFD, if the redirect wont stick. Dead Rising was one game, and all plot/character information is described fine in the main article. There is no good reason to move content at this point. The plot for Dead Rising is a bit lengthy and should be cut down a bit, not moved. RobJ1981 ( talk) 23:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
What are you planning to do? I mean I they don't want to merge just tell them that you guys should work together instead of against each other... Historybuffc13 ( talk) 02:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi all. I've been writing about the development of this series a bit, and could do with some help on musical related stuff. Basically, if anyone could find any interviews or info about the music development for the original ( Age of Empires (video game)), it'd be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Dihydrogen Monoxide ( party) 06:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I've recently noticed some articles not having both the main category and the "-only" category. Example: Kirby Air Ride had just GameCube-only games, so I had to add the GameCube games category to it. Can someone run a bot to fix the ones that need a category? I brought this up before, but I'm not sure if a bot was ever run. RobJ1981 ( talk) 19:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The link for the Infobox Maker seemed to get lost during the VG:Project front page re-vamp. So I've put it at the bottom of the Infobox documentation, seemed like the best place for it. - X201 ( talk) 11:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
some help is needed with the No more heroes (video game) page. Techo ( talk) 16:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Sephiroth BCR brought this up here a while ago, the discussion is now archived here in the VG talk archive and the original FAC discussion here in the FAC talk archive. The discussion died down before coming to a consensus regarding the current FAs, but the two FAC were moved over to Featured list candidates.
Anyway, with Characters in Castlevania: Sorrow series now a Featured list, I feel there is a discrepancy among the format video character articles have taken. Mainly because articles like Characters of Final Fantasy VIII and Characters of Kingdom Hearts are Featured articles even though they follow a similar outline and design. The only real difference that I can tell is that FFVIII and KH have a merchandise section that relates to the characters. The reason I bring this up is I think a standardize position needs to established for future articles or lists that will or already do follow a similar design.
I would like to eventually bring this back up to the FA discussions, but hoped to get some input from the VG Project before doing so. Any thoughts? ( Guyinblack25 talk 22:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC))
Hi, I've been working with unassessed articles recently and giving them appropriate ratings, and I was wondering if it would be appropriate for the project to have a list-class and featured-list class similar to other WikiProjects, such as WikiProject Rock music, and have a category for these articles. With the number of lists in this WikiProject, I thought this might be a clear, concise way to organize lists. Also, I think disambiguation pages should have a category in order to keep them organized. What do you guys think? Redphoenix526 ( talk) 00:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I did a google search and didn't seem to find any reliable results. Should this be sent to AFD or no? RobJ1981 ( talk) 14:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Hellgate: London needs some cleanup, and it doesn't seem like many other editors care about cleaning it up, just adding to the article. Please, come by and help, if you can. ~ QuasiAbstract ( talk/ contrib) 09:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
See the edit history of Bully (video game). An editor is claiming there should be 2 infoboxes, one for the original game and one for the port. The port has a few new things, but overall: it's basically the same game. An editor is claiming it's misleading to put the port information in the infobox. I've tried to explain things to him, but he just reverts for no good reason. From the articles I've seen, there is one infobox for everything. See Resident Evil 4 as one example. One infobox works just fine in my view. RobJ1981 ( talk) 14:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The style of the VG Infobox has been changed. Template_talk:Infobox_VG#CSS_class is worth a read. - X201 ( talk) 18:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Is there really a need for this article? There already is the History of video game consoles (seventh generation) article. -- Silver Edge ( talk) 23:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Spore is a massive game, but is a whole article on it's development necessary? I'm sure this article was made to make the main article look better, but I think it's a bit too much. RobJ1981 ( talk) 02:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
On Wikipedia we have the articles, Turn-based strategy and Turn-based tactics. There was recently an edit war at Advance Wars: Days of Ruin over whether the game was a tactical or strategical game. Both strategy and tactical articles claim that Advance Wars is their genre. Turn-based strategy is almost the exact same thing as Turn-based tactics except for the (so-called) fact that: "Turn-based tactics do not feature resource-gathering, production, base-building or economic management, instead focusing on tactical and operational aspects of warfare such as unit formations or the exploitation of terrain for tactical advantage." I do not think that this is sufficient enough for a strategy game to be called a tactics game. Chess is a strategy game as well as a tactics game. Wikipedia is the only website on the net that claims a difference between strategy and tactics, therefore we need to delete the Turn-based tactics article and merge the content into Turn-based strategy. If there is no opposition, I will merge the articles together and redirect turn-based tactics to the strategy article. Comments? -- penubag 02:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
http://www.nintendo.com/whatsnew/detail/ZMgZp55bih7cC-9UG8nnXYT4JNlgLLbW And this link says otherwise that Advance Wars DoR is a STRATEGY game. But I'm all up for the merger. If it makes both sides happy, then I'm all up for it. It really is pointless to try and say tactics and strategy are two different things when they generally aren't. DeathMark ( talk) 02:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Merging the two articles is for the best. The differences between the two genres are vague as is, and combining the two into an inclusive turn-based strategy category will prevent further disagreements over what genre best fits a given game. Comandante42 ( talk) 03:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd far prefer genre article merges and improvement were the result of research rather than bickering, so long as there are several genres which reach beyond 'video game' there will always be disagreements. Only the other day I had to switch Battleships Forever's genre from real-time strategy to real-time tactics because of a review actually focused on its mis-labeling by the developer. (Reminds me, have to fix the article lead which still says RTS). Without taking a good long look, how do we know if a) they need merging at all, b) whether the term tactics has any currency and c) whether it would be better to merge real-time tactics to turn-based tactics instead? Let the editors so bothered about Advance Wars' classification do the legwork themselves, dig up multiple sources, discuss them properly and apply them to that article. There does need to be improvement on pretty much all genre articles and genre hierarchy articles (list of genres etc) and that'll take the project's input, but this isn't the right reason to instigate it. Someone another 14:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This edit was a little bit too bold. I can't say that I have much research on strategy video games to talk about the difference between turn based strategy and turn based tactics, but I know the distinction exists and is used very deliberately. Just because the distinction is fuzzy and controversial, it doesn't mean the distinction is non-existent. Ludologist12 ( talk) 05:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
(redented) Allow me to bring in some published sources.
Personally, while elements of tactics games are usually part of strategy games, I think we cannot simply classify them as strategy games. Like shooters, platformers, and fighters have been under the action umbrella but have distinguished themselves, so have tactics-only games. Jappalang ( talk) 13:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC
Ran across this during a run through Special:Random. Does anybody have access to Japanese magazines, any reviews or dev info? If not I think it should be deleted. hbdragon88 ( talk) 01:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello all.
I've been checking the entries Matchday, Matchday Soccer, Match Day II and Supermatch Soccer.
I have seen several strange contributions to Matchday_Soccer supposedly made by the author of the game, Jon Ritman. Of course I didn't think it could be him (I even wrote about it at Talk:Matchday Soccer).
But I've seen that a detail about the cover is absolutely true and (as far as I know) I couldn't find any information about it in the web: the cover of Match Day 2 uses a photo of Gary Lineker also used in other videogame of that time ( [16] Gary Lineker Super Star Soccer).
So I don't know what to do with it ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by El Pantera ( talk • contribs) 22:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
If anyone would like to save some video game images from deletion, see Special:Contributions/Project FMF. A lot of the images he's been tagging are box art, and would meet Wikipedia's non-free content criteria if rationale was added. I've done some, but there's a lot there if you look through the whole history. If you add rationales, remember to mention the article for which the rationale applies and wikilink it, to prevent a bot from auto-tagging the images as non-compliant. If you aren't sure what any of this means, feel free to ask me, another VG admin, or someone from the VG images department and we'll fill you in on the details. If an image you want to save has already been deleted, contact the deleting admin (or me if you want) and explain that you want the image restored so you can add non-free rationale and we can restore the image. Pagra shtak 04:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Video Game Images lists some good templates that can be easily used to add a fair use rational to the image description pages. JACO PLANE • 2008-01-18 22:53 The first few I clicked through were much larger than the 300 width/height maximum recommended for 'low resolution', does this just apply to screenshots or what? Someone another 12:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The main problem is that the images are not low resolution (less than 300x300 pixels). And while it is easy to add a FU rationale to most of them, it's often impossible to find the source of the image. Kariteh ( talk) 16:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Could someone add an 'infobox' attribute to the template? The films project does this and it would be the same approach as the 'cover' and 'screenshot' parts. Quickmythril ( talk) 09:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
For purposes of tracking redirections of game characters and elements into lists, I've created two templates that should be useful:
These templates populate the categories of Category:Fictional character redirects to lists and Category:Fictional element redirects to lists. Both templates support an optional parameter to indicate the game/series that the character/element belongs to, eg {{CharR to list entry|Sonic the Hedgehog}} would sort the redirect into the category Category:Sonic the Hedgehog fictional character redirects to lists, which then would be a sub-cat of the former. This also allows this sub-cat to be included in a more general category for the game/series (eg. Category:Sonic the Hedgehog or even more specifically Category:Sonic the Hedgehog characters) as such that the list of redirected articles can be found easily from these. -- MASEM 22:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
What is the standing of this WikiProject regarding reliable sources citing unreliable ones? For example, Tom's Hardware sister site, TG Daily, quoted VGChartz numbers in an article, same as Gameworld Network using VGChartz numbers here. A reliable source using unreliable numbers makes them reliable? How "deep" we need to go (for example, if IGN quotes GameSpot which quotes VGChartz). I revert those numbers when they are added to articles, and would accept when a reliable source uses those numbers, but I am not sure everyone here will allow with that. Thoughts? -- ReyBrujo ( talk) 00:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I thought it to be established that using VGChartz with inline attribution (e.g. "VGChartz writes that the game sold one million copies.[1]" instead of "The game sold one million copies.[1]") was ok. User:Krator ( t c) 12:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
It's frankly rather strange that our templates look and occasionally act differently from all the other ones. Since the point of infoboxes is to streamline and provide a unified presentation of information, I suggest we drop the borders and garish colors and go with a look more along the lines of {{ Infobox character}}, and any of the other media infoboxes, et al. -- David Fuchs ( talk) 22:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Standardise all three (be sure to do the sub-templates on General VG character! Otherwise someone will just come along and revert it because of inconsistency with the inuniverse fields) with code and colour - or there in lack of, the grey is far more preferable than the pale green used in the last attempt for the overall effect on Infobox VG - it works with the current structures of VG character and VG reviews, but not with an Infobox VG code similar to Template:Infobox Film. As long as thats taken care of, its absolutely fine by me. -- Sabre ( talk) 01:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Add {{
Infobox VG system}} to the list; the last time this was discussed, someone changed it to the proposed redesign along with {{
Infobox VG}} but no one ever bothered to revert it. Personally, I am neutral on this whole redesign issue so far. On a side note regarding {{
Infobox VG system}}, does anyone else think the combination of title
and logo
looks strange where the logo is or clearly includes the name of the system, as on
PlayStation 3,
Wii,
Xbox 360,
Dreamcast,
PlayStation 2,
Xbox,
Nintendo GameCube,
Atari Jaguar,
PC-FX,
Nintendo 64,
SNES,
ColecoVision,
Intellivision,
Vectrex, and maybe
Sega Saturn and
Sega Mega Drive?
Anomie
⚔ 16:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I haven't been following this small controversey closely, but I noticed that the lines in the infoboxes theat separate the sections are gone now and I was just wondering if there was a reason for that? I personally thought they made it a lot easier to read. Evaunit ♥666♥ 01:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Just as an update here, I've now pushed out the same style changes to {{ general VG character}} (which should really be renamed to something containing the word "infobox"). Chris Cunningham ( talk) 12:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikiproject Sega is going on a upwards spiral so get somewhere, maybe a few Sega fans could join and help? Gao gier Talk! 04:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I've been trying to deal with User:Gaogier regarding these non-free images on his project pages, but he seems to refuse to get a clue. Assistance would be appreciated, I don't want to 3RR over this. Also, could someone give me a second (and third, fourth, etc) opinion on whether his newly-uploaded image Image:PictureSonicWikiprojectSega.png is a derivative of Image:Shadow rivals.png? Thanks. Anomie ⚔ 23:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I admit i took a few idias from that while drawing mine but its not a derivative ir you. Gao gier Talk! 03:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
File:Hereimage.png Tell me that is simple enough? Gao gier Talk! 16:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
If i take a photograph of sonic on the case of a game i own is that copyright to sega and i cant use it on my wikiproject Gao gier Talk! 16:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
I've been trying to improve the Quake 2 article, but someone reverted my last edit (made on the 20th of January). I asked for an explanation but they only gave one which I consider to be inadequate, then just ignored my questions after that point. I don't want to edit war on this but on the other hand, I don't think there was anything wrong with my edits that were reverted. Someone suggested I ask for help here. Can anyone help with this? I really think the Quake 2 article needs some work. I'm willing to do it, it's just frustrating when people come along and revert without being even willing to discuss why. Thanks. Ben 2082 ( talk) 16:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello all. It looks like Nintendo have posted an official English translation of the name of Fire Emblem 1, Fire Emblem: Ankoku Ryū to Hikari no Tsurugi. I was just wondering whether an article move to the English name is warranted now. Wikipedia: Naming conventions states that Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form. The problem is that barely anyone will know this new English name, and that a break in the trend from other Fire Emblem games could be confusing for readers. Any ideas? Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 16:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for drudging up another old discussion, but did we ever come to a conclusion on this? The "Creating a new Task Force" discussion reminded me of it. ( Guyinblack25 talk 20:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC))
Just noticed this edit on Xbox 360. I took a look at the source,an interview on 8bitjoystick.com, that was used to support the assertions made in the edit. However, I haven't heard much of the reliability of this website, and a look around the site shows that it's a blog, which are usually not reliable (with a few exceptions) per WP:RS and WP:V. A look at Special:Linksearch indicates it is linked at very few places (and none as a reference), so I undid the edit. However, the person who added it keeps adding it back, asserting that since the interview is with a Microsoft "insider", it's still reliable. So, can anybody vouch for or against the site, and can "insider" interviews on sites like these count as reliable? NeoChaosX ( talk, walk) 23:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Paraphrase from link I gave out:
Here is their response:
Hi everyone. I understand the questions you all have. I hope you understand that it's a bit overwhelming to try and answer everything in real time. After tonight, I'm going to ask Jake (or Jacob?) to field your questions and funnel them to me for answers. Then we can do that in an organized way. But for now, I'm going to try and answer some that I thought were most important.
First, why the secrecy?
MS knows who I am. That's why I'm not concerned about self identifying to them in these postings with details only they would know, as some here have pointed out. The people who founded Xbox hw number 10. 1 left to go be the VP of manufacturing at Qualcomm, 1 left to go be the GM of engineering at Zune, 1 left after only 2 months in ‘99 due to conflicts with toddhol. He works on Surface now. The rest still work on Xbox. I am the only one who left the company entirely.
I am not concerned about MS knowing who I am. They are worried about me revealing their problems. Not the other way around. Plus, I have contacted every single attorney who has filed a lawsuit against MS and offered to help. Some have accepted, and that work is in progress. We'll talk about that in another post. It's very interesting, I just don't want a bunch of fan boys trying to hack my home PC (that I use for work). Harass my kids, call my house, etc.
Second, why now?
Well, it's not just now. I've been reaching out since before the product went into manufacturing. I left before launch. But many employees continued to contact me about the problems with the product and its launch. I did my best to help them figure out how to mitigate the problems caused my bad management decisions, and test the boxes right. Sometimes my ideas worked, sometimes they didn't. I then started to contact reporters. Sometimes it went no where. Sometimes, it resulted in a spectacular thing, like the ambush interview with toddhol just before MS admitted guilt. But still, it happened too slowly for me. That's one reason I'm doing this now.
When those articles were posted last July, I chimed in as a commentator. That's when Jake invited me for an interview. But I didn't see it then. It was only recently when I goog'ed "xboxfounder" on a whim that I found that old invite. So I contacted him to see if he was still interested. I sent him a current resume from my current work email account, and he believed me. If you guys don't, then tell me what you need to see as proof. And I will provide that.
Last: My motivation.
I have always been in a position to stand up for the customer. MS stopped me from doing that. They need to pay the price now. If you guys won't get together and make that happen, you have no hope for the future with them. It's not my fight, but I am here fighting. You decide what you want to do. And then do it!
Established facts: Ex-employee attempted to go through proper media channels, attempted to talk to news outlets, but attempts were for nothing. There's also the fact that Microsoft knows who he is and did not want the early problems to get leaked to the public. He offers to provide aid to parties suing against Microsoft due to the defective 360s. This is the closest thing you'll get for a reliable source other than whatever lawsuit proceedings there are on cases filed against Microsoft. Dibol ( talk) 00:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The claim this source makes has been made repeatedly by more reliable sources. I think the current mainstream hypothesis is that the symptoms are due to faults somewhere in the manufacturing/design process, i.e. on Microsoft's side. Many sources have discussed this, including mainstream Dutch newspapers after the Dutch TV show "Kassa" uncovered the original problem. I'd advice against using this fringe source, because these other sources are available. User:Krator ( t c) 13:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to use some posts by Jared Newman, a journalist who's work has appeared in Wired and The Escapist, would his experiences of Urban Dead be considered reliable enough? They would be a big help. Someone another 00:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Template talk:Command & Conquer series#Cleanup, additions and other assorted issues. Help needed. Thanks. -- MrStalker ( talk) 17:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know I've archived all the deletions up to and including December 2007, and moved January 2008 to the freshly vacant archive. Someone another 23:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I recently came across this review. Should this board game be mentioned in the Age of Mythology article, in a separate article, or nowhere at all? dihydrogen monoxide ( H20) 00:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone feel this is useful? I removed it, but got reverted. Pagra shtak 18:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
In 2008 in video gaming and all the "year in video gaming" articles found on {{ History of Video Games}}, the North American release dates for games are listed when some games were released in other regions, such as Japan or Europe, prior to being released in North America. So shouldn't a game be listed with its Japan or Europe release date if it was released in one of those regions before being released in North America? Take Super Smash Bros. Brawl for example, it was released in Japan on January 31 2008, but the user who made this believes it should list its North American release date instead, which is March 9 2008. Am I wrong in believing that the original release date should be listed instead?-- Silver Edge ( talk) 04:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm working on improving the Quake articles and I've noticed that on youtube there are a few official trailers and adverts for them. Would putting links to these movies be against wikipedia rules? I think they'd be pretty useful for illustrating to people what the games are like. The movies I'm talking about are the following: [17], [18] and [19]. Thanks for your help. Ben 2082 ( talk) 19:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Are lists necessary to list all the characters for fighting video games (and generally most games with many characters)? A prose looks much neater in a majority of cases. I've seen many game articles (for games that feature many characters), and there is only a minority that have lists and tables for them. The recent problem is with wrestling games. They have huge rosters, and people insist on lists because they are "neater" and "the way articles have always been done". People refuse to accept change, and assume the default standard is the best. See WWE Smackdown vs. Raw 2008 and this discussion: Talk:WWE_SmackDown_vs._Raw_2008#Roster_-_list_or_prose.3F. RobJ1981 ( talk) 20:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Anyone else find it odd to have the list in the category? (not to mention MOS issues and stuff) dihydrogen monoxide ( H20) 04:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Do sites like IGN/Gamespot qualify as reliable sources on release dates for unreleased games? I understand Amazon/Best Buy shouldn't be used. Should release dates only come from official sources? -- pb30< talk> 04:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
IGN/Gamespot are reliable here, sometimes more so than the developers. Keep in mind that Wikipedia writes according to the reliability of sources, and does not consider "officialness" at all. User:Krator ( t c) 08:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
In deathmatch_(gaming) article, there's a section stating that the game Sniper was the source from which "Novel NetWare" originated. I believe this to be incorrect; I played "Novel Netwars", a multiplayer space shooter in DM style, which would make sense. Novel Netware has nothing to do with gaming and the sentence doesn't make sense.
Also, I'm thinking about prolonging the part of the article about the concept of deathmatch, especially mentioning some fundamental changes to the principle, such as adding death penalty for suicide, which (without the penalty) used to be a way to quickly get to powerful weapons in Doom, spawn-protection (implemented in Unreal Tournament, which is an important game in this genre), Last Man Standing and Team Deathmatch variants. But being new to Wikipedia, I'm asking if it is a good idea.
I'm interested in knowing if the guides on GameFaqs.com can be considered reliable sources. I suspect the answer is no, but it would make writing gameplay sections for articles somewhat easier. -- Lenin and McCarthy | ( Complain here) 18:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
<--(remove indent) To use user reviews for sourcing the reception of a game to the market would be Original Research and/or Synthesis, both of which should not be used on Wikipedia. Even so, would you randomly select a review or two, or take an average of all the reviews? Basically, how would you choose which reviews to use on the article? Randomly selecting reviews could lead to (possibly unintentionally) an editor's point of view and taking an average would be OR and synthesis. These are some of the reasons not to use user reviews. I hope this helps. ~ QuasiAbstract ( talk/ contrib) 09:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Wow, after writing seven Good Articles I never knew that;). What I mean is that I don't think that you can use reviews from randomers. I could just write in what I thought of the game by the same logic. Only established, reliable sources can be used (IGN Gamespot, etc). It doesn't make sense to use anything else. Ashnard Talk Contribs 20:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
(←) OK, I'll concede the OR point. However, the question becomes should WE use user reviews like this? How verifiable are they? ~ QuasiAbstract ( talk/ contrib) 14:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Citing GameFAQs for any kind of "player response" statement is a really bad idea. User:Krator ( t c) 09:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
(←)There is an interesting case to consider here. Let's assume there's a game that gets positive reviews from all professional sources , but there is a known glaring bug or other aspect of the game that users are heavily complaining about, but there's absolutely no press coverage of it (rarely this is the case: there is bound to be a reviewer that at least comments on that issue, but lets assume the hypothetic case where there is not). We as gamers know this to be true, but as WP editors, we have to be somewhat blind to it. Now, as suggested, it seems reasonable to include user review summary scores, particularly if there's a large variance between those as the main "official" site review, but that doesn't address the point where users are finding the game to be bad. I think in this case, and only this case, we first assume good faith and can include a link to a user review or two to source the point (ideally, using "trusted" user reviews), but that should not be the end of it - editors should still be encouraged to look for sources. This way, instead of including the point about what was bad with the game, and then slapping a cn/or/fact tag to the point, adding the user reviews, even if not completely reliable sources, at least gives other editors the framework to understand the point that is being discussed, and may lead one or more editors to know where to find better sources. However, before an article can become Good, these sources have to be dealt with by replacing them or removing the statement altogether since it can't otherwise be verified. -- MASEM 14:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
(←)Using GameFAQ reviews as a "player reception" is an idea with an unreliable basis. Under what grounds do the player reviews in the GameFAQ section constitute a fair representation of the entire gamer population? Though Krator have pointed out those player reviews tend to be overly negative, I have to point out there are also the "fanboyz" elements there who give overly glowing reviews. To avoid WP:OR, one would have to be extreme in detail such as "In x player reviews on GameFAQs, y have found...", what purpose would that serve? If GameFAQ player submissions are to be accepted, what about GameSpot, IGN, and the other multitude of gaming sites' player reviews? What does GameFAQ possess which raises its player review section above all others? Jappalang ( talk) 23:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Over at the FAC for Link's Awakening, a reviewer has said of the original japanese translation provided in the lead "What earthly use is the Japanese script in an English-language text?" I was following examples such as Final Fantasy titles and Golden Sun, and I think that it makes sense to include the original title of a game, but what do you think? David Fuchs ( talk) 21:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
While looking at Virtua Fighter (series), I noticed that every character thats ever made an appearance has their own articles. In all honesty, I don't really think the game is important enough to have a page for every character. I mean, all the pages are are a rundown of their past and a trivia section, and most, if not all of them, don't site any references or have any real-world info. I think they might even fall under WP:NOT#GUIDE. I'd suggest merging the articles into either Virtua Fighter (series) or List of Virtua Figther Characters. The articles in question are:
Just thought I'd see what you'd all think about this. Dengarde ► Complaints 07:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Every character in every fighting game has received a similar treatment. Cleaning them up would be a massive project, with a great deal of resistance from fans.
As usual. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 13:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Make a huge blanket AFD nom of this one. It will pass. User:Krator ( t c) 08:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
to be honest, this stuff seems pretty harmless. unlike most 'fan' articles it's all well presented, totally objective plot summaries; crucially, there is no subjective matters being discussed without references and no personal opinions or agendas being pushed (although i haven't checked it thoroughly). i'm not opposed to cutting it down and merging it (or deleting it outright), but it seems like a lot of hassle to me Bridies ( talk) 01:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Along with the recent incident involving the necessary removal of the fansites from this page, I feel that this page needs a major overhaul; a couple of IP editors are preventing me from doing necessary edits to improve the quality of this article and because the page is so low-activity, no other editors have showed up to help resolve this matter. Basically I'm here to ask for editors to not only resolve this conflict but to help fix up this page. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 04:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Is uploading one image, so that it has all 3 different region covers on it allowed? For example, User:Chessage replaced Image:European Club Soccer Coverart.jpg with Image:World Trophy Soccer Covers.PNG. Thanks. Salavat ( talk) 02:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
So the best thing to do would be to find out which one was released first and upload that one? Salavat ( talk) 03:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a solution, thanks for your comments, im going to go change it back to the single cover when i get the time. Thanks, Salavat ( talk) 16:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
This list needs a lot of cleanup. As of now: it's just a massive list of everyone in the game. This falls under game guide content in my view. Bully is a popular and well known game, but that doesn't instantly make every character in it notable. RobJ1981 ( talk) 20:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
There's a lot of things in Category:Unassessed video game articles that are in fact assessed with WP:VG. What is the problem here? User:Krator ( t c) 14:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
There's now only four articles in the category. At the time of the post above, this was about a hundred. Seems something got fixed :) User:Krator ( t c) 20:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
A Bemani task force of WikiProject Computer and video games has been proposed; feel free to comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Taskforce for Bemani. -- Core desat 01:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I recently flipped through the current list of video game Navboxen and conducted some updates and code fixes. Some of the Navboxen weren't using the current Navbox template and some had coding errors which I scoured through and fixed. It wasn't a thorough job, I only updated templates that were visibly in need and plan on going through all of them to make sure the code is neat and tidy.
Another thing I did was remove all custom cell coloring and custom template sizing that I found. The reason I did this was because according to the template docs these stylings were "NOT RECOMMENDED", the all caps phrase having mysteriously disappeared from the doc since, however the note of discouragement remains. They also detracted from the clean feel of the articles as a whole and make them an eyesore in many cases as well as difficult to read in extreme cases. Especially when a custom styled Navbox butted up against a standard one. Some objected to what I was doing in regards to styling and reverted them back however after discussing my reasons with them they offered no further objections, with the exception of one. This person singlehandedly reverted, not changed back, reverted the changes I had made and in tandem reverted genuine changes that I don't believe even he was objecting to. This has since been rectified but I'm now curious...
What does everyone here think should be accepted and avoided when placing a Navbox?
In accordance to the docs, colors and custom sizes should go. I agree that they're not "illegal" but the spirit of the law is that they mismatch with each other especially if there are more than one on the page and would look a lot better and be more presenting to readers than treating them like a website with a color scheme. In addition, the technical side of things is that some of the color arrangements were unreadable on LCD and older CRT displays and custom sizing a Navbox to 75% of the page width would start to look bad real quick on computers running at a lower resolution, making the Navbox a pillar until they became unusable. But because of recent action-based complaints I would like to create an open discussion so that consensus can be reached on the matter. Please note that I'm basing this discussion on the video game templates only, not the entirety of Wikipedia templates that use these features. If you object to custom colors and sizes and off-standard styles say Object and give your reasons why. If you support the styles set and feel that color, size and other formatting is purely discretionary say Support and give your reasons why. Thank you. -- AeronPrometheus ( talk) 10:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Aeron has now started an ANI thread about me reverting his style removals at WP:ANI#Ned Scott's mass-undos on Navigational templates. If anyone would like to leave any comments regarding the situation please do. If not, no worries. -- Ned Scott 08:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Is it a notable source? I'm curious because it reports certain community activities that the professional gaming press doesn't. Zeality ( talk) 05:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I would call it reliable for sourcing relatively uncontroversial claims, but far from enough to establish notability. User:Krator ( t c) 11:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Eggerland - Departure to Creation and Eggerland (Famicom Disk System) are two examples. Freewebs and Geocities are the primary source for these articles. From what I can see, both are just detailed fansites. I've went through others, and they are either stubs or starts at best. Many need screenshots, reception sections and more. I've started to work on some, but I could use some help. RobJ1981 ( talk) 12:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Myself and TTN have proposed a merge of Marth (Fire Emblem) at this page. A couple IPs are starting to hurl abuse at me and are being blatantly uncivil. One changed my sig to say "Ashnerd" and then proceeded to call me "Assnerd". Help would be appreciated. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 13:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's try this again. The current Sonic the Hedgehog characters lists ( List of characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (games), Other characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (games), Other villains in Sonic the Hedgehog (games)) are full of one game characters and other trivial ones. That's all compared to this version, which contains only the recurring characters in a trimmed down state. If people could comment, that would be good. TTN ( talk) 23:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
TTN, after taking another look at all this stuff, I have to say (and I know Doktor Wilhelm's probably going to kill me for this in The Sega Project) I don't think this idea of yours is too bad at all, but the version you put up is so far scaled back as to be ridiculous. I took a look at the version you put up for discussion, and it looks like a lot of the information from the other pages about characters you kept has been really trimmed back. If this is to be the pages where these characters appear, then I think all of the information from the corresponding merger pages (as well as the images of each of those characters) needs to move over, too. Also, I think minor one-game characters from some of the later games (such as Sonic Rush Adventure, for example) should slide over, too, because we don't know if they may appear again (it's a safer bet against older one-gamers). I'll be honest, I though Silver the Hedgehog was a one-and-done, but obviously that wasn't the case. Finally, I saw that note on the suggested merge of even more articles into this list (of individual characters from the merger box) like Blaze the Cat, and I disagree with those. Those characters are major characters that have taken on larger roles and are notable enough for their own separate articles. So I'd say your version needs some cleanup to be a practical idea, but when does something on Wikipedia not need cleanup? Most things do. I can't support your idea until this information is integrated and cleaned up. Redphoenix526 ( talk) 17:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Us at wikiproject sega are taking this choice into our own hands, we will get back to you with our decision. Gao gier Chat! 19:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
i don't know enough about to sonic to offer an informed viewpoint, but the lists as they stand currently are headache inducing. furthermore, i don't see that a lot of these characters even need seperate articles: for example, someone mentioned 'blaze the cat' above. again i'm not familiar with sonic games after 1 and 2, but typing 'blaze the cat' into IGN and gamespy just brings up a few reviews of sonic rush; she's only mentioned briefly in these. typing sonic the hedgehog into gamespy article search yields 83 pages of results. her claim to fame seems to be she is a second playable character, along with sonic, in a game named after (surprise, surprise) sonic. on a sidenote, two of the references in the 'other villains' list seem to be broken links Bridies ( talk) 19:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)