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 85 | ← | Archive 88 | Archive 89 | Archive 90 | Archive 91 | Archive 92 | → | Archive 95 |
I was wondering if anyone knew where to find more direct sources of gameplay regarding these two. I don't really want to have the articles get reviewed, but the way it's currently explained sounds a li too specific with examples and explanations. I'd do it myself, but i rather not hurt it's chances of keeping it's status. Bread Ninja ( talk) 09:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I tagged Honor in Vengeance II earlier today. Its a decent enough stub/start article but I feel the references let it down. In the reviews section there are self published blogs, and another site that is sort of a half review site and half "buy this" recommendation site. I just wondered if any of our Indie Task Force or our search ninjas knew of any reliable sites that we could add in, to give it some backbone. - X201 ( talk) 12:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Those two articles could use some improvements despite the best efforts I've been putting in. It should be no trouble at all since those articles have some potential. It just needs to be proof read and such to keep it at a Wikipedia standard. Thanks. Johnnyauau2000 ( talk) 04:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
For those who didn't know. There's a move discussion at Talk:Mega Drive#Requested move - X201 ( talk) 08:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I need some help looking for korean reviews or maybe korean sites that have interviews for video games that haven't been release outside of Korea. I'm not so sure if there are any. but your efforts would be greatly appreciated if anything is found. and if not, still appreciate you for trying. Bread Ninja ( talk) 11:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I noticed a new editor has recently proposed a number of prominent Zynga for deletion. I have asked them to explain their reasoning on their talk page. Leutha ( talk) 16:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys, I'm trying to get an image for a DYK for Capcom Five. Specifically, I'm looking for a free use image of Shinji Mikami since he was heavily involved in the project. Also, just a quick plug, the article is up for GA as well, if you want to take a look at it. Does anyone happen to know any good "See alsos" I could add to the bottom? Thanks, Axem Titanium ( talk) 17:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if there're any game theorists, but we're attempting to run a disambiguating contest. You can now disambiguate by topics like the 615 video games articles. Top thee places get barn stars. — Dispenser 05:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
They created this page, then they deleted it. Now the game is confirmed by Cyanide: [1]. Please create the page :-) -- 87.20.61.84 ( talk) 07:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
If there is only initial announcement info, it would be best to just add the information to a section on the Game of Thrones article or on A Song of Ice and Fire instead. -- Odie5533 ( talk) 12:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I asked this over at the Halo CE Talk page a while ago, but never got a response. Perhaps if I ask here someone's more likely to have the original EGM issue.
Halo:_Combat_Evolved#Reception gives a couple of quotes from EGM's review of the game in issue #150, including this one:
Edge's review ( available online here) contains a very similar quotation. (Written by Ste Curran, according to this)
Because the phrases are so similar, this brings up the possibility that at some point during the course of the Halo article's editing, someone mixed up the Edge and EGM quotes.
So could someone with issue #150 of EGM confirm that the quoted phrase is correct?
(I was reminded of it because I'd like to add the quote to the GoldenEye article to support claims about the reputation of the N64 game's multiplayer mode.) -- Nick R Talk 14:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I ordered the issue through my library's inter-library loan system. I should have it in about week. -- Odie5533 ( talk) 21:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
This is a discussion that originated on Operation Moonfall, Operation Rainfall, and 100,000 Strong for Bringing Back Mega Man Legends 3. What are the criteria for making a standalone article about a fan petition? Online gaming news sites crank out enough information 24/7 to establish noteworthiness of dozens of unsuccessful petitions, is volume of coverage the sole qualifier? Some examples:
Should diversity of sources (e.g. something other than a gaming website), success of the petition, or any other factor play a role? 100,000 Strong for Bringing Back Mega Man Legends 3 has already been merged but I believe there is sufficient material to expand a standalone article if no other factors apply. On the other hand, I also believe the basic gist of any of these petitions could easily be covered on the related game article if that made more sense. Suggestions? - Crabbattler ( talk) 18:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I think they could be mentioned if they have garnered sufficient coverage to be relevant in a given article (our notability guidelines are probably good in determining this). I mean, what we don't want is to mention some unknown online petition from some Joe Schmoe Forumite from some back-in-the-wood fan forum that nobody knows about and has only 20 or so signatures. – MuZemike 18:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
At AFD, Can somebody save it?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I recently put Fallout 3 up as an FAC, and I was willing to do everything to make it to become an FA, but it was not promoted with no reason given why; there was only one oppose, but that was "unless" if I address the issues (which I did); I addressed the latest issues, but the discussion got closed, and I am very annoyed about this; why didn't the discussion go on longer like many other articles that get nominated for FAC in the past? why didn't it get promoted?- SCB '92 ( talk) 14:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
While right now the upcoming Team Ico Collection - containing both Ico and Shadow of the Colossus - is discussed in the Team Ico article, there is a growing amount of coverage (history, graphic comparisons, etc.) to the point of reviews even, suggesting that this should actually have its own article. I am normally hesitant to create articles for ports, leaving the port info on the main game page, or in the case of these other updates, on the series page, but that doesn't apply here. And it is feeling really out of place on the Team Ico page now particularly if it has reviews.
Would others agree this would be an exception to create the article on the collection ? -- MASEM ( t) 21:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
With Capcom Five and Resident Evil 4 at GAN, it looks like we have a potential Good Topic. Viewtiful Joe and Killer7 are currently GA and FA, respectively, and Dead Phoenix does not have an article. The only one left of the Capcom Five is P.N.03, which is currently B-Class. Anyone up for giving it that last push to GA? Regardless, it'd be nice to whittle down our list of Delisted GAs. ( Guyinblack25 talk 05:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC))
Update- Capcom Five just passed its GAN. ( Guyinblack25 talk 15:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC))
August is about over but there's still articles that need to be reviewed.
So it would be very appreciated if some editors can review these articles and give their opinions on them. GamerPro64 20:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Flight Unlimited has had 2 reviews since the 25th. Would love some more input. JimmyBlackwing ( talk) 05:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Just to give everyone a heads up, MissingNo. will be Today's Featured Article on September 14. – MuZemike 01:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Ultima project is basically dormant. Talk page activity has been limited to notifying editors of articles that have been deleted, particularly in the past year, and is mainly dominated by one or two editors who have little interest outside of that. How do we go about winding this project up, or putting that to the community to decide? Shooterwalker ( talk) 03:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Phrix89 ( talk · contribs) seems to be going around to many articles replacing commas with line breaks in the "platform" field of {{ Infobox video game}}. I reverted him on Aliens vs. Predator (video game) and he came back with statements that " platforms sections are easier to navigate when using brackets" and " new game articles are using linebreaks and old articles are being updated". The first claim is obviously a matter of personal preference; I have no problem navigating the text either way. As for the second claim, as far as I can tell there is nothing in the template documentation nor the project guidelines that favors one delimiter (commas or line breaks) over another, and when I did a random sampling of 6 FAs I saw no consistency. Most of the other infobox fields (distributor/genre/mode/media) seem to favor commas, and IMO this is preferrable to stretching the infobox vertically, as it already takes up enough room. I'm not a project member, but I wanted to post a note here as Phrix89 appears to be making this change on a mass scale. -- IllaZilla ( talk) 19:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Look at games that have been released on many platforms such as Resident Evil 4 and Need for Speed Shift and you'll see how awkward is it to navigate when using commas, not to mention looking incredibly messy. I've seen many, many articles (both old ones being updated and new ones) using line breaks in the platforms section and nobody has had a problem with it before. It makes complete sense for the platforms section to use line breaks as the release dates section does and the template should be updated to allow it. Phrix89 ( talk) 00:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I have nominated List of Sega 32X games for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro64 23:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
With only a few weeks to go, we still need a "feature" and "featured editor" for the upcoming WP:VG newsletter, set to go out in early October. – MuZemike 13:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I think that {{ THQ-asset-stub}} should be moved to {{ THQ-stub}} and then THQ-asset-stub should redirect to THQ-stub. No one seems to use the template correctly, and I don't think we need two. -- Odie5533 ( talk) 10:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs in Green Day: Rock Band/archive1 is about to fall down to the "Older nominations" list and it hasn't had any substantial reviews. It shouldn't be too tough an article to review, and it would be much appreciated if someone here could take a look at it and provide some feedback. Otherwise, I'm concerned the FLC may get failed due to lack of reviews. Thanks! – Drilnoth ( T/ C) 16:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Not sure if it's kosher for me to post this here, but there's a problem on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_Software_Planning_&_Development. The entries "DK: King of Swing" and "DK: Jungle Climber" are being interpreted as some non-English interwiki link. There's prob. some simple fix but I don't know what it is. Using the HTML entity code (:) doesn't fix the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spacedog7 ( talk • contribs) 19:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Retro games#Membership userbox. Trevj ( talk) 07:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm attempting to help a newbie with their first article, on a new video game, and need some help myself with notability assessment.
Have a look at User talk:Saman in the machine if willing to help. The contributor is doing all the right things and assuming that the game is worthy of an article it's only justice that their draft should go "live" IMO. But I don't feel competent to assess that.
And of course as well as the article, you stand to gain an enthusiastic and valuable member for this project either way if we handle this properly. TIA. Andrewa ( talk) 15:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that the category Category:PlayStation was being used for PS1, and PlayStation generally. As a result I created Category:PlayStation (brand) to contain (generally subcategories) relating to all PlayStation products. I am still in the process of tidying categories.
I think it may be a good idea to rename the category about PS1 to "Category:PlayStation 1", and use the old category, as the main Playstation category. Or there may be other better ways to name the categories. If anyone feels this is needed please discuss and then action this yourself. Thanks. Imgaril ( talk) 18:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Someone has nominated the developer Idol Minds for deletion - I can't understand this at all given the level of coverage - there appear to be many more far less obviously notable articles about developers... Nevertheless - if anyone can understand the problem and fix the article, or whatever that would be appreciated. Imgaril ( talk) 20:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
The current proposal is up. It is being done to bring the template in line with core as much as possible. There is a lot of missing info and relevant fields in core, but there were some missing ones, most notably a developer field. Gadget850 has graciciously designed a template design up at Template:Cite video game/sandbox2. There are some things to note about it:
Anyway, please go there and give some feedback. An update for this template has been needed for some time.∞ 陣 内 Jinnai 04:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
See Mario Party 3's talk, I am unsure how to proceed to stop the user from repeatedly editing (and getting reverted). Thanks. Salvidrim ( talk) 01:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm seeking feedback on a proposal and have gotten little feedback over the week, I'm hoping that by posting here a couple more are going to see it. :) Salvidrim ( talk) 06:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
User | Fixes | In project |
---|---|---|
X201 | 225 | 100% |
69.248.62.131 | 183 | 93% |
Odie5533 | 116 | 64% |
Someone another | 29 | 100% |
Ost316 | 22 | 49% |
Squids' n' Chips | 16 | 1% |
Dispenser | 16 | 84% |
neko-chan :3 ( talk) | 15 | 54% |
Logan Talk Contributions | 13 | 11% |
∞ 陣 内 Jinnai | 13 | 42% |
R'n'B ( call me Russ) | 12 | 0% |
Bte99 | 11 | 3% |
We're now in the final stretch of the
Dab challenge. So far editors have tackled links on 527 of the nearly 700 pages (about 75%). This leaves us with 158 pages left in the challenge, 51 of which carry {{
disambiguation needed}}
which usually requires expert attention (
full list). This project is the closest of all to completion, so why not
join in and help us finish it! —
Dispenser 04:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Before sending Nintendo DSi back to FAC, I thought it would be appropriate to invite you guys to comment on it. Hardware noms are rare after all! Criteria 1a is the hardest to achieve. « ₣M₣ » 03:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering what the consensus is (or if we could form one) on including animated gameplay screenshots in articles, whether this violates fair use at all, and whether gifs or actual video footage would be appropriate. I believe that it should be acceptable if integrated with critical commentary to help readers visualize information that would be difficult to convey in text. A perfect example is File:Wonder boy platform.gif. I'd also like to note that File:Ani RF1-Gameplay.gif is probably misuse of the idea since the information could be conveyed just as easy with a single or a few screenshots rather than an animated reel. -- Odie5533 ( talk) 23:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
People seem to be overestimating the "weight" of animated gifs on the burden of fair use here, which is marginally to none more than static images. A more relevant issue with animated gifs is compatibility. For instance, gifs remain static when viewing articles on the Wapedia app on my smartphone (though not when viewed through the normal web browser) and they conflict with the goals of Wikipedia 1.0 (especially concerning printed articles). There's also the aesthetic issue of simply having too much distracting motion within an article. Animated gifs should be kept to a minimum even when free.-- Remurmur ( talk) 14:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Top Banana is a notable game and is currently tagged under WP:RISCOS. This also puts it in WP:COMP. In connection with previous category discussion, a more appropriate solution may be desirable.
All adivce gratefully received. Thanks for reading. -- Trevj ( talk) 14:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Take a look at the category for TV controversies, take a look at the category for medical controversies. What do those categories contain? They contain articles on controversies. Now take a look at VG controversies, what does that contain? A list of ~150 games, most of them aren't remotely controversial. Whereas every other controversy category covers specific controversies which have generated significant third party coverage, and can stand alone, the VG space has labelled any game with even the most trivial of drama as controversy.
I think we should move away tagging individual games, and to using it as a category for articles relating to specific controversies and video game controversy in general. So articles like Daikatana, Dante's Inferno (video game) and Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball would be out. Whereas articles such as Video game controversy, Controversy over the use of Manchester Cathedral in Resistance: Fall of Man, ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion and List of controversial video games would be left in. I think the list article is a lot more useful than the category for noting down VG controversies. There are grey areas, obviously, when some games are made purely to be controversial such as V-Tech Rampage. But on the whole, I think culling this category would make it a lot easier for people researching this topic. There are similar issues at Category:Video game censorship. - hahnch e n 20:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
There is currently a requested move on Talk:Valkyria Chronicles III to move the article to Senjō no Valkyria 3: Unrecorded Chronicles. I am not that fussed over the outcome, however it involves moving the page from the English language title for the series to the Japanese one (unsure what policy says here) and it's a bit of a backwater page that nobody has on their watchlist. Probably could use more eyes. Thanks – Steel 23:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I've recently seen a few video game developers and publishers at AfD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laughing Jackal comes to mind. I was wondering what criteria we should use to determine the notability of such companies. I would personally suggest WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:PRODUCT. I saw a new article, Subdued Software, and when I was going to look it up on Google to determine if it was notable, I thought to myself what I could find that would show that it was notable. Should the subject be required to have articles about the subject, or are articles about products (games) the subject has created enough to pass notability? -- Odie5533 ( talk) 22:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
What's the latest consensus for Moby Games from a reliability standpoint for verifiability, not notability. In their Wikipedia article I read
So, does this verification of submitted information by an "Approver" act as a sort of acceptable oversight? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Machine design in game engines. - Voceditenore ( talk) 08:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I think the following articles of video game consoles of the project should be rated Top Importance:
sure, the home console's listed weren't the best selling home console of its generation, where they're rated Top Importance, but they're still best selling and important consoles that should be Top Importance- SCB '92 ( talk) 11:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Top articles are defined as "This article forms the basis of all information."
Thoughts? -- Odie5533 ( talk) 14:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
For video games to be rated Top Importance, I'd agree with Super Mario Bros. (driving sales of the NES) and probably Pokémon (killer app for all Nintendo handheld consoles); not sure about WoW though; I myself nominate Pong (first successful video game), Space Invaders, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (arguably the greatest video game ever), Pac-Man, Donkey Kong (video game), Super Mario 64 (revolutionary game), and Tetris (driving sales of Game Boy); I'm not sure about PC games though, but I could nominate StarCraft; I wouldn't put the Master System, Saturn and Dreamcast (all by Sega) as Top Importance, as, in my opinion, are all failures in each of its generation; I mean Dreamcast did start off online multiplayer capabilities, but I don't know; I should've probably discussed this at WT:VG/A (sorry about that, didn't really know about that page); I also think the cut off point would be any console that sells less than 20 million units- SCB '92 ( talk) 16:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay, so for Top Importance, we basically got 3 votes for Mega Drive, 3 votes for Xbox, and 2 votes for Game Boy Advance; putting sales out of it, I think Nintendo 64 is a very important console; it evolved 2d games to 3d in design, compared to the early 3d games of the PS1, console based shooters, the thumb-controlled joystick that the PS lacked until it later got its analog sticks, etc; and Tamagotchi is not a console, it's a virtual pet, and iPhone is phone first, music second, camera third, videos fourth, social networking fifth, and games sixth; consoles have to be games first- SCB '92 ( talk) 18:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
We should not broaden our importance criteria for Top level subjects. These should be for concepts which define the entirety of gaming. MMORPG is top level, individual games within the genre aren't. I don't agree with the top level classification of individuals such as Gabe Newell, John Carmack or Satoru Iwata. I'm not even sure if we should have individual consoles in that classification, given that we already have the entire "History of video game consoles (nth generation)" in there. The constituent consoles should be have a high level classification. - hahnch e n 19:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
There are about 65 video game articles that are rated top importance, so it doesn't look that restrictive; how about the Mario (series) and The Legend of Zelda series, mascots Mario and Sonic the Hedgehog, Atari, Ubisoft, Cheating in video games, Multiplayer video game, Video game controversy as top importance articles- SCB '92 ( talk) 20:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Thinking about it more, perhaps we should restrict Top level classification to articles like History of video game consoles (seventh generation) and push the consoles into High importance. -- Odie5533 ( talk) 06:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
So it'd be any console or video game that's had a huge impact in video gaming history, and popularized a video game genre? So would Wolfenstein 3D qualify to become Top Importance because it popularized the first-person shooter genre? would GoldenEye 007 (1997 video game) qualify because it popularized first person shooters to be on video game consoles? didn't Dragon Warrior popularize JRPGs? didn't Grand Theft Auto III popularize open world gaming (though starting out in Body Harvest)? would they qualify as Top importance? Pong popularized video gaming as a whole, that should be Top Importance; for consoles, I think Dreamcast started out online multiplayer capabilities in consoles, should that be Top Importance? and should'nt the Action-adventure and Vehicle simulation genres be Top Importance?- SCB '92 ( talk) 10:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I'd say the character Mario is definitely exceptional, because he definitely is the most recogisable video game character in the world; Sonic, maybe too; Link, not so much, because apart from Link's Crossbow Training, his name is never on the titles of the official Zelda games, people can choose what to name Link in every Zelda game, and he had pink hair and different attire in The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past instead of the now official green tunic; Pikachu is probably the first thing that comes to mind when people think about Pokemon, but in the game Pokemon Red and Blue, it was just one of the 151 Pokemon, and it is just recognisable in the Pokemon anime than in the games; and who the Sam Hill is Cloud? what, you mean Cloud Strife from Final Fantasy VII? only that one game and its spin-offs? well I've never heard of him, probably because I'm not into RPGs, let alone Final Fantasy; not really sure about the Japanese perpective in video games for the English/Western Wikipedia (it could be Top Importance in the Japanese Wikipedia); I changed my mind about putting Vehicle simulation game as a top article because it actually is a sub-genre of Simulation game- SCB '92 ( talk) 14:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Until Angry Birds overtook it (it was just one game anyway), it was the best-selling video game series of all time; the games Super Mario Bros. and Super Mario 64 in the Mario series are very important- SCB '92 ( talk) 14:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I want to have Pong as Top Importance; the first successful video game- SCB '92 ( talk) 14:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
The Wii is the best selling console of this generation; there's no reason to keep them as Top- SCB '92 ( talk) 14:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
any exceptions? no? even domoting the NES, Atari 2600 and Magnavox Odyssey; are you are sure? I guess I support all of them to demoted if they're covered in the "History of video game consoles"- SCB '92 ( talk) 19:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I believe this one actually fits Guyinblack25's requirement of "significantly further the layman's understanding of video games". Notably because this game set the template for role-playing video games and several other items of note, such as the importance of scenario writers. There is a lot of info there as to the reasons why certain things were done that wouldn't be explained in a more comprehensive article. The game itself has also been noted as a single turning point in video game history, something that is quite rare.∞ 陣 内 Jinnai
Why is Sony currently Top Importance and Microsoft isn't? Like I mentioned early that, unlike Nintendo, video games aren't their one and only area of expertise; should Microsoft get promoted or should Sony get demoted? and while at it, why is Sony Computer Entertainment Top Importance and Microsoft Studios isn't?
If to demote all video game consoles to High; this outlines all the PlayStation consoles
If to demote all video game consoles to High; this article is the equivalent of the PlayStation brand; why is it Low Importance? it summarises all the Nintendo consoles, just like the PlayStation brand article; and while at it, will there soon be an article that summarises all (two) Xbox series of consoles? at least when the next Xbox (720) is unveiled in E3 2012? naming the article Xbox video game consoles?- SCB '92 ( talk) 20:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
We all agree that all consoles that are Top be demoted to High, right? anyone oppose? permission to change scale of importance to these articles: Magnavox Odyssey, Atari 2600, NES, SNES, PlayStation, PlayStation 2, PlayStation 3, Xbox 360, Wii; from Top to High?- SCB '92 ( talk) 22:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC) also to demote Game Boy and Nintendo DS as well?- SCB '92 ( talk) 09:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
After reading through much of the above, I've come to the conclusion that our Top importance articles should be the ones with the broadest and highest-level coverage of video games: the history of console series, the various game genres, general concepts of video game hardware and software, and should not contain any specific game, series, character, person, company, console unit, or the like. As Drilnoth points out above, a "book" for VG would not be limited to Top articles, and instead, per the WP CD project, would include Top and High importance articles, but in such cases, we should assure that our Top articles are in the best possible shape (hence their top importance).
If there is a specific contribution from game, character, person, etc. that should be known to someone reading only Top level articles, then that importance should be in the context of the broad coverage. EG: I don't disagree on the importance of the Atari 2600, but this should be outlined in the appropriate History/generation article, and/or at "video game console" units. Similarly, everyone agrees the Mario series is highly influential but this should be outlined at the platform game genre article. Such specific articles can be High importance and included in the VG "book", but because we'd otherwise end up fighting this forever, I think its best we be as non-specific
And to that end, that also likely highlights the need for articles I'm not aware of. I would say most would agree Nintendo a key hardware and software company, but while we have List of video game publishers and List of video game developers I'm not seeing the equivalent for hardware makers. (And yes, I am arguing that these lists should be Top priority per this scheme). There's probably similar lists or the like for video game releases by console, overall timelines, etc.
Effectively, our top articles should be prose and high level indices that all other VG articles can be accessed through. That gives the reader a broad coverage and points of reference to look for more information, and yet still be useful if the blue-links weren't there. -- MASEM ( t) 14:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I think the Importance Scale needs to be changed a bit, because according to this discussion, there are no exceptional games & series or in-game elements that'd qualify for Top Importance; and changing that "General hardware articles (definitions) and important historical video game consoles, e.g. Video game console, Atari 2600" because there are people in this discussion that think Video game consoles shouldn't be Top Importance as they're covered in the "History of video game consoles (nth generation)"- SCB '92 ( talk) 16:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Anybody else agree with JimmyBlackwing about this?- SCB '92 ( talk) 12:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
This was mentioned by Odie5533 to demote these articles, which are currently top-importance, but barely received a response: Gabe Newell to be demoted to mid-importance; Video card to be demoted to low-importance; we need a consensus: Support or Oppose? I personally Support this to be demoted because a Video card is the equivalent of the ROM cartridge (which is Mid-Importance), the DVDs and the CDs being used as game storages for video game systems; and Gabe Newell is as important as Cliff Bleszinski; so what if he's co-founder of Valve? he used to detest the PS3 and called Xbox Live service "a train wreck"- SCB '92 ( talk) 18:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
There's some talk about demoting all the individuals that are Top Importance; anyone you want to keep as Top Importance? eg. Shigeru Miyamoto?- SCB '92 ( talk) 11:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
We have a bunch of discussions here about moving something from top or demoting it. We have a few offhanded comments about narrowing the field, but they are scattered all over the article. Let's consolidate it. To start with, it seems that the consensus is generally not to expand the defition therefore its either to maintain the status quo or shrink it. The ones we have now are:
Discuss.∞ 陣 内 Jinnai 20:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Another editor and I are discussing the removal of a sentence in E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (video game). The discussion is at Talk:E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (video game)#Warshaw's comment on cartridge burial. So far it is only the two of us, and additional comments would be appreciated. ( Guyinblack25 talk 16:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC))
For those who haven't yet sandbox proposal hasn't had any recent comments. Assuming no one has any issues I'd like to Gadget850 to impliment soon as current the templates citation has caused several issues at FAC and FLC with people complaining about it, especially that it needs to be updated to comply with core.∞ 陣 内 Jinnai 22:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
This recent move has gone through despite naming policy not supporting multiple names for the same subject in article titles. The notion that this is allowed by WP:AND (which is for articles covering multiple subjects, rather than for subjects with multiple names) was given as justification for the move. Pointing this out fairly late in the discussion, after which no new people commented, this was moved anyway despite a (reasonable, I thought) request to keep the discussion open. It's a problem because it serves as precedent for multiple names in titles whenever there's dispute about which to use, so we could end up with articles such as Sonic 3D Blast and Sonic 3D: Flickies' Island, or FIFA Football 2004 and FIFA Soccer 2004, or Bully and Canis Canem Edit, or The Settlers and Surf City, or any of a multitude of others I'm sure we could all think of. This is of course, not supported in any way by naming policy or precendent, and has never been how Wikipedia handles naming disputes. Thoughts please! Miremare 15:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Not to be a "guy on the soapbox" here but I agree with Guyinblack: can we seriously just let the bloomin' name be and fix the damn article? One singular name would have been nice, but the problem is there is no clear consensus on which name should take precedence. There hasn't been for years, and every other option to acknowledge both has been worse. Being an exception to the rule does not set a precedence. Nobody is sitting around arguing "No, it should be the Pinto!"/"Heck with you, should be the Bobcat!" Here, we've had every argument from "which came first" to "sale numbers matter" to "google search numbers" to (really bad faith mind you) accusations of "pushing a US-centric view". People are not going to have one massive consensus on one name or the other: one side won't be happy unless Genesis is up there, and the other won't be happy without Mega Drive. So do you have a better option than to slap each other silly with whatever facts you can dredge up until you get your way?
No, you don't. It's been this back and forth argument, again, for years. Right now at least both sides get part of what they want. Now how about fixing it up, like those short one-paragraph sections or one-sentence paragraphs?-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 20:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
As a general response to this issue, I'm just going to paraphrase something I said toward the end of the move discussion: Would you rather compromise and get on with things, using WP:IAR as a tiebreaker if necessary, or would you rather we continue bitching, bickering and frankly wasting our time on this issue for several MORE years? — KieferSkunk ( talk) — 03:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
On the Talk page for the article I have just put my reply to a question asking how we take the article forward. I was full of beans as I wrote it. Then I came here and read this, and, to be honest, it makes me just want to say bollocks to the console - by both names - its not a rage quit, its a "thoroughly depressed with it all" quit. I won't quit though. Even though I know that at some point in the future someone is going to try to use the compromise name that I voted for, as a stepping stone to change the name to Genesis. And even though there will be numerous others all waving their nationalistic flags, wanting it moved to "The correct name". I've looked at the stats regarding actual contributions to the article versus Talk page comments. At least I know that if the time comes, I can wave it goodbye knowing that I've done my bit for the article. I voted for the compromise to put and end to the name issue once and for all, I now feel that that day will never come. (Apologies for the ramble, and the language) - X201 ( talk) 20:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
So this comes about because of disagreement amongst editors between which of two entirely reasonable names should be used. The result of that dispute is to produce an entirely unreasonable name? That's really a pretty lame way to proceed. There are numerous third party review and arbitration services on Wikipedia that can resolve such conflicts. Obviously some part of the editing community would be upset by whatever came out of that - but that's life. Suck it up and move on. Having a bad outcome because two groups can't agree between two much better options is lunacy. Once an arbitrated name choice were made, then an admin could protect the article from page moves to prevent it from being changed again without a full consensus to do so. I really think it's worth doing that - this "compromise" is a terrible one. SteveBaker ( talk) 14:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
For God's sake, just go with Mega Drive. You really don't need much more than "that was the worldwide name, not just the name for one or two countries".
Why do so many cry for the so-called "unbiased" people to decide things like this? Have they never noticed how completely random those results are? We need reason for all this editing, not Russian roulette for the sake of "compromise". It's IAR taken to the extreme and causes more problems than it solves. Despatche ( talk) 07:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I propose that WikiProject Video games adopt the following rule for naming articles:
The rationale for that is that it is generally the rule within Wikipedia that to change something requires consensus and to leave it alone does not. Hence the first applicable name should be the one that remains if there is no clear consensus to change it. Note that "consensus" doesn't mean "majority vote".
In the interests of neutrality, I have deliberately not looked to see which of the two titles for Sega Genesis and Mega Drive was first, but I propose that this rule be applied in that case.
SteveBaker ( talk) 13:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Addendum: In the event that a naming dispute arises from the merging of two or more articles, the name given to the oldest of the merged articles should apply. SteveBaker ( talk) 16:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Should we update Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games with a notice that recommends editors to check the discussion archives? I think that some answers are already there. And if some disagree with past consensus they will have done their homework when challenging it.
Thoughts? ( Guyinblack25 talk 14:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC))
Just wondering if there is consensus as to whether VG ratings (ESRB, ACB, etc.) should be sourced (I'm guessing first party from the rating entity's website, as it's simply fact-checking) pretty much always. I see a lot of unsourced ratings, which kind of bugs me, as I consider them to be the same kind of info as release dates, which pretty much require a source every single time. Salvidrim ( talk) 22:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Anyone know the source of this box art image? A user uploaded it over an existing logo image and didn't update the rationale. I've not yet updated as I don't know the actual source. Tineye found some similar images, but not this image. So does anyone know the source? Do we even need to be that specific, or can I just add in the URL for any Mario Kart 7 box art image? Reach Out to the Truth 21:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I reduced the size of the image to best comply with WP:NFCC#3b. Just as a protip to those who are uploading non-free images to provide a source (i.e. the URL or scan if you scanned the boxart) for the images. Also, keep in mind to minimize the sizes of said images to their most practical usages on WP pages; 300px is normally the most ideal, as that is the maximum size which can be displayed for thumbnails per Special:Preferences. – MuZemike 08:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm a bit new at working on video game articles, and I've hit a snag editing Joe Danger - there doesn't seem to be anywhere at all that publishes sales figures for PSN games. The only place I can find is FADE llc. which already seems to be a bit of a non-starter. However, they have had their figures published by MCV UK, but I'm not sure if that means I can then use them and pass them off as reliable. The other chart site (I forget its name) only seems to deal with console/PC games, rather than XBLA/PSN games. Any advice? — Joseph Fox 12:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
At new article patrol, I have noticed in recent days that editor Redefining history has been creating several articles/templates on professional "DotA" players. I assume that it falls within the purview of this project. Knowing next to nothing of this stuff, I find these articles completely incomprehensible (which is not what an encyclopedia is for, I think). I also ignore completely whether these people are notable or whether the sources used are reliable. Perhaps somebody in this project would care to take a look at these articles and clean them up or propose them for deletion, as the case may be. Thanks. -- Crusio ( talk) 12:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi there! I am going to nominate the article to GA status and I need several sources which could describe the gameplay and the game's reception. Thank you. Electroguv ( talk) 13:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I stumbled across Star Trek: Voyager – The Arcade Game and have made it a sort of pet project. I'm having a lot of trouble finding even moderately reliable sources for it, though. I'm not looking for even a B class out of this one, but I thought I'd ask the community since there are often print and obscure sources that I miss. -- Teancum ( talk) 13:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
This is something that's come up on the Pokemon project talk page, regarding Zubat, Golbat, and Crobat. While there is significant coverage in third-party sources, the context of said coverage is also extremely limited, saying primarily the following: how good the character's gameplay was, how annoying their frequent appearances were, and that later Pokemon Woobat effectively did the same. The concern is that all of this relates not to the trio as fictional characters or even how people reacted to them as characters; effectively, at this volume it comes across as a game guide critique more so. Other articles do the same, such as Lili (Tekken). To someone not familiar with the subject at all, or not familiar with the subject as a gameplay element, this seems to tell them nothing about how they were received independent of being that gameplay element.
Any thoughts here regarding the subject?-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 15:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I have asked for clarrification on how to use the sources at WT:N#Pokemon and discrimination by sources when they cover so many pokemon from a single title.∞ 陣 内 Jinnai 04:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
The "Reception" sections in fictional character articles status as the main argument for an article's notability and defense against deletion has been an unfortunate development. Since characters are rarely "reviewed" in any traditional manner, they end up being weakly cobbled together from "best/worst" lists and casual references drawn from reviews and game guides. I feel sympathy for the Pokémon project though, as going from having an article on every single species to figuring out just where to draw the line for 646 characters that range from a cultural icons to utterly forgettable in a franchise where even a minor species can be identified by millions of people and appear in a dozen games is a tough task. A firmer idea of how we determine notability for video game characters needs to be established here.-- Remurmur ( talk) 20:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello All I would like to say that since Valve is developing Dota 2 and the recognition DotA players are getting all over the world. I would like to invite the DotA community to create articles introducing DotA players to the world in Wikipedia. Thank you for your attention. Articles requested : Jacob Toft-Anderson (Maelk) Jonathan Berg (Loda) and more.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redefining history ( talk • contribs)
I suppose if the problem are the sources, we always have gosugamers ( http://www.gosugamers.net/dota), mymym ( http://www.mymym.com), the chinese sGamer ( http://dota.sgamer.com) and the russian prodota.ru ( http://www.prodota.ru) to offer us reliable sources. And i really think that these players are notable. (will find a reason for it) Redefining history ( talk) 22:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi! For those of you in the UK, which character name set does the UK version of Ape Escape P (PSP) use?
If the UK version does NOT use "Buzz" or "Katie" it could be a reason for changing the name set (currently the WP article uses the names from the original UK Playstation release)
Also in Ape Escape 3, the US versions of two monkeys are "Spork and Shimmy" (after "Spike" and Jimmy") but the UK names will be different (as the original characters are "Kakeru" and "Hikaru" there) so I would like to know what they are
WhisperToMe ( talk) 14:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
OKAY, now im confused. does Professional eSports Players fall under this category, or the category of athletes? If it falls in any, what are the guidelines of them being notable? Redefining history ( talk) 03:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but eSports players are not notable simply by playing in major tournaments. I watch Starcraft2, not LoL, so I'll use those numbers: MLG Orlando got 181,000 simultaneous viewers last weekend- worldwide. Hockey games in Canada alone get 5-700,000 for every single game (hundreds/year), and millions for big games. Football/baseball numbers in America are 10x that. eSports is rapidly expanding- but playing at, even winning one of the tournaments is the notability equivalent of winning a regional meet. It does not convey instant notability. You need to find 3rd-party sources to prove notability for each competitor- not pro-gamer profiles on an eSports website, but actual external observers. For example, this Forbes article on Starcraft could be used to support articles on HuK and Idra, as well as some of the casters. But it doesn't mean that MarineKingPrime gets an automatic pass just because he played at the same tournament. -- Pres N 19:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I think we should stick to applying the GNG to pro gamers; at least until anyone wanting to apply WP:ATHLETE can build a consensus to do so. I don't see anything in WP:ATHLETE about say, chess players, or anything comparable. The wording is vague: is it the highest level of sport in general (which I'm inclined to agree that "such as the Olympics" suggests) or the highest level within a sport? In any case, I agree any comparison of a gaming competition to the Olympics is pretty tenuous. Furthermore, significant coverage in secondary sources would still be needed to actually write an acceptable article; these are just guidelines for presumption. bridies ( talk) 05:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I think e-sports actually has more coverage than some of the sports listed in WP:ATHLETES, and as i discussed on the talk page there, i would consider e-sports as a sport ahead of those like poker and chess, and hence e-sports - "generally popular games played competitively" should get a generally accepted criteria in which it should be included in the SNG. and as i saw on the WP:ATHLETES page, "The reality though is that if an article meets the SNG it is very unlikely to be deleted." Redefining history ( talk) 15:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
How many different places are we going to have the same exact conversation and the same two editors are going to be told the same exact thing over and over and over again. Ridernyc ( talk) 00:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I would like to call any arguments on this to continue here Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Professional eSports Redefining history ( talk) 01:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I see no point continuing the argument on this page. The arguments are continued here:
Hi there. Blue's News is listed on WP:VG/RS as a reliable source but doesn't actually seem to indicate why - does anyone have anything to prove that it is in fact reliable? Here's a link. Stephen Heaslip appears to be the primary author, so perhaps he's notable in some way? — Joseph Fox 14:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
For those that remember the
mediation for video games developed in Japan, part of the mediation's outcome was that {{
Nihongo}}
be updated to provide better context for the layman. The template was recently updated with a new parameter: lead. Setting the parameter to yes or 1 will activate it. When activated, the parameter will display the languages (Japanese and Hepburn) of the script displayed.
Because this new parameter is optional, it will need to be added to many of our articles. Typically, only the first instance of the language is required, which often occurs in the lead. Help adding this would be greatly appreciated. If everyone gave the articles in your watchlist a sweep, this whole process would make great headway. Thanks. ( Guyinblack25 talk 13:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC))
Now, I know some of these points could be put in more specialized areas of WP:VG, but since there's a variety of concerns, I figured I'd lump them all here.
The website in question is www.bordersdown.net (formally www.ntsc-uk.co.uk supposedly.)
So yeah, there's a lot going on here. Wondered if anyone had any thoughts on this, and/or wanted to take action if needed. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 19:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
The GTA website has announced the game, with the trailer to be released next Wednesday; should an article be created for this game soon?- SCB '92 ( talk) 21:04, 25 October 2011 (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 85 | ← | Archive 88 | Archive 89 | Archive 90 | Archive 91 | Archive 92 | → | Archive 95 |
I was wondering if anyone knew where to find more direct sources of gameplay regarding these two. I don't really want to have the articles get reviewed, but the way it's currently explained sounds a li too specific with examples and explanations. I'd do it myself, but i rather not hurt it's chances of keeping it's status. Bread Ninja ( talk) 09:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I tagged Honor in Vengeance II earlier today. Its a decent enough stub/start article but I feel the references let it down. In the reviews section there are self published blogs, and another site that is sort of a half review site and half "buy this" recommendation site. I just wondered if any of our Indie Task Force or our search ninjas knew of any reliable sites that we could add in, to give it some backbone. - X201 ( talk) 12:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Those two articles could use some improvements despite the best efforts I've been putting in. It should be no trouble at all since those articles have some potential. It just needs to be proof read and such to keep it at a Wikipedia standard. Thanks. Johnnyauau2000 ( talk) 04:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
For those who didn't know. There's a move discussion at Talk:Mega Drive#Requested move - X201 ( talk) 08:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I need some help looking for korean reviews or maybe korean sites that have interviews for video games that haven't been release outside of Korea. I'm not so sure if there are any. but your efforts would be greatly appreciated if anything is found. and if not, still appreciate you for trying. Bread Ninja ( talk) 11:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I noticed a new editor has recently proposed a number of prominent Zynga for deletion. I have asked them to explain their reasoning on their talk page. Leutha ( talk) 16:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys, I'm trying to get an image for a DYK for Capcom Five. Specifically, I'm looking for a free use image of Shinji Mikami since he was heavily involved in the project. Also, just a quick plug, the article is up for GA as well, if you want to take a look at it. Does anyone happen to know any good "See alsos" I could add to the bottom? Thanks, Axem Titanium ( talk) 17:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if there're any game theorists, but we're attempting to run a disambiguating contest. You can now disambiguate by topics like the 615 video games articles. Top thee places get barn stars. — Dispenser 05:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
They created this page, then they deleted it. Now the game is confirmed by Cyanide: [1]. Please create the page :-) -- 87.20.61.84 ( talk) 07:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
If there is only initial announcement info, it would be best to just add the information to a section on the Game of Thrones article or on A Song of Ice and Fire instead. -- Odie5533 ( talk) 12:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I asked this over at the Halo CE Talk page a while ago, but never got a response. Perhaps if I ask here someone's more likely to have the original EGM issue.
Halo:_Combat_Evolved#Reception gives a couple of quotes from EGM's review of the game in issue #150, including this one:
Edge's review ( available online here) contains a very similar quotation. (Written by Ste Curran, according to this)
Because the phrases are so similar, this brings up the possibility that at some point during the course of the Halo article's editing, someone mixed up the Edge and EGM quotes.
So could someone with issue #150 of EGM confirm that the quoted phrase is correct?
(I was reminded of it because I'd like to add the quote to the GoldenEye article to support claims about the reputation of the N64 game's multiplayer mode.) -- Nick R Talk 14:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I ordered the issue through my library's inter-library loan system. I should have it in about week. -- Odie5533 ( talk) 21:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
This is a discussion that originated on Operation Moonfall, Operation Rainfall, and 100,000 Strong for Bringing Back Mega Man Legends 3. What are the criteria for making a standalone article about a fan petition? Online gaming news sites crank out enough information 24/7 to establish noteworthiness of dozens of unsuccessful petitions, is volume of coverage the sole qualifier? Some examples:
Should diversity of sources (e.g. something other than a gaming website), success of the petition, or any other factor play a role? 100,000 Strong for Bringing Back Mega Man Legends 3 has already been merged but I believe there is sufficient material to expand a standalone article if no other factors apply. On the other hand, I also believe the basic gist of any of these petitions could easily be covered on the related game article if that made more sense. Suggestions? - Crabbattler ( talk) 18:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I think they could be mentioned if they have garnered sufficient coverage to be relevant in a given article (our notability guidelines are probably good in determining this). I mean, what we don't want is to mention some unknown online petition from some Joe Schmoe Forumite from some back-in-the-wood fan forum that nobody knows about and has only 20 or so signatures. – MuZemike 18:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
At AFD, Can somebody save it?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I recently put Fallout 3 up as an FAC, and I was willing to do everything to make it to become an FA, but it was not promoted with no reason given why; there was only one oppose, but that was "unless" if I address the issues (which I did); I addressed the latest issues, but the discussion got closed, and I am very annoyed about this; why didn't the discussion go on longer like many other articles that get nominated for FAC in the past? why didn't it get promoted?- SCB '92 ( talk) 14:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
While right now the upcoming Team Ico Collection - containing both Ico and Shadow of the Colossus - is discussed in the Team Ico article, there is a growing amount of coverage (history, graphic comparisons, etc.) to the point of reviews even, suggesting that this should actually have its own article. I am normally hesitant to create articles for ports, leaving the port info on the main game page, or in the case of these other updates, on the series page, but that doesn't apply here. And it is feeling really out of place on the Team Ico page now particularly if it has reviews.
Would others agree this would be an exception to create the article on the collection ? -- MASEM ( t) 21:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
With Capcom Five and Resident Evil 4 at GAN, it looks like we have a potential Good Topic. Viewtiful Joe and Killer7 are currently GA and FA, respectively, and Dead Phoenix does not have an article. The only one left of the Capcom Five is P.N.03, which is currently B-Class. Anyone up for giving it that last push to GA? Regardless, it'd be nice to whittle down our list of Delisted GAs. ( Guyinblack25 talk 05:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC))
Update- Capcom Five just passed its GAN. ( Guyinblack25 talk 15:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC))
August is about over but there's still articles that need to be reviewed.
So it would be very appreciated if some editors can review these articles and give their opinions on them. GamerPro64 20:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Flight Unlimited has had 2 reviews since the 25th. Would love some more input. JimmyBlackwing ( talk) 05:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Just to give everyone a heads up, MissingNo. will be Today's Featured Article on September 14. – MuZemike 01:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Ultima project is basically dormant. Talk page activity has been limited to notifying editors of articles that have been deleted, particularly in the past year, and is mainly dominated by one or two editors who have little interest outside of that. How do we go about winding this project up, or putting that to the community to decide? Shooterwalker ( talk) 03:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Phrix89 ( talk · contribs) seems to be going around to many articles replacing commas with line breaks in the "platform" field of {{ Infobox video game}}. I reverted him on Aliens vs. Predator (video game) and he came back with statements that " platforms sections are easier to navigate when using brackets" and " new game articles are using linebreaks and old articles are being updated". The first claim is obviously a matter of personal preference; I have no problem navigating the text either way. As for the second claim, as far as I can tell there is nothing in the template documentation nor the project guidelines that favors one delimiter (commas or line breaks) over another, and when I did a random sampling of 6 FAs I saw no consistency. Most of the other infobox fields (distributor/genre/mode/media) seem to favor commas, and IMO this is preferrable to stretching the infobox vertically, as it already takes up enough room. I'm not a project member, but I wanted to post a note here as Phrix89 appears to be making this change on a mass scale. -- IllaZilla ( talk) 19:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Look at games that have been released on many platforms such as Resident Evil 4 and Need for Speed Shift and you'll see how awkward is it to navigate when using commas, not to mention looking incredibly messy. I've seen many, many articles (both old ones being updated and new ones) using line breaks in the platforms section and nobody has had a problem with it before. It makes complete sense for the platforms section to use line breaks as the release dates section does and the template should be updated to allow it. Phrix89 ( talk) 00:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I have nominated List of Sega 32X games for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro64 23:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
With only a few weeks to go, we still need a "feature" and "featured editor" for the upcoming WP:VG newsletter, set to go out in early October. – MuZemike 13:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I think that {{ THQ-asset-stub}} should be moved to {{ THQ-stub}} and then THQ-asset-stub should redirect to THQ-stub. No one seems to use the template correctly, and I don't think we need two. -- Odie5533 ( talk) 10:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs in Green Day: Rock Band/archive1 is about to fall down to the "Older nominations" list and it hasn't had any substantial reviews. It shouldn't be too tough an article to review, and it would be much appreciated if someone here could take a look at it and provide some feedback. Otherwise, I'm concerned the FLC may get failed due to lack of reviews. Thanks! – Drilnoth ( T/ C) 16:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Not sure if it's kosher for me to post this here, but there's a problem on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_Software_Planning_&_Development. The entries "DK: King of Swing" and "DK: Jungle Climber" are being interpreted as some non-English interwiki link. There's prob. some simple fix but I don't know what it is. Using the HTML entity code (:) doesn't fix the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spacedog7 ( talk • contribs) 19:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Retro games#Membership userbox. Trevj ( talk) 07:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm attempting to help a newbie with their first article, on a new video game, and need some help myself with notability assessment.
Have a look at User talk:Saman in the machine if willing to help. The contributor is doing all the right things and assuming that the game is worthy of an article it's only justice that their draft should go "live" IMO. But I don't feel competent to assess that.
And of course as well as the article, you stand to gain an enthusiastic and valuable member for this project either way if we handle this properly. TIA. Andrewa ( talk) 15:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that the category Category:PlayStation was being used for PS1, and PlayStation generally. As a result I created Category:PlayStation (brand) to contain (generally subcategories) relating to all PlayStation products. I am still in the process of tidying categories.
I think it may be a good idea to rename the category about PS1 to "Category:PlayStation 1", and use the old category, as the main Playstation category. Or there may be other better ways to name the categories. If anyone feels this is needed please discuss and then action this yourself. Thanks. Imgaril ( talk) 18:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Someone has nominated the developer Idol Minds for deletion - I can't understand this at all given the level of coverage - there appear to be many more far less obviously notable articles about developers... Nevertheless - if anyone can understand the problem and fix the article, or whatever that would be appreciated. Imgaril ( talk) 20:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
The current proposal is up. It is being done to bring the template in line with core as much as possible. There is a lot of missing info and relevant fields in core, but there were some missing ones, most notably a developer field. Gadget850 has graciciously designed a template design up at Template:Cite video game/sandbox2. There are some things to note about it:
Anyway, please go there and give some feedback. An update for this template has been needed for some time.∞ 陣 内 Jinnai 04:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
See Mario Party 3's talk, I am unsure how to proceed to stop the user from repeatedly editing (and getting reverted). Thanks. Salvidrim ( talk) 01:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm seeking feedback on a proposal and have gotten little feedback over the week, I'm hoping that by posting here a couple more are going to see it. :) Salvidrim ( talk) 06:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
User | Fixes | In project |
---|---|---|
X201 | 225 | 100% |
69.248.62.131 | 183 | 93% |
Odie5533 | 116 | 64% |
Someone another | 29 | 100% |
Ost316 | 22 | 49% |
Squids' n' Chips | 16 | 1% |
Dispenser | 16 | 84% |
neko-chan :3 ( talk) | 15 | 54% |
Logan Talk Contributions | 13 | 11% |
∞ 陣 内 Jinnai | 13 | 42% |
R'n'B ( call me Russ) | 12 | 0% |
Bte99 | 11 | 3% |
We're now in the final stretch of the
Dab challenge. So far editors have tackled links on 527 of the nearly 700 pages (about 75%). This leaves us with 158 pages left in the challenge, 51 of which carry {{
disambiguation needed}}
which usually requires expert attention (
full list). This project is the closest of all to completion, so why not
join in and help us finish it! —
Dispenser 04:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Before sending Nintendo DSi back to FAC, I thought it would be appropriate to invite you guys to comment on it. Hardware noms are rare after all! Criteria 1a is the hardest to achieve. « ₣M₣ » 03:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering what the consensus is (or if we could form one) on including animated gameplay screenshots in articles, whether this violates fair use at all, and whether gifs or actual video footage would be appropriate. I believe that it should be acceptable if integrated with critical commentary to help readers visualize information that would be difficult to convey in text. A perfect example is File:Wonder boy platform.gif. I'd also like to note that File:Ani RF1-Gameplay.gif is probably misuse of the idea since the information could be conveyed just as easy with a single or a few screenshots rather than an animated reel. -- Odie5533 ( talk) 23:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
People seem to be overestimating the "weight" of animated gifs on the burden of fair use here, which is marginally to none more than static images. A more relevant issue with animated gifs is compatibility. For instance, gifs remain static when viewing articles on the Wapedia app on my smartphone (though not when viewed through the normal web browser) and they conflict with the goals of Wikipedia 1.0 (especially concerning printed articles). There's also the aesthetic issue of simply having too much distracting motion within an article. Animated gifs should be kept to a minimum even when free.-- Remurmur ( talk) 14:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Top Banana is a notable game and is currently tagged under WP:RISCOS. This also puts it in WP:COMP. In connection with previous category discussion, a more appropriate solution may be desirable.
All adivce gratefully received. Thanks for reading. -- Trevj ( talk) 14:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Take a look at the category for TV controversies, take a look at the category for medical controversies. What do those categories contain? They contain articles on controversies. Now take a look at VG controversies, what does that contain? A list of ~150 games, most of them aren't remotely controversial. Whereas every other controversy category covers specific controversies which have generated significant third party coverage, and can stand alone, the VG space has labelled any game with even the most trivial of drama as controversy.
I think we should move away tagging individual games, and to using it as a category for articles relating to specific controversies and video game controversy in general. So articles like Daikatana, Dante's Inferno (video game) and Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball would be out. Whereas articles such as Video game controversy, Controversy over the use of Manchester Cathedral in Resistance: Fall of Man, ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion and List of controversial video games would be left in. I think the list article is a lot more useful than the category for noting down VG controversies. There are grey areas, obviously, when some games are made purely to be controversial such as V-Tech Rampage. But on the whole, I think culling this category would make it a lot easier for people researching this topic. There are similar issues at Category:Video game censorship. - hahnch e n 20:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
There is currently a requested move on Talk:Valkyria Chronicles III to move the article to Senjō no Valkyria 3: Unrecorded Chronicles. I am not that fussed over the outcome, however it involves moving the page from the English language title for the series to the Japanese one (unsure what policy says here) and it's a bit of a backwater page that nobody has on their watchlist. Probably could use more eyes. Thanks – Steel 23:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I've recently seen a few video game developers and publishers at AfD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laughing Jackal comes to mind. I was wondering what criteria we should use to determine the notability of such companies. I would personally suggest WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:PRODUCT. I saw a new article, Subdued Software, and when I was going to look it up on Google to determine if it was notable, I thought to myself what I could find that would show that it was notable. Should the subject be required to have articles about the subject, or are articles about products (games) the subject has created enough to pass notability? -- Odie5533 ( talk) 22:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
What's the latest consensus for Moby Games from a reliability standpoint for verifiability, not notability. In their Wikipedia article I read
So, does this verification of submitted information by an "Approver" act as a sort of acceptable oversight? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Machine design in game engines. - Voceditenore ( talk) 08:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I think the following articles of video game consoles of the project should be rated Top Importance:
sure, the home console's listed weren't the best selling home console of its generation, where they're rated Top Importance, but they're still best selling and important consoles that should be Top Importance- SCB '92 ( talk) 11:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Top articles are defined as "This article forms the basis of all information."
Thoughts? -- Odie5533 ( talk) 14:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
For video games to be rated Top Importance, I'd agree with Super Mario Bros. (driving sales of the NES) and probably Pokémon (killer app for all Nintendo handheld consoles); not sure about WoW though; I myself nominate Pong (first successful video game), Space Invaders, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (arguably the greatest video game ever), Pac-Man, Donkey Kong (video game), Super Mario 64 (revolutionary game), and Tetris (driving sales of Game Boy); I'm not sure about PC games though, but I could nominate StarCraft; I wouldn't put the Master System, Saturn and Dreamcast (all by Sega) as Top Importance, as, in my opinion, are all failures in each of its generation; I mean Dreamcast did start off online multiplayer capabilities, but I don't know; I should've probably discussed this at WT:VG/A (sorry about that, didn't really know about that page); I also think the cut off point would be any console that sells less than 20 million units- SCB '92 ( talk) 16:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay, so for Top Importance, we basically got 3 votes for Mega Drive, 3 votes for Xbox, and 2 votes for Game Boy Advance; putting sales out of it, I think Nintendo 64 is a very important console; it evolved 2d games to 3d in design, compared to the early 3d games of the PS1, console based shooters, the thumb-controlled joystick that the PS lacked until it later got its analog sticks, etc; and Tamagotchi is not a console, it's a virtual pet, and iPhone is phone first, music second, camera third, videos fourth, social networking fifth, and games sixth; consoles have to be games first- SCB '92 ( talk) 18:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
We should not broaden our importance criteria for Top level subjects. These should be for concepts which define the entirety of gaming. MMORPG is top level, individual games within the genre aren't. I don't agree with the top level classification of individuals such as Gabe Newell, John Carmack or Satoru Iwata. I'm not even sure if we should have individual consoles in that classification, given that we already have the entire "History of video game consoles (nth generation)" in there. The constituent consoles should be have a high level classification. - hahnch e n 19:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
There are about 65 video game articles that are rated top importance, so it doesn't look that restrictive; how about the Mario (series) and The Legend of Zelda series, mascots Mario and Sonic the Hedgehog, Atari, Ubisoft, Cheating in video games, Multiplayer video game, Video game controversy as top importance articles- SCB '92 ( talk) 20:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Thinking about it more, perhaps we should restrict Top level classification to articles like History of video game consoles (seventh generation) and push the consoles into High importance. -- Odie5533 ( talk) 06:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
So it'd be any console or video game that's had a huge impact in video gaming history, and popularized a video game genre? So would Wolfenstein 3D qualify to become Top Importance because it popularized the first-person shooter genre? would GoldenEye 007 (1997 video game) qualify because it popularized first person shooters to be on video game consoles? didn't Dragon Warrior popularize JRPGs? didn't Grand Theft Auto III popularize open world gaming (though starting out in Body Harvest)? would they qualify as Top importance? Pong popularized video gaming as a whole, that should be Top Importance; for consoles, I think Dreamcast started out online multiplayer capabilities in consoles, should that be Top Importance? and should'nt the Action-adventure and Vehicle simulation genres be Top Importance?- SCB '92 ( talk) 10:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I'd say the character Mario is definitely exceptional, because he definitely is the most recogisable video game character in the world; Sonic, maybe too; Link, not so much, because apart from Link's Crossbow Training, his name is never on the titles of the official Zelda games, people can choose what to name Link in every Zelda game, and he had pink hair and different attire in The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past instead of the now official green tunic; Pikachu is probably the first thing that comes to mind when people think about Pokemon, but in the game Pokemon Red and Blue, it was just one of the 151 Pokemon, and it is just recognisable in the Pokemon anime than in the games; and who the Sam Hill is Cloud? what, you mean Cloud Strife from Final Fantasy VII? only that one game and its spin-offs? well I've never heard of him, probably because I'm not into RPGs, let alone Final Fantasy; not really sure about the Japanese perpective in video games for the English/Western Wikipedia (it could be Top Importance in the Japanese Wikipedia); I changed my mind about putting Vehicle simulation game as a top article because it actually is a sub-genre of Simulation game- SCB '92 ( talk) 14:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Until Angry Birds overtook it (it was just one game anyway), it was the best-selling video game series of all time; the games Super Mario Bros. and Super Mario 64 in the Mario series are very important- SCB '92 ( talk) 14:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I want to have Pong as Top Importance; the first successful video game- SCB '92 ( talk) 14:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
The Wii is the best selling console of this generation; there's no reason to keep them as Top- SCB '92 ( talk) 14:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
any exceptions? no? even domoting the NES, Atari 2600 and Magnavox Odyssey; are you are sure? I guess I support all of them to demoted if they're covered in the "History of video game consoles"- SCB '92 ( talk) 19:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I believe this one actually fits Guyinblack25's requirement of "significantly further the layman's understanding of video games". Notably because this game set the template for role-playing video games and several other items of note, such as the importance of scenario writers. There is a lot of info there as to the reasons why certain things were done that wouldn't be explained in a more comprehensive article. The game itself has also been noted as a single turning point in video game history, something that is quite rare.∞ 陣 内 Jinnai
Why is Sony currently Top Importance and Microsoft isn't? Like I mentioned early that, unlike Nintendo, video games aren't their one and only area of expertise; should Microsoft get promoted or should Sony get demoted? and while at it, why is Sony Computer Entertainment Top Importance and Microsoft Studios isn't?
If to demote all video game consoles to High; this outlines all the PlayStation consoles
If to demote all video game consoles to High; this article is the equivalent of the PlayStation brand; why is it Low Importance? it summarises all the Nintendo consoles, just like the PlayStation brand article; and while at it, will there soon be an article that summarises all (two) Xbox series of consoles? at least when the next Xbox (720) is unveiled in E3 2012? naming the article Xbox video game consoles?- SCB '92 ( talk) 20:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
We all agree that all consoles that are Top be demoted to High, right? anyone oppose? permission to change scale of importance to these articles: Magnavox Odyssey, Atari 2600, NES, SNES, PlayStation, PlayStation 2, PlayStation 3, Xbox 360, Wii; from Top to High?- SCB '92 ( talk) 22:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC) also to demote Game Boy and Nintendo DS as well?- SCB '92 ( talk) 09:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
After reading through much of the above, I've come to the conclusion that our Top importance articles should be the ones with the broadest and highest-level coverage of video games: the history of console series, the various game genres, general concepts of video game hardware and software, and should not contain any specific game, series, character, person, company, console unit, or the like. As Drilnoth points out above, a "book" for VG would not be limited to Top articles, and instead, per the WP CD project, would include Top and High importance articles, but in such cases, we should assure that our Top articles are in the best possible shape (hence their top importance).
If there is a specific contribution from game, character, person, etc. that should be known to someone reading only Top level articles, then that importance should be in the context of the broad coverage. EG: I don't disagree on the importance of the Atari 2600, but this should be outlined in the appropriate History/generation article, and/or at "video game console" units. Similarly, everyone agrees the Mario series is highly influential but this should be outlined at the platform game genre article. Such specific articles can be High importance and included in the VG "book", but because we'd otherwise end up fighting this forever, I think its best we be as non-specific
And to that end, that also likely highlights the need for articles I'm not aware of. I would say most would agree Nintendo a key hardware and software company, but while we have List of video game publishers and List of video game developers I'm not seeing the equivalent for hardware makers. (And yes, I am arguing that these lists should be Top priority per this scheme). There's probably similar lists or the like for video game releases by console, overall timelines, etc.
Effectively, our top articles should be prose and high level indices that all other VG articles can be accessed through. That gives the reader a broad coverage and points of reference to look for more information, and yet still be useful if the blue-links weren't there. -- MASEM ( t) 14:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I think the Importance Scale needs to be changed a bit, because according to this discussion, there are no exceptional games & series or in-game elements that'd qualify for Top Importance; and changing that "General hardware articles (definitions) and important historical video game consoles, e.g. Video game console, Atari 2600" because there are people in this discussion that think Video game consoles shouldn't be Top Importance as they're covered in the "History of video game consoles (nth generation)"- SCB '92 ( talk) 16:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Anybody else agree with JimmyBlackwing about this?- SCB '92 ( talk) 12:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
This was mentioned by Odie5533 to demote these articles, which are currently top-importance, but barely received a response: Gabe Newell to be demoted to mid-importance; Video card to be demoted to low-importance; we need a consensus: Support or Oppose? I personally Support this to be demoted because a Video card is the equivalent of the ROM cartridge (which is Mid-Importance), the DVDs and the CDs being used as game storages for video game systems; and Gabe Newell is as important as Cliff Bleszinski; so what if he's co-founder of Valve? he used to detest the PS3 and called Xbox Live service "a train wreck"- SCB '92 ( talk) 18:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
There's some talk about demoting all the individuals that are Top Importance; anyone you want to keep as Top Importance? eg. Shigeru Miyamoto?- SCB '92 ( talk) 11:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
We have a bunch of discussions here about moving something from top or demoting it. We have a few offhanded comments about narrowing the field, but they are scattered all over the article. Let's consolidate it. To start with, it seems that the consensus is generally not to expand the defition therefore its either to maintain the status quo or shrink it. The ones we have now are:
Discuss.∞ 陣 内 Jinnai 20:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Another editor and I are discussing the removal of a sentence in E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (video game). The discussion is at Talk:E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (video game)#Warshaw's comment on cartridge burial. So far it is only the two of us, and additional comments would be appreciated. ( Guyinblack25 talk 16:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC))
For those who haven't yet sandbox proposal hasn't had any recent comments. Assuming no one has any issues I'd like to Gadget850 to impliment soon as current the templates citation has caused several issues at FAC and FLC with people complaining about it, especially that it needs to be updated to comply with core.∞ 陣 内 Jinnai 22:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
This recent move has gone through despite naming policy not supporting multiple names for the same subject in article titles. The notion that this is allowed by WP:AND (which is for articles covering multiple subjects, rather than for subjects with multiple names) was given as justification for the move. Pointing this out fairly late in the discussion, after which no new people commented, this was moved anyway despite a (reasonable, I thought) request to keep the discussion open. It's a problem because it serves as precedent for multiple names in titles whenever there's dispute about which to use, so we could end up with articles such as Sonic 3D Blast and Sonic 3D: Flickies' Island, or FIFA Football 2004 and FIFA Soccer 2004, or Bully and Canis Canem Edit, or The Settlers and Surf City, or any of a multitude of others I'm sure we could all think of. This is of course, not supported in any way by naming policy or precendent, and has never been how Wikipedia handles naming disputes. Thoughts please! Miremare 15:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Not to be a "guy on the soapbox" here but I agree with Guyinblack: can we seriously just let the bloomin' name be and fix the damn article? One singular name would have been nice, but the problem is there is no clear consensus on which name should take precedence. There hasn't been for years, and every other option to acknowledge both has been worse. Being an exception to the rule does not set a precedence. Nobody is sitting around arguing "No, it should be the Pinto!"/"Heck with you, should be the Bobcat!" Here, we've had every argument from "which came first" to "sale numbers matter" to "google search numbers" to (really bad faith mind you) accusations of "pushing a US-centric view". People are not going to have one massive consensus on one name or the other: one side won't be happy unless Genesis is up there, and the other won't be happy without Mega Drive. So do you have a better option than to slap each other silly with whatever facts you can dredge up until you get your way?
No, you don't. It's been this back and forth argument, again, for years. Right now at least both sides get part of what they want. Now how about fixing it up, like those short one-paragraph sections or one-sentence paragraphs?-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 20:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
As a general response to this issue, I'm just going to paraphrase something I said toward the end of the move discussion: Would you rather compromise and get on with things, using WP:IAR as a tiebreaker if necessary, or would you rather we continue bitching, bickering and frankly wasting our time on this issue for several MORE years? — KieferSkunk ( talk) — 03:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
On the Talk page for the article I have just put my reply to a question asking how we take the article forward. I was full of beans as I wrote it. Then I came here and read this, and, to be honest, it makes me just want to say bollocks to the console - by both names - its not a rage quit, its a "thoroughly depressed with it all" quit. I won't quit though. Even though I know that at some point in the future someone is going to try to use the compromise name that I voted for, as a stepping stone to change the name to Genesis. And even though there will be numerous others all waving their nationalistic flags, wanting it moved to "The correct name". I've looked at the stats regarding actual contributions to the article versus Talk page comments. At least I know that if the time comes, I can wave it goodbye knowing that I've done my bit for the article. I voted for the compromise to put and end to the name issue once and for all, I now feel that that day will never come. (Apologies for the ramble, and the language) - X201 ( talk) 20:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
So this comes about because of disagreement amongst editors between which of two entirely reasonable names should be used. The result of that dispute is to produce an entirely unreasonable name? That's really a pretty lame way to proceed. There are numerous third party review and arbitration services on Wikipedia that can resolve such conflicts. Obviously some part of the editing community would be upset by whatever came out of that - but that's life. Suck it up and move on. Having a bad outcome because two groups can't agree between two much better options is lunacy. Once an arbitrated name choice were made, then an admin could protect the article from page moves to prevent it from being changed again without a full consensus to do so. I really think it's worth doing that - this "compromise" is a terrible one. SteveBaker ( talk) 14:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
For God's sake, just go with Mega Drive. You really don't need much more than "that was the worldwide name, not just the name for one or two countries".
Why do so many cry for the so-called "unbiased" people to decide things like this? Have they never noticed how completely random those results are? We need reason for all this editing, not Russian roulette for the sake of "compromise". It's IAR taken to the extreme and causes more problems than it solves. Despatche ( talk) 07:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I propose that WikiProject Video games adopt the following rule for naming articles:
The rationale for that is that it is generally the rule within Wikipedia that to change something requires consensus and to leave it alone does not. Hence the first applicable name should be the one that remains if there is no clear consensus to change it. Note that "consensus" doesn't mean "majority vote".
In the interests of neutrality, I have deliberately not looked to see which of the two titles for Sega Genesis and Mega Drive was first, but I propose that this rule be applied in that case.
SteveBaker ( talk) 13:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Addendum: In the event that a naming dispute arises from the merging of two or more articles, the name given to the oldest of the merged articles should apply. SteveBaker ( talk) 16:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Should we update Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games with a notice that recommends editors to check the discussion archives? I think that some answers are already there. And if some disagree with past consensus they will have done their homework when challenging it.
Thoughts? ( Guyinblack25 talk 14:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC))
Just wondering if there is consensus as to whether VG ratings (ESRB, ACB, etc.) should be sourced (I'm guessing first party from the rating entity's website, as it's simply fact-checking) pretty much always. I see a lot of unsourced ratings, which kind of bugs me, as I consider them to be the same kind of info as release dates, which pretty much require a source every single time. Salvidrim ( talk) 22:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Anyone know the source of this box art image? A user uploaded it over an existing logo image and didn't update the rationale. I've not yet updated as I don't know the actual source. Tineye found some similar images, but not this image. So does anyone know the source? Do we even need to be that specific, or can I just add in the URL for any Mario Kart 7 box art image? Reach Out to the Truth 21:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I reduced the size of the image to best comply with WP:NFCC#3b. Just as a protip to those who are uploading non-free images to provide a source (i.e. the URL or scan if you scanned the boxart) for the images. Also, keep in mind to minimize the sizes of said images to their most practical usages on WP pages; 300px is normally the most ideal, as that is the maximum size which can be displayed for thumbnails per Special:Preferences. – MuZemike 08:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm a bit new at working on video game articles, and I've hit a snag editing Joe Danger - there doesn't seem to be anywhere at all that publishes sales figures for PSN games. The only place I can find is FADE llc. which already seems to be a bit of a non-starter. However, they have had their figures published by MCV UK, but I'm not sure if that means I can then use them and pass them off as reliable. The other chart site (I forget its name) only seems to deal with console/PC games, rather than XBLA/PSN games. Any advice? — Joseph Fox 12:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
At new article patrol, I have noticed in recent days that editor Redefining history has been creating several articles/templates on professional "DotA" players. I assume that it falls within the purview of this project. Knowing next to nothing of this stuff, I find these articles completely incomprehensible (which is not what an encyclopedia is for, I think). I also ignore completely whether these people are notable or whether the sources used are reliable. Perhaps somebody in this project would care to take a look at these articles and clean them up or propose them for deletion, as the case may be. Thanks. -- Crusio ( talk) 12:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi there! I am going to nominate the article to GA status and I need several sources which could describe the gameplay and the game's reception. Thank you. Electroguv ( talk) 13:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I stumbled across Star Trek: Voyager – The Arcade Game and have made it a sort of pet project. I'm having a lot of trouble finding even moderately reliable sources for it, though. I'm not looking for even a B class out of this one, but I thought I'd ask the community since there are often print and obscure sources that I miss. -- Teancum ( talk) 13:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
This is something that's come up on the Pokemon project talk page, regarding Zubat, Golbat, and Crobat. While there is significant coverage in third-party sources, the context of said coverage is also extremely limited, saying primarily the following: how good the character's gameplay was, how annoying their frequent appearances were, and that later Pokemon Woobat effectively did the same. The concern is that all of this relates not to the trio as fictional characters or even how people reacted to them as characters; effectively, at this volume it comes across as a game guide critique more so. Other articles do the same, such as Lili (Tekken). To someone not familiar with the subject at all, or not familiar with the subject as a gameplay element, this seems to tell them nothing about how they were received independent of being that gameplay element.
Any thoughts here regarding the subject?-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 15:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I have asked for clarrification on how to use the sources at WT:N#Pokemon and discrimination by sources when they cover so many pokemon from a single title.∞ 陣 内 Jinnai 04:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
The "Reception" sections in fictional character articles status as the main argument for an article's notability and defense against deletion has been an unfortunate development. Since characters are rarely "reviewed" in any traditional manner, they end up being weakly cobbled together from "best/worst" lists and casual references drawn from reviews and game guides. I feel sympathy for the Pokémon project though, as going from having an article on every single species to figuring out just where to draw the line for 646 characters that range from a cultural icons to utterly forgettable in a franchise where even a minor species can be identified by millions of people and appear in a dozen games is a tough task. A firmer idea of how we determine notability for video game characters needs to be established here.-- Remurmur ( talk) 20:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello All I would like to say that since Valve is developing Dota 2 and the recognition DotA players are getting all over the world. I would like to invite the DotA community to create articles introducing DotA players to the world in Wikipedia. Thank you for your attention. Articles requested : Jacob Toft-Anderson (Maelk) Jonathan Berg (Loda) and more.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redefining history ( talk • contribs)
I suppose if the problem are the sources, we always have gosugamers ( http://www.gosugamers.net/dota), mymym ( http://www.mymym.com), the chinese sGamer ( http://dota.sgamer.com) and the russian prodota.ru ( http://www.prodota.ru) to offer us reliable sources. And i really think that these players are notable. (will find a reason for it) Redefining history ( talk) 22:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi! For those of you in the UK, which character name set does the UK version of Ape Escape P (PSP) use?
If the UK version does NOT use "Buzz" or "Katie" it could be a reason for changing the name set (currently the WP article uses the names from the original UK Playstation release)
Also in Ape Escape 3, the US versions of two monkeys are "Spork and Shimmy" (after "Spike" and Jimmy") but the UK names will be different (as the original characters are "Kakeru" and "Hikaru" there) so I would like to know what they are
WhisperToMe ( talk) 14:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
OKAY, now im confused. does Professional eSports Players fall under this category, or the category of athletes? If it falls in any, what are the guidelines of them being notable? Redefining history ( talk) 03:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but eSports players are not notable simply by playing in major tournaments. I watch Starcraft2, not LoL, so I'll use those numbers: MLG Orlando got 181,000 simultaneous viewers last weekend- worldwide. Hockey games in Canada alone get 5-700,000 for every single game (hundreds/year), and millions for big games. Football/baseball numbers in America are 10x that. eSports is rapidly expanding- but playing at, even winning one of the tournaments is the notability equivalent of winning a regional meet. It does not convey instant notability. You need to find 3rd-party sources to prove notability for each competitor- not pro-gamer profiles on an eSports website, but actual external observers. For example, this Forbes article on Starcraft could be used to support articles on HuK and Idra, as well as some of the casters. But it doesn't mean that MarineKingPrime gets an automatic pass just because he played at the same tournament. -- Pres N 19:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I think we should stick to applying the GNG to pro gamers; at least until anyone wanting to apply WP:ATHLETE can build a consensus to do so. I don't see anything in WP:ATHLETE about say, chess players, or anything comparable. The wording is vague: is it the highest level of sport in general (which I'm inclined to agree that "such as the Olympics" suggests) or the highest level within a sport? In any case, I agree any comparison of a gaming competition to the Olympics is pretty tenuous. Furthermore, significant coverage in secondary sources would still be needed to actually write an acceptable article; these are just guidelines for presumption. bridies ( talk) 05:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I think e-sports actually has more coverage than some of the sports listed in WP:ATHLETES, and as i discussed on the talk page there, i would consider e-sports as a sport ahead of those like poker and chess, and hence e-sports - "generally popular games played competitively" should get a generally accepted criteria in which it should be included in the SNG. and as i saw on the WP:ATHLETES page, "The reality though is that if an article meets the SNG it is very unlikely to be deleted." Redefining history ( talk) 15:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
How many different places are we going to have the same exact conversation and the same two editors are going to be told the same exact thing over and over and over again. Ridernyc ( talk) 00:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I would like to call any arguments on this to continue here Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Professional eSports Redefining history ( talk) 01:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I see no point continuing the argument on this page. The arguments are continued here:
Hi there. Blue's News is listed on WP:VG/RS as a reliable source but doesn't actually seem to indicate why - does anyone have anything to prove that it is in fact reliable? Here's a link. Stephen Heaslip appears to be the primary author, so perhaps he's notable in some way? — Joseph Fox 14:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
For those that remember the
mediation for video games developed in Japan, part of the mediation's outcome was that {{
Nihongo}}
be updated to provide better context for the layman. The template was recently updated with a new parameter: lead. Setting the parameter to yes or 1 will activate it. When activated, the parameter will display the languages (Japanese and Hepburn) of the script displayed.
Because this new parameter is optional, it will need to be added to many of our articles. Typically, only the first instance of the language is required, which often occurs in the lead. Help adding this would be greatly appreciated. If everyone gave the articles in your watchlist a sweep, this whole process would make great headway. Thanks. ( Guyinblack25 talk 13:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC))
Now, I know some of these points could be put in more specialized areas of WP:VG, but since there's a variety of concerns, I figured I'd lump them all here.
The website in question is www.bordersdown.net (formally www.ntsc-uk.co.uk supposedly.)
So yeah, there's a lot going on here. Wondered if anyone had any thoughts on this, and/or wanted to take action if needed. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 19:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
The GTA website has announced the game, with the trailer to be released next Wednesday; should an article be created for this game soon?- SCB '92 ( talk) 21:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)