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 65 | ← | Archive 67 | Archive 68 | Archive 69 | Archive 70 | Archive 71 | → | Archive 75 |
I started a discussion about clarification of some of the wording in WP:SPS in light of FF7 Famicon discussion at WT:Verifiability#Clarification on SPS statement. Feel free to chime in. じん ない 02:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I came across an article for a game called Mental Omega recently. Apparently, it's an unofficial mod for an expansion pak of a spin-off title in the Command and Conquer series. It makes no attempt to assert its notability except to note that it is an unofficial part of the Command and Conquer series and that it recieved an award from a website that specializes in mod news. Concerns about its notability have been brought up on the article's talk page, and there exists a notability tag on the article, but I wanted to find out once and for all if this thing has any hope of surviving an AfD before I do any work on it. Larrythefunkyferret ( talk) 07:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. I'll see if I can get it nominated for AfD. Who knows, it may inspire someone to find a reason why it's notable. Larrythefunkyferret ( talk) 05:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
It has been proposed that Half-Life 2: Episode Three (currently a stub) be merged into the Half-Life (series) article, any input would be appreciated. Cheers! Rehevkor ✉ 22:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick heads-up ... I change a fair number of speedy deletions (maybe 5% to 10%) into {{ prod-nn}}, and notify the relevant wikiproject by adding your project tag to the talk page. You guys probably know already that that will make the page show up here. I always give my rationale on the article talk page, and I'd appreciate your feedback on whether there was anything you wanted me to handle differently about your articles. - Dank ( push to talk) 22:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I posted a comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#PlayStation_palmar_hidradenitis, and, if available, would appreciate this community's feedback. Thanks in advance! --- kilbad ( talk) 15:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Someone did cut and paste moves of Sega division pages and now their histories are broken, could someone fix them?
That's all that I noticed. -- Mika1h ( talk) 16:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Is there existing guidance for how to measure whether video games are notable enough to be included in Wikipedia? If not, do members of the WikiProject think it might be worthwhile creating such guidelines? My query comes as more and more games are being created for the iPhone and suchlike, with the authors or fans creating articles on Wikipedia. Some of these games are extremely minor and shouldn't be included, but is there a particular line we can draw? Cheers. Greg Tyler ( t • c) 20:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
A whole bunch of text-interface turn-based Star Trek tactical starship games from the 1970's have turned up for deletion at WP:PROD (see WP:PRODSUM for 6 May) with a flimsy excuse for a rationale ("Any evidence of notability?" - a question, not an actual rationale) because if the nominator ever actually read the article, the question would be resolved by the claims made in the article. (which is not the same as actually being true, but nevertheless, it's there). If you wish to keep the articles, just delete the PROD template. 76.66.202.139 ( talk) 06:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Topic pretty much says it all, I'm after a source that covers the design specifications of the cartridge in terms of hardware and programming. Official would probably be best, but something third party yet reliable would be helpful as well.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 07:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, could someone from this WikiProject look at this FLC? It desperately needs reviews. Dabomb87 ( talk) 22:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
There's a section on Sports game called Notable sports games by type of sport. Firstly, it's an eye-sore. Secondly, it's superfluous. Thirdly, it's unmaintainable. I direct you all to Category:Sports video games, its contents, and all their sub-contents. We have a helluva lot of Sports video games categorised there and I don't think anyone would ever suggest putting them all into the Sports game article.
So why the current list? It seems to imply specific notability above other games, but that's entirely subjective and opinionated. Also, we don't have it for other genres. And with those categories in place, it serves no use as navigation. Hence, I want to remove it. But, seeing as it makes up a good quarter of that article, I didn't want to do so without discussing it with the VG community. Does anyone have any objection to an all-out removal of this? Greg Tyler ( t • c) 19:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I've begun work on a very important project for WP:VG. I've grabbed links to all of the AFDs over the past year, and I've begun sorting them into categories based on the types of content. If you've seen Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, then you know that analyzing actual AFD data can let us make valuable conclusions about what's appropriate or inappropriate for Wikipedia.
Here is the AFD data that I'm looking at:
User:Randomran/VGAFD. As you can see, I've sorted the first two three months already.
The reason why this data important is because it will help provide an objective basis to discuss our guidelines on video game content. According to
WP:POLICY, the major source of our policies is "Documenting actual good practices and seeking consensus that the documentation truly reflects them." I've organized data on VG AFDs from just two three months, and already some trends are becoming obvious. This will help us guarantee that articles that deserve to be kept are kept, and articles that deserve to be deleted will be deleted, and maybe even give us some guidance on everything in between.
In the long run, I'd like to put all the data into a magnificent table, with sortable columns. (By date, by name, by outcome, and by type of content.) But in the short run, I have to go through the pain-staking process of pulling apart the AFDs on different kinds of articles. Most articles are on actual games, but many are on companies, people, characters, mods, websites, and so on. I've been doing it one month at a time.
Would anyone care to adopt a month or two worth of AFD data, and help sort them into subsections/categories? Randomran ( talk) 02:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey there. I'm sorry, but I'm unable to devote time to this project at the moment. Way too much stuff going on in my personal and work life right now. Thanks for the invite, tho - good luck! — KieferSkunk ( talk) — 06:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I added March 08. My suggestion is just to start a scratch page in your userspace and copy the format from random's list. Use the actual AfD log, not the deletion sorting list. It should take about 1-2 hours to do a whole month. Protonk ( talk) 23:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I was about to do some work on a list and was checking the current featured list and noticed an inconsistency. On List of Sega 32X games the EU/PAL region is listed as EU where as List of N64 games lists PAL instead. The N64 even says "EUR" in the opening paragraph. I simply figured it should be consistent across articles.
Personally, I would go with EUR as neither use NTSC instead of NA or PAL for Japan. Crimsonfox ( talk) 01:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello everyone. There's a discussion taking place about whether the just-announced Pokémon HeartGold and SoulSilver should have an article or just a section on the Pokémon Gold and Silver article. It should be noted that the article is currently merged, so it's actually more of a "split" discussion. Just letting you guys know in case anyone wants to participate. Cheers. - sesuPRIME talk • contribs 06:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
This image was tagged as being in the public domain, which I don't think it is. Am I missing something that I don't know about? MuZemike 16:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
R3match is a highly used website for clan matches and singles matches for the Xbox and PS3. Is the website notable enough to have it's own article?--( NGG) 20:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey there,
I was looking through D&D articles lately and I noticed that of all the articles with a template indicating that we are lacking any sources, there are several video game related articles. Anyone care to dig up a source or two and improve any of these articles? :) Thanks!
There are plenty of other cleanup issues, but lacking sources is a serious one, so I figured I'd bring that up first. :) BOZ ( talk) 22:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure there've been discussions on this before, so if someone knows about them and can either point me to them or summarize them for me, that'd be awesome. In Talk:Mega Drive, there's a discussion currently going on about whether the Mega Drive/Genesis is properly classified as a "16-bit" console, or if "16/32-bit" is a more proper designation because the CPU is 32-bit capable. I've already said my piece there, that "16-bit" not only is appropriate because of the architecture of the rest of the machine, but also because that's how it's marketed and how every reliable source we have on the topic refers to the machine. User:Theaveng seems to believe that a console's "bitness" is always determined by the capabilities of the CPU, though, and he and I disagree on some of the finer points of the Mega Drive's CPU's capabilities and uses.
In general, though, I'd like to ask what the consensus is on what defines the "bitness" of a console. Is there an actual definition for it? Is it based on technical specs, marketing, some combination of both? Just curious, so I'll have a better idea of how to handle these kinds of discussions if/when they come up again. Thanks. — KieferSkunk ( talk) — 21:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm surprised how this discussion already went this long without the mention of the Atari Jaguar, which is apparently not 64-bit (I know, crossing into WP:NOTFORUM territory). MuZemike 07:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm still of the opinion that as we all know it as a 16-bit console, and all the sources and the manufacturer say it's 16-bit, so should we. The CPU having 32-bit elements or capabilities that are unused in the Mega Drive is all very well, but seems irrelevant to the console and should be covered on the CPU's own page. Miremare 15:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Since both statements can be verified, it should be listed by what most relaible sources say, which in this case is 16-bit. Inside the article, you describe that it was "marketed" as 16-bit, but had some 32-bit functions. Saying its 32-bit when very little was not only gives undue weight to those sources, but also to the architecture inside it. じん ない 06:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Has the potential to be a quite an intriguing article - more sources would be grand. My nintendo experience is limited to Gamecube and things subsequent. :) Casliber ( talk · contribs) 14:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
It has recently been brought to my attention that the series of articles and categories is in need of a serious look at. Categories as well because I was just being bold and emptied 2 categories of 3 entries each a category for FF1 video games and a category for FF2 video games, both of which also were covered in the parent category.
Right now there are still a lot of subcategories left in Category:Final Fantasy games. As for right now the number of divisions for a seperate category for each other main title game and Chocobo games. With the exception of Category:Chocobo games and Category:Final Fantasy VII I don't think any of them has enough to warrant a level of sub-categorization and FF7 does not need its own sub-categorization. It appears FF series has a case of overcategoization.
As for the articles themselves, I note first a number of inconistancies with other WP:VG practices. First Final Fantasy I and II (compilations). I do not believe we make seperate articles for compilations unless the content warrants it and the amount of real-world impact and changes could easily be covered under each article. Final Fantasy IV (Nintendo DS) could also be covered in the same way Dragon Quest IV covers its DS version, which if we are considering this a remake, then the latter is probably a more radical remake than the former. Then there is a Final Fantasy VII (Famicom) remake article which all the real-world information soruces seem to be from dubious, at best WP:SPSs with only 1 name I recognize on the list and even then it's a pretty common name (and the article doesn't give a profile so I can't verify its the person I'm thinking of), thus I think a lot of the content may even fail WP:V, let alone WP:N. A a few others as well in some of the subcategories, like Final Fantasy Anthology which offers absolutely no new gameplay but is just a compliation port.
Beyond that, several of the character and media pages fail WP:N. While and may also appear to favor more newer releases over older ones. Beyond Final Fantasy VII which had historic impact, most of the series, aside from the main protagonist, do not have enough to have stand-alone child articles.
It's my belief that the series of articles is in gross violation of WP:Content forking. じん ない 05:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Since FF7 Fam's article is a pet article of mine and someone wishes to call it out (ironic given weren't you the one to support Chrono Compendium as a source Jinnai?): The article's primary source, Derrick Sobodash, is a published journalist with articles in even PiQ. Brandon Sheffield, the insertcredit editor cited, has his own list of credentials. Joel Johnson, the Boing Boing Gadgets fellow cited, is a writer for Wired News. GPara.com is a source readily cited by other news sources and even one google books result. Luke Plunkett is an established editor at Kotaku, Baidu has its own credentials...you know I'm rather tired of rattling off source at this point, especially given I've been playing through the thing to write out the plot section (which really is mostly FF7's original plot).
This was handled in very poor form Jinnai. Not only did you rush in but you opted not to inform any of the major editors working on the articles that you were rushing in like this. I'm particularly annoyed over this however after the tooth and nail AfD that went down and the fallout rubbish I had to endure from that just to be greeted with this months later. I am assuming good faith here, but I am annoyed at the same time.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 07:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
No offense, but the way this discussion is being handled is ridiculous. "Final Fantasy series cleanup". That's more than 100 articles. You should have started individual discussions on the articles' talk pages; there's no way we can properly discuss dozens of different cases and topics and have de facto two or more GA Reviews on this single section of talk page. Kariteh ( talk) 16:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I've been digging around online for awhile and believe I have enough reception for a full article for the character, but what's lacking is development information, outside of tidbits for his appearance in Dissidia. Anyone know of any good sources to use while I prop the article up?-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 12:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, so, here's the deal.
Lunar I is getting remade, again, this time for PSP. The current remakes for Lunar I are spread between 2 pages (Sega CD, GBA, and PSP on one page - PS1, Saturn, and PC on the other), with the only real dividing line being whether it has "Complete" in the name or not. I got both articles to GA over a year ago, but as time went by, I found that the small differences between each game don't necessarily warrant separate pages. In the grand scheme of things, it's all just Lunar I. At the same time, I have no problem keeping the articles separate, but they might be more useful as one singular resource instead of splitting all the info across two pages. Not to mention that, in their current state, Lunar Legend (the GBA version) has no development or reception info since it was hastily merged a while back, and is really more of a remake of Complete than the original Silver Star (of course, we could always un-merge it, but then we'd just have more articles for the same thing). What I propose is that, after trimming some development and story info, and possibly moving the music to a separate "discography" page, merge all six versions of the game into one cohesive article complete with appropriate development and reception info, with each re-direct leading to a well-defined portion of the gestault-article. If this is a good idea, the same process will be done to Lunar II and its remakes, as well as Walking School and its one remake, but I'd like some input either way.
Oh, and about Walking School - I think that it and its remake remake are actually the last articles to still use translated article names despite never being released in English (I created them in 2005 when English titles were still protocol). So that might have to get fixed, too. Nall ( talk) 20:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey there. :) Looking around at the few dozen D&D computer/video game articles we have, there are still quite a few that have no picture of the game box, and some that don't have an infobox either, although many are just fine. If you're the sort of person who likes to add such things to articles, here is a project for you. :)
Needs picture
(has picture, but it's not the box cover)
Needs infobox and picture
BOZ ( talk) 02:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
FYI, is Today's Featured Article. Keep on watch as usual. MuZemike 02:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Awhile back I cleaned out the Dead or Alive character articles and ran across this one, leaving it because it was GA. However looking back at the article I'm having some doubts. References in it are doubled in the same area, and the reception section is partially from one reviewer, but the other half is from Microsoft themselves which is an odd juxtaposition. I think it could be trimmed down and put into the character list because there just doesn't seem to be any meat.
Basically asking for opinions before I do anything.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 11:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Template:WikiProject Video games has been changed to - I believe - reflect changes in the {{ WPBannerMeta}} department. This has led to all our categories being renamed "importance" rather than priority. For example, Category:Low-priority video game articles is now Category:Low-importance video game articles. Is this change to stay? In which case, we need to start moving the descriptions from each old category to the new one. I'm willing to do it but didn't want to if someone's going to change it back to priority again tomorrow. Greg Tyler ( t • c) 08:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I've been observing good articles in multiple projects and it seems like all projects have a different way of writing article(Example: When we write a lead, we split it in 3: intro, plot and reception but WP:NOVELS bunches all their info together in one paragraph). So users new to the project may not be sure how to write a good video game article. So maybe we should make a guide that can be accessed from the side bar that tells users how to write articles under WP:VG. What do you guys think?--( NGG) 12:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Any other input on the draft, or is it ready for the VG project's seal of approval? ( Guyinblack25 talk 15:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC))
I just noticed this was made. It seems like just game guide content at best. Thoughts? RobJ1981 ( talk) 19:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Braid's 2nd FAC is barely getting input and getting close to being closed; a few more eyes to help provide feedback would be great. -- MASEM ( t) 22:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I have proposed a merge of the Dragon Ball Z Budokai articles here. Please participate in the discussion so that consensus on whether or not the merge should go through can be reached. DBZROCKS Its over 9000!!! 00:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss is at FAC, but it hasn't had much traffic. Additional reviews would be appreciated, so the article's remaining problems can be dealt with quickly. Thanks. JimmyBlackwing ( talk) 23:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
User:Cander0000 just moved F1 (Domark) to F1 (Video game). There was discussion on the game before about moving and the article title. I just wanted to ask the community if the title move is okay or needs changing. Regards Govvy ( talk) 18:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Particularly, they're mostly projects. I have no idea if any one of these articles will turn out good enough! - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 10:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
If you're interested in working on any of these articles, put your name next to it so I know who to talk to in relation to what
Basically, if anyone's interested in any of these subjects, give me a ring-a-ding-ding. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 10:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.
We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.
If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 07:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
A question of terminology: what is a video game franchise? Is a two-game series a franchise? I'd think we'd all agree that Mega Man and Mario are franchises, but is Mario Sports a franchise? Is the MMX or MMZ series a franchise?
I ask because I saw {{ Franchises by Capcom}}, which is a good illustration of the variety of things that get called franchises, from a series with two and a half games, none of which made a significant critical or artistic impact (Bionic Commando, much as I love it) to a series that would be used as an example in the lead of video game franchise if we had that article (Mega Man). - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire - past ops) 23:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
The peer review for Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson, an article within the scope of the Military history WikiProject, is now open. The Military history WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
a whole raft of Star Trek games have shown up at AfD. 76.66.202.139 ( talk) 06:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Guys - I'm filing this to get a more concrete consensus on the purpose of this template, as there appears to be ongoing issues as to people wanting to continuously turn it in to a giant list of consoles. Current consensus established via the talk page is that the template is for consoles that are notable for representing their generation. I.E. are notable for being the main competitors/representatives/icons of that generation - such as Wii/Xbox360/PS3 for the current generation. A listing of all consoles already exists via a link at the top of the template, which goes to List of video game consoles. Some people have wanted to add consoles to the list simply because they exist/existed, others because they may be notable for other reasons (such as one person wanting the Amiga CD-32 claiming its the "first" 32 bit console and should therefore be included). Perhaps the template needs a name change as well, which was suggested during one of the recent discussions as well. Input from the members of this project would be appreciated, as I'm getting tired of being one of several main enforcers of this consensus, and don't want to border on WP:ownership. -- Marty Goldberg ( talk) 06:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
There's an edit war on the box art and whether branding is allowed on a box art image or whether it supposed to be edited out in order to be platform neutral. AFAIK, there's no standard established by the project. Thanks to anyone who can step in and solve this issue. - Liontamer ( talk) 08:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
As a bi-product of the above. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines#Guidelines_-_Possible_conflict_with_WP:NOR - X201 ( talk) 12:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I moved inFamous to Infamous (video game) but it retained the lower case "i". How it could be changed to a capital letter? -- Mika1h ( talk) 20:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello everyone. Blue Dragon has become a featured article nomination. All comments are welcomed and wanted. So far only one person has left a review and did not support or oppose yet. Remember, your !vote always counts. Thanks,--( NGG) 13:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks like the previous post got archived! Thanks especially to Salavat, Silentaria, and anyone else who helped out!
We still have a few that have no picture of the game box, and some that don't have an infobox either. If you're the sort of person who likes to add such things to articles, feel free to help finish this off. :)
BOZ ( talk) 15:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
This one passed its recent FAC. :) Help me to remember in, say 5-6 months, to start promoting this one for TFA consideration; December 12, 2009 (in addition to being my birthday!) will be the tenth anniversary of its release! BOZ ( talk) 15:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the notability of Block Dude. The only "reliable" links in the article are to the game itself. It has no major developer or publisher and is a "calculator game". Should a prod be added?--( NGG) 03:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I think this is one of those rare instances where you have a well known game that's tough to find sources to confirm notability for because it's so ubiquitous. You'd have just as hard of a time finding reviews for Minesweeper, Solitaire, or even Chip's Challenge. Nobody needs to review it, because there's no need to convince anyone to buy it. It simply comes with the system. I definitely think it should be kept.-- Remurmur ( talk) 20:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
This article's bothered me for some time, and I went ahead and downgraded it to C, and kinda lean towards thinking than an AfD may be a good idea. The main problem with the article is that, while large and reference heavy...it's all in-universe in terms of style. The development section doesn't even mention the development of the race for the game, just mentions design evolutions, and the reception that is given is bare bones and hardly specific to them. So what are the thoughts towards the article?-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 02:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I think that the category Category:Street Fighter techniques should be merged up one level, as there is only one article in the cat. I don't particularly think that other techniques would be notable enough to make articles for. Would the project think that this is a good idea before I put it up on CFD? — Goodtimber ( walk/ talk) 16:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Given a few of the threads above, we probably should issue some guidance on when it is appropriate to create an article on a remake or port of a game to a difference system.
In general, these should not get their own article unless they are necessary. This is determined by a number of factors:
- Changes that are considered "signifigant" enough to warrant a remake being spun-out into its own seperate article require to at least 2/4: graphics & sound, gameplay, plot and/or development. Changes to the first three would have to radically alter the player's experience to the game while the latter would be signifigant issues, such as problems or radical innovations.
Kinda related, but something I've been curious about on this subject: for remakes that warrant their own article, how much of the content do we treat from the parent game as unique to itself? This comes more apparent in cases of RPGs where a game can have a similar storyline and characters but divergent content: spelling out the content is a different tune than simply pointing out the differences. The problem is chunks of said content will probably end up copied from the parent game's article anyway. So what's the verdict on this?-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 17:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Ports/Remakes
When multiple versions of a game have been made before spinning out the article into multiple articles for each version careful consideration should be made about whether it is appropriate. First and foremost are reliable secondary sources that establish notability of the different version. In addition, the splitting of the article must not endanger the notability and verifiability of the parent article; one should also take into consideration the status of feature and good articles and consider the impact a spinout would have on their status. However, that alone is not enough as spinning out in some cases can be considered content forking. For this, several criteria must also be met before splitting. An article must meet at least two of the following: (For terms of this guideline, significant is defined as altering the original enough that it becomes an entire new playing experience based upon the changes.)
In addition, the real-world impact must be shown to have had unique real-world impact based upon the above criteria in either:
In addition, the element of time can be used as a deciding factor in close cases. For direct ports with little to no change a separate article should almost never be made as it would likely be considered content forking, even if it was remade as part of a compilation. じん ない 17:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Too broad. It would allow you in development section to just talk about release dates, major publicity events, screenshot releases, etc. without really adding any unique development info of why the remake is well...unique enough to warrant its own article. Reception also about a games storyline, graphics or gameplay that can easily be related back to the original doesn't really add to the notability of a unqiue game. じん ない 05:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
If you can verify enough information to write a non-stub section about the remake's distinct reception, as well as a non-stub section about its distinct game development or distinct game design, then the remake will quality for its own article if splitting it does not endanger the notability of the parent article. Otherwise, the few distinct aspects of the remake should be covered in the article about the original game.
Something like that I could accept. じん ない 22:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
If you can verify enough information to write a non-stub section about the remake's distinct reception, as well as a non-stub section about its distinct game development or distinct game design, then the remake will quality for its own article. However, having a separate should not endanger the notability of the parent article. Otherwise, the few distinct aspects of the remake should be covered in the article about the original game.
The text has been largely static for about a week. Before anyone adds this, I'm asking for a last call for comments on the wording:
If you can verify enough information to write a non-stub section about the remake's distinct reception, as well as a non-stub section about its distinct game development or distinct game design, then the remake will quality for its own article. However, having a separate should not endanger the notability of the parent article. Otherwise, the few distinct aspects of the remake should be covered in the article about the original game.
じん ない 20:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
If you can verify enough information to write a non-stub section about the remake's distinct reception, as well as a non-stub section about its distinct game development or distinct game design, then the remake will qualify for its own article. However, having a separate article should not endanger the notability of the parent article. If there is not enough distinct information on the remake for a complete article, the few distinct aspects of the remake should be covered in the original game's article.
If you can verify enough information to write a non-stub section about the remake's distinct reception, as well as a non-stub section about its distinct game development or distinct game design, then the remake will qualify for its own article. However, having a separate article should not endanger the notability of the parent article. If there is not enough distinct information on the remake for a complete article, the few distinct aspects of the remake should be covered in the original game's article.
Does anyone know how to merge these two articles together? They seem to be two different articles and I don't know how to merge them correctly. GamerPro64 ( talk) 19:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
But why not? They're baseicly the same game. GamerPro64 ( talk) 19:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I wanna hear a second opinion before I will forget about it. GamerPro64 ( talk) 19:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
There Notes and References of both the same as one another. So that should be enough to merge the two. GamerPro64 ( talk) 23:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
One of the reasons I contribute to the Wikipedia is that I believe it is a perfect medium for preserving history that would otherwise disappear when someone forgets to pay their ISP bill. One such field is retrocompuing, which I think the Wiki is absolutely perfect for. Instead of hundreds of fan sites, we can collect that information, clean it up, and present it well into the future.
One problem, however, is that the early days of home computing is actually very poorly preserved. There was a lengthy time between about 1975 and 1995, when the web became popular, where the only medium of "notability" was print magazines. Their coverage, especially of games, is extremely limited. So, for instance, someone recently put this game up for AfD on notability grounds, in spite of it being one of the most widely played games of the era (1975-1980).
Other wikiprojects face this problem as well, and have come up with their own NOT guidelines t reflect a paucity of information. Is there any interest in doing the same here?
Maury Markowitz ( talk) 12:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Sooo, are there any conclusions here? Do we think it might be reasonable to ask for a lower threshold of notability for games in this era? Maury Markowitz ( talk) 00:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
So the reason I ask about this is that the classic Star Trek (text game) was AfD'd. I'm sure most of the readers here will be familiar with this game, which was widely played on early home computers. But the game came out of an era where there was very little reportage on the topic of games outside of the arcade setting. I appealed to common sense, but it appears no one cares about that any more. So what should we do in these cases? Allow deletion of perfectly valid, and IMHO important, content because that decade of books hasn't hit Google Books yet? That seems extreme. Maury Markowitz ( talk) 15:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello everyone. Does the just-announced " Metroid Prime Trilogy" warrant its own article? It's nothing more than the New Play Control! versions of Prime and Prime 2 packaged with Prime 3 on a single disc. I think it's destined to either remain a stub or violate WP:CFORK. - sesuPRIME talk • contribs 19:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)The guideline page has been updated with the new remake guidelines. If it can meet those, then it would get its own page, if its a video game remake and not a video game port. If its a latter is almost certain in violation of WP:Content forking to have a separate article. 陣 内 Jinnai 20:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Looking at this I'm wondering if we have a page for exploits in general, rather than specifically tied to only online gaming. As far as I can tell, the only other article that remotely covers this is Exploit (computer security) which is more about stuff like DNS. Should we even have an article on exploits? I don't think if we don't have one in general we shouldn't have one for online gaming as its a base topic. 陣 内 Jinnai 00:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Apparently, there is an image that is not displaying correctly for a particular editor. He believes this is justification for removing it from the article. See here: Talk:Blood Bowl (2009 video game)#Pic in development section. It has not been determined what the cause of the problem is, i.e. whether it's purely on the user's end or if there is a problem with the file itself. It displays fine on my computer, though, and I assume the uploader didn't have a problem with it either. Assuming it's not a problem with the file itself, or an issue of exceeding fair use, what would be the proper course of action for handling something like this? Ham Pastrami ( talk) 02:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Just noticed that this logo has been uploaded to Commons. Its stated to not reach the threshold of originality as it is "simple geometric shapes and text". I think that's highly debatable, for one the trademark Counter-Strike image of the man with the gun can hardly be described as a "simple geometric shape"; as far as I'm concerned, its a typical case of a non-free image being mistakenly uploaded as a free image. Any opinions? It's currently in use at Counter-Strike; use at Condition Zero and Counter-Strike: Source is redundant as the logo is already incorporated into the box arts. -- Sabre ( talk) 13:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Question. Did the pictures get deleted or is my computer messed up? GamerPro64 ( talk) 17:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
An IP has made the following edits: [2] and [3]. Can anyone verify if these claims are true? I am away from home and my PS3 and thus cannot see for myself if thse songs have been removed from the PSN and I cannot see any sources online noting as much. I emailed Konami, but have not yet received a response. IPs have in the past made claims on that page about DLC being discontinued only to have a couple weeks later new songs released and so I am wondering if this is the same or if the PSN has actually for the first time I can think of actually removed DLC songs. Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 08:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
User:Hallo1198 has been contributing alot to this article, and they have horrible grammer and are probably adding alot of un-needed information. Who wants to go in and fix this? I'm not good with people. lol. See here for their contributions to the article. -- Blake ( talk) 20:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Add the roster back to wrestling video games Chelo61 ( talk) 01:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
That is not my account. I am not the only one who wants the rosters back. Chelo61 ( talk) 02:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
You can't play a wrestling video game without a roster. It gives you information about which wrestlers are in the game. Chelo61 ( talk) 00:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
This article needs someone to check for close paraphrasing, I tried to fix it once, but didn't help. I made some changes, trying to fix it, again, and wanted someone to look over them. Thanks, mynameinc ( t| c| p) 23:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC).
I've come across this term in lots of articles, and even on the animated WP:Video games ad. Strictly speaking, aren't computer games a type of video game, just likes console and arcade games?-- CoolingGibbon ( talk) 18:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
While we are having a dispute, should we cover articles that are not video games, like Guitar Queer O and Make love, not Warcraft? GamerPro64 ( talk) 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I think it's better for consistency/organization's sake (at the very least for the purposes of our project) to use only one term or the other—not both. I don't really care which. SharkD ( talk) 07:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I gotta admit I don't see too much of an issue. I myself use the terms Computer Game and Video Game to mean entirely different things, but I don't think anyone would look at WPVG and get confused. Calling the group WikiProject Video and Computer Games is far less appealing, and won't achieve much extra. I don't think there's a chance that anyone sees this group and then leaves because they wanted to write about Diablo or Civ4. I think our definition is pretty clear - if it relates to electronic games run on machines, then we cover it. ~ Amory ( talk) 14:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 65 | ← | Archive 67 | Archive 68 | Archive 69 | Archive 70 | Archive 71 | → | Archive 75 |
I started a discussion about clarification of some of the wording in WP:SPS in light of FF7 Famicon discussion at WT:Verifiability#Clarification on SPS statement. Feel free to chime in. じん ない 02:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I came across an article for a game called Mental Omega recently. Apparently, it's an unofficial mod for an expansion pak of a spin-off title in the Command and Conquer series. It makes no attempt to assert its notability except to note that it is an unofficial part of the Command and Conquer series and that it recieved an award from a website that specializes in mod news. Concerns about its notability have been brought up on the article's talk page, and there exists a notability tag on the article, but I wanted to find out once and for all if this thing has any hope of surviving an AfD before I do any work on it. Larrythefunkyferret ( talk) 07:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. I'll see if I can get it nominated for AfD. Who knows, it may inspire someone to find a reason why it's notable. Larrythefunkyferret ( talk) 05:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
It has been proposed that Half-Life 2: Episode Three (currently a stub) be merged into the Half-Life (series) article, any input would be appreciated. Cheers! Rehevkor ✉ 22:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick heads-up ... I change a fair number of speedy deletions (maybe 5% to 10%) into {{ prod-nn}}, and notify the relevant wikiproject by adding your project tag to the talk page. You guys probably know already that that will make the page show up here. I always give my rationale on the article talk page, and I'd appreciate your feedback on whether there was anything you wanted me to handle differently about your articles. - Dank ( push to talk) 22:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I posted a comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#PlayStation_palmar_hidradenitis, and, if available, would appreciate this community's feedback. Thanks in advance! --- kilbad ( talk) 15:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Someone did cut and paste moves of Sega division pages and now their histories are broken, could someone fix them?
That's all that I noticed. -- Mika1h ( talk) 16:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Is there existing guidance for how to measure whether video games are notable enough to be included in Wikipedia? If not, do members of the WikiProject think it might be worthwhile creating such guidelines? My query comes as more and more games are being created for the iPhone and suchlike, with the authors or fans creating articles on Wikipedia. Some of these games are extremely minor and shouldn't be included, but is there a particular line we can draw? Cheers. Greg Tyler ( t • c) 20:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
A whole bunch of text-interface turn-based Star Trek tactical starship games from the 1970's have turned up for deletion at WP:PROD (see WP:PRODSUM for 6 May) with a flimsy excuse for a rationale ("Any evidence of notability?" - a question, not an actual rationale) because if the nominator ever actually read the article, the question would be resolved by the claims made in the article. (which is not the same as actually being true, but nevertheless, it's there). If you wish to keep the articles, just delete the PROD template. 76.66.202.139 ( talk) 06:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Topic pretty much says it all, I'm after a source that covers the design specifications of the cartridge in terms of hardware and programming. Official would probably be best, but something third party yet reliable would be helpful as well.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 07:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, could someone from this WikiProject look at this FLC? It desperately needs reviews. Dabomb87 ( talk) 22:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
There's a section on Sports game called Notable sports games by type of sport. Firstly, it's an eye-sore. Secondly, it's superfluous. Thirdly, it's unmaintainable. I direct you all to Category:Sports video games, its contents, and all their sub-contents. We have a helluva lot of Sports video games categorised there and I don't think anyone would ever suggest putting them all into the Sports game article.
So why the current list? It seems to imply specific notability above other games, but that's entirely subjective and opinionated. Also, we don't have it for other genres. And with those categories in place, it serves no use as navigation. Hence, I want to remove it. But, seeing as it makes up a good quarter of that article, I didn't want to do so without discussing it with the VG community. Does anyone have any objection to an all-out removal of this? Greg Tyler ( t • c) 19:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I've begun work on a very important project for WP:VG. I've grabbed links to all of the AFDs over the past year, and I've begun sorting them into categories based on the types of content. If you've seen Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, then you know that analyzing actual AFD data can let us make valuable conclusions about what's appropriate or inappropriate for Wikipedia.
Here is the AFD data that I'm looking at:
User:Randomran/VGAFD. As you can see, I've sorted the first two three months already.
The reason why this data important is because it will help provide an objective basis to discuss our guidelines on video game content. According to
WP:POLICY, the major source of our policies is "Documenting actual good practices and seeking consensus that the documentation truly reflects them." I've organized data on VG AFDs from just two three months, and already some trends are becoming obvious. This will help us guarantee that articles that deserve to be kept are kept, and articles that deserve to be deleted will be deleted, and maybe even give us some guidance on everything in between.
In the long run, I'd like to put all the data into a magnificent table, with sortable columns. (By date, by name, by outcome, and by type of content.) But in the short run, I have to go through the pain-staking process of pulling apart the AFDs on different kinds of articles. Most articles are on actual games, but many are on companies, people, characters, mods, websites, and so on. I've been doing it one month at a time.
Would anyone care to adopt a month or two worth of AFD data, and help sort them into subsections/categories? Randomran ( talk) 02:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey there. I'm sorry, but I'm unable to devote time to this project at the moment. Way too much stuff going on in my personal and work life right now. Thanks for the invite, tho - good luck! — KieferSkunk ( talk) — 06:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I added March 08. My suggestion is just to start a scratch page in your userspace and copy the format from random's list. Use the actual AfD log, not the deletion sorting list. It should take about 1-2 hours to do a whole month. Protonk ( talk) 23:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I was about to do some work on a list and was checking the current featured list and noticed an inconsistency. On List of Sega 32X games the EU/PAL region is listed as EU where as List of N64 games lists PAL instead. The N64 even says "EUR" in the opening paragraph. I simply figured it should be consistent across articles.
Personally, I would go with EUR as neither use NTSC instead of NA or PAL for Japan. Crimsonfox ( talk) 01:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello everyone. There's a discussion taking place about whether the just-announced Pokémon HeartGold and SoulSilver should have an article or just a section on the Pokémon Gold and Silver article. It should be noted that the article is currently merged, so it's actually more of a "split" discussion. Just letting you guys know in case anyone wants to participate. Cheers. - sesuPRIME talk • contribs 06:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
This image was tagged as being in the public domain, which I don't think it is. Am I missing something that I don't know about? MuZemike 16:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
R3match is a highly used website for clan matches and singles matches for the Xbox and PS3. Is the website notable enough to have it's own article?--( NGG) 20:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey there,
I was looking through D&D articles lately and I noticed that of all the articles with a template indicating that we are lacking any sources, there are several video game related articles. Anyone care to dig up a source or two and improve any of these articles? :) Thanks!
There are plenty of other cleanup issues, but lacking sources is a serious one, so I figured I'd bring that up first. :) BOZ ( talk) 22:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure there've been discussions on this before, so if someone knows about them and can either point me to them or summarize them for me, that'd be awesome. In Talk:Mega Drive, there's a discussion currently going on about whether the Mega Drive/Genesis is properly classified as a "16-bit" console, or if "16/32-bit" is a more proper designation because the CPU is 32-bit capable. I've already said my piece there, that "16-bit" not only is appropriate because of the architecture of the rest of the machine, but also because that's how it's marketed and how every reliable source we have on the topic refers to the machine. User:Theaveng seems to believe that a console's "bitness" is always determined by the capabilities of the CPU, though, and he and I disagree on some of the finer points of the Mega Drive's CPU's capabilities and uses.
In general, though, I'd like to ask what the consensus is on what defines the "bitness" of a console. Is there an actual definition for it? Is it based on technical specs, marketing, some combination of both? Just curious, so I'll have a better idea of how to handle these kinds of discussions if/when they come up again. Thanks. — KieferSkunk ( talk) — 21:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm surprised how this discussion already went this long without the mention of the Atari Jaguar, which is apparently not 64-bit (I know, crossing into WP:NOTFORUM territory). MuZemike 07:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm still of the opinion that as we all know it as a 16-bit console, and all the sources and the manufacturer say it's 16-bit, so should we. The CPU having 32-bit elements or capabilities that are unused in the Mega Drive is all very well, but seems irrelevant to the console and should be covered on the CPU's own page. Miremare 15:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Since both statements can be verified, it should be listed by what most relaible sources say, which in this case is 16-bit. Inside the article, you describe that it was "marketed" as 16-bit, but had some 32-bit functions. Saying its 32-bit when very little was not only gives undue weight to those sources, but also to the architecture inside it. じん ない 06:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Has the potential to be a quite an intriguing article - more sources would be grand. My nintendo experience is limited to Gamecube and things subsequent. :) Casliber ( talk · contribs) 14:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
It has recently been brought to my attention that the series of articles and categories is in need of a serious look at. Categories as well because I was just being bold and emptied 2 categories of 3 entries each a category for FF1 video games and a category for FF2 video games, both of which also were covered in the parent category.
Right now there are still a lot of subcategories left in Category:Final Fantasy games. As for right now the number of divisions for a seperate category for each other main title game and Chocobo games. With the exception of Category:Chocobo games and Category:Final Fantasy VII I don't think any of them has enough to warrant a level of sub-categorization and FF7 does not need its own sub-categorization. It appears FF series has a case of overcategoization.
As for the articles themselves, I note first a number of inconistancies with other WP:VG practices. First Final Fantasy I and II (compilations). I do not believe we make seperate articles for compilations unless the content warrants it and the amount of real-world impact and changes could easily be covered under each article. Final Fantasy IV (Nintendo DS) could also be covered in the same way Dragon Quest IV covers its DS version, which if we are considering this a remake, then the latter is probably a more radical remake than the former. Then there is a Final Fantasy VII (Famicom) remake article which all the real-world information soruces seem to be from dubious, at best WP:SPSs with only 1 name I recognize on the list and even then it's a pretty common name (and the article doesn't give a profile so I can't verify its the person I'm thinking of), thus I think a lot of the content may even fail WP:V, let alone WP:N. A a few others as well in some of the subcategories, like Final Fantasy Anthology which offers absolutely no new gameplay but is just a compliation port.
Beyond that, several of the character and media pages fail WP:N. While and may also appear to favor more newer releases over older ones. Beyond Final Fantasy VII which had historic impact, most of the series, aside from the main protagonist, do not have enough to have stand-alone child articles.
It's my belief that the series of articles is in gross violation of WP:Content forking. じん ない 05:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Since FF7 Fam's article is a pet article of mine and someone wishes to call it out (ironic given weren't you the one to support Chrono Compendium as a source Jinnai?): The article's primary source, Derrick Sobodash, is a published journalist with articles in even PiQ. Brandon Sheffield, the insertcredit editor cited, has his own list of credentials. Joel Johnson, the Boing Boing Gadgets fellow cited, is a writer for Wired News. GPara.com is a source readily cited by other news sources and even one google books result. Luke Plunkett is an established editor at Kotaku, Baidu has its own credentials...you know I'm rather tired of rattling off source at this point, especially given I've been playing through the thing to write out the plot section (which really is mostly FF7's original plot).
This was handled in very poor form Jinnai. Not only did you rush in but you opted not to inform any of the major editors working on the articles that you were rushing in like this. I'm particularly annoyed over this however after the tooth and nail AfD that went down and the fallout rubbish I had to endure from that just to be greeted with this months later. I am assuming good faith here, but I am annoyed at the same time.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 07:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
No offense, but the way this discussion is being handled is ridiculous. "Final Fantasy series cleanup". That's more than 100 articles. You should have started individual discussions on the articles' talk pages; there's no way we can properly discuss dozens of different cases and topics and have de facto two or more GA Reviews on this single section of talk page. Kariteh ( talk) 16:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I've been digging around online for awhile and believe I have enough reception for a full article for the character, but what's lacking is development information, outside of tidbits for his appearance in Dissidia. Anyone know of any good sources to use while I prop the article up?-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 12:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, so, here's the deal.
Lunar I is getting remade, again, this time for PSP. The current remakes for Lunar I are spread between 2 pages (Sega CD, GBA, and PSP on one page - PS1, Saturn, and PC on the other), with the only real dividing line being whether it has "Complete" in the name or not. I got both articles to GA over a year ago, but as time went by, I found that the small differences between each game don't necessarily warrant separate pages. In the grand scheme of things, it's all just Lunar I. At the same time, I have no problem keeping the articles separate, but they might be more useful as one singular resource instead of splitting all the info across two pages. Not to mention that, in their current state, Lunar Legend (the GBA version) has no development or reception info since it was hastily merged a while back, and is really more of a remake of Complete than the original Silver Star (of course, we could always un-merge it, but then we'd just have more articles for the same thing). What I propose is that, after trimming some development and story info, and possibly moving the music to a separate "discography" page, merge all six versions of the game into one cohesive article complete with appropriate development and reception info, with each re-direct leading to a well-defined portion of the gestault-article. If this is a good idea, the same process will be done to Lunar II and its remakes, as well as Walking School and its one remake, but I'd like some input either way.
Oh, and about Walking School - I think that it and its remake remake are actually the last articles to still use translated article names despite never being released in English (I created them in 2005 when English titles were still protocol). So that might have to get fixed, too. Nall ( talk) 20:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey there. :) Looking around at the few dozen D&D computer/video game articles we have, there are still quite a few that have no picture of the game box, and some that don't have an infobox either, although many are just fine. If you're the sort of person who likes to add such things to articles, here is a project for you. :)
Needs picture
(has picture, but it's not the box cover)
Needs infobox and picture
BOZ ( talk) 02:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
FYI, is Today's Featured Article. Keep on watch as usual. MuZemike 02:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Awhile back I cleaned out the Dead or Alive character articles and ran across this one, leaving it because it was GA. However looking back at the article I'm having some doubts. References in it are doubled in the same area, and the reception section is partially from one reviewer, but the other half is from Microsoft themselves which is an odd juxtaposition. I think it could be trimmed down and put into the character list because there just doesn't seem to be any meat.
Basically asking for opinions before I do anything.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 11:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Template:WikiProject Video games has been changed to - I believe - reflect changes in the {{ WPBannerMeta}} department. This has led to all our categories being renamed "importance" rather than priority. For example, Category:Low-priority video game articles is now Category:Low-importance video game articles. Is this change to stay? In which case, we need to start moving the descriptions from each old category to the new one. I'm willing to do it but didn't want to if someone's going to change it back to priority again tomorrow. Greg Tyler ( t • c) 08:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I've been observing good articles in multiple projects and it seems like all projects have a different way of writing article(Example: When we write a lead, we split it in 3: intro, plot and reception but WP:NOVELS bunches all their info together in one paragraph). So users new to the project may not be sure how to write a good video game article. So maybe we should make a guide that can be accessed from the side bar that tells users how to write articles under WP:VG. What do you guys think?--( NGG) 12:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Any other input on the draft, or is it ready for the VG project's seal of approval? ( Guyinblack25 talk 15:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC))
I just noticed this was made. It seems like just game guide content at best. Thoughts? RobJ1981 ( talk) 19:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Braid's 2nd FAC is barely getting input and getting close to being closed; a few more eyes to help provide feedback would be great. -- MASEM ( t) 22:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I have proposed a merge of the Dragon Ball Z Budokai articles here. Please participate in the discussion so that consensus on whether or not the merge should go through can be reached. DBZROCKS Its over 9000!!! 00:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss is at FAC, but it hasn't had much traffic. Additional reviews would be appreciated, so the article's remaining problems can be dealt with quickly. Thanks. JimmyBlackwing ( talk) 23:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
User:Cander0000 just moved F1 (Domark) to F1 (Video game). There was discussion on the game before about moving and the article title. I just wanted to ask the community if the title move is okay or needs changing. Regards Govvy ( talk) 18:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Particularly, they're mostly projects. I have no idea if any one of these articles will turn out good enough! - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 10:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
If you're interested in working on any of these articles, put your name next to it so I know who to talk to in relation to what
Basically, if anyone's interested in any of these subjects, give me a ring-a-ding-ding. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 10:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.
We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.
If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 07:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
A question of terminology: what is a video game franchise? Is a two-game series a franchise? I'd think we'd all agree that Mega Man and Mario are franchises, but is Mario Sports a franchise? Is the MMX or MMZ series a franchise?
I ask because I saw {{ Franchises by Capcom}}, which is a good illustration of the variety of things that get called franchises, from a series with two and a half games, none of which made a significant critical or artistic impact (Bionic Commando, much as I love it) to a series that would be used as an example in the lead of video game franchise if we had that article (Mega Man). - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire - past ops) 23:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
The peer review for Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson, an article within the scope of the Military history WikiProject, is now open. The Military history WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
a whole raft of Star Trek games have shown up at AfD. 76.66.202.139 ( talk) 06:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Guys - I'm filing this to get a more concrete consensus on the purpose of this template, as there appears to be ongoing issues as to people wanting to continuously turn it in to a giant list of consoles. Current consensus established via the talk page is that the template is for consoles that are notable for representing their generation. I.E. are notable for being the main competitors/representatives/icons of that generation - such as Wii/Xbox360/PS3 for the current generation. A listing of all consoles already exists via a link at the top of the template, which goes to List of video game consoles. Some people have wanted to add consoles to the list simply because they exist/existed, others because they may be notable for other reasons (such as one person wanting the Amiga CD-32 claiming its the "first" 32 bit console and should therefore be included). Perhaps the template needs a name change as well, which was suggested during one of the recent discussions as well. Input from the members of this project would be appreciated, as I'm getting tired of being one of several main enforcers of this consensus, and don't want to border on WP:ownership. -- Marty Goldberg ( talk) 06:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
There's an edit war on the box art and whether branding is allowed on a box art image or whether it supposed to be edited out in order to be platform neutral. AFAIK, there's no standard established by the project. Thanks to anyone who can step in and solve this issue. - Liontamer ( talk) 08:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
As a bi-product of the above. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines#Guidelines_-_Possible_conflict_with_WP:NOR - X201 ( talk) 12:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I moved inFamous to Infamous (video game) but it retained the lower case "i". How it could be changed to a capital letter? -- Mika1h ( talk) 20:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello everyone. Blue Dragon has become a featured article nomination. All comments are welcomed and wanted. So far only one person has left a review and did not support or oppose yet. Remember, your !vote always counts. Thanks,--( NGG) 13:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks like the previous post got archived! Thanks especially to Salavat, Silentaria, and anyone else who helped out!
We still have a few that have no picture of the game box, and some that don't have an infobox either. If you're the sort of person who likes to add such things to articles, feel free to help finish this off. :)
BOZ ( talk) 15:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
This one passed its recent FAC. :) Help me to remember in, say 5-6 months, to start promoting this one for TFA consideration; December 12, 2009 (in addition to being my birthday!) will be the tenth anniversary of its release! BOZ ( talk) 15:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the notability of Block Dude. The only "reliable" links in the article are to the game itself. It has no major developer or publisher and is a "calculator game". Should a prod be added?--( NGG) 03:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I think this is one of those rare instances where you have a well known game that's tough to find sources to confirm notability for because it's so ubiquitous. You'd have just as hard of a time finding reviews for Minesweeper, Solitaire, or even Chip's Challenge. Nobody needs to review it, because there's no need to convince anyone to buy it. It simply comes with the system. I definitely think it should be kept.-- Remurmur ( talk) 20:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
This article's bothered me for some time, and I went ahead and downgraded it to C, and kinda lean towards thinking than an AfD may be a good idea. The main problem with the article is that, while large and reference heavy...it's all in-universe in terms of style. The development section doesn't even mention the development of the race for the game, just mentions design evolutions, and the reception that is given is bare bones and hardly specific to them. So what are the thoughts towards the article?-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 02:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I think that the category Category:Street Fighter techniques should be merged up one level, as there is only one article in the cat. I don't particularly think that other techniques would be notable enough to make articles for. Would the project think that this is a good idea before I put it up on CFD? — Goodtimber ( walk/ talk) 16:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Given a few of the threads above, we probably should issue some guidance on when it is appropriate to create an article on a remake or port of a game to a difference system.
In general, these should not get their own article unless they are necessary. This is determined by a number of factors:
- Changes that are considered "signifigant" enough to warrant a remake being spun-out into its own seperate article require to at least 2/4: graphics & sound, gameplay, plot and/or development. Changes to the first three would have to radically alter the player's experience to the game while the latter would be signifigant issues, such as problems or radical innovations.
Kinda related, but something I've been curious about on this subject: for remakes that warrant their own article, how much of the content do we treat from the parent game as unique to itself? This comes more apparent in cases of RPGs where a game can have a similar storyline and characters but divergent content: spelling out the content is a different tune than simply pointing out the differences. The problem is chunks of said content will probably end up copied from the parent game's article anyway. So what's the verdict on this?-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 17:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Ports/Remakes
When multiple versions of a game have been made before spinning out the article into multiple articles for each version careful consideration should be made about whether it is appropriate. First and foremost are reliable secondary sources that establish notability of the different version. In addition, the splitting of the article must not endanger the notability and verifiability of the parent article; one should also take into consideration the status of feature and good articles and consider the impact a spinout would have on their status. However, that alone is not enough as spinning out in some cases can be considered content forking. For this, several criteria must also be met before splitting. An article must meet at least two of the following: (For terms of this guideline, significant is defined as altering the original enough that it becomes an entire new playing experience based upon the changes.)
In addition, the real-world impact must be shown to have had unique real-world impact based upon the above criteria in either:
In addition, the element of time can be used as a deciding factor in close cases. For direct ports with little to no change a separate article should almost never be made as it would likely be considered content forking, even if it was remade as part of a compilation. じん ない 17:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Too broad. It would allow you in development section to just talk about release dates, major publicity events, screenshot releases, etc. without really adding any unique development info of why the remake is well...unique enough to warrant its own article. Reception also about a games storyline, graphics or gameplay that can easily be related back to the original doesn't really add to the notability of a unqiue game. じん ない 05:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
If you can verify enough information to write a non-stub section about the remake's distinct reception, as well as a non-stub section about its distinct game development or distinct game design, then the remake will quality for its own article if splitting it does not endanger the notability of the parent article. Otherwise, the few distinct aspects of the remake should be covered in the article about the original game.
Something like that I could accept. じん ない 22:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
If you can verify enough information to write a non-stub section about the remake's distinct reception, as well as a non-stub section about its distinct game development or distinct game design, then the remake will quality for its own article. However, having a separate should not endanger the notability of the parent article. Otherwise, the few distinct aspects of the remake should be covered in the article about the original game.
The text has been largely static for about a week. Before anyone adds this, I'm asking for a last call for comments on the wording:
If you can verify enough information to write a non-stub section about the remake's distinct reception, as well as a non-stub section about its distinct game development or distinct game design, then the remake will quality for its own article. However, having a separate should not endanger the notability of the parent article. Otherwise, the few distinct aspects of the remake should be covered in the article about the original game.
じん ない 20:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
If you can verify enough information to write a non-stub section about the remake's distinct reception, as well as a non-stub section about its distinct game development or distinct game design, then the remake will qualify for its own article. However, having a separate article should not endanger the notability of the parent article. If there is not enough distinct information on the remake for a complete article, the few distinct aspects of the remake should be covered in the original game's article.
If you can verify enough information to write a non-stub section about the remake's distinct reception, as well as a non-stub section about its distinct game development or distinct game design, then the remake will qualify for its own article. However, having a separate article should not endanger the notability of the parent article. If there is not enough distinct information on the remake for a complete article, the few distinct aspects of the remake should be covered in the original game's article.
Does anyone know how to merge these two articles together? They seem to be two different articles and I don't know how to merge them correctly. GamerPro64 ( talk) 19:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
But why not? They're baseicly the same game. GamerPro64 ( talk) 19:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I wanna hear a second opinion before I will forget about it. GamerPro64 ( talk) 19:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
There Notes and References of both the same as one another. So that should be enough to merge the two. GamerPro64 ( talk) 23:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
One of the reasons I contribute to the Wikipedia is that I believe it is a perfect medium for preserving history that would otherwise disappear when someone forgets to pay their ISP bill. One such field is retrocompuing, which I think the Wiki is absolutely perfect for. Instead of hundreds of fan sites, we can collect that information, clean it up, and present it well into the future.
One problem, however, is that the early days of home computing is actually very poorly preserved. There was a lengthy time between about 1975 and 1995, when the web became popular, where the only medium of "notability" was print magazines. Their coverage, especially of games, is extremely limited. So, for instance, someone recently put this game up for AfD on notability grounds, in spite of it being one of the most widely played games of the era (1975-1980).
Other wikiprojects face this problem as well, and have come up with their own NOT guidelines t reflect a paucity of information. Is there any interest in doing the same here?
Maury Markowitz ( talk) 12:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Sooo, are there any conclusions here? Do we think it might be reasonable to ask for a lower threshold of notability for games in this era? Maury Markowitz ( talk) 00:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
So the reason I ask about this is that the classic Star Trek (text game) was AfD'd. I'm sure most of the readers here will be familiar with this game, which was widely played on early home computers. But the game came out of an era where there was very little reportage on the topic of games outside of the arcade setting. I appealed to common sense, but it appears no one cares about that any more. So what should we do in these cases? Allow deletion of perfectly valid, and IMHO important, content because that decade of books hasn't hit Google Books yet? That seems extreme. Maury Markowitz ( talk) 15:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello everyone. Does the just-announced " Metroid Prime Trilogy" warrant its own article? It's nothing more than the New Play Control! versions of Prime and Prime 2 packaged with Prime 3 on a single disc. I think it's destined to either remain a stub or violate WP:CFORK. - sesuPRIME talk • contribs 19:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)The guideline page has been updated with the new remake guidelines. If it can meet those, then it would get its own page, if its a video game remake and not a video game port. If its a latter is almost certain in violation of WP:Content forking to have a separate article. 陣 内 Jinnai 20:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Looking at this I'm wondering if we have a page for exploits in general, rather than specifically tied to only online gaming. As far as I can tell, the only other article that remotely covers this is Exploit (computer security) which is more about stuff like DNS. Should we even have an article on exploits? I don't think if we don't have one in general we shouldn't have one for online gaming as its a base topic. 陣 内 Jinnai 00:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Apparently, there is an image that is not displaying correctly for a particular editor. He believes this is justification for removing it from the article. See here: Talk:Blood Bowl (2009 video game)#Pic in development section. It has not been determined what the cause of the problem is, i.e. whether it's purely on the user's end or if there is a problem with the file itself. It displays fine on my computer, though, and I assume the uploader didn't have a problem with it either. Assuming it's not a problem with the file itself, or an issue of exceeding fair use, what would be the proper course of action for handling something like this? Ham Pastrami ( talk) 02:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Just noticed that this logo has been uploaded to Commons. Its stated to not reach the threshold of originality as it is "simple geometric shapes and text". I think that's highly debatable, for one the trademark Counter-Strike image of the man with the gun can hardly be described as a "simple geometric shape"; as far as I'm concerned, its a typical case of a non-free image being mistakenly uploaded as a free image. Any opinions? It's currently in use at Counter-Strike; use at Condition Zero and Counter-Strike: Source is redundant as the logo is already incorporated into the box arts. -- Sabre ( talk) 13:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Question. Did the pictures get deleted or is my computer messed up? GamerPro64 ( talk) 17:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
An IP has made the following edits: [2] and [3]. Can anyone verify if these claims are true? I am away from home and my PS3 and thus cannot see for myself if thse songs have been removed from the PSN and I cannot see any sources online noting as much. I emailed Konami, but have not yet received a response. IPs have in the past made claims on that page about DLC being discontinued only to have a couple weeks later new songs released and so I am wondering if this is the same or if the PSN has actually for the first time I can think of actually removed DLC songs. Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 08:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
User:Hallo1198 has been contributing alot to this article, and they have horrible grammer and are probably adding alot of un-needed information. Who wants to go in and fix this? I'm not good with people. lol. See here for their contributions to the article. -- Blake ( talk) 20:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Add the roster back to wrestling video games Chelo61 ( talk) 01:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
That is not my account. I am not the only one who wants the rosters back. Chelo61 ( talk) 02:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
You can't play a wrestling video game without a roster. It gives you information about which wrestlers are in the game. Chelo61 ( talk) 00:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
This article needs someone to check for close paraphrasing, I tried to fix it once, but didn't help. I made some changes, trying to fix it, again, and wanted someone to look over them. Thanks, mynameinc ( t| c| p) 23:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC).
I've come across this term in lots of articles, and even on the animated WP:Video games ad. Strictly speaking, aren't computer games a type of video game, just likes console and arcade games?-- CoolingGibbon ( talk) 18:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
While we are having a dispute, should we cover articles that are not video games, like Guitar Queer O and Make love, not Warcraft? GamerPro64 ( talk) 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I think it's better for consistency/organization's sake (at the very least for the purposes of our project) to use only one term or the other—not both. I don't really care which. SharkD ( talk) 07:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I gotta admit I don't see too much of an issue. I myself use the terms Computer Game and Video Game to mean entirely different things, but I don't think anyone would look at WPVG and get confused. Calling the group WikiProject Video and Computer Games is far less appealing, and won't achieve much extra. I don't think there's a chance that anyone sees this group and then leaves because they wanted to write about Diablo or Civ4. I think our definition is pretty clear - if it relates to electronic games run on machines, then we cover it. ~ Amory ( talk) 14:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)