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 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | → | Archive 45 |
FYI- There are couple of articles that are undergoing review along with the Elder Scrolls article above.
To anybody familiar with the content of the articles, feel free to chime in at the discussions, and/or help address concerns brought up.
Also,
Final Fantasy III just lost its GA status and will cause the
Final Fantasy topic to be delisted in three months if the article is not brought back up to at least GA. (
Guyinblack25
talk 16:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC))
I remember seeing this discussion before, but I just can't remember the outcome of it. Is the-magicbox.com a reliable source for sales? The issue has been raised by SandyGeorgia in this FAC (03:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC) comment). dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 06:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The Orange Box | |
---|---|
The Orange Box in a golf hole | |
Developer(s) |
Valve Corporation EA London ( PS3 version) |
Publisher(s) | Valve Corporation |
Distributor(s)' |
Electronic Arts (retail) Steam (online) |
Engine | Source engine |
Platform(s) | Windows, PlayStation 3, Xbox 360 |
Release date |
Microsoft Windows & Xbox 360 (retail): [1]
Microsoft Windows (online):
PlayStation 3 (retail): [2] |
Genre(s) | First-person shooter, compilation |
Mode(s) | Single player, Multiplayer |
Rating(s) |
ESRB: T-M PEGI: 16+ BBFC: 15 OFLC: MA15+ |
Media | Steam, DVD-ROM, Blu-ray Disc |
System requirements | 1.7 GHz
processor, 512 MB
RAM,
DirectX 8 compatible
video card,
Windows 2000/
XP/
Vista
[3] |
Input methods | Keyboard, Mouse, Xbox 360 Controller, SIXAXIS controller, DualShock 3 controller |
Per a suggestion on the {{ Infobox VG}}, I created the example template as a drop in replacement for the current one as to add alternating row colors with the removal of the line frames. Anyone have any input on it (the picture is to avoid nfc content on talk pages, and no, I can't get rid of the white line down the rows) -- MASEM 03:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Any idea when the changes will be implemented? I have a list of articles that I want to overhaul the infoboxen on and I don't want there to be a last minute change I have to account for. -- AeronPrometheus ( talk) 21:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Like it! Much easier to read, thanks Masem :) Someone another 01:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
style="float: right; width: 264px; font-size: 90%; text-align: left; border=0; " cellspacing="0" cellpadding="3"The Orange Box | |
---|---|
The Orange Box in a golf hole | |
Developer(s) |
Valve Corporation EA London ( PS3 version) |
Publisher(s) | Valve Corporation |
Distributor(s)' |
Electronic Arts (retail) Steam (online) |
Engine | Source engine |
Platform(s) | Windows, PlayStation 3, Xbox 360 |
Release date |
Microsoft Windows & Xbox 360 (retail): [1]
Microsoft Windows (online):
PlayStation 3 (retail): [2] |
Genre(s) | First-person shooter, compilation |
Mode(s) | Single player, Multiplayer |
Rating(s) |
ESRB: T-M PEGI: 16+ BBFC: 15 OFLC: MA15+ |
Media | Steam, DVD-ROM, Blu-ray Disc |
System requirements | 1.7 GHz
processor, 512 MB
RAM,
DirectX 8 compatible
video card,
Windows 2000/
XP/
Vista
[4] |
Input methods | Keyboard, Mouse, Xbox 360 Controller, SIXAXIS controller, DualShock 3 controller |
Here's the hidden version (note that I've had to force it due to how collapsable sections work). -- MASEM 06:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Half of this article is unsourced; how come it passed both GA and FA nominations?? FightingStreet ( talk) 10:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The article is probably up to FA standard still, save for the prose in the Plot section which needs a rewrite. User:Krator ( t c) 16:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
After someone recommended Gears of War for FA, which I requested it not be at this time (it's close, but not in the greatest shape and needs cleanup), I started looking it over. I know that of late, we've been pushing for prose descriptions of award lists, but when a game gets a large number of them like this, a prose version can be hefty.
I'm thinking that since {{ VG Reviews}} includes an awards section, summarizing those there when the list gets long is helpful, but keeping some prose summary, specifically calling out game of the month/year for magazines and tv shows, and any award from an even like DICE or E3 (since they're not limited to one set of editorial standards). Anyone have any recommendations? -- MASEM 17:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Is there a reason you can't slide them into one of those hidden boxes which can be clicked by the reader? Like the tracklists of soundtracks in some game articles. Prose is good, but not when there's so many it becomes an unwieldy clump. By adding them to a hidey box it means there's not a dirty great list down the side of the article unless the reader wants there to be. Someone another 01:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Despite the failings of Baldur's Gate, I am impressed with its presentation of awards in the review/awards table. I believe it could be used for Gears by either categorizing the awards by its type or its awarding entity. Jappalang ( talk) 02:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I create the article High Voltage Software ( User:Eloy/High Voltage Software). This is linked at least with 40 articles. The article wasn't complete, but if you see that they develop many relevant games, the company probably is relevant.
I receive a message of the user Realkyhick, who request for me to indicate the relevance. Then, when I was adding the {{ hangon}}, six minutes after the warning message (I can read the message and write the contest in 6 minutes), the user Zsinj delete the article.
I post a message to this user, and a message in Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance) but I got no answers. Eloy ( talk) 12:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
FYI- In regard to an above discussion, " Project review/status", Masem has put together a draft of the newsletter to help members be kept up-to-date on the happenings of the VG Project. Discussions on the draft and newsletter in general can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter. Input would be appreciated so we can get this thing off the ground and running in the near future. ( Guyinblack25 talk 20:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC))
If you have an article on a game about: pro wrestling, football (NFL or NCAA), GTA, NASCAR, or shooter games, and need help, leave a message on my talk page and I'll see what I can do to help. The reason I say those type of games is because, those are really the only games I'm familiar with cuz I don't play much else. Another reason I offer is because I haven't helped with a video game article in awhile and I'd like to get back on it. -- Cra sh U nderride 21:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The VG Images Task Force has been tagging articles that don't include screenshots or box art for a while now. At this point, Category:Video game articles requesting identifying art and Category:Video game articles requesting screenshots have a large backlog that could really use a large push from this WikiProject to reduce somewhat. So if anyone is bored, please get to uploading images. JACO PLANE • 2008-03-13 22:44
Would it be a good idea to run a bot past that list first? Because there are some false positives in there (Articles that have images but the cover flag hasn't been cleared) Then at least we'd be left with a list that we know is definitely in need of an image. Removal of articles that have got images would shrink the list in one big hit. - X201 ( talk) 11:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
And now for some extremely useless statistics. Here are the traffic statistics for different pages within this WikiProject:
Any programmers around? It would be sweet to have a wikibot that posts the traffic stats automatically somewhere on a monthly basis. JACO PLANE • 2008-03-14 00:16
Also note that the project view statistics are completely dwarfed by article view statistics. A normal video game has 40k-ish views in a month. User:Krator ( t c) 16:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm looking for a walkthrough for Geneforge in order to nail down the plot section, there's basically one walkthrough by a 'Matt P' on GameFAQs linked-to by GameSpot. Is this usable or no? Someone another 23:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Bugger. There's no walkthrough on IGN since GF is a niche-market game distributed via the web. I'll probably have to buy it and play through in order to get that info >.< Thanks anyway. Someone another 23:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I tagged this a while ago for it to be merged with Kaido Battle: Touge No Densetsu. They are the same game, Kaido Battle: Touge No Densetsu is just the japanese title. I didnt want to merge them myself as i no absoulutly nothing about the game and wasnt sure which bits should be kept and which should be deleted. So if anyone knows anything about this game, can you please merge. Thanks, Salavat ( talk) 05:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Im Australian and ive heard of Tokyo Xtreme Racer but never Kaido Racer until i did some edits on these articles. also Tokyo Xtreme Racer: Drift wasnt released in Europe, so maybe to keep consistency, Tokyo Xtreme Racer should be used? Salavat ( talk) 13:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
If anyone would be interested to join a task force for Sony Online Entertainment if there was one, please go to the WP:TPSP's talk page.-- Playstationdude ( talk) 19:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
True Golf: Wicked 18 and Devil's Course is the same game, but has different content, i dont no enough to merge them myself, can someone please help. Thanks, Salavat ( talk) 12:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Ive added the merge templates. but because the pages have different context im not sure which one is right. Salavat ( talk) 13:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Anyone know what this is about? JACO PLANE • 2008-03-15 21:45
digital pet and pet-raising simulation talk about a lot of the same stuff... i see two approaches... one is a merge... the other is to distinguish the two, with pet-raising simulations talking about PC and console games, while digital pets talk about other toys or research... either way, these articles are too close to just carry on the way things are going... comments?
see the talk page... Lifeisrill ( talk) 00:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
1UP.com has apparently gone and retroactivity changed all their ratings from a numerical scale to a letter grade.
Joy.
Anyone have any idea how we can make a list of articles that have an IGN review to update said review score? -- MASEM 01:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
FYI/Update- GA stars have been added to the 1UP Reference Update list to help identify priority articles. Currently, about a quarter of the FAs and a couple GAs have been checked/updated. The list is starting to make some good progress. Fuchs has taken care of the Halo related articles and JFlav has done a sizable chunk of the list by taking care of the first 25 entries. If you see something on the list you can help with, please feel free to Be Bold and go for it. Every little bit helps. :D ( Guyinblack25 talk 16:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC))
I saw this category added to Tengen (company) and couldn't quite understand the inclusion, never-the-less trying to understand the list. Plus, do we really need this category? I don't think it makes too much sense and I feel it should be delete. Govvy ( talk) 11:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm looking for help to improve Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare to WP:FA status. Please help out if you can! Thanks! Gary King ( talk) 14:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I've asked User:Rudget to do a WikiProject report on this WikiProject for the Wikipedia Signpost. Here's this week's report on Professional wrestling. We should have our report in the March 27 edition. JACO PLANE • 2008-03-17 22:56
this article was long overdue to be created... the sims is a good example, but there's lots of clones that qualify too. there's already a category for this article too... i created it but could use help gathering research and info to describe the games... Lifeisrill ( talk) 00:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Is GameFAQs a reliable source when looking up relase dates of a video game? It appears Spyro: Enter the Dragonfly was referenced by that source. Pre ston H 02:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
GameFAQs and GameSpot use the same data, but there are some irregularities at GameFAQs sometimes. Salavat ( talk) 03:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Really in some cases it's best to rely on multiple citable sources if possible, because it'll help verify dates as well as possibly show dates for other releases (i.e. while generally North America is shoved together you'll see the US and Canada mentioned as having different releases). Basically just do as thorough research as you can.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 04:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
GameFAQs release dates are not reliable sources. GameSpot are. If they're taken from GameFAQs, so be it...(you can't prove it!!) dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 10:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Reliability comes down to fact-checking and accuracy. GameFAQs/GameSpot, IGN/GameStats/GameSpy, and mobygames all probably have the same level of fact-checking and accuracy. Many dates are wrong. Release dates for older games often cannot be checked against the "true" dates because the information has been lost to time. For release dates, you can cite any of these sites. If there is a discrepancy, you'll have to do some extra work, though even that does not help much. If there is an inaccuracy in any of these databases (or on Wikipedia), it can and will find its way into the others. And yes, GameFAQs and GameSpot use the same data. It's all queried from the same database. It doesn't matter which you cite. Although, my personal preference is GameFAQs since it loads faster. --- RockMFR 20:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, let me explain this in detail: GameFAQs and GameSpot use the exact same database. They are, for all intents and purposes, the same website. Release date information can come from a variety of sources - publishers/developers, retailers, or contributors on GameFAQs. Release date information contributed by people on GameFAQs is examined and approved by a staff member prior to it being added to the database. GameFAQs/GameSpot is as reliable a source for this information as any other website. Arguably more so. --- RockMFR 22:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I could use some help with the release date info. for this game, and consequently the name of this article too. The game's box, which I have, says copyright 1992 Virgin Games. However the release dates are another matter.
Now I understand the date to be 1/24/1993 and that's the one in the infobox, but I may be wrong. Another editer changed the name of the page to include the (1991 video game) to distinguish it from other games with Overlord in the title, but the year used now appears wrong. Perhaps the name should be Overlord (NES game) or something. HELP!!!!!
Kresock ( talk) 01:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Having a bit of a pickle here...tried finding info regarding sales for Alleyway, Tennis (Game Boy), Baseball (Game Boy) and Super Mario Land (the US launch titles for the Game Boy) for the Alleyway article I'm working on, and the only place I can get actual scores for them is VGChartz.com (The Magic Box doesn't list them, as none of them except SML managed to get over 1 mil in any particular region). Yet hearing I can't use VGChartz as a source. What can I do then, because I've been looking and havent found anywhere else that has sales info for them :\-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 15:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
(merged since the pose the same question) Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it established with some previous discussion that using that site was fine as long as we clearly noted that the sales info came from VG Chartz? I think using it if there is a lack of any other information on the subject is better than nothing... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 17:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, this describes the site's methodology. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 17:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
During the last month I have been taking some of my free time trying to create a good encyclopedic version of what used to be Kratos (God of War), collecting out of universe information (development from God of War's guide and cultural impact from reviews and so on), the article's previous version was redirected on December [16] for being a "fancrufty piece of lumber" so I decided to build a new version from the ground up. The thing is that I was wondering if someone could lend me a hand and develop a "Role in the God of War series" section, since I still haven't finished God of War: Chains of Olympus and am not familiar with the entire plot of the series (nor do I want to spoil it), this is going to be the only section missing when I post the work so far. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Is it just me or is putting an ESRB rating of RP in the Ratings section of the infobox pointless? It's not even and official rating and RP isn't a search option on their database. Officially the ESRB say that it designates a game that has been submitted to them and that RP should only be used on advertising literature. There are users who are adding RP to games that are not due to be released until 2009/10. This only appears to be a problem with ESRB others countries seem to work on the principal of a game either has a rating or it doesn't. Do we need a small section in the template docs or the article guildlines to say only add ratings when they are actual ratings (that can be checked on the rating bodies websites) and not to use place holder non-ratings like RP? . - — Preceding unsigned comment added by X201 ( talk • contribs)
The "Product has been submitted" part of the operation is being abused and made worthless by advertisers. RP is just slapped on anything as a matter of course. Fallout 3 (to pick a game at random) has RP on its website and adverts but the game isn't finished and so can't have been submitted.
Even the ESRB say RP is not a rating:
"What does the "Rating Pending" symbol mean? The "Rating Pending" symbol is only for use in advertising and marketing materials released prior to the assignment of an ESRB rating."
"prior to a rating", meaning RP is not a rating.
I think the best way forward would be for WP:VG Sources to tell editors to use the online databases that the ratings bodies have, they are primary sources after all, and for a note in the article guildlines pointing out that RP is not a rating. - X201 ( talk) 08:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'm going to have to nip this one in the bud. RP is indeed an official, copyrighted rating of the ESRB. You cannot put an RP rating on anything without explicit permission from the ESRB. In other words, the company must take the trouble to ask permission from the board to put the RP there. This isn't like an X-Rating, which anyone can use because it's not copyrighted by the MPAA (in contrast, no one can use an NC-17 rating without permiission because it IS copyrighted by the MPAA.) If you need me to go directly to the ESRB to have them explain this to you, I can do so, especially since I'm a co-worker of Jerry Bonner.
From ESRB itself:
“ | RATING PENDING Titles listed as RP (Rating Pending) have been submitted to the ESRB and are awaiting final rating. | ” |
Here's the thing though - you can only put RP on the product if the publisher lists the RP. If it doesn't, then it's not RP. (An example of this is Spore, which has the RP rating badge on the site.)
Denying this is basically WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, it seems. JAF1970 ( talk) 04:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Here is the importance of the copyright - no one can use the RP without ESRB's permission. Which means that a company can't just say it's RP - they must submit the game to ESRB before they can use it. They can NOT just tell the ESRB "Hey, we got this game...". Read the procedure on the ESRB site - it MUST BE UNDER REVIEW before an RP badge can be placed there. Keep in mind, the build they submit may not be the final build due to bug testing. But you MUST submit the full game to the ESRB with all the content included. JAF1970 ( talk) 05:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I was going to do so, but started reading down the destructions and then came across the transcluded PRs and wasn't sure how to deal with them, it's going to take me longer to faff around trying to do it then someone else just scooping them up and dealing with them. There's a few newer ones to review but most of the older ones are stagnant, since both PR and assessments are picking up it would be good to keep the list down and focus on picking up the slack. Someone another 23:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, cleaned up the peer reviews some. A lot of old ones that had been archived were still having links around, a few others did get archived, and a few listed were never added to the to do list. *phew*-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 02:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks :) Just the transcluded ones left now. Someone another 03:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
The three at the bottom under "The following video-game-related articles are transcluded here from standard peer review.", one of them is labelled as closed and I think the other two are as well. Someone another 04:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, all old peer reviews that were still listed as pending in any form related to here are archived and taken care of.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 22:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Much obliged KFM. Someone another 01:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I put The Orange Box up for peer review, and got the automated message back for general improvements, but two points seem to be contradictory:
On the one hand I'm being recommended to delink dates, and on the other I'm being recommended to link the dates. Maybe I'm simply misreading the points and interpreting them wrong, but can someone help clarify this with reference to the article in question? -- Sabre ( talk) 11:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I have created {{ vgratings}}. I figured that it would be a good template. It is basically the same thing as {{ vgrelease}} but for ratings. MrKIA11 ( talk) 21:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
On a related subject, the template {{ vgrelease}} needs fixing. Its set to sorting out release dates i think in alphabetical order. I put in order of release "japan, PAL, NA", but a preview shows them in the order of "japan, NA, PAL", see Extermination (video game), can someone please fix this. Salavat ( talk) 01:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, but what i was actually referring to was that someone might be able to fixe the template so it doesnt put the release dates in alphabetical order. Thanks, Salavat ( talk) 03:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I know this is a bit of a no-brainer, but I've encountered some resistance when reordering platform and media sections of infoboxes (which I decided to take upon myself after this discussion), accusations of PlayStation 3 fanboyism and such. All the articles I modified had Xbox 360 first, and Blu-Ray last (regardless of other items in the list), which leads me to believe there's some POV-pushing going on on the wiki. It'd be nice if the order could be clarified in the VG syntax guide/infobox doc, whether it is always to be alphabetical, chronological, or whether press releases should be used. Much thanks. Fin © ™ 19:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Chronological order, then alphabetical sorting for the platforms with the same release date. Sorting platform releases after something as dubious as publisher/developer dedication based on exclusive content or even server stability for one platform over another is completely, I'm starting to really like this word, unencyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emil Kastberg ( talk • contribs) 01:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Chronological, with alphabetical for releases on the same day. Question though, how would this be adapted fore releases that have different regions released on different days? Would you have the first platform release at the top, followed by later regional releases, then the next platform release, etc? Gazimoff ( talk) 10:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Anyone else agree that the handheld versions should come after the console versions? xenocidic ( talk) 14:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Let's step back for a minute here. Remember the purpose of the infobox is to quickly give straight-up facts about the game in question. I am going to argue that the first date listed under released should be the first release of the game for any console/platform for any region, because that is the most critical date for anyone doing quick information to find that date. That said, that leaves us in a quandry with our current sytsem for release dates, because we're tryng to group by platform and this alpha issue to avoid bias is causing a problem.
What if we flip this around, and instead of presenting the release date info as "by platform, by region" what if we did "by region, by date". In other words, the release date would be listed in the order of country of first release, with subsequent dates for secondary releases, so for a bogus example, the release date field may look like:
Now the information is in chrono order for the most part, and you can easily see the country of first release for each region, along with associated platforms. Mind you, this is only a suggestion and would require change throughout, but it may be better approach since it focuses on the "date" moreso than platform. -- MASEM 14:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
So now that the infobox issue has moved, should we decide on the order to be used in tha article itself? I only ask because, again, this has been/will be an issue and it would be nice to have some kind of consensus to follow. John.n-irl ( talk) 15:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
This is extended from the previous conversation on how to arrange platforms in the infobox to avoid bias but still show importance. It is related to the release date field (as the console/platform of first release is generally important). As it is a separate thought, I am creating a separate discussion section for this.
Again, I am suggesting that because this field is called "release date" that the very first release date listed should be the very first release of the game anywhere for any platform, and furthermore that the first release of the game within any region is more important than the first release date by platform. Thus, I propose something like the following (bogus example):
to replace the current system. FWIW, this can be made into a single template (possibly with supporting templates for the regions), but that's a minor issue. This way, regions are listed in order of release date, and then broken out into release dates by consoles (with the stipulation that if, say, a PS3 and 360 game are released 1-3 days apart, that's effectively the same day, for that region). Platforms for a date are listed in alpha order.
This, of course, would require all game articles to be changed, but it avoids the issue of platform bias, yet still showing which platform came first for release. -- MASEM 15:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Masem's proposal and with dates needing to be fully accurate. I mean, how often does it happen that they fall even a week apart in the same region? Emil Kastberg ( talk) 00:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
This list was recently salvaged from an article that I merged content from and took apart. While the list is coming along well, I'm the only one working on it and it needs some help in a couple of different ways, and I need some help from the project to finish it. First off, I need editors to help me finish the list who will either turn up more articles that fit the list's criteria and add it to the list. I also need editors to help finish the list by filling in the information into the table that is currently missing. The criteria for games to be put on the list is they have to have been either developed or produced by either Sega or one of its subsidiaries. If this list ever gets finished, I think it could make featured list criteria (with some opening paragraph expansion). I'm begging for help here. Redphoenix526 ( Talk) 22:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I've got Grim Fandango promoted to a GA, but feel I need a couple eyes to help copyedit and suggest any improvements before an FA. (likely sourcing the story is one thing). -- MASEM 00:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Can I ask someone to give the text for Grim Fandango a language copyedit for me? I've addressed most of the other points raised at the FAC for it, but I just want to make sure the language is good. -- MASEM 14:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Category:Angry Video Game Nerd, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Jappalang ( talk) 23:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
See also: Wikipedia:Synthesis on video games
One reason why WP:video games articles are treated as "second class" articles it is harder for video games to meet the same standards as other articles.
Video game articles do not have the same level of scholarship or research as historical phenomena. The instruction manual and game reviews often give only a superficial treatment of the subject. Often, the only remaining reliable source is the game itself. This limits the number of useful and informative facts one can write about a video game article. Facts that are true, but that can only be assembled as a synthesis of other facts.
This is especially the case with articles about a series or a genre.
Take a hypothetical game series. It might be true and verifiable that the first game in a series has an airship. It might also be true and verifiable that the second game in a series has an airship. But to make an article about the game series that says "all games in the series have an airship" might constitute synthesis and thus original research, because it requires a synthesis of two true facts that has not been made by an outside source.
Take a hypothetical game genre. It might be true and verifiable that one strategy game has a technology tree. It might true and verifiable that another strategy game has a technology tree. But to say "many strategy video games use technology trees" would constitute original research, because there might not be a reliable piece of research that made this synthesis.
I have opened a discussion at the page Wikipedia:Synthesis on video games. This is an opportunity for the WP: video games community to make its voice heard, to influence policy, and allow standards to be more flexible for our unique area of work. Policywonker ( talk) 21:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm a little surprised that I've had absolutely no comments over the last four days for the FA candidacy of The Orange Box. Can I request that its given some attention? -- Sabre ( talk) 13:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I have found numerous video game articles that while they might give good coverage as to the company, engine, etc. that developed it, they do not list any of the lead designers in the infobox. As similar forms of media, such as movies, list actors, directors, etc. I believe video game articles should be required to list the lead developers, preferably in an infobox. They do not need to list every Tom, Dick and Jane that worked on it, but I find the lack of any names even for semi-popular series such as Star Ocean disturbing, yet articles for other media of similar note, such as the movie Dragonheart is able to list actors, directors, etc. Jinnai ( talk) 15:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
citing manual from a game company specifically for names should be fine, as long as those names are pseudonyms. If they are another source that verifies that it is would be needed. This should actually be promoted since it's something quite easily done by anyone, as most people have a manual when they buy a new game, unless they tossed it. Jinnai ( talk) 18:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Since my last query regarding this went to kingdom come, I'm back with it after doing some discussions with their staff. They responded rather nicely and helpfully, and pointed out that for older video game sales, they base it off three main places for information: Nintendo's financial reports they post on their own site, CESA ( Computer Entertainment Supplier's Association) and Geimin.net. Now with this all covered and references stated as to where their charts are coming from, and because prior a lack of information as to where the info was coming from was the problem, is there opposition to them being counted as a valid source still as long as they're stated?-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 23:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
My position on VGChartz has always been: use it only if it's the only source, and always do inline attribution as "VGChartz reports the sales to be ...". An alternative I could subscribe to is something akin to Wikipedia:Geographic references where we state 1) the uniqueness and usefulness of the information, and 2) the care that should be taken when reviewing it. Something that would also be handy is to ask the VGChartz staff to give us an estimate of their margin of error. User:Krator ( t c) 12:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Well on closer inspection of the site it reveals they list games sometimes multiple times...and in those listings also show different sale amounts...I've given up trying to count them as a valid source then. Now what the heck am I going to do? -_-;-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 04:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Would a list of video game characters, not written in prose, in an article, such as the one in Dragon Ball Z: Burst Limit, be considered WP:GAMECRUFT? -- Silver Edge ( talk) 22:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd say so, particularly since this is another DB fighting game (of which there are several) and these are the same old same old characters. A list akin to the one used on Super Smash Bros. (series) would be better in a series article, assuming one doesn't exist. That article has the same problems many other future game articles have. Because relatively few concrete details are available it doesn't resemble a complete article, needs to be constantly rewritten and reverted because it's used like a news article. Someone another 22:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Something I'm proposing, since this seems a better place to bring it up than the subsequent sub projects given the discussion rate, but we have articles on Hoenn, Johto, and Sinnoh, but actual information within the articles is pretty sparse. What about just combining all the regions into one article, tidying up a lot, and then build in actual information from there?-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 17:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
This is just for my own curiosity, but shouldn't references come last? xenocidic ( talk) 17:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if I could get some comments on this.
With the release of Super Smash Bros. Brawl, several editors (mainly anonymous IP editors) have been adding some bit trivia into various Metal Gear articles about SSBB.
I feel that mentioning SSBB in articles such as Solid Snake is fine since Snake is a main character in SSBB as well as the cameos section in Metal Gear (series) [19] but it has seems now people are trying to add every little bit of information into the other articles where I think it can be construed as just "trivia" e.g. Big Boss (Metal Gear) where there is a whole subsection that really isn't "notable" persay. Also this made in List of recurring Metal Gear characters about Gray Fox. Anyone have any comments/opinions on me removing sections that seem to be mostly trivia about the game SSBB. At the very least these points should be removed and somehow added into SSBB because if its not notable enough to be in the SSBB article then I don't see why it should be in Metal Gear articles.
This goes the same with Sonic and Sonic related articles. For example, this paragraph in Sonic the Hedgehog (video game), The Nintendo Wii title Super Smash Bros. Brawl, which features Sonic as an unlockable playable character, has a hidden stage called Green Hill Zone, with scenery based directly on the original game level. This stage becomes available to the player as soon as Sonic is unlocked. It features the shuttle loop structure as part of the background, where occasionally Tails, Knuckles and Silver make brief cameo appearances. seems to be useless trivia about SSBB since no one going to that article is really looking about references to SSBB.
Thanks, Strongsauce ( talk) 18:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I would say that there shouldn't be more said about any of these subjects in their respective articles than is said about the same subject in the SSBB article itself. So if it doesn't fly there, it probably shouldn't fly in MG or Sonic either. Dansiman ( talk| Contribs) 21:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
It's worth noting these appearances on the characters' own articles, as well as a short note in either games lists, reception or legacy sections of series articles, particularly as these characters were added by popular demand. Characters in the background and the use of the green hill zone are extremely trivial - old gits like me who remember playing the original sonic might make something of it, but a general reader isn't given any indication of why they should give a damn, it's fanservice. The green hill zone is only used because sonic is in the line-up, that's the important aspect. Someone another 05:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Hbdragon88/vgimprove – a really quick way to get into improving video game articles. It's my way of getting into improving articles of games that I have personally not played. Combined with the /Automated cleanup list – a perfect combination. hbdragon88 ( talk) 03:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Weee... I would claim myself a member of WP:Warcraft, but as I haven't touched WP often (in preference for WoWWiki.com *coughcoicough*), I'd like commentary on using interwiki links in WP articles (as opposed to the E-links section alone).
So far as I know, World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King uses them in one section to link to further information, as the various Warcraft lists and character and such articles have been deleted for notability (usually via Inherit or the fact they were Gamecruft... something I'd like to do to Star Wars, heh).
I'm bringing this to WP:VG (rather than RFC or some other venue... I don't feel that confident yet) as the majority of games have (usually) an offsite wiki, most often at Wikia. It would appear that there is some movement against such doings (from another conversation), but that's why I'm bringing it up here. I'm pretty sure it would fall under WP:EL, which definitely suggests that such linking shouldn't be used, but that is a guideline, rather than a policy, and thus easier to change if this discussion goes anywhere.
This has been discussed (in brief) before at T:WoW#Deleted Wikilinks. Thoughts? -- Izno ( talk) 02:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I finally heard back from the Signpost guys about the report on WP:VG. The questions have been listed here: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-03-24/WikiProject report. I won't have time to take a look for another day, so perhaps people could work on the potential answers here. JACO PLANE • 2008-03-23 20:04
"What does the Project cover?" Individual video games as well as series articles; from the original video, computer and arcade games right through to the modern systems and emerging platforms such as mobile phones. All game genres and types; including online, multiplayer, casual and the increasingly growing indie scene. Characters, either within game or series articles, or as separate character articles and lists. Video game culture and terminology. Magazines, podcasts, websites, court cases and events. Developers, leading figures in gaming, publishers and musicians involved in the game industry. The project's remit is wide and continues to widen as videogames and related topics expand in influence and popularity. Someone another 07:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
"Was there any particular reason behind the creation of the project's own barnstar? A user perhaps?": Jacoplane made our barnstar—see User talk:Jacoplane/archive4#Current Events Barnstar for a conversation regarding its creation. Pagra shtak 17:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
4) "How could the project improve? Greater input needed etc." A project is only as good as the editors that comprise it. Improving the writing skills of members and getting everybody on the same page will strengthen the project as a whole. Trying to get all the video game related articles to comply with Wikipedia's various policies, like Wikipedia:Notability and WP:NOT, is a sizable task that not everyone in the project knows how to do. Writing well-written, neutral prose is another area that not all members have experience in. Efforts to better connect projects members and consolidate resources have been in discussion and should be implemented in the near future. ( Guyinblack25 talk 17:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC))
6: How does anyone uninvolved in the project start off? As a newcomer to Wikipedia, I discovered the project through my interest in video game related articles and was quickly welcomed after posting on the project's talk page. I started off by offering to help out with ongoing work, such as processing articles that required cleanup or referencing. Since then I've started to get heavily stuck in to improving the quality of existing articles, as well as creating a couple of new ones. The project members have been really helpful in providing assessment and peer review of the work I've done, as well as helping me learn the ropes through mentoring. Gazimoff ( talk) 20:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I added a bit from my own experiences to Q6. dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 10:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Unless no one objects I will be moving categories (and perhaps a few articles) from Category:Video game genres to Category:Video games by genre to maintain consistent categorization with the other medium by genre categories. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Done. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
This is a good move. Maybe someone can also update the 20 or so video game genre articles to reflect the change? Randomran ( talk) 05:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
MobyGames.com is a commercial service. All the info available there should be available at Wikipedia itself and for free. Linking the user to a commercial service for info that should be available here is against the very purpose of Wikipedia. I also noticed that there are links on EVERY article; in a lot of cases these linked entries at MobyGames do not contain any actual information about the game at all, since MobyGames depends on the voluntary contributions of its visitors. These links smell a lot like they are there to generate traffic.
Here's a link to the discussion at WP's MobyGames article:
I think it's time to stop this nonsense and start removing the links from Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't a platform for advertisement.
DCEvoCE (
talk) 13:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkSearch/Mobygames.com: this is a list of all the pages with a mobygames link on it. There was a discussion on WikiProject Spam back some time about MobyGames, talking about the edits. I say remove them, but take in regard the edit history. Salavat ( talk) 13:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Probaby the same person linked StrategyWiki on Super Smash Bros. Melee. I reverted him once, but he replied with some bitter edit summary. I should have reverted him again, but I can't really be bothered with people like that. Doing so would be committing myself to some two-week debate with a person who won't listen to reason or see beyond their personal affiliations. It shouldn't be that way, but sadly it is. Oh damn, I guess I just assumed bad faith. Ashnard Talk Contribs 14:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick note on an argument used above, the fact that MobyGames has some more images is probably moot as we link to the game's official website, which probably contains more visual material anyway. For the rest, it is indeed redundant to the Wikipedia article. User:Krator ( t c) 20:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
This was discussed to death at the CoI/Noticeboard in August 2007. Please familiarize yourselves with the details of that thread (I attempted a summation in the final subthread).
Is there fresh evidence of mass-adding/spamming the links, and if so, have the person/people adding the links been warned/welcomed with details of WP:EL yet? As suggested everywhere (this thread, that thread, policies, wikiquette, etc) each link should be judged on its own merit; if it adds to, or even just confirms any details in an article, it should be retained. There is no justification for an eradication of the links to that site (nor for displaying such hostility to the site, but that's another kettle of fish).
As a specific quote reply: "... in a lot of cases these linked entries at MobyGames do not contain any actual information about the game at all, since MobyGames depends on the voluntary contributions of its visitors." – in a lot of cases, the Wikipedia article information was sourced from Mobygames. Both Wikipedia and Mobygames rely upon voluntary contributions from visitors.
I will move the 2 template's instructions to a /doc subpage, to make it even clearer when to and when not to add them. -- Quiddity ( talk) 00:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I suppose I would be the overly enthusiastic person that you all are referring too. I don't think anything that I say is going to change your opinions on this matter, but I will at least attempt to give this a shot. I am actually the original author of the referred-to content that was once contained on WikiKnowledge. That content was moved to WikiKnowledge when WikiBooks decided to forgo the inclusion of any video game content. And the content which was moved from WikiBooks was initially moved there in the first place when it was determined that move lists were not acceptable content on WP, which I had attempted to add at one point, and was refused.
Look, I know that there are more important things in life, but the enjoyment of wikis is the ability to share information with people, especially information that you happen to be knowledgeable about. I had, and continue to have, a desire to share the video game knowledge that I have with the world. The problem is, WP practically makes that a crime if it's not somewhat academic in nature. And I don't think Ryu's fireball motion, or one of the ninth-key patterns in Pac-Man is ever going to fall under that criteria. As much of a shame as that is, at least we can finally say that that information now has an acceptable home, in StrategyWiki.
Now, ironically, I agree completely with you about Moby Games. It is a commercial entity that operates on some kind of business model, and the information isn't freely editable (although you can contribute information to it to some extent). But the purpose of providing the StrategyWiki links is to inform wiki users that there is an acceptable place to contribute video game information that is deemed unacceptable on WP. Which would you prefer, one harmless link to SW, or the need to constantly revert information that is not permitted by WP's rather stringent standards?
Just try to see it from SW users' point of view. We are as passionate about the information that we have to share as you are about WP's articles. SW was designed to work in cooperation and tandem with WP, under the same theoretical principals, only about a different subject. In that sense, I would really like to see members of the Video game WikiProject embrace SW as opposed to fighting it. I guess I'm getting off my soap box. Let the flaming commence... Plotor ( talk) 20:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Quick and semi reasonable question that maybe someone will answer: whats the difference between linking to SW and Bulbapedia on every Pokemon article? Evaunit ♥666♥ 01:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I've only got two problems with StrategyWiki. First are cases when the target subject isn't even *completed* and it's already being linked. SF4 is a shining example of this: the article by far does not yet need any external strategy information. Secondly are cases where WikiKnowledge links got the axe for four or five individual character links linking to movelists depending on the character's version: this happened heavily in the Street Fighter character articles. And in the process, the links that were switched in actually covered *less* even when combined. There was no reason for it. In most cases in all honesty, if someone needs a guide they'll hit up gamefaqs or an easily readable page that gives all the info preferably in one shot. StategyWiki really isn't that.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 02:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
europe11
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).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 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | → | Archive 45 |
FYI- There are couple of articles that are undergoing review along with the Elder Scrolls article above.
To anybody familiar with the content of the articles, feel free to chime in at the discussions, and/or help address concerns brought up.
Also,
Final Fantasy III just lost its GA status and will cause the
Final Fantasy topic to be delisted in three months if the article is not brought back up to at least GA. (
Guyinblack25
talk 16:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC))
I remember seeing this discussion before, but I just can't remember the outcome of it. Is the-magicbox.com a reliable source for sales? The issue has been raised by SandyGeorgia in this FAC (03:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC) comment). dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 06:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The Orange Box | |
---|---|
The Orange Box in a golf hole | |
Developer(s) |
Valve Corporation EA London ( PS3 version) |
Publisher(s) | Valve Corporation |
Distributor(s)' |
Electronic Arts (retail) Steam (online) |
Engine | Source engine |
Platform(s) | Windows, PlayStation 3, Xbox 360 |
Release date |
Microsoft Windows & Xbox 360 (retail): [1]
Microsoft Windows (online):
PlayStation 3 (retail): [2] |
Genre(s) | First-person shooter, compilation |
Mode(s) | Single player, Multiplayer |
Rating(s) |
ESRB: T-M PEGI: 16+ BBFC: 15 OFLC: MA15+ |
Media | Steam, DVD-ROM, Blu-ray Disc |
System requirements | 1.7 GHz
processor, 512 MB
RAM,
DirectX 8 compatible
video card,
Windows 2000/
XP/
Vista
[3] |
Input methods | Keyboard, Mouse, Xbox 360 Controller, SIXAXIS controller, DualShock 3 controller |
Per a suggestion on the {{ Infobox VG}}, I created the example template as a drop in replacement for the current one as to add alternating row colors with the removal of the line frames. Anyone have any input on it (the picture is to avoid nfc content on talk pages, and no, I can't get rid of the white line down the rows) -- MASEM 03:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Any idea when the changes will be implemented? I have a list of articles that I want to overhaul the infoboxen on and I don't want there to be a last minute change I have to account for. -- AeronPrometheus ( talk) 21:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Like it! Much easier to read, thanks Masem :) Someone another 01:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
style="float: right; width: 264px; font-size: 90%; text-align: left; border=0; " cellspacing="0" cellpadding="3"The Orange Box | |
---|---|
The Orange Box in a golf hole | |
Developer(s) |
Valve Corporation EA London ( PS3 version) |
Publisher(s) | Valve Corporation |
Distributor(s)' |
Electronic Arts (retail) Steam (online) |
Engine | Source engine |
Platform(s) | Windows, PlayStation 3, Xbox 360 |
Release date |
Microsoft Windows & Xbox 360 (retail): [1]
Microsoft Windows (online):
PlayStation 3 (retail): [2] |
Genre(s) | First-person shooter, compilation |
Mode(s) | Single player, Multiplayer |
Rating(s) |
ESRB: T-M PEGI: 16+ BBFC: 15 OFLC: MA15+ |
Media | Steam, DVD-ROM, Blu-ray Disc |
System requirements | 1.7 GHz
processor, 512 MB
RAM,
DirectX 8 compatible
video card,
Windows 2000/
XP/
Vista
[4] |
Input methods | Keyboard, Mouse, Xbox 360 Controller, SIXAXIS controller, DualShock 3 controller |
Here's the hidden version (note that I've had to force it due to how collapsable sections work). -- MASEM 06:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Half of this article is unsourced; how come it passed both GA and FA nominations?? FightingStreet ( talk) 10:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The article is probably up to FA standard still, save for the prose in the Plot section which needs a rewrite. User:Krator ( t c) 16:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
After someone recommended Gears of War for FA, which I requested it not be at this time (it's close, but not in the greatest shape and needs cleanup), I started looking it over. I know that of late, we've been pushing for prose descriptions of award lists, but when a game gets a large number of them like this, a prose version can be hefty.
I'm thinking that since {{ VG Reviews}} includes an awards section, summarizing those there when the list gets long is helpful, but keeping some prose summary, specifically calling out game of the month/year for magazines and tv shows, and any award from an even like DICE or E3 (since they're not limited to one set of editorial standards). Anyone have any recommendations? -- MASEM 17:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Is there a reason you can't slide them into one of those hidden boxes which can be clicked by the reader? Like the tracklists of soundtracks in some game articles. Prose is good, but not when there's so many it becomes an unwieldy clump. By adding them to a hidey box it means there's not a dirty great list down the side of the article unless the reader wants there to be. Someone another 01:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Despite the failings of Baldur's Gate, I am impressed with its presentation of awards in the review/awards table. I believe it could be used for Gears by either categorizing the awards by its type or its awarding entity. Jappalang ( talk) 02:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I create the article High Voltage Software ( User:Eloy/High Voltage Software). This is linked at least with 40 articles. The article wasn't complete, but if you see that they develop many relevant games, the company probably is relevant.
I receive a message of the user Realkyhick, who request for me to indicate the relevance. Then, when I was adding the {{ hangon}}, six minutes after the warning message (I can read the message and write the contest in 6 minutes), the user Zsinj delete the article.
I post a message to this user, and a message in Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance) but I got no answers. Eloy ( talk) 12:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
FYI- In regard to an above discussion, " Project review/status", Masem has put together a draft of the newsletter to help members be kept up-to-date on the happenings of the VG Project. Discussions on the draft and newsletter in general can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter. Input would be appreciated so we can get this thing off the ground and running in the near future. ( Guyinblack25 talk 20:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC))
If you have an article on a game about: pro wrestling, football (NFL or NCAA), GTA, NASCAR, or shooter games, and need help, leave a message on my talk page and I'll see what I can do to help. The reason I say those type of games is because, those are really the only games I'm familiar with cuz I don't play much else. Another reason I offer is because I haven't helped with a video game article in awhile and I'd like to get back on it. -- Cra sh U nderride 21:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The VG Images Task Force has been tagging articles that don't include screenshots or box art for a while now. At this point, Category:Video game articles requesting identifying art and Category:Video game articles requesting screenshots have a large backlog that could really use a large push from this WikiProject to reduce somewhat. So if anyone is bored, please get to uploading images. JACO PLANE • 2008-03-13 22:44
Would it be a good idea to run a bot past that list first? Because there are some false positives in there (Articles that have images but the cover flag hasn't been cleared) Then at least we'd be left with a list that we know is definitely in need of an image. Removal of articles that have got images would shrink the list in one big hit. - X201 ( talk) 11:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
And now for some extremely useless statistics. Here are the traffic statistics for different pages within this WikiProject:
Any programmers around? It would be sweet to have a wikibot that posts the traffic stats automatically somewhere on a monthly basis. JACO PLANE • 2008-03-14 00:16
Also note that the project view statistics are completely dwarfed by article view statistics. A normal video game has 40k-ish views in a month. User:Krator ( t c) 16:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm looking for a walkthrough for Geneforge in order to nail down the plot section, there's basically one walkthrough by a 'Matt P' on GameFAQs linked-to by GameSpot. Is this usable or no? Someone another 23:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Bugger. There's no walkthrough on IGN since GF is a niche-market game distributed via the web. I'll probably have to buy it and play through in order to get that info >.< Thanks anyway. Someone another 23:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I tagged this a while ago for it to be merged with Kaido Battle: Touge No Densetsu. They are the same game, Kaido Battle: Touge No Densetsu is just the japanese title. I didnt want to merge them myself as i no absoulutly nothing about the game and wasnt sure which bits should be kept and which should be deleted. So if anyone knows anything about this game, can you please merge. Thanks, Salavat ( talk) 05:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Im Australian and ive heard of Tokyo Xtreme Racer but never Kaido Racer until i did some edits on these articles. also Tokyo Xtreme Racer: Drift wasnt released in Europe, so maybe to keep consistency, Tokyo Xtreme Racer should be used? Salavat ( talk) 13:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
If anyone would be interested to join a task force for Sony Online Entertainment if there was one, please go to the WP:TPSP's talk page.-- Playstationdude ( talk) 19:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
True Golf: Wicked 18 and Devil's Course is the same game, but has different content, i dont no enough to merge them myself, can someone please help. Thanks, Salavat ( talk) 12:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Ive added the merge templates. but because the pages have different context im not sure which one is right. Salavat ( talk) 13:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Anyone know what this is about? JACO PLANE • 2008-03-15 21:45
digital pet and pet-raising simulation talk about a lot of the same stuff... i see two approaches... one is a merge... the other is to distinguish the two, with pet-raising simulations talking about PC and console games, while digital pets talk about other toys or research... either way, these articles are too close to just carry on the way things are going... comments?
see the talk page... Lifeisrill ( talk) 00:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
1UP.com has apparently gone and retroactivity changed all their ratings from a numerical scale to a letter grade.
Joy.
Anyone have any idea how we can make a list of articles that have an IGN review to update said review score? -- MASEM 01:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
FYI/Update- GA stars have been added to the 1UP Reference Update list to help identify priority articles. Currently, about a quarter of the FAs and a couple GAs have been checked/updated. The list is starting to make some good progress. Fuchs has taken care of the Halo related articles and JFlav has done a sizable chunk of the list by taking care of the first 25 entries. If you see something on the list you can help with, please feel free to Be Bold and go for it. Every little bit helps. :D ( Guyinblack25 talk 16:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC))
I saw this category added to Tengen (company) and couldn't quite understand the inclusion, never-the-less trying to understand the list. Plus, do we really need this category? I don't think it makes too much sense and I feel it should be delete. Govvy ( talk) 11:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm looking for help to improve Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare to WP:FA status. Please help out if you can! Thanks! Gary King ( talk) 14:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I've asked User:Rudget to do a WikiProject report on this WikiProject for the Wikipedia Signpost. Here's this week's report on Professional wrestling. We should have our report in the March 27 edition. JACO PLANE • 2008-03-17 22:56
this article was long overdue to be created... the sims is a good example, but there's lots of clones that qualify too. there's already a category for this article too... i created it but could use help gathering research and info to describe the games... Lifeisrill ( talk) 00:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Is GameFAQs a reliable source when looking up relase dates of a video game? It appears Spyro: Enter the Dragonfly was referenced by that source. Pre ston H 02:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
GameFAQs and GameSpot use the same data, but there are some irregularities at GameFAQs sometimes. Salavat ( talk) 03:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Really in some cases it's best to rely on multiple citable sources if possible, because it'll help verify dates as well as possibly show dates for other releases (i.e. while generally North America is shoved together you'll see the US and Canada mentioned as having different releases). Basically just do as thorough research as you can.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 04:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
GameFAQs release dates are not reliable sources. GameSpot are. If they're taken from GameFAQs, so be it...(you can't prove it!!) dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 10:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Reliability comes down to fact-checking and accuracy. GameFAQs/GameSpot, IGN/GameStats/GameSpy, and mobygames all probably have the same level of fact-checking and accuracy. Many dates are wrong. Release dates for older games often cannot be checked against the "true" dates because the information has been lost to time. For release dates, you can cite any of these sites. If there is a discrepancy, you'll have to do some extra work, though even that does not help much. If there is an inaccuracy in any of these databases (or on Wikipedia), it can and will find its way into the others. And yes, GameFAQs and GameSpot use the same data. It's all queried from the same database. It doesn't matter which you cite. Although, my personal preference is GameFAQs since it loads faster. --- RockMFR 20:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, let me explain this in detail: GameFAQs and GameSpot use the exact same database. They are, for all intents and purposes, the same website. Release date information can come from a variety of sources - publishers/developers, retailers, or contributors on GameFAQs. Release date information contributed by people on GameFAQs is examined and approved by a staff member prior to it being added to the database. GameFAQs/GameSpot is as reliable a source for this information as any other website. Arguably more so. --- RockMFR 22:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I could use some help with the release date info. for this game, and consequently the name of this article too. The game's box, which I have, says copyright 1992 Virgin Games. However the release dates are another matter.
Now I understand the date to be 1/24/1993 and that's the one in the infobox, but I may be wrong. Another editer changed the name of the page to include the (1991 video game) to distinguish it from other games with Overlord in the title, but the year used now appears wrong. Perhaps the name should be Overlord (NES game) or something. HELP!!!!!
Kresock ( talk) 01:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Having a bit of a pickle here...tried finding info regarding sales for Alleyway, Tennis (Game Boy), Baseball (Game Boy) and Super Mario Land (the US launch titles for the Game Boy) for the Alleyway article I'm working on, and the only place I can get actual scores for them is VGChartz.com (The Magic Box doesn't list them, as none of them except SML managed to get over 1 mil in any particular region). Yet hearing I can't use VGChartz as a source. What can I do then, because I've been looking and havent found anywhere else that has sales info for them :\-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 15:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
(merged since the pose the same question) Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it established with some previous discussion that using that site was fine as long as we clearly noted that the sales info came from VG Chartz? I think using it if there is a lack of any other information on the subject is better than nothing... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 17:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, this describes the site's methodology. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 17:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
During the last month I have been taking some of my free time trying to create a good encyclopedic version of what used to be Kratos (God of War), collecting out of universe information (development from God of War's guide and cultural impact from reviews and so on), the article's previous version was redirected on December [16] for being a "fancrufty piece of lumber" so I decided to build a new version from the ground up. The thing is that I was wondering if someone could lend me a hand and develop a "Role in the God of War series" section, since I still haven't finished God of War: Chains of Olympus and am not familiar with the entire plot of the series (nor do I want to spoil it), this is going to be the only section missing when I post the work so far. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Is it just me or is putting an ESRB rating of RP in the Ratings section of the infobox pointless? It's not even and official rating and RP isn't a search option on their database. Officially the ESRB say that it designates a game that has been submitted to them and that RP should only be used on advertising literature. There are users who are adding RP to games that are not due to be released until 2009/10. This only appears to be a problem with ESRB others countries seem to work on the principal of a game either has a rating or it doesn't. Do we need a small section in the template docs or the article guildlines to say only add ratings when they are actual ratings (that can be checked on the rating bodies websites) and not to use place holder non-ratings like RP? . - — Preceding unsigned comment added by X201 ( talk • contribs)
The "Product has been submitted" part of the operation is being abused and made worthless by advertisers. RP is just slapped on anything as a matter of course. Fallout 3 (to pick a game at random) has RP on its website and adverts but the game isn't finished and so can't have been submitted.
Even the ESRB say RP is not a rating:
"What does the "Rating Pending" symbol mean? The "Rating Pending" symbol is only for use in advertising and marketing materials released prior to the assignment of an ESRB rating."
"prior to a rating", meaning RP is not a rating.
I think the best way forward would be for WP:VG Sources to tell editors to use the online databases that the ratings bodies have, they are primary sources after all, and for a note in the article guildlines pointing out that RP is not a rating. - X201 ( talk) 08:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'm going to have to nip this one in the bud. RP is indeed an official, copyrighted rating of the ESRB. You cannot put an RP rating on anything without explicit permission from the ESRB. In other words, the company must take the trouble to ask permission from the board to put the RP there. This isn't like an X-Rating, which anyone can use because it's not copyrighted by the MPAA (in contrast, no one can use an NC-17 rating without permiission because it IS copyrighted by the MPAA.) If you need me to go directly to the ESRB to have them explain this to you, I can do so, especially since I'm a co-worker of Jerry Bonner.
From ESRB itself:
“ | RATING PENDING Titles listed as RP (Rating Pending) have been submitted to the ESRB and are awaiting final rating. | ” |
Here's the thing though - you can only put RP on the product if the publisher lists the RP. If it doesn't, then it's not RP. (An example of this is Spore, which has the RP rating badge on the site.)
Denying this is basically WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, it seems. JAF1970 ( talk) 04:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Here is the importance of the copyright - no one can use the RP without ESRB's permission. Which means that a company can't just say it's RP - they must submit the game to ESRB before they can use it. They can NOT just tell the ESRB "Hey, we got this game...". Read the procedure on the ESRB site - it MUST BE UNDER REVIEW before an RP badge can be placed there. Keep in mind, the build they submit may not be the final build due to bug testing. But you MUST submit the full game to the ESRB with all the content included. JAF1970 ( talk) 05:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I was going to do so, but started reading down the destructions and then came across the transcluded PRs and wasn't sure how to deal with them, it's going to take me longer to faff around trying to do it then someone else just scooping them up and dealing with them. There's a few newer ones to review but most of the older ones are stagnant, since both PR and assessments are picking up it would be good to keep the list down and focus on picking up the slack. Someone another 23:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, cleaned up the peer reviews some. A lot of old ones that had been archived were still having links around, a few others did get archived, and a few listed were never added to the to do list. *phew*-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 02:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks :) Just the transcluded ones left now. Someone another 03:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
The three at the bottom under "The following video-game-related articles are transcluded here from standard peer review.", one of them is labelled as closed and I think the other two are as well. Someone another 04:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, all old peer reviews that were still listed as pending in any form related to here are archived and taken care of.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 22:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Much obliged KFM. Someone another 01:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I put The Orange Box up for peer review, and got the automated message back for general improvements, but two points seem to be contradictory:
On the one hand I'm being recommended to delink dates, and on the other I'm being recommended to link the dates. Maybe I'm simply misreading the points and interpreting them wrong, but can someone help clarify this with reference to the article in question? -- Sabre ( talk) 11:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I have created {{ vgratings}}. I figured that it would be a good template. It is basically the same thing as {{ vgrelease}} but for ratings. MrKIA11 ( talk) 21:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
On a related subject, the template {{ vgrelease}} needs fixing. Its set to sorting out release dates i think in alphabetical order. I put in order of release "japan, PAL, NA", but a preview shows them in the order of "japan, NA, PAL", see Extermination (video game), can someone please fix this. Salavat ( talk) 01:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, but what i was actually referring to was that someone might be able to fixe the template so it doesnt put the release dates in alphabetical order. Thanks, Salavat ( talk) 03:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I know this is a bit of a no-brainer, but I've encountered some resistance when reordering platform and media sections of infoboxes (which I decided to take upon myself after this discussion), accusations of PlayStation 3 fanboyism and such. All the articles I modified had Xbox 360 first, and Blu-Ray last (regardless of other items in the list), which leads me to believe there's some POV-pushing going on on the wiki. It'd be nice if the order could be clarified in the VG syntax guide/infobox doc, whether it is always to be alphabetical, chronological, or whether press releases should be used. Much thanks. Fin © ™ 19:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Chronological order, then alphabetical sorting for the platforms with the same release date. Sorting platform releases after something as dubious as publisher/developer dedication based on exclusive content or even server stability for one platform over another is completely, I'm starting to really like this word, unencyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emil Kastberg ( talk • contribs) 01:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Chronological, with alphabetical for releases on the same day. Question though, how would this be adapted fore releases that have different regions released on different days? Would you have the first platform release at the top, followed by later regional releases, then the next platform release, etc? Gazimoff ( talk) 10:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Anyone else agree that the handheld versions should come after the console versions? xenocidic ( talk) 14:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Let's step back for a minute here. Remember the purpose of the infobox is to quickly give straight-up facts about the game in question. I am going to argue that the first date listed under released should be the first release of the game for any console/platform for any region, because that is the most critical date for anyone doing quick information to find that date. That said, that leaves us in a quandry with our current sytsem for release dates, because we're tryng to group by platform and this alpha issue to avoid bias is causing a problem.
What if we flip this around, and instead of presenting the release date info as "by platform, by region" what if we did "by region, by date". In other words, the release date would be listed in the order of country of first release, with subsequent dates for secondary releases, so for a bogus example, the release date field may look like:
Now the information is in chrono order for the most part, and you can easily see the country of first release for each region, along with associated platforms. Mind you, this is only a suggestion and would require change throughout, but it may be better approach since it focuses on the "date" moreso than platform. -- MASEM 14:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
So now that the infobox issue has moved, should we decide on the order to be used in tha article itself? I only ask because, again, this has been/will be an issue and it would be nice to have some kind of consensus to follow. John.n-irl ( talk) 15:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
This is extended from the previous conversation on how to arrange platforms in the infobox to avoid bias but still show importance. It is related to the release date field (as the console/platform of first release is generally important). As it is a separate thought, I am creating a separate discussion section for this.
Again, I am suggesting that because this field is called "release date" that the very first release date listed should be the very first release of the game anywhere for any platform, and furthermore that the first release of the game within any region is more important than the first release date by platform. Thus, I propose something like the following (bogus example):
to replace the current system. FWIW, this can be made into a single template (possibly with supporting templates for the regions), but that's a minor issue. This way, regions are listed in order of release date, and then broken out into release dates by consoles (with the stipulation that if, say, a PS3 and 360 game are released 1-3 days apart, that's effectively the same day, for that region). Platforms for a date are listed in alpha order.
This, of course, would require all game articles to be changed, but it avoids the issue of platform bias, yet still showing which platform came first for release. -- MASEM 15:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Masem's proposal and with dates needing to be fully accurate. I mean, how often does it happen that they fall even a week apart in the same region? Emil Kastberg ( talk) 00:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
This list was recently salvaged from an article that I merged content from and took apart. While the list is coming along well, I'm the only one working on it and it needs some help in a couple of different ways, and I need some help from the project to finish it. First off, I need editors to help me finish the list who will either turn up more articles that fit the list's criteria and add it to the list. I also need editors to help finish the list by filling in the information into the table that is currently missing. The criteria for games to be put on the list is they have to have been either developed or produced by either Sega or one of its subsidiaries. If this list ever gets finished, I think it could make featured list criteria (with some opening paragraph expansion). I'm begging for help here. Redphoenix526 ( Talk) 22:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I've got Grim Fandango promoted to a GA, but feel I need a couple eyes to help copyedit and suggest any improvements before an FA. (likely sourcing the story is one thing). -- MASEM 00:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Can I ask someone to give the text for Grim Fandango a language copyedit for me? I've addressed most of the other points raised at the FAC for it, but I just want to make sure the language is good. -- MASEM 14:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Category:Angry Video Game Nerd, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Jappalang ( talk) 23:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
See also: Wikipedia:Synthesis on video games
One reason why WP:video games articles are treated as "second class" articles it is harder for video games to meet the same standards as other articles.
Video game articles do not have the same level of scholarship or research as historical phenomena. The instruction manual and game reviews often give only a superficial treatment of the subject. Often, the only remaining reliable source is the game itself. This limits the number of useful and informative facts one can write about a video game article. Facts that are true, but that can only be assembled as a synthesis of other facts.
This is especially the case with articles about a series or a genre.
Take a hypothetical game series. It might be true and verifiable that the first game in a series has an airship. It might also be true and verifiable that the second game in a series has an airship. But to make an article about the game series that says "all games in the series have an airship" might constitute synthesis and thus original research, because it requires a synthesis of two true facts that has not been made by an outside source.
Take a hypothetical game genre. It might be true and verifiable that one strategy game has a technology tree. It might true and verifiable that another strategy game has a technology tree. But to say "many strategy video games use technology trees" would constitute original research, because there might not be a reliable piece of research that made this synthesis.
I have opened a discussion at the page Wikipedia:Synthesis on video games. This is an opportunity for the WP: video games community to make its voice heard, to influence policy, and allow standards to be more flexible for our unique area of work. Policywonker ( talk) 21:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm a little surprised that I've had absolutely no comments over the last four days for the FA candidacy of The Orange Box. Can I request that its given some attention? -- Sabre ( talk) 13:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I have found numerous video game articles that while they might give good coverage as to the company, engine, etc. that developed it, they do not list any of the lead designers in the infobox. As similar forms of media, such as movies, list actors, directors, etc. I believe video game articles should be required to list the lead developers, preferably in an infobox. They do not need to list every Tom, Dick and Jane that worked on it, but I find the lack of any names even for semi-popular series such as Star Ocean disturbing, yet articles for other media of similar note, such as the movie Dragonheart is able to list actors, directors, etc. Jinnai ( talk) 15:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
citing manual from a game company specifically for names should be fine, as long as those names are pseudonyms. If they are another source that verifies that it is would be needed. This should actually be promoted since it's something quite easily done by anyone, as most people have a manual when they buy a new game, unless they tossed it. Jinnai ( talk) 18:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Since my last query regarding this went to kingdom come, I'm back with it after doing some discussions with their staff. They responded rather nicely and helpfully, and pointed out that for older video game sales, they base it off three main places for information: Nintendo's financial reports they post on their own site, CESA ( Computer Entertainment Supplier's Association) and Geimin.net. Now with this all covered and references stated as to where their charts are coming from, and because prior a lack of information as to where the info was coming from was the problem, is there opposition to them being counted as a valid source still as long as they're stated?-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 23:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
My position on VGChartz has always been: use it only if it's the only source, and always do inline attribution as "VGChartz reports the sales to be ...". An alternative I could subscribe to is something akin to Wikipedia:Geographic references where we state 1) the uniqueness and usefulness of the information, and 2) the care that should be taken when reviewing it. Something that would also be handy is to ask the VGChartz staff to give us an estimate of their margin of error. User:Krator ( t c) 12:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Well on closer inspection of the site it reveals they list games sometimes multiple times...and in those listings also show different sale amounts...I've given up trying to count them as a valid source then. Now what the heck am I going to do? -_-;-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 04:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Would a list of video game characters, not written in prose, in an article, such as the one in Dragon Ball Z: Burst Limit, be considered WP:GAMECRUFT? -- Silver Edge ( talk) 22:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd say so, particularly since this is another DB fighting game (of which there are several) and these are the same old same old characters. A list akin to the one used on Super Smash Bros. (series) would be better in a series article, assuming one doesn't exist. That article has the same problems many other future game articles have. Because relatively few concrete details are available it doesn't resemble a complete article, needs to be constantly rewritten and reverted because it's used like a news article. Someone another 22:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Something I'm proposing, since this seems a better place to bring it up than the subsequent sub projects given the discussion rate, but we have articles on Hoenn, Johto, and Sinnoh, but actual information within the articles is pretty sparse. What about just combining all the regions into one article, tidying up a lot, and then build in actual information from there?-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 17:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
This is just for my own curiosity, but shouldn't references come last? xenocidic ( talk) 17:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if I could get some comments on this.
With the release of Super Smash Bros. Brawl, several editors (mainly anonymous IP editors) have been adding some bit trivia into various Metal Gear articles about SSBB.
I feel that mentioning SSBB in articles such as Solid Snake is fine since Snake is a main character in SSBB as well as the cameos section in Metal Gear (series) [19] but it has seems now people are trying to add every little bit of information into the other articles where I think it can be construed as just "trivia" e.g. Big Boss (Metal Gear) where there is a whole subsection that really isn't "notable" persay. Also this made in List of recurring Metal Gear characters about Gray Fox. Anyone have any comments/opinions on me removing sections that seem to be mostly trivia about the game SSBB. At the very least these points should be removed and somehow added into SSBB because if its not notable enough to be in the SSBB article then I don't see why it should be in Metal Gear articles.
This goes the same with Sonic and Sonic related articles. For example, this paragraph in Sonic the Hedgehog (video game), The Nintendo Wii title Super Smash Bros. Brawl, which features Sonic as an unlockable playable character, has a hidden stage called Green Hill Zone, with scenery based directly on the original game level. This stage becomes available to the player as soon as Sonic is unlocked. It features the shuttle loop structure as part of the background, where occasionally Tails, Knuckles and Silver make brief cameo appearances. seems to be useless trivia about SSBB since no one going to that article is really looking about references to SSBB.
Thanks, Strongsauce ( talk) 18:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I would say that there shouldn't be more said about any of these subjects in their respective articles than is said about the same subject in the SSBB article itself. So if it doesn't fly there, it probably shouldn't fly in MG or Sonic either. Dansiman ( talk| Contribs) 21:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
It's worth noting these appearances on the characters' own articles, as well as a short note in either games lists, reception or legacy sections of series articles, particularly as these characters were added by popular demand. Characters in the background and the use of the green hill zone are extremely trivial - old gits like me who remember playing the original sonic might make something of it, but a general reader isn't given any indication of why they should give a damn, it's fanservice. The green hill zone is only used because sonic is in the line-up, that's the important aspect. Someone another 05:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Hbdragon88/vgimprove – a really quick way to get into improving video game articles. It's my way of getting into improving articles of games that I have personally not played. Combined with the /Automated cleanup list – a perfect combination. hbdragon88 ( talk) 03:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Weee... I would claim myself a member of WP:Warcraft, but as I haven't touched WP often (in preference for WoWWiki.com *coughcoicough*), I'd like commentary on using interwiki links in WP articles (as opposed to the E-links section alone).
So far as I know, World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King uses them in one section to link to further information, as the various Warcraft lists and character and such articles have been deleted for notability (usually via Inherit or the fact they were Gamecruft... something I'd like to do to Star Wars, heh).
I'm bringing this to WP:VG (rather than RFC or some other venue... I don't feel that confident yet) as the majority of games have (usually) an offsite wiki, most often at Wikia. It would appear that there is some movement against such doings (from another conversation), but that's why I'm bringing it up here. I'm pretty sure it would fall under WP:EL, which definitely suggests that such linking shouldn't be used, but that is a guideline, rather than a policy, and thus easier to change if this discussion goes anywhere.
This has been discussed (in brief) before at T:WoW#Deleted Wikilinks. Thoughts? -- Izno ( talk) 02:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I finally heard back from the Signpost guys about the report on WP:VG. The questions have been listed here: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-03-24/WikiProject report. I won't have time to take a look for another day, so perhaps people could work on the potential answers here. JACO PLANE • 2008-03-23 20:04
"What does the Project cover?" Individual video games as well as series articles; from the original video, computer and arcade games right through to the modern systems and emerging platforms such as mobile phones. All game genres and types; including online, multiplayer, casual and the increasingly growing indie scene. Characters, either within game or series articles, or as separate character articles and lists. Video game culture and terminology. Magazines, podcasts, websites, court cases and events. Developers, leading figures in gaming, publishers and musicians involved in the game industry. The project's remit is wide and continues to widen as videogames and related topics expand in influence and popularity. Someone another 07:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
"Was there any particular reason behind the creation of the project's own barnstar? A user perhaps?": Jacoplane made our barnstar—see User talk:Jacoplane/archive4#Current Events Barnstar for a conversation regarding its creation. Pagra shtak 17:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
4) "How could the project improve? Greater input needed etc." A project is only as good as the editors that comprise it. Improving the writing skills of members and getting everybody on the same page will strengthen the project as a whole. Trying to get all the video game related articles to comply with Wikipedia's various policies, like Wikipedia:Notability and WP:NOT, is a sizable task that not everyone in the project knows how to do. Writing well-written, neutral prose is another area that not all members have experience in. Efforts to better connect projects members and consolidate resources have been in discussion and should be implemented in the near future. ( Guyinblack25 talk 17:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC))
6: How does anyone uninvolved in the project start off? As a newcomer to Wikipedia, I discovered the project through my interest in video game related articles and was quickly welcomed after posting on the project's talk page. I started off by offering to help out with ongoing work, such as processing articles that required cleanup or referencing. Since then I've started to get heavily stuck in to improving the quality of existing articles, as well as creating a couple of new ones. The project members have been really helpful in providing assessment and peer review of the work I've done, as well as helping me learn the ropes through mentoring. Gazimoff ( talk) 20:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I added a bit from my own experiences to Q6. dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 10:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Unless no one objects I will be moving categories (and perhaps a few articles) from Category:Video game genres to Category:Video games by genre to maintain consistent categorization with the other medium by genre categories. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Done. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
This is a good move. Maybe someone can also update the 20 or so video game genre articles to reflect the change? Randomran ( talk) 05:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
MobyGames.com is a commercial service. All the info available there should be available at Wikipedia itself and for free. Linking the user to a commercial service for info that should be available here is against the very purpose of Wikipedia. I also noticed that there are links on EVERY article; in a lot of cases these linked entries at MobyGames do not contain any actual information about the game at all, since MobyGames depends on the voluntary contributions of its visitors. These links smell a lot like they are there to generate traffic.
Here's a link to the discussion at WP's MobyGames article:
I think it's time to stop this nonsense and start removing the links from Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't a platform for advertisement.
DCEvoCE (
talk) 13:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkSearch/Mobygames.com: this is a list of all the pages with a mobygames link on it. There was a discussion on WikiProject Spam back some time about MobyGames, talking about the edits. I say remove them, but take in regard the edit history. Salavat ( talk) 13:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Probaby the same person linked StrategyWiki on Super Smash Bros. Melee. I reverted him once, but he replied with some bitter edit summary. I should have reverted him again, but I can't really be bothered with people like that. Doing so would be committing myself to some two-week debate with a person who won't listen to reason or see beyond their personal affiliations. It shouldn't be that way, but sadly it is. Oh damn, I guess I just assumed bad faith. Ashnard Talk Contribs 14:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick note on an argument used above, the fact that MobyGames has some more images is probably moot as we link to the game's official website, which probably contains more visual material anyway. For the rest, it is indeed redundant to the Wikipedia article. User:Krator ( t c) 20:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
This was discussed to death at the CoI/Noticeboard in August 2007. Please familiarize yourselves with the details of that thread (I attempted a summation in the final subthread).
Is there fresh evidence of mass-adding/spamming the links, and if so, have the person/people adding the links been warned/welcomed with details of WP:EL yet? As suggested everywhere (this thread, that thread, policies, wikiquette, etc) each link should be judged on its own merit; if it adds to, or even just confirms any details in an article, it should be retained. There is no justification for an eradication of the links to that site (nor for displaying such hostility to the site, but that's another kettle of fish).
As a specific quote reply: "... in a lot of cases these linked entries at MobyGames do not contain any actual information about the game at all, since MobyGames depends on the voluntary contributions of its visitors." – in a lot of cases, the Wikipedia article information was sourced from Mobygames. Both Wikipedia and Mobygames rely upon voluntary contributions from visitors.
I will move the 2 template's instructions to a /doc subpage, to make it even clearer when to and when not to add them. -- Quiddity ( talk) 00:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I suppose I would be the overly enthusiastic person that you all are referring too. I don't think anything that I say is going to change your opinions on this matter, but I will at least attempt to give this a shot. I am actually the original author of the referred-to content that was once contained on WikiKnowledge. That content was moved to WikiKnowledge when WikiBooks decided to forgo the inclusion of any video game content. And the content which was moved from WikiBooks was initially moved there in the first place when it was determined that move lists were not acceptable content on WP, which I had attempted to add at one point, and was refused.
Look, I know that there are more important things in life, but the enjoyment of wikis is the ability to share information with people, especially information that you happen to be knowledgeable about. I had, and continue to have, a desire to share the video game knowledge that I have with the world. The problem is, WP practically makes that a crime if it's not somewhat academic in nature. And I don't think Ryu's fireball motion, or one of the ninth-key patterns in Pac-Man is ever going to fall under that criteria. As much of a shame as that is, at least we can finally say that that information now has an acceptable home, in StrategyWiki.
Now, ironically, I agree completely with you about Moby Games. It is a commercial entity that operates on some kind of business model, and the information isn't freely editable (although you can contribute information to it to some extent). But the purpose of providing the StrategyWiki links is to inform wiki users that there is an acceptable place to contribute video game information that is deemed unacceptable on WP. Which would you prefer, one harmless link to SW, or the need to constantly revert information that is not permitted by WP's rather stringent standards?
Just try to see it from SW users' point of view. We are as passionate about the information that we have to share as you are about WP's articles. SW was designed to work in cooperation and tandem with WP, under the same theoretical principals, only about a different subject. In that sense, I would really like to see members of the Video game WikiProject embrace SW as opposed to fighting it. I guess I'm getting off my soap box. Let the flaming commence... Plotor ( talk) 20:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Quick and semi reasonable question that maybe someone will answer: whats the difference between linking to SW and Bulbapedia on every Pokemon article? Evaunit ♥666♥ 01:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I've only got two problems with StrategyWiki. First are cases when the target subject isn't even *completed* and it's already being linked. SF4 is a shining example of this: the article by far does not yet need any external strategy information. Secondly are cases where WikiKnowledge links got the axe for four or five individual character links linking to movelists depending on the character's version: this happened heavily in the Street Fighter character articles. And in the process, the links that were switched in actually covered *less* even when combined. There was no reason for it. In most cases in all honesty, if someone needs a guide they'll hit up gamefaqs or an easily readable page that gives all the info preferably in one shot. StategyWiki really isn't that.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 02:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
europe11
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).